The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (CAA; Pub. L. 116-260) provided funding to prevent, prepare for, and respond to the COVID-19 pandemic by providing support for agricultural producers who were impacted. Secretary Tom Vilsack announced the USDA Pandemic Assistance for Producers initiative on March 24, 2021. USDA is dedicating $6.5 billion in funding to reach a broader set of producers than in previous COVID-19 assistance programs, with a specific focus on strengthening outreach to underserved producers and communities and small and medium agricultural operations. As a part of that initiative, this rule establishes PCCP for 2022.

The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) serves America's agricultural producers through effective, market-based risk management tools to strengthen the economic stability of agricultural producers and rural communities. FCIC is committed to increasing the availability and effectiveness of Federal crop insurance as a risk management tool. Approved Insurance Providers (AIP) sell and service Federal crop insurance policies in every state through a public-private partnership. FCIC reinsures the AIPs who share the risks associated with catastrophic losses due to major weather events. FCIC's vision is to secure the future of agriculture by providing world class risk management tools to rural America.

For the 2021 crop year, FCIC implemented PCCP through a Notice of Funding Availability to help agricultural producers impacted by the effects of the COVID-19 outbreak. The economic challenges due to the pandemic made maintaining cover cropping systems financially challenging for many producers. For the 2021 crop year, PCCP premium support was provided to eligible producers for eligible insured acres on a spring crop insurance policy on which the producer planted a qualifying cover crop during the 2021 crop year.

FCIC amends 7 CFR part 460 to add a new subpart B to establish PCCP regulations for the 2022 crop year. For the 2022 crop year, PCCP premium support will be available to eligible producers for eligible insured acres on a crop insurance policy for a first insured crop on which the producer planted a qualifying cover crop after June 15, 2021, of the 2021 crop year, or during the 2022 crop year. In addition, for the 2022 crop year, additional PCCP premium support will be available to eligible producers for eligible Whole Farm Revenue Protection (WFRP) acres on which the producer planted a qualifying cover crop after June 15, 2021, of the 2021 crop year, or during the 2022 crop year. PCCP premium support will be available for both eligible insured acres and eligible WFRP acres associated with the same planted acreage of qualifying cover crops. Supplemental Coverage Option, Enhanced Coverage Option, Post-Application Coverage Endorsement, and Hurricane Insurance Protection—Wind Index policies or endorsements will not be eligible for PCCP. Stacked Income Protection Plan (STAX) and Margin Protection (MP) policies will only be eligible for PCCP when insured as a standalone policy. STAX and MP endorsements to underlying policies will not be eligible for PCCP.

For the 2022 crop year, in States administering a cover crop program providing premium subsidy under an active Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with RMA, as authorized by Section 508(c)(8) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act, insured acres qualifying for a State premium subsidy amount are eligible for a matching amount under PCCP, calculated on an FSA Common Land Unit (CLU) basis. The matching amount under PCCP per insured acre will be equal to the State contribution per insured acre on a CLU basis and is in addition to the base amount of PCCP. The matching amount under PCCP per insured acre will be limited by the amount of premium owed by the insured on a CLU basis. If limited, the State contribution amount and matching PCCP amount will be reduced proportionately on a CLU basis.

Some insureds will not owe enough premium to receive the full State premium subsidy support amount. Accordingly, any money contributed by a State that is not paid out via PCCP will be returned to the state within 90 days of the end of PCCP.

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2)) provides that the notice and comment and 30-day delay in the effective date provisions do not apply when the rule involves specified actions, including matters relating to benefits or contracts. This rule governs premium support for eligible producers for eligible insured acres on a crop insurance policy and therefore falls under the benefits or contracts exemption of the APA.

This rule is exempt from the regulatory analysis requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA). The requirements for the regulatory flexibility analysis in 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 are specifically tied to the requirement for a proposed rule under 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law; in addition, the definition of rule in 5 U.S.C. 601 is tied to the publication of a proposed rule.

The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) designated this rule as major under the Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, also known as the Congressional Review Act (CRA, 5 U.S.C. 804(2)). Therefore, the date for making the regulatory changes in this rule effective in the Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) will be delayed for 60 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register to allow for Congressional review.

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

OIRA designated this rule as economically significant under Executive Order 12866 and therefore, OIRA has reviewed this rule. The costs and benefits of this rule are summarized below. The full cost benefit analysis is available on regulations.gov.

The 2022 PCCP provides premium support of up to $5 per acre to eligible producers who plant and report to FSA (via the annual FSA-578 reporting) a qualifying cover crop on acreage insured under a Federal crop insurance policy (such as corn or soybeans) after June 15 of the 2021 crop year or during the 2022 crop year. The PCCP amount will not be paid directly to participants but will be accounted for in calculating total producer premium due from producers for the crop (for example, the corn or soybeans). Approximately 12.2 million net acres have received a premium reduction for the crop year 2021 PCCP. Note, however, that eligible acreage has expanded for the 2022 PCCP and in this analysis is projected at 23 million acres. The associated cost is estimated at $116.2 million for the crop year 2022 PCCP.

The environmental impacts of this final rule have been considered in a manner consistent with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347), the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and because USDA will be making the payments to producers, the USDA regulation for compliance with NEPA (7 CFR part 1b). The FCIC Manager has determined this rule will not have a significant environmental effect. Therefore, FCIC will not prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement for this action and this rule serves as documentation of the programmatic environmental compliance decision.

Although OIRA has designated this rule as “economically significant” under Executive Order 12866, “. . . economic or social effects are not intended by themselves to require preparation of an environmental impact statement” when not interrelated to natural or physical environmental effects (see 40 CFR 1502.16(b)). PCCP was designed to avoid skewing planting decisions. Producers continue to make their planting and production decisions with the market signals in mind, rather than any expectation of what a new USDA program might look like.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform.” This rule will not preempt State or local laws, regulations, or policies unless they represent an irreconcilable conflict with this rule. Before any judicial actions may be brought regarding the provisions of this rule, the administrative appeal provisions of 7 CFR part 11 are to be exhausted.

This rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with Tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have Tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.

USDA has assessed the impact of this rule on Indian Tribes and determined that this rule does not, to our knowledge, have Tribal implications that required Tribal consultation under Executive Order 13175 at this time. If a Tribe requests consultation, the USDA Risk Management Agency and Federal Crop Insurance Corporation will work with the USDA Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is provided where changes, additions, and modifications are not expressly mandated by law. Outside of Tribal consultation, the Risk Management Agency and Federal Crop Insurance Corporation is working with Tribes to provide information about PCCP.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA, Pub. L. 104-4) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions of State, local, and Tribal governments, or the private sector. Agencies generally must prepare a written statement, including cost benefits analysis, for proposed and final rules with Federal mandates that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more in any 1 year for State, local or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector. UMRA generally requires agencies to consider alternatives and adopt the more cost effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. This rule contains no Federal mandates, as defined in Title II of UMRA, for State, local and Tribal governments, or the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.

The title and number of the Federal Domestic Assistance Program listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance to which this rule applies is No. 10.450—Crop Insurance.

In accordance with the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35, subchapter I), the rule does not change the information collection approved by OMB under control numbers 0563-0053 and 0563-0084.

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family or parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (for example, braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 or (844) 433-2774 (toll-free nationwide). Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at https://www.usda.gov/oascr/how-to-file-a-program-discrimination-complaint and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by mail to: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or email: OAC@usda.gov.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

For the reasons discussed above, FCIC amends 7 CFR part 460 as follows:

AD 2021-26-23, Amendment 39-21882 (87 FR 3184, January 21, 2022) (AD 2021-26-23), requires repetitive inspections for fuel leakage at the engine and auxiliary power unit (APU) fuel pumps, related investigative and corrective actions if necessary, an inspection of the APU for damage and deformation, repair if necessary, and modification of the engine electrical fuel pump (EFP) installation. The AD applies to certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2B16 (601-3A, 601-3R, and 604 Variants) airplanes.

As published, the regulatory text of AD 2021-26-23 included the following errors:

• The AD number was incorrectly identified as “2021-21-23.” The correct AD number is 2021-26-23.

• The last sentence of paragraph (g) requires use of certain service information “as the effective date of this AD.” The correct compliance time for that requirement is “as of the effective date of this AD.”

Bombardier has issued the following service information, which describes procedures for repetitive general visual inspections and rectifications for any fuel leak from the engine and APU EFP electrical wiring conduit outlets. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane serial numbers.

• Bombardier Service Bulletin 604-28-022, Revision 3, dated August 31, 2018.

• Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-28-010, Revision 3, dated August 31, 2018.

• Bombardier Service Bulletin 650-28-001, Revision 3, dated January 3, 2019.

Bombardier has also issued the following service information, which describes procedures for a detailed visual inspection of the APU for any damage or deformations ( e.g., cut wires and a broken harness assembly of the fuel boost pump connector), modification of the engine EFP installation, and repair if necessary. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane serial numbers.

• Bombardier Service Bulletin 604-28-024, Revision 01, dated May 28, 2021.

• Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-28-012, dated June 16, 2020.

• Bombardier Service Bulletin 650-28-002, dated June 16, 2020.

This AD also requires Bombardier Service Bulletin 604-28-022, dated October 19, 2015, and Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-28-010, dated October 19, 2015, which the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by reference as of November 30, 2017 (82 FR 49498, October 26, 2017).

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 document corrects two errors in the regulatory text and correctly adds the AD as an amendment to 14 CFR 39.13. Although no other part of the preamble or regulatory information has been corrected, the FAA is publishing the entire rule in the Federal Register .

The effective date of this AD remains February 25, 2022.

Since this action only corrects the AD number and a minor grammatical error in the regulatory text, it has no adverse economic impact and imposes no additional burden on any person. Therefore, the FAA has determined that notice and public procedures are unnecessary.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:

We are making technical corrections to Part II and Part IIC of Form X-17A-5 (referenced in 17 CFR 249.617). The release resulting in the technical inaccuracies was published in the Federal Register on December 16, 2019 at 84 FR 68550, and adopted by the Commission in Exchange Act Release No. 87005 on September 19, 2019.

Accordingly, 17 CFR part 249 is corrected by making the following amendments:

In this document, the Bureau modifies regulations on GCT credit to conform with changes made in the First Step Act of 2018 (FSA), Public Law 115-391, December 21, 2018, 132 Stat 5194. The Bureau published a proposed rule on this subject on December 31, 2019 (84 FR 72274) with a comment deadline of March 2, 2020. Seventy-four comments were received during the comment period. Six of those 74 comments supported the proposed rule without qualification. The remaining 68 comments raised some common issues, which we address below.

Section 102(b) of the FSA amended 18 U.S.C. 3624(b) to provide that inmates may receive up to 54 days of GCT credit for each year of the sentence imposed by the court, instead of for each year of actual time served. See 18 U.S.C. 3624(b)(1) (“[A] prisoner who is serving a term of imprisonment of more than 1 year other than a term of imprisonment for the duration of the prisoner's life, may receive credit toward the service of the prisoner's sentence of up to 54 days for each year of the prisoner's sentence imposed by the court . . . .”). As a practical matter, prior to this change, awarding GCT credit for each year of actual time served had routinely resulted in a de facto cap of roughly 47 days per year of GCT credit. See Barber v. Thomas, 560 U.S. 474, 479 (2010). This final rule supports the FSA's modification of the GCT credit determination, which will result in recalculation of the release date of most current inmates (with the exception of those serving sentences for offenses committed before November 1, 1987, sentences of one year or less, and sentences of life imprisonment).

Under section 102(b)(2) of the FSA, this change to the manner in which GCT credit is applied could not be made effective until the Attorney General completed and released a recidivism risk and needs assessment system, which was done on July 19, 2019. A total of 3,163 inmates were released from Bureau custody on July 19, 2019, after the Bureau recalculated release dates under the amended GCT credit scheme in the FSA.

The Bureau has completed the process of recalculations for the remainder of the inmate population, prioritizing recalculations by proximity of projected release dates, and releasing inmates as appropriate. This rule focuses primarily on the proper calculation of GCT credit for the last chronological year of an inmate's term of imprisonment, implementing the statutory instruction that “credit for the last year of a term of imprisonment shall be credited on the first day of the last year of the term of imprisonment.” 18 U.S.C. 3624(b)(1). The Bureau has applied this calculation method since July 19, 2019, and the calculation method is the same one set forth in the Bureau's proposed rule.

Comment: The Bureau should choose the second alternative described in the proposed rule instead of the third alternative proposed by the Bureau. Sixty-four commenters urged the Bureau to adopt “Alternative 2,” the alternative interpretation of the FSA described in the proposed rule that would offer “the most Good Conduct Time credit possible.” To explain Alternative 2, we first provide some brief background.

Previously, 18 U.S.C. 3624(b)(1) provided that inmates “may receive credit toward the service of the prisoner's sentence beyond the time served, of up to 54 days at the end of each year of the prisoner's term of imprisonment, beginning at the end of the first year of the term.” The statute then specified that “credit for the last year or portion of a year of the term of imprisonment shall be prorated and credited within the last six weeks of the sentence.”

Section 102(b)(1) of the FSA, however, amended 18 U.S.C. 3624(b)(1) to require that inmates serving a sentence (other than a life sentence) of more than a year receive GCT credit of “up to 54 days for each year of the prisoner's sentence imposed by the court”—as opposed to for “time served”—and that GCT “credit for the last year of a term of imprisonment . . . be credited on the first day of the last year of the term of imprisonment.”

In the proposed rule, the Bureau discussed three possible interpretations of the FSA's changes to 18 U.S.C. 3624(b)(1):

Alternative 1: The Bureau should award no GCT credit for any portion of a sentence imposed that is less than 12 months ( i.e., the Bureau should award no credit for any partial-year portion of the sentence imposed).

Alternative 2: The Bureau should award a full 54 days of GCT credit for any partial final year of the sentence imposed.

Alternative 3: The Bureau should award prorated credit for any partial final year of the sentence imposed.

As stated above, sixty-four commenters urged the Bureau to adopt Alternative 2, because the commenters felt it would offer “the most Good Conduct Time credit possible.”  1

The Bureau offers the following explanations of the alternative interpretations of the changes made to the GCT credit statute by the FSA, in order to clarify the issues raised and explain why Alternative 3 remains the most logical and equitable option.

The revised section 3624(b)(1) directs the Bureau to award GCT credit for “the last year of the term of imprisonment.” 18 U.S.C. 3624(b)(1). The FSA removed language from the statute which had instructed the Bureau to prorate GCT credit “for the last year or portion of a year,” it could be argued that this deletion means that if an inmate has any part of his her or sentence that is less than 12 months, he or she earns no GCT credit for that portion of the sentence.

This interpretation, however, would ignore Congress's apparent intent to award credit for the full “sentence imposed.” See id. Congress amended section 3624(b)(1) following the Supreme Court's decision in Barber v. Thomas, which interpreted the provision to allow GCT credit based on the time actually served, rather than the sentence imposed. 560 U.S. at 483. The practical effect of that decision, as noted above, was to place a cap of roughly 47 days per year of GCT credit. Id. at 479. The FSA abrogated that holding, amending section 3624(b)(1) to expressly tie GCT credit to the “sentence imposed,” 18 U.S.C. 3624(b)(1), thereby “allowing prisoners to earn 54 days of credit per year, rather than 47 days.” 164 Cong. Rec. S7774 (daily ed. Dec. 18, 2018).

Under Alternative 1, any inmate whose sentence imposed was not a whole number of years would earn GCT credit at a rate of less than 54 days per year. An inmate sentenced to 2.9 years, for instance, would receive 108 days of credit (54 days for each of the first 2 years), or an average of roughly 37 days of GCT per year. That is the kind of result Congress sought to avoid by amending section 3624(b)(1), and for that reason, the Bureau stated in the proposed rule that this interpretation is erroneous, unfair, and contradictory to Congressional intent. No commenters questioned the Bureau's rejection of this interpretation.

Under both Alternative 2 and Alternative 3, inmates earn 54 days of GCT for each full year of the sentence imposed. For sentences that include a partial year, Alternative 2 would require the Bureau not to prorate GCT credit for the final partial year of the imposed sentence, but rather to award a full 54 days of GCT credit for that final partial year. The Bureau does not believe that this interpretation of the statute—under which 54 days of credit would be awarded to an inmate regardless of the length of the sentence imposed—would be fair or appropriate or reflects accurately the statutory text regarding calculation of GCT credit.

Instead, the Bureau adopts the Alternative 3 interpretation described in the proposed rule, under which it awards prorated credit for any partial year in an imposed sentence.

The Bureau's interpretation follows from the text of the statute, which directs that BOP award up to 54 days for “each year ” of the sentence imposed, rather than for each year or partial year of an inmate's sentence. 18 U.S.C. 3624(b)(1) (emphasis added). The best way to effectuate that statutory command is to prorate, ensuring that an inmate receives “up to 54 days”—but no more—“for each year” imposed by the court and partial credit for partial years at the end of the sentence imposed by the court. See id. This has the effect of maintaining the maximum rate at which inmates can earn GCT credit at 54 days per year, as directed by the statute. Alternative 2, in contrast, would permit inmates to exceed this statutory rate. An inmate serving a sentence of 9 years and a day, for example, would receive 540 days of GCT credit—an average of nearly 60 days of GCT credit “for each year of the prisoner's sentence imposed by the court.” Id. The alternative would thus contravene the statutory command of awarding “ up to 54 days for each year of the prisoner's sentence imposed by the court” by regularly awarding credit at a rate of more than 54 days per year. Id. (emphasis added).

To be sure, when Congress enacted the FSA to require calculating GCT credit by reference to the “sentence imposed by the court,” it eliminated the express direction that the Bureau should “prorate[ ]” credit for the final “portion of a year of the term of imprisonment,” i.e., the final portion of the term served. The statute is now silent as to how the Bureau should calculate credit if the sentence imposed includes a final “portion of a year.” The Bureau carefully considered that statutory history, but it ultimately concluded that any negative inference from Congress's deletion of the prior reference to prorating is insufficient to overcome the conflict with the current statute's text, which limits credit to “up to” 54 days of credit for the last year. 2

That is especially so because Alternative 2 would lead to arbitrary, illogical, and unwarranted disparities among inmates. Under Alternative 2, inmates sentenced to more time would systematically secure an earlier release date than certain others sentenced to less time. Table 1 below illustrates the difference, and resulting inequities, in release dates under Alternative 2 and under Alternative 3, for a hypothetical inmate whose imprisonment term began on January 1, 2020.

As shown in the chart, under either alternative, an inmate sentenced to 24 months would receive a maximum of 108 days of GCT credit (54 days for each year) with a release date of September 14, 2021. Under Alternative 2, an inmate with a sentence of 24 months and one day would have an earlier release date of July 23, 2021. The Bureau would award 54 days of GCT credit for each of the two full years imposed, as well as 54 days of credit for the additional single day, resulting in a total of 162 days subtracted from his sentence to calculate his release date. Alternative 3 avoids this unwarranted disparity and inequity: The Bureau would prorate credit for the final date of the inmate's sentence, leading to a maximum of 108 days of GCT credit. 3 That inmate would have a release date of September 15, 2021.

While courts might accept that inequitable result if Congress had expressly required it, an agency should generally seek to avoid introducing such anomalies in its interpretation of statutory text. Cf. Validus Reinsurance, Ltd. v. United States, 786 F.3d 1039, 1045-46 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (courts “must [ ] avoid statutory interpretations that bring about an anomalous result when other interpretations [are] available”) (internal quotation marks omitted); Sturgeon v. Frost, 139 S. Ct. 1066, 1080 n.3 & 1084 (2019) (declining to defer to an agency's interpretation that, though “grammatically possible,” was inconsistent with statute's context). 4 In this case, it seems unlikely that Congress would have intended inmates sentenced to longer terms—often pursuant to Congress's statutory sentencing schemes—to, in fact, serve shorter sentences.

Alternative 3 is also most consistent with the premise behind GCT credit: Awarding sentencing credit for good conduct. In Barber v. Thomas, the Supreme Court interpreted the pre-FSA text of section 3624(b)(1) and explained that the “basic purpose” of the statute was to tie the award of GCT credits directly to good behavior during the preceding year of imprisonment. 560 U.S. at 482. Alternative 3 maintains that relationship, while Alternative 2 would award inmates the same amount of GCT credit despite being sentenced to (and serving) different amounts of time. For example, under Alternative 2, an inmate sentenced to 2 years and one day would receive the same GCT credit as an inmate sentenced to 3 years: A total of 162 days of GCT credit. Therefore, Alternative 2 benefits an inmate with one day left to serve in the final year and another inmate with 365 days left to serve in the identical way, resulting in an unfair administration of the GCT benefit. Likewise, under Alternative 2, an inmate sentenced to 2 years and 1 day could misbehave for several days but still end up with more GCT credit than inmate who behaved perfectly but was sentenced to 2 years.

Some commenters believe that the Bureau incorrectly relied upon Barber in the proposed rule, noting that “several courts have found the FSA amendments to have `effectively abrogate[d] Barber v. Thomas.' ”   5 The Bureau agrees that the FSA abrogated Barber's holding that GCT credit should be based on time served rather than the sentence imposed. In doing so, Congress corrected a statutory ambiguity that resulted in inmates receiving a maximum of 47 days for each year imposed, and the Bureau's final rule reflects that change. At the same time, Congress retained the instruction that GCT credit only be awarded “subject to determination by the Bureau of Prisons that, during that year, the prisoner has displayed exemplary compliance” with all relevant rules and laws governing inmate conduct. 18 U.S.C. 3624(b)(1). Congress thus retained the same underlying principle that GCT should have some relation to “exemplary compliance” with BOP rules. A natural reading of FSA-amended section 3624(b)(1) and adherence to the basic purpose of the statute support prorated credit for the last year of each inmate's imprisonment term.

Separately, some commenters assumed that section 3624(b)(1)'s “first day of the last year of the term of imprisonment” refers to the first day of the final calendar year of each inmate's imprisonment term. However, section 3624(b)(1) makes clear that credit for “ each year” must be calculated using the length of sentence actually imposed by the court. 18 U.S.C. 3624(b)(1) (emphasis added). The Bureau thus calculates the maximum amount of GCT credit available, and the effective term to serve, based on the sentence imposed, and uses that number to calculate the number of full years (“anniversary periods”) that an inmate will serve if he receives maximum GCT credit. Therefore, the “first day of the last year of the term of imprisonment” is the final anniversary date.

Since the publication of the proposed rule, courts have upheld the Bureau's general interpretation of how to calculate GCT credit under the FSA, though none have addressed the specific question at issue here. In Chambers v. Ebbert, for example, the court approved the Bureau's calculation of GCT credit after an inmate challenged the Bureau's assertion that less was earned due to the inmate's unsatisfactory progress towards earning a GED. The court stated that the inmate is “eligible, but not automatically entitled, to receive up to 54 days of good conduct time for each of his 15 years of imprisonment,” and that the Bureau had engaged in a careful review of the “anniversary date for year-end sentence calculations.” Chambers v. Ebbert, 2020 WL 1183321 (M.D. Penn. Mar. 12, 2020). See also Lewis v. Rios, 2020 WL 555373 (D. Minn. Jan. 13, 2020); United States v. Bowie, 2019 WL 6464790 (D. Minn. Dec. 12, 2019); United States v. Rivera, 2019 WL 6464786 (D. Minn. Dec. 12, 2019); Frazer v. Petrucci, 2019 WL 5887302 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 2019).

For the above reasons, the Bureau adopts the interpretation of the FSA and the method of calculation of GCT credit described in Alternative 3 of the proposed rule.

Comment: The rule is inequitable if an inmate receives a low-level sanction and GCT credit is withheld or denied. One commenter was concerned that under the new regulation, GCT credit might be withheld if an inmate violates a “low-level” or low-severity prohibited act code under the current inmate disciplinary regulations at 28 CFR part 541. That is not the Bureau's intention, and such a policy was not reflected in the proposed rule.

The proposed rule indicated that a sanction of forfeiture, disallowance, or withholding of GCT credit may only be imposed after the due process requirements described in 28 CFR part 541 as part of the inmate disciplinary process have been followed, and only if such a sanction is found to be appropriate for the severity level category of the prohibited act committed by the inmate.

The list of prohibited acts and corresponding available sanctions can be found in current regulations at 28 CFR 541.3 (Table 1—Prohibited Acts and Available Sanctions). Prohibited acts are divided into four categories based on severity: Greatest, High, Moderate, and Low. Each category is accompanied by a list of sanctions which may be imposed by the Bureau after an inmate is found to have committed a prohibited act in that category, following the appropriate due process procedures in 28 CFR part 541.

The proposed rule did not alter current procedures for the sanction of forfeiture, disallowance, or withholding of GCT credit for commission of prohibited acts, and the final rule likewise does not change the current system.

That said, the Bureau is committed to ensuring that the forfeiture, disallowance, or withholding of GCT credit for commission of prohibited acts—and the restoration of that GCT credit—is administered equitably across all individuals in all facilities. To that end, the Department of Justice will conduct and publish a demographic analysis over the past three years of (1) all prohibited acts that have led to the forfeiture, disallowance, or withholding of GCT credit; and (2) instances in which GCT credit was restored to determine whether any practices are leading to a disparate impact. This information will be part of the Bureau's evaluation whether a notice of proposed rulemaking regarding the classification of prohibited acts and their available penalties under the current inmate discipline program, codified at 28 CFR part 541, is warranted.

Comment: Does the Bureau require a risk and needs assessment and a release plan as conditions for earning GCT credit? Several commenters submitted comments regarding the Bureau's use of “risk assessments” under the FSA as a condition of earning GCT credit. One commenter asked whether inmates are required to undergo a “needs assessment” or have a “solid release plan” as “conditions of obtaining” GCT credit, opining that if these requirements were imposed, recidivism rates would decrease tremendously. The commenter indicated that “the rule does mention that attending literacy classes or classes to obtain a GED would be one of the ways to earn credit[, as would] participating in any Bureau-authorized program. I am assuming the needs assessment falls under the Bureau-authorized program.”

The commenter also noted that the FSA requires the Bureau to conduct inmate risk assessments, which the commenter suggested should help the Bureau to set programming goals for inmates, asking: “could participation [in] these assessment[s] be a mandated requirement to receiv[e] GCT credit[?] It sounds like it[']s up to the Bureau['s] discretion.”

The commenter correctly interprets the FSA, but misunderstands the purpose of this rule, which is to explain how GCT credit will be calculated under the FSA. The changes to the method for calculating GCT credit are required by section 102(b) of the FSA, which amends 18 U.S.C. 3624(b) to indicate that inmates may receive up to 54 days of GCT credit for each year of the sentence imposed by the court, instead of for each year of actual time served.

The commenter is confusing the changes to GCT credit calculations mandated by section 102(b) of the FSA with FSA “Time Credits,” which are authorized under section 101 of the FSA, and for which the Bureau will be publishing a separate rule. Broadly speaking, section 101 of the FSA provides that an eligible inmate in Bureau custody who successfully completes Evidence-Based Recidivism Reduction programs or Productive Activities may earn FSA Time Credits to be applied towards prerelease custody ( i.e., transfer to a Residential Reentry Center (RRC) or home confinement for service of a portion of the inmate's sentence) or early transfer to supervised release ( i.e., early satisfaction of the inmate's sentence) under 18 U.S.C. 3624(g). FSA Time Credits are not the same as GCT credits and will not be earned or applied in the same manner.

The commenter's confusion is understandable. Section 102(b)(2) of the FSA indicated that all the amendments made by section 102 (pertaining to GCT credits) could only take effect after the Attorney General completed and released the risk and needs assessment system described in section 101(a) (largely pertaining to FSA Time Credits). 6 The Department of Justice publicly released this risk and needs assessment system on July 19, 2019. Therefore, in the proposed rule, we explained that the Bureau had already begun recalculating release dates due to the changes made by section 102(b) to the Bureau's GCT credit calculation method in anticipation of the July 19, 2019 release of the risk and needs assessment system.

Because explaining this point required a discussion of the release of the risk and needs assessment, the proposed rule may have given the impression that the risk and needs assessment was somehow connected to the process of calculating GCT credit, which is incorrect. The only connection between the risk and needs assessment and GCT credit is that the FSA conditioned the Bureau's implementation of the modified method of GCT credit calculation on the timing of the public release of the risk and needs assessment tool. Otherwise, as a practical matter, earning GCT credit is not predicated or conditioned upon any requirement that inmates have a plan for release or go through a risk assessment.

Comment: The proposed rule would prevent elderly offenders eligible for home confinement from earning GCT. One comment was comprised entirely of what appeared to be a reprint of an article or editorial entitled “Durbin, Lee Introduce Bill To Allow Nonviolent Elderly Prisoners Eligible For Release To Home Confinement To Benefit From Good Time Credit.” The article had an explanatory subtitle: “The First Step Act Reauthorized And Expanded A Pilot Program To Place Elderly And Terminally Ill Inmates In Home Confinement, But BOP's Misinterpretation Of This Provision Will Result In Elderly Offenders Unnecessarily Spending A Longer Time Behind Bars Before Becoming Eligible For Release To Home Confinement.”

This comment (including the article it reproduces) appears to refer to a bill passed in the House of Representatives on December 3, 2019 as H.R. 4018 and introduced in the Senate on December 12, 2019 as S.3035, the Elderly Home Detention Pilot Program Technical Corrections Act of 2019. The House Judiciary Committee Report accompanying this bill explains that H.R. 4018, a bill “ `[t]o provide that the amount of time that an elderly offender must serve before being eligible for placement in home detention is to be reduced by the amount of good time credits earned by the prisoner, and for other purposes,' would ensure that participants in the Second Chance Act elderly prisoner pilot program receive credit for good conduct time.” H. Rept. 116-311, at 2 (2019).

The Bureau's current practice permits inmates who participate in the elderly prisoner pilot program to earn GCT credit, calculated with respect to their projected release date. The projected release date includes release from time in home detention or community confinement. S.3035 would not affect the Bureau's process for calculating GCT credit, but rather the determination of eligibility for elderly offender home confinement. The bill would provide that elderly offenders would become eligible for home confinement under the elderly offender pilot program if they had served two-thirds of their sentence as calculated based on their projected release date (which might be reduced by GCT credit), instead of their full term of sentence as imposed by the court. This new method of calculating eligibility for elderly offender home confinement would not impact an inmate's actual accrual or application of GCT credit in any way.

Comment: The proposed rule will NOT make inmates eligible for the maximum of 12 months prerelease Residential Reentry Center (RRC) placement, contrary to the Second Chance Act's amendments to 18 U.S.C. 3624(c)(6)(C). Section 3624(c)(6)(C) of title 18 requires the Bureau to ensure that community confinement placement is “of sufficient duration to provide the greatest likelihood of successful reintegration into the community.” One commenter felt that the statute's requirement of “sufficient duration” should be interpreted to require the Bureau to afford qualifying inmates the maximum of 12 months of prerelease RRC placement.

As an initial matter, this comment does not address the proposed rule or the revised method of computing GCT credits under the FSA, and thus is not relevant to the final rule the Bureau issues today. Nonetheless, the Bureau notes that the commenter may have inadvertently overlooked the provisions directly before subparagraph (C). In subparagraph (A), the statute also requires the Bureau to ensure that community confinement is consistent with 18 U.S.C. 3621(b), which mandates that the Bureau designate each inmate to a place of imprisonment subject to a list of specific factors. The Bureau is specifically instructed by this statute to consider, for each designation determination, bed availability, the specific inmate's security designation, programming needs, mental and medical needs, faith-based needs, sentencing court recommendations, security concerns, and proximity to the inmate's primary residence.

Additionally, the Bureau must also consider the resources of the facility, the circumstances of the inmate's offense, the inmate's history and characteristics, court statements regarding the purposes of the sentence imposed, and recommendations or relevant policies of the Sentencing Commission. Consideration of all these very specific factors necessarily requires a case-by-case determination, as required by the remainder of 18 U.S.C. 3624(c)(6)(B), which, after referring to the exhaustive list of required designation considerations in section 3621(b), further reinforces that the Bureau must make the determination of community confinement placement “on an individual basis.” 18 U.S.C. 3624(c)(6)(B).

In the context of the full text of the statute, therefore, the commenter's assertion that 18 U.S.C. 3624(c)(6)(C) requires the Bureau to allow 12 months of community confinement in all cases, for all inmates, seems to be incorrect. This reading of the statute directly conflicts with the statute's mandate that the Bureau make this determination after a careful and thorough consideration of many factors on an individualized basis.

Comment: With regard to literacy requirements, there should be several changes to the Bureau's education programs. One commenter recommended specific ratios of GED, alternative literacy, and vocational training “tutors” per number of inmates, suggested that the Bureau provide payment and bonuses to inmates who tutor other inmates, and encouraged inmate placement in United States Department of Labor apprenticeship programs for teacher's aides. These recommendations will be taken under consideration by the Bureau and in consultation with Departments of Labor and Education, as appropriate, as it continues to develop inmate educational and vocational training opportunities.

Change in terminology regarding immigrants in federal custody. We make one minor change to conform with Executive Order 14012, Restoring Faith in Our Legal Immigration Systems and Strengthening Integration and Inclusion Efforts for New Americans, issued on Feburary 2, 2021, and Executive Order 14010, Creating a Comprehensive Regional Framework to Address the Causes of Migration, to Manage Migration Throughout North and Central America, and to Provide Safe and Orderly Processing of Asylum Seekers at the United States Border, issued on February 5, 2021. Those Executive orders use the term “noncitizen” in place of the terms “alien” or “illegal alien.” Consistent with this representative change in terminology, and to promote accuracy, we likewise change the term “alien” in 28 CFR 523.20(d)(3) to “noncitizen” wherever it appears.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. Because this rule may raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of implementation of the First Step Act, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that it constitutes a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and has reviewed it.

Executive Order 13132. This regulation will not have substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, under Executive Order 13132, we determine that this regulation does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Director of the Bureau of Prisons, under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), reviewed this regulation and by approving it certifies that it will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This regulation pertains to the correctional management of offenders committed to the custody of the Attorney General or the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, and its economic impact is limited to the Bureau's appropriated funds.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. This regulation will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

Congressional Review Act. This regulation is not a major rule as defined by the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804.

Under rulemaking authority vested in the Attorney General in 5 U.S.C. 301; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510 and delegated to the Director, Bureau of Prisons, in 28 CFR 0.96, we amend 28 CFR part 523 as follows:

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

On November 22, 2015, the President, invoking the authority of, inter alia, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706) (IEEPA), issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13712, “Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Burundi” (80 FR 73633, November 25, 2015). In E.O. 13712, the President found that the situation in Burundi, which had been marked by the killing of and violence against civilians, unrest, incitement of imminent violence, and significant political repression, and which threatened the peace, security, and stability of Burundi, constituted an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, and declared a national emergency to deal with that threat.

On April 6, 2016, OFAC issued the Burundi Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 554 (81 FR 19878, April 6, 2016) (the “Regulations”), as a final rule to implement E.O. 13712. The Regulations were issued in abbreviated form for the purpose of providing immediate guidance to the public.

On November 18, 2021, the President issued E.O. 14054, “Termination of Emergency With Respect to the Situation in Burundi” (86 FR 66149, November 19, 2021). In E.O. 14054, the President found that the situation that gave rise to the declaration of a national emergency in E.O. 13712 with respect to the situation in Burundi had been significantly altered by events of the past year, including the transfer of power following elections in 2020, significantly decreased violence, and President Ndayishimiye's pursuit of reforms across multiple sectors. Accordingly, the President terminated the national emergency declared in E.O. 13712 and revoked that order.

As a result, OFAC is removing the Regulations from the Code of Federal Regulations. Pursuant to section 202(a) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(a)) and section 2 of E.O. 14054, termination of the national emergency declared in E.O. 13712 shall not affect any action taken or proceeding pending not finally concluded or determined as of November 18, 2021 (the date of E.O. 14054), any action or proceeding based on any act committed prior to the date of E.O. 14054, or any rights or duties that matured or penalties that were incurred prior to the date of E.O. 14054.

Because the Regulations involve a foreign affairs function, the provisions of E.O. 12866 of September 30, 1993, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), and the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation, and delay in effective date are inapplicable. Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this rule, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) does not apply.

The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because this rule does not impose information collection requirements that would require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

DoD now has a single DoD-level Privacy Program rule at 32 CFR part 310 (84 FR 14728) that contains all the codified information required for the Department. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Joint Staff Program regulation at 32 CFR part 313, last updated on November 14, 1991 (56 FR 57802), is no longer required and can be removed.

It has been determined that publication of this CFR part removal for public comment is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest since it is based on the removal of policies and procedures that are either now reflected in another CFR part, 32 CFR part 310, or are publicly available on the Department's website. The Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is governed by the Privacy Act implementation policies of the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

This rule is one of 20 separate component Privacy rules. With the finalization of the DoD-level Privacy rule at 32 CFR part 310, the Department eliminated the need for this component Privacy rule, thereby reducing costs to the public as explained in the preamble of the DoD-level Privacy rule published on April 11, 2019 at 84 FR 14728-14811.

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final 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), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable, as the Coast Guard did not receive details for the maintenance event until January 20, 2022. There was insufficient time to undergo a full rulemaking process, including providing a reasonable comment period and considering those comments because the bridge is scheduled to start repairs on February 13, 2022. Delaying repairs would negatively impact public safety.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective in less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date would be contrary to the public interest, as the public interest in initiating repairs to the bridge on time outweighs the potential burden the closure will place on waterway users. Most vessels that require an opening only need one leaf of the bridge to open to safely pass. Further, as necessary, vessels can detour through the Calumet River and arrive at the same destination.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 33 U.S.C. 499.

The Dearborn Street Bridge, mile 1.13, spans the Main Branch of the Chicago River at Chicago, Illinois. The Dearborn Street Bridge, mile 1.13, over the Main Branch of the Chicago River provides a horizontal clearance of 200 feet and a vertical clearance of 22 feet above LWD. The bridges of Chicago are historic and all of them are over 100 years old and require frequent maintenance and repairs that occur with little warning. Typically, these repairs must be attended to immediately to protect the health and welfare of pedestrians crossing the bridges each day. The current bridge regulations for the Chicago River are contained in 33 CFR 117.391 and allows the bridges to open on signal if a 12-hour advance notice is provided by commercial vessels and a 20-hour advance notice by recreational vessel during posted times. The Chicago River bridges operate infrequently as almost all vessels can pass through the bridges without an opening. The exceptions are recreational sailing vessels that pass the bridge in City of Chicago sponsored flotillas twice a year that can pass safely with one leaf open. Commercial vessels transits that require both bridge leafs to open are rare, occurring less than once a month on average. All vessels have the opportunity to detour through the Calumet River.

This rule establishes a temporary change to the operation of the Dearborn Street Bridge, mile 1.13, over the Main Branch of the Chicago River at Chicago, Illinois. During the period from February 13, 2022 through November 1, 2022, the Dearborn Street Bridge, mile 1.13, need only operate one leaf for the passage of vessels, while the other leaf is secured to masted navigation for maintenance. The effect of not performing the maintenance would be to deny the bridge to an estimated 10,000 persons commuting to work daily if repairs and required maintenance are not started in a timely manner.

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 protesters.

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, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

This regulatory action determination is based on the ability that vessels can still transit the bridge through one leaf and that most vessels can pass under the bridge without an opening.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 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.

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the bridge 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 contact 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 calls for no 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 Management Directive 023-01, Rev.1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning Policy COMDTINST 5090.1 (series) which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f). The Coast Guard has 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 promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges and is categorically excluded from further review, under paragraph L49, of Chapter 3, Table3-1 of the U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning Implementation Procedures.

Neither a Record of Environmental Consideration nor a Memorandum for the Record are required for this rule.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact 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 117 as follows:

The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulation for the annual Pointe to La Pointe Swim event in 33 CFR 165.943(a)(9) from 7 a.m. through 11 a.m. on August 06, 2022 on all waters between Bayfield, WI and Madeline Island, WI within an imaginary line created by the following coordinates: 46°48′27.55″ N, 090°48′56.86″ W, moving southeast to 46°48′21.2″ N, 090°48′59.9″ W, moving south to 46°47′19.91″ N, 090°49′46.18″ W, moving east 46°47′21.18″ N, 090°49′02.39″ W, then moving north to 46°48′21.20″ N, 090°48′56.86″ W and finally running back to the starting point.

Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Duluth or a designated on-scene representative.

This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.943 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this publication in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of the enforcement of this safety zone via Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. The Captain of the Port Duluth may be contacted via Channel 16, VFH-FM or at (218) 428-9357.

This final rule makes purely technical, clarifying revisions to the Department's existing regulations at 36 CFR 251.51 and 251.56(h) governing procedures for operating plans and agreements for powerline facility inspection, operation and maintenance, and vegetation management. The revisions conform definitions in § 251.51 and text in § 251.56(h) to revisions made to the proposed implementing directive in response to public comment.

Specifically, the Department is adding the term “qualified vegetation management specialist” to the definition of “hazard tree” to be more inclusive of personnel titles used by owners and operators and is removing the reference to the Forest Service in connection with who may identify hazard trees because the owner or operator, not the Forest Service, is responsible for inspecting, identifying, and felling hazard trees.

In the definition of “minimum vegetation clearance distance,” the Department is adding the phrase “that is used to prevent flashover between conductors and vegetation for various altitudes and operating voltages” and removing the phrase “within or abutting the linear boundary of a special use authorization for a powerline facility” to better align the definition of minimum vegetation clearance distance with the industry definition.

In the definition for “operating plan or agreement for a powerline facility,” the Department is adding a reference to construction, reconstruction, and maintenance of access roads and trails, which are covered by an operating plan or agreement.

The Department is revising the definition for “powerline facility” to clarify that it includes communications equipment that is owned by the owner or operator; that solely supports operation and maintenance of the electric distribution or transmission lines; and that is not leased to other parties for communications uses that serve other purposes. Communications equipment that does not meet these criteria must be authorized under a separate special use authorization.

The Department is removing the terms “removal” and “remove” as they relate to hazard trees and vegetation in the definitions and text and replacing them with the terms “felling” and “fell” to accurately describe accepted treatment of hazard trees and vegetation.

Consistent with the defined term “linear right-of-way,” the Department is replacing the phrase “linear boundary of a special use authorization for a powerline facility” with the phrase “linear right-of-way for a powerline facility” in the definitions for “minimum vegetation clearance distance,” “emergency vegetation management,” “operating plan or agreement for a powerline facility (operating plan or agreement),” and “non-emergency (routine) vegetation management.”

An owner or operator that meets either of the two criteria for an operating agreement specified in the governing statute, section 512 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (43 U.S.C. 1772), is eligible for an operating agreement. An owner or operator that meets both criteria is also eligible. To clarify that point, the Department is revising § 251.56(h)(2) to provide that an owner or operator that meets the first and/or the second criterion is eligible for an operating agreement.

Consistent with the final implementing directive, for powerline facilities without an operating plan, the Department is revising § 251.56(h)(3) to extend the deadline for submitting a proposed operating plan or agreement from August 31, 2023, to 18 months from the date the authorized officer notifies the owner or operator that a proposed operating plan or agreement must be submitted, which must occur no later than September 30, 2026. Revised § 251.56(h)(3) gives the authorized officer the discretion to determine the sequence of notification of the requirement to submit a proposed modified operating plan or proposed operating plan or agreement, based on factors enumerated in the final implementing directive.

The final implementing directive provides for the requisite environmental analysis and consultation for routine vegetation management to be completed before a proposed operating plan or agreement is approved, or case-by-case after a proposed operating plan or agreement is approved, but before routine vegetation management is conducted. Accordingly, the Department is revising the second criterion in § 251.56(h)(5)(viii)(A) that must be met to conduct routine vegetation management without authorized officer approval to state that the proposed routine vegetation management must be covered by approval of a proposed operating plan or agreement or by subsequent case-by-case environmental analysis and consultation.

Also for consistency with the final implementing directive, the Department is revising § 251.56(h)(5)(viii)(B) to provide that the owner or operator must notify the authorized officer by email of the location and type of emergency vegetation management as soon as practicable, but no later than 24 hours after completion, and that within 30 days of completion must submit to the authorized officer a written report detailing at a minimum the location, type, and scope of emergency vegetation management conducted, the reason it was conducted, the methods used to conduct it, and the resulting benefit.

For consistency with the final implementing directive, the Department is revising § 251.56(h)(7) to require that at least every 10 years, rather than every 5 years, from the approval date of an operating plan or agreement, the owner or operator must review and, as appropriate not just as necessary, propose updates to the operating plan or agreement to ensure consistency with changed conditions. In addition, consistent with the final implementing directive, revised paragraph (h)(7) provides that proposed updates to an approved operating plan or agreement that are deemed significant by the authorized officer will be treated as proposed modifications and must be submitted by the owner or operator for review and approval by the authorized officer in accordance with the procedures described in paragraph (h)(6). Revised paragraph (h)(7) further provides that proposed updates that are deemed non-significant by the authorized officer may be made by written agreement of the owner or operator and the authorized officer.

Consistent with Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will determine whether proposed, interim, and final rules that impose, eliminate, or modify requirements on non-Forest Service parties are significant and will review any proposed, interim, or final rules that OIRA has designated as significant. This final rule does not impose, eliminate, or modify requirements on non-Forest Service parties and therefore does not require a significance determination by OIRA. E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The Forest Service has developed this final rule consistent with E.O. 13563.

Since this final rule does not impose, eliminate, or modify requirements on non-Forest Service parties, it is not a major rule as defined by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (known as the Congressional Review Act), 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

This final rule will make purely technical, clarifying revisions to existing Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR 251.51 and 251.56(h) to conform to revisions made to the proposed implementing directive in response to public comment. Agency regulations at 36 CFR 220.6(d)(2) (73 FR 43093) exclude from documentation in an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS) “rules, regulations, or policies to establish Service-wide administrative procedures, program processes, or instructions.” The Forest Service has concluded that this final rule falls within this category of actions and that no extraordinary circumstances exist which would require preparation of an EA or EIS.

The Forest Service has considered this final rule under the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 602 et seq. ). This final rule will not have any direct effect on small entities as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The final rule will not impose recordkeeping requirements on small entities; will not affect their competitive position in relation to large entities; and will not affect their cash flow, liquidity, or ability to remain in the market. Therefore, the Forest Service has determined that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The Forest Service has considered this final rule under the requirements of E.O. 13132, Federalism. The Forest Service has determined that the final rule conforms with the federalism principles set out in this E.O.; will not impose any compliance costs on the states; and will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the Federal government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, the Forest Service has concluded that the final rule does not have Federalism implications.

The Forest Service has reviewed this final rule in accordance with the requirements of E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. The Forest Service has determined that national tribal consultation is not necessary for the final rule. The final rule, which will make purely technical, clarifying revisions to existing Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR 251.51 and 251.56(h) to conform to revisions made to the proposed implementing directive in response to public comment, does not impose, eliminate, or modify requirements on non-Forest Service parties and therefore does not have any direct effects on tribes.

The Forest Service has considered the final rule under the requirements of E.O. 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. The Forest Service has determined that the final rule is consistent with E.O. 12898.

The Forest Service has analyzed the final rule in accordance with the principles and criteria in E.O. 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. The Forest Service has determined that the final rule will not pose the risk of a taking of private property.

The Forest Service has reviewed the final rule under E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. The Forest Service has determined that the final rule will not constitute a significant energy action as defined in E.O. 13211, and OIRA has not otherwise designated the final rule as a significant energy action.

The Forest Service has analyzed the final rule in accordance with the principles and criteria in E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Upon issuance of the final rule, (1) all state and local laws and regulations that conflict with the final rule or that impede its full implementation will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this final rule; and (3) it will not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging its provisions.

Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), signed into law on March 22, 1995, the Forest Service has assessed the effects of the final rule on state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. The final rule will not compel the expenditure of $100 million or more by any state, local, or tribal government or anyone in the private sector. Therefore, a statement under section 202 of the Act is not required.

The final rule does not contain information collection requirements as defined in 5 CFR part 1320 that are not already required by law or not already approved for use. Accordingly, the review provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 do not apply.

Therefore, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department is amending part 251, subpart B, of title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations 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 Office of the Federal Register's e-CFR site at https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40.

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), 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-2020-0736 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 April 12, 2022. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b), although EPA strongly encourages those interested in submitting objections or a hearing request to submit objections and hearing requests electronically. See Order Urging Electronic Service and Filing (April 10, 2020), https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-05/documents/2020-04-10_-_order_urging_electronic_service_and_filing.pdf. At this time, because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the judges and staff of the Office of Administrative Law Judges are working remotely and not able to accept filings or correspondence by courier, personal delivery, or commercial delivery, and the ability to receive filings or correspondence by U.S. Mail is similarly limited. When submitting documents to the U.S. EPA Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ), a person should utilize the OALJ e-filing system at https://yosemite.epa.gov/OA/EAB/EAB-ALJ_upload.nsf.

Although EPA's regulations require submission via U.S. Mail or hand delivery, EPA intends to treat submissions filed via electronic means as properly filed submissions during this time that the Agency continues to maximize telework due to the pandemic; therefore, EPA believes the preference for submission via electronic means will not be prejudicial. If it is impossible for a person to submit documents electronically or receive service electronically, e.g., the person does not have any access to a computer, the person shall so advise OALJ by contacting the Hearing Clerk at (202) 564-6281. If a person is without access to a computer and must file documents by U.S. Mail, the person shall notify the Hearing Clerk every time it files a document in such a manner. The address for mailing documents is U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Administrative Law Judges, Mail Code 1900R, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.

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-2020-0736, by one of the following methods:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://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 https://www.epa.gov/dockets/where-send-comments-epa-dockets.

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

In the Federal Register of March 22, 2021 (86 FR 15162) (FRL-10021-44), EPA issued a notice pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance exemption petition (PP 0F8844) by Chr. Hansens Laboratory Inc., 9015 W Maple St., Milwaukee, WI 53214. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the fungicide and nematicide Bacillus subtilis strain CH3000 in or on all food commodities. That notice referenced a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner Chr. Hansens Laboratory Inc. and available in the docket via https://www.regulations.gov. No comments were received on the notice of filing.

Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement of 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 in residential settings but does not include occupational exposure. Pursuant to FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), in establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C), which require EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance or tolerance exemption 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. . . .” Additionally, FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D) requires that EPA consider “available information concerning the cumulative effects of [a particular pesticide's] . . . residues and other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

EPA evaluated the available toxicological and exposure data on Bacillus subtilis strain CH3000 and considered their validity, completeness, and reliability, as well as the relationship of this information to human risk. A full explanation of the data upon which EPA relied and its risk assessment based on those data can be found within the document entitled “Human Health Risk Assessment of Bacillus paralicheniformis strain CH2970 and Bacillus subtilis strain CH3000, New Active Ingredients, in CH2970, CH3000, and CH2970/CH3000 Proposed for Registration and Associated Petitions Requesting Tolerance Exemptions” ( Bacillus paralicheniformis strain CH2970 and Bacillus subtilis strain CH3000 Human Health Assessment). This document, as well as other relevant information, is available in the docket for this action as described under ADDRESSES .

The available data and rationale demonstrated that, with regard to humans, Bacillus subtilis strain CH3000 is not toxic, pathogenic, or infective via the pulmonary route of exposure when administered intratracheally at a single dose of 1.03 x 10 9 colony-forming units per test animal; is not anticipated to be toxic, pathogenic, or infective via the oral route of exposure; and is not anticipated to be toxic or irritating via the dermal route of exposure. Additionally, the acute pulmonary toxicity/pathogenicity study demonstrated a pattern of clearance of Bacillus subtilis strain CH3000 from the cecum contents and organs of the test animals. Although there may be minimal dietary exposure to residues of Bacillus subtilis strain CH3000 when used in accordance with label directions and good agricultural practices, there are no risks of human health concern due to the lack of potential for adverse effects. There are no current or proposed uses of Bacillus subtilis strain CH3000 that would result in non-occupational exposures. Because there are no threshold levels of concern with the toxicity, pathogenicity, or infectivity of Bacillus subtilis strain CH3000, EPA determined that no additional margin of safety is necessary to protect infants and children as part of the qualitative assessment conducted. Based upon its evaluation in the Bacillus paralicheniformis strain CH2970 and Bacillus subtilis strain CH3000 Human Health Assessment, which concludes that there are no risks of concern from aggregate exposure to Bacillus subtilis strain CH3000, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of Bacillus subtilis strain CH3000.

An analytical method is not needed for Bacillus subtilis strain CH3000 due to the lack of potential adverse effects, which is the basis for EPA establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation.

Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for residues of Bacillus subtilis strain CH3000 in or on all food commodities when used in accordance with label directions and good agricultural practices.

This action establishes a tolerance exemption under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to EPA. 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, 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 exemption in this action, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (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. As a result, this action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, EPA 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, EPA 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 (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. ).

This action does not involve any technical standards that would require EPA's consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (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:

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 Office of the Federal Register's e-CFR site at https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40.

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), 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-2020-0737 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 April 12, 2022. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b), although EPA strongly encourages those interested in submitting objections or a hearing request to submit objections and hearing requests electronically. See Order Urging Electronic Service and Filing (April 10, 2020), https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-05/documents/2020-04-10_-_order_urging_electronic_service_and_filing.pdf. At this time, because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the judges and staff of the Office of Administrative Law Judges are working remotely and not able to accept filings or correspondence by courier, personal delivery, or commercial delivery, and the ability to receive filings or correspondence by U.S. Mail is similarly limited. When submitting documents to the U.S. EPA Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ), a person should utilize the OALJ e-filing system at https://yosemite.epa.gov/OA/EAB/EAB-ALJ_upload.nsf.

Although EPA's regulations require submission via U.S. Mail or hand delivery, EPA intends to treat submissions filed via electronic means as properly filed submissions during this time that the Agency continues to maximize telework due to the pandemic; therefore, EPA believes the preference for submission via electronic means will not be prejudicial. If it is impossible for a person to submit documents electronically or receive service electronically, e.g., the person does not have any access to a computer, the person shall so advise OALJ by contacting the Hearing Clerk at (202) 564-6281. If a person is without access to a computer and must file documents by U.S. Mail, the person shall notify the Hearing Clerk every time it files a document in such a manner. The address for mailing documents is U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Administrative Law Judges, Mail Code 1900R, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.

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-2020-0737, by one of the following methods:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://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 https://www.epa.gov/dockets/where-send-comments-epa-dockets.

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

In the Federal Register of March 22, 2021 (86 FR 15162) (FRL-10021-44), EPA issued a notice pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance exemption petition (PP 0F8843) by Chr. Hansens Laboratory Inc., 9015 W Maple St., Milwaukee, WI 53214. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the fungicide and nematicide Bacillus paralicheniformis strain CH2970 in or on all food commodities. That notice referenced a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner Chr. Hansens Laboratory Inc. and available in the docket via https://www.regulations.gov. No comments were received on the notice of filing.

Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement of 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 in residential settings but does not include occupational exposure. Pursuant to FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), in establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C), which require EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance or tolerance exemption 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. . . .” Additionally, FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D) requires that EPA consider “available information concerning the cumulative effects of [a particular pesticide's] . . . residues and other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

EPA evaluated the available toxicological and exposure data on Bacillus paralicheniformis strain CH2970 and considered their validity, completeness, and reliability, as well as the relationship of this information to human risk. A full explanation of the data upon which EPA relied and its risk assessment based on those data can be found within the document entitled “Human Health Risk Assessment of Bacillus paralicheniformis strain CH2970 and Bacillus subtilis strain CH3000, New Active Ingredients, in CH2970, CH3000, and CH2970/CH3000 Proposed for Registration and Associated Petitions Requesting Tolerance Exemptions” ( Bacillus paralicheniformis strain CH2970 and Bacillus subtilis strain CH3000 Human Health Assessment). This document, as well as other relevant information, is available in the docket for this action as described under ADDRESSES .

The available data and rationale demonstrated that, with regard to humans, Bacillus paralicheniformis strain CH2970 is not toxic, pathogenic, or infective via the pulmonary route of exposure when administered intratracheally at a single dose of 6.3 x 10 8 colony-forming units per test animal; is not anticipated to be toxic, pathogenic, or infective via the oral route of exposure; and is not anticipated to be toxic or irritating via the dermal route of exposure. Additionally, the acute pulmonary toxicity/pathogenicity study demonstrated a pattern of clearance of Bacillus paralicheniformis strain CH2970 from the blood, cecum contents, and organs of the test animals. Although there may be minimal dietary exposure to residues of Bacillus paralicheniformis strain CH2970 when used in accordance with label directions and good agricultural practices, there are no risks of human health concern due to the lack of potential for adverse effects. There are no current or proposed uses of Bacillus paralicheniformis strain CH2970 that would result in non-occupational exposures. Because there are no threshold levels of concern with the toxicity, pathogenicity, or infectivity of Bacillus paralicheniformis strain CH2970, EPA determined that no additional margin of safety is necessary to protect infants and children as part of the qualitative assessment conducted. Based upon its evaluation in the Bacillus paralicheniformis strain CH2970 and Bacillus subtilis strain CH3000 Human Health Assessment, which concludes that there are no risks of concern from aggregate exposure to Bacillus paralicheniformis strain CH2970, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of Bacillus paralicheniformis strain CH2970.

An analytical method for detecting and measuring pesticide residues is not needed for Bacillus paralicheniformis strain CH2970 due to the lack of potential for adverse effects, which supports the establishment of the exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation.

Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for residues of Bacillus paralicheniformis strain CH2970 in or on all food commodities when used in accordance with label directions and good agricultural practices.

This action establishes a tolerance exemption under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to EPA. 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, 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 exemption in this action, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (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. As a result, this action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, EPA 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, EPA 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 (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. ).

This action does not involve any technical standards that would require EPA's consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (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, on January 24, 2022, OMB approved, for a period of three years, the information collection requirements relating to §§ 64.6110 and 64.6120 of the Commission's rules, as contained in the Commission's 2021 ICS Order, FCC 21-60, published at 86 FR 40682 on July 28, 2021. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1222. The Commission publishes this document as an announcement of the effective date of the rules.

In the 2021 ICS Order, the Commission directed that § 64.6110 be revised and § 64.6120 be added to reflect OMB's approval once that approval was received. We therefore revise §§ 64.6110 and 64.6120, previously published at 86 FR 40682, and delayed indefinitely, to remove §§ 64.6110(d) and 64.6120(d), both of which state that providers would be required to comply with the information requirements immediately upon publication by the Commission of a document in the Federal Register announcing OMB approval.

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 Nicole Ongele, Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20002. Please include the OMB Control Number, 3060-1222, 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 FCC is notifying the public that it received OMB approval on January 24, 2022 for the information collection requirements contained in the Commission's modifications to the Commission's rules in 47 CFR part 64. 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 is 3060-1222.

The foregoing notification 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: 3060-1222.

OMB Approval Date: January 24, 2022.

Expiration Date: January 31, 2025.

Title: Inmate Calling Services (ICS) Provider Annual Reporting, Certification, Consumer Disclosure, and Waiver Request Requirements, WC Docket No. 12-375, FCC 21-60.

Form Numbers: FCC Form 2301(a) and FCC Form 2301(b).

Respondents: Business or other for profit.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 20 respondents; 23 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 5 hours-80 hours.

Frequency of Response: Annual reporting; on occasion; and third party disclosure requirements.

Total Annual Burden: 2,940 hours.

Total Annual Cost: No Cost.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in sections 1, 4(i)-(j), 201(b), 218, 220, 225, 255, 276, 403, and 617 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i)-(j), 201(b), 218, 220, 225, 255, 276, 403, and 617.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No Impact(s).

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: The Commission anticipates treating as presumptively confidential any particular information identified as proprietary by calling services providers.

Needs and Uses: Section 201 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), 47 U.S.C. 201, requires that calling services providers' interstate and international rates and practices be just and reasonable. Section 276 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 276, requires that payphone service providers (including calling services providers) be fairly compensated for completed calls.

On May 24, 2021, the Commission released the Third Report and Order (86 FR 40682, July 28, 2021), Order on Reconsideration (86 FR 40340, July 28, 2021), and Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (86 FR 40416, July 28, 2021), WC Docket No. 12-375, FCC 21-60 ( 2021 ICS Order ), in which it continued its reform of the calling services marketplace. In that Order, the Commission, among other actions, expanded its consumer disclosure requirements and added new requirements for calling services providers seeking waiver of the Commission's interstate and international rate caps. The Commission also required, in connection with international calling services rates, that providers must separately disclose the rate component for terminating calls to each country where that provider terminates international calls.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends part 64 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

NHTSA is issuing this final rule to amend the periodic inspection interval ( i.e., inspections that occur on a schedule, rather than after an incident) stated on the visual inspection label that is required under paragraph S7.4 of FMVSS No. 304, “Compressed natural gas fuel container integrity.” Under the current standard, CNG fuel containers must be permanently affixed with a label that states, among other things, that the container should be visually inspected after a motor vehicle accident or fire and at least every 36 months or 36,000 miles, whichever comes first, for damage and deterioration (S7.4(g)). The statement is required regardless of the vehicle's GVWR. NHTSA has determined that, although the label's recommended inspection intervals are appropriate for CNG light vehicles ( i.e., vehicles with a GVWR less than or equal to 4,536 kilograms (kg) (10,000 pounds (lb)), they are inappropriate for CNG heavy vehicles ( i.e., vehicles with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kg), which are generally driven many more miles per year than light vehicles.

NHTSA has reached this conclusion because the driving patterns and conditions under which CNG heavy vehicles travel are very different from those of CNG light vehicles, making the current time and mileage intervals inappropriate for CNG heavy vehicles. CNG light vehicles are typically used in commercial and non-commercial applications for which their annual Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) is between 10,000 miles and 12,000 miles. By contrast, CNG heavy vehicles are used almost exclusively in commercial operations in which their annual VMT is much higher, with the annual VMT of the heaviest CNG vehicles often exceeding 100,000 miles. Per accepted industry practice and State-imposed inspection requirements, 1 commercial operators of high-mileage CNG vehicles typically inspect their vehicles in accordance with the inspection interval printed on the container's label. As the current label indicates that operators should perform visual inspections every 36,000 miles, this amounts to multiple inspections per year.

CNG fuel container failures are extremely rare occurrences, and NHTSA is not aware of any data or analyses suggesting that performing multiple visual inspections of CNG fuel containers per year has made failures less likely to occur. The agency requested information on this subject, but the proposal only received six comments, five of which were from industry stakeholders that supported the revision and one was from an individual commenter who also supported the rule, and none of these commenters provided any information on this question. In view of this information, NHTSA has concluded that there is not a safety need for commercial operators of high-mileage CNG heavy vehicles to conduct multiple visual inspections of their vehicles' CNG fuel containers per year. This final rule amends the visual inspection label by eliminating the mileage interval for CNG heavy vehicles, and amending the time interval for these vehicles to once every 12 months. NHTSA believes 12 months is an appropriate interval because the Agency is not aware of any evidence that a more frequent inspection interval would have a safety benefit. Furthermore, a 12-month interval aligns the FMVSS No. 304 visual inspection label with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's (FMCSA) inspection regulations, which require that commercial vehicles, including fuel systems, be inspected annually.

NHTSA initiated this rulemaking in response to two petitions for rulemaking the Agency received in 2016 from the American Trucking Associations (ATA)  2 and Natural Gas Vehicles for America (NGV America), 3 both of which requested that NHTSA address the issue of potentially too-frequent visual inspections by eliminating the mileage interval on the visual inspection label required under S7.4 (g) of FMVSS No. 304.

FMVSS No. 304 requires each CNG fuel container to be permanently labeled with the information specified in paragraphs (a) through (h) of S7.4. Currently, paragraph S7.4(g) specifically requires this label to include the following statement:

After receiving the petitions from ATA and NGV America, NHTSA conducted an analysis of whether the current 3-year/36,000-mile visual inspection interval would be appropriate for CNG heavy vehicles, and if not, what an appropriate interval would be. The current inspection interval was chosen based on an analysis of CNG light vehicles, which are driven around 10,000 to 12,000 miles annually in both commercial and non-commercial contexts, which works out to approximately one inspection every three years for these vehicles. Because CNG heavy vehicles are expected to be used in exclusively commercial applications and typically have higher annual VMTs than their light vehicle counterparts, a 3-year/36,000-mile visual inspection interval could equate to up to 2-3 visual inspections per year. Further, as it is accepted industry practice (and, in many States, a requirement) for commercial CNG vehicle operators to follow the visual inspection label required under FMVSS No. 304, these commercial operators are generally conduct these multiple inspections.

The visual inspection is a detailed inspection of the fuel container and its components. 4 According to the NGV America guidance on the detailed visual inspection, shielding, enclosures, and coverings, as well as any system access panels are removed. The CNG fuel container and components are inspected for any damage including dents, gouges, scrapes, cuts, abrasions, discoloration, heat damage, and any form of corrosion. The valves and valve covers are inspected for signs of wear, damage, or leakage.

As part of its analysis into the net safety benefits of multiple annual inspections, NHTSA reviewed a 2013 report sponsored by FMCSA on CNG fuel container safety. 5 The report summarized the findings of a study investigating how to improve CNG-related regulations. In this report, the authors (who were contractors for FMCSA) recommended the removal of the mileage interval from the required visual inspection label since it was not intended for high-mileage commercial vehicles and because the study participants stated that multiple visual inspections per year to be “burdensome and unnecessary.”

NHTSA also analyzed data on all CNG fuel container failures from 1984 to 2015 (the most recent data available). 6 NHTSA's analysis of the CNG fuel container failures found that, over this period, there have been a total of only 16 CNG fuel container failures in the United States in the 32-year period, most of which were caused by problems other than those detectable through a visual inspection, such as crashes, design flaws, or over-pressurization. 7 In fact, based on available information, it is not clear that any of these failures could have been prevented by the periodic visual inspections. Although periodic visual inspections could potentially detect problems such as gouging on the container surface from the mounting brackets, general damage from roadside debris, external corrosion, and damage to valves, such factors were not related to these 16 container failures. Periodic visual inspections would not protect against the possibility of failure due to over-pressurization or internal corrosion, and do not prevent container failures in a vehicle collision or fire. As this dataset did not state how recently or frequently the CNG fuel containers had been visually inspected prior to failure, NHTSA could not draw any conclusions from it relating to the appropriate frequency of visual inspections for fuel containers on heavy CNG vehicles. However, the extreme infrequency of CNG container failures over the 32-year period, 8 and the absence of failures that might have been prevented by way of a more frequent than annual visual inspection, suggest there is not a safety need to conduct multiple visual inspections of CNG containers per year.

On June 21, 2019, NHTSA published the NPRM preceding this final rule, proposing to amend the statement required under S7.4(g) so that it includes separate, discrete periodic inspection intervals for light and heavy CNG vehicles. 9 NHTSA proposed that the inspection interval for CNG fuel containers installed on light vehicles would be unchanged from the current standard, whereas the inspection interval for CNG fuel containers installed on heavy vehicles would be changed to at least once every 12 months, with no mileage interval.

Given the absence of evidence of any increased safety risk associated with performing just one (rather than multiple) inspection per year, NHTSA tentatively concluded in the NPRM that the 3-year/36,000-mile visual inspection interval on the label is not justified by a safety benefit. Accordingly, NHTSA tentatively concluded that changing the label to recommend a 12-month inspection interval, without a mileage interval, eliminated the need to conduct unnecessary visual inspections. An annual inspection interval would also have the advantage of synchronizing the label's inspection interval with FMCSA regulations that state that commercial vehicles must be inspected annually, thus limiting the cost of compliance with the label's recommendations. 10

NHTSA received six comments in response to the NPRM. The comments were submitted by the two petitioners (NGV America and ATA), the National Waste & Recycling Association (NWRA), 11 Hexagon Mobile Pipeline LLC (Hexagon), 12 Agility Fuel Solutions LLC (Agility), 13 and one individual.

The commenters uniformly supported the adoption of the proposed rule, and voiced agreement with NHTSA's analysis and conclusions regarding the costs and safety impacts on operators of CNG heavy vehicles of changing the visual inspection label. NWRA requested that NHTSA impose an inspection documentation requirement. NHTSA has not adopted such a requirement in the final rule, as doing so would be both beyond the scope of this rulemaking, and beyond NHTSA's authority. Adding an inspection documentation requirement would not be in the scope of this rulemaking because we did not propose, or seek comment on, the establishment of an inspection documentation requirement. Such a requirement would be beyond NHTSA's authority because NHTSA is not authorized to enforce inspection requirements for commercial operators of CNG vehicles. NHTSA does not regulate how motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment are used and maintained by commercial operators.

Agility suggested several changes to the proposed regulatory text that it believed would improve the readability of the visual inspection label without making substantive changes. We have decided not to adopt these changes. First, we do not have evidence indicating that replacing “motor vehicle accident” with “accident” would be meaningful. We have treated those terms as interchangeable in previous FMVSS No. 304 rulemakings relating to the inspection label. 14 Second, we believe that placing the phrase “at least” before the list of periodic inspection intervals could cause confusion because the label would read as though both “(a)” and “(b)” of the regulatory text could apply to the same vehicle, which is not correct because the two different inspection intervals apply to different weight classes. Finally, we believe that the change to the description of the weight class in (b), while shorter than the proposed regulatory text, would reduce clarity of the label by eliminating the parallel sentence structures of (a) and (b).

After considering the information submitted by the petitioners and the comments received, we are adopting the changes to the visual inspection label proposed in the NPRM. Under this final rule, the portion of the label describing the recommended periodic inspection interval is bifurcated into separate instructions for light and heavy vehicles.

For light vehicles, the time and mileage inspection intervals are unchanged from the current S7.4(g) (every 3 years or 36,000 miles), since NHTSA believes the intervals described in the current S7.4(g) are still appropriate for light vehicles. 15 However, for heavy CNG vehicles, the label would describe a periodic inspection interval of once per year, with no mileage interval. As noted earlier, this interval for heavy CNG vehicles is consistent with FMCSA's annual inspection interval for commercial vehicles. NHTSA has concluded that this rule is not anticipated to have an impact on vehicle safety. As we explained earlier and in the NPRM, NHTSA is not aware of any evidence that multiple visual inspections of CNG fuel containers per year provides a safety benefit.

NHTSA recognizes that, for low-mileage heavy CNG heavy vehicles, the amended label could result in more frequent inspections than now specified under the current label. This is because under the existing label, the vehicles do not have to have a yearly inspection if they are used less than the 12,000 miles a year (on average), while under the revised label, a yearly inspection is specified, regardless of mileage. Two of the commenters, Hexagon and NGV America, addressed this issue and supported the proposed inspection interval for low-mileage vehicles as well. Hexagon stated that an inspection interval of one year was beneficial for low-mileage commercial CNG heavy vehicles because low-mileage commercial operations that use CNG heavy vehicles, such as refuse collection, 16 have more incidents than other sectors. NGV America stated that low-mileage commercial operations often operate in rigorous environmental conditions warranting a yearly inspection, and, moreover, are already subject to the FMCSA's requirement that commercial vehicles undergo an annual inspection. 17 Thus, as these commenters concurred that a one-year inspection interval is appropriate even for low-mileage CNG heavy vehicles, NHTSA concludes the proposed labeling requirement is appropriate for these vehicles as well.

Given the infrequency with which CNG failures currently occur, the Agency believes that conducting multiple visual inspections of CNG containers per year on heavy vehicles is unnecessary. That said, the contrary is not supported—NHTSA has not made a determination that fewer than one visual inspection per year is supported. In addition, the Agency lacks field data to support recommending a longer visual inspection interval, such as every 3 years or 5 years, and received no feedback or data from commenters that would advocate for such a change. Because heavy vehicles in commercial fleets tend to travel significantly more miles than light vehicles, the CNG fuel containers on heavy vehicles may be exposed to more wear and tear in a given period of time than CNG fuel containers on light vehicles. Accordingly, NHTSA concludes that an annual visual inspection interval is more appropriate than a less frequent interval as inspectors are more likely in an annual inspection cycle to identify and remedy damage to the CNG fuel container and fuel system than compared to, say, a 3-year or 5-year inspection interval.

The CNG industry (including container manufacturers, vehicle integrators, CNG vehicle fleet operators) agree that an annual visual inspection of CNG containers on heavy vehicles would reduce inspection costs without a reduction in safety.

Because NHTSA does not expect this rule to affect vehicle safety, the net benefit of this rule is a reduction in costs to operators of CNG heavy vehicles who will no longer perform multiple visual inspections per year. The magnitude of this reduction in costs depends on the size of the CNG heavy vehicle fleet, the number of excess visual inspections that are performed based on the suggestion on the current label's mileage interval, and the cost of conducting those additional visual inspections. Note that, for purposes of estimating costs and benefits, CNG heavy vehicles were broken down into two categories: CNG medium duty vehicles (with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) and less than or equal to 11,793 kg (26,000 lb)) and CNG heavy duty vehicles (with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg).

NHTSA estimated the size of the CNG heavy vehicle fleet, which consists of CNG medium duty vehicles and CNG heavy duty vehicles, using data from NGV America. 18 According to NGV America, there are approximately 25,800 CNG medium duty vehicles and 39,500 CNG heavy duty vehicles currently in operation in the United States.

NHTSA estimated the annual average VMT for CNG heavy vehicles by using a published business model that estimates the minimum annual average VMT that a CNG heavy vehicle operator would be required to maintain to achieve a 20 percent return on investment for converting a diesel heavy vehicle to use CNG. 19 According to this model, if the per-gallon price of diesel is $1.25 more than the per-diesel gallon equivalent (DGE) for CNG, the required average annual VMT required to maintain a 20 percent return on investment is 75,000 miles for CNG medium duty vehicles, and 125,000 miles for CNG heavy duty vehicles. 20 As discussed above, commenters supported NHTSA's assumption in the NPRM that inspections would generally be performed as suggested on the label. Using the more conservative estimate of 108,000 VMT for CNG heavy duty vehicles and 72,000 VMT for CNG medium duty vehicles, we estimate that, under the current 36,000-mile mileage interval, a CNG heavy duty vehicle would be inspected 3 times per year (108,000 ÷ 36,000 = 3), and a CNG medium duty vehicle would be inspected two times per year (72,000 ÷ 36,000 = 2).

NHTSA estimated the per-inspection cost of visual inspections using information provided by ATA in its petition for rulemaking. According to ATA, visual inspections cost between $200 and $500 per vehicle, and require a CNG vehicle to have a 2-day downtime for the inspection at a cost of about $150 per day. 21 Based on these estimates, NHTSA calculated the cost of a single inspection to be $500 ($200 + $150 × 2) to $800 ($500 + $150 × 2), with an average of $650 ($350 + $150 × 2).

As previously mentioned, NGV America's production and sales report estimated the inventory of medium duty and heavy duty CNG vehicles was 25,800 and 39,500, respectively, in 2014. NHTSA believes these estimates are the most accurate available for the CNG industry, and therefore assumes these figures as the average annual inventory for CNG heavy vehicles. As we noted in the NPRM, our analysis may be a low estimate of the total cost saving because projections indicate the annual sale of CNG heavy vehicles used in commercial fleets will increase to 68,000 in 2040, which would lead to a significant increase in the number of these vehicles in the overall heavy vehicle fleet. 22 23

Using the above estimates, NHTSA calculated the total annual cost savings from reduced number of visual inspections of CNG containers in the CNG heavy vehicle fleet, regardless of whether the container has the current visual inspection label or the new modified label. Again, this analysis assumes that the heavy vehicle fleet size remains unchanged in the future. With these assumptions along with inspection cost estimates, the potential total annual cost savings due to reduced number of CNG fuel container inspections range between $52.40 million to $83.84 million with an average cost savings of $68.12 million, as shown in Table 1. Because these estimated annual cost savings are constant across all years into the future, annualized values are similar for all discount rates, as shown in Table 2. As noted above, since the CNG heavy vehicle fleet size is expected to increase in the future, the annual cost savings presented in Table 1 are conservative.

Because this final rule will eliminate the current requirement that results in multiple visual inspections per year for heavy vehicles in favor of a requirement for an equally safety protective annual inspection, we believe a mandatory compliance date of one year after the date of publication of this document in the Federal Register is appropriate, with optional early compliance permitted. We believe one year is sufficient time to make needed changes to the visual inspection label for CNG fuel containers with no additional cost, and that permitting early compliance will provide manufacturers with flexibility.

We note that, while this rule does not apply retroactively to containers manufactured before the mandatory compliance date, there may be instances in which an operator may want to replace a previously-existing visual inspection label with a new label with the amended time interval. As to whether such a replacement would be a violation of the “make inoperative” provision of the Safety Act, our answer is no, assuming the container will be permanently labeled with the new label as specified in S7.4 and contains all the information required by S7.4. 49 U.S.C. 30122 states, in relevant part: “A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, rental company, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard.” Replacing the previously-existing label with the new label by an entity listed in § 30122 would not be a violation of the make inoperative provision because the new label serves the same function and safety need as the previous label, only more efficiently. Both labels inform the operator of how frequently CNG fuel containers should be inspected, with the new label reflecting the need for motor vehicle safety more accurately. Thus, replacing the label does not make inoperative a device or element of design installed on or in the vehicle in compliance with FMVSS No. 304. 24

NHTSA has considered the impact of this final rule under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, and the Department of Transportation's administrative rulemaking procedures. This final rule was deemed to be non-significant under Executive Order 12866 by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, and is not considered a rulemaking of special note to the Department under DOT Order 1200.6A.

NHTSA is modifying the required label for visual inspection of CNG fuel containers to specify that the container should be visually inspected for damage and deterioration after a motor vehicle accident or fire, and either (a) at least every 12 months when installed on a vehicle with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kg or (b) at least every 36 months or 36,000 miles, whichever comes first, when installed on a vehicle with a GVWR less than or equal to 4,536 kg. NHTSA has not found any evidence that this change will impact motor vehicle safety. NHTSA believes that the only substantive effect of this final rule will be to eliminate unnecessary visual inspections of CNG fuel containers by operators of high-mileage CNG heavy vehicles and align the CNG container inspections for low-mileage CNG heavy vehicles with FMCSA's annual inspection interval.

NHTSA estimates the change will reduce the number of visual inspections per year by approximately 2 inspections for heavy duty CNG vehicles and by approximately 1 inspection for medium duty CNG vehicles. The agency further estimates that the elimination of these visual inspections will result in an average annual cost savings of $68.12 million, assuming the current CNG heavy vehicle fleet size remains unchanged.

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities ( i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions) unless the head of an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR part 121 define a small business, in part, as a business entity “which operates primarily within the United States.” (13 CFR part 121.105(a)). SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a proposed or final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

I certify that this final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. There are two types of businesses that will potentially be impacted by this rule: Manufacturers of CNG fuel containers and commercial operators of CNG heavy vehicles. Small manufacturers of CNG fuel containers are directly impacted by this rule because they are required to modify the language on the visual inspection label. However, as the label itself is already required (only the wording is changing), NHTSA expects this to be a negligible, one-time expense for these businesses. As explained in earlier in this Notice, commercial operators of CNG heavy vehicles are indirectly impacted by this rule because the amended visual inspection label will indirectly cause the elimination of multiple unnecessary visual inspections these businesses must perform per year. Small operators of CNG heavy vehicles will likely see a reduction in maintenance costs because of a reduced number of CNG fuel container inspections.

However, NHTSA does not believe those cost impacts will be significant, because the cost savings from reduced inspections would be a small percentage of the overall operational cost of the vehicle. To illustrate, according to AEO, a medium duty CNG vehicle fuel efficiency is 6.9 mpg, and that for heavy vehicle is 5.7 mpg (gasoline gallon equivalent). The cost of CNG fuel is $2.27/gasoline gallon equivalent. A heavy duty truck traveling 108,000 miles per year spends $43,010 (= 108,000/5.7 * $2.27) on fuel alone. The cost savings of doing annual inspections for a heavy duty vehicle is estimated at $1,300 per year. This annual savings is only 3 percent of fuel costs. A medium duty truck traveling 72,000 miles per year spends $23,686 (= 72,000/6.9 * 2.27) on fuel alone. The cost savings of doing annual inspections for a medium duty vehicle is estimated at $650. This annual savings would be only 2.7 percent of fuel costs.

The above comparison is limited to fuel costs. There are other operational costs that have not been accounted for which would make the savings from reduced inspections to be even less than 3 percent compared to the cost of operating the vehicles.

NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), as amended. The Agency has determined that implementation of this action will not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment. The rule merely reduces the number of visual inspections that commercial operators of high-mileage CNG heavy vehicles will have to conduct.

Reducing the number of inspections would reduce the downtime and cost of operation of these vehicles. On the days that a CNG heavy vehicle is out-of-service for visual inspection, the operations are either stopped or continued using a conventional-fuel vehicle. As stated above, according to NGV America, there are approximately 25,800 CNG medium duty vehicles and 39,500 CNG heavy duty vehicles currently in operation in the United States. These vehicles therefore make up a very small proportion of the on-road medium and heavy duty vehicle fleet, and the change in their downtime is a very small proportion of their overall use, so any resulting change in medium or heavy duty vehicle operation (including by the regulated vehicles) also would be very small.

NHTSA estimates that this rule would, at most, reduce the number of visual inspections a CNG operator conducts each year by two for heavy duty vehicles and by one for medium duty vehicles. Since an inspection takes one to two days to conduct, there could be at most four extra days of operation per year (2 inspections × 2 days per inspection = 4 days of additional operation) for heavy duty vehicles and two extra days of operation per year (1 inspection × 2 days per inspection) for medium duty vehicles.

Assuming trips that would otherwise be made using a CNG-fueled vehicle are instead made using a diesel-fueled vehicle when the CNG-fueled vehicle is undergoing a visual inspection, then making CNG heavy duty vehicles available for an additional four days annually and CNG medium duty vehicles available for an additional two days annually would reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, since heavy CNG vehicles have 13-17 percent fewer GHG emissions compared to diesel on a well-to-wheel basis. 25 However, on an annual basis, this reduction in GHG emissions from increased operation of CNG vehicles would be insignificant ( i.e., much less than 1 percent) compared to the GHG emissions from the total U.S. heavy vehicle fleet. Similarly, anticipated changes to other air pollutant emissions would also be very small. Thus, any environmental impacts would be appropriately considered de minimis.

NHTSA has examined today's final rule pursuant to Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255; Aug. 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional consultation with States, local governments, or their representatives is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The Agency has concluded the rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The rule does not have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

NHTSA rules can have preemptive effect in two ways. First, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemption provision, codified at 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1), stating that, when a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, a State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to NHTSA's standard prescribed under this chapter. It is this statutory command by Congress (and not today's final rule) that preempts any non-identical State legislative and administrative law addressing the same aspect of performance, so consultation would be inappropriate.

It is this statutory command by Congress (and not today's final rule) that preempts any non-identical State legislative and administrative law addressing the same aspect of performance, so consultation would be inappropriate.

Second, the Supreme Court has recognized the possibility, in some instances, of implied preemption of State requirements imposed on motor vehicle manufacturers, including sanctions imposed by State tort law. That possibility is dependent upon there being an actual conflict between a FMVSS and the State requirement. If and when such a conflict exists, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes the State requirements unenforceable. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000), finding implied preemption of State tort law on the basis of a conflict discerned by the court, 26 not on the basis of an intent to preempt asserted by the agency itself.

NHTSA has considered, pursuant to Executive Orders 13132 and 12988, whether this final rule could or should preempt State common law causes of action. To this end, the Agency has examined the nature ( e.g., the language and structure of the regulatory text) and objectives of this final rule and finds that this final rule is not intended to preempt State tort law that effectively imposes a higher standard on regulated entities than that would be established by today's final rule. The change in this final rule amends a labeling requirement that applies to newly manufactured CNG fuel containers; it does not conflict with the establishment of a higher standard of safety by means of State tort law that applies to the same subject matter ( i.e., adequate labeling of CNG fuel containers). This rule would not preempt state inspection requirements, including those that rely on the language on the visual inspection label, because this rule does not mandate that the label be followed; states remain free to establish inspection requirements as they deem appropriate. Without any conflict, there could not be any implied preemption of State law, including State tort law.

With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation, section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform” (61 FR 4729; Feb. 7, 1996), requires Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) specifies whether administrative proceedings are to be required before parties file suit in court; (6) adequately defines key terms; and (7) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.

Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The issue of preemption is discussed above. NHTSA notes further there is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceedings before they may file suit in court.

All submissions, including public comments on this final rule, will be placed in the docket. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all documents received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the document (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78).

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), a person is not required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. There are no information collection requirements associated with this final rule.

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, as amended by Public Law 107-107 (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs the agency to evaluate and use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or is otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the SAE International. The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress (through OMB) with explanations when the agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

This final rule accords with the NTTAA. FMVSS No. 304 has historically drawn largely from ANSI NGV 2. The changes in this final rule to the visual inspection label were made in accordance with data provided by NGV America and ATA and the recommendations developed by industry technical working groups. 27

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually (adjusted annually for inflation, with base year of 1995). UMRA also requires an agency issuing an NPRM or final rule subject to the Act to select the “least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule.” This final rule would not result in a Federal mandate that will likely result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually (adjusted annually for inflation, with base year of 1995).

The policy statement in section 1 of Executive Order 13609 provides, in part: The regulatory approaches taken by foreign governments may differ from those taken by U.S. regulatory agencies to address similar issues. In some cases, differences between the regulatory approaches of U.S. agencies and those of their foreign counterparts might not be necessary and might impair the ability of American businesses to export and compete internationally. In meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as protective as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can also reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements.

The European regulation for CNG vehicles, ECE R.110, “I. Specific components of motor vehicles using compressed natural gas (CNG) and/or liquefied natural gas (LNG) in their propulsion system,”  28 requires a detailed visual inspection of CNG fuel containers on vehicles at least every 48 months and after an accident or fire. However, the working pressure of CNG fuel containers in Europe is 20 Megapascals (MPa) (3,000 pounds per square inch (psi)), while that in the U.S. is typically 26 MPa (3,600 psi). The higher container pressure in the U.S. necessitates more frequent visual inspections than that conducted in Europe. Therefore, NHTSA did not consider harmonizing with ECE R.110.

The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda.