The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Piaggio Model P-180 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 11, 2022 (87 FR 21034). The NPRM was prompted by MCAI originated by the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. EASA issued EASA AD 2019-0144, dated June 19, 2019 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to address an unsafe condition on all Piaggio Model P.180 Avanti and Avanti II airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-0452.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require modifying the TAT probe heater electrical circuit and revising your existing AFM. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent blockage of the pitot-tube. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in temporary air data indications failure, which could result in loss of control of the airplane.

The FAA received comments from Piaggio. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Piaggio requested that the FAA revise the NPRM to update the contact information provided for Piaggio service information.

The FAA agrees and has updated the contact information for Piaggio throughout this final rule accordingly.

Piaggio requested the FAA remove the extra reference “and No. 79” from the quoted MCAI statement in the Background section that reads “To address this potentially unsafe condition, Piaggio issued the applicable AFM TC [Piaggio Aviation P.180 AVANTI II/EVO Temporary Change 79, dated September 17, 2018; and Piaggio Aviation P.180 AVANTI Temporary Change No. 36 and No. 79]. . . .”

The FAA agrees and has deleted “and No. 79” from the quoted MCAI statement in the Background section of this AD. Instead, that text has been replaced with the date of Piaggio Aviation P.180 AVANTI Temporary Change No. 36, which was originally intended to be provided. This change does not alter the intent of that language.

Piaggio requested that paragraphs (g)(2)(ii) and (g)(3)(iii) of the proposed AD be revised to remove the revision number and date from the service bulletin reference specified in those paragraphs. Piaggio explained that this change is necessary because the service bulletin, independently from the revision, introduces the new Magnaghi landing gear in lieu of the Safran landing gear.

The FAA partially agrees. The FAA concurs that the referenced service bulletin up to Revision 2 independent of the revision level introduces the new Magnaghi landing gear in lieu of the Safran landing gear. However, the FAA cannot remove the revision level because the FAA has no way of knowing the language and content of future revisions. The FAA has referenced the service bulletin as “up to Revision 2” in paragraphs (g)(2)(ii) and (g)(3)(iii) of this AD accordingly.

Piaggio requested that paragraph (g)(3) of the proposed AD be updated to reference Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A. Service Bulletin No. 80-0430, Revision 2, dated July 20, 2021, which is the latest service information. In addition, Piaggio requested that the Credit for Previous Actions specified in paragraph (h) of the proposed AD be revised to include Piaggio Aviation S.p.A. Service Bulletin No. 80-0430, Revision 1, dated April 30, 2019.

The FAA agrees with referencing Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A. Service Bulletin No. 80-0430, Revision 2, dated July 20, 2021, in the actions required by paragraph (g)(3) of this AD. This is in addition to Piaggio Aviation S.p.A. Service Bulletin No. 80-0430, Revision 1, dated April 30, 2019. Because the FAA is referencing both in paragraph (g)(3) of this AD, no change to the Credit for Previous Actions specified in paragraph (h) of this AD is necessary. The final rule has been changed to reference Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A. Service Bulletin No. 80-0430, Revision 2, dated July 20, 2021, in paragraph (g)(3) of this AD.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on this product. Except for the changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

The FAA reviewed Piaggio Aviation S.p.A. Service Bulletin No. 80-0430, Revision 1, dated April 30, 2019; Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A. in A.S. Service Bulletin No. 80-0430, Revision 2, dated July 20, 2021; and Piaggio Aero Industries Service Bulletin S.p.A. A.S. No. 80-0457, Revision 1, dated February 12, 2020. This service information specifies procedures for modifying the TAT heater circuit in order to inhibit its engagement on the ground when the pitot heater is turned on. These documents are distinct because they apply to airplanes in different configurations.

The FAA reviewed Piaggio Aviation P.180 AVANTI II/EVO Temporary Change No. 79, dated September 17, 2018, which revises the Limitations and Normal Procedures sections of the existing AFM to include updated procedures for airplane operation when the modification for inhibition of the TAT heater (on ground) has been installed.

The FAA also reviewed Piaggio Aviation P.180 AVANTI Temporary Change No. 36, dated April 11, 2019, which revises the Emergency and Normal Procedures sections of the existing AFM to include additional procedures to avoid air data computer failure due to water trapped and frozen in pitot lines.

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

The FAA reviewed Piaggio Aero Industries Service Bulletin No. 80-0454, Revision 0, dated March 6, 2017; Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A. Service Bulletin No. 80-0425, Revision 0, dated May 30, 2017; Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A Service Bulletin No. 80-0425, Revision 1, dated December 15, 2017; and Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A. Service Bulletin No. 80-0425, Revision 2, dated June 4, 2018. This service information specifies procedures for replacing the Messier-Dowty nose and main landing gear and steering system with a Magnaghi nose and main landing gear and Eaton steering system.

The FAA also reviewed Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A. Service Bulletin No. 80-0430, Revision 0, dated August 10, 2017. This service information specifies procedures for modifying the TAT heater circuit in order to inhibit its engagement on the ground when the pitot heater is turned on.

The MCAI requires informing all flight crews of the AFM revisions and operating accordingly thereafter, and this AD does not because these actions are already required by FAA operating regulations.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 101 airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued TCCA AD CF-2021-19, issued May 13, 2021 (TCCA AD CF-2021-19) (also referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for certain MHI RJ Aviation ULC Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes; Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701 & 702) airplanes; Model CL-600-2C11 (Regional Jet Series 550) airplanes; Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes; Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes; and Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-0155.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain MHI RJ Aviation ULC Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes; Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701 & 702) airplanes; Model CL-600-2C11 (Regional Jet Series 550) airplanes; Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes; Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes; and Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 1, 2022 (87 FR 19026). The NPRM was prompted by reports of displayed headings changing from MAG to TRU with no pilot action, which may result in misleading heading information on both PFDs and MFDs, and misleading course information on FMSs. The NPRM proposed to require amending the existing AFM to provide the flightcrew with updated procedures for accurate heading and course information. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent operation outside the terrain and obstacle protection provided in instrument procedure and route designs, which could result in reduced operational safety margins. See the MCAI for additional background information.

The FAA received a comment from the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) who supported the NPRM without change.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

MHI RJ Aviation ULC has issued the following service information, which provides a procedure for revising, among other procedures, the “Uncommanded True Heading Indication.”

• Section 05-15—Instrument Systems, Chapter 5, ABNORMAL PROCEDURES, MHI RJ Model CL-600-2B19 AFM, CSP A-012, Volume 1, Revision 74, dated July 3, 2020.

Bombardier has issued the following service information, which provides a procedure for revising, among other procedures, the “Uncommanded True Heading Indication.” These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models.

• Section 05-15—Instrument Systems, Chapter 5, ABNORMAL PROCEDURES, Bombardier CRJ Series Regional Jet Model CL-600-2C10 (Series 700, 701, 702) and CL-600-2C11 (Series 550) AFM, CSP B-012, Revision 30, dated February 28, 2020.

• Section 05-15—Instrument Systems, Chapter 5, ABNORMAL PROCEDURES, Bombardier CRJ Series Regional Jet Model CL-600-2D24 (Series 900) and Model CL-600-2D15 (Series 705) AFM, CSP C-012, Volume 1, Revision 24, dated March 27, 2020.

• Section 05-15—Instrument Systems, Chapter 5, ABNORMAL PROCEDURES, Bombardier CRJ Series Regional Jet Model CL-600-2E25 (Series 1000) AFM, CSP D-012, Revision 23, dated February 14, 2020.

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

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 1,113 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This final rule amends 15 CFR part 801 to set forth the reporting requirements for the BE-12, Benchmark Survey of Foreign Direct Investment in the United States. Under this final rule 15 CFR 801.10 is modified to clarify the timing of this benchmark survey. The next BE-12 survey will apply to the 2022 fiscal reporting year, and will be conducted once every five years thereafter, for reporting years ending in 2 and 7.

BEA conducts the BE-12 survey under the authority of the International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act (22 U.S.C. 3101-3108).

The BE-12 survey covers the universe of foreign direct investment in the United States in terms of value and is BEA's most detailed survey of such investment. Foreign direct investment in the United States is defined as the ownership or control, directly or indirectly, by one foreign person (foreign parent) of 10 percent or more of the voting securities of an incorporated U.S. business enterprise or an equivalent interest in an unincorporated U.S. business enterprise, including a branch.

The purpose of the BE-12 survey is to obtain universe data on the financial and operating characteristics of U.S. affiliates and on positions and transactions between U.S. affiliates and their foreign parent groups (which are defined to include all foreign parents and foreign affiliates of foreign parents). These data are needed to measure the size and economic significance of foreign direct investment in the United States, measure changes in such investment, and assess its impact on the U.S. economy. Such data are generally found in enterprise-level accounting records of respondent companies. These data are used to derive current universe estimates of direct investment from sample data collected in other BEA surveys in non-benchmark years. In particular, they serve as benchmarks for the quarterly direct investment estimates included in the U.S. international transactions, international investment position, and national income and product accounts, and for annual estimates of the foreign direct investment position in the United States and of the activities of the U.S. affiliates of foreign companies.

The final rule amends the regulations (15 CFR part 801) and the survey forms for the BE-12 survey. These amendments include changes in data items collected, the design of the survey forms, and the reporting requirements for the survey.

BEA adds, deletes, and modifies some items on the BE-12 survey forms. The following items will be added to the BE-12 survey:

(1) A question to collect the city of each foreign parent and ultimate beneficial owner (UBO) on all forms.

(2) The balance sheet and income statement sections on the BE-12A form will be modified to separately collect the investment in, and income from, (a) “unconsolidated U.S. affiliates” and (b) “foreign entities,” which were previously collected as a combined total.

(3) Supplemental sections A and B, which collect identification information on business enterprises owned by the U.S. affiliate, will be modified on all BE-12 forms to request more information on the reasons the U.S. business enterprises changed since the last report. This will include options for “newly acquired” or “newly established” if an enterprise is being reported on a supplement for the first time, and options to report U.S. business enterprises that had a name change, were sold, merged or liquidated. A follow-up question will be added requesting the date of the corporate change for new enterprises.

(4) Questions will be added on the BE-12A form to collect sales data for certain service types where there is no clear link between the industry of sales and the type of services supplied. These service types are (1) intellectual property (IP) rights and (2) advertising.

(5) Questions will be added to collect sales data on the BE-12A form related to the provision of selected services generally recognized as prevalent in the digital economy. These selected services are (1) cloud computing and data storage and (2) digital intermediation services. In addition, checkboxes will be added to the BE-12A for respondents to identify the percentage of their sales of services delivered remotely, sales of services that were digitally ordered, and sales of goods that were digitally ordered, along with checkboxes to identify if this information was sourced from their accounting records or from recall/general knowledge.

The final rule also eliminates the following items from the benchmark survey:

(1) Expensed petroleum and mining expenditures from the BE-12A form.

(2) Commercial property from the state schedule of the BE-12A and BE-12B forms.

(3) Part III of the BE-12A and BE-12B forms, which collects information on investment and transactions between the U.S. affiliate and the affiliated foreign group, will be scaled back to include only the following items:

(1) Foreign parent ownership and classification information

(2) A question on reverse investment

(3) Intercompany debt balances for U.S. affiliates with less than $60 million in assets, sales, or net income.

The final rule will also modify the survey forms to improve question wording, layout, and instructions.

On July 1, 2022, BEA published a notice of proposed rulemaking that set forth revised reporting criteria for the BE-12, Benchmark Survey of Foreign Direct Investment in the United States (87 FR 39411). No comments on the proposed rule were received.

This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866.

This final rule does not contain policies with federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a federalism assessment under E.O. 13132.

The collection of information in this final rule was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520 (PRA). OMB approved the information collection for the 2022 Benchmark Survey of Foreign Direct Investment in the United States under OMB control number 0608-0042. Notwithstanding any other provisions of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA unless that collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.

The BE-12 survey is expected to result in the filing of reports from approximately 26,400 U.S. affiliates. The respondent burden for this collection of information will vary from one company to another. The estimated average time per respondent is 10.5 hours, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Thus, the total respondent burden for this survey is estimated at 276,441 hours, compared to 249,625 hours for the previous (2017) benchmark survey. An increase in the number of foreign-owned companies accounts for nearly all of the increase in the estimated respondent burden, while the addition of new questions and the deletion of previous questions had a marginal impact on the estimated respondent burden.

Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in the final rule should be sent to both BEA via email at Kirsten.Brew@bea.gov, and OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Paperwork Reduction Project 0608-0042, Attention PRA Desk Officer for BEA, via email at OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov.

The Chief Counsel for Regulation, Department of Commerce, certified at the proposed rule stage to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Small Business Administration, under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that this final rule will 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 the certification or the economic impact of the rule. Therefore, a final regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.

For reasons set forth in the preamble, BEA amends 15 CFR part 801 as follows:

The BE-13, Survey of New Foreign Direct Investment in the United States, is a mandatory survey conducted by BEA under the authority of the International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act (22 U.S.C. 3101-3108).

The purpose of the BE-13 survey is to collect data on the acquisition or establishment of U.S. business enterprises by foreign investors and the expansion of existing U.S. affiliates of foreign companies to establish a new facility where business is conducted. The data collected on the survey are used to measure the amount and economic significance of new foreign direct investment in the United States and assess its impact on the U.S. economy. Foreign direct investment in the United States is defined as the ownership or control, directly or indirectly, by one foreign person (foreign parent) of 10 percent or more of the voting securities of an incorporated U.S. business enterprise, or an equivalent interest of an unincorporated U.S. business enterprise, including a branch.

This final rule amends 15 CFR 801.7 to set forth the reporting requirements for the BE-13, Survey of New Foreign Direct Investment in the United States. Under this rule, persons subject to the reporting requirements of the BE-13, Survey of New Foreign Direct Investment in the United States, are required to respond, whether or not they are contacted by BEA.

This final rule amends the regulations at 15 CFR part 801 by modifying § 801.7. Specifically, BEA changes the reporting requirements of form BE-13E, Fiscal Year End Cost Update for Projects Originally Reported on Forms BE-13B and BE-13D. The form collects updated cost information for greenfield investments— i.e., establishments or expansions of U.S. businesses by foreign investors filed on BE-13B or BE-13D forms, respectively—and is required to be filed annually until the establishment or expansion of the U.S. business enterprise is complete.

BEA will limit the filing requirement of the BE-13E form to three years after the year the investment is initiated. BEA has found that this timeframe would be sufficient to collect the vast majority of the changes to total planned expenditures of greenfield investments and provide data users with insightful statistics on the ultimate cost of these investments. The change will reduce respondent burden and the BEA resources needed to continue to collect and process these updates, allowing BEA to focus resources on the featured statistics for more recent periods.

On June 28, 2022, BEA published a notice of proposed rulemaking that set forth revised reporting criteria for the BE-13, Survey of New Foreign Direct Investment in the United States (87 FR 38311). No comments were received on the proposed rule.

This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866.

This final rule does not contain policies with federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a federalism assessment under E.O. 13132.

The collection-of-information in this final rule was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). OMB approved the revision of the currently approved information collection under BE-13, Survey of New Foreign Direct Investment in the United States, OMB control number 0608-0035.

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

The BE-13 survey is expected to result in the filing of approximately 3,027 reports from U.S. affiliates each year. The respondent burden for this collection of information is expected to vary because of differences in company structure, size, and complexity, but is estimated to average 1.1 hours per response. The burden includes time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Thus, the total respondent burden for this survey is estimated at 3,027 hours, compared to 2,547 hours for the previous BE-13 survey estimate. The increase in burden hours is due to the increase in the overall number of respondents expected to file, partially offset by a reduction in the number of BE-13E forms expected to be filed.

Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this final rule should be sent to both BEA via email at Ricardo.Limes@bea.gov and to OMB Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Paperwork Reduction Project 0608-0035, Attention PRA Desk Officer for BEA, via email at OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov.

The Chief Counsel for Regulation, Department of Commerce, has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Small Business Administration, at the proposed rule stage that this action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. No comments were received on that certification or on the economic impacts of this rule more generally. Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required and none has been prepared.

For reasons set forth in the preamble, BEA amends 15 CFR part 801 as follows:

FDA is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect approval actions for NADAs and ANADAs during January, February, and March 2022, as listed in table 1. In addition, FDA is informing the public of the availability, where applicable, of documentation of environmental review required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and, for actions requiring review of safety or effectiveness data, summaries of the basis of approval (FOI Summaries) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). These public documents may be seen in the office of the Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 240-402-7500. Persons with access to the internet may obtain these documents at the CVM FOIA Electronic Reading Room: https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/center-veterinary-medicine/cvm-foia-electronic-reading-room. Marketing exclusivity and patent information may be accessed in FDA's publication, “Approved Animal Drug Products Online (Green Book)” at: https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/products/approved-animal-drug-products-green-book.

FDA has verified the website addresses as of the date this document publishes in the Federal Register , but websites are subject to change over time.

This document contains amendments to the regulations in 26 CFR part 300—User Fees. On March 1, 2022, a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-114209-21) and notice of public hearing was published in the Federal Register (87 FR 11366). The document proposed amending the regulations relating to the user fees for enrolled agents and enrolled retirement plan agents. The document proposed increasing the amount of the renewal user fee for enrolled retirement plan agents from $67 to $140. In addition, the document proposed increasing both the enrollment and renewal of enrollment user fees for enrolled agents from $67 to $140. The document contains a detailed explanation of the legal background and user fee calculations regarding the amendments to these regulations.

Six comments responding to the notice of proposed rulemaking were received, including comments from the National Association of Enrolled Agents (NAEA). On May 3, 2022, representatives from the NAEA, Department of the Treasury (Treasury Department), the IRS, and the Small Business Administration (SBA), held a teleconference to listen to NAEA's comments about the proposed rulemaking. In addition, two requests to speak at the scheduled public hearing were received. A public hearing was held on May 11, 2022. After consideration of the written comments, teleconference comments, and testimony at the public hearing, the Treasury Department and the IRS have decided to adopt without modification the regulations proposed by the notice of proposed rulemaking.

The six comments submitted in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking and a summary of the teleconference comments are available at www.regulations.gov or upon request. Some of the comments that were submitted did not seek modification or clarification of the user fee as set forth in the proposed regulations. One commenter expressed concern with how the special enrollment examination for enrolled agents (EA SEE) is being administered. The commenter also recommended using the user fees in these regulations to provide resources for tax professionals that would improve the service they provide to their clients. The user fees in these regulations are not used by the Treasury Department or the IRS to administer the EA SEE, or to provide resources for tax professionals that improve the service they provide to their clients. Therefore, comments regarding the EA SEE and additional resources identified by the commenter are outside the scope of these regulations. Another commenter suggested that the IRS should raise the amount of the user fee to apply for or renew a preparer tax identification number (PTIN) in order to (1) lower the cost of user fees relating to enrolled agents and (2) encourage more individuals to become enrolled agents. These regulations do not relate to the PTIN user fee or the PTIN program. Therefore, comments regarding the PTIN program and related user fees are outside the scope of these regulations. Finally, one commenter suggested that it is inconsistent for the IRS to charge user fees in order to administer the enrollment and renewal of enrollment program but not charge user fees for other programs (for example, participation in the Annual Filing Season Program). Again, comments regarding programs other than the enrollment and renewal of enrollment program are outside the scope of these regulations. The summary of comments below addresses those comments that make recommendations concerning or seeking clarification of the user fees set forth in the proposed regulations relating to the user fees for enrolled agents and enrolled retirement plan agents.

Four commenters expressed concern with the overall amount of the proposed enrollment and renewal of enrollment user fees and requested information regarding why the user fees are required.

The Independent Offices Appropriation Act of 1952 (IOAA) (31 U.S.C. 9701) authorizes each agency to promulgate regulations establishing the charge for services provided by the agency. The IOAA states that the services provided by an agency should be self-sustaining to the extent possible. 31 U.S.C. 9701(a). The IOAA provides that user fee regulations are subject to policies prescribed by the President, which are currently set forth in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-25 (OMB Circular), 58 FR 38142 (July 15, 1993).

Section 6a(1) of OMB Circular A-25 states that when a service offered by a Federal agency provides special benefits to identifiable recipients beyond those accruing to the general public, the agency should establish a user fee to recover the full cost of providing the service. An agency that seeks to impose a user fee for government-provided services must calculate the full cost of providing those services.

In accordance with OMB Circular A-25, the IRS Return Preparer Office (RPO) completed its 2021 biennial review of the enrollment and renewal of enrollment user fees associated with enrolled agents and enrolled retirement plan agents. As discussed in the notice of proposed rulemaking, during its review the RPO took into account the increase in labor, benefits, and overhead costs incurred in connection with providing enrollment services to individuals who enroll or renew enrollment as enrolled agents and renew enrollment as enrolled retirement plan agents since the user fee was last increased in 2019. The proposed increase took into account the additional staffing that allows the RPO to provide a higher quality of service to individuals seeking to enroll or renew enrollment. The RPO also took into account a reallocation of certain labor costs in their methodology. The RPO followed the generally accepted accounting principles established by the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board. The RPO determined that the full cost of administering the program for enrolled agents and enrolled retirement plan agents has increased from $67 to $140 per application for enrollment or renewal of enrollment. That amounts to a $73 increase per application for enrollment or renewal of enrollment. The enrollment user fee is a one-time cost, and renewal of enrollment user fees are due once every three years, so the increase amounts to an additional $24.33 per year.

Two of the commenters stated that the IRS did not fully comply with OMB Circular A-25. Two of the commenters questioned whether the service related to the user fees in these regulations confers a special benefit on enrolled agents and enrolled retirement plan agents. One of the commenters indicated that the service the IRS provides under these regulations benefits the general public rather than a specific beneficiary (that is, enrolled agents and enrolled retirement plan agents). Finally, two of the commenters stated that OMB Circular A-25 allows for an exception to the user fee requirement.

The Treasury Department and the IRS disagree with the comments regarding OMB Circular A-25. Section 6a(1) of OMB Circular A-25 states that when a service offered by a Federal agency provides special benefits to identifiable recipients beyond those accruing to the general public, the agency should establish a user fee to recover the full cost of providing the service. An agency that seeks to impose a user fee for government-provided services must calculate the full cost of providing those services. Under OMB Circular A-25, a user fee should be set at an amount that recovers the full cost of providing a service, unless the OMB grants an exception. The full cost of providing a service includes both the direct and indirect costs of providing the service.

The IRS provides enrollment and renewal of enrollment services to specific, identifiable recipients: enrolled agents and enrolled retirement plan agents. An individual who has been granted enrollment as an enrolled agent or an enrolled retirement plan agent may practice before the IRS, including representing taxpayers. The IRS confers benefits on individuals who are enrolled agents or enrolled retirement plan agents beyond those that accrue to the general public by allowing them to practice before the IRS. Because the ability to practice before the IRS is a special benefit that does not accrue to the general public, the IRS charges a user fee to recover the full cost associated with administering the enrollment and renewal of enrollment program.

An agency is required to set the user fee at an amount that recovers the full cost of providing the service unless the agency requests, and the OMB grants, an exception to the full-cost requirement. Under section 6c(2) of OMB Circular A-25, the OMB may grant exceptions when the cost of collecting the fees would represent an unduly large part of the fee for the activity or when any other conditions exist that, in the opinion of the agency head, justifies an exception. When the OMB grants an exception, the agency does not collect the full cost of providing the service and must fund the remaining cost of providing the service from other available funding sources. Consequently, the agency subsidizes the cost of the service to the recipients of reduced-fee services even though the service confers a special benefit on those recipients who would otherwise be required to pay the full cost of receiving the benefit as provided by OMB Circular A-25. The cost of collecting the user fees in these regulations does not represent an unduly large part of the fee. In addition, the Treasury Department and the IRS have not identified any conditions that exist that would justify an exception to the full-cost requirement. Therefore, it is appropriate for the IRS to recover the full cost it incurs to provide enrollment and renewal of enrollment services to individuals seeking to practice before the IRS as enrolled agents or enrolled retirement plan agents.

One of the commenters expressed concern with the amount by which the user fees have increased since 2019. Specifically, user fees were increased from $30 to $67 in 2019, and the notice of proposed rulemaking for these final regulations proposed to increase the user fees from $67 to $140. The commenter questioned how the RPO's reallocation of labor costs could account for the increases.

The amount of the user fee increases can be explained, in part, by certain reallocations of labor costs and how other user fees have affected the user fees relating to the enrollment and renewal of enrollment program for enrolled agents and enrolled retirement plan agents. On September 30, 2010, the Treasury Department and the IRS published two final regulations in the Federal Register : (1) final regulations (TD 9501, 75 FR 60309) that required tax return preparers who prepare for compensation all or substantially all of a tax return or claim for refund to obtain a PTIN and (2) final regulations (TD 9503, 75 FR 60316) that required a user fee to apply for or renew a PTIN. Individuals applying for, or renewing, a PTIN were to be subject to Federal tax-compliance and suitability checks and were required to pay a $50 user fee (plus an additional amount payable directly to a third-party vendor) to obtain or renew a PTIN. All enrolled agents and certain enrolled retirement plan agents were required to obtain a PTIN as a condition of enrollment and renewal of enrollment. TD 9527, 76 FR 32286; Notice 2011-91, 2011-47 I.R.B. 792. On April 19, 2011, the Treasury Department and the IRS published in the Federal Register (76 FR 21805) a final regulation (TD 9523) that reduced the amount of the user fees for the initial enrollment and renewal of enrollment for enrolled agents and enrolled retirement plan agents from $125 to $30. The user fee to enroll or renew enrollment was reduced because certain procedures, including Federal-tax compliance and suitability checks, which were previously performed as part of the enrolled agent and enrolled retirement plan agent enrollment application process, were to be performed as part of the required process to obtain a PTIN.

As required by the IOAA and OMB Circular A-25, the RPO conducted a biennial review of the enrollment and renewal of enrollment user fees associated with enrolled agents and enrolled retirement plan agents in 2017. During its review the RPO took into account the increase in labor, benefits, and overhead costs incurred in connection with providing services to individuals who enroll or renew enrollment as enrolled agents and enrolled retirement plan agents since the user fee was changed in 2011. In addition, the RPO determined that costs associated with Federal tax-compliance checks and suitability checks on applicants for enrollment and renewal should be recovered as part of the user fee for administering the enrollment and renewal of enrollment programs (and not the PTIN user fee). The 2017 biennial review also took into account new costs associated with administering the program for enrolled agents and enrolled retirement plan agents, including the costs of operating a dedicated toll-free helpline in the RPO for enrollment and renewal of enrollment matters. The RPO determined that the full cost of administering the program for enrolled agents and enrolled retirement plan agents had increased from $30 to $67 per application for enrollment or renewal of enrollment. On May 13, 2019, the Treasury Department and the IRS published in the Federal Register (84 FR 20801-01) a final regulation (TD 9858) that established the current $67 user fee per enrollment or renewal of enrollment. The user fee complied with the directive in OMB Circular A-25 to recover the full cost of providing a service that confers special benefits on identifiable recipients beyond those accruing to the general public.

The user fees for enrollment and renewal of enrollment were $125 prior to the RPO's reallocation of certain labor costs related to the PTIN user fee in 2011. The proposed user fee of $140 recovers many of the same costs associated with the RPO's administration of the enrollment and renewal of enrollment program that were recovered in the enrollment and renewal of enrollment user fees prior to the reallocation of certain labor costs to the PTIN user fee, as well as additional staffing and services the RPO currently provides associated with enrollment and renewal of enrollment. Even though the RPO has increased its staff to provide a higher quality of service, and now provides additional services, the user fee for enrollment and renewal of enrollment is only $15 more than the enrollment and renewal of enrollment fees in 2011.

One of the commenters expressed concern about the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) employees assigned to the enrollment and renewal of enrollment program, FTE activities, and the ratio of managers to staff employees. The commenter stated that there were 17 FTEs assigned to the enrollment and renewal of enrollment program, including three managers and 14 staff employees. The commenter questioned whether that number of managers and FTEs was necessary to administer the enrollment and renewal of enrollment program.

The employment and management figures cited by the commenter are not accurate. There are 14 employees assigned entirely to the enrollment and renewal of enrollment program, including two managers that oversee the 12 other employees. One of the managers is a director who oversees five FTEs, but only two of those FTEs are assigned fully to the enrollment and renewal of enrollment program (and whose salary, benefits, and associated overhead are charged to the enrollment and renewal of enrollment program). Because the director oversees three FTEs who are not fully assigned to the enrollment and renewal of enrollment program, not all of the director's salary is charged to the enrollment and renewal of enrollment program. The other manager is a frontline manager who oversees 10 FTEs, all of whom are dedicated entirely to the enrollment and renewal of enrollment program.

The IRS determines the cost of its services and the activities involved in producing them through a cost-accounting system that tracks costs to organizational units. The lowest organizational unit in the IRS's cost-accounting system is called a cost center. There are two cost centers related to the enrollment and renewal of enrollment program: the Policy and Management Cost Center and the Enrollment Cost Center. The Policy and Management Cost Center includes three FTEs: one director, one senior analyst, and one administrative assistant. The director oversees the entire enrollment and renewal of enrollment program. The senior analyst manages inventory, handles system administrator duties for the toll-free helpline, and is responsible for reporting requirements for the enrollment and renewal of enrollment program. The administrative assistant provides administrative support to the director and staff, processes mail (including applications, checks, and general correspondence), uploads mail to be distributed to legal instrument examiners, and other administrative support duties (including managing the director's calendar and filing personnel documents).

The Enrollment Cost Center includes one manager, one clerk, and nine legal instrument examiners. The manager is responsible for work assignments, work reviews, employee evaluations, leave approvals, and other managerial tasks. The clerk processes mail, prints and mails enrollment and renewal of enrollment certificates and cards, updates enrolled agent and enrolled retirement plan agent account information, makes electronic copies of paper documents, and provides clerical assistance with issuing notices to enrolled agents and enrolled retirement plan agents. The nine legal instrument examiners process enrollment and renewal of enrollment forms, make referrals to the RPO's suitability department for Federal tax-compliance checks and criminal background checks (if necessary), document findings and eligibility status in the RPO's case-tracking software, answer calls on the toll-free helpline, and respond to emails from enrolled agents and enrolled retirement plan agents. In addition, to improve the level of service for processing, the toll-free telephone operations staffing has increased, quality review programs have been implemented, and correspondence backlogs have been eliminated.

The RPO has determined that these managers and other employees are necessary to effectively administer the enrollment and renewal of enrollment program and provide high-quality service to individuals seeking to enroll or renew enrollment.

The same commenter also questioned a reallocation of costs that partially accounted for the proposed increased fee for enrollment or renewal of enrollment. This reallocation refers to a portion of oversight and support costs that had previously been recovered through other funding sources. During the biennial review, the RPO determined that these costs were associated with the enrollment and renewal of enrollment program and thus were appropriately recovered through the enrollment and renewal of enrollment user fees.

Four of the commenters opined that the Treasury Department and the IRS should take into account that enrolled agents help improve the Federal tax system. For example, enrolled agents are required to take continuing education courses, which enable them to accurately prepare tax returns and efficiently resolve taxpayer disputes with the IRS. The four commenters expressed concern that the proposed user fee increases may discourage individuals from enrolling as enrolled agents or renewing their enrollment.

The Treasury Department and the IRS recognize the valuable service enrolled agents and enrolled retirement plan agents provide to taxpayers as well as the contributions they make to improving the Federal tax system. As discussed in Section A of this preamble, despite the service enrolled agents and enrolled retirement plan agents provide to taxpayers, OMB Circular A-25 states that when a service offered by a Federal agency provides special benefits to identifiable recipients beyond those accruing to the general public, the agency should establish a user fee to recover the full cost of providing the service (unless the agency requests, and the OMB grants, an exception to the full-cost requirement). As discussed in Section B of this preamble, the IRS confers benefits on individuals who are enrolled agents and enrolled retirement plan agents beyond those that accrue to the general public by allowing them to practice before the IRS. The Treasury Department and the IRS comply with OMB Circular A-25 by charging user fees to recover the full cost of overseeing the enrollment and renewal of enrollment program. The Treasury Department and the IRS have not requested an exception from the OMB because there is no data that indicates that the user fee for enrollment or renewal of enrollment is cost prohibitive or that any other condition exists that justifies an exception.

One commenter stated that the Treasury Department and the IRS should have conducted an initial regulatory flexibility analysis pursuant to the RFA, based on the assumption that these regulations will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The commenter explained that it surveyed the enrolled agent community and found that 53 percent of enrolled agents are sole practitioners and 46 percent work for a firm. In the commenter's view, sole proprietorships should be considered small entities and the firms that employ enrolled agents (which sometimes reimburse enrolled agents for their user fees) are generally small businesses. Therefore, the commenter concluded that the user fees in these regulations would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Treasury Department and the IRS disagree that these regulations will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As discussed in the notice of proposed rulemaking, only individuals, not businesses, can be enrolled agents or enrolled retirement plan agents. Accordingly, the user fee primarily affects individuals who are enrolled agents, apply to become enrolled agents, or are enrolled retirement plan agents.

Since individuals are not “small entities” for purpose of the RFA, any economic impact of the user fees on small entities generally will occur only when an enrolled agent or enrolled retirement plan agent owns a small business or when a small business employs enrolled agents or enrolled retirement plan agents and reimburses them for their user fees.

Even if a substantial number of small businesses are affected by reimbursing enrolled agents or enrolled retirement plan agents for their user fees, a regulatory flexibility analysis would not be required because the economic impact on small entities is not significant. The economic impact on any small entities affected would be limited to paying, triennially, the $73 difference in cost between the $140 user fee and the previous $67 user fee (for each enrolled agent or enrolled retirement plan agent who a small entity employs and reimburses).

The RFA does not define the term “significant economic impact;” however, the SBA has provided guidance for government agencies on how to comply with the RFA, including determining whether a regulation will have a significant economic impact. The SBA's guidance is available at https://cdn.advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/21110349/How-to-Comply-with-the-RFA.pdf. The SBA's guidance explains that one measure for determining the economic impact is the percentage of revenue or percentage of gross revenues affected. For example, if the cost of implementing a particular rule represents three percent of the profits in a particular sector of the economy and the profit margin in that industry is two percent of gross revenues (an economic structure that occurs in the food marketing industry, where profits are often less than two percent), the implementation of the proposal would drive many businesses out of business (all except the ones that beat a three percent profit margin). According to the SBA's guidance, the regulation in this example would have a significant economic impact.

The SBA's guidance further explains that the economic impact does not have to completely erase profit margins to be significant. For example, the implementation of a rule might reduce the ability of the firm to make future capital investment, thereby severely harming its competitive ability, particularly against larger firms. This scenario may occur in the telecommunications industry, where a regulatory regime that harms the ability of small companies to invest in needed capital will not put them out of business immediately, but over time may make it impossible for them to compete against companies with significantly larger capitalizations. The impact of that rule would then be significant for smaller telecommunications companies.

Finally, the SBA's guidance explains that other measures may be used. For example, the impact could be significant if the cost of the proposed regulation (a) eliminates more than 10 percent of the businesses' profits; (b) exceeds one percent of the gross revenues of the entities in a particular sector; or (c) exceeds five percent of the labor costs of the entities in the sector.

While data relevant to the SBA's guidance is limited, the Treasury Department and the IRS have carefully considered public information related to the economic impact of the proposed user fees. For example, Surgent, an organization that provides preparation courses for the EA SEE, states on its website at https://www.surgent.com that the average salary for an enrolled agent as of December 2021 is $59,020. The triennial user fee for enrolled agents and enrolled retirement plan agents is $140, or approximately $47 per year. Thus, the annualized cost of enrollment as an EA is approximately 0.0008 percent of the average yearly salary of an enrolled agent. The triennial user fee has increased from $67 to $140 per application for enrollment or renewal of enrollment. That amounts to a $73 increase per application for enrollment or renewal of enrollment. The increase amounts to $24.33 per year, or 0.0004 percent of the average yearly salary of an enrolled agent.

Based on the foregoing considerations, the Treasury Department and the IRS conclude that the rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

After consideration of the comments, the proposed regulations are adopted without change.

These regulations are not significant and are not subject to review under section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866 pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement (April 11, 2018) between the Treasury Department and the OMB regarding review of tax regulations.

Pursuant to the RFA (5 U.S.C. chapter 6), it is hereby certified that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As discussed in Section E of this preamble, the Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that the rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, the notice of proposed rulemaking was submitted to the Chief Counsel of the Office of Advocacy of the SBA for comment on its impact on small business. The Chief Counsel for the Office of Advocacy of the SBA did not provide any written comments; however, they reached out to the Treasury Department and the IRS regarding comments they received from the NAEA.

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits and take certain other actions before issuing a final rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in expenditures in any one year by a state, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. This rule does not include any Federal mandate that may result in expenditures by state, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector in excess of that threshold.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either imposes substantial, direct compliance costs on state and local governments, and is not required by statute, or preempts state law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive order. These final regulations do not have federalism implications and do not impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments or preempt state law within the meaning of the Executive order.

The principal author of these regulations is Mark Shurtliff, Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration). Other personnel from the Treasury Department and the IRS participated in the development of the regulations.

Accordingly, the Treasury Department and the IRS amend 26 CFR part 300 as follows:

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

On July 7, 2014, OFAC issued the Central African Republic Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 553 (79 FR 38248, July 7, 2014) (the “Regulations”), to implement Executive Order (E.O.) 13667 of May 12, 2014, “Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Central African Republic” (79 FR 28387, May 15, 2014), pursuant to authorities delegated to the Secretary of the Treasury in E.O. 13667. The Regulations were initially issued in abbreviated form for the purpose of providing immediate guidance to the public. OFAC is amending and reissuing the Regulations as a more comprehensive set of regulations that includes additional interpretive guidance and definitions, general licenses, and other regulatory provisions that will provide further guidance to the public. Due to the number of regulatory sections being updated or added, OFAC is reissuing the Regulations in their entirety.

On May 12, 2014, the President, invoking the authority of, inter alia, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq. ) (IEEPA) and the United Nations Participation Act (22 U.S.C. 287c) (UNPA), issued E.O. 13667, effective at 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on May 13, 2014. In E.O. 13667, the President determined that the situation in and in relation to the Central African Republic, which has been marked by a breakdown of law and order, intersectarian tension, widespread violence and atrocities, and the pervasive, often forced recruitment and use of child soldiers, which threatens the peace, security, or stability of the Central African Republic and neighboring states, and which was addressed by the United Nations Security Council in Resolution 2121 of October 10, 2013, Resolution 2127 of December 5, 2013, and Resolution 2134 of January 28, 2014, constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, and declared a national emergency to deal with that threat.

Section 1(a) of E.O. 13667 blocks, with certain exceptions, all property and interests in property that are in the United States, that come within the United States, or that are or come within the possession or control of any U.S. person of (i) the persons listed in the Annex to E.O. 13667; (ii) any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State: (A) to be responsible for or complicit in, or to have engaged in, directly or indirectly, any of the following in or in relation to the Central African Republic: (1) actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, or stability of the Central African Republic; (2) actions or policies that threaten transitional agreements or the political transition process in the Central African Republic; (3) actions or policies that undermine democratic processes or institutions in the Central African Republic; (4) the targeting of women, children, or any civilians through the commission of acts of violence (including killing, maiming, torture, or rape or other sexual violence), abduction, forced displacement, or attacks on schools, hospitals, religious sites, or locations where civilians are seeking refuge, or through conduct that would constitute a serious abuse or violation of human rights or a violation of international humanitarian law; (5) the use or recruitment of children by armed groups or armed forces in the context of the conflict in the Central African Republic; (6) the obstruction of the delivery or distribution of, or access to, humanitarian assistance; (7) attacks against United Nations missions, international security presences, or other peacekeeping operations; or (8) support to persons, including armed groups, involved in activities that threaten the peace, security, or stability of the Central African Republic or that undermine democratic processes or institutions in the Central African Republic through the illicit trade in natural resources of the Central African Republic; (B) except where intended for the authorized support of humanitarian activities or the authorized use by or support of peacekeeping, international, or government forces, to have directly or indirectly supplied, sold, or transferred to the Central African Republic, or been the recipient in the territory of the Central African Republic of, arms and related materiel, including military aircraft, and equipment, or advice, training, or assistance, including financing and financial assistance, related to military activities; (C) to be a leader of (i) an entity, including any armed group, that has, or whose members have, engaged in any of the activities described in subsections 1(a)(ii)(A) or (B) of E.O. 13667 or (ii) an entity whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13667; (D) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technological support for, or goods or services in support of (i) any of the activities described in subsections 1(a)(ii)(A) or (B) of E.O. 13667 or (ii) any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13667; or (E) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13667.

The property and interests in property of the persons described above may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in.

In Section 2 of E.O. 13667, the President determined that the making of donations of the type of articles specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13667 would seriously impair the President's ability to deal with the national emergency declared in E.O. 13667. The President therefore prohibited the donation of such items except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to E.O 13667.

Section 3 of E.O. 13667 provides that the prohibition on any transaction or dealing in blocked property or interests in property includes the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13667, and the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.

Section 5 of E.O. 13667 prohibits any transaction that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in E.O. 13667, as well as any conspiracy formed to violate such prohibitions.

Section 8 of E.O. 13667 authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA and the UNPA, as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of E.O. 13667. Section 8 of E.O. 13667 also provides that the Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions to other officers and agencies of the U.S. government consistent with applicable law.

The Regulations implement targeted sanctions that are directed at persons determined to meet the criteria set forth in § 553.201 of the Regulations, as well as sanctions that may be set forth in any future Executive orders issued pursuant to the national emergency declared in E.O. 13667. The sanctions in E.O. 13667 do not generally prohibit trade or the provision of banking or other financial services to the Central African Republic. Instead, the sanctions in E.O. 13667 apply where the transaction or service in question involves property or interests in property that are blocked pursuant to these sanctions.

Subpart A of the Regulations clarifies the relation of this part to other laws and regulations. Subpart B of the Regulations implements the prohibitions contained in sections 1, 2, 3, and 5 of E.O. 13667, as well as the prohibitions contained in any further Executive orders issued pursuant to the national emergency declared in E.O. 13667. See, e.g., §§ 553.201 and 553.205. Persons identified in the Annex to E.O. 13667, designated by or under the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to E.O. 13667, or otherwise blocked pursuant to E.O. 13667, as well as persons who are blocked pursuant to any further Executive orders issued pursuant to the national emergency declared in E.O. 13667, are referred to throughout the Regulations as “persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 553.201.” The names of persons listed in, or designated or identified as blocked pursuant to, E.O. 13667, or any further Executive orders issued pursuant to the national emergency declared therein, are published on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List), which is accessible via OFAC's website. Those names also are published in the Federal Register as they are added to the SDN List.

Sections 553.202 and 553.203 of subpart B detail the effect of transfers of blocked property in violation of the Regulations and set forth the requirement to hold blocked funds, such as currency, bank deposits, or liquidated financial obligations, in interest-bearing blocked accounts. Section 553.204 of subpart B provides that all expenses incident to the maintenance of blocked tangible property shall be the responsibility of the owners and operators of such property, and that such expenses shall not be met from blocked funds, unless otherwise authorized. The section further provides that blocked property may, in OFAC's discretion, be sold or liquidated and the net proceeds placed in a blocked interest-bearing account in the name of the owner of the property.

Section 553.205 of subpart B prohibits any transaction that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in § 553.201 of the Regulations, and any conspiracy formed to violate such prohibitions.

Section 553.206 of subpart B states transactions that are exempt from the prohibitions of the Regulations pursuant to section 203(b) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)). As further set forth in this section, these exemptions do not apply to transactions involving persons whose property and interests in property are blocked under § 553.201 pursuant to the authority of the UNPA.

In subpart C of the Regulations, new definitions are being added to other key terms used throughout the Regulations. Because these new definitions were inserted in alphabetical order, the definitions that were in the prior abbreviated set of regulations have been renumbered. Similarly, in subpart D, which contains interpretive sections regarding the Regulations, certain provisions have been renumbered and others added to those in the prior abbreviated set of regulations.

Transactions otherwise prohibited by the Regulations but found to be consistent with U.S. policy may be authorized by one of the general licenses contained in subpart E of the Regulations or by a specific license issued pursuant to the procedures described in subpart E of 31 CFR part 501. General licenses and statements of licensing policy relating to this part also may be available through the Central African Republic sanctions page on OFAC's website: www.treas.gov/ofac.

Subpart F of the Regulations refers to subpart C of part 501 for recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Subpart G of the Regulations describes the civil and criminal penalties applicable to violations of the Regulations, as well as the procedures governing the potential imposition of a civil monetary penalty or issuance of a Finding of Violation. Subpart G also refers to appendix A of part 501 for a more complete description of these procedures.

Subpart H of the Regulations refers to subpart E of part 501 for applicable provisions relating to administrative procedures and contains a delegation of certain authorities of the Secretary of the Treasury. Subpart I of the Regulations sets forth a Paperwork Reduction Act notice.

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

The collections of information related to the Regulations are contained in 31 CFR part 501 (the “Reporting, Procedures and Penalties Regulations”). Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), those collections of information have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1505-0164. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid control number.

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

On May 30, 2002, OFAC issued the Western Balkans Stabilization Regulations, 31 CFR part 588 (67 FR 37671, May 30, 2002) (the “Regulations”), to implement Executive Order (E.O.) 13219 of June 26, 2001, “Blocking Property of Persons Who Threaten International Stabilization Efforts in the Western Balkans” (66 FR 34777, June 29, 2001), pursuant to authorities delegated to the Secretary of the Treasury in E.O. 13219. On June 29, 2011, OFAC amended and reissued the Regulations (76 FR 38002, June 29, 2011) to implement E.O. 13304 of May 28, 2003, “Termination of Emergencies With Respect to Yugoslavia and Modification of Executive Order 13219 of June 26, 2001” (68 FR 32315, May 29, 2003), which amended E.O. 13219 (“amended E.O. 13219”), pursuant to authorities delegated to the Secretary of the Treasury. OFAC is revising the Regulations to further implement amended E.O. 13219 and to implement E.O. 14033 of June 8, 2021, “Blocking Property and Suspending Entry Into the United States of Certain Persons Contributing to the Destabilizing Situation in the Western Balkans” (86 FR 31079, June 10, 2021). Due to the number of regulatory sections being updated or added, OFAC is reissuing the Regulations in their entirety.

On June 26, 2001, the President, invoking the authority of, inter alia, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq. ) (IEEPA), issued E.O. 13219. In E.O. 13219, the President determined that the actions of persons engaged in, or assisting, sponsoring, or supporting, (i) extremist violence in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, southern Serbia, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and elsewhere in the Western Balkans region, or (ii) acts obstructing implementation of the Dayton Accords in Bosnia or United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1244 of June 10, 1999, in Kosovo, constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States and declared a national emergency to deal with that threat. E.O. 13219 blocked the property and interests in property of certain persons, including the persons listed in the Annex to E.O. 13219. See 66 FR 34777 (June 29, 2001).

On May 28, 2003, the President, pursuant to, inter alia, IEEPA, and the United Nations Participation Act, as amended (22 U.S.C. 287c) (UNPA), issued E.O. 13304. In E.O. 13304, the President took additional steps with respect to continuing, widespread, and illicit actions obstructing implementation of the Ohrid Framework Agreement of 2001, relating to Macedonia, UNSCR 1244 of June 10, 1999, relating to Kosovo, or the Dayton Accords or the Conclusions of the Peace Implementation Conference Council held in London on December 8-9, 1995, including the decisions or conclusions of the High Representative, the Peace Implementation Council or its Steering Board, relating to Bosnia and Herzegovina, including the harboring of individuals indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, and with respect to the national emergency described and declared in E.O. 13219. E.O. 13304 amended E.O. 13219 to expand and clarify the scope of persons targeted by the blocking sanctions. See 76 FR 38002 (June 29, 2011).

On June 8, 2021, pursuant to, inter alia, IEEPA, the President issued E.O. 14033. In E.O. 14033, the President expanded the scope of the national emergency declared in E.O. 13219, as amended in E.O. 13304, finding that the situation in the territory of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Republic of Albania (the Western Balkans), over the past two decades, including the undermining of post-war agreements and institutions following the breakup of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, as well as widespread corruption within various governments and institutions in the Western Balkans, stymies progress toward effective and democratic governance and full integration into transatlantic institutions, and thereby constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.

Section 1(a) of E.O. 14033 blocks, with certain exceptions, all property and interests in property that are in the United States, that come within the United States, or that are or come within the possession or control of any U.S. person of any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State: (i) to be responsible for or complicit in, or to have directly or indirectly engaged in, actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, stability, or territorial integrity of any area or state in the Western Balkans; (ii) to be responsible for or complicit in, or to have directly or indirectly engaged in, actions or policies that undermine democratic processes or institutions in the Western Balkans; (iii) to be responsible for or complicit in, or to have directly or indirectly engaged in, a violation of, or an act that has obstructed or threatened the implementation of, any regional security, peace, cooperation, or mutual recognition agreement or framework or accountability mechanism related to the Western Balkans, including the Prespa Agreement of 2018; the Ohrid Framework Agreement of 2001; UNSCR 1244; the Dayton Accords; or the Conclusions of the Peace Implementation Conference Council held in London in December 1995, including the decisions or conclusions of the High Representative, the Peace Implementation Council, or its Steering Board; or the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, or, with respect to the former Yugoslavia, the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals; (iv) to be responsible for or complicit in, or to have directly or indirectly engaged in, serious human rights abuse in the Western Balkans; (v) to be responsible for or complicit in, or to have directly or indirectly engaged in, corruption related to the Western Balkans, including corruption by, on behalf of, or otherwise related to a government in the Western Balkans, or a current or former government official at any level of government in the Western Balkans, such as the misappropriation of public assets, expropriation of private assets for personal gain or political purposes, or bribery; (vi) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or (vii) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 14033.

Section 2 of E.O. 14033 provides that the prohibition on any transaction or dealing in blocked property or interests in property includes the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 14033, and the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.

In Section 3 of E.O. 14033, the President determined that the making of donations of the type of articles specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)), by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 14033 would seriously impair the President's ability to deal with the national emergency declared in E.O. 13219 as expanded in E.O. 14033. The President therefore prohibited the donation of such items except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to E.O. 14033.

Section 5 of E.O. 14033 prohibits any transaction that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in E.O. 14033, as well as any conspiracy formed to violate such prohibitions.

Section 8 of E.O. 14033 authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA, as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of E.O. 14033. Section 8 of E.O. 14033 also provides that the Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions within the Department of the Treasury.

Section 9 of E.O. 14033 exempts from the prohibitions of the order transactions for the conduct of the official business of the Federal Government by employees, grantees, or contractors thereof.

In furtherance of the purpose of amended E.O. 13219 and E.O. 14033, OFAC is reissuing the Regulations. The Regulations implement targeted sanctions that are directed at persons determined to meet the criteria set forth in § 588.201 of the Regulations, as well as sanctions that may be set forth in any future Executive orders issued pursuant to the national emergency declared in E.O. 13219 and expanded in E.O. 14033.

Subpart A of the Regulations clarifies the relation of this part to other laws and regulations. Subpart B of the Regulations implements the prohibitions contained in section 1(a) of amended E.O. 13219 and 1(a) of E.O. 14033, as well as the prohibitions contained in any further Executive orders issued pursuant to the national emergency declared in E.O. 13219. See, e.g., §§ 588.201 and 588.205. Persons identified in the Annex to amended E.O. 13219 and persons otherwise blocked pursuant to amended E.O. 13219, E.O. 14033, or any further Executive order issued pursuant to the national emergency declared in E.O. 13219, are referred to throughout the Regulations as “persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 588.201.”

Section 588.206 of subpart B states certain transactions that are exempt from the prohibitions of the Regulations pursuant to sections 203(b) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)), or pursuant to section 9 of E.O. 14033, which relates to activities for the official business of the United States Government. As further set forth in this section, these exemptions do not apply to transactions involving persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 553.201 who are blocked pursuant to the authority of the UNPA in addition to IEEPA.

In subpart C of the Regulations, three new definitions are being added to other key terms used throughout the Regulations, one section that explains the applicability of the definitions in subpart C is being added, and certain updates are being made to existing definitions. The existing definitions are being renumbered so that subpart C is in alphabetical order.

In subpart D, which contains interpretive sections regarding the Regulations, certain provisions are being updated. Section 588.411 of subpart D explains that the property and interests in property of an entity are blocked if the entity is directly or indirectly owned, whether individually or in the aggregate, 50 percent or more by one or more persons whose property and interests in property are blocked, whether the entity itself is incorporated into OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List).

Transactions otherwise prohibited by the Regulations but found to be consistent with U.S. policy may be authorized by one of the general licenses contained in subpart E of the Regulations or by a specific license issued pursuant to the procedures described in subpart E of 31 CFR part 501. General licenses and statements of licensing policy relating to this part also may be available through the Balkans-related sanctions page on OFAC's website: www.treas.gov/ofac.

OFAC is also incorporating three new general licenses into the Regulations, renumbering existing general licenses, and making technical edits to certain existing general licenses. Section 588.508 was renumbered as § 588.509. In §§ 588.507 and 588.509, OFAC has removed the requirement that the receipt of payment for legal or emergency medical services be specifically licensed and made other updates. New §§ 588.508, 588.510, and 588.11 authorize, respectively, payments for legal services from funds originating outside the United States, official business of the United States Government, and official activities of certain international organizations and other international entities.

Subpart F of the Regulations refers to subpart C of part 501 for recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Subpart G of the Regulations describes the civil and criminal penalties applicable to violations of the Regulations, as well as the procedures governing the potential imposition of a civil monetary penalty or issuance of a Finding of Violation. Subpart G also refers to appendix A of part 501 for a more complete description of these procedures.

Subpart H of the Regulations refers to subpart E of part 501 for applicable provisions relating to administrative procedures and contains a delegation of certain authorities of the Secretary of the Treasury. Subpart I of the Regulations sets forth a Paperwork Reduction Act notice.

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

The collections of information related to the Regulations are contained in 31 CFR part 501 (the “Reporting, Procedures and Penalties Regulations”). Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), those collections of information have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1505-0164. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid control number.

The Coast Guard will enforce the limited access area for the annual San Francisco Bay Navy Fleet Week Parade of Ships and Blue Angels Demonstration in 33 CFR 100.1105. This NOE supersedes the NOE published on September 6, 2022 at 87 FR 54390 for the same annual San Francisco Bay Navy Fleet Week Parade of Ships and Blue Angels Demonstration. A copy of the published NOE is also available in the docket USCG-2022-0691 on regulations.gov . After publication of that NOE, the event sponsor notified the Coast Guard that they needed to adjust the times of the event. This NOE announces the updated dates and times this limited access area will be enforced daily on October 6th through October 9th, 2022 as described in the following paragraph.

The regulated area “Alpha” in § 100.1105(b)(1) for the Navy Parade of Ships will be enforced from 9:30 a.m. until 12 p.m. on October 7, 2022. The regulated area “Bravo” in § 100.1105(b)(2) for the U.S. Navy Blue Angels will be enforced from 12:30 p.m. until 6 p.m. on October 6, 2022, and 11:30 a.m. until 5 p.m. daily from October 7, 2022 through October 9, 2022.

Regulated area “Alpha” will be enforced during the Navy Parade of Ships and is bounded by a line connecting the following points and thence along the shore to the point of beginning:

Under the provisions of 33 CFR 100.1105, except for persons or vessels authorized by the PATCOM, in regulated area “Alpha” no person or vessel may enter the parade route or remain within 500 yards of any Navy parade vessel. No person or vessel shall anchor, block, loiter in, or impede the through transit of ship parade participants or official patrol vessels in regulated area “Alpha.”

Regulated area “Bravo” will be enforced during the Navy Blue Angels Demonstration and is bounded by a line connecting the following points and thence along the pierheads and bulwarks to the point of beginning:

Except for persons or vessels authorized by the PATCOM, no person or vessel may enter or remain within regulated area “Bravo.”

When hailed or signaled by U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel by siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, a person or vessel shall come to an immediate stop. Persons or vessels shall comply with all directions given; failure to do so may result in expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply, or both. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation. The PATCOM shall be designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector San Francisco, California. The PATCOM is empowered to forbid and control the movement of all vessels in the regulated areas.

In addition to this notification of enforcement in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners.

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone established in 33 CFR 165.1191, Table 1, Item number 22, for the Monte Foundation Fireworks Display from 8 p.m. to 8:20 p.m. on October 9, 2022. The Captain of the Port has delegated the authority to issue the notification of enforcement for this regulation to the Prevention Department Head.

The safety zone will extend to all navigable waters around the land-based launch site at the Capitola Pier in Capitola, CA. During the 20-minute fireworks display, scheduled to begin at approximately 8 p.m. on October 9, 2022, the safety zone will encompass navigable waters around and under the fireworks launch site within a radius of 1,000 feet in approximate position 36°58′09.92″ N, 121°57′15.06″ W (NAD 83) for the Monte Foundation Fireworks Display.

This safety zone will be enforced from 8 p.m. until 8:20 p.m. on October 9, 2022, or as announced via Broadcast Notice to Mariners. In addition to this notification of enforcement in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners.

Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1191, unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring in the safety zone during all applicable effective dates and times, unless authorized to do so by the PATCOM or other Official Patrol defined as a Federal, state, or local law enforcement agency on scene to assist the Coast Guard in enforcing the regulated area. Additionally, each person who receives notice of a lawful order or direction issued by the PATCOM or Official Patrol shall obey the order or direction. The PATCOM or Official Patrol may, upon request, allow the transit of commercial vessels through regulated areas when it is safe to do so.

If the Captain of the Port determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notification, a Broadcast Notice to Mariners may be used to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone established in 33 CFR 165.1191 Table 1, Item number 23, for the Rio Vista Bass Derby Fireworks Display from 10 a.m. through 9:30 p.m. on October 8, 2022.

The safety zone will extend to all navigable waters of the Sacramento River, from surface to bottom, within a circle formed by connecting all points 100 feet out from the fireworks barge during the loading, transit, and arrival of the fireworks barge from the loading location to the display location and until the start of the fireworks display. From 10 a.m. through 4 p.m. October 8, 2022, the fireworks barge will load pyrotechnics from the Dutra Group, Oly Yard 615 River Road, Rio Vista, CA. The fireworks barge will remain at the loading location until its transit to the display location. From 7:45 p.m. to 7:55 p.m. on October 8, 2022 the loaded fireworks barge will transit from the Dutra Group, Oly Yard 615 River Road, Rio Vista, CA to the launch site off of Rio Vista, CA in approximate position 38°09′16.00″ N, 121°41′17.00″ W (NAD 83), where it will remain until the conclusion of the fireworks display. During the 15-minute fireworks display, scheduled to begin at approximately 8:45 p.m. on October 8, 2022, and 30 minutes after the conclusion of the fireworks display, the safety zone will increase in size and encompass all navigable waters of the Sacramento River, from surface to bottom, within a circle formed by connecting all points 1000 feet out from the fireworks barge near Rio Vista, CA in approximate position 38°09′16.00″ N, 121°41′17.00″ W (NAD 83). This safety zone will be enforced from 10 a.m. until 9:30 p.m. on October 8, 2022, or as announced via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

In addition to this notification of enforcement in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners.

Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1191, unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring in the safety zone during all applicable effective dates and times, unless authorized to do so by the PATCOM or other Official Patrol defined as a federal, state, or local law enforcement agency on scene to assist the Coast Guard in enforcing the regulated area. Additionally, each person who receives notice of a lawful order or direction issued by the PATCOM or Official Patrol shall obey the order or direction. The PATCOM or Official Patrol may, upon request, allow the transit of commercial vessels through regulated areas when it is safe to do so.

If the Captain of the Port determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, a Broadcast Notice to Mariners may be used to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

In October 2021, the Captain of the Port (COTP) San Francisco identified a need for clearer Aids to Navigation to inform the boating public of restricted areas near Yerba Buena Island. Further discussion discovered that current regulations established a Restricted Area, but not a Security Zone. The COTP has determined that potential security concerns associated with the mooring of Coast Guard Cutters necessitate a Coast Guard Security Zone.

In response, on July 18, 2022 the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Security Zone; San Francisco Bay, San Francisco, CA” (87 FR 42665). 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 August 17, 2022, we received no comments.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The purpose of this rule is to ensure the security of Coast Guard facilities, personnel, and vessels, at all times within the navigable waters of the San Francisco Bay on the east side of Yerba Buena Island from a point along the southeastern shore of Yerba Buena Island at 37°48′27″ N, 122°21′44″ W; east to 37°48′27″ N, 122°21′35″ W; north to 37°48′49″ N, 122°21′35″ W, a point on the northeastern side of Yerba Buena Island.

As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published July 18, 2022. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the regulatory text in the NPRM.

This rule establishes a security zone within the navigable waters of the San Francisco Bay on the east side of Yerba Buena Island from a point along the southeastern shore of Yerba Buena Island at 37°48′27″ N, 122°21′44″ W; east to 37°48′27″ N, 122°21′35″ W; north to 37°48′49″ N, 122°21′35″ W, a point on the northeastern side of Yerba Buena Island. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the security zone unless authorized by the COTP.

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 and location of the security zone. The effect of this rule will not be significant because vessel traffic can pass safely around the area, and this rule will encompass only a small portion of the waterway.

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 security 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 security zone that would prohibit entry within navigable waters of the San Francisco Bay on the east side of Yerba Buena Island from a point along the southeastern shore of Yerba Buena Island at 37°48′27″ N, 122°21′44″ W; east to 37°48′27″ N, 122°21′35″ W; north to 37°48′49″ N, 122°21′35″ W, a point on the northeastern side of Yerba Buena Island. 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:

In FR Doc. 2022-13338 appearing on page 37999 in the Federal Register of Monday, June 27, 2022 (87 FR 37999 (FRL-7584-01-OCSPP)), the following correction is made to correct a typographical error in amendatory instruction 2:

You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture, process, or use the chemical substances contained in this rule. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

• Manufacturers or processors of one or more subject chemical substances (NAICS codes 325 and 324110), e.g., chemical manufacturing and petroleum refineries.

This action may also affect certain entities through pre-existing import certification and export notification rules under TSCA. Chemical importers are subject to the TSCA section 13 (15 U.S.C. 2612) import provisions promulgated at 19 CFR 12.118 through 12.127 and 19 CFR 127.28. Chemical importers must certify that the shipment of the chemical substance complies with all applicable rules and Orders under TSCA, which would include the SNUR requirements. The EPA policy in support of import certification appears at 40 CFR part 707, subpart B. In addition, any persons who export or intend to export a chemical substance that is the subject of this rule are subject to the export notification provisions of TSCA section 12(b) (15 U.S.C. 2611(b)) (see 40 CFR 721.20), and must comply with the export notification requirements in 40 CFR part 707, subpart D.

The dockets include information considered by the Agency in developing the proposed and final rules. The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2021-0030, is available at https://www.regulations.gov and at the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-0280. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

EPA is finalizing SNURs under TSCA section 5(a)(2) for certain chemical substances which were the subject of PMNs. Previously, EPA proposed SNURs for these chemical substances and established the record for these SNURs in the following Federal Register and docket ID number:

• November 24, 2021 (86 FR 66993) (FRL-8805-01-OCSPP); Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2021-0030.

The docket includes information considered by the Agency in developing the proposed and final rules, including public comments and EPA's responses to the public comments received.

TSCA section 5(a)(2) (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(2)) authorizes EPA to determine that a use of a chemical substance is a “significant new use.” EPA must make this determination by rule after considering all relevant factors, including the four bulleted TSCA section 5(a)(2) factors listed in Unit III.

General provisions for SNURs appear in 40 CFR part 721, subpart A. These provisions describe persons subject to the rule, recordkeeping requirements, exemptions to reporting requirements, and applicability of the rule to uses occurring before the effective date of the rule. Provisions relating to user fees appear at 40 CFR part 700. Pursuant to 40 CFR 721.1(c), persons subject to these SNURs must comply with the significant new use notice (SNUN) requirements and EPA regulatory procedures as submitters of PMNs under TSCA section 5(a)(1)(A). In particular, these requirements include the information submission requirements of TSCA sections 5(b) and 5(d)(1), the exemptions authorized by TSCA sections 5(h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(3), and (h)(5), and the regulations at 40 CFR part 720. Once EPA receives a SNUN and before the manufacture or processing for the significant new use can commence, EPA must either determine that the significant new use is not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury or take such regulatory action as is associated with an alternative determination. If EPA determines that the significant new use is not likely to present an unreasonable risk, EPA is required under TSCA section 5(g) to make public, and submit for publication in the Federal Register a statement of EPA's findings.

When the Agency issues an order under TSCA section 5(e), section 5(f)(4) requires that the Agency consider whether to promulgate a SNUR for any use not conforming to the restrictions of the TSCA Order or publish a statement describing the reasons for not initiating the rulemaking. TSCA section 5(a)(2) states that EPA's determination that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use must be made after consideration of all relevant factors, including:

• The projected volume of manufacturing and processing of a chemical substance.

• The extent to which a use changes the type or form of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance.

• The extent to which a use increases the magnitude and duration of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance.

• The reasonably anticipated manner and methods of manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, and disposal of a chemical substance.

In determining what would constitute a significant new use for the chemical substances that are the subject of these SNURs, EPA considered relevant information about the toxicity of the chemical substances, and potential human exposures and environmental releases that may be associated with possible uses of these chemical substances, in the context of the four bulleted TSCA section 5(a)(2) factors listed in this unit.

By this rule, EPA is establishing certain significant new uses which have been claimed as CBI subject to Agency confidentiality regulations at 40 CFR part 2 and 40 CFR part 720, subpart E. Absent a final determination or other disposition of the confidentiality claim under 40 CFR part 2 procedures, EPA is required to keep this information confidential.

Under the procedures in 40 CFR part 721.11 a manufacturer or processor may request EPA to determine whether a specific use would be a significant new use under the rule. The manufacturer or processor must show that it has a bona fide intent to manufacture or process the chemical substance and must identify the specific use for which it intends to manufacture or process the chemical substance. If EPA concludes that the person has shown a bona fide intent to manufacture or process the chemical substance, EPA will identify any confidential significant new use designations under the rule. Since most of the chemical identities of the chemical substances subject to these SNURs are also CBI, manufacturers and processors can combine the bona fide submission under the procedure in 40 CFR 721.11 into a single step to identify if a chemical substance is subject to part 721 and if a specific use would be a significant new use under the rule.

EPA received public comments from two identifying entities on the proposed rule. The Agency's responses are presented in the Response to Public Comments document that is available in the public docket for this rulemaking. EPA made no changes to the proposed rule as described in the response to comments. EPA is not finalizing the rule for P-18-65 at this time as explained in the response to comments.

EPA is establishing significant new use and recordkeeping requirements for chemical substances in 40 CFR part 721, subpart E. In Unit IV. of the proposed SNURs, EPA provided the following information for each chemical substance:

• PMN number.

• Chemical name (generic name, if the specific name is claimed as confidential business information (CBI)).

• Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) Registry number (if assigned for non-confidential chemical identities).

• Effective date of and basis for the TSCA Order.

• Potentially Useful Information. This is information identified by EPA that would help characterize the potential health and/or environmental effects of the chemical substances if a manufacturer or processor is considering submitting a SNUN for a significant new use designated by the SNUR.

• CFR citation assigned in the regulatory text section of these rules.

The regulatory text section of these rules specifies the activities designated as significant new uses. Certain new uses, including production volume limits and other uses designated in the rules, may be claimed as CBI.

These final rules include PMN substances that are subject to orders issued under TSCA section 5(e)(1)(A), as required by the determinations made under TSCA section 5(a)(3)(B). Those TSCA Orders require protective measures to limit exposures or otherwise mitigate the potential unreasonable risk. The final SNURs identify as significant new uses any manufacturing, processing, use, distribution in commerce, or disposal that does not conform to the restrictions imposed by the underlying TSCA Orders, consistent with TSCA section 5(f)(4).

During review of the PMNs submitted for the chemical substances that are subject to these SNURs and as further discussed in Unit IV. of the proposed rule, EPA concluded that regulation was warranted under TSCA section 5(e), pending the development of information sufficient to make reasoned evaluations of the health or environmental effects of the chemical substances. Based on such findings, TSCA Orders requiring the use of appropriate exposure controls were negotiated with the PMN submitters. As a general matter, EPA believes it is necessary to follow TSCA Orders with a SNUR that identifies the absence of those protective measures as significant new uses to ensure that all manufacturers and processors—not just the original submitter—are held to the same standard.

EPA is issuing these SNURs because the Agency wants to

• Receive notice of any person's intent to manufacture or process a listed chemical substance for the described significant new use before that activity begins.

• Have an opportunity to review and evaluate data submitted in a SNUN before the notice submitter begins manufacturing or processing a listed chemical substance for the described significant new use; and

• Be obligated to make a determination under TSCA section 5(a)(3) regarding the use described in the SNUN, under the conditions of use. The Agency will either determine under TSCA section 5(a)(3)(C) that significant new use is not likely to present an unreasonable risk, including an unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation identified as relevant by the Administrator under the conditions of use, or make a determination under TSCA section 5(a)(3)(A) or (B) and take the required regulatory action associated with the determination, before manufacture or processing for the significant new use of the chemical substance can occur.

Issuance of a SNUR for a chemical substance does not signify that the chemical substance is listed on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory (TSCA Inventory). Guidance on how to determine if a chemical substance is on the TSCA Inventory is available on the internet at https://www.epa.gov/tsca-inventory.

To establish a significant new use, EPA must determine that the use is not ongoing. The chemical substances subject to this rule have undergone premanufacture review. In cases where EPA has not received a notice of commencement (NOC) and the chemical substance has not been added to the TSCA Inventory, no person may commence such activities without first submitting a PMN. Therefore, for chemical substances for which an NOC has not been submitted, EPA concludes that the designated significant new uses are not ongoing.

When chemical substances identified in this rule are added to the TSCA Inventory, EPA recognizes that, before the rule is effective, other persons might engage in a use that has been identified as a significant new use. However, TSCA Orders have been issued for all the chemical substances that are the subject of this rule, and the PMN submitters are prohibited by the TSCA Orders from undertaking activities which will be designated as significant new uses. The identities of many of the chemical substances subject to this rule have been claimed as confidential (per 40 CFR 720.85). Based on this, the Agency believes that it is highly unlikely that any of the significant new uses described in the regulatory text of this rule are ongoing.

Furthermore, EPA designated the publication dates of the proposed rule (see Unit II.) as the cutoff dates for determining whether the new uses are ongoing. The objective of EPA's approach has been to ensure that a person could not defeat a SNUR by initiating a significant new use before the effective date of the final rule.

In the unlikely event that a person began commercial manufacture or processing of the chemical substances for a significant new use identified as of the above-mentioned dates, that person will have to cease any such activity upon the effective date of the final rule. To resume their activities, that person would have to first comply with all applicable SNUR notification requirements and wait until EPA has conducted a review of the notice, made an appropriate determination on the notice, and has taken such actions as are required with that determination.

EPA recognizes that TSCA section 5 does not require development of any particular new information ( e.g., generating test data) before submission of a SNUN. There is an exception: If a person is required to submit information for a chemical substance pursuant to a rule, TSCA Order or consent agreement under TSCA section 4, then TSCA section 5(b)(1)(A) requires such information to be submitted to EPA at the time of submission of the SNUN.

In the absence of a rule, TSCA Order, or consent agreement under TSCA section 4 covering the chemical substance, persons are required only to submit information in their possession or control and to describe any other information known to them or reasonably ascertainable by them (see 40 CFR 720.50). However, upon review of PMNs and SNUNs, the Agency has the authority to require appropriate testing. Unit IV. of the proposed rule lists potentially useful information for all SNURs listed in this document. Descriptions are provided for informational purposes. The information identified in Unit IV. of the proposed rule will be potentially useful to EPA's evaluation in the event that someone submits a SNUN for the significant new use. Companies who are considering submitting a SNUN are encouraged, but not required, to develop the information on the substance.

EPA strongly encourages persons, before performing any testing, to consult with the Agency. Furthermore, pursuant to TSCA section 4(h), which pertains to reduction of testing in vertebrate animals, EPA encourages consultation with the Agency on the use of alternative test methods and strategies (also called New Approach Methodologies, or NAMs), if available, to generate the recommended test data. EPA encourages dialog with Agency representatives to help determine how best the submitter can meet both the data needs and the objective of TSCA section 4(h). For more information on alternative test methods and strategies to reduce vertebrate animal testing, visit https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/ alternative-test-methods-and-strategies-reduce.

In some of the TSCA Orders for the chemical substances identified in this rule, EPA has established production volume and time limits in view of the lack of data on the potential health and environmental risks that may be posed by the significant new uses or increased exposure to the chemical substances. These limits cannot be exceeded unless the PMN submitter first submits the results of specified tests that would permit a reasoned evaluation of the potential risks posed by these chemical substances. The SNURs contain the same limits as the TSCA Orders. Exceeding these production limits is defined as a significant new use. Persons who intend to exceed the production limit must notify the Agency by submitting a SNUN at least 90 days in advance of commencement of non-exempt commercial manufacture or processing.

Any request by EPA for the triggered and pended testing described in the TSCA Orders was made based on EPA's consideration of available screening-level data, if any, as well as other available information on appropriate testing for the PMN substances. Further, any such testing request on the part of EPA that includes testing on vertebrates was made after consideration of available toxicity information, computational toxicology and bioinformatics, and high-throughput screening methods and their prediction models.

The potentially useful information identified in Unit IV. of the proposed rule may not be the only means of addressing the potential risks of the chemical substance associated with the designated significant new uses. However, submitting a SNUN without any test data or other information may increase the likelihood that EPA will take action under TSCA sections 5(e) or 5(f). EPA recommends that potential SNUN submitters contact EPA early enough so that they will be able to conduct the appropriate tests.

SNUN submitters should be aware that EPA will be better able to evaluate SNUNs that provide detailed information on the following:

• Human exposure and environmental release that may result from the significant new use of the chemical substances.

• Information on risks posed by the chemical substances compared to risks posed by potential substitutes.

According to 40 CFR 721.1(c), persons submitting a SNUN must comply with the same notification requirements and EPA regulatory procedures as persons submitting a PMN, including submission of test data on health and environmental effects as described in 40 CFR 720.50. SNUNs must be submitted on EPA Form No. 7710-25, generated using e-PMN software, and submitted to the Agency in accordance with the procedures set forth in 40 CFR 720.40 and 721.25. E-PMN software is available electronically at https://www.epa.gov/reviewing-new-chemicals-under-toxic-substances-control-act-tsca.

EPA has evaluated the potential costs of establishing SNUN requirements for potential manufacturers and processors of the chemical substances subject to this rule. EPA's complete economic analyses are available in the docket listed in Unit II.

Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations-and-executive-orders.

This action establishes SNURs for several new chemical substances that were the subject of PMNs. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017), because this action is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

According to the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ), an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information that requires OMB approval under PRA, unless it has been approved by OMB and displays a currently valid OMB control number. The information collection requirements associated with SNURs have already been approved by OMB pursuant to the PRA under OMB control number 2070-0012 (EPA ICR No. 574). This rule does not impose any burden requiring additional OMB approval.

The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register ,are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and included on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. EPA is amending the table in 40 CFR part 9 to list the OMB approval number for the information collection requirements contained in this action. This listing of the OMB control numbers and their subsequent codification in the CFR satisfies the display requirements of PRA and OMB's implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320. The Information Collection Request (ICR) covering the SNUR activities was previously subject to public notice and comment prior to OMB approval, and given the technical nature of the table, EPA finds that further notice and comment to amend it is unnecessary. As a result, EPA finds that there is “good cause” under section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B)) to amend this table without further notice and comment.

If an entity were to submit a SNUN to the Agency, the annual burden is estimated to average between 30 and 170 hours per response. This burden estimate includes the time needed to review instructions, search existing data sources, gather and maintain the data needed, and complete, review, and submit the required SNUN.

Send any comments about the accuracy of the burden estimate, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques, to the Director, Regulatory Support Division, Office of Mission Support (2822T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. Please remember to include the OMB control number in any correspondence, but do not submit any completed forms to this address.

Pursuant to the RFA section 605(b) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), the Agency hereby certifies that promulgation of these SNURs would not have a significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The requirement to submit a SNUN applies to any person (including small or large entities) who intends to engage in any activity described in the final rule as a “significant new use.” Because these uses are “new,” based on all information currently available to EPA, EPA has concluded that no small or large entities presently engage in such activities. A SNUR requires that any person who intends to engage in such activity in the future must first notify EPA by submitting a SNUN. Although some small entities may decide to pursue a significant new use in the future, EPA cannot presently determine how many, if any, there may be. However, EPA's experience to date is that, in response to the promulgation of SNURs covering over 1,000 chemicals, the Agency receives only a small number of notices per year. For example, the number of SNUNs received was 10 in Federal fiscal year (FY) FY2016, 14 in FY2017, 16 in FY2018, five in FY2019, seven in FY2020, and 13 in FY2021, and only a fraction of these were from small businesses. In addition, the Agency currently offers relief to qualifying small businesses by reducing the SNUN submission fee from $19,020 to $3,330. This lower fee reduces the total reporting and recordkeeping cost of submitting a SNUN to about $11,164 for qualifying small firms. Therefore, the potential economic impacts of complying with this SNUR are not expected to be significant or adversely impact a substantial number of small entities. In a SNUR that published in the Federal Register of June 2, 1997 (62 FR 29684) (FRL-5597-1), the Agency presented its general determination that final SNURs are not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, which was provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

Based on EPA's experience with proposing and finalizing SNURs, State, local, and Tribal governments have not been impacted by these rulemakings, and EPA does not have any reasons to believe that any State, local, or Tribal government will be impacted by this action. As such, EPA has determined that this action does not impose any enforceable duty, contain any unfunded mandate, or otherwise have any effect on small governments subject to the requirements of UMRA sections 202, 203, 204, or 205 (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. ).

This action will not have a substantial direct effect on 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 Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).

This action does not have Tribal implications because it is not expected to have substantial direct effects on Indian Tribes. This action does not significantly nor uniquely affect the communities of Indian Tribal governments, nor does it involve or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), do not apply to this action.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because this is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, and this action does not address environmental health or safety risks disproportionately affecting children. EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because this action is not expected to affect energy supply, distribution, or use and because this action is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

This action does not involve any technical standards subject to NTTAA section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

This action does not entail special considerations of environmental justice related issues as delineated by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

This action is subject to the CRA (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), and EPA will submit a rule report containing this rule and other required information to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

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

Throughout this document, “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to the EPA.

Section 553 of the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. The EPA has determined that there is good cause for making this final agency action without prior proposal and opportunity for comment because no significant EPA judgment is involved in making findings of failure to submit SIPs, or elements of SIPs, required by the CAA, where states and territories have made no submissions, or incomplete submissions, to meet the requirement. Thus, notice and public procedures are unnecessary. The EPA finds that this constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).

Under section 109 of the CAA, the EPA promulgates NAAQS for pervasive air pollutants, such as ozone. In 2008, the EPA promulgated new 8-hour primary and secondary ozone NAAQS of 0.075 ppm (“2008 ozone NAAQS”) to replace the 1997 ozone NAAQS of 0.08 ppm. 1 Although the EPA further strengthened the 8-hour ozone NAAQS to 0.070 ppm in 2015, this action relates to the requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 2 Following promulgation of new or revised NAAQS, the EPA is required by the CAA to designate areas throughout the nation as either attaining or not attaining the standards. Effective July 20, 2012, the EPA designated both Coachella Valley and West Mojave Desert as nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and classified the areas as “Severe-15.”  3 Areas designated nonattainment for ozone NAAQS are subject to the general nonattainment area planning requirements of CAA section 172 and to the ozone-specific planning requirements of CAA section 182.

On March 6, 2015, the EPA published a final implementation rule for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, detailing the requirements applicable to ozone nonattainment areas and providing specific deadlines for SIP submittals. 4 For areas classified Serious and above, the SIP revisions providing for an attainment demonstration, RFP demonstration, and attainment and RFP contingency measures were due 4 years after the effective date of area designations ( i.e., by July 20, 2016). 5 Contingency measures are additional controls or measures to be implemented in the event an area fails to make RFP or to attain the NAAQS by the attainment date.

In California, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) is the agency responsible for the adoption and submission to the EPA of SIPs and SIP revisions. Working jointly with CARB, local and regional air pollution control districts in California are responsible for the development of regional air quality plans. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) develops and adopts plans to address CAA planning requirements applicable to the Coachella Valley. The Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District (AVAQMD) and Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD) share responsibility for air quality planning in the West Mojave Desert. These agencies adopt and submit their plans to CARB for state adoption and submission to the EPA as revisions to the California SIP.

CARB submitted contingency measures for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for the Coachella Valley in the Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (March 2017) (“2016 AQMP”), submitted on April 27, 2017, 6 the Coachella Valley 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Contingency (“Coachella Attainment Contingency”) submitted on May 5, 2017, 7 and the 2018 Updates to the California State Implementation Plan (“2018 SIP Update”) submitted on December 5, 2018. On September 16, 2020, the EPA approved the relevant portions of these SIP revisions as meeting all applicable ozone nonattainment area requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the Coachella Valley, except for the contingency measure requirements, for which the EPA deferred action. 8

CARB submitted contingency measures for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for the West Mojave Desert in a SIP revision submitted on June 2, 2017. 9 This submittal includes attainment plans prepared by the AVAQMD (“AVAQMD Attainment Plan”)  10 and the MDAQMD (“MDAQMD Attainment Plan”), 11 an accompanying staff report prepared by CARB (“CARB Staff Report”), 12 and other supporting documents. We refer to all the documents collectively submitted to the EPA on June 2, 2017 as the “2016 WMD Attainment Plan.” Some elements of the 2016 WMD Attainment Plan were updated for the West Mojave Desert nonattainment area in the 2018 SIP Update. On September 27, 2021, the EPA took final action to approve the relevant portions of the 2016 WMD Attainment Plan and 2018 SIP Update as meeting all the applicable ozone nonattainment area requirements, except for the contingency measure requirements, for which the EPA deferred action. 13 CARB subsequently submitted additional contingency measures provisions in the Amendment to the 75 ppb 2008 8hr O3 Contingency Measure for MDAQMD portion of the Western Mojave Desert Nonattainment Area (“MDAQMD Contingency Amendment”) on February 1, 2022. 14

On August 26, 2021, following CARB's submittals for the Coachella Valley and West Mojave Desert, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit remanded the EPA's conditional approval of contingency measures for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area, finding that the EPA had not provided a reasoned explanation for considering emission reductions from already-implemented measures. 15 CARB subsequently withdrew the contingency measures elements of the 2016 AQMP, the Coachella Attainment Contingency, and the relevant portions of the 2018 SIP Update (for the Coachella Valley), and the contingency measures elements of the 2016 WMD Attainment Plan, the relevant portions of the 2018 SIP Update, and the MDAQMD Contingency Amendment (for the West Mojave Desert), 16 following requests from the local air districts. 17

Based upon the withdrawal of the contingency measures described in Section II of this rulemaking, the EPA is finding that California has failed to make required submittals for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for the Coachella Valley and West Mojave Desert nonattainment areas. With this finding, section 179 of the CAA starts sanctions clocks and a FIP clock. Section 179(a) of the CAA specifies the consequences if the EPA finds that a state has failed to make a required SIP submission, if the EPA has determined that a submitted SIP is incomplete, or if the EPA has disapproved a SIP submission. If the EPA has not affirmatively determined that California has made complete submissions to address the contingency measures requirements for the Coachella Valley or West Mojave Desert nonattainment areas within 18 months of the effective date of this action, the offset sanction identified in section 179(b)(2) will apply within that area, pursuant to section 179(a) and (b) and 40 CFR 52.31. If the EPA has not affirmatively determined that California has made a complete SIP submission for either area within six months after imposition of the offset sanction, the highway funding sanction will be imposed, as required under section 179(b)(1) of the CAA and 40 CFR 52.31.

California may avoid these sanctions by taking timely action to remedy this finding. The 18-month clock governing the CAA's imposition of sanctions for these areas will stop and sanctions will not take effect if the EPA finds that the State has made a complete SIP submission addressing the contingency measures requirements for these areas area within 18 months of the date of this finding. Similarly, the EPA is not required to promulgate a FIP if California makes the required SIP submissions, and the EPA takes final action to approve the submissions within two years of this finding of failure to submit a required SIP. In sum, the CAA does not require sanctions or a FIP if the State and the EPA take timely action to remedy this finding.

Additional information about these statutes and Executive orders can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

This action is not a significant regulatory action and therefore was not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the PRA because it does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities beyond those imposed by state law.

This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, will result from this action.

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

This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175, because this action does not apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

This action does not involve technical standards.

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (February 16, 1994)) establishes Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. There is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goals of Executive Order 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color, low-income populations, and indigenous peoples.

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 28, 2022. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final action does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

Throughout this document, “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to the EPA.

On October 5, 2021, in accordance with CAA sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1), the EPA proposed to approve a July 27, 2020 SIP submittal from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to address the ozone-related emissions inventory requirements for the following 18 ozone nonattainment areas for the 2015 ozone NAAQS: Amador County, Butte County, Calaveras County, Imperial County, Kern County (Eastern Kern), Los Angeles—San Bernardino Counties (West Mojave Desert), Los Angeles—South Coast Air Basin, Mariposa County, Nevada County (Western part), Riverside County (Coachella Valley), Sacramento Metro, San Francisco Bay Area, San Joaquin Valley, San Luis Obispo (Eastern part), Sutter Buttes, Tuolumne County, Tuscan Buttes, and Ventura County. 1 We refer to our October 5, 2021 proposed rulemaking as the “proposed rule.”

On October 28, 2021, the EPA extended the comment period for the proposed rule by 30 days in response to a stakeholder request for an extension. 2 The original deadline to submit comments was November 4, 2021. This action extended the comment period to December 6, 2021.

In our proposed rule, we provided background information on the 2015 ozone standards, area designations in California, and related base year emissions inventory SIP revision requirements under the CAA and the EPA's implementing regulations for the 2015 ozone standards, referred to as the 2015 ozone SIP Requirements Rule (“2015 Ozone SRR”). 3

On July 27, 2020, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted the “70 ppb Ozone SIP Submittal” (“2020 CARB SIP Submittal”) to the EPA. 4 As explained in our proposed rule, the 2020 CARB SIP Submittal contains a staff report with a release date of May 22, 2020, and attachments of emissions inventories that address base year inventory requirements for 18 of the 21 NAAs in California. 5 In our proposed rule, we provided a summary of the 2020 CARB SIP Submittal, evaluated the submittal for compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements, and proposed to find that the submittal meets all applicable requirements.

The emissions inventories we are approving into the SIP in this final action are detailed in Table 1 of the proposed rule. The EPA finds that CARB developed approvable inventories of oxides of nitrogen (NO X ) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions for the 18 ozone nonattainment areas as required under the CAA and 2015 Ozone SRR (40 CFR 51.1315; see also CAA section 172(c)(3)).

Refer to our proposed rule for more information concerning the background for this action and for a more detailed discussion of the rationale for approval.

The EPA's proposed rule provided a 30-day public comment period that ended on November 4, 2021. As explained in section I of this preamble, on October 28, 2021, we extended the comment period by 30 days to December 6, 2021, in response to a stakeholder request for an extension. 6 We received eight sets of comments, including seven comment submissions from private individuals  7 and one comment letter from the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD). 8 All comments received in response to our proposed rulemaking are available in the docket for this rulemaking. 9 Four of the comment submissions from private individuals generally support our proposal to approve the 2020 CARB SIP Submittal as meeting the base year emissions inventory requirements. 10 These four supportive comments do not require a response. We respond to the remainder of the comments received on our proposed rulemaking in this action.

Comment A.1: Two private individual commenters  11 question how the proposed rulemaking will improve air pollution in the nonattainment areas. Additionally, one of the commenters  12 suggests that there should be a call to action for these nonattainment areas to implement some forms of regulation or change in activities to actively pursue attainment of environmental goals.

Response A.1: The EPA appreciates the commenters' questions regarding how air pollution will be improved. As explained in our proposed rule, CAA section 182(a)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1315 require states to develop and submit, as SIP revisions, emissions inventories for all areas designated as nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. An emissions inventory for an ozone nonattainment area is comprised of typical weekday actual emissions of ozone precursors in the area's ozone season. Emissions inventories provide emissions data for a variety of air quality planning tasks, including establishing baseline emissions levels ( i.e., the level of emissions associated with violations of the ozone standards), calculating emissions reduction targets needed to attain the NAAQS and to achieve reasonable further progress (RFP) toward attainment of the ozone standards, determining emissions inputs for ozone air quality modeling analyses, and tracking emissions over time to determine progress toward achieving air quality and emissions reduction goals.

The EPA also appreciates the commenters' concerns about nonattainment areas needing to actively pursue attainment via implementation of regulations or change in activities. The EPA promulgates NAAQS for certain air pollutants, such as ozone, under section 109 of the CAA. The NAAQS are concentration levels that the EPA has determined to be requisite to protect public health and welfare. Under CAA section 107(d), the EPA designates areas as nonattainment if they are violating the NAAQS or contributing to a violation of the NAAQS in nearby areas. State and local governments with nonattainment areas must develop implementation plans outlining how these areas will attain and maintain the NAAQS by reducing air pollutant emissions. Sections 110, 172, and 182 of the CAA require states to develop and submit SIPs to implement, maintain, and enforce the NAAQS. 13 These SIPs address requirements for emissions inventories, attainment demonstrations, reasonable further progress, reasonably available control measures, contingency measures, and motor vehicle emissions budgets to improve air quality. Although the base year emissions inventories submitted pursuant to CAA sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1) are not intended to result directly in reductions of emissions or ozone concentration levels, they inform the development and implementation of the SIP submittals that are required under the CAA to actively pursue attainment of environmental goals, as suggested by the commenter.

Comment A.2: One private individual commenter  14 suggests that, within the requirements for base year inventories, a fifth class of anthropogenic sources should be added. The commenter explains that this fifth class will cover emissions contributions from agriculture livestock, agricultural soils, and rice production. The commenter indicates that by adding this fifth class, the proposed rule will gain a more thorough overview of ozone creation within California, allowing the EPA to make better decisions based on nonattainment areas.

Response A.2: As explained in our proposed rule, CAA section 182(a)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1315 contain the requirements for ozone base year emissions inventories. The EPA's guidance for the preparation of ozone base year emissions inventories (“EI Guidance”)  15 also indicates that, traditionally, the term “source category” has been used to identify the major types of emissions inventory groupings: stationary point sources, stationary area (or nonpoint) sources, on-road mobile sources, and nonroad mobile sources. 16 Accordingly, our proposed rule identifies four general classes of anthropogenic sources: stationary point sources; area sources; on-road mobile sources; and off-road mobile sources.

Potentially referring to section A.2 of our proposed rulemaking titled “Requirements for Base Year Inventories,” the commenter proposes that the requirements for base year inventories should be amended to add a requirement for a separate category of anthropogenic sources encompassing emissions from agriculture livestock, agricultural soils, and rice production. The requirements for base year emissions inventories established at 40 CFR 51.1315 and at CAA sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1) do not define specific “classes” of sources in which to sort reported emissions. However, we note that the source categories cited by the commenter for inclusion in a “fifth class,” i.e., agricultural livestock, agricultural soils, and rice production, are already included in California's base year emissions inventories for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Emissions from these sources are accounted for in the 2020 CARB SIP Submittal under diesel agricultural equipment, agricultural diesel irrigation pumps, pesticides, farming operations (including livestock husbandry), and agricultural burning. 17 Additionally, we note that the EPA's EI Guidance addresses emissions from agricultural livestock  18 and from certain agricultural soil sources ( e.g., direct emissions of pesticides and fertilizers  19 ) under the area source category. Emissions from rice production are addressed under various source categories, including the area source category for processes such as direct application of pesticides and fertilizers  20 and the non-road mobile source category for mobile agricultural equipment. 21

Comment A.3: One private individual commenter  22 expresses concerns about the lack of base year emissions inventory updates for attainment areas and questions why emissions reductions or new emissions standards are not required for attainment areas.

Response A.3: While establishing requirements for nonattainment and attainment areas is outside the scope of this rulemaking action, the EPA agrees that protection of air quality in all areas is of vital importance. We note that the CAA imposes various requirements on nonattainment areas for ozone national ambient air quality standards. The requirements that apply to ozone nonattainment areas, including the requirement for states to submit base year emissions inventories for these areas, are established in CAA sections 172 and 182. These statutes apply specifically to areas that the EPA has determined to be in nonattainment with respect to a NAAQS and are intended to restore air quality in these areas to levels that the EPA has determined to be requisite to protect public health and welfare with an adequate margin for safety. Accordingly, the SIP submittal that the EPA is evaluating for this action was submitted to fulfill requirements specific to ozone nonattainment areas. The requirements in CAA sections 172 and 182 do not apply to areas designated as attainment, and there is no CAA requirement for states to submit base year emissions inventories for attainment areas.

We do note, however, that recent emissions information is available for all areas of the United States, including attainment areas, in the EPA's national emissions inventory (NEI). The NEI contains comprehensive and detailed information on air emissions of criteria pollutants, criteria pollutant precursors, and hazardous air pollutants from air emissions sources nationwide. 23 The NEI is released every three years and is based primarily upon data provided by state, local, and tribal air agencies for sources in their jurisdictions in accordance with the air emissions reporting requirements (AERR) at 40 CFR part 51, subpart A. At the state level, CARB also collects and provides statewide emissions via the California emissions inventory data analysis and reporting system (CEIDARS), which is a database management system developed to track statewide criteria pollutant and air toxics emissions. 24 Similarly to the NEI, CEIDARS includes emissions information for all areas in California and is not limited to nonattainment areas.

Comment B.1: CBD asserts that CARB's base year emissions inventories must be corrected to account for anthropogenic sources of soil-based NO X emissions related to fertilizer and pesticide use in California before the EPA may approve the inventories. 25 Throughout its comment letter, CBD refers to soil NO X resulting from fertilizer and pesticide use as an anthropogenic emissions source. CBD implies that CARB assumes NO X emissions from fertilizers and pesticides to be zero and argues that doing so is unacceptable and contrary to science. While the commenter acknowledges the challenges associated with quantifying NO X emissions resulting from fertilizer and pesticide use, they consider the quantification of these emissions to be no more complex than CARB's quantification of VOC emissions from pesticides in its base year emissions inventories. CBD's comment letter discusses the impacts that both fertilizer and pesticide use have on NO X emissions and cites 13 research manuscripts to support their comment, 11 of which are included as attachments to the comment letter.

Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the EPA.

On June 17, 2022 (87 FR 36433), the EPA proposed to disapprove the following rules adopted by the AVAQMD and MDAQMD (collectively, “the Districts”) that were submitted for incorporation into the California SIP.

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

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Office of the Federal Register's e-CFR site at https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40.

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0417 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before November 28, 2022. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0417, by one of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

In the Federal Register of September 22, 2021 (86 FR 52624) (FRL-8792-03-OCSPP), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 1F8914) by Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.686 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the fungicide benzovindiflupyr, in or on vegetable, root, except sugar beet, subgroup 1B, and ginseng, at 0.6 parts per million (ppm). That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, the registrant, which is available in the docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0417 at https://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has modified a commodity definition, established the tolerance at an increased level, and removed the existing ginseng tolerance. The reasons for these changes are explained in Unit IV.C.

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

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

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

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

Toxicological profile. For a discussion of the toxicological profile of benzovindiflupyr, see Unit III.A. of the June 22, 2018, rulemaking (83 FR 29033) (FRL-9977-94).

Toxicological points of departure/Levels of concern. For a summary of the toxicological points of departure/levels of concern used for the safety assessment, see Unit III.B. of the October 2, 2015, rulemaking (80 FR 59627) (FRL-9933-03).

Exposure assessment. Much of the exposure assessment remains the same although updates have occurred to accommodate exposures from the petitioned-for tolerance. These updates are discussed in this section; for a description of the rest of the EPA approach to and assumptions for the exposure assessment, please reference Unit III.C. of the June 22, 2018, rulemaking.

EPA's dietary exposure assessments have been updated to include the additional exposure from the new use of benzovindiflupyr on the commodities in Vegetable, root, except sugar beet, subgroup1B. The assessments used the same assumptions considering 100 percent crop treated and tolerance-level residues as the June 22, 2018, final rule. Drinking water exposures are not impacted by the new uses; the estimated drinking water concentrations are the same as in the June 22, 2018, final rule.

The proposed new use will not result in residential exposure, although there are existing residential uses that were previously assessed. The revisions to the residential exposure and risk assessments in the June 22, 2018, final rule were described in the February 9, 2021, final rule (86 FR 8704) (FRL-10017-32) and have not changed since then.

Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.” Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to benzovindiflupyr and any other substances and benzovindiflupyr does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that benzovindiflupyr has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances.

Safety factor for infants and children. EPA continues to conclude that there are reliable data to support the reduction of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) safety factor. See Unit III.D. of the June 22, 2018, rulemaking for a discussion of the Agency's rationale for that determination.

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

Acute dietary risks are below the Agency's level of concern of 100% of the aPAD: They are 16% of the aPAD for the general population and 43% of the aPAD for children 1 to 2 years old, the population subgroup with the highest exposure estimate. Chronic dietary risks are below the Agency's level of concern of 100% of the cPAD: They are 6.1% of the cPAD for the general population and 20% of the cPAD for children 1 to 2 years old, the population subgroup with the highest exposure estimate. Because the chronic dietary risks, which were quantified using a non-linear ( i.e., RfD) approach accounting for all chronic toxicity and any potential carcinogenic effects, are below EPA's level of concern, the Agency concludes that benzovindiflupyr will not pose a cancer risk. The short-term aggregate MOE (food, water, and residential) is 487 for children 1 to 2 years old. This MOE exceeds the target level of concern of 100, so it is not of concern. There are no intermediate or long-term residential exposures.

Therefore, based on the risk assessments and information described above, EPA concludes there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children, from aggregate exposure to benzovindiflupyr residues. More detailed information about the Agency's analysis can be found at https://www.regulations.gov in the documents titled “Benzovindiflupyr. Human Health Risk Assessment for the Proposed New Food Use on Vegetable Root, Subgroup 1B (except sugar beets)” in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0417.

For a discussion of the available analytical enforcement method, see Unit IV.A. of the June 22, 2018, rulemaking.

In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex has not established an MRL for residues of benzovindiflupyr in or on Vegetable, root, except sugar beet, subgroup 1B.

FFDCA section 408(d)(4)(A)(i) permits the Agency to finalize a tolerance that varies from that sought by the petition. EPA is establishing the tolerance at 0.6 ppm for residues of benzovindiflupyr in or on Vegetable, root, except sugar beet, subgroup 1B. The EPA determined a higher tolerance was required by calculating the recommended tolerance for carrot and radish data separately and using the highest recommended tolerance rather than calculating the recommended tolerance using the combined carrot and radish data as the registrant did. The Agency also revised the commodity definition to use standard terminology for the subgroup.

Additionally, the petition requested that ginseng be excluded from the tolerance for subgroup 1B. However, rather than exclude ginseng from this tolerance to avoid duplicative tolerances, EPA is removing the established tolerance of 0.3 ppm for residues of benzovindiflupyr in or on ginseng because it is included in the crop subgroup covered by this tolerance.

Therefore, a tolerance is established for residues of benzovindiflupyr, in or on vegetable, root, except sugar beet, subgroup 1B at 0.6 ppm. In addition, EPA is removing the established tolerance for residues of benzovindiflupyr in or on ginseng at 0.3 ppm.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This final rule amends the DFARS to make needed editorial changes to 48 CFR parts 203 and 252.

Therefore, 48 CFR parts 203 and 252 are amended as follows:

DoD is issuing a final rule to implement a recommendation of the Government Accountability Office (GAO). Section 851 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 (Pub. L. 109-364) required GAO to report on recent employment of former DoD officials by major defense contractors. In May 2008, GAO issued a report titled “Defense Contracting: Post-Government Employment of Former DoD Officials Needs Greater Transparency (GAO-08-485).” GAO concluded that greater transparency was needed by DoD with respect to former senior and acquisition executives ( i.e., DoD “covered officials”) to ensure compliance with applicable post-employment restrictions.

Subsequently, DoD issued a final rule in the Federal Register at 76 FR 71826, effective November 18, 2011, which implemented the GAO recommendation by adding a new representation for offerors to complete and provide as part of each proposal, including proposals for commercial items. The representation is required only one time rather than continuously throughout contract performance. The solicitation provision at DFARS 252.203-7005, Representation Relating to Compensation of Former DoD Officials, is a representation that all of the offeror's employees who are former DoD officials are in compliance with all post-employment restrictions at 18 U.S.C. 207, 41 U.S.C. 2101-2107, and 5 CFR parts 2637 and 2641, as well as Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 3.104-2.

A more recent GAO Report titled “GAO-21-104311, Post-Government Employment Restrictions-DoD Could Further Enhance Its Compliance Efforts Related to Former Employees Working for Defense Contractors,” dated September 9, 2021, states that in 2011 DoD modified its acquisition regulations to require that contractors, when submitting proposals in response to DoD solicitations, represent their employees' compliance with several post-Government employment restrictions. Although GAO recognized that DoD has provided guidance on section 1045 of the NDAA for FY 2018 (Pub. L. 115-91), to include DoD Instruction 1000.32, “Prohibition of Lobbying Activity by Former DoD Senior Officials,” the GAO report pointed out that DoD has not added section 1045 of the NDAA for FY 2018 to the list of post-Government employment ethics provisions currently enumerated within the solicitation provision at DFARS 252.203-7005. Specifically, since section 1045, which restricts lobbying activities with respect to DoD matters by former DoD senior officials, was enacted after the addition of DFARS 252.203-7005 in 2011, it was not originally included in the list of enumerated post-Government employment provisions. Therefore, GAO recommended that DoD assess whether to amend the DFARS to add section 1045 to the required offeror representation concerning compliance with post-Government employment restrictions.

This final rule revises DFARS provision 252.203-7005, Representation Relating to Compensation of Former DoD Officials, to add the statutory reference to section 1045 of the NDAA for FY 2018 to the existing list of post-Government employment restrictions to ensure that, to the extent the individuals are “covered DoD officials” under the definition at DFARS 252.203-7000, the lobbying activities restrictions contained in section 1045 are included among the enumerated post-Government employment ethics provisions. Additionally, the provision language was revised to clarify that former personnel are required to comply with all applicable post-Government employment restrictions, not just those enumerated in the solicitation provision at DFARS 252.203-7005.

An obsolete reference to 5 CFR 2637 is removed from the provision. Part 2637 was removed from title 5 of the CFR in a final rule published in the Federal Register at 73 FR 36168 (June 25, 2008).

The statute that applies to the publication of the FAR is 41 U.S.C. 1707, Publication of Proposed Regulations. Subsection (a)(1) of the statute requires that a procurement policy, regulation, procedure, or form (including an amendment or modification thereof) must be published for public comment if it relates to the expenditure of appropriated funds, and has either a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of the agency issuing the policy, regulation, procedure, or form, or has a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors.

Under the existing DFARS requirement, offerors must represent that their employees subject to section 847 of the NDAA for FY 2008 are in compliance with applicable post-Government employment restrictions, which are outlined in the written post-Government employment opinion letter issued pursuant to section 847. Following the enactment of section 1045 of the NDAA for FY 2018, DoD included the requirement in DoD Instruction 1000.32, Prohibition of Lobbying Activity by Former DoD Senior Officials, that post-Government employment opinions address section 1045, where applicable. Therefore, this final rule is not required to be published for public comment, because it does not constitute a significant DFARS revision within the meaning of FAR 1.501-1 and does not have a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors (see Section I of this preamble).

This rule amends the solicitation provision at DFARS 252.203-7005. However, this rule does not impose any new requirements on contracts at or below the SAT or for commercial services or commercial products, including COTS items. The provision will continue to apply to acquisitions at or below the SAT and to acquisitions of commercial services and commercial products, including COTS items.

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 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). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993.

As required by the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808) before an interim or final rule takes effect, DoD will submit a copy of the interim or final rule with the form, Submission of Federal Rules under the Congressional Review Act, to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States. A major rule under the Congressional Review Act cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply to this rule because this final rule does not constitute a significant DFARS revision within the meaning of FAR 1.501-1, and 41 U.S.C. 1707 does not require publication for public comment.

This rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

Therefore, 48 CFR part 252 is amended as follows:

Congress delegated certain powers to regulate interstate commerce to the United States Department of Transportation (DOT or Department) in numerous pieces of legislation, most notably in section 6 of the Department of Transportation Act (DOT Act) (Pub. L. 89-670, 80 Stat. 931, 937, Oct. 15, 1966). Section 6 of the DOT Act transferred to the Department the authority of the former Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) to regulate the qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees, the safety of operations, and the equipment of motor carriers in interstate commerce (80 Stat. 939). This authority, first granted to the ICC in the Motor Carrier Act of 1935 (Pub. L. 74-255, 49 Stat. 543, Aug. 9, 1935), now appears in 49 U.S.C. chapter 315. The regulations issued under this (and subsequently enacted) authority became known as the FMCSRs, codified at 49 CFR parts 350-399. The administrative powers to enforce chapter 315 (codified in 49 U.S.C. chapter 5) were also transferred from the ICC to the DOT in 1966, assigned first to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and then to FMCSA. The FMCSA Administrator, whose powers and duties are set forth in 49 U.S.C. 113, has been delegated authority by the Secretary of Transportation (the Secretary) under 49 CFR 1.81 to prescribe regulations and to exercise authority over and with respect to any personnel within the organization, and under 49 CFR 1.87 to carry out the motor carrier functions vested in the Secretary.

Between 1984 and 1999, enforcement of the FMCSRs, the Hazardous Materials Regulations, and the Commercial Regulations were added to FHWA's authority. These statutes include the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-554, Title II, 98 Stat. 2832, Oct. 30, 1984), codified at 49 U.S.C. chapter 311, subchapter III; the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 (Pub. L. 99-570, Title XII, 100 Stat. 3207-170, Oct. 27, 1986), codified at 49 U.S.C. chapter 313; the Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 1990, as amended (Pub. L. 101-615, 104 Stat. 3244, Nov. 16, 1990), codified at 49 U.S.C. chapter 51; the Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991 (Pub. L. 102-143, Title V, 105 Stat. 917, 952, Oct. 28, 1991), codified at 49 U.S.C. 31306; the ICC Termination Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-88, 109 Stat. 803, Dec. 29, 1995), codified at 49 U.S.C. chapters 131-149; and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (Pub. L. 105- 178, 112 Stat. 107, June 9, 1998).

The Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (MCSIA) (Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748, Dec. 9, 1999) established FMCSA as a new operating administration within DOT, effective January 1, 2000. Accordingly, since that time the motor carrier safety, and certain commercial, responsibilities previously assigned to both the ICC and FHWA are the jurisdiction of FMCSA.

Congress expanded, modified, and amended FMCSA's authority in the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (Pub. L. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272, Oct. 26, 2001); the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, Aug. 10, 2005); the SAFETEA-LU Technical Corrections Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-244, 122 Stat. 1572, June 6, 2008); the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) (Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, July 6, 2012); and the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, Dec. 4, 2015). Most recently, Congress amended FMCSA's authorities in the Infrastructure Improvement and Jobs Act (IIJA) (Pub. L. 117- 58, 135 Stat. 429, Nov. 15, 2021). Accordingly, FMCSA amends three parts in title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to align the regulatory text with the new statutory requirements.

The specific regulations amended by this rule are based on the statutes detailed above. Generally, the legal authority for each of those provisions was explained when the requirement was originally adopted and is noted at the beginning of each part in title 49 of the CFR.

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) specifically provides exceptions to its notice and comment rulemaking procedures when an agency finds there is good cause to dispense with them, and incorporates the finding, and a brief statement of reasons therefore, in the rules issued (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B)). Good cause exists when an agency determines that notice and public comment procedures are impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. The amendments made in this final rule primarily correct inadvertent errors and omissions, remove or update obsolete references, and make minor language changes to improve clarity and consistency. Some changes are statutorily mandated or align regulatory standards with the underlying statutory authority. In accommodating those changes, the Agency is performing nondiscretionary, ministerial acts. The technical amendments do not impose any material new requirements or increase compliance obligations. For these reasons, FMCSA finds good cause that notice and public comment on this final rule are unnecessary.

Moreover, the amendments changing the name of the “Office of Enforcement and Compliance (MC-EC)” to the “Office of Enforcement and Compliance (MC-SE)” and “Office of Safety Programs (MC-SS)” and additional methods for the public to contact certain Agency offices concern an additional exception to the APA's notice and comment rulemaking procedures for “rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice” (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A)). These amendments are, therefore, excepted from the notice and public comment requirements.

The APA also allows agencies to make rules effective immediately with good cause (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)), instead of § requiring publication 30 days prior to the effective date. For the reasons already stated, FMCSA finds there is good cause for this rule to be effective immediately.

The Agency is aware of the regulatory requirements concerning public participation in FMCSA rulemaking (49 U.S.C. 31136(g)). These requirements pertain to certain major rules, 1 but, because this final rule is not a major rule, they are not applicable.

This section-by-section analysis describes the changes to the regulatory text in numerical order.

Section 23001(b)(4)(A) of IIJA amends 49 U.S.C. 31104(f)(1) to provide that MCSAP funds are available for the Federal fiscal year that the funds are obligated and for the next 2 fiscal years, instead of just the next fiscal year. Accordingly, FMCSA amends § 350.221 by replacing “next full Federal fiscal year” with “next 2 full Federal fiscal years.”

Section 23001(c) of IIJA amends 49 U.S.C. 31102(h)(2)(A) to provide that MCSAP funds may be used for documented enforcement of State traffic laws and regulations if, in part, the number of motor carrier safety activities conducted in the State is maintained at a level at least equal to the average level of such activities conducted in the State in fiscal years 2014 and 2015, instead of 2004 and 2005. Accordingly, FMCSA amends § 350.227(c)(2)(ii) by replacing “2004 and 2005” with “2014 and 2015.”

Section 23003 of IIJA amends 49 U.S.C. 31102(l)(3)(D) by adding a new clause (iv) and clause (v), which provide that High Priority Program funds received to advance the innovative technology deployment of commercial motor vehicle (CMV) information systems and networks may also be used to combat human trafficking. Accordingly, FMCSA adds a clause at the end of paragraph (h) in § 350.403 pertaining to innovative technology deployment that reads, “including technology to detect, and enforce actions taken as a result of, criminal activity (including human trafficking) in a CMV or by any occupant of a CMV, including the operator.”

Similarly, section 23003 of IIJA amends 49 U.S.C. 31102(l)(2) by adding new subparagraphs (H) and (I), which provide that High Priority Program funds may be used to combat human trafficking. Accordingly, FMCSA adds a new paragraph (j) in § 350.403 that provides High Priority Program funds may be used to “Support the recognition, prevention, and reporting of human trafficking in a CMV or by any occupant of a CMV, including the operator, and enforce laws relating to human trafficking; or.” FMCSA makes conforming changes by deleting “or” at the end of paragraph (i) and redesignating the existing paragraph (j) as (k).

In paragraph (a) of § 350.405, FMCSA makes conforming changes to reflect the addition of a paragraph in § 350.403. Specifically, FMCSA replaces “, (i), and (j)” with “and (i) through (k).”

As above, in paragraph (a) of § 350.411, FMCSA makes conforming changes to reflect the addition of a paragraph in § 350.403. FMCSA replaces “, (i), and (j)” with “and (i) through (k).”

FMCSA revises paragraph (e)(3)(iii) of § 360.3(suspended) and paragraph (e)(2)(iii) of § 360.3T to replace “Director, Office of Registration and Safety Information (MC-RS)” with “Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.” This change is consistent with similar changes made in the final rule titled “General Technical, Organizational, Conforming, and Correcting Amendments to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations” (86 FR 57060, Oct. 14, 2021). FMCSA made changes in that final rule to replace specific employees and offices in the FMCSRs noting recent vacancies and organizational changes affected the titles of FMCSA employees and office names, which underscored the need for increased flexibility to redelegate functions internally to meet organizational needs. Accordingly, FMCSA simplified many sections across various parts of the CFR removing or updating references to specific titles or offices and replaced them with “FMCSA” and, where necessary, an “ATTN” line showing the subject matter of the petition or request. (See 86 FR 57061). FMCSA inadvertently omitted §§ 360.3(e)(3)(iii) and 360.3T(e)(2)(iii) from the list of sections that were amended under this rationale. FMCSA corrects that omission and amends these sections to be consistent with similar sections of the FMCSRs.

FMCSA revises paragraphs (a)(7) and (b) by replacing the words “website” with the word “website.”

FMCSA revises the introductory text to § 380.717 by replacing the words “website” with the word “website.”

FMCSA revises paragraph (a) by adding “or through the TPR website” to the end of the first sentence. This revision reflects that removal from the training provider registry may be accomplished by submitting a notice through the same “TPR website” that is used for other transmittals of documents regarding the registry in part 380. Additionally, in paragraph (b), FMCSA replaces the words “website” with the word “website.”

FMCSA revises paragraph (e) to replace “Office of Enforcement and Compliance (MC-EC)” with “Office of Safety Programs (MC-SS).” This change aligns regulatory text with updates to the internal organization of FMCSA and ensures that written requests submitted under this section are directed to the correct office within the Agency.

FMCSA replaces “Federal, State, or local official having independent authority to test” with “Federal, State, or local law enforcement or public safety official having independent authority for the test” in paragraphs (g)(1) and (2). The additions to this phrase clarify that the officials that conduct post-accident testing to satisfy the requirements of these paragraphs are only law enforcement or public safety officials. This change is consistent with the original intent of this phrase when part 382 was added by FHWA. The notice of proposed rulemaking explained that the intent of paragraphs (g)(1) and (2), originally paragraph (f), was to “allow motor carriers to accept tests done by law enforcement officials” (57 FR 59516, 59522, Dec. 15, 1992). The final rule also stated that this provision applied to tests by “on-site police or public safety officials” (59 FR 7484, 7497, Feb. 15, 1994). Similar terms were used in guidance issued on section 382.303 (62 FR 16370, 16385, Apr. 4, 1997). Accordingly, FMCSA updates paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) to clarify that the officials referenced are law enforcement and public safety officials as originally intended when part 382 was added to the CFR.

FMCSA revises paragraph (f)(3)(ii) as directed by statute. Section 23019 of IIJA directs FMCSA to amend this section to provide that a restricted commercial driver's license issued to an employee in a farm-related service industry be limited to the applicable seasonal periods defined by the issuing State, with the condition that the total number of days in any calendar year during which the restricted CDL is valid does not exceed 210. (See IIJA section 23019). Accordingly, FMCSA revises the first sentence of paragraph (f)(3)(ii) to read, “Restricted CDLs shall have the same renewal cycle as unrestricted CDLs but shall be limited to the seasonal period or periods as defined by the State of licensure, provided that the total number of days in any calendar year for which the restricted CDL is valid does not exceed 210.” The revisions conform the FMCSRs with the language instructed in section 23019 of IIJA.

FMCSA revises § 383.73(q) to clarify that, as used in paragraph (q), the term “downgrade” means, specifically, the State's removal of the commercial learner's permit (CLP) or CDL privilege from the driver's license, as set forth in paragraph (4) of the definition of CDL downgrade in § 383.5. This amendment conforms to FMCSA's intent as described in its final rule “Controlled Substances and Alcohol Testing: State Driver's Licensing Agency Non-issuance/Downgrade of Commercial Driver's License” (86 FR 55718, Oct. 7, 2021). This revision is made in response to a petition for reconsideration of the October 2021 final rule submitted to FMCSA by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) on November 1, 2021, requesting that FMCSA clarify the meaning of the term “downgrade” as used in § 383.73(q).

The October 2021 final rule established requirements for State Driver Licensing Agencies (SDLA) to access and use information from FMCSA's Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse indicating that a CLP or CDL holder or applicant cannot lawfully operate a CMV because they violated the drug and alcohol use and testing prohibitions in 49 CFR part 382, subpart B. Section 383.73(q) requires that the State, upon receiving notification that the CLP or CDL holder is prohibited from operating a CMV, initiate established State procedures for downgrading the CLP or CDL. The downgrade must be completed and recorded on the Commercial Driver's License Information System (CDLIS) driver record within 60 days of the State's receipt of such notification.

The intent of the CLP/CDL downgrade requirement in § 383.73(q), i.e., the removal of the CLP or CDL from the driver's license, was clearly explained in the preamble to the October 2021 final rule: “. . .SDLAs must remove the CLP or CDL privilege from the driver's license of an individual subject to the CMV driving prohibition, which would result in a downgrade of the license until the driver complies with return-to-duty (RTD) requirements” (86 FR 55718). However, as ODOT pointed out, confusion may arise because the current definition of the term CDL downgrade in § 383.5 contains four alternative definitions. This revision clarifies that, as used in § 383.73(q), the term “downgrade” refers specifically to the fourth alternative definition, the removal of the CLP or CDL privilege from the driver's license.

FMCSA amends subparagraph (3) under the definition of reviews by adding a comma after the word “policies.”

FMCSA revises section VII of appendix B to part 385 by replacing the citation for § 382.305 with a citation to § 382.305(a). Currently, § 382.305 is listed in appendix B to part 385 as the citation for failing to implement a random controlled substances and/or an alcohol testing program. However, § 382.305 is the broad citation that encompasses all random testing violations, while the more specific citation should be § 382.305(a) for no random program. When the regulation was amended to add subsection (a), appendix B to part 385 was never amended. FMCSA now makes this conforming change.

FMCSA removes the paragraph headings for paragraphs (c)(4), (g)(5), (m)(2), (m)(2)(i)(C), and (m)(3) to ensure consistency throughout § 391.23. Additionally, FMCSA deletes paragraph (e)(4)(i) and redesignates paragraphs (e)(4)(i)(A) and (B) as (e)(4)(i) and (ii), respectively. Prior to this change paragraph (e)(4) had a subparagraph (i), but no subparagraph (ii) which is not consistent with standard practice for paragraph levels in the CFR. FMCSA also adds the introductory text from paragraph (m)(2)(i) to the introductory text in paragraph (m)(2) and deletes paragraph (m)(2)(i) to remove a paragraph (i) that was not accompanied by a paragraph (ii). Accordingly, FMCSA redesignates paragraphs (m)(2)(i)(A), (B), (B)(1), (2), and (C) as paragraphs (m)(2)(i), (ii), (ii)(A), (B), and (iii), respectively.

FMCSA deletes the paragraph heading from paragraph (c) for consistency with the rest of § 391.25.

FMCSA revises paragraph (k) to reflect updated statutory authority for this part. Section 23018 of IIJA amended section 229(a)(1) of MCSIA (49 U.S.C. 31136 note) by adding a new exemption from the FMCSRs in part 395 regarding hours of service of drivers during planting and harvesting periods. The new exemption in section 229(a)(1)(D) of MCSIA applies to “drivers transporting livestock (as defined in section 602 of the Emergency Livestock Feed Assistance Act of 1988 (7 U.S.C. 1471) including insects) within a 150 air-mile radius from the final destination of the livestock.” The list of exemptions under section 229(a)(1) of MCSIA is currently codified in the FMCSRs at § 395.1(k). FMCSA is adding a new paragraph (4) to § 395.1(k) that mirrors the language from the amended section 229(a)(1)(D) of MCSIA so that the FMCSRs correctly reflect the exemptions from part 395 that are listed in FMCSA's statutory authority.

FMCSA revises a paragraph designation in § 395.8(a)(1)(iii)(A)(3) by italicizing the (3) in accordance with appropriate formatting of fifth level paragraphs in the CFR. 3

FMCSA revises appendix A by emboldening and italicizing the titles for sections 1.l. (Antilock Brake System), 1.m. (Automatic Brake Adjusters), 14 (Motorcoach Seats), and 15 (Rear Impact Guard) for consistency with the rest of the titles in the appendix.

FMCSA also updates the paragraphs in section 15 that were added in the November 9, 2021 final rule titled “Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Rear Impact Guards and Rear Impact Protection” (86 FR 62105). In the amendatory instructions for that final rule, FMCSA inadvertently designated certain paragraphs under section 15 as 1., 2., 3., etc. instead of (1), (2), (3), etc. This resulted in those paragraphs appearing in the CFR as first level paragraphs instead of third level paragraphs as intended. FMCSA redesignates these paragraphs to remedy this inadvertent error.

FMCSA revises footnote 1 by replacing “(MC-EC)” with “(MC-SE).” This change aligns regulatory text with updates to the internal organization of FMCSA and ensures that the correct office within the Agency is listed.

FMCSA revises paragraph (b)(1)(ii) by replacing “(MC-EC)” with “(MC-SE).” This change aligns regulatory text with updates to the internal organization of FMCSA and ensures that information submitted under this section is directed to the correct office within the Agency.

FMCSA revises paragraph (c)(1)(ii) by replacing “(MC-EC)” with “(MC-SE).” This change aligns regulatory text with updates to the internal organization of FMCSA and ensures that written notices submitted under this section are directed to the correct office within the Agency.

This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by E.O. 13563 (76 FR 3821, Jan. 21, 2011), Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and this final rule does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it under that Order. In addition, this rule is not significant within the meaning of DOT regulations (49 CFR 5.13(a)). The amendments made in this final rule primarily correct inadvertent errors and omissions, remove or update obsolete references, and make minor language changes to improve clarity and consistency. Some changes are statutorily mandated or relate to previous changes that were statutorily mandated. In accommodating those changes, the Agency is performing nondiscretionary, ministerial acts. Other changes merely align regulatory requirements with the underlying statutory authority. None of the changes in this final rule imposes material new requirements or increases compliance obligations; therefore, this final rule imposes no new costs, and a full regulatory evaluation is unnecessary.

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808), the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs designated this rule as not a “major rule,” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601-612), FMCSA is not required to complete a regulatory flexibility analysis because, as discussed earlier in the Legal Basis for the Rulemaking section, this action is not subject to notice and public comment under section 553(b) of the APA.

In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857, Mar. 29, 1996), FMCSA wants to assist small entities in understanding this final rule so they can better evaluate its effects on themselves and participate in the rulemaking initiative. If the final rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance; please consult the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this final rule.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal regulations to the Small Business Administration's 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 FMCSA, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). DOT has a policy regarding the rights of small entities to regulatory enforcement fairness and an explicit policy against retaliation for exercising these rights.

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 $170 million (which is the value equivalent of $100 million in 1995, adjusted for inflation to 2020 levels) or more in any 1 year. This final rule will not result in such an expenditure.

This final rule contains no new information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under section 1(a) of E.O. 13132 if it has “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.” FMCSA has determined that this rule will not have substantial direct costs on or for States, nor will it limit the policymaking discretion of States. Nothing in this document preempts any State law or regulation. Therefore, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Impact Statement.

Section 522 of title I of division H of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (Pub. L. 108-447, 118 Stat. 2809, 3268, Dec. 8, 2004 (5 U.S.C. 552a note)), requires the Agency to conduct a privacy impact assessment of a regulation that will affect the privacy of individuals. Because this rule does not require the collection of personally identifiable information, the Agency is not required to conduct a privacy impact assessment.

The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) applies only to Federal agencies and any non-Federal agency that receives records contained in a system of records from a Federal agency for use in a matching program.

The E-Government Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-347, sec. 208, 116 Stat. 2899, 2921, Dec. 17, 2002), requires Federal agencies to conduct a privacy impact assessment for new or substantially changed technology that collects, maintains, or disseminates information in an identifiable form. No new or substantially changed technology will collect, maintain, or disseminate information as a result of this rule. Accordingly, FMCSA has not conducted a privacy impact assessment.

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.

FMCSA analyzed this rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and determined this action is categorically excluded from further analysis and documentation in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under FMCSA Order 5610.1 (69 FR 9680, Mar. 1, 2004), Appendix 2, paragraphs 6.b, 6.c, and 6.t. These Categorical Exclusions address minor amendments and corrections to existing regulations ( e.g., concerning internal agency functions, organization, or personnel administration, etc.), and ensuring that States comply with the provisions of the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 by having the appropriate laws and policies, etc., concerning the qualification of licensing and persons who apply for or are issued a CDL. Therefore, preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement is not necessary.

In consideration of the foregoing, FMCSA amends 49 CFR chapter III as set forth below: