Title III, Part C  1 of EPCA  2 established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified). This equipment includes ECUACs and WCUACs, the subject of this final determination.

DOE is issuing this final determination pursuant to the EPCA requirement that not later than 6 years after issuance of any final rule establishing or amending an energy conservation standard for covered equipment, DOE must publish either a notice of determination that standards for the equipment do not need to be amended, or a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NOPR”) including new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6316(a)(6)(C)(i))

For this final determination, DOE analyzed the ECUACs and WCUACs subject to the standards found at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) part 431. See 10 CFR 431.97. DOE first analyzed the potential for energy savings of more efficient ECUACs and WCUACs. Based on this analysis, as summarized in section IV of this document, DOE has determined that there is not clear and convincing evidence that amended standards would result in significant additional conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)) Therefore, DOE has determined that the current standards for ECUACs and WCUACs do not need to be amended.

The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority underlying this final determination, as well as some of the relevant historical background related to the establishment of standards for ECUACs and WCUACs.

EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part C of EPCA, added by Public Law 95-619, Title IV, 441(a) (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified), established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. This includes the ECUACs and WCUACs that are the subject of this final determination. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(B)-(D))

The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316).

Federal energy conservation requirements for covered equipment established under EPCA generally supersede state laws and regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption in limited instances for particular state laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth under EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(2)(D) applying the preemption waiver provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6297).

EPCA contains mandatory energy conservation standards for commercial heating, air-conditioning, and water-heating equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)) Specifically, the statute sets standards for small, large, and very large commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment, packaged terminal air conditioners (“PTACs”) and packaged terminal heat pumps (“PTHPs”), warm-air furnaces, packaged boilers, storage water heaters, instantaneous water heaters, and unfired hot water storage tanks. ( Id. ) In doing so, EPCA established Federal energy conservation standards that generally correspond to the levels in American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (“ASHRAE”) Standard 90.1, “Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings,” in effect on October 24, 1992 ( i.e., ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1989). ECUACs and WCUACs are covered under EPCA's definition of commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)) EPCA established initial standards for ECUACs and WCUACs with cooling capacity less than 240,000 Btu/h. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a))

If ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is amended with respect to the standard levels or design requirements applicable under that standard for certain commercial equipment, including ECUACs and WCUACs, not later than 180 days after the amendment of the standard, DOE must publish in the Federal Register for public comment an analysis of the energy savings potential of amended energy efficiency standards. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i)) Within certain exceptions, DOE must adopt amended energy conservation standards at the new efficiency level in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, unless DOE determines that there is clear and convincing evidence to support a determination that the adoption of a more stringent efficiency level as a uniform national standard would produce significant additional energy savings and be technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii))

To determine whether a standard is economically justified, EPCA requires that DOE determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following seven factors:

(1) The economic impact of the standard on the manufacturers and consumers of the affected products;

(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the product compared to any increases in the initial cost, or maintenance expenses;

(3) The total projected amount of energy and water (if applicable) savings likely to result directly from the standard;

(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the products likely to result from the standard;

(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the standard;

(6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and

(7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy (“Secretary”) considers relevant.

(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(I)-(VII))

If DOE decides to adopt, as a uniform national standard, the efficiency levels specified in the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE must establish such standard not later than 18 months after publication of the amended industry standard. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)) However, if DOE determines, supported by clear and convincing evidence, that a more stringent uniform national standard would result in significant additional conservation of energy and is technologically feasible and economically justified, then DOE must establish the more stringent standard not later than 30 months after publication of the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II) and (B)(i))

EPCA also requires that every six years DOE evaluate the energy conservation standards for certain commercial equipment, including ECUACs and WCUACs, and publish either a notice of determination that the standards do not need to be amended, or a NOPR that includes new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)) EPCA further provides that, not later than three years after the issuance of a final determination to not amend standards, DOE must publish either a notice of determination that standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a NOPR including new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(iii)(II)) DOE must make the analysis on which the determination is based publicly available and provide an opportunity for written comment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(ii)) Further, a determination that more stringent standards would (1) result in significant additional conservation of energy, (2) be technologically feasible and (3) economically justified must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i); 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A).) A determination that amended energy conservation standards are not needed must be based on the same considerations as if it were adopting a standard that is more stringent than an amendment to ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)(I); 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B))

DOE is publishing this final determination pursuant to the six-year review required by EPCA, having determined that amended standards for ECUACs and WCUACs would not result in significant additional conservation of energy, be technologically feasible, and be economically justified.

The current energy conservation standards for ECUACs and WCUACs are located in Table 1 of 10 CFR 431.97. These standards and their compliance dates are presented in Table II.1 of this document. The current efficiency metric used for ECUACs and WCUACs is the energy efficiency ratio (“EER”).

On October 29, 2010, ASHRAE updated ASHRAE Standard 90.1 with respect to small, large, and very large commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment ( i.e., ASHRAE 90.1-2010). With regard to ECUACs and WCUACs, ASHRAE 90.1-2010 updated efficiency levels for certain small ( i.e., cooling capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h and less than 135,000 Btu/h), large, and very large ECUACs and WCUACs. ASHRAE 90.1-2010 also updated its referenced test procedures for this equipment. ASHRAE 90.1-2010 did not amend the efficiency levels for certain small ( i.e., cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h) WCUACs and ECUACs but did amend the test procedure for this equipment.

In a final rule published May 16, 2012, DOE amended the standards for ECUACs and WCUACs by adopting EER levels for this equipment established in ASHRAE 90.1-2010. 77 FR 28928 (“May 2012 final rule”). For certain small ( i.e., cooling capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h and less than 135,000 Btu/h), large, and very large WCUACs and ECUACs, DOE estimated the energy savings potential of standards at the max-tech  3 efficiency levels over those efficiency levels in ASHRAE 90.1-2010 ( i.e., energy savings estimates for max-tech levels do not include the energy savings from increasing the Federal standard at the time to the level found in ASHRAE 90.1-2010). 76 FR 25622, 25644-25646 (May 5, 2011). Based on an analysis of two different shipment scenarios (shipments based on historical trends and constant shipments fixed to 2009 shipment levels), DOE estimated that efficiency standards at the max-tech level would result in additional energy savings of between 0.0061 to 0.0102 quads primary energy savings for the six classes of small, large, and very large WCUACs analyzed (76 FR 25622, 25644-25645), representing approximately 4.9 percent to 5.5 percent of estimated WCUAC energy use during the analysis period. DOE estimated that efficiency standards at the max-tech level would result in additional energy savings of between 0.0013 to 0.0021 quads primary energy for the two classes of very large ECUACs analyzed (76 FR 25622, 25646), representing approximately 3.7 percent to 3.9 percent of estimated ECUAC energy use during the analysis period. DOE did not examine certain small WCUACs and ECUACs ( i.e., equipment less than 65,000 Btu/h cooling capacity) because the levels in ASHRAE 90.1-2010 for such equipment were not amended. 76 FR 25622, 25631. Additionally, DOE did not assess potential energy savings for ECUACs with cooling capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h but less than 240,000 Btu/h because it did not find any equipment in this capacity range in the U.S. market. Id.

Based on its analysis and the review of the market, DOE determined that it did not have “clear and convincing evidence” that significant additional conservation of energy would result from adoption of more stringent standard levels than those in ASHRAE 90.1-2010 for ECUACs and WCUACs. 77 FR 28928, 28979. DOE did not conduct an economic analysis of standards more stringent than the ASHRAE 90.1-2010 levels for ECUACs and WCUACs because of the conclusion that more stringent standards would result in minimal energy savings. Id.

Since ASHRAE 90.1-2010 was published, ASHRAE 90.1 has undergone three revisions. On October 9, 2013, ASHRAE published ASHRAE 90.1-2013; on October 26, 2016, ASHRAE published ASHRAE 90.1-2016; and on October 24, 2019, ASHRAE published ASHRAE 90.1-2019. In none of these publications did ASHRAE amend minimum EER levels for small, large, and very large WCUACs or ECUACs; therefore, DOE was not prompted to examine amended standards for this equipment under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A). As a result, the current federal standards for ECUACs and WCUACs are those set forth in the May 2012 final rule and codified in Table 1 of 10 CFR 431.97.

On July 29, 2019, DOE published a request for information (“RFI”) to solicit information and data from interested parties to consider amendments to the DOE energy conservation standards for ECUACs and WCUACs. 84 FR 36480 (“July 2019 ECS RFI”).

On September 15, 2020 DOE published a notice of proposed determination (“NOPD”) with the tentative determination that energy conservation standards for ECUACs and WCUACs do not need to be amended (“September 2020 NOPD”). 85 FR 57149. The comment period for this notice closed on November 30, 2020. On October 1, 2020, DOE held a public webinar  4 to discuss the analysis and results from the September 2020 NOPD.

DOE received several comments from interested parties in response to the publication of the September 2020 NOPD. Table II.2 lists the commenters, their abbreviated names used throughout this final determination, and organization type. Discussion of the relevant comments provided by these organizations and DOE's responses are provided in the appropriate sections of this document.

A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment, quotation or paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record. 5

DOE developed the conclusions in this notice after considering oral and written comments, data, and information from interested parties that represent a variety of interests. This section addresses the analyses DOE performed for this final determination regarding ECUACs and WCUACs. Separate subsections address each component of DOE's analyses and responses to relevant comments received regarding the September 2020 NOPD.

In response to the September 2020 NOPD, DOE received several general comments. CA IOUs supported DOE's initial determination to maintain the current standards, stating that the market for this equipment is extremely small. (CA IOUs, No. 13 at p. 2) UCA stated that if DOE is correct in its assumed decline of shipments, then there is no need for an increase in efficiency at this time. (UCA, No. 11 at p. 1)

As discussed below, DOE has determined that it lacks clear and convincing evidence that amended standards for ECUACs and WCUACs would result in significant additional energy savings and be technologically feasible and economically justified.

DOE received comments from UCA and CA IOUs regarding the test procedures for ECUACs and WCUACs. (UCA, No. 11 at p. 1; CA IOUs, No. 13 at p. 2) UCA stated that several third party test facilities are limited in the physical size and capacity limits they can test; therefore, they stated that certain UCA models cannot be tested at these facilities. (UCA, No. 11 at p. 1) CA IOUs encouraged DOE to expedite work on an updated test standard for all CUACs. (CA IOUs, No. 13 at p. 2) Specifically, CA IOUs commented that the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (“ASRAC”), Commercial Package Air Conditioners and Commercial Warm Air Furnaces Working Group unanimously agreed that a new test procedure for CUACs, which should include a more representative evaluation of indoor fan power consumption, should be completed no later than January 1, 2019. Id.

The September 2020 NOPD sought comment on DOE's determination of whether the energy conservation standards for ECUACs and WCUACs should be amended. Consideration of amendments to the test procedures are not within the scope of this determination. DOE will consider comments received regarding ECUAC and WCUAC test procedures in the ongoing evaluation of the CUAC test procedure. See 82 FR 34427 (July 25, 2017).

The current energy efficiency descriptor for the ECUAC and WCUAC Federal standards is EER. 10 CFR 431.97. ASHRAE 90.1 has specified both EER and integrated energy efficiency ratio (“IEER”) minimum efficiency levels since 2010.

The EER metric represents the efficiency of the equipment operating at full load. The IEER metric factors in the efficiency of operating at part loads of 75 percent, 50 percent, and 25 percent of capacity as well as the efficiency at full load by weighting the full- and part-load efficiencies based on the average amount of time operating at each load point. Additionally, IEER incorporates reduced condenser temperatures ( i.e., reduced entering water temperature for WCUACs and reduced outdoor air dry-bulb and wet-bulb temperatures for ECUACs) to reflect the representative ambient conditions for part-load operation in the field. Table III.1 shows the IEER test conditions for ECUACs and WCUACs specified in AHRI Standard 340/360-2019, “Performance Rating of Commercial and Industrial Unitary Air-conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment” (“AHRI 340/360-2019”). 6

The following equation shows the weighting factors for each testing condition.

The intent of this weighted average across a range of condenser temperatures is to produce an IEER rating that is more representative of outdoor conditions that air conditioners face for much of the year, rather than just the peak temperature experienced in most climates for only a small minority of operating hours.

In the September 2020 NOPD, DOE proposed to maintain standards for ECUACs and WCUACs in terms of EER because the current IEER metric may not be representative for ECUACs and WCUACs and compliance with IEER would impose additional testing and certification burden on a small market. 85 FR 57149, 57161. DOE initially determined that for ECUACs, the weighting factors for IEER may not be representative of typical applications.

ECUACs may be disproportionately marketed and sold in relatively hot and dry climates where there is a larger efficiency benefit to using evaporative condenser cooling. 85 FR 57149, 57160. The IEER equation assigns a weighting factor of just 2 percent for the full-load test point, so almost all of the IEER rating for ECUACs would reflect performance at outdoor air temperatures which is cooler than what would typically be experienced in the hot and dry climates where this equipment is installed. For ECUACs with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h DOE's preliminary analysis suggested that these units are primarily marketed for residential applications, whereas the IEER metric was developed for commercial applications by analyzing air conditioner energy use in commercial buildings. Id. For WCUACs, it is not certain whether the IEER weighting factors appropriately reflect the average use of WCUACs given that IEER was developed based on an analysis of air-cooled CUACs (“ACUACs”). Id.

Additionally, IEER requires at least four tests whereas EER requires a single test. Examining the models listed in the CCMS database, DOE found that many models did not have any online product literature demonstrating that they are rated with IEER, suggesting that many WCUAC and ECUAC models would need to be retested in order to comply with Federal IEER standards. 85 FR 57149, 57161.

In response to the September 2020 NOPD, DOE received several comments in support of its proposal to maintain standards in terms of the EER metric. UCA supported DOE's proposal to maintain the EER metric for WCUACs, stating that they disagreed with using IEER for certain WCUACs installed indoors within mechanical rooms because these units typically see constant water temperatures year-round. (UCA, No. 11 at p. 1) CA IOUs supported maintaining EER and not adopting IEER for ECUACs until the test procedure has been updated and DOE has evaluated the appropriate condenser entering air dry-bulb and wet-bulb temperatures for the climates in which ECUACs are typically installed. (CA IOUs, No. 13 at p. 2)

Regarding WCUACs, CA IOUs stated that if DOE were to adopt IEER, DOE should complete the test procedure rulemaking first and consider aligning the temperature test points and weighting factors with those of water-cooled variable refrigerant flow (“VRF”) equipment. (CA IOUs, No. 13 at p. 2; Public Webinar Transcript, 4 No. 10 at p. 21).

For the reasons provided previously and presented in the September 2020 NOPD, DOE is maintaining federal standards for ECUACs and WCUACs in terms of EER.

DOE's analysis in support of the final determination is based on an evaluation of ECUACs and WCUACs in terms of EER.

DOE develops information in the market analysis that provides an overall picture of the market for the equipment concerned. For this final determination, DOE conducted a review of the current market for ECUACs and WCUACs, including equipment literature, the AHRI Directory of Certified Product Performance (“AHRI Directory”), 8 and the DOE Compliance Certification Management System (“CCMS”) database. 9 DOE also considered market data and stakeholder comments received in response to the July 2019 ECS RFI and the September 2020 NOPD, the analysis performed in the previous standards rulemaking for ECUACs and WCUACs, and the energy savings potential for amended standards determined in the May 2012 final rule.

DOE uses projections of annual product shipments to calculate the national impacts of potential amended energy conservation standards on energy use. 10 The shipments model takes an accounting approach in tracking market shares of each product class and the vintage of units in the stock.

The analysis conducted for the September 2020 NOPD was based on the same model specification used for the May 2012 final rule and incorporated additional shipments data provided by AHRI in response to the July 2019 ECS RFI. 85 FR 57149, 57155-57156. Based on the shipments data, the DOE September 2020 NOPD analysis indicated declining future shipments for WCUACs and ECUACs with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h.

Table III.2 presents the historical shipments for WCUACs from the May 2012 final rule (1984-2009) along with historical shipments in the following years as provided by AHRI (2010-2018). As shown in Table III.2 for the small and large WCUACs, shipments starting in 2009 are lower than in prior years. The very large WCUAC shipments fell in the years immediately following 2008, and while the shipments have rebounded, they did not rebound to the highest shipment levels seen previously.

DOE developed two shipment projections for the September 2020 NOPD analysis; one based on historical trends and one that held shipments constant at the 2018 shipment level (referred to as “2019 trend” and “2019 constant”, respectively). 85 FR 57149, 57155-57156. The 2019 trend and 2019 constant projections are compared to projections from the May 2012 final rule that were based on the historical trends and fixed at the level of the 2009 shipments (referred to as “2012 trend” and “2012 constant”, respectively). This comparison is shown in Table III.3 of this document.

DOE was unable to identify shipments data for the ECUAC equipment classes and none were provided by the stakeholders. For the September 2020 NOPD analysis, shipment projections were developed by scaling the WCUAC shipment projections using a ratio of unique model counts for each equipment class. 85 FR 57149, 57155. For the small (cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h) ECUAC class of products, the shipment projection was further adjusted by a factor of 0.5 to better reflect the approximate size of the market in the mid-2000s. 11 Id.

WCUACs are typically sold as part of a large project ( i.e., a multi-tenant, multi-story office building). To account for shipments being a function of large office construction, DOE also developed a third projection for the very large WCUAC equipment class, using a regression analysis with historical data and projections of large office existing floor space and large office additions as the variables (referred to as “2019 regression” in Table III.3). 85 FR 57149, 57156.

In the May 2012 final rule, DOE did not analyze small ECUACs and WCUACs with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h. 77 FR 28927, 28934-28937. For the July 2019 ECS RFI, DOE identified a single manufacturer of ECUACs in this capacity range, and the models offered are single-phase equipment and appear to be predominantly marketed for residential applications in regions of the United States with hot and dry climates, suggesting that there are few if any shipments in other regions of the United States. 84 FR 36480, 36485. DOE identified only two distinct product lines of WCUACs with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h, and DOE's examination of manufacturer literature for these WCUACs suggested that these models do not comprise a significant share of the market for air conditioners in residential or commercial applications. Id.

The projected trends from the May 2012 final rule and those based on the updated data both generally show declines in shipments for small (≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h), large and very large WCUACs, and very large ECUACs. The shipment levels under the 2019 constant projections are lower than the 2012 constant projections for small (≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h) and large WCUACs and very large ECUACs. The 2019 constant projections for very large WCUACs are higher than the 2012 constant projections (but lower than the 2012 trend projections). The 2019 regression projections for very large WCUACs and ECUACs show a more stable level of shipments over the analysis period than the 2019 trend models, but are lower than the 2012 trend projection.

Given that DOE did not analyze ECUACs and WCUACs with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h for the May 2012 final rule, no comparisons to the current projections are possible. The current trended shipments projections for the small (cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h) equipment classes reach 10 or fewer shipments by 2045.

In response to the September 2020 NOPD, UCA stated that the historical shipments data presented by DOE is not complete and asserted that the shipments data does not capture dozens of manufacturers that do not belong to AHRI and do not report their shipments to AHRI. UCA further stated that it sold 40 units in the WCUAC <64.9 kBtu/h category in 2018, while the table shows only 39 total units shipped in that year. UCA suggested the number could be 10 times higher and asserted similar discrepancies could apply across all categories. (UCA, No. 11 at p. 1)

In the July 2019 ECS RFI, DOE requested data on shipments, and in response to the RFI, DOE received shipments data from AHRI. In the September 2020 NOPD, DOE presented the shipments information received to that point. In addition, DOE requested comments and data concerning the tentative determination and the underlying data and analyses. The previously discussed number of shipments provided by UCA (40 units) only applies for a single manufacturer for a single equipment class of WCUAC (<65,000 Btu/h) equipment for a single year. Because this was a single data point, DOE lacked sufficient context to incorporate it into the shipment analysis ( e.g., how this data point compares to UCA's shipments in previous years, how this compares to UCA's shipments for other WCUAC capacity ranges). Without such context DOE could not incorporate this data point. For this Final Determination, DOE did not identify any other sources of shipments data beyond the AHRI data incorporated in the September 2020 NOPD analyses.

UCA also disagreed with shipment trends showing a decline in WCUACs over the next 20-plus years, as it stated that there are thousands of WCUACs that will be replaced over the next decade in the very large WCUAC class. (UCA, No. 11 at p. 1) UCA also commented that its sales for its main equipment line has gone down substantially, and that the equipment capacities it now offers are more limited. (UCA, No. 11-1 12 at p. 1) For this final determination, the three shipment projections developed by DOE were based on the historic shipments data available and presented in the September 2020 NOPD, and as historical data they would include any replacement shipments that have taken place. As additional shipments data were not provided to support UCA's assertion regarding replacement of WCUACs over the next decade, DOE did not modify the shipment projections.

Trane commented that there was a major drop in unitary air conditioner shipments that also affected WCUACs and ECUACs during the great recession of 2008(?), so looking forward 15-20 years, the market should also reflect that drop because there will not be units to replace. (Public Webinar Transcript, No. 10 at p. 15) Daikin commented that the need for office space likely will be declining for the foreseeable future stating that it was informed by one office building client that the client will only need about 70 percent of its current square footage going forward. (Public Webinar Transcript, No. 10 at p. 11)

As stated, DOE did not receive additional shipments data in response to the September 2020 NOPD. As such, DOE relied on the shipments data presented in the September 2020 NOPD for this final determination. Based on the existing shipments data, DOE developed a series of shipment projections to reflect uncertainty in the future of ECUAC and WCUAC shipments. As presented in the September 2020 NOPD, DOE developed three shipment projections (“2019 trend,” “2019 constant,” and “2019 regression”). DOE continued to rely on the 2019 trend, 2019 constant, and 2019 regression projections presented in September 2020 NOPD for this final determination. Additionally, DOE performed a sensitivity case to reflect a potential underreporting of ECUAC and WCUAC shipments. DOE developed a sensitivity analysis by multiplying the three shipment projections by 10 for all equipment classes to examine an upper bound estimate for potentially unreported shipments. The results of the sensitivity analysis are presented in section III.C.3 of this document.

Prior to receipt of updated shipments from AHRI in response to the July 2019 ECS RFI, DOE conducted a review of the market for WCUACs and ECUACs based on models included in the DOE CCMS database. 9 84 FR 36480, 36484. In the September 2020 NOPD DOE provided that the number of ECUAC and WCUAC models on the market is substantially less than the number of ACUAC models on the market for all capacity ranges, and that this is consistent with the relationship between model counts identified in the May 2012 final rule. 85 FR 57149, 57156. This initial understanding of the ECUAC and WCUAC market as compared to the ACUAC market was further supported by the shipments data provided by AHRI. See discussion in section III.C.1 of this document. DOE did not receive any comments on the model counts presented in the September 2020 NOPD.

For the September 2020 NOPD, DOE examined the efficiency ratings of ECUACs and WCUACs currently on the market and presented efficiency distributions to reflect the current market. 85 FR 57149, 57157-57159. Table III.4 presents the summary of statistics by equipment category and capacity range of equipment for unique models 13 from DOE's CCMS Database. 9

DOE used these efficiency distributions and the previously described shipment projections to develop estimated energy savings and percent of no-new-standards energy consumption for 30 years of shipments (2020-2049).

Energy savings were estimated based on the forecasted shipments labeled 2019 trend, 2019 constant, and 2019 regression. For the savings estimates labeled 2019 regression, as noted in section III.C.1 of this final determination, a regression projection was only developed for the very large equipment class.

As mentioned in section II.B.2 of this final determination, the cumulative site energy savings are calculated using the max-tech level, which is the highest value of efficiency in DOE's CCMS Database within each capacity range of ECUACs and WCUACs ( i.e., <65,000 Btu/h, 65,000-135,000 Btu/h, 135,000-240,000 Btu/h, and 240,000-760,000 Btu/h). However, for very large WCUACs, consideration of the highest efficiency value in DOE's CCMS database may not be appropriate for evaluating potential amendments to the energy conservation standards. As explained in the September 2020 NOPD, DOE considered the single model rated at 16.1 to be an outlier and subsequently calculated the energy savings from potential amended standards for very large WCUACs using the next highest level that was achievable across the range of capacities ( i.e., an EER of 15). 85 FR 57149, 57158. DOE did not receive any comments on the use of the max-tech efficiency levels in calculating the estimated savings in the NOPD, and the same max-tech levels were used for the final determination.

For the September 2020 NOPD, DOE did not incorporate changing trends in shipments by efficiency over time in the no-new-standards case. No comments were received on efficiency trends and DOE retained this assumption in the energy savings estimates, which vary by shipment scenario and equipment class, presented in Table III.5 of this final determination.

Selecting the minimum and maximum estimated savings scenario for each equipment class resulted in a range of total estimated site energy savings for the WCUAC classes of between 0.0030 quads (8.5 percent of estimated site energy use) and 0.0046 quads (8.6 percent of estimated site energy use), and for the ECUAC classes of 0.00006 quads (6.2 percent of estimated site energy use) and 0.00011 quads (6.0 percent of estimated site energy use) during the analysis period. For both equipment categories, the resulting estimated savings ranged between 0.0031 quads (8.5 percent of estimated site energy consumption) and 0.0047 quads (8.6 percent of estimated site energy consumption) during the analysis period depending on the combination of shipment projections analyzed. Because DOE received no comments resulting in changes to inputs or the analysis, the estimate savings presented in Table III.5 are the same as those presented in the September 2020 NOPD.

As noted in section III.C.1 of this document, in response to a UCA comment regarding the completeness of shipment data, DOE conducted a sensitivity analysis by multiplying annual shipments in the three shipment projections by 10 and calculating the resulting estimated energy savings using the higher shipment projections. This sensitivity resulted in estimated total site energy savings for the WCUAC classes of between 0.0303 quads (8.5 percent of estimated site energy use of the evaluated equipment) and 0.0456 quads (8.6 percent of estimated site energy use of the evaluated equipment), and for the ECUAC classes of 0.0006 quads (6.2 percent of estimated site energy use of the evaluated equipment) and 0.0011 quads (6.0 percent of estimated site energy use of the evaluated equipment) during the analysis period. For both equipment categories, the resulting estimated savings ranged between 0.0308 quads (8.5 percent of estimated site energy use of the evaluated equipment) and 0.0467 quads (8.6 percent of estimated site energy use of the evaluated equipment) during the analysis period.

As required by EPCA, this final determination analyzes whether amended standards for ECUACs and WCUACs would result in significant conservation of energy, be technologically feasible and economically justified. 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II). DOE has determined that the energy conservation standards for WCUACs and ECUACs do not need to be amended, having determined that it lacks “clear and convincing” evidence that amended standards would result in significant additional conservation of energy. As previously discussed, EPCA specifies that for any commercial and industrial equipment addressed under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i), including WCUACs and ECUACs, DOE may prescribe an energy conservation standard more stringent than the level for such equipment in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 only if “clear and convincing evidence” shows that a more stringent standard would result in significant additional conservation of energy and is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i); 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II))

IPI objected to DOE's reliance on the significance of energy threshold established in the Process Rule. (IPI, No, 12 at p. 1) IPI reiterated its comments regarding the significance of energy threshold it previously submitted to the rulemaking to update the Process Rule. ( See IPI, 14 No. 12-3) IPI stated that DOE failed to analyze the benefit to consumers and the environment and the costs of achieving the 8.6 percent energy savings calculated using max-tech efficiency levels. (IPI, No. 12 at p. 1)

DOE disagrees with IPI's characterization of the statutory requirements applicable in the present case. EPCA specifically stipulates that the Secretary may not adopt a uniform national standard more stringent than the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1 unless such standard would result in significant additional conservation of energy and is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II)). A determination of whether energy savings would be significant is distinct from consideration of potential consumer cost impacts or environmental impacts, which are separate considerations in determining whether an amended standard is economically justified. ( See 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)). In this final determination DOE is unable to determine, with clear and convincing evidence, that amended standards would result in significant additional conservation of energy based on the low projected energy savings combined with low and potentially declining product shipments (see sections III.C.3 and III.C.1, respectively).

An analysis of shipments data, a review of the CCMS database and the AHRI Directory, and comments received indicate that WCUACs and ECUACs continue to be a minor portion of total commercial air-cooled shipments with total combined shipments of less than 1,300 units in 2018. The shipments of very large WCUACs may be cyclical, linked to investment in commercial buildings, but the shipment projections also suggest that shipments may be continuing to decline.

DOE estimates that amended standards for ECUACs at the respective “max-tech” levels would result in additional site energy savings of no more than 0.0001 quads during the analysis period. DOE has determined the energy savings potential for ECUACs is de minimis. A sensitivity analysis allowing for a factor of 10 increase in shipments also resulted in an energy savings potential that is de minimis (see Section III.C.3). Therefore, DOE has determined that it lacks clear and convincing evidence that amended standards for ECUACs would result in significant additional conservation of energy.

For WCUACs, DOE estimated the additional energy savings based on the max- tech levels for small and large WCUACs, which were determined by identifying the highest efficiency ratings in the DOE CCMS Database. For very large WCUACs DOE determined that there is substantial doubt as to the appropriateness of using the highest efficiency reported in the DOE CCMS Database as the max-tech level. As discussed, there is a substantial question of whether the combination of technologies used to achieve the highest reported level for very large WCUACs is practicable for basic models across the capacity range of that equipment class. As such, DOE has determined that an energy savings calculation that would rely on the highest reported efficiency for very large WCUACs would not meet the “clear and convincing evidence” threshold required by EPCA. Instead, DOE analyzed the next most efficient level reported in the DOE CCMS Database for very large WCUACs, which did not raise similar concerns, as the max-tech level for very large WCUACs.

Using this next highest efficiency level for very large WCUACs and the max-tech efficiency levels for the small and large classes of WCUACs, DOE calculated that amended standards would result in additional site energy savings of no more than 0.0046 quads for all WCUAC classes during the analysis period. DOE has determined the energy savings potential for WCUACs is de minimis. A sensitivity analysis allowing for a factor of 10 increase in shipments also resulted an energy savings potential that is de minimis (see Section III.C.3). Therefore, DOE has determined that it lacks clear and convincing evidence that amended standards for WCUACs would result in significant additional conservation of energy. Based on the consideration of significant additional conservation of energy and that these markets are small and may be declining, DOE has determined that the energy conservation standards for ECUACs and WCUACs do not need to be amended.

This final determination has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order (“E.O.”) 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). As a result, the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) did not review this final determination.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (“IRFA”) for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required by Executive Order 13272, “Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,” 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly considered during the rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General Counsel's website ( https://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel ).

In response to the NOPD, UCA provided a number of general comments regarding the potential impacts of efficiency regulations on equipment and small businesses. UCA commented that small businesses are often not members of trade associations and do not have staff reading the Federal Register , and therefore do not get information on regulations. UCA also stated that small businesses generally do not have the resources to evaluate and access newer technologies at the same time as larger companies and do not have the resources to develop an alternative efficiency determination method. UCA further stated that small commercial HVAC manufacturers have higher costs to fabricate units for testing. (UCA No. 11-1, pp. 2-3)

DOE reviewed this final determination pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the policies and procedures published on February 19, 2003. As stated, this final determination is not amending standards for ECUACs and WCUACs. Further, this final determination does not amend the certification and reporting requirements. Therefore, DOE certifies that this final determination has no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a final regulatory flexibility analysis (“FRFA”) for this final determination. DOE will transmit this certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

Manufacturers of ECUACs and WCUACs must certify to DOE that their equipment complies with any applicable energy conservation standards. In certifying compliance, manufacturers must test their equipment according to the DOE test procedures for ECUACs and WCUACs, including any amendments adopted for those test procedures. DOE has established regulations for the certification and recordkeeping requirements for all covered consumer products and commercial equipment, including ECUACs and WCUACs. 76 FR 12422 (March 7, 2011); 80 FR 5099 (Jan. 30, 2015). The collection-of-information requirement for the certification and recordkeeping is subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”). This requirement has been approved by OMB under OMB control number 1910-1400. Public reporting burden for the certification is estimated to average 35 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (“NEPA”), DOE has analyzed this final determination in accordance with NEPA and DOE's NEPA implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021). DOE has determined that this rule qualifies for categorical exclusion A4 because it is an interpretation or ruling in regards to an existing regulation and otherwise meets the requirements for application of a categorical exclusion. See 10 CFR 1021.410. Therefore, DOE has determined that promulgation of this rule is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the meaning of NEPA, and does not require an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement.

Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. As this final determination does not amend the standards for ECUACs and WCUACs, there is no impact on the policymaking discretion of the States. Therefore, no action is required by Executive Order 13132.

With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, (2) write regulations to minimize litigation, (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard, and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). Regarding the review required by section 3(a), section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation, (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction, (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any, (5) adequately defines key terms, and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this final determination meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (“UMRA”) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed “significant intergovernmental mandate,” and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE's policy statement is also available at https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf.

This final determination does not contain a Federal intergovernmental mandate, nor is it expected to require expenditure of $100 million or more in one year by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. As a result, the analytical requirements of UMRA do not apply.

Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. This final determination would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

Pursuant to Executive Order 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,” 53 FR 8859 (March 15, 1988), DOE has determined that this final determination would not result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, Improving Implementation of the Information Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE published updated guidelines which are available at https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has reviewed this final determination under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.

Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (“OIRA”) at OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.

Because this final determination does not amend the current standards for ECUACs and WCUACs, it is not a significant energy action, nor has it been designated as such by the Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.

On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of Science and Technology Policy (“OSTP”), issued its Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (“the Bulletin”). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 14, 2005). The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific information shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is disseminated by the Federal Government, including influential scientific information related to agency regulatory actions. The purpose of the bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of the Government's scientific information. Under the Bulletin, the energy conservation standards rulemaking analyses are “influential scientific information,” which the Bulletin defines as “scientific information the agency reasonably can determine will have, or does have, a clear and substantial impact on important public policies or private sector decisions.” Id. at 70 FR 2667.

In response to OMB's Bulletin, DOE conducted formal peer reviews of the energy conservation standards development process and the analyses that are typically used and has prepared a report describing that peer review. 15 Generation of this report involved a rigorous, formal, and documented evaluation using objective criteria and qualified and independent reviewers to make a judgment as to the technical/scientific/business merit, the actual or anticipated results, and the productivity and management effectiveness of programs and/or projects. DOE has determined that the peer-reviewed analytical process continues to reflect current practice, and the Department followed that process for developing energy conservation standards in the case of the present rulemaking.

The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final determination.

This document of the Department of Energy was signed on July 7, 2021, by Kelly Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary and Acting Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register .

The substance of these special conditions has been published in the Federal Register for public comment in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. Therefore, the FAA finds, pursuant to 14 CFR 11.38(b), that new comments are unlikely and prior public notice and comment are unnecessary.

The FAA invites interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.

The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date for comments. The FAA may change these special conditions based on the comments received.

On July 14, 2020, Archeion applied for a change to Type Certificate No. T00001SE for the installation of an Avionica avWIFI system with wireless network and hosted application functionality in Boeing Model 777-200/-200LR/-300/-300ER series airplanes. These airplanes, currently approved under Type Certificate No. T00001SE, are twin-engine, transport category airplanes, with a maximum takeoff weight between 535,000 lbs and 775,000 lbs pounds, and a maximum passenger capacity of 550 persons.

Under the provisions of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.101, Archeion must show that the Boeing Model 777-200/-200LR/-300/-300ER series airplanes, as changed, continue to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in Type Certificate No. T00001SE or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations ( e.g., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Boeing Model 777-200/-200LR/-300/-300ER series airplanes because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the applicant apply for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on the same type certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Boeing Model 777-200/-200LR/-300/-300ER series airplanes must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.101.

The Boeing Model 777-200/-200LR/-300/-300ER series airplanes will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature:

A digital systems architecture for the installation of a system with wireless network and hosted application functionality that allows access from external sources to the airplane's internal electronic components.

The digital systems architecture for the installation of an Avionica avWIFI system with wireless network and hosted application functionality on these Boeing model 777 airplanes is a novel or unusual design feature for transport-category airplanes because it is composed of several connected networks. This proposed network architecture is used for a diverse set of airplane functions, including:

• Flight-safety related control and navigation systems.

• airline business and administrative support.

• passenger entertainment, and

• access by systems external to the airplane.

The airplane-control domain and airline information-services domain of these networks perform functions required for the safe operation and maintenance of the airplane. Previously, these domains had very limited connectivity with external network sources. This network architecture creates a potential for unauthorized persons to access the airplane-control domain and airline information-services domain from sources external to the airplane, and presents security vulnerabilities related to the introduction of computer viruses and worms, user errors, and intentional sabotage of airplane electronic assets (networks, systems, and databases) critical to the safety and maintenance of the airplane.

The existing FAA regulations did not anticipate these networked airplane system architectures. Furthermore, these regulations and the current guidance material do not address potential security vulnerabilities, which could be exploited by unauthorized access to airplane networks, data buses, and servers. Therefore, these special conditions ensure that the security ( i.e., confidentiality, integrity, and availability) of airplane systems will not be compromised by unauthorized wired or wireless electronic connections. This includes ensuring that the security of the airplane's systems is not compromised during maintenance of the airplane's electronic systems. These special conditions also require the applicant to provide appropriate instructions to the operator to maintain all electronic-system safeguards that have been implemented as part of the original network design so that this feature does not allow or reintroduce security threats.

These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Boeing Model 777-200/-200LR/-300/-300ER series airplanes. Should Archeion apply at a later date for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on Type Certificate No. T00001SE to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

This action affects only a certain novel or unusual design features on one model series of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability and affects only the applicant.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Boeing Model 777-200/-200LR/-300/-300ER series airplanes, as modified by Archeion Holdings, LLC, for airplane electronic-system security protection from unauthorized external access.

(a) The applicant must ensure airplane electronic-system security protection from access by unauthorized sources external to the airplane, including those possibly caused by maintenance activity.

(b) The applicant must ensure that electronic-system security threats are identified and assessed, and that effective electronic-system security protection strategies are implemented to protect the airplane from all adverse impacts on safety, functionality, and continued airworthiness.

(c) The applicant must establish appropriate procedures to allow the operator to ensure that continued airworthiness of the airplane is maintained, including all post-type-certification modifications that may have an impact on the approved electronic-system security safeguards.

The substance of these special conditions has been published in the Federal Register for public comment in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. Therefore, the FAA finds, pursuant to 14 CFR 11.38(b), that new comments are unlikely and prior public notice and comment are unnecessary.

The FAA invites interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.

The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date for comments. The FAA may change these special conditions based on the comments received.

On July 14, 2020, Archeion applied for a change to Type Certificate No. T00001SE for the installation of an Avionica avWIFI system with wireless network and hosted application functionality in Boeing Model 777-200/-200LR/-300/-300ER series airplanes. These airplanes, currently approved under Type Certificate No. T00001SE, are twin-engine, transport category airplanes, with a maximum takeoff weight between 535,000 lbs and 775,000 lbs pounds, and a maximum passenger capacity of 550 persons.

Under the provisions of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.101, Archeion must show that the Boeing Model 777-200/-200LR/-300/-300ER series airplanes, as changed, continue to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in Type Certificate No. T00001SE or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations ( e.g., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Boeing Model 777-200/-200LR/-300/-300ER series airplanes because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the applicant apply for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on the same type certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Boeing Model 777-200/-200LR/-300/-300ER series airplanes must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.101.

The Boeing Model 777-200/-200LR/-300/-300ER series airplanes will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature:

A digital systems architecture for the installation of a system with wireless network and hosted application functionality that allows access, from sources internal to the airplane, to the airplane's internal electronic components.

The digital systems architecture for the installation of an Avionica avWIFI system with wireless network and hosted application functionality on these Boeing Model 777 airplanes is a novel or unusual design feature for transport category airplanes because it is composed of several connected networks. This proposed network architecture is used for a diverse set of airplane functions, including:

• Flight-safety related control and navigation systems,

• airline business and administrative support, and

• passenger entertainment.

The airplane control domain and airline information-services domain of these networks perform functions required for the safe operation and maintenance of the airplane. Previously, these domains had very limited connectivity with other network sources. This network architecture creates a potential for unauthorized persons to access the aircraft control domain and airline information-services domain from sources internal to the airplane, and presents security vulnerabilities related to the introduction of computer viruses and worms, user errors, and intentional sabotage of airplane electronic assets (networks, systems, and databases) critical to the safety and maintenance of the airplane.

The existing FAA regulations did not anticipate these networked airplane system architectures. Furthermore, these regulations and the current guidance material do not address potential security vulnerabilities, which could be exploited by unauthorized access to airplane networks, data buses, and servers. Therefore, these special conditions ensure that the security ( i.e., confidentiality, integrity, and availability) of airplane systems will not be compromised by unauthorized wired or wireless electronic connections from within the airplane. These special conditions also require the applicant to provide appropriate instructions to the operator to maintain all electronic-system safeguards that have been implemented as part of the original network design so that this feature does not allow or reintroduce security threats.

These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Boeing Model 777-200/-200LR/-300/-300ER series airplanes. Should Archeion apply at a later date for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on Type Certificate No. T00001SE to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

This action affects only a certain novel or unusual design feature on Boeing Model 777-200/-200LR/-300/-300ER series airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability and affects only the applicant.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Boeing Model 777-200/-200LR/-300/-300ER series airplanes, as modified by Archeion Holdings, LLC, for airplane electronic-system security protection from unauthorized internal access.

(a) The applicant must ensure that the design provides isolation from, or airplane electronic-system security protection against, access by unauthorized sources internal to the airplane. The design must prevent inadvertent and malicious changes to, and all adverse impacts upon, airplane equipment, systems, networks, or other assets required for safe flight and operations.

(b) The applicant must establish appropriate procedures to allow the operator to ensure that continued airworthiness of the aircraft is maintained, including all post type certification modifications that may have an impact on the approved electronic-system security safeguards.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH Model MBB-BK 117 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. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 26, 2021 (86 FR 21965). In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require inspections to determine if any bolted main rotor blades are installed, and replacement of the affected main rotor blades. The NPRM was prompted by a report of sudden severe vibrations and a cracked open blade trailing edge caused by a loosened lead inner weight.

German AD D-2005-115, effective March 15, 2005 (German AD D-2005-115), issued by Luftfahrt-Bundesamt, which is the aviation authority for Germany, was issued to correct an unsafe condition for Eurocopter Deutschland (now Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH) 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. Luftfahrt-Bundesamt advises that during the flight of a BK117 severe vibrations suddenly occurred, stemming from a cracked open blade trailing edge, which was traced to a loosened lead inner weight bolt. Additional inspection revealed extreme cavities of the lead weight resulting from the bolting process, which was performed as a repair for main rotor blades with bulging in the area of the lead inner weights. This condition, if not addressed, could result in loss of control of the helicopter.

Accordingly, German AD D-2005-115 requires an inspection and log card review to determine if any bolted main rotor blades are installed, and replacement of the affected main rotor blades.

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

These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Germany and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with Germany (now a member of the European Union), Luftfahrt-Bundesamt, its technical representative, 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. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM.

The FAA reviewed Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin No. ASB-MBB-BK117-10-125, dated February 14, 2005. This service information specifies procedures for an inspection (for cracking of the paint) and log card review (for a certain entry or equivalent) to determine if any bolted main rotor blades ( i.e., main rotor blades with bolted lead inner weights) are installed, and replacement of the affected main rotor blades.

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

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 44 helicopters of U.S. Registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on these numbers, the FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Civil Aviation Authority of Israel (CAAI), which is the aviation authority for Israel, has issued Israeli AD ISR-I-24-2021-6-6R1, dated June 27, 2021 (also referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for The Boeing Company Model 767-300 series airplanes, that have been modified to a Bedek Division Special Freighter (BDSF), designated as 767-300BDSF, in accordance with CAAI STC SA218/FAA STC ST02040SE/European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) STC 10028430 (as listed in the appendix of the MCAI). Only FAA STC ST02040SE is approved for U.S. operators. You may examine the MCAI on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0566.

This AD was prompted by a report that the electrical diagram for the C9066 circuit breaker connection (wiring) for the “Main Deck Oxygen Alert Control” is erroneous and might have resulted in incorrect installation. This incorrect installation leads to an unprotected circuit, and therefore any wires or system components that might lie adjacent to the wiring that would normally be protected by the C9066 circuit breaker might be affected. The FAA is issuing this AD to address potential incorrect installation of the “Main Deck Oxygen Alert Control” circuit breaker, which could result in overheating and burning of the wiring, and consequently, could result in smoke triggering an alarm and causing the crew workload to increase; or could result in a short circuit to adjacent wires causing malfunctions in other systems. See the MCAI for additional background information.

Israel Aerospace Industries, Ltd., has issued IAI-Aviation Group Alert Service Bulletin 368-24-098, Revision 1, dated June 2021. This service information describes procedures for a visual inspection of the wiring connection common to the C9066 circuit breaker, changes to the wiring connection, if necessary, and a test of the main deck oxygen alert system, if necessary. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. The FAA is issuing this AD because the FAA evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously.

Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. ) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment procedures for rules when the agency, for “good cause,” finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under this section, an agency, upon finding good cause, may issue a final rule without providing notice and seeking comment prior to issuance. Further, section 553(d) of the APA authorizes agencies to make rules effective in less than thirty days, upon a finding of good cause.

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies forgoing notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because incorrect installation of the “Main Deck Oxygen Alert Control” circuit breaker could result in overheating and burning of wiring, and consequently, could result in smoke triggering an alarm and causing the crew workload to increase; or could result in a short circuit to adjacent wires causing malfunctions in other systems. Furthermore, since this is a potentially unprotected circuit, if any failure occurs along the length of this circuit it could result in a fire and cause collateral damage to adjacent circuits and affect critical systems necessary for continued safe flight and landing. Accordingly, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). In addition, the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days, for the same reasons the FAA found good cause to forgo notice and comment.

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2021-0566; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-00733-T” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the final rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this final rule because of those comments.

Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this final rule.

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this AD contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this AD, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Brian Hernandez, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3535; email: Brian.Hernandez@faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

The requirements of the RFA do not apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt a rule without prior notice and comment. Because the FAA has determined that it has good cause to adopt this rule without notice and comment, RFA analysis is not required.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 71 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

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

On July 16, 2020, the Commission published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) (85 FR 43162) seeking comments on a new rule regarding unqualified U.S.-origin claims (“MUSA claims”) on product labels. The NPRM was preceded by a review of the Commission's longstanding program to prevent deceptive MUSA claims. 1 The review included a 2019 public workshop and public comment period, where stakeholders expressed nearly universal support for a rule addressing MUSA labels. 2

The Commission published a new rule in the NPRM pursuant to its authority under 15 U.S.C. 45a (“Section 45a”). Section 45a declares: “[t]o the extent any person introduces, delivers for introduction, sells, advertises, or offers for sale in commerce a product with a 'Made in the U.S.A.' or ‘Made in America' label, or the equivalent thereof, in order to represent that such product was in whole or substantial part of domestic origin, such label shall be consistent with decisions and orders of the Federal Trade Commission.” The statute authorizes the agency to issue rules to effectuate this mandate and prevent unfair or deceptive acts or practices relating to MUSA labeling. 3 Specifically, under the statute, the Commission “may from time to time issue rules pursuant to section 553 of title 5, United States Code” requiring MUSA labeling to “be consistent with decisions and orders of the Federal Trade Commission issued pursuant to [Section 5 of the FTC Act].” The statute authorizes the FTC to seek civil penalties for violations of such rules. 4

Consistent with these statutory provisions, the NPRM proposed a rule covering labels on products that make unqualified U.S.-origin claims. Consistent with the Commission's MUSA Decisions and Orders since the 1940s, 5 the NPRM proposed to codify the established principle that unqualified U.S.-origin claims imply to consumers no more than a de minimis amount of the product is of foreign origin. 6

In a document published in the Federal Register of May 11, 2020 (85 FR 27692), FDA announced that we had filed a food additive petition (animal use) (FAP 2312) submitted by Adisseo France S.A.S.; Immeuble Antony Parc II, 10 Place du Général de Gaulle, 92160 Antony, France. The petition proposed that the regulations for food additives permitted in feed and drinking water of animals be amended to provide for the safe use of selenomethionine hydroxy analogue as a source of selenium in feed for beef and dairy cattle.

FDA concludes that the data establish the safety and utility of selenomethionine hydroxy analogue as a source of selenium in feed for beef and dairy cattle and that the food additive regulations should be amended as set forth in this document.

In accordance with § 571.1(h) (21 CFR 571.1(h)), the petition and documents we considered and relied upon in reaching our decision to approve the petition will be made available for public disclosure (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). As provided in § 571.1(h), we will delete from the documents any materials that are not available for public disclosure.

We have determined under 21 CFR 25.32(r) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

Any person who will be adversely affected by this regulation may file with the Dockets Management Staff (see ADDRESSES ) either electronic or written objections. Each objection shall be separately numbered, and each numbered objection shall specify with particularity the provision of the regulation to which objection is made and the grounds for the objection. Each numbered objection on which a hearing is requested shall specifically so state. Failure to request a hearing for any particular objection shall constitute a waiver of the right to a hearing on that objection. Each numbered objection for which a hearing is requested shall include a detailed description and analysis of the specific factual information intended to be presented in support of the objection in the event that a hearing is held. Failure to include such a description and analysis for any particular objection shall constitute a waiver of the right to a hearing on the objection.

Therefore, 21 CFR part 573 is amended as follows:

In a document published in the Federal Register of November 29, 2019 (84 FR 65717), FDA announced that we had filed a food additive petition (animal use) (FAP 2309) submitted by Alzchem Trostberg GmbH, Dr.-Albert-Frank-Str. 32, 83308 Trostberg, Germany. The petition proposed that the regulations for food additives permitted in feed and drinking water of animals be amended to provide for the safe use of guanidinoacetic acid as a precursor of creatine in poultry feeds.

FDA concludes that the data establish the safety and utility of guanidinoacetic acid as a precursor of creatine in poultry feeds and that the food additive regulations should be amended as set forth in this document.

In accordance with § 571.1(h) (21 CFR 571.1(h)), the petition and documents we considered and relied upon in reaching our decision to approve the petition will be made available for public disclosure (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). As provided in § 571.1(h), we will delete from the documents any materials that are not available for public disclosure.

We have determined under 21 CFR 25.32(r) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

Any person who will be adversely affected by this regulation may file with the Dockets Management Staff (see ADDRESSES ) either electronic or written objections. Each objection shall be separately numbered, and each numbered objection shall specify with particularity the provision of the regulation to which objection is made and the grounds for the objection. Each numbered objection on which a hearing is requested shall specifically so state. Failure to request a hearing for any particular objection shall constitute a waiver of the right to a hearing on that objection. Each numbered objection for which a hearing is requested shall include a detailed description and analysis of the specific factual information intended to be presented in support of the objection in the event that a hearing is held. Failure to include such a description and analysis for any particular objection shall constitute a waiver of the right to a hearing on the objection.

Therefore, 21 CFR part 573 is amended as follows:

On June 21, 2021, OSHA published an interim final rule establishing an emergency temporary standard (ETS) to protect healthcare and healthcare support service workers from occupational exposure to COVID-19 in settings where people with COVID-19 are reasonably expected to be present (86 FR 32376). In the Dates section of the preamble, the agency inadvertently included an incorrect docket number for submitting comments related to the information collection estimates under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The agency is submitting this document to correct this error.

In addition, in Section VI.B Economic Feasibility, several table references were incorrect or missing, some tables were incorrectly numbered, and one subsection heading was labeled incorrectly. Those changes are shown in the table below, titled “Table of Non-substantive Corrections.”

OSHA has determined that these corrections are not subject to the procedures for public notice and comment specified in the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) or Section 6(b) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655(b)). This rulemaking only corrects minor errors in the published rule and does not affect or change any existing rights or obligations. No stakeholder is likely to object to these corrections. Therefore, the agency finds good cause that public notice and comment are unnecessary under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), 29 U.S.C. 655(b), and 29 CFR 1911.5.

In FR Doc. 2021-12428 appearing in the Federal Register of June 21, 2021 (86 FR 32376), make the following corrections in the Dates section of the preamble.

On page 32376, in the second column, the second full paragraph is corrected to read as follows:

Comments due: Written comments, including comments on any aspect of this ETS and whether this ETS should become a final rule, must be submitted by July 21, 2021 in Docket No. OSHA-2020-0004. Comments on the information collection determination described in Section VII.K of the preamble (OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995) may be submitted by August 20, 2021 in Docket Number OSHA-2021-0003.

In addition, the agency provides the following table, which contains a list of corrections of minor, non-substantive errors into section VI.B. These changes are to five table references within the text, six table numbers, and one subsection heading.

COVID-19, Disease, Health facilities, Health, Healthcare, Incorporation by reference, Occupational health and safety, Public health, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Respirators, SARS-CoV- 2, Telework, Vaccines, Viruses.

James S. Frederick, Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this document pursuant to the following authorities: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order 8-2020 (85 FR 58393 (Sept. 18, 2020)); 29 CFR part 1911; and 5 U.S.C. 553.

The Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Program was established by Title IV of the Act (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq. ) in response to concerns over extensive environmental damage caused by past coal mining activities. The program is funded by a reclamation fee collected on each ton of coal that is produced. The money collected is used to finance the reclamation of abandoned coal mines and for other authorized activities. Section 405 of the Act allows States and Indian Tribes to assume exclusive responsibility for reclamation activity within the State or on Indian lands if they develop and submit to the Secretary of the Interior for approval a program (often referred to as a plan) for the reclamation of abandoned coal mines.

On October 24, 1980, the Secretary of the Interior approved the Montana Plan. You can find general background information on the Montana Plan, including the Secretary's findings and the disposition of comments, in the October 24, 1980, Federal Register (45 FR 70445). OSMRE announced in the July 9, 1990, Federal Register (55 FR 28022) the Director's decision accepting certification by Montana that it had addressed all known coal-related impacts in the State that were eligible for funding under the Montana Plan. You can also find later actions concerning Montana's AML Program and Plan amendments at 30 CFR 926.25.

Under the authority of 30 CFR 884.15, OSMRE directed Montana to update its Plan by letter dated March 6, 2019 (Document ID No. OSM-2020-0004-0003). OSMRE indicated that the Montana Plan required revisions to meet the requirements of SMCRA as revised on December 20, 2006, under the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-432), and in response to changes made to the implementing Federal regulations as revised on November 14, 2008 (73 FR 67576) and February 5, 2015 (80 FR 6435). By letter dated August 4, 2020 (Administrative Record No. OSM-2020-0004-0002), Montana sent us an amendment to its State Plan under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq. ). Montana's amendment is intended to address all required amendments identified in OSMRE's letter dated March 6, 2019. The State also proposed additional changes as part of the State's initiative to improve the Plan's readability and operational efficiency. The State also proposed a statutory addition enacted by its legislature in 2007. Montana's amendment will repeal and replace the State's existing Abandoned Mine Lands (AML) Plan.

We announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the December 17, 2020, Federal Register (85 FR 81862). In the same document, we opened the public comment period and provided an opportunity for a public hearing or meeting on the adequacy of the amendment. We did not hold a public hearing or meeting because none were requested. The public comment period ended on January 19, 2021.

The following are the findings we made concerning Montana's amendment under SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 884.14 and 884.15. We are approving the amendment as described below.

Montana's Legislature enacted new statutory language at 82-4-1006, MCA in 2007 regarding establishment, management, and use of funds in the State's Abandoned Mine Reclamation Account (Account). This new statute establishes the State's Abandoned Mine Reclamation Account within the Federal special revenue fund under existing 17-2-102, MCA. The Federal special revenue fund consists of money deposited in the State treasury from Federal sources, including trust income, that is used for operation of the State government. This is the appropriate place to create an account for managing Federal grant funds under SMCRA. The applicable sections of 82-4-1006(1) through (3), MCA properly identify SMCRA AML Program funding sources, handling of interest, uses of funds including specific lands and waters eligible for project funding under the AML Program, and allowable reclamation activities. The listed eligible lands and waters as well as reclamation activities are in accordance with those allowed for certified States under SMCRA Section 411. Creation of such an account is required under SMCRA Section 401(a), which requires States to establish AML accounts for grant funds. Montana has fulfilled that responsibility by establishing its Abandoned Mine Reclamation Account.

According to 82-4-1006(4), MCA money in the Account that is subject to restrictions on use pursuant to Federal law, regulation, or grant conditions can only be used for the established purposes of the applicable Federal provision. Montana's Plan as revised under this amendment, as well as existing applicable statutory AML provisions, demonstrate that Montana's AML activities are consistent with SMCRA. Montana's Plan will prioritize addressing the impacts of historic mining and will comply with all grant requirements under 2 CFR part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. However, 82-4-1006(4), MCA ensures OSMRE grants, any abandoned mine lands grant funding from other Federal agencies, and any potential special future OSMRE funding received will be spent in accordance with applicable Federal restrictions.

Furthermore, 82-4-1006(5), MCA provides that unspent and unencumbered money must remain in the account at the end of the fiscal year until spent or appropriated by the State legislature. Montana's certified AML grants from OSMRE are typically provided on a three-year performance period, although this performance period can be extended at the State's request. The performance period begins when the AML grant agreement is signed. If the State does not expend the funds during the course of the performance period they must return the unused funds back to OSMRE. However, the State can retain the unspent funds to carry over to the next year as long as it is within the performance period.

Because Montana's statutory language at 82-4-1006, MCA fulfills a requirement for the State to create AML accounts for grant funds at SMCRA section 401(a), all restrictions on handling and use of funds are in accordance with requirements for certified States under SMCRA section 411, and all grant funds will be managed in accordance with 2 CFR part 200, we are approving the addition of 82-4-1006, MCA.

Montana is repealing and replacing its AML Plan with a simplified version that is structured similarly to the Federal AML Plan content requirements for States at 30 CFR 884.13. Documentation associated with Montana's original AML Program approval and subsequent Plan revisions was included within the State's previous Plan, leading to a lengthy and often duplicative document that was difficult to navigate. Now, Montana has made multiple editorial changes for brevity and structural alignment with Federal requirements as well as updates consistent with the 2006 changes to SMCRA under the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-432) and the associated changes to the implementing Federal regulations on November 14, 2008 (73 FR 67576), and February 5, 2015 (80 FR 6435). In order to simplify the Plan, the new version omits large and lengthy documentation that is now either incorporated by reference, is no longer applicable to Montana's AML Program, was in duplicate copy, was replaced by updated information, or was never required to be included in the Plan. All changes are discussed below.

In order to simplify its Plan, Montana is removing and referencing Federal Register documentation regarding its AML Program approval, Program and Plan revisions, and certification of completion of all known high priority coal hazards. Removal and incorporation by reference is appropriate because these documents are not required to be in the State Plan.

Throughout Montana's revised Plan, applicable State and Federal AML statutes and regulations are referenced, rather than incorporating the full text of those provisions. This approach decreases the overall volume of the Plan and prevents the need to further revise the Plan in the event of future statutory or regulatory changes. This change neither alters the statutes or regulations that apply to Montana nor the State's authority or procedures for implementing its certified AML Program.

Montana's revised Plan includes subsections entitled Background on Title IV of SMCRA, Background on the Montana Plan, and Purpose of the 2019 Revision. Inclusion of narrative program summaries is not required under the Federal program. However, it does provide background and context for the State's certified AML Plan and does not conflict with the established AML Plan content requirements at 30 CFR 884.13.

Montana's revised Plan includes copies of the Governor's 1977 and 1995 letters, respectively, initially designating the Department of State Lands and, then later after an agency reorganization, the Department of Environmental Quality, as the agency authorized to administer the State AML Program and to receive and administer grants under 30 CFR part 886. Because Montana's AML Program is certified, it no longer receives grant funding from OSMRE under Part 886, but rather receives certified grant funding under 30 CFR part 885. While the 1977 and 1995 Governor's letters should be replaced with an updated version reflecting the State's certified grant recipient status and that it receives funding under 30 CFR part 885, the designated State agency remains the same as it was prior to certification. Montana has incorporated the Governor's letters designating the Department of Environmental Quality as the agency authorized to administer the State AML Program and receive and administer grants in its Plan as required under 30 CFR 884.13(a)(1). Montana may replace these letters with an updated version without resubmitting that change to OSMRE as an amendment.

Montana provided an updated June 26, 2020, legal opinion from the State Attorney General indicating that the Department of Environmental Quality is the designated agency with the authority to conduct the AML Program in accordance with all requirements of SMCRA Title IV. Previous versions of this opinion have been removed from Montana's Plan because they are superseded by the new opinion. Montana has incorporated the Attorney General's letter in its Plan as required under 30 CFR 884.13(a)(2).

Federal regulations at 30 CFR 884.13(a)(3) require a description of the policies and procedures of the State agency, including the purposes of the State reclamation program. Montana's Plan includes a Policies and Procedures section that provides succinct descriptions of, and legal citations for, the purposes of its AML Program consistent with 30 CFR 884.13(a)(3).

Montana's revised Plan includes a section entitled Ranking and Selection that provides appropriate eligibility and prioritization criteria for coal and noncoal hazards based upon updated Federal program requirements, as well as the prioritization matrix Montana uses to assess and prioritize potential project areas for reclamation. This section is consistent with the Plan content requirements of 30 CFR 884.13(a)(3)(ii), which requires specific criteria, consistent with SMCRA, for ranking and identifying projects to be funded.

Montana's revised Plan includes a Limited Liability and Authorization to Proceed subsection under its Ranking and Selection section that indicates the State will comply with all applicable requirements to extend Limited Liability protections under SMCRA Section 405(l) to both coal and noncoal projects. Reclamation projects will not be undertaken without first receiving an Authorization to Proceed from OSMRE. This is in accordance with SMCRA 405(l) and consistent with 30 CFR 874.15 and 875.19, Limited Liability, which now provide limited liability coverage to certified State coal and noncoal reclamation activities, unless the costs or damages were the result of gross negligence or intentional misconduct.

Montana's revised Plan includes a section entitled Coordination With Other Programs that indicates the State will coordinate with other agencies and offices including the Natural Resources Conservation Service within the Department of Agriculture (formerly known as the Soil Conservation Service), Indian Tribes, and OSMRE as required, as well as multiple other State and Federal entities. By indicating it will coordinate and work with all required agencies, as well as additional agencies applicable in the State, Montana's proposed section is consistent with the requirements of 30 CFR 884.13(a)(3)(iii).

To describe how land will be acquired, managed, and disposed of, Montana's Plan includes a section entitled Land Acquisition, Management and Disposal that incorporates all applicable State and Federal statutory sections by reference. This ensures activity will occur in accordance with established State and Federal AML Program requirements. Therefore, Montana's Plan includes the State's policies and procedures for land acquisition, management, and disposition consistent with the requirements of 30 CFR 884.13(a)(3)(iv).

Montana's revised Plan includes a section entitled Reclamation on Private Land and Rights of Entry that indicates the State will follow guidelines in SMCRA Section 407, 30 CFR part 882, and the provisions in 82-4-1006, -239, -371, and -445, MCA regarding reclamation work on private land. The reference to SMCRA Section 407 is incorrect and OSMRE advised Montana that the reference should be to Section 408, Liens. Montana intends to correct this reference in its Plan and does not need to resubmit that change to OSMRE as an amendment. Montana also specifies that consent for entry will be obtained before entering private land, but if consent is denied procedures outlined in 30 CFR part 877 and 82-4-239, -371, and -445, MCA will be followed. With the corrected citation, this section of Montana's Plan accurately provides the State's policies and procedures for reclamation on private lands and right of entry and is therefore consistent with the Plan content requirements of 30 CFR 884.13(a)(3)(v) and (vi).

Montana's revised Plan includes a section entitled Public Participation that indicates which State and Federal laws it will comply with pertaining to public participation, notice, and comment procedures for AML project activities and in other actions such as development of the AML Plan. Because Montana's proposed section provides the procedures and processes it will follow to ensure public participation and involvement in the State reclamation program and in preparation of the State reclamation Plan, this section is consistent with 30 CFR 884.13(a)(3)(vii).

As discussed above, Montana's revised Plan includes sections responding to the requirements of 30 CFR 884.13(a)(3)(i) through (vii). These sections provide updated descriptions of the State's policies and procedures for conducting its AML Program including: The purposes of the Program; specific criteria for ranking and identifying projects to be funded; coordination of reclamation work between the State and all applicable State and Federal agencies; land acquisition; reclamation on private land; right of entry; and public involvement in the State reclamation program. These sections are simplified from previous versions of the Plan to eliminate unnecessary volume. Montana's revised Plan is consistent with the AML Plan content requirements of 30 CFR 884.13(a)(3).

Federal regulations at 30 CFR 884.13(a)(4)(i) require a description of the designated agency's organization and relationship to other State entities that may participate in or augment the State's AML reclamation abilities. Montana's Plan includes a section entitled Policies and Procedures, Department Structure, that provides these descriptions as well as an organizational chart depicting the entire Division of Environmental Quality and the AML Program's place within it.

Federal regulations at 30 CFR 884.13(a)(4)(ii) require a description of the personnel staffing policies that will govern assignments within the AML Program. Montana's revised Plan includes a section entitled Staffing and Personnel Policies that references applicable personnel and procurement policies such as the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 rather than incorporating full text versions of these documents, which were included in the previous version of Montana's Plan. This change does not alter Montana's personnel or procurement procedures but decreases the overall volume of the Plan while still providing the information required under 30 CFR 884.13(a)(4)(ii).

Federal regulations at 30 CFR 884.13(a)(4)(iii) require State purchasing and procurement systems to meet the requirements of Office of Management and Budget Circular A-102, Attachment 0, relating to “Grants and Cooperative Agreements with State and Local Governments”. Federal grantmaking agencies were previously required to issue a grants management common rule to adopt governmentwide terms and conditions for grants to States and local governments. As a result, the attachments to Circular A-102, including Attachment 0 referenced in 30 CFR 884.13(a)(4)(iii), have been replaced by the grants management common rule at 2 CFR part 200. The Federal regulations have not yet been updated to reflect this change; however, it is reflected in the State's revised Plan under the section entitled Purchasing and Procurement, which indicates its purchasing and procurement policies are consistent with 2 CFR part 200. This section provides descriptions of purchasing and procurement systems consistent with the requirements of 30 CFR 884.13(a)(4)(iii).

Montana's revised Plan includes a Contractor Eligibility subsection under the Purchasing and Procurement section that indicates the State will comply with SMCRA section 510(c) and 30 CFR 875.20 in determining the eligibility of bidders on AML Program contracts through the Applicant Violator System (AVS). By referencing the applicable Federal statute and regulation, Montana's revised Plan incorporates all applicable contractor eligibility requirements and is therefore consistent with the Federal program at SMCRA section 510(c) and 30 CFR 875.20.

Federal regulations at 30 CFR 884.13(a)(4)(iv) require a description of the accounting system to be used by the agency including specific procedures for operation of the AML Fund. Montana's new Plan includes a section entitled Accounting System that describes the Statewide Accounting, Budgeting and Human Resources System, how it conforms to 2 CFR part 200, that funds are safeguarded and accounted for, how audits will be conducted and audit recommendations implemented, and programmatic and financial reports will be made to OSMRE as required.

As discussed above, Montana's revised Plan includes four sections providing revised descriptions of the State's administrative and management structure: Department Structure; Staffing and Personnel Policies; Purchasing and Procurement; and Accounting System. By providing all required descriptions of the administrative and management structure of the State AML agency, Montana's revised Plan is consistent with all AML Plan content requirements under 30 CFR 884.13(a)(4).

Montana's revised Plan includes sections entitled Description of Reclamation Activities, Montana AML Problems, and Plan to Address Problems that provide general descriptions derived from available data of the reclamation activities to be conducted under the State Plan including: A map showing the general location of known or suspected eligible lands and waters; a description of the problems occurring on those lands and waters; and how the Plan proposes to address each of the problems. Because Montana is certified, the State has already completed all known high priority coal hazards. The revised maps and information reflect the State's certified status, identifying historic mining areas where AML hazards may occur, as well as general AML hazard types and abatement strategies without identifying specific project areas. Individual project approval and funding are appropriately handled through the Authorization to Proceed process under 30 CFR 885.16(e). Montana's revised Plan sections entitled Description of Reclamation Activities, Montana AML Problems and Plan to Address Problems are consistent with the AML Plan content requirements of 30 CFR 884.13(a)(5) in providing general descriptions of reclamation activities to be conducted including maps, descriptions of AML problems, and descriptions of hazard abatement strategies.

Montana's revised Plan includes sections entitled: Geographic Areas of Montana; Montana Economic Base; Significant Esthetic, Historic or Cultural, and Recreational Values; and Endangered and Threatened Plant, Fish, and Wildlife Habitat that provide general descriptions on each subject derived from available data on the conditions prevailing in the areas of the state where reclamation may occur. Montana has reduced the volume of these sections by omitting unnecessary documentation that was included in the previous version of its Plan such as detailed demographic information, projected population growth rates, graphics and charts depicting different population and employment parameters, and a map depicting the general topographic regions of the state. The omitted items were outdated and not required to be in the Plan. Montana's revised Plan provides descriptions of the prevailing conditions in the State where reclamation may occur consistent with the requirements of 30 CFR 884.13(a)(6).

Montana's revised Plan includes a section entitled Additional Requirement for Certified States and Indian Tribes that provides a commitment to address all eligible coal problems found or occurring after certification as required under 30 CFR 875.13(a)(3) and 875.14(b). Montana indicates it will prioritize coal hazards over noncoal hazards unless a noncoal hazard site imminently threatens human health or the environment, in which case, the State will assess the need for taking appropriate action in consultation with OSMRE. By committing to give priority to addressing eligible coal problems found or occurring after certification as required in 30 CFR 875.13(a)(3) and 875.14(b), Montana's revised Plan is consistent with the AML Plan content requirements of 30 CFR 884.13(b).

Thus, we find that Montana's Plan, as amended, meets all content requirements stipulated under 30 CFR 884.13 while also updating the Plan consistently with changes made to the Federal program in 2006, 2008, and 2015. Montana's revised Plan, therefore, meets the requirements of OSMRE's March 6, 2019 letter, and we approve it.

To simplify its revised Plan, Montana removed and did not replace extraneous, duplicate, and outdated documentation from the repealed version. A brief discussion of major sections no longer included in Montana's Plan is as follows:

Montana has removed its outdated AML hazard inventory, project planning, and estimated cost information. As a certified State, all high priority coal hazards have now been abated and such detailed project planning is neither possible nor required to be incorporated in Montana's Plan. Proposed projects are now appropriately identified by the State and approved by OSMRE through the Authorization to Proceed processes under 30 CFR 885.16(e).

Montana has removed the full text of several statutory and regulatory provisions from its Plan. As noted in the section above, many statutes and regulations are now incorporated by reference rather than copied in the Plan. However, some are removed and not referenced or replaced in the Plan. This action neither alters any existing statutes or regulations, which will continue to apply with full force and effect, nor does it alter which statutes or regulations apply to Montana's certified AML Program. Removals include: State statutes establishing the Board of Environmental Review; rules pertaining to equal opportunity, handicapped person's preference, and purchasing; and Americans With Disabilities Act implementation plans. Similarly, Montana has removed some Federal regulation language, including previous versions of 30 CFR 884.13 through 884.15 and 30 CFR 926.21, from its Plan. This State and Federal language was never required to be incorporated in the State Plan. As such, removal is appropriate.

Montana removed historic records related to approval and revision of its AML Program such as transmittal memos, records of public meetings, and discussion records between the State and OSMRE. Appendix A to the Plan includes a chronological list of significant Montana AML Program historical events. The removed historical documents are not required to be included in the State Plan and removal is therefore appropriate.

Montana has removed sections entitled The New Interim Bond Forfeiture Projects Initiative and The New Bankrupt Surety Bond Forfeiture Projects Initiative. To qualify for reclamation under these programs, sites must have been mined for coal or affected by coal mining processes and the site left in either an un-reclaimed or inadequately reclaimed condition (1) between August 4, 1977, and April 1, 1980 (the date on which the Secretary of the Interior approved Montana's regulatory program pursuant to Section 503 of SMCRA), and any funds pursuant to a bond or other financial guarantee or from any other source that would be available for reclamation and abatement were not sufficient to provide for adequate reclamation or abatement at the site, or (2) between August 4, 1977, and November 5, 1990, and the surety of the mining operator became insolvent during such period, and as of November 5, 1990, funds immediately available from proceedings relating to such insolvency or from any financial guarantee or other source were not sufficient to provide for adequate reclamation or abatement of the site. In addition, to qualify for reclamation or abatement funding under the initiatives cited above, such sites must have been either Priority 1 or 2 sites pursuant to section 403(a)(1) and (2) of SMCRA. Because more than 30 years have passed since any site could qualify for reclamation under these requirements, this part is no longer relevant to the Montana Program. As such, removal of the sections related to these initiatives is appropriate.

Montana is repealing and not replacing its Plan section entitled The Grant Set Aside for Future Priority I-III Coal, and AMD Abatement/Treatment Program Initiative because it no longer applies to the Montana Program. The State retains its Trust Fund for future expenditures on abandoned mine reclamation (coal or noncoal) and its OSMRE Trust (coal only). No new grant funds are placed in these accounts and interest earned is considered State funds in accordance with 30 CFR 873.12. Montana also has an approved interest-bearing account earmarked for the operation and maintenance of the Belt Water Treatment Plant authorized via letter from OSMRE dated July 21, 2010. However, this is not a set-aside account under SMCRA section 402(g)(6) and was properly funded using Prior Balance Replacement and Certified in Lieu Funds. Although Montana is removing this section from its Plan, its historically approved and created accounts remain in existence and are properly administered through the State's normal operations and overseen by OSMRE through routine oversight and grant monitoring processes.

Montana is removing its Emergency Reclamation Responsibility section previously approved under SMCRA sections 401(c)(5) and 410 and 30 CFR 877.14, and 30 CFR part 879. This program only applied to emergency coal hazards and is no longer applicable or necessary under Montana's certified AML Program.

All content removal support Montana's goals of streamlining and updating its Plan consistently with updated Federal requirements as required by OSMRE though its March 6, 2019 letter sent under the authority of 30 CFR 884.15. We therefore approve these changes.

We asked for public comments on the amendment, but none were received.

Pursuant to 30 CFR 884.15(a) and 884.14(a)(2), OSMRE solicited comments on the proposed amendment from various Federal agencies with an actual or potential interest in the Montana Plan on October 14, 2020 (Administrative Record No. OSM-2020-0004-0004). We did not receive any comments.

OSMRE solicited EPA's comments on the proposed amendment (Administrative Record No. OSM-2020-0004-0004). The EPA did not respond to our request.

OSMRE solicited comments on the proposed amendment from the SHPO (Administrative Record No. OSM-2020-0004-0004) and the ACHP (Administrative Record No. OSM-2020-0004-0005). SHPO did not respond to our request. By email dated December 4, 2020 (Administrative Record No. OSM-2020-0004-0006), ACHP indicated its belief that the revised Plan did not have any involvement with OSMRE's National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 review process in Montana, and therefore ACHP does not have any comments on this Plan. OSMRE agrees with ACHP's assessment that the revised Plan does not alter OSMRE's NHPA Section 106 review process in Montana.

Based on the above findings, we are approving Montana's AML Plan amendment that was submitted on August 4, 2020.

To implement this decision, we are amending the Federal regulations, at 30 CFR part 926, which codify decisions concerning the Montana Plan. In accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, this rule will take effect 30 days after the date of publication. Generally, SMCRA requires that each State with an AML program must have an approved State regulatory program pursuant to section 503 of the Act. Section 503(a) of the Act requires that the State's program demonstrate that the State has the capability of carrying out the provisions of the Act and meeting its purposes. SMCRA requires consistency of State and Federal standards.

This rule would not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications that would result in private property being taken for government use without just compensation under the law. Therefore, a takings implication assessment is not required. This determination is based on an analysis of the corresponding Federal regulations.

Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rules. Pursuant to OMB guidance, dated October 12, 1993, the approval of State program amendments is exempted from OMB review under Executive Order 12866. Executive Order 13563, which reaffirms and supplements Executive Order 12866, retains this exemption.

The Department of the Interior has reviewed this rule as required by Section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988. The Department has determined that this Federal Register document meets the criteria of Section 3 of Executive Order 12988, which is intended to ensure that the agency review its legislation and regulations to minimize litigation; and that the agency's legislation and regulations provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, rather than a general standard, and promote simplification and burden reduction. Because section 3 focuses on the quality of Federal legislation and regulations, the Department limited its review under this Executive Order to the quality of this Federal Register document and to changes to the Federal regulations. The review under this Executive Order did not extend to the language of the Montana Plan or to the Plan amendment that the State of Montana submitted.

This rule is not a “[p]olicy that [has] Federalism implications” as defined by section 1(a) of Executive Order 13132 because it 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.” Instead, this rule approves an amendment to the Montana Plan submitted and drafted by that State. OSMRE reviewed the submission with fundamental federalism principles in mind as set forth in sections 2 and 3 of the Executive order and with the principles of cooperative federalism as set forth in SMCRA. See, e.g., 30 U.S.C. 1201(f). As such, pursuant to section 503(a)(1) and (7) (30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7)), OSMRE reviewed Montana's amendment to ensure that it is “in accordance with” the requirements of SMCRA and “consistent with” the regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to SMCRA.

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 and under the criteria in Executive Order 13175 and have determined that it has no substantial direct effects on federally recognized Tribes or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Tribes. Therefore, consultation under the Department's tribal consultation policy is not required. The basis for this determination is that our decision is on the Montana program that does not include Tribal lands or regulation of activities on Tribal lands. Tribal lands are regulated independently under the applicable, approved Federal program.

Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for a rulemaking that is (1) considered significant under Executive Order 12866, and (2) likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Because this rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 and is not significant energy action under the definition in Executive Order 13211, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. We are not required to provide a detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) because this rule qualifies for a categorical exclusion under the U.S. Department of the Interior Departmental Manual, part 516, section 13.5(B)(29).

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (15 U.S.C. 3701 et seq. ) directs OSMRE to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. OMB Circular A-119 at p. 14. This action is not subject to the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with SMCRA.

This rule does not include requests and requirements of an individual, partnership, or corporation to obtain information and report it to a Federal agency. As this rule does not contain information collection requirements, a submission to the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) is not required.

This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). The State submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon corresponding Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was prepared and certification made that such regulations would not have a significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small entities. In making the determination as to whether this rule would have a significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data and assumptions for the corresponding Federal regulations.

This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule: (a) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million; (b) will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; and (c) does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. This determination is based on an analysis of the corresponding Federal regulations, which were determined not to constitute a major rule.

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. This determination is based on an analysis of the corresponding Federal regulations, which were determined not to impose an unfunded mandate. Therefore, a statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) is not required.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 30 CFR part 926 is amended as set forth below:

On April 13, 2021, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Special Local Regulations; Mystic Sharkfest Swim, Mystic River, Mystic, CT (86 FR 19169). There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this fireworks display. During the comment period that ended May 13, 2021, we received 0 comments.

The Captain of the Port Long Island Sound (COTP) will amend Table 1 of 33 CFR 100.100 Special Local Regulations; Regattas and Boat Races in the Coast Guard Sector Long Island Sound Captain of the Port Zone because adding this single reaccuring event will considerably reduce administrative overhead and provide the public with notice through publication in the Federal Register of the upcoming recurring special local regualtion.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The COTP has determined that potential hazards associated with this annual recurring event will be a safety concern for anyone within the area where the special local regulations will commence. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of vessels and the navigable waters in the safety zone before, during, and after the scheduled event.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date of this rule wold be impracticable and contrary to the public interest because the special local regulation must be established for the swim event on July 18, 2021 to mitigate the potential safety hazards.

As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published April 13, 2021. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.

This rule establishes special local regulations for the annual Mystic Sharkfest Swim event by adding this event to Table 1 to 33 CFR 100.100. The event will occur on a day in July at a time to be determined each year. The regulated area will encompass all waters of the Mystic River in Mystic, CT from Mystic Seaport, down the Mystic River, under the Bascule Drawbridge, to the boat launch ramp at the north end of Seaport Marine. Once enforced on the one day in July each year, these special local regulations would restrict vessels from transiting the regulated area. The specific description of this regulation appears at the end of this document.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration and time-of-day of the special local regulation. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the special local regulation and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the area. Vessel traffic would also be able to request permission from the COTP or a designated representative to enter the restricted area.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received 0 comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect 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 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves adding an annually recurring marine event to the already listed Table in 33 CFR 100.100. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because immediate action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with this salvage effort, and therefore publishing an NPRM is impracticable and contrary to public interest.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). On July 2, 2021, the Coast Guard was informed of a cargo plane crash off the Southwest shores of Oahu, Hawaii near Barber's Point. The Coast Guard COTP Sector Honolulu has determined that the potential hazards associated with the salvage operations constitute a safety concern for anyone within the designated safety zone. This rule is necessary to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment within the navigable waters of the safety zone during ongoing salvage operations.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date of this rule would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest because immediate action is necessary to ensure the safety of the ongoing recovery operations.

This rule is effective from July 2, 2021 through 12 p.m. on July 30, 2021, or until salvage operations are complete, whichever is earlier. If the safety zone is terminated prior to 12 p.m. on July 30, 2021, the Coast Guard will provide notice via a broadcast notice to mariners. The temporary safety zone encompasses all waters extending 3 nautical miles in all directions around the location of ongoing salvage operations near position 21°16′36″ N, 158°01′42″ W. This zone extends from the surface of the water to the ocean floor. The zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters from potential hazards associated with the salvage operations of one downed helicopter in this area. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone absent the express authorization of the COTP or his designated representative.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

This regulatory action determination is based on [provide factual reasons related to the waterway, duration of rule, etc.].

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator. This safety zone is limited in size and duration, and mariners may request to enter the zone by contacting the COTP.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect 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 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone with a duration of 28 days or until salvage operations are completed. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(d) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

The Coast Guard will enforce the Safety Zones; Annual Events in the Captain of the Port Buffalo Zone listed in 33 CFR 165.939, Table 165.939(c)(1) for the Whiskey Island Paddlefest in Cleveland, OH, on all U.S. waters of Lake Erie, Cleveland Harbor, from 41°29′59.5″ N and 081°42′59.3″ W, to 41°30′4.4″ N and 081°42′44.5″ W, to 41°30′17.3″ N and 081°43′0.6″ W, to 41°30′9.4″ N and 081°43′2.0″ W, to 41°29′54.9″ N and 081°43′34.4″ W, to 41°30′0.1″ N and 081°43′3.1″ W, and back to 41°29′59.5″ N and 081°42′59.3″ W (NAD 83) from 7:15 a.m. through 1:15 p.m. on July 17, 2021. The scheduled date of zone enforcement differs from that published in 33 CFR 165.939 to accommodate the sponsoring organization's priority to better align their event with other occurring local events, other paddle races taking place in the Great Lakes region, and to ensure the availability of personnel and resources to support the event.

Pursuant to 33 CFR 165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone during an enforcement period is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or a designated representative. Those seeking permission to enter the safety zone may request permission from the Captain of the Port Buffalo via channel 16, VHF-FM. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter the safety zone shall obey the directions of the Captain of the Port Buffalo or a designated representative. While within a safety zone, all vessels shall operate at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course.

This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.939 and 5 U.S.C. 552 (a). In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of this enforcement period via Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. If the Captain of the Port Buffalo determines that the safety zone need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to enter the respective safety zone.

Electric Boat Shipyard requested a modification to expand the currently existing security zone. In response, on April 13, 2021, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Security Zone: Electric Boat Shipyard, Groton, CT (86 FR 19171). There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this fireworks display. During the comment period that ended May 13, 2021, we received 1 comment.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The purpose of this rule is to modify the location of the existing security zone listed in 33 CFR 165.154(a)(2). Captain of the Port Long Island Sound will add a new point in the definition of the security zone and replace two turning points. This allows the zone to encompass the new building for construction of submarines and floating dry dock.

As noted above, we received 1 comment on our NPRM published April 13, 2021. The comment submitted by an anonymous individual addressed a clerical error to the NPRM. The word “subversive” should have been used instead of “submersive” in the sentence “for this reason a security zone is established to safeguard from destruction, loss, or injury from sabotage or other submersive acts, or other causes of a similar nature to its waterfront facility and its vessels that they construct.” There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.

Part 165 of 33 CFR contains specific regulated navigation areas and limited access areas to prescribe general regulations for different types of limited or controlled access areas and regulated navigation areas and list specific areas and their boundaries. Section 165.154 establishes Safety and Security Zones: Captain of the Port Long Island Sound Zone Safety and Security Zones.

The Coast Guard will modify the location of the existing security zone listed in 33 CFR 165.154(a)(2)(i) Safety and Security Zones: Captain of the Port Zone Safety and Security Zones, to expand the zone and to protect a new submarine construction facility and floating dry dock being built adjacent to the current facility.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the security zone. Vessel traffic would be able to safely transit around the security zone which would impact a small designated area of the Thames River.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received 0 comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect 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 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves expanding an already existing security zone to limit access near Electric Boat Shipyard. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60a of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. This safety zone is needed to be established by July 31, 2021 in order to protect the public from the dangers associated with a fireworks display.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date of this rule would be impracticable because action is needed to establish a safety zone in order to protect the public from the hazards associated with the fireworks display.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with a fireworks display on July 31, 2021, will be a safety concern for anything within a 500-foot radius of the navigable waters surrounding the fireworks launch site. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone during the fireworks display.

This rule establishes a temporary safety zone that will be enforced from 9 p.m. through 11 p.m. on July 31, 2021. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within 500 feet of a fireworks display in Lake Charlevoix near Boyne City, MI in position 45°15′20.62″ N 85°03′50.33″ W. The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the safety zone proceeding, during and immediately after the fireworks display.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

This regulatory action determination is based on size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone which would impact a small designated area of Lake Charlevoix. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect 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 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a temporary safety zone lasting only 2 hours that will prohibit entry within a 500-foot radius of a fireworks display in Lake Charlevoix. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L[60(a)] of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

This final rule removes from the CFR part 273 of title 33, “Aquatic Plant Control,” which prescribes policies, procedures and guidelines for research, planning and operations for the Aquatic Plant Control Program of the Corps under authority of section 104 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1958, as amended by section 104 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1962 and Section 302 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1965. This law, codified at 33 U.S.C. 610 has been amended several more times, most recently by section 1039(d) of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 and section 1178(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016. The Aquatic Plant Control Program is designed to deal primarily with weed infestations of major economic significance including those that have reached that stage and those that have that potential in navigable waters, tributaries, streams, connecting channels and allied waters. The regulation governs a program that manages cost-share authority between the Federal government and another governmental agency. This rule was initially published on June 3, 1976 (41 FR 22346). While the rule applies only to the Corps' Aquatic Plant Program, it was published, at that time, in the Federal Register to aid public accessibility.

The solicitation of public comment for this removal is unnecessary because the rule is out-of-date, duplicative of existing internal agency guidance, and otherwise covers internal agency operations that have no public compliance component or adverse public impact. For current public accessibility purposes, updated internal agency policy on this topic may be found in Engineer Regulation 1130-2-500, “Project Operations Partners and Support (Work Management Policies)” (available at https://www.publications.usace.army.mil/Portals/76/Publications/EngineerRegulations/ER_1130-2-500.pdf ). The agency policy is only applicable to field operating activities having responsibility for the Aquatic Plant Program projects and provides guidance specific to the Corps' control of aquatic plants.

This rule removal is being conducted to reduce confusion for the public as well as for the Corps regarding the current policy which governs the Corps' Aquatic Plant Program. Because the regulation does not place a burden on the public, its removal does not provide a reduction in public burden or costs.

This rule is not significant under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.”

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

On March 15, 2021 (86 FR 14299), EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for the State of Connecticut.

The NPRM proposed approval of Connecticut's SIP revision, which replaced two definitions within the previously approved Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA) Section 22a-174-22e, Control of NOx Emissions from Fuel-burning Equipment at Major Stationary Sources of NO X . The revision proposed to add to the State's SIP a recent amendment to 22a-174-22e concerning the definitions of “emergency” and “emergency engine,” which became effective as a state requirement on October 8, 2019. Additionally, two compliance options were removed from RCSA section 22a-174-22e(g) in light of the revised definitions for emergency and emergency engine.

The formal SIP revision was submitted by Connecticut on December 20, 2019. The rationale for EPA's proposed action is explained in the NPRM and will not be restated here. There were no public comments received on the NPRM.

EPA is approving Connecticut's December 20, 2019 SIP revision request pertaining to its definitions for emergency and emergency engine and the removal of compliance options affected by the revised definitions.

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 of the definitions for emergency and emergency engines and the removal of compliance options affected by the revised definitions 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 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). https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 1 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed 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 proposed action:

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders12866 (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).

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

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

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0197 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before September 13, 2021. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0197 by one of the following methods.

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

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

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

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

In the Federal Register of March 22, 2021, (Vol. 86, No. 53 FR 15164) (FRL- 10021-44), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a, announcing the receipt of a pesticide petition (PP IN-11424) filed by Croda, Inc., 300-A Columbus Circle, Edison, NJ 08837. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.960 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of Alkoxylated C8-C18 Saturated and Unsaturated Alcohol and Adipic Acid; with a minimum number average molecular weight (in amu) of 1,300 when used as a pesticide inert ingredient (surfactant or adjuvant); CAS Reg. Nos. 397247-05-1; 227755-70-6; 397247-06-2; 1065234-83-4, and 497157-72-9. That document included a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner and solicited comments on the petitioner's request. The Agency did not receive any comments.

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

EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only in those cases where it can be shown that the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance may be established.

Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. In the case of certain chemical substances that are defined as polymers, the Agency has established a set of criteria to identify categories of polymers expected to present minimal or no risk. The definition of a polymer is given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and the exclusion criteria for identifying these low-risk polymers are described in 40 CFR 723.250(d). Alkoxylated C8-C18 Saturated and Unsaturated Alcohol and Adipic Acid conforms to the definition of a polymer given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and meets the following criteria that are used to identify low-risk polymers.

1. The polymer is not a cationic polymer nor is it reasonably anticipated to become a cationic polymer in a natural aquatic environment.

2. The polymer does contain as an integral part of its composition the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen.

3. The polymer does not contain as an integral part of its composition, except as impurities, any element other than those listed in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii).

4. The polymer is neither designed nor can it be reasonably anticipated to substantially degrade, decompose, or depolymerize.

5. The polymer is manufactured or imported from monomers and/or reactants that are already included on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory or manufactured under an applicable TSCA section 5 exemption.

6. The polymer is not a water absorbing polymer with a number average molecular weight (MW) greater than or equal to 10,000 daltons.

Additionally, the polymer also meets as required the following exemption criteria specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e).

7. The polymer's number average MW of 1,300 is greater than 1,000 and less than 10,000 daltons. The polymer contains less than 10% oligomeric material below MW 500 and less than 25% oligomeric material below MW 1,000, and the polymer does not contain any reactive functional groups.

Thus, Alkoxylated C8-C18 Saturated and Unsaturated Alcohol and Adipic Acid meets the criteria for a polymer to be considered low risk under 40 CFR 723.250. Based on its conformance to the criteria in this unit, no mammalian toxicity is anticipated from dietary, inhalation, or dermal exposure to Alkoxylated C8-C18 Saturated and Unsaturated Alcohol and Adipic Acid.

For the purposes of assessing potential exposure under this exemption, EPA considered that Alkoxylated C8-C18 Saturated and Unsaturated Alcohol and Adipic Acid could be present in all raw and processed agricultural commodities and drinking water, and that non-occupational non-dietary exposure was possible. The number average MW of Alkoxylated C8-C18 Saturated and Unsaturated Alcohol and Adipic Acid is 1,300 daltons. Generally, a polymer of this size would be poorly absorbed through the intact gastrointestinal tract or through intact human skin. Since Alkoxylated C8-C18 Saturated and Unsaturated Alcohol and Adipic Acid (AASUAA) conform to the criteria that identify a low-risk polymer, there are no concerns for risks associated with any potential exposure scenarios that are reasonably foreseeable. The Agency has determined that a tolerance is not necessary to protect the public health.

Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.” EPA has not found Alkoxylated C8-C18 Saturated and Unsaturated Alcohol and Adipic Acid (AASUAA) to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and Alkoxylated C8-C18 Saturated and Unsaturated Alcohol and Adipic Acid does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed Alkoxylated C8-C18 Saturated and Unsaturated Alcohol and Adipic Acid that does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

Based on the conformance to the criteria used to identify a low-risk polymer, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of Alkoxylated C8-C18 Saturated and Unsaturated Alcohol and Adipic Acid (AASUAA).

An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation.

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

The Codex has not established a MRL for Alkoxylated C8-C18 Saturated and Unsaturated Alcohol and Adipic Acid, short chemical name (AASUAA).

Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting residues of Alkoxylated C8-C18 Saturated and Unsaturated Alcohol and Adipic Acid, Alkoxylated C8-C18 Saturated and Unsaturated Alcohol and Adipic Acid short chemical name (AASUAA) from the requirement of a tolerance will be safe.

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

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

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

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

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

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

This document announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the information collection requirements in 47 CFR 54.322(c)(4), on June 16, 2021. This rule was adopted in the 5G Fund Report and Order, FCC 20-150. The Commission publishes this document as an announcement of the effective date for this new rule. OMB approval for all other new or amended rules adopted in the 5G Fund Report and Order for which OMB approval is required will be requested, and the effective date for those rules will be announced following OMB's approval. See 85 FR 75770 (Nov. 25, 2020). If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed below, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Cathy Williams, Federal Communications Commission, Room 3.317, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554, regarding OMB Control Number 3060-1289. Please include the OMB Control Number in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via email at PRA@fcc.gov. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the Commission is notifying the public that it received final OMB approval on June 16, 2021, for the information collection requirements contained in 47 CFR 54.322(c)(4). Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.

No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for the information collection requirements in 47 CFR 54.322(c)(4) is 3060-1289. The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.

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

OMB Control Number: 3060-1289.

OMB Approval Date: June 16, 2021.

OMB Expiration Date: June 30, 2024.

Title: Legacy Support Usage Flexibility Certification.

Form Number: N/A.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities, not-for-profit institutions, and state, local or tribal governments.

Number of Respondents and Responses: Up to 110 respondents and 110 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 1.75 hours.

Frequency of Response: One-time reporting requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 154, 254 and 303(r).

Total Annual Burden: 193 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $16,500.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: The information collected under this collection will be made publicly available. However, to the extent that a respondent seeks to have certain information collected in response to this information collection withheld from public inspection, the respondent may request confidential treatment of such information pursuant to § 0.459 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.459.

Needs and Uses: On October 27, 2020, the Commission adopted the 5G Fund Report and Order, FCC 20-150, in which it, among other things, adopted additional public interest obligations and performance requirements for legacy high-cost support recipients, whose broadband-specific public interest obligations for mobile wireless services were not previously detailed. The public interest obligations adopted in the 5G Fund Report and Order for each competitive eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC) receiving legacy high-cost support for mobile wireless services require that such a carrier (1) use an increasing percentage of its legacy support toward the deployment, maintenance, and operation of voice and broadband networks that support 5G meeting the adopted performance requirements within its subsidized service area(s), and (2) meet specific 5G broadband service deployment coverage requirements and service deployment milestone deadlines that take into consideration the amount of legacy support the carrier receives. With respect to the requirement to use an increasing percentage of its legacy support toward the deployment, maintenance, and operation of voice and broadband networks that support 5G, the rules adopted in the 5G Fund Report and Order specify that each legacy support recipient must use at least one-third of the legacy support it receives in 2021, at least two-thirds of the legacy support it receives in 2022, and all of the legacy support in 2023 and beyond for these purposes.

To address a concern that budgets and deployment plans for 2021 are largely complete, which could make it difficult for some competitive ETCs to achieve the 2021 support usage requirement, the Commission adopted a rule that affords such competitive ETCs the flexibility to use less than one-third of their legacy support in 2021 and make up for any shortfall in 2021 by proportionally increasing the requirement in 2022 (above the two-thirds of its support the competitive ETC is required to spend on 5G in that year). See 47 CFR 54.322(c)(4). In order to take advantage of this flexibility, a competitive ETC receiving legacy support for mobile wireless services must submit a certification in which it (1) provides information regarding the service area(s) for which it and any affiliated mobile competitive ETC(s) receive legacy support and the annual amount of support they receive in each area; (2) indicates the total amount of legacy high-cost support to be spent on the deployment, maintenance, and operation of mobile networks that provide 5G service in calendar year 2021 across the identified service areas; and (3) certifies that any 2021 spending shortfall will be made up in 2022. Only those competitive ETCs receiving legacy high-cost support for mobile wireless services that wish to avail themselves of the flexibility concerning their 2021 and 2022 legacy high-cost support usage requirements will be required to respond to this information collection. The certification will be used by the Commission to identify how much a competitive ETC that chooses to avail itself of the flexibility concerning its 2021 and 2022 legacy high-cost support usage requirements will spend on 5G in 2021 and the spending shortfall it must make up in 2022, and to confirm the competitive ETC's commitment to make up its 2021 spending shortfall in 2022 in accordance with its certification and the Commission's rules.

The proposed rule was published at 86 FR 22382 on April 28, 2021. The Petitioner filed comments in support of the petition reaffirming its commitment to apply for channel 20. No other comments were filed. The Petitioner states that VHF channels have certain propagation characteristics which may cause reception issues for some viewers. In addition, KBOI-TV has received numerous complaints from viewers unable to receive the Station's over-the-air signal, despite being able to receive signals from other stations. The Petitioner also demonstrated that while the noise limited contour of the proposed channel 20 facility does not completely encompass the licensed channel 9 contour, only 180 persons in two small loss areas are predicted to lose service from KBOI-TV, a number the Commission considers de minimis.

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MB Docket No. 21-156; RM-11901; DA 21-768, adopted July 2, 2021, and released July 2, 2021. The full text of this document is available for download at https://www.fcc.gov/edocs. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).

This document does not contain information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, do not apply to this proceeding.

The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 73 as follows:

This is a summary of the Commission's Order, in MB Docket No. 19-193, FCC 21-70, adopted June 15, 2021 and released on June 16, 2021. The full text of this document is available electronically via the FCC's Electronic Document Management System (EDOCS) website https://www.fcc.gov/edocs or by downloading the text from the Commission's website at https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/0616283713905/FCC-21-70A1.pdf or https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-21-70A1.pdf (Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) Alternative formats are available for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), by sending an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or calling the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

The Order does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information collection burdens for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198.

The Commission has determined, and the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, concurs that this rule change is “non-major” under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission will send a copy of the Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

1. Introduction. On June 15, 2021, the Commission adopted an Order on Reconsideration (Order), Amendment of Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules to Improve the Low Power FM Radio Service Technical Rules; FCC 21-70, MB Docket No. 19-193. The Order dismisses in part and denies in part two petitions for reconsideration of revisions to technical rules governing the Low Power FM (LPFM) service in order to improve LPFM reception and increase flexibility in transmitter siting while maintaining interference protection and the core LPFM goals of diversity and localism. The Order also restores text that was inadvertently deleted from an existing LPFM rule.

2. The Commission proposed to modify the LPFM technical rules in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published at 84 FR 49205 (Sept. 19, 2019). It adopted revised technical rules in a Report and Order published at 85 FR 35567 (June 11, 2020). The Commission established that the revisions would apply prospectively, i.e ., to applications for which no decision had yet issued as of the rules' effective date. The goal of the revisions was to provide LPFM stations with greater flexibility, to improve their service, and to remove regulatory burdens.

3. Petitions for Reconsideration. The Commission received two petitions for reconsideration. One petition sought further revisions of the LPFM rules to increase maximum power, eliminate certain testing requirements for directional antennas, and revise a requirement that LPFM stations use equipment that has been certified for LPFM use. Another petition asked the Commission to extend the new rules to cases decided under former rules if the decision was not yet final when the new rules took effect. The Order dismisses and/or denies these petitions consistent with the Commission's goal of keeping LPFM requirements simple and accessible in order to facilitate construction and operation of community-oriented noncommercial stations by organizations with limited expertise and small budgets.

4. Restoration of Inadvertently Deleted Language. The Order takes the opportunity to correct an error that occurred when the Commission amended the Rules to permit LPFM stations to retransmit their signals over co-owned FM booster stations. In making ancillary changes to add the concept of LPFM boosters to existing rules governing booster use in other services, the Commission inadvertently deleted three words (“or FM translator”) from the existing language in section 74.1263(b) of the Rules. The Order includes a rule revision to restore that language. Because the deletion of FM translators from the scope of the rule in question was clearly inadvertent and correcting this error is noncontroversial, the Order finds that the notice and comment procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act would serve no useful purpose and are therefore unnecessary.

5. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), see 5 U.S.C. 603 and amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Public Law 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 847 (1996), requires that a regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for notice-and-comment rule making proceedings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” 5 U.S.C. 605(b). The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” 5 U.S.C. 601(6); See 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small-business concern” in 15 U.S.C. 632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register .” 5 U.S.C. 601(3). In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. 15 U.S.C. 632. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. See 5 U.S.C. 601-612.

6. This Order on Reconsideration disposes of petitions for reconsideration in MB Docket Nos. 19-193 and 17-105 without making any resulting rule changes. The only rule change made in the Order on Reconsideration merely reinserts a phrase that the NPRM and Order inadvertently deleted. Because this rule change does not require notice and comment, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply. Id. 601(2). In the Order in this proceeding, the Commission issued a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) that conforms to the RFA, as amended. Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 4149, Appendix C. The Commission received no petitions for reconsideration of that FRFA. This Order on Reconsideration does not alter the Commission's previous analysis under the RFA.

7. Congressional Review Act. The Commission will send a copy of this Order on Reconsideration to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

8. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 316, and 319 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 316, and 319, as well as the Local Community Radio Act of 2010, Public Law 111-371, 124 Stat. 4072 (2011), and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), this Order on Reconsideration is adopted .

9. It is further ordered that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Todd Urick, Todd Urick (Common Frequency) and Paul Bame (Prometheus Radio Project) along with Peter Gray (KFZR-LP), Makeda Dread Cheatom (KVIB-LP), Brad Johnson (KGIG-LP), David Stepanyuk (KIEV-LP), and Andy Hansen-Smith (KCFZ-LP) is dismissed in part and denied in part .

10. It is further ordered that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Foundation for a Beautiful Life is dismissed and in the alternative is denied .

11. It is further ordered that, effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register , 47 CFR 74.1263(b) is amended as specified in Appendix A of the Order.

12. It is further ordered that the Commission shall send a copy of this Order on Reconsideration in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 74 as follows:

This is a summary of the Commission's Second Report and Order (R&O) in WC Docket No. 18-213; FCC 21-74, adopted on June 17, 2021 and released on June 21, 2021. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Commission's headquarters will be closed to the general public until further notice. The full text of this document is available at the following internet address: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-21-74A1.pdf.

1. Through the R&O, the Commission continues its efforts to implement its Connected Care Pilot Program (Pilot Program) created pursuant to the Commission's authority under section 254(h)(2)(A) of the Communications Act. The Commission offers further guidance on the administration of the Pilot Program, including guidance on eligible services, competitive bidding, invoicing, and data reporting for selected participants.

2. The Commission received more than 200 Pilot Program applications from many health care providers whose patients lack internet connections sufficient to transmit a video visit or receive health care through connected care and providers who indicate that their systems and bandwidth are inadequate to carry the new and significantly increased loads. Selected projects will directly benefit thousands of low-income patients and veterans facing a wide variety of health challenges, such as diabetes, hypertension, stroke recovery, opioid dependency, high-risk pregnancy, pediatric heart disease, mental health conditions, and cancer. Through these projects, the Commission will develop a better understanding of how the Universal Service Fund (USF or Fund) can help support the adoption of connected care services among patients and their health care providers.

3. The Commission now provides selected Pilot Program participants with additional information on the rules and requirements for participation so that they can begin their projects.

4. Connected Care Pilot Project Selection Evaluation Criteria . In reviewing applications, the Commission sought to identify projects that would serve a high number of patients in the target populations, in areas most in need of USF support for connected care, treating many of the targeted conditions, and using products and services eligible for purchase with USF support. To do so, the Commission used the evaluation criteria set out in the Connected Care Report and Order, 85 FR 19892, April 9, 2020, and reviewed applications in accordance with these criteria. For instance, the Commission considered whether an application would serve low-income or veteran patients, as the Connected Care Report and Order established a strong preference for Pilot projects that can demonstrate that they will primarily benefit these patient groups. For purposes of the Pilot Program, a patient is considered low-income by determining whether (1) the patient is eligible for Medicaid or (2) the patient's household income is at or below 135% of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Federal Poverty Guidelines, and a patient is considered a veteran if they qualify for health care through the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs' Veterans Health Administration.

5. Pursuant to the Connected Care Report and Order, the Commission also considered whether an application is primarily focused on treating certain conditions, such as public health epidemics, opioid dependency, mental health conditions, high-risk pregnancy/maternal health, or chronic or recurring conditions that typically require at least several months to treat, including, but not limited to, diabetes, cancer, kidney disease, heart disease, and stroke recovery. Further, the Commission gave particular emphasis to health care providers that have either experience with providing telehealth or connected care services to patients, or a partnership with another health care provider, government agency, or designated telehealth resource center with such experience.

6. In addition, the Commission stated a desire in the Connected Care Report and Order to select a diverse set of projects and target Pilot Program funds to geographic areas and populations most in need of USF support for connected care. Consistent with this directive, the Commission considered whether applications would serve rural or Tribal areas or patients residing in those areas, or would serve patients in Health Professional Shortage Areas or Medically Underserved Areas. The Commission also considered whether applications would promote the goals of the Pilot Program. Lastly, the Commission reviewed applications to determine whether they sought funding for eligible products and services, to ensure that the Pilot Program would use its limited funding efficiently.

7. Connected Care Pilot Program Requirements. This section summarizes the requirements of the Connected Care Report and Order, and provides additional instructions and procedures about the administration, budget, and eligible services for the Connected Care Pilot Program. The Commission reminds all Pilot Program participants to review the Pilot Program's eligible services information prior to procuring services.

8. Program Administration and Budget. As a general matter, the traditional funding year period ( e.g., July 1 to June 30 of each year) for the Rural Health Care Program will not apply to the Pilot Program. Because of the nature of the Pilot Program, and given the funding request submission deadline and ramp-up period deadline, the Commission will not require selected Pilot Program participants to follow the traditional funding year process for the Rural Health Care Program. Pilot Program participants should therefore pay careful attention to any dates contained in official Pilot Program correspondence and on the Commission and the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC or Administrator) web pages to ensure compliance with all applicable dates and deadlines.

9. The Commission directs USAC to commit no more than the total amount associated with each project over a three-year period not to exceed the duration of the Pilot Program. This will ensure that total disbursements remain under the program budget. Further, to fund the Pilot Program, the Commission directs USAC to collect only the total amount associated with the actual commitments for each selected project. Because maximum expenditures based on each Pilot project budget were tracked before selection, selected participants will be able to request funding and receive funding commitments for multiple funding years. Allowing funding requests and commitments to cover multiple years will reduce administrative burdens on Pilot Program participants by reducing the number of Funding Request Forms (FCC Form 462) they file and will allow them to know what their total funding commitment for the Pilot Program will be.

10. Eligible Services. The Pilot Program will provide Pilot Program participants funding to cover up to 85% of the cost of eligible services, which fall under the following categories: (1) Patient broadband internet access services; (2) health care provider broadband data connections; (3) connected care information services; and (4) certain network equipment. The Commission provides two clarifications on services eligible for support in the Pilot Program. First, the Commission clarifies that the Pilot Program will reimburse network equipment purchases necessary to make broadband services functional, even if the Pilot Program is not directly supporting the costs of those broadband services. The Connected Care Report and Order states that the Pilot Program will fund “network equipment that is necessary to make Pilot Program funded broadband services for connected care services functional, or to operate, manage, or control such services.” However, Pilot Program applicants have also indicated a need for network equipment to make a supported broadband service functional even if they do not require new or upgraded broadband from the Pilot Program as part of their Pilot project, and a need for network equipment to make the connected care services they are providing through their Pilot project functional. Accordingly, some Pilot projects do not require upgraded or new broadband service to participate in the Pilot Program but do require upgraded network equipment ( e.g., switches) to make existing broadband services functional given the increased volume of network traffic associated with connected care services. To ensure these projects have the network equipment they need to provide broadband-enabled connected care services, the Pilot Program will provide funding to eligible, participating health care providers for necessary network equipment to make a broadband service functional for providing connected care services through the Pilot Program.

11. Second, the Commission clarifies that the Pilot Program will reimburse network equipment purchases necessary to make a connected care information service functional ( e.g., a server necessary for storing video conferences or facilitating video transmissions). Although the Connected Care Report and Order stated that equipment necessary to make a broadband service functional was supported, it did not specifically address eligibility of equipment necessary to make a connected care service functional. Many applicants requested funding for this type of network equipment and explained that this equipment was necessary, for example, to handle the increased volume of network traffic or storage needs associated with connected care services. Funding this additional network equipment for the limited purposes of the Pilot Program is consistent with the Commission's decision to fund connected care information services through the Pilot Program and is critical to the successful operation of the participating Pilot projects that requested such equipment. Further, funding this equipment for the limited purposes of the Pilot Program is within the scope of the Commission's statutory authority consistent with the legal rationale that the Commission relies on in the Healthcare Connect Fund to fund network equipment necessary to make a supported broadband service functional. To ensure these additional types of funded network equipment are within the scope of our statutory authority and Pilot Program purpose, where projects requested network equipment necessary to make a connected care service functional, the equipment must be purchased either because of the increase in internet traffic caused by the connected care services, or because the equipment would be primarily used for connected care information services. While the Commission's approach to fund network equipment necessary to make a broadband service functional even if the Pilot Program is not funding the broadband service and to fund network equipment necessary to make a connected care information service functional is more expansive than the Rural Health Care Program's (RHC) reimbursement for network equipment purchases, the Commission believes it is appropriate in this time-limited Pilot Program effort, focused on determining how USF funds can best support the trend towards connected care to be slightly more inclusive to ensure the success of selected Pilot Program participants.

12. The Pilot Program will not fund devices, including end-user connected devices ( e.g., tablets, smart phones, or remote patient monitoring equipment), medical equipment, health care provider administrative costs, personnel costs (including, but not limited to medical professional costs), or other miscellaneous expenses. The Pilot Program also will not fund network deployment, the construction of networks between health care providers, internal connections for health care providers, or connectivity services between health care provider sites. Pilot Program participants must cost allocate all ineligible services and/or equipment that are included in bundles, packages, or suites of services used in Pilot Program projects. Funding for Pilot Program participants is limited to three years. As a reminder, patient broadband internet access service funded through the Pilot Program is intended for patients who lack broadband or have an internet connection insufficient to receive connected care, and the funded patient broadband connection must be “primarily” used for activities that are integral, immediate, and proximate to the provision of connected care services to participating patients.

13. During application review, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) reviewers identified clearly ineligible services and equipment when they were apparent on the application, but USAC reviewers will review FCC Form 462s in order to take further steps to ensure that no funding will be committed for ineligible services or equipment. Pilot Program participants that seek competitive bids and submit requests for funding should refer to the Bureau's previously published guidance on eligible services and equipment to ensure that they are only requesting funding for eligible items. Pilot Program participants should be aware that selection does not guarantee that all items in an application are eligible and will be funded upon request.

14. Finally, the Commission reminds Pilot Program participants that they are prohibited from using Universal Service support to purchase or obtain any equipment or services produced or provided by a covered company posing a national security threat to the integrity of communications networks or the communications supply chain. In addition, Pilot Program participants are prohibited from using Federal subsidies to purchase, rent, lease, or otherwise obtain any covered communications equipment or service, or maintain any covered communications equipment or service previously purchased, rented, leased, or otherwise obtained. A list of covered equipment and services was posted on the Commission's website on March 12, 2021 and will be updated to reflect any future determinations.

15. Connected Care Pilot Program Rules and Procedures. This section provides details for Pilot Program participants about the competitive bidding process, requesting funding, receiving funding commitments, making changes to their projects, and seeking reimbursement through submitting invoices. To ensure efficient and predictable administration, the Pilot Program will use rules and procedures for the RHC Healthcare Connect Fund Program to the extent feasible. For purposes of the Connected Care Pilot Program, the Commission directs USAC to develop new versions of FCC Form 461 (Request for Services Form), FCC Form 462 (Funding Request Form), and FCC Form 463 (Invoice and Request for Disbursement Form) and make them publicly available. These forms should be clearly marked to indicate their association with the Connected Care Pilot Program and avoid confusion with other versions. Pilot Program participants may now begin the competitive bidding process and, if a competitive bidding exemption applies, may file a Request for Funding.

16. Funding Request Process Overview. Following selection by the Commission, Pilot Program participants can begin to follow the process outlined in this document. Generally, Pilot projects are to operate using Pilot Program funds for no more than three years from the first date of service. Expenses for which Pilot Program funding is requested and invoiced must be incurred within three years from the first date of service for the respective project, and by no later than June 30, 2025.

• Conduct Competitive Bidding. The FCC Form 461 initiates the competitive bidding process for all products and services for which competitive bids are required. The Pilot Program participant will describe the required services and equipment for its project, develop scoring criteria to evaluate bids, and post the resulting request for services to USAC's website for at least 28 days. Following the 28-day posting, the Pilot Program participant must choose the most cost-effective service provider and may then enter into a contract. This requirement does not apply to any products or services for which the Pilot Program participant is exempt from seeking competitive bids pursuant to a competitive bidding exemption, as outlined in this document:

• Request Funding. Pilot Program participants must request funding by submitting the FCC Form 462 to USAC. Note that for Pilot Program participants in Appendices A and B, the submission of the FCC Form 462 to USAC must occur no later than six months after the effective date of this Report and Order. Any future Pilot Program selections must submit their respective FCC Form 462 to USAC no later than six months after the announcement of their selection.

• Receive a Funding Commitment. USAC will review the FCC Form 462 and, if approved, issue funding commitment letters (FCLs) to the Pilot Program participants (and vendors, if necessary), indicating the amount committed under the Pilot Program for the FCC Form 462. The FCL contains other important information such as the service delivery deadline, and Pilot Program participants are reminded to read their FCLs closely.

• Begin the Pilot Project. Pilot Program participants must begin their Pilot projects no later than six months after receipt of their FCL from USAC.

• Make Project Modifications, if Needed. Pilot Program participants may request site or service substitutions or contract modifications pursuant to the procedures outlined in this Report and Order.

• Request Reimbursement. After equipment or services have been delivered, Pilot Program participants may seek reimbursement by submitting the FCC Form 463 to USAC. Pilot Program participants are encouraged to seek reimbursement on a monthly basis, if possible. Note that certain vendors, for instance, internet Service Providers enrolled with the RHC program, will submit the FCC Form 463 directly to USAC, upon request by the health care provider (or consortium).

17. Competitive Bidding—FCC Form 461. In the Connected Care Report and Order, the Commission adopted, to the extent feasible, the competitive bidding requirements for the Healthcare Connect Fund Program for participants in the Pilot Program. Unless a competitive bidding exemption applies, Pilot Program participants must participate in a competitive bidding process, follow any additional applicable state, local or other procurement requirements, and select the most cost-effective option for services and equipment eligible for Connected Care Pilot Program support. The Commission provides further guidance on these requirements.

18. To satisfy the competitive bidding requirements, Pilot Program participants must submit an FCC Form 461 for USAC to post. In some circumstances, Pilot Program participants will be required to prepare a formal Request for Proposal (RFP) to be posted along with their FCC Form 461. The FCC Form 461 should include a description of the services and equipment for which the Pilot Program participant is seeking support.

19. The Pilot Program participant must wait at least 28 days from the date on which the Form 461 is posted on USAC's website before selecting a service provider. After seeking bids from potential service providers, Pilot Program participants should conduct a bid evaluation to select the most cost-effective means of meeting their needs, and thereafter participants may enter into a legally binding agreement with the selected service provider. Pilot Program participants may enter into a service agreement or sign a contract with the selected provider on or after the Allowable Contract Selection Date (ACSD), the day after the required number of days the FCC Form 461 is posted on the USAC website. If Pilot Program participants enter into a new contract or service agreement before the ACSD, funding will be denied for services covered under that contract or service agreement. Pilot Program participants will also be required to make certain certifications regarding the competitive bidding process before submitting the FCC Form 461. The FCC Form 461 will be made available to Pilot Program participants in USAC's online My Portal system with additional information provided to Pilot Program participants by USAC during outreach.

20. “Fair and Open” Competitive Bidding Process. Pilot Program participants must conduct a fair and open competitive bidding process. To satisfy the “fair and open” standard, all potential bidders must have access to the same information and be treated in the same manner during the competitive bidding period to ensure that the process is “fair and open.” Further, service providers who intend to bid on supported services may not simultaneously help the Pilot Program participant to complete its RFP or Request for Services form. Service providers who have submitted a bid to provide supported services, equipment, or facilities to a health care provider may not simultaneously help the health care provider evaluate submitted bids or choose a winning bid. Pilot Program participants must respond to all service providers that have submitted questions or proposals during the competitive bidding process. All Pilot Program participants and service providers must comply with any applicable state, Tribal, or local procurement laws, in addition to the Commission's competitive bidding requirements. The competitive bidding requirements in this section are not intended to preempt such state, Tribal, or local requirements. Additionally, the Commission's prohibitions against gifts from service providers apply to the Connected Care Pilot Program. Although service providers may make charitable contributions to Pilot Program participants, such gifts may not be directly or indirectly related to Connected Care Pilot Program procurement activities. Further, Pilot Program participants are reminded that services purchased pursuant to universal support mechanisms shall not be sold, resold, or transferred in consideration for money or any other thing of value.

21. Competitive Bidding Exemptions. Pilot Program participants are not required to engage in competitive bidding if a competitive bidding exemption applies. All of the competitive bidding exemptions under the Healthcare Connect Fund Program, plus an additional exemption, apply to the Pilot Program as follows:

• Government Master Services Agreement. The eligible health care provider seeks support for services and equipment purchased from Master Services Agreements (MSAs) negotiated by federal, state, Tribal, or local government entities on behalf of such health care providers and others, if such MSAs were awarded pursuant to applicable federal, state, Tribal, or local competitive bidding requirements;

• Pre-approved Master Services Agreement. The eligible health care provider opts into an existing MSA approved under the Rural Health Care Pilot Program or Healthcare Connect Fund Program and seeks support for services and equipment purchased from the MSA, if the MSA was developed and negotiated in response to an RFP that specifically solicited proposals that included a mechanism for adding additional sites to the MSA;

• Evergreen contract. The eligible health care provider has a multi-year contract designated as “evergreen” by USAC and seeks to exercise a voluntary option to extend an evergreen contract without undergoing additional competitive bidding;

• E-Rate contract. The eligible health care provider is in a consortium with participants in the schools and libraries universal service support program (E-Rate program) and a party to the consortium's existing contract, if the contract was approved in the E-Rate program as a master contract;

• Annual undiscounted cost of $10,000 or less. The eligible health care provider seeks support for $10,000 or less of total undiscounted eligible expenses for a single year, if the term of the contract is one year or less; or

• Pre-existing contract (Connected Care Pilot Program only). The eligible health care provider already has entered into a legally binding agreement with a service provider for services or equipment eligible for support in the Pilot Program and that legally binding agreement itself was the product of competitive bidding. The Commission clarifies that this exemption applies only when the contract was signed before the applicant was selected to participate in the Pilot Program and the contract was not entered into solely for purposes of the Pilot Program. The prior competitive bidding process must have included public solicitation of bids or the applicant must have evaluated multiple quotes or bids before signing the contract.

22. Requests for Funding—FCC Form 462. In the Connected Care Pilot Program Report and Order, the Commission indicated that additional information on filing a request for funding would be forthcoming. The Commission now lays out the process for requesting funding. Pilot Program participants must request funding from USAC by filing the FCC Form 462, a formal request for funding that provides specific information on pricing and services. Pilot Program participants in Appendices A and B must file their initial FCC Form 462(s) no later than six months after the effective date of this Report and Order, and any subsequent Pilot Program selections must file their initial FCC Form 462(s) within six months of the announcement of their selection. As discussed in this document, Pilot Program participants must wait at least 28 days from the date of posting the FCC Form 461 before signing a contract or service agreement with a service provider and filing the Form 462. The 28-day period does not apply to those Pilot Program participants that are exempt from seeking competitive bids for certain products or services. Pilot Program participants that are exempt from seeking competitive bids for some but not all, of the Pilot-supported products and services, are encouraged to seek competitive bids as necessary, and file one Form 462 seeking funding for all requested products and services, being sure to wait 28 days as necessary.

23. Requests for Multi-Year Commitments. Pilot Program participants may seek bids for multi-year or single-year contracts during the competitive bidding process. If a project only seeks bids for a single-year contract, it will need to conduct a new competitive bidding process for each year of the Pilot Program, unless an exemption applies. Pilot Program participants may then submit multi-year or single-year funding requests to USAC. Also, as noted in this document, the competitive bidding requirements for the Pilot Program are in addition to and do not supplant any applicable state or local procurement requirements.

24. Funding Commitments. After USAC reviews the FCC Form 462 and makes funding determinations, USAC will issue an FCL for each FCC Form 462 filed for the Pilot Program that details the amount of committed funding and contains other important information. The amount of funding specified in the FCL is the total amount for which a Pilot Program participant may request reimbursement. Pilot Program participants may begin to receive supported recurring services on the start date of their Pilot project. To ensure that projects start in a timely manner, Pilot Program participants may install equipment or pay for other supported non-recurring services before the start date, but may not invoice for this equipment and services until after the start date. Services must be delivered by the service delivery deadline applicable to the funding year of the last day of the funding commitment. To aid in administration of the Pilot Program, all funding commitments shall end three years from the first date of service for the respective Pilot project, and by no later than June 30, 2025. Participants that seek one-year funding commitments may access unused funds in future years of the Pilot Program's three year period. Pilot Program participants may request site and service substitutions as necessary pursuant to the process detailed in paragraph 26.

25. Changes to Projects. Pilot Program participants are required to report to the Commission any material change in the participating health care providers' or Pilot projects' status ( e.g., the health care provider site has closed, or the pilot project has ceased operations) within 30 days of such material change in status. In instances where a Pilot Program participant is unable to participate in the Pilot Program for their proposed project period, a successor may be designated by the Bureau. Further, to facilitate the tracking and monitoring of the Pilot Program budget and guard against potential waste, fraud and abuse, Pilot Program participants must notify USAC within 30 days of any decrease of 5% or more in the number of patients participating in their respective Pilot projects. Pilot Program participants can notify USAC of these changes via My Portal. The Commission directs USAC to advise the Bureau of project changes that could impact committed funding ( e.g., changes to the cost of patient broadband or decrease in service quantities).

26. Site and Service Substitutions. To provide flexibility to Pilot Program participants, the Pilot Program will permit site and service substitutions within a project, consistent with the site and service substitution rules in the Rural Health Care Program. Both individual and consortium projects may make service substitutions. USAC shall approve a site or service substitution for the Pilot Program if: (1) The substitution is provided for in the contract, within the change clause, or constitutes a minor modification; (2) the site is an eligible HCP and the service is an eligible service under the Pilot Program; (3) the substitution does not violate any contract provision or state or local procurement laws; and, (4) the requested change is within the scope of the controlling FCC Form 461, including any applicable Request for Proposal. A site or service substitution cannot increase the total funding commitment. Pilot Program participants may request site and service substitutions via My Portal.

27. Contract Modifications. Contract modifications are permissible if they would be considered minor and therefore exempt from state, local, or tribal competitive bidding requirements. If the jurisdiction's laws are silent or otherwise inapplicable on whether a modification would be permitted without rebidding, the Commission adheres to the “cardinal change” doctrine, which looks at whether the modified terms are essentially the same as in the original contract. To qualify for reimbursement, any items provided pursuant to a minor contract modification must also be eligible services under the rules of the Pilot Program.

28. Seeking Reimbursement—FCC Form 463. The Commission provides additional details on invoicing requirements and processes. The Pilot Program will provide universal service support for 85% of the cost of eligible services and equipment. Consistent with the Commission's existing rules for the Healthcare Connect Fund Program, Pilot Program participants must contribute the other 15% of the cost of eligible services or equipment. Only funds from eligible sources, including the applicant or eligible health care provider participants, participating patients, or state, federal, or Tribal funding or grants, may be applied toward the health care provider's required contribution. Health care providers cannot use ineligible sources ( e.g., direct payments from vendors or service providers) to pay their required share of requested services or equipment.

29. After eligible equipment or services have been delivered, service providers, in conjunction with the participating health care providers, will be required to make certain certifications and submit invoicing forms, i.e., FCC Form 463 (Invoice and Request for Disbursement Form), with supporting documentation to USAC. USAC will review the invoicing forms and supporting documentation and issue disbursements to the applicable service providers or vendors. So that the Pilot Program can operate easily with existing invoicing systems, service providers will receive reimbursement directly, rather than through the health care provider, consistent with the standard practice in the Healthcare Connect Fund Program. Both broadband service providers and other vendors must have a valid Service Provider Identification Number from USAC, also known as a 498 ID, to receive payments.

30. Finally, the Commission waives the procedural rule established in the Connected Care Report and Order that invoices be submitted monthly. While the Commission strongly encourages Pilot Program participants to submit invoices monthly when possible, requiring invoices to be submitted on a monthly basis may pose an undue administrative burden for some Pilot Program participants and would be difficult to enforce. Because the Commission is tracking the expenditures for each project to ensure that total disbursements remain under the $100 million cap, and because the Pilot Program has a number of reporting requirements to further monitor the progress of projects, requiring monthly invoicing is not necessary to ensure that total disbursements will be under the cap. The Commission therefore found good cause under § 1.3 of the Commission's rules to not require invoices to be submitted on a monthly basis, but still encourages participants to submit their invoices promptly upon incurring an expense. All invoices must be submitted to USAC by the invoice deadline for the RHC Program, which is 120 days after the service delivery deadline, but no later than six months following the conclusion of each project.

31. Wind Down Period and Project Conclusion. Pilot Program participants may begin receiving service and eligible network equipment upon receipt of an FCL from USAC and must begin receiving service no later than six months following receipt of the FCL. Projects are to last for three years from the first date of service, and no later than June 30, 2025. Following the conclusion of the three-year period, Pilot Program participants will have an additional six months to wind down their projects or transition to a funding source other than the Pilot Program. During this period, Pilot Program participants may submit any remaining invoices for expenses incurred during the three-year Pilot project period, submit final data reporting (discussed in paragraph 32), and conclude any administrative tasks. Additional guidance may be provided by the Bureau regarding project conclusion.

32. Additional Pilot Program Requirements—Data Reporting and Bureau Report on Pilot. The Commission established the Pilot Program to examine how the Fund can help support the trend towards connected care services, particularly for low-income Americans and veterans. In particular, the Commission expects that the Pilot Program will benefit many low-income and veteran patients who are responding to a wide variety of health challenges such as infectious diseases, diabetes, opioid dependency, high-risk pregnancies, pediatric heart disease, mental health conditions, and cancer. The Commission also expects that the Pilot Program will provide meaningful data that will help it better understand how USF funds can support health care provider and patient use of connected care services. To this end, the Commission established three specific goals for the Pilot Program: To determine how USF support can be used to (1) improve health outcomes through connected care; (2) reduce health care costs for patients, facilities and the health care system; and (3) support the trend towards connected care everywhere.

33. To help evaluate the Pilot Program, the Commission directed the Bureau to issue a report detailing the results of the Pilot Program after it has been completed. To assist with this report, the Commission will require Pilot Program participants to submit anonymized, aggregated data to the Bureau regarding their Pilot project. Pilot Program participants are required to submit three total reports: An annual report after their first year of funding, after their second year of funding, and a final report after their third year of funding that contains data for the third year of funding, summarizes final results, and explains whether goals of the Pilot project were met and how the Pilot project served the Commissions' goals for the program. The Bureau will draw on the data from individual Pilot projects to prepare a final report upon the conclusion of the Pilot Program.

34. The Commission directs the Bureau to develop a form template for Pilot Program participants to use in reporting data annually and at the Pilot project's conclusion. The Commission directs the Bureau to make the template available as close to the start of the Pilot projects as possible to ensure that each project can gather data while the project is underway and be in position to report to the Commission at the conclusion of each year of the Pilot project. The Commission further directs the Bureau to provide guidance on how Pilot Program participants can access the template, and how participants can submit the report to the Bureau, as well as establish deadlines as necessary. The Commission expects that Pilot Program participants will be asked to report data such as: The number of patients served and percentage of those who were low-income and veteran patients; changes from the estimated patient population; progress in meeting the project's goals and objectives; impact of funding on number of patients treated with connected care; patient satisfaction with connected care and with health status; changes in treatment adherence; reductions in emergency room or urgent care visits; decreases in hospital admissions, re-admissions or lengths of stay; reductions or improvements in condition-specific outcomes or acute incidents among those who suffer from a chronic illness; impact of funding patient broadband connections; decreases in missed appointments; estimated cost-savings for health care providers and patients; reduced patient travel or time ( e.g., reduction in travel time or time missed from work); and other metrics that may demonstrate progress toward achieving the Pilot Program's goals, and general feedback on program administration. The Commission expects that the final report from Pilot Program participants will, at a minimum, include an overall summary of the information in the annual reports, an explanation of how the project helped advance the goals and objectives of the Pilot Program, an explanation of whether the Pilot project met its specific goals and objectives, information on any lessons learned concerning the provision and utilization of connected care services, and, particularly for low-income patients and veterans, lessons learned concerning patient retention, patient training, and how best to address digital literacy challenges. Pilot projects must collect data sufficient to provide substantive responses for the required reports. Failure to provide the data may result in either the elimination of the selected participant from the Pilot Program, loss or reduction of support, or recovery of prior distributions.

35. USAC Outreach. All Pilot Program participants listed in the R&O have 14 calendar days from the effective date of the R&O to provide or update, as needed, contact information for the lead project coordinator to USAC, including the lead project coordinator's name, mailing address, email address, and telephone number. Any future selections will need to provide or update this information within 14 calendar days of the announcement of their selection. Within 30 days of the effective date of the R&O, USAC will conduct an initial coordination meeting with Pilot Program participants identified in Appendices A and B of the R&O. For any future selections, the Commission directs USAC to conduct an initial coordination meeting with additional selected Pilot Program participants within 30 days of their selection. USAC will also conduct a targeted outreach program, such as a webinar or similar outreach, to educate and inform selectees about the Pilot Program administrative process, including filing requirements and deadlines. In addition to the structured outreach, participants are encouraged to contact USAC support staff, who will be available to respond to individual questions about how to file forms or submit proper supporting documents. Pilot Program participants can also find information on USAC's website for the Connected Care Pilot Program. And as noted in this document, most program forms and other program documents can be found in My Portal.

36. Document Retention, Audits, and Protection Against Waste, Fraud, ad Abuse. As in the Healthcare Connect Fund, health care providers and selected participants, in addition to maintaining records related to their Pilot projects to demonstrate their compliance with the Pilot Program rules and requirements, must also keep supporting documentation for the required reports for at least five years after the conclusion of their Pilot project and must present that information to the Commission or USAC upon request. Pilot projects will also be subject to random compliance audits to ensure compliance with the Pilot Program rules and requirements.

37. One indicator of the Pilot Program's success will be the avoidance of waste, fraud, and abuse and the careful stewardship of USF resources. Pilot Program participants must carefully adhere to program rules, file timely and accurate reports, and promptly consult with USAC when questions regarding Pilot Program rules or processes arise. The Commission retains the discretion to evaluate the uses of monies disbursed through the USF programs and to determine on a case-by-case basis that waste, fraud, or abuse of program funds occurred, and that recovery is warranted. Additionally, in the event the Commission discovers any improper activity resulting from the Pilot Program, it will subject the offending party to all available penalties at our disposal, and will direct USAC to recover funds, assess retroactive fees and/or interest, or both. The Commission remains committed to ensuring the integrity of the USF programs and will continue to aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under our own procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies.

38. Further, consistent with the Commission's existing rules for the Healthcare Connect Fund Program, Pilot Program participants must contribute their 15% share of the eligible costs from eligible sources ( e.g., the applicant, patient charges, an eligible health care provider, or state, federal, or Tribal funding or grants) and cannot apply funds from ineligible sources (including other FCC programs, such as the Universal Service Fund and the COVID-19 Telehealth Program, or direct payments from vendors or service providers). Pilot Program participants are also reminded that on their program application, they certified that no funds from any source—private, state, or federal—have been received or are expected to be received for the exact same services or equipment that are claimed as eligible for support under the Pilot Program. All Pilot Program participants are strongly encouraged to review their active certification commitments, including those related to HIPAA compliance, document retention, and proper use of funds.

39. Finally, the Commission reminds Pilot Program participants that Pilot projects are prohibited from receiving duplicative funding from the Pilot Program and the COVID-19 Telehealth Program, or any other source, for those exact same items. If a Pilot Program participant is also selected for participation in the COVID-19 Telehealth Program, it must ensure that it does not request disbursements for the same services or equipment from both programs. If any Pilot Program participant is also selected to participate in the COVID-19 Telehealth Program, the participant shall notify the Administrator immediately, and the Commission directs the Administrator to compare that participant's Pilot Program funding request(s) against its COVID-19 Telehealth Program application to ensure that participants do not receive duplicative funding.

40. Payment Administration. FCC Red Light Rule. To implement the requirements of the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, the Commission established what is commonly referred to as the “red light rule.” Under the red light rule, the Commission will not take action on applications or other requests by an entity that is found to owe debts to the Commission until full payment or resolution of that debt. If the delinquent debt remains unpaid or other arrangements have not been made within 30 days of being notified of the debt, the Commission will dismiss any pending applications. If a Pilot Program participant or service provider is currently on red light status, it will need to satisfy or make arrangements to satisfy any debts that it owes to the Commission before its application can be processed.

41. System for Award Management Registration. All Pilot Program participants and service providers must also register with the System for Award Management (SAM). SAM is a web-based, government-wide application that collects, validates, stores, and disseminates business information about the federal government's partners in support of federal awards, grants, and electronic payment processes. Registration in SAM provides the Commission with an authoritative source of information necessary to provide funding to Pilot Program participants and to ensure accurate reporting pursuant to the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (FFATA), as amended by the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act). Only those applicants and service providers that are actively registered in SAM will be able to receive reimbursement from the Pilot Program. Pilot Program participants and service providers that are already registered with SAM do not need to re-register with that system in order to receive payment from the Pilot Program. Pilot Program participants who are not already registered with SAM may still participate in the Pilot Program, apply for funding, and receive program commitments, but Pilot Program participants and service providers must be registered in SAM before any payments can be issued for the Pilot Program. To assist participants who are not registered with SAM, the Commission directs USAC to provide information and guidance to participants regarding the SAM registration process. To the extent that Pilot Program participants subaward the payments they receive from the Pilot Program, as defined by FFATA/DATA Act regulations, Pilot Program participants may be required to submit data on those subawards.

42. Do Not Pay. Pursuant to the requirements of the Payment Integrity Information Act of 2019, the Commission is required to ensure that a thorough review of available databases with relevant information on eligibility occurs to determine program or award eligibility and prevent improper payments before the release of any federal funds. To meet this requirement, the Commission and USAC will make full use of the Do Not Pay system administered by the U.S. Treasury's Bureau of the Fiscal Service. If a check of the Do Not Pay system results in a finding that a Pilot Program participant or service provider should not be paid, the Commission will withhold issuing commitments and payments. The Pilot Program participant or service provider is responsible for working with the relevant agency to correct its information in the Do Not Pay system before payment can be issued.

43. Appeals of USAC Decisions. Affected parties may seek review of a USAC decision pursuant to the rules and procedures outlined in §§ 54.719 to 54.725 of the Commission's rules. Specifically, an affected party may seek review of a decision by USAC by filing a request for review with USAC within 60 days of the date of the decision. An affected party may seek Commission review of a USAC decision, only after first seeking review of the decision with USAC, and may file a request for review with the Commission within 60 days after USAC's decision on appeal. An affected party may only request a waiver of the Commission's rules, or a waiver of a decision by USAC, by filing such request with the Commission, within 60 days of USAC's decision. All other requirements for appeals and requests for waiver, including the form the filings must take, can be found in §§ 54.719 to 54.725 of the Commission's rules.

44. Delegations of Authority. In order to ease program administration, the Commission delegates to the Bureau, consistent with the goals of the Pilot Program, the authority to waive certain program deadlines, clarify any inconsistencies or ambiguities in the Pilot Program rules, adjust Pilot project funding commitments, or to perform other administrative tasks as may be necessary for the smooth operation of the Pilot Program. The Commission also delegates to the Bureau the authority to grant limited extensions of deadlines to Pilot projects, and other authority as may be necessary to ensure a successful Pilot Program.

45. The Commission delegates financial oversight of this program to the Commission's Managing Director and direct the Office of the Managing Director (OMD) to work in coordination with the Bureau to ensure that all financial aspects of the program have adequate internal controls. These duties fall within OMD's current delegated authority to ensure that the Commission operates in accordance with federal financial statutes and guidance. OMD performs this role with respect to USAC's administration of the Commission's Universal Service programs and the Commission anticipates that OMD will leverage existing policies and procedures, to the extent practicable and consistent with the Connected Care Pilot Program, to ensure the efficient and effective management of the program. Finally, the Commission notes that OMD is required to consult with the Bureau on any policy matters affecting the program, consistent with § 0.91(a) of the Commission's rules.

46. This document contains new information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, will invite the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

47. The Commission will not send a copy of the R&O to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) because no rules are being adopted in the R&O.

48. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 201, 254, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 201, 254, and 303(r) the R&O is adopted and shall become effective August 13, 2021, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 408.

49. It is further ordered that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 201, 254, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 201, 254, and 303(r), and § 1.3 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.3, the monthly invoice submission requirement is waived , to the extent discussed herein.