On July 20, 2020, OPM published proposed regulations (85 FR 43743) to do the following during a furlough as a result of lapse of appropriations: designate FEHB and FEGLI services as emergency service under the Antideficiency Act; deem furloughed employees and employees excepted from furlough and working without pay as a result of a lapse in appropriations to be in a pay status for the purposes of enrolling or changing FEHB enrollment; ensure the continuation of FEDVIP and FLTCIP coverage. The rule amends 5 CFR parts 870, 875, 890, and 894. OPM provided 30 days for the public to comment on the proposed rule. The comment period closed on August 19, 2020. OPM received 7 public comments and one informal comment.

FEGLI is administered by OPM in accordance with Chapter 87 of Title 5 of the U.S. Code and implementing regulations (title 5, part 87, and title 48, chapter 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations). The FEHB Program is administered by OPM in accordance with Title 5 Chapter 89, United States Code and implementing regulations (title 5, parts 890, 892 and title 48, chapter 16). FEDVIP was created as a result of the enactment of the Federal Employee Dental and Vision Benefits Enhancement Act of 2004, Public Law 108-496, and certain TRICARE-eligible individuals who are authorized under section 715 of the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2017, Public Law 114-328, became eligible for FEDVIP. FLTCIP was created as a result of the enactment of the Long Term Care Security Act of 2000, Public Law 106-265.

OPM received comments from three professional associations, one FEHB Carrier, and one carrier organization, as well as four comments that were outside the scope of this rule. In addition, we received feedback from a benefits administrator. All the commenters were supportive of the regulation's goal to continue FEDVIP and FLTCIP benefits during a lapse in appropriations and to designate certain FEGLI and FEHB services as emergency services. There was agreement that designating these as emergency services ensures the safety of Federal employees and provides a sense of stability while employees are furloughed. The commenters also supported that the rule ensures that furloughed employees and employees working without pay can continue to enroll and make enrollment changes in the FEHB Program.

The professional organizations commented that lapses in appropriations cause significant financial uncertainty and strain on furloughed employees. The commenters stated the proposed rule would work to provide employees with security and peace of mind during the economic uncertainty surrounding a lapse in appropriations. They also stated that the regulation ensures furloughed employees' health needs are met, making them better equipped to return to work when appropriations are restored. OPM agrees that the regulation can have a positive impact on Federal employees who may be impacted by a lapse in appropriations.

The FEHB Carrier also stated that maintaining health insurance benefits are a matter of human safety. The commenter also agreed with the rule ensuring that furloughed employees and employees working without pay as a result of a lapse in appropriations, can continue to enroll and update their enrollments in health insurance coverage during lapses in appropriations. The commenter stated that the rule will not have a negative impact on its FEHB line of business, since during the 2018-2019 lapse in appropriations, it continued to process enrollments and enrollment changes. The commenter also supported the continuation of vision and dental benefits for employees during lapses in appropriations.

The carrier organization indicated that the proposed rule was consistent with the FY20 NDAA, Public Law 116-92, and had been drafted in a manner that would improve program administration. OPM agrees that the regulation can improve program administration and believes it can assist in processing and continuing benefits during a lapse in appropriations.

The benefits administrator provided feedback about back pay payments for missed FLTCIP and FEDVIP premiums and expressed concern about double deductions for FEDVIP premiums since, prior to this rule, the practice was for the Program Administrator to collect two missed premium payments each month until the previously unpaid premiums are caught up when employees returned to work and received pay upon the end of a lapse in appropriations. The commenter also stated that currently not all payroll providers can process past premiums for FEDVIP and FLTCIP from back pay when a lapse in appropriations ends. The commenter suggested that the rule allow unpaid FLTCIP premiums during a lapse in appropriations be paid by adjusting future deductions as was done during the most recent extended government shutdown. OPM declines to revise the regulation to allow for adjusting future deductions to make payments for premiums. Section 1111 of the FY20 NDAA directs that FLTCIP premiums be paid from back pay or may be paid back from a source other than backpay for FLTCIP enrollees who elected to make payments directly to the Carrier. Therefore, we are finalizing the regulatory text in 5 CFR 875.302(c)(1) as originally proposed, stating that if premium payments are made by Federal payroll or annuity deduction, or uniformed services retirement pay deduction, premiums will be paid to the Carrier from back pay made available as soon as practicable upon the end of such a lapse. OPM encourages payroll providers to make necessary systems change so that back pay can be used as payments for premiums missed during a lapse in appropriations.

The benefits administrator also had concerns about FEDVIP premiums being paid to the Carrier from the enrollee's back pay since only one shared service center can process back payments. It suggested that the regulatory text also include that premiums can be paid from adjustments made to future deductions. It also commented that during the last shutdown the decision to pay back pay was not made until the end of the shutdown and asked how it will know whether to direct bill enrollees.

OPM declines to adjust the regulatory text based on these comments. Section 1111 of the FY20 NDAA directs that FEDVIP premiums be paid from back pay. Therefore, we are finalizing the regulatory text in 5 CFR 894.405(c) and 5 CFR 894.406(c) as originally proposed, stating that premiums will be paid to the Carrier from back pay made available as soon as practicable upon the end of such a lapse. We would like to clarify that enrollees who have been furloughed or excepted from furlough and working without pay will not be billed for services during a lapse in appropriations and coverage should continue. As explained in the proposed rule, assuming Congress appropriates back pay as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1341(c)(2), FEDVIP premiums will be paid to the Carrier from the enrollee's back pay made available as soon as practicable upon the end of such a lapse. However, we would like to provide a technical correction to the preamble of the proposed rule. If Congress does not appropriate back pay, the Program Administrator may collect missed premiums by adjusting future deductions.

OPM is issuing this final rule with no changes.

OPM expects that the regulatory changes which designate certain FEHB Program and FEGLI services for purposes of section 1342 of Title 31, United States Code, as services for emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property Antideficiency Act, will have a positive effect on enrollees impacted by a lapse in appropriations. The updated FEHB regulations will allow Government agencies to continue to employ Federal officers and employees to perform services such as enrolling an individual in an FEHB plan or changing the enrollment of an individual enrolled in FEHB during a lapse in appropriations. The amended FEGLI regulations will assist FEGLI enrollees since it allows agencies to employ officers or employees to perform FEGLI services during a lapse in appropriations. These services include activities related to enrollment, changing enrollment, temporary extension of coverage and conversion, eligibility, certification of coverage, and matters relating to reemployed annuitants and survivor annuitants.

OPM anticipates that the additional FEHB regulatory changes will assist employees who are furloughed or excepted from furlough who may want to enroll, or will assist enrollees who may experience a qualifying life event and may want to make enrollment changes. Under the rule as finalized, an employee, who is furloughed or excepted from furlough and working without pay as a result of a lapse in appropriations, is deemed to be in pay status, during the lapse, for purposes of enrolling and change enrollment in the FEHB Program. Prior to this regulation, such an employee might experience challenges with enrollment or enrollment changes since generally, an employee needs to be in pay status in order to enroll or change enrollment in the FEHB Program. In addition, prior to this rule FEHB services were not designated as emergency services and employees or officers performing those services might have not been allowed to perform those services during a lapse in appropriations.

OPM expects these regulation changes for the continuation of FLTCIP and FEDVIP during a lapse in appropriations will ensure enrollees who are furloughed or excepted from furlough and working without pay to continue FLTCIP and FEDVIP coverage without having their coverage cancelled. Once the lapse in appropriations has ended, FLTCIP premiums will be paid from back pay or may be paid back from a source other than backpay ( i.e. automatic bank withdrawal or direct bill) for FLTCIP enrollees who elected to make payments directly to the Carrier. FEDVIP premiums will be paid back from back pay once the lapse in appropriations has ended. OPM anticipates these changes to the regulation will ensure Carriers receive payments for missed premiums that occurred during a lapse in appropriations.

OPM has examined the impact of this rulemaking as required by Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563, which directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public, health, and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). A regulatory impact analysis must be prepared for major rules with economically significant effects of $100 million or more in any one year. This rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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

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

This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments of more than $100 million annually. Thus, no written assessment of unfunded mandates is required.

The Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ) requires rules (as defined in 5 U.S.C. 804) to be submitted to Congress before taking effect. OPM will submit to Congress and the Comptroller General of the United States a report regarding the issuance of this action before its effective date, as required by 5 U.S.C. 801. OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this is not a “major rule” as defined by the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)).

This regulatory action will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Accordingly, OPM amends title 5, Code of Federal Regulations parts 870, 875, 890, and 894 as follows:

The Rural Utilities Service improves the quality of life in rural America by providing investment capital for deployment of rural telecommunications infrastructure. To achieve the goal of increasing economic opportunity in rural America, the Agency finances infrastructure that enables access to a seamless, nationwide telecommunications network. With access to the same advanced telecommunications networks as its urban counterparts—especially those designed to accommodate distance learning, telework, and telemedicine—rural America will eventually see improving educational opportunities, health care, economies, safety and security, and ultimately higher employment. The Telecommunications Infrastructure Loan Program, Rural Broadband Program, Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program, Broadband Initiatives Program and ReConnect Program (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “RUS Telecommunications Programs”) provide loan funding to build and expand broadband and telecommunications services in rural communities.

This final rule confirms the final rule that published in the Federal Register on February 25, 2020 at 85 FR 10555, which outlines the general policies and procedures for servicing actions associated with the RUS Telecommunications Programs Borrowers in financial distress with the mutual objective of avoiding or resolving a monetary default of the RUS debt. This final rule will ensure that recipients comply with the established objectives and requirements for loans, repaying loans on schedule or within the revised terms as agreed to by the Agency, and act in accordance with any necessary agreements. It will also ensure that the Agency will handle servicing actions in a consistent approach across all RUS Telecommunications Programs, as well as protect the financial interest of the Agency.

RUS invited comments on the final rule published in the Federal Register on February 25, 2020 at (85 FR 10555). While two comments were received, one was not relevant to this rule. The only relevant comment, submitted by NTCA-THE RURAL BROADBAND ASSOCIATION, contained four (4) modifications/considerations relevant to the servicing rule (SR). The Agency's responses are as follows:

Issue 1: NTCA recommends the creation of an interface to guide staff and borrowers to the selection of the most appropriate loan servicing option.

Agency Response: RUS agrees that the suggestion to have interface with borrowers to receive guidance from the Agency is a suggestion worth exploring and will take it under consideration. Since every distressed borrower has distinct financial and legal issues, the agency is considering issuing written guidance, such as FAQs, and implementing, a help desk, or possibly even outreach events such as webinars.

Issue 2: NTCA recommends the agency consider historic repayment performance of borrowers (both individually and in the respective programs) in reservicing proceedings.

Agency Response: In determining feasibility of any requested action, the agency already takes into consideration the borrower's historical and current financial information, which includes its repayment history. Additionally, the required financial forecast provides the Agency with the borrower's own assessment and prediction as to repayment.

Issue 3: NTCA urges consideration of the utilization of waivers to avoid “unnecessary or onerous filings”.

Agency Response:

RUS is mindful of the timing and the cost associated with preparing some of the required information to seek special servicing actions. However, the agency needs to request the core documents for consideration of all distressed borrowers so that all every borrower is treated in the same manner. More importantly, these core documents are the minimum financial information that is necessary to make an informed decision on the servicing option.

With respect to the additional documents that may be requested by the Agency under section 1752.6, the agency notes that only information related to the specific servicing action will be requested. That said, the borrower will have ample opportunity to suggest the most efficient and cost-effective ways to provide this information to the RUS.

Issue 4: NTCA supports the conclusion of reservicing requests within a reasonable timeframe.

Agency Response: RUS agrees that timing is often critical in dealing with financially distressed borrowers whose resources may be limited and are rapidly being depleted. It is nevertheless important not to rush through a process which may lead to overlooking key factors or result in outright errors which may waste precious time in the long run.

As indicated above, most distressed borrowers have distinct financial and legal issues which require different periods to resolve. The time frame for completing a loan workout is a function of numerous factors including: (1) The complexity and depth of the challenges facing the borrower; (2) the completeness and quality of the information provided with the initial request; (3) how much time since the problems surfaced before the borrower seeks assistance; and (4) the experience and qualifications of management and their team. The availability of resources at RUS may also be a factor. As such, it would not be in the best interest of any of the parties to establish a set timeframe for servicing. Similarly, a “fast track” of the process, or the use of waivers, may not produce the best possible outcome for the borrower.

The RUS appreciates the interest of the NTCA-The Rural Broadband Association (NTCA) with regard to the Special Servicing of Telecommunications Programs Loans for Financially Distressed Borrowers final rule and thanks them for their submission.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to remove AD 2017-07-08, Amendment 39-18846 (82 FR 16895, April 7, 2017) (AD 2017-07-08), and add a new AD. AD 2017-07-08 applied to Airbus Helicopters Model MBB-BK 117 D-2 helicopters and required repetitive visual inspections of each elastomeric bushing of the inner and outer forward trusses of both engines, and depending on the outcome of the inspections, repairing or replacing the elastomeric bushings. AD 2017-07-08 was prompted by EASA AD 2015-0198, dated September 30, 2015 (EASA AD 2015-0198), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. EASA advised that during a pre-flight check of a Model MBB-BK 117 D-2 helicopter, an elastomeric bushing was found delaminated. More cases of delaminated elastomeric bushings were reported following additional investigations. According to EASA, this condition could lead to cracks and eventually failure of the engine mount front support pins, possibly resulting in loss of helicopter control.

The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 27, 2020 (85 FR 52931) and was prompted by EASA issuing a series of ADs to supersede EASA AD 2015-0198. EASA issued AD 2019-0030, dated February 13, 2019 (EASA AD 2019-0030), to supersede EASA AD 2015-0198. EASA AD 2019-0030 advises that Airbus Helicopters has designed an improved engine mount bushing P/N B712M10X1001, which when installed becomes a terminating action for the repetitive inspections of elastomeric bushing P/N 105-60386. Accordingly, EASA AD 2019-0030 requires installation of improved engine mount bushing P/N B712M10X1001 and also prohibits the installation of elastomeric bushing P/N 105-60386 on any Model MBB-BK 117 D-2 helicopter. Since EASA issued AD 2019-0030, occurrences were reported of finding damaged metal bushings. EASA issued AD 2019-0275, dated November 7, 2019 (EASA AD 2019-0275), which retains the requirements of EASA AD 2019-0030 and requires repetitive visual inspections of the metal bushings. EASA AD 2019-0275 also updates the terminology used in the definitions section from affected part to elastomeric bushing and from serviceable part to metal bushing. The NPRM proposed to retain the repetitive visual inspections of AD 2017-07-08 and proposed to require installing metal bushing part number (P/N) B712M10X1001, which would terminate the repetitive inspections of elastomeric bushing P/N 105-60386. The NPRM also proposed to require repetitive inspections of metal bushing P/N B712M10X1001 and prohibit the installation of elastomeric bushing P/N 105-60386 on any helicopter.

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

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

EASA AD 2019-0275 allows a non-cumulative tolerance of 10 hours time-in-service for its required compliance times. This AD does not. EASA AD 2019-0275 requires reporting inspection results to Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH if any worn or heavily worn metal is found, whereas this AD does not.

The FAA reviewed Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) MBB-BK117 D-2-71A-002, Revision 1, dated December 14, 2018. This service information specifies instructions for repetitive visual inspections of elastomeric bushing P/N 105-60386 for defects, deformation, separation of the rubber, and missing rubber. If there is any deformation or separation of the rubber, this service information provides instructions to replace the affected parts with serviceable parts. This service information also specifies replacing elastomeric bushings P/N 105-60386 with metal bushings P/N B712M10X1001. This service information also does not allow the new metal bushings P/N B712M10X1001 to be installed on any helicopter together with the elastomeric bushings P/N 105-60386. This service information also prohibits installing elastomeric bushings P/N 105-60386 after installation of new metal bushings P/N B712M10X1001.

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 reviewed Airbus Helicopters ASB MBB-BK117 D-2-71A-011, Revision 0, dated October 16, 2019. This service information specifies instructions for repetitive inspections of the metal bushings P/N B712M10X1001 of the inner and outer forward trusses for worn metal bushings (gapping between the inner and outer truss less than 1mm) and heavily worn metal bushings (inner and outer metal bushings showing contact marks or worn out metal mesh).

The FAA also reviewed Airbus Helicopters AMM BK117 C2C2e, dated August 7, 2018. This service information specifies instructions for a detailed inspection of the engine mount bushings.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 30 helicopters of U.S. Registry. The FAA estimates that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work-hour.

Inspecting the engine mount bushings will take about 1 work-hour, for an estimated cost of $85 per helicopter and $2,550 for the U.S. fleet. Replacing the three engine mount bushings will take about 8 work-hours and parts would cost about $2,505, for an estimated cost of $3,185 per helicopter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2019-0139, dated June 12, 2019 (EASA AD 2019-0139) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Helicopters Model EC120B helicopters. Although the EASA AD applies to all Model EC120B helicopters, this AD applies to that model helicopter with an affected part installed instead.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Helicopters Model EC120B helicopters. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on December 10, 2020 (85 FR 79435). The NPRM was prompted by a report of broken and bent attachment bolts of the MR hub scissors assembly. The NPRM proposed to require an inspection of the attachment bolts of the MR hub scissors assembly for discrepancies and repair if necessary; part marking of the attachment bolts of the MR hub scissors assembly; and repetitive inspections of the part marking of the attachment bolts, and repair if necessary; as specified in an EASA AD.

The FAA is issuing this AD to address broken and bent attachment bolts of the MR hub scissors assembly, which could lead to detachment of a MR hub scissors attachment bolt, possibly resulting in complete loss of control of the helicopter. See the MCAI for additional background information.

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

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

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

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

EASA AD 2019-0139 describes procedures for an inspection of the attachment bolts of the MR hub scissors assembly for discrepancies (discrepancies include corrosion, fretting, wear, cracking, bolt play, and bolt tightening torque); and repair if necessary; part marking of the attachment bolts of the MR hub scissors assembly; and repetitive inspections, after part marking, of the attachment bolts for discrepancies, and repair if necessary. The inspections of the attachment bolts of the MR hub assembly include checking the play and torque of the scissors attachment bolts and making sure that there are no hard spots in the scissors link hinge.

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

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 160 helicopters of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA estimates that it would take about 1 hour per product to comply with the reporting requirement in this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Based on these figures, the FAA estimates the cost of reporting on U.S. operators to be $13,600, or $85 per product.

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-condition actions that would be required based on the results of any required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of helicopters that might need these on-condition actions:

A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to Information Collection Clearance Officer, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177-1524.

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:

Discussion

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2017-23-08, Amendment 39-19102 (82 FR 55752, November 24, 2017) (AD-2017-23-08). AD 2017-23-08 applied to Agusta S.p.A. (now Leonardo S.p.a.) Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters with M/R rotating scissors with a bearing part number (P/N) 3G6230V00654 installed. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on September 15, 2020 (85 FR 57165). The NPRM proposed to retain the repetitive inspection requirements of AD 2017-23-08, and continue to require replacing the bearing with an improved bearing, replacing the rotating scissor attachment flange with a certain part-numbered rotating scissor attachment flange, and replacing the nut with a certain part-numbered special nut. The NPRM also proposed to require removing each bearing P/N 3G6230V00654 from service and replacing it with bearing P/N 3G6230V00655 within 100 hours time-inservice (TIS).

The NPRM was prompted by EASA Emergency AD (EAD) No. 2017-0028-E, dated February 15, 2017 (EASA EAD 2017-0028-E) issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for Leonardo S.p.a. Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters. EASA advises that investigation results by the supplier of the bearings determined that a quality control issue may have affected the production of bearing P/N 3G6230V00654. Accordingly, this AD retains the requirements of AD 2017-23-08 and requires replacing bearing P/N 3G6230V00654 with P/N 3G6230V00655.

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.

An individual commenter supported the NPRM.

Request: One commenter requested more information about the purpose of this new AD. The commenter stated that the AD from 2017 (AD 2017-23-08) already removes all P/N 3G6230V00654 bearings from service.

FAA Response: The FAA disagrees that this AD is unnecessary. AD 2017-23-08 only required the replacement of the bearing if it failed an inspection, whereas this AD requires this part-numbered bearing to be removed from service within a certain compliance time.

These helicopters have been approved by EASA and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the European Union, EASA has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA is issuing this AD after evaluating all of the information provided by EASA and determining the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.

The EASA AD specifies some compliance times using calendar time, whereas this AD does not. The EASA AD requires reporting information to Leonardo S.p.a. Product Support Engineering, whereas this AD does not.

The FAA reviewed Leonardo Helicopters Alert Bollettino Tecnico No. 139-392, Revision A, dated February 14, 2017. This service information specifies repetitively inspecting the M/R rotating scissors to monitor the bearings and replacing the bearing with a new part-numbered bearing. This service information also specifies installing a special nut in case of lower scissor bearing dislodging.

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 reviewed Leonardo Helicopters AW139 IETP Document Code AMP-39-A-62-31-00-00A-31AC-A, Rotating control installation—Fixed swashplate and rotating scissors—Detailed inspection, Issue 29, dated July 31, 2017, which describes procedures for a detailed inspection of the fixed swashplate and rotating scissors.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 102 helicopters of U.S. Registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on these numbers, the FAA estimates that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD.

Inspecting for bearing liner wear, seat movement, and play takes about 1 work-hour for a cost of $85 per helicopter and $8,670 for the U.S. fleet per inspection cycle.

Replacing a bearing takes about 2 work-hours and parts cost about $950 for a cost of $1,120 per bearing.

Replacing a rotating scissor attachment flange takes about 0.25 work-hours and parts cost about $25,629 for a cost of $25,650 per flange.

Installing two special nuts takes about 1 work-hour and parts cost about $755 for a cost of $840 per helicopter and $85,680 for the U.S. fleet.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed 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:

Background

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Sikorsky Aircraft Model S-61L, S-61N, S-61NM, and S-61R helicopters and Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Model S-61A, S-61D, S-61E, and S-61V restricted category helicopters, with an arm assembly part number S6140-62614-009, installed. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on October 26, 2020 (85 FR 67692). The FAA learned from Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation that Sikorsky S-61 Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) 61B General-1, Revision No. Z, dated November 13, 2018, which is applicable to Sikorsky Model S-61L, S-61N, S-61NM, and S-61R helicopters, failed to include the life limit of the redesigned arm assembly. As a result, Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation determined that there may be arm assemblies in service with 15,000 or more hours TIS, which exceeds the service life limit for this component. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require reviewing the mixer unit component log card or equivalent record and, depending on the hours TIS of the arm assembly, calculating the remaining life of the arm assembly or removing the arm assembly from service. The proposed actions are intended to prevent an arm assembly from remaining in service beyond its life limit. This condition, if not addressed, could result in reduced or loss of tail rotor control and reduced control of the helicopter.

The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the costs.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for the minor editorial changes of updating the contact information to obtain service information identified in this final rule and updating the contact information for the FAA, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM.

The FAA reviewed Sikorsky S-61 Helicopter ASB 61B40-11, Basic Issue, dated March 2, 2020. This service information describes procedures for a one-time inspection of the mixer unit component log card to verify the arm assembly life limit and, if the life limit has been exceeded, to replace the arm assembly for Sikorsky Model S-61L, S-61N, and S-61NM helicopters.

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 also reviewed Sikorsky S-61 Helicopter ASB 61B General-1, Revision AA, dated February 24, 2020. This service information summarizes and lists parts with mandatory retirement times and inspections for Sikorsky Model S-61L, S-61N, and S-61NM helicopters.

The ASB is effective only for Sikorsky Aircraft Model S-61L, S-61N, and S-61NM helicopters. In addition to these helicopters, the applicability of this AD also includes Sikorsky Aircraft Model S-61R helicopters and Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Model S-61A, S-61D, S-61E, and S-61V restricted category helicopters. The FAA is expanding the applicability to prevent the installation of arm assemblies that have exceeded their life limits on helicopters with a similar type design as those helicopters affected by the ASB.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 13 helicopters of U.S. Registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on these numbers, the FAA estimates that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD.

Reviewing the mixer unit component log or equivalent record takes about 1 work-hour for an estimated cost of $85 per helicopter and $1,105 for the U.S. fleet. Adding the arm assembly entry and determine the remaining life takes about 1 work-hour for an estimated cost of $85 per helicopter and $1,105 for the U.S. fleet. Replacing the arm assembly takes about 9 work-hours and parts cost about $5,035, for an estimated cost of $5,800 per arm assembly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to remove AD 82-20-05, Amendment 39-4466 (47 FR 43018, September 30, 1982) (AD 82-20-05), and add a new AD. AD 82-20-05 applied to Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale (now Airbus Helicopters) Model AS-350 and AS-355 series helicopters. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on October 14, 2020 (85 FR 64995) and proposed to apply to Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, AS350BA, AS350C, AS350D, AS350D1, AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, and AS355NP helicopters with a bearing part number (P/N) 593404, 6007-2RS1MT47CA, P9107NPP7, 83A851BC3, or 83A851B-1C3, or manufacturer part number (MP/N) 704A33-651-010, 704A33-651-111, 704A33-651-143, or 704A33-651-181 installed. The NPRM proposed to require, within 100 hours time-in-service (TIS), and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 165 hours TIS, for helicopters with certain part-numbered bearings installed, inspecting each bearing holder damper bushing for wear, a crack, tears, and play between each bushing and support plate; each bearing holder for a crack, fretting, and corrosion around the attachment holes; and each rubber sleeve for rotation, crazing, play between the inner races and the rubber sleeve, and lack of integrity of the elastomer. Depending on the inspection results, the NRPM proposed to require removing certain parts from service. The NPRM also proposed to require making a mark with white paint on the rubber sleeves and on the shaft within 100 hours TIS. For helicopters with bearing P/N 6007-2RS1MT47CA, P9107NPP7, 83A851BC3, or 83A851B-1C3, or MP/N 704A33-651-010, 704A33-651-111, or 704A33-651-143 installed, the NPRM proposed to require removing those part numbered bearings from service and installing bearing P/N 593404 or MP/N 704A33-651-181. The NPRM also proposed to prohibit installing certain bearings on any helicopter.

The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD 2015-0195, dated September 23, 2015 (EASA AD 2015-0195), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus Helicopters Model AS 350 B, BA, BB, B1, B2, B3, and D, and AS 355 E, F, F1, F2, N, and NP helicopters with certain part numbered bearings installed. EASA advises that after inconsistencies were identified between inspections and maintenance actions required by French Civil Aviation Authority ADs and EASA ADs, Airbus Helicopters issued service information to specify replacing four different part numbered bearings with one bearing P/N 593404 (also listed as MP/N 704A33-651-181) and to provide inspection procedures for the new bearing. Accordingly, EASA AD 2015-0195 retains the inspections for the older design bearings, requires replacing the bearings with the new bearings, and requires repetitive inspections for the new bearings.

After the NPRM was published, the FAA received comments from two commenters.

Both commenters stated that the recurring 165 hour TIS inspections for TR bearing P/N 593404 and MP/N 704A33-651-181 are already captured in the FAA-approved manufacturer Airworthiness Limitations Schedule (ALS) as a 150 hour recurring inspection, and should not be part of this AD. One of the commenters added that the AD's recurring inspection would create a double sign-off and more paperwork.

The FAA disagrees. Operators may not have to follow the version of the ALS referred to by the commenters because operators might be following an older or newer version depending on the delivery date of the helicopter. Additionally, the repetitive inspections required by this AD must be accomplished at intervals not to exceed 165 hours TIS; if operators accomplish these inspections every 150 hours TIS as stated in the ALS, they are meeting the AD's required compliance time.

These helicopters have been approved by EASA and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the European Union, EASA has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA is issuing this AD after evaluating all of the information provided by EASA and determining the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.

The EASA AD requires replacing the older design bearings within 10 months, while this AD requires replacing the bearings within 100 hours TIS instead. The EASA AD applies to Model AS350BB helicopters, whereas this AD does not as this model helicopter is not FAA type-certificated. Finally, this AD applies to Model AS350C and AS350D1 helicopters as they have the same bearings installed, and the EASA AD does not.

The FAA reviewed Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. AS355-01.00.57, Revision 2, dated January 19, 2016, for Model AS355 helicopters, and ASB AS350-01.00.70, Revision 1, dated September 21, 2015, for Model AS350 helicopters. This service information describes procedures for inspecting bearing P/N 593404 and MP/N 704A33-651-181 for position, condition, and wear. This service information also advises customers that older designed bearings are not fit for flight, and specifies replacing the older designed bearings with new bearing P/N 593404 or MP/N 704A33-651-181. This service information also references procedures for repetitively inspecting the newer bearings.

The FAA estimates that this AD will affect 915 helicopters of U.S. Registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per work hour. Based on these numbers, the FAA estimates that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD.

For Model AS350 B, BA, B1, B2, B3, and C helicopters, inspecting the bearings takes about 2.5 work hours, for an estimated cost of $213 per helicopter per inspection cycle. Replacing each bearing with a single part numbered bearing takes about 2.5 work hours and parts cost about $1,225, for an estimated cost of $1,438 per helicopter.

For Model AS350 D, D1, and AS355-series helicopters, inspecting the bearings takes about 3 work hours, for an estimated cost of $255 per helicopter per inspection cycle. Replacing each bearing with a single part numbered bearing takes about 3 work hours and parts cost about $1,470, for an estimated cost of $1,725 per helicopter.

Making a mark with white paint on the rubber sleeves and shaft takes a minimal amount of time and has a nominal parts cost.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed 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.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain PW PW4164, PW4164-1D, PW4168, PW4168-1D, PW4168A, PW4168A-1D, and PW4170 model turbofan engines. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on October 1, 2020 (85 FR 61886). The NPRM was prompted by six reports from the manufacturer concerning LPT 4th-stage vane cluster assemblies leaning back and notching into rotating LPT 4th-stage blades, causing some blades to fracture and release. These incidents resulted in an aborted takeoff, air turnbacks, engine surges, high vibrations, and unplanned engine removals. The incidents were attributed to the LPT 4th-stage air sealing ring segment assemblies moving into the LPT 4th-stage blades knife edge seals, resulting in damage to the ring segment assemblies. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require initial and repetitive replacements of the LPT 4th-stage air sealing ring segment assemblies with parts eligible for installation. The FAA also proposed in the NPRM to require initial and repetitive dimensional inspections of the LPT case for bulging and, depending on the results of the dimensional inspection, repair or replacement of the LPT case. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

The FAA received comments from two commenters. The commenters were Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) and Delta Air Lines, Inc. (Delta). ALPA supported the proposal without change. Delta supported the proposal but recommended certain changes. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Delta requested that the FAA revise paragraph (g)(5) of this AD to specify that any currently approved manual repairs are acceptable to return an LPT case to service. Delta stated that if Pratt & Whitney were to add additional repairs for Index 20 or Index 27 to the CIR Manual, it is unclear whether operators would be permitted to repair the LPT case per the latest manual revision or would be restricted to those manual revisions currently listed in Table 1 of Pratt & Whitney Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) PW4G-100-A72-262 Revision No. 1, dated September 3, 2020.

The FAA disagrees with revising paragraph (g)(5) of this AD since this paragraph does not require use of a specific repair. Operators may use any approved repair to return the LPT case to a serviceable condition. The FAA did not change this AD.

Delta requested that the FAA revise paragraph (h)(1) of this AD to restrict the definition of “engine shop visit” to only those visits in which flanges H through P are separated. Delta reasoned that while the ASB clarifies that flanges H through P, as identified in the PW4168 Engine Manual, Chapter/Section 72-00-00 Engine General, Description/Operation-01, Figure 6, constitute “major mating engine flanges,” the proposed rule would require teardown of the LPT module in instances when one of the flanges forward of flange H was separated to perform minor repairs on the cold section of the engine.

The FAA agrees and has revised paragraph (h)(1) of this AD to define “an engine shop visit” as the induction of an engine into the shop for maintenance involving the separation of pairs of major mating engine flanges H through P.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, and any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

The FAA reviewed Pratt & Whitney ASB No. PW4G-100-A72-262, Revision No. 1, dated September 3, 2020. The ASB describes procedures for replacing the LPT 4th-stage air sealing ring segment assemblies and inspecting the LPT case for bulging. 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 99 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 repair or replacement that would be required based on the results of the inspection. The agency has no way of determining the number of engines that might need these repairs or 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 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:

Discussion

The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2019-0064R1, dated December 19, 2019 (EASA AD 2019-0064R1) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Helicopters Model AS332C, AS332C1, AS332L, and AS332L1 helicopters.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Helicopters Model AS332C, AS332C1, AS332L, and AS332L1 helicopters. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on October 7, 2020 (85 FR 63238). The NPRM was prompted by a report that the cabin lateral sliding plug door failed its emergency jettisoning test; subsequent investigation revealed that the jettison handle cable interfered with the cable clamps. The NPRM proposed to require modifying the release system of each cabin lateral sliding plug door, or modifying the design of the jettison system of each cabin lateral sliding plug door, as specified in EASA AD 2019-0064R1, which is incorporated by reference.

The FAA is issuing this AD to address this condition, which could lead to jamming of the door jettisoning mechanism, preventing the jettisoning of the affected door in an emergency situation, and possibly obstructing occupant evacuation. See the MCAI for additional background information.

The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The FAA has considered the comment received. The commenter indicated support for the NPRM.

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

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

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

EASA AD 2019-0064R1 describes, among other things, procedures for modifying the release system of each cabin lateral sliding plug door, or modifying the design of the jettison system of each cabin lateral sliding plug door.

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

EASA AD 2019-0064R1 specifies inspections of the jettisoning mechanism of the cabin lateral sliding plug doors and corrective actions. This AD does not include those actions. AD 2019-09-03, Amendment 39-19637 (84 FR 22693, May 20, 2019) (AD 2019-09-03) already requires those actions. The FAA has determined that this AD will only require the modification specified in EASA AD 2019-0064R1, which would then terminate the requirements of AD 2019-09-03.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 19 helicopters of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Department is issuing this final rule in response to two recently issued Executive orders. Executive Order (E.O.) 13992, “Revocation of Certain Executive Orders Concerning Federal Regulation” (January 20, 2021), revokes several executive orders that directed action by the Federal Government in the context of rulemaking, guidance, and regulatory enforcement. It also directs the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and heads of agencies to promptly take steps to rescind any orders, rules, regulations, guidelines, or policies, or portions thereof, implementing or enforcing any of the revoked orders, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law. E.O. 13990, “Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science To Tackle the Climate Crisis” (January 20, 2021), directs all executive departments and agencies to review immediately and, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, take action to address the promulgation of Federal regulations and other actions that conflict with the objectives stated in E.O. 13990.

On December 27, 2019, the Department published a final rule, “Administrative Rulemaking, Guidance, and Enforcement Procedures” (84 FR 71714), that codified at 49 CFR part 5 the Department's internal procedures relating to the review and clearance of rulemaking and guidance documents, as well as the initiation and conduct of enforcement actions. In accordance with 49 CFR 5.21, “Policy updates and revisions,” the Department has reviewed the amendments made to 49 CFR part 5 by that final rule to determine whether any revisions are necessary in light of E.O. 13992 and E.O. 13990.

Many of the policies and procedures codified at 49 CFR part 5 were prompted by Executive orders that have since been revoked by E.O. 13992. 1 As a result, the Department will rescind those policies and procedures, or portions thereof, that implemented or enforced any of the revoked orders. This final rule removes from 49 CFR part 5 those provisions that reflect revoked policies and procedures that are no longer in effect.

With respect to the provisions of 49 CFR part 5 that are not directly attributable to now-revoked executive orders, the Department has determined to rescind many of the other regulations promulgated on December 27, 2019, concerning rulemaking, guidance documents, and enforcement actions for four primary reasons. First, the Department has found that a majority of the provisions contained in 49 CFR part 5 not directly attributable to the now-revoked executive orders solely apply to the Department's internal operations and thus need not be codified in the Code of Federal Regulations. Second, the regulations found in 49 CFR part 5 are duplicative of existing procedures contained in internal departmental procedural directives. 2 Because these procedures are already contained in existing internal procedures, it is not necessary that they also be published in the Code of Federal Regulations in order for them to be effective. Third, with regard to the regulations on enforcement matters, many of these provisions are derived from the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and significant judicial decisions and thus need not be adopted by regulation in order to be effective. Application of the APA and these decisions to enforcement matters can be accomplished by internal directives as the Department deems necessary and appropriate. Therefore, 49 CFR part 5, subpart D—Enforcement Procedures is rescinded in its entirety. Fourth, removing these provisions from 49 CFR part 5 ensures that the Department is able to effectively and efficiently promulgate new Federal regulations and other actions to support the objectives stated in E.O. 13990.

The Code of Federal Regulations will continue to include those provisions that impact the public's ability to interact with the Department on rulemaking matters and activities. For example, the Department will maintain in 49 CFR part 5 procedures for the public to petition for rulemakings and exemptions. In addition to rulemakings and exemptions, the Department's procedures, as amended in 2019, explicitly provided for the public to petition for retrospective reviews of existing rules and the modification or rescission of guidance documents. While the Department is revising its petition procedures to remove references to retrospective reviews and guidance document petitions, the Department will nevertheless accept and process these types of petitions. The revised petition procedures thus define “rule” expansively, consistent with the APA, to ensure that the Department will continue to consider a broad range of requests from the public regarding our regulatory programs.

E.O. 13992 also directs agencies to take prompt action to rescind any rules or regulations, or portions thereof, implementing revoked Executive orders, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, that threaten to frustrate the Federal Government's ability to confront urgent challenges facing the Nation, including the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, economic recovery, racial justice, and climate change. The Department is reviewing its internal procedures ( e.g., DOT Order 2100.6) and will revise them accordingly. As a result, departmental internal procedures will be updated to reflect the call of E.O. 13992 to revoke those procedures that reflect outdated policy that could hamstring the Department's ability to respond quickly and effectively to the challenges facing our Nation.

This final rule also makes a number of conforming edits to the regulations of its subcomponent operating administrations to ensure that they are updated properly to reflect the repeal of certain provisions of 49 CFR part 5.

Under the Administrative Procedure Act, the normal notice and comment procedures do not apply to an action that is a rule of agency organization, procedure, or practice. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). Since this final rule revises only internal processes applicable to the Department's administrative procedures, this is a rule of agency procedure for which notice and comment are not required.

This rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. The Department does not anticipate that this rulemaking will have an economic impact on regulated entities. This is a rule of agency procedure and practice that does not change the Department's procedures in and of itself. This action merely removes duplicative regulations from the Code of Federal Regulations that would be better managed in departmental operating procedures.

Since notice and comment rulemaking is not necessary for this rule, the analytical provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, 5 U.S.C. 601-612) do not apply.

Executive Order 13132 requires agencies to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that may 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. This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (August 4, 1999), and DOT has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect or federalism implications on the States and would not preempt any State law or regulation or affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental functions. Therefore, consultation with the States is not necessary.

This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” Because this rulemaking does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of the Indian tribal governments or impose substantial direct compliance costs on them, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) requires that DOT consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public and, under the provisions of PRA section 3507(d), obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information it conducts, sponsors, or requires through regulations. The DOT has determined there are no new information collection requirements associated with this final rule.

The agency has analyzed the environmental impacts of this action pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and has determined that it is categorically excluded pursuant to DOT Order 5610.1C, “Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts” (44 FR 56420, October 1, 1979). Categorical exclusions are actions identified in an agency's NEPA implementing procedures that do not normally have a significant impact on the environment and therefore do not require either an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS). The purpose of this rulemaking is to update the Department's administrative procedures for rulemaking, guidance documents, and enforcement actions. The agency does not anticipate any environmental impacts, and there are no extraordinary circumstances present in connection with this rulemaking.

A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in the spring and fall of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross reference this action with the Unified Agenda.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Office of the Secretary of Transportation amends 14 CFR parts 302 and 399, and 49 CFR parts 1, 5, 7, 106, 389, 553, and 601, as follows:

I. Background A. Statutory Authority

Section 104(b)(1) of the CPSIA requires the Commission to assess the effectiveness of voluntary standards for durable infant or toddler products and adopt mandatory standards for these products. 15 U.S.C. 2056a(b)(1). The mandatory standard must be “substantially the same as” the voluntary standard, or it may be “more stringent than” the voluntary standard, if the Commission determines that more stringent requirements would further reduce the risk of injury associated with the product. Id.

Section 104(b)(4)(B) of the CPSIA specifies the process for when a voluntary standards organization revises a standard that the Commission incorporated by reference under section 104(b)(1). First, the voluntary standards organization must notify the Commission of the revision. Once the Commission receives this notification, the Commission may reject or accept the revised standard. The Commission may reject the revised standard by notifying the voluntary standards organization that it has determined that the revised standard does not improve the safety of the consumer product and that it is retaining the existing standard. When rejecting a revision, the Commission must notify the voluntary standards organization of this determination within 90 days of receiving notice of the revision. If the Commission does not take this action to reject the revised standard, the revised voluntary standard will be considered a consumer product safety standard issued under section 9 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2058), effective 180 days after the Commission received notification of the revision (or a later date specified by the Commission in the Federal Register ). 15 U.S.C. 2056a(b)(4)(B).

In June 2018, under section 104(b)(1) of the CPSIA, the Commission adopted a mandatory rule for high chairs, codified in 16 CFR part 1231. The rule incorporated by reference ASTM F404-18, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for High Chairs, without modification. 83 FR 28358 (June 19, 2018). At the time the Commission published the final rule, ASTM F404-18 was the current version of the voluntary standard.

On April 3, 2019, ASTM notified CPSC that it had issued a revised standard for high chairs, ASTM F404-18a, which added a new subsection 6.5.1 to exempt high chairs intended for infants who are unable to sit upright unassisted (birth to approximately 6 months of age) or weigh 20 lbs or less (reclined seat high chairs) from sections 6.5.2. Forward and Sideways Stability, 6.5.3. Rearward Stability, and 6.5.4 Stability with Child Climbing into Chair. In accordance with the procedures set out in section 104(b)(4)(B) of the CPSIA, staff reviewed the revised standard to determine whether ASTM F404-18a improved the safety of high chairs. Staff concluded that the addition of subsection 6.5.1 was a substantive change to ASTM F404-18 that did not improve the safety of high chairs.

In the June 5, 2019 staff briefing memorandum, staff explained that the stability requirements in ASTM F404-18 address stability as the child occupant moves within and about the chair, and from external forces on the chair, such as sibling or caregiver interactions. ASTM developed these stability requirements because high chairs are intended for use by mobile children, up to 3 years of age. ASTM's rationale for exempting reclined seat high chairs from stability requirements was that the test methods in ASTM F404-18 could not be conducted on these products, as required in the standard. Staff's briefing memorandum stated that ASTM's assertion that stability testing could not be done on reclined seat high chairs was inaccurate, because staff was able to test such products under the standard's existing stability requirements.

Staff's briefing memorandum also expressed concern that exempting high chairs and high chair accessories intended for children who are unable to sit upright unassisted (birth to approximately 6 months of age) from stability requirements was not consistent with other product standards that are intended for the same age group, such as bouncers and bassinets, which also are intended for young infants, but are tested to stability requirements to prevent tipovers. Tipover requirements in the bouncers and bassinets standards (16 CFR parts 1229 and 1218, respectively) are intended to address tipovers caused by the infant user moving within the product (bouncers), as well as external forces (bassinets), such as sibling or caregiver interactions with the product. Moreover, staff's review of high chair incident data showed that tipover incidents resulting from occupant movement within the high chair, or from external forces, such as a sibling or caregiver acting on the high chair, do occur with children 6 months and younger.

Based on staff's recommendation, the Commission voted not to adopt the revised voluntary standard and maintained the mandatory standard based on ASTM F404-18. 1 Staff notified ASTM of the Commission's decision to retain ASTM F404-18 on June 19, 2019.

On January 4, 2021, ASTM notified CPSC that it had again revised the voluntary standard for high chairs, approving ASTM F404-20 on October 1, 2020. 2 As this preamble discusses, based on CPSC staff's review of ASTM F404-20, 3 the Commission will allow the revised voluntary standard to become the mandatory standard because the revised requirements in the voluntary standard either improve the safety of high chairs, or are safety neutral. Accordingly, by operation of law under section 104(b)(4)(B) of the CPSIA, ASTM F404-20 will become the mandatory consumer product safety standard for high chairs on July 3, 2021. 4 15 U.S.C. 2056a(b)(4)(B). This direct final rule updates 16 CFR part 1231 to incorporate by reference the revised voluntary standard, ASTM F404-20.

The ASTM standard for high chairs includes performance requirements, test methods, and requirements for warning labels and instructional literature, to address hazards to infants and children associated with high chairs. ASTM has revised the voluntary standard for high chairs twice since ASTM F404-18, which is the current mandatory standard. Section I.B of this preamble explains that the Commission previously rejected a revised high chair voluntary standard, ASTM F404-18a, in 2019, because the standard exempted reclined seat high chair products from stability testing. The latest revision, ASTM F404-20, now includes stability testing for these products, developed in conjunction with CPSC staff. Accordingly, the Commission will allow ASTM F404-20 to become the mandatory standard, and is updating 16 CFR part 1231 to reference this most recent updated voluntary standard.

This section describes the changes in ASTM F404-20 compared to ASTM F404-18. On October 1, 2020, ASTM approved a revised version of the standard, ASTM F404-20. In accordance with CPSIA section 104(b)(4)(B), ASTM notified CPSC of this revision on January 4, 2021. ASTM F404-20 includes several substantive changes, several revisions to clarify existing requirements, and editorial revisions that do not alter substantive requirements in the standard or affect safety.

ASTM F404-20 contains substantive revisions from the current mandatory standard to distinguish performance requirements and test methods for two types of high chairs: (1) “[h]igh chairs and high chair accessories that have adjustment positions that, per the manufacturer's instructions, are recommended for use only for children able to sit upright unassisted (approximately 6 months of age) or weighing more than 20 lb (9.1 kg)” (hereinafter referred to as upright seat high chairs) and (2) “[h]igh chairs and high chair accessories that have adjustment positions that are manufacturer's recommended use positions for use with children who are unable to sit upright unassisted (birth to approximately 6 months of age) or weigh 20 lb (9.1 kg) or less, when adjusted into the most onerous manufacturer's recommended use and/or adjustment position for each direction to be tested” (hereinafter referred to as reclined seat high chairs). Primarily, ASTM F404-20 provides new performance requirements and associated test methods to test the stability of reclined seat high chairs.

CPSC staff worked closely with ASTM to help develop new stability testing requirements for reclined seat high chair products. In November 2018, CPSC staff tested six reclined seat high chair products to proposed stability requirements from a manufacturer who expressed concerns about the ability to test reclined seat high chairs. In March 2019, CPSC staff hosted an ASTM reclined seat high chair task group meeting at CPSC's laboratory in Rockville, Maryland, where staff demonstrated testing on reclined seat high chair products. The task group decided to explore the idea of using the stability test from the bassinet and cradle standard to develop stability requirements for reclined seat high chair products because this test addresses the tip over hazard that was most concerning to both ASTM and CPSC staff: The interaction of a sibling or caregiver pulling on the reclined seat product. The task group presented the idea of developing a test for reclined seat high chairs that is similar to the bassinet stability testing at the ASTM subcommittee teleconference on April 4, 2019. This idea ultimately was the basis of the new stability requirements for reclined seat products in ASTM F404-20.

Substantively, ASTM F404-20 improves the safety of high chairs because it adds a new stability requirement and test method for reclined seat high chairs. Table 1 below summarizes the differences between ASTM-F404-18 and ASTM F404-20 with regard to stability testing in section 6.5 of ASTM F404 (changes are highlighted in bold).

ASTM F404-18 requires testing a high chair for stability in the forward, rearward, and sideways directions, requiring that the chair not tip over as the child occupant, up to 3 years of age, moves within the chair. Because this test was intended for upright seat high chairs designed for children up to 3 years old, the test places a total of 40-lb weights (two 20-lb weights), to simulate the weight of a 95th percentile 36-month-old, on the seat of the high chair to simulate a child in the seat, which acts as a counter-balance when horizontal forces are applied in the forward, rearward and sideways directions. The forces applied are designed to simulate the forces that the child occupant would exert on the high chair by moving within the seat of the product.

For reclined seat high chairs, the ASTM subcommittee concluded that this stability testing developed for upright seat high chairs was inadequate, because the child's counter-balance load is different, based on the intended weight range for reclined seat products. Stability testing for upright seat high chairs uses a 40-lb counter-balance weight, because the weight range is for children weighing more than 20 lbs. This 40-lb counter-balance weight would not effectively test the stability of reclined seat high chair products that are intended for lower-weight infants from birth (~7 lb) to 20 lbs, because a 40-lb counter-balance weight would make the reclined seat high chair product more stable than a 20-lb counter-balance weight. A 20 lb counter-balance weight is a more stringent weight to test stability for high chairs intended for lower weight children. Moreover, the seat recline affects both the seat back and the seat bottom, causing the center of mass to be distributed differently than with an upright seat high chair. Weight distribution in reclined seat high chairs is more towards the seat back, whereas weight distribution in upright seat high chairs is more towards the seat bottom. Finally, due to the inclined seat design, test engineers had difficulty placing the 40 lb test weight in the seat to conduct stability testing.

Because of these design differences, ASTM developed a new testing methodology for reclined seat high chairs, in collaboration with CPSC staff. After evaluating several test methods, the task group decided that the stability testing from the bassinet standard was most appropriate to test reclined seat high chairs. Instead of using a weight to simulate a child as a counter-balance in the seat, the new stability test uses a CAMI Newborn Dummy (7.5 lb). The anthropomorphic CAMI Newborn Dummy better fits the reclined seat, and the weight is better distributed within the high chair than with the barbell type weights used to test upright seat high chairs. Also, the test engineer can more easily locate the points on the reclined seat high chair to place the loads around the chair. Using the CAMI Newborn Dummy instead of weights resulted in more repeatable and consistent test results.

Given that reclined seat high chairs are designed for infants in a lower age/weight range (birth to 20 lbs), who have limited moving capabilities, these infants are unlikely to create instability issues by themselves. Instead, instability for reclined seat high chair products would likely come from external sources ( e.g., caregivers bumping into the chair and/or siblings pulling on the chair). Accordingly, for reclined seat products, the new stability test method in section 7.7.3 of ASTM F404-20 adopts stability requirements and testing from the bassinet standard, ASTM F2194-16e1, which was designed to test siblings interacting with the product. Section 7.4 of ASTM F404-20 uses the CAMI Newborn Dummy as the counter-balance weight in the reclined seat high chair to simulate external forces that may tip the product over, such as a sibling pulling down on the edge of the product. This test employs a dual application of horizontal and vertical forces to simulate application of an angled load; the combination of the weights and forces in the testing simulate the mean strength of a 2-year-old pulling on the product.

Following is a description of each new stability test method for reclined seat high chair products:

• 7.7.3.4  Forward Stability, requires that a 23-lb weight be hung onto the forward-most edge of the high chair seat or tray. The high chair must not tip over while this load is maintained, and then a horizontal force of 5 lb is applied outward from the center of the seat, at the same location as the 23-lb weight.

• 7.7.3.5  Rearward Stability, requires that a 23-lb weight be hung onto the rearmost edge of the seat. The high chair must not tip over while this load is maintained, and then a horizontal force of 5 lb is applied outward from the center of the seat, at the same location as the 23-lb weight.

• 7.7.3.6  Sideways Stability, requires that a 23-lb weight be hung onto the outermost point of the frame on the side being tested. The high chair must not tip over while this load is maintained and then a horizontal force of 5 lb is applied from the center of the seat, at the location as the 23-lb weight.

The Commission concludes that new stability performance and test methods for reclined seat high chairs improve the safety of high chairs, because these tests are designed to address tipover hazards associated with infant users moving within the product and external forces like a sibling or caregiver interacting with the product. Additionally, use of the 7.5-lb CAMI Newborn Dummy provides a more stringent test for the tipover hazard. The test is more stringent because a lighter weight provides less of a counter-balance in assessing external forces acting on the reclined seat high chair products than the heavier 40-lb weight used to test upright seat high chairs intended for children up to 3 years old.

ASTM F404-18, the current mandatory standard, requires a static load test for high chair seats. The test requires the high chair seat to support static loads without causing any hazardous conditions, such as collapsing or breaking.

ASTM F404-20 splits into two parts section 7.6.1 Seat Static Load Test to separate the test method intended for upright seat high chairs in section 7.6.1.1, from a new test method intended for reclined seat high chairs in section 7.6.1.2. Separating test requirements by product type allows for static load testing requirements based on the weight of the child the seat was intended to hold. Accordingly, section 7.6.1.2 of ASTM F404-20, for reclined seat high chairs, uses half the test weight compared to section 7.6.1.1, for upright seat high chairs, to test for collapse (50 lbs applied over 60 seconds, compared to 100 lbs applied over 60 seconds in section 7.6.1.1).

The rationale for the 100-lb load for the upright seat high chair static load test is that it represents 2.5 times that of the maximum occupant's weight of 40 lbs. The test weight for reclined seat high chairs in section 7.6.1.2 follows this same rationale, using a 50-lb load weight, which is 2.5 times the maximum occupant's weight of 20 lbs. Lowering the static load test weight for products intended for lower-weight occupants provides the same level of safety for both upright and reclined seat high chairs, because the respective weights represent the maximum intended occupant weights for each product type. Accordingly, because both types of high chairs in section 7.6.1 use the same weight ratio to test the static load, this change is neutral to the safety of high chairs.

The current mandatory standard, ASTM F404-18, requires that a step or footrest shall support static loads without causing any hazardous conditions, such as collapsing and breaking. This step/footrest static load test is designed to test that the step/foot rest of the high chair will not collapse under the weight of the child climbing into the high chair. Section 7.6.2 Step/Footrest Static Load Test of ASTM F404-20 has a new section, 7.6.2.1, which exempts high chairs intended for children weighing less than 20 lbs from the step/footrest static load testing requirement, because infants who weigh less than 20 lbs would not be mobile enough to climb into the high chair using the step/footrest. Staff states that they are unaware of any incidents involving step/footrest collapse with children who weigh less than 20 lbs, meaning children 6 months old or younger. Based on this analysis, the Commission concludes that this change is neutral to the safety of high chairs.

Currently, in ASTM F404-18, the intent of the tray static load test is to ensure that a high chair tray does not collapse under the weight of the child occupant if placed there temporarily while the caregiver is putting the child into the high chair. ASTM F404-20, section 7.6.3 Tray Static Load Test, separates the tray static load test into two parts: Section 7.6.3.1 describes testing high chairs intended for children weighing more than 20 lbs (9 kg), and section 7.6.3.2 describes testing high chairs intended for children weighing 20 lbs or less. Because high chairs intended for infants who weigh 20 lbs or less would have less of a static load to cause collapse of the high chair tray, section 7.6.3.2 uses half the test weight of the tray static load test for high chairs intended for children who weight more than 20 lbs (25 lbs applied over 60 seconds, compared to 50 lbs applied over 60 seconds in section 7.6.3.1).

As with the high chair seat static load testing, ASTM F404-20 requires that both types of high chairs be tested to the same level of safety, because load testing is adjusted based on the maximum weight of the child occupant. Accordingly, this change is neutral to the safety of high chairs because differentiating the tray static load test based on the weight of the intended child occupant does not reduce the level of safety for high chair products.

ASTM F404-18 requires that all high chairs meet a dynamic high chair test, which is intended to address the collapse of a high chair when an older child (up to 3 years old) bounces up and down in the chair. Section 7.10.1 of ASTM F404-20 adds an exemption from this test for high chairs intended for use with children weighing 20 lbs or less. ASTM's rationale for the exemption is that lower weight users of the product will not be mobile enough to bounce significantly in the high chair, or bear enough weight to cause the high chair to collapse. Staff is unaware of incidents of high chair collapse due to lower weight children, 6 months old and younger, bouncing in the product. Accordingly, this change is neutral to the safety of high chairs, because exemption of high chairs intended for children weighing 20 lbs or less from dynamic testing is unlikely to reduce the level of safety for these products, given that these high chairs are intended for use by infants with limited mobility.

ASTM F404-20 also includes minor additions and revisions that are editorial and do not alter any substantive requirements in the standard. Because they do not change any substantive requirements, these revisions are neutral regarding the safety of high chairs.

Section 2 of ASTM F404-20 lists other standards referenced in F404. Section 2.3 of ASTM F404-20, ANSI standards, was revised to include a reference to ANSI Z535.1 Safety Colors. This revision was made to be consistent with other ASTM standards that reference the ANSI standard for safety colors for use in distinguishing warning labels. Additionally, section 2.4 of ASTM F404-20, Other references, adds a reference to new test equipment, the CAMI Infant Dummy Mark II and the CAMI Newborn Dummy, which are used in the new stability testing for reclined seat high chair products. Staff considers these changes to be neutral to the safety of high chairs, because they are editorial in nature and do not substantively alter requirements in the standard.

Section 3.1.7.2 of ASTM F404-20, Discussion, includes a new note stating that a product that has an elevated seat and is designed or promoted for eating and feeding, or shown near a dining table would be considered within the scope of the high chair standard. Staff considers this change to be neutral to the safety of high chairs, because it provides further discussion on the definition of “high chairs,” but does not alter the definition, nor change the scope of the standard.

Other changes in Terminology include changing the term “free standing” to “free-standing,” and in section 3.1.21, revising the definition of “static load,” as follows:

3.1.21  static load, n —vertically downward force load applied by a calibrated force gauge or by dead weights. weights or other means.

These changes in terminology are neutral to the safety of high chairs because they are editorial in nature and do not substantively alter the definitions.

ASTM made a few editorial changes to the sections of ASTM F404-20 on calibrations and standardizations, general requirements, and performance requirements, to clarify provisions and to be consistent with other ASTM standards. For example, ASTM made editorial changes such as revising “0.210 in (5 mm)” to “0.210-in (5-mm).” These revisions are neutral to the safety of high chairs, because they do not substantively alter the requirements in these sections.

Section 1231.2 of the direct final rule incorporates by reference ASTM F404-20. The Office of the Federal Register (OFR) has regulations regarding incorporation by reference. 1 CFR part 51. Under these regulations, agencies must discuss, in the preamble to a final rule, ways in which the material the agency incorporates by reference is reasonably available to interested parties, and how interested parties can obtain the material. In addition, the preamble to the final rule must summarize the material. 1 CFR 51.5(b).

In accordance with the OFR regulations, section II. Description of ASTM F404-20 of this preamble summarizes the major provisions of ASTM F404-20 that the Commission incorporates by reference into 16 CFR part 1231. The standard is reasonably available to interested parties and interested parties can purchase a copy of ASTM F404-20 from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959 USA; phone; 610-832-9585; www.astm.org. Additionally, until the direct final rule takes effect, a read-only copy of ASTM F404-20 is available for viewing on ASTM's website at: https://www.astm.org/CPSC.htm. Once the rule takes effect, a read-only copy of the standard will be available for viewing on the ASTM website at: https://www.astm.org/READINGLIBRARY/. Interested parties can also schedule an appointment to inspect a copy of the standard at CPSC's Division of the Secretariat, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, telephone: 301-504-7479; email: cpsc-os@cpsc.gov.

Section 14(a) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA; 15 U.S.C. 2051-2089) requires manufacturers of products subject to a consumer product safety rule under the CPSA, or to a similar rule, ban, standard, or regulation under any other act enforced by the Commission, to certify that the products comply with all applicable CPSC requirements. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a). Such certification must be based on a test of each product, or on a reasonable testing program, or, for children's products, on tests of a sufficient number of samples by a third party conformity assessment body accredited by CPSC to test according to the applicable requirements. As noted, standards issued under section 104(b)(1)(B) of the CPSIA are “consumer product safety standards.” Thus, they are subject to the testing and certification requirements of section 14 of the CPSA.

Because high chairs are children's products, a CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment body must test samples of the products for compliance with part 1231. Products subject to part 1231 also must comply with all other applicable CPSC requirements, such as the lead content requirements in section 101 of the CPSIA, 5 the phthalates prohibitions in section 108 of the CPSIA  6 and 16 CFR part 1307, the tracking label requirements in section 14(a)(5) of the CPSA, 7 and the consumer registration form requirements in section 104(d) of the CPSIA. 8

In accordance with section 14(a)(3)(B)(iv) of the CPSIA, the Commission previously published a notice of requirements (NOR) for accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies (third party labs) for testing high chairs, and codified the requirement at 16 CFR § 1112.15(b)(44). 83 FR at 28368-70. The NOR provided the criteria and process for CPSC to accept accreditation of third party labs for testing high chairs to 16 CFR part 1231. Id. The Commission codified NORs for all mandatory standards for durable infant or toddler products in “Requirements Pertaining to Third Party Conformity Assessment Bodies,” 16 CFR part 1112.

ASTM F404-20 includes new stability requirements for testing reclined seat high chairs. We note that the current mandatory standard based on ASTM F404-18 already requires stability testing for high chairs intended for children up to 3 years old, such that the Commission considers third party labs that are currently CPSC-accepted for 16 CFR part 1231 have demonstrated competence for the new stability testing for reclined seat high chairs in ASTM F404-20.

Additional testing requirements for reclined seat high chair products in ASTM F404-20, however, introduce test equipment previously not required in testing to ASTM F404-18, specifically, a 23-lb weight, and a CAMI Newborn Dummy. Similar stability testing, with similar weights and the CAMI Newborn Dummy, are also required in testing to the mandatory standard for bassinets and cradles, 16 CFR part 1218, based on ASTM F2194-16e1. Additionally, the CAMI Newborn Dummy is required test equipment for the mandatory standard for hand-held infant carriers, 16 CFR part 1225, based on ASTM F2050-16. Currently, 19 third party labs are CPSC-accepted to test to the Safety Standard for High Chairs, and 17 of these 19 third party labs are also CPSC-accepted to test to part 1218 and/or part 1225. Accordingly, only two of the 19 third party labs will likely have to source new test materials to test to ASTM F404-20.

Based on experience purchasing test equipment, these two third party labs, one in Singapore and one in Taiwan, should be able to purchase the necessary weights, as these weights can be as simple as gym/barbell weights or even weight bags. Additionally, staff advises that the CAMI Newborn Dummy is available from at least three sources globally. Because the effective date of the revised high chair standard is July 3, 2021, these two third party labs have sufficient time to acquire the necessary test equipment.

Third party labs will begin testing to the new standard when ASTM F404-20 goes into effect on July 3, 2021, and the existing accreditations that the Commission has accepted for testing to this standard will cover testing to the revised standard. Accordingly, the existing NOR for the Safety Standard for High Chairs will remain in place, and CPSC-accepted third party labs are expected to update the scope of the third party lab's accreditations to reflect the revised high chair standard in the normal course of renewing their accreditations.

The Commission is issuing this rule as a direct final rule. Although the Administrative Procedure Act (APA; 5 U.S.C. 551-559) generally requires agencies to provide notice of a rule and an opportunity for interested parties to comment on it, section 553 of the APA provides an exception when the agency, “for good cause finds” that notice and comment are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Id. 553(b)(B). The Commission concludes that when it updates a reference to an ASTM standard that the Commission incorporated by reference under section 104(b) of the CPSIA, notice and comment are not necessary.

Under the process set out in section 104(b)(4)(B) of the CPSIA, when ASTM revises a standard that the Commission has previously incorporated by reference under section 104(b)(1)(B) of the CPSIA, that revision will become the new CPSC standard, unless the Commission determines that ASTM's revision does not improve the safety of the product. Thus, unless the Commission makes such a determination, the ASTM revision becomes CPSC's standard by operation of law. The Commission is allowing ASTM F404-20 to become CPSC's new standard. The purpose of this direct final rule is to update the reference in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) so that it reflects the version of the standard that takes effect by statute. This rule updates the reference in the CFR, but under the terms of the CPSIA, ASTM F404-20 takes effect as the new CPSC standard for high chairs, even if the Commission does not issue this rule. Thus, public comments would not alter substantive changes to the standard or the effect of the revised standard as a consumer product safety rule under section 104(b) of the CPSIA. Under these circumstances, notice and comment are unnecessary.

In Recommendation 95-4, the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) endorses direct final rulemaking as an appropriate procedure to expedite rules that are noncontroversial and that are not expected to generate significant adverse comments. See 60 FR 43108 (Aug. 18, 1995). ACUS recommends that agencies use the direct final rule process when they act under the “unnecessary” prong of the good cause exemption in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). Consistent with the ACUS recommendation, the Commission is publishing this rule as a direct final rule, because CPSC does not expect any significant adverse comments.

Unless CPSC receives a significant adverse comment within 30 days of this notification, the rule will become effective on July 3, 2021. In accordance with ACUS's recommendation, the Commission considers a significant adverse comment to be “one where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate,” including an assertion challenging “the rule's underlying premise or approach,” or a claim that the rule “would be ineffective or unacceptable without change.” 60 FR 43108, 43111. As noted, this rule merely updates a reference in the CFR to reflect a change that occurs by statute.

If the Commission receives a significant adverse comment, the Commission will withdraw this direct final rule. Depending on the comment and other circumstances, the Commission may then incorporate the adverse comment into a subsequent direct final rule or publish a notice of proposed rulemaking, providing an opportunity for public comment.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601-612) generally requires agencies to review proposed and final rules for their potential economic impact on small entities, including small businesses, and prepare regulatory flexibility analyses. 5 U.S.C. 603, 604. The RFA applies to any rule that is subject to notice and comment procedures under section 553 of the APA. Id. As discussed in section VI. Direct Final Rule Process of this preamble, the Commission has determined that notice and the opportunity to comment are unnecessary for this rule. Therefore, the RFA does not apply. The Commission also notes the limited nature of this document, which merely updates the incorporation by reference to reflect the mandatory CPSC standard that takes effect under section 104 of the CPSIA.

The current mandatory standard for high chairs includes requirements for marking, labeling, and instructional literature that constitute a “collection of information,” as defined in the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The revised mandatory standard for high chairs does not alter these requirements. The Commission took the steps required by the PRA for information collections when it adopted 16 CFR part 1231, including obtaining approval and a control number. Because the information collection is unchanged, the revision does not affect the information collection requirements or approval related to the standard.

The Commission's regulations provide a categorical exclusion for the Commission's rules from any requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement where they “have little or no potential for affecting the human environment.” 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(2). This rule falls within the categorical exclusion, so no environmental assessment or environmental impact statement is required.

Section 26(a) of the CPSA provides that where a consumer product safety standard is in effect and applies to a product, no state or political subdivision of a state may either establish or continue in effect a requirement dealing with the same risk of injury unless the state requirement is identical to the Federal standard. 15 U.S.C. 2075(a). Section 26(c) of the CPSA also provides that states or political subdivisions of states may apply to CPSC for an exemption from this preemption under certain circumstances. Section 104(b) of the CPSIA deems rules issued under that provision “consumer product safety standards.” Therefore, once a rule issued under section 104 of the CPSIA takes effect, it will preempt in accordance with section 26(a) of the CPSA.

Under the procedure set forth in section 104(b)(4)(B) of the CPSIA, when a voluntary standards organization revises a standard that the Commission adopted as a mandatory standard, the revision becomes the CPSC standard within 180 days of notification to the Commission, unless the Commission determines that the revision does not improve the safety of the product, or the Commission sets a later date in the Federal Register . 15 U.S.C. 2056a(b)(4)(B). The Commission is taking neither of those actions with respect to the revised standard for high chairs. Therefore, ASTM F404-20 automatically will take effect as the new mandatory standard for high chairs on July 3, 2021, 180 days after the Commission received notice of the revision on January 4, 2021. As a direct final rule, unless the Commission receives a significant adverse comment within 30 days of this document, the rule will become effective on July 3, 2021.

The Congressional Review Act (CRA; 5 U.S.C. 801-808) states that before a rule may take effect, the agency issuing the rule must submit the rule, and certain related information, to each House of Congress and the Comptroller General. 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1). The CRA submission must indicate whether the rule is a “major rule.” The CRA states that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) determines whether a rule qualifies as a “major rule.”

Pursuant to the CRA, this rule does not qualify as a “major rule,” as defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(2). To comply with the CRA, CPSC will submit the required information to each House of Congress and the Comptroller General.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Commission amends 16 CFR chapter II as follows:

The Community Forest Program is authorized by Section 8003 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-246; 122 Stat. 2043). On October 20, 2011, the Forest Service issued regulations (36 CFR part 230, subpart A) implementing the program. After selecting and awarding the first round of grants under the current 36 CFR part 230, subpart A, the Agency identified some inconsistencies and inefficiencies in the regulation that hinders the Agency's ability to efficiently and effectively implement the program.

One of the critical inconsistencies can be found in § 230.8, which specifies the acquisition requirements for this program. Section 230.8(a)(5) lists the documents and statements that must be recorded with the deed as part of the Notice of Grant Requirement. It states that, “. . . the grant recipient will not convey or encumber the interest in real property, in whole or in part, to another party . . .”. This language is more restrictive than necessary and inconsistent with the grant assurances (OPM Form 424D), which allows a grant recipient to convey or encumber the interest in real property with prior approval from the granting Agency. Furthermore, the restrictive language prevents eligible entities from using funding mechanisms that require establishment of a conservation easement, even though this arrangement could be compatible with Community Forest Program requirements. This provision also prevents the transfer of ownership interest in a Community Forest to another eligible entity if the original owner becomes unable to hold or maintain the parcel.

Additionally, the Agency seeks to reduce the burden of paperwork and information collections on applicants. Currently, the Agency requests an eight-page application, a map of the parcel in question, all forms required for issuance of a Federal grant, and a draft community forest plan. The current application process is overly burdensome, and all elements of the current process are not necessary to ensure the selection of high-quality community forest projects that meet the intent of the program.

The Agency also seeks to clarify definitions and refine provisions regarding the use of technical assistance funds. The language clarifies how technical assistance should be determined and requested. Some of the definitions in the current regulation are unclear and confuse the intent of the program. The Agency seeks to provide clarification and reduce the amount of confusion caused by the unclear definitions.

Lastly, the Agency is eliminating the separate cost share and grant requirements for non-profit organizations, Tribal governments, and local governments in (§§ 230.6(c) and 230.7(a)(2)). The Agency will follow the guidance outlined in the OMB Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Assistances (2 CFR part 400).

The Forest Service is revising this regulation to correct inconsistencies and inefficiencies, to clarify confusing language, reduce the paperwork collection burden for applicants, and to update grant requirements to comply with grant regulations and OMB circulars. These changes will help ensure that the regulations align with the intent and purposes of the authorizing legislation.

Project grants are subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and must comply with the Agency's NEPA implementing procedures as described in 36 CFR part 220, as well as the Council on Environmental Quality's NEPA procedures at 40 CFR parts 1500-1508. Community Forest Program grants are used to transfer title and ownership of private lands to third parties and will not fund any ground-disturbing activities. The Forest Service has concluded that Community Forest Program grants fall under the categorical exclusion provided in the Forest Service's NEPA procedures for “acquisition of land or interest in land” 36 CFR 220.6(d)(6); 73 FR 43084 (July 24, 2008). As a result, Community Forest Program project grants are excluded from documentation in an environmental assessment or impact statement.

The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policy Act of 1970 (“Uniform Act”) (42 U.S.C. 4601, et. seq.) provides guidance and procedures for the acquisition of real property by the Federal Government, including relocation benefits to displaced persons. Department of Transportation regulations implementing the Uniform Act (49 CFR part 24) have been adopted by the Department of Agriculture (7 CFR part 21). However, the Community Forest Program is deemed exempt from the Uniform Act because it meets the exemption criteria stated at 49 CFR 24.101(b)(1).

Section 7A(c)(4) of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act (16 U.S.C. 2103d(c)(4)), requires that land acquired under Community Forest Program be appraised in accordance with the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions (Federal Appraisal Standards) in order to determine the non-Federal cost share of a parcel of privately-owned forest land. The Federal Appraisal Standards are contained in a readily available public document, which is well known to professional appraisers (see: https://www.justice.gov/file/408306/download ). A grant recipient is responsible for assuring that the appraisal of the Community Forest Program tract is done in conformance with the Federal Appraisal Standards. The Federal Appraisal Standards shall be used to determine reimbursement for non-Federal cost share. However, separate tracts donated for the purpose of providing the non-Federal cost share may be appraised using the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) or the IRS regulations for a donation in land. The Forest Service may be available to assist applicants with the appraisal and associated appraisal review and will conduct spot checks to assure compliance with Federal Appraisal Standards.

Indian Tribes were invited to government-to-government consultation (consultation) on the CFP proposed rule prior to review and comment by the general public. The consultation process was initiated September 29, 2015. The Deputy Chief for State and Private Forestry sent a letter to the Forest Service regional leadership requesting that they initiate consultation with federally recognized Tribes. Each unit then initiated consultation with Indian Tribes, providing them with information about the CFP, the proposed rule, how to request government-to government consultation, and where to send comments. Consultation concluded September 30, 2016. Forest Service incorporated the input received through consultation and the public comment process into the development of this final rule.

Comment: A definition of cultural resources should be included in the regulation. A simple reference to “cultural resources” will have varying meanings to the different eligible entities involved with a Community Forest Plan. If a definition is not included, a reference to consideration of Traditional Cultural Places/Properties (TCPs) should be provided. TCPs play an important role in Tribal community traditions, beliefs and activities and thus need to be protected.

Response: The final rule includes additional language to clarify the meaning of cultural resources to include tangible and intangible resources.

Comment: Section 230.2 Definition: Expand the definition of item 2 to expressly refer to “Indian Trust Assets” (ITAs) and “non-trust Indian lands”. ITAs are defined in the implementation regulations for Public Law 93-638 as an interest in land, water, minerals, funds or other assets or property which is held by the United States in trust for an Indian Tribe or an individual Indian or which is held by an Indian Tribe or Indian subject to a restriction on alienation impacted by the United States (25 CFR 900.6). A simple reference to “lands held in trust by the United States” will have varying meanings to the different eligible entities involved in the development of a proposed Community Forest Plan.

Response: The final rule expressly refers to Indian reservations and allotment land when defining eligible and non-eligible lands. Since ITAs are defined as “. . . an interest in land, water, minerals, funds or other assets or property . . .” this would not be applicable in determining if the land was eligible or non-eligible for the Community Forest Program; no change made to final rule.

Comment: Provide clarity that it is the governing body of the Indian Tribe that designates or authorizes an individual to represent the Tribe.

Response: Clarifying language was added to the definition for Equivalent officials of Indian Tribes in the final rule.

On December 8, 2015, the Forest Service published in the Federal Register (80 FR 76251) a proposed rule revision to allow Community Forest and Open Space Program grant recipients to issue conservation easements to funding entities, convey or encumber an interest in community forest land to other eligible entities, clarify program-specific terms, streamline the application process, and implement the Office of Management and Budget's Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (2 CFR parts 200 and 400).

The Forest Service solicited comments on the proposed rule for 90 days ending March 7, 2016. The Forest Service received comments from ten individuals contributing 32 total comments, overwhelmingly in favor of the rule revision, with a few suggestions for clarification and one party opposed with comments not germane to the rule. One response was from an individual member of the public, two respondents represented local municipalities, two responses were from regional coalitions, four respondents were regional representatives of national non-profit organizations, and one response was received from a Forest Service regional program manager. Responses from Indian Tribes, the agencies that work with them and government-to-government consultations were also received and analyzed separately (see Government-to-Government Consultation with Indian Tribes above and Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes in Regulatory Certification).

Comments in favor: Two commenters commended the Agency on its flexibility in allowing conveyances of land holdings should the need arise.

Comments in favor: Three commenters commended the Forest Service for including the addition of “cultural resources” to the definition of “environmental benefits.” It helps promote the range of resource values that CFP is helping to protect.

Comments suggesting modifications: Two commenters requested that the Forest Service clarify the range of permissible commercial activities on a community forest. As currently read, the exception for “compatible commercial uses” is not specific beyond its description as “limited.”

Agency Response: The rule is not intended to be unnecessarily prescriptive. Future commercial uses could arise that may be reasonable, and the language as written allows for a future dialogue between a grant recipient and the Forest Service rather than excluding them prescriptively without deliberation. The Agency determined that the language as written provides reasonable guidelines for a discussion of compatible uses, so long as those uses do not conflict with the community values provided by the community forest.

Comments in favor: Nine commenters expressed favor that the revised rule would allow for the draft plan to be submitted only after a project has been selected and a grant awarded. This is a common-sense change that will reduce the administrative burden for CFP applicants, and will not reduce the number of high-quality project applications.

Comments suggesting modifications: Requesting that the Agency provide clarity with respect to the prohibition on the use of “other Federal funds unless specifically authorized by Federal statute.” To the extent practicable, the Agency should clarify that the Gulf Coast Restoration Trust Fund and the Department of Defense Readiness and Environmental Protection Program are eligible as non-Federal cost share for the purposes of the Community Forest Program.

Agency Response: If law, or regulations promulgated to implement a law, indicate that Federal funds may be treated as non-Federal, the Community Forest Program will adhere to that direction. The Agency is not in a position to make explicit determinations on the nature of all possible funding mechanisms contributed for cost-share. Therefore, leaving the language in its current form allows program managers to follow existing law and policy while retaining the opportunity to evaluate emerging situations and opportunities.

Comments in favor: Seven commenters in favor of the proposed revision would amend existing regulations to allow encumbrances on the land, as long as they are not contrary to the purposes of the program. This is a change from the current language, which states that grant recipients may not “encumber the interest in real property, in whole or in part, to another party.” This revision is a common-sense change that will make it easier to develop partnerships in acquiring and managing community forests and ultimately broaden participation in the program.

Comments suggesting modifications: The Forest Service should require a new Notice of Grant Requirement be recorded if an eligible transfer to another entity occurs.

Agency Response: The Forest Service agrees with this suggestion and has expanded upon the language to ensure that any new entity receiving the community forest land holdings will subsume all responsibilities required of the original grant recipient. The language has also been modified to reflect the need to document land conveyances through a new Notice of Grant Requirement.

Comments suggesting modifications: Four commenters suggested the revised rule states that a community forest plan be submitted within 120 days of the acquisition and periodically updated to guide the management and use of the forest. We request that the deadline for submitting a plan be extended past the 120-day limit. We expect that in many cases, the 120 day deadline will be more than enough to gather feedback to draft a community forest plan. However, in such instances where more input is needed, an extension to the deadline would be useful in order to ensure meaningful public input.

Agency Response: The Agency maintains that the 120-day deadline should remain in order to encourage timely deliberation and efficient communication between stakeholders. In order to provide appropriate flexibility to address unforeseen circumstances, the Forest Service has modified the rule to ensure that regional managers have the discretion to extend the planning process for an additional 60 days if there is sufficient justification for why the deadline cannot be met.

Comment: The Forest Service should provide greater clarification regarding the “periodic updating” of the plan. It should be clearer how often the plan should be updated, and what elements of the plan need updating.

Agency Response: The Agency concurs with this suggestion, and has modified the language to require periodic updating of the community forest plan in the event of new threats of encroachment, significant changes to forest health threats requiring alterations in proposed treatments, or when a significant lapse in time has occurred since the initial plan was created.

Comment: “Grant recipients” should be replaced with “Community Forest Holders/Owners”. If an allowed transfer to another eligible entity occurs, the owner of the community forest is no longer the Grant Recipient. This could make the initial grantee ineligible for future funding opportunities through the program.

Agency Response: The Agency has modified the language to clarify that if lands are conveyed voluntarily by a recipient who had adhered to the stipulations of both the grant agreement and the Agency instructions for conveyance as outlined in the rule and grant agreement, then that original grant recipient would be eligible for future program funding.

Comments suggesting modifications: As written, the rule requires State Foresters or equivalent officials of Indian Tribes to indicate the financial need and purpose of technical assistance in their Community Forest application. Because the application comes from the eligible entity and not the state, the commenter suggests amending the language to assert that financial need and purpose should be indicated “in the project budget and formally requested by the State when forwarding the applications received by the applicants to the Forest Service.”

Agency Response: The Agency emphasizes coordination between the grant applicant and the State or Tribal representative to ensure that technical assistance needs are already adequately characterized in the budget. Section 230.3 clearly requires that the State Forester or equivalent official must clarify technical assistance funding needs for any services rendered upon submission of the application to the Forest Service.

This final rule has been reviewed under USDA procedures and Executive Order 12866. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this rule is non-significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

This final rule does not regulate the private use of land or the conduct of business. It is a grant program for local governments, Tribal governments, and qualified nonprofit organizations for purposes of acquiring land for resource conservation and open space preservation. By providing funding to eligible entities for land acquisition, the Federal Government will promote the non-monetary benefits of sustainable forest management. These benefits include: Improved air and water quality, wildlife and fish habitat, forest-based educational programs including vocational education programs in forestry, replicable models of effective forest stewardship for private landowners, open space preservation, carbon sequestration, and enhanced recreational opportunities including hunting and fishing.

This final rule has been considered in light of Executive Order 13272 regarding property considerations of small entities and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. Voluntary participation in the Community Forest Program does not impose significant direct costs on small entities. This final rule imposes no additional requirements on the affected public. Entities most likely affected by this final rule are the local governments, qualified nonprofit organizations, and Tribal governments eligible to receive a grant through the Community Forest Program. The minimum requirements imposed on small entities by this final rule are necessary to protect the public interest and should be within the capabilities of small entities to perform, and should not be administratively burdensome or costly to meet. The final rule would not materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of program participants. It does not compel the expenditure of $100 million or more by any State, local or Indian Tribal government, or anyone in the private sector. Under these circumstances, the Forest Service has determined that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), which the President signed into law on March 22, 1995, the Agency has assessed the effects of this rule on State, local, and Indian Tribal governments and the private sector. This final rule does not compel the expenditure of $100 million or more by any State, local or Indian Tribal governments, or anyone in the private sector. Therefore, a statement under section 202 of that Act is not required.

The Forest Service has considered this final rule under the requirements of Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and Executive Order 12875, Government Partnerships. The Forest Service has determined that the rule conforms to the federalism principles set out in these Executive orders. The rule would not impose any compliance costs on the States other than those imposed by statute, and would not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 [44 U.S.C. Chapter 35], the Forest Service requested and received an approval of an extension without change of a currently approved information collection.

Title: Community Forest and Open Space Conservation Program.

OMB Number: 0596-0227.

Expiration Date of Approval: 12/31/2021.

Type of Request: Revision of a Currently Approved Information Collection.

Abstract: The purpose of Community Forest Program is to achieve community benefits through grants to local governments, Tribal Governments, and qualified nonprofit organizations to establish community forests by acquiring and protecting private forestlands. This rule includes information requirements necessary to implement the Community Forest Program and comply with grants regulations and OMB Circulars. The information requirements will be used to help the Forest Service:

(1) Determine that the applicant is eligible to receive funds under the program,

(2) Determine if the proposal meets the qualifications in the law and regulations,

(3) Evaluate and rank the proposals based on a standard, consistent information, and

(4) Determine if the projects costs are allowable and sufficient cost share is provided.

Local governmental entities, Tribal Governments, and qualified nonprofit organizations are the only entities eligible for the program and therefore are the only organizations from which information will be collected.

The information collection currently required for a request for proposals and grant application is approved and has been assigned the OMB Control No. 0596-0227.

Comments were sought on the information collection aspect of this rule; none were received.

This final rule has Tribal implications as defined in Executive Order 13175. Section 7A(a)(1) of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act establishes that federally recognized Indian Tribes are eligible to participate in the Community Forest Program. In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations With Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951); the Executive Order of November 6, 2000, “Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments” (E.O. 13175); and with the directives of the Department of Agriculture (DR 1350-001); we have determined that this change will not have an adverse effect on Indian Tribes. Tribal consultation was conducted through local and regional processes in coordination with requirements set out by the USDA, Forest Service.

This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12630 and it has been determined that the rule does not pose the risk of a taking of constitutionally protected private property. This final rule implements a program to assist eligible entities in acquiring land from willing sellers. Any land use restrictions on Community Forest Program parcels are agreed to voluntarily by program participants.

The Forest Service has determined that this final rule falls under the categorical exclusion provided in Forest Service regulations on National Environmental Policy Act procedures. Such procedures exclude from documentation in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement “rules, regulations, or policies to establish service wide administrative procedures, program processes, or instructions.” 36 CFR 220.6(d)(2); 73 FR 43084 (July 24, 2008). This final rule outlines the programmatic implementation of the CFP and has no direct effect on Forest Service decisions for its land management activities or on ground disturbing activities conducted by third-party entities.

This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 13211 of May 18, 2001, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. It has been determined that this final rule does not constitute a significant energy action as defined in the Executive Order.

This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. The Forest Service has not identified any State or local laws or regulations that are in conflict with this final rule or that would impede full implementation of this rule. Nevertheless, in the event that such a conflict is identified, the final rule would not preempt the State or local laws or regulations found to be in conflict. However, in that case, no retroactive effect would be given to this rule and the Forest Service would not require the use of administrative proceedings before parties could file suit in court challenging its provisions.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Forest Service hereby amends part 230 of title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations by revising subpart A to read as follows:

This document announces that OMB approved the information collection requirements in 47 CFR 25.138(a) and (b) and 25.147(a) through (c), on March 24, 2021. These rules were adopted in the 3.7 GHz Report and Order, FCC 20-22, published at 85 FR 22804 on April 23, 2020. The Commission publishes this document as an announcement of the compliance date of these new rules.

If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed below, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Cathy Williams, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C823, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554, regarding OMB Control Number 3060-0678. Please include the OMB Control Number in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via email at PRA@fcc.gov.

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

Synopsis: As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received final OMB approval on March 24, 2021, for the information collection requirements contained in 47 CFR 25.138 and 25.147. Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for the information collection requirements in 47 CFR 25.138 and 25.147, is 3060-0678. The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995.

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

OMB Control Number: 3060-0678.

OMB Approval Date: March 24, 2021.

OMB Expiration Date: March 31, 2024.

Title: Part 25 of the Federal Communications Commission's Rules Governing the Licensing of, and Spectrum Usage By, Commercial Earth Stations and Space Stations.

Form Number: FCC Form 312—Schedule A, FCC Form 312—Main, FCC Form 312—Schedule B, FCC Form 312-R, FCC Form 312-EZ.

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

Number of Respondents and Responses: 6,524 respondents; 6,573 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.5-80 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion, one time, and annual reporting requirements; third-party disclosure requirement; recordkeeping requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The Commission has statutory authority for the information collection requirements under 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 310, 319, 332, 605, and 721.

Total Annual Burden: 44,988 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $16,612,586.

Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality pertaining to the information collection requirements in this collection, in accordance with the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.459.

Needs and Uses: On March 3, 2020, the Commission released a Report and Order and Order of Proposed Modification, FCC 20-22, GN Docket No. 18-122, titled “Expanding Flexible Use of the 3.7 to 4.2 GHz Band.” In this Report and Order and Order of Proposed Modification, the Commission updated its rules by reforming the use of the 3.7-4.2 GHz band, also known as the C-Band. The new rules repack existing satellite operations into the upper 200 megahertz of the band (and reserve a 20 megahertz guard band), making a significant amount of spectrum—280 megahertz or more than half of the band—available for flexible use throughout the contiguous United States. The relevant rule revisions for purposes of this information collection are the addition of §§ 25.138 and 25.147 of the Commission's rules. In updating this information collection, we are not accounting for any changes to the number of respondents, burden hours, and annual cost related to these rule revisions since the addition of §§ 25.138 and 25.147 set forth rules for transition of operations from one frequency band to another.

On January 4, 2011, Public Law 111-350 enacted a new codified version of Title 41 United States Code (U.S.C.), entitled “Public Contracts.” The purpose of this final rule is to update all references to Title 41 in the HSAR to conform to the positive law codification and to implement technical updates throughout the HSAR. The HSAR establishes uniform policies and procedures for all acquisition activities within DHS. The edits made by this rule are entirely administrative and technical in nature and will not result in any substantive effects on DHS or other entities.

DHS amends the HSAR as follows:

1. Numerous corrections to authority citations to conform the HSAR to the Positive Law Codification of Title 41, United States Code, “Public Contracts.” The codification of Title 41 was enacted on January 4, 2011.

2. Other technical corrections not as a result of the Title 41 recodification, include the following:

a. The position title “Contracting Officer's Technical Representative” is replaced with “Contracting Officer's Representative”, and the abbreviation “COTR” is replaced with “COR” throughout the HSAR for consistency with the FAR.

b. Section 3001.105-2 is revised to add U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services as a DHS Component;

c. Section 3001.105-3 is revised to remove an outdated Uniform Resource Locator (URL) and clarify where to access the HSAR in electronic form.

d. Section 3001.304 is revised to:

1. In paragraph (a), make editorial changes to clarify the Component procedures for incorporating Component-specific regulations or provisions and clauses the Component intends to use on a repetitive basis into the HSAR. The term “supplement” is used in paragraph (a) multiple times and in different ways, making the instructions difficult to follow. In addition, the text is clarified to specify who signs Component-specific regulations, as well as other internal procedures.

2. In paragraph (c), make editorial changes to clarify that the HSAR is the agency acquisition regulation for which the CPO approves the incorporation of proposed regulatory coverage.

e. Section 3002.101 is revised to (1) identify, in the definition of Component, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) as a DHS Component; (2) add the title of the Head of the Contracting Activity (HCA) for USCIS to the list of DHS HCAs; (3) clarify the definition of legal counsel to include Component legal offices; and (4) update the definition of Senior Procurement Executive for consistency with DHS delegations.

f. Section 3002.270 is revised to:

1. Remove “COTR Contracting Officer's Technical Representative”. The abbreviation and term are obsolete.

2. Remove “KO Contracting officer.” The abbreviation does not appear in the HSAR.

g. Section 3003.101-3 is amended to add a reference to the more recently issued DHS supplemental ethics regulation at 5 CFR part 4601.

h. Section 3003.1003, paragraph (a), is revised to add a direct link to the electronic contractor disclosure form.

i. Section 3005.9000 is revised to remove the reference to 6 U.S.C. 552(d). Section 3005.9000 covers publicizing United States Coast Guard (USCG) personal services contracts. USCG is authorized to issue personal services contracts for medical and dental care under 10 U.S.C. 1091. Section 1091, however, during the early transition period of DHS, identified USCG as a Department of Transportation component. During this transition period, 6 U.S.C. 552(d) was used to identify newly transferred Components that appeared in statutes, documents, executive orders, regulations, etc., as part of other agencies, as DHS Components. Section 1091 has since been revised and now the USCG correctly appears under the jurisdiction of DHS. As a result, the reference to 6 U.S.C. 552(d) in this section is no longer necessary.

j. In section 3006.302-270, paragraphs (d)(1)(iii)(A) and (B), the reference to http://www.fema.gov/news/disasters.fema#sev2 is removed as the page no longer exists and the link is unnecessary.

k. Section 3009.108-7005 is revised to replace “Clause” in the section header with “Provision”, and to remove “and contracts” at the end of the paragraph. In accordance with FAR part 2, Definitions, a contract clause is a term or condition used in contracts or in both solicitations and contracts, that apply after contract award or both before and after award. Alternatively, a provision is a term or condition used only in solicitations and that applies only before contract award. Section 3009.108-7005 prescribes instructions covering the use of section 3052.209-70, and references it as a clause. However, section 3052.209-70 is a provision because it is a term that is used only in solicitations, before contract award. For this reason, the reference in section 3009.108-7005 to section 3052.209-70 as a provision in all solicitations and contracts is inaccurate.

l. Section 3009.470-1 is revised to correct the spelling of “sub-elements.”

m. Section 3009.507-1 is revised to replace “provision” in the header and in the first sentence, to read “clause.” As noted above, in accordance with FAR part 2, Definitions, a contract clause is a term or condition used in contracts or in both solicitations and contracts, that apply after contract award or both before and after award. Alternatively, a provision is a term or condition used only in solicitations and that applies only before contract award. Section 3009.507-1 prescribes instructions covering the use of section 3052.209-72, and references it as a provision. However, section 3052.209-72 is a clause because it is a term that is used in both solicitations and contracts, that is, both before and after contract award. For this reason, the reference in section 3009.507-1 to section 3052.209-70 as a provision is inaccurate.

n. Subpart 3011.6, consisting of section 3011.602, is removed and reserved. DHS Delegation 9053, Delegation of Authority Regarding the Defense Priorities and Allocations System, delegates certain authorities under the Department of Commerce's Defense Priorities and Allocations System (DPAS) Delegation 4 to designated officials within DHS. Subpart 3011.6 does not list all of the enumerated parties in the Delegation. Because this guidance is already included in DHS Delegation 9053, this subpart is no longer needed.

o. Section 3018.109 is revised to remove “(See (HSAR) 48 CFR 3011.602.)” for consistency with the revisions described above with respect to 48 CFR 3011.602.

p. Section 3022.101-70, paragraph (b), is revised to replace the word “coordinator” with “advisor” in the first sentence to correct the DHS labor advisor's position title.

q. Section 3022.406-9, paragraph (c)(1) is amended to replace “Comptroller General” with “Secretary of Labor”, and to remove the last sentence of the paragraph in its entirety. FAC 2005-78, effective December 16, 2014, amended FAR 22.406-9 to implement Public Law 113-50, which transferred certain authorities for construction wage under-payments from the Government Accountability Office to the Department of Labor by requiring that wage underpayments be sent to the Secretary of Labor, and by removing standard form (SF) 1093 from the FAR.

r. Section 3023.1004 is amended to (1) correct the titles of “DHS Directive 023-02 Environmental Compliance Program” and “DHS Directive 025-01, Sustainable Practices for Environmental Energy and Transportation.” The correct titles are, respectively, “DHS Directive 023-02, Environmental Management Program” and “DHS Directive 025-01, Sustainable Practices.” In addition, in the second sentence, the rule is amended to (a) replace the term “green purchasing” with “sustainable acquisition” for consistency with FAR part 23 and DHS Directive 025-01, and (b) remove a reference to an obsolete Executive Order.

s. Section 3024.203 is revised to add an “s” at the end of the word “request”.

t. Section 3033.211 is revised to clarify the methods of delivery for submitting claims or disputes to the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA).

u. Section 3046.790-2 is amended in the definition for “At no additional cost to the Government” to add a hyphen between “fixed” and “price”.

v. For part 3052:

(1) Section 3052.101 is amended to, in the Note, update a URL and remove an outdated reference.

(2) Section 3052.203-70 is revised to clarify the instructions for submitting disclosures of violations and the method for submitting disclosures.

(3) Section 3052.209-70 is revised in the introductory paragraph, in the introductory paragraph for paragraph (b), and at the end of the provision, to remove “clause” and replace it with “provision”.

(4) Section 3052.209-71, paragraph (a), is revised to correct the spelling of “sub-elements”.

(5) Section 3052.209-72 is revised to remove the word “provision”, and replace it with the word “clause” in the introductory paragraph, and in paragraphs (c), (d) and (f). In accordance with FAR part 2, Definitions, a contract clause is a term or condition used in contracts or in both solicitations and contracts, that applies after contract award or both before and after award. Alternatively, a provision is a term or condition used only in solicitations and that applies only before contract award. Section 3052.209-72, paragraphs (f) and (g), prescribe terms to which the contractor must comply post-award. Therefore, section 3052.209-72 is a clause.

(6) The lists in section 3052.212-70 are corrected to properly identify provisions and clauses. Section 3052.212-70 is also corrected to add 3052.205-70, Alternate I, to the list of provisions and clauses. While section 3052.205-70 is listed, 3052.205-70, Alternate I, is not. Because section 3052.205-70 is listed, its alternate must be as well.

(7) Section 3052.217-96, in paragraph (b), is revised to remove “s” at the end of the term “equipments”.

(8) Section 3052.219-71, in the introductory paragraph, is revised to redesignate the paragraph for consistency with HSAR Case 2017-001, Rescinding Department of Homeland Security Acquisition Regulation (HSAR) Clause 3052.219-70, Small Business Subcontracting Plan Reporting.

(9) Section 3052.219-72, in the introductory paragraph, is revised to redesignate the paragraph for consistency with HSAR Case 2017-001, Rescinding Department of Homeland Security Acquisition Regulation (HSAR) Clause 3052.219-70, Small Business Subcontracting Plan Reporting.

w. Section 3053.303 is amended to update the URL to access DHS forms.

This rule makes administrative changes that do not require notice and comment procedures, consistent with 41 U.S.C. 1707, 48 CFR 1.301, and related authority. The changes will not have a significant effect on any party, and will not have a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors.

Executive Orders 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) and 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it.

DHS has determined that the rule will not create an economic impact. The changes made by this rule are entirely administrative and technical in nature and will not result in any substantive effects on DHS or other entities.

As noted above, the administrative changes made by this rule do not require notice-and-comment rulemaking. Accordingly, the procedural requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act do not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 604, 48 CFR 1.301(c).

This final rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

For reasons set out in the preamble, DHS amends chapter 30 of title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below.

NMFS and the Council manage the snapper-grouper fishery under the Snapper-Grouper FMP. The Snapper-Grouper FMP was prepared by the Council and is implemented by NMFS through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. ).

On November 16, 2020, NMFS published the proposed rule for Regulatory Amendment 34 in the Federal Register and requested public comment (85 FR 73013). Regulatory Amendment 34 and the proposed rule outline the rationale for the actions contained in this final rule. A summary of the management measure described in Regulatory Amendment 34 and implemented by this final rule is described below.

The purpose of the Council's SMZ designation process and the subsequent specification of SMZs is to protect snapper-grouper populations at the relatively small artificial reef sites in the EEZ and to create fishing opportunities that would not otherwise exist without their designation. Prior to the SMZ designation process established by the Council in 1983, for example, black sea bass pots were used by commercial fishermen to efficiently remove black sea bass from artificial reefs off South Carolina. At the time of the SMZ designation process, the Council determined that because artificial reef sites are small in area due to the limited amount of suitable reef-building material, the sites are vulnerable to overexploitation by more efficient fishing gear that has the potential to result in localized depletion. In addition, the Council wanted to enhance fishing opportunities for the recreational sector through the designation of SMZs. The Council has determined that the harvest and gear restrictions will increase the abundance and size of snapper-grouper species at the sites, thereby increasing available catch for fishermen, such as those fishing under recreational harvest limits.

The North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries (NCDMF) and the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR) requested that the Council designate artificial reefs located in the EEZ off their respective coasts as SMZs. Following a review of the requests, the Council developed Regulatory Amendment 34 that would create 34 new SMZs—30 off North Carolina and 4 off South Carolina. The Council determined that the actions in Regulatory Amendment 34 will enhance the fishing experience at the artificial reef sites for recreational fishermen and that will further promote the original intent of North Carolina and South Carolina for placing the artificial reefs at the sites. The purpose of Regulatory Amendment 34 and this final rule is to designate these sites as SMZs and to restrict fishing gear that could result in high exploitation rates to reduce potential adverse biological effects to federally managed snapper-grouper species and enhance recreational fishing opportunities at these sites.

This final rule creates SMZs in the EEZ off North Carolina and South Carolina. Authorized gear and harvest levels for snapper-grouper species at these new SMZs are also specified by this final rule to reduce potentially adverse biological effects to snapper-grouper species and enhance recreational fishing opportunities.

This final rule designates 30 SMZs off North Carolina in the EEZ. The 30 sites are existing artificial reefs permitted by the Army Corps of Engineers. The SMZs match the sizes of the permitted artificial reefs, and range in size from 0.24 to 0.76 square nautical miles or 0.25 to 1.01 square miles (0.82 to 2.6 square km). This final rule establishes that all harvest of snapper-grouper species is allowed only with handline, rod and reel, and spear within the SMZs. Further, in the SMZs off North Carolina, all commercial and recreational harvest of snapper-grouper species by spear is limited to the applicable, existing recreational bag limits, as requested by the NCDMF.

This final rule designates four SMZs, in addition to the existing 28 SMZs, off the coast of South Carolina in the EEZ. The four sites are existing artificial reefs permitted by the Army Corps of Engineers. The SMZs match the sizes of the permitted artificial reefs, and range in size from 0.031 to 0.25 square nautical miles or 0.041 to 0.33 square miles (0.11 to 0.86 square km). This final rule establishes that all harvest of snapper-grouper species is allowed only with handline, rod and reel, and spear within the SMZs. Further, in the SMZs off South Carolina, all commercial and recreational harvest of snapper-grouper species is limited to the applicable, existing recreational bag limits, as requested by the SCDNR. These restrictions match the regulations in the current SMZs off South Carolina.

NMFS received 10 comments during the public comment period on the proposed rule for Regulatory Amendment 34. Most comments were in support of the creation of SMZs at the artificial reef sites. NMFS acknowledges the comments in favor of the action in the proposed rule and agrees with them. Some comments were outside the scope of the proposed rule and Regulatory Amendment 34 and are not responded to in this final rule. Comments that opposed or requested additional information about the actions contained in Regulatory Amendment 34 and the proposed rule are summarized below, along with NMFS' responses.

Comment 1: Prohibiting commercial fishermen from taking more than the recreational bag and possession limits of South Atlantic snapper-grouper from the SMZs in this final rule where fish are attracted and congregating will only decrease the efficiency of the commercial fishermen's efforts. This is contrary to what the Fishing Enhancement Act describes in 33 U.S.C. 2101(a)(5) as what properly managed reefs can do. Without violating the intent of the National Fishing Enhancement Act (Act) of 1984, explain how NMFS can convert the artificial reefs that are in Federal waters into SMZs where only recreational harvest is allowed when this is clearly contrary to proper management outlined in 33 U.S.C. 2101(a)(5). Further, NMFS is violating the artificial reef standards written in 33 U.S.C. 2102(2) by effectively excluding commercial fishing from federally permitted artificial reefs.

Response: NMFS does not agree that the final rule will violate the intent of the Act by only allowing recreational harvest levels at the SMZ sites in this final rule. The purpose of the Act is to promote and facilitate responsible and effective efforts to establish artificial reefs. The Act further states that properly designed artificial reefs can enhance the habitat and diversity of fishery resources; enhance United States recreational and commercial fishing opportunities; increase the production of fishery products in the United States; increase the energy efficiency of recreational and commercial fisheries; and contribute to the United States and coastal economies.

The final rule conforms with the intent of the Act. The final rule does not prohibit harvest by commercial fishermen, and will allow both commercial and recreational fishing with handline, rod and reel, and spear in the SMZs. The purpose of this final rule is to restrict the use of fishing gear with a greater potential to result in high exploitation rates to reduce potentially adverse effects to federally managed snapper-grouper species at these sites. The Council determined that the actions will enhance the fishing experience at the artificial reefs for recreational fishermen and that optimizing opportunities for recreational fishermen was the original intent of the artificial reef placement at these sites.

Comment 2: Explain if the gear requirements in this final rule allow electric fishing reels, such as the Tanacom 1000.

Response: Allowable gear for the harvest of South Atlantic snapper-grouper at the SMZ sites in this final rule off North Carolina and South Carolina includes rod and reel, and the use of electric-powered reels, such as the Tanacom 1000.

Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is consistent with Regulatory Amendment 34, the Snapper-Grouper FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws.

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

The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this final rule. No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. In addition, no new reporting or recordkeeping compliance requirements are introduced in this final rule. This final rule contains no information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this rule 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 from the public were received regarding this certification. As a result, a final regulatory flexibility analysis was not required and none was prepared.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is amended as follows:

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

The 2021 total allowable catch (TAC) of pollock in the West Yakutat District of the GOA is 5,412 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2021 and 2022 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA (86 FR 10184, February 19, 2021).

NMFS closed directed fishing for pollock in the West Yakutat District of the GOA under § 679.20(d)(1)(iii) on March 9, 2021 (86 FR 14015, March 12, 2021).

As of March 29, 2021, NMFS has determined that approximately 660 mt of pollock remains in the West Yakutat District of the GOA. Therefore, in accordance with § 679.25(a)(1)(i), (a)(2)(i)(C), and (a)(2)(iii)(D), and to fully utilize the 2021 TAC of pollock in the West Yakutat District of the GOA, NMFS is terminating the previous closure and is reopening directed fishing for pollock in the West Yakutat District of the GOA, effective 1200 hours, A.l.t., April 1, 2021.

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

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

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest, as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the opening of directed fishing for pollock in the West Yakutat District of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of March 29, 2021.