Background

The NHPA and the NEPA were enacted by Congress as discrete but related laws to limit the impact of Federal Government initiatives on historic properties and the environment, respectively. These statutes apply to a limited universe of Federal Government actions. The NHPA and the NEPA seek to incorporate historic preservation and environmental considerations into the Federal Government's work and also to enhance and support state and local laws that address historic preservation and environmental policy. Historically, the FDIC has interpreted the NHPA and NEPA as having limited application to deposit insurance and branch applications.

Under Section 106 of the NHPA, Federal agencies are required to take into account the effects of their “undertakings” on historic properties. 1 Likewise, section 102(2)(C) of the NEPA requires that Federal agencies include, in every recommendation or report on major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, a detailed statement that addresses the environmental impact of the proposal. 2 The FDIC has historically interpreted the scope of the NHPA and the NEPA as limited to the potential impact on historic properties and the environment with respect to a limited universe of applications, specifically, for deposit insurance for de novo institutions and applications by state non-member banks to establish a domestic branch and to relocate a domestic branch or main office (Covered Applications).

The FDIC has implemented the NHPA and the NEPA with respect to Covered Applications by regulations and via three statements of policy. The FDIC's regulations generally require applicants to provide statements regarding their compliance with NEPA and NHPA in connection with main office relocation applications by state nonmember banks, 3 domestic and foreign branch establishment and relocation applications by state nonmember banks, 4 and insured branch relocation applications by foreign banks. 5 The three statements of policy are: the Statement of Policy Regarding the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966;   6 the Statement of Policy Regarding the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969;   7 and the Statement of Policy on Applications for Deposit Insurance. 8

As part of the FDIC's comprehensive review of its statements of policy and related matters in an effort to streamline FDIC regulations and other supervisory materials issued to the public, FDIC staff reviewed the requirements for branch applications. Additionally, the FDIC committed to review all published guidance in order to identify any guidance that should be revised or rescinded because such issuance is out-of-date or otherwise no longer relevant as part of its 2017 decennial report to Congress required by the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act (EGRPRA). 9

Courts generally determine whether the NHPA and the NEPA apply to a particular Federal agency action by applying similar principles to both statutes, because the NHPA and NEPA are parallel but discrete statutes. Section 106 of the NHPA applies only to a Federal “undertaking,” which, for the type of work the FDIC does, means an activity “requiring a federal permit, license or approval.”  10 Section 102(2)(C) of the NEPA applies only to a “major Federal action,” which includes actions with environmental effects that may be major and which are potentially subject to Federal control and responsibility. As noted in the preamble to the July notice of proposed rulemaking, in reviewing the case law on what constitutes an “undertaking” under NHPA or a “major Federal action” under the NEPA, the FDIC does not believe that approval of a Covered Application constitutes a Federal undertaking under section 106 or section 402 of the NHPA or a major Federal action under section 102(2)(C) of the NEPA as discussed below.

Section 18(d) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act requires the FDIC's consent in connection with: An insured state nonmember bank's establishment of a domestic or foreign branch, an insured state nonmember bank's relocation of its main office or a domestic branch, and a foreign bank's relocation of an insured branch. 11 Section 3(o) defines a domestic branch as any branch bank, branch office, branch agency, additional office, or any branch place of business located in any State of the United States or in any Territory of the United States, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, or the Virgin Islands at which deposits are received or checks paid or money lent. 12 These functions (receiving deposits, paying checks, and lending money) characterize a “domestic branch” and are generally referred to as the “core banking functions.” Section 3(o) likewise defines a “foreign branch” as any office or place of business located outside the United States at which “banking operations are conducted,”  13 and an insured branch of a foreign bank is defined as a branch of a foreign bank at which insured deposits are received. 14 Section 18(d) therefore generally prohibits a state nonmember bank from engaging in specified activities at a location other than an FDIC-approved main office, domestic branch, or foreign branch, and prohibits a foreign bank from receiving insured deposits at a location other than an approved insured branch. Section 18(d) does not confer upon the FDIC the statutory authority to oversee the construction or acquisition of bank premises, but it governs the circumstances under which the FDIC may authorize a state nonmember bank or an insured branch of a foreign bank to engage in specified banking functions from bank premises. The FDIC's approval of an application under section 18(d), as well as its consideration of NHPA and NEPA in connection with deposit insurance applications, only authorizes certain banking activities to occur at a particular geographic location. Therefore, the FDIC's approval of a Covered Application does not authorize any building construction or demolition—or any other activity that could affect historic properties or the environment.

Currently, the FDIC is the only Federal banking agency that requires consideration of the NHPA and NEPA in connection with branch applications. The regulatory requirements under the Federal Reserve Board and the OCC do not incorporate review of the NHPA and the NEPA with respect to branch applications. 15 After carefully reviewing the FDIC's procedures for Covered Applications, the FDIC has concluded that consideration of the NHPA and NEPA is not required by law and is an unnecessary regulatory requirement for insured State nonmember banks.

On July 10, 2020, the FDIC published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) to amend its application requirements for the establishment and relocation of branches and offices and deposit insurance for de novo institutions so that such applications would no longer require statements regarding the compliance of such proposal with the NHPA and NEPA. 16 The NPR proposed amending the FDIC regulations to remove NHPA and NEPA requirements embedded in the branch application procedures, and to rescind the statements of policy regarding the NHPA and NEPA, because consideration of these statutes during the processing of these applications is an unnecessary regulatory requirement and would make the FDIC's procedures consistent with the branch application procedures for national banks and insured State member banks supervised by the OCC and Federal Reserve System.

The FDIC issued the NPR on July 10, 2020, with a 30-day comment period. The FDIC received one comment on the NPR. The commenter supported the proposal by noting that rescinding the filing requirement would make the application process more efficient, align with timing requirements, and remove a time-consuming and onerous requirement. Consequently, the final rule is adopted without change.

The final rule amends parts 303 and 347 to remove references to compliance statements regarding the NHPA and NEPA, as well as to rescind the Statement of Policy Regarding the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Statement of Policy Regarding the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The amendments to 12 CFR parts 303 and 347, together with the rescission of the two Statements of Policy regarding the NHPA and the NEPA, eliminate requirements that are unnecessary for insured state nonmember banks and insured branches of foreign banks, as well as improve the efficiency of the Covered Application review process. Additionally, these actions place the FDIC in alignment with the other Federal banking agencies and remove a competitive disadvantage insured state nonmember banks and insured branches of foreign banks now face relative to insured state member banks and national banks. Furthermore, insured state nonmember banks and insured branches of foreign banks remain subject to any applicable state and local historic preservation and environmental laws.

According to the most recent data, the FDIC supervises 3,309 depository institutions. The final rule specifically affects 2,980 state nonmember depository institutions supervised by the FDIC and 9 insured branches of foreign banks. 17 FDIC supervised State savings banks and associations are not subject to the NHPA/NEPA requirements because 12 CFR part 303 only applies to insured state nonmember banks. As previously discussed, the final rule would (1) remove “NEPA” and “NHPA” as defined terms in 12 CFR 303.2(w) and (x); (2) amend the branch application filing procedures for state nonmember banks set forth in 12 CFR 303.42 by deleting the requirements related to the NHPA and the NEPA set forth in paragraphs (b)(4) and (5); (3) amend the foreign branch application notice procedures for state nonmember banks set forth in 12 CFR 303.182 by removing the requirements to provide a statement in accordance with NHPA set forth in paragraphs (a) and (b)(2)(i), and by removing NHPA compliance as a basis for withholding general consent to establish or relocate a foreign branch under 12 CFR 347.119(b); (4) amend the filing procedures for moving an insured branch of a foreign bank set forth in 12 CFR 303.184 by deleting the requirements related to the NHPA and the NEPA set forth in paragraphs (a)(2)(iii) and (iv) and (d)(1)(iv); and (5) rescind the Statement of Policy Regarding the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966; and (6) rescind the Statement of Policy on National Environmental Policy Act Procedures Relating to Filings Made with the FDIC. In so doing, the final rule would amend the required contents for applications for establishment of a branch and applications for relocation of a branch or main office. Between 2015 and 2018, the FDIC received 549 applications from 400 unique insured State nonmember banks per year to establish a branch, 177 applications from 152 unique insured State nonmember banks per year to relocate a branch or main office, and 1 application from insured branches of foreign banks per year to relocate a branch or main office, on average. 18 For purposes of this analysis, the FDIC is estimating that the number of unique respondents affected by the final rule would be consistent with this recent experience. Therefore, the FDIC estimates that the final rule would affect 400 insured State nonmember banks applying to establish a domestic branch, 152 insured State nonmember institutions applying to relocate a branch or main office, and 1 insured branch of a foreign bank applying to relocate a branch or main office, per year, on average.

The final rule would likely reduce the costs associated with filing branch applications for affected entities by making the process more efficient. Although the final rule is expected to reduce costs associated with Covered Applications for applicants dealing with historic properties or environmental issues, the FDIC does not believe the final rule will reduce the average hours per response for Covered Applications. Additionally, as previously discussed, the FDIC is currently the only Federal banking agency that requires consideration of the NHPA and NEPA in connection with branch applications. Therefore, the final rule is expected to remove a competitive disadvantage that insured state nonmember banks and insured branches of foreign banks now face relative to state member banks and national banks.

The FDIC believes that the associated reductions in costs and application information content as a result of the final rule are unlikely to generate significant effects on the U.S. economy. The estimated cost reductions are likely to be small because the number of entities affected is also estimated to be small. Further, as previously discussed, while covered applications of insured state nonmember banks and insured branches of foreign banks would no longer be subject to NHPA or NEPA review under federal law, they would remain subject to any applicable state and local historic preservation and environmental laws. Accordingly, outcomes for individual properties that are the subject of covered applications may differ in some states from what they would have been in the absence of the rule.

As previously discussed, after reviewing the case law on what constitutes an “undertaking” under NHPA or a “major Federal action” under the NEPA, the FDIC does not believe that approval of a Covered Application constitutes a federal undertaking under section 106 of the NHPA or a major federal action under section 102(2)(C) of the NEPA. Therefore, concurrent with the amendment of 12 CFR parts 303 and 347, the FDIC is planning on rescinding the Statements of Policy entitled Statement of Policy Regarding the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, and Statement of Policy on National Environmental Policy Act Procedures Relating to Filings Made with the FDIC. The FDIC believes that the concurrent action to rescind these Statements of Policy will help simplify the application process by removing unnecessary information for applicants, thereby making the process more efficient.

The FDIC considered alternatives to the final rule but believes that the amendments represent the most appropriate option for affected entities. As discussed previously, after carefully reviewing the FDIC's procedures for Covered Applications, the FDIC has concluded that consideration of the NHPA and the NEPA is not required by law and is an unnecessary regulatory requirement of the branch application review process. The FDIC considered the alternative of retaining the current regulations, but did not choose to do so. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, the FDIC believes the regulations are unnecessary, require entities to incur unnecessary costs associated with submitting branch applications, and perpetuate a competitive disadvantage for insured state nonmember banks and insured branches of foreign banks relative to insured state member banks and national banks. Additionally, the FDIC considered retaining the Statements of Policy entitled, Statement of Policy Regarding the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and Statement of Policy on National Environmental Policy Act Procedures Relating to Filings Made with the FDIC, but did not choose to do so. Upon reevaluation of the applicability of what constitutes an “undertaking” under NHPA or a “major Federal action” under the NEPA, and deletion of requirements related to the NHPA and the NEPA in 12 CFR parts 303 and 347, these Statements of Policy would be unnecessary. Therefore, the FDIC is amending 12 CFR parts 303 and 347 by deleting the requirements related to the NHPA and the NEPA and concurrently rescinding the related Statements of Policy.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that, in connection with a notice of final rulemaking, an agency prepare and make available for public comment a final regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the impact of the final rule on small entities. 19 However, a final regulatory flexibility analysis is not required if the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and publishes its certification, including a statement providing a factual basis for the certification, in the Federal Register , together with the rule. The Small Business Administration (SBA) has defined “small entities” to include banking organizations with total assets of less than or equal to $600 million. 20 Generally, the FDIC considers a significant effect to be a quantified effect in excess of 5 percent of total annual salaries and benefits, or 2.5 percent of total noninterest expenses. The FDIC believes that effects in excess of these thresholds typically represent significant effects for FDIC-supervised institutions. For the reasons provided below, the FDIC certifies that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small banking organizations. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

According to the most recent data, the FDIC supervises 3,309 insured depository institutions, of which 2,548 are considered small banking organizations for the purposes of RFA. 21 As previously discussed, the final rule would (1) remove “NEPA” and “NHPA” as defined terms in 12 CFR 303.2(w) and (x); (2) amend the branch application filing procedures for state nonmember banks set forth in 12 CFR 303.42 by deleting the requirements related to the NHPA and the NEPA set forth in paragraphs (b)(4) and (5); (3) amend the foreign branch application notice procedures for state nonmember banks set forth in 12 CFR 303.182 by removing the requirements to provide a statement in accordance with NHPA set forth in paragraphs (a) and (b)(2)(i), and by removing NHPA compliance as a basis for withholding general consent to establish or relocate a foreign branch under 12 CFR 347.119(b); (4) amend the filing procedures for moving an insured branch of a foreign bank set forth in 12 CFR 303.184 by deleting the requirements related to the NHPA and the NEPA set forth in paragraphs (a)(2)(iii) and (iv) and (d)(1)(iv); (5) rescind the Statement of Policy Regarding the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966; and (6) rescind the Statement of Policy on National Environmental Policy Act Procedures Relating to Filings Made with the FDIC. In so doing, the final rule amends the required contents for applications for establishment of a branch and applications for relocation of a branch or main office. The final rule could affect the 2,352 small state nonmember depository institutions supervised by the FDIC. No insured branches of foreign banks are considered small banking organizations for the purposes of RFA. 22

Between 2015 and 2018, the FDIC received applications from 195 unique small insured State nonmember banks per year to establish a branch and applications from 68 unique small insured State nonmember banks per year to relocate a branch or main office, on average. 23 For purposes of this analysis, the FDIC is estimating that the number of unique respondents affected by the final rule will be consistent with this recent experience. Therefore, the FDIC estimates that the final rule will affect approximately 195 small insured State nonmember banks applying to establish a domestic branch and approximately 68 small insured State nonmember institutions applying to relocate a branch or main office, per year. In total, these 263 affected entities represent no more than an estimated 10.3 percent of small FDIC-supervised institutions.

The final rule is likely to reduce the costs associated with filing Covered Applications for small entities, making the process more efficient. Although the final rule is expected to reduce costs associated with Covered Applications for small applicants dealing with historic properties or environmental issues, the FDIC does not believe the final rule will reduce the average hours per response for Covered Applications. Additionally, as previously discussed, the FDIC is currently the only Federal banking agency that requires consideration of the NHPA and NEPA in connection with branch applications. Therefore, the final rule is expected to remove a competitive disadvantage that small insured state nonmember banks and insured branches of foreign banks currently face relative to state member banks and national banks.

Based on the information above, and pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA, the FDIC certifies that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 24 the FDIC may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently-valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The final rule affects the FDIC's current information collection titled “Application for a Bank to Establish a Branch or Move its Main Office” (OMB Control No. 3064-0070). In particular, the final rule removes the requirements related to NHPA and NEPA therefore reducing the PRA burden. However, the amount of hourly burden previously indicated in connection with the PRA information collection does not distinguish between the time to comply with the NHPA and NEPA and the other non-NHPA/NEPA notification requirements. For this reason, the FDIC is assuming that any allotted time dedicated to NHPA and NEPA is minimal and will result in a zero net change in the current estimated average hourly burden for the information collection. Therefore, no submission will be made to OMB for review.

Pursuant to section 302(a) of the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act (RCDRIA), 25 in determining the effective date and administrative compliance requirements for new regulations that impose additional reporting, disclosure, or other requirements on insured depository institutions (IDIs), each Federal banking agency must consider, consistent with principles of safety and soundness and the public interest, any administrative burdens that such regulations would place on depository institutions, including small depository institutions, and customers of depository institutions, as well as the benefits of such regulations. In addition, section 302(b) of RCDRIA requires new regulations and amendments to regulations that impose additional reporting, disclosures, or other new requirements on IDIs generally to take effect on the first day of a calendar quarter that begins on or after the date on which the regulations are published in final form. 26 Because the final rule does not impose any reporting, disclosure, or other new requirements on insured depository institutions, the requirements of RCDRIA do not apply.

For purposes of Congressional Review Act (CRA), the OMB makes a determination as to whether a final rule constitutes a “major” rule. 27 If a rule is deemed a major rule by the OMB, the CRA generally provides that the rule may not take effect until at least 60 days following its publication. 28

The CRA defines a “major rule” as any rule that the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the OMB finds has resulted in or is likely to result in—(A) an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; (B) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies or geographic regions, or (C) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign- based enterprises in domestic and export markets. 29

The OMB has determined that the final rule is not a major rule for purposes of the CRA and the FDIC will submit the final rule and other appropriate reports to Congress and the Government Accountability Office for review.

Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act  30 requires each Federal banking agency to use plain language in all of its proposed and final rules published after January 1, 2000. The FDIC has sought to present the final rule in a simple and straightforward manner and did not receive any comments on the use of plain language in connection with the proposed rule.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the FDIC amends 12 CFR parts 303 and 347 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 The Boeing Company Model DC-10-10 and DC-10-10F airplanes, Model DC-10-15 airplanes, Model DC-10-30 and DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10) airplanes, Model DC-10-40 and DC-10-40F airplanes, Model MD-10-10F and MD-10-30F airplanes, and Model MD-11 and MD-11F airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 25, 2020 (85 FR 52287). The NPRM was prompted by reports of cracked floor beams and floor beam supports in the area of the overwing exit doors located at certain STA. The NPRM proposed to require an inspection of the overwing floor beams for any repair, repetitive inspections of the overwing floor beams and floor beam supports at certain STA on the left and right sides for any crack, and applicable on-condition actions.

The FAA is issuing this AD to address potential undetected overwing floor beam cracks that could grow in length until the floor beam severs, and, if limit load is applied with two adjacent severed floor beams, could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane, which could result in the loss of primary control systems and lead to reduced controllability of the airplane.

The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The FAA has considered the comments received. Boeing and Shawn Darr indicated support for the NPRM.

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

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

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

The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin DC10-53A184 RB, dated February 6, 2020; and Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin MD11-53A088 RB, dated March 6, 2020. The service information describes procedures for a general visual inspection of the overwing floor beams for any repair; repetitive eddy current high frequency (ETHF) inspections of the overwing floor beams and floor beam supports for cracks, or repetitive ETHF inspections of the overwing floor beams and detailed inspections of the overwing floor beam supports at certain stations on the left and right sides for any crack, depending on configuration; and applicable on-condition actions. On-condition actions include repair. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 224 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 on-condition actions that would be required. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain RRD Tay 611-8C model turbofan engines. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 6, 2019 (84 FR 19745). The NPRM was prompted by reports of LPC rotor blade retention lug failures. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require a determination of the number of DFL re-applications that have been applied to the LPC rotor blades and, depending on the number of DFL re-applications, replacement of LPC rotor blades. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD 2018-0055, dated March 12, 2018 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to address the unsafe condition on these products. The MCAI states:

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-0213.

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.

NetJets Aviation (NJA) requested that engines which have incorporated the 12,000 cycle life limit on LPC rotor blade, part number JR58319, per the Airworthiness Limitations section 05-10-01-870-002, chapter 05-10-01, Rolls-Royce (RR) Tay Propulsion System Time Limits Manual, be excluded from the applicability of this AD.

The FAA disagrees because the low cycle fatigue life limit of 12,000 cycles for the LPC rotor blade is a separate requirement from the requirement of this AD to also limit the number of dry film lubricant re-applications.

NJA noted that dry film re-application is only accomplished in an engine overhaul shop, and the 12 DFL-application limit every 1,300 cycles will not be exceeded if the life limit is being tracked. The FAA disagrees. The FAA notes that there are tasks in the Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) for DFL re-applications that are not limited to shop visits. Therefore, this AD is necessary to address those cases in which the AMM DFL re-application tasks are necessary and the engine is not in the shop. This AD requires that when a complete record of the total number of DFL re-applications is unavailable, count one DFL re-application for every 1,300 flight cycles of blade use.

NJA requested that the serial numbers for the 12 affected engines be included in this AD.

The FAA disagrees. The applicability of this AD is to RRD Tay 611-8C model turbofan engines, with LPC rotor blades, P/N JR58319, installed, and is not based on serial numbers of the engines. The number “12” in the Costs of Compliance section is an estimate of the number of affected engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

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

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

The FAA reviewed RRD Non-Modification Service Bulletin TAY-72-1835, Initial Issue, dated December 15, 2017. The service information describes procedures for marking the LPC rotor blades with a suffix code during the next scheduled LPC fan blade removal. 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 ADDRESSES .

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 12 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 replacements that would be required based on the results of the inspection. The agency has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these replacements.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

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

(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 rule amends 14 CFR part 97 by establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, 8260-15B, and 8260-15C when required by an entry on 8260-15A.

The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA form documents is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and specifies the types of SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.

Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making some SIAPs 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, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

This rule amends 14 CFR part 97 by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20.

The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP contained on FAA form documents is unnecessary.

This amendment provides the affected CFR sections, and specifies the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure and the amendment number.

The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.

The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than 30 days.

Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these SIAPs 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, Title 14, Code of Federal regulations, Part 97, (14 CFR part 97), is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

The final regulations (TD 9909) that are the subject of this correction are issued under sections 245A, 954(c)(6), and 6038 of the Internal Revenue Code.

As published on August 27, 2020 (85 FR 53068), the final regulations (TD 9909; FR Doc. 2020-18543) contain errors that need to be corrected.

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:

OSHRC's regulations implementing FOIA, 29 CFR part 2201, were last revised on December 27, 2016, 81 FR 95035. OSHRC is making several minor revisions to these regulations.

In 29 CFR 2201.5, OSHRC is revising the reference to its Privacy Act regulation—from § 2400.6 to § 2400.4—based on the re-designation of section numbers in 29 CFR part 2400, 85 FR 65221.

In 29 CFR 2201.6(a)(1), the regulation presently states that the 20-day period for granting or denying a FOIA request can be tolled under two different circumstances: “(1) The agency may toll the 20-day period once while awaiting information that it has reasonably requested from the requester under this section . . . ; or (2) The agency may toll the 20-day period as many times as are necessary to clarify any issue regarding fee assessment.” OSHRC is revising the word “or” to “and,” because guidance from the Department of Justice's Office of Information Policy (OIP) indicates that tolling under one circumstance does not preclude the agency from subsequently tolling based on the other circumstance. This guidance, from November 18, 2008, is available at https://www.justice.gov/oip/oip-guidance.

In 29 CFR 2201.8(e), the third sentence of that paragraph states: “In cases in which a requester has been notified that actual or estimated fees amount to more than $25, the request shall not be considered received and further work shall not be done on it until the requester agrees to pay the actual or estimated total fee.” OSHRC is revising the phrase, “the request shall not be considered received,” to read, “the time period for responding to the request shall be tolled in accordance with 2201.6(a)(2).” OSHRC considers it more accurate, pursuant to the 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(A), to treat this as a fee clarification that can be tolled under 29 CFR 2201.6(a), rather than a request that has not been received.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13132, and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995: OSHRC is an independent regulatory agency and, as such, is not subject to the requirements of E.O. 12866, E.O. 13132, or the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.

Regulatory Flexibility Act: The Chairman of OSHRC certifies under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that these rules will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The revisions to part 2201 merely clarify existing procedures and, therefore, would have no economic impact on small entities. For this reason, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995: OSHRC has determined that the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., does not apply because these rules do not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of OMB.

Congressional Review Act: These revisions do not constitute a “rule,” as defined by the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(C), because they involve changes to agency organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, OSHRC amends 29 CFR part 2201 as follows:

PBGC's regulation on Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4022) prescribes actuarial assumptions—including interest assumptions—for paying plan benefits under terminated single-employer plans covered by title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The interest assumptions in the regulation are also published on PBGC's website ( https://www.pbgc.gov ).

PBGC uses the interest assumptions in appendix B to part 4022 (“Lump Sum Interest Rates for PBGC Payments”) to determine whether a benefit is payable as a lump sum and to determine the amount to pay. Because some private-sector pension plans use these interest rates to determine lump sum amounts payable to plan participants (if the resulting lump sum is larger than the amount required under section 417(e)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and section 205(g)(3) of ERISA), these rates are also provided in appendix C to part 4022 (“Lump Sum Interest Rates for Private-Sector Payments”).

This final rule updates appendices B and C of the benefit payments regulation to provide the rates for December 2020 measurement dates.

The December 2020 lump sum interest assumptions will be 0.00 percent for the period during which a benefit is (or is assumed to be) in pay status and 4.00 percent during any years preceding the benefit's placement in pay status. In comparison with the interest assumptions in effect for November 2020, these assumptions represent no change in the immediate rate and are otherwise unchanged.

PBGC updates appendices B and C each month. PBGC has determined that notice and public comment on this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This finding is based on the need to issue new interest assumptions promptly so that they are available for plans that rely on our publication of them each month to calculate lump sum benefit amounts.

Because of the need to provide immediate guidance for the payment of benefits under plans with valuation dates during December 2020, PBGC finds that good cause exists for making the assumptions set forth in this amendment effective less than 30 days after publication.

PBGC has determined that this action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the criteria set forth in Executive Order 12866.

Because no general notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this amendment, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 does not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2).

In consideration of the foregoing, 29 CFR part 4022 is amended as follows:

It has been determined that publication of this rule removal in the CFR for public comment is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest since it is based on removing outdated internal information. Current policy will continue to be maintained in DoD Instruction 5200.08, “Security of DoD Installations and Resources and the DoD Physical Security Review Board (PSRB)” (available at https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/520008_2005_ch3.pdf ), DoD Manual 5200.08 volume 3, “Physical Security Program: Access to DoD Installations” (available at https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodm/520008_vol3.pdf ); and bilateral agreements with the organizations involved. These USO/Red Cross individuals are only assigned overseas at the invitation of DoD, and the specifics of their eligibility should be established in the Memorandum of Understanding between DoD and the invited organizations.

This rule is not significant under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.” Therefore, E.O. 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs” does not apply. This removal supports a recommendation of the DoD Regulatory Reform Task Force.

Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding this interpretation. We will consider these comments in determining whether to take any future action. See ADDRESSES for instructions on how to submit public comments.

During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about the interpretation by accessing Regulations.gov. Due to the novel coronavirus 2019 pandemic, the Department buildings are currently not open to the public. However, upon reopening, you may also inspect the comments in person at 400 Maryland Ave. SW, 6E-251, Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays. To schedule a time to inspect comments, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking Record: On request, we will provide an appropriate accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking record for the interpretation. To schedule an appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Background: Section 117 of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1011f) provides that institutions of higher education (IHEs) must file a disclosure report with the Secretary of Education, on January 31 or July 31, whichever is sooner, whenever the institution is owned or controlled by a foreign source or receives a gift from or enters into a contract with a foreign source, the value of which is $250,000 or more, considered alone or in combination with all other gifts from or contracts with that foreign source within a calendar year.

The current version of this disclosure requirement was adopted in 1998, see Public Law 105-244, Higher Education Amendments of 1998, Title I, sec. 102(a), adding HEA Title I, sec. 117 (Oct. 7, 1998); but a substantially similar disclosure requirement has been in place since 1986. See Public Law 99-498, Higher Education Amendments of 1986, Title XII, sec. 1206, adding HEA Title XII, sec. 1207 (Oct. 17, 1986) (then codified at 20 U.S.C. 1145d).

We have attempted to collect Section 117 information via our approved Application to Participate in Federal Student Financial Aid Program (e-App), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number 1845-0012, but did not receive sufficient information to faithfully enforce the statute. Consequently, on February 10, 2020, we established a new information collection request (ICR) pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (OMB Number 1801-0006). This new collection is necessary to ensure institutions provide congressionally mandated transparency with respect to covered gifts from and contracts with foreign sources, the public has ready and meaningful access to this information, and the Secretary receives more detailed information about covered gifts or contracts involving a foreign source and ownership or control of the institution by a foreign source, to determine whether it appears an institution has failed to comply with the requirements of 20 U.S.C. 1011f.

The prior reporting by institutions through the e-App plainly did not collect sufficient information to determine compliance with 20 U.S.C. 1011f, to encourage institutions full reporting of covered gifts and contracts from foreign sources, and to provide members of the public with statutorily mandated access to accurate information regarding institutions' gifts from and contracts with foreign sources. Government Accountability Office reports (see https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/696859.pdf; https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/697156.pdf; and https://www.gao.gov/assets/680/679322.pdf ); a comprehensive congressional report regarding the operation of Chinese government propaganda centers on U.S. campuses (see http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/download/majority-and-minority-staff-report_-chinas-impact-on-the-us-education-system ); and evidence obtained by the Department through its civil investigations, confirm the majority, and perhaps the vast majority, of institutions failed to file required disclosures to the Department when institutions were using the e-App to submit Section 117 information. For example, our investigations regarding potential noncompliance with Section 117 have preliminarily shown that institutions have failed to disclose approximately $6.5 billion of gifts from and contracts with foreign sources. Therefore, we issued an ICR to ensure that institutions comply with the statutory disclosure requirement and provide the public with information as Congress has intended.

Through this notification of interpretation, the Department clarifies its enforcement authority with respect to institutions that fail to report accurate and complete Section 117 information.

Interpretation:

Section 20 U.S.C. 1094(a)(17) of the HEA provides that in order to be an eligible institution for the purposes of any program authorized under the subchapter, an institution must enter into a program participation agreement with the Secretary. The agreement shall condition the initial and continuing eligibility of an institution to participate in a program upon compliance with the following requirement: The institution will complete surveys conducted as a part of the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) or any other Federal postsecondary institution data collection effort, as designated by the Secretary, in a timely manner and to the satisfaction of the Secretary.

The program participation agreement requirement was adopted in 1986, see Public Law 99-498, Higher Education Amendments of 1986, Title IV, sec. 407(a), adding HEA Title IV, sec. 487 (Oct. 17, 1986); and subsection (a)(17) was added in 1992, see Public Law 102-325, Higher Education Amendments of 1992, Title IV, sec. 490 (July 23, 1992).

On April 29, 1994, the Department promulgated 34 CFR 668.14 to implement the 1992 amendments. See 59 FR 22425; see also 59 FR 9526, 9538 (Feb. 28, 1994) (notice of proposed rulemaking explaining that the regulatory text is “without substantive modifications” from 20 U.S.C. 1094(a)(17)). Section 668.14(b)(19) provides that by entering into a program participation agreement, an institution agrees that it will complete, in a timely manner and to the satisfaction of the Secretary, surveys conducted as a part of the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) or any other Federal collection effort, as designated by the Secretary, regarding data on postsecondary institutions.

The Secretary, in light of widespread underreporting, clarifies via this notification that the Section 117 information collection is part of a 1094(a)(17) “Federal data collection effort, as designated by the Secretary” to ensure the public understands ED's enforcement authority. The requirement that institutions “file a disclosure report with the Secretary” comes within the plain and ordinary public meaning of 20 U.S.C. 1094(a)(17) at the time of its enactment. See Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S.Ct. 1731, 1749 (2020). Indeed, a substantially similar foreign gift reporting requirement had already been in place for six years when Congress added Section 1094(a)(17) in 1992. See Public Law 99-498, Higher Education Amendments of 1986, Title XII, sec. 1206, adding HEA Title XII, sec. 1207 (Oct. 17, 1986) (then codified at 20 U.S.C. 1145d). And when Congress expanded that reporting requirement in 1998, it did not exempt the new Section 117 from Section 1094(a)'s requirements. Congress' consistent understanding is reflected in statutory language adopted in 2008, when Congress incorporated Section 117 standards into Title VI, and expressly referred to Section 117 reporting as a “data requirement.” See 20 U.S.C. 1132-7; Public Law 110-315, Higher Education Opportunity Act, Title VI, sec. 622, adding HEA sec. 638 (Aug. 14, 2008). Finally, to the extent it is relevant, we note that there is nothing in the legislative history of 20 U.S.C. 1094(a)(17) suggesting that Congress intended to narrow the plain meaning of the words “any other Federal postsecondary institution data collection effort.”

Under 20 U.S.C. 1094(a)(17), where an institution fails to report Section 117 information timely and accurately, the institution has failed to comply with its reporting obligations under 20 U.S.C. 1011f and failed to comply with a requirement in its PPA. Under 20 U.S.C. 1094(a), the Department has authority to implement a range of corrective measures for an institution that violates its PPA, including termination of the institution's Title IV participation. We note that under 34 CFR 668.81 through 668.99 institutions have administrative appeal rights when the Department imposes fines, limitations, suspensions, or termination of the institution's Title IV participation.

An institution's failure to adequately report Section 117 gifts and contracts is a violation of an institution's participation in the HEA programs and PPA under 20 U.S.C. 1094(a)(17). Therefore, in addition to obtaining records and employee interviews under 34 CFR 668.24 in furtherance of any investigation about the sufficiency of an institution's Section 117 reporting, under 20 U.S.C. 1097a, “the Secretary is authorized to require by subpoena the production of information, documents, reports, answers, records, accounts, papers, and other documentary evidence pertaining to participation in any program under [Title IV of the HEA].” Consistent with applicable law, the Secretary is also authorized to share such evidence with other agencies of the U.S. Government for law enforcement and other lawful purposes.

For institutions that receive Title VI funds, 20 U.S.C. 1132-7 imposes a reporting obligation that is similar to Section 117. While the monetary threshold is almost identical in Section 117 and 20 U.S.C. 1132-7, they reference different time periods. Section 117 requires IHEs to disclose reportable transactions greater or equal to $250,000 occurring within a calendar year while 20 U.S.C. 1132-7 requires IHEs to disclose reportable transactions greater than $250,000 occurring during a fiscal year. Institutions that receive Title VI funds and participate in the HEA programs are advised to be mindful of this temporal difference when designing corporate compliance processes since failure to adequately report under 20 U.S.C. 1132-7 may result in administrative enforcement actions similar to those described above for failure to comply with Section 117 reporting requirements and 20 U.S.C. 1094(a)(17).

Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format ( e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register . You may access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register , in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

On October 9, 2019, the President signed Executive Order (E.O.) 13891, Promoting the Rule of Law Through Improved Agency Guidance Documents.

Section 4 of the E.O. mandates that each agency finalize regulations to set forth processes and procedures for issuing guidance documents. This rule complies with that mandate by adding part 5 to title 38 Code of Federal Regulations (38 CFR part 5). Part 5 is titled “Administrative Procedures: Guidance Documents,” and informs the public about VA's general processes and procedures for issuing guidance documents. Prior to this rulemaking, VA has not previously published procedures relating to the issuance of guidance documents.

VA is stating the purpose of part 5 in § 5.0, which is to provide VA's processes and procedures for issuing and managing guidance documents in accordance with E.O. 13891. Section 4 of the E.O. requires each agency to finalize regulations or amend existing regulations to set forth processes and procedures for issuing guidance documents within 300 days of the date on which the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issues an implementing memorandum under section 6 of the E.O.. OMB issued its memorandum, M-20-02, on October 31, 2019. Section 4 of the E.O.; shall require that each guidance document clearly state that it does not bind the public, except as authorized by law or as incorporated into a contract; and shall include procedures for the public to petition for withdrawal or modification of a particular guidance document. For significant guidance documents, section 4 of the E.O. contains additional requirements. These include that there must be a period of notice and comment of at least 30 days and a public response from the agency to major concerns raised in comments, except when the agency for good cause finds that notice and comment are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to public interest. Significant guidance documents must be approved on a non-delegable basis by the agency head or agency component head appointed by the President. They must be reviewed by OIRA under E.O. 12866 before issuance, and they must comply with applicable requirements for significant regulatory actions set forth in E.O.s. 12866, 13563, 13609, 13771, and 13777.

Section 5.10 is the definitions section. The section generally tracks the requirements of E.O. 13891, as applied to VA. Because the definition of guidance document is broad, this rule clarifies that a guidance document is an agency statement of general applicability ( i.e., it applies to more than just one person, event, or transaction), that is intended to have a future effect on the behavior or actions of regulated parties (to include non-VA actors), and that sets forth a policy on a statutory, regulatory, or technical issue, or an interpretation of a statute or regulation. The section mirrors the exclusion in section 2(b)(i)-(vi) of the E.O. for those documents that VA does not consider guidance documents.

VA is mirroring the definition of significant guidance document to that provided in section 2(c) of the E.O. with minor clarifying edits.

VA is also defining VA to mean the Department of Veterans Affairs.

VA is implementing the requirements of section 4(a)(i) and (iii) of the E.O. in § 5.15. We are stating the requirements of section 4(a)(i) in paragraph (a)(1) by stating that each guidance document must clearly and prominently state that it does not bind the public, except as authorized by law or as incorporated into a contract. VA is adding sample language of the disclaimer for guidance documents as follows: The contents of this document do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. This document is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.

Paragraph 5.15(a)(2) states the information that must be included in each guidance document. VA is stating that a guidance document must include the following information: The term guidance; the agency or office issuing the document; to what and to whom the document applies; the date of issuance; title and unique identification number of the document; citation to statutory or regulatory authority that the guidance document interprets or applies; a short summary of the subject matter covered at the beginning of the guidance document; the statement required under paragraph (a)(1) of this section; and as applicable, the guidance document being revised or replaced.

Paragraph 5.15(b) states the procedures for significant guidance documents as required in section 4(a)(iii) of the E.O. Significant guidance documents must follow the requirements provided in paragraph 5.15(a). Further, unless the Administrator of the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), pursuant to review under E.O. 12866, and VA agree that exigency, safety, health, or other compelling cause warrants an exemption, the following additional procedures apply to significant guidance documents. Paragraph (b)(1) states that VA will provide for a period of public notice and comment of at least 30 days before issuance of such significant guidance document and will provide a public response to major concerns raised in comments, except when VA for good cause finds (and incorporates such finding and a brief statement of reasons therefor into the guidance document) that notice and public comment thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. Paragraph (b)(2) states that the Secretary or a VA component head appointed by the President must approve any significant guidance document prior to issuance; in addition, pursuant to section 4(a)(iii)(B) of the E.O., this approval authority is not delegable. Paragraph (b)(3) establishes that significant guidance documents must be reviewed by OIRA under E.O. 12866 prior to issuance. Paragraph (b)(4) requires that significant guidance documents comply with the applicable requirements for regulations or rules set forth in E.O.s 12866, 13563, 13609, 13771, and 13777.

Section 5.20 implements the requirements in section 4(a)(ii) of the E.O and states the procedures for the public to petition for the withdrawal or modification of a guidance document. Paragraph (a) provides the addresses for submitting such petitions. The email address is: OEIDMO@va.gov. The public may also submit requests via mail to the following address: Office of Policy and Interagency Collaboration, Office of Enterprise Integration, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420.

Paragraph (b) provides the information that must be included in a petition, including: (1) The petitioner's name and address; (2) information identifying the guidance document to which the petition pertains; and (3) a statement of the reasons the petitioner believes the document should be withdrawn or modified.

We are stating in paragraph (c) that VA will provide a response to such petition within 90 days of receipt of the request.

Section 5.25 states that VA has a guidance website that contains, or links to, guidance documents that are currently in effect and that VA will not cite, use, or rely on any guidance document that is not posted on the website existing under E.O. 13891, except to establish historical facts. Section 5.25 further provides the address for the guidance portal that is required by section 3 of E.O. 13891. The guidance portal can be accessed at www.VA.gov/guidance.

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs is publishing this rule without prior opportunity for public comment pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A) as this rule is a rule of agency organization, procedure, or practice, and thus is published as a final rule.

This rule contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521).

The Secretary hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. The regulations established by this rulemaking do not impose burdens or otherwise regulate the activities of any entities outside of VA. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 do not apply.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). E.O. 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. OIRA has determined that this rule is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866. VA's impact analysis can be found as a supporting document at http://www.regulations.gov, usually within 48 hours after the rulemaking document is published. Additionally, a copy of the rulemaking and its impact analysis are available on VA's website at http://www.va.gov/orpm/, by following the link for “VA Regulations Published From FY 2004 Through Fiscal Year to Date.”

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

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This final rule would have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.

There are no Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbers and titles for this rule.

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

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs approved this document on November 6, 2021, for publication and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Publishing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0346 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before January 12, 2021. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0346, by one of the following methods:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001.

• Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.

Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

In the Federal Register of June 24, 2020 (85 FR 37806) (FRL-10010-82), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 9F8759) by Syngenta Crop Protection LLC, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.546 be amended by establishing a tolerance for residues of mefenoxam, (methyl N -(2,6-dimethylphenyl)- N -(methoxyacetyl)- DL -alaninate) including its metabolites and degradate, in or on tree nuts crop group 14-12 at 0.3 parts per million (ppm). Syngenta's petition was intended to cover residues of mefenoxam in or on nut commodities from domestic use of the pesticide, although EPA erroneously stated in the Notice of Filing that Syngenta had requested a tolerance to cover residues of mefenoxam on imported nut commodities. EPA hereby clarifies that error and has evaluated the request as submitted by the petition. The error did not substantially impact the way EPA evaluated the petition. In addition, although not mentioned in EPA's document, Syngenta's petition also requested that currently established tolerances for residues of metalaxyl in/on almond and walnut at 0.5 ppm be removed from 40 CFR 180.408, under the premise these commodities would be adequately covered by the proposed tree nut, crop group 14-12 tolerance for mefenoxam, which is the single enantiomer of the racemic mixture metalaxyl. A summary document of the petition prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, the registrant, is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. One comment was received in response to the notice of filing, although it was not germane to the petition for mefenoxam tolerances.

Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”

Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for mefenoxam including exposure resulting from the tolerance established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with mefenoxam follows.

On December 21, 2018, EPA published in the Federal Register a final rule establishing tolerances for residues of mefenoxam in or on several commodities based on the Agency's conclusion that aggregate exposure to mefenoxam is safe for the general population, including infants and children. See 83 FR 65541 (FRL-9985-52). Because the Agency's position concerning several sections of that document have not changed, EPA is incorporating them by reference here—the toxicological profile and points of departure, description of the assumptions for assessing exposure from residues in or on food, in drinking water, and residential exposures, the Agency's conclusion about cumulative risk, and Agency's determination regarding the children's safety factor. Further information about EPA's risk assessment and determination of safety supporting the tolerances established in the December 21, 2018 Federal Register action, as well as the new mefenoxam tolerance can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the document titled “Mefenoxam (Metalaxyl-M). Human Health Risk Assessment for the Establishment of Permanent Tolerances and New Uses in/on Wasabi, Cacao, and Crop Group Expansion from Kiwifruit to Fruit, Small, Vine Climbing, Except Grape, Crop Subgroup 13-07E.” dated June 5, 2018, in docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0562 and the document titled, “Mefenoxam (Metalaxyl-M). Human Health Risk Assessment for the Proposed New Use in/on Tree Nuts, Crop Group 14-12 and the Establishment of a Permanent Tolerance.” in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0346.

EPA's exposure assessments have been updated to include the additional exposure from use of mefenoxam on tree nut, crop group 14-12. EPA's aggregate exposure assessment incorporated this additional dietary exposure, as well as exposures from drinking water and residential sources, although those latter exposures are not impacted by the new uses on the tree nut, crop group 14-12 and thus have not changed since the last assessment.

Acute dietary risks are below the Agency's level of concern: 52% of the acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) for children 1 to 2 years old, the population group of concern. Due to the lack of a chronic endpoint, a chronic dietary risk is not expected. As required by the FFDCA, EPA considered aggregate exposures to mefenoxam, i.e., exposures from food, drinking water, and residential uses, in its risk assessment. There are no residential uses expected to result in acute, intermediate-term, or chronic exposures; therefore, aggregate risks for those exposure durations are equal to the dietary risks for those exposure durations and not of concern.

Based on the absence of increased hazard from repeated exposures to mefenoxam, short-term aggregate risk assessments are protective of potential effects from longer-term exposures. Additionally, residential exposures are not expected to occur beyond the short-term time interval.

Using the exposure assumptions described for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water, and residential exposures result in aggregate margins of exposures above the level of concern of 100 for all scenarios assessed and are not of concern.

Therefore, based on the risk assessments and information described above, EPA concludes there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to mefenoxam residues.

There are adequate residue analytical methods for enforcing tolerances for mefenoxam residues of concern in/on the registered plant and livestock commodities. These several methods include gas chromatography equipped with an alkali flame ionization detector (GC/AFID), gas chromatography equipped with a nitrogen/phosphorus detector (GC/NPD), the multiresidue method in PAM, Vol. I Section 302 (Protocol D) in the nitrogen-specific mode, and gas-liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry in the chemical ionization mode with selected ion monitoring (SIM) of the M+1 ion at m/z 268 for determining residues in/on nut crops and livestock.

The methods may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address: residuemethods@epa.gov.

In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.

The Codex has not established an MRL for mefenoxam or metalaxyl in or on the tree nut, crop group 14-12.

There are no revisions to the requested tolerance petition of mefenoxam. The petition requested that upon establishment of tolerances in or on tree nuts crop group 14-12 at 0.3 ppm, the currently established tolerances for residues of metalaxyl in or on almond and walnuts at 0.5 ppm be removed from 40 CFR 180.408, because residues in or on these commodities were anticipated to be adequately covered by the new tree nut crop group 14-12 tolerance. EPA has decided not to remove the existing tolerances for metalaxyl on almond and walnut. Existing registrations permit use of metalaxyl on almond and walnut, and those uses would result in residues of metalaxyl on those commodities that would not be covered by the new mefenoxam tolerances. Therefore, removal of such tolerances would result in adulterated commodities.

Although a tolerance on almond hulls was not requested, available processing data demonstrates that residues from treated almonds concentrate on hulls during processing; therefore, a separate tolerance is needed to cover those residues. Based on application rates for mefenoxam and extrapolating from the available data concerning concentration during processing for metalaxyl, EPA concludes a tolerance level of 5 ppm for residues of mefenoxam in or on almond hulls is appropriate. EPA is establishing that tolerance here. The FFDCA anticipates that residues of pesticides applied to raw agricultural commodities may pass through to processed commodities and allows tolerances on raw agricultural commodities to cover processed forms of those commodities as long as residues remain within tolerance levels. 21 U.S.C. 346a(a)(2). Where residues concentrate in the processed food, a separate tolerance is necessary. Given the potential to pass-through, EPA examines whether tolerances on the raw agricultural commodities will cover residues on the processed food, and if not, establishes them. EPA believes it is reasonable to expect that a tolerance may need to be established in processed forms of commodities for which tolerances on the raw agricultural commodities are requested.

Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of mefenoxam, including its metabolites and degradates in or on the tree nut, crop group 14-12 at 0.3 ppm and almond hulls at 5 ppm.

This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), nor is it considered a regulatory action under Executive Order 13771, entitled “Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs” (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ), nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), do not apply.

This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or Tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or Tribal Governments, on the relationship between the National Government and the States or Tribal Governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. ).

This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), EPA will submit a report containing this rule 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 . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending 40 CFR chapter I as follows:

The Independent Offices Appropriation Act of 1952 (IOAA), 31 U.S.C. 9701, authorizes agencies to establish charges (user fees) for services and benefits that they provide to specific recipients. Under the IOAA, charges must be fair and based on the costs to the Government, the value of the service or thing to the recipient, the public policy or interest served, and other relevant facts. The IOAA also provides that regulations implementing user fees are subject to policies prescribed by the President, which are currently set forth in Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-25, User Charges (revised July 8, 1993).

Under OMB Circular A-25, fees must be established for Government-provided services that confer benefits on identifiable recipients over and above those benefits received by the general public. OMB Circular A-25 further provides that, generally, user fees must be sufficient to recover the full cost to the government for providing the service, resource, or good. Agencies are advised to determine or estimate costs based on the best available records in the agency and to ensure that cost computations cover the direct and indirect costs to the agency of providing the service. OMB Circular A-25 also states that agencies are permitted to set user fees below costs if conditions justify the exception.

OMB Circular A-25 also directs agencies to review biennially: (1) user charges for agency programs to assure that existing charges are adjusted to reflect unanticipated changes in costs or market values; and (2) all other agency programs to determine whether fees should be assessed. The Commission last reviewed and updated its user fees in 2018. 83 FR 50290 (Oct. 5, 2018).

The Commission has reviewed its data on the time and cost involved in providing particular services to arrive at the updated direct and indirect labor costs for those services. As part of its assessment, the Commission utilized salaries of Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) assigned to fee-generating activities to identify the various direct and indirect costs associated with providing such services. Direct labor costs include clerical and professional time expended on an activity. Indirect labor costs include labor provided by bureaus and offices that provide direct support to the fee-generating offices in their efforts to provide services and include managerial and supervisory costs associated with providing a particular service. Other indirect costs include Government overhead costs, such as fringe benefits and other wage-related Government contributions contained in OMB Circular A-76, Performance of Commercial Activities (revised May 29, 2003) and office general and administrative expenses. 1 The sum of these indirect cost components gives an indirect cost factor that is added to the direct labor costs of an activity to arrive at the fully distributed cost. A more detailed description of the Commission's methodology has been included in the docket.

The Commission is increasing some fees to reflect salary increases for FTEs assigned to certain fee-generating services. For some services, an increase in processing or review time may account for all or part of the increase in the amount of the fees. For other services, the Commission is decreasing fees due to an overall reduced cost to provide those services or a decrease in overhead costs resulting from fewer FTEs employed by the Commission and fewer FTEs assigned to fee-generating activities.

The Commission is including two supporting documents providing detailed information on the updated user fee calculations in the docket. The first document shows the direct and indirect costs for each service for which a fee is assessed based on FY 2019 cost data. The second document compares the current fee amounts established in 2018 with the updated fee amounts reflecting the current costs, showing the percentage increase or decrease and change in dollar amount.

The Commission briefly describes below changes in user fees that result in more than a 10 percent increase or decrease to a particular fee.

The hourly rate for document searches conducted by clerical/administrative personnel in response to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests is decreasing from $52 per hour to $39 per hour. This updated fee reflects the lower average hourly salaries of the non-professional staff who conduct record searches. The minimum charge for a records search is increasing from $31 to $39. This updated rate reflects the higher average salary of the FTEs performing this service. The minimum duplication charge is also increasing from $6 to $7, which reflects the higher salaries of staff performing these services.

The application fees for Certificates of Financial Responsibility for Indemnification of Passengers for Nonperformance of Transportation are increasing as follows: From $3,272 to $4,332 for general applications; and from $1,652 to $2,180 for applications to add or substitute a vessel to the applicant's fleet. For Certificates of Financial Responsibility to Meet Liability Incurred for Death or Injury to Passengers or Other Persons on Voyages, the application fees are increasing as follows: from $1,441 to $1,889 for general applications; and from $718 to $921 for applications to add or substitute a vessel to the applicant's fleet. These increases are primarily due to a change in grade level of the staff reviewing and processing these applications.

In Docket No. 18-11, the Commission revised 46 CFR part 515 relating to Ocean Transportation Intermediary (OTI) license applications. See 84 FR 62464 (Nov. 15, 2019). The Commission amended §§ 515.5(b) and 515.12(a) to eliminate the paper application option for OTI license applications. 84 FR at 62465, 62467. As noted in the 2018 direct final rule, the fees for the electronic filing of OTI applications will be addressed when the entire FMC-18 automated system is complete and operational and the costs of the system and its impact on the review of OTI applications can be quantified. Because the automated system is not yet complete, the Commission is not revising the fees in Part 515.

The Commission is making two minor revisions that are related to user fees. These additional changes update internal citations and clarify existing Commission regulations but do not substantively amend the meaning of the following sections.

The Commission is revising § 502.27 to reflect a change to an internal citation that resulted from a previous rulemaking proceeding.

The Commission is also revising § 550.402. In addition to updating the fee in the last sentence, the Commission is deleting the first sentence of § 550.402, which provides that other than petitions for rulemaking, requests for relief from conditions unfavorable to shipping in the foreign trade under 46 U.S.C. ch. 421 must be by written petition. This sentence was inadvertently included in a 2016 final rule amending the Commission's user fees. 81 FR 59141 (Aug. 29, 2016). Because § 550.403 requires that all petitions under part 550 must include a recommended regulation for the Commission to promulgate, this sentence has created confusion as to whether written petitions are required. The Commission is therefore deleting this sentence to confirm that a petition seeking a regulation that adjusts or meets conditions unfavorable to shipping in the foreign trade of the United States must be in writing.

How do I prepare and submit comments?

Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the docket, please include the docket number of this document in your comments.

You may submit your comments via email to the email address listed above under ADDRESSES . Please include the docket number associated with this notice and the subject matter in the subject line of the email. Comments should be attached to the email as a Microsoft Word or text-searchable PDF document. Both non-confidential and confidential comments should be submitted by email.

The Commission will provide confidential treatment for identified confidential information to the extent allowed by law. If your comments contain confidential information, you must submit the following by email to the email address listed above under ADDRESSES :

• A transmittal letter requesting confidential treatment that identifies the specific information in the comments for which protection is sought and demonstrates that the information is a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information.

• A confidential copy of your comments, consisting of the complete filing with a cover page marked “Confidential-Restricted,” and the confidential material clearly marked on each page.

• A public version of your comments with the confidential information excluded. The public version must state “Public Version—confidential materials excluded” on the cover page and on each affected page and must clearly indicate any information withheld.

The Commission will consider all comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES . Because this is a direct final rule that will go into effect as specified in the DATES section in the absence of significant adverse comment received during the comment period, the Commission will not consider any comments filed after the comment closing date.

You may read the comments received by the Commission at the Commission's Electronic Reading Room at the address listed above under ADDRESSES .

The Commission expects the user fee updates to be noncontroversial. Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), a final rule may be issued without notice and comment when the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefor in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. This rule merely updates the user fee amounts for various services provided by the Commission based on a review of the costs to provide these services and makes minor corrections to some of the provisions specifying user fees. This rule makes no substantive changes to the Commission's regulations nor does it affect any filing or other requirement. Accordingly, the Commission has determined that providing an opportunity for comment prior to publication of this direct final rule is unnecessary under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).

This rule will therefore become effective on the date listed in the DATES section unless the Commission receives significant adverse comments within the specified period. The Commission recognizes that parties may have information that could impact the Commission's views and intentions with respect to the revised regulations, and the Commission intends to consider any comments filed. The Commission will withdraw the rule by the date specified in the DATES section if it receives significant adverse comments.

We note that the scope of the rulemaking is limited to the amounts charged for Commission services and minor revisions to user-fee-related regulations, and any substantive changes to the underlying regulations governing those services or related requirements would be outside this scope. Accordingly, comments on the underlying regulations and related requirements will not be considered adverse. Filed comments that are not adverse may be considered for modifications to the Commission's regulations at a future date. If no significant adverse comments are received, the rule will become effective without additional action by the Commission.

The rule is not a “major rule” as defined by the Congressional Review Act, codified at 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. The rule will not result in: (1) An annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; (2) a major increase in costs or prices; or (3) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies. 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (codified as amended at 5 U.S.C. 601-612) provides that whenever an agency promulgates a final rule after being required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking under the APA (5 U.S.C. 553), the agency must prepare and make available a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) describing the impact of the rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 604. An agency is not required to publish a FRFA, however, for the following types of rules, which are excluded from the APA's notice-and-comment requirement: Interpretative rules; general statements of policy; rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice; and rules for which the agency for good cause finds that notice and comment is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to public interest. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b).

As discussed above, the Commission has for good cause determined that notice and comment in this case is unnecessary. Therefore, the APA does not require publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking in this instance, and the Commission is not required to prepare a FRFA.

The Commission's regulations categorically exclude certain rulemakings from any requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement because they do not increase or decrease air, water or noise pollution or the use of fossil fuels, recyclables, or energy. 46 CFR 504.4. This rule updates user fees for services that fall within various categorical exclusions, and no environmental assessment or environmental impact statement is required. In particular, rulemakings related to the following fall under categorical exclusions: certification of financial responsibility of passenger vessels under part 540 (§ 504.4(a)(2)); promulgation of procedural rules under part 502 (§ 504.4(a)(4)); receipt of service contracts (§ 504.4(a)(5)); consideration of special permission applications under part 520 (§ 504.4(a)(6)); consideration of agreements (§ 504.4(a)(9)-(13), (30)-(35)); action taken on special docket applications under § 502.271 (§ 504.4(a)(19)); and action regarding access to public information under part 503 (§ 504.4(a)(24)).

This rule meets the applicable standards in E.O. 12988 titled, “Civil Justice Reform,” to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) requires an agency to seek and receive approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) before collecting information from the public. 44 U.S.C. 3507. The agency must submit collections of information in rules to OMB in conjunction with the publication of a rule. 5 CFR 1320.11. This rule does not contain any collections of information as defined by 44. U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c).

The Commission assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Unified Agenda). The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda, available at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaMain.

For the reasons set forth above, the Federal Maritime Commission amends 46 CFR parts 502, 503, 520, 530, 535, 540, 550, 555, and 560 as follows:

The Regional Administrator of the Greater Atlantic Regional Office monitors Atlantic herring fishery catch in each of the management areas based on vessel and dealer reports, state data, and other available information. The regulations at 50 CFR 648.201 require that when Atlantic herring catch will reach 92 percent of the Management Area 1A sub-annual catch limit (sub-ACL), federally permitted vessels are prohibited from fishing for, possessing, transferring, receiving, landing, or selling more than 2,000 lb (907.2 kg) of Atlantic herring per trip or calendar day in or from the specified management area.

The Regional Administrator has projected, based on vessel and dealer reports, and other available information, that the Atlantic herring fleet will have caught 92 percent of the Management Area 1A sub-ACL by November 11, 2020. Therefore, effective 00:01 hr local time, November 11, 2020, vessels may not fish for, possess, transfer, receive, land, or sell more than 2,000 lb (907.2 kg) of Atlantic herring per trip or calendar day, in or from Management Area 1A, through December 31, 2020. Vessels that have entered port before 00:01 hr local time, November 11, 2020, may land and sell more than 2,000 lb (907.2 kg) of Atlantic herring from Area 1A from that trip. A vessel may transit through Area 1A with more than 2,000 lb (907.2 kg) of Atlantic herring on board, provided all herring was caught outside of Area 1A and all fishing gear is stowed and not available for immediate use as defined by § 648.2. All herring vessels must land in accordance with state landing restrictions.

Effective 00:01 hr local time, November 11, 2020, through 24:00 hr local time, December 31, 2020, federally permitted dealers may not purchase, possess, receive, sell, barter, trade or transfer more than 2,000 lb (907.2 kg) of Atlantic herring per trip or calendar day from Area 1A from a vessel issued and holding a valid Federal herring permit, unless it is from a trip landed by a vessel that entered port before 00:01 hr local time, November 11, 2020, and that catch is landed in accordance with state regulations.

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

NMFS finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment because it would be contrary to the public interest and impracticable. NMFS also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delayed effectiveness in accordance with 5 U.S.C 553(d)(3). NMFS is required by Federal regulation to implement a 2,000-lb (907.2-kg) Atlantic herring possession limit for Management Area 1A through the calendar year when 92 percent of the area quota is projected to be harvested. The 2020 Atlantic herring fishing year began on January 1, 2020, and Management Area 1A opened to fishing on June 1, 2020. Data indicating the Atlantic herring fleet will have landed at least 92 percent of the 2020 sub-ACL allocated to Management Area 1A only recently became available. High-volume catch and landings in this fishery increase total catch relative to the sub-ACL quickly, especially in this fishing year where annual catch limits are unusually low. If implementation of this closure is delayed to solicit prior public comment, the sub-ACL for Management Area 1A for this fishing year will likely be exceeded; thereby, undermining the conservation objectives of the FMP. If sub-ACLs are exceeded, the excess must be deducted from a future sub-ACL and would reduce future fishing opportunities. In addition, the public had prior notice and full opportunity to comment on this process when these provisions were put in place. The public expects these actions to occur in a timely way consistent with the fishery management plan's objectives.

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (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 2020 Atka mackerel ICA for the BS/EAI is 800 metric tons (mt) and the 2020 Atka mackerel total allowable catch allocated to the Amendment 80 cooperative is 18,904 mt as established by the final 2020 and 2021 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (85 FR 13553, March 9, 2020).

The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, has determined that 200 mt of the Atka mackerel ICA for the BS/EAI will not be harvested. Therefore, in accordance with § 679.91(f), NMFS reallocates 200 mt of Atka mackerel from the BS/EAI ICA to the Amendment 80 cooperative in the BSAI. In accordance with § 679.91(f), NMFS will reissue cooperative quota permit for the reallocated Atka mackerel following the procedures set forth in § 679.91(f)(3).

The harvest specifications for Atka mackerel included in the harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (85 FR 13553, March 9, 2020) are revised as follows: 600 mt of Atka mackerel for the BS/EAI ICA and 19,104 mt of Atka mackerel for the Amendment 80 cooperative allocation in the BS/EAI of the BSAI. Table 6 is revised and republished in its entirety as follows:

This will enhance the socioeconomic well-being of harvesters dependent upon Atka mackerel in this area. The Regional Administrator considered the following factors in reaching this decision: (1) The current catch of Atka mackerel ICA in the BS/EAI, (2) the harvest capacity and stated intent on future harvesting patterns of the Amendment 80 cooperative that participates in this BS/EAI 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 harvest of Atka mackerel in the BE/EAI fishery. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of November 3, 2020.

NMFS manages the king and Tanner crab fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the BS/AI under the Crab FMP. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared the Crab FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Regulations implementing most provisions of the Crab FMP, including the CR Program, are located at 50 CFR part 680. Regulations implementing specific provisions of the Crab FMP that pertain to the License Limitation Program are located at 50 CFR part 679.

The proposed rule to implement this action was published in the Federal Register on August 4, 2020, with comments invited through September 3, 2020 (85 FR 47157). NMFS received two comment letters containing a total of two unique comments. The comments are summarized and responded to under the heading Comments and Responses below.

A detailed review of the provisions and rationale for this action is provided in the preamble to the proposed rule (85 FR 47157, August 4, 2020) and is briefly summarized in this final rule.

The CR Program was implemented on April 1, 2005 (70 FR 10174, March 2, 2005). The CR Program established a limited access program (LAP) for nine crab fisheries in the BS/AI and assigned quota share (QS) to persons based on their historic participation in one or more of those nine BS/AI crab fisheries during a specific period. Each year, a person who holds QS may receive an exclusive harvest privilege for a portion of the annual total allowable catch (TAC). This annual exclusive harvest privilege is called individual fishing quota (IFQ).

NMFS also issued processor quota share (PQS) under the CR Program. Each year, PQS yields an exclusive privilege to process a portion of the IFQ in each of the nine BS/AI CR crab fisheries. This annual exclusive processing privilege is called individual processor quota (IPQ). Only a portion of the QS issued yields IFQ that is required to be delivered to a processor with IPQ. Each year there is a one-to-one match between the total pounds of IFQ that must be delivered to a processor with IPQ and the total pounds of IPQ issued in each CR crab fishery.

Under current regulations, a person may offload a portion of CR crab from a vessel at multiple processors. However, except for the Western Aleutian Islands golden king crab fishery, regulations at 50 CFR 680.7(b)(3) prohibit a person from fishing again or taking CR crab on board the vessel until all of the crab originally on board the vessel have been offloaded. The prohibition against resuming fishing once an offload has commenced and until it is completed applies to CR Program crab, which includes IFQ and Community Development Quota (CDQ) crab landings. In December 2019, the Council recommended removing the regulatory prohibition on resuming fishing for CR crab between partial offloads for all CR crab fisheries. This final rule is a regulatory amendment that will remove this prohibition against continuing to fish in the BS/AI CR crab fisheries once offloading has commenced and until all CR crab are landed.

Removal of the prohibition will provide IFQ and CDQ participants in CR crab fisheries operational flexibility to conduct their business in an efficient manner, in particular when emergencies or special circumstances arise, such as inclement weather. With adjustments by the State of Alaska (State) to its data collection protocols, proper catch accounting will be maintained with this action. The following sections of this preamble provide (1) a brief history of the prohibition on crab partial offloads, (2) the expected effects of and need for this action, and (3) a description of the regulatory change made by this final rule.

The regulatory prohibition on returning to fish after a partial offload of crab was originally established with the implementation of the CR Program. NMFS published the final rule to implement the CR Program on March 2, 2005 (70 FR 10174). Fishing under the CR Program started with the 2005/2006 crab fishing year. The regulatory prohibition on partial offloads at 50 CFR 680.7(b)(3) was intended to address enforcement concerns associated with a potential change in discarding behavior due to the new management of the fisheries.

Experience with the CR Program has shown that illegal (unreported) crab discards are unlikely for several reasons. First, there is no prohibition on sorting crab at the rail, and this is where undesirable crab are often discarded. These discards are accounted for by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) and ADF&G has communicated to industry that high levels of discarding at the rail would be reflected in the stock assessments and ultimate crab TACs. Second, while discarding crab later in the trip is prohibited, dumping crab at sea once it has gone into the tanks would be dangerous and impractical. Third, the risk of quota overages has been greatly reduced due to the cooperative structure of the CR Program, online quota transfers, and post-delivery quota transfers, giving the industry many options to resolve a potential overage. Finally, the structure of the CR Program means more people than just the vessel operators are put at risk by this sort of illegal activity. Experience with the CR Program also has shown that the prohibition against continuing to fish for CR crab after an offload has begun and until the offload is complete has simplified dockside sampling and catch accounting.

In April 2018, the Council received a proposal from the Pacific Northwest Crab Industry Advisory Committee, requesting removal of the regulatory prohibition on continuing to fish after a partial offload in the BS/AI CR Program. In February 2019, the Council decided to examine the proposal, stating that while the Council was interested in providing operational flexibility, particularly in emergencies or special circumstances, it also wanted to ensure that ADF&G would be able to maintain proper catch monitoring and accounting in the CR crab fisheries.

While fishing after a partial delivery was fairly common practice by vessels racing to catch and deliver crab before the CR Program was implemented, the CR Program has increased coordination between harvesters and processors, allowing for an increase in the efficiency of offloads. Under the CR Program, it is more economically efficient for vessels to offload all crab before resuming fishing in order to avoid deadloss of the crab sitting in tanks on the vessel. For this, and other reasons described earlier, the Council and NMFS do not anticipate that the resumption of fishing after a crab partial offload will become a routine operating procedure. The flexibility resulting from this action is expected to be used only in emergency situations, such as inclement weather, or special circumstances related to the economics of the operations. Therefore, the impacts of this action are expected to be minimal and only beneficial.

While the prohibition at § 680.7(b)(3) may no longer be needed to address enforcement concerns, the prohibition has greatly simplified dockside sampling and catch accounting. Section 2.7.4 of the Analysis for this action examined the effects of removing this prohibition for all CR fisheries on the State's monitoring and catch accounting procedures and whether modifications would be necessary and if necessary, what modifications would be required. Section 2.7.4 concludes that without modifications by ADF&G to accommodate the change, removal of the prohibition could complicate some aspects of the State's dockside sampling, catch accounting, and Observer Program, and may degrade the spatial quality of some of the data collected in these fisheries. ADF&G indicated that it could adjust its monitoring and catch accounting procedures and protocols to accommodate the action and maintain data quality, and that it would make those adjustments upon implementation of the action.

The Council determined, and NMFS agrees, that this action will provide CR Program fishery participants with additional operational flexibility to conduct their business in an efficient manner, in particular when emergencies or special circumstances arise, such as inclement weather. The Council also acknowledged that with adjustments by the State to its data collection protocols, proper catch accounting will be maintained with this action.

This final rule removes the prohibition on continuing to fish after a partial offload of crab in the BS/AI CR crab fisheries. To make this change, this final rule removes the prohibition language in paragraph (b)(3) under 50 CFR 680.7 and redesignates subsequent paragraphs under § 680.7(b).

NMFS received two comment letters containing a total of two unique comments.

Comment 1: NMFS should deny this rule change.

Response: NMFS sees no reason to deny this rule change, which the Council and NMFS anticipate will rarely be used and will provide flexibility to CR crab fishery participants to conduct their business in an efficient manner.

Comment 2: Removal of the prohibition would provide IFQ and CDQ participants in CR crab fisheries operational flexibility to conduct their business in an efficient manner, in particular when emergencies or special circumstances arise, such as inclement weather, while also ensuring proper catch accounting.

Response: NMFS acknowledges the comment and is implementing this final rule.

No changes were made from the proposed rule.

Pursuant to section 304(b)(3) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is consistent with the Council's regulatory amendment, the Crab FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws.

This final rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.

This final rule is considered an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action.

The Chief Counsel for Regulation for the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding this certification. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis was not required and none was prepared.

This final rule contains no information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

For reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR part 680 as follows: