Title 2 CFR part 910 adopts OMB's guidance, which updated its regulations, in subparts A through F of 2 CFR part 200 as DOE's policies and procedures for uniform administrative requirements, cost principles, and audit requirement for Federal awards. DOE is amending 2 CFR part 910 to align with the OMB's recent revisions to its regulations on Grants and Agreements published on August 13, 2020, at 85 FR 49506, which became effective on November 12, 2020. DOE further amends its regulation at 2 CFR 910.130 to remove reference to an expired statutory cost share pilot program. This final rule also makes technical changes to correct pre-existing numbering errors in the regulatory text.

DOE amends its Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards at 2 CFR part 910 as follows:

1. Section 910.122, paragraph (a) is revised to change the reference to Non-Federal entity from 2 CFR 200.69 to 2 CFR 200.1.

2. Section 910.128, paragraph (f)(1)(i) is revised to change the reference to Specific Conditions from 2 CFR 200.207 to 2 CFR 200.208; paragraph (f)(1)(iv) is revised to change the reference to Remedies for Noncompliance from 2 CFR 200.338 to 2 CFR 200.339; paragraph (f)(1)(v) is revised to change the reference to Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity review from 2 CFR 200.324 to 2 CFR 200.325; and paragraph (f)(2)(iii) is revised to change the reference to Termination from 2 CFR 200.339 to 2 CFR 200.340.

3. Section 910.130, paragraph (b)(3) is deleted to implement the September 27, 2020, expiration of the Cost-Share Pilot Program enacted by Congress at section 108 of the Department of Energy Research and Innovation Act, Public Law 115-246; (e) is revised to change the references to the terms Development and Research from 2 CFR 200.87 to 2 CFR 200.1.

4. Section 910.350, paragraph (a) is revised to change the reference to Non-Federal entity from 2 CFR 200.69 to 2 CFR 200.1.

5. Section 910.352 is revised to change the reference to the General Provisions for Selected Items of Cost from 2 CFR 200.400 through 200.475 to 2 CFR 200.420 through 2 CFR 200.476.

6. Section 910.360, paragraph (c)(1) is revised to change the reference to Remedies for non-compliance from 2 CFR 200.338 to 2 CFR 200.339; and paragraph (c)(2) is revised to change the references to Federal awarding agency review of risk posed by applicants from 2 CFR 200.205 to 2 CFR 200.206 and the reference to Specific conditions from 2 CFR 200.207 and 2 CFR 200.208.

7. Section 910.370, paragraph (b) is revised to change the reference to all of the legally available remedies for non-compliance from 2 CFR 200.338 through 2 CFR 200.342 to 2 CFR 200.339 through 2 CFR 200.343.

8. Section 910.372, paragraph (a) is revised to change the reference to Federal awarding agency review of risk posed by applicants from 2 CFR 200.205 to 2 CFR 200.206 and the reference to Specific Conditions from 2 CFR 200.207 to 2 CFR 200.208.

9. Appendix A to Subpart D—Patent and Data Provisions, paragraph (1)(a) is revised to change the reference to the definition of “[n]onprofit organization” from 2 CFR 200.70 to 2 CFR 200.1.

10. Section 910.501, paragraph (f) is revised to change the reference to Subrecipient and contractor determinations from 2 CFR 200.330 to 2 CFR 200.331; and paragraph (h) is revised to change the reference to Requirements for pass-through entities from 2 CFR 200.331 to 2 CFR 200.332.

11. In section 910.502, the following redesignations are made in order to correct numbering errors in the initial publication of 2 CFR part 910 and are made in order to improve clarity and readability of the section. Paragraph (b) Not applicable. is deleted; paragraph (a) Loan and loan guarantees (loans) is redesignated as paragraph (b); The introductory text beginning “ Determining Federal awards expended” is designated as paragraph (a); Paragraphs (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), and (i) are redesignated as paragraphs (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), and (j); and paragraph (d) See Paragraph (b) is added.

12. Section 910.505 is revised to change the reference to Remedies for noncompliance from 2 CFR 200.338 to 2 CFR 200.339.

13. Section 910.507, paragraph (a) pertaining to auditor guidance when a program-specific audit guide is available is revised to incorporate the language changes in 2 CFR 200.507. The following redesignations are due to numbering errors at time of initial publication of 2 CFR part 910 and made in order to improve clarity and readability of the section. Paragraphs (a)(1), (2), (3), and (4) pertaining to auditor requirements when a program-specific audit guide is not available are redesignated as paragraphs (b)(1), (2), (3), and (4). Paragraph (a)(5) pertaining to report submissions for program- specific audits is redesignated as paragraph (c)(1). In this final rule, additional conforming changes are made to paragraphs (a)(6) and (7) which are redesignated as (c)(2) and (3) and paragraph (b) redesignated as (d).

14. Section 910.513, paragraph (c) is revised to change the reference to Information contained in a Federal award from 2 CFR 200.210 to 2 CFR 200.211; and paragraph (c)(3)(iii) is revised to change the reference to Cooperative audit resolution from 2 CFR 200.25 to 2 CFR 200.1.

15. In section 910.514, the following redesignations are made in order to correct numbering errors in the initial publication of 2 CFR part 910 and made in order to improve clarity and readability of the section. Paragraph (b)(1) Internal control. is redesignated as paragraph (c); the paragraph that begins `The compliance supplement provides guidance . . . .' is designated as paragraph (c)(1); Paragraph (3)(i) is revised to remove the period and add `; and' at the end; Paragraph (5) Compliance. is redesignated as paragraph (d); the paragraph that begins `In addition to the requirements of GAGAS, . . . .' is designated as paragraph (d)(1); Paragraphs (6), (7), and (8) are redesignated as paragraphs (d)(2), (d)(3), and (d)(4); Paragraph (c) “Audit follow-up.” is redesignated as paragraph (e); and paragraph (f) Not applicable is added to correspond with 2 CFR 200 formatting.

16. In section 910.515, the following redesignations are made in order to correct numbering errors in the initial publication of 2 CFR part 910 and made in order to improve clarity and readability of the section. Paragraph (d)(2)(i) is redesignated as paragraph (d)(3); and the sentence beginning `Audit findings ( e.g., internal control findings, compliance findings, questioned costs, or fraud) . . .' is designated as paragraph (d)(3)(i).

17. In section 910.519, the following redesignations are made in order to correct numbering errors in the initial publication of 2 CFR part 910 and made in order to improve clarity and readability of the section. Paragraph (a)(1) Current and prior audit experience. is redesignated as paragraph (b); the text that begins `Weaknesses in internal control over DOE programs . . . .' is designated as paragraph (b)(1); Paragraph (a)(4) Oversight exercised by DOE. is redesignated as paragraph (c); the text that begins `Oversight exercised by DOE could be used . . . .' is designated as paragraph (c)(1); paragraph (a)(5) is redesignated as paragraph (c)(2); paragraph (a)(6) Inherent risk of the Federal program. is redesignated as paragraph (d); the text that begins `The nature of a Federal program . . . .' is designated as paragraph (d)(1); and paragraphs (a)(7), (a)(8), and (a)(9) are redesignated as paragraphs (d)(2), (d)(3) and (d)(4).

18. In section 910.520, the following redesignations are made in order to correct numbering errors in the initial publication of 2 CFR part 910 and made in order to improve clarity and readability of the section. Paragraph (a) designation is moved to the second sentence beginning `Compliance audits were performed on an annual . . . .'.

DOE finds good cause to waive notice and comment on these regulations pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and the 30-day delay effective date pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d). Notice and comment are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest because this final rule merely adopts recent amendments made by OMB to its rule on Grants and Agreements that published on August 13, 2020, at 85 FR 49506 and that became effective on November 12, 2020. DOE has concluded that there is good cause to publish this rule without prior opportunity for public comment because the action aligns DOE's regulations with OMB's, for which OMB solicited comment with (a 60-day public comment period (85 FR 3766, Jan. 22, 2020). OMB, received over 2,500 comments from the public, federal agencies, and the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency Grant Reform Workgroup, which OMB reviewed and addressed (85 FR 49506, Aug. 13, 2020). As part of that process, OMB reconvened agency representatives, including DOE, to review the comments and make changes to the proposed revisions as appropriate. This final rule aligns DOE's regulations with OMB's revised regulations. A delay in effective date is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest for these same reasons. In addition, this rule makes a non-discretionary change to remove a reference to an expired cost-share program and it makes technical changes to correct numbering errors. Therefore, these regulations are being published as final regulations and are effective March 18, 2022.

This final rule has been determined to not be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993). Accordingly, this action was not subject to review under that Executive order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) of the Office of Management and Budget.

DOE has determined that the rule is covered under the Categorical Exclusion found in DOE's National Environmental Policy Act regulations at paragraph A5 of appendix A to subpart D, 10 CFR part 1021, which applies to a rulemaking that amends an existing rule or regulation and that does not change the environmental effect of the rule or regulation being amended. Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

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

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment. As discussed previously, DOE has determined that providing notice and opportunity for public comment on this rule is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared for this rule.

This final rule imposes no new information or recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, OMB clearance is not required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). The information collection necessary to administer DOE financial assistance under 2 CFR part 910 is subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information collection provisions of this part were previously approved by OMB under OMB Control No. 1910-0400.

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

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For regulatory actions likely to result in a rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy (2 U.S.C. 1532(a),(b)). UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and tribal governments on a “significant intergovernmental mandate,” and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. (This policy is also available at https://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. ) DOE examined this rule according to UMRA and has determined that the rule contains neither an intergovernmental mandate, nor a mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any year. Accordingly, no further assessment or analysis is required under UMRA.

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

Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism implications. Agencies are required to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and carefully assess the necessity for such actions. DOE has examined this rule and has determined that it would not preempt State law and would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.

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

Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy, Supply, Distribution, or Use,” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001) requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that:

(1) Is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use. This regulatory action would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy and is therefore not a significant regulatory action. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.

The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed this rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will submit to Congress a report regarding the issuance of this final rule prior to the effective date set forth at the outset of this document. The report will state that it has been determined that the rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 801(2).

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

This document of the Department of Energy was signed on February 10, 2022, by John R. Bashista, Director, Office of Acquisition Management and Senior Procurement Executive, Department of Energy and S. Keith Hamilton, Deputy Associate Administrator for Acquisition and Project Management and Senior Procurement Executive, National Nuclear Security Administration, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register .

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of Energy amends part 910 of chapter IX, title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below.

OCC regulations require national banks and Federal savings associations to file suspicious activity reports (SARs) under certain conditions. These regulations also provide for (i) board of director notification; (ii) filing exceptions; (iii) SAR confidentiality; (iv) recordkeeping requirements; (v) supporting documentation requirements; and (vi) limitations on liability. Requirements related to SARs are codified at 12 CFR 21.11 for national banks and 12 CFR 163.180 for Federal savings associations. On January 22, 2021, the OCC, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) (collectively, the agencies or Federal banking agencies) published substantially similar proposed rules that would amend their respective SAR regulations to allow the agencies to issue exemptions from the requirements of those regulations. 1 The OCC is adopting its proposed rule in final form.

The OCC has long required its regulated institutions to report potential violations of law arising from transactions that flow through those institutions. 2 The OCC required such reporting because fraud, abusive insider transactions, check-kiting schemes, money laundering, and other financial crimes can pose serious threats to a financial institution's continued viability and, if unchecked, can undermine the public confidence in the Nation's financial system generally. 3

In 1992 Congress passed the Annunzio-Wylie Anti-Money Laundering Act, which redesigned the criminal referral process applicable to financial institutions including OCC-supervised entities and made the reporting of certain suspicious transactions a requirement of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA). 4 The Act permitted the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury) to require financial institutions, including national banks and Federal savings associations, to “report any suspicious transaction relevant to a possible violation of law or regulation.”  5 As a result, the Treasury, in consultation with the Federal banking agencies and law enforcement, developed the modern SAR form and reporting process, which standardized the reporting forms and created a centralized database that could be accessed by multiple law enforcement and regulatory agencies.

To implement this new reporting system, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network of Treasury (FinCEN) issued its implementing SAR regulations in 1996 for financial institutions subject to the requirements of the BSA to, among other things, specifically address the reporting of money laundering transactions and transactions designed to evade the BSA's reporting requirements. 6 To further implement this new reporting process and reduce unnecessary reporting burdens, the OCC and the other Federal banking agencies contemporaneously amended their criminal referral form regulations to incorporate the new SAR form and reporting database, align their regulatory reporting requirements with FinCEN's BSA reporting requirements, and further refine the reporting processes. 7

As a result of this redesign and FinCEN's implementing regulations, national banks and Federal savings associations now must file SARs under both OCC and FinCEN regulations. The OCC's regulations are not identical but are substantially similar to the BSA reporting obligations required by FinCEN. Both the OCC's and FinCEN's SAR regulations require banks to file SARs relating to money laundering, transactions that are designed to evade the reporting requirements of the BSA, and transactions that have no business or apparent lawful purpose or are not the sort in which the particular customer would normally be expected to engage and the bank knows of no reasonable explanation for the transactions after examining the available facts, including the background and possible purpose of the transactions. 8 Furthermore, with respect to the SAR confidentiality requirements in the BSA, both the OCC's and FinCEN's SAR regulations require banks to maintain the confidentiality of a SAR and any information that would reveal the existence of the SAR unless an exception applies. 9

While the OCC and FinCEN regulations contain substantively similar requirements, including requiring reporting in certain common contexts and requiring institutions to maintain the confidentiality of SARs, the OCC and the other Federal banking agencies require reporting in broader circumstances ( e.g., insider abuse at any dollar amount). 10 These violations and abuse situations can pose serious threats to financial institutions' continued viability and, if unchecked, can undermine the public confidence in the Nation's financial industry.

The OCC and FinCEN SAR regulations provide: (i) That SARs are not required for a robbery or burglary committed or attempted that is reported to appropriate law enforcement authorities; (ii) that SARs are confidential and shall not be disclosed except as authorized; (iii) for SAR recordkeeping requirements and supporting documentation; (iv) that supporting documentation shall be deemed to have been filed with the SAR; and (v) that supporting documentation shall be made available to appropriate law enforcement agencies upon request. 11 The regulations also provide a limitation on liability for any national bank, Federal savings association, or other financial institution and any director, officer, employee, or agent of a national bank, Federal savings association, or other financial institution that makes a voluntary disclosure of any possible violation of law or regulation to a government agency, or files a SAR pursuant to the regulations or pursuant to any other authority. 12 The OCC's regulations contain a provision requiring that national banks and Federal savings associations promptly notify their board of directors when a SAR has been filed. 13

Although neither the OCC's SAR regulations nor FinCEN's SAR regulation expressly address exemptions, FinCEN has general authority to grant exemptions from the requirements of the BSA, which includes granting exemptions under its SAR reporting regulations. 14 FinCEN's regulation provides that “[t]he Secretary [of Treasury], in his sole discretion, may by written order or authorization make exceptions to or grant exemptions from the requirements of [the BSA]. Such exceptions or exemptions may be conditional or unconditional, may apply to particular persons or to classes of persons, and may apply to transactions or classes of transactions.”  15 The Secretary delegated this exemption authority to FinCEN. 16

The OCC's authority to issue SAR exemptions derives from its authority to require national banks and Federal savings associations to comply with OCC-imposed SAR requirements. The OCC has broad statutory authority to issue regulations for national banks and Federal savings associations. Among other relevant sources of authority, 12 U.S.C. 161 provides that the Comptroller may call for “special reports.” Twelve U.S.C. 93a also provides that the Comptroller “is authorized to prescribe rules and regulations to carry out the responsibilities of the office.”  17 The OCC has long viewed SAR requirements and their predecessor reporting requirements to be part of the OCC's mission of assuring safety and soundness. 18 The OCC's legal authority to require reports necessarily includes the authority to modify those reporting requirements, including the authority, if necessary, to issue exemptions. However, the OCC's SAR regulations currently contain no express exemption provisions similar to FinCEN's general authority to grant exemptions from the requirements of the BSA.

This disparity in exemption authority makes it more difficult for the OCC to grant relief if a national bank or Federal savings association has a novel SAR-related proposal that does not squarely fit within the regulatory requirements but would be consistent with anti-money laundering regulatory and safety and soundness standards. As financial technology and innovation continue to develop in the area of monitoring and reporting financial crime and terrorist financing, the OCC has identified a need for regulatory flexibility to grant exemptive relief when appropriate. In 2018 FinCEN and the Federal banking agencies issued a statement encouraging banks to take innovative approaches to meet their BSA/anti-money laundering (BSA/AML) compliance obligations. 19 That statement explained that banks are encouraged to consider, evaluate, and, when appropriate, responsibly implement innovative approaches for BSA/AML compliance. Today, innovative approaches and technological developments in SAR monitoring, investigation, and filings may involve, among other things: (i) Automated form population using natural language processing, transaction data, and customer due diligence information; (ii) automated or limited investigation processes depending on the complexity and risk of a particular transaction and appropriate safeguards; and (iii) enhanced monitoring processes using more and better data, optical scanning, artificial intelligence, or machine learning capabilities. The OCC anticipates that requests for exemptive relief pertaining to innovation or other matters may involve, among other things, expanded investigations and SAR timing issues, SAR disclosures and sharing, continued SAR filings for ongoing activity, outsourcing of SAR processes, the role of agents of national banks and Federal savings associations, the use of shared utilities and data, and the use and sharing of de-identified data (commonly referred to as anonymized data).

The OCC expects that new technologies will continue to prompt additional innovative approaches related to SAR filing and monitoring. Some of these approaches may not strictly comply with certain provisions of the OCC's SAR regulations. For example, certain approaches involving SAR-sharing across institutions may violate prohibitions against disclosures of SARs in 12 CFR 21.11(k) but would enable an institution to file more complete, useful SARs without substantively undermining the purposes of the SAR disclosure prohibition.

After the posting of the proposed rule on the OCC website, but before its publication in the Federal Register , Congress passed the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020 (AMLA of 2020). 20 The AMLA of 2020 included multiple provisions that will affect suspicious activity reporting. Section 6202 of the AMLA of 2020 provides that SARs “filed under this subsection shall be guided by the compliance program of a covered financial institution with respect to the Bank Secrecy Act, including the risk assessment processes of the covered institution.” Section 6212 of the AMLA of 2020 directs Treasury to establish a pilot program on SAR sharing. Section 6204 of the AMLA Act of 2020 requires the Treasury Secretary, in consultation with various relevant stakeholders, to conduct a formal review of the financial institutions' Currency Transaction Report (CTR) and SAR reporting requirements, including processes for submission, regulations implementing the BSA, and any proposed changes to those reports to reduce unnecessary burdens while ensuring that the reports continue to serve their intended purpose. Certain provisions of the AMLA of 2020 may require the OCC to apply SAR requirements in ways that may potentially conflict with the OCC's current SAR regulation. While FinCEN has authority to address conflicts between the AMLA of 2020 and FinCEN's regulations, either through FinCEN's preexisting exemption authority or through authority granted by the AMLA of 2020, the OCC's SAR regulations do not expressly permit parallel exemptions. For example, FinCEN's pilot program on SAR sharing might allow sharing of SARs in ways that would arguably be inconsistent with the OCC's requirements on SAR confidentiality. 21 The OCC's adoption of exemption authority in its SAR regulation will remove any legal uncertainty related to national banks and Federal savings associations participation in such FinCEN programs.

The proposed rule would have allowed the OCC to issue exemptions from the requirements of its SAR regulations. Specifically, the proposed rule would have added a provision to 12 CFR 21.11 and 12 CFR 163.180 that would provide that the OCC may exempt a national bank or Federal savings association from requirements in those regulatory provisions. The OCC is finalizing the proposed rule with some modifications, which are described below. 22

The OCC received seven comments on its proposed rule. 23 Some commenters supported the proposed rule while others opposed it. Some commenters noted that they support a regulatory framework that encourages innovation and that the proposed rule would foster responsible innovation and improve the quality of reporting over time.

Commenters opposing the proposed rule asserted that the proposed rule provided no persuasive justification or authority to issue an exemption. These commenters also suggested that the history of money laundering and SAR deficiencies at major financial institutions is inconsistent with the OCC adopting exemptions to the SAR requirements. Commenters opposing the proposed rule also noted that criminals may seek out financial institutions that have been granted exemptions and that the proposed rule may jeopardize U.S. officials' access to a key investigative tool. Also, according to these commenters, the rule should address a significant Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on SARs and CTRs. 24

The OCC has evaluated these concerns and does not believe the final rule will weaken reporting processes. The amendments in the final rule will conform the OCC's exemption authority to FinCEN's exemption authority. The OCC's SAR regulations and FinCEN's SAR regulation feature significant overlap. Many SARs are required to be filed by both FinCEN's SAR regulation and the OCC's SAR regulations. The final rule will only allow the OCC to issue exemptions from the requirements of the OCC's SAR regulations. Under the final rule, national banks and Federal savings associations will continue to be required to comply with FinCEN's SAR regulation. For requests requiring separate FinCEN and OCC approvals, the OCC intends to coordinate with FinCEN, and FinCEN would have to issue a parallel exemption. Currently, if FinCEN issues an exemption or uses other authority to modify the application of the requirements of its SAR regulations, the OCC may not be able to issue a parallel exemption.

The final rule will maintain national banks' and Federal savings associations' core reporting responsibilities. The final rule's exemption authority, like FinCEN's exemption authority, is drafted broadly and flexibly to handle unexpected situations. However, the OCC does not expect to use this exemption authority to issue sweeping exemptions that would undermine the value provided by SARs. The final rule includes factors the OCC will consider before granting an exemption, which will help ensure that any exemptions are appropriate.

While some commenters suggested that the OCC lacks legal authority to issue the final rule, as discussed above, the OCC has broad statutory authority to issue regulations for national banks and Federal savings associations. For example, 12 U.S.C. 161 provides that the Comptroller may call for “special reports” and 12 U.S.C. 93a provides that the Comptroller “is authorized to prescribe rules and regulations to carry out the responsibilities of the office.”  25 The OCC has long viewed SAR requirements and their predecessor reporting requirements to be part of the OCC's mission of assuring safety and soundness. 26 The OCC's legal authority to require reports includes the authority to modify reporting requirements and issue exemptions, if appropriate.

One commenter suggested that the OCC consider GAO's 2020 report on anti-money laundering compliance. 27 The OCC considered this report, which recommended that FinCEN better support the use of SARs by law enforcement. This final rule will not affect the mechanisms that law enforcement agencies use to access SARs. Also, the OCC could approve exemptions that would result in additional SARs being filed, for example, through the use of automation. 28 The OCC will consider whether any exemption request is consistent with the purposes of the BSA, and these purposes include requiring reports or records that are “highly useful” in “criminal, tax, or regulatory investigations.”  29 Accordingly, the OCC will consider the usefulness of potential SARs that would be affected by an exemption request. In determining whether an exemption request is consistent with the purposes of the Bank Secrecy Act, the OCC intends to consult with FinCEN, as appropriate.

The exemption authority in the final rule is consistent with the OCC's support for the reallocation of bank compliance resources to their most effective uses. The AMLA of 2020 provided that compliance programs should ensure that “more attention and resources of financial institutions should be directed toward higher-risk customers and activities, consistent with the risk profile of a financial institution, rather than toward lower risk customers and activities.”  30 Accordingly, it may be appropriate to allow national banks and Federal savings associations to tailor their monitoring for suspicious activity so banks might not file SARs in certain specified situations involving lower risk customers and activities. The agencies' SAR regulations already contemplate lower risk scenarios by having specific dollar thresholds below which financial institutions are not required to file SARs. Similarly, it is unlikely that criminals will target national banks and Federal savings associations that have received exemptions, as one commenter suggested, because the OCC does not expect to issue exemptions that would relieve national banks and Federal savings associations of their general obligation to monitor for suspicious activity or file appropriate SARs. The OCC will weigh any potential for criminals to target a national bank or Federal savings association in evaluating particular exemption requests. Should information come to light after the OCC approves an exemption that criminals are potentially targeting an institution because of its exemption, the final rule provides the OCC with authority, at its sole discretion, to revoke the exemption.

Some commenters suggested that the proposal was not supported by adequate evidence and was therefore inconsistent with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. One commenter argued that the proposed rule did not provide any data on costs or cost savings that might accrue at a financial institution if a SAR exemption were granted or on what financial institutions, if any, have requested SAR exemptions in the past. The commenter noted that the proposed rule estimates that only five financial institutions per year would request SAR exemptions but provided no basis in research or data for that prediction since it is possible that all financial institutions would want an exemption.

The OCC acknowledges that it is difficult to predict exactly how many or what type of exemptions might be requested or ultimately granted. That is why the exemption language in the final rule, like FinCEN's exemption language, is drafted broadly and flexibly. As discussed above, this rule is intended to make the limited changes necessary to match the exemption authority already possessed by FinCEN. The OCC is not committing to offer or grant any particular exemptions. The final rule only creates the authority to issue exemptions in the future. The proposed rule included an estimate of five exemption requests per year for purposes of the burden estimates required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. However, this estimate of future exemption requests is approximate and does not represent an estimate of exemption requests that the OCC expects to actually grant. The OCC will carefully examine any exemption requests received and may issue few or no exemptions if they do not satisfy the OCC's scrutiny.

The final rule contains some requirements that are not included in FinCEN's SAR regulation. Under the final rule, for exemption requests involving OCC-only SAR requirements, a national bank or Federal savings association will be required to seek an exemption only from the OCC. For exemption requests that will also require an exemption from FinCEN's SAR regulation (for example, exemption requests related to SAR filings required by 12 CFR 21.11(c)(4), related to SAR timing requirements in 12 CFR 21.11(d), or related to SAR confidentiality in 12 CFR 21.11(k)), a national bank will need to seek and obtain an exemption from both the OCC and FinCEN to be afforded exemptive relief. 31

Commenters suggested that the OCC work together with the other Federal banking agencies and FinCEN to create one standard and one system for any institution to use when applying for an exemption. Similarly, commenters suggested that the OCC work together with the other Federal banking agencies and FinCEN to create a single-filing process whereby an OCC-supervised institution files solely with OCC and any need for a FinCEN approval involving the same application would be obtained by OCC. Commenters suggested that the agencies should streamline the application process so that it is only necessary to seek approval from a bank's prudential regulator. Commenters recommended that the agencies not require institutions to duplicate work when multiple agencies' approval is required.

One commenter suggested that the agencies use an interagency rulemaking to create a single, streamlined SAR regulation that includes a process for obtaining an exemption. According to this commenter, when a bank requests an exemption, it should only have to submit a single application to its primary prudential supervisor and not multiple agencies. Other commenters recommended that the agencies provide templates of application forms or similar tools to facilitate applications.

The OCC acknowledges the value of a simple, straightforward application process and the importance of coordination among the agencies administering SAR requirements. The agencies are currently coordinating and considering whether to provide specific forms or issue guidance describing application processes in more detail. However, the final rule only makes the limited textual changes to the OCC's SAR regulations necessary to provide exemption authority paralleling FinCEN's exemption authority. These limited changes do not preclude the OCC or other agencies from taking additional action later to streamline the process for requests for SAR exemptions.

Under the final rule, for exemption requests involving OCC-only SAR requirements, a national bank or Federal savings association only needs to seek an exemption from the OCC. For exemption requests that also require an exemption from FinCEN's SAR regulation, a national bank or Federal savings association will need to seek an exemption from both the OCC and FinCEN.

One commenter suggested that the agencies reconcile differences between their SAR exemption proposals. The proposed rule provided that a national bank or Federal savings association “requesting an exemption that also requires an exemption from the requirements of FinCEN's SAR regulation must submit a request in writing to both the OCC and FinCEN for approval.” The rules proposed by the Board, FDIC, and NCUA provided that those agencies would have sought FinCEN's concurrence for any exemption request that will also require an exemption from FinCEN's SAR regulations. The OCC's final rule, like the proposed rule, does not specifically provide for concurrence from FinCEN, but this difference should not functionally affect applications for exemptions. Under the proposed rules of any of the agencies, financial institutions would have have been required to submit applications to both FinCEN and their functional regulator and receive approvals from both.

The OCC intends to coordinate with the other agencies to develop standardized procedures or forms for handling certain exemption requests. This is consistent with past practice where the agencies have developed such processes or forms after issuing underlying regulations. For example, certain OCC regulations require OCC “prior approval” before national banks and Federal savings associations take particular actions, and the OCC has separately issued the licensing forms and procedures necessary to obtain this approval. 32 The final rule only makes the limited changes to the OCC's SAR regulations necessary to clarify its authority to issue exemptions.

Under the final rule, a national bank or Federal savings association requesting an exemption from the requirements of 12 CFR 21.11 or 12 CFR 163.180 must submit a request in writing to the OCC.

The proposed rule listed separate factors that the OCC would consider for exemptions involving OCC-only exemptions versus exemptions that would also require exemptions from FinCEN. The final rule, however, provides a single set of factors that the OCC will consider for all exemption requests. Specifically, upon receipt of any exemption request, the OCC will consider whether the exemption is consistent with the purposes of the BSA and with safe and sound banking, and may consider other appropriate factors.

Commenters raised a variety of concerns about these factors. One commenter stated that the proposed exemption authority contains no limitations or caveats and argued that the absence of additional standards, criteria, and procedures renders the proposed rule unworkable and susceptible to legal challenge. Similarly, this commenter stated that the proposed rule did not address how supervisory concerns related to BSA/AML deficiencies or a lower supervisory rating due to repeated deficiencies would affect the exemption process. The commenter also observed that the proposed rule provided no process for an internal supervisory review or audit of the SAR exemption decisions being made by the OCC, which raises concerns about consistent decision-making. Similarly, another commenter stated that the proposed rule is overly broad and could inadvertently permit the wholesale exemption of entire institutions or categories of institutions from SAR requirements. According to this commenter, the proposed rule does not provide concrete standards or a clear process, and the deficiencies could be exploited, running counter to the interests of financial transparency and anti-money laundering objectives.

Another commenter suggested that the agencies specify additional factors they may consider when evaluating exemption requests. Specifically, the commenter suggested that the agencies should consider whether the bank's exemption request would, if granted, improve law enforcement and other end users' use of SAR data ( e.g., the request increases submission speed and enhances data consistency) or allow the requesting bank to reallocate resources to higher value monitoring and reporting processes. Another commenter suggested that, in reviewing a request, the agencies should consider whether the exemption would, if granted, enhance usefulness to law enforcement and whether the exemption would, if granted, enable the institution to redeploy resources in a manner suitable for the institution.

Another commenter expressed concern that the proposal's singular focus on high-tech solutions will disadvantage small and mid-sized institutions that cannot afford, build, or implement such novel, innovative solutions to meet their SAR requirements. According to this commenter, smaller institutions still struggle under manual SAR processes and lower-tier technology. Another commenter stated that it was unclear how the proposed rule would cover other institutions besides traditional national banks and Federal savings associations, including branches and agencies of foreign banks, trust companies, and service corporations.

Another commenter suggested that the agencies provide clear guidance governing how exemption requests will be evaluated and how the various considerations will be weighed, such as whether more weight will be given to broad machine learning applications and algorithms or whether the agencies will favor requests that focus on cost and time savings, regardless of technical sophistication. The commenter expressed concerns that requests submitted by small institutions may not be able to match the technology used by larger institutions.

The OCC acknowledges the concerns raised by these commenters and expects to consider various potential factors when evaluating requests. However, it is difficult to anticipate every possible exemption request, and, as a consequence, rigid or inflexible procedures could limit the OCC's future ability to consider, and deny or issue, exemptions. FinCEN's regulation authorizing exemptions does not contain a prescribed list of factors that will be considered before exemptions are issued. 33 Nor does FinCEN's regulation describe the process FinCEN will use when evaluating an exemption request. It would create inconsistency and be potentially problematic for the OCC's regulation to include factors or processes that are not included in FinCEN's regulation. That would make the exemption provisions not truly parallel and could pose difficulties for financial institutions applying for exemptions. For example, financial institutions might have to submit different applications to the OCC and FinCEN to address different potential factors and processes. This would create an additional burden and would undermine the value of creating parallel exemption processes.

The final rule contains a set of factors that the OCC will consider in reviewing all requests in addition to considering “any other appropriate factor.” Specifically, the OCC will consider whether the exemption is consistent with the purposes of the BSA and with safe and sound banking, and may consider other appropriate factors. Although FinCEN's general exemption provision, 31 CFR 1010.970(a), does not have these factors, these are the same factors that the OCC and FinCEN consider as part of exemption determinations involving customer identification program requirements. 34 The OCC has determined that it is appropriate to commit to considering them in the context of suspicious activity reporting because they should be relevant to any request for an exemption. The OCC's commitment to considering these factors should not promote inconsistency with FinCEN since the OCC does not expect FinCEN to issue exemptions that would be inconsistent with these factors. Requiring consideration of these factors will help ensure that any issued exemptions are appropriate. Although the OCC acknowledges the relevance of other factors raised by the commenters (such as the different technological resources of large versus small financial institutions), it is not appropriate or necessary to embed such factors into the regulation itself. Many of the additional factors suggested by commenters are already covered by the three factors in the final rule.

The final rule provides that the OCC will consider “any other appropriate factors,” and the OCC expects to consider other factors that may be relevant to particular exemption requests. The OCC's SAR regulations apply to all national banks and Federal savings associations, and the new exemption language will similarly cover all national banks and Federal savings associations. Although it is possible that the terms of certain exemptions may be tailored to particular types of national banks or Federal savings associations (for example, trust banks), the OCC will not pre-judge how exemptions may be applied to different types of national banks and Federal savings association. FinCEN's exemption provision does not distinguish between different types of banking organizations, and it would be inconsistent for the OCC's exemption provision to do this. The final rule, like the OCC's SAR regulations, applies to Federal branches and agencies of foreign banks licensed or chartered by the OCC.

In the proposed rule, the list of factors that the OCC would consider for exemption requests that would not require an exemption from FinCEN did not include considering whether the exemption was consistent with the purposes of the BSA. (The proposal included this factor for requests that would also require an exemption from FinCEN.) The reporting requirements now contained in the OCC's SAR regulations predate the BSA and continue to be broader than FinCEN's SAR requirements in certain ways ( i.e., requiring SARs in certain situations that would not require SARs under FinCEN's SAR regulation). However, the OCC agrees with the arguments made by certain commentators and has determined it is reasonable to consider whether any exemption request is consistent with the purposes of the BSA, regardless of whether the exemption request implicates FinCEN's SAR regulation. The proposed rule explained how the BSA and successive legislation has shaped reporting requirements and developed the current SAR regime. Also, it could be inconsistent and confusing to consider separate sets of factors for OCC-only SAR exemptions versus requests requiring exemptions from both the OCC and FinCEN. The proposed rule specified that the OCC would consider any “appropriate factors,” and the OCC is now specifying that whether a request is consistent with the purposes of the BSA is such an appropriate factor for all exemption requests. The proposed rule explained the background and history of the SAR requirements and detailed the interaction between the OCC's SAR requirements and the BSA, which establishes how the BSA is still relevant to OCC-only SAR requirements.

Some commenters recommended that the OCC consider additional factors as part of exemption determinations. However, the final rule already covers many of the factors identified by commenters. One commenter suggested that the agencies should consider whether an exemption request will improve law enforcement and other BSA end users' use of SAR data. However, the statutory purposes of the BSA include requiring reports that are “highly useful” to various users of SARs, including law enforcement. Another commenter suggested that the proposed rule did not explain how supervisory concerns related to BSA/AML deficiencies or a lower CAMELS rating  35 due to repeated deficiencies would affect the exemption process. Those supervisory concerns would implicate all of the factors listed in the final rule. The OCC would not likely approve an exemption request when a national bank or Federal savings association previously failed to prevent money laundering or if granting the exemption could contribute to unsafe or unsound practices. “[O]ther appropriate factors” could also include outstanding supervisory concerns regarding BSA/AML compliance.

The OCC and other agencies have already provided guidance on the principles relevant to responsible innovation that are applicable to innovative approaches for complying with SAR requirements. Specifically, the OCC has “define[d] Responsible Innovation as the use of new or improved financial products, services and processes to meet the evolving needs of consumers, businesses, and communities in a manner that is consistent with sound risk management and is aligned with the bank's overall business strategy.”  36 Similarly, in 2018 FinCEN and the Federal banking agencies issued a statement encouraging banks to take innovative approaches to meet their BSA/AML compliance obligations. 37 That statement explained that banks are encouraged to consider, evaluate, and, when appropriate, responsibly implement innovative SAR compliance approaches.

Pursuant to the final rule, a national bank or Federal savings association requesting an exemption from the requirements of the OCC's SAR regulations will have to submit a request in writing to the OCC (and potentially also to FinCEN). Upon receiving a written request from a national bank or Federal savings association, the OCC will consider the request and provide a written response.

The OCC may notify the other Federal banking agencies or FinCEN and consider their comments before granting any exemption. The final rule provides that the OCC may grant an exemption for a specified time period. One commenter stated that the proposed rule's broad statement that it “may be conditional or unconditional, may apply to particular persons or to classes of persons, and may apply to transactions or classes of transactions” offered no guidance on the menu of available relief measures or which measures should be used in which circumstances. This language arises from the regulation that includes FinCEN's exemption authority. 38 The OCC removed this language from the final rule to avoid any confusion and because the OCC has not used language like this in exemption provisions in other regulations. 39 The removal of this language should not have any substantive effect in the context of the OCC's SAR regulations or limit the OCC's ability to issue exemptions.

The proposed rule provided that the OCC would provide a written response to a national bank or Federal savings association that submits an exemption request. Commenters suggested that the OCC provide a clear timeline for responding to a request for an exemption, for example 30 days or 45 days. Several commenters suggested that the OCC should publish approved exemption decisions so that other financial institutions are aware of the OCC's analysis regarding a particular process or new technology (and would not have to apply separately for exemptions). One commenter recommended that the agencies clarify how they will handle requests may contain trade secrets, proprietary information, and other sensitive business information.

The OCC recognizes the value of a timely, transparent review and decision process, and the OCC, in consultation with the other agencies, may develop standardized timelines for the consideration of requests or the publication of any exemptions. However, at present, including such procedures within the OCC's regulation would be inconsistent with FinCEN's exemption regulation. The OCC, in consultation with the other agencies, also is reviewing and potentially revising SAR requirements as part of changes made by the AMLA of 2020. The OCC, in consultation with the other agencies, may refine SAR requirements in ways that align with the commenters' concerns, but it is not possible to make these commitments while other potential SAR changes are still ongoing. This final rule only makes the limited and incremental changes necessary for the OCC's exemption authority to be consistent with FinCEN's rule. The OCC routinely handles sensitive or confidential information submitted by national banks and Federal savings associations, and the OCC expects to follow appropriate protocols in handling any such information submitted along with exemption requests.

The OCC acknowledges commenters' concerns about making approved exemptions public and transparent. The final rule does not resolve whether or not the OCC will publish approved exemptions or redacted versions of them. The OCC expects to determine whether publication is appropriate in the course of developing standardized procedures for handling exemptions and in coordination with FinCEN and the other Federal banking agencies. The OCC also notes that, to the extent that an exemption request involves a substantive legal interpretation or action, such determinations are regularly published by the OCC with appropriate redactions.

Several comments addressed the process for issuing an exemption, including recommending governance mechanisms to ensure the accountability of OCC officials making exemption decisions. The OCC takes such process concerns seriously but does not believe it is appropriate to address them in this regulation. The OCC has separate governance mechanisms to address the appropriate delegation of authority within its organizational structure. It would be anomalous to embed additional internal rules of agency procedure within the OCC's SAR regulations. Additionally, such process requirements would be inconsistent with FinCEN's exemption provision and would undermine the value of consistent exemption provisions.

One commenter recommended that the agencies should make it clear that banks are not required to run parallel systems by running both their existing process and the innovative process simultaneously. Although the OCC expects to resolve this issue in specific exemption requests, the OCC notes that the Interagency Statement on Innovative Efforts to Combat Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing states “that pilot programs undertaken by banks, in conjunction with existing BSA/AML processes, are an important means of testing and validating the effectiveness of innovative approaches.”  40

Under the proposed rule, the OCC also could have revoked previously granted exemptions. The proposed rule provided that the OCC would provide written notice to a national bank or Federal savings association of the OCC's intention to revoke an exemption. The notice would have included the basis for the revocation and would provide an opportunity for the national bank or Federal savings association to submit a response to the OCC. One commenter stated that the proposed rule offers no standards or criteria for determining when to extend or revoke a SAR exemption. Another commenter suggested that the OCC create an appeal process so an applicant may make changes and re-submit without having to completely re-apply for an exemption. One commenter recommended giving financial institutions a timeline for revocation so they have the opportunity to prepare and re-direct resources. Another commenter recommended that, before an exemption is revoked, the agencies should provide reasonable notice to allow the institution ample time to reinstitute and test their pre-existing SAR monitoring processes. Another commenter recommended that the rule's procedures should include an appeal mechanism or second review so that a denied application can be revised or amended to address any objections raised by an agency. Another commenter suggested that the agencies should provide a sufficient timeline before revoking an exemption.

The OCC is finalizing the revocation provisions as proposed. FinCEN's exemption provision provides that exemptions “shall be revocable in the sole discretion of the Secretary.”  41 The OCC similarly believes it is appropriate to communicate in the final rule that exemptions are not permanent and may be revoked. Although the OCC recognizes the potential value of the additional procedures or checks suggested by the commenters (for example, an appeal mechanism), it is unnecessary to include such features and internal processes in the regulation. The final rule provides for an opportunity for notice and response before revocation, which would promote fairness and due process. In addition, additional procedures or checks would be inconsistent with FinCEN's regulation. To support a coordinated regulatory response, the OCC intends to cooperate with FinCEN when considering whether to revoke an exemption, to the extent possible. Although the OCC plans to carefully evaluate exemption requests so as to avoid where possible the need for revocation, it would be inappropriate to add other mandatory pre-revocation procedures because the procedures could interfere with the potential need for expedited revocation.

Several commenters raised issues not directly relevant to this rulemaking. One commenter supported a broader effort to review and harmonize supervisory expectations, perhaps even through a single rulemaking. Another commenter supported other efforts to improve SAR regulations, including a streamlined form, narrative improvements, and reporting thresholds. Another commenter recommended that the agencies recognize the new priorities in the AMLA of 2020, including the goal to update and modernize the overall AML system. One commenter suggested that the agencies change the focus in their proposed rules to recognize that the goal is providing useful information for law enforcement through the risk-based approach while also protecting the financial institution and confidence in the banking system.

The OCC is undertaking reviews of, and potentially changes to, reporting requirements as part of implementing the AMLA of 2020. The OCC will evaluate these comments in the context of this broader review of SAR requirements and AML requirements generally. This final rule only makes the limited, incremental changes necessary to conform the OCC's SAR exemption authority to FinCEN's.

For purposes of the Congressional Review Act, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) makes a determination as to whether a final rule constitutes a “major” rule. 42 If OMB deems a final rule is “major,” the Congressional Review Act generally provides that the rule may not take effect until at least 60 days following its publication. 43 The Congressional Review Act defines a “major rule” as any rule that the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the OMB finds has resulted in or is likely to result in (1) an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; (2) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, state, or local government agencies or geographic regions, or (3) a significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets. 44 As required by the Congressional Review Act, the OCC will submit the final rule and other appropriate reports to Congress and the GAO for review.

Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act  45 requires the Federal banking agencies to use plain language in all proposed and final rules published after January 1, 2000. The agencies sought to present the final rule in a simple, straightforward manner and did not receive any comments on the use of plain language in the proposed rule.

Certain provisions of the final rule contain are a “collection of information” within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). In accordance with the act's requirements, agencies may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OCC reviewed the rule and determined that it revises information collection requirements previously approved by the OMB under OMB Control No. 1557-0180. The OCC submitted the revised information collection to the OMB for review under section 3507(d) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) and § 1320.11 of the OMB's implementing regulations (5 CFR 1320).

Current Actions. The rule revises 12 CFR 21.11 and 12 CFR 163.180 to allow national banks and Federal savings associations to submit written requests for exemptions from the requirements of the OCC's SAR regulations. The burden estimates below are based on the estimated number of national banks and Federal savings associations that might request exemptions each year and the estimated number of hours required to submit a request.

Title of Information Collection: Minimum Security Devices and Procedures, Reports of Suspicious Activities, and Bank Secrecy Act Compliance Program.

Frequency: Event generated.

Affected public: Businesses or other for-profit.

Estimated number of respondents: 5.

Total estimated annual burden: 250 hours.

In general, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires an agency, in connection with a final rule, to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis describing the rule's impact on small entities (defined by the Small Business Administration for purposes of the RFA to include commercial banks and savings institutions with total assets of $600 million or less and trust companies with total assets of $41.5 million or less). However, under section 605(b) of the RFA, this analysis is not required if an agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and publishes its certification and a short explanatory statement in the Federal Register along with its rule.

The OCC currently supervises approximately 1,117 institutions (national banks, trust companies, Federal savings associations, and branches or agencies of foreign banks, collectively banks), of which 669 are small entities. 46 Because the final rule imposes no new mandates, it will have only de minimis costs to OCC-supervised small entities. Therefore, the OCC certifies that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, a final regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

Pursuant to section 302(a) of the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act (RCDRIA) of 1994 (12 U.S.C. 4802(a)) in determining the effective date and administrative compliance requirements for new regulations that impose additional reporting, disclosure, or other requirements on insured depository institutions, the OCC must consider, consistent with principles of safety and soundness and the public interest (1) any administrative burdens that the final rule would place on depository institutions, including small depository institutions and customers of depository institutions, and (2) the benefits of the final rule. In addition, section 302(b) of RCDRIA requires new regulations and amendments to regulations that impose additional reporting, disclosures, or other new requirements on insured depository institutions generally to take effect on the first day of a calendar quarter that begins on or after the date on which the regulations are published in final form. 47 The OCC considered the changes made by this final rule and believes that the effective date of May 1, 2022, will provide OCC-regulated institutions with adequate time to comply with the rule. The final rule will not impose any new administrative compliance requirements, and the OCC believes that the burdens of preparing a request for exemption are justified by the agency's need to evaluate information and factors relevant to the exemption request and to promote consistency.

The OCC analyzed the final rule under the factors in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. Under this analysis, the OCC considered whether the final rule includes a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year ($157 million as adjusted annually for inflation). The UMRA does not apply to regulations that incorporate requirements specifically set forth in law.

The final rule will not impose new mandates on any national banks or Federal savings associations. Therefore, the OCC concludes that the final rule will not result in an expenditure of $157 million or more annually by state, local, and tribal governments, or by the private sector. As a result, the OCC finds that the final rule does not trigger the UMRA cost threshold. Accordingly, the OCC has not prepared the written statement described in section 202 of the UMRA.

For the reasons stated in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION , chapter I of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

OCSLA authorizes the Secretary of the Interior (the Secretary) to impose a daily civil monetary penalty for a violation of OCSLA or its implementing regulations, leases, permits, or orders and directs the Secretary to adjust the maximum penalty at least every 3 years to reflect any inflation increase in the Consumer Price Index. 43 U.S.C. 1350(b)(1). Similarly, OPA authorizes civil monetary penalties for failure to comply with OPA's financial responsibility provisions or its implementing regulations. 33 U.S.C. 2716a(a). OPA does not include a maximum daily civil penalty inflation adjustment provision. Id.

The FCPIAA Improvements Act  1 requires that Federal agencies publish inflation adjustments to their civil monetary penalties in the Federal Register not later than January 15 annually. 2 Public Law 114-74, sec. 701(b)(1). The purposes behind these inflation adjustments are to maintain the deterrent effect of civil penalties and to further the policy goals of the underlying statutes. Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, Public Law 101-410, sec. 2 (codified at 28 U.S.C. 2461 note).

BOEM implemented the 2021 inflation adjustment for its civil monetary penalties through a final rule, “2021 Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustments for Oil, Gas, and Sulfur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf,” published in the Federal Register on April 15, 2021, which accounted for inflation for the 12-month period between October 2019 and October 2020. 86 FR 19782 (April 15, 2021).

The OMB Memorandum M-22-07 (“Implementation of Penalty Inflation Adjustments for 2022, Pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015”; available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/M-22-07.pdf ) explains agency responsibilities under the FCPIAA Improvements Act that include identifying applicable penalties and performing the annual adjustment; publishing revisions to regulations to implement the adjustment in the Federal Register ; applying adjusted penalty levels; and performing agency oversight of inflation adjustments.

Pursuant to the FCPIAA Improvements Act, this final rule implements BOEM's 2022 inflation adjustments to OCSLA and OPA maximum daily civil monetary penalties. A proposed rule is unnecessary, as the FCPIAA Improvements Act expressly exempts annual civil penalty inflation adjustments from the Administrative Procedure Act's (APA) notice of proposed rulemaking, public comment, and standard effective date provisions. FCPIAA Improvements Act, Public Law 114-74, sec. 701(b)(1)(D); APA, 5 U.S.C. 553. 3

In accordance with the FCPIAA Improvements Act, BOEM determined that OCSLA and OPA maximum daily civil monetary penalties require annual inflation adjustments and is issuing this final rule adjusting those penalty amounts for inflation through October 2021. The annual inflation adjustment is based on the percent change between the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the October preceding the date of the adjustment and the prior year's October CPI-U. Consistent with OMB M-22-07, the 2022 inflation adjustment multiplier can be calculated by dividing the October 2021 CPI-U by the October 2020 CPI-U. In this case, October 2021 CPI-U (276.589)/October 2020 CPI-U (260.388) = 1.06222.

For 2022, BOEM multiplied the current OCSLA maximum daily civil monetary penalty of $46,000 by the multiplier 1.06222 to equal $48,862.12. The FCPIAA Improvements Act requires that the resulting amount then be rounded to the nearest dollar. Accordingly, the 2022 adjusted OCSLA maximum daily civil monetary penalty is $48,862.

For 2022, BOEM multiplied the current OPA maximum daily civil monetary penalty amount of $48,762 by the multiplier 1.06222 to equal $51,795.97. The FCPIAA Improvements Act requires that the resulting amount then be rounded to the nearest dollar. Accordingly, the 2022 adjusted OPA maximum daily civil monetary penalty is $51,796.

The adjusted penalty amounts take effect immediately upon publication of this rule. Under the FCPIAA Improvements Act, the adjusted amounts apply to civil penalties assessed after the date the increase takes effect, even if the associated violation predates the increase.

This table summarizes BOEM's 2022 maximum daily civil monetary penalties for each OCSLA and OPA violation:

This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) is not required because, as a regulation of an administrative and fiscal nature, this rule is covered by a categorical exclusion. See 43 CFR 46.210(i). BOEM also has determined that the rule does not implicate any of the extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215 that would require further analysis under NEPA. Therefore, a detailed statement under NEPA is not required.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for all rules unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency is required to first publish a proposed rule. See 5 U.S.C. 603(a) and 604(a). The FCPIAA Improvements Act expressly exempts these annual inflation adjustments from the requirement to publish a proposed rule for notice and comment. FCPIAA Improvements Act, Public Law 114-74, sec. 701(b)(1)(D); OMB M-22-07 at 3-4. Thus, the RFA does not apply to this rulemaking.

This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and, therefore, a submission to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) is not required.

This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments, or on the private sector, of more than $164 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or Tribal governments, or on the private sector. Therefore, a statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. ) is not required.

This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule:

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

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

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

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ) and OMB guidance, 4 this rule is not a major rule, as defined by that act. 5

This rule does not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have takings implications under E.O. 12630. Therefore, a takings implication assessment is not required.

E.O. 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that annual civil penalty inflation adjustment rules are not significant if they exclusively implement the annual inflation adjustment consistent with OMB guidance and have an annual impact of less than $100 million. 6 This rule meets those conditions and, thus, is not a significant rule.

E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866, while calling for improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to reduce uncertainty and to promote predictability and for the use of the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. E.O. 13563 directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 further emphasizes that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. However, BOEM is not using science in this rulemaking, as Congress directed agencies to adjust the maximum daily civil monetary penalty amounts using a particular equation, and BOEM does not have discretion to use any other factor in the adjustment. BOEM has developed this rule in a manner consistent with the requirements in E.O. 13563, to the extent relevant and feasible given the limited discretion provided agencies under the FCPIAA Improvements Act.

This rule complies with the requirements of E.O. 12988. Specifically, this rule:

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

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

Under the criteria in section 1 of E.O. 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. This rule merely adjusts the level of civil monetary penalties that BOEM may impose on its lessees and has no effects on any action of State or local governments. Therefore, a federalism summary impact statement is not required.

The Department of the Interior and BOEM strive to strengthen their government-to-government relationships with Indian Tribes through a commitment to consultation with Indian Tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and Tribal sovereignty. BOEM has evaluated this rule under the Department of the Interior's consultation policy, under Departmental Manual part 512 chapters 4 and 5, and under the criteria in E.O. 13175 and determined that this rule has no substantial direct effects on federally recognized Indian Tribes or Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) Corporations and that consultation under the Department of the Interior's and BOEM's Tribal and ANCSA consultation policies is not required.

This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in E.O. 13211. Therefore, a statement of energy effects is not required.

This action by the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary is taken herein pursuant to an existing delegation of authority.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, BOEM amends 30 CFR parts 550 and 553 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 EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Office of the Federal Register'se-CFR site at https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40.

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0375 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 May 17, 2022. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0375, 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/contacts.html.

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 February 25, 2021 (86 FR 11488) (FRL-10020-47), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 0F8853) by Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419-8300. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the herbicide bicyclopyrone, 4-hydroxy-3-{2-[(2-methoxyethoxy)methyl}-6-(trifluoromethyl)-3-pyridylcarbonyl}bicyclo[3.2.1]oct-3-en-2-one, in or on banana at 0.01 parts per million (ppm); broccoli at 0.01 ppm; garlic, bulb at 0.02 ppm, hops, dried cones at 0.04 ppm; horseradish at 0.015 ppm; onion, bulb at 0.02 ppm; onion, green at 0.05 ppm; papaya at 0.01 ppm; plantains at 0.01 ppm; strawberry at 0.01 ppm; sweet potato, roots at 0.02 ppm; timothy, forage at 0.9 ppm; timothy, hay at 1.5 ppm; and watermelon at 0.01 ppm.

That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC., the registrant, which is available in the docket, https://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA is establishing several tolerances at different levels than requested by the petitioner, is not establishing several petitioned for tolerances, and adjusted several commodity definitions. The reasons for these changes are explained in Unit IV.C.

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

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

In an effort to streamline its publications in the Federal Register , EPA is not reprinting sections of the rule that repeat what has been previously published in tolerance rulemakings for the same pesticide chemical. Where scientific information concerning a particular chemical remains unchanged, the content of those sections would not vary between tolerance rulemaking and republishing the same sections is unnecessary and duplicative. EPA considers referral back to those sections as sufficient to provide an explanation of the information EPA considered in making its safety determination for the new rulemaking.

EPA has previously published a number of tolerance rulemakings for bicyclopyrone, in which EPA concluded, based on the available information, that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm would result from aggregate exposure to bicyclopyrone and established tolerances for residues of that chemical. EPA is incorporating previously published sections from those rulemakings as described further in this rulemaking, as they remain unchanged.

For a discussion of the Toxicological Profile of bicyclopyrone, see Unit III.A. of the December 23, 2021, rulemaking (86-FR-72846) (FRL-9199-01-OCSPP).

Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. The PODs and levels of concern have not changed from the previous rulemaking and EPA incorporates the background information in the December 23, 2021, rulemaking. A summary of the toxicological endpoints for bicyclopyrone used for human risk assessment can be found in the document titled “Bicyclopyrone: Human Health Risk Assessment for the Establishment of Permanent Tolerances for Residues in/on Bananas, Broccoli, Dry Bulb Onions, Green Onion, Hops, Horseradish, Papaya, Strawberry, Sweet Potatoes, Timothy Forage, Timothy Hay, and Watermelon” (hereinafter “Bicyclopyrone Human Health Risk Assessment”) in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0375 in regulations.gov .

Much of the exposure assessment remains the same although updates have occurred to accommodate exposures from the petitioned-for tolerance. These updates are discussed in this section; for a description of the rest of the EPA approach to and assumptions for the exposure assessment, please reference Unit III.C. of the December 23, 2021, rulemaking.

EPA's dietary exposure assessments have been updated to include the additional exposure from the new uses of bicyclopyrone on banana; broccoli; hop, dried cones; horseradish; onion, bulb; onion, green; papaya; strawberry; sweet potato, tuber; timothy, forage; timothy, hay; and watermelon (see Unit IV. C for an explanation of the differences between this list and the petitioned for tolerances). The assessment used the same assumptions as the December 23, 2021, final rule concerning average field trial residues for registered crops, tolerance levels for the proposed crops and recently added crops, average empirical processing factors for registered crops, anticipated residues for livestock commodities, and percent crop treated (PCT) for registered crops commodities.

Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and information on the anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in food and the actual levels of pesticide residues that have been measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA must require pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years after the tolerance is established, modified, or left in effect, demonstrating that the levels in food are not above the levels anticipated. For the present action, EPA will issue such data call-ins as are required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be required to be submitted no later than 5 years from the date of issuance of these tolerances.

Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary risk only if:

• Condition a: The data used are reliable and provide a valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop is likely to contain the pesticide residue.

• Condition b: The exposure estimate does not underestimate exposure for any significant subpopulation group.

• Condition c: Data are available on pesticide use and food consumption in a particular area, and the exposure estimate does not understate exposure for the population in such area.

In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate of PCT as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require registrants to submit data on PCT.

The chronic dietary assessment incorporated the following average PCT estimates: Barley, 1%; field corn, 10%; sweet corn, 5%; pop corn, 10% (used the higher of the corn PCT); and wheat, 5% (used spring wheat PCT which was higher than winter wheat PCTs). An estimate of 100% crop treated was used for all other commodities. The PCT for livestock commodities is based on the PCT value for the livestock feed item used in the dietary burden with the highest percent crop treated (field corn, 10%).

In most cases, EPA uses available data from the United States Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA/NASS), proprietary market surveys, and the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CalDPR) Pesticide Use Reporting (PUR) for the chemical/crop combination for the most recent 10 years. EPA uses an average PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis and a maximum PCT for acute dietary risk analysis. The average PCT figure for each existing use is derived by combining available public and private market survey data for that use, averaging across all observations, and rounding to the nearest 5%, except for those situations in which the average PCT is less than 1% or less than 2.5%. In those cases, the Agency would use less than 1% or less than 2.5% as the average PCT value, respectively. The maximum PCT figure is the highest observed maximum value reported within the most recent 10 years of available public and private market survey data for the existing use and rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5%, except where the maximum PCT is less than 2.5%, in which case, the Agency uses less than 2.5% as the maximum PCT.

The Agency believes that the three conditions discussed in Unit III.C.1. iv have been met. With respect to Condition a, PCT estimates are derived from Federal and private market survey data, which are reliable and have a valid basis. The Agency is reasonably certain that the percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an underestimation. As to Conditions b and c, regional consumption information and consumption information for significant subpopulations is taken into account through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating the exposure of significant subpopulations including several regional groups. Use of this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment process ensures that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate exposure for any significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency to be reasonably certain that no regional population is exposed to residue levels higher than those estimated by the Agency. Other than the data available through national food consumption surveys, EPA does not have available reliable information on the regional consumption of food to which bicyclopyrone may be applied in a particular area.

Dietary exposure from drinking water. EPA has revised the bicyclopyrone Drinking Water Assessment (DWA) since the December 23, 2021, rule. The 2016 DWA for bicyclopyrone (USEPA, 2016, DP Barcode 428614) recommended moving forward with estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) for a groundwater scenario that occurred in a wheat and barley growing area and move away from the existing EDWCs based on a simulation resulting in the highest groundwater EDWC. The Human Health Risk Assessment (USEPA, 2022, DP Barcode 459563) used the highest groundwater EDWCs from the previous 2016 DWA. The maximum acute and chronic/cancer surface water and groundwater EDWCs associated with bicyclopyrone use were 7.61 parts per billion (ppb) for the maximum acute and 6.66 ppb, for the maximum chronic/cancer.

Non-occupational exposure. There are no new residential (non-occupational) exposures associated with the new proposed uses and bicyclopyrone is not registered for any use patterns that would result in residential exposure.

Cumulative exposure. For a discussion of the cumulative exposure assessment of bicyclopyrone, see Unit III.C.4 of the December 23, 2021, rulemaking.

Safety factor for infants and children. EPA continues to conclude that there are reliable data to support the reduction of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) safety factor. See Unit III.D of the December 23, 2021 rulemaking for a discussion of the Agency's rationale for that determination.

Aggregate risks and determination of safety. EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute population-adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate points of departure to ensure that an adequate margin of exposure exists.

An acute dietary exposure assessment was not conducted as toxicological effects attributable to a single dose were not identified. Chronic dietary risks are below the Agency's level of concern of 100% of the cPAD: The population subgroup with the highest exposure estimate was all infants at 16% of the cPAD. Bicyclopyrone is classified as “Suggestive Evidence of Carcinogenic Potential”. However, because the Agency has determined that the chronic reference dose will be protective of any potential cancer risk and there are no chronic risks that exceeds the Agency's level of concern, EPA concludes that there is not a concern for cancer risk from exposure to bicyclopyrone. There are no registered or new uses of bicyclopyrone that would result in residential exposure, therefore the aggregate risk estimates are equivalent to the chronic dietary (food and water) risk estimates and are not of concern.

Based on these risk assessments and the information described above, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to bicyclopyrone residues. More detailed information about the Agency's analysis can be found in the Bicyclopyrone Human Health Risk Assessment in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0373 in regulations.gov at https://www.regulations.gov.

For a discussion of the available analytical enforcement method, see Unit IV.A of the December 23, 2021, rulemaking.

In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4).

The Codex has not established a MRL for residues of bicyclopyrone in/on bananas, broccoli, dry bulb onions, timothy forage or hay, green onion, hops, horseradish, papaya, strawberry, sweet potato, or watermelon.

FFDCA section 408(d)(4)(A)(i) permits the Agency to finalize a tolerance that varies from that sought by the petition. The petitioner initially requested to include tolerances for both banana and plantain; however, a separate tolerance is not required for plantain per 40 CFR 180.1(g). Therefore, the Agency is only finalizing a tolerance for banana. The petitioner also requested to include tolerances for both garlic and onion, bulb; however, a separate tolerance is not required for garlic per 40 CFR 180.1(g). Therefore, the Agency is only finalizing a tolerance for onion, bulb.

The proposed commodity definitions for hops, dried cones; sweet potato, roots; have been modified to hop, dried cones; sweet potato, tuber, respectively, in order be consistent with Agency nomenclature.

The petitioner initially requested a tolerance of 0.9 ppm for timothy, forage and 1.5 ppm for timothy, hay. The petitioner appears to have calculated the requested tolerance value using input residue values from the forage and hay decline trials with a longer preharvest intervals (PHI), which would underestimate the resulting residues. The Agency used the residue values from the decline trial that had the shortest PHI. The Agency deems it appropriate to use the more conservative ( i.e., results with the highest residue value) approach and as a result produced a recommended tolerance of 1.5 ppm for timothy, forage and 2 ppm for timothy, hay when entered into the OECD calculator.

The proposed commodity for horseradish tolerance has also been modified to be set at the respective limit of quantitation (LOQs), as there were no residues detected.

Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of bicyclopyrone, 4-hydroxy-3-[[2-[(2-methoxyethoxy)methyl]-6-(trifluoromethyl)-3-pyridinyl]carbonyl]bicyclo[3.2.1]oct-3-en-2-one, including its metabolites and degradates in or on banana at 0.01 ppm; broccoli at 0.01 ppm; hop, dried cones at 0.04 ppm; horseradish at 0.02 ppm; onion, bulb at 0.02 ppm; onion, green at 0.05 ppm; papaya at 0.01 ppm; strawberry at 0.01 ppm; sweet potato, tuber at 0.02 ppm; timothy, forage at 1.5 ppm; timothy, hay at 2 ppm; and watermelon at 0.01 ppm.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order (R&O), MB Docket No. 21-263, FCC 22-13, adopted on February 16, 2022, and released on February 17, 2022. The full text of the R&O will be available electronically via the FCC's Electronic Document Management System (EDOCS) website at www.fcc.gov/edocs or via the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) website at www.fcc.gov/ecfs. The Commission published the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) at 86 FR 43145 on August 6, 2021.

1. The Federal Communication Commission amends the following rules applicable to broadcast radio stations to better reflect current requirements and eliminate redundant, outdated, or conflicting technical provisions.

2. Maximum rated transmitter power for AM stations. The Commission amends 47 CFR 73.1665(b) to remove the maximum rated transmitter power limit for AM stations and deletes the corresponding “Table 1 to paragraph (b).” This equipment limitation on potential transmitter power is outdated and unnecessary given the Commission's current reliance on actual operating antenna input power as the most accurate and effective means of ensuring that AM stations adhere to their authorized power limits. The Commission anticipates that elimination of this technical restriction on AM transmitters will allow AM stations of any class to use transmitters of any rated power, thus benefiting the AM service by broadening the market of transmitters available to stations, enhancing the secondary market for AM transmitters, and reducing the number of transmitters that need to be disposed of. Accordingly, it amends 47 CFR 73.1665(b) by removing the maximum rated transmitter power for AM stations, deletes the “Table 1 to paragraph (b),” and replaces “power rating limit” in the first sentence with “manufacturer-rated power limit” to indicate that this is a technical specification established by the transmitter manufacturer.

3. Noncommercial Educational (NCE) community of license coverage. The Commission eliminates the inconsistency between 47 CFR 73.316(c)(2)(ix)(B) and 73.1690(c)(8)(i) and the NCE FM community coverage standard set out in 47 CFR 73.515. Specifically, it amends §§ 73.316(c)(2)(ix)(B) and 73.1690(c)(8)(i) to conform to the updated standard that NCE applicants must show that their predicted 60 dBu contour will cover at least 50% of the relevant community of license or reach 50% of the population within the community.

4. FM transmitter interference to nearby antennas. The Commission declines to eliminate the proximate interference rule, 47 CFR 73.316(d), on the basis of industry feedback. However, it correct a typographical error in this rule by replacing the word “approximate” with “proximate.”

5. NCE FM Class D second-adjacent channel interference ratio. The Commission amends 47 CFR 73.509(b), which sets out signal strength contour overlap requirements for NCE FM Class D stations, to harmonize with the more permissive standard applied to all other NCE-FM stations. The Commission states that the less restrictive requirements have proven effective for other station classes and that there is no reason to continue treating Class D stations differently in this context. Although this distinction was originally designed to accommodate the establishment of the low power FM (LPFM) service, because the LPFM service is now mature, it is appropriate to extend the general contour overlap limits to Class D NCE stations. The Commission anticipates that the less preclusive requirement will create opportunities for NCE stations to increase power and coverage, as well as provide them with greater site selection flexibility. Accordingly, it amends 47 CFR 73.509(b) as set out in the final rules and makes non-substantive and formatting edits to the table contained in 47 CFR 73.509(a).

6. Protection for grandfathered common carriers in Alaska in the 76-100 MHz band. The Commission deletes 47 CFR 73.501(b), 74.1202(b)(3), the second sentence of 74.702(a)(1), and the second sentence of 74.786(b), all containing similar language requiring broadcast services to protect grandfathered common carrier services in Alaska operating in the 76-100 MHz frequency band. The Commission explains that this requirement is unnecessary and obsolete because the Commission's licensing databases indicate that there are no longer any common carrier services remaining in this frequency band in Alaska.

7. AM fill-in area definition. The Commission amends the definition of “AM fill-in area” set out in 47 CFR 74.1201(j) to conform to the requirement in 47 CFR 74.1201(g) that the “coverage contour of an FM translator rebroadcasting an AM radio broadcast station as its primary station must be contained within the greater of either the 2 mV/m daytime contour of the AM station or a 25-mile (40 km) radius centered at the AM transmitter site.” This change harmonizes the various rules governing fill-in translator transmitter siting and does not affect the signal coverage requirement set out in 47 CFR 74.1201(g).

8. International coordinations. The Commission updates 47 CFR 73.207(b) and 74.1235(d) to comport with the relevant international treaties. Specifically, it updates 47 CFR 73.207(b)(2) and the associated table to reflect the spacing requirements set out in the 1997 amendment to the 1991 U.S.-Canada FM Broadcasting Agreement and to reference the contour overlap provisions of section 5.2 of the Agreement. The Commission concludes that there is no need to grandfather stations that do not meet the new requirements because, at the time that the 1997 amendment took effect, the Commission coordinated with Canada Table B allotment modifications in accordance with the increase of Class A allotments to 6kW and has subsequently applied the distance separations set out in the amended 1991 U.S.-Canada FM Broadcasting Agreement when processing applications for more than two decades. The Commission clarifies that no facility modifications will be ordered because of the administrative updates to the distance separation requirements and that any Class A FM station may continue to operate under its licensed parameters. However, any application to modify the technical parameters in the station's license must include a showing that the proposed facilities satisfy the treaty requirements with respect to the Canadian border as set out in amended 47 CFR 73.207(b)(2).

9. The Commission also updates 47 CFR 73.207(b)(3) and the associated table to reflect the spacing requirements set out in the 1992 U.S.-Mexico FM Broadcasting Agreement. It clarifies that, for the purposes of the table associated with 47 CFR 73.207(b)(3), U.S. Class C0 assignments or allotments are considered Class C. In addition, the Commission states that the distances in both 47 CFR 73.207(b)(2) and (3) are to be calculated using the distance calculation methodology set out in the two respective Agreements. Finally, it makes non-substantive and formatting edits to all of the minimum distance separation tables contained in 47 CFR 73.207(b).

10. The Commission also updates 47 CFR 74.1235(d) to eliminate inconsistent provisions and reflect current treaty requirements applicable to FM translators. Specifically, it deletes all of the current introductory language of paragraph (d) prior to paragraphs (d)(1), (2), and (3). The first sentence of that introductory paragraph is inconsistent with the current treaty power limits established in the 1991 U.S.-Canada FM Broadcasting Agreement, as amended, which are already codified in paragraph (d)(3). The remainder of the introductory paragraph is inconsistent with the terms of the 1992 U.S.-Mexico FM Broadcasting Agreement, which specifies that FM translator stations are subject to a contour overlap based spacing methodology and are thus not subject to the distance separations of 47 CFR 73.207(b)(3). Finally, the reference in that paragraph to a 10-watt transmitter power output limitation is a superseded provision originally set out in the U.S.-Mexican FM Broadcast Agreement of 1972 and is no longer required under the current treaty. For these reasons, the Commission deletes all of the introductory language of § 74.1235(d) as obsolete.

11. This document does not contain proposed new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information collection for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

12. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to this proceeding. The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the NPRM, including comment on the IRFA. The Commission received no comments on the IRFA. This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.

13. This document adopts several rule changes to better reflect current requirements and eliminate redundant, outdated, or conflicting provisions. Specifically, the Commission:

• Eliminates the maximum rated transmitter power limit rule for AM stations. The Commission finds that an equipment limitation on potential transmitter power that is established by the transmitter manufacturer is outdated and unnecessary given the Commission's current reliance on actual operating antenna input power as the most accurate and effective means of ensuring that AM stations adhere to their authorized power limits.

• Updates several rule provisions containing an obsolete noncommercial educational (NCE) FM community of license coverage standard to harmonize with the later-adopted, more specific, NCE community of license coverage requirement.

• Updates the signal strength contour overlap requirements for NCE FM Class D stations to harmonize with the contour overlap requirements for all other classes of NCE FM stations. The Commission concludes that there is no reason to continue treating Class D stations differently in this context and that a less preclusive standard will create opportunities for NCE stations to increase power and coverage, as well as provide them with greater site selection flexibility.

• Eliminates the requirement for radio broadcast services to protect grandfathered common carrier services in Alaska operating in the 76-100 MHz frequency band. This requirement is no longer necessary as there are no more common carriers in this band in Alaska.

• Harmonizes the definition of an “AM fill-in area” set out in multiple rule sections. This correction applies the most up-to-date definition of “AM fill-in area” consistently across the relevant rules.

• Amends regulations applicable to broadcast stations within 320 kilometers of the Mexican and Canadian borders to implement the most current treaty provisions.

Amending these rules to accurately reflect current requirements will reduce potential confusion and eliminate unnecessary burdens on broadcasters.

14. There were no comments to the IRFA filed.

15. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rules as a result of those comments. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.

16. The RFA directs the Commission to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that will be affected by the rules adopted herein. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small government jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).

17. Radio Stations. Radio stations are an Economic Census category that “comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by radio to the public. Programming may originate in their own studio, from an affiliated network, or from external sources.” The SBA has established a small business size standard for this category as firms having $41.5 million or less in annual receipts. Economic Census data for 2012 shows that 2,849 radio station firms operated during that year. Of that number, 2,806 operated with annual receipts of less than $25 million per year, and 43 firms had annual receipts of $25 million or more. Because the Census has no additional classifications that could serve as a basis for determining the number of stations whose receipts exceeded $41.5 million in that year, we conclude that the majority of radio broadcast stations were small entities under the applicable SBA size standard.

18. Apart from the U.S. Census, the Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial AM stations to be 4,509 and the number of commercial FM stations to be 6,676 for a total of 11,185, along with 8,866 FM translator and booster stations. According to BIA/Kelsey Publications, Inc.'s Media Access Pro Database, as of March 2020, 4,389 a.m. stations and 6,767 FM stations had revenues of $41.5 million or less. In addition, the Commission has estimated the number of noncommercial educational FM radio stations to be 4,204. NCE stations are non-profit, and therefore considered to be small entities. Accordingly, we estimate that the majority of radio broadcast stations are small entities. We note, however, that, in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as small under the above definition, business affiliations must be included. Our estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by our action, because the revenue figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies.

19. Moreover, as noted above, an element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity not be dominant in its field of operation. The Commission is unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific radio station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to which rules may apply does not exclude any radio station from the definition of a small business on this basis and therefore may be over-inclusive to that extent. Also, as noted, an additional element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity must be independently owned and operated. The Commission notes that it is difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media entities and the estimates of small businesses to which they apply may be over-inclusive to this extent.

20. The rule changes adopted in the Report and Order do not include any notification or recordkeeping requirements.

21. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.

22. The rules adopted or amended in the Report and Order do not impose any new substantive requirements on broadcast radio stations. Rather, they clarify existing technical requirements, create consistency across different rules, and ensure that current treaty terms are accurately reflected in the rules. These measures will help small entities by reducing their need to rely on third parties, such as legal counsel, to understand the rules and comply with regulatory requirements. Significant alternatives would include leaving the rules as they are; however, in the Commission's judgment the increased transparency and certainty under the amended rules would outweigh any benefit of familiarity with the existing rules. The Commission did take this alternative approach when it decided to retain the proximate interference rule set out in § 73.316(d), responding to industry feedback that that rule serves a useful purpose.

23. The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including the FRFA, in a report to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including the FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of the Report and Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register .

24. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 316, and 319 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 316, and 319, the Report and Order is adopted and will become effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

25. It is further ordered that parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules ARE amended as set forth in the final rules and such rule amendments will become effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

26. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of the Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

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

28. It is further ordered that, should no petitions for reconsideration or petitions for judicial review be timely filed, MB Docket No. 21-263 shall be terminated and its docket closed.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR chapter I, parts 73 and 74, as follows:

As noted above, the Agency's December 8, 2016 (81 FR 88732), ELDT final rule omitted certain amendatory instructions. Subsequently, FMCSA published an interim final rule on February 4, 2020 (85 FR 6088) which also omitted the amendatory instruction. The interim final rule was finalized on June 30, 2021 (86 FR 34631), but without providing the necessary amendatory instruction originally discussed in the March 7, 2016 NPRM (81 FR 11944).

In this document, FMCSA provides the amendatory instruction to remove and reserve subpart E as originally explained in the preamble to the 2016 NPRM.

For reasons stated in the preamble, FMCSA amends 49 CFR part 380 by making the following correcting amendment:

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

The A season apportionment of the 2022 Pacific cod TAC allocated to catcher/processors using pot gear in the BSAI is 1,021 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2021 and 2022 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (87 FR 11626, March 2, 2022).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the A season apportionment of the 2022 Pacific cod TAC allocated as a directed fishing allowance to catcher/processors using pot gear in the BSAI will soon be reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by pot catcher/processors in the BSAI.

While this closure is effective the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.

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

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest, as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of Pacific cod by catcher/processors using pot gear in the BSAI. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of March 14, 2022.

The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

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

The A season allowance of the 2022 Pacific cod TAC apportioned to catcher vessels less than 50 feet (15.2 m) length overall using HAL gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA is 1,366 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2022 and 2023 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA (87 FR 11599, March 2, 2022).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Regional Administrator has determined that the A season allowance of the 2022 Pacific cod TAC apportioned to catcher vessels less than 50 feet (15.2 m) length overall using HAL gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 1,316 mt and is setting aside the remaining 50 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for catcher vessels less than 50 feet (15.2 m) length overall using HAL gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA.

While this closure is effective the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.

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

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest, as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of Pacific cod by catcher vessels less than 50 feet (15.2 m) length overall using HAL gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of March 14, 2022.

The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.