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

Federal crop insurance policies typically consist of the Basic Provisions, the Crop Provisions, the Special Provisions, the Commodity Exchange Price Provisions, if applicable, other applicable endorsements or options, the actuarial documents for the insured agricultural commodity, the Catastrophic Risk Protection Endorsement, if applicable, and the applicable regulations published in 7 CFR chapter IV. Throughout this rule, the terms “Crop Provisions,” “Special Provisions,” and “policy” are used as defined in the Common Crop Insurance Policy (CCIP) Basic Provisions in 7 CFR 457.8. Additional information and definitions related to Federal crop insurance policies are in 7 CFR 457.8.

Through this rule, FCIC amends the Area Risk Protection Insurance (ARPI) Basic Provisions (7 CFR part 407), CCIP Basic Provisions (7 CFR 457.8), in addition to specific crop insurance policies that are in the regulations. Throughout this rule, as the changes are explained and the specific crop insurance policies are mentioned for the specific changes, they are listed in alphabetical order by crop insurance policy name, which is also the section title in the regulations. Typically, in a rule, the sections of the regulations would be addressed in numerical order; however, due to the extensive range of crop insurance policies that this rule includes, for readers to find the information of relevance, the alphabetical order will be helpful. The range of crop insurance policies and the order in which they are listed is as follows:

• Arizona-California Citrus Fruit Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.121);

• Blueberry Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.166);

• Cabbage Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.171);

• California Avocado Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.175);

• Cranberry Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.132);

• Florida Avocado Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.173);

• Forage Production Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.117);

• Fresh Market Pepper Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.148);

• Fresh Market Sweet Corn Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.129);

• Fresh Market Tomato Dollar Plan Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.139);

• Guaranteed Production Plan of Fresh Market Tomato (7 CFR 457.128);

• Macadamia Nut Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.131);

• Onion Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.135);

• Peach Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.153);

• Pear Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.111);

• Pecan Revenue Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.167);

• Prune Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.133);

• Stonefruit Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.159);

• Table Grape Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.149); and

• Texas Citrus Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.119).

The changes to the crop insurance policies resulting from the amendments in this rule are applicable for the 2023 and succeeding crop years for crops with a contract change date on or after June 30, 2022. For all other crops, the changes to the crop insurance policies resulting from the amendments in this rule are applicable for the 2024 and succeeding crop years.

FCIC is increasing flexibility for acceptable production records to make it easier for producers whose production records are not available from a disinterested third party to provide the supporting records needed to obtain insurance, report their annual production, and file a claim. FCIC is amending the Area Risk Protection Regulations (7 CFR 407.9), Common Crop Insurance Regulations (7 CFR 457.8), and 20 Crop Provisions to implement these changes.

Prior to this rule, FCIC generally required records from disinterested third parties (for example, sales record to an unrelated entity), or AIPs conducted preharvest appraisals as a supporting production record. However, some producers do not have disinterested third-party records which includes producers who sell their production directly to consumers (direct marketing) and producers who do not have disinterested third-party records because they, or a person related to them, generate the supporting records (for example, vertically integrated). In response to these issues, FCIC is amending production reporting terminology to simplify recordkeeping requirements and procedures for those producers who do not have disinterested third-party records available to them. These changes will also make the terminology and procedures consistent across policies.

The producer will self-identify that they will not have disinterested third-party records available, which will encourage a discussion with the AIP as to what records the producer does have that will meet production reporting requirements. The producer may be permitted to use their own records, or, in limited situations, request a pre-harvest appraisal. Generally, producers are required to use their actual production records. However, if their records are not at an acceptable level of detail needed for production reporting (for example, traceable back to the unit), RMA procedures outline criteria that would allow the producer to request an appraisal to supplement the producers' records. For example, producers who direct market their crop may request a pre-harvest appraisal, to use in conjunction with their acceptable production records, to allocate production to the applicable APH database or when the AIP determines the producer's final disposition records do not contain all information required for production reporting by APH database.

In certain situations, appraisals may be used, in lieu of harvested production, to adjust a claim, as outlined in the CCIP Basic Provisions, paragraph 15(b)(3). If the producer's harvested production is less than the appraised production, and they harvest the crop after the end of the insurance period, their appraised production will be used unless they can prove that no additional causes of loss or deterioration of the crop occurred after the end of the insurance period.

However, if they harvest the crop before the end of the insurance period, their harvested production will be used (1) unless the applicable Crop Provisions require an appraisal prior to harvest and they are unable to prove that additional insured causes of loss occurred after the appraisal or deterioration of the crop can be attributed to an insurable cause of loss after the appraisal was completed; then the producer's appraised production will be used; or (2) if the producer intends to direct market their crop or their production records will not be from a disinterested third party and the AIP determines an appraisal prior to harvest was necessary and they are unable to prove that additional insured causes of loss occurred after the appraisal or deterioration of the crop can be attributed to an insurable cause of loss after the appraisal was completed; then their appraised production will be used.

The changes in this rule are intended to assist producers with production reporting requirements when producers do not have disinterested third-party records available and to reduce the need for AIPs to conduct pre-harvest appraisals, which were previously used in lieu of disinterested third-party records. Several terms that were defined in various Crop Provisions, procedures, or administrative regulations, will now be defined in the ARPI Basic Provisions and CCIP Basic Provisions.

The changes to the Crop Provisions are as follows:

FCIC is removing the definition of “direct marketing” from individual Crop Provisions. As a result of this change, there will be only one definition of “direct marketing” in the Basic Provisions. This will reduce redundancy and eliminate potential conflicts between the CCIP Basic Provisions and the individual Crop Provisions. This change occurs in the following Crop Provisions:

• Arizona-California Citrus Fruit Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.121);

• Blueberry Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.166);

• Cabbage Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.171);

• California Avocado Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.175);

• Florida Avocado Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.173);

• Forage Production Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.117);

• Fresh Market Pepper Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.148);

• Fresh Market Sweet Corn Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.129);

• Guaranteed Production Plan of Fresh Market Tomato Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.128);

• Macadamia Nut Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.131);

• Onion Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.135);

• Peach Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.153);

• Pear Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.111);

• Prune Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.133);

• Stonefruit Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.159);

• Table Grape Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.149); and

• Texas Citrus Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.119).

Two Crop Provisions will retain the definition of “direct marketing” with the clarifying statement “In addition to the definition contained in section 1 of the Basic Provisions,” added. This change clarifies that the definition in the Crop Provisions does not override the definition in the Basic Provisions, but rather is intended to be used together. The change appears in:

• Fresh Market Tomato Dollar Plan Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.139); and

• Pecan Revenue Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.167).

FCIC is correcting the producer's notification requirement for any production intended for direct marketing to apply 15 days prior to harvest, rather than 15 days prior to the sale. Currently, the deadline for notification attaches to the date of sale, which may not allow an AIP an opportunity to conduct an in-field (pre-harvest) appraisal. This change will require the producer to notify the AIP at least 15 calendar days before the crop is harvested, which allows for the AIPs to conduct pre-harvest appraisals. This change is being made in the following Crop Provisions:

• Arizona-California Citrus Fruit Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.121);

• Blueberry Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.166);

• California Avocado Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.175);

• Florida Avocado Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.173);

• Forage Production Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.117);

• Fresh Market Sweet Corn Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.129);

• Macadamia Nut Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.131);

• Onion Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.135);

• Peach Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.153);

• Pear Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.111);

• Pecan Revenue Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.167);

• Prune Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.133);

• Stonefruit Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.159);

• Table Frape Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.149); and

• Texas Citrus Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.119).

FCIC is adding the good farming practice appeal deadline to paragraph 23(b) of the ARPI Basic Provisions (7 CFR part 407) and paragraph 20(d) of the CCIP Basic Provisions (457.8). This change will ensure that producers are aware of the deadline to file an appeal of a good farming practice determination from the AIP. Currently, the deadline (30 days) is only contained in the administrative regulation, Subpart J, and procedural handbooks that are not provided to the producer because they are not part of the contract between the insured producer and the AIP. This is not a procedural change, but a change to provide a clear deadline within the policy. FCIC has had producers request an appeal to a good farming practice determination outside the timeframe for which they can request an appeal. The change reduces confusion with other types of appeal rights within the policy.

FCIC is deleting obsolete language in paragraphs (c) through (f) from the preamble of the CCIP Basic Provisions (§ 457.8). In a rule published on March 30, 2010 at 75 FR 15777, FCIC added paragraphs (c) through (f) to the CCIP Basic Provisions (§ 457.8) to explain how the producer's active policy transitioned to the new plans of insurance when FCIC transitioned from Crop Revenue Coverage, Revenue Assurance, Income Protection, and Indexed Income Protection to Revenue Protection and Yield Protection plans of insurance. That language is no longer needed because all policies have transitioned to the new plans of insurance.

FCIC is adding language in the policy to be more consistent with procedure language. The policy now provides clarity regarding the impact of different production methods on a producer's Actual Production History (APH) yield, in section 3(h)(3) of the CCIP Basic Provisions (§ 457.8). The previous policy language was in a single large paragraph that generated confusion on which adjustment methods were applicable. The change breaks up the paragraph into more user-friendly paragraphs for clarity. If the approved APH yield needs to be adjusted because a producer changes the production method used on the acreage being insured, the adjustment needs to be the lower of: (1) the approved APH yield for the APH database; (2) the average of approved APH yields from other APH databases where the production method was carried out; or (3) the applicable county transitional-yield if the production method has not been carried out on other APH databases.

FCIC is replacing the phrase “growing season” with “leaf year.” This changes the wording to be consistent with how the information is shown in the actuarial documents. This change is being made in the following Crop Provisions:

• Arizona-California Citrus Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.121);

• California Avocado Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.175);

• Cranberry Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.132);

• Florida Avocado Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.173);

• Macadamia Nut Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.131);

• Peach Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.153);

• Prune Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.133);

• Stonefruit Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.159); and

• Table Grape Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.149).

FCIC is clarifying that the minimum age or minimum production requirement is not waived by a written agreement, but rather if “otherwise allowed by the Special Provisions.” This change clarifies the producer's requirement and provides transparency in identifying the location of their requirements. This change is being made in the following Crop Provisions:

• Arizona-California Citrus Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.121);

• Cranberry Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.132);

• Macadamia Nut Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.131);

• Peach Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.153);

• Pear Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.111);

• Stonefruit Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.159); and

• Table Grape Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.149).

FCIC is clarifying insurability requirements in the Pecan Revenue Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.167). The minimum production requirement (600 pounds of pecans in-shell per acre in one of the previous 4 crop years) in paragraph 8(d) is unchanged. The minimum production requirement can only be waived by written agreement. There are published procedures on how written agreements can be requested, reviewed, and approved. The clarification ensures the Crop Provisions is consistent with these procedures, specifically that an AIP cannot unilaterally approve the written agreement. The minimum continuous acreage requirement (at least one contiguous acre) in paragraph 8(f) remains, but exceptions to the requirement are now explicitly listed in the Special Provisions, rather than requiring a request, review, and approval of a written agreement.

FCIC is clarifying that the definition for “interplanted” overrides the definition in the CCIP Basic Provisions, by adding the statement, “In lieu of the definition contained in section 1 of the Basic Provisions” prior to the description. Since the CCIP Basic Provisions and the Crop Provisions are separate components of the same crop insurance policy, adding the explicit statement, “in lieu of,” clarifies that the Crop Provisions definitions is intended to replace and override the definition in the CCIP Basic Provisions. It will provide clear use of the definition and its application to the individual Crop Provisions. This change will be made in the following Crop Provisions:

• Arizona-California Citrus Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.121);

• California Avocado Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.175);

• Macadamia Nut Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.131);

• Peach Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.153);

• Pear Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.111);

• Pecan Revenue Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.167);

• Prune Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.133);

• Stonefruit Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.159); and

• Table Grape Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.149).

FCIC is clarifying that the definition for “production guarantee” in the Onion Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.135) overrides the definition in the CCIP Basic Provisions, by adding the statement “In lieu of the definition contained in section 1 of the Basic Provisions” prior to the description. It will clarify the use of the definition and its application to the Onion Crop Insurance Provisions.

FCIC is replacing the term “FSA farm serial number” with the term “FSA farm number,” because the term “FSA farm serial number” is no longer used. A similar change was already implemented in the CCIP Basic Provisions in 2017 when the definition was changed to remove the word “serial.” This change will be made in the following Crop Provisions:

• Arizona-California Citrus Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.121);

• Cranberry Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.132);

• Florida Avocado Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.173);

• Macadamia Nut Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.131);

• Prune Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.133);

• Stonefruit Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.159); and

• Table Grape Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.149).

FCIC is correcting the location of certain information (for example, price elections and fresh fruit factors) by replacing “Special Provisions” with “actuarial documents.” This change will be made in the following Crop Provisions:

• Cabbage Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.171);

• Florida Avocado Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.173);

• Fresh Market Pepper Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.148);

• Fresh Market Sweet Corn Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.129);

• Fresh Market Tomato Dollar Plan Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.139);

• Guaranteed Production Plan of Fresh Market Tomato Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.128);

• Macadamia Nut Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.131);

• Onion Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.135);

• Peach Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.153);

• Prune Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.133); and

• Texas Citrus Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.119).

FCIC is updating prices and yields in settlement of claim examples so they are more reflective of current values and potential indemnities. This change will be made in the following Crop Provisions:

• Blueberry Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.166);

• Forage Production Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.117);

• Fresh Market Sweet Corn Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.129);

• Onion Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.135);

• Prune Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.133); and

• Stonefruit Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.159).

In addition, FCIC is updating years used in examples in the following Crop Provisions to be more current:

• Arizona-California Citrus Fruit Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.121); and

• Macadamia Nut Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.131).

FCIC is clarifying how coverage level impacts the production guarantee in the settlement of a claim examples, by showing the calculation of coverage level multiplied by the approved yield equals the production guarantee in Step 1 of the example. The remaining steps in the settlement of the claim examples continue to use the production guarantee. This change will be made in the following Crop Provisions:

• Prune Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.133); and

• Stonefruit Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.159).

FCIC is clarifying where the settlement of claim example begins in the Macadamia Nut Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.131), by inserting “For example” after the introductory text.

FCIC is revising the sub-heading for section 3 to “Insurance Guarantees, Coverage Levels, and Prices” by removing the phrase “for Determining Indemnities” at the end. Removing this phrase will align the sub-heading to match the corresponding section in the CCIP Basic Provisions. It also helps clarify that price is not exclusively used to determine indemnities; it is also used to establish the guarantee and determine the premium due for the producer. This change will be made in the following Crop Provisions:

• Arizona-California Citrus Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.121);

• Blueberry Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.166);

• Cabbage Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.171);

• California Avocado Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.175);

• Cranberry Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.132);

• Florida Avocado Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.173);

• Forage Production Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.117);

• Guaranteed Production Plan of Fresh Market Tomato Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.128);

• Macadamia Nut Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.131);

• Onion Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.135);

• Peach Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.153);

• Pecan Revenue Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.167);

• Pear Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.111);

• Prune Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.133);

• Stonefruit Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.159);

• Table Grape Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.149);

• Texas Citrus Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.119);

FCIC is correcting the dates, states, and counties associated with the contract change dates, the cancellation and termination dates, and end of insurance period dates, where necessary, to match current coverage areas and dates in the actuarial documents. This change will specify the states and counties that currently have coverage available for the following Crop Provisions:

• Cabbage Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.171);

• Fresh Market Sweet Corn Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.129);

• Guaranteed Production Plan of Fresh Market Tomato Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.128); and

• Onion Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.135).

FCIC is updating the effective year to show the year that the changes in the Crop Provision will apply. This change will be made in the introductory paragraph of the following Crop Provisions:

• Arizona-California Citrus Fruit Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.121);

• Blueberry Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.166);

• Cabbage Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.171);

• California Avocado Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.175);

• Cranberry Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.132);

• Florida Avocado Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.173);

• Forage Production Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.117);

• Fresh Market Pepper Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.148);

• Fresh Market Sweet Corn Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.129);

• Fresh Market Tomato (dollar plan) Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.139);

• Guaranteed Production Plan of Fresh Market Tomato Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.128);

• Macadamia Nut Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.131);

• Onion Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.135);

• Peach Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.153);

• Pear Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.111);

• Pecan Revenue Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.167);

• Prune Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.133);

• Stonefruit Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.159);

• Table Grape Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.149); and

• Texas Citrus Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.119).

FCIC is clarifying “agree in writing” by replacing with the defined term “written agreement” in the Onion Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.135). “Written agreement” is specifically defined in the CCIP Basic Provisions. The use of “agree in writing” was intended to mean that the producer must have a written agreement. However, it has generated questions in the past because it had a different wording than the definition.

FCIC is removing a duplicate paragraph from section 7 in the Peach Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.153).

In the Peach Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.153), FCIC is clarifying that a producer may choose optional units for the fresh and processing intended uses, but not further divide optional units by the types of peaches specified in the Special Provisions. An optional unit is a type of crop insurance unit. Crop insurance units are an identifiable, insurable segment of land on which an insurable crop is grown, and separate production records have been kept. Insuring by optional units, with fresh peaches and processing peaches insured on different optional units, is the producer's choice. In the Special Provisions, the fresh and processing intended uses are further classified by types of peaches, but the Special Provisions are silent on whether a producer can choose separate optional units for different types of peaches, which has led to questions from producers and AIPs. The further classification of types allows for distinct pricing, rates, and yields, but were not intended to allow separate optional units. Removing “as specified in the Special Provisions” clarifies the availability of optional units to “fresh and processing” intended uses only.

In the Fresh Market Pepper Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.148) and the Fresh Market Sweet Corn Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.129), FCIC is clarifying the definition of “planted acreage” by adding the section reference number in the definition (that is, adding “section 1 of”).

In the Prune Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.133), FCIC is clarifying the definition for “standard prunes” by specifically referencing the U.S. Standards for Grades of Dried Prunes.

In the Macadamia Nut Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.131), FCIC is correcting the order of the definitions by redesignating the definition of “floaters” in alphabetical order.

In the Florida Avocado Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.173), FCIC is adding “mid-season” avocados to the definition of type to align with the avocado industry designations for early, mid, and late-season avocados more appropriately. This change will allow producers to better align the mid-season varieties' insurance coverage with growing practices and the harvest period.

In the Fresh Market Pepper Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.148), FCIC is correcting the reference of section 7 of the Basic Provisions (that is, adding “and Administrative Fees”) to complete the full name of the section title to match how it appears in the CCIP Basic Provisions.

FCIC is amending the Blueberry Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.166). Specifically, changing “became” to “become” in section 6 paragraph (a)(2)(i) and changing the word “for” to lowercase in the section title.

FCIC is changing non-primary words to lowercase and removing periods from the end of section headings for consistency across provisions. This change will be made in the following Crop Provisions:

• Blueberry Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.166);

• Cabbage Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.171);

• Fresh Market Tomato (dollar plan) Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.139);

• Onion Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.135);

• Peach Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.153);

• Pecan Revenue Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.167);

• Stonefruit Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.159); and

• Table Grape Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.149).

In the Fresh Market Sweet Corn Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.129), FCIC is correcting the spelling of “totaling” in section 14 paragraph (b)(3).

In the Pecan Revenue Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.167), FCIC is correcting the spelling of “notwithstanding.”

In the Guaranteed Production Plan of Fresh Market Tomato Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.128), FCIC is correcting the spelling of “Guarantee” to “Guaranteed.”

In the Peach Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.153), FCIC is changing “allow” to “provide” for consistency with the actuarial documents. In addition, FCIC is adding the word “the” preceding “trees” for grammatical sufficiency and readability. The reference is specific to “the” trees bearing insured peaches under the policy.

FCIC is correcting punctuation in bulleted lists by adding a semi colon or adding “and” after the semi-colon. This change will be made in the following Crop Provisions:

• Fresh Market Pepper Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.148);

• Fresh Market Sweet Corn Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.129); and

• Fresh Market Tomato (dollar plan) Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.139).

In the Pecan Revenue Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.167), FCIC is changing “reject” to “not accept” in two places, referring to how the AIP processes a producer's submitted application. The Pecan Revenue Crop Insurance Provisions refer to section 2 of the CCIP Basic Provisions, which provide the grounds for an application to not be accepted, but the word “reject” does not appear in the CCIP Basic Provisions. In the same paragraph of the Pecan Revenue Crop Insurance Provisions, FCIC is removing the phrase “of the application,” because it was incorrectly listed as appearing in section 2 of the CCIP Basic Provisions.

FCIC is removing the definition of “adapted” from the Table Grape Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.149). The definition referred to a list of grape varieties by county recognized by National Institute of Food and Agriculture as compatible with agronomic and weather conditions in the county. However, the National Institute of Food and Agriculture does not maintain a list of adapted grape varieties. Other federally reinsured Crop Provisions do not define “adapted.” The plain meaning of the word has been sufficient in other Crop Provisions without generating questions. Therefore, the definition is removed in the Table Grape Crop Insurance Provisions.

FCIC is removing repetitive parenthetical titles that reference the CCIP Basic Provisions for consistency. For example, this change deletes the parenthetical title (Insurance Guarantees, Coverage Levels, and Prices for Determining Indemnities) in the sentence “In addition to the requirements of section 3 (Insurance Guarantees, Coverage Levels, and Prices for Determining Indemnities) of the Basic Provisions.” In other Crop Provisions, the parenthetical title does not appear. This change will make Crop Provisions more consistent. This change will remove parenthetical titles in the following Crop Provisions:

• Cranberry Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.132); and

• Guaranteed Production Plan of Fresh Market Tomato Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.128).

The CCIP Basic Provisions includes the priority order of policy provisions. Therefore, in the following Crop Provisions, FCIC is removing the introductory sentence explaining the order of priority of policy provisions because it is duplicative of the same order of priority included in the CCIP Basic Provisions:

• Blueberry Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.166);

• Cranberry Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.132);

• Fresh Market Pepper Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.148); and

• Guaranteed Production Plan of Fresh Market Tomato Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.128).

In the Stonefruit Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.159), in section 3, FCIC is adding paragraph (d). The new paragraph clarifies that a producer may not increase their elected or assigned coverage level or the ratio of their price election to the maximum price election if a cause of loss that could or would reduce the yield of the insured crop is evident prior to the time that the producer requests the increase. These changes to section 3 were proposed in the Common Crop Insurance Policy Basic Provisions; Stonefruit Crop Provisions proposed rule, published in the Federal Register on November 24, 2009 (74 FR 61286-61289). The change in the Common Crop Insurance Regulations; Stonefruit Crop Insurance Provisions final rule, published in the Federal Register on July 29, 2010 (75 FR 44709-44718), was not completed in the Code of Federal Regulations. Further, a technical correction for the change to the Stonefruit Crop Insurance Provisions was published in the Federal Register on September 27, 2010 (75 FR 59057-59058). The intended change was not completed correctly. This rule is making the required technical corrections to make that change now.

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA, 5 U.S.C. 553) provides that the notice and comment and 30-day delay in the effective date provisions do not apply when the rule involves specified actions, including matters relating to contracts. This rule governs contracts for crop insurance policies and therefore falls within that exemption.

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

For major rules, the Congressional Review Act requires a delay of the effective date of 60 days after publication to allow for Congressional review. This rule is not a major rule under the Congressional Review Act, as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Therefore, this final rule is effective on the date of publication in the Federal Register . Although not required by APA or any other law, FCIC has chosen to request comments on this rule.

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

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has designated this rule as not significant under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and therefore, OMB has not reviewed this rule and analysis of the costs and benefits is not required under either Executive Order 12866 or 13563.

Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, requires each agency to write all rules in plain language. In addition to your substantive comments on this rule, we invite your comments on how to make the rule easier to understand. For example:

• Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated? Are the scope and intent of the rule clear?

• Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is not clear?

• Is the material logically organized?

• Would changing the grouping or order of sections or adding headings make the rule easier to understand?

• Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?

• Would more, but shorter, sections be better? Are there specific sections that are too long or confusing?

• What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?

The environmental impacts of this final rule have been considered in a manner consistent with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347), the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and because USDA will be making the payments to producers, the USDA regulation for compliance with NEPA (7 CFR part 1b). As specified in 7 CFR 1b.4(b)(4), FCIC is categorically excluded from the preparation of an Environmental Analysis or Environmental Impact Statement unless the FCIC Manager (agency head) determines that an action may have a significant environmental effect. The FCIC Manager has determined this rule will not have a significant environmental effect. Therefore, FCIC will not prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement for this action and this rule serves as documentation of the programmatic environmental compliance decision.

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

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

RMA has assessed the impact of this rule on Indian Tribes and determined that this rule does not, to our knowledge, have Tribal implications that require Tribal consultation under E.O. 13175. The regulation changes do not have Tribal implications that preempt Tribal law and are not expected have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes. If a Tribe requests consultation, RMA will work with the USDA Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is provided where changes, additions and modifications identified in this rule are not expressly mandated by Congress.

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

The title and number of the Assistance Listing, 1 to which this rule applies is No. 10.450—Crop Insurance.

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

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

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (for example, braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 or 844-433-2774 (toll-free nationwide). Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at https://www.usda.gov/oascr/how-to-file-a-program-discrimination-complaint and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by mail to: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or email: OAC@usda.gov.

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

For the reasons discussed in the supplementary information, FCIC amends 7 CFR parts 407 and 457, effective for the 2023 and succeeding crop years for crops with a contract change date on or after June 30, 2022, and for the 2024 and succeeding crop years for all other crops, as follows:

As part of its ongoing responsibility to ensure that the rules it issues do not have an adverse economic impact on those affected by those rules, the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) published a proposed rule in the Federal Register on December 14, 2020 (85 FR 80676) to remove or revise various regulations in part 120 of title 13 of the Code of Federal Regulations that are obsolete, unnecessary, ineffective, or burdensome. The rule also proposed to make several technical amendments to regulations in part 120 to incorporate recent statutory changes and other non-substantive changes. In addition, because the rule proposed to remove a regulation that is cross-referenced in a regulation in part 123 on SBA's Disaster Loan Program, the rule proposed to make one conforming change to that regulation. The comment period was open until February 12, 2021.

In response to the request for comments, SBA received 2,901 comments of which 234 were duplicative. Of the unique 2,667 comments received, 1 was from a national trade association, 4 were from government entities, 14 were from advocacy groups, 5 were from private industries, and 2,643 were from individuals. Over 99% of the comments received, 2,651, were in response to the proposed removal of 120.110(k) from the regulations. This provision currently provides that businesses principally engaged in teaching, instructing, counseling or indoctrinating religion or religious beliefs are ineligible for SBA financial assistance; all but one of the comments received expressed opposition to its removal. The comments received on this issue and the other comments received are summarized and addressed below in the section-by-section analysis.

Section 120.2. SBA proposed to remove paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section because SBA has not received funding to make direct or immediate participation 7(a) loans for over 30 years, explaining that it may be confusing to the public to refer to such loans when they are not available from the agency. No comments were received on this proposed change. However, SBA has decided not to move forward with the removal of these provisions at this time in order to retain the option for these programs should budget authority for direct lending or immediate participation programs become available.

Section 120.10. SBA proposed to remove the references to non-lending technical assistance providers (NTAPs) in the definition of “Risk Rating” because SBA has not issued grant funds to NTAPs for many years. No comments were received on this proposed change and SBA is adopting the change as proposed.

Section 120.103. SBA proposed to remove this section on farm enterprises, which refers to an outdated Memorandum of Understanding between SBA and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), because it is unnecessary. Although Federal financial assistance to agricultural businesses is generally available from USDA, SBA is also statutorily authorized to make non-disaster business loans to agricultural enterprises under sections 3(a)(1) and 7(a) of the Small Business Act and Title V of the Small Business Investment Act. SBA received one supporting comment from a trade association and no opposing comments. SBA is adopting the change as proposed.

Section 120.110. This section lists the types of businesses that are ineligible for SBA business loans. For clarity, SBA proposed to make changes to three of the types of businesses on the list. First, SBA proposed to amend paragraph (h), which currently provides that businesses “engaged in any illegal activity” are ineligible, by revising it to provide that the business is ineligible if it is “engaged in any activity that is illegal under Federal, State, or local law”. SBA wants to make it clear, consistent with its longstanding interpretation of this regulation, that the business is ineligible if it is engaged in any activity that is illegal at any level of government in the jurisdiction in which the business is operating. SBA received one supporting comment from a trade association and no opposing comments SBA is adopting this change as proposed.

Second, SBA proposed to remove and reserve paragraph (k), which currently provides that a business is ineligible if it is “principally engaged in teaching, instructing, counseling or indoctrinating religion or religious beliefs, whether in a religious or secular setting”. SBA explained that this provision, which was promulgated in 1996, could be interpreted as impermissibly imposing a special disability on organizations based on their religious status. In both Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer,__ U.S.__, 137 S. Ct. 2012, 198 L. Ed. 2d 551 (2017), and Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, __U.S.__, 140 S. Ct. 2246, 207 L. Ed. 2d 679 (2020), the Court held that the government may not deny a public benefit to an entity solely because of its religious status, character, or identity. Accordingly, SBA proposed to remove paragraph (k) from section 120.110. Over 99% of the total number of comments submitted, or 2,651, related to the proposed removal of section 120.110(k), and all but one of these comments (as discussed below) expressed opposition to the removal of this provision. The vast majority of the commenters stated that they oppose SBA providing Federal government assistance to religious institutions or for religious purposes and stated that providing such assistance violates the First Amendment and its Establishment Clause and the First Amendment principle of separation of church and state. They also expressed opposition to using taxpayer funds to support religious institutions that already receive the benefit of tax-exempt status. Other commenters stated that they did not want their taxes to support faiths that promote bigotry or expressed concern that the religious institution may misappropriate or misuse the funds provided with government assistance.

As mentioned above, one commenter, a trade association, did not object to the removal of paragraph (k) but suggested also amending 13 CFR 120.130 “to add funding religious activities as an ineligible use of loan proceeds.” The commenter expressed their view that this addition to the regulations would be consistent with the guidance that SBA currently provides in its Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) 50 10 6 that “[i]f it appears that the proceeds of a loan sought by an Applicant may be used to fund religious activities, the SBA Lender must complete SBA Form 1971, Religious Eligibility Worksheet.”

It therefore seems clear that the overriding concern of the commenters was the continued adherence of SBA's business loan programs to the demands of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. SBA believes that the language of section 120.110(k) could be viewed as being at odds with Trinity Lutheran and Espinoza. But, as stated in the preamble to the proposed rule, SBA will apply relevant case law to assure that the intended use of the loan proceeds of SBA business loans is consistent with the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.

Accordingly, SBA has determined that: (1) paragraph (k) of section 120.110 should be removed from the Agency's regulations, and reserved; (2) the Agency will continue to ensure that the proceeds of SBA business loans are used in a manner consistent with the requirements of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution; and (3) to assist SBA in applying applicable case law, the guidance provided in the Agency's SOP 50 10 6, at page 146, regarding the submission of SBA Form 1971, will remain in effect until further notice. If needed and appropriate, SBA may subsequently propose additional regulatory language addressing relevant constitutional requirements.

Third, SBA proposed to revise paragraph (n), which currently provides that a business is ineligible if an Associate “is incarcerated, on probation, on parole, or has been indicted for a felony or a crime of moral turpitude”. With respect to ineligibility based on indictment for a crime, SBA proposed to change the phrase to “is under indictment” from “has been indicted”. SBA explained that it wants to make clear, consistent with its longstanding interpretation of this regulation, that the business is not ineligible if an Associate has a history of ever being indicted (but not convicted), but would be ineligible only if an Associate is under indictment when the business submits a loan application or prior to loan approval. In addition, SBA proposed to replace the phrase, “a crime of moral turpitude”, which is not always easily defined and can vary by State, with “a crime involving or related to financial misconduct or a false statement”. SBA explained that it believes that the proposed standard is clearer and more relevant to SBA's responsibility to carry out the business loan programs in a financially prudent manner. SBA received one supporting comment from a trade association and no opposing comments. SBA is adopting the changes as proposed.

Section 120.111. SBA proposed to revise this section by removing a duplicative sentence at the end of the introductory text. No comments were received on this proposed change and SBA is adopting it as proposed.

Section 120.120. This section describes the eligible uses of loan proceeds. SBA proposed to revise paragraph (a)(1), which currently provides that a Borrower may use loan proceeds to “acquire land (by purchase or lease)”, to add that the land must be “actively used in the applicant's business operations (except that a Borrower may lease a portion of the property in accordance with 13 CFR 120.131 and 120.870(b))”. SBA explained that this change reflects SBA's prohibition against financing passive activities other than Eligible Passive Companies under 13 CFR 120.111. SBA received one supporting comment from a trade association and no opposing comments. However, SBA has decided that more time is needed to review and study “use of proceeds” and is not moving forward with this revision at this time.

Section 120.173. SBA proposed to remove this section, which prohibits the use of lead-based paint if loan proceeds are for the construction or rehabilitation of a residential structure. SBA explained that this regulation is unnecessary because 16 CFR part 1303 already bans paint containing a concentration of lead in excess of 0.009% (90 parts per million) for use in residences, schools, hospitals, parks, playgrounds, and public buildings or other areas where consumers will have direct access to the painted surface. No comments were received on this proposed change and SBA is adopting it as proposed.

Section 120.190. SBA proposed to remove the reference to immediate participation loans in paragraph (a) and to remove paragraph (d), which refers to direct loans, because SBA has not received funding for immediate participation or direct loans for over 30 years and believes that it may be confusing to the public to refer to such loans when they are not available from the agency. No comments were received on these proposed changes. However, SBA has decided not to move forward with the removal of these provisions at this time in order to retain the option for these programs should budget authority for direct lending or immediate participation programs become available.

Section 120.192. SBA proposed to remove this section which states that loan applicants will receive notice of approval or denial of the loan application by the Lender, Certified Development Company (CDC), Microloan Intermediary, or SBA, as appropriate. SBA explained that it was SBA's responsibility to provide notice to the applicant only when it made direct loans, and that because SBA has not received funding for direct loans for over 30 years, it is no longer necessary to include the reference to SBA in this section. No comments were received on this proposed change. However, SBA has decided not to move forward with the removal of these provisions at this time in order to retain the option for these programs should budget authority for direct lending or immediate participation programs become available.

Section 120.211. SBA proposed to remove this section, which describes the statutory limits for direct loans and immediate participation loans, because SBA has not received funding to make these loans for over 30 years. SBA explained that it believes that it may be confusing to the public to refer to such loans when they are not available from the agency. No comments were received on this proposed change. However, SBA has decided not to move forward with the removal of this section at this time in order to retain the option for these programs should budget authority for direct lending or immediate participation programs become available.

Section 120.212. SBA proposed to amend this section which establishes the maturities for a 7(a) loan. Paragraph (b) of this section establishes the loan term at ten years or less unless the loan finances or refinances real estate or equipment with a useful life exceeding ten years. When the loan is used to finance equipment or leasehold improvements, SBA proposed to amend paragraph (b) to allow a Lender to add a reasonable period, not to exceed 12 months, to the loan term when necessary to complete the installation of the equipment and/or complete the leasehold improvements. SBA received one supporting comment from a trade association and no opposing comments. SBA is adopting this change as proposed.

Section 120.213. SBA proposed to remove paragraph (b), which describes the interest rate charged by SBA for direct loans, for which SBA has not received funding for over 30 years. SBA explained that it may be confusing to the public to refer to such loans when they are not available from the agency. The remainder of the section would have also been revised accordingly. No comments were received on this proposed change. However, SBA has decided not to move forward with the removal of this provision at this time in order to retain the option for this program should budget authority for direct lending become available.

Sections 120.214. SBA proposed to amend paragraph (c) of section 120.214 by removing the thirty-day London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) as a base rate option for calculating the maximum variable interest rate for a 7(a) loan in paragraph (c)(ii). SBA explained that the U.K. Financial Conduct Authority announced on July 27, 2017, that it would phase-out LIBOR completely by the end of 2021 (since revised to June 30, 2023), and no generally accepted replacement for LIBOR has been identified or widely adopted at this time. To provide certainty to SBA Lenders and Borrowers in advance of LIBOR's sunset in 2023, SBA proposed to remove from the regulation the reference to LIBOR as an optional base rate for variable rate 7(a) loans.

Until such time as an alternative reference rate becomes widely adopted for small business commercial lending, Lenders will only be able to use Prime or the Optional Peg Rate as the base rate for any loan approved after the effective date of this final rule. In addition, for any loans outstanding with interest rates based on LIBOR, SBA recommends that Lenders review their loan documents to determine if the documents provide a fallback base rate ( i.e., Prime or the Optional Peg Rate) without having to modify the loan documents. If there is no such flexibility, Lenders will need to work with Borrowers to modify their loan documents on an individual basis before LIBOR sunsets in 2023. Such modifications must be in compliance with the procedures set forth in the current versions of SBA SOPs 50 10 and 50 57. If such loans have been sold on the secondary market, Lenders will need to obtain the consent of investors to modify the base rate in the loan agreement. With only 3% of SBA's total portfolio of non-disaster business loans using LIBOR as a base rate, the process of phasing out LIBOR should not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities in SBA's business loan programs.

SBA received one comment from a trade association expressing support for the deletion of LIBOR as an optional base rate since it is being phased out by June 30, 2023, and SBA is adopting this change as proposed with the addition of a sentence that provides that, if an alternative reference rate subsequently becomes widely adopted for small business commercial lending, SBA will provide notice of this rate as an additional base rate option through publication in the Federal Register .

In addition, SBA proposed to use loan amounts as the basis upon which the variable interest rate is set, instead of loan maturities. To implement this change, SBA proposed to remove paragraph (e) and revise paragraph (d) to reflect the maximum variable interest rates for all 7(a) loans as follows:

(1) For all 7(a) loans of $50,000 and less, the maximum interest rate shall not exceed six and a half (6.5) percentage points over the base rate;

(2) For all 7(a) loans greater than $50,000 and up to and including $250,000, the maximum interest rate shall not exceed six (6.0) percentage points over the base rate;

(3) For all 7(a) loans greater than $250,000 and up to and including $350,000, the maximum interest rate shall not exceed four and a half (4.5) percentage points over the base rate; and

(4) For all 7(a) loans greater than $350,000, the maximum interest rate shall not exceed three (3.0) percentage points over the base rate.

By basing the rates on loan amounts and allowing Lenders to charge higher rates for smaller loans, Lenders would have more incentive to make smaller loans to businesses in need of credit on reasonable terms. In addition, the maximum variable interest rates described above would apply to all types of 7(a) loans. Currently, the maximum variable interest rate that Lenders are permitted to charge may vary depending upon the type of 7(a) loan the Lender is making, i.e., SBA Express, Export Express, Community Advantage Pilot, or regular 7(a). By standardizing the maximum variable interest rates for all 7(a) loans, SBA is streamlining and simplifying its regulations, and reducing the burden on Lenders. Upon the effective date of this rule, SBA Express and Export Express Lenders may continue to use, in accordance with the statutory authority of section 7(a)(31) and 7(a)(34) of the Small Business Act, respectively, the same base rates they use on their similarlysized, non-SBA guaranteed commercial loans, as well as their established change intervals, payment accruals, and other interest rate terms. However, the interest rate must never exceed the maximum allowable interest rate stated in paragraph (d) of this section and these loans may be sold on the Secondary Market only if the base rate is one of the base rates allowed in § 120.214(c). In addition, under this final rule, Community Advantage Lenders are allowed to charge the higher interest rate in paragraph (1) above for loans of $50,000 or less (such Lenders can already charge 6 percentage points over the Prime rate for loans up to $250,000, the maximum loan amount under the Community Advantage Pilot).

Two other changes that SBA proposed to this section include removing the requirement in the introductory paragraph of § 120.214 that SBA's approval is required for a Lender to use a variable rate of interest and amending the second sentence of the introductory paragraph of § 120.214 by moving it to § 120.214(d) and revising it to clearly state that the initial maximum variable interest rate is determined as of the date that SBA received the loan application.

SBA received two comments with respect to these changes, including one from a trade association, which expressed support for the changes, and one from an individual, who expressed support for the new interest rates. The commenters agreed that providing a higher interest rate on smaller loans is a great incentive for lenders to provide such loans to borrowers.

SBA is adopting these changes as proposed.

Section 120.215. SBA proposed to remove this section, which establishes the interest rates for smaller loans. The interest rates for all 7(a) loans will now be covered by § 120.213 and the proposed amendments to § 120.214. SBA received one supporting comment from a trade association and no opposing comments; the Agency is removing this section as proposed.

Section 120.220. SBA proposed to revise this section with two changes. First, paragraph (a)(3) currently states that “[i]n fiscal years when the 7(a) program is at zero subsidy, SBA will not collect a guarantee fee in connection with a loan made under section 7(a)(31) of the Small Business Act to a business owned and controlled by a veteran or the spouse of a veteran.” This regulatory paragraph implements section 7(a)(31)(G) of the Small Business Act, which provides that the guarantee fee imposed by section 7(a)(18) of the Small Business Act is waived in connection with a loan made under the SBA Express Loan Program to a veteran or the spouse of a veteran except in any fiscal year in which the 7(a) program is not operating at zero subsidy. However, section 1102(d) of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (Pub. L. 116-136, 134 Stat. 281) removed the exception and, accordingly, SBA proposed to remove it from section 120.220(a)(3). SBA received one comment in support of this change and is adopting this change as proposed.

Second, paragraph (b) of this regulation establishes the deadlines for paying the SBA guaranty fee. For a loan with a maturity in excess of 12 months, this provision has historically required the Lender to pay the fee electronically within 90 days after SBA approval of the loan. In practice, SBA has been giving Lenders an additional 30 days to pay this fee, for a total of 120 calendar days after SBA loan approval, before cancelling the guarantee. With the efficiencies that have been created by electronic banking, SBA believes that these payments should be made in less time than 120 days and proposed to require that the fee be paid within 45 days after loan approval. If the fee is not paid by the 45th day, SBA proposed to give the Lender a grace period of an additional 30 days and if the fee is not paid by the 75th day, SBA would cancel the guarantee. For loans with a maturity of 12 months or less, SBA proposed to continue to cancel the guarantee if the fee is not paid by the 10th business day after the Lender receives SBA loan approval. SBA received two comments opposing this change, one from a trade association and one from a member of the general public. Both commenters objected to shortening the time frame for paying the guaranty fee on 7(a) loans with a maturity date of more than one year from 90 days to 45. The trade association reasons that SBA has historically not terminated its guaranty unless the fee remained unpaid on the 121st day after loan approval. In addition, both commenters note that the period between loan approval and loan disbursement may be longer than 45 days. Since the guaranty fee may not be paid until after the borrower's first disbursement, the trade association argues that maintaining the timeframe at 90 days would avoid stressing lender liquidity.

After considering these comments, SBA has decided to conduct further study on the timing of guarantee fee payment by lenders and is not adopting this change at this time.

Section 120.222. SBA proposed to revise this section with a minor technical correction to §  120.222 to remove an extra word (“in”) that was inserted in error. No comments were received on this proposed change and SBA is adopting it as proposed.

Section 120.310. SBA proposed to remove the reference to direct loans in this provision, which governs the Disabled Assistance Loan Program (“DAL”), to make this regulation consistent with section 7(a)(10) of the Small Business Act, which authorizes “guaranteed” loans under the DAL program, but not direct loans. No comments were received on this proposed change. However, SBA has decided not to move forward with the removal of the reference to direct loans in this provision at this time in order to retain the option for this program should budget authority for direct lending become available.

Section 120.315. SBA proposed to remove this section in its entirety, which establishes the interest rate and limit on the loan amount with respect to direct DAL loans, to make this regulation consistent with section 7(a)(10) of the Small Business Act, which authorizes guaranteed loans only and not direct loans. No comments were received on this proposed change. However, SBA has decided not to move forward with the removal of this section at this time in order to retain the option for direct lending should budget authority become available.

Section 120.320. SBA proposed to remove this provision in its entirety. It references SBA's authority under section 7(a)(11) of the Small Business Act to guarantee or make direct loans to businesses owned by low income individuals. SBA explained that direct loans have not been funded for over 30 years and that this provision did not add anything to the general authority that SBA has under section 7(a) of the Small Business Act to make guaranteed loans to businesses owned by low-income individuals. No comments were received on this proposed change. However, SBA has decided not to move forward with the removal of this section at this time in order to retain the option for direct lending should budget authority become available.

Section 120.330. SBA proposed to remove the reference to direct loans in this section because SBA has not received funding to make these loans for over 30 years. SBA explained that it may be confusing to the public to refer to such loans when they are not available from the agency. No comments were received on this proposed change. However, SBA has decided not to move forward with the removal of the reference to direct loans in this provision at this time in order to retain the option for direct lending should budget authority become available.

Sections 120.350 and 120.352. The regulations governing SBA guaranteed loans to qualified employee trusts or “Employee Stock Ownership Plans” (ESOPs) are set forth in §§ 120.350 through 120.354. SBA proposed to include a technical amendment to both § 120.350 and § 120.352 to incorporate the statutory change made in Section 862 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Pub. L. 115-232) that permits SBA to guarantee a loan to the small business concern (rather than the qualified employee trust), if the proceeds from the loan are used only to make a loan to a qualified employee trust that results in the qualified employee trust owning at least 51 percent of the small business concern. SBA proposed this amendment to ensure that the regulations are consistent with the statute and to provide clarity to SBA Lenders and SBA employees with respect to guaranteed loans involving ESOPs. Additional guidance governing these loans will be provided in SOP 50 10. SBA received one supporting comment from a trade association and no opposing comments. SBA is adopting the amendments as proposed.

Sections 120.360 and 120.361. SBA proposed to remove these sections, which describe an outdated veteran's loan program for direct and guaranteed loans to Vietnam-era veterans and certain disabled veterans. SBA explained that it has not received funding to make direct 7(a) loans in the Veterans Loan Program for over 30 years and SBA's existing Loan Program Requirements provide special consideration for veteran-owned businesses. No comments were received on these proposed changes. However, SBA has decided not to move forward with the removal of these sections at this time in order to retain the option for direct lending should budget authority become available.

Section 120.370. SBA proposed to remove this section, which describes SBA's authority under section 7(a)(12) of the Small Business Act to finance pollution control facilities, because the $1 million cap set forth in section 7(a)(12)(B) for these pollution control loans was superseded when Congress raised the guaranty limit in section 7(a)(3) to $3.75 million. This provision is also unnecessary because SBA is authorized under the general authority of section 7(a) to make guaranteed loans for pollution control facilities. SBA received one supporting comment from a trade association and no opposing comments. SBA is removing this section as proposed.

Section 120.375. SBA proposed to remove this section's reference to direct loans to firms participating in the 8(a) Program because direct loans have not been funded for over 30 years. SBA explained that it may be confusing to the public to refer to such loans when they are not available from the agency. No comments were received on this proposed change. However, SBA has decided not to move forward with the removal of the reference to direct loans at this time in order to retain the option for direct lending should budget authority become available.

Section 120.376. SBA proposed to remove paragraph (a), the second sentence of paragraph (c), and paragraph (d), all of which describe requirements for direct loans or an immediate participation loan related to the loan program for participants in the 8(a) Program, for the same reasons expressed under the discussion of section 120.375 above, with the remaining paragraphs redesignated accordingly. No comments were received on these proposed changes. However, SBA has decided not to move forward with the removal of these provisions at this time in order to retain the option for these programs should budget authority for direct lending or immediate participation programs become available.

Sections 120.380 through 120.383. SBA proposed to remove these sections, which govern the program to provide defense economic transition assistance, because this program is no longer being funded. SBA believes that it may be confusing to the public to refer to such loans when they are not available from the agency. SBA received one supporting comment from a trade association and no opposing comments. SBA is removing these sections as proposed.

Section 120.420. SBA proposed to remove paragraph (b), which defines “Bank Regulatory Agencies,” because this term is no longer used in part 120, and the term “Federal Financial Institution Regulator,” which is used instead, is defined in 13 CFR 120.10, with the remaining paragraphs redesignated accordingly. SBA received one supporting comment from a trade association and no opposing comments. SBA is adopting this change as proposed.

Section 120.432. SBA proposed to amend § 120.432(a) to implement SBA's longstanding policy of holding Assuming Institutions and investors responsible for the contingent liabilities (including repairs and denials) associated with 7(a) loans originated by failed insured depository institutions, whether the 7(a) loans are purchased by a Lender through a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) loan sale or transferred to an Assuming Institution through a whole bank transfer. SBA proposed to make this modification to ensure consistent treatment of all portfolio loan transfers whether through voluntary bank mergers or asset sales, or through FDIC-led portfolio transfers following the failure of a Lender. SBA also proposed to modify the regulatory language to include a statement that clarifies the applicability of the paragraph and the ability for the Agency to agree otherwise in writing ( i.e., to affirm the validity of the guaranties). In addition, SBA proposed to modify the regulatory language to remove the specific reference to the FDIC and make it applicable to all 7(a) loans purchased from any Federal or state banking regulator, any receiver, or any conservator. SBA received one supporting comment from a trade association and no opposing comments. SBA is adopting these changes as proposed.

Section 120.453. SBA proposed to remove this section, which states that servicing and liquidation responsibilities for PLP Lenders are set forth in subpart E of part 120, as unnecessary. PLP Lenders are required to service and liquidate their loans in accordance with the same standards set forth in subpart E that are applied to non-delegated Lenders. SBA received one supporting comment from a trade association and no opposing comments. SBA is removing this section as proposed.

Section 120.470. SBA proposed to revise paragraph (d)(1) of this provision by increasing the dollar amount that a small business lending company (SBLC) may disburse with the signature of only one bonded officer from $1,000 to $10,000, provided that such action is covered under the SBLC's fidelity bond. SBA believes this change would reduce burden on SBLCs without introducing significant risk to the program. SBA received one supporting comment from a trade association and no opposing comments. SBA is adopting this change as proposed.

Section 120.532. SBA proposed to remove this section, which refers to SBA's authority to assume a Borrower's obligation under terms and conditions set by SBA (see section 5(e) of the Small Business Act), because SBA does not use this authority and believes it may be confusing to the public for the regulations to refer to the availability of a loan moratorium under this section when it is not available from the agency. SBA received one supporting comment from a trade association and no opposing comments. SBA is adopting this change as proposed.

Section 120.540. Paragraph (g) of this section provides that a Lender may appeal an SBA office's decision pertaining to an original or amended liquidation plan to the Director of the Office of Financial Assistance (D/FA) within 30 days of the decision. The office within SBA that is now responsible for considering these appeals is the Office of Financial Program Operations (OFPO). Accordingly, SBA proposed to amend this paragraph by replacing “D/FA” with “Director/Office of Financial Program Operations (D/OFPO)” where it first appears and with “D/OFPO” thereafter. SBA received one comment supporting this change and no opposing comments.

The commenter also recommended that SBA amend paragraph (b) of this section to delete the requirement of prior SBA approval for the liquidation plan on a loan processed under a 7(a) lender's Certified Lender Program (CLP) authority. The trade association argues that this change is appropriate since SBA discontinued CLP authority years ago. However, section 7(a)(19)(C) of the Small Business Act requires SBA's prior approval of liquidation plans for CLP loans and so long as CLP loans are outstanding, this requirement needs to remain in the regulation.

Section 120.542. Paragraph (d) of this section provides that a Lender may appeal an SBA decision to decline to reimburse all, or a portion, of the fees and/or costs incurred in conducting liquidation to the D/FA, and that the decision of the D/FA (or designee) will be made in consultation with the Associate General Counsel for Litigation. The office within SBA that is now responsible for considering these appeals is OFPO. Accordingly, SBA proposed to amend this paragraph by replacing “D/FA” with “D/OFPO” wherever it appears.

In addition, paragraph (e) of this section provides that a Lender may appeal a decision by SBA to decline to reimburse all, or a portion, of the legal fees and/or costs incurred in conducting debt collection litigation to the Associate General Counsel for Litigation. It further provides that the Associate General Counsel makes this decision in consultation with the D/FA. The office within SBA that is now responsible for consulting with the Associate General Counsel is OFPO. Accordingly, SBA proposed to amend this paragraph by replacing “D/FA” with “D/OFPO”. SBA received one supporting comment from a trade association on these changes and no opposing comments. SBA is adopting these changes as proposed.

Section 120.701. SBA proposed to remove paragraph (g) of this section, which defines “Non-lending technical assistance provider” (NTAP), because SBA has not issued grant funds to NTAPs for many years. SBA also proposed to redesignate the remaining paragraph (h) accordingly. No comments were received on this proposed rule change and SBA is adopting it as proposed.

Section 120.706. SBA proposed to revise paragraph (a) of this section to increase the maximum outstanding amount of loans that an Intermediary may borrow from SBA from $5 million to $6 million. This change incorporates the increase made by section 853(b) of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, 15 U.S.C. 636(m)(3)(C). No comments were received on this proposed rule change and SBA is adopting it as proposed.

Section 120.707. SBA proposed to revise the regulation at § 120.707(b) to increase the maximum maturity of a loan from an Intermediary to a Microloan borrower from 6 years to 7 years, explaining that this change would allow for a longer repayment period for these small loans. No comments were received on this proposed rule change and SBA is adopting it as proposed.

Section 120.712. In § 120.712(b), SBA proposed to incorporate a recent statutory change to the percentage of grant funds that may be used by the Intermediary for marketing, managerial, and technical assistance to prospective Microloan borrowers. In addition, in § 120.712(d), SBA proposed to incorporate a recent statutory change to the percentage of grant funds the Intermediary may use to contract with third parties to provide technical assistance to Microloan borrowers. No comments were received on these proposed rule changes and SBA is adopting them as proposed.

Section 120.714. SBA proposed to remove § 120.714, which describes how grants are made to non-lending technical assistance providers (NTAPs). SBA no longer makes such grants and there are no NTAPs currently participating in the Microloan Program. SBA therefore proposed to eliminate this section to reduce confusion. No comments were received on this proposed rule change and SBA is adopting it as proposed.

Section 120.715. SBA proposed to remove this section, which describes the Deferred Participation Loan Pilot, under which SBA was authorized to guarantee a loan that an Intermediary in the Microloan Program obtained from another source. SBA proposed to remove § 120.715 in its entirety as this pilot expired in Fiscal Year 2000 and SBA no longer has the authority to guarantee such loans. No comments were received on this proposed rule change and SBA is adopting it as proposed.

Section 120.800. SBA proposed to remove this section, which describes the purpose of the 504 program, because it is unnecessary. The 504 Loan Program is described in § 120.2(c). No comments were received on this proposed rule change and SBA is adopting it as proposed.

Section 120.812. SBA proposed to revise paragraph (a)(2) to provide that a newly certified CDC may petition for more than a single one-year extension of probation. In addition, SBA proposed to revise paragraph (d) to clarify that, if SBA declines the CDC's petition for permanent status, the CDC will no longer have authority to participate in the 504 Loan Program and SBA will direct the CDC to transfer all funded and/or approved loans to another CDC, SBA, or another servicer approved by SBA. No comments were received on these changes and SBA is adopting them as proposed.

Section 120.840. SBA proposed to make a technical correction to § 120.840(b) by replacing the reference in this section to the Director, Office of Financial Assistance with “appropriate SBA official in accordance with Delegations of Authority.” In addition, SBA proposed to revise § 120.840(b) to reflect the modernized application submission process for the Accredited Lenders Program (ALP), which will allow CDCs to submit ALP applications electronically into the Corporate Governance Repository, rather than apply to the Lead SBA Office. No comments were received on these proposed changes and SBA is adopting them as proposed.

Section 120.845. Paragraph (c)(1) of this section, which sets forth the eligibility criteria for the Premier Certified Lenders Program, refers to the criteria that are listed for the Accredited Lenders Program in § 120.841(a) through (h). However, the criteria are listed only in § 120.841(a) through (f). SBA proposed to amend paragraph (c)(1) by removing “through (h)” at the end of the sentence and adding “through (f)” in its place. No comments were received on this proposed rule change and SBA is adopting it as proposed.

Section 120.850. SBA proposed to remove this section because the designation of Associate Development Company ceased to exist on January 1, 2004. No comments were received on this proposed rule change and SBA is adopting it as proposed.

Section 120.862. SBA proposed to amend paragraph (b) by adding the three energy public policy goals described in paragraphs (I), (J) and (K) of section 501(d)(3) of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended, to the list of economic development objectives. These three goals relate to the reduction of energy consumption by at least 10 percent, the increased use of sustainable design, and plant, equipment and process upgrades of renewable energy sources. This change would make the regulations consistent with the statute. No comments were received for this proposed rule change and SBA is adopting it as proposed.

Section 120.1400. Under current 13 CFR 120.1400(a), a CDC that obtains approval for 504 loans after October 20, 2017, and an SBA Supervised Lender that makes 7(a) guaranteed loans after October 20, 2017, consent to the applicable receivership remedies in 13 CFR 120.1500(c). Pursuant to SOP 50 10 5(J), SBA deemed the consent by a CDC under 13 CFR 120.1400(a)(1), and the consent by an SBA Supervised Lender under 13 CFR 120.1400(a)(2), to take effect on January 1, 2018, which was the effective date of the SOP 50 10 5(J). As proposed, the amendments to this rule would codify the SOP provision into the rule and would also clarify that the CDC's or the SBA Supervised Lender's consent does not preclude them from contesting whether or not SBA has established the grounds for seeking the remedy of a receivership. No comments were received on this proposed rule change and SBA is adopting it as proposed.

Section 120.1500. SBA proposed to amend paragraphs (c)(3) and (e)(3) to incorporate into the regulations the factors set forth in the current SOP 50 10 that SBA considers when seeking the appointment of a receiver and the scope of the receivership. The appointment of a receiver is only one of several types of enforcement actions set forth in 13 CFR 120.1500, and typically, SBA will use its receivership authority as a remedy of last resort. The factors vary slightly depending upon the type of SBA Lender and whether the SBA Lender has assets unrelated to SBA loan program activities. No comments were received for this proposed rule change and SBA is adopting it as proposed.

Section 123.17. SBA proposed to amend this section to remove the reference to lead-based paint. As stated above, with the proposed removal of § 120.173, Lead-based paint, which prohibits the use of lead-based paint if loan proceeds are for the construction or rehabilitation of a residential structure, the removal of the reference to lead-based paint in § 123.17 conforms this regulation to the removal of § 120.173 and will avoid confusion. No comments were received on this proposed rule change and SBA is adopting it as proposed.

The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this final rule is considered a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. It is important to note that, while OMB has determined that this rule is considered a “significant regulatory action,” OMB did not determine that this final rule is economically significant. The next section contains SBA's Regulatory Impact Analysis.

This final rule removes or revises various regulations governing the Agency's business loan programs that are obsolete, unnecessary, ineffective, or burdensome. This final rule also makes several technical amendments to incorporate recent statutory changes and other non-substantive changes. In addition, because this final rule removes a regulation that is cross-referenced in a regulation in SBA's Disaster Loan Program, this rule makes one conforming change to a regulation in the Disaster Loan Program. SBA believes it is necessary to provide clear regulatory guidance for Lenders to encourage participation in extending loans, particularly smaller dollar loans, to eligible small businesses, and to enable participating Lenders to extend credit with confidence in their ability to rely on payment by SBA of the guaranty, if necessary. As identified more specifically in the identified benefits below, the change to § 120.110(k) is needed to align SBA's regulations with Supreme Court precedent and eliminate the uncertainty and confusion caused by the perceived inconsistency between that precedent and the current regulatory text.

Further, the Agency believes it needs to streamline Loan Program Requirements and reduce regulatory burdens to facilitate robust participation in the business loan programs that assist small U.S. businesses, particularly those businesses in underserved markets.

As stated above, this final rule is a comprehensive effort to remove or revise regulations governing the Agency's business loan programs that are obsolete, unnecessary, ineffective, or burdensome. In addition, this final rule removes information from the regulations that is confusing, misleading, or obsolete. SBA believes the removal or revision of these regulations will make the regulations easier to understand and use and will benefit Lenders and Borrowers by saving them time in reading and inquiring about obsolete, confusing, or inaccurate information.

Further, several of the changes will provide clarity and certainty to both Lenders and Borrowers in determining eligibility for SBA financial assistance. Section 120.110 of the regulations lists the types of businesses that are ineligible for SBA business loans. For clarity, SBA proposed to make changes to three of the types of businesses on the list. First, SBA proposed to amend paragraph (h), which currently provides that businesses “engaged in any illegal activity” are ineligible, by revising it to provide that the business is ineligible if it is “engaged in any activity that is illegal under Federal, State, or local law”. SBA wants to make it clear, consistent with its longstanding interpretation of this regulation, that the business is ineligible if it is engaged in any activity that is illegal at any level of government in the jurisdiction in which the business is operating.

Second, SBA proposed to remove and reserve paragraph (k), which currently provides that a business is ineligible if it is “principally engaged in teaching, instructing, counseling or indoctrinating religion or religious beliefs, whether in a religious or secular setting”. SBA explained that this provision, which was promulgated in 1996, could be interpreted as impermissibly imposing a special disability on organizations based on their religious status. Thus, the regulation may have caused uncertainty for Lenders and Borrowers in determining the eligibility of an applicant for an SBA business loan.

In order ensure that the proceeds of SBA business loans are used in a manner consistent with the requirements of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, SBA's practice has been to apply relevant Supreme Court caselaw to the facts of each individual case. The removal of section 120.110(k) will eliminate uncertainty for Lenders and Borrowers and, as explained in the preamble to the proposed rule and this final rule, SBA will continue to apply relevant Supreme Court caselaw to ensure that the proceeds of SBA business loans are used in a manner consistent with the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Although this change is beneficial to increase clarity and remove uncertainty, it will not result in any specific change in the way SBA implements this provision. SBA is currently following the Supreme Court precedent when analyzing eligibility for SBA financial assistance as it believes that any regulation which may be inconsistent with that precedent cannot be given effect.

Third, SBA proposed to revise paragraph (n), which currently provides that a business is ineligible if an Associate “is incarcerated, on probation, on parole, or has been indicted for a felony or a crime of moral turpitude”. With respect to ineligibility based on indictment for a crime, SBA proposed to change the phrase to “is under indictment” from “has been indicted”. SBA explained that it wants to make clear, consistent with its longstanding interpretation of this regulation, that the business is not ineligible if an Associate has a history of ever being indicted (but not convicted), but would be ineligible only if an Associate is under indictment when the business submits a loan application or prior to loan approval. In addition, SBA proposed to replace the phrase, “a crime of moral turpitude”, which is not always easily defined and can vary by State, with “a crime involving or related to financial misconduct or a false statement”. SBA explained that it believes that the proposed standard is clearer and more relevant to SBA's responsibility to carry out the business loan programs in a financially prudent manner. As stated above, SBA believes it is necessary to provide clear guidance to enable Lenders to extend credit to eligible small businesses and these regulatory changes will help provide that clarity for Lenders and Borrowers.

In addition to the benefits described above, there are some costs associated with this rule that could impact small businesses. The removal of LIBOR as an optional base rate for variable rate 7(a) loans will cause some Borrowers to modify their loan documents to specify a new base rate. Any costs associated with modifying loan documents are an unavoidable result of the phase-out of LIBOR that will occur in 2023, and the loan documents will need to be modified whether or not this rule is promulgated.

In addition, SBA proposed to use loan amounts as the basis upon which the variable interest rate is set, instead of loan maturities. By basing the rates on loan amounts and allowing Lenders to charge higher rates for smaller loans, Lenders would have more incentive to make smaller loans to businesses in need of credit on reasonable terms. In addition, the maximum variable interest rates described above would apply to all types of 7(a) loans. Currently, the maximum variable interest rate that Lenders are permitted to charge may vary depending upon the type of 7(a) loan the Lender is making, i.e., SBA Express, Export Express, Community Advantage Pilot, or regular 7(a). By standardizing the maximum variable interest rates for all 7(a) loans, SBA is streamlining and simplifying its regulations, and reducing the burden on Lenders.

The alternative to issuing this final rule is to not make any changes to the regulations at all. However, that alternative would leave obsolete, unnecessary, confusing, and inaccurate or misleading information in the Agency's regulations governing its business loan programs, which would create uncertainty and confusion for both Lenders and Borrowers. SBA chose to proceed with this final rule in order to reduce the burden on Lenders in order to encourage participation in SBA lending programs, and to provide clarity and certainty for both Lenders and Borrowers.

This action meets applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. This action does not have preemptive effect or retroactive effect.

SBA has determined that this final rule would not have federalism implications as defined in Executive Order 13132. It would not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in the Executive Order. Therefore, for the purposes of Executive Order 13132, SBA has determined that this final rule does not warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

As discussed above, SBA received a significant number of public comments in response to the Federal Register document requesting the public's input.

OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not a major rule under subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (also known as the Congressional Review Act), 5 U.S.C. 804(2). SBA 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.

SBA has determined that this final rule would not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

When an agency issues a final rule, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires the agency to address public comments and “describe the impact of the proposed rule on small entities.” (5 U.S.C. 603(a)). SBA has complied with these requirements. Furthermore, section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an analysis, if the final rulemaking is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This final rule is a comprehensive effort to remove information from the regulations that are confusing and misleading, which would save Lenders and Borrowers time in reading and inquiring about obsolete or inaccurate information.

In addition, there are some costs associated with this rule that could impact small businesses. The removal of LIBOR as an optional base rate for variable rate 7(a) loans will cause some Borrowers to modify their loan documents to specify a new base rate. Any costs associated with modifying loan documents are an unavoidable result of the phase-out of LIBOR that will occur in 2023, and the loan documents will need to be modified whether or not this rule is promulgated. SBA estimates only 3% of active SBA business loans could be affected by this change and that the burden created would be $1,622,988 in the first year that LIBOR is discontinued and would not be repeated in subsequent years.

Based on the foregoing, the Administrator of the SBA hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBA invites comments from the public on this certification.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, SBA amends 13 CFR parts 120 and 123 as follows:

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

The FAA published a noticed of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA-2021-0994 in the Federal Register (86 FR 67377; November 26, 2021), amending VOR Federal airways V-7, V-341, and V-493 in the vicinity of Menominee, MI. The proposed amendments were due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Menominee, MI, VOR/DME NAVAID. The FAA invited interested parties to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. No comments were received.

VOR Federal airways are published in paragraphs 6010(a) of FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 20, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021, which are incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR Federal airways listed in this document will be published subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.

This action to amends FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11F lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by amending three VOR Federal airways, V-7, V-341, and V-493, in the vicinity of Menominee, MI, due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Menominee, MI, VOR/DME. The airway amendment actions are described below.

V-7: V-7 extends between the Dolphin, FL, VOR/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) and the Muscle Shoals, AL, VORTAC; between the Pocket City, IN, VORTAC and the intersection of the Chicago Heights, IL, VORTAC 358° radial and the Badger, WI, VOR/DME 117° radial (PETTY fix); and between the Green Bay, WI, VORTAC and the Sawyer, MI, VOR/DME. The airspace below 2,000 feet MSL outside the United States is excluded and the portion outside the United States has no upper limit. This action removes the airway segment between the Green Bay, WI, VORTAC and Sawyer, MI, VOR/DME. Additionally, since the airway lies wholly within the United States, this action removes the 2,000 MSL exclusionary language and the upper limit language for the airspace outside the United States. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain as charted.

V-341: V-341 extends between the Cedar Rapids, IA, VOR/DME and the Houghton, MI, VOR/DME. This action removes the airway segment between the Green Bay, WI, VORTAC and the Iron Mountain, MI, VOR/DME. The resulting airway extends between the Cedar Rapids, IA, VOR/DME and the Green Bay, WI, VORTAC; and between the Iron Mountain, MI, VOR/DME and the Houghton, MI, VOR/DME.

V-493: V-493 extends between the Livingston, TN, VOR/DME and the Appleton, OH, VORTAC; and between the Menominee, MI, VOR/DME and the Rhinelander, WI, VOR/DME. This action removes the airways segment between the Menominee, MI, VOR/DME and the Rhinelander, WI, VOR/DME. The resulting airway extends between the Livingston, TN, VOR/DME and the Appleton, OH, VORTAC.

All of the NAVAID radials listed in the VOR Federal airway descriptions below are unchanged and stated in True degrees.

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

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

The FAA determined that this action of amending VOR Federal airways V-7, V-341, and V-493, due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Menominee VOR/DME NAVAID, qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points). As such, this action is not expected to result in any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis. Accordingly, the FAA determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact study.

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA-2021-1029 in the Federal Register (86 FR 70423; December 10, 2021), modifying VOR Federal airway V-175. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. No comments were received.

VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The ATS routes listed in this document will be published subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.

Subsequent to the publication of the NPRM for this docket, the FAA published a final rule in the Federal Register (87 FR 2322; January 14, 2022) that modified V-175 to read as follows: “From Malden, MO; Vichy, MO; Hallsville, MO. From Kirksville, MO; to Des Moines, IA. From Redwood Falls, MN; to Alexandria, MN.” The change was due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Worthington, MN VOR/DME facility. This version replaces the V-175 description that was published in the NPRM for Docket No. FAA-2021-1029 and is reflected in “The Rule” section, below.

This document amends FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11F lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by amending VOR Federal airway V-175 in the vicinity of Malden, MO, due to the planned decommissioning of the Malden, MO, VORTAC, as part of the FAA VOR MON program. The route change is described below.

V-175: V-175 currently consists of three separate parts: From Malden, MO; Vichy, MO; to Hallsville, MO. From Kirksville, MO; to Des Moines, IA. From Redwood Falls, MN; to Alexandria, MN.

This action removes the Malden VORTAC from the route description. As amended, V-175 extends, in three parts: From Vichy, MO, to Hallsville, MO. From Kirksville, MO, to Des Moines, IA. From Redwood Falls, MN to Alexandria, MN.

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

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

The FAA has determined that this action of modifying VOR Federal airway V-175 due to the planned decommissioning of the Malden, MO, VORTAC, qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points); and paragraph 5-6.5b, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review “Actions regarding establishment of jet routes and Federal airways (see 14 CFR 71.15, Designation of jet routes and VOR Federal airways ). . .”. As such, this action is not expected to result in any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis. The FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact study.

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for Docket No. FAA-2021-0972 in the Federal Register (86 FR 62761; November 12, 2021), amending VOR Federal airways V-26, V-193, and V-285, and revoking the White Cloud, MI, domestic low altitude reporting point in the vicinity of White Cloud, MI. The proposed actions were due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the White Cloud, MI, VOR/DME NAVAID. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. No comments were received.

VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) and Domestic Low Altitude Reporting Points are published in paragraph 7001 of FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The ATS route and Domestic Low Altitude Reporting Point actions listed in this document will be published subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.

This document amends FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11F lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

Prior to the NPRM, the FAA published a rule for Docket No. FAA-2021-0086 in the Federal Register (86 FR 52961; September 24, 2021), amending V-285 by removing the airway segment between the White Cloud, MI, VOR/DME and Traverse City, MI, VOR/DME. That airway amendment was effective December 2, 2021, and was included in the NPRM.

The amendment to V-285 listed in The Proposal section of the NPRM proposed to remove the airway segment between the Victory, MI, VOR/DME and Manistee, MI, VOR/DME. However, the amendment made by Docket No. FAA-2021-0086 removed the airway segment between the White Cloud, MI, VOR/DME and the Manistee, MI, VOR/DME. The proposed V-285 amendment should have reflected the FAA proposed to remove the airway segment between the Victory, MI, VOR/DME and White Cloud, MI, VOR/DME. That correction is included in this rule.

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by modifying VOR Federal airways V-26, V-193, and V-285, and revoking the White Cloud, MI, domestic low altitude reporting point due to the planned decommissioning of the White Cloud, MI, VOR. The VOR Federal airway and domestic low altitude reporting point actions are described below.

V-26: V-26 extends between the Blue Mesa, CO, VOR/DME and the Pierre, SD, VORTAC; and between the Redwood Falls, MN, VOR/DME and the White Cloud, MI, VOR/DME. The airway segment between the Green Bay, WI, VORTAC and White Cloud, MI, VOR/DME is removed. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain as charted.

V-193: V-193 extends between the intersection of the Pullman, MI, VOR/DME 243° and Gipper, MI, VORTAC 310° radials (MUSKY fix) and the Sault Ste Marie, MI, VOR/DME. The airway segment between the intersection of the Pullman, MI, VOR/DME 243° and Gipper, MI, VORTAC 310° radials (MUSKY fix) and Traverse City, MI, VOR/DME is removed. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain as charted.

V-285: V-285 currently extends between the Brickyard, IN, VORTAC and the White Cloud, MI, VOR/DME. The airway segment between the Victory, MI, VOR/DME and White Cloud, MI, VOR/DME is removed. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain as charted.

White Cloud, MI: The White Cloud, MI, domestic low altitude reporting point is removed.

The NAVAID radials listed in the VOR Federal airway V-285 description below are unchanged and stated in True degrees.

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

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

The FAA has determined that this action of modifying VOR Federal airways V-26, V-193, and V-285, and revoking the White Cloud, MI, domestic low altitude reporting point, due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the White Cloud, MI, VOR/DME NAVAID, qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points). As such, this action is not expected to result in any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis. The FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact study.

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA-2021-0803 in the Federal Register (86 FR 52862; September 23, 2021), amending RNAV route T-222 in the vicinity of Bethel, AK, in support of a large, comprehensive T-route modernization project for the state of Alaska. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting comments on the proposal. There were no comments received.

United States Area Navigation Routes are published in paragraph 6011 of FAA Order JO 7400.11F dated August 10, 2021 and effective September 15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The RNAV route listed in this document would be published subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.

This document amends FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11F lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by amending RNAV route T-222 in the vicinity of Bethel, AK in support of a large and comprehensive T-route modernization project for the state of Alaska.

The route change is described below.

T-222: T-222 extends between the BAERE, AK, waypoint (WP) to the Fairbanks, AK, (FAI) VHF Omni-Directional Range and Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC). This action reroutes the segment between the Bethel, AK, (BET) VORTAC and the UTICE, AK, WP by adding five additional WPs (CABOT, WOGAX, IKUFU, JILSI, and CYCAS) in the vicinity of Aniak, AK. Further, the RUFVY WP from the original legal description is removed due to it not being a turn point. Additionally, this action cancels the segment between the BAERE WP and the St Paul Island, AK, (SPY) Non-Directional Beacons/Distance Measuring Equipment (NDB/DME). As a result, T-222 extends between the St Paul Island, AK, (SPY) NDB/DME and the Fairbanks, AK, (FAI) VORTAC.

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

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

The FAA determined that this airspace action of amending RNAV route T-222 in the vicinity of Bethel, AK qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points), and paragraph 5-6.5i, which categorically excludes from further environmental review the establishment of new or revised air traffic control procedures conducted at 3,000 feet or more above ground level (AGL); procedures conducted below 3,000 feet AGL that do not cause traffic to be routinely routed over noise sensitive areas; modifications to currently approved procedures conducted below 3,000 feet AGL that do not significantly increase noise over noise sensitive areas; and increases in minimum altitudes and landing minima. As such, this action is not expected to result in any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis. Accordingly, the FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact study.

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

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

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for Docket No. FAA-2022-0025 in the Federal Register (87 FR 5747; February 2, 2022), amending Jet Routes J-19, J-20, J-52, J-98, J-134, and J-231, RNAV route Q-176, and VOR Federal airways V-210, V-234, V-304, V-350, and V-507; and establishing RNAV routes T-418 and T-431. The proposed amendment and establishment actions were due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Liberal, KS, VORTAC NAVAID. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. No comments were received.

Jet Routes are published in paragraph 2004, RNAV Q-routes are published in paragraph 2006, VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a), and United States RNAV T-routes are published in paragraph 6011 of FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The ATS routes listed in this document will be published subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to amend V-304 by removing the airway segment overlying the Liberal VORTAC between the Borger, TX, VORTAC and the Lamar, CO, VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) NAVAIDs. Subsequent to the NPRM, the FAA published a rule for Docket No. FAA-2021-0821 in the Federal Register (87 FR 26985; May 6, 2022) removing V-304 in its entirety. The V-304 airway removal was effective July 14, 2022, and consequently removed from this docket.

Also, the NPRM proposed to establish T-431 between two new waypoints (WPs); the KENTO, NM, WP and the RREDD, KS, WP. However, the RREDD WP name had been reserved for use elsewhere within the NAS prior to being used for T-431 and required the WP name to be changed. As a result, the proposed T-431 route point named RREDD, KS, WP is being renamed the KNSAS, KS, WP. The latitude/longitude coordinates of the KNSAS WP remain the same as those used for the RREDD WP in the proposed T-431 route description, therefore this WP name change does not affect the proposed charted alignment of T-431. The RREDD, KS, WP name listed in the proposed T-431 description is changed to the KNSAS, KS, WP in this action.

This document amends FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11F lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by amending Jet Routes J-19, J-20, J-52, J-98, J-134, and J-231, RNAV route Q-176, and VOR Federal airways V-210, V-234, V-350, and V-507; and establishing RNAV routes T-418 and T-431. These amendment and establishment actions are due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Liberal, KS, VORTAC. The ATS route actions are described below.

J-19: J-19 extends between the Phoenix, AZ, VORTAC and the Northbrook, IL, VOR/DME. The route segment between the Phoenix, AZ, VORTAC and the Zuni, NM, VORTAC is removed as it overlaps J-244, which remains. The route segment between the Zuni, NM, VORTAC and the Fort Union, NM, VORTAC is removed since J-244 provides a shorter, more efficient routing between the two NAVAIDs. The route segment between the Fort Union, NM, VORTAC and the Wichita, KS, VORTAC is removed due to the planned Liberal VOR decommissioning. Finally, the route segment between the Wichita, KS, VORTAC and the St. Louis, MO, VORTAC is removed as it overlaps J-134 completely and J-110 between the Butler, MO, VORTAC and St. Louis, MO, VORTAC. Collectively, the route segments between the Phoenix, AZ, VORTAC and the St. Louis, MO, VORTAC are removed. The unaffected portions of the existing route remain as charted.

J-20: J-20 extends between the Seattle, WA, VORTAC and the Montgomery, AL, VORTAC. The route segment overlying the Liberal VORTAC between the Lamar, CO, VOR/DME and the Will Rogers, OK, VORTAC is removed. The unaffected portions of the existing route remain as charted.

J-52: J-52 extends between the Vancouver, BC, Canada VOR/DME and the Vulcan, AL, VORTAC; and between the intersection of the Columbia, SC, VORTAC 042° and Flat Rock, VA, VORTAC 212° radials (TUBAS fix) and the Richmond, VA, VORTAC. The portion within Canada is excluded. The route segment overlying the Liberal VORTAC between the Lamar, CO, VOR/DME and the Ardmore, OK, VORTAC is removed. The unaffected portions of the existing route remain as charted.

J-98: J-98 extends between the Liberal, KS, VORTAC and the Farmington, MO, VORTAC. The route segment overlying the Liberal VORTAC between the Liberal, KS, VORTAC and the Mitbee, OK, VORTAC is removed. The unaffected portions of the existing route remain as charted.

J-134: J-134 extends between the Los Angeles, CA, VORTAC and the Falmouth, KY, VOR/DME. The route segment overlying the Liberal VORTAC between the Cimarron, NM, VORTAC and the Wichita, KS, VORTAC is removed. The unaffected portions of the existing route remain as charted.

J-231: J-231 extends between the Twentynine Palms, CA, VORTAC and the Liberal, KS, VORTAC. The route segment overlying the Liberal VORTAC between the Anton Chico, NM, VORTAC and Liberal, KS, VORTAC is removed. The unaffected portions of the existing route remain as charted.

Q-176: Q-176 extends between the Cimarron, NM, VORTAC and the OTTTO, VA, WP. The Liberal, KS, VORTAC and the Wichita, KS, VORTAC route points are replaced with the TOTOE, KS, WP and the WRIGL, KS, WP, respectively. The two new WPs are established in the immediate vicinity of the NAVAIDs they replace. Additionally, the GBEES, IN, route point is changed from “FIX” to “WP” to match the FAA's aeronautical database information and charted depiction. The unaffected portions of the existing route remain as charted.

V-210: V-210 extends between the Los Angeles, CA, VORTAC and the Okmulgee, OK, VOR/DME; between the Brickyard, IN, VORTAC and the Rosewood, OH, VORTAC; and between the Revloc, PA, VOR/DME and the Yardley, PA, VOR/DME. The airway segment overlying the Liberal VORTAC between the Lamar, CO, VOR/DME and the Will Rogers, OK, VORTAC is removed. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain as charted.

V-234: V-234 extends between the St. Johns, AZ, VORTAC and the Centralia, IL, VORTAC. The airspace at and above 8,000 feet MSL between the Vichy, MO, VOR/DME and the intersection of the Vichy, MO, VOR/DME 091° and St. Louis, MO, VORTAC 171° radials is excluded when the Meramec Military Operations Area (MOA) is activated by NOTAM. The airway segment overlying the Liberal VORTAC between the Dalhart, TX, VORTAC and the Hutchinson, KS, VOR/DME is removed. Additionally, the Meramec MOA no longer exists; therefore, the exclusion language in the airway description is also removed. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain as charted.

V-350: V-350 extends between the Liberal, KS, VORTAC and the Chanute, KS, VORTAC. The airspace at and above 6,000 feet MSL from 8 NM to 54 NM west of the Chanute VOR is excluded when the Eureka High MOA is activated. The airway segment overlying the Liberal VORTAC between the Liberal, KS, VORTAC and the Wichita, KS, VORTAC is removed. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain as charted.

V-507: V-507 extends between the Ardmore, OK, VORTAC and the Garden City, KS, VORTAC. The airway segment overlying the Liberal VORTAC between the Mitbee, OK, VORTAC and the Garden City, KS, VORTAC is removed. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain as charted.

T-418: T-418 is a new RNAV route extending between the Lamar, CO, VOR/DME and the Mitbee, OK, VORTAC. This T-route mitigates the removal of the V-210 airway segment between the Lamar, CO, VOR/DME and Liberal, KS, VORTAC and the removal of the V-507 airway segment between the Liberal, KS, VORTAC and Mitbee, OK, VORTAC. Additionally, this new T-route provides RNAV routing capability from the Lamar, CO, area, southeastward to the Gage, OK, area.

T-431: T-431 is a new RNAV route extending between two new WPs being established; the KENTO, NM, WP and the KNSAS, KS, WP. This T-route provides non-radar routing from northeastern New Mexico eastward to the Liberal, KS, VORTAC area to address frequent radar outages and support the general aviation community in the area, as well as RNAV routing between the Liberal, KS, VORTAC area and the Mankato, KS, VORTAC area. Additionally, this new T-route provides RNAV routing capability from northeastern New Mexico northeastward to the Mankato, KS, area.

All NAVAID radials listed in the ATS route descriptions below are unchanged and stated in True degrees.

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

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

The FAA has determined that this action of amending Jet Routes J-19, J-20, J-52, J-98, J-134, and J-231, RNAV route Q-176, and VOR Federal airways V-210, V-234, V-350, and V-507; and establishing RNAV routes T-418 and T-431, due to the planned decommissioning of the Liberal, KS, VOR NAVAID, qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points). As such, this action is not expected to result in any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis. The FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact study.

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA-2021-1189 in the Federal Register (87 FR 2375; January 14, 2022), establishing RNAV route T-768 in the northcentral United States (U.S.). The proposed amendment was to compensate for the removal of VOR Federal airway V-242 due to the decommissioning of the Atikokan, Ontario (ON), Canada, NDB NAVAID accomplished as part of NAV CANADA's Airspace Modernization Program and to support cross border connectivity by connecting to NAV CANADA's T-768 route. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. No comments were received.

Canadian RNAV T-routes are published in paragraph 6013 of FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The RNAV T-route listed in this document will be published subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.

This document amends FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11F lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by establishing RNAV route T-768. The new T-route is described below.

T-768: T-768 is a new RNAV route extending between the International Falls, MN, VORTAC and the ARBBY, MN, waypoint (WP). This T-route provides routing between the International Falls VORTAC and the U.S./Canada border; connecting to NAV CANADA's existing T-768 within Canadian airspace.

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

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

The FAA has determined that this action of establishing T-768, to compensate for the removal of VOR Federal airway V-242 due to the Atikokan, ON, Canada, NDB being decommissioned and to provide cross border connectivity to NAV CANADA's T-768, qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points). As such, this action is not expected to result in any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis. The FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact study.

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

Background

The Entity List (supplement no. 4 to part 744 of the EAR) identifies entities for which there is reasonable cause to believe, based on specific and articulable facts, that the entities have been involved, are involved, or pose a significant risk of being or becoming involved in activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. The EAR (15 CFR parts 730-774) impose additional license requirements on and limit the availability of most license exceptions for exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) to listed entities.

The license review policy for each listed entity is identified in the “License Review Policy” column on the Entity List, and the impact on the availability of license exceptions is described in the relevant Federal Register document that added the entity to the Entity List. Any license application for an export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) involving an entity on the Entity List that is subject to an additional EAR license requirement will also be reviewed in accordance with the license review policies in the sections of the EAR applicable to those license requirements. For example, for Russian entities on the Entity List, if the export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) is subject to a license requirement in § 746.6, 746.8 or 746.10, the license application will be reviewed in accordance with the license review policies in those sections (as applicable) in addition to the specified license review policy under the Entity List entry.

BIS places entities on the Entity List pursuant to part 744 (Control Policy: End-User and End-Use Based) and part 746 (Embargoes and Other Special Controls) of the EAR. Paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of § 744.11 include an illustrative list of activities that could be contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States.

The End-User Review Committee (ERC), composed of representatives of the Departments of Commerce (Chair), State, Defense, Energy and, where appropriate, the Treasury, makes all decisions regarding additions to, removals from, or other modifications to the Entity List. The ERC makes all decisions to add an entry to the Entity List by majority vote and makes all decisions to remove or modify an entry by unanimous vote.

The ERC determined to add the following six entities under ten entries to the Entity List on the basis of § 744.11(b) and under the destinations of China, Lithuania, Russia, the United Kingdom, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam: Connec Electronic Ltd. (added under China and the United Kingdom); King Pai Technology Co., Ltd. (added under China, Russia, and Vietnam); Sinno Electronics Co., Ltd. (added under China and Lithuania); Winninc Electronic (added under China); World Jetta (H.K.) Logistics Limited (added under China); and Promcomplektlogistic Private Company (added under Uzbekistan) for providing support to Russia's military and/or defense industrial base. Specifically, these entities have previously supplied items to Russian entities of concern before February 24, 2022 and continue to contract to supply Russian entity listed and sanctioned parties after Russia's further invasion of Ukraine. This activity is contrary to U.S. national security and foreign policy interests under § 744.11(b) of the EAR. These six entities and their identified subsidiaries are added to the Entity List with a license requirement for all items subject to the EAR. BIS will review license applications for items for these entities under a policy of denial apart from food and medicine designated as EAR99, which will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. No license exceptions are available for exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) to these entities.

The ERC determined to add the following twelve entities to the Entity List on the basis of § 744.11(b) under the destination of China: At One Electronics; Blueschip Company Limited; Chen Zhouqian; Chipwinone Electronics; Chuangxinda Electronics-Tech Co., Ltd.; Ehang International Trade Limited; Gaohui HK Electronics; ICSOSO Electronics Company Limited; Shenzhen Avanlane; Suntric Company Limited; Wayne Weipeng; and Yiru Zhuang for their activities contrary to the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States. Specifically, these entities use deceptive practices to supply or attempt to supply Iran with U.S-origin electronics that would ultimately provide support to Iran's military. These entities are added to the Entity List with a license requirement for all items subject to the EAR. BIS will review license applications for items for these entities under a presumption of denial. No license exceptions are available for exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) to these entities.

The ERC determined to add eight entities under nine entries to the Entity List on the basis of § 744.11(b) under the destinations of China and Singapore, with one of the entities listed under both destinations. The entities are as follows: Beijing Highlander Digital Technology Co. Ltd (added under China and Singapore); China Academy of Science—Shenyang Institute of Automation; China State Shipbuilding Corp.—Systems Engineering Research Institute; CSSC Electronic Technology; Highlander (Hong Kong) Maritime Navigation Science and Technology LLC; Laurel Technologies Co. Ltd.; Sansha Highlander Marine Information Technology Co. Ltd.; and Sanya Highlander Huanyu Ocean Information Technology Corporation. All of the eight entities are added to the Entity List for acquiring and attempting to acquire U.S.-origin items in support of military applications, contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. These entities are added to the Entity List with a license requirement for all items subject to the EAR. BIS will review license applications for items for these entities under a presumption of denial. No license exceptions are available for exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) to these entities.

The ERC determined to add two entities to the Entity List on the basis of § 744.11(b) under the destination of Russia: Laboratory Systems and Technologies LTD; and Intertech Rus LLC. The two entities are added on the basis of their attempts to procure items, including U.S.-origin items, for activities contrary to the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States. Specifically, Intertech Rus LLC and Laboratory Systems and Technologies LTD are acting as agents, fronts or shell companies for OOO Intertech Instruments, an entity added to the Entity List under the destination of Russia on March 4, 2021 (86 FR 12531). The two entities are added to the Entity List with a license requirement for all items subject to the EAR. BIS will review license applications for items for these entities under the license review policies specified in §§ 744.2(d) (restrictions on certain nuclear end-uses), 744.3(d) (restrictions on certain rocket systems and unmanned aerial vehicles end-uses), and 744.4(d) (restrictions on certain chemical and biological weapons end-uses) of the EAR. No license exceptions are available for exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) to these entities.

The ERC determined to add two entities to the Entity List on the basis of § 744.11(b) under the destination of Russia: FASTAIR and Avcom-Technique. These two entities are added for actions contrary to the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States. These entities are added to the Entity List with a license requirement for all items subject to the EAR. BIS will review license applications for items for these entities under a case-by-case license review policy. No license exceptions are available for exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) to these entities.

The ERC determined to add four entities to the Entity List on the basis of §§ 744.11(b), 744.2 and 744.3, including one entity under the destination of the United Arab Emirates (UAE): Gulf Trade House FZC; and three entities under the destination of Pakistan: Industrial Process Automation; Jim Corporation; and Maira Trade International. The four entities are added for actions contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States, and because these entities pose an unacceptable risk of using or diverting items subject to the EAR to certain nuclear end-uses and certain rocket systems and unmanned aerial vehicles end-uses. These entities are added to the Entity List with a license requirement for all items subject to the EAR. BIS will review license applications for items for these entities under a presumption of denial. No license exceptions are available for exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) to these entities.

The ERC determined to add one entity to the Entity List on the basis of § 744.11(b) under the destination of the UAE: Al Noor Alaili Trading Company (ANATCO). This entity is added for preventing the accomplishment of an End Use Check (EUC) by precluding access to, refusing to provide information to, and/or providing false or misleading information about parties to the transaction or the item to be checked. This entity is added to the Entity List with a license requirement for all items subject to the EAR. BIS will review license applications for items for this entity under a presumption of denial. No license exceptions are available for exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) to this entity.

The ERC determined to add the following one entity to the Entity List on the basis of § 744.11(b) under the destination of the UAE: Scott Technologies FZE, for acquiring and attempting to acquire U.S.-origin items on behalf of entities listed on the Entity List, in circumvention of the licensing requirements set forth in §  744.11 of the EAR. Specifically, the entity was added for re-exporting aircraft parts to Syria. This entity will be added to the Entity List with a license requirement for all items subject to the EAR. BIS will review license applications for items for this entity under a presumption of denial. No license exceptions are available for exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) to this entity.

For the reasons described in section A of the Supplementary Information, this final rule adds the following entities under to the Entity List including, where appropriate, aliases:

• At One Electronics;

• Beijing Highlander Digital Technology Co. Ltd;

• Blueschip Company Limited;

• Chuangxinda Electronics-Tech Co.,

• Chen Zhouqian;

• China Academy of Science—Shenyang Institute of Automation;

• China State Shipbuilding Corp.—Systems Engineering Research Institute;

• Chipwinone Electronics Co., Limited;

• Connec Electronic Ltd.;

• CSSC Electronic Technology;

• Ehang International Trade Limited;

• Gaohui HK Electronics;

• Highlander (Hong Kong) Maritime Navigation Science and Technology LLC;

• ICSOSO Electronics Co. Ltd.;

• King Pai Technology Co., Ltd.;

• Laurel Technologies Co. Ltd.;

• Sansha Highlander Marine Information Technology Co. Ltd.;

• Sanya Highlander Huanyu Ocean Information Technology Corporation;

• Shenzhen Avanlane;

• Sinno Electronics Co., Ltd.;

• Suntric Company Limited;

• Wayne Weipeng;

• Winninc Electronic;

• World Jetta (H.K.) Logistics Limited; and

• Yiru Zhuang.

• Sinno Electronics.

• Industrial Process Automation;

• Jim Corporation; and

• Maira Trade International.

• Avcom-Technique;

• FASTAIR;

• Intertech Rus LLC;

• KingPai Technology Int'l Co., Limited; and

• Laboratory Systems and Technologies LTD.

• Beijing Highlander Digital Technology Co., Ltd.

• Al Noor Alaili Trading Company;

• Gulf Trade House FZC; and

• Scott Technologies FZE.

• Connec Electronic.

• Promcomplektlogistic Private Company.

• KingPai Technology Int'l Co., Limited.

This final rule revises eleven existing entries, under the destinations of Belarus, China, Russia, and Slovakia.

This rule revises nine entries, consisting of one entry for “JSC Integral,” first added to the Entity List under the destination of Belarus on March 2, 2022 (87 FR 13061, March 8, 2022); seven entries under Russia consisting of “Avant-Space LLC,” first added to the Entity List on March 3, 2022 (87 FR 13143, March 9, 2022)(the “March 9 rule”); “Elara,” first added to the Entity List in the March 9 rule; “JSC Central Research Institute of Machine Building,” first added to the Entity List on February 24, 2022 (87 FR 12240, March 3, 2022) (the “March 3 rule”); “JSC Element,” first added to the Entity List in the March 9 rule; “JSC Rocket and Space Centre,” first added to the Entity List in the March 3 rule; “Russian Space Systems (RKS),” first added to the Entity List in the March 9 rule; “Scientific Research Institute NII Submikron,” first added to the Entity List in the March 9 rule; and one entry for “Incoff Aerospace, S.R.O.,” first added to the Entity List under the destination of Slovakia in the March 9 rule. This rule revises the License Requirement column for some of the nine entities to specify that License Exception GOV under § 740.11(b)(2) and (e) may be available for use to export items to these entities. This rule also revises the License Review Policy column for all nine entities to specify that there is a case-by-case license review policy for items destined for use in U.S. government supported use in the International Space Station (ISS).

These nine entities are integral to supporting the International Space Station (ISS), therefore the ERC determined it was warranted to allow the License Exception GOV authorizations under paragraphs (b)(2) and (e) to be available and to have a case-by-case license review policy for U.S. Government supported use in the International Space Station. This rule revises both the License Requirement column and License Review Policy column for JSC Central Research Institute of Machine Building. For the other eight entities revised by this rule, only one of the two columns needed to be revised. Specifically, this rule revises the License Requirement column for Incoff Aerospace LLC; JSC Element; and Russian Space Systems (RKS) and revises the License Review Policy Column for Avant-Space LLC; Elara; JSC Integral; JSC Rocket and Space Centre; and Scientific Research Institute NII Submikron.

This rule revises one existing entry for “China National Offshore Oil Corporation Ltd.,” first added to the Entity List under the destination of China on January 14, 2021 (85 FR 4864). Specifically, this rule removes the phrase “not operating in the South China Sea” and adds in its place the phrase “not operating in any body of water, or the airspace above any body of water, within the following coordinates:

The following is an illustration with an approximate representation of these coordinates to assist the public in understanding the applicability of the license requirement for this entity:

BIS has received numerous questions from the public on how to interpret this limitation on the exclusion from the license requirement for this entry. After reviewing these questions and evaluating various options for clarifying the scope of this limitation, the ERC determined that the best approach to facilitate compliance, consistent with U.S. national security and foreign policy interests, is to use coordinates that form a geographic box such that any body of water ( e.g., the South China Sea, the Celebes Sea, the Sulu Sea) that falls within these coordinates, as well as the airspace above any such body of water, will be subject to the limitation on the exclusion from the license requirement. This modification provides greater clarity, thus reducing the compliance burden on the public.

In response to questions received about the entity name, BIS makes an additional revision to the entry to clarify that the entity listed on the Entity List is CNOOC Limited, which is a core subsidiary of China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC Group). While the parent entity, CNOOC Group, is not listed on the Entity List, BIS recommends that due diligence should be conducted by exporters, reexporters, and transferors when dealing with CNOOC Group to determine whether there is any “knowledge,” as it is defined in part 772 of the EAR, that an item subject to the EAR may be destined to CNOOC Limited or to any other entity listed on the Entity List. The rule also makes minor typographical corrections to clarify the regulatory text.

This rule also modifies the entry for the National University of Defense Technology (NUDT), which was first added to the Entity List under the destination of China on February 18, 2015 (80 FR 8527). This final rule adds three additional addresses and two additional aliases to the entry.

This final rule implements corrections to one existing entry on the Entity List. The correction is under the destination of Pakistan for the entity X-Cilent Engineering. This entity was added to the Entity List on February 14, 2022 (87 FR 8182). This final rule corrects the punctuation of this entity's address.

This rule implements decisions of the ERC to remove two entities and one address for a non-listed entity from the Entity List, as described below.

This rule implements a decision of the ERC to remove “Nanchang O-Film Tech.”, an entity located in China, from the Entity List on the basis of a removal request. The entry for Nanchang O-Film Tech. under the destination of China was added to the Entity List on July 22, 2020 (85 FR 44166). The ERC decided to remove this one entity based on information BIS received pursuant to § 744.16(e) of the EAR and the review the ERC conducted in accordance with procedures described in supplement no. 5 to part 744 of the EAR.

This rule also implements a decision of the ERC to remove one address associated with Oriental Logistics Group LTD, specifically, 10/F, Union Bldg, 112 How Ming, Kwun Tong, Kowloon, Hong Kong from the Entity List, because this address does not belong to Oriental Logistics Group LTD. Rather, it belongs to Oriental Logistics Group Ltd., which has a similar name, but is a different legal entity and is not on the Entity List. The ERC determined that Oriental Logistics Group LTD is not located at this address, and therefore has decided to remove this address from the entry. Two entries for the entity Oriental Logistics Group LTD were added under the destinations of China and Hong Kong to the Entity List on September 22, 2020 (85 FR 59421). Subsequently, the entries under Hong Kong were relocated under the destination of China on the Entity List on December 23, 2020 (85 FR 83769) with the result that the entry for Oriental Logistics Group LTD contained three addresses: one in China and two in Hong Kong, China. This rule is removing the Hong Kong address referenced above; it is not removing the entry for Oriental Logistics Group LTD under China or the second Hong Kong address for Oriental Logistics Group LTD under this entry. The ERC decided to remove the one address based on information BIS received pursuant to § 744.16(e) of the EAR and the review the ERC conducted in accordance with procedures described in supplement no. 5 to part 744 of the EAR.

This rule implements a decision of the ERC to remove “Mushko Electronics Pvt. Ltd.”, an entity located in Pakistan, from the Entity List on the basis of a removal request. The entry for Mushko Electronics Pvt. Ltd. was added to the Entity List on March 22, 2018 (83 FR 12480). The ERC decided to remove this one entity based on information BIS received pursuant to § 744.16(e) of the EAR and the review the ERC conducted in accordance with procedures described in supplement no. 5 to part 744 of the EAR.

This final rule implements the decision to remove the following two entities and one address for a non-listed entity, located in China, and Pakistan, from the Entity List:

• Nanchang O-Film Tech; and

• Oriental Logistics Group Ltd. (As described above, this entity is not on the Entity List, but its address is being removed from the Entity List in this rule to avoid any confusion regarding whether Oriental Logistics Group Ltd. is or is not on the Entity List.)

• Mushko Electronics Pvt. Ltd.

For the changes being made in this final rule, shipments of items removed from eligibility for a License Exception or export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) without a license (NLR) as a result of this regulatory action that were en route aboard a carrier to a port of export, reexport, or transfer (in-country), on June 28, 2022, pursuant to actual orders for export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) to or within a foreign destination, may proceed to that destination under the previous eligibility for a License Exception or export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) without a license (NLR).

On August 13, 2018, the President signed into law the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, which included the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA) (50 U.S.C. 4801-4852). ECRA provides the legal basis for BIS's principal authorities and serves as the authority under which BIS issues this rule.

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

2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to or be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. This regulation involves collections previously approved by OMB under control number 0694-0088, Simplified Network Application Processing System, which includes, among other things, license applications and commodity classifications, and carries a burden estimate of 29.6 minutes for a manual or electronic submission for a total burden estimate of 33,133 hours. Total burden hours associated with the PRA and OMB control number 0694-0088 are not expected to increase as a result of this rule.

3. This rule does not contain policies with federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.

4. Pursuant to section 1762 of the Export Control Reform Act of 2018, this action is exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requirements for notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation, and delay in effective date.

5. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., are not applicable. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required, and none has been prepared.

Accordingly, part 744 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774) is amended as follows:

A detailed description of the changes and clarifications proposed for regulations at 15 CFR part 904 is found in the proposed rule that NOAA published in the Federal Register at 87 FR 16687 (March 24, 2022) and is not repeated here.

NOAA received one comment from the public during the comment period for the proposed rule. This comment is summarized here and is directly followed by NOAA's response.

Comment: The commenter generally suggests that the revisions to 15 CFR part 904, characterized by NOAA as non-substantive, in fact diminish the due process protections afforded to Respondents and restrict their ability to contest violations charged under these regulations. The commenter also expresses a general belief that this revision provides some undue advantage to NOAA, restricts an administrative law judge's authority to issue decisions, and makes it more difficult for the public to understand their rights within this civil administrative process. Specifically, the commenter challenges NOAA's explanation that the proposed removal and reservation of 15 CFR 904.103 merely removes language that is redundant with other existing provision; the commenter requests that NOAA explain what language in 15 CFR 904.103 was redundant.

Response: As explained within the proposed rule, all of the revisions to 15 CFR part 904 merely refine the procedures applicable to NOAA's civil administrative enforcement proceedings. The principal changes afford greater transparency in the application of the NOAA Administrator's discretionary review authority, emphasize impartiality within the written warning appeal process, ensure that responses to requests for admission mirror similar requirements found in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36, and clarify the proper channels by which certain appeals and petitions for relief may be filed, including new and updated mailing and electronic mailing addresses.

Other changes remove the requirement for NOAA attorneys to challenge late hearing requests in all circumstances, and simplify and modernize discovery filings, the taking of depositions by videoconference, and the arrangement of interpreters. NOAA is also clarifying its permit sanction procedures and administrative forfeiture proceedings to better explain the application of those provisions, and is authorizing the publication of a Notice of Proposed Forfeiture on a publically available and official government website to expand the available options for achieving effective public notice of the information and rights described at 15 CFR 904.504(b)(2).

Neither the aforementioned revisions nor any of the several clerical corrections made in this final rule undermine principles of due process or diminish a respondent's right to contest a charged violation. Instead, NOAA's amendments increase the accessibility of these procedures and advance fair and just outcomes in NOAA's civil administrative enforcement proceedings.

With respect to the commenter's query regarding 15 CFR 904.103, that section merely reiterates that hearing requests are governed by the procedures set forth in Subpart C of these regulations. 15 CFR 904.200 explains the scope and applicability of Subpart C, and provides that this subpart “sets forth the procedures governing the conduct of hearings.” In addition, 15 CFR 904.201 specifically addresses the filing and receipt of hearing requests as well as the docketing of matters with the Office of Administrative Law Judges. Furthermore, the various sections within Subpart C all govern hearing and appeal procedures. As a result, 15 CFR 904.103 is repetitive of the provisions located within Subpart C, and thus, that section is removed and reserved to delete redundancy.

In order to ensure that respondents are apprised of their rights, as a matter of practice and as required by these procedural regulations, NOAA attorneys provide a copy of 15 CFR part 904 to a respondent whenever an enforcement action is initiated against them. See 15 CFR 904.101(a)(5). In addition, these regulations remain publicly available within the United States Code of Federal Regulations, and NOAA continues to include a link to these regulations on the NOAA Office of General Counsel website. See https://www.gc.noaa.gov/enforce-office4.html.

This final rule contains no changes from the proposed rule.

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

There are no reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements in this rule. Nor does this rule contain an information-collection request that would implicate the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding this certification. As a result, a final regulatory flexibility analysis was not required and none was prepared.

For reasons set forth in the preamble, 15 CFR part 904 is amended as follows:

The Commission is adopting amendments to 17 CFR 232.11 (“rule 11”), 17 CFR 232.100 (“rule 100”), 17 CFR 232.101 (“rule 101”), 17 CFR 232.102 (“rule 102”), and 17 CFR 232.201 (“rule 201”) of 17 CFR 232.11 through 232.903 (“Regulation S-T”) relating to electronic filing on the EDGAR system; 17 CFR 275.0-4 (“rule 0-4”) and 17 CFR 275.203-1 (“rule 203-1”) under the Advisers Act; 17 CFR 279.4 (“Form ADV-NR”) and the instructions to 17 CFR 279.1 (“Form ADV”) under the Advisers Act; 17 CFR 270.0-2 (“rule 0-2”) under the Investment Company Act; 17 CFR 240.24b-2 (“rule 24b-2”) under the Exchange Act; and 17 CFR 249.325 (“Form 13F”).

The Commission seeks to promote efficiency, transparency, and operational resiliency by modernizing the manner in which information is submitted to us and, where appropriate, disclosed to the public. Electronic filing improves our ability to achieve these goals. Specifically, electronic filing minimizes the risks of delay in staff receiving the information via paper submissions, and it increases efficiency in the staff review process by reducing staff processing time, increasing quality assurance, and improving the ability to review and analyze information contained in electronic submissions. In addition to increasing staff efficiency of review, publicly filed electronic submissions are more readily available on our website in easily searchable formats, which benefits investors, the asset management industry, and other market participants.

In addition, electronic filing capabilities have proved to be an effective measure in addressing certain of the logistical and operational issues raised by the spread of coronavirus disease (“COVID-19”). We believe that converting paper submissions to electronic submissions would allow the Commission, and those persons filing the submissions, to more effectively and efficiently navigate any future disruptive events—like COVID-19—that make the paper submission process unnecessarily burdensome, impractical, or unavailable. Further, we believe that the proposed electronic submission process better reflects the current business practices and operations of those persons that file the submissions and, as a result, would likely reduce the burden associated with submitting such filings. These benefits are among the reasons that the Commission has transitioned filings from paper to electronic format in many contexts. 1

We proposed rule and form amendments to require electronic filing of certain forms, as well as additional amendments to enhance information reported on Form 13F and to modernize the form, in November 2021. 2 Commenters generally supported the Commission's goal of modernizing the manner in which information is submitted to the Commission and generally agreed that the proposed amendments would increase filing efficiency and reduce burdens on filers. 3 As discussed in more detail below, we are adopting these amendments largely as proposed. Therefore, the final rules will require applications for orders under any section of the Advisers Act, 4 and of confidential treatment requests for filings made under section 13(f) of the Exchange Act (“13(f) Confidential Treatment Requests”), to be submitted through the EDGAR system. 5 In addition, we are adopting amendments to Form 13F: (i) a requirement for an institutional investment manager  6 (“manager”) that files Form 13F to provide certain identifying information, (ii) in response to comments received, allow managers to disclose, for any security reported on Form 13F, the security's share class level FIGI in addition to the security's Committee on Uniform Securities Identification Procedures (“CUSIP”) number; (iii) certain technical amendments to modernize the information reported on Form 13F, consistent with its existing eXtensible Markup Language (“XML”) structured data language, and (iv) a modification to instruction 2.d. of Form 13F's Confidential Treatment Instructions to update that instruction and make it consistent with a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision. 7 We also are adopting other rule amendments to harmonize the requirements for submission of applications for orders under the Advisers Act and the Investment Company Act.

Finally, we are adopting amendments to require Form ADV-NR filers to file electronically, rather than in paper format. Non-resident general partners and non-resident managing agents of both SEC-registered investment advisers and exempt reporting advisers must file Form ADV-NR to appoint an agent for service of process in the United States. 8 Under the final rules, they will submit Form ADV-NR through the IARD system.

Section 206A of the Advisers Act gives the Commission the authority to provide exemptions from any provision of the Advisers Act or any rule or regulation thereunder, provided the exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Advisers Act. 9 Applicants seeking an exemption must apply to the Commission to obtain an order. Applicants typically include, but are not limited to, registered investment advisers, exempt reporting advisers, and persons not registered with the Commission but who meet the definition of “investment adviser” under the Advisers Act. 10

As proposed, we are adopting amendments to Regulation S-T and Advisers Act rule 0-4 to require persons applying for an order under the Advisers Act, for which a form with instructions is not specifically prescribed, to file applications electronically through EDGAR. 11 These amendments will make the application process for orders under the Advisers Act more consistent with the application process for orders under the Investment Company Act, which has been requiring applicants to file electronically through EDGAR since 2009. 12 Persons applying for orders under both the Advisers Act and the Investment Company Act will be able to file applications jointly in a single submission. As is the case for applications under the Investment Company Act, temporary hardship exemptions from electronic filing will not be available for applications for orders under the Advisers Act, but continuing hardship exemptions from electronic filing will be available.

We received one comment letter supportive of requiring persons to file applications for orders under the Advisers Act electronically on EDGAR, stating that it would increase filing efficiency and promote a streamlined and consistent application process for advisers and funds. 13 The commenter also supported allowing applicants seeking orders under both the Advisers Act and the Investment Company Act to file applications jointly in a single submission, agreeing that it would reduce burdens for applicants filing joint requests for relief. 14 We are adopting the amendments as proposed.

Currently, an applicant seeking an order under the Advisers Act must file the application, as well as a proposed notice of application, in paper and in quintuplicate. 15 Once the Commission receives the application, it takes several steps to process it, including delivering it to the Commission's mailroom for stamping and logging, and then routing it to appropriate staff. Staff then creates a notification in the EDGAR system to assign a file number, manually uploads the application onto the Commission's public website, and processes the application for internal tracking. This process creates inefficiencies in a number of ways, including those resulting from the absence in Advisers Act rule 0-4 of a specific addressee at the Commission for applications. 16 Any delay between Commission receipt and receipt by the appropriate staff member causes a delay in the public availability of the application. Public availability of the application aids applicants, as well as investors. For example, applicants consult previously filed applications to apply precedent and address any differences from prior applications, which in turn can expedite the review process. 17 Investors may consult applications to the extent they may inform their decisions with respect to selecting or retaining an investment adviser.

Applicants seeking an order under the Investment Company Act have been filing applications through EDGAR since 2009, before which time, they filed applications in paper. 18 In our experience, the transition from paper to electronic applications under the Investment Company Act has led to more efficient and timely application processing. We anticipate that the transition from paper to electronic applications under the Advisers Act similarly will lead to more efficient and timely processing of such applications.

As is the case with applications for orders under the Investment Company Act, once EDGAR accepts an application for an order under the Advisers Act, the application will be immediately available to appropriate staff and the public, in a more easily searchable format. 19 This automated process is designed to eliminate the inefficiencies and delays caused by manually processing paper filings, as discussed above, which in turn will allow the Commission to conduct more efficient and timely reviews, and will provide more immediate transparency to the public. Moreover, the more easily searchable format will aid Commission staff, applicants, investors, and other interested parties that consult filed applications.

As proposed, the final rules will require persons to file applications for orders under the Advisers Act through EDGAR, even though advisers make other submissions through IARD (including registration applications under the Advisers Act). 20 We received one comment letter supporting this aspect of the proposal, as long as filers will continue to be able to receive confidential treatment for non-public documents. 21 As with other persons that make submissions on EDGAR, applicants will be subject to the provisions of Regulation S-T, which will continue to include provisions for requesting confidential treatment. 22

We are choosing EDGAR as the filing system for a number of reasons. First, the cost to advisers of submitting electronic applications through EDGAR will be relatively low. 23 Second, EDGAR should require fewer technological changes than IARD to accept applications for orders under the Advisers Act, because it already is designed to accept applications for orders under the Investment Company Act. Third, EDGAR will allow for applications under both the Investment Company Act and the Advisers Act to be made in a single filing. For applications with multiple co-applicants ( i.e., if certain applicants were included for Advisers Act relief and others were included for Investment Company Act relief), the applicants would be able to submit the application with all co-applicants included in one submission. The applicants would choose one applicant to list first as the “primary” co-applicant. Then, they would include in the EDGAR submission the information for all other co-applicants. Fourth, the process for filing applications for orders under the Advisers Act through EDGAR will be consistent with the process for filing applications for orders under the Investment Company Act, which is designed to facilitate internal processing efficiencies by Commission staff. Finally, having applications under both the Investment Company Act and the Advisers Act in the same system is designed to increase transparency for the public, because they will only need to learn how to access one system to locate all relevant applications.

As with other persons that make submissions on EDGAR, applicants will be subject to the provisions of Regulation S-T and the EDGAR Filer Manual. 24 Therefore, we are adopting conforming amendments to Regulation S-T. We did not receive any comments on these amendments to Regulation S-T, and are adopting them as proposed.

• We are adopting conforming amendments to rule 11 of Regulation S-T to add “Investment Advisers Act” as a defined term that will mean the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

• We are adopting conforming amendments to rule 100 of Regulation S-T to clarify that all applicants for an order under the Advisers Act (and not just registered investment advisers) are subject to Regulation S-T. 25

• We are adopting conforming amendments to rule 102 of Regulation S-T to provide that previously filed exhibits, whether in paper or electronic format, may be incorporated by reference to the extent permitted by 17 CFR 275.0-6 (Advisers Act rule 0-6) (concerning incorporation by reference in applications).

We also are adopting a clarifying amendment concerning applications for orders under the Investment Company Act. As proposed, we are amending rule 101 of Regulation S-T to provide that the filing of an application for an order under any section of the Investment Company Act must be made on EDGAR as required by the EDGAR Filer Manual, as defined in rule 11 of Regulation S-T, and that, notwithstanding 17 CFR 232.104 (rule 104 of Regulation S-T), the documents will be considered as officially filed with or furnished to, as applicable, the Commission. 26

As proposed, the final rule will provide that temporary hardship exemptions from electronic filing will not be available for applications for orders under the Advisers Act, but continuing hardship exemptions from electronic filing will be available. We did not receive any comments on this aspect of the proposal and are adopting it as proposed. Rule 201 of Regulation S-T provides that if an electronic filer experiences unanticipated technical difficulties preventing the timely preparation and submission of an electronic filing, the electronic filer may file in paper format no later than one business day after the date on which the filing was to be made, subject to certain requirements and exclusions (“temporary hardship exemption”). This temporary hardship exemption is available automatically but must be followed by a confirming electronic copy within six business days. The Commission is amending rule 201 so it will exclude applications for orders under the Advisers Act, as it does with applications for orders under the Investment Company Act. As a result, temporary hardship exemptions will not be available for applications for orders under the Advisers Act, as is the case with applications for orders under the Investment Company Act. The rules under the Advisers Act do not provide submission deadlines for applications for orders under the Advisers Act, and we believe that submission exigencies for these applications will be rare, if they were to occur at all.

A filer may apply for a continuing hardship exemption from electronic filing under [17 CFR 232.202] (“rule 202 of Regulation S-T”) if it cannot file all or part of a filing without undue burden or expense. A continuing hardship exemption may be granted for a limited time period or indefinitely. Time-limited continuing hardship exemptions may be conditioned upon filing the document in electronic format by a certain date. Continuing hardship exemptions will be available for applications for orders under the Advisers Act under rule 202 of Regulation S-T, as it is currently written, without any amendments.

Final rule 0-4's specifications for paper applications, as amended, will continue to apply for any remaining paper applications, such as filings made pursuant to a continuing hardship exemption under rule 202 of Regulation S-T. 27 Final rule 0-4 will provide that the Secretary of the Commission is the designated addressee of such paper submissions. 28 As proposed, we are adopting an identical clarifying change to designate the Secretary of the Commission as addressee of any remaining paper submissions under the Investment Company Act. 29

As proposed, we are adopting amendments to harmonize requirements for applications for orders under the Advisers Act and the Investment Company Act, and further reduce filing burdens. First, we are adopting amendments to eliminate the requirement for applicants seeking orders under the Advisers Act to notarize verifications and statements of fact, as proposed. 30 The Commission previously removed this requirement for applications under the Investment Company Act, and the Commission has not had significant issues or concerns with removing notarizations in that context. 31 We received one comment letter supporting this proposed amendment, agreeing that it will reduce burdens for applicants. 32 We believe that the notarization requirement is unnecessary because other requirements provide sufficient assurance of the legitimacy of signatures in electronic filings. 33

Second, we are adopting amendments to eliminate the requirement for applicants seeking orders under the Advisers Act to include proposed notices as exhibits to applications, as proposed. 34 The Commission previously removed this requirement for applications for orders under the Investment Company Act, and it has reduced filing burdens for applicants. 35 We received one comment letter supporting this proposed amendment, agreeing that it will reduce burdens for applicants. 36

Finally, we are adopting amendments to remove the reference to microfilming in Advisers Act rule 0-4(b) and Investment Company Act rule 0-2(b), as proposed. The Commission no longer microfilms applications for orders under either the Advisers Act or the Investment Company Act. Therefore, the references to microfilming are no longer relevant. 37 We did not receive any comments on this aspect of the proposal.

As proposed, we are adopting amendments to require Form ADV-NR filers to file electronically through IARD, rather than in paper format. 38 Non-resident general partners and non-resident managing agents of both SEC-registered investment advisers and exempt reporting advisers must file Form ADV-NR to appoint an agent for service of process in the United States. 39 The final rules will specify that Form ADV-NR must be filed through IARD, the same system advisers use to file Form ADV. 40 Although we did not receive any comment letters concerning Form ADV-NR specifically, we received one comment letter supporting the proposal to require electronic filing generally, because it would help increase the efficiency of the filing process while reducing burdens on filers, as we stated in the Proposing Release about filing Form ADV-NR electronically. 41 Therefore, we are adopting the amendments as proposed.

Consistent with current requirements, the final rules will continue to provide that filing Form ADV-NR is mandatory for non-resident general partners and non-resident managing agents of SEC-registered investment advisers and exempt reporting advisers, and must be filed in connection with an adviser's initial Form ADV application or report. 42 A general partner or managing agent of an SEC-registered adviser or exempt reporting adviser who becomes a non-resident after the adviser's initial application or report has been submitted must file Form ADV-NR within 30 days, as is currently required. The Commission collects this information to ensure that a non-resident general partner or managing agent of an investment adviser appoints an agent for service of process in the United States.

IARD will present final Form ADV-NR in fillable format and require signatures in electronic format. Members of the public will be able to view Forms ADV-NR through the same system they view Forms ADV, which is the Investment Adviser Public Disclosures (IAPD), the public interface of IARD. This will improve transparency to the public, because it will eliminate manual steps that Commission staff and members of the public currently take to view Forms ADV-NR. 43 We believe that requiring electronic submission of Form ADV-NR will enhance our ability to collect and access the information on the form and reduce the burden associated with filing and processing Forms ADV-NR. Furthermore, we believe that requiring filers to submit Form ADV-NR electronically will allow filers to more effectively and efficiently navigate future disruptive events—like COVID-19—when staff and filers are unable to access their physical work facilities to complete, submit, and process paper fillings.

As proposed, the final rule will permit Form ADV-NR filers to file the form in paper format if granted a hardship exemption under [17 CFR 275.203-3] (“rule 203-3”). 44 We did not receive any comments on this aspect of the proposal and are adopting it as proposed. As proposed, the final rules will require non-resident general partners and non-resident managing agents to amend their Form ADV-NR within 30 days whenever any information contained in the form becomes inaccurate by filing with the Commission a new Form ADV-NR. 45 We did not receive any comments on this aspect of the proposal and are adopting it as proposed. The current form does not specify when a new Form ADV-NR must be filed with the Commission when the information on a filed Form ADV-NR becomes inaccurate. We believe allowing non-resident general partners and non-resident managing agents 30 days to file a new form provides sufficient time for the filings to be made—without imposing an undue burden on filers—and will help ensure that the Commission has accurate mailing information with which to contact filers.

As proposed, the final rules also will provide that Form ADV-NR is considered filed with the Commission upon acceptance by the IARD. 46 As proposed, the final rules will provide that no fee shall be assessed for filing Form ADV-NR through IARD. 47 The final rules will specify that each Form ADV-NR (and any amendment to Form ADV-NR) required to be filed under the rule is a “report” within the meaning of section 204 and 207 of the Advisers Act. 48 These requirements are similar to those provided for in [17 CFR 275.203-2] (“rule 203-2”) for [17 CFR 279.2] (“Form ADV-W”) and are intended to provide specificity to filers regarding their filing obligations.

Section 13(f) of the Exchange Act, in pertinent part, requires a manager to file a report with the Commission if the manager exercises investment discretion with respect to accounts holding certain equity securities (“13(f) Securities”) having an aggregate fair market value on the last trading day of any month of any calendar year of at least $100 million. 49 The Commission has rulemaking authority under section 13(f) to determine, among other things, the format and frequency of the reporting requirements and the information to be disclosed in each report. 50 In exercising its authority under section 13(f), section 13(f)(5) requires that the Commission “determine (and so state) that its action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and for the protection of investors or to maintain fair and orderly markets.”  51 The Commission also is required to consult with other agencies, including Federal, State and self-regulatory organizations. 52

Section 13(f) was designed to increase the public availability of information regarding the securities holdings of managers, to consolidate the information with the Commission as a central repository of the data, and to facilitate consideration of the influence and impact of managers on the maintenance of fair and orderly securities markets and the public policy implications of that influence and impact. 53 To implement the institutional investment disclosure program mandated by Congress in section 13(f), the Commission adopted rule 13f-1 and related Form 13F under the Exchange Act. 54 Rule 13f-1 requires managers that exercise discretion over accounts holding 13(f) Securities having an aggregate fair market value of at least $100 million on the last trading day of any month of any calendar year to file quarterly reports of 13(f) Securities holdings with the Commission on Form 13F. 55 Form 13F is required to be filed on EDGAR in a custom XML structured data language created specifically for Form 13F. 56

Section 13(f) mandates that the Commission disseminate the information appearing in the quarterly reports to the public. 57 Congress recognized that, in some instances, public disclosure of certain types of information could have harmful market effects. 58 Thus, Section 13(f) of the Exchange Act authorizes the Commission, as it determines to be necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors or to maintain fair and orderly markets, to delay or prevent public disclosure of certain Form 13F information in accordance with the FOIA, which is referred to in this release as “commercial” information. Section 13(f) also explicitly prohibits the Commission from disclosing to the public any reported personal information that identifies the securities held by the account of a natural person or an estate or trust, other than a business trust or an investment company, which is referred to in this release as “personal” information. 59

Confidential treatment for personal information, as specified in section 13(f)(4), is required for an indefinite time period if public disclosure would identify the securities held by the account of a natural person, an estate, or a trust (other than a business trust or an investment company). 60 The Commission, however, does have discretion to determine whether to grant confidential treatment requests for commercial information in accordance with section 13(f), rule 24b-2, and the FOIA. 61 The Commission provided delegated authority to the Division of Investment Management to grant, deny, or revoke a grant of confidential treatment for any application for confidential treatment that is filed under Exchange Act section 24(b) and rule 24b-2 thereunder for confidential treatment of information filed pursuant to Exchange Act section 13(f) and rule 13f-1. 62

Currently, a manager seeking confidential treatment must file multiple lists of securities. First, it must electronically file via EDGAR a public Form 13F that identifies the securities that are required to be publicly disclosed under section 13(f) and rule 13f-1, excluding, if applicable, any security(ies) for which it is requesting confidential treatment. Second, it must file a paper 13(f) Confidential Treatment Request that includes both: (i) a separate, non-public Form 13F for the same calendar quarter that lists any 13(f) Security(ies) for which the manager is requesting confidential treatment; and (ii) a supporting request letter to substantiate the substantive basis for confidential treatment. Third, following the submission of a commercial confidential treatment request, a manager must file an amendment(s) upon the expiration or denial of confidential treatment to disclose publicly any security(ies) for which confidential treatment was requested. 63 Furthermore, the 13(f) Confidential Treatment Requests, which are filed in paper, must be filed in quintuplicate with the Commission's Office of the Secretary. 64

The Form requires 13(f) Confidential Treatment Requests to include the Form 13F reporting information for which the manager requests confidential treatment, as well as factual support to enable the Commission to make an informed judgment as to the merits of the request. 65 The manager also must submit a public filing of Form 13F that lists the manager's quarter-end holdings, and, when confidential treatment is requested, indicates that the confidential portion of the Form 13F has been omitted and filed separately with the Commission. 66 These types of paper confidential treatment request submissions are subject to a time-consuming, manual receipt and distribution process within the Commission that could lead to undue procedural delay and increase the time that the information receives de facto confidential treatment while the staff processes a 13(f) Confidential Treatment Request. 67 These challenges were highlighted during the COVID-19 pandemic that resulted in delays in receiving paper filings and, ultimately, in granting or denying 13(f) Confidential Treatment Requests filed with the Commission in paper. 68

We are adopting, as proposed, amendments to Form 13F and related rules under the Exchange Act and Regulation S-T that will require managers to file requests for confidential treatment electronically via EDGAR. 69 Thus, under the amendments, the 13(f) Confidential Treatment Requests that filers currently submit to the Commission in paper, typically through the mail or by express delivery, will be required to be submitted electronically via EDGAR.

Two commenters supported the proposal to require 13(f) Confidential Treatment Requests to be filed electronically  70 and one of these commenters stated that submitting these requests on paper can be time-consuming and, at times, may be operationally challenging ( e.g., during 2020 as a result of COVID-19). 71 These commenters agreed that electronic filings would relieve the burdens on managers of sending paper 13(f) Confidential Treatment Requests to the Commission. One of these commenters also stated that this proposal would save time, energy and money for filers and result in more efficient and secure filings. 72

Additionally, one commenter specifically supported using EDGAR for 13(f) Confidential Treatment Requests and agreed that using the same filing system for both Form 13F and 13(f) Confidential Treatment Requests would be less burdensome for managers than requiring managers to use a different system for each filing. 73 This commenter also stated that 13(f) Confidential Treatment Requests, including the justifications and related holdings information, should not be included on or attached to the publicly filed Form 13F, but should be filed as a separate file to provide the best protection against inadvertent publication by the filer or the Commission. Finally, this commenter supported electronic communication of the Commission's decisions pertaining to 13(f) Confidential Treatment Requests because providing electronic communication through both means (via EDGAR and email) would provide the best chance for the communication to be properly sent and received.

We continue to believe that requiring electronic filing of 13(f) Confidential Treatment Requests via EDGAR will provide significant benefits to managers and will both further the goals of section 13(f) (as noted above) and assist and expedite the Commission's review of such requests. 74 As commenters observed, requiring 13(f) Confidential Treatment Requests to be filed on EDGAR, rather than an alternative system, would be less burdensome for managers that are already familiar with the process of making filings on EDGAR, and will allow the Commission to review all of a manager's holdings more efficiently since both public and confidential holdings will be filed on a single system. Additionally, as we stated in the Proposing Release, and one commenter agreed, 13(f) Confidential Treatment Requests should be filed as a separate, non-public filing from a manager's public Form 13F filing to avoid inadvertent public disclosure of confidential holdings. 75 Finally, the Commission will communicate its decisions pertaining to 13(f) Confidential Treatment Requests consistent with current practice and the requirements of rule 24b-2 and the Commission's Rules of Practice. 76 Therefore, we are adopting as proposed the three amendments to Form 13F described in more detail below. 77

• Instructions for Confidential Treatment Requests. We are amending the instructions to require that a 13(f) Confidential Treatment Request be filed electronically. Such requests will be made electronically via EDGAR as a separate, non-public filing. 78 Requests also must include a confidential Form 13F report that is limited to the 13(f) Securities holdings for which the manager is requesting confidential treatment. The changes to the Instructions for Confidential Treatment Requests will also provide updated references to new paragraph (i) of rule 24b-2. 79

• Summary Page. As proposed, the summary page will include all the same information currently required but will be amended to require a manager seeking confidential treatment to indicate if confidential treatment is being requested for some or all of the manager's holdings for the quarter-end period. 80

• Special Instructions. As proposed, new Special Instruction 6(d) will require managers to identify on the Summary Page if confidential treatment is being requested for some or all of the manager's holdings for the quarter-end period. 81

We are adopting as proposed amendments to rule 24b-2 to include an additional paragraph governing the filing of confidential information required by section 13(f) of the Exchange Act. 82 New paragraph (i) will require that managers request confidential treatment electronically for any material required to be reported on Form 13F and continue to omit the confidential portion from the materials required to be reported.

As proposed, we are amending Regulation S-T in connection with the mandatory electronic submission of 13(f) Confidential Treatment Requests. Rule 101(a) will be amended to add 13(f) Confidential Treatment Requests to the list of mandated electronic filings. 83 Additionally, 13(f) Confidential Treatment Requests will be added to the list of requests for confidential treatment required to be submitted in electronic format in rule 101(d). 84

We are adopting, as proposed, amendments to Form 13F that will require filers to provide additional identifying information. These amendments will require each Form 13F filer to provide its Central Registration Depository number (“CRD number”) and SEC file number, if any. 85 If a manager is filing a Form 13F notice report on Form 13F-NT, the manager must include the CRD number and SEC file number, if any, of any other manager included in the “List of Other Managers Reporting for this Manager” table on the cover page. 86 Additionally, as discussed in more detail below, we are adopting an amendment to Form 13F that would allow managers to disclose, for each security reported on Form 13F, the security's FIGI in addition to its CUSIP number. 87

One commenter supported the proposed amendments to require managers to provide additional identifying information, including their CRD and SEC file numbers, if any. The commenter agreed that this information would allow the Commission and other consumers of Form 13F data to more easily identify a Form 13F filer's other regulatory filings and the interrelationships between managers who share investment discretion over 13(f) Securities. 88 The commenter also stated its belief that disclosing this information would not be unduly burdensome for 13F filers. 89 Another commenter opposed this requirement, stating that the commenter did not see the need for filers to provide additional identifying information and adding that such a change could be burdensome for managers that have numerous related parties or sub-advisers. 90

We are adopting these amendments as proposed because these requirements will allow the Commission, investors, and other market participants to identify interrelationships between managers as well as a manager's other regulatory filings efficiently without undue burden. In particular, we believe the additional burdens associated with identifying numerous managers and sub-advisers, as one commenter raised, 91 are not significant because the required identifying information is easily accessible to the reporting manager and we anticipate that managers could transmit and store this information easily using their existing systems. Furthermore, we believe that any additional burden associated with this requirement is justified because it will allow the Commission, investors, and other market participants to more easily identify the interrelationships among these numerous managers. 92 We also believe that these amendments are consistent with the Commission's obligations under section 13(f)(4) to tabulate information contained in Form 13F reports in a manner that would “maximize the usefulness of the information to other Federal and State authorities and the public.”  93

We also are modifying the proposal to provide managers flexibility to report an additional security identifier, specifically by permitting, but not requiring, the use of FIGI in addition to CUSIP. The Proposing Release requested comment on whether the Commission should allow managers to provide other security identifiers in addition to, or in lieu of, the CUSIP, such as the FIGI. 94 Commenter responses were mixed. One commenter opposed a change to the CUSIP requirement because such a change would be burdensome and less useful than the CUSIP. 95 Another commenter supported providing managers with the option to use either CUSIP or an alternative identifier because of the licensing practices, fees and obligations related to CUSIP. 96 Additionally, one commenter supported permitting managers to provide other identifiers such as FIGI for each security because the commenter believes that there is a need for a free open unique identifier for every security. 97

While the final rules will maintain the requirement to disclose CUSIP, we are persuaded by commenters that providing the flexibility of reporting an additional security identifier, along with CUSIP, would be appropriate. 98 CUSIP numbers and FIGIs are both able to provide the unique identification of a reported security in a manner that is standard across datasets. 99 Managers choosing to report using FIGI would provide the share class level FIGI which, like CUSIP, is standard across exchanges. 100 We believe that providing managers with the option of reporting a FIGI, in addition the mandatory CUSIP number, for some or all of the manager's 13(f) Securities would enhance the utility of holdings data reported on Form 13F and the usefulness of such information to the Commission, other regulators, or members of the public and other market participants by allowing analysis based on FIGI where managers choose to report that identifier. For example, investors who analyze holdings data reported on Form 13F and that use FIGIs in their internal analyses could use the reported FIGIs without having to first convert a security's CUSIP number to a FIGI.

By contrast, under the final rules we are not amending the form to allow a manager to report the corresponding LEI of the issuer of such security as one commenter suggested. 101 Because an LEI is an identifier of legal entities (such as issuers of 13(f) Securities), rather than an identifier of securities, it would not provide comparable information to a CUSIP number or a FIGI. 102

We are adopting as proposed an amendment to the instructions on Form 13F for 13(f) Confidential Treatment Requests to require managers seeking confidential treatment for information contained in Form 13F to demonstrate that the information is customarily and actually kept private by the manager and that failure to grant the request for confidential treatment would be likely to cause harm to the manager. 103 We did not receive comments on this proposed amendment. This amendment will conform our instructions to a June 2019 U.S. Supreme Court decision that overturned the standard for determining whether information is “confidential” under Exemption 4 of the FOIA on which the current instruction is based. 104

We are also adopting as proposed certain technical amendments to Form 13F designed to account for the change in the required format of Form 13F submissions from the plain-text ASCII format to the XML-based structured data language in 2013. 105 Specifically, we are adopting amendments to simplify the rounding conventions of Form 13F by requiring all dollar values listed on Form 13F to be rounded to the nearest dollar, rather than to the nearest one thousand dollars as is currently required. 106 Additionally, we are adopting amendments to remove the requirement that filers, when reporting dollar values on Form 13F, omit the “000.”  107 Furthermore, the amendments will remove the 80 character limit imposed on the information filers can include on the cover page and the summary page and the 132 character limit on the information table. 108 Finally, the amendments will remove duplicative definitions and streamline certain sections to simplify Form 13F's instructions. 109

Two commenters supported requiring filers to round all dollar values listed on Form 13F to the nearest dollar and remove the requirement to omit “000.”  110 One of these commenters observed that the rounding requirement has caused inconsistencies in filings, and added that incorrect or inconsistent rounding is one of the most common filing errors on Form 13F because many filers already round to the nearest dollar. 111 Conversely, one commenter opposed the changes to the rounding conventions of the form because the commenter is not aware of data inaccuracies resulting from current reporting requirements and therefore believes that the implementation costs to change the conventions would outweigh any marginal benefit from these changes. 112

As we noted in the Proposing Release, our staff has observed instances of data errors resulting from incorrect rounding. 113 Additionally, we continue to believe that these amendments will enhance the accuracy of the data provided on Form 13F and make it easier to understand and use, both for the Commission and for the public. Moreover, we believe the costs associated with these amendments will be limited and any additional costs associated with these amendments will be justified by the enhanced accuracy of Form 13F data. Therefore, we are adopting the technical amendments to Form 13F described above as proposed. 114

We are adopting largely as proposed a six-month transition period to give advisers, applicants, and managers sufficient time to modify their procedures to implement the new rule requirements with regard to submitting applications for exemption under the Advisers Act and for filing Form ADV-NR. The transition period will also give an adequate period of time for managers and other service providers to conduct the requisite operational changes to their systems and to establish internal processes to comply with the new electronic filing requirements of 13F Confidential Treatment Requests and implement the other amendments to Form 13F. We received no comment on the proposed transition period.

Therefore, for the amendments related to Advisers Act Applications, Form ADV-NR, and the electronic filing requirements of 13F Confidential Treatment Requests, we are adopting a compliance date of six months after these amendments' effective date as proposed. With respect to the amendments to Form 13F, the Commission is delaying the effective date of those amendments until January 3, 2023. 115 We believe it is important that all managers begin reporting on the amended version of Form 13F simultaneously in order to maintain the consistency of the data reported on Form 13F during the transition period. This approach would also allow the Commission and other users of Form 13F data to more efficiently identify the point in time in which a manager begins using the amended Form 13F.

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has designated these rules as not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). If any of the provisions of these rules, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or application of such provisions to other persons or circumstances that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.

The Commission is sensitive to the potential economic effects of the final amendments to the rules and form that include, among other things, making mandatory the electronic submission of applications for orders under the Advisers Act and 13(f) Confidential Treatment Requests, and harmonizing the requirements for electronic submission of applications for orders under the Advisers Act and the Investment Company Act (collectively, the “final amendments”). The economic effects include the potential benefits and costs of the final amendments, as well as any effects on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 116

The Commission is adopting amendments to facilitate the efficient submission of applications for orders under the Advisers Act and requests for confidential treatment; to improve the Commission's ability to track and process such filings; to reduce burdens and inefficiencies associated with paper submissions; to allow for quicker dissemination of information to the public; to provide managers with more flexibility in identifying 13(f) Securities; and to modernize the Commission's records management processes.

With respect to the filing of applications for orders under the Advisers Act, the final amendments will:

• Require electronic submission of applications for orders under the Advisers Act;

• Designate EDGAR as the filing system for electronic submission;

• Eliminate the requirement to file proposed notices as exhibits to applications;

• Eliminate the requirement that applications be notarized and certain other technical requirements;

• Make temporary hardship exemptions unavailable for applications for orders under the Advisers Act;

• Designate the Secretary of the Commission as the addressee of any remaining paper submissions under Investment Company Act rules 0-2 and 0-4.

With respect to filing 13(f) Confidential Treatment Requests and Form 13F, the final amendments will:

• Require electronic submission of 13(f) Confidential Treatment Requests listing all 13(f) Securities and managers' objection to public disclosure of certain holdings in accordance with the requirements set forth in rule 24b-2 under the Exchange Act;

• Designate EDGAR as the filing system for electronic submissions of 13(f) Confidential Treatment Requests;

• Require that filers include additional identifying information on their Form 13F filings;

• Require all dollar values listed on Form 13F to be rounded to the nearest dollar, remove the requirement that dollar values list on Form 13F omit the “000,” and remove character limits on the cover, the summary page, and the information table of Form 13F;

• Allow managers to disclose, for any security reported on Form 13F, the security's FIGI in addition to its CUSIP number.

• Eliminate duplicative definitions and streamline certain sections to simplify Form 13F's instructions.

In addition, we are adopting final amendments as proposed requiring that Form ADV-NR, which is currently filed in paper, be filed electronically through the IARD system. Some of the amendments we are adopting are technical in nature and we do not expect them to have significant economic effects. 117

We have sought, where possible, to quantify the economic effects of the final amendments. However, the effects of the final amendments depend on a number of factors, some of which we cannot quantify, such as the value to different market participants of the uses of information contained in the 13(f) Confidential Treatment Requests. Therefore, some of the discussion below is qualitative in nature.

The economic baseline, from which we measure the final amendments' likely economic effects, reflects current regulatory practice as it pertains to potential applicants for orders under the Advisers Act, filers of Form ADV-NR, and managers required to file Form 13F. In this section, we describe each of these baseline components.

The final amendments with respect to applications for orders under the Advisers Act will affect applicants seeking such orders, applicants who may seek similar orders in the future, clients of applicants, investors in funds managed by applicants, and the Commission. Applicants can include registered investment advisers, exempt reporting advisers, and persons not registered with the Commission, but who meet the definition of investment adviser under the Advisers Act, among others. As of December 31, 2021, there were approximately 14,815 registered investment advisers and 5,074 exempt reporting advisers. 118 In addition, as of December 31, 2021, there were approximately 17,307 state-registered advisers and an unknown number of foreign private advisers, who, while not registered with the Commission, may seek to file applications for orders under the Advisers Act. 119

In accordance with Advisers Act rules, applicants seeking an order from the Commission under the Advisers Act must submit their applications, as well as a proposed notice, in paper and in quintuplicate, to the Commission's mailroom for stamping and logging. 120 Applications are ultimately routed to the Commission's staff to manually upload into the EDGAR system, assign file numbers, and process for internal tracking purposes. Division staff also place the applications (including amendments, notices of applications, and the resulting orders) on the Commission's website. 121 These applications for orders available online may inform investors' decisions with respect to the selection or retention of investment advisers as well as investment decisions regarding funds managed by these advisers. In addition, applications for orders available online provide potential precedent to be consulted by future applicants. The table below describes the number of initial applications for orders under the Advisers Act and Investment Company Act by year over the last three calendar years as posted on the Commission website. 122 The table shows that initial applications for orders under the Advisers Act are uncommon relative to applications for orders under the Investment Company Act.

We estimate that, under the baseline, the costs of submitting an application for an order under the Advisers Act range from $14,182 to $221,909. 123

The final amendments will affect non-resident general partners and non-resident managing agents of investment advisers, who are currently required to file Form ADV-NR as a paper filing submission, as well as their investment advisers, who currently sign Form ADV-NR. 124 The Commission received 53 Form ADV-NR filings during calendar year 2019, 5 filings during calendar year 2020, and 4 filings during calendar year 2021. We estimate that it currently costs $75 to file Form ADV-NR. 125 These amendments will also affect the Commission to the extent the amendments alter how the Commission receives and processes Form ADV-NR filings.

The final amendments with respect to 13(f) Confidential Treatment Requests and Form 13F will affect managers who file Form 13F, the Commission, and users of Form 13F information, including investors and other market participants. The table below describes the number of Form 13F filings and 13(f) Confidential Treatment Requests by calendar year and shows that, over the three year period from 2018-2020, only 0.82% (585/71,424) of Form 13F filings included confidential treatment requests.

This rule implements the HAVANA Act of 2021, Public Law 117-46, codified in 22 U.S.C. 2680b(i).

On December 20, 2019, Congress gave authority (Pub. L. 116-94, Division J, Title IX, section 901) (codified in 22 U.S.C. 2680b) to the Department of State to pay benefits to employees and their dependents for injuries suffered in Cuba or China after January 1, 2016, in connection with certain hostile or other incidents designated by the Secretary of State. These benefits were limited to State Department employees only ( i.e., not other employees under Chief of Mission (COM) authority). The Department implemented this authority in the Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM), 3 FAM 3660.

On January 1, 2021, Congress amended this law (Pub. L. 116-283, div. A, title XI, section 1110), authorizing other federal government agencies (such as the Department of Agriculture) to provide benefits to their own employees under COM authority who suffered similar injuries.

On October 8, 2021, the “Helping American Victims Affected by Neurological Attacks” (HAVANA) Act of 2021 became law (Pub. L. 117-46). In this latest Act, Congress authorized federal government agencies to compensate affected current employees, former employees, and their dependents for qualifying injuries to the brain. This law requires the Department (and other agencies) to “prescribe regulations” implementing the HAVANA Act not later than 180 days after the effective date of the Act. Section 3 of the HAVANA Act of 2021 removed the requirement in Public Law 116-94, Division J, Title IX, Section 901, that the qualifying injury occur in “the Republic of Cuba, People's Republic of China, or other foreign country designated by the Secretary of State” for the purpose of making a payment under the HAVANA Act. This interim final rule only implements the HAVANA Act of 2021.

The regulation herein applies only to current and former employees of the Department of State, and dependents of current or former employees, as defined in § 135.2 of this rule. (Current employees will also continue to be covered by 3 FAM 3660 and its subchapters.) Upon publication of this rule, the Department will add a new subsection in 3 FAM 3660.It is the Department's position that each federal agency seeking to provide benefits to an employee, former employee, or dependent of a current or former employee must implement its own authorizing regulations.

The rule follows the definitional template provided in the HAVANA Act and its predecessors. The rule defines certain categories of individuals as employees (and thus covered under the Foreign Affairs Manual), as well as those who are not considered employees.

With respect to covered employees, this rule maintains the previous statutory requirement that the qualifying injury occurred on or after January 1, 2016. Similarly, with respect to dependents, this rule maintains the previous statutory requirement that the qualifying injury occurred on or after January 1, 2016, while the employee sponsor was a covered employee of the Department of State. Since geographical restrictions have been removed by the HAVANA Act for the purpose of making a payment under the Act, this rule defines “covered dependent” as any family member of a Department current or former employee, without any restriction on where the Department employee was posted. The rule uses the Department's definition of “eligible family member” in 14 FAM 511.3 to define “dependent”, as set out below.

The term “covered employee” captures Department of State Foreign Service Officers; Department of State Foreign Service Specialists; Department of State Civil Service employees; Consular Affairs—Appointment Eligible Family Member Adjudicator positions; Expanded Professional Associates Program members; Family Member Appointments; Foreign Service Family Reserve Corps; employees on Limited Non-Career Appointments; Temporary Appointments; personnel hired on a Personal Services Contract; and Locally Employed Staff, whether employed on a Personal Services Agreement, Personal Services Contract, or appointed to the position.

The term “covered individual” captures any former employee of the Department (including retired or separated employees) who, on or after January 1, 2016, became injured by reason of a qualifying injury to the brain while they were a covered employee of the Department.

The term “covered dependent” captures a family member of a Department current or former employee who, on or after January 1, 2016, becomes injured by reason of a qualifying injury to the brain while the dependent's sponsor was a covered employee of the Department. For purposes of determining whether someone is a covered dependent, the term “family members” includes unmarried children under 21 years of age (or certain other children); parents; sisters and brothers; and spouse. Step-parents and step-siblings are included in the definition.

The definition of “qualifying injury to the brain” is based on current medical practices related to brain injuries. Further, the injury must have occurred in connection with certain hostile acts, including war, terrorist activity, or other incidents designated by the Secretary of State, and must not have been the result of the willful misconduct of the covered individual. The individual must have: an acute injury to the brain such as, but not limited to, a concussion, penetrating injury, or as the consequence of an event that leads to permanent alterations in brain function as demonstrated by confirming correlative findings on imaging studies (to include computed tomography scan (CT), or magnetic resonance imaging scan (MRI)), or electroencephalogram (EEG); or a medical diagnosis of a traumatic brain injury (TBI) that required active medical treatment for 12 months or more; or acute onset of new persistent, disabling neurologic symptoms as demonstrated by confirming correlative findings on imaging studies (to include CT, MRI), EEG, physical exam, or other appropriate testing, and that required active medical treatment for 12 months or more.

In developing this definition, the Department consulted with the chief medical officers at other Federal agencies, and experts at civilian medical centers of excellence. There is no ICD-10 diagnostic code or criteria for AHIs (International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM)). Because of the varied symptoms and still-nascent understanding of how to test or otherwise screen for AHI impacts, the Department sought to establish a standard that it believes will be broadly inclusive of the types of injuries that have been reported by covered individuals to date.

The first component of the definition in § 135.2 “Qualifying injury to the brain” (paragraph (2)(a)) accounts for a variety of observable impacts to an individual, including either a concussion, a penetrating injury, or absent either of those, the ability of an ABPN-certified neurologist to review one of a variety of forms of medical imaging evidence indicating permanent alterations in brain function. The Department's goal with this standard is to ensure there is some documented evidence of impact to the brain, while minimally circumscribing what that impact entails. The second and third components of the definition (paragraphs (2)(b) and (c) of the definition), only one of which must be satisfied, are intended to provide multiple avenues for demonstrating sustained, long-term impact to the individual. The Department believes that this benefit is intended for individuals who experience long-term consequences, potentially to include their inability to gainfully work, as a result of their reported possible AHI. Establishing a 12-month threshold of active medical treatment is indicative of a long-term injury. For example, the CDC broadly defines chronic diseases “as conditions that last 1 year or more and require ongoing medical attention or limit activities of daily living or both.”

The Department notes that in adopting this definition, there may be eligible applicants who have suffered kinetic or external, physically-caused injuries to the brain such as the head being struck by an object, the head striking an object, the brain undergoing an acceleration or deceleration movement, or forces generated from events such as a blast or explosion, including penetrating injuries, if their injuries satisfy the other requirements of this rule.

The American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology (ABPN) remains the sole neurology board in the United States, maintaining strict professional requirements for membership. As such, the Department of State endorses this industry certification as the clinical standard for a neurologist upon evaluation of a qualifying injury to the brain.

The definition of “other incident” is a new onset of physical manifestations that cannot otherwise be explained. The Department notes that it maintains a non-public list of potential incidents based on internal reports it has collected from personnel and their dependents since 2016. While the Department believes this list to be reflective of known incidents to-date, the Department will work with any requestor upon submission of the DS-4316 (“Eligibility Questionnaire for HAVANA Act Payments”) to determine whether or not their alleged incident aligns with the Department's record of “other incidents.”

The Department will communicate with its entire workforce to inform them of the rule, regulations, and process for requesting payment The Department will work together with potential recipients to provide the necessary documentation to qualify for payment. In the majority of cases, potentially affected personnel are already known to the Department due to internal reporting after individuals experienced what they believe to be an AHI. While the Department believes these efforts will ensure all potential requestors will be able to identify themselves to the Department and begin the process of requesting a payment, the DS-4316, the form associated with developing the necessary evidence to submit a claim, will also be publicly hosted on State's eForms website with instructions on how to contact the Department if a requestor believes they are eligible for a HAVANA Act payment.

Section 135.3 states the conditions required before the Department will consider discretionary payments to former employees and dependents of current or former employees: the qualifying injury to the brain for a former employee must have occurred on or after January 1, 2016, and while the former employee was a covered employee of the Department; and for a dependent, the injury must have occurred on or after January 1, 2016, and while the dependent's sponsor was a covered employee of the Department. The Under Secretary for Management must approve any HAVANA Act payment.

As noted above, any payment to current Department employees will be processed using the procedures in 3 FAM 3660 and its subchapters.

Payments will be a one-time, non-taxable, lump sum payment, based on Level III of the Executive Schedule (see 5 U.S.C. 5311 et seq. ). The payment is non-taxable pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2680b(g). As indicated in § 135.3(e), in determining the amount of the payment, the Department will consider (1) the responses on the DS-4316, “Eligibility Questionnaire for HAVANA Act Payments” and (2) whether the Department of Labor (Workers' Compensation) has determined that the requestor has no reemployment potential, or the Social Security Administration has approved the requestor for Social Security Disability Insurance, or the requestor's ABPN-certified neurologist has certified that the individual requires a full-time caregiver for activities of daily living, as defined by the Katz Index of Independence of Daily Living.

The award thresholds are based on Level III of the Senior Executive Schedule (SES). Base will be 75 percent of Level III pay, and Base+ will be 100 percent of Level III pay. If the requestor meets any of the criteria listed in (e)(2) above, the requestor will be eligible to receive a Base+ payment. Requestors whose neurologists confirm that the definition of “qualifying injury to the brain” has been met but have not met any of the criteria listed in (e)(2) above, will be eligible to receive a Base payment. The criteria established in (e)(2) are reflective of the Department's objective of ensuring that the individuals most severely affected by AHIs (as indicated by a lack of reemployment potential, an inability to engage in substantial gainful activity, or the need for a full-time caregiver) receive additional payment. The specific use of the Department of Labor (DOL) or the Social Security Administration's (SSA) determination is to ensure that both federal employees as well as covered individuals and covered dependents have access to a mechanism for this determination. The Department recognizes that criteria DOL and SSA use in their disability determinations are distinct, as well as the fact that the procedural timelines for seeking and receiving approval may be different between these agencies. The third option, that an ABPN-certified neurologist certifies that the individual requires a full-time caregiver for activities of daily living (as defined by the Katz Index of Independence of Daily Living), provides an alternative mechanism for all individuals. Finally, the Department notes that if a requestor who received a Base payment later meets any of the criteria listed in (e)(2) above, the requestor may apply for an additional payment that will be the difference between the Base and Base+ payment. At the time of writing this rule (2022), a Base payment will be $140,475. A Base+ payment will be $187,300. As the payments are tied to the SES, the amounts will change over time based on increases to the Federal salary schedule.

The specific use of Level III of the SES sets the compensation at the maximum annual salary potentially available to most of the federal workforce. While payments under the HAVANA Act may be on top of other leave, disability, or workers' compensation payments the requestor is receiving or may be entitled to receive that also help augment any loss of income, the Department believes this is an appropriate additional payment. The Department also believes this amount is the most it can reasonably compensate each requestor while ensuring available funds for the total amount of requestors it believes will likely receive payments. The Department also notes that because payments are contingent on appropriated funds all payments will be paid out on a first come, first served basis.

The Department of State will, to the extent possible, consult with the appropriate officials in other agencies to help identify personnel (current or former employees, or dependents) who served under Chief of Mission authority overseas and who might have suffered a qualifying injury to the brain on or after January 1, 2016. It will be the responsibility of the other agencies to publish regulations implementing the HAVANA Act and to provide payment for individuals affiliated with such agencies.

This rule is being published as an interim final rule. Because this rule is a matter relating to public benefits, it is exempt from the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553. See 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2). Since the rule is exempt from the entirety of § 553 pursuant to § 553(a)(2), the provisions of § 553(d) do not apply and the rule could be in effect upon publication. However, the Department has determined it will set an effective date of 45 days after publication. In addition, it is in the public interest for the rule to have an expeditious effective date. However, the Department is seeking comment from interested persons on the provisions of this Rule and will consider all relevant comments in determining whether additional rulemaking is warranted under the provisions of the HAVANA Act.

The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804 for the purposes of Congressional review of agency rulemaking under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801-808).

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

The Department has determined that this rulemaking will not have tribal implications, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and will not pre-empt tribal law. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply to this rulemaking.

The Department of State certifies that this rulemaking will not have an impact on a substantial number of small entities. A regulatory flexibility analysis is not required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. ).

The Department of State has provided this interim final rule to OMB for its review. OIRA has designated this rule as “significant” under Executive Order 12866. Potential causes of AHI are being investigated but remain unknown. Given the nature of the incidents, it is difficult to accurately estimate future incidents and numbers of individuals affected. For Fiscal Year (FY) 2022, the Department has estimated that it would pay up to $5.6 million to 40 people. For FY 2023, the estimated numbers are up to $10.7 million to 76 people.

The Department has also reviewed the rule to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in Executive Order 12866 and finds that the benefits of the rule (in providing mechanisms for individuals to obtain compensation for certain injuries) outweigh any costs to the public, which are minimal. The Department of State has also considered this rulemaking in light of Executive Order 13563 and affirms that this proposed regulation is consistent with the guidance therein.

The Department of State has reviewed this rule in light of Executive Order 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.

This rule will not have substantial direct effect on the states, on the relationships between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to require consultations or warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. Executive Order 12372, regarding intergovernmental consultation on federal programs and activities, does not apply to this regulation.

This rulemaking is related to an information collection for the Form DS-4316, “Eligibility Questionnaire for HAVANA Act Patients,” OMB Control Number 1405-0250. This collection was approved under an emergency authorization. The Form DS-4316 has been uploaded to this rule's docket on Regulations.gov (please see ADDRESSES section above). The Department invites public comment on the form and on the anticipated burden associated with it. The Department is pursuing a routine three-year approval from OIRA, including an intent to publish 60- and 30-day Federal Register notices for public comment.

OSHA is correcting 29 CFR 1926.62 to restore regulatory text that was inadvertently removed from the OSHA lead standard for construction by amendments published on February 18, 2020 (85 FR 8726, 8735). This action is to reinstate the omitted regulatory text and restore the OSHA lead standard for construction to its correct version. The agency is issuing this notice to restore regulatory text at paragraph § 1926.62 (d)(2)(iv).

On February 18, 2020, OSHA corrected typographical errors, including extraneous or omitted materials and inaccurate graphics, in 27 OSHA standards and regulations. In one of these corrections under Subpart D—Occupational Health and Environmental Controls, Lead, OSHA amended paragraphs 1926.62(d)(2)(iii) and (iv) by replacing the outdated references to “Table 1 of this section” with the correct references to “paragraph (f) of this section,” as Table 1 no longer existed (see 85 FR at 8728).

These corrections resulted in the inadvertent removal of the list of tasks at the end of paragraph (d)(2)(iv). OSHA is correcting 29 CFR 1926.62 to restore this list.

OSHA has determined this correction is not subject to the procedures for public notice and comment specified in Section 4 of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553), and Section 6(b) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655(b)). This rulemaking only reinstates the inadvertent removal of four lines of regulatory text. The text that was removed was originally promulgated as part of an interim final rule mandated by Title X of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (Pub. L. 102-550) and was included in § 1926.62(d)(2)(iv) for more than 25 years until its inadvertent deletion. No stakeholder is likely to object to this correction. Therefore, the agency finds good cause, in accordance with 29 CFR 1911.5 and 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), that public notice and comment are unnecessary under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and 29 U.S.C. 655(b).

When federal OSHA promulgates a new standard or more stringent amendment to an existing standard, the states and U.S. Territories with their own OSHA-approved occupational safety and health plans (State Plans) must promulgate a state standard adopting such new federal standard or more stringent amendment to an existing federal standard, or an at least as effective equivalent thereof, within six months of promulgation of the new federal standard or amendment. The state may demonstrate that a standard change is not necessary if the state standard is already the same or at least as effective as the federal standard change.

Of the 28 states and territories with OSHA-approved State Plans, 22 cover public and private-sector employees: Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming. The remaining six states and territories cover only state and local government employees: Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, New Jersey, New York, and the Virgin Islands.

OSHA concludes this correcting amendment restores inadvertently removed regulatory text which contains protections afforded employees under this standard for more than 25 years. Therefore, OSHA has determined that, within six months of the rule's promulgation date, State Plans must review their state standards and adopt this correction, unless the State Plans demonstrate that such amendment is not necessary, either because their existing standards continue to include the language that was inadvertently removed from the federal standard or because they have adopted different standards that are at least as effective as the reinstated federal provisions.

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

Accordingly, OSHA is correcting 29 CFR part 1926 with the following amendment:

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone in table 1 to paragraph (h)(1) to 33 CFR 165.506, entry 10 for the DRWC Fireworks Display from 9 p.m. until 10 p.m. on July 2, 2022. This action is necessary to ensure safety of life on the navigable waters of the United States immediately prior to, during, and immediately after the fireworks displays. Our regulation for safety zones of fireworks displays within the Fifth Coast Guard District, table 1 to paragraph (h)(1) to 33 CFR 165.506, entry 10 specifies the location of the regulated area as all waters of Delaware River, adjacent to Penn's Landing, Philadelphia, PA, within a 500-yard radius of the launch site at approximate position latitude 39°56′52″ N, longitude 075°08′9″ W. During the enforcement period, as reflected in § 165.506(d), vessels may not enter, remain in, or transit through the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or designated Coast Guard patrol personnel on-scene.

In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard will provide notification of this enforcement period via broadcast notice to mariners.

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone in table 1 to paragraph (h)(1) to 33 CFR 165.506, entry (a)10 for the Rivers Casino Fireworks display 8:45 p.m. through 10 p.m. on July 3, 2022. This action is necessary to ensure safety of life on the navigable waters of the United States immediately prior to, during, and immediately after the fireworks displays. Our regulation for safety zones of fireworks displays within the Fifth Coast Guard District, table 1 to paragraph (h)(1) to 33 CFR 165.506, entry 10 specifies the location of the regulated area as all waters of Delaware River, adjacent to Penn's Landing, Philadelphia, PA, within a 500-yard radius of the fireworks barge position. The approximate position for the display is latitude 39°57′39″ N, longitude 075°07′45″ W. During the enforcement period, as reflected in § 165.506(d), vessels may not enter, remain in, or transit through the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or designated Coast Guard patrol personnel on-scene.

In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard will provide notification of this enforcement period via broadcast notice to mariners.

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. The event sponsor did not submit notice of the fireworks display to the Coast Guard with sufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. This safety zone must be established by July 04, 2022 in order to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with this fireworks display.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . For the same reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph, waiting for a 30-day notice period to run would be impracticable because we must establish this safety zone by July 04, 2022.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Buffalo (COTP) has determined that fireworks over the water presents significant risks to public safety and property within a 280-foot radius of the launch point. This rule is necessary to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the fireworks display is taking place.

This rule establishes a safety zone from 9:45 p.m. through 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2022. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within a 280-foot radius of bridge launched fireworks over Ellicott River in Tonawanda, NY. The duration of the safety zone is intended to protect spectators, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters during the fireworks display. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP Buffalo or his designated representative.

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

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. The safety zone will encompass a 280-foot radius from the bridge launched fireworks over Ellicott River in Tonwanda, NY, with the event lasting approximately 1 hour during the evening when vessel traffic is normally low. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the safety zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the safety zone.

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

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

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

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

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

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule a safety zone lasting approximately 1 hour that will prohibit entry within a 280-foot radius over Ellicott River in Tonawanda, NY for a fireworks display. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

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

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the event sponsor did not submit notice of the fireworks display to the Coast Guard with sufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM and immediate action is necessary to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with this foreworks display. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we must establish this safety zone by July 3, 2022.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . For the same reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph, waiting for a 30-day notice period to run would be impracticable because immediate action is necessary to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment during the fireworks display over Seneca Lake in Romulus, NY.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Buffalo (COTP) has determined that fireworks over the water presents significant risks to public safety and property within a 840-foot radius of the launch point. This rule is necessary to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the fireworks display is taking place.

This rule establishes a safety zone from 9:15 p.m. through 10:45 p.m. on July 3, 2022. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within a 840-foot radius of barge launched fireworks over Seneca Lake in Romulus, NY. The zone is intended to protect spectators, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters during the fireworks display. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP Buffalo or a designated representative.

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

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the characteristics of the safety zone. The safety zone will encompass a 840-foot radius from the barge-launched fireworks in the Seneca Lake in Romulus, NY, with the event lasting approxiamately 1.5 hours during the evening when vessel traffic is normally low. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

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

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

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

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

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

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting approximately 1.5 hours that will prohibit entry within a 840-foot radius in Seneca Lake in Romulus, NY for a fireworks display. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

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

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule. Doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Prompt action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with a fireworks display on the Savannah River, adjacent to a major shipping channel. The primary justification for this action is that the Coast Guard received initial notice of the event on June 1, 2022 regarding the event beginning on July 4, 2022, and was further delayed in processing this temporary rule due to technical problems related to conducting the environmental review. The event would begin before the rulemaking process would be completed. Therefore, the Coast Guard lacks sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule. It would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest to delay promulgating this rule, as it is necessary to protect the safety of participants, spectators, and vessels transiting near the fireworks display.

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port Savannah (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with a fireworks display on the Savannah River, near downtown Savannah, starting July 4, 2022 from 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. will be a safety concern for anyone within the area. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone during the July 4th Fireworks display.

This rule establishes a safety zone from 9 p.m. through 11 p.m. on July 4, 2022. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters in the Savannah River adjacent to downtown Savannah. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by fallout from the July 4th Fireworks display. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone is granted by the COTP or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the COTP or a designated representative.

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

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the following reasons: (1) the safety zone only being enforced for a total of two hours; (2) although persons and vessels may not enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the zone without authorization from the COTP or a designated representative, they may operate in the surrounding area during the enforcement period; (3) persons and vessels may still enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the areas during the enforcement period if authorized by the COTP or a designated representative.

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

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

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

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

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

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

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

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

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

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of the Port Columbia River DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

On March 08, 2022, Western Display Fireworks, LTD notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting a fireworks display from 10 to 10:30 p.m. on July 04, 2022. In response, on June 6, 2022, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Safety Zone; Fireworks Display, Yaquina Bay, Newport, OR (87 FR 34605). There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this fireworks display. During the comment period that ended June 22, 2022, we received no comments.

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Columbia River (COTP) has determined that the potential hazards associated with the fireworks display would be a safety concern for anyone within the designated area of the safety zone before, during, or after the event. The purpose of this rulemaking is to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled event.

As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published June 6, 2022. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.

The COTP is establishing a safety zone from 9:30 p.m. to 11 p.m. on July 04, 2022. The safety zone covers all navigable waters within 500 feet of the launch site located at approximately 44°37′31″ N, 124°2′5″ W in the port of Newport, Oregon. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled 10 to 10:30 p.m. fireworks display. No vessel or person is permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

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

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-year of the safety zone. The safety zone created by this rule is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. This rule prohibits entry into certain navigable waters of the Yaquina Bay and is not anticipated to exceed 2 hours in duration. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Moreover, under certain conditions vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the COTP. The Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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

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

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

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

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a safety zone lasting 2 hours that will prohibit entry within 500 feet of a fireworks launch site. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

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

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

The Coast Guard will enforce the Safety Zones; Annual Events in the Captain of the Port Buffalo Zone listed in the table to 33 CFR 165.939 for the following events:

i. Brewerton Fireworks, Brewerton, NY; The safety zone listed in Table 165.939 as (b)(19) will be enforced on all waters of Lake Oneida, Brewerton, NY within a 840-foot radius of position 43°14′16.4″ N, 076°08′03.6″ W, from 9:15 p.m. through 10:45 p.m. on July 03, 2022.

ii. Island Festival Fireworks, Baldwinsville, NY; The safety zone listed in Table 165.939 as (b)(21) will be enforced on all waters of the Seneca River, Baldwinsville, NY within a 1,120-foot radius of position 43°09′22.0″ N, 076°20′15″ W, from 10:00 p.m. through 10:45 p.m. on July 01, 2022.

iii. City of Erie 4th of July Fireworks, Erie, PA; The safety zone listed in (b)(31) will be enforced on all waters of the Lake Erie, Erie, PA within a 280-foot radius of position 42°08′17.13″ N, 080°05′30.17″ W, from 9:45 p.m. through 10:45 p.m. on July 03, 2022.

iv. Ski Show Sylvan Beach, Sylvan Beach, NY; The safety zone listed in (c)(5) will be enforced on all waters where Fish Creek meets Oneida Lake starting at position 43°11′36.6″ N, 75°43′53.8″ W then South to 43°11′33.7″ N, 75°43′51.2″ W then East to 43°11′42.4″ N, 75°43′38.6″ W then North to 43°11′44.5″ N, 75°43′39.7″ W then returning to the point of origin, from 10:30 a.m. through 08:15 p.m. on August 14, 2022.

Pursuant to 33 CFR 165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within these safety zones during an enforcement period is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated representative; designation need not be in writing. Those seeking permission to enter these safety zones may request permission from the Captain of the Port Buffalo via channel 16, VHF-FM. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter the safety zone shall obey the directions of the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated representative. While within a safety zone, all vessels shall operate at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course.

In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of the enforcement periods via Broadcast Notice to Mariners or other suitable means. If the Captain of the Port Buffalo determines that the safety zone need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, he may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to enter the respective safety zone.

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule. Publishing an NPRM would be impracticable in this case due to the timing of the event. The event sponsor submitted their completed application with short notice. As the Coast Guard received late notification of the fireworks display vessels, it is impracticable to publish an NPRM with a comment period and have sufficient time to consider the comments before the scheduled event on July 4, 2022.

For the reasons stated above, we are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date of this rule would be contrary to the public interest because action is necessary to protect persons and property from the dangers associated with the fireworks event on July 4, 2022.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034; The Captain of the Port (COTP), Los Angeles—Long Beach has determined that potential hazards associated with navigation safety may arise. The fireworks display creates potential for hazards for any person or vessel within a 100-foot radius around the fireworks launch barge SWOB-20, during the loading of the pyrotechnics at Pacific Tugboat Services, 1512 Pier C St., and during the transit of the fireworks barge from Pacific Tugboat Services to the fireworks launch area. There is also a 1,000-foot safety radius around the fireworks launch barge 15 minutes prior to, and for the duration of the fireworks display. Potential hazards include accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. This temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of, and reduce the risk to, the public, and mariners in Newport Beach Harbor, CA.

This rule establishes a temporary safety zone on July 4, 2022, encompassing all navigable waters from the surface to the sea floor within a 100-foot radius around the fireworks launch barge SWOB-20 during the loading of the pyrotechnics at Pacific Tugboat Services at 1512 Pier C St. The safety zone will continue during the transit of the fireworks barge from Pacific Tugboat Services to the fireworks launch site at approximate position: 33°35.474′ N; 117°53.296′ W, in vicinity of Newport Beach Harbor, CA. The temporary safety zone will then increase to 1,000-feet 15 minutes prior to, and for the duration of the fireworks display, expected to commence at 9 p.m. and last approximately 30 minutes. These coordinates are based on North American Datum of 1984.

No vessel or person is permitted to operate in the safety zone without obtaining permission from the Captain of the Port (COTP) or the COTP's designated representative. Sector Los Angeles—Long Beach may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16 or 310-521-3801. The general boating public will be notified prior to the enforcement of the temporary safety zone via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

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

E.O.s 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) and 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity. E.O.13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”), directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.”

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration of the safety zone. Although this rule restricts access to the waters encompassed by the safety zone, the duration of the rule is only four hours and the local waterway users will be notified via public Broadcast Notice to Mariners to ensure the safety zone will result in minimum impact. Vessels should be able to transit around the safety zone without interruption. The entities most likely to be affected are waterfront facilities, commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities.

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

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator. Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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

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

A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132.

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone in an area in the vicinity of Newport Beach Harbor, Newport, CA. Such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of the Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

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

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

(a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: all navigable waters from the surface to the sea floor within a 100-foot radius around the fireworks launch barge SWOB-20, during the loading of the pyrotechnics at Pacific Tugboat Services, 1512 Pier C St., and during the transit of the fireworks barge from Pacific Tugboat Services to the fireworks launch site in approximate position: 33°35.474′ N; 117°53.296′ W, in vicinity of Newport Beach Harbor, CA. The temporary safety zone will then increase to 1,000-feet 15 minutes prior to, and for the duration of the fireworks display, expected to commence at 9:00 p.m. on July 4th, 2022, and last approximately 30 minutes. These coordinates are based on North American Datum of 1983, World Geodetic System, 1984.

(b) Definitions. For the purposes of this section:

Designated representative means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Los Angeles—Long Beach (COTP) in the enforcement of the safety zone.

(c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.

(2) To seek permission to enter, hail Coast Guard Sector Los Angeles—Long Beach on VHF-FM Channel 16 or call at (310) 521-3801. Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.

(d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 7 p.m. to 11 p.m. on July 4, 2022. The firework display is scheduled to commence at 9 p.m. This rule will be enforced during the loading, transit and duration of the fireworks display, which will be broadcasted via local Broadcast Notice to Mariners in accordance with 33 CFR 165.7.

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History