On January 27, 2016 (81 FR 4573), the Department adopted as a final rule the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulations for all Federal award-making agencies, the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), with minor deviations to make the Uniform Guidance consistent with existing Department policy. Treasury's regulations are codified at 2 CFR part 1000.

On August 13, 2020 (85 FR 49506), OMB adopted revisions to the Uniform Guidance. Among other things, in the final rule, OMB redesignated 2 CFR 200.336 as 2 CFR 200.337. This change results in an incorrect section numeration and cross-reference in the Department's regulations that is corrected in this technical amendment.

Accordingly, the Treasury Department amends 2 CFR part 1000 as follows:

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2019-07-07, Amendment 39-19618 (84 FR 16394, April 19, 2019) (AD 2019-07-07). AD 2019-07-07 applied to Airbus Helicopters Model BO-105A, BO-105C, BO-105S, BO105LS A-3, MBB-BK 117A-1, MBB-BK 117A-3, MBB-BK 117A-4, MBB-BK 117B-1, MBB-BK 117B-2, MBB-BK 117C-1, MBB-BK 117C-2, and MBB-BK 117D-2 helicopters. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 10, 2021 (86 FR 13665). The NPRM proposed to require, within 50 hours time-in-service, removing the affected bellows from the swashplate, cleaning and inspecting the support tube for scratches, and depending on the inspection results reworking the cylindrical area. The NPRM proposed to require inspecting the clamp for corrosion, damage, and incorrect installation, and depending on the inspection results, removing the clamp from service or reinstalling the clamp correctly and applying a torque. The NPRM also proposed to require inspecting each ball bearing for corrosion, and depending on the inspection results, removing each ball bearing from service. The NPRM proposed to require inspecting the deflection ring for foreign objects by removing the lockwire, screws, and the outer deflection ring and removing any foreign objects.

Additionally, the NPRM proposed to require, within 400 hours TIS, inspecting the swashplate for foreign objects and excessive bearing rolling friction. Finally, the NPRM proposed to prohibit installing a bellows P/N 105-10113.05, P/N 4619305044, P/N 4638305043, or P/N B623M20X2240, or a gearbox with a bellows P/N 105-10113.05, P/N 4619305044, or P/N 4638305043 on any helicopter.

EASA AD 2016-0142, dated July 19, 2016, which was revised to EASA AD 2016-0142R1, dated April 12, 2018, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for Model MBB-BK117 A-1, MBB-BK117 A-3, MBB-BK117 A-4, MBB-BK117 B-1, MBB-BK117 B-2, MBB-BK117 C-1, MBB-BK117 C-2, and MBB-BK117 C-2e helicopters, all serial numbers (S/Ns), and Model BO105 A, BO105 C, BO105 D, BO105 S, and BO105 LS A-3 helicopters, all variants, all S/Ns. EASA advises of several reports of a lower clamp found missing from the bellows and damaging the swashplate bearing ring before becoming detached. EASA states that an investigation showed that over-torqueing can damage the clamp, which may have caused the clamp to become loose and detach. EASA further advises that this condition, if not addressed, could result a detached clamp, which could damage the swashplate and pitch link or strike the tail rotor, resulting in loss of control of the helicopter.

Accordingly, EASA AD 2016-0142R1 requires removing the bellows, and performing modifications, inspections, and corrective actions in accordance with the applicable service information for your helicopter. EASA AD 2016-0142R1 also prohibits the installation of certain part-numbered bellows or any gearbox with certain part-numbered bellows on any helicopter.

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

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 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 helicopters.

The FAA reviewed Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin ASB (ASB) BO105-40A-107 for Model BO105C-series, D-series and S-series helicopters; ASB BO105 LS-40A-12 for Model BO-105LS A-3 helicopters; ASB MBB-BK117-40A-115 for Model MBB-BK 117 A-1, MBB-BK 117 A-3, MBB-BK 117 A-4, MBB-BK 117 B-1, MBB-BK 117 B-2, and MBB-BK 117 C-1 helicopters; and ASB MBB-BK117 C-2-62A-007 for Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters, each Revision 5 and dated July 25, 2017. The FAA also reviewed Airbus Helicopters ASB MBB-BK117 D-2-62A-003, Revision 3, dated July 25, 2017, for Model MBB-BK 117 D-2 helicopters. This service information specifies removing the bellows and repetitively inspecting the swashplate.

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 EASA AD requires compliance within different time intervals for some actions than what this AD requires. The EASA AD allows a non-cumulative tolerance of 10 percent that may be applied to the compliance times, and this AD does not. This AD applies to Model MBB-BK 117D-2 helicopters while the EASA AD does not. The EASA AD applies to Model BO-105D helicopters, while this AD does not. The EASA AD requires reporting corrosion to Airbus Helicopters while this AD does not.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 211 helicopters of U.S. Registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on these numbers, the FAA estimates that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD.

Inspecting the swashplate assembly takes about 3 work-hours for an estimated cost of $255 per helicopter and $53,805 for the U.S. fleet per inspection cycle.

Repairing a scratched support tube takes about 3 work-hours for an estimated cost of $255 per helicopter.

Replacing a corroded or damaged clamp takes about 2 work-hours and parts cost about $8 for a cost of $178 per helicopter.

Replacing corroded ball bearings takes about 4 work-hours and parts cost about $3,000 for a cost of $3,340 per helicopter.

Removing foreign objects from the outer deflection ring takes about 2 work-hours for an estimated cost of $170 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 FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain serial-numbered Mooney Model M20V airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2021 (86 FR 13502; corrected March 17, 2021, 86 FR 14554). The NPRM was prompted by reports of short circuit and arcing of the alternator main power cable in the engine compartment. Mooney determined the alternator main power cable was incorrectly positioned with slack in the cable and allowed contact between the alternator main power cable and turbocharger right-hand (RH) exhaust crossover tube. In one instance, this contact caused arcing of the alternator main power cable and created a hole in the RH exhaust crossover tube, which may result in a fire hazard. A damaged crossover tube may also decrease effectiveness of the turbochargers and cause complete loss of engine power at higher altitudes (above 9,000 ft. above sea level). In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require inspecting the alternator main power cable and the exhaust crossover tube and modifying the alternator main power cable routing by installing an additional alternator cable clamp, part number (P/N) MS21919WCJ6. This condition, if not addressed, could result in an inflight fire and loss of engine thrust control, which may lead to reduced control of the airplane. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

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. This AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM.

The FAA reviewed Mooney International Corporation Service Bulletin M20-340C, dated February 14, 2020. The service information specifies inspecting the alternator main power cable and the exhaust crossover tube for damage and replacing damaged parts as necessary. The service information also contains procedures for modifying the alternator main power cable routing by installing an additional alternator cable clamp, P/N MS21919WCJ6.

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 18 airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the inspection. The agency has no way of determining the number of airplanes that might need these replacements:

The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it improves the efficiency of the NAS by lessening the dependency on ground-based navigation aids.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA-2021-0062 in the Federal Register (86 FR 12866; March 5, 2021) amending low altitude RNAV route T-207 by removing the Cecil, FL, VOR from the route description. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. No comments were received.

United States Area Navigation routes are published in paragraph 6011 of FAA Order 7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The RNAV route listed in the document will be subsequently published in the Order.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11E lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by amending low altitude RNAV route T-207 by removing the Cecil, FL (VQQ), VOR from the route description. This action is necessary due to the planned decommissioning of the Cecil VOR. The Cecil VOR is located along a straight segment of T-207 between the CARRA, FL, Fix, and the MONIA, FL, Fix. The VOR is not a required component for navigating on T-207. Removal of the Cecil VOR does not affect the alignment of, or navigation along, T-207.

In addition, all latitude/longitude coordinates in the route description are updated to the hundredths of a second place for greater navigation accuracy.

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

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

The FAA has determined that this airspace action of amending the low altitude area navigation route T-207 due to the decommissioning of the Cecil, FL, VOR qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points). As such, this action is not expected to result in any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis. Accordingly, the FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact study.

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

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

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA-2021-0042 in the Federal Register (86 FR 12865; March 5, 2021), amending VOR Federal airway V-487, in eastern New York and northern Vermont. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. No comments were received.

VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order 7400.11E dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR Federal airways listed in this document will be subsequently published in the Order.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11E lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by amending VOR Federal airway V-487 in the vicinity of Glens Falls, NY, and Burlington, VT. The change substitutes a radial from the Burlington, VT, VOR/DME, in place of the Glens Falls, NY, VOR/DME radial, that defines the ENSON, VT, navigation fix. Currently, the ENSON, VT, navigation fix is defined by the intersection of the Cambridge, NY, VOR/DME (CAM) 002° radial, and the Glens Falls, NY, VOR/DME 032° radial.

This change is necessary because the Glens Falls VOR/DME has been decommissioned and is no longer in service. As amended, the ENSON fix is defined by the intersection of the Burlington, VT, 187°, and the Cambridge, NY 002° radials. This change does not affect navigation along that portion of V-487.

Additionally, this action removes the segment of V-487 that extends between the Burlington, VT, VOR/DME, and the St Jean, Canada VOR/DME due to the decommissioning of the St Jean VOR/DME. The amended route V-487 extends between LaGuardia, NY, and Burlington, VT.

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

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

The FAA has determined that this airspace action of amending VOR Federal airway V-487 due to the decommissioning of the Glens Falls, NY, VOR/DME, and the decommissioning of the St Jean, Canada, VOR/DME, qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq .) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points). As such, this action is not expected to result in any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis. Accordingly, the FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact study.

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

1. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is amending its regulations under the Federal Power Act (FPA)  1 to incorporate by reference into its regulations as mandatory enforceable requirements, the latest version (Version 003.3) of the Standards for Business Practices and Communication Protocols for Public Utilities adopted by the Wholesale Electric Quadrant (WEQ) of the North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB), filed with the Commission on March 30, 2020 (March 30 Filing). The WEQ Version 003.3 Standards build upon an earlier version of the standards that the Commission previously included and incorporated by reference into its regulations at 18 CFR parts 2 and 38, respectively, in Order No. 676-I. 2

2. The WEQ Version 003.3 Standards include newly created standards as well as modifications to existing standards developed through the NAESB Business Practice Standards development or minor correction processes. The WEQ Version 003.3 Standards include revisions related to the surety assessment on cybersecurity performed by Sandia National Laboratories (Sandia) designed to strengthen the practices and cybersecurity protections established within the standards. NAESB also revised its Open Access Same-Time Information System (OASIS) suite of standards, 3 including revisions to support new OASIS functionality that will allow for the posting of third party offers of planning redispatch services as well as providing additional information regarding the curtailment of firm transmission service. In addition, the WEQ Version 003.3 Standards include revisions to the NAESB WEQ-023 Modeling Business Practice Standards. The Commission also revises 18 CFR 37.6(b)(2)(i) to codify that the calculation of Available Transfer Capability (ATC) must be conducted in manner that is transparent, consistent with system conditions and outages for the relevant timeframe, and not unduly discriminatory or preferential.

3. NAESB is a non-profit standards development organization established in late 2001 (as the successor to the Gas Industry Standards Board (GISB), which was established in 1994) and serves as an industry forum for the development of business practice standards and communication protocols for the wholesale and retail natural gas and electricity industry sectors. Since 1995, NAESB's predecessor GISB and subsequently NAESB itself have been accredited members of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), complying with ANSI's requirements that its standards reflect a consensus of the affected industries. 4

4. NAESB's standards include business practices intended to standardize and streamline the transactional processes of the natural gas and electric industries, as well as communication protocols and related standards designed to improve the efficiency of communication within each industry. NAESB supports all three “quadrants” of the gas and electric industries: wholesale gas, wholesale electric, and retail markets. 5 All participants in the gas and electric industries are eligible to join NAESB and participate in standards development.

5. NAESB develops its standards under a consensus process so that the standards draw support from a wide range of industry members. NAESB's procedures are designed to ensure that all persons choosing to participate can have input into the development of a standard, regardless of whether they are members of NAESB, and each standard NAESB adopts must be supported by a consensus of the relevant industry segments. Standards that fail to gain consensus support are not adopted. NAESB's consistent practice has been to submit a report to the Commission after it has revised existing business practice standards or has developed and adopted new business practice standards. NAESB's standards are initially voluntary standards, which become mandatory for public utilities upon incorporation by reference by the Commission.

6. NAESB filed its WEQ Version 003.2 Business Practices Standards (WEQ Version 003.2 Standards) on December 8, 2017 (December 8 Filing), in Docket No. RM05-5-027. 6 After consideration of the December 8 Filing, the Commission issued the WEQ Version 003.2 NOPR on May 16, 2019, wherein the Commission proposed to revise its regulations to incorporate by reference the WEQ Version 003.2 Standards, with certain enumerated exceptions. 7 The Commission announced that NAESB's WEQ-023 Modeling Business Practice Standards would be addressed separately, proposing only to incorporate by reference the WEQ-023 Modeling Business Practice Standards that were moved from the WEQ-001 OASIS Business Practice Standards by the changes made to the WEQ Version 003.1 Standards. 8

7. On February 4, 2020, the Commission issued Order No. 676-I, in which it amended its regulations under the FPA to incorporate by reference into its regulations as mandatory enforceable requirements, with certain enumerated exceptions, the WEQ Version 003.2 Standards. The WEQ Version 003.2 Standards included the changes proposed in WEQ Version 003.1 Standards, which were the subject of an earlier notice of proposed rulemaking. 9 All of these standards, except for the WEQ-022 and WEQ-023 Business Practice Standards, update and replace standards that the Commission previously incorporated by reference in Order No. 676-H.

8. Among the NAESB Business Practice Standards incorporated by reference in Order No. 676-I, the Commission incorporated the WEQ-022 Electric Industry Registry (EIR) Business Practice Standards, but did not incorporate by reference in its entirety the WEQ-023 Modeling Business Practice Standards. The Commission only incorporated by reference the WEQ-023 Modeling Business Practice Standards that were moved from the WEQ-001 OASIS Business Practice Standards by the changes made to the WEQ Version 003.1 Standards. 10 The Commission also did not adopt the NOPR proposal to incorporate by reference NAESB's latest version of the WEQ-006 Manual Time Error Correction Business Practice Standards.

9. On March 30, 2020, NAESB filed the WEQ Version 003.3 Standards. 11 The WEQ Version 003.3 Standards build upon the standards included in the WEQ Version 003.2 Standards. After consideration of the March 30 Filing, the Commission issued the WEQ Version 003.3 NOPR on July 16, 2020, wherein the Commission proposed to incorporate the WEQ Version 003.3 Standards, with certain enumerated exceptions. 12

10. NAESB's WEQ Version 003.3 Standards include newly created standards as well as modifications to existing standards developed through the NAESB Business Practice Standards development or minor correction processes. 13 The WEQ Version 003.3 Standards also include additions and revisions to the NAESB WEQ-023 Modeling Business Practice Standards, which the Commission addresses herein.

11. The WEQ Version 003.3 Standards include revisions related to the surety assessment on cybersecurity performed by Sandia. NAESB responded to a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) request that NAESB act on an expedited basis to ensure the WEQ cybersecurity standards developed in response to the surety assessment were included in the WEQ Version 003.3 Standards. 14 NAESB reports that the changes strengthen the practices and cybersecurity protections established within the standards by aligning security requirements with other cybersecurity guidelines, mitigating potential vulnerabilities, and incorporating more secure communication and encryption methodologies.

12. In support of directives contained in Order No. 890, 15 NAESB also revised the OASIS suite of standards. The WEQ Version 003.3 Standards include additions and revisions to support new OASIS functionality that will allow for the posting of third party offers of planning redispatch services (WEQ-001-13.2) as well as providing additional information regarding the curtailment of firm transmission service (WEQ-001-28) prescribed in the OASIS suite of standards. 16 In response to Order No. 676-I, NAESB also revised the standards as necessary to conform with the Commission's Dynegy policy, and stated that any standards from these efforts will be incorporated into future versions of the WEQ Business Practice Standards. 17

13. The WEQ Version 003.3 Standards also include changes that were made to support consistency with the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) Reliability Standards, including NERC's retirement of the NERC Interchange Scheduling and Coordination Reliability Standards and retirement of the NERC Modeling, Data, and Analysis Reliability Standards. NAESB coordinated with NERC to make modifications and revisions pertaining to electronic tagging (e-Tagging), 18 and to the calculation of ATC and AFC. 19

14. The WEQ Version 003.3 Standards also include additions, revisions, and reservations made to the WEQ-008 Transmission Load Relief (TLR)—Eastern Interconnection Business Practice Standards, which NAESB advises completes the standards development effort for the Parallel Flow Visualization (PFV) enhanced congestion management process (PFV Standards). 20 The PFV Standards are the culmination of a multi-year coordination effort between NAESB, NERC, and the Eastern Interconnect Data Sharing Network (EIDSN), Inc., 21 and the standards are designed to improve upon the congestion management procedures for the Eastern Interconnection through the use of real-time data in calculations for transmission loading relief obligations.

15. Moreover, as part of the standards development process, NAESB made five additional revisions to the OASIS suite of standards that were not made in response to Commission orders. 22 First, NAESB modified the OASIS suite of standards to improve OASIS query functionalities. Second, NAESB modified the OASIS suite of standards for new OASIS functionality to fully document all encumbrances to unconditional firm transmission service, such as untagged pseudo-ties. Third, NAESB modified the OASIS suite of standards to expand notice functionality and establish standards for providing dynamic notification to transmission customers of the renewal deadline for rollover rights for point-to-point transmission service. Fourth, NAESB modified WEQ-001 OASIS Business Practice Standards for use of Next Hour Market Service and the 0-NX transmission product codes. Fifth, NAESB modified the OASIS suite of standards to modify Network Integration Transmission Service (NITS) requirements. Finally, NAESB revised the OASIS suite of standards to make three minor corrections. 23

16. The WEQ Version 003.3 Standards include the WEQ-023 Modeling Business Practice Standards that provide technical details concerning the calculation of ATC for wholesale electric transmission services. The WEQ-023 Modeling Business Practice Standards address aspects of certain of the NERC MOD A Reliability Standards relating to modeling, data and analysis that are included in the NERC's proposed retirement of its MOD A Reliability Standards.

17. NAESB's WEQ Version 003.3 Standards, which we are incorporating by reference in this final rule, include modifications, reservations, and/or additions to the following set of existing standards:  24

18. The specific NAESB standards that we are incorporating by reference in this final rule establish a set of business practice standards and communication protocols for the electric industry that will continue to enable industry members to achieve efficiencies by streamlining utility business and transactional processes and communication procedures. All of these standards, except for portions of the WEQ-023 Modeling Business Practice Standards, update and replace standards that the Commission previously incorporated by reference in Order No. 676-I.

19. As the Commission has explained in prior orders, NAESB approved the standards under its consensus procedures. 25 Adoption of consensus standards is appropriate because the consensus process helps ensure the reasonableness of the standards by requiring that the standards draw support from a broad spectrum of all segments of the industry. Moreover, since the industry itself must conduct business under these standards, the Commission's regulations should reflect those standards that have the widest possible support. In section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, Congress affirmatively requires federal agencies to use technical standards developed by voluntary consensus standards organizations, like NAESB, to carry out policy objectives or activities. 26

20. Comments in response to the WEQ Version 003.3 NOPR were filed by four commenters. Commenters expressed general support for the Commission's proposals, 27 and no comments opposed the basic direction of the NOPR, although some commenters took issue with specific details of the NOPR proposal. Specifically, commenters raised discrete concerns regarding the WEQ-023 Business Practice Standards and the Commission's proposed regulatory text regarding non-discriminatory ATC calculations. Commenters also commented on whether the Commission should require industry to implement WEQ Version 003.2 prior to WEQ Version 003.3, or instead should cancel the implementation obligation of WEQ Version 003.2 and require implementation of all accepted WEQ Version 003.3 Business Practice Standards (including WEQ 003.2 changes) within 18 months. We will incorporate by reference into the Commission's regulations all of the WEQ Version 003.3 Standards and amend the regulatory text at § 37.6(b)(2)(i) as described below. We will separately discuss each of the issues raised by commenters.

21. Order No. 890 requires transmission providers to post to OASIS “all circumstances and events contributing to the need for a firm service curtailment, specific services and customers curtailed (including the transmission provider's own retail loads), and the duration of the curtailment.”  28 As the Commission explained in the NOPR, NAESB made additional modifications to the OASIS suite of standards, as well as consistency changes to WEQ-000 Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Definition of Terms Business Practice Standards. NAESB's changes to the standards included modifications to existing templates and the creation of two new templates to provide the mechanism for transmission providers to post the required additional information regarding the curtailment of firm transmission service, including the curtailment of non-firm transmission service that preceded any firm transmission curtailments.

22. The information needed to meet the posting requirements is contained in two separate tools: The Interchange Distribution Calculator (IDC) tool for the Eastern Interconnection, managed by EIDSN, Inc., and the Enhanced Curtailment Calculator (ECC) tool for the Western Interconnection, managed by the California Independent System Operator. Although both the IDC and ECC tools produce information to be posted to OASIS in accordance with the standards, NAESB states that its members determined that the need for a mechanism to transfer data from the tools to OASIS should be addressed as part of any industry implementation rather than through standards modifications.

23. The ISO/RTO Council states that it supports an automated mechanism to transfer data from the IDC/ECC tools to the firm transmission curtailment templates. 29 The ISO/RTO Council states that it currently is unclear whether firm curtailment information must be posted manually prior to the implementation of an automated data transfer mechanism. 30 The ISO/RTO Council contends that manually populating firm curtailment data into the templates is administratively burdensome and introduces the potential for human (data entry) error, and automated data transfer results in a more reliable, accurate and equitable posting process. 31 The ISO/RTO Council requests that the Commission clarify that manual postings will not be required as an interim means to achieve compliance while the automated data transfer mechanism is being developed per the implementation schedule for the WEQ Version 003.3 Standards.

24. Because of the importance of posting information regarding firm curtailments, we will not delay implementation while industry develops a more automated data transfer mechanism. NAESB states that its members determined that the need for a mechanism to transfer data from the tools to OASIS should be addressed as part of any industry implementation rather than as part of the standards modifications. While we encourage the industry to develop automated tools as quickly as possible, we agree that this effort should be independent from the development and implementation of the standards.

25. The WEQ-023 Business Practice Standards include two new standards related to contract path management not previously included in the NERC MOD A Reliability Standards. These two Business Practice Standards, WEQ-023-1.4 and WEQ-023-1.4.1, limit the amount of firm transmission service granted on an ATC Path and limit the interchange schedule (both firm and non-firm) between balancing authority areas to the contract path limit for that given path, respectively. 32

26. Bonneville Power Administration (Bonneville) and the ISO/RTO Council ask the Commission to decline to incorporate by reference these Standards. Bonneville asserts that the WEQ-023-1.4 and WEQ-023-1.4.1 Business Practice Standards need further refinement by the industry before they are ready for incorporation by reference, if at all. Bonneville states that these Standards appear to be inconsistent with how Bonneville and other transmission service providers and system operators in the Western Interconnection operate their systems. Bonneville explains that, for itself and others, an ATC Path is allowed to be overscheduled up to twenty minutes prior to flow, at which point interruptions of non-firm service, curtailments, or economic dispatches, are then performed to ensure that path limits are not exceeded. Bonneville further states that this practice allows it to maximize transmission utilization including the integration of variable resources scheduled within the hour, and that these requirements, if incorporated by reference as drafted, would restrict energy supply and transmission availability. 33

27. Bonneville contends that its concerns with Business Practice Standards WEQ-023-1.4 and 1.4.1 are particularly relevant in light of the recent heat wave events of August and September 2020 in California. Bonneville asserts that eliminating the practice of over-scheduling until the final twenty minutes prior to flow on transmission facilities such as the California-Oregon Intertie could artificially restrict energy supply and transmission availability. 34

28. The ISO/RTO Council joins Bonneville in opposing WEQ-023-1.4 and 1.4.1 Business Practice Standards, stating that requiring transmission service providers to assume all firm transmission service reservations will be used in full, without accounting for the transmission customer's scheduling activity, “will undoubtedly result in less efficient use of the transmission system.” The ISO/RTO Council also expresses concern that under system conditions which include the sudden, unexpected outage or de-rate of a transmission facility associated with an ATC path, there may not be sufficient time to adjust posted ATC or modify the current interchange, which could lead to a violation of the requirement. 35

29. The ISO/RTO Council notes that WEQ-023-1.4 and 1.4.1 Business Practice Standards were initially rejected by the NAESB Business Practices Subcommittee, and that the ISO/RTO Council and other entities, including PJM Interconnection LLC, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Southwest Power Pool, Electric Reliability Council Of Texas, Inc., and the Independent Electricity System Operator of Ontario, raised concerns that remain unresolved. 36

30. We incorporate by reference all of the WEQ-023 Modeling Business Practice Standards. The WEQ-023 Business Practice Standards were filed in October 2015 and were the product of an extensive development process by a NAESB subcommittee with the necessary expertise to address the relevant technical issues. Although WEQ-023-1.4 and 1.4.1 Business Practice Standards were not in NERC's MOD A Reliability Standards, they were proposed to help address differences in how contract paths are treated that would have existed among the three methods for calculating ATC: Rated System Path Methodology, Area Interchange Methodology, and Flowgate Methodology. Declining to adopt these standards at this point could potentially loosen the requirements for non-discriminatory calculation of ATC and may require changes to specific standards regarding particular contract paths. Given the deliberately broad nature of these standards, the record does not show that current business practices, such as a response to a sudden de-rate or outage referenced by the ISO/RTO Council, would necessarily be considered a violation of the standards.

31. Moreover, a consensus of the industry approved these standards with Bonneville, MISO and ISO-NE voting in favor at the WEQ stakeholders meeting, while no ISO/RTO and only one utility voted in opposition. In reviewing these standards, the Commission relies heavily on the consensus expertise of the NAESB membership. 37 Concerns with the NAESB Business Practice Standards therefore should be raised within the NAESB process, and the industry should seek to resolve any issues therein and, if they cannot, the parties need to provide a factual record for the Commission to consider the issue. 38

32. Bonneville and the ISO/RTO Council have raised concerns with whether implementation of these standards in all cases will result in a loss of scheduling flexibility without the risk of overscheduling. We therefore remind these parties that, as further discussed in P 41, we remain open to examining requests for waivers of these standards when utilities make compliance filings. 39 Such requests should explain why the filing parties believe their current practices violate the standards and why their practices should be considered equal or superior to the standards in preventing overscheduling while providing for more flexibility or other benefits in scheduling. We urge NAESB to consider the issues raised by Bonneville and the ISO/RTO Council and whether revisions to these standards are warranted. The Commission also is mindful of the consideration of the potential benefits of maximizing the use of transmission when appropriate, without compromising reliability, and maintaining flexibility to maximize transmission utilization as conditions change, and has scheduled a workshop that may consider these issues. 40

33. The Commission sought comment on proposed additional regulatory text in 18 CFR 37.6 (information to be posted on the OASIS) stating that transmission provider ATC calculations must be transparent, consistent, and not unduly discriminatory or preferential. Specifically, the Commission proposed to make the revisions indicated below to the regulatory text in 18 CFR 37.6(b)(2)(i):

Information used to calculate any posting of ATC and TTC must be dated and time-stamped and all calculations shall be performed according to consistently applied methodologies referenced in the Transmission Provider's transmission tariff and shall be based on Commission-approved [Reliability Standards,] business practice and electronic communication standards, and related implementation documents, as well as current industry practices, standards and criteria. Transmission Providers shall calculate ATC and TTC in coordination with and consistent with capability and usage on neighboring systems, calculate system capability using factors derived from operations and planning data for the time frame for which data are being posted (including anticipated outages), and update ATC and TTC calculations as inputs change. Such calculations shall be conducted in a manner that is transparent, consistent, and not unduly discriminatory or preferential. 41

34. The NOPR explained that “this proposed regulation, in conjunction with the WEQ-023 Modeling Business Practice Standards, will help ensure that all transmission customers will be treated fairly when seeking alternative power supplies, and will provide for comparable and not unduly discriminatory or preferential treatment of native load customers and transmission service customers.”  42 The Commission also sought comment on whether it should develop new regulations outside of the NAESB standards development process “to maintain the current level of detail related to ATC calculations; if so, what level of detail those regulations should have.”  43

35. Four commenters oppose the Commission's proposed changes to the regulatory text. No commenters filed in support of the proposal. Bonneville and the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) assert that the Commission's proposed language is unnecessary. Bonneville further asserts that the regulatory changes circumvent the NAESB process sanctioned by the Commission for the development of standards, and that the Commission's regulations are not the appropriate place to address technical details involving the calculation of ATC and TTC. In particular, Bonneville maintains that the Commission's proposed language includes ambiguous references to technical concepts such as “factors derived from operations and planning data” in the calculation of ATC and TTC. 44 EEI contends that revisions should occur through NAESB's standard development process, and that the directives in Order No. 890 and related provisions in the pro forma OATT are sufficient to ensure that ATC calculation is consistent and non-discriminatory. EEI also notes that in Order No. 890, the Commission acknowledged its reliance on NAESB for the development of business practice standards. 45

36. The ISO/RTO Council disagrees with the concerns expressed in the NOPR about the opportunity for discriminatory practices and transmission provider discretion in the calculation of ATC and AFC, stating that the WEQ-023 Modeling Business Practice Standards “were extensively vetted through NAESB's industry-wide standards development process where any comments received regarding the lesser degree of detail in the standards were successfully addressed prior to NAESB ratification.”  46 The ISO/RTO Council contends that the WEQ-023 Modeling Business Practice Standards ensure non-discriminatory practices and limit transmission provider discretion by requiring each transmission service provider to publish its ATC calculation methodology, and to describe its methodology in its ATC implementation document such that, given the same information used by the transmission service provider, the ATC calculations are reproducible and can be validated. 47

37. Similarly, Open Access Technology International, Inc. (OATI) maintains that the NAESB standards development process is the best way to draft standards through an open, transparent, and industry participant driven process. It states that standards developed through this process would help the Commission avoid the imposition of unintentional and unnecessary regulatory changes. 48 All four commenters agree that, if the Commission determines that the WEQ-023 Modeling Business Practice Standards are insufficient, it should encourage NAESB to provide additional details and specific standards to address those shortcomings.

38. We adopt the NOPR proposal, with certain revisions. We recognize that commenters oppose adding these criteria to the Commission's regulations, but after consideration of their arguments we continue to believe that revisions to the Commission's regulations are necessary to ensure that transmission provider ATC calculations are transparent, consistent with anticipated system conditions and outages for the relevant timeframe, and not unduly discriminatory or preferential. However, in response to concerns raised in comments, we will not include detailed technical criteria in the regulations, but we will instead include the fundamentals of Order No. 890 requirements for calculating ATC, which is consistent with what the Commission proposed in the NOPR. The regulatory text will read as shown below. 49

39. The revised regulatory text properly references the WEQ Business Practice Standards in place of the NERC Mod A Reliability Standards that have been proposed for retirement. It also includes in the regulation Order No. 890's fundamental requirement that transmission provider ATC calculations must be transparent, consistent with anticipated system conditions and outages for the relevant timeframe, and not unduly discriminatory or preferential, but without introducing specific technical concepts that may be subject to differing interpretations. 50 We adopt this regulatory text because it has the advantage of removing the most objectionable language opposed by commenters while including the fundamental requirements in Order No. 890, including that the determination of ATC must not be unduly discriminatory or preferential.

40. Commenters do not indicate a need at this time for additional ATC standards or for the Commission to develop further regulations outside of the NAESB standards development process. The industry, through the NAESB process, should continue to consider further refinements to these standards to improve the accuracy of these calculations.

41. The ISO/RTO Council asks the Commission to continue to acknowledge in its final rule that, consistent with Commission precedent and currently-effective policy, each public utility may seek as part of its compliance filing waiver of new or revised standards in the WEQ Version 003.3 Standards, and renewal of existing waivers previously granted by the Commission. The ISO/RTO Council requests a similar clarification be included in the final rule for this proceeding. 51

42. Public utilities may seek waiver of the standards for newly developed or newly revised standards and for the renewal of existing waivers. Our policy on when these waivers will be granted or denied is not being changed in this final rule. The Commission has previously stated that if a public utility asserts that its circumstances warrant a continued waiver of the regulations, the public utility may file a request for a waiver wherein the public utility can detail the circumstances that it believes warrant a waiver. 52 In its request for continued waiver, the public utility must include the date, docket number, and explanation for why the waiver was initially granted by the Commission. The Commission will decide on any such waiver request on a case-by-case basis, and absent a Commission-approved waiver, compliance with the standards is required by all public utilities.

43. In the WEQ Version 003.3 NOPR, the Commission proposed to implement the WEQ Version 003.3 Standards, other than those related to cybersecurity, under an 18-month implementation timeline. The Commission requested comments on how best to proceed with the implementation of the remaining WEQ 003.3 Standards, including the standards related to PFV and those related to OASIS. Specifically, the Commission requested comments on whether the Commission should require the industry to implement WEQ Version 003.2 prior to WEQ Version 003.3, or, alternatively, cancel the implementation obligation of WEQ Version 003.2 and instead require implementation of all accepted WEQ Version 003.3 Standards, including the WEQ Version 003.2 Standards, within 18 months. 53

44. Bonneville, EEI and OATI states the WEQ Version 003.2 Standards and the WEQ Version 003.3 Standards should have distinct, sequential implementation timelines that are separate and do not overlap. 54 Bonneville states work is underway within the industry to implement the WEQ Version 003.2 Standards which should not be interrupted due to the Commission's adoption of the WEQ Version 003.3 Standards. 55 EEI states the implementation of the different versions simultaneously are not necessarily simple upgrades, and OASIS updates, training and testing are required for successful implementation. 56 OATI states separate implementation schedules will prevent wasted industry effort and cost. 57

45. OATI states that the Commission's proposed 18 month implementation period for the WEQ Version 003.3 Standards should begin after the implementation period for WEQ Version 003.2 Standards ends. 58 Bonneville, however, recommends a shorter implementation period of at least 12 months, also starting no sooner than the final compliance deadline for the WEQ Version 003.2 Standards. 59 The ISO/RTO Council also supports an implementation date in October 2022 for the WEQ Version 3.3 Standards and recommends that the Commission provide public utilities with the option of implementing the WEQ Version 003.2 Standards either: (a) In October 2021 under the current implementation timeline for the WEQ Version 003.2 Standards and prior to WEQ Version 003.3 Standards; or (b) in October 2022 simultaneously with the WEQ Version 003.3 Standards. 60 The ISO/RTO Council states that the Commission should also permit parties to submit a single compliance filing and intended implementation schedule for both WEQ Version 003.2 Standards and WEQ Version 003.3 Standards. 61

46. The ISO/RTO Council also requests that the PFV Standards be implemented on an expedited timeline similar to the timeframe for the WEQ cybersecurity standards that is separate from the rest of the proposed modifications in the WEQ Version 003.3 Standards. 62 The ISO/RTO Council states that the PFV Standards' enhanced congestion process will more accurately account for internal flows ( i.e., network and native load calculations) by incorporating the use of real-time data into relief obligations calculated by the IDC.

47. Moreover, the ISO/RTO Council requests that the Commission ensure that the implementation timeline account for any external dependencies and system changes beyond a public utility's control but necessary for a public utility's implementation and compliance with the WEQ Version 003.3 Standards. 63 For example, Bonneville and the ISO/RTO Council reference new requirements for posting TLR curtailment on a public utilities' OASIS. This new TLR requirement necessitates certain changes to and/or information sourced from the Interchange Distribution Calculator/Enhanced Curtailment Calculator (IDC/ECC) tools  64 in order to coordinate with the OASIS system enhancements. 65 With respect to the modification of WEQ-001 addressing the OASIS curtailment postings, which requires data from the ECC tool to meet the posting requirements, Bonneville states the implementation timeline should be at least six months from the time that a mechanism is made available to access data from the ECC. 66

48. The Commission recognized in the WEQ Version 003.3 NOPR the potential for confusion through implementation of Version 003.3 either immediately after or simultaneously with Version 003.2 implementation. In light of commenters' explanations as to the time needed and complexities involved to plan and complete the tasks associated in implementing the WEQ Version 003.2 Standards, we will not require the two implementation timelines for the WEQ Version 003.2 Standards and the WEQ Version 003.3 Standards to run concurrently. Accordingly, public utilities will continue to implement the changes incorporated by reference in Order No. 676-I, for the WEQ Version 003.2 Standards, under the current implementation timeline ending October 2021. 67 For the WEQ Version 003.3 Standards incorporated by reference in this final rule, 68 we conclude that a 15-month implementation period, beginning after the completion of the implementation timeline for the WEQ Version 003.2 Standards, is sufficient for implementation of the WEQ Version 003.3 Standards.. 69 As a result, public utilities will submit two compliance filings: the compliance filing for the WEQ Version 003.2 Standards will remain due July 27, 2021, with implementation no earlier than October 27, 2021, and the compliance filing for the WEQ Version 003.3 Standards, which we incorporate by reference in this final rule, will be due 12 months after implementation of the WEQ Version 003.2 Standards, or no earlier than October 27, 2022. Again, the Commission will determine an implementation date for the WEQ Version 003.3 Standards following the acceptance of the compliance filings, no earlier than three months following their submission ( i.e., not before January 27, 2023), resulting in a 15-month implementation period. We decline to adopt the ISO/RTO Council's proposal to require both the WEQ Version 003.2 Standards and the WEQ Version 003.3 Standards to be incorporated using the same timeline, with both due to be implemented by October 2022. Delaying the current implementation timeline for the WEQ Version 003.2 Standards could result in additional industry effort and complicate implementation of the WEQ Version 003.3 Standards.

49. As noted above, for the revisions related to the surety assessment on cybersecurity performed by Sandia, which were included in the WEQ Version 003.3 Standards, 70 we will require industry filers to submit compliance filings for these revised WEQ cybersecurity standards nine months after the publication of a final rule in this proceeding, with implementation required no sooner than three months after compliance filings are submitted to the Commission, for a total implementation period of at least 12 months from the issuance of this final rule. Moreover, we agree with the ISO/RTO Council request that the PFV Standards be implemented on the same expedited timeline provided for the WEQ cybersecurity standards, that is, separate and apart from the implementation of the rest of the proposed modifications in the WEQ Version 003.3 Standards. As a result, we will require industry filers to also submit compliance filings for the PFV Standards, nine months after the publication of this final rule, with implementation required no sooner than three months after compliance filings are submitted to the Commission, for a total implementation period of at least twelve months.

I. Background

1. On July 18, 2018, the Commission issued a final rule  1 (Order No. 849) adopting procedures for determining which jurisdictional natural gas pipelines may be collecting unjust and unreasonable rates in light of the income tax reductions provided by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act  2 and the Commission's Revised Policy Statement  3 and precedent  4 concerning tax allowances to address the double recovery issue identified by United Airlines, Inc. v. FERC. 5 These procedures also allowed interstate natural gas pipelines to voluntarily reduce their rates. On April 18, 2019, the Commission denied all outstanding requests for rehearing and reaffirmed the Commission's determinations in Order No. 849 (Order No. 849-A). 6

2. Order No. 849 established a requirement, pursuant to sections 10 and 14(a) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), 7 that all interstate natural gas companies with cost-based stated rates that filed a 2017 FERC Form No. 2 or 2-A must file the FERC Form No. 501-G informational filing for the purpose of evaluating the impact of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and the United Airlines Issuances on interstate natural gas pipelines' revenue requirements. In addition to the FERC Form No. 501-G filing requirement, the Commission provided four options for each interstate natural gas pipeline to make a filing to address the changes to the pipeline's recovery of tax costs or explain why no action is needed: (1) A limited NGA section 4  8 rate reduction filing (Option 1), (2) a commitment to file a general section 4 rate case or prepackaged settlement in the near future (Option 2), (3) an explanation why no rate change is needed (Option 3), and (4) no action (Option 4). These procedures were intended to encourage natural gas pipelines to voluntarily reduce their rates to the extent the tax changes result in their over-recovering their cost of service, while also providing the Commission and stakeholders information necessary to take targeted actions under NGA section 5  9 where necessary to achieve just and reasonable rates.

3. Order No. 849 made three changes to the Code of Federal Regulations. First, new § 260.402 of the Commission's regulations established the FERC Form No. 501-G filing requirement described above. 10 Second, new § 154.404 of the Commission's regulations established the regulations necessary to govern Option 1, the limited NGA section 4 rate reduction filings. 11 Options 2, 3, and 4 above did not require any change in regulations, as they could proceed under preexisting regulatory authority. Third, new § 284.123(i) of the Commission's regulations provided procedures for section 311 of the National Gas Policy Act of 1978 (NGPA)  12 and Hinshaw  13 pipelines to establish fair and equitable rates for their interstate services. 14

4. In Order No. 849, the Commission identified 129 interstate natural gas pipelines with cost-based rates that were required to file the FERC Form No. 501-G, codified in § 260.402. As of the date of Order No. 849-A, the Commission had received filings from all 129 identified pipelines. 15 As of April 15, 2021, all of these FERC Form No. 501-G filings have been accepted for filing, and the proceedings terminated. Because Order No. 849 established a one-time reporting requirement tied to a past event, it would not apply to any new pipelines that may enter the market in the future. Therefore, the regulations implemented in Order No. 849 are no longer needed, and we hereby remove § 260.402 from the Commission's regulations.

5. Eleven pipelines chose Option 1, codified in § 154.404. Under Option 1, pipelines could only choose to make these limited NGA section 4 rate reduction filings at the time of their FERC Form No. 501-G filings. Just as no new FERC Form No. 501-G filings are possible, likewise no new filings under § 154.404 are possible.

6. For any of these limited NGA section 4 rate reduction filings that proceeded to hearing, § 154.404 also governs the process by which these hearings are adjudicated, so it would not have been reasonable to remove § 154.404 before all the existing hearings concluded, either with the acceptance of a settlement or with the publication of an Initial Decision. There are no remaining dockets that are either in an Option 1 hearing or eligible to be set for an Option 1 hearing. As a result, the regulations governing this type of limited NGA section 4 rate reduction filings are no longer needed. We shall therefore remove § 154.404 of the Commission's regulations.

7. Order No. 849 also established separate regulations under § 284.123(i) to address the unique jurisdictional situation of section 311 and Hinshaw pipelines, which have their interstate rates regulated by the Commission, but which are primarily regulated at the state level. Under pre-existing policy, the Commission reviews the rates of section 311 and Hinshaw pipelines every five years on a rolling basis. 16 Section 284.123(i), in brief, provided a mechanism to lower these pipelines' interstate rates prior to their five-year review, in the event that state government regulators also adjusted their rates in light of the recent changes in tax code and tax policy. In the three-and-a-half years from the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in November 2017 until the present, almost all section 311 and Hinshaw pipelines have either come before the Commission for their five-year review, or have come before the Commission for an out-of-cycle rate review, whether due to § 284.123(i), voluntary action, or the other requirements of section 284 of the Commission's regulations that can compel an out-of-cycle rate review. The Commission, through its own review, finds it is unlikely that the remaining section 311 and Hinshaw pipelines will trigger § 284.123(i), and in any event all are due for their five-year review in the near future under the Commission's pre-existing policy. As a result, the special circumstances presented by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that required § 284.123(i) are no longer present. We shall therefore remove § 284.123(i) of the Commission's regulations.

8. The Paperwork Reduction Act  17 requires each Federal agency to seek and obtain the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval before undertaking a collection of information (including reporting, record keeping, and public disclosure requirements) directed to ten or more persons or contained in a rule of general applicability. OMB regulations require approval of certain information collection requirements contemplated by final rules (including deletion, revision, or implementation of new requirements). Upon approval of a collection of information, OMB will assign an OMB control number and an expiration date. Respondents subject to the filing requirements of a rule will not be penalized for failing to respond to the collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. The following discussion describes and analyzes the collection of information to be deleted by this final rule.

9. Public Reporting Burden: In this final rule, the Commission eliminates FERC Form No. 501-G  18 (One-time Report on Rate Effect of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act). This final rule eliminates an existing data collection, FERC-501G (OMB Control No. 1902-0302). Order No. 849 (in Docket No. RM18-11-000) allowed the Commission to determine which jurisdictional natural gas pipelines may be collecting unjust and unreasonable rates in light of the recent reduction in the corporate income tax rate in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and changes to the Commission's income tax allowance policies following the United Airlines decision. FERC Form No. 501-G collected information as to whether the pipeline was a pass-through entity. FERC Form No. 501-G collected income and balance sheet statement financial data from all NGA pipelines that have stated cost-based rates on file with the Commission. NGA pipelines whose rates were examined in a general rate case under section 4 of the NGA or in an investigation under section 5 of the NGA were not required to file FERC Form No. 501-G.

10. The Commission identified 129 interstate natural gas pipelines with cost-based rates that were required to file the adopted FERC Form No. 501-G. Interstate natural gas pipelines had four options as to how to address the results of the formula contained in the FERC Form No. 501-G. Each option has a different burden profile and a different cost per response. Companies made their own business decisions as to which option they selected. This final rule eliminates FERC Form No. 501-G which reduces burden on all applicants.

11. All burden from FERC Form No. 501-G has already been incurred. For informational purposes, the previous estimate of burden and cost for the now-complete FERC Form No. 501-G collection follows.

12. This final rule eliminates all information collection and recordkeeping requirements associated with RM18-11-000. The removal of the FERC-501G eliminates the estimated annual information collection burden (2,433 hours) and cost ($204,317) associated with FERC-501G (OMB Control No. 1902-0302).

13. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment. 26 The actions taken here fall within categorical exclusions in the Commission's regulations for rules regarding information gathering, analysis, and dissemination. 27 Therefore, an environmental review is unnecessary and has not been prepared in this rulemaking.

14. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA)  28 generally requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA mandates consideration of regulatory alternatives that accomplish the stated objectives of a rulemaking while minimizing any significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In lieu of preparing a regulatory flexibility analysis, an agency may certify that a final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 29 In Order No. 849, the Commission found that the institution of the new regulations would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. 30 Most of the natural gas pipelines regulated by the Commission do not fall within the RFA's definition of a small entity. 31 For the same reasons, removing these regulations will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

15. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the Federal Register , the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the internet through the Commission's Home Page ( http://www.ferc.gov ). At this time, the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public Reference Room due to the President's March 13, 2020 proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19).

16. From the Commission's Home Page on the internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field.

17. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's website during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at 202-502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-8371, TTY (202) 502-8659. Email the Public Reference Room at public.referenceroom@ferc.gov.

18. These regulations are effective August 2, 2021. This rule does not alter the substantive rights or interests of any interested persons, and it merely removes certain outdated and nonessential natural gas regulations from the Commission's body of regulations on a prospective basis. Therefore, prior notice and comment under section 4 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)  32 are unnecessary. The Commission has determined that this rule is not a “major rule” as defined in section 351 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends parts 154, 260, & 284, chapter I, title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

On October 6, 2020, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(j), published an interim final rule (IFR) [85 FR 63014] to make remimazolam (including its salts, isomers, and salts of isomers whenever the existence of such salts, isomers, and salts of isomers is possible), a schedule IV controlled substance(s). See 21 CFR 1308.14(c)(51) (DEA Controlled Substance Code 2846).

Over time, alternative chemical names have been used to describe this same specific substance. In the preamble to the IFR, DEA provided “4 H -imidazol[1,2- a ][1,4]benzodiazepine-4-propionic acid, 8-bromo-1-methyl-6-(2-pyridinyl)-(4 S )-methyl ester, benzenesulfonate (1:1) and also, methyl 3-[(4 S )-8-bromo-1-methyl-6-pyridin-2-yl-4 H -imidazo[1,2- a ][1,4]benzodiazepin-4yl]propanoate benzenesulfonic acid”  1 as the chemical names of remimazolam, which refer to the benzenesulfonic acid salt of remimazolam. Since DEA controlled remimazolam and its salts, isomers, and salts of isomers in schedule IV by publication of the IFR, DEA believes it is more appropriate to include chemical names consistent with the free base of this substance, namely “4 H -imidazol[1,2- a ][1,4]benzodiazepine-4-propionic acid, 8-bromo-1-methyl-6-(2-pyridinyl)-(4 S )-methyl ester and methyl 3-[(4 S )-8-bromo-1-methyl-6-pyridin-2-yl-4 H -imidazo[1,2- a ][1,4]benzodiazepin-4yl]propanoate” in the preamble of this final rule. It bears emphasis that the chemical that is the subject of this final rule is the same substance that was the subject of the IFR. DEA simply is using alternative chemical descriptions to refer to that same substance in this preamble.

Remimazolam is a new molecular entity with central nervous system depressant properties, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), in July 2020, approved the use of BYFAVO (Remimazolam) as an intravenous medication for the induction and maintenance of procedural sedation in adults undergoing procedures lasting 30 minutes or less. The IFR to schedule remimazolam provided opportunity for interested persons to submit comments, as well as file a request for hearing or waiver of hearing, on or before November 5, 2020. DEA did not receive any requests for hearing or waiver of hearing.

In response to the IFR, DEA received three comments, from one individual and two anonymous sources. One commenter supported schedule IV placement; the second commenter suggested placement in schedule III instead; and the third commenter expressed views on a non-DEA rulemaking. DEA will not summarize or respond to this last comment as it was outside the scope of this rulemaking.

An anonymous commenter briefly expressed that schedule IV was the appropriate schedule for remimazolam based on the data from clinical trials conducted, limited side effects, and its better performance as compared to similar substances such as midazolam.

DEA Response: DEA determined in the IFR, and re-affirms in this final rule, that remimazolam meets the criteria under 21 U.S.C. 812(b)(4) for schedule IV control. As described by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), 2 and in DEA's August 2020 eight-factor analysis, remimazolam demonstrated abuse potential similar to midazolam, a schedule IV depressant. DEA appreciates the support for this rulemaking.

One individual commenter expressed concerns with DEA's placement of remimazolam in schedule IV and instead suggested placing remimazolam in schedule III. The commenter briefly discussed the pharmacology of remimazolam and noted that both HHS and DEA stated the abuse potential and public health risk of remimazolam is similar to schedule IV benzodiazepines. However, the commenter stated that remimazolam induced “positive euphoria related responses in [a] human abuse potential study leading to dependence to relative drugs in schedule III” and recommended classifying remimazolam as schedule III “due to FDA placing a black box warning label on benzodiazepines and the numerous studies illustrating [the abuse and misuse of benzodiazepines] within the public communities.” The commenter noted that schedule III provided more restrictions and could protect the public from harm. The individual summarized four reference articles related to the historic medical use and abuse of prescription benzodiazepines, diversion and trafficking of licit and illicit benzodiazepines, and the serious adverse effects that may occur with misuse and abuse of benzodiazepines, including an increase in benzodiazepine-related deaths. Further, the commenter believed that the opioid epidemic has overshadowed the benzodiazepines misuse and abuse, but suggested that benzodiazepines and opioids are working “in tandem wreaking havoc in the lives of many” and that “creating a strong foundation through classification of drugs can place precedent in ensuring the health and safety of American citizens.”

DEA Response: DEA considered the commenter's position; however, does find placement in schedule IV to be appropriate for remimazolam. As discussed briefly in the background and legal authority section above, and in more detail in the IFR [85 FR 63014, 63015-63016], FDA approved the New Drug Application (NDA) for BYFAVO (remimazolam), and HHS provided DEA with a scientific and medical evaluation and a scheduling recommendation for control of remimazolam in schedule IV. Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(j), the scheduling recommendation by HHS and FDA approval of the NDA necessitated DEA's review and its own determination for the scheduling action (to first issue the IFR and subsequently to issue this final rule) in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(b). DEA considered HHS' scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendation, and all other relevant data and concurred with HHS' recommendation that remimazolam has low potential of abuse relative to substances in schedule III and therefore supported—and continues to support through this final rule—placement of remimazolam in schedule IV. DEA notes that under 21 U.S.C. 811(b), HHS's recommendation shall be binding on the Administrator of DEA (as delegated by the Attorney General) as to any scientific or medical considerations involved in three of the eight factors specified in 21 U.S.C. 811(c) ( i.e., factors pertaining to the substance's actual or relative potential for abuse, its history and current pattern of abuse, and the scope, duration, and significance of abuse). Regarding the commenter's public safety concerns with remimazolam's placement in schedule IV, there is still significant oversight for schedule IV drugs. For both the IFR and this final rule, DEA made the findings required under 21 U.S.C. 812(b)(4) for the placement of remimazolam in schedule IV.

As indicated above, remimazolam has been a schedule IV controlled substance by virtue of an IFR issued by DEA in October 2020. Thus, this final rule does not alter the regulatory requirements applicable to handlers of remimazolam that have been in place since that time. Nonetheless, for informational purposes, we restate here those requirements. Remimazolam is subject to the Controlled Substances Act's (CSA) schedule IV regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions applicable to the manufacture, distribution, reverse distribution, dispensing, importing, exporting, research, and conduct of instructional activities and chemical analysis with, and possession involving schedule IV substances, including, but not limited to, the following:

1. Registration. Any person who handles (manufactures, distributes, reverse distributes, dispenses, imports, exports, engages in research, or conducts instructional activities or chemical analysis with, or possesses) remimazolam, or who desires to handle remimazolam, must be registered with DEA to conduct such activities pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 822, 823, 957, and 958 and in accordance with 21 CFR parts 1301 and 1312. Any person who intends to handle remimazolam, and is not registered with DEA, must submit an application for registration and may not continue to handle remimazolam unless DEA has approved that application for registration, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 822, 823, 957, and 958, and in accordance with 21 CFR parts 1301 and 1312. These registration requirements, however, are not applicable to patients (end users) who possess remimazolam pursuant to a lawful prescription.

2. Disposal of stocks. Any person who does not desire or is not able to maintain a schedule IV registration must surrender all quantities of currently held remimazolam or may transfer all quantities of remimazolam to a person registered with DEA in accordance with 21 CFR part 1317, in additional to all other applicable Federal, State, local, and tribal laws.

3. Security. Remimazolam is subject to schedule III-V security requirements for DEA registrants and it must be handled and stored in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.71-1301.77. Non-practitioners handling remimazolam must also comply with the employee screening requirements of 21 CFR 1301.90-1301.93.

4. Labeling and Packaging. All labels, labeling, and packaging for commercial containers of remimazolam must comply with 21 U.S.C. 825 and 958(e), and be in accordance with 21 CFR part 1302.

5. Inventory. Since October 6, 2020, every DEA registrant who possesses any quantity of remimazolam must take an inventory of remimazolam on hand, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and 958, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1304.03, 1304.04, and 1304.11.

6. Records and Reports. DEA registrants must maintain records and submit reports for remimazolam, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827, 832(a), and 958(e), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.74(b) and (c) and parts 1304, 1312, and 1317.

7. Prescriptions. All prescriptions for remimazolam, or products containing remimazolam, must comply with 21 U.S.C. 829, and be issued in accordance with 21 CFR parts 1306 and 1311, subpart C.

8. Manufacturing and Distributing. In addition to the general requirements of the CSA and DEA regulations that are applicable to manufacturers and distributors of schedule IV controlled substances, such registrants should be advised that (consistent with the foregoing considerations) any manufacturing or distribution of remimazolam may only be for the legitimate purposes consistent with the drug's labeling, or for research activities authorized by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the CSA.

9. Importation and Exportation. All importation and exportation of remimazolam must be in compliance with 21 U.S.C. 952, 953, 957, and 958, and in accordance with 21 CFR part 1312.

10. Liability. Any activity involving remimazolam not authorized by, or in violation of, the CSA or its implementing regulations, is unlawful, and may subject the person to administrative, civil, and/or criminal sanctions.

This final rule, without change, affirms the amendment made by the IFR that is already in effect. Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553) generally requires notice and comment for rulemakings. However, 21 U.S.C. 811(j) provides that in cases where a certain new drug is (1) approved by HHS and (2) HHS recommends control in CSA schedule II-V, DEA shall issue an IFR scheduling the drug within 90 days. Additionally, subsection (j) specifies that the rulemaking shall become immediately effective as an IFR without requiring DEA to demonstrate good cause. DEA issued an IFR on October 6, 2020, and solicited public comments on that rule. Subsection (j) further provides that after giving interested persons the opportunity to comment and to request a hearing, the Attorney General, as delegated to the Administrator of DEA, shall issue a final rule in accordance with the scheduling criteria of 21 U.S.C. 811(b) through (d) and 812(b). DEA is now responding to the comments submitted by the public and issuing the final rule in accordance with subsection (j).

In accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(a) and (j), this scheduling action is subject to formal rulemaking procedures performed “on the record after opportunity for a hearing,” which are conducted pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557. The CSA sets forth procedures and criteria for scheduling a drug or other substance. Such actions are exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to section 3(d)(1) of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 and the principles reaffirmed in E.O. 13563.

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

This rulemaking does not have federalism implications warranting the application of E.O. 13132. The rule does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

This rule does not have tribal implications warranting the application of E.O. 13175. It does not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612) applies to rules that are subject to notice and comment under section 553(b) of the APA. As noted in the above discussion regarding the applicability of the APA, DEA was not required to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking. Consequently, the RFA does not apply.

In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq., DEA has determined that this action would not result in any Federal mandate that may result “in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any 1 year.” Therefore, neither a Small Government Agency Plan nor any other action is required under UMRA of 1995.

This action does not impose a new collection of information requirement under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521. This action would not impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

This rule is not a major rule as defined by the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 804. However, pursuant to the CRA, DEA is submitting a copy of this final rule to both Houses of Congress and to the Comptroller General.

Section 518 of SMCRA, 30 U.S.C. 1268, authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to assess civil monetary penalties (CMPs) for violations of SMCRA. The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement's (OSMRE) regulations implementing the CMP provisions of section 518 are located in 30 CFR parts 723, 724, 845, and 846. We are adjusting CMPs in six sections—30 CFR 723.14, 723.15, 724.14, 845.14, 845.15, and 846.14.

On November 2, 2015, the President signed the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Sec. 701 of Pub. L. 114-74) (2015 Act) into law. The 2015 Act, which further amended the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (codified as amended at 28 U.S.C. 2461 note), requires Federal agencies to promulgate rules to adjust the level of CMPs to account for inflation. The 2015 Act required an initial “catch-up” adjustment. OSMRE published the initial adjustment in the Federal Register on July 8, 2016 (81 FR 44535), and the adjustment took effect on August 1, 2016. The 2015 Act also requires agencies to publish annual inflation adjustments in the Federal Register no later than January 15 of each year. These adjustments are aimed at maintaining the deterrent effect of civil penalties and furthering the policy goals of the statutes that authorize the penalties. Further, the 2015 Act provides that agencies must adjust civil monetary penalties “notwithstanding section 553 of [the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)].” Therefore, “the public procedure the APA generally requires—notice, an opportunity for comment, and a delay in effective date—is not required for agencies to issue regulations implementing the annual adjustment.” December 23, 2020, Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies (M-21-10) from Russell T. Vought, Director, Office of Management and Budget, Implementation of Penalty Inflation Adjustments for 2021, Pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (OMB Memorandum), at 3.

Pursuant to SMCRA and the 2015 Act, this final rule reflects the statutorily required CMP adjustments as follows:

In the chart above, there are no numbers listed in the “Points” column relative to 30 CFR 723.15(b), 30 CFR 724.14(b), 30 CFR 845.15(b), and 30 CFR 846.14(b) because those regulatory provisions do not set forth numbers of points. For those provisions, the current regulations only set forth the dollar amounts shown in the chart in the “Current Penalty Dollar Amounts” column; the adjusted amounts, which we are adopting in this rule, are shown in the “Adjusted Penalty Dollar Amounts” column.

OMB issued guidance on the 2021 annual adjustments for inflation. See OMB Memorandum (December 23, 2020). The OMB Memorandum notes that the 1990 Act defines “civil monetary penalty” as “any penalty, fine, or other sanction that . . . is for a specific monetary amount as provided by Federal law; or . . . has a maximum amount provided for by Federal law; and . . . is assessed or enforced by an agency pursuant to Federal law; and . . . is assessed or enforced pursuant to an administrative proceeding or a civil action in the Federal courts . . . .” Id. at 2. It further instructs that agencies “are to adjust `the maximum civil monetary penalty or the range of minimum and maximum civil monetary penalties, as applicable, for each civil monetary penalty by the cost-of-living adjustment.' ” Id. The 1990 Act, as amended by the 2015 Act, and the OMB Memorandum specify that the annual inflation adjustments are based on the percent change between the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (the CPI-U) published by the Department of Labor for the month of October in the year of the previous adjustment, and the October CPI-U for the preceding year. The recent OMB Memorandum specified that the cost-of-living adjustment multiplier for 2021, not seasonally adjusted, is 1.01182 (the October 2020 CPI-U (260.388) divided by the October 2019 CPI-U (257.346) = 1.01182). OSMRE used this guidance to identify applicable CMPs and calculate the required inflation adjustments. The 1990 Act, as amended by the 2015 Act, specifies that any resulting increases in CMPs must be rounded according to a stated rounding formula and that the increased CMPs apply only to violations that occur after the date that the increases take effect.

Generally, OSMRE assigns points to a violation as described in 30 CFR 723.13 and 845.13. The CMP owed is based on the number of points received, ranging from one point to 70 points. For example, under our existing regulations in 30 CFR 845.14, a violation totaling 70 points would amount to a $17,112 CMP. To adjust this amount, we multiply $17,112 by the 2020 inflation factor of 1.01182, resulting in a raw adjusted amount of $17,314.26. Because the 2015 Act requires us to round any increase in the CMP amount to the nearest dollar, in this case a violation of 70 points would amount to a new CMP of $17,314. Pursuant to the 2015 Act, the increases in this final rule apply to CMPs assessed after the date the increases take effect, even if the associated violation predates the applicable increase.

OSMRE directly regulates surface coal mining and reclamation operations within a State or on Tribal lands if the State or Tribe does not obtain its own approved program pursuant to sections 503 or 710(j) of SMCRA, 30 U.S.C. 1253 or 1300(j). The increases in CMPs contained in this rule will apply to the following Federal program States: Arizona, California, Georgia, Idaho, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Washington. The Federal programs for those States appear at 30 CFR parts 903, 905, 910, 912, 921, 922, 933, 937, 939, 941, 942, and 947, respectively. Under 30 CFR 750.18, the increases in CMPs also apply to Indian lands under the Federal program for Indian lands.

As a result of litigation, see In re Permanent Surface Mining Regulation Litigation, No. 79-1144, Mem. Op. (D.D.C. May 16, 1980), 19 Env't. Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1477, State regulatory programs are not required to mirror all of the penalty provisions of our regulations. Thus, this rule has no effect on CMPs in States with SMCRA primacy.

Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that agency regulations exclusively implementing the annual inflation adjustments are not significant, provided they are consistent with the OMB Memorandum. Because this final rule exclusively implements the annual inflation adjustments, is consistent with the OMB Memorandum, and will have an annual impact of less than $100 million, it is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of Executive Order 12866 while calling for improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The Executive Order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements, to the extent permitted by statute.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for all rules unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency is required to first publish a proposed rule. See 5 U.S.C. 603(a) and 604(a). The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 requires agencies to adjust civil penalties annually for inflation “notwithstanding section 553 [of the Administrative Procedure Act].” Thus, no proposed rule will be published, and the RFA does not apply to this rulemaking.

This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:

(a) Will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.

(b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions.

(c) Will not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments, or the private sector, of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) is not required.

This rule does not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have takings implications under Executive Order 12630. A takings implication assessment is not required.

Under the criteria in section 1 of Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. A federalism summary impact statement is not required.

This rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. Specifically, this rule:

(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and

(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.

The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Tribes through a commitment to consultation with Tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and Tribal sovereignty. We have evaluated this rule under the Department's consultation policy, under Departmental Manual Part 512, Chapters 4 and 5, and under the criteria in Executive Order 13175 and have determined that it has no substantial direct effects on Federally-recognized Tribes or Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) Corporations, and that consultation under the Department's Tribal consultation policy is not required.

This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and a submission to the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) is not required. We may not conduct or sponsor, and you are not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) is not required because the rule is covered by a categorical exclusion. This rule is excluded from the requirement to prepare a detailed statement because it is a regulation of an administrative nature. (For further information see 43 CFR 46.210(i).) We have also determined that the rule does not involve any of the extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215 that would require further analysis under NEPA.

This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in Executive Order 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

We are required by Executive Orders 12866 (section 1(b)(12)), 12988 (section 3(b)(1)(B)), and 13563 (section 1(a)), and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:

(a) Be logically organized;

(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;

(c) Use common, everyday words and clear language rather than jargon;

(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and

(e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.

If you believe that we have not met these requirements in issuing this final rule, please contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Your comments should be as specific as possible in order to help us determine whether any future revisions to the rule are necessary. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs that you find unclear, which sections or sentences are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.

In developing this rule, we did not conduct or use a study, experiment, or survey requiring peer review under the Data Quality Act (Pub. L. 106-554).

We are issuing this final rule without prior public notice or opportunity for public comment. As discussed above, the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 requires agencies to publish adjusted penalties annually. Under the 2015 Act, the public procedure that the Administrative Procedure Act generally requires—notice, an opportunity for comment, and a delay in the effective date—is not required for agencies to issue regulations implementing the annual adjustments required by the 2015 Act. See OMB Memorandum, M-21-10, at 3.

For the reasons given in the preamble, the Department of the Interior amends 30 CFR parts 723, 724, 845, and 846 as set forth below.

This action removes requirements for how the EPA considers the availability of dose-response data underlying its pivotal science used in its significant regulatory actions and influential scientific information. The EPA recognizes any entity interested in submitting studies to EPA or how EPA evaluates and considers science in EPA regulations may be interested in this final rule.

The EPA is removing the regulatory provisions associated with the final rule “Strengthening Transparency in Pivotal Science Underlying Significant Regulatory Actions and Influential Scientific Information” (86 FR 469, January 6, 2021), herein referred to as the “2021 final rule” (Ref. 1). This action effectuates the vacatur of the final rule ordered by the United States District Court for the District of Montana in Environmental Defense Fund et al. v. EPA, No. 21-cv-00003 (D. Mon. Feb. 1, 2021) ( EDF v. EPA ).

Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. EPA has determined that there is good cause under section 553(b)(B) to issue this final rule without prior proposal and opportunity for comment because this action undertakes the ministerial tasks of removing regulatory provisions vacated by the court in EDF v. EPA (Ref. 2).

As a matter of law, the order issued by the court in EDF v. EPA on February 1, 2021 vacated the 2021 final rule. It is, therefore, unnecessary to provide notice and an opportunity for comment on this action, which carries out the court's orders by removing the 2021 final rule from 40 CFR part 30.

In addition, EPA finds that it has good cause to make these revisions immediately effective upon publication under section 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d). Section 553(d) provides that final rules shall not become effective until 30 days after publication in the Federal Register “except . . . as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause. ” The purpose of this provision is to “give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior before the final rule takes effect.” Omnipoint Corp. v. Fed. Commc'n Comm'n, 78 F.3d 620, 630 (D.C. Cir. 1996); see also United States v. Gavrilovic, 551 F.2d 1099, 1104 (8th Cir. 1977) (quoting legislative history). Thus, in determining whether good cause exists to waive the 30-day delay, an agency should, “balance the necessity for immediate implementation against principles of fundamental fairness which require that all affected persons be afforded a reasonable amount of time to prepare for the effective date of its ruling.” Gavrilovic, 551 F.2d at 1105. EPA has determined that there is good cause under section 553(d) for making this final rule effective immediately because this action merely implements the court order vacating the 2021 final rule. Delaying the effectiveness of this rule further would prolong the period of time between the change in the law ( i.e., the court's vacatur) and the corresponding update to the regulations, without providing the corresponding benefit underlying the 30-day delay. Minimizing that time period would reduce the possibility of confusion for the public. Accordingly, EPA is making this rule effective immediately upon publication.

EPA promulgated the 2021 final rule pursuant to its housekeeping authority, which EPA gained through the Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, 84 Stat. 2086 (July 9, 1970), which created the EPA. The Reorganization Plan established the Administrator as “head of the agency,” transferred functions and authorities of various agencies and Executive departments to the EPA, including the authority to promulgate regulations to carry out the transferred functions. including a housekeeping authority to promulgate procedural, but not substantive, rules. However, the rule was vacated and remanded in light of the court's conclusion that the 2021 final rule constituted a substantive rule, and therefore the EPA lacked authorization to promulgate the 2021 final rule pursuant to its housekeeping authority. This action to implement the vacatur is being taken pursuant to the court's order (Ref. 2).

The 2021 final rule established how the EPA would have considered the availability of dose-response data underlying pivotal science used in its significant regulatory actions and influential scientific information (Ref. 1). When promulgating significant regulatory actions or developing influential scientific information for which the conclusions are driven by the quantitative relationship between the amount of dose or exposure to a pollutant, contaminant, or substance and an effect, the 2021 final rule would have required that the EPA give greater consideration to studies where the underlying dose-response data are available in a manner sufficient for independent validation. The 2021 final rule also would have required the EPA to identify and make publicly available the science that serves as the basis for informing a significant regulatory action at the proposed rule stage to the extent practicable; included additional requirements for the peer review of pivotal science; and provided criteria for the Administrator to exempt certain studies from the requirements of the rule.

On January 11, 2021 the plaintiffs Environmental Defense Fund and others (EDF) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana (Ref. 3). Among other allegations, EDF contended that the 2021 final rule was substantive and therefore unlawful to promulgate under the EPA's housekeeping authority, which only permits promulgation of procedural rules. The plaintiffs further argued that the EPA lacked good cause to make the rule effective immediately. On January 27, 2021, the court issued a partial summary judgment ruling that the 2021 final rule was substantive because it failed to provide the EPA with procedural direction but instead narrowly limited the agency's discretion to consider certain scientific research when conducting future rulemakings. The court reasoned that by determining how the Agency weighs particular scientific evidence, the 2021 final rule determined outcomes rather than process. The court further ruled that EPA did not have good cause to make the 2021 final rule effective immediately and held that the effective date for the rule was 30 days after publication, or February 5, 2021 (Ref. 4). Based on the district court's conclusion that the final rule constituted a substantive rather than a procedural rule, EPA lacked authority to promulgate the final rule under its housekeeping authority. Given the court's decision, the EPA filed an unopposed motion to vacate and remand the rule (Ref. 5). On February 1, 2021, the court granted the motion vacating the 2021 final rule and remanding it to the EPA (Ref. 2). This action effectuates the court order vacating the 2021 final rule.

This final rule will become effective upon publication in the Federal Register .

1. U.S. EPA. Strengthening Transparency in Pivotal Science Underlying Significant Regulatory Actions and Influential Scientific Information; Rule, 86 FR 469 (January 6, 2021) (FRL-10019-07-ORD), available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/01/06/2020-29179/strengthening-transparency-in-pivotal-science-underlying-significant-regulatory-actions-and.

2. EDF vs. EPA , Case No. 4:21-cv-00003-BMM, United States District Court for the District of Montana, Order (February 1, 2021), available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2021-02/documents/vacatur_and_remand_final_order_case_421-cv-00003-bmm.pdf.

3. EDF vs. EPA , Case No. 4:21-cv-00003-BMM, United States District Court for the District of Montana, Complaint (January 11, 2021).

4. EDF vs. EPA , Case No. 4:21-cv-00003-BMM, United States District Court for the District of Montana, Order on Partial Motion (January 27, 2021).

5. EDF vs. EPA , Case No. 4:21-cv-00003-BMM-JTJ, United States District Court for the District of Montana, Defendants' Unopposed Motion for Vacatur and Remand (January 31, 2021).

This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket. The EPA does not anticipate that this rulemaking will have an economic impact on regulated entities.

This action does not contain any information collection activities and therefore does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA.

This action is not subject to the RFA. The RFA applies only to rules subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other statute. This rule is not subject to notice and comment requirements because the Agency has invoked the APA “good cause” exemption under 5 U.S.C. 553(b).

This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.

This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the National Government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.

This action is not a “significant energy action” within the meaning of Executive Order 13211. It is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy, and it has not otherwise been designated as a significant energy action by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA).

This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

The EPA believes that this action is not subject to Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) because it does not establish an environmental health or safety standard.

This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to the EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following:

The EPA is taking final action to approve selected revisions to 10 Code of State Regulations (CSR) 10-6.062 in the Missouri SIP. The revised State rule was submitted by the State of Missouri on March 7, 2019 and became effective on March 30, 2019. The submission requested revisions to the SIP that include: (1) Expanding the materials that crematories and animal incinerators are allowed to burn from 100% human and animal remains to 90% human and animal remains with up to 10% illegal and waste pharmaceutical drugs, (2) modifying operating conditions for crematories and animal incinerators, (3) adjusting sulfur limits on Number 2 diesel oil for consistency with Federal limits, (4) removing “restrictive” words, (5) adding definitions specific to the rule, and (6) making other minor edits. The EPA is finalizing this action because certain revisions to this State rule meet the applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act. EPA is not acting on the State rule revisions that would allow crematories and animal incinerators to burn up to 10% by weight of illegal and waste pharmaceuticals.

The State's submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The State provided public notice of the revisions from August 1, 2018, to October 4, 2018, and held a public hearing on September 27, 2018. The State received and addressed four comments from three sources, including the EPA. In addition, as explained in the proposal (85 FR 3304, January 21, 2020) and in more detail in the EPA's technical support document (TSD), which is part of this docket, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and the implementing regulations.

The public comment period on the EPA's proposed rule opened January 21, 2020, the date of its publication in the Federal Register , and closed on February 20, 2020. During this period, the EPA received comments from two commenters, which are addressed below.

Comment 1: One commenter submitted several comments regarding revisions in 10 CSR 10-6.062 paragraph (3)(B)2. and subparagraph (3)(B)2.A. that would expand the materials which crematories and animal incinerators are allowed to burn from 100% human and animal remains to 90% human and animal remains with up to 10% illegal and waste pharmaceutical drugs. The comments raise multiple approvability issues. First, the commenter states the EPA failed to provide any analysis or basis for its assertion that allowing crematories and animal incinerators to burn up to 10% pharmaceuticals would not impact the stringency of the SIP or air quality. Second, the commenter states the EPA applied faulty logic in relying on the Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator (CISWI) rule's exemption for pathological waste incinerators that burn 90% pathological waste. The commenter contends that the 90% cutoff in the CISWI rule is not a 10% catch-all burn-what-you-will provision, rather it is intended to distinguish those units designed and used primarily for pathological material destruction from other units. There is no CISWI rule provision that allows for the other 10% of the material to be illegal and waste pharmaceutical drugs. Third, the commenter said the EPA's analysis fails to recognize that incineration of pharmaceutical drugs may be subject to other federal regulations under sections 112 or 129 of the Clean Air Act or the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) depending on their contents. Finally, the commenter states the EPA failed to analyze whether allowing crematories and animal incinerators to burn pharmaceuticals would increase hazardous air pollutant emissions to such an extent that the source would exceed the major source threshold and therefore not be eligible for the construction permit-by-rule per 10 CSR 10-6.062(1)(A).

Response to Comment 1: Because of the issues raised in these comments, the EPA is not acting on the revised language that would allow crematories and animal incinerators to burn up to 10% by weight of illegal and waste pharmaceuticals. Missouri added these provisions as a means of disposing materials collected from drug take-back events and programs. However, the revisions in the State's rule conflict with requirements related to drug take-back programs established by the EPA's final regulation, Management Standards for Hazardous Waste Pharmaceuticals and Amendment to the P075 Listing for Nicotine (84 FR 5816, February 22, 2019). Specifically, the requirements for drug take-back programs codified at 40 CFR 266.506, list five types of permitted combustors that must be used to destroy waste pharmaceuticals, and crematoriums and animal incinerators are not included on the list for this purpose. The EPA explains in the preamble of the final hazardous waste pharmaceuticals rule that crematories and animal incinerators are not allowed to be used for disposal of materials collected from drug take-back programs because these units typically do not use air pollution control devices to limit toxic air pollutants such as mercury and dioxins and furans. In addition to the hazardous waste pharmaceuticals rule, there may be other state and federal regulations applicable to crematories and animal incinerators. Missouri has represented to the EPA that it is in the process of revising 10 CSR 10-6.062 to remove the problematic language allowing crematories and animal incinerators to burn illegal and waste pharmaceutical drugs. As evidence of Missouri's rulemaking to revise 10 CSR 10-6.062, the rulemaking report summarizing the changes Missouri plans to make is included in this docket.

Comment 2: The commenter states that Missouri's rule lacks necessary enforceability provisions. For instance, the commenter states that the rule is not clear whether the demonstration of 99.9% combustion efficiency applies to sources that rely on manufacturer's specifications, and it is incomplete because it does not specify what pollutants must be demonstrated to meet the 99.9% combustion efficiency. In addition, the commenter states that the compliance provisions for stack tests and opacity limit requirements fail to identify the appropriate test methods. The commenter says the rule also lacks provisions that apply to owners that follow manufacturers specifications. Finally, the commenter states that the recordkeeping and reporting provisions are inadequate.

Response to Comment 2: To apply for a Missouri permit-by-rule, an applicant completes an application. The application form contains the conditions of operation, including methods of compliance. The applicant signs the form to accept the conditions. This becomes the final permit issued by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources. 1 It is EPA's understanding that Missouri is in the process of updating the application form to reflect the changes made in this revision to the State rule.

The revised rule language clearly specifies the following two compliance demonstration options for crematories and animal incinerators: (1) Operate in accordance with manufacturer's specifications or (2) demonstrate a 99.9% combustion efficiency. Higher combustion efficiencies minimize the products of incomplete combustion and associated air pollutants.

The EPA reviewed a number of Missouri construction permits for crematories and animal incinerators that have been issued through the State's formal construction permitting process in accordance with the SIP-approved rule, 10 CSR 10-6.060 Construction Permits Required. The revised compliance options and enforceability provisions in 10 CSR 10-6.062 for crematories and animal incinerators are consistent with the language in the permits for these units that have been issued under 10 CSR 10-6.060.

The rule language regarding opacity and reporting and recordkeeping requirements was not materially revised from the provisions in the previously approved SIP. The EPA did not intend to solicit comments on the rule requirements that the state did not materially change in this rulemaking. The agency initially approved 10 CSR 10-6.062 in 2006 (71 FR 38997, July 11, 2006), and the opacity and reporting and recordkeeping provisions have not been revised since then. Courts have indicated that actions, such as the action taken on this rule, do not reopen issues on which the agency was not seeking comment. Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019, 1024 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (citing Am. Iron & Steel Inst. v. EPA, 886 F.2d 390, 397 (D.C. Cir. 1989)) (“Under the reopening doctrine, the time for seeking review starts anew where the agency reopens an issue by holding out the unchanged section as a proposed regulation, offering an explanation for its language, soliciting comments on its substance, and responding to the comments in promulgating the regulation in its final form.”); Appalachian Power v. EPA, 251 F.3d 1026 (D.C. Cir. 2004). 2 There are no known issues with the enforcement of this rule. Therefore, the EPA is finalizing this SIP revision.

Comment 3: The commenter stated that the EPA failed to provide a basis for proposing to approve the addition of eleven (11) definitions in section (2) of the rule. The commenter states it appears that the EPA is assuming that previously approved definitions can be moved into the rule. The commenter finds that it is unclear why the definition of “incinerator” was moved into this rule because it covers refuse material and open burning. The commenter also states that the definition of “construction” moved into this rule does not match the definition of construction in the permitting rule that the owner/operator seeks exemption from [10 CSR 10-6.060] and the reason for the difference is not explained. Additionally, the commenter notes that the definition of “printing” differs from the section that covers printing operations (paragraph (3)(B)1.), which is more encompassing. Finally, the commenter states the definition of “closed container” speaks to requirements regarding spilling and leaking the contents and fails to require that the closed container prevents volatile organic compound (VOC) fugitives.

Response to Comment 3: As explained in detail in the TSD, the definitions inserted into 10 CSR 10-6.062 section (2) are the same definitions included in the SIP-approved 10 CSR 10-6.020 Definitions and Common Reference Tables, and therefore there is no change to the stringency of the SIP. As explained above, the EPA did not intend to solicit comments on the portions of the rule that the State did not materially change in this rulemaking. Furthermore, the addition of these general definitions in section (2) of the rule does not impact any of the rule's conditions or requirements. The provisions in the permit-by-rule for each source category covered by 10 CSR 10-6.062 contain greater specificity related to usage of the terms.

Comment 4: An anonymous commenter recommended that the revisions not be approved. The commenter stated that instead more stringent protections and regulations with penalties should be put in place to better protect the environment and public.

Response to Comment 4: The permit-by-rule for each source category in subsection (3)(B) of the rule includes enforcement provisions. In addition, subsection (3)(C) includes provisions for revoking a permit-by-rule and penalties for non-compliance, and section (4) includes reporting and recordkeeping requirements. There are no known issues with the enforcement of this rule. For the reasons stated above and in the proposal, the EPA has determined that the rule revisions comply with the requirements of the Clean Air Act.

The EPA is approving all revisions from the March 30, 2019, State effective date version of 10 CSR 10-6.062 into the Missouri SIP, except for revisions to paragraph (3)(B)2. and subparagraph (3)(B)2.A. We are taking final action after consideration of the comments received from two commenters on the notice of proposed rulemaking.

In this document, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Missouri Regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 7 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA for inclusion in the State Implementation Plan, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of the EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation. 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Is not subject to requirements of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTA) because this rulemaking does not involve technical standards; and

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 2, 2021. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

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

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

On March 25, 2021 (86 FR 15844), EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for the State of Maine.

The NPRM proposed approval of Maine's SIP revision incorporating Maine's revisions to C.M.R. ch. 119 Motor Vehicle Fuel Volatility Limits that remove the State's requirement for the sale of RFG in the southern Maine counties, and also proposed approval of Maine's statute at 38 M.R.S. § 585-N as amended by Public Law 2019, c. 55, § 1, which repealed the State's requirement for the sale of RFG in the southern Maine counties effective November 1, 2020.

The formal SIP revision was submitted by Maine on August 20, 2020. Other specific requirements to opt-out of the federal RFG requirements and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPRM and will not be restated here. Three public comments were received on the NPRM.

EPA received three comments during the comment period. The three comments support EPA's proposal to approve Maine's SIP revision.

EPA is approving the August 20, 2020 SIP revision and approving, but not incorporating into the SIP, the State's corresponding noninterference demonstration.

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference into Maine's SIP Maine's revisions to C.M.R. ch. 119 Motor Vehicle Fuel Volatility Limits that remove the State's requirement for the sale of RFG in the southern Maine counties and is also approving into Maine's SIP Maine's statute at 38 M.R.S. § 585-N as amended by Public Law 2019, c. 55, § 1, which repealed the State's requirement for the sale of RFG in the southern Maine counties, as described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 1 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the State implementation plan, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation. 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 2, 2021. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

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

In FR Doc. 2021-00538 of January 19, 2021 (86 FR 5864), the final rule titled “Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Contract Year 2022 Policy and Technical Changes to the Medicare Advantage Program, Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Program, Medicaid Program, Medicare Cost Plan Program, and Programs of All Inclusive Care for the Elderly”, there were technical errors that are identified and corrected in this correcting amendment.

On pages 5870, 5895, 5950, 5975, 5983, 5985, 5987, 6007, 6016, and 6088, we made inadvertent grammatical and typographical errors.

On page 5938, in our discussion of tiering exceptions requests and the complaint tracking module, we inadvertently included an incorrect link.

On pages 5962 and 6058, we made typographical errors in several regulatory citations.

On pages 5977 and 5990, made typographical errors in cross-references to other sections of the final rule.

On page 6062, in our discussion of the information collection requirements (ICRs) regarding beneficiaries' education on opioid risks and alternative treatments (§ 423.128), we mistakenly referred to “Part D sponsors” rather than “Part D parent organizations.”

On page 6094, in the amendatory instructions for § 422.101, we inadvertently omitted changes that would move existing paragraph (f)(2)(vi) to paragraph (f)(3)(i) This error caused a duplication of those paragraphs. Therefore, we are removing paragraph (f)(2)(vi) to correct this error.

On page 6103, we inadvertently changed the format in the regulation text for § 422.760(b)(3)(ii)(C) that was inconsistent with the language in § 423.760(b)(3)(ii)(C). In addition, we made a typographical error in § 422.760(b)(3)(ii)(A).

On page 6120, in the regulation text for § 423.568(j)(2) and (3) and (k), we inadvertently use language applicable to MA plans instead of Part D plan sponsors.

On page 6128, in the regulations text for § 423.2267, we inadvertently misnumbered a paragraph.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the agency is required to publish a notice of the proposed rule in the Federal Register before the provisions of a rule take effect. Specifically, 5 U.S.C. 553 requires the agency to publish a notice of the proposed rule in the Federal Register that includes a reference to the legal authority under which the rule is proposed, and the terms and substance of the proposed rule or a description of the subjects and issues involved. Further, 5 U.S.C. 553 requires the agency to give interested parties the opportunity to participate in the rulemaking through public comment before the provisions of the rule take effect. Similarly, section 1871(b)(1) of the Act requires the Secretary to provide for notice of the proposed rule in the Federal Register and provide a period of not less than 60 days for public comment for rulemaking to carry out the administration of the Medicare program under title XVIII of the Act. In addition, section 553(d) of the APA, and section 1871(e)(1)(B)(i) of the Social Security Act (the Act) mandate a 30-day delay in effective date after issuance or publication of a rule. Sections 553(b)(B) and 553(d)(3) of the APA provide for exceptions from the notice and comment and delay in effective date APA requirements. In cases in which these exceptions apply, sections 1871(b)(2)(C) and 1871(e)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, also provide exceptions from the notice and 60-day comment period and delay in effective date requirements of the Act. Section 553(b)(B) of the APA and section 1871(b)(2)(C) of the Act authorize an agency to dispense with normal rulemaking requirements for good cause if the agency makes a finding that the notice and comment process are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. In addition, both section 553(d)(3) of the APA and section 1871(e)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act allow the agency to avoid the 30-day delay in effective date where such delay is contrary to the public interest and an agency includes a statement of support.

We believe that this correcting document does not constitute a rule that would be subject to the notice and comment or delayed effective date requirements of the APA or section 1871 of the Act. This correcting document corrects technical errors in the preamble and regulations text of the final rule but does not make substantive changes to the policies that were adopted in the final rule. As a result, this correcting document is intended to ensure that the information in the final rule accurately reflects the policies adopted in that final rule.

In addition, even if this were a rule to which the notice and comment procedures and delayed effective date requirements applied, we find that there is good cause to waive such requirements. Undertaking further notice and comment procedures to incorporate the corrections in this document into the final rule or delaying the effective date would be contrary to the public interest because it is in the public's interest to ensure that final rule accurately reflects our policies. Furthermore, such procedures would be unnecessary, as we are not altering payment eligibility or benefit methodologies or policies, but rather, simply implementing correctly the policies that we previously proposed, received comment on, and subsequently finalized. This correcting document is intended solely to ensure that the final rule accurately reflects these policies. Therefore, we believe we have good cause to waive the requirements for notice and comment and delay of effective date.

In FR Doc. 2021-00538, published in the Federal Register of January 19, 2021, beginning on page 5864, the following corrections are made:

1. On page 5870, second column of the table, first paragraph, line 3, the phrase “he RTBTI” is corrected to read “The RTBT”.

2. On page 5895, third column, second full paragraph, line 6, the terms “thatthis” are corrected to read “that this”.

3. On page 5938, second column, second full paragraph, lines 8 through 10, the website link “ https:// www.cms.gov/files/document/cy2020part-d-reportingrequirements.pdf ” is corrected to read “ https://www.cms.gov/files/document/cy2020part-d-reporting-requirements082719.pdf ”.

4. On page 5950, third column, third full paragraph, lines 23 and 24, the phrase “will become” is corrected to “became”.

5. On page 5962, third column, second partial paragraph, line 7, the citation “§ 422.509 or § 423.510” is corrected to read “§ 422.510 or § 423.509”.

6. On page 5975, first column, fifth paragraph, line 18, the word “reward” is corrected to read “rewards”.

7. On page 5977, third column, second full paragraph, line 19, the phrase “Section IIIC” is corrected to read “Section III.C.”.

8. On page 5983, second column, first partial paragraph, line 37, the word “provider” is corrected to read “provides”.

9. On page 5985, third column, first full paragraph, line 6, the word “are” is corrected to read “is”.

10. On page 5987, first column, second partial paragraph, line 17, the word “of” is corrected to read “or”.

11. On page 5990, second column, first full paragraph, line 25, the reference “section D.” is corrected to read “section V.D.”.

12. On page 6007, first column, second partial paragraph, lines 26 and 27, the phrase “used evaluating” is corrected to read “use in evaluating”.

13. On page 6016, first column, first full paragraph, line 1, the word “toe” is corrected to read “to”.

14. On page 6058, third column, first full paragraph, line 4:

a. The reference “0938-10396” is corrected to “0938-1154”.

b. The reference “CMS-1154” is corrected to read “CMS-10396”.

15. On page 6062, first column, first full paragraph, line 1, “288 Part D sponsors” is corrected to read “288 Part D parent organizations”.

16. On page 6088, second column, first full paragraph, line 12, “positon” is corrected to “position”.

Accordingly, 42 CFR parts 422 and 423 are corrected by making the following correcting amendments:

This rule corrects an error in DOT's final rule, published on May 3, 2021 (86 FR 23241) in accordance with the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, providing the 2021 inflation adjustment to civil penalty amounts that may be imposed for violations of certain DOT regulations. Specifically, in amendatory instruction 19., DOT specified removal of “July 31, 2019” from appendix A to subpart D of 49 CFR 107, and replacement with “May 3, 2021”. The instruction should instead have directed removal of “January 11, 2021” and replacement with “May 3, 2021”. DOT publishes this final rule to effectuate that change.

DOT has determined that all of the regulatory reviews and analyses conducted in support of the May 3, 2021 final rule remain unchanged as a result of this final rule.

Accordingly, the Department of Transportation amends 49 CFR part 107 with the following technical correction: