FEDERAL REGISTER

Vol. 86 Tuesday No. 141 July 27, 2021

Pages 40141–40298

OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL REGISTER

VerDate Sep 11 2014 18:51 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\27JYWS.LOC 27JYWS lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with FR_WS II Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021

The FEDERAL REGISTER (ISSN 0097–6326) is published daily, SUBSCRIPTIONS AND COPIES Monday through Friday, except official holidays, by the Office PUBLIC of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration, under the Federal Register Act (44 U.S.C. Ch. 15) Subscriptions: and the regulations of the Administrative Committee of the Federal Paper or fiche 202–512–1800 Register (1 CFR Ch. I). The Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Assistance with public subscriptions 202–512–1806 Government Publishing Office, is the exclusive distributor of the official edition. Periodicals postage is paid at Washington, DC. General online information 202–512–1530; 1–888–293–6498 Single copies/back copies: The FEDERAL REGISTER provides a uniform system for making available to the public regulations and legal notices issued by Paper or fiche 202–512–1800 Federal agencies. These include Presidential proclamations and Assistance with public single copies 1–866–512–1800 Executive Orders, Federal agency documents having general (Toll-Free) applicability and legal effect, documents required to be published FEDERAL AGENCIES by act of Congress, and other Federal agency documents of public Subscriptions: interest. Assistance with Federal agency subscriptions: Documents are on file for public inspection in the Office of the Federal Register the day before they are published, unless the Email [email protected] issuing agency requests earlier filing. For a list of documents Phone 202–741–6000 currently on file for public inspection, see www.federalregister.gov. The seal of the National Archives and Records Administration The Federal Register Printing Savings Act of 2017 (Pub. L. 115- authenticates the Federal Register as the official serial publication 120) placed restrictions on distribution of official printed copies established under the Federal Register Act. Under 44 U.S.C. 1507, of the daily Federal Register to members of Congress and Federal the contents of the Federal Register shall be judicially noticed. offices. Under this Act, the Director of the Government Publishing The Federal Register is published in paper and on 24x microfiche. Office may not provide printed copies of the daily Federal Register It is also available online at no charge at www.govinfo.gov, a unless a Member or other Federal office requests a specific issue service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office. or a subscription to the print edition. For more information on how to subscribe use the following website link: https:// The online edition of the Federal Register is issued under the www.gpo.gov/frsubs. authority of the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register as the official legal equivalent of the paper and microfiche editions (44 U.S.C. 4101 and 1 CFR 5.10). It is updated by 6:00 a.m. each day the Federal Register is published and includes both text and graphics from Volume 1, 1 (March 14, 1936) forward. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800 or 866-512- 1800 (toll free). E-mail, gpocusthelp.com. The annual subscription price for the Federal Register paper edition is $860 plus postage, or $929, for a combined Federal Register, Federal Register Index and List of CFR Sections Affected (LSA) subscription; the microfiche edition of the Federal Register including the Federal Register Index and LSA is $330, plus postage. Six month subscriptions are available for one-half the annual rate. The prevailing postal rates will be applied to orders according to the delivery method requested. The price of a single copy of the daily Federal Register, including postage, is based on the number of pages: $11 for an issue containing less than 200 pages; $22 for an issue containing 200 to 400 pages; and $33 for an issue containing more than 400 pages. Single issues of the microfiche edition may be purchased for $3 per copy, including postage. Remit check or money order, made payable to the Superintendent of Documents, or charge to your GPO Deposit Account, VISA, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover. Mail to: U.S. Government Publishing Office—New Orders, P.O. Box 979050, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000; or call toll free 1-866-512-1800, DC area 202-512-1800; or go to the U.S. Government Online Bookstore site, see bookstore.gpo.gov. There are no restrictions on the republication of material appearing in the Federal Register. How To Cite This Publication: Use the volume number and the page number. Example: 86 FR 12345. Postmaster: Send address changes to the Superintendent of Documents, Federal Register, U.S. Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20402, along with the entire mailing label from the last issue received.

Prin~d oo recycled papN.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 18:51 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\27JYWS.LOC 27JYWS

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with FR_WS * III

Contents Federal Register Vol. 86, No. 141

Tuesday, July 27, 2021

Agriculture Department Energy Department NOTICES See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 40190–40191 Environmental Protection Agency Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, RULES Submissions, and Approvals: National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Correction, 40190 Contingency Plan; Monitoring Requirements, 40234– 40264 Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau NOTICES Federal Aviation Administration Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, RULES Submissions, and Approvals: Airspace Designations and Reporting Points: Licensed Firearms Manufacturers Records of Production, Central United States, 40143–40144 Disposition, and Supporting Data, 40210 Vicinity of Macon, MO, 40145–40146 York, PA, 40146–40147 Antitrust Division NOTICES NOTICES Waiver of Aeronautical Land Use Assurance: Granting of Requests for Early Termination of the Waiting Colorado Springs Airport, Colorado Springs, CO, 40227 Period Under the Premerger Notification Rules, 40210– 40211 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission PROPOSED RULES Census Bureau Building for the Future Through Electric Regional NOTICES Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation and Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Generator Interconnection, 40266–40298 Submissions, and Approvals: NOTICES Census Employment Application and Additional Combined Filings, 40203–40205 Applicant Information, 40191 Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status: Requests for Nominations: West Medway II, LLC, BMP Wind LLC, Kei Mass Energy Census Scientific Advisory Committee, 40191–40192 Storage I, LLC, et al., 40203 Water Quality Certification Application: Coast Guard City of Watervliet, NY, 40202–40203 RULES Security Zone: Federal Highway Administration Christina River, Newport, DE, 40149–40153 NOTICES PROPOSED RULES Safety Zone: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property M/V ZHEN HUA 24, Crane Delivery Operation, Acquisition for Federal and Federally-Assisted Chesapeake Bay and Patapsco River, Baltimore, MD, Programs; Fixed Payment for Moving Expenses; 40184–40186 Residential Moves, 40227–40229

Commerce Department Federal Maritime Commission See Census Bureau NOTICES See International Trade Administration Meetings; Sunshine Act, 40205 See National Institute of Standards and Technology See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Federal Railroad Administration RULES Corporation for National and Community Service Positive Train Control Systems, 40154–40182 NOTICES NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Petition for Approval Extension: Submissions, and Approvals: Canadian Pacific Railway Co., 40230–40231 AmeriCorps Program Life Cycle Evaluation—Opioid Railroads’ Requests To Amend Their Positive Train Control Recovery Coach Model Bundled Evaluation, 40201– Safety Plans and Positive Train Control Systems, 40202 40229–40230 AmeriCorps Program Life Cycle Evaluation—Volunteer Generation Fund Grant Program Evaluation, 40202 Fish and Wildlife Service PROPOSED RULES Drug Enforcement Administration Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: NOTICES 90-Day Findings for Three Species, 40186–40189 Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Novitium Pharma, LLC, 40211 Foreign Assets Control Office Importer of Controlled Substances Application: NOTICES Catalent Pharma Solutions, LLC, 40211 Blocking or Unblocking of Persons and Properties, 40232

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\27JYCN.SGM 27JYCN lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with FR_CN IV Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Contents

Homeland Security Department National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration See Coast Guard RULES Fisheries Off West Coast States: Indian Affairs Bureau Modification of the West Coast Commercial Salmon RULES Fisheries; Inseason Action #19–#21, 40182–40183 Tribal Energy Resource Agreements, 40147–40149 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Inter-American Foundation Submissions, and Approvals: NOTICES Southeast Region Family of Forms, 40200–40201 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 40205 Matching Fund Opportunity for Ocean and Coastal Mapping and Request for Partnership Proposals, Interior Department 40197–40200 See Fish and Wildlife Service See Indian Affairs Bureau National Park Service See National Park Service NOTICES International Trade Administration Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, NOTICES Submissions, and Approvals: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations: Education Reservation Request Form, 40205–40206 Acrylonitrile–Butadiene Rubber From France, the Meetings: Republic of Korea, and Mexico, 40192–40197 Alaska Region Subsistence Resource Commission Program, 40206–40208 International Trade Commission Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument Advisory NOTICES Council, 40208 Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: National Science Foundation Certain Integrated Circuits and Products Containing NOTICES Same, 40208–40209 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 40217–40218 Justice Department Antarctic Conservation Act Permits, 40217–40218 See Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau Meetings; Sunshine Act, 40216–40219 See Antitrust Division See Drug Enforcement Administration NOTICES Nuclear Regulatory Commission Proposed Consent Decree: RULES Clean Water Act, 40211–40212 Revisions to Reprocessing Plant Components for Export, 40141–40142 Labor Department NOTICES Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, NOTICES Submissions, and Approvals: Meetings, 40219 Bloodborne Pathogens Standard, 40212–40213 Cotton Dust Standard, 40212 Postal Regulatory Commission National Credit Union Administration NOTICES NOTICES New Postal Products, 40219–40220 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Postal Service Capital Planning and Stress Testing, 40213 RULES Request for Information: International Mailing Services: Digital Assets and Related Technologies, 40213–40216 Price Changes, 40153–40154 National Endowment for the Arts NOTICES Securities and Exchange Commission Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, NOTICES Submissions, and Approvals: Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Applications from Students for Agency Initiatives Poetry Submissions, and Approvals, 40220 Out Loud or the Musical Theater Songwriting Challenge for High School Students, 40216 Small Business Administration NOTICES National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, See National Endowment for the Arts Submissions, and Approvals, 40220–40221 National Institute of Standards and Technology NOTICES Social Security Administration Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, NOTICES Submissions, and Approvals: Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Safety and Health Information Collection, 40197 Submissions, and Approvals, 40221–40224

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\27JYCN.SGM 27JYCN lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with FR_CN Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Contents V

State Department NOTICES NOTICES Meetings: Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Air Ambulance and Patient Billing Advisory Committee, Submissions, and Approvals: 40231–40232 Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act Photographic Identification Card Application, 40225–40226 Treasury Department Culturally Significant Object Being Imported for Exhibition: See Foreign Assets Control Office Great Hall Installation: Maya Art Exhibition, 40227 Niki de Saint Phalle in the 1960s Exhibition, 40224 Joan Mitchell Exhibition, 40225 Separate Parts In This Issue Rebel, Jester, Mystic, Poet: Contemporary Persians—The Mohammed Afkhami Collection Exhibition, 40226 Part II Culturally Significant Objects Being Imported for Environmental Protection Agency, 40234–40264 Exhibition: Lives of the Gods: Divinity in Maya Art Exhibition, 40225 Part III Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition: Energy Department, Federal Energy Regulatory Jasper Johns: Mind/Mirror Exhibition, 40225 Commission, 40266–40298 Determination: Foreign Assistance to the Central Government of Nauru, 40226–40227 Foreign Assistance to the Central Government of Reader Aids Nicaragua, 40226 Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for Foreign Assistance to the Central Government of Syria, phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice 40227 of recently enacted public laws. To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents Transportation Department electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/ See Federal Aviation Administration accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail See Federal Highway Administration address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or See Federal Railroad Administration manage your subscription.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\27JYCN.SGM 27JYCN lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with FR_CN VI Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Contents

CFR PARTS AFFECTED IN THIS ISSUE

A cumulative list of the parts affected this month can be found in the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue.

10 CFR 110...... 40141 14 CFR 71 (3 documents) ...... 40143, 40145, 40146 18 CFR Proposed Rules: 35...... 40266 25 CFR 224...... 40147 33 CFR 165...... 40149 Proposed Rules: 165...... 40184 39 CFR 20...... 40153 40 CFR 300...... 40234 49 CFR 236...... 40154 50 CFR 660...... 40182 Proposed Rules: 17...... 40186

VerDate Sep 11 2014 19:10 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4711 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\27JYLS.LOC 27JYLS lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with FR_LS 40141

Rules and Regulations Federal Register Vol. 86, No. 141

Tuesday, July 27, 2021

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER adams.html. To begin the search, select designed or prepared therefore.’’ The contains regulatory documents having general ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.’’ For NRC has determined that these changes applicability and legal effect, most of which problems with ADAMS, please contact are consistent with current U.S. policy, are keyed to and codified in the Code of the NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR) and will pose no unreasonable risk to Federal Regulations, which is published under reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301– the public health and safety or to the 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510. 415–4737, or by email to pdr.resource@ common defense and security of the The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by nrc.gov. United States. • Attention: The PDR, where you may the Superintendent of Documents. II. Summary of Changes examine and order copies of public documents, is currently closed. You 10 CFR Part 110 NUCLEAR REGULATORY may submit your request to the PDR via The recent NSG changes were made to COMMISSION email at [email protected] or call 1– Section 3 of Annex B of the Part 1 800–397–4209 between 8:00 a.m. and 10 CFR Part 110 Guidelines, entitled ‘‘Plants for the 4:00 p.m. (EST), Monday through reprocessing of irradiated fuel elements, [NRC–2021–0026] Friday, except Federal holidays. and equipment especially designed or RIN 3150–AK60 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: prepared therefore,’’ which covers Lauren Mayros, Office of International reprocessing plants and equipment and, Revisions to Reprocessing Plant Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory specifically, different types of Components for Export Commission, Washington, DC 20555– equipment used to open the fuel 0001; telephone: 301–287–9088; email: cladding surrounding uranium fuel. The AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory [email protected]. first set of changes were made to Commission. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: paragraph 3.1 of Section 3, entitled ACTION: Final rule. ‘‘Irradiated fuel element chopping I. Discussion machines.’’ The entry was amended SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory The purpose of this final rule is to with new text that is more neutral in Commission (NRC) is amending its revise the NRC’s export regulations in clarifying precisely how the fuel export regulations pertaining to the part 110 of title 10 of the Code of element is de-cladded to expose the illustrative list of reprocessing plant Federal Regulations (10 CFR), ‘‘Export irradiated nuclear fuel for further components under the NRC’s export and Import of Nuclear Equipment and processing. The old text focused on licensing authority. This final rule is Material,’’ to conform the export chopping machines (guillotine-like necessary to conform the export controls controls of the United States to the blades that cut the fuel rod into shorter of the United States to the international international export control guidelines pieces without removing the actual export control guidelines of the Nuclear of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), cladding). The new text makes it clear Suppliers Group, of which the United of which the United States is a member. that other methods can be used to de- States is a member. These changes will The NSG is a group of like-minded clad fuel. The second set of changes align the NRC’s requirements with the countries that seek to contribute to the were made to paragraph 3.2 of Section current version of the International nonproliferation of nuclear weapons 3, entitled ‘‘Dissolvers.’’ This Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) through the implementation of amendment broadens the description of document, ‘‘Guidelines for Nuclear guidelines for nuclear exports and the referenced dissolvers. The old text Transfers’’ (INFCIRC/254/Part 1/ nuclear-related exports. As a was focused on ensuring criticality Revision 14). participating government in the NSG, safety exclusively through controlling DATES: This final rule is effective on July the United States has committed to the geometry of the tanks. The new 27, 2021. controlling export items on the NSG language clarifies that the tanks are not ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID control lists. Participating governments necessarily made safe by geometry NRC–2021–0026 when contacting the are charged with implementing the alone. Other physical means and NRC about the availability of changes adopted to the list as soon as process controls can be used to ensure information for this action. You may possible after approval. The NSG safety. obtain publicly available information Guidelines can be found at: The corresponding changes to 10 CFR related to this action by any of the www.nuclearsuppliersgroup.org. part 110 will be made to appendix I, following methods: This final rule conforms the NRC’s entitled ‘‘Illustrative List of • Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to export regulations in 10 CFR part 110 Reprocessing Plant Components Under http://www.regulations.gov and search with recent changes to the NSG NRC Export Licensing Authority.’’ for Docket ID NRC–2018–0294. Address Guidelines for Nuclear Transfers. These Paragraph 3.1 changes to the NSG Part questions about NRC dockets to Dawn changes are necessary in order to align 1 Guidelines will be made to paragraph Forder; telephone: 301–415–3407; appendix I to 10 CFR part 110, (1) of appendix I, and Paragraph 3.2 email: [email protected]. ‘‘Illustrative List of Reprocessing Plant changes to the NSG Part 1 Guidelines • NRC’s Agencywide Documents Components Under NRC Export will be made to paragraph (2) of Access and Management System Licensing Authority,’’ with the changes appendix I. Since the appendix I entries (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly- made to Annex B of the NSG Guidelines of 10 CFR part 110 exactly match the available documents online in the for Nuclear Transfers, entitled ‘‘Plants Section 3 entries of the NSG Part 1 ADAMS Public Documents Collection at for the reprocessing of irradiated fuel Guidelines, the changes to 10 CFR part http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ elements, and equipment especially 110 will be made exactly as they were

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:33 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR1.SGM 27JYR1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 40142 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

implemented in the NSG Part 1 IX. Backfitting and Issue Finality reprocessing plant and intended to expose or Guidelines. The NRC has determined that a prepare the irradiated nuclear fuel assemblies, bundles, or rods for processing. III. Rulemaking Procedure backfit analysis is not required for this rule, because these amendments do not This equipment cuts, chops, shears, or Because this rule involves a foreign include any provisions that would otherwise breaches the cladding of the fuel to expose the irradiated nuclear material for affairs function of the U.S., the notice impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR processing or prepares the fuel for and comment provisions of the chapter I. Administrative Procedures Act do not processing. Especially designed cutting X. Congressional Review Act shears are most commonly employed, apply (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)), and good although advanced equipment, such as cause exists to make this rule This final rule is a rule as defined in lasers, peeling machines, or other techniques, immediately effective upon publication. the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. may be used. Decladding involves removing The effective date for those entities who 801–808). However, the Office of the cladding of the irradiated nuclear fuel receive actual notice of this rule is the Management and Budget has not found prior to its dissolution. date of receipt of this rule. it to be a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by that act. (2) Dissolvers. IV. Environmental Impact: Categorical Dissolver vessels or dissolvers employing Exclusion List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 110 mechanical devices especially designed or Administrative practice and prepared for use in a reprocessing plant, The NRC has determined that this procedure, Classified information, intended for dissolution of irradiated nuclear final rule is the type of action described Criminal penalties, Exports, fuel and which are capable of withstanding in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(1), which Incorporation by reference, Imports, hot, highly corrosive liquid, and which can categorically excludes from Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear be remotely loaded, operated and environmental review any amendments energy, Nuclear materials, Nuclear maintained. to 10 CFR part 110. Therefore, neither power plants and reactors, Penalties, Dissolvers normally receive the solid, an environmental impact statement nor Reporting and recordkeeping irradiated nuclear fuel. Nuclear fuels with an environmental assessment has been requirements, Scientific equipment. cladding made of material including prepared for this rule. zirconium, stainless steel, or alloys of such For the reasons set out in the materials must be decladded and/or sheared V. Paperwork Reduction Act preamble and under the authority of the or chopped prior to being charged to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; dissolver to allow the acid to reach the fuel This final rule does not contain new the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, matrix. The irradiated nuclear fuel is or amended information collection as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, typically dissolved in strong mineral acids, requirements that are subject to the the NRC is adopting the following such as nitric acid, and any undissolved Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 amendments to 10 CFR part 110: U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Existing cladding removed. While certain design requirements were approved by the PART 110—EXPORT AND IMPORT OF features, such as small diameter, annular, or Office of Management and Budget under NUCLEAR EQUIPMENT AND slab tanks may be used to ensure criticality approval number 3150–0036. MATERIAL safety, they are not a necessity. Administrative controls, such as small batch VI. Public Protection Notification ■ 1. The authority citation for part 110 size or low fissile material content, may be continues to read in part as follows: used instead. Dissolver vessels and dissolvers The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, employing mechanical devices are normally Authority: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, and a person is not required to respond fabricated of material such as low carbon to, a collection of information unless the secs. 11, 51, 53, 54, 57, 62, 63, 64, 65, 81, 82, 103, 104, 109, 111, 121, 122, 123, 124, stainless steel, titanium or zirconium, or document requesting or requiring the 126, 127, 128, 129, 133, 134, 161, 170h, 181, other high-quality materials. Dissolvers may collection displays a currently valid 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 223, 234 (42 include systems for the removal of cladding OMB control number. U.S.C. 2014, 2071, 2073, 2074, 2077, 2092, or cladding waste and systems for the control VII. Regulatory Analysis 2093, 2094, 2095, 2111, 2112, 2133, 2134, and treatment of radioactive off-gases. These 2139, 2141, 2151, 2152, 2153, 2154, 2155, dissolvers may have features for remote This final rule revises appendix I to 2156, 2157, 2158, 2160c, 2160d, 2201, 2210h, placement since they are normally loaded, 2231, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2239, operated, and maintained behind thick 10 CFR part 110 to conform to the NRC’s 2273, 2282); Energy Reorganization Act of changes to Annex B. There is no 1974, sec. 201 (42 U.S.C. 5841); shielding. alternative to amending the regulations Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 552, * * * * * for the export of nuclear equipment and 553); 42 U.S.C. 2139a, 2155a; 44 U.S.C. 3504 material. Therefore, the NRC did not note. Dated: July 21, 2021. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. develop a regulatory analysis for this Section 110.1(b) also issued under 22 final rule. This final rule is expected to U.S.C. 2403; 22 U.S.C. 2778a; 50 App. U.S.C. Margaret M. Doane, have no changes in the information 2401 et seq. Executive Director for Operations. collection burden or cost to the public. * * * * * [FR Doc. 2021–15922 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] VIII. Plain Writing ■ 2. In appendix I to part 110, revise BILLING CODE 7590–01–P The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. paragraphs (1) and (2) to read as follows: L. 111–274) requires Federal agencies to Appendix I to Part 110—Illustrative write documents in a clear, concise, and List of Reprocessing Plant Components well-organized manner. The NRC has Under NRC Export Licensing Authority written this document to be consistent * * * * * with the Plain Writing Act as well as the (1) Irradiated fuel element decladding Presidential Memorandum, ‘‘Plain equipment and chopping machines. Language in Government Writing,’’ Remotely operated equipment especially published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31885). designed or prepared for use in a

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\27JYR1.SGM 27JYR1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 40143

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Authority for This Rulemaking air traffic service routes, and reporting points. Federal Aviation Administration The FAA’s authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in The Rule 14 CFR Part 71 Title 49 of the United States Code. This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the establishing RNAV routes T–322, [Docket No. FAA–2021–0054; Airspace authority of the FAA Administrator. T–392, T–403, and T–405. This action is Docket No. 20–AGL–34] Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, necessary in order to expand the describes in more detail the scope of the RIN 2120–AA66 availability of RNAV routing in support agency’s authority. This rulemaking is of transitioning the NAS from ground- Establishment of Area Navigation promulgated under the authority based to satellite-based navigation. The (RNAV) Routes T–322, described in Subtitle VII, Part A, new T-routes are described below. T–392, T–403, and T–405; Central Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that T–322: T–322 is a new RNAV route United States. section, the FAA is charged with that extends between the Rapid City, prescribing regulations to assign the use SD, VOR/Tactical Air Navigation AGENCY: Federal Aviation of the airspace necessary to ensure the (VORTAC) and the Redwood Falls, MN, Administration (FAA), DOT. safety of aircraft and the efficient use of VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment ACTION: Final rule. airspace. This regulation is within the (VOR/DME). This T-route provides scope of that authority as it expands the enroute routing overlaying VOR Federal SUMMARY: This action establishes area availability of RNAV routes in the airway V–26. navigation (RNAV) routes T–322, T– central United States and improves the T–392: T–392 is a new RNAV route 392, T–403, and T–405 in the central efficient flow of air traffic within the that extends between the MZEEE, IA, United States. The new RNAV routes NAS by lessening the dependency on waypoint (WP) located near the Sioux expand the availability of RNAV ground-based navigation. City, IA, Tactical Air Navigation coverage in support of transitioning the History (TACAN) navigation aid and the GRSIS, National Airspace System (NAS) from MN, WP located near the Fairmont, MN, ground-based to satellite-based The FAA published a notice of DME. navigation. Additionally, a portion of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. T–403: T–403 is a new RNAV route the new RNAV routes provide enroute FAA–2021–0054 in the Federal Register that extends between the GENEO, MN, structure where VHF Omnidirectional (86 FR 12129; March 2, 2021), proposing WP located near the Darwin, MN, Range (VOR) Federal airway segments to establish T–322, T–392, T–403, and VORTAC and the BLUOX, MN, fix were removed due to the T–405 to expand the availability of located 40 NM North of the Park Rapids, decommissioning of Sioux City, IA; Park RNAV routing in support of MN, DME. This T-route provides Rapids, MN; and Huron, SD, VORs, in transitioning the NAS from ground- enroute routing adjacent to VOR Federal support of the FAA’s VOR Minimum based to satellite-based navigation. airway V–171 between the Darwin, MN, Operational Network (MON) program. Interested parties were invited to VORTAC and the Alexandria, MN, DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, October participate in this rulemaking effort by VOR/DME, and overlays VOR Federal 7, 2021. The Director of the Federal submitting written comments on the airway V–175 between the Alexandria, Register approves this incorporation by proposal. No comments were received. MN, VOR/DME and the BLUOX, MN, reference action under 1 CFR part 51, United States RNAV T-routes are fix. subject to the annual revision of FAA published in paragraph 6011 of FAA T–405: T–405 is a new RNAV route Order 7400.11 and publication of Order 7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, that extends between the FIITS, SD, WP conforming amendments. and effective September 15, 2020, which located near the Yankton, SD, VOR/ is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11E, DME and the GICHI, ND, WP located Airspace Designations and Reporting 71.1. The RNAV T-routes listed in this near the Devils Lake, ND, VOR/DME. Points, and subsequent amendments can document will be published This T-route provides enroute routing be viewed online at https:// subsequently in the Order. adjacent to VOR Federal airway V–159 www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. Differences From the NPRM between the Yankton, SD, VOR/DME For further information, you can contact and the Huron, SD, DME; enroute In the NPRM published in the Federal the Rules and Regulations Group, routing adjacent to VOR Federal airway Register for the action establishing Federal Aviation Administration, 800 V–15 between the Huron, SD, DME and T–322, the FAA mistakenly identified Independence Avenue SW, Washington, the Aberdeen, SD, VOR/DME; and the Redwood Falls, MN, VOR/DME as DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267–8783. enroute routing adjacent to VOR Federal ‘‘RWD’’ in the regulatory text section The Order is also available for airway V–170 between the Aberdeen, describing the proposed route. The inspection at the National Archives and SD, VOR/DME and the Devils Lake, ND, correct identifier is ‘‘RWF’’ and is Records Administration (NARA). For VOR/DME. corrected in regulatory text of this rule. information on the availability of FAA FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Order 7400.11E at NARA, email: Availability and Summary of Designations and Reporting Points, is [email protected] or go to https:// Documents for Incorporation by published yearly and effective on www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ Reference September 15. ibr-locations.html. This document amends FAA Order Regulatory Notices and Analyses FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and The FAA has determined that this Jesse Acevedo, Rules and Regulations Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, regulation only involves an established Group, Office of Policy, Federal and effective September 15, 2020. FAA body of technical regulations for which Aviation Administration, 800 Order 7400.11E is publicly available as frequent and routine amendments are Independence Avenue SW, Washington, listed in the ADDRESSES section of this necessary to keep them operationally DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267–8783. document. FAA Order 7400.11E lists current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR1.SGM 27JYR1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 40144 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a Procedures, paragraph 5–6.5a, which The Amendment ‘‘significant rule’’ under Department of categorically excludes from further Transportation (DOT) Regulatory environmental impact review In consideration of the foregoing, the Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; rulemaking actions that designate or Federal Aviation Administration February 26, 1979); and (3) does not modify classes of airspace areas, amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows: warrant preparation of a regulatory airways, routes, and reporting points PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, evaluation as the anticipated impact is (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR so minimal. Since this is a routine Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; matter that will only affect air traffic Air Traffic Service Routes; and TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND procedures and air navigation, it is Reporting Points). As such, this action REPORTING POINTS certified that this rule, when is not expected to result in any promulgated, will not have a significant potentially significant environmental ■ 1. The authority citation for part 71 economic impact on a substantial impacts. In accordance with FAA Order continues to read as follows: number of small entities under the 1050.1F, paragraph 5–2 regarding Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, Environmental Review has reviewed this action for factors and 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389. circumstances in which a normally The FAA has determined that this § 71.1 [Amended] action of establishing RNAV routes categorically excluded action may have T–322, T–392, T–403, and T–405, to a significant environmental impact ■ 2. The incorporation by reference in requiring further analysis. The FAA has expand the availability of RNAV routing 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11E, determined that no extraordinary in support of transitioning the NAS Airspace Designations and Reporting circumstances exist that warrant from ground-based to satellite-based Points, dated July 21, 2020, and navigation, qualifies for categorical preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact effective September 15, 2020, is exclusion under the National amended as follows: Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. study. Paragraph 6011 United States Area 4321 et seq) and its implementing List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in Navigation Routes. accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Airspace, Incorporation by reference, * * * * * Environmental Impacts: Policies and Navigation (air).

T–322 Rapid City, SD (RAP) to Redwood Falls, MN (RWF) [New] Rapid City, SD (RAP) VORTAC (Lat. 43°58′33.74″ N, long. 103°00′44.38″ W) Philip, SD (PHP) VOR/DME (Lat. 44°03′29.66″ N, long. 101°39′51.10″ W) Pierre, SD (PIR) VORTAC (Lat. 44°23′40.40″ N, long. 100°09′46.11″ W) DAKPE, SD WP (Lat. 44°25′58.37″ N, long. 098°42′23.05″ W) Redwood Falls, MN (RWF) VOR/DME (Lat. 44°28′02.19″ N, long. 095°07′41.63″ W)

******* T–392 MZEEE, IA to GRSIS, MN [New] MZEEE, IA WP (Lat. 42°20′40.66″ N, long. 096°19′24.54″ W) KAATO, IA WP (Lat. 42°35′06.89″ N, long. 095°58′53.08″ W) BERRG, IA WP (Lat. 43°08′17.21″ N, long. 095°10′46.46″ W) GRSIS, MN WP (Lat. 43°38′45.54″ N, long. 094°25′21.17″ W) T–403 GENEO, MN to BLUOX, MN [New] GENEO, MN WP (Lat. 45°05′15.37″ N, long. 094°27′14.30″ W) Alexandria, MN (AXN) VOR/DME (Lat. 45°57′30.20″ N, long. 095°13′57.48″ W) Park Rapids, MN (PKD) DME (Lat. 46°53′53.34″ N, long. 095°04′15.21″ W) BLUOX, MN WP (Lat. 47°34′33.13″ N, long. 095°01′29.11″ W) T–405 FIITS, SD TO GICHI, ND [New] FIITS, SD WP (Lat. 42°55′06.67″ N, long. 097°23′06.31″ W) Mitchell, SD (MHE) VOR/DME (Lat. 43°46′37.28″ N, long. 098°02′15.28″ W) DIDDL, SD WP (Lat. 44°26′24.32″ N, long. 098°18′39.06″ W) Aberdeen, SD (ABR) VOR/DME (Lat. 45°25′02.48″ N, long. 098°22′07.39″ W) Jamestown, ND (JMS) VOR/DME (Lat. 46°55′58.34″ N, long. 098°40′43.57″ W) FARRM, ND FIX (Lat. 47°29′14.17″ N, long. 099°01′34.50″ W) GICHI, ND WP (Lat. 48°06′54.20″ N, long. 098°54′45.14″ W)

Issued in Washington, DC, on July 21, 2021. George Gonzalez, Acting Manager, Rules and Regulations Group. [FR Doc. 2021–15838 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\27JYR1.SGM 27JYR1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 40145

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: and V–586; establishing RNAV route T– 397; and removing VOR Federal airway Authority for This Rulemaking Federal Aviation Administration V–424. The planned decommissioning The FAA’s authority to issue rules of the VOR portion of the Macon, MO, 14 CFR Part 71 regarding aviation safety is found in VOR/DME has made this action Title 49 of the United States Code. [Docket No. FAA–2020–1071; Airspace necessary. Docket No. 20–ACE–13] Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the The VOR Federal airway changes are authority of the FAA Administrator. outlined below. RIN 2120–AA66 Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, V–175: V–175 extends between the describes in more detail the scope of the Malden, MO, VOR/Tactical Air Amendment of V–175 and V–586; agency’s authority. This rulemaking is Navigation (VORTAC) and the Des Establishment of T–397; and promulgated under the authority Moines, IA, VORTAC; and between the Revocation of V–424 in the Vicinity of described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Worthington, MN, VOR/DME and the Macon, MO Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that Alexandria, MN, VOR/DME. The airway AGENCY: Federal Aviation section, the FAA is charged with segment overlying the Macon, MO, Administration (FAA), DOT. prescribing regulations to assign the use VOR/DME between the Hallsville, MO, ACTION: Final rule. of the airspace necessary to ensure the VORTAC and the Kirksville, MO, safety of aircraft and the efficient use of VORTAC is removed. The unaffected SUMMARY: This action amends VHF airspace. This regulation is within the portions of the existing airway remain Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal scope of that authority as it modifies the as charted. airways V–175 and V–586; establishes route structure as necessary to preserve V–424: V–424 extends between the Area Navigation (RNAV) route T–397; the safe and efficient flow of air traffic Napoleon, MO, VORTAC and the and removes VOR Federal airway V–424 within the National Airspace System. Macon, MO, VOR/DME. The airway is in the vicinity of Macon, MO. The Air removed in its entirety. History Traffic Service (ATS) route V–586: V–586 extends between the modifications are necessary due to the The FAA published a notice of intersection of the Kansas City, MO, planned decommissioning of the VOR proposed rulemaking for Docket No. VORTAC 077° and Napoleon, MO, portion of the Macon, MO, VOR/ FAA–2020–1071 in the Federal Register VORTAC 005° radials (EXCEL fix) and Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/ (85 FR 81431; December 16, 2020), the Joliet, IL, VORTAC. The airway DME) navigational aid (NAVAID). With amending VOR Federal airways V–175 segment overlying the Macon, MO, the exception of RNAV route T–397, the and V–586; establishing RNAV route T– VOR/DME between the intersection of Macon VOR/DME NAVAID provides 397; and removing VOR Federal airway the Kansas City, MO, VORTAC 077° and navigation guidance for portions of the V–424 in the vicinity of Macon, MO. Napoleon, MO, VORTAC 005° radials affected air traffic service (ATS) routes. The proposed amendment, (EXCEL fix) and the Quincy, IL, The VOR is being decommissioned as establishment, and revocation actions VORTAC is removed. The unaffected part of the FAA’s VOR Minimum were due to the planned portions of the existing airway remain Operational Network (MON) program. decommissioning of the VOR portion of as charted. DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, October the Macon, MO, VOR/DME NAVAID. The RNAV T-route is outlined below. T–397: T–397 is a new route that 7, 2021. The Director of the Federal Interested parties were invited to extends between the Walnut Ridge, AR, Register approves this incorporation by participate in this rulemaking effort by VORTAC and the Waterloo, IA, VOR/ reference action under 1 CFR part 51, submitting written comments on the DME. This RNAV route mitigates the subject to the annual revision of FAA proposal. No comments were received. loss of the V–175 airway segment noted Order 7400.11 and publication of VOR Federal airways are published in above and provides RNAV routing conforming amendments. paragraph 6010(a) and RNAV T-routes are published in paragraph 6011 of FAA capability between the Walnut Ridge, ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11E, Order 7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, AR, area and the Cedar Falls, IA, area. Airspace Designations and Reporting and effective September 15, 2020, which FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Points, and subsequent amendments can is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR Designations and Reporting Points, is be viewed online at https:// 71.1. The ATS routes listed in this published yearly and effective on www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. document will be published September 15. For further information, you can contact subsequently in the Order. the Rules and Regulations Group, Regulatory Notices and Analyses Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Availability and Summary of The FAA has determined that this Independence Avenue SW, Washington, Documents for Incorporation by regulation only involves an established DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267–8783. Reference body of technical regulations for which The Order is also available for This document amends FAA Order frequent and routine amendments are inspection at the National Archives and 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and necessary to keep them operationally Records Administration (NARA). For Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a information on the availability of FAA and effective September 15, 2020. FAA ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under Order 7400.11E at NARA, email: Order 7400.11E is publicly available as Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a [email protected] or go to https:// listed in the ADDRESSES section of this ‘‘significant rule’’ under Department of www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ document. FAA Order 7400.11E lists Transportation (DOT) Regulatory ibr-locations.html. Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: air traffic service routes, and reporting February 26, 1979); and (3) does not Colby Abbott, Rules and Regulations points. warrant preparation of a regulatory Group, Policy Directorate, Federal evaluation as the anticipated impact is Aviation Administration, 800 The Rule so minimal. Since this is a routine Independence Avenue SW, Washington, This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by matter that will only affect air traffic DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267–8783. modifying VOR Federal airways V–175 procedures and air navigation, it is

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR1.SGM 27JYR1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 40146 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

certified that this rule, when potentially significant environmental Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, promulgated, will not have a significant impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, economic impact on a substantial 1050.1F, paragraph 5–2 regarding 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389. number of small entities under the Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA § 71.1 [Amended] criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. has reviewed this action for factors and ■ 2. The incorporation by reference in Environmental Review circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11E, The FAA has determined that this a significant environmental impact Airspace Designations and Reporting action of modifying VOR Federal requiring further analysis. The FAA has Points, dated July 21, 2020, and airways V–175 and V–586; establishing determined that no extraordinary effective September 15, 2020, is RNAV route T–397; and removing VOR circumstances exist that warrant amended as follows: Federal airway V–424, due to the preparation of an environmental Paragraph 6010(a) Domestic VOR Federal planned decommissioning of the VOR assessment or environmental impact Airways. portion of the Macon, MO, VOR/DME study. NAVAID, qualifies for categorical * * * * * exclusion under the National List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 V–175 [Amended] Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. Airspace, Incorporation by reference, From Malden, MO; Vichy, MO; to 4321 et seq.) and its implementing Hallsville, MO. From Kirksville, MO; to Des regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in Navigation (air). Moines, IA. From Worthington, MN; accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, The Amendment Redwood Falls, MN; to Alexandria, MN. Environmental Impacts: Policies and * * * * * Procedures, paragraph 5–6.5a, which In consideration of the foregoing, the categorically excludes from further Federal Aviation Administration V–424 [Removed] environmental impact review amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows: * * * * * rulemaking actions that designate or V–586 [Amended] modify classes of airspace areas, PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR From Quincy, IL; Peoria, IL; Pontiac, IL; to airways, routes, and reporting points Joliet, IL. (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND * * * * * Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; REPORTING POINTS Air Traffic Service Routes; and Paragraph 6011 United States Area Reporting Points). As such, this action ■ 1. The authority citation for part 71 Navigation Routes. is not expected to result in any continues to read as follows: * * * * *

T–397 Walnut Ridge, AR (ARG) to Waterloo, IA (ALO) [New] Walnut Ridge, AR (ARG) VORTAC (Lat. 36°06′36.07″ N, long. 090°57′13.30″ W) Vichy, MO (VIH) VOR/DME (Lat. 38°09′14.66″ N, long. 091°42′24.38″ W) LEWRP, MO WP (Lat. 40°08′06.06″ N, long. 092°35′30.15″ W) OHGEE, IA FIX (Lat. 40°49′06.04″ N, long. 093°08′24.11″ W) LACON, IA FIX (Lat. 41°08′23.43″ N, long. 093°24′09.22″ W) Des Moines, IA (DSM) VORTAC (Lat. 41°26′15.45″ N, long. 093°38′54.81″ W) Waterloo, IA (ALO) VOR/DME (Lat. 42°33′23.39″ N, long. 092°23′56.13″ W)

* * * * * SUMMARY: This action amends Class E Order 7400.11 and publication of Issued in Washington, DC, on July 20, surface airspace at York Airport, York, conforming amendments. 2021. PA. An airspace evaluation of the area ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11E, George Gonzalez, determined the additional airspace is Airspace Designations and Reporting Acting Manager, Rules and Regulations necessary to accommodate operations at Points, and subsequent amendments can Group. the airport. This action also updates the be viewed online at https:// _ [FR Doc. 2021–15835 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] name of York Airport (formerly York www.faa.gov/air traffic/publications/. BILLING CODE 4910–13–P County Airport). This action also For further information, you can contact establishes Class E airspace extending the Airspace Policy Group, Federal upward from 700 feet above the surface Aviation Administration, 800 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION at York Airport and Class E airspace Independence Avenue SW, Washington, extending upward from 700 feet above DC, 20591; Telephone: (202) 267–8783. Federal Aviation Administration the surface for Wellspan York Hospital The Order is also available for Heliport, to accommodate new area inspection at the National Archives and 14 CFR Part 71 navigation (RNAV) global positioning Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA system (GPS) standard instrument Order 7400.11E at NARA, email [Docket No. FAA–2021–0119; Airspace approach procedures serving the Docket No. 21–AEA–3] [email protected] or go to https:// heliport. Controlled airspace is www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ necessary for the safety and RIN 2120–AA66 ibr-locations.html. management of instrument flight rules FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John (IFR) operations in the area. Amendment and Establishment of Goodson, Operations Support Group, Class E Airspace; York, PA DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, October 7, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation AGENCY: Federal Aviation 2021. The Director of the Federal Administration, 1701 Columbia Ave., Administration (FAA), DOT. Register approves this incorporation by College Park, GA 30337; Telephone reference action under 1 CFR part 51, (404) 305–5966. ACTION: Final rule. subject to the annual revision of FAA SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:09 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR1.SGM 27JYR1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 40147

Authority for This Rulemaking accommodate operations at the airport. PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, The FAA’s authority to issue rules This action also updates the name of B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR regarding aviation safety is found in York Airport (formerly York County TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND Title 49 of the United States Code. Airport). This action also establishes REPORTING POINTS Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the Class E airspace extending upward from ■ authority of the FAA Administrator. 700 feet above the surface at York 1. The authority citation for part 71 Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, Airport and Wellspan York Hospital continues to read as follows: describes in more detail the scope of the Heliport to accommodate new area Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, agency’s authority. This rulemaking is navigation (RNAV) global positioning 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, promulgated under the authority system (GPS) standard instrument 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389 approach procedures serving the described in Subtitle VII, Part A, § 71.1 [Amended] Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that heliport. section, the FAA is charged with Subsequent to publication of the ■ 2. The incorporation by reference in prescribing regulations to assign the use Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11E, of airspace necessary to ensure the FAA found the spelling of Wellspan Airspace Designations and Reporting safety of aircraft and the efficient use of York Hospital Heliport was incorrect. Points, dated July 21, 2020, and airspace. This regulation is within the This action corrects the error. effective September 15, 2020, is scope of that authority as it amends and Controlled airspace is necessary for the amended as follows: safety and management of instrument establishes Class E airspace in York, PA, Paragraph 6002 Class E Surface Airspace. to support instrument flight rule flight rules (IFR) operations in the area. * * * * * operations at this airport. Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published AEA PA E2 York, PA [Amended] History yearly and effective on September 15. York Airport, PA The FAA published a notice of Regulatory Notices and Analyses (Lat. 39°55′01″ N, long. 76°52′23″ W) proposed rulemaking in the Federal That airspace extending upward from the Register (86 FR 24795, May 10, 2021) The FAA has determined that this surface within a 6.8-mile radius of the York for Docket No. FAA–2021–0119 to regulation only involves an established Airport. body of technical regulations for which amend Class E surface airspace at York Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Airport and establish Class E airspace frequent and routine amendments are Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More for York Airport and Wellspan York necessary to keep them operationally Above the Surface of the Earth. current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a Hospital Heliport, to accommodate area * * * * * navigation (RNAV) global positioning ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under system (GPS) standard instrument Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a AEA PA E5 York, PA [New] approach procedures (SIAPs) serving ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT York Airport, PA this airport. Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 (Lat. 39°55′01″ N, long. 76°52′23″ W) Interested parties were invited to FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) Wellspan York Hospital Heliport, PA participate in this rulemaking effort by does not warrant preparation of a (Lat. 39°56′41″ N, long.76°43′06″ W) submitting written comments on the regulatory evaluation as the anticipated That airspace extending upward from 700 proposal to the FAA. No comments impact is minimal. Since this is a feet above the surface within a 9.3-mile radius of York Airport, and within 4.0 miles were received. routine matter that only affects air traffic each side of the 339° bearing from the airport, Class E airspace designations are procedures and air navigation, it is extending from the 9.3-mile radius to 11.9 published in Paragraphs 6002 and 6005, certified that this rule, when miles northwest of the airport, and that respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11E, promulgated, does not have a significant airspace extending upward from 700 feet dated July 21, 2020, and effective economic impact on a substantial above the surface within a 6-mile radius of September 15, 2020, which is number of small entities under the Wellspan York Hospital Heliport. incorporated by reference in 14 CFR criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Issued in College Park, Georgia, on July 21, 71.1. The Class E airspace designations Environmental Review 2021. listed in this document will be Andreese C. Davis, The FAA has determined that this published subsequently in the Order. Manager, Airspace & Procedures Team South, action qualifies for categorical exclusion Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Availability and Summary of under the National Environmental Documents for Incorporation by Organization. Policy Act in accordance with FAA [FR Doc. 2021–15921 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] Reference Order 1050.1F, ‘‘Environmental BILLING CODE 4910–13–P This document amends FAA Order Impacts: Policies and Procedures,’’ 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and paragraph 5–6.5a. This airspace action Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, is not expected to cause any potentially and effective September 15, 2020. FAA significant environmental impacts, and DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Order 7400.11E is publicly available as no extraordinary circumstances exist Bureau of Indian Affairs listed in the ADDRESSES section of this that warrant preparation of an document. FAA Order 7400.11E lists environmental assessment. 25 CFR Part 224 Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic routes, and reporting points. Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 [212D0102DR/DS5A300000/ Airspace, Incorporation by reference, DR.5A311.IA000118] The Rule Navigation (air). The FAA amends 14 CFR part 71 by RIN 1076–AF65 Adoption of the Amendment amending Class E surface airspace at Tribal Energy Resource Agreements York Airport, York, PA. An airspace In consideration of the foregoing, the evaluation of the area determined the Federal Aviation Administration AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, additional airspace is necessary to amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows: Interior.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR1.SGM 27JYR1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 40148 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

ACTION: Final rule. On May 24, 2021 (86 FR 27806), BIA D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act published an interim final rule making This rule does not impose an SUMMARY: The Bureau of Indian Affairs these changes and announced the unfunded mandate on State, local, or (BIA) is confirming the interim final opportunity to comment by June 23, Tribal governments or the private sector rule published on May 24, 2021, 2021. BIA received no comments on the of more than $100 million per year. The updating regulations governing Tribal interim final rule, so this final rule rule does not have a monetarily Energy Resource Agreements (TERAs) adopts the interim final rule as significant or unique effect on State, between the Secretary of the Interior published without change. (Secretary) and Indian Tribes. The local, or Tribal governments or the interim final rule added the statutory II. Procedural Requirements private sector. A statement containing the information required by the requirement that that any application A. Regulatory Planning and Review for a Tribal Energy Development (E.O. 12866, 13563) Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 Organization (TEDO) be submitted by U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not required. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 provides the Tribe and corrected cross-references. that the Office of Information and E. Takings (E.O. 12630) DATES: This rule is effective July 27, Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) at the Office This rule does not affect a taking of 2021. of Management and Budget (OMB) will private property or otherwise have FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: review all significant rules. OIRA has taking implications under Executive Elizabeth Appel, Director, Office of determined that this rule is not Order 12630 because this rule does not Regulatory Affairs & Collaborative significant. affect individual property rights Action, (202) 273–4680; E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of protected by the Fifth Amendment or [email protected]. E.O. 12866 while calling for involve a compensable ‘‘taking.’’ A SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: improvements in the Nation’s regulatory takings implication assessment is not system to promote predictability, to required. I. Summary of Rule reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, This final rule updates TERA most innovative, and least burdensome F. Federalism (E.O. 13132) regulations that BIA published on tools for achieving regulatory ends. The Under the criteria in section 1 of December 18, 2019 (84 FR 69602), under E.O. directs agencies to consider Executive Order 13132, this rule does the authority of the Indian Tribal Energy regulatory approaches that reduce not have sufficient federalism Development and Self-Determination burdens and maintain flexibility and implications to warrant the preparation Act of 2005, as amended by the Indian freedom of choice for the public where of a federalism summary impact Tribal Energy Development and Self- these approaches are relevant, feasible, statement because the rule affects only Determination Act Amendments of and consistent with regulatory agreements entered into by Tribes and 2017, 25 U.S.C. 3501–3504, Public Law objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes the Department. A federalism summary 115–325, and 25 U.S.C. 2 and 9. The further that regulations must be based impact statement is not required. rule addressed the requirements of the on the best available science and that G. Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988) Indian Tribal Energy Development and the rulemaking process must allow for Self-Determination Act Amendments of public participation and an open This rule complies with the 2017 (2017 Amendments), including exchange of ideas. We have developed requirements of Executive Order 12988. establishing a process and criteria for this rule in a manner consistent with Specifically, this rule: (a) Meets the TEDOs to obtain certification from the these requirements. criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all Secretary so that they may enter into B. Regulatory Flexibility Act regulations be reviewed to eliminate leases, business agreements, and rights- The Department of the Interior errors and ambiguity and be written to of-way with Tribes on Tribal land certifies that this rule will not have a minimize litigation; and (b) Meets the without Secretarial approval. See significant economic effect on a criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that Section 103(b) of the 2017 substantial number of small entities all regulations be written in clear Amendments. under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 language and contain clear legal The 2019 regulation stated at U.S.C. 601 et seq.). standards. § 224.202 that a TEDO must submit an H. Consultation With Indian Tribes application. The statute, however, states C. Small Business Regulatory (E.O. 13175) that the Tribe submits the application Enforcement Fairness Act for certification of a TEDO. See 25 This rule is not a major rule under 5 The Department of the Interior strives U.S.C. 3504(h)(1). This final rule U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business to strengthen its government-to- corrects the regulation at § 224.202 to Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. government relationship with Indian provide that a Tribe must submit the This rule: Tribes through a commitment to application. (a) Does not have an annual effect on consultation with Indian Tribes and This final rule also corrects the economy of $100 million or more; recognition of their right to self- typographical errors in the cross- (b) Will not cause a major increase in governance and Tribal sovereignty. We references to paragraphs in § 224.53, as costs or prices for consumers, have evaluated this rule under the follows: individual industries, Federal, State, or Department’s consultation policy and • In paragraph (a)(3), the cross- local government agencies, or under the criteria in Executive Order reference is corrected to be paragraph geographic regions; and 13175 and have determined that it does (b), rather than paragraph (c); (c) Does not have significant adverse not have substantial direct effects on • In paragraph (a)(5), the cross- effects on competition, employment, federally recognized Indian Tribes reference is corrected to be paragraph (c) investment, productivity, innovation, or because the Department consulted on rather than paragraph (d); and the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to substantive requirements of the rule that • In paragraph (b), the cross reference compete with foreign-based enterprises is in effect, and this rule merely makes is corrected to be paragraph (a)(3) rather because this rule makes minor minor corrections to that substantive than paragraph (a)(6). corrections. rule.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR1.SGM 27JYR1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 40149

I. Paperwork Reduction Act DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND Coast Guard to implement a security SECURITY zone in the vicinity of the 141 bridge OMB Control No. 1076–0167 over the Christina River near Newport, currently authorizes the collections of Coast Guard Delaware. Between January 1, 2021, and information contained in 25 CFR part July 20, 2021, the waterside security 224. This rule does not affect those 33 CFR Part 165 zone around the 141 bridge has been collections of information. [Docket Number USCG–2021–0131] requested fourteen times. In response to these frequent requests the Coast Guard J. National Environmental Policy Act RIN 1625–AA87 published a notice of proposed This rule does not constitute a major rulemaking (NPRM) on April 5, 2021, Security Zone, Christina River, titled ‘‘Security Zone; Christina River, Federal action significantly affecting the Newport, DE quality of the human environment. A Newport, DE’’ (86 FR 17565). There we detailed statement under the National AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of stated why we issued the NPRM and invited comments on our proposed Environmental Policy Act of 1969 Homeland Security (DHS). regulatory action related to recurring (NEPA) is not required because this is ACTION: Final rule. transists of persons protected by the an administrative and procedural SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is USSS across the 141 bridge in Newport, regulation. (For further information see establishing a security zone for certain Delaware. During the comment period 43 CFR 46.210(i)). We have also waters of the Christina River to prevent that ended May 5, 2021, we received determined that the rule does not waterside threats and incidents for one comment. involve any of the extraordinary persons under the protection of the Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215 United States Secret Service (USSS) as Guard finds that good cause exists for that would require further analysis they transit by vehicle on the route 141 making this rule effective less than 30 under NEPA. bridge over the Christina River near days after publication in the Federal Newport, Delaware. The security zone Register. Delaying the effective date of K. Effects on the Energy Supply (E.O. this rule would be impracticable and 13211) will be enforced intermittently and only during times of a protected person contrary to the public interest. This rule This rule is not a significant energy transit over the bridge. Vessel traffic must be immediately effective to guard action under the definition in Executive will be restricted while the zone is being against potential acts of terrorism, sabotage, subversive acts, accidents, or Order 13211. A Statement of Energy enforced. This rule will prohibit persons other causes of a similar nature. Effects is not required. and vessels from entering or remaining within the security zone unless III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule List of Subjects in 25 CFR Part 224 authorized by the Captain of the Port Under the Ports and Waterways Safety Delaware Bay or a designated Agreement, Appeals, Application, Act, the Coast Guard has authority to representative. Business agreements, Energy establish water or waterfront safety development, Interested party, Lease, DATES: This rule is effective July 27, zones, or other measures, for limited, Reporting and recordkeeping 2021. controlled, or conditional access and requirements, Right-of-way, Tribal ADDRESSES: To view documents activity when necessary for the Energy Resource Agreements, Tribal mentioned in this preamble as being protection of any vessel, structure, capacity, Tribal lands, Trust, Trust available in the docket, go to https:// waters, or shore area, 46 U.S.C. asset. www.regulations.gov, type USCG–2021– 70011(b)(3). This rule safeguards the 0131 in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click lives of persons protected by the Secret PART 224—TRIBAL ENERGY ‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on Open Docket Service, and of the general public, by RESOURCE AGREEMENTS UNDER Folder on the line associated with this enhancing the safety and security of THE INDIAN TRIBAL ENERGY rule. navigable waters of the United States during USSS protectee transits over the DEVELOPMENT AND SELF FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If route 141 bridge over the Christina DETERMINATION ACT you have questions on this rule, call or River near Newport, Delaware. The email Petty Officer Edmund Ofalt, Coast Guard will activate the security ■ Sector Delaware Bay, Waterways The interim final rule amending 25 zone when requested by the USSS for CFR part 224 which was published at 86 Management Division, U.S. Coast the protection of persons the USSS FR 27806 on May 24, 2021, is adopted Guard; telephone 215–271–4889, protects under 18 U.S.C. 3056 or as final without change. [email protected]. pursuant to Presidential memorandum. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Bryan Newland, The Coast Guard is issuing this rule I. Table of Abbreviations under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary—Indian (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231), as Affairs. CFR Code of Federal Regulations delegated by Department of Homeland [FR Doc. 2021–15929 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] DHS Department of Homeland Security Security Delegation No.00170.1(II)(70), BILLING CODE 4337–15–P FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking Revision No. 01.2, from the Secretary of § Section DHS to the Commandant of the U.S. U.S.C. United States Code Coast Guard, and further redelegated by 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and II. Background Information and 160.5 to the Captains of the Port. The Regulatory History Captain of the Port Delaware Bay Since January of 2021 the United (COTP) has determined that recurring States Secret Service (USSS) has transits of persons under the protection routinely requested, pursuant to of the USSS, which started in January of authorities listed in 18 U.S.C. 3056, the 2021, present a potential target for

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR1.SGM 27JYR1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 40150 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

terrorist acts, sabotage, or other B. Changes From the NPRM costs and benefits of available regulatory subversive acts, accidents, or other We made no changes to the NPRM alternatives and, if regulation is causes of a similar nature. Due to the related to comments submitted. necessary, to select regulatory roadway passing over the Christina However, we removed the use of the approaches that maximize net benefits River, this security zone is necessary to term ‘‘VIP’’ and replaced it with the (including potential economic, protect these persons, the public, and term ‘‘persons protected by the United environmental, public health and safety the surrounding waterway. States Secret Service’’ to provide greater effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, precision with this regulation and the authorities granted to the USSS by 18 emphasizes the importance of and the Rule U.S.C. 3056. In paragraph (b), the quantifying both costs and benefits, of A. Discussion of Comment definition section, we have removed the reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, term ‘‘Very Important Person’’ (VIP) and and of promoting flexibility. As noted above, we received one added in its place ‘‘USSS protectee.’’ The Office of Management and Budget comment on our NPRM published April (OMB) has not designated this rule a 5, 2021. The commenter made several C. The Rule significant regulatory action under points unrelated to this regulation. This rule establishes a security zone section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. First, the commenter suggested for the protection of persons protected Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. alternate modes of travel, such as by the USSS under 18 U.S.C. 3056 or A combined regulatory analysis (RA) pursuant to Presidential memorandum Marine One, for those persons protected and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis as they transit by vehicle on the route by the USSS, and expressed concern follows. 141 bridge over the Christina River near about potential delays to landside This rule will establish a security Newport Delaware. This rule is zone around the route 141 bridge, which vehicular traffic. The Coast Guard does necessary to expedite the establishment not direct movements of USSS crosses over the Christina River near and enforcement of this security zone Newport, Delaware. The approximate protectees. The Coast Guard cannot when short notice is provided to the change the travel routes or methods of size of the security zone extends along COTP for persons protected by the the river for 0.64 miles with a width of USSS protectees. The USSS is tasked USSS traveling over the route 141 with providing the highest level of approximately 77 yards shore-to-shore. bridge. The security zone is bounded on The security zone will be established 1 security for those it protects and has the east by a line drawn from 39°42.55′ requested the Coast Guard’s assistance ° ′ hour prior to the USSS protectee North Latitude (N), 075 35.88 West landing in the nearby airport. Prior to at this location. Accordingly, we have Longitude (W), thence southerly to the 1 hour enforcement, the COTP will established this security zone, in ° ′ ° ′ 39 42.50 N, 075 35.87 W proceeding issue a broadcast via VHF–FM channel consultation with, and at the request of from shoreline to shoreline on the 16 allowing vessel traffic time to transit the USSS. Christina River in a westerly direction out of the enforcement area. where it is bounded by the South James In addition, the commenter In order to enforce this rule, the Coast Street Bridge at 39°42.63′ N, 075°36.53′ questioned the cost-impact of the rule. Guard will station Coast Guard W. No vessel or person would be The commenter has suggested that the personnel at the borders of the security permitted to enter the security zone rule would exceed $100 million. We zones with the authority to manage disagree with the commenter’s without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. boaters’ movement through the security statement. The costs of providing zone. Recreational boaters wanting to protection to USSS protectees is beyond V. Regulatory Analyses transit the area may inquire directly the scope of this rule. The Coast Guard’s We developed this rule after with the Coast Guard personnel (or responsibility within this rule is to considering numerous statutes and other Federal, state, and local agencies secure the route 141 bridge over the Executive orders related to rulemaking. assisting the Coast Guard in Christina River near Newport, Delaware Below we summarize our analyses enforcement of this rule) posted at the and a portion of the waterway extending based on a number of these statutes and boundaries of the security zones, rather from both sides of the route 141 bridge. Executive orders, and we discuss First than being required to contact the COTP The Coast Guard has assessed the Amendment rights of protestors. for access to transit the area. In addition, economic impact of this rule and has once USSS and the USSS protectee are concluded the impacts to recreational A. Regulatory Planning and Review transiting towards the security zone, the vessels to be minimal. We, therefore, Executive Orders 12866 (‘‘Regulatory zone becomes a restricted area and disagree with the commenter’s Planning and Review’’) and 13563 Coast Guard personnel will prohibit suggested economic cost—impact of this (‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory boaters from operating within the rule to be in excess of $100 million. Review’’) direct agencies to assess the security zones.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR1.SGM 27JYR1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 40151

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF RULE’S ANTICIPATED IMPACTS

Category Summary

Potential affected population Since this waterway is not federally maintained, the Coast Guard does not have data on the amount of boaters that utilize this portion of the river, and as a result are unable to provide quantitative data pertaining to these boaters. However, the Coast Guard anticipates that those affected will be small recreational vessels that are capable navigating the shallow waters of the river. Costs ...... The costs associated with this rule, is the loss of leisure time that boaters will encounter while waiting for the USSS protectee to transit across the security zone. Benefits ...... This rule will secure an area that meets the objectives of the USSS to maintain USSS protectees safe.

Affected Population experts, the amount of traffic using this the USSS controls the movement of the section of the river is minimal. USSS protectee, the Coast Guard is The Coast Guard does not collect data unable to discern the length of time the Costs on the vessels and individuals using the security zone will be closed once the waterway, since the waterway is not Once the security zone is USSS protectee is moving. Given the federally maintained. However, the implemented, the Coast Guard length of the bridge, the Coast Guard Coast Guard is able to the surmise the anticipates that recreational boaters anticipates the length of time the type of vessel traffic by studying the transiting the waterway may have a very security zone will be restrictive to be navigational chart that encompass the brief conversation with Coast Guard several minutes while the USSS security zone. From the navigational officials stationed at both ends of the protectee transits through the security chart the Coast Guard is able to discern security zone. If access to transit is zone. the water depth to be 1 to 8 feet deep, granted, recreational boaters would then Although the Coast Guard is unable to and vertical clearance (by observing the proceed through the security zone obtain information about the frequency fixed bridges along the waterway) to (without stopping or loitering) and exit of boaters using the waterway, the Coast range between 22 to 28 feet. Therefore, the security zone in a timely manner. Guard was able to assess the rate by the Coast Guard concludes that the type We anticipate that this conversation which leisure time is computed, and of vessels most likely using the would last between 15 and 30 seconds that rate comes to $15.80 per hour. The waterway are recreational boaters. per recreational boater. Because we do not know the number boats, or how elements used to tabulate leisure wage Observable throughout Google maps, many recreational boaters are on the is outlined in the DOT travel time there is one access point, a boat ramp, average boat and because of how small guidance document.1 We also used the located a few hundred yards from the the amount of interaction per census information the obtain the route 141 bridge. During the recreational boaters is likely to be, we median household income for the state enforcement of the security zone, local are unable to anticipate total of Delaware.2 The DOT travel time authorities will be restricting boater quantitative impacted burden these guidance document provided the access to the river. As mentioned above, conversations will have on the affected methodology for determining leisure since this waterway is not federally population. time. Even though the document is maintained, the Coast Guard does not In addition, during the actual transit assessing surface travel, we accept the have data on the number of boaters that of the USSS protectee crossing the route methodology used in the document as a utilize this portion of the river; 141 bridge, all waterway traffic along good approximation for determining however, according to subject matter the security zone will be halted. Since recreational boater’s leisure time.

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF LEISURE WAGE TABULATED

Description Values

Median Household In- We obtained the income data for the State of Delaware from the census ...... $65,712 come. Reducing household in- To determine the hourly wage, we divided the median household income by 2,080, which is the ap- $31.59 come to hourly wage. proximate annual number of hours worked in a year by an individual working a 40 hour work week. Value of Travel Time Is a ratio that measures an individual’s willingness to pay to spend more time traveling. It is equal to 50% Savings (VTTS). 50% of the hourly wage rate. Total Leisure wage for Calculated by multiplying VTTS by the hourly wage ...... $15.80 Delaware.

The cost of the rule would be leisure number of boaters using this waterway rule prior to fully restricting (100%) rate multiplied by the amount of time and, therefore, is unable assess total access to the security zone. The Coast boaters are prevented from enjoying recreational boaters loss of leisure time Guard estimates interaction time their leisure time. Unfortunately, as for this rule. However, the Coast Guard between boaters and uniform personnel mentioned above, the Coast Guard does is able to provide the per vessel (one to average 23 seconds, for which we not have information pertaining to the individual boater per vessel) cost of this obtain an average per vessel cost of

1 https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/ 2 https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/ files/docs/2015RevisedValueofTravelTime interactive/2019-median-household-income.html. Guidance.pdf. Published September 2020.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR1.SGM 27JYR1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 40152 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

$0.11(= $15.80 leisure wage * .007 Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman Guard in complying with the National equivalent hours 3). In addition, in order and the Regional Small Business Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 to estimate the cost associated when the Regulatory Fairness Boards. The U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have full restriction of the security zone is Ombudsman evaluates these actions determined that this action is one of a implemented, we make the assumption annually and rates each agency’s category of actions that do not that it will take 10 minutes for the USSS responsiveness to small business. If you individually or cumulatively have a protectees to transit through the security wish to comment on actions by significant effect on the human zone. The Coast Guard estimates those employees of the Coast Guard, call 1– environment. This rule involves a cost to be $2.69 (=$15.80 leisure wage 888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). The security zone for the protection of USSS * .17 equivalent hours 4). The combined Coast Guard will not retaliate against protectees as they transit the route 141 costs of vessel-boater interaction with small entities that question or complain bridge over the Christina River near uniform personal is estimated at $2.80. about this rule or any policy or action Newport, Delaware. It is categorically Although the information of the of the Coast Guard. excluded from further review under population is limited, Coast Guard is paragraph L[60a] of Appendix A, Table C. Collection of Information confident that the overall costs of this 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023–01– rule is minimal.5 This rule will not call for a new 001–01, Rev. 1. A Record of collection of information under the Environmental Consideration B. Impact on Small Entities Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 supporting this determination is The Regulatory Flexibility Act of U.S.C. 3501–3520). available in the docket. For instructions 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, D. Federalism and Indian Tribal on locating the docket, see the requires Federal agencies to consider Governments ADDRESSES section of this preamble. the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The A rule has implications for federalism G. Protest Activities term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises small under Executive Order 13132, The Coast Guard respects the First businesses, not-for-profit organizations Federalism, if it has a substantial direct Amendment rights of protesters. that are independently owned and effect on the States, on the relationship Protesters are asked to call or email the operated and are not dominant in their between the National Government and person listed in the FOR FURTHER fields, and governmental jurisdictions the States, or on the distribution of INFORMATION CONTACT section to with populations of less than 50,000. power and responsibilities among the coordinate protest activities so that your The Coast Guard received no comments various levels of government. We have message can be received without from the Small Business Administration analyzed this rule under that order and jeopardizing the safety or security of on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard have determined that it is consistent people, places or vessels. certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this with the fundamental federalism rule will not have a significant principles and preemption requirements List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 economic impact on a substantial described in Executive Order 13132. Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation number of small entities. Also, this rule does not have tribal (water), Reporting and recordkeeping While some owners or operators of implications under Executive Order requirements, Security measures, vessels intending to transit the safety 13175, Consultation and Coordination Waterways. zone may be small entities, for the with Indian Tribal Governments, For the reasons discussed in the reasons stated in section V.A above, this because it does not have a substantial preamble, the Coast Guard is amending rule will not have a significant direct effect on one or more Indian 33 CFR part 165 as follows: economic impact on any vessel owner tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or operator. PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION or on the distribution of power and Under section 213(a) of the Small AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS Business Regulatory Enforcement responsibilities between the Federal Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), Government and Indian tribes. ■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 we want to assist small entities in E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act is revised to read as follows: understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; organization, or governmental of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of Department of Homeland Security Delegation jurisdiction and you have questions No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.2. concerning its provisions or options for their discretionary regulatory actions. In compliance, please call or email the particular, the Act addresses actions ■ 2. Add § 165.560 to read as follows: person listed in the FOR FURTHER that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the § 165.560 Security Zone; Christina River, INFORMATION CONTACT section. Newport, DE. Small businesses may send comments aggregate, or by the private sector of on the actions of Federal employees $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or (a) Location. The following area is a who enforce, or otherwise determine more in any one year. Though this rule security zone: All waters of the compliance with, Federal regulations to will not result in such an expenditure, Christina River, from shoreline to the Small Business and Agriculture we do discuss the effects of this rule shoreline bounded on the east by a line elsewhere in this preamble. drawn from 39°42.55′ North Latitude ° ′ 3 (N), 075 35.88 West Longitude (W), To calculate the equivalent hours of 23 seconds, F. Environment ° ′ we divide 23 by 3600 (3600 is the number of thence southerly to 39 42.50 N, seconds in one hours). Hence, 23 sec/3600 sec = We have analyzed this rule under 075°35.87′ W thence along the Christina .007 equivalent hour. Department of Homeland Security River in a westerly direction and 4 Equivalent hour calculation for 10 min is 10 Directive 023–01, Rev. 1, associated bounded by the South James Street min/60 min = .17. ° ′ ° ′ 5 The Coast Guard also estimated the round trip implementing instructions, and Bridge at 39 42.63 N, 075 36.53 W. (arriving and leave Delaware using the same route) Environmental Planning COMDTINST These coordinates are based on North at $5.60 per vessel. 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast American Datum 83 (NAD83).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR1.SGM 27JYR1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 40153

(b) Definitions. As used in this result in expulsion from the regulated FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dale section— area, citation for failure to comply, or Kennedy at 202–268–6592 or Kathy Designated representative means a both. Frigo at 202–268–4178. Coast Guard Patrol Commander, (d) Enforcement. This security zone SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty will be enforced with actual notice by officer, or other officer operating a Coast the U.S. Coast Guard representatives on I. Proposed Rule and Response Guard vessel and a Federal, State, and scene, as well as other methods listed in On May 28, 2021, the Postal Service local officer designated by or assisting § 165.7. The Coast Guard will enforce filed a notice with the PRC in Docket the Captain of the Port Delaware Bay the security zone created by this section Number R2021–2 of mailing services (COTP) in the enforcement of the only when it is necessary for the price adjustments to be effective on security zone. protection of a USSS protectee traveling August 29, 2021. On June 3, 2021, Official patrol vessel means any Coast across the route 141 bridge in Newport, USPS® published a notification of Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, State, or Delaware. The U.S. Coast Guard may be proposed price changes in the Federal local law enforcement vessel assigned or additionally assisted in the patrol and Register entitled ‘‘International Mailing approved by the COTP. enforcement of the zone by Federal, Services: Proposed Price Changes’’ (86 USSS protectee means any person for State, and local agencies. whom the United States Secret Service FR 29732). The notification included (USSS) requests implementation of a Dated: July 23, 2021. price changes that the Postal Service security zone in order to supplement Jonathan D. Theel, would adopt for services covered by protection of said person(s). Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Mailing Standards of the United States (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with Port, Delaware Bay. Postal Service, International Mail ® the general regulations contained in [FR Doc. 2021–16048 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] Manual (IMM ) and publish in Notice ® § 165.33, entry into or movement within BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 123, Price List, on Postal Explorer at this zone is prohibited unless pe.usps.com. The Postal Service authorized by the COTP, Delaware Bay, received no comments. or designated representative. POSTAL SERVICE (2) Only vessels or people specifically II. Decision of the Postal Regulatory Commission authorized by the Captain of the Port, 39 CFR Part 20 Delaware Bay, or designated As stated in the PRC’s Order No. representative, may enter or remain in International Mailing Services: Price 5937, issued on July 19, 2021, in PRC the regulated area. To seek permission Changes Docket No. R2021–2, the PRC found that to enter, contact the COTP or the the prices in the Postal Service’s AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM. COTP’s representative on VHF–FM notification may go into effect on channel 13 or 16. Those in the security ACTION: Final action. August 29, 2021. The new prices will zone must comply with all lawful orders accordingly be posted in Notice 123, or directions given to them by the COTP SUMMARY: On May 28, 2021, the Postal Service published proposed price Price List on Postal Explorer at or the COTP’s designated representative. pe.usps.com. No person may swim upon or below the changes to reflect a notice of price surface of the water of this security zone adjustments filed with the Postal III. Summary of Changes Regulatory Commission (PRC). The PRC unless authorized by the COTP or his First-Class Mail International designated representative. found that price adjustments contained (3) Upon being hailed by an official in the Postal Service’s notification may The price for a single-piece postcard patrol vessel or the designated go into effect on August 29, 2021. The will be $1.30 worldwide. The First-Class representative, by siren, radio, flashing Postal Service will revise Notice 123, Mail International (FCMI) letter light or other means, the operator of the Price List to reflect the new prices. nonmachinable surcharge will increase vessel shall proceed as directed. Failure DATES: The revisions to Notice 123, to $0.30. The FCMI single-piece letter to comply with lawful direction may Price List, are effective August 29, 2021. and flat prices will be as follows:

Letters Weight not over Price groups (oz.) 1 2 3–5 6–9

1 ...... $1.30 $1.30 $1.30 $1.30 2 ...... 1.30 1.96 2.43 2.25 3 ...... 1.83 2.60 3.55 3.20 3.5 ...... 2.36 3.25 4.68 4.14

Letters Weight not over Price groups (oz.) 1 2 3–5 6–9

1 ...... $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 2 ...... 2.85 3.38 3.67 3.62 3 ...... 3.09 4.14 4.73 4.61 4 ...... 3.31 4.92 5.81 5.62 5 ...... 3.55 5.69 6.87 6.63 6 ...... 3.79 6.45 7.93 7.64

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR1.SGM 27JYR1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 40154 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

Letters Weight not over Price groups (oz.) 1 2 3–5 6–9

7 ...... 4.03 7.23 9.00 8.64 8 ...... 4.27 7.99 10.06 9.64 12 ...... 5.45 9.64 12.20 11.73 15.994 ...... 6.63 11.31 14.33 13.80

International Extra Services and Fees • Certificate of Mailing • International Business ReplyTM Mail • TM The Postal Service price increase for Registered Mail Service certain market dominant international • Return Receipt extra services is as follows: • Customs Clearance and Delivery Fee

Certificate of Mailing Fee

Individual pieces: Individual article (PS Form 3817) ...... $1.65 Duplicate copy of PS Form 3817 or PS Form 3665 (per page) ...... 1.65 Firm mailing sheet (PS Form 3665), per piece (minimum 3) ...... First-Class Mail International only ...... 0.47 Bulk quantities: ...... For first 1,000 pieces (or fraction thereof) ...... 9.35 Each additional 1,000 pieces (or fraction thereof) ...... 1.20 Duplicate copy of PS Form 3606 ...... 1.65

Registered Mail control (PTC) systems and reporting on 202–493–0445, email: Fee: $17.15. PTC system performance. First, [email protected]. recognizing that the railroad industry SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Return Receipt intends to enhance FRA-certified PTC Table of Contents for Supplementary Fee: $4.75. systems to continue improving rail safety and PTC technology’s reliability Information Customs Clearance and Delivery and operability, FRA is modifying the I. Executive Summary Fee: per piece $7.05. process by which a host railroad must II. Background and Public Participation submit a request for amendment (RFA) A. Legal Authority To Prescribe PTC International Business Reply Service to FRA before making certain changes to Regulations its PTC Safety Plan (PTCSP) and FRA- B. Public Participation Prior to the Fee: Cards $1.75; Envelopes up to 2 Issuance of the NPRM ounces $2.25. certified PTC system. Second, to enable C. Introduction to Comments on the NPRM New prices will be listed in the more effective FRA oversight, this final III. Summary of the Main Provisions in the updated Notice 123, Price List. rule: Expands an existing reporting Final Rule requirement by increasing the frequency A. Establishing a New Process for Joshua J. Hofer, from annual to biannual; broadens the Modifying FRA-Certified PTC Systems Attorney, Ethics & Legal Compliance. reporting requirement to encompass and the Associated PTCSPs [FR Doc. 2021–15958 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] positive performance-related B. Expanding the Performance-Related BILLING CODE 7710–12–P information, including about the Reporting Requirements technology’s positive impact on rail IV. Section-by-Section Analysis V. Regulatory Impact and Notices safety, not just failure-related A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION information; and requires host railroads Planning and Review) to utilize a new, standardized report B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Federal Railroad Administration form. Order 13272; Regulatory Flexibility Certification 49 CFR Part 236 DATES: This final rule is effective August C. Paperwork Reduction Act 26, 2021. D. Federalism Implications [Docket No. FRA–2019–0075, Notice No. 2] ADDRESSES: For access to the docket to E. International Trade Impact Assessment RIN 2130–AC75 read background documents or F. Environmental Impact comments received, go to https:// G. Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Positive Train Control Systems www.regulations.gov at any time and Justice) search for Docket No. FRA–2019–0075. H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 AGENCY: Federal Railroad I. Energy Impact Administration (FRA), Department of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Transportation (DOT). Gabe Neal, Deputy Staff Director, Signal, I. Executive Summary ACTION: Final rule. Train Control, and Crossings Division, Section 20157 of title 49 of the United telephone: 816–516–7168, email: States Code (U.S.C.) mandates each SUMMARY: FRA is revising its regulations [email protected]; or Stephanie Class I railroad, and each entity governing changes to positive train Anderson, Attorney Adviser, telephone: providing regularly scheduled intercity

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR1.SGM 27JYR1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 40155

or commuter rail passenger 49 U.S.C. 20157(h), FRA approved each RFAs to their FRA-approved PTCSPs or transportation, to implement an FRA- host railroad’s PTCSP and certified that FRA-certified PTC systems. In addition, certified PTC system on: (1) its main each PTC system 8 complied with the this final rule permits host railroads lines over which poison- or toxic-by- technical requirements for PTC systems utilizing the same type of PTC system to inhalation hazardous materials are under FRA’s regulations.9 submit joint RFAs to their PTCSPs and transported, if the line carries five Through FRA’s nine PTC Symposia PTC Development Plans (PTCDPs). million or more gross tons of any annual and Collaboration Sessions, from 2018 Second, FRA is expanding an existing traffic; (2) its main lines over which to 2020, and other regular coordination reporting requirement—49 CFR intercity or commuter rail passenger with railroads implementing PTC 236.1029(h), Annual report of system transportation is regularly provided; and systems, PTC system vendors and (3) any other tracks the Secretary of suppliers, and other stakeholders, FRA failures—by increasing the frequency of Transportation (Secretary) prescribes by proactively identified aspects of FRA’s the reporting requirement from annual regulation or order.1 By law, PTC existing PTC regulations that could to biannual; broadening the reporting systems must be designed to prevent impede either PTC-related innovation or requirement to encompass positive certain accidents or incidents, including FRA’s oversight, after the statutory performance-related information, not train-to-train collisions, over-speed deadline of December 31, 2020. just failure-related information; and derailments, incursions into established Accordingly, on December 18, 2020, requiring host railroads to utilize a new, work zones, and movements of trains FRA issued a Notice of Proposed standardized Biannual Report of PTC through switches left in the wrong Rulemaking (NPRM) to amend its PTC System Performance (Form FRA F position.2 regulations to modify two regulatory 6180.152) 11 to enable more effective Currently, 35 host railroads— provisions, 49 CFR 236.1021 and FRA oversight. In addition, FRA is including 7 Class I railroads, 23 236.1029(h), which, if not revised, amending § 236.1029(h) by updating the intercity passenger railroads or would impede the industry’s ability to provision to use certain statutory commuter railroads, and 5 Class II or III, advance PTC technology efficiently and terminology for consistency; clarifying short line, or terminal railroads—are FRA’s ability to oversee the performance the ambiguous filing obligation by directly subject to the statutory and reliability of PTC systems specifying that only host railroads mandate.3 The statutory mandate effectively.10 FRA received seven sets of directly submit these reports to FRA; generally required that by December 31, written comments in response to that and explicitly requiring tenant railroads 2020, FRA-certified and interoperable NPRM, which were generally supportive to provide the necessary data to their PTC systems must govern operations on of FRA’s proposals. FRA responds to applicable host railroads. all PTC-mandated main lines, currently these seven sets of comments in encompassing nearly 58,000 route miles Sections II (Background and Public FRA analyzed the economic impact of nationwide.4 49 U.S.C. 20157(a); 49 CFR Participation) and IV (Section-by- this final rule over a ten-year period and 236.1005(b)(6)–(7). Section Analysis) of this final rule. estimated its quantitative costs and On December 29, 2020, FRA Based on the comments received, FRA benefits, which are shown in the table announced that railroads had fully is revising its PTC regulations in two below. The business benefits associated implemented PTC technology on all ways. First, FRA is issuing this final with FRA’s revisions to § 236.1021—i.e., PTC-mandated main lines.5 As of that rule to streamline the process under 49 to simplify the process for all RFAs to date, railroads reported that CFR 236.1021 for RFAs to PTCSPs for PTCSPs and authorize host railroads to interoperability 6 had been achieved FRA-certified systems. This revised RFA file joint RFAs to PTCSPs and between the applicable host railroads process requires host railroads to PTCDPs—will outweigh the costs and tenant railroads that operate on provide certain documentation, associated with FRA’s expansion of the PTC-mandated main lines, which analysis, and safety assurances in a reporting requirement under paragraph included 209 interoperable host-tenant concise RFA. This final rule also (h) of § 236.1029. This final rule will railroad relationships as of December establishes a 45-day deadline for FRA to also result in savings for the federal 2020.7 Furthermore, as required under review and approve or deny railroads’ government.

1 Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, Public regulations in general will apply, on average, to 1.5 operating on track upon which a PTC system is Law 110–432, 104(a), 122 Stat. 4848 (Oct. 16, 2008), additional host railroads per year. required.’’ 49 CFR 236.1003(b). as amended by the Positive Train Control 4 Except a railroad’s controlling locomotives or 8 Currently, the following PTC systems are in Enforcement and Implementation Act of 2015, cab cars that are subject to either a temporary or operation in the United States: (1) The Interoperable Public Law 114–73, 129 Stat. 568, 576–82 (Oct. 29, permanent exception under 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)–(k) Electronic Train Management System (I–ETMS), 2015), and the Fixing America’s Surface or 49 CFR 236.1006(b), Equipping locomotives which Class I railroads and many commuter Transportation Act, Public Law 114–94, section operating in PTC territory. railroads have fully implemented; (2) the Advanced 11315(d), 129 Stat. 1312, 1675 (Dec. 4, 2015), 5 Federal Railroad Administration, FRA Civil Speed Enforcement System II (ACSES II) or codified as amended at 49 U.S.C. 20157. See also the Advanced Speed Enforcement System II (ASES Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 236, Announces Landmark Achievement with Full II), the PTC system most railroads operating on the subpart I. Implementation of Positive Train Control (Dec. 29, 2020), available at https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/ Northeast Corridor (NEC) have fully implemented; 2 49 U.S.C. 20157(g)(1), (i)(5); 49 CFR 236.1005 fra.dot.gov/files/2020-12/fra1920.pdf. (3) Enhanced Automatic Train Control (E–ATC), (setting forth the technical specifications). 6 which five host railroads have fully implemented; 3 The infographics on FRA’s PTC website (https:// ‘‘Interoperability’’ is the general requirement that the controlling locomotives and cab cars of any (4) the Incremental Train Control System, which the railroads.dot.gov/train-control/ptc/positive-train- National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) control-ptc) identify 41 railroads subject to the host railroad and tenant railroad operating on the same main line must communicate with and has fully implemented in parts of Michigan; and (5) statutory mandate as of December 31, 2020, but six the Communication Based Train Control (CBTC) of those 41 railroads are tenant-only commuter respond to the PTC system, including uninterrupted movements over property boundaries, except as system, which one commuter railroad has fully railroads. As this final rule primarily focuses on implemented. requirements specific to host railroads, this final otherwise permitted by law. 49 U.S.C. 9 49 CFR 236.1009, 236.1015. rule references the current number of PTC- 20157(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), (a)(2)(D), (i)(3), (j)–(k); 49 CFR 10 mandated host railroads (35) and any host railroads 236.1003, 236.1006, 236.1011(a)(3). 85 FR 82400 (Dec. 18, 2020). that may either become subject to the statutory 7 For purposes of FRA’s PTC regulations, a host 11 A copy of the form is available in the mandate or voluntarily implement PTC systems in railroad is ‘‘a railroad that has effective operating rulemaking docket. the future. Section V (Regulatory Impact and control over a segment of track,’’ and a tenant 12 Net Benefits = (Industry Business Benefits + Notices) estimates this final rule and FRA’s PTC railroad is ‘‘a railroad, other than a host railroad, Government Savings)¥Industry Costs.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR1.SGM 27JYR1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 40156 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

NET BENEFITS IN MILLIONS [2019 Dollars]

Present value Present value Annualized Annualized 7% 3% 7% 3%

Industry Costs ...... ($1.52) ($1.75) ($0.22) ($0.21) Industry Business Benefits ...... 6.12 7.20 0.87 0.84 Government Savings ...... 17.98 21.19 2.56 2.48

Net Benefits 12 ...... 22.58 26.64 3.21 3.12 * Note: Table may not sum due to rounding.

In addition to the quantified benefits FRA subsequently amended its PTC American Short Line and Regional in the table above, FRA expects this regulations via final rules issued in Railroad Association (ASLRRA) jointly final rule will also result in safety 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016.15 filed comments on behalf of themselves benefits for the railroad industry. For In this final rule, FRA revises three and their member railroads. On example, this final rule will enable sections, 49 CFR 236.1003, 236.1021, February 16, 2021, the American Public railroads to deploy PTC-related safety and 236.1029, of FRA’s existing PTC Transportation Association (APTA) improvements and technological regulations pursuant to its specific submitted comments on behalf of itself, advancements more efficiently and authority under 49 CFR 1.89 and 49 its member organizations, and the frequently, under an expedited RFA U.S.C. 20157(g), and its general commuter rail industry. Furthermore, process, and the expanded reporting authority under 49 U.S.C. 20103 to on February 16, 2021, Amtrak and New requirement will help railroads and prescribe regulations and issue orders Jersey Transit (NJT) submitted their own FRA identify systemic failures more for every area of railroad safety. respective comments, noting that they quickly and precisely, enabling swifter B. Public Participation Prior to the also support AAR and ASLRRA’s jointly intervention and resolution. Issuance of the NPRM filed comments. On December 30, 2020, II. Background and Public Participation David Schanoes submitted two separate FRA regularly engages with host comments on the NPRM. On December A. Legal Authority To Prescribe PTC railroads, tenant railroads, and PTC 21, 2020, Patrick Coyle submitted Regulations system vendors and suppliers, as part of comments. FRA thanks each commenter FRA’s oversight of railroads’ Section 104(a) of the Rail Safety for the time and effort put into the implementation of PTC systems on the comments. Improvement Act of 2008 required the mandated main lines under 49 U.S.C. Secretary of Transportation to prescribe As most comments FRA received are 20157 and the other lines where directed at a specific regulatory change PTC regulations necessary to implement railroads are voluntarily implementing the statutory mandate, including FRA proposed in the NPRM, FRA PTC technology. This included multiple discusses them in the appropriate regulations specifying the essential PTC Collaboration Sessions in 2019 and technical functionalities of PTC systems 16 portions of Section IV (Section-by- 2020. For a detailed discussion Section Analysis) of this final rule. and the means by which FRA certifies regarding these sessions and other 13 In this section, FRA discusses only PTC systems. The Secretary delegated public participation prior to FRA’s to the Federal Railroad Administrator comments generally applicable to this issuance of the NPRM, please see rulemaking and comments outside the the authority to carry out the functions 17 Section II–B of the NPRM. The scope of the rulemaking. In general, the and exercise the authority vested in the provisions in this final rule are based on Secretary by the Rail Safety comments expressed support for both of FRA’s own review and analysis, FRA’s proposals in the NPRM. Several Improvement Act of 2008. 49 CFR industry’s feedback in 2019 and 2020 1.89(b). commenters also commended FRA for before publication of the NPRM, and the proposing changes to its oversight and In accordance with its authority under comments received on the NPRM. 49 U.S.C. 20157(g) and 49 CFR 1.89(b), regulation of PTC technology now that FRA issued its first final PTC rule on C. Introduction to Comments on the it has been fully implemented on all January 15, 2010, which is set forth, as NPRM main lines currently subject to the amended, under 49 CFR part 236, FRA received seven sets of comments mandate. In its comments, APTA asserts that, as subpart I, Positive Train Control from several associations, railroads, and 14 a general matter, FRA must justify each Systems. FRA’s PTC regulations under individuals in response to the NPRM proposal of its NPRM separately, taking 49 CFR part 236, subpart I, prescribe FRA published on December 18, 2020.18 issue with FRA’s acknowledgement in ‘‘minimum, performance-based safety FRA lists here the comments it received the executive summary of the NPRM standards for PTC systems . . . in reverse chronological order. On that the costs associated with expanding including requirements to ensure that February 16, 2021, the Association of the reporting requirement under the development, functionality, American Railroads (AAR) and the architecture, installation, § 236.1029(h) are outweighed by the savings or business benefits incurred by implementation, inspection, testing, 15 75 FR 59108 (Sept. 27, 2010); 77 FR 28285 operation, maintenance, repair, and (May 14, 2012); 79 FR 49693 (Aug. 22, 2014); 81 FRA’s streamlining of § 236.1021. More modification of those PTC systems will FR 10126 (Feb. 29, 2016). specifically, APTA states that these achieve and maintain an acceptable 16 All presentations from FRA’s PTC issues should not be considered Collaboration Sessions are available in FRA’s together, and FRA must justify each level of safety.’’ 49 CFR 236.1001(a). eLibrary, including direct links on FRA’s PTC website at https://railroads.dot.gov/train-control/ proposal separately on its own merits. 13 Public Law 110–432, 122 Stat. 4848 (Oct. 16, ptc/positive-train-control-ptc. FRA agrees that it should 2008), codified as amended at 49 U.S.C. 20157(g). 17 85 FR 82400, 82403–04 (Dec. 18, 2020). independently justify each change to its 14 75 FR 2598 (Jan. 15, 2010). 18 85 FR 82400 (Dec. 18, 2020). PTC regulations, which FRA has done

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR1.SGM 27JYR1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 40157

in Sections III (Summary of the Main comment rightfully observes that such a implement technological enhancements Provisions in the Final Rule), IV change is also outside the scope of this more efficiently, and the clear timeline (Section-by-Section Analysis), and V rulemaking, as the NPRM did not will help ensure a more predictable and (Regulatory Impact and Notices) of this propose amending § 236.1023 and, transparent FRA review process going final rule. Consistent with FRA’s therefore, this final rule does not forward. approach in the NPRM, this final rule address the substance of the comment. In addition, this final rule permits identifies and explains the need and host railroads utilizing the same type of basis for each change. Intended only as III. Summary of the Main Provisions in PTC system to submit joint RFAs to an overview, Section I (Executive the Final Rule their PTCSPs and PTCDPs. Appreciating Summary) summarizes the overall A. Establishing a New Process for that changes to safety-critical elements, industry costs, business benefits, Modifying FRA-Certified PTC Systems including software or system government savings, and net benefits of and the Associated PTCSPs architecture, of a certain PTC system the final rule. will likely impact multiple, if not most, FRA’s PTC regulations have always In addition, APTA’s comments railroads operating that same type of include a general request from the acknowledged that after PTC system, FRA’s final rule outlines a commuter rail industry for FRA to ‘‘implementation of a train control path for such host railroads to submit review its cost-benefit analysis system, the subject railroad may have joint RFAs to their PTCSPs, with associated with the changes to legitimate reasons for making changes in specific instructions under new § 236.1029(h) FRA proposed in the the system design,’’ among other paragraphs (l) and (m) of § 236.1021. NPRM. Accordingly, based on changes, including to a PTC system’s FRA recognizes that modifying and 20 comments received, FRA thoroughly functionality. Indeed, FRA is aware simplifying the process for host reviewed and updated its estimate of the that host railroads will need to deploy railroads to submit RFAs to PTCSPs for increased burden associated with new PTC software releases, among other FRA-certified PTC systems is necessary expanding the reporting requirement changes, to ensure their PTC systems are to facilitate required maintenance and under § 236.1029(h), which FRA performing properly—for example, to upgrades to PTC technology and discusses in Section V (Regulatory fix certain bugs or defects or eliminate encourage railroads to enhance their Impact and Notices). newly discovered hazards. In addition PTC systems to continue to improve rail Also, FRA received several comments to incremental changes to PTC systems safety. that are outside the scope of this that are necessary for the continued safe rulemaking. Specifically, an individual and proper functioning of the B. Expanding the Performance-Related commented that all federal agencies technology, FRA understands that Reporting Requirements must step up their activities related to several railroads and PTC system FRA’s regulations currently require a cybersecurity, noting that PTC vendors and suppliers have chosen to railroad to submit an annual report by technology is one area where FRA must design and develop their PTC systems to April 16th each year regarding the proactively address cybersecurity needs. perform functions in addition to the number of PTC system failures, That comment acknowledges that a minimum, performance-based functions ‘‘including but not limited to comprehensive attempt to addressing specified under the statutory mandate locomotive, wayside, communications, cybersecurity challenges would require and FRA’s regulations. and back office system failures,’’ that a separate rulemaking. Although the Currently, however, FRA’s PTC occurred during the previous calendar comment is outside the scope of this regulations prohibit a railroad from year. 49 CFR 236.1029(h). The first rulemaking, FRA wants to note that its making certain changes to its FRA- failure-related annual reports pursuant existing regulations establish security approved PTCSP or FRA-certified PTC to § 236.1029(h) were due on April 16, requirements for PTC systems under 49 system unless the railroad files an RFA 2019, from the four host railroads whose CFR 236.1033, Communications and to its PTCSP and obtains approval from statutory deadline was December 31, security requirements, including the FRA’s Associate Administrator for 2018, for the full implementation of a requirement for all wireless Railroad Safety. 49 CFR 236.1021. PTC system on their required main communications between the office, Though FRA’s existing regulations lines. FRA has found that the annual wayside, and onboard components in a specify that FRA will, to the extent reports railroads submitted to date have PTC system to provide cryptographic practicable, review and issue a decision been brief (e.g., as short as half of a message integrity and authentication.19 regarding a host railroad’s initially filed page) and included minimal In addition, FRA notes that certain PTCSP within 180 days of the date it information, but still technically cybersecurity issues resulting in PTC was filed, FRA’s regulations do not satisfied the existing content system failures, defective conditions, or currently specify an estimated timeline requirements under § 236.1029(h). previously unidentified hazards are for reviewing and approving or denying Because the minimal information currently reportable under 49 CFR railroads’ subsequent RFAs to their currently required under § 236.1029(h) 236.1023, Errors and malfunctions, and PTCSPs. does not permit FRA to monitor cybersecurity issues resulting in Instead of the existing RFA approval adequately the rate at which PTC system initialization failures, cut outs, or process involving complex content failures occur, or to evaluate malfunctions, will be reportable in the requirements and an indefinite decision improvements over time, FRA is new Biannual Report of PTC System timeline, this final rule: (1) Requires revising § 236.1029(h) to enable FRA to Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152) railroads to comply with a streamlined perform its oversight functions under 49 CFR 236.1029(h). RFA process, including providing effectively. Specifically, FRA is An individual also commented that certain documentation, analysis, and increasing the frequency of this FRA should expand the scope of 49 CFR safety assurances; and (2) establishes a reporting requirement from annual to 236.1023(b), Errors and malfunctions, to 45-day deadline for FRA’s review and biannual, which will enable FRA to include third-party reports of software issuance of a decision. The improved monitor more closely trends in PTC and firmware vulnerabilities. The process will enable the industry to system reliability. In addition, to ensure the data railroads submit under 19 See also 49 CFR 236.1015(d)(20). 20 75 FR 2598, 2660 (Jan. 15, 2010). § 236.1029(h) are uniform, comparable,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR1.SGM 27JYR1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 40158 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

and objective, FRA is revising this each applicable host railroad on a underlying facts, per the definitions reporting requirement by specifying the continuous basis, which will enable under § 236.1003(b). exact types of statistics and information host railroads to submit their Biannual In addition, APTA requests the reports must include. Reports of PTC System Performance to confirmation that if the state of a PTC Furthermore, FRA is amending FRA, on behalf of themselves and their system is either ‘‘disengaged’’ or § 236.1029(h) to make it consistent with tenant railroads. ‘‘failed,’’ that state is categorized as a the temporary reporting requirement FRA considers its changes to malfunction, not as a cut out, under under 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4), as the § 236.1029(h) necessary to enable FRA FRA’s definitions of those terms. FRA existing statutory and regulatory to monitor the performance and concurs with that interpretation. FRA’s provisions use different terminology to reliability of railroads’ PTC systems understanding is that if a PTC system describe PTC-related failures. As effectively throughout the country. conveys it has ‘‘disengaged’’ or ‘‘failed,’’ background, the Positive Train Control IV. Section-by-Section Analysis it is likely due to a failure in the Enforcement and Implementation Act of communications network or elsewhere 2015 established a reporting Section 236.1003 Definitions in the system, and it would be requirement that applies only FRA is adding three definitions to categorized as a malfunction, not a cut temporarily, from October 29, 2015, to paragraph (b) of this section to help out. 21 December 31, 2021. On June 5, 2020, ensure that FRA and the railroad FRA received one comment the Office of Management and Budget industry consistently interpret the requesting a change to its proposed (OMB) approved the Statutory failure-related terms under 49 U.S.C. definition of ‘‘malfunction.’’ 26 Notification of PTC System Failures 20157(j)—initialization failures, cut Regarding FRA’s proposed definition of (Form FRA F 6180.177, OMB Control outs, and malfunctions—as FRA is now ‘‘malfunction,’’ an individual suggested 22 No. 2130–0553), which FRA also using these corresponding terms in that FRA should add the following developed in 2019, and then revised in revised § 236.1029(h) and the associated clause to the end of the definition: ‘‘or 2020 based on feedback from AAR and Biannual Report of PTC System any indication of unauthorized system 23 APTA. Host railroads must submit Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152). access or other indicators of that form monthly to comply with 49 Specifically, as proposed in the NPRM, compromise described by system U.S.C. 20157(j)(4) until that temporary FRA’s final rule generally adopts the suppliers or vendors.’’ FRA’s proposed reporting requirement expires on definitions of these three terms that FRA definition of ‘‘malfunction’’ in the 24 December 31, 2021. currently utilizes in the Statutory NPRM was ‘‘any instance when a PTC FRA’s new Biannual Report of PTC Notification of PTC System Failures system, subsystem, or component fails System Performance (Form FRA F (Form FRA F 6180.177, OMB Control to perform the functions mandated 6180.152) under revised § 236.1029(h) No. 2130–0553), which were, in part, under 49 U.S.C. 20157(i)(5), this will incorporate both: (1) The minimal revised and refined based on industry’s subpart, or the applicable host railroad’s information currently required under feedback during the development of that PTCSP.’’ § 236.1029(h); and (2) the corresponding corresponding form and the definitions FRA declines to add the requested types of data railroads must submit until therein.25 clause to the end of the definition of December 31, 2021, in their Statutory In its comments on the NPRM, APTA ‘‘malfunction’’ for two reasons. First, Notifications of PTC System Failures seeks FRA’s confirmation that a specific host railroads have become accustomed (Form FRA F 6180.177). Similarly, this type of failure should be categorized as to collecting data using the exact final rule revises § 236.1029(h) to utilize either a cut out or a malfunction (i.e., an definition of ‘‘malfunction’’ FRA the failure-related terms under 49 U.S.C. en route failure), not an initialization proposed in the NPRM, as FRA 20157(j)—initialization failures, cut failure. Specifically, APTA describes the developed that definition with outs, and malfunctions—instead of the following scenario: in a maintenance industry’s feedback during its broad, imprecise term currently used in facility, before departing, a crew establishment of the Statutory § 236.1029(h) (‘‘failures’’). successfully initializes a PTC system on Notification of PTC System Failures Furthermore, during meetings FRA both ends of a push-pull train (the (Form FRA F 6180.177). Second, FRA’s held before publication of the NPRM, locomotive and the cab car), and the proposed definition of ‘‘malfunction’’ railroads observed that, under existing train successfully enters PTC-governed already captures certain instances that § 236.1029(h), it is unclear whether a territory with the PTC system the commenter describes. For example, host railroad, a tenant railroad, or both functioning properly. Subsequently, if a person or entity interferes with a must submit the required reports to when the crew switches to operating the PTC system, subsystem, or component FRA, as the existing provision uses only cab car (instead of the locomotive or to the point that the technology fails to the word ‘‘railroad.’’ In this final rule, vice versa), the PTC system then fails to perform the functions mandated under FRA resolves this ambiguity by activate properly. 49 U.S.C. 20157(i)(5), FRA’s PTC specifying that only host railroads must APTA requests confirmation that FRA regulations, or the applicable host directly submit these reports to FRA. In would not consider this type of failure railroad’s PTCSP, that would fall addition, new paragraph (4) under an initialization failure, but instead an squarely within the definition of § 236.1029(h) requires each applicable en route failure, either a cut out or a ‘‘malfunction.’’ tenant railroad that operates on a host malfunction. FRA concurs with APTA’s This final rule adopts the three railroad’s PTC-governed main lines to interpretation. Under these specific definitions FRA proposed of ‘‘cut out,’’ submit the necessary information to circumstances, the PTC system was ‘‘initialization failure,’’ and successfully initialized on both the ‘‘malfunction’’ in the NPRM, with one 21 49 U.S.C. 20157(j). locomotive and the cab car of the push- modification. In the clause that refers to 22 Available at https://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/ pull train, and the subsequent failure a person cutting out a PTC system in the PTCSystemFailuresFRAForm177/. should be categorized as either a cut out 23 For additional detail, please see 84 FR 72121 definition of ‘‘cut out,’’ FRA is adding (Dec. 30, 2019) and 85 FR 15022 (Mar. 16, 2020). or a malfunction, depending on the 24 See also 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4) and (e)(1) 26 FRA did not receive any comments requesting (authorizing DOT to assess civil penalties for any 25 See 84 FR 72121, 72125 (Dec. 30, 2019); 85 FR a change to its proposed definition of ‘‘initialization violation of the statutory mandate). 15022, 15025–26 (Mar. 16, 2020). failure’’ or ‘‘cut out.’’

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR1.SGM 27JYR1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 40159

the qualifying phrase ‘‘with In addition, an individual commented some railroad-specific variances. FRA authorization’’ to the definition in the that FRA should add a fifth type of expects that host railroads will utilize final rule, which will help avoid the change to existing paragraph (h), which this joint RFA option to the extent impression that trains crews may cut FRA is not revising in this rulemaking. practicable, and it will efficiently out a PTC system without first following Specifically, the individual comments leverage the industry’s resources, help the applicable procedures in the that FRA should add the following ensure coordination among railroads governing FRA-approved PTCSP and/or provision to the list of changes that operating the same types of PTC the railroad’s own operating rules. Other trigger the filing of an RFA: ‘‘(5) Any systems, and reduce the number of than the addition of those two words for change in PTC component software or similar or identical RFA filings host clarification, this final rule adopts the firmware.’’ Even if FRA were amending railroads submit to FRA for review and three definitions FRA proposed in the the list under § 236.1021(h)(1)–(4), such approval.29 Because changes to safety- NPRM. an addition would be unnecessary as critical elements, including software or system architecture, of a certain PTC Section 236.1021 Discontinuances, relevant changes to software or firmware system will likely impact multiple, if Material Modifications, and are already covered within existing 27 not most, railroads implementing that Amendments paragraphs (h)(3) and (4). For example, this final rule recognizes that same type of PTC system, this final rule In general, the purpose of existing certain software changes trigger the outlines a path for such host railroads paragraphs (a) through (d) is to prohibit requirement to file an RFA under to submit joint RFAs to their PTCSPs, a railroad from making changes, as § 236.1021, and FRA refers to relevant with specific instructions under new defined by this section, to a PTC system, software changes in Sections II paragraphs (l) and (m). FRA recognizes PTC Implementation Plan (PTCIP), (Background and Public Participation), that many host railroads participate in PTCDP, or PTCSP, unless the railroad III (Summary of the Main Provisions in system-specific committees or working submits an RFA, with the content the Final Rule), and IV (Section-by- groups to ensure they maintain PTC requirements under existing paragraphs Section Analysis), as well as new system interoperability, among other (d)(1) through (7), and obtains approval paragraph (m)(2)(ii) under § 236.1021, objectives. FRA considers it acceptable from FRA’s Associate Administrator for which requires an RFA to include any for an association, committee, or Railroad Safety. associated software release notes. working group to submit a joint RFA In its comments, APTA states that In general, FRA’s revisions to under paragraph (l), but such a joint § 236.1021 will present an undue § 236.1021 in this final rule are intended RFA must be explicitly on behalf of two burden to its members if FRA broadly primarily to streamline the process by or more host railroads, and each host interprets the types of changes (often which host railroads must submit RFAs railroad must sign the filing. referred to as ‘‘material modifications’’) New paragraph (l) also specifies that that require a host railroad to file an to their FRA-approved PTCSPs and FRA-certified systems, based on FRA’s only host railroads with the same PTC RFA under § 236.1021(h). Consistent System Certification classification under with FRA’s statements in the NPRM, recognition that the railroad industry intends to update and enhance FRA- 49 CFR 236.1015(e) may file a joint RFA this rule does not revise the types of to their PTCSPs. In its comments, APTA changes that trigger the filing of an RFA certified PTC systems to advance rail safety.28 Accordingly, FRA’s revisions expresses general support for this under existing paragraphs (h)(1) through provision, noting that many APTA (4) or the exceptions currently set forth to the process under existing paragraphs (a), (c), and (d) are limited to removing members will benefit from this under § 236.1021(i)–(k). The types of flexibility, especially railroads whose I– any references to PTCSPs or PTC changes that relate specifically to this ETMS systems FRA has certified as systems from those paragraphs, as this final rule because they impact a host mixed PTC systems. APTA further final rule establishes a new, streamlined railroad’s PTCSP and/or the underlying explains both that its members are process for RFAs associated with FRA- FRA-certified PTC system are the ‘‘small organizations with limited staff, approved PTCSPs and FRA-certified specific changes identified under funding, and resources,’’ and that PTC systems under new paragraphs (l) existing paragraphs (h)(3) and (4)—i.e., railroads operating ACSES II/ASES II, and (m). In addition to removing a proposed modification of a safety- E–ATC, or non-vital, overlay I–ETMS references to PTCSPs from existing critical element of a PTC system or a systems may not benefit from this paragraphs (a), (c), and (d), this final proposed modification of a PTC system provision to the same extent. that affects the safety-critical rule removes paragraph (d)(7) in its In the NPRM, FRA acknowledged that functionality of any other PTC system entirety, and incorporates the general while new paragraph (l) provides the with which it interoperates. principle of paragraph (d)(7) into a new same flexibility for all host railroads FRA previously advised railroads proposed paragraph, (m)(2)(i), as operating all types of PTC systems, about the scope of these terms, discussed below. some groups of railroads might be better including common examples, during In this final rule, under new positioned to begin filing joint RFAs FRA’s PTC Collaboration Sessions and paragraph (l), FRA permits host immediately. Though this final rule in FRA’s individual letters to railroads railroads utilizing the same type of PTC generally authorizes host railroads, approving their PTCSPs and certifying system to submit joint RFAs to their utilizing the same type of PTC system, their PTC systems. FRA remains PTCSPs and PTCDPs, as those are to file RFAs to their PTCSPs jointly, available to answer questions about system-based documents, albeit with FRA expects this aspect of the final rule, whether a specific type of change might 27 trigger the requirement to file an RFA That is, proposed modifications to safety- 29 The current set of PTC-mandated host railroads critical elements of PTC systems or proposed under existing § 236.1021(h). However, have fully implemented five types of PTC systems, modifications to a PTC system that affect the safety- though FRA acknowledges that, in several cases, as this final rule does not revise the list critical functionality of any other PTC system with railroads implemented PTC systems of the same of qualifying changes under existing which it interoperates. type in different manners (e.g., variances in design, § 236.1021(h)(1)–(4) or the exceptions 28 For additional detail and background, please functionality, and operation). This has required, currently set forth under § 236.1021(i)– see the NPRM and Sections I (Executive Summary) and will continue to require, railroads to conduct and III–A (Establishing a New Process for Modifying additional testing and gap analyses to achieve and (k), FRA will handle such inquiries on FRA-certified PTC Systems and the Associated sustain interoperability, including configuration a case-by-case basis and not in this rule. PTCSPs) of this final rule. management.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR1.SGM 27JYR1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 40160 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

in the short term, primarily to impact differently based on whether FRA has public, redacted version, if applicable) host railroads implementing I–ETMS certified the PTC system as a non-vital, and FRA’s final decision letter in the and E–ATC because each respective I– overlay system; a vital, overlay system; respective railroad’s PTC docket on ETMS and E–ATC system is similar to a standalone system; or a mixed system. http://www.regulations.gov.31 FRA did others of the same type, with a baseline Furthermore, with respect to joint not receive any comments on the functionality.30 Conversely, there is not RFAs, new paragraph (l) specifies that, introductory text in new paragraph a uniform standard or specification though most types of information (m)(2), as proposed, and thus, FRA is currently underlying the ACSES II or required under new paragraph (m)(2) adopting that introductory text without ASES II PTC systems that host railroads may be submitted jointly in the RFA, a change. have implemented on the NEC. In joint RFA must include the written In new paragraphs (m)(2)(i) through addition, there is an array of ACSES II confirmation and statement specified (v), FRA outlines the specific content suppliers, including for the onboard, under new paragraphs (m)(2)(iii) and requirements for an RFA to an FRA- wayside, and communications (iv), as described below, from each host certified PTC system and the associated subsystems. In the future, however, as railroad that is a signatory to the joint PTCSP. The requirements focus on the the ACSES II railroads finish RFA. core information and analysis FRA establishing the Interoperable Change In this final rule, FRA outlines, in needs to review to ensure the PTC Management Plan they are currently new paragraph (m), the mandatory, system, including any proposed developing and finalizing, it is possible three-step process a host railroad must changes, will provide an equivalent or that at least some of the host railroads follow to make changes to its FRA- greater level of safety than the existing utilizing ACSES II or ASES II will elect certified PTC system and the associated PTC system. Importantly, new to submit joint RFAs to their respective FRA-approved PTCSP. FRA intends the paragraph (m)(2)(i) requires the RFA to PTCSPs for certain system-wide process under paragraph (m) to apply to include a summary of the proposed changes, consistent with the option all changes necessitating an RFA under changes to any safety-critical elements under new paragraphs (l) and (m) of existing paragraphs (h)(3) and (4) of this of a PTC system, including: (1) A § 236.1021. section—i.e., proposed changes to summary of how the changes to the PTC In short, FRA welcomes joint RFAs safety-critical elements of PTC systems system would affect its safety-critical from any group of host railroads and proposed changes to a PTC system functionality; (2) how any new hazards utilizing the same type of PTC system that affect the safety-critical have been addressed and mitigated; (3) with the same certification functionality of any other PTC system whether each change is a planned classification, as new paragraph (l) with which it interoperates. For brevity, change that was previously included in states. FRA remains available to provide FRA will refer to these changes as all required analysis under § 236.1015, technical assistance to any railroads that changes to safety-critical elements of or an unplanned change; and (4) the have questions about this provision and PTC systems, as that is sufficiently reason for the proposed changes, how to utilize the flexibility therein. broad for purposes of paragraph (m). including whether the changes are New paragraph (m)(1) requires a host Here is an example to help explain necessary to address or resolve an railroad to revise its PTCSP to account the practical effect of new paragraph (l). emergency or urgent issue. for each proposed change to its PTC When an RFA is necessary under Regarding paragraph (m)(2)(i), APTA system, and summarize such changes in § 236.1021 to account for certain recommends that FRA remove the last a chronological table of revisions at the proposed changes to railroads’ I–ETMS part of the summary section of the beginning of its PTCSP. FRA retains its PTCSPs, or I–ETMS itself, FRA expects RFA—i.e., ‘‘including whether the authority to request a copy of a host a joint RFA from the set of host railroads changes are necessary to address or railroad’s governing PTCSP in whose I–ETMS is certified as a non- resolve an emergency or urgent issue.’’ accordance with 49 CFR 236.1009(h), vital, overlay PTC system under FRA does not agree that this clause § 236.1015(e)(1), and a joint RFA from FRA access, and 49 CFR 236.1037, Records retention. FRA did not receive should be removed, as that type of the set of host railroads whose I–ETMS statement will provide valuable is certified as a mixed PTC system any comments on new paragraph (m)(1), as proposed, and thus, FRA is adopting information to FRA. For example, such under § 236.1015(e)(4). Two distinct information will help FRA understand RFAs are necessary under these that paragraph without change. The introductory text in new why a specific RFA should be circumstances, as the impact of the prioritized and expedited under the proposed change(s) must be analyzed in paragraph (m)(2) specifically requires a host railroad to file an RFA pursuant to circumstances. the context of the underlying safety Furthermore, for context, FRA’s analysis in the FRA-approved PTCSPs— paragraph (m) electronically, which could include electronic filing on FRA’s existing paragraphs (d)(7)(i) through (v) a safety analysis that is structured Secure Information Repository (https:// of § 236.1021 explain the distinction sir.fra.dot.gov), where railroads between an unplanned change and a 30 Also, with respect to I–ETMS and similar planned change and impose certain systems, FRA acknowledges that in January 2021, currently file other PTC-related FRA’s Railroad Safety Board approved AAR and documents, or any other location FRA additional requirements, including ASLRRA’s joint petition, dated August 14, 2020, for designates. If a host railroad wishes to conducting suitable regression testing to a temporary waiver of compliance from 49 CFR seek confidential treatment of any part FRA’s satisfaction and filing a new 236.1021. Specifically, FRA’s approval of the PTCDP and PTCSP, under certain waiver petition authorizes certain railroads to of its RFA, the railroad must comply comply with an alternative RFA process, including with the existing process and circumstances. As noted above, this the filing of joint RFAs, for PTCSP purposes. requirements under 49 CFR 209.11, final rule removes paragraph (d)(7) in its However, as requested, the waiver applies only to Request for confidential treatment. That entirety and instead requires a host host railroads that operate an Interoperable Train railroad to identify in its RFA under Control PTC system that FRA has certified, or process includes marking the document certifies, as a mixed PTC system under 49 CFR properly with the necessary labels and paragraph (m)(2)(i) only whether the 236.1015(e)(4). FRA’s approval letter states the redactions, and providing a statement waiver is in effect for five years or until FRA issues 31 Railroads’ applicable PTC docket numbers are this final rule, whichever occurs first. For a copy justifying nondisclosure and referring to available on FRA’s website at https:// of the waiver petition, or FRA’s approval letter, the specific legal authority claimed. railroads.dot.gov/train-control/ptc/ptc-annual-and- please see public Docket No. FRA–2020–0068. FRA will post a host railroad’s RFA (the quarterly-reports.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR1.SGM 27JYR1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 40161

change is a planned change or an ASLRRA recommend the following: must be an employee of the railroad, not unplanned change. That basic ‘‘Instead of requiring hollow paperwork, a contractor. information will be valuable to include the railroads instead propose that RFA New paragraph (m)(2)(v) requires a in the abbreviated RFA under paragraph submissions identify a designated and host railroad to submit any other (m) because several railroads have knowledgeable railroad contact who information that FRA requests on a case- already accounted for long-term, will be responsible for responding to by-case basis, during FRA’s review of planned changes to their PTC systems FRA questions or requests for additional the RFA. This approach is generally and proactively integrated those information, if any, and who will be consistent with the existing provision assumptions into the corresponding able to do so quickly, completely, and under 49 CFR 236.1015(f), which analyses in their PTCSPs. authoritatively.’’ AAR and ASLRRA’s provides that in any case where a As FRA noted in the NPRM, planned recommendation is based on several PTCSP, or an RFA in this scenario, changes ‘‘are those that the system assertions, including that a verification ‘‘lacks adequate data regarding [the] developer and the railroad have statement from a railroad’s Chief safety impacts of the proposed changes, included in the safety analysis Engineer and COO was not required for the Associate Administrator may associated with the PTC system, but railroad’s initial PTCIP, PTCDP, or request the necessary data from the have not yet implemented.’’ In its PTCSP, and it is unnecessary for RFAs, applicant.’’ comments, APTA asks FRA to confirm which are relatively less complex. In AAR and ASLRRA comment that this that unplanned changes are, therefore, addition, AAR and ASLRRA assert that provision is unnecessary because any changes not already documented in a railroad’s Chief Engineer and COO are existing § 236.1021(d) already specifies a railroad’s PTCSP. FRA confirms that likely not PTC subject matter experts, that FRA can request information APTA’s interpretation is correct. As and the highly technical changes necessary to evaluate an RFA in FRA received only the two above described in an RFA would not be appropriate circumstances. However, comments on new paragraph (m)(2)(i), within their purview. Accordingly, a AAR and ASLRRA’s comment fails to this final rule adopts that paragraph as Chief Engineer and COO would be recognize that going forward, under this proposed. relying on the representations of their final rule, existing § 236.1021(d) will New paragraph (m)(2)(ii) requires the staff about the safety impact of the apply only to RFAs to PTCIPs and RFA to include a copy of any associated amendments proposed in the RFA, so PTCDPs, not RFAs to PTCSPs or PTC software release notes, which is critical the proposed statement would not serve systems. FRA explains above that this for FRA to review and evaluate before a useful purpose. final rule removes any references to one or more railroads deploy the In response to AAR and ASLRRA’s RFAs to PTCSPs or PTC systems from upgraded software. A copy of the release existing paragraph (d), so existing notes is integral in conveying the actual recommendation, FRA is modifying new paragraph (m)(2)(iv) in the final rule. As paragraph (d) is no longer applicable to changes to the PTC system, including a host railroad’s RFA to its PTCSP.33 any corrections, enhancements, or new FRA proposed in the NPRM, this final rule will still require an RFA to include Under this final rule, new paragraphs (l) features or functionality. FRA did not and (m) will govern in this context, as receive any comments on new a statement from the respective host railroad that the modified PTC system they establish the process, including paragraph (m)(2)(ii), as proposed, and content requirements, for RFAs thus, FRA is adopting that paragraph (if the proposed changes were implemented) would meet all technical associated with FRA-approved PTCSPs without change. and FRA-certified PTC systems. New paragraph (m)(2)(iii) requires the requirements under 49 CFR part 236, Also, AAR and ASLRRA comment RFA to contain a confirmation that the subpart I, provide an equivalent or that this provision (paragraph (m)(2)(v)) host railroad has notified any applicable greater level of safety than the existing is overbroad and creates the possibility tenant railroads of the proposed PTC system, and not adversely impact of an open-ended process unlikely to be changes, any associated effect on the interoperability with any tenant completed within FRA’s 45-day tenant railroads’ operations, and any railroads. This is consistent with decision timeline. As FRA noted in the actions the tenant railroads must take in existing regulatory provisions that NPRM, if FRA were to require a host accordance with the configuration require PTC systems to achieve and railroad, or a set of host railroads, to control measures set forth in the host maintain a level of safety, for each provide additional information in railroad’s PTCSP. FRA did not receive system modification, that is equal to or support of the RFA, FRA’s request will any comments on new paragraph greater than the level of safety provided identify a deadline by which to submit (m)(2)(iii), as proposed, and thus, FRA by the previous PTC system.32 However, the information, and FRA intends to is adopting that paragraph without based on comments received, FRA is send any such request via email to change. eliminating all references to a host ensure an efficient process. If the reason In the NPRM, FRA proposed that railroad’s Chief Engineer and COO (or for FRA’s request is to have additional paragraph (m)(2)(iv) would require the executive officers of similar documentation on file for future RFA to include a statement from the qualifications) and instead specifying reference, but that documentation will host railroad’s Chief Engineer and Chief that this statement must be from a Operating Officer (COO), or executive qualified representative of the host 33 AAR and ASLRRA’s comments also assert that officers of similar qualifications, railroad. FRA expects this this type of catch-all provision renders FRA’s verifying that the PTC system, once representative to be a management-level burden estimates speculative. However, FRA’s modified, would meet all technical person with technical oversight of the burden estimates are based on the full set of requirements under 49 CFR part 236, railroad’s PTC division. To AAR and information that paragraph (m) requires RFAs to PTCSPs to contain, including any responses to subpart I, provide an equivalent or ASLRRA’s point, that representative FRA’s possible requests for additional information greater level of safety than the existing will be the first person whom FRA on a case-by-case basis, as appropriate or necessary. PTC system, and not adversely impact contacts with any questions. Also, to be As AAR and ASLRRA’s comments acknowledge, interoperability with any tenant clear, the host railroad’s representative this type of provision exists in current 49 CFR 236.1021(d), as well as other provisions not railroads. referenced, including 236.1015(f). FRA’s requests In their joint comments regarding 32 See, e.g., 49 CFR 236.1001(a), 236.1015(d)(11), for additional information in those contexts have proposed paragraph (m)(2)(iv), AAR and 236.1015(e)(1)(iii), and 236.1015(g). been infrequent.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR1.SGM 27JYR1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 40162 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

not be essential to FRA’s decision decision—i.e., an approval, conditional review-and-decision period of 45 days is regarding the pending RFA, the approval, or denial of the RFA—within significantly faster than FRA’s current deadline FRA specifies might be after 45 days of the date on which the process, and this expedited timeline is the 45-day decision timeline. In this complete RFA was filed under based on FRA’s interest in facilitating case, the applicable host railroads will paragraph (m)(2). FRA’s decision will be the industry’s continual improvements receive FRA’s decision (by the 45th day) in the form of a letter from the Director to the reliability and operability of PTC and submit the additional information of FRA’s Office of Railroad Systems and technology. A period of 14 days, as FRA requested by a specific deadline Technology. As noted above, FRA will APTA suggests, would not provide thereafter. post each final decision letter in the sufficient time for FRA to review and Alternatively, if under the respective railroad’s PTC docket on evaluate an RFA (including a joint RFA circumstances, FRA expects the http://www.regulations.gov. FRA, impacting several railroads) and issue a additional information it requests will however, may send interim decision letter. Accordingly, FRA’s final be integral to FRA’s decision regarding correspondence—including any notices rule adopts new paragraph (m)(3)(i), as the pending RFA, FRA will specify that requiring a railroad to provide proposed in the NPRM, without change. the additional information must be additional information under new New paragraph (m)(3)(ii) explicitly submitted by, for example, the 20th day paragraph (m)(2)(v)—via email, which acknowledges that FRA reserves the after the initial RFA filing. In this case, will help ensure that process is efficient. right to notify a railroad that it may FRA will be required nonetheless to FRA received multiple comments on proceed with making its proposed issue its decision within 45 days of the new paragraph (m)(3)(i). In its changes prior to the 45-day mark, initial RFA filing, consistent with new comments, APTA recommends that FRA including in an emergency or under any paragraph (m)(3) below. FRA has reduce the review-and-decision timeline other circumstances necessitating a considered AAR and ASLRRA’s from the proposed 45 days to, at most, railroad’s immediate implementation of concerns about new paragraph (m)(2)(v), 14 days. APTA’s recommendation is the proposed changes to its PTC system. and FRA wants to clarify that this based on its assertion that the industry FRA did not receive any comments on provision will not affect the 45-day has implemented at least four to five new paragraph (m)(3)(ii), as proposed, deadline by which FRA must issue its PTC onboard software releases, for I– and thus, FRA is adopting that decision, as new paragraph (m)(3) ETMS alone, over the last two years, paragraph without change. provides. and a 45-day review-and-decision New paragraph (m)(3)(iii) specifies The clock begins when a host period will constrain the industry’s that FRA may require a railroad to railroad, or a group of host railroads, ability to continue at its current pace. modify its RFA and/or its PTC system, properly files an RFA with all required AAR and ASLRRA’s comments express but only to the extent necessary to information pursuant to new paragraphs concern that FRA may not be able to ensure safety or compliance with the (m)(2)(i) through (iv) (i.e., all content issue a decision within 45 days, and requirements under FRA’s PTC requirements for an RFA, expect they recommend adding a provision regulations. FRA did not receive any (m)(2)(v) which refers to any case-by- wherein FRA may issue a summary comments on new paragraph (m)(3)(iii), case requests for additional approval of an RFA, with a more as proposed, and thus, FRA is adopting information). To be clear, if an RFA fails detailed rationale in a subsequent that paragraph without change. to include any of the contents explicitly written decision. Like APTA’s If FRA denies an RFA under required for all RFAs to PTCSPs under comments, AAR and ASLRRA’s paragraph (m), new paragraph (m)(3)(iv) new paragraphs (m)(2)(i) through (iv), comments underscore the importance of specifies that each applicable railroad the 45-day clock will not begin on that host railroads receiving a timely will be prohibited from making the initial filing date. Instead, the 45-day decision so that safety improvements proposed changes to its PTC system clock will begin on the date the railroad are not unnecessarily delayed. until the railroad both sufficiently or railroads properly submit any FRA appreciates these comments, but addresses FRA’s questions, comments, remaining information required under FRA declines to incorporate these and concerns and obtains FRA’s new paragraphs (m)(2)(i) through (iv). specific recommendations into the final approval. Consistent with new FRA expects this will incentivize a rule for the following reasons. Regarding paragraph (l) of this section, any host railroad to submit a complete RFA, with AAR and ASLRRA’s proposal, FRA railroads utilizing the same type of PTC all contents required under paragraphs expects that a provision allowing the system, including the same certification (m)(2)(i) through (iv), in its initial filing. agency to issue multiple decision classification under paragraph (e) of New paragraph (m)(3) outlines a letters, a brief decision letter and a § 236.1015, may submit information definite, predictable timeline associated complete decision letter (typically only jointly to address FRA’s questions, with FRA’s review of an RFA to a host two pages), could complicate the comments, and concerns following any railroad’s PTCSP or FRA-certified PTC process and make it less efficient. denial of an RFA under this section. system under paragraph (m). As the industry is aware, FRA’s FRA did not receive any comments on Specifically, paragraph (m)(3) prohibits regulations do not currently specify a new paragraph (m)(3)(iv), as proposed, a host railroad from making any timeline for FRA to review and approve and thus, FRA is adopting that changes, as defined under 49 CFR or deny railroads’ RFAs to their PTCSPs. paragraph without change. 236.1021(h)(3) or (4),34 to its PTC In practice, as of May 2021, it has taken FRA expects the improved process system until the Director of FRA’s Office FRA 178 days, on average, to review and established in new § 236.1021(l) and (m) of Railroad Systems and Technology approve recent RFAs to PTCSPs for of this final rule will ensure FRA’s approves the RFA. In this final rule, FRA-certified PTC systems. One of review and decision timeline, regarding new paragraph (m)(3)(i) specifies that FRA’s main objectives in modifying railroads’ proposed changes to their FRA will review an RFA and issue a § 236.1021 in this final rule is to FRA-approved PTCSPs and FRA- establish a streamlined RFA process certified PTC systems, is predictable 34 That is, proposed changes to safety-critical with a finite decision timeline to enable and consistent. FRA’s improved process elements of PTC systems or proposed changes to a railroads to plan and schedule any will also enable the industry to deploy PTC system that affect the safety-critical functionality of any other PTC system with which material modifications, including upgrades and make technological it interoperates. upgrades, to their PTC systems. An FRA advancements more efficiently.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR1.SGM 27JYR1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 40163

Section 236.1029 PTC System Use and mandate in the future and any host Relatedly, FRA received one comment Failures railroads that voluntarily implement a from an individual inquiring what FRA 36 Currently, paragraph (h) of this PTC system under subpart I. For plans to do with the information section requires railroads to report clarification and simplicity, FRA is railroads submit in their new biannual annually to FRA the number of PTC removing the phrase ‘‘following the date reports. The commenter states that, from system failures that occurred during the of required PTC system implementation his perspective, there is very little point previous calendar year. This final rule established by section 20157 of title 49 in requiring railroads to submit such revises this existing paragraph to clarify of the United States Code’’ from existing reports without FRA making a and expand the reporting requirement paragraph (h) because that phrase is coincident commitment to producing and require host railroads to submit the unnecessary now that the final statutory high-level summaries of the reports, information in a Biannual Report of PTC deadline of December 31, 2020, has analyses of trends, and System Performance (Form FRA F passed. recommendations based on that 6180.152). FRA’s Excel-based 35 Form In addition, new paragraph (h)(1) analysis. He further notes that FRA F 6180.152 was placed in the requires a host railroad to file its compelling those interested in these docket for this rulemaking (Docket No. Biannual Report of PTC System reports to seek information through FRA–2019–0075) for reference and Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152) Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) review on December 18, 2020, when electronically, which includes petitions defeats the entire purpose of a FRA published the NPRM. electronic filing on FRA’s Secure public agency requiring such reporting, FRA received two comments on Information Repository (https:// in his view. FRA’s proposal to increase the sir.fra.dot.gov), where railroads file In response to the general inquiry in frequency of this reporting requirement other PTC-related documents, or this individual’s comment, FRA intends from annual to biannual. First, an another designated location. To the to use host railroads’ Biannual Reports individual commented that FRA should extent a railroad seeks confidential of PTC System Performance to evaluate, increase the frequency of this important treatment of any part of its Biannual for example, the rate at which PTC reporting requirement to quarterly, as Report of PTC System Performance systems are experiencing failures, that frequency will help FRA more (Form FRA F 6180.152), the railroad including initialization failures, cut effectively determine if the reliability of must comply with the existing process outs, and malfunctions, and trends in PTC systems is trending upward or and requirements under 49 CFR 209.11, system reliability over time. In addition, downward. Second, in its comments, including proper labeling and redacting these reports will help FRA prioritize its APTA recommends keeping and providing a statement justifying resources, including helping inform § 236.1029(h) as an annual reporting nondisclosure and referring to the decisions about which railroads may requirement, noting that increasing the specific legal authority claimed. FRA’s benefit from additional technical frequency to biannual may require each new Form FRA F 6180.152 contains assistance from FRA’s PTC specialists. As a part of FRA’s ongoing PTC railroad to use additional resources to fields for a host railroad to identify its oversight, the agency will evaluate the review and compile data on a more request for partial or full confidentiality best way to continue its transparent regular basis. and provide the required statement reporting on PTC progress and FRA is adopting the biannual under § 209.11(c), if applicable. reporting frequency it proposed in the challenges. Also, under this final rule, paragraph Consistent with existing paragraph NPRM because that frequency balances (h)(1) requires a host railroad to include FRA’s need to oversee the reliability and (h), new paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through in its Biannual Report of PTC System (iii) require a host railroad’s biannual performance of PTC systems actively Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152) the throughout the year, with commuter report to include the number of PTC- metrics itemized under paragraphs related failures that occurred during the railroads’ stated preference for less (h)(1)(i) through (vii) for the host frequent reporting. With respect to applicable reporting period, in addition railroad, each of its applicable tenant to a numerical breakdown of the APTA’s comment that increasing the railroads (as explained in new reporting frequency from annual to ‘‘failures by category, including but not paragraph (h)(4)), and each of its PTC- limited to locomotive, wayside, biannual will require railroads to governed track segments. In this compile performance-related data more communications, and back office system paragraph, FRA acknowledges that a 37 regularly, FRA accounts for that burden failures.’’ In new paragraphs (h)(1)(i) host railroad’s PTCIP may identify or through (iii), however, FRA in its economic analysis in Section V designate its specific track segments as (Regulatory Impact and Notices) of this acknowledges that the source or cause territories, subdivisions, districts, main of a PTC system failure might not final rule. However, FRA also lines, branches, or corridors, based on a understands that even under existing necessarily involve, in every instance, railroad’s own naming conventions. the PTC system itself, so this final rule paragraph (h) (with an annual reporting FRA expects that requiring this deadline), host railroads regularly includes an additional category for relatively high-level geographical railroads to select in the applicable compile this data, not simply before the information (i.e., by track segment, not annual deadline, to evaluate their PTC drop-down menu in Form FRA F by milepost location) will still enable 6180.152—i.e., ‘‘a non-PTC systems’ failure rates throughout the FRA to monitor trends in PTC system year. component.’’ reliability throughout the country and Another difference between the New paragraph (h)(1) specifies this focus its resources, for example, on any reporting requirement applies to each existing paragraph (h) and FRA’s new areas where PTC system failures are paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through (iii) is that host railroad subject to 49 U.S.C. 20157 occurring at a high rate. or 49 CFR part 236, subpart I, which the final rule utilizes the statutory also includes any new host railroads terminology under 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4) 36 that become subject to the statutory See, e.g., 49 CFR 236.1011(d) (stating that a as referenced above—initialization ‘‘railroad that elects to install a PTC system when failures, cut outs, and malfunctions— not required to do so may elect to proceed under 35 Excel is a registered trademark of Microsoft this subpart [subpart I] or under subpart H of this which are now defined under paragraph Corporation. All third-party trademarks belong to part,’’ including the associated filing and reporting their respective owners. requirements). 37 Quoting existing 49 CFR 236.1029(h).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR1.SGM 27JYR1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 40164 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

(b) of § 236.1003. FRA is aware that determine whether to classify them as FRA maintains that the second metric railroads track their PTC system failures intended. FRA concurs with AAR and referenced in paragraph (h)(1)(iv) of the in this manner (by type of failure), given ASLRRA’s analysis and, in this final NPRM—i.e., the number of instances in the existing temporary reporting rule, under new paragraph (h)(1)(iv), which the PTC system prevented an requirement under 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4) FRA adopts AAR and ASLRRA’s joint accident or incident—is necessary to and FRA’s associated mandatory form, recommendation to require host enable FRA to evaluate and quantify the Statutory Notification of PTC railroads to identify the total number of PTC technology’s positive impact on rail System Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177, all enforcements by the PTC system safety. This second metric is a subset of OMB Control No. 2130–0553). FRA did during the applicable reporting period, the first metric (the total number of not receive any comments on new whether the enforcements were enforcements by the PTC system). FRA paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through (iii), as intended or not. understands that a PTC system taking proposed, and this final rule adopts FRA interprets the term enforcement action does not necessarily these proposed paragraphs from the ‘‘enforcement’’ in new paragraph mean that, in every case, an accident or NPRM, without change. (h)(1)(iv) consistently with how the term incident was prevented, for several In the NPRM, FRA also proposed to ‘‘enforce’’ is applied in FRA’s existing reasons. First, there may be cases when expand the existing reporting PTC regulations, which include a PTC system unnecessarily initiates a requirement under paragraph (h) to references to, among other things, how brake application (an unintended encompass certain positive, a PTC system shall enforce speeds, enforcement), meaning the system, for performance-related information, as movement authorities, and signal some reason, took enforcement action otherwise the information FRA receives indications. See, e.g., 49 CFR 236.1005, when it was not warranted. Second, would be about PTC system failures 236.1013, 236.1015, and 236.1047(a)(3). there may be cases when a PTC system only. Specifically, FRA proposed that FRA expects that new paragraph properly takes enforcement action, but new paragraph (h)(1)(iv) would require (h)(1)(iv)—focusing on enforcements by an accident or incident would not have a host railroad to identify the number of a PTC system in general—will provide occurred even if the PTC system did not intended enforcements by the PTC valuable performance-related data, take enforcement action. For example, a system and any other instances in while avoiding the issues APTA, AAR, PTC system might take enforcement which the PTC system prevented an and ASLRRA raise regarding the action properly to prevent a train from accident or incident on the host NPRM’s more subjective, resource- passing a red signal, but in this railroad’s PTC-governed main lines, intensive proposal to report only hypothetical, there was no chance of a during the applicable reporting period. train-to-train collision under the intended enforcements. FRA received extensive comments on specific circumstances because the main this proposal, including from AAR, Furthermore, based on comments line’s train schedule was such that only ASLRRA, APTA, Amtrak, and NJT. FRA from AAR, ASLRRA, and APTA, FRA one train operates in that area each day. addresses the general comments about recognizes that its initial proposal for Although the PTC system properly took paragraph (h)(1)(iv) immediately below. paragraph (h)(1)(iv) also created enforcement action, that specific FRA responds to the related ACSES II- confusion. In the NPRM, FRA proposed enforcement by the PTC system did not specific comments later in this section that paragraph (h)(1)(iv) would require a actually prevent an accident or incident, when discussing new paragraph (h)(5). host railroad to identify the number of as an accident or incident would not AAR, ASLRRA, and APTA each intended enforcements by the PTC have necessarily occurred otherwise. comment that the proposed metric, system and any other instances in For clarity about these two data ‘‘intended enforcements,’’ is a subjective which the PTC system prevented an points, this final rule recategorizes this and unreliable data point. They note accident or incident on the host second metric (the subset of that enforcements by a PTC system, railroad’s PTC-governed main lines, enforcements that prevented an accident whether intended or not, indicate the during the applicable reporting period. or incident) as a separate content system is working. Both APTA and Several comments demonstrate that requirement, under new paragraph Amtrak recommend removing this some people interpreted that proposed (h)(1)(v). Specifically, new paragraph metric from the final rule in its entirety. content requirement as referring to one (h)(1)(v) requires a railroad to identify FRA declines APTA’s and Amtrak’s connected data point, but it was the number of enforcements by the PTC recommendation to eliminate this proposing two separate data points, system in which an accident or incident metric because if FRA were to do so, distinguished by the word ‘‘and.’’ was prevented, as discussed further host railroads’ Biannual Reports of PTC Specifically, under proposed below. Such a data point will help System Performance (Form FRA F paragraph (h)(1)(iv), the NPRM demonstrate the extent to which PTC 6180.152) would not include any proposed to require railroads to identify: systems are performing as designed and positive data about their PTC systems’ (1) The number of intended improving safety, by highlighting performance. enforcements by the PTC system concrete instances in which AAR and ASLRRA, on the other hand, (discussed above); and (2) any other enforcement by the PTC system actually recommend that FRA refine the metric instances in which the PTC system prevented a train-to-train collision, to be more objective by removing the prevented an accident or incident on a over-speed derailment, incursion into adjective ‘‘intended’’ and retaining the host railroad’s PTC-governed main an established work zone, or movement term ‘‘enforcements.’’ AAR and lines. Highlighting the confusion about of a train through a switch left in the ASLRRA explain that this metric is far these two separate elements, several wrong position. less subjective and will result in a more comments from AAR, ASLRRA, and In their comments, AAR, ASLRRA, easily normalized metric to compare to APTA assert that it is often impossible and APTA raise concerns that this railroads’ other data. They further to determine if an intended PTC metric relies on speculation and observe that this metric—i.e., enforcement definitively prevented an subjective assessments. For example, in enforcements in general—would avoid accident or not.38 their comments, they assert that a PTC cost and resource burdens, which railroads would bear if they needed to 38 In the preceding paragraphs, FRA explains why new paragraph (h)(1)(iv), based on AAR and analyze individual enforcements to this final rule eliminates the word ‘‘intended’’ from ASLRRA’s joint comments and APTA’s comments.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR1.SGM 27JYR1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 40165

system might have prevented only a (Form FRA F 6180.152) to include proposed to require a host railroad to close call,39 or in the absence of a PTC certain contextual data to help FRA identify the number of trains governed system, a train crew might have taken understand how the occurrences of PTC by the PTC system during the applicable subsequent action that would have system initialization failures, cut outs, reporting period, in its biannual report. prevented the accident. In response to and malfunctions compare to all FRA is eliminating this proposed these comments, FRA wishes to clarify operations on that host railroad’s PTC- content requirement in this final rule the purpose and scope of new paragraph governed main lines.40 Paragraphs based on comments from AAR and (h)(1)(v). This metric focuses on only (h)(1)(vi) and (vii) generally encompass ASLRRA explaining that this proposal specific, undisputed instances in which the same types of denominators would not result in objective data. AAR a PTC system actually prevented an currently set forth in the Statutory and ASLRRA note that different accident or incident, as defined under Notification of PTC System Failures railroads use different metrics to 49 CFR 225.5. In other words, host (Form FRA F 6180.177) with one identify and define ‘‘trains’’ (e.g., crew railroads should report, under notable difference. Unlike Form FRA F starts, brake tests, the addition or paragraph (h)(1)(v), only the subset of 6180.177, this final rule requires the subtraction of portions of a train, PTC system enforcements where an same two data points, under new interchanges between railroads with re- accident or incident would have paragraphs (h)(1)(vi) and (vii), from a crews, etc.). Their comments further occurred under the exact circumstances, host railroad and its applicable tenant explain that the number of trains but for the intervention of the PTC railroads. In practice, FRA has found involved in a geographic movement may system. For example, host railroads that host railroads providing certain vary considerably by railroad, creating should count the following types of denominators for tenant railroads and the potential for inconsistency and data scenarios: A PTC system prevented a other denominators for the host railroad that cannot be compared reliably. FRA train from traveling into a siding and itself makes it difficult for FRA to concurs with these comments and, colliding with a train occupying the evaluate the rate at which failures are therefore, FRA’s final rule does not siding, or a PTC system prevented a occurring system-wide. FRA expects adopt that proposed content train from moving past a red signal, that requiring uniform figures will help requirement from the NPRM.42 where another train was occupying the the agency derive more accurate, New paragraph (h)(1)(vii), as track. These are only two examples of objective, and comparable statistics. proposed in the NPRM, requires a host instances where a foreseeable accident Furthermore, FRA understands that host railroad to provide the number of train or incident would have occurred, but for railroads collect the type of data under miles governed by the PTC system the PTC system’s intervention. These paragraphs (h)(1)(vi) and (vii) for their during the applicable reporting period, examples are not intended to be own operations and their tenant in its biannual report. In their exhaustive, but rather to convey that railroads’ operations because several comments, AAR and ASLRRA express paragraph (h)(1)(v) is focused on host railroads have provided those support for this metric, noting that it is undisputed scenarios where an accident additional data points in their Statutory not subject to variation across railroads, or incident would have otherwise Notifications of PTC System Failures and there is little potential for occurred under the exact circumstances, (Form FRA F 6180.177) to date. inconsistency. From AAR and as opposed to scenarios where there was Specifically, new paragraph (h)(1)(vi) ASLRRA’s perspective, the metric of only a chance of an accident or incident requires a host railroad’s Biannual PTC train miles provides the clearest occurring if the facts or circumstances Report of PTC System Performance and most easily understood method for were changed or exacerbated. (Form FRA F 6180.152) to include the statistical normalization when The types of statistics this final rule number of scheduled attempts at calculating PTC system reliability. As requires railroads to provide, under new initialization of the PTC system during this is the only comment FRA received paragraphs (h)(1)(iv) and (v), will help the applicable reporting period, which regarding paragraph (h)(1)(vii) and FRA demonstrate the extent to which PTC will help FRA calculate the actual rate concurs with AAR and ASLRRA’s systems are meeting their desired of that railroad’s PTC system 41 analysis, FRA’s final rule adopts that objectives. initialization failures. FRA did not new paragraph as proposed in the In new paragraphs (h)(1)(vi) and (vii), receive any comments on this NPRM. FRA requires a host railroad’s Biannual paragraph, and this final rule adopts Finally, with respect to paragraph Report of PTC System Performance this paragraph, as proposed in the (h)(1) in general, an individual NPRM, without change. commented that FRA should require 39 In the NPRM, under formerly FRA expects that APTA, AAR, and ASLRRA’s railroads to submit the following use of the phrase ‘‘only close calls’’ refers to close proposed paragraph (h)(1)(vi), FRA also calls in general, where an accident or incident did additional data in their Biannual Reports of PTC System Performance not occur but might have under different 40 FRA’s Biannual Report of PTC System circumstances. The industry might also be referring Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152) includes fields (Form FRA F 6180.152): ‘‘Any reports to the types of close calls that can be reported under for host railroads to provide the raw denominators from hardware or software suppliers or the Confidential Close Call Reporting System set forth under paragraphs (h)(1)(vi) through (vii), vendors under § 263.1023(b) about (C3RS). Under C3RS, a close call is ‘‘any condition and FRA will calculate the rate of failures, utilizing or event that may have the potential for more those raw denominators. FRA has found that serious safety consequences. Some examples of providing fields for railroads to enter such raw 42 For clarity, FRA notes that the citation of this close calls could be, but not limited to, a train denominators, instead of percentages or rates, helps proposed paragraph in the NPRM was (h)(1)(vi). missing a temporary speed restriction, a train FRA accurately interpret railroads’ data, especially New paragraph (h)(1)(vi) in this final rule concerns striking a derail without derailing, a blue flag not when comparing multiple railroads’ data or a single the number of scheduled attempts at initialization removed after releasing equipment, or proper track railroad’s data to its own prior reports. of the PTC system, which was proposed paragraph protection not provided during track maintenance.’’ 41 As a note, in the NPRM, FRA categorized this (h)(1)(v) in the NPRM. Given FRA’s decision to The National Aeronautics and Space content requirement under proposed paragraph separate the two elements of proposed paragraph Administration, C3RS Frequently Asked Questions (h)(1)(v). In this final rule, FRA categorizes this (h)(1)(iv) in the NPRM (into (h)(1)(iv) and (v) in the (2015), available at https://c3rs.arc.nasa.gov/docs/ content requirement (the number of scheduled final rule), paragraph (h)(1) in the final rule C3RS_FAQ.pdf. Based on this definition and the attempts at initialization of the PTC system) as new includes the same number of paragraphs (i.e., (i) to general meaning of the term, FRA expects that close paragraph (h)(1)(vi), as (h)(1)(v) sets forth the (vii)) as the NPRM, even though this final rule does calls encompass a broader universe of scenarios content requirement about the number of specific not adopt one of the proposed content requirements than the fact-specific scenarios under new instances in which a PTC system prevented an from the NPRM, based on AAR and ASLRRA’s paragraph § 236.1029(h)(1)(v). accident or incident. comments.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR1.SGM 27JYR1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 40166 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

software failures or reported requirement in the separate paragraph requirement. FRA did not receive any vulnerabilities.’’ FRA declines to adopt (h)(2), and FRA’s Excel-based Form FRA other comments about new paragraph this recommendation in the final rule F 6180.152 contains a field for railroads (h)(3) and the reporting deadline because FRA already receives such to enter this summary. therein, and this final rule adopts the reports on an ongoing basis. For In the NPRM, FRA outlined, under proposal in the NPRM without change. example, pursuant to § 236.1023(h), PTC proposed paragraph (h)(3), the dates by In the NPRM, FRA proposed that new system suppliers and vendors must which host railroads must submit their paragraph (h)(4) would explicitly notify FRA directly of any safety- Biannual Reports of PTC System require any applicable tenant railroads relevant failure, defective condition, or Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152) to that operate on a host railroad’s PTC- previously unidentified hazard FRA—i.e., by July 31 (covering the governed main line(s) to provide the discovered by the supplier or vendor period from January 1 to June 30), and necessary data to their applicable host and the identity of each affected and by January 31 (covering the period from railroads by a specific date before the notified railroad. Furthermore, pursuant July 1 to December 31 of the prior biannual filing deadlines—i.e., by July to the instructions under § 236.1023(f), calendar year). In its comments, APTA 15 (for the biannual report covering the suppliers, vendors, and railroads must notes that it is reasonable for FRA to period from January 1 to June 30) and submit such reports to FRA within 15 require submission of this data sooner by January 15 (for the biannual report days of discovering the reportable issue. than the current deadline. As a covering the period from July 1 to Therefore, FRA does not consider it reminder, the current annual filing December 31 of the prior calendar year). necessary for host railroads to identify deadline under existing paragraph (h) is such reports in their Biannual Reports April 16th. Under the existing In their comments, AAR and ASLRRA of PTC System Performance (Form FRA framework, FRA must wait until April explain that railroads have already F 6180.152), as FRA already receives 16th each year to receive railroads’ established an efficient process to those reports within 15 days, depending failure-related data from the prior collect tenant railroads’ data, and FRA on the circumstances, directly from calendar year—data which is quite should leave it to the host and tenant suppliers, vendors, and railroads, as outdated by the time it is filed. railroads to determine the most effective § 236.1023 requires. Though APTA agrees that requiring way to coordinate regarding tenant In the NPRM, FRA proposed that new earlier submission of the data is railroads’ PTC-related failures. AAR and paragraph (h)(2) would require a host reasonable, APTA asserts that filing the ASLRRA also remark that the deadlines railroad’s Biannual Report of PTC data about 30 days after the reporting specified in proposed paragraph (h)(4) System Performance (Form FRA F period ends might be insufficient to of the NPRM may not allow adequate 6180.152) to include a summary of any process and compile the data. APTA time for a host railroad to investigate a actions the host railroad and its tenant recommends that the reporting deadline tenant railroad’s failures and capture railroads are taking to improve the should be ‘‘within 45 days of the them in the host railroad’s Biannual performance and reliability of the PTC reporting period.’’ However, FRA Report of PTC System Performance system continually. In their comments, expects that providing railroads one full (Form FRA F 6180.152). They further AAR and ASLRRA state that month (from the end of the half-year note that, in practice, communications information regarding PTC system period) to complete Form FRA 6180.152 between host and tenant railroads may improvements is not related to biannual will be sufficient and reasonable, given need to occur much earlier and on a failure statistics, and any such summary railroads’ experience, since 2016, in continuous basis throughout a reporting should be optional. Based on AAR and submitting their Quarterly PTC Progress period. Accordingly, AAR and ASLRRA ASLRRA’s comment, FRA is rewording Reports (Form FRA F 6180.165) one recommend that FRA delete this the content requirement under new month after the end of the quarter. proposal in the final rule, arguing it is paragraph (h)(2) to clarify the scope and Furthermore, under the temporary unnecessary. purpose of this type of summary and its Statutory Notification of PTC System As background, FRA’s proposed relation to the biannual failure statistics. Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177) paragraph (h)(4) regarding tenant Specifically, new paragraph (h)(2) will pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4), the railroad responsibilities was based, in require a host railroad’s biannual report due date for each monthly notification part, on comments AAR and APTA to include a summary of any actions the is currently the 15th of the following previously submitted during the host railroad and its tenant railroads are month—so, for example, the notification comment period associated with the taking to reduce the frequency and rate regarding initialization failures, cut Statutory Notification of PTC System of initialization failures, cut outs, and outs, and malfunctions during Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177). malfunctions, such as any actions to December 2020 was due by January 15, Specifically, on February 28, 2020, AAR correct or eliminate systemic issues and 2021. At least in part due to this commented, ‘‘[i]f FRA is going to specific problems. temporary reporting requirement, which require hosts to report tenant data, the In other words, this narrative section expires December 31, 2021, FRA expects agency must impose a clear and direct will provide railroads an opportunity to that by the time this final rule becomes requirement on tenants to report the explain briefly the steps they are taking effective, host railroads will be desired information to their host to reduce the occurrence of PTC system experienced in regularly tracking the railroad.’’ 43 In APTA’s comments, also failures, which could help put the performance of their PTC systems. In dated February 28, 2020, APTA biannual statistics into perspective. FRA fact, they are currently required to observed that a host railroad would did not propose including this content submit the data more quickly, within 15 need to obtain ‘‘all necessary logs to requirement under paragraph (h)(1) days of the end of each month. complete the analyses’’ from its tenant because that paragraph is track segment- Accordingly, FRA expects that railroads to complete Form FRA F specific, and FRA acknowledges that allowing one full month for railroads to 6180.177 accurately.44 railroads generally take a system-wide prepare and submit their Biannual approach to improving the reliability Reports of PTC System Performance 43 Docket Nos. FRA–2019–0004–N–20 and FRA– and performance of their PTC systems. (Form FRA F 6180.152) under new 2020–0004–N–3; 85 FR 15022, 15027 (Mar. 16, Accordingly, consistent with the NPRM, paragraph (h)(3) is a reasonable 2020). this final rule categorizes this content timeframe for this permanent reporting 44 Id.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR1.SGM 27JYR1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 40167

However, based on AAR and Finally, new paragraph (h)(5) about paragraph (h)(1)(iv) (i.e., the ASLRRA’s subsequent comments, dated provides temporary regulatory relief to number of enforcements by the PTC February 16, 2021, on the NPRM, FRA railroads utilizing ACSES II or ASES II system) and the manual process to can appreciate that specifying an exact (referred to hereinafter as ACSES II). collect such data is specific only to deadline by which a tenant railroad This new provision is in response to some railroads utilizing ACSES II, and must submit the pertinent data to its extensive comments from AAR, it does not implicate other types of PTC applicable host railroads could have the ASLRRA, APTA, Amtrak, and NJT systems. unintended consequence of constraining regarding new paragraph (h)(1)(iv) of Furthermore, FRA recognizes that the otherwise effective coordination this final rule. In their respective comments from Amtrak, AAR, and between host and tenant railroads. For comments, AAR, ASLRRA, APTA, ASLRRA emphasize that ‘‘nearly all’’ or example, as AAR and ASLRRA Amtrak, and NJT express concern that ‘‘most’’ ACSES II host railroads recognize, certain host railroads might one metric (the number of enforcements currently obtain such data manually. prefer to receive that data by an earlier by the PTC system) could impose a There are currently seven host railroads date or on a continuous basis. Therefore, significant burden on railroads that utilize ACSES II. Based on host in this final rule, FRA is removing all operating ACSES II because almost all railroads’ PTCSPs and other references in new paragraph (h)(4) to ACSES II railroads need to obtain that discussions, FRA is aware that at least specific dates by which tenant railroads data manually, based on that system’s one ACSES II host railroad currently must provide the data to their current capabilities or configuration. For utilizes an automated tool that remotely applicable host railroads. example, Amtrak’s comments collects and analyzes data from the PTC Instead, new paragraph (h)(4) summarize the issue in the following system, including enforcements by the establishes a general requirement for manner: ‘‘The ACSES system does not PTC system (the metric under paragraph each applicable tenant railroad that currently have the technical capability (h)(1)(iv)) and the performance of operates on a host railroad’s PTC- to automatically take enforcement data various wayside equipment. This is governed main line(s) to provide the which is stored in a locomotive’s on- important to underscore because it information required under paragraphs board computer, and to transmit that suggests to FRA that the other six (h)(1) and (2) to each applicable host data . . . to a centralized collection and ACSES II host railroads could likewise, railroad, without imposing a date- analysis location.’’ over time, explore options or tools for specific deadline. Consistent with the Amtrak’s and APTA’s comments each obtaining their enforcement-related data NPRM, the text in paragraph (h)(4) assert that this specific content remotely (i.e., without manually clarifies that a host railroad does not requirement would create a tremendous performing a locomotive download need to include data in Form FRA F strain on the resources of host railroads while connected to each locomotive). 6180.152 regarding a tenant railroad that that operate ACSES II. Similarly, NJT In addition to the tool one ACSES II is subject to an exception under 49 CFR notes that this requirement is especially host railroad is currently utilizing, FRA 236.1006(b)(4) or (5) during the onerous for railroads that utilize this is aware that other automated options applicable reporting period because type of PTC technology. Both Amtrak’s are available to collect the type of data such a tenant railroad’s movements comments and AAR and ASLRRA’s under paragraph (h)(1)(iv). For example, would not be governed by PTC comments describe the following FRA knows of at least one PTC system technology in that case, and there would burden estimate: An employee would supplier with a software solution or tool not be any pertinent, performance- manually perform a locomotive that, among other capabilities, related data to submit regarding that download by connecting a laptop to that automatically generates reports tenant railroad. engine (an approximately 20-minute regarding PTC technology’s performance process for each locomotive in the fleet), In addition, new paragraph (h)(4) and functioning, including and then it would take approximately requires the applicable tenant railroads enforcements by the PTC system. 30 minutes to process and analyze the to provide the necessary data to each FRA declines to eliminate paragraph data from each locomotive. Amtrak, applicable host railroad on a continuous (h)(1)(iv) from the final rule, as the AAR, and ASLRRA assert that this basis. FRA based this clause on AAR number of enforcements by a PTC process would occur every 48 hours, but and ASLRRA’s recommendation that system is an integral metric about PTC they do not specify why. FRA expects 46 FRA defer to host and tenant railroads technology’s performance. Notably, no that their estimated frequency of to coordinate and determine effective other alternatives were suggested by any performing downloads might be due to timelines for the exchange of this commenter. Nonetheless, FRA’s final ACSES II’s current onboard memory or information. FRA also recognizes that rule recognizes that currently, six of the storage limitations. this provision must refer, at least 35 applicable host railroads would In their respective comments, APTA likely need to collect this metric minimally, to a timeframe. Otherwise, it and Amtrak recommend removing the would be difficult or impossible for FRA manually in the near term. To avoid content requirement under paragraph imposing a significant burden on those to take enforcement action against a (h)(1)(iv) from the final rule. On the tenant railroad, if necessary, for failing railroads, this final rule, under new other hand, AAR and ASLRRA 45 to submit the necessary data to its host paragraph (h)(5), provides temporary recommend that FRA amend the railroad to facilitate the host railroad’s relief from the content requirement proposal after consulting with ACSES II timely submission of its Biannual under paragraph (h)(1)(iv) to any railroads regarding a more feasible Report of PTC System Performance railroad operating a PTC system manner for those railroads to compile (Form FRA F 6180.152). The language in the enforcement-related metric. From 46 new paragraph (h)(4) of this final rule Furthermore, FRA expects that the number of comments received and FRA’s enforcements by a PTC system during a reporting requires tenant railroads to provide experience overseeing PTC technology, period is important information from a railroad’s certain data to their host railroads, perspective, for other purposes as well. For FRA understands that this concern without unnecessarily interfering with example, that data could inform a railroad about the specific events when its PTC system needed to host and tenant railroads’ existing 45 In addition, NJT comments that it strongly initiate braking events, and help the railroad processes for coordination and data- supports AAR and ASLRRA’s joint comments, in identify general train handling issues and sharing. their entirety. opportunities for increased training.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR1.SGM 27JYR1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 40168 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

classified under FRA Type Approval paragraph (h) will be effective after this are not limited to, increasing the Nos. FRA–TA–2010–001 (ACSES II) or final rule is published. reporting frequency from annual to FRA–TA–2013–003 (ASES II).47 In addition, AAR and ASLRRA biannual, clarifying the types of Specifically, those railroads must begin recommend that once this final rule is statistics and information the reports submitting the specific metric required effective, the new Biannual Report of must include, and expanding the under paragraph (h)(1)(iv) not later than PTC System Performance (Form FRA F reporting requirement to encompass January 31, 2023. ACSES II and ASES II 6180.152) under revised paragraph (h) positive performance-related host railroads may certainly begin should replace the temporary reporting information. Accordingly, FRA submitting that metric in their Biannual requirement FRA adopted in 2020. FRA estimates that the number of hours it Reports of PTC System Performance declines this recommendation, as it is will take a host railroad to report the (Form FRA F 6180.152) before January not legally permissible. AAR and required information under 31, 2023, but this provision offers ASLRRA are referring to the Statutory § 236.1029(h) will increase under this flexibility to those railroads in the short Notification of PTC System Failures final rule. To provide clarity and term, based on comments received. (Form FRA F 6180.177, OMB Control To be clear, this relief applies to the precision regarding the reporting No. 2130–0553), which implements the requirement under § 236.1029(h), FRA single content requirement under statutory reporting requirement under developed an Excel-based Biannual paragraph (h)(1)(iv) only, and these 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4). That separate Report of PTC System Performance railroads must provide all other data reporting requirement remains in place, (Form FRA F 6180.152) that railroads required under paragraph (h) in their by statute, until December 31, 2021.48 Biannual Reports of PTC System must utilize to satisfy this reporting Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152), V. Regulatory Impact and Notices requirement. once this final rule is effective. Between A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory While FRA is expanding this existing publication of this final rule and Planning and Review) reporting requirement, FRA’s final rule January 31, 2023, FRA will consult with This final rule is a nonsignificant reduces the regulatory and the six applicable ACSES II railroads to regulatory action under Executive Order administrative burden on host railroads help identify more feasible data 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and under § 236.1021. Specifically, FRA is collection approaches, consistent with Review.’’ 49 FRA made this establishing a streamlined process to the recommendation from AAR, determination by finding that the enable the railroad industry to make ASLRRA, and NJT. In general, FRA economic effects of this regulatory technological advancements to FRA- expects paragraph (h)(5) will provide action will not exceed the $100 million certified PTC systems more efficiently. the six applicable ACSES II host annual threshold defined by Executive Instead of the existing RFA approval railroads sufficient time either to refine Order 12866. process under § 236.1021 for FRA- and expedite their manual processes or This final rule will reduce the burden approved PTCSPs and FRA-certified to adopt a more automated process, with on railroads while improving railroad PTC systems, FRA’s final rule: (1) respect to paragraph (h)(1)(iv). Requires host railroads to comply with On a separate topic and as noted safety. Specifically, in addition to the benefits quantified in the Industry a streamlined process, including a above, existing § 236.1029(h) currently concise RFA; and (2) establishes a 45- requires railroads, by April 16th each Business Benefits section below, FRA day FRA decision deadline. This more year, to submit an annual report of the expects this final rule will result in efficient process will result in business number of PTC system failures that safety benefits for the railroad industry. benefits for host railroads and savings occurred during the previous calendar For example, the expedited RFA process for the government. For example, FRA’s year. In their comments, APTA, AAR, in this final rule will accelerate simplification of the content and ASLRRA request that FRA exercise railroads’ ability to update their FRA- discretion with respect to the annual certified PTC systems to ensure safe requirements associated with an RFA to report due April 16, 2021, pursuant to operations (e.g., through ongoing, a PTCSP under § 236.1021 will reduce existing paragraph (h). Specifically, necessary maintenance) and enhance the number of burden hours per RFA. In APTA suggests that railroads should the technology (e.g., by adding new addition, FRA is permitting host submit the required data from a limited functionality or improving a PTC railroads that utilize the same type of period (from June 2020 to December system’s reliability and operability). In PTC system to submit joint RFAs to 2020), instead of calendar year 2020, as short, this final rule will enable their PTCDPs and PTCSPs, thus existing paragraph (h) requires. AAR railroads to deploy safety improvements reducing the number of RFAs railroads and ASLRRA request that FRA accept a and technological advancements more must submit in the future. efficiently and frequently. In addition, compilation of data from April 1, 2020, Currently, 35 host railroads must the expanded reporting requirement to March 31, 2021, to satisfy the annual submit RFAs before making certain will help railroads and FRA identify reporting requirement due April 16, changes to their PTCSPs and PTC systemic failures more quickly and 2021. FRA appreciates these comments, systems under § 236.1021, with many precisely, enabling swifter intervention but declines these recommendations. host railroads projected to submit one or FRA is not providing retroactive and resolution. To enable FRA to oversee the two RFAs per year. Over the next ten regulatory relief via this rulemaking. performance and reliability of railroads’ years, FRA expects there will be an Existing § 236.1029(h) currently PTC systems effectively, FRA is revising average increase of 1.5 new PTC- governs, and FRA’s changes to the reporting requirement under 49 CFR governed host railroads per year, 236.1029(h). FRA’s changes include, but beginning in the second year, for a total 47 FRA understands that certain host railroads’ of approximately 14 additional host ACSES II systems are also classified under additional FRA Type Approvals, due to certain 48 49 U.S.C. 20157(j). For additional information railroads. Table A summarizes the types FRA-approved system variances. However, for this about this temporary statutory reporting of PTC systems the 35 PTC-mandated purpose, FRA is referring to the primary, requirement, please see Section III–B (Expanding host railroads implemented, as of 2020, underlying ACSES II and ASES II FRA Type the Performance-related Reporting Requirements) in and the approximate number of RFAs Approvals, which all applicable ACSES II host this final rule. railroads utilize, at least in part. 49 58 FR 51735 (Sep. 30, 1993). host railroads would file under FRA’s

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR1.SGM 27JYR1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 40169

existing regulations, without this final rule.

TABLE A—ESTIMATED NUMBER OF REQUIRED RFASTOPTCSPSBYTYPE OF PTC SYSTEM

PTC systems being Annual number of Total Type of PTC system implemented by number of host railroads RFAs per RFAs (as of 2020) 50 PTC system

ACSES II ...... 8 1 8 CBTC ...... 1 1 1 E–ATC ...... 5 1 5 ITCS ...... 1 1 1 I–ETMS ...... 26 2 52

Total ...... 41 ...... 67

Currently, without this final rule, FRA 236.1021(h)(3)–(4) in the future.51 FRA Table B below provides the current estimates the 35 host railroads would estimates that the current hourly burden hourly burden and costs that host need to submit approximately 67 RFAs is 160 hours per RFA (without this final railroads face when submitting RFAs to annually given the types of changes the rule), based on previously approved their PTCSPs under the existing industry intends to make to their PTC PTC Information Collection Requests § 236.1021. systems each year under 49 CFR (ICRs).

TABLE B—CURRENT HOST RAILROAD HOURLY BURDEN AND COST FOR RFASTOPTCSPS

Hour burden per Total Year Submissions submission annual cost 7-Percent 3-Percent

1 ...... 67 160 $830,505 $830,505 $830,505 2 ...... 69 160 855,296 799,342 830,385 3 ...... 70 160 867,692 757,876 817,883 4 ...... 72 160 892,483 728,532 816,749 5 ...... 73 160 904,879 690,328 803,973 6 ...... 75 160 929,670 662,842 801,942 7 ...... 76 160 942,066 627,738 788,965 8 ...... 78 160 966,857 602,110 786,143 9 ...... 79 160 979,252 569,934 773,031 10 ...... 81 160 1,004,044 546,133 769,516

Total ...... 740 ...... 9,172,744 6,815,340 8,019,091

Costs To clarify the information FRA is rail industry. APTA requests that FRA requiring host railroads to submit under review its cost-benefit analysis As described above, FRA is also § 236.1029(h), FRA created an Excel- associated with the changes to amending the reporting requirement based form for the Biannual Report of § 236.1029(h) proposed in the NPRM, under 49 CFR 236.1029(h) by increasing PTC System Performance (Form FRA F including establishing the Biannual the frequency from annual to biannual, 6180.152). This form incorporates the Report of PTC System Performance clarifying the types of statistics and information currently required under (Form FRA F 6180.152). Based on information the reports must include, § 236.1029(h) and the additional types comments received, FRA reviewed and and expanding the reporting of information specified in this final updated its burden estimate associated requirement to encompass positive rule. Host railroads with FRA-certified with expanding the reporting performance-related information. PTC systems are generally experienced requirement under § 236.1029(h). The Though FRA’s final rule will increase in compiling this type of information, table below displays FRA’s updated the number of required submissions, as given the corresponding reporting estimate of the burden associated with well as the hourly burden per requirements under the temporary § 236.1029(h). Please note that the submission, FRA estimates the new Statutory Notification of PTC System increased burden estimate is based on costs will be offset by the business Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177, OMB FRA’s review of its proposed revisions benefits derived from the final rule’s Control No. 2130–0553). to § 236.1029(h) based on comments changes as presented in the Business During the comment period for the received, and not on any substantial Benefits section below. NPRM, FRA received a general request changes in § 236.1029(h) from the from APTA on behalf of the commuter NPRM to the final rule.

50 Several host railroads have implemented from discussions with PTC-mandated railroads, A, B, and F in this final rule estimate more multiple types of PTC systems. FRA found the estimate did not account adequately accurately the approximate average number of RFAs 51 Previously, FRA estimated it would receive, on for the number of RFAs host railroads intend to host railroads would submit to their PTCSPs each average, approximately 10 RFAs to railroads’ submit to their PTCSPs annually under year under the existing regulations and under the PTCIPs, PTCDPs, and PTCSPs each year. However, § 236.1021(h)(3)–(4) without the final rule. Tables final rule. See 84 FR 72121, 72127 (Dec. 30, 2019).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR1.SGM 27JYR1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 40170 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

ESTIMATE CHANGES FROM NPRM TO FINAL RULE

NPRM Final rule Description (hours) (hours)

Form FRA F 6180.152 Burden (First Three Years) ...... 12 48 Form FRA F 6180.152 Burden (After Three Years) ...... 10 28

The hourly burden associated with familiar with the Excel-based form and the existing § 236.1029(h). Table C submitting the information required as they develop processes to improve below shows the marginal hourly under § 236.1029(h) will increase their data collection and reporting. FRA burden increase associated with FRA’s initially from 8 hours per report did not receive any comments that expansion of the reporting requirement (without the final rule) to 48 hours per dispute FRA’s assumption that railroads under § 236.1029(h), under the final report (with the final rule), on average. will refine and expedite their reporting rule. Consistent with the previously FRA estimates that, over time, railroads processes over time. stated estimates, FRA assumes that 35 will develop processes that will This analysis accounts for the host railroads will submit these decrease the reporting burden from 48 marginal increase of 40 hours for the biannual reports in the first year, and hours per submission to 28 hours per first three years of a host railroad the number of applicable host railroads submission. FRA assumes this decrease reporting and 20 hours for each will increase by 1.5 railroads, on will begin in the fourth year of the subsequent year, as compared to the 8- average, each year. analysis as host railroads become more hour burden estimate associated with

TABLE C—TEN-YEAR HOST RAILROAD MARGINAL BURDEN INCREASE

Number of Number of host railroad host railroad Year submissions submissions Total marginal with marginal with marginal hourly burden 40-hour burden 20-hour burden

1 ...... 35 0 52 1,400 2 ...... 37 0 1,460 3 ...... 38 0 1,520 4 ...... 2 38 840 5 ...... 3 38 880 6 ...... 5 38 960 7 ...... 4 40 960 8 ...... 4 42 1,000 9 ...... 4 43 1,020 10 ...... 4 45 1,060

Total ...... 136 284 11,100

In addition to the marginal increase, 48 hours for the first three years of a requirements under § 236.1029(h). Table host railroads will face an additional host railroad’s reporting and 28 hours D below shows the new hourly burden reporting burden due to the change from for each subsequent year to account for under this final rule for the ten-year annual to biannual reporting. This the changes from annual to biannual period of this analysis. analysis accounts for the new burden of reporting and the expanded content

TABLE D—TEN-YEAR HOST RAILROAD NEW SUBMISSIONS

Number of Number of host railroad host railroad Year submissions submissions Total new with new with new hourly burden 48-hour burden 28-hour burden

1 ...... 35 0 53 1,680 2 ...... 37 0 1,752 3 ...... 38 0 1,824 4 ...... 2 38 1,160 5 ...... 3 38 1,208 6 ...... 5 38 1,304 7 ...... 4 40 1,312 8 ...... 4 42 1,368 9 ...... 4 43 1,396

52 1,400 = (35 host railroad submissions × 40 53 1,680 = (35 host railroad submissions × 48 hours) + (0 host railroad submissions × 20 hours). hours) + (0 host railroad submissions × 28 hours). This calculation is repeated throughout this table. This calculation is repeated throughout this table.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR1.SGM 27JYR1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 40171

TABLE D—TEN-YEAR HOST RAILROAD NEW SUBMISSIONS—Continued

Number of Number of host railroad host railroad Year submissions submissions Total new with new with new hourly burden 48-hour burden 28-hour burden

10 ...... 4 45 1,452

Total ...... 136 284 14,456

FRA calculated the total additional multiplied by the fully burdened wage throughout this analysis.54 Table E burden hours for submissions by rate of a Professional and provides the ten-year cost to the railroad multiplying the respective number of Administrative employee. For purposes industry associated with the expanded submissions with their associated of this analysis, FRA uses the fully reporting requirement under annual burden for each individual year. burdened rate of $77.47 to calculate § 236.1029(h). The summation of the hourly burden is both the costs and cost savings

TABLE E—TEN-YEAR TOTAL COSTS

Total Total new Total new Total annual Year marginal submission complete host railroad 7-Percent 3-Percent hour burden hour burden hour burden submissions cost 55

1 ...... 1,400 1,680 3,080 $238,615 $238,615 $238,615 2 ...... 1,460 1,752 3,212 248,842 232,562 241,594 3 ...... 1,520 1,824 3,344 259,068 226,280 244,196 4 ...... 840 1,160 2,000 154,945 126,481 141,797 5 ...... 880 1,208 2,088 161,763 123,408 143,724 6 ...... 960 1,304 2,264 175,398 125,056 151,300 7 ...... 960 1,312 2,272 176,018 117,288 147,412 8 ...... 1,000 1,368 2,368 183,455 114,246 149,166 9 ...... 1,020 1,396 2,416 187,174 108,937 147,757 10 ...... 1,060 1,452 2,512 194,611 105,855 149,153

Total ...... 11,100 14,456 25,556 1,979,887 1,518,730 1,754,713 * Note: Table may not sum due to rounding.

FRA estimates that the total cost to Industry Business Benefits submit 67 annual RFAs to their PTCSPs the railroad industry will be $1.5 that FRA must review and approve million, discounted at 7 percent, or $1.8 Currently 35 host railroads are before those host railroads change and million, discounted at 3 percent. In required to submit an RFA before improve their PTC systems. Under this changing safety-critical elements of their terms of governmental costs associated final rule, FRA is permitting host PTC systems and their PTCSPs under with the expanded reporting railroads that utilize the same type of § 236.1021. FRA estimates that over the requirement, including the increase PTC system to submit joint RFAs to next ten years, the number of PTC- from annual to biannual reporting, FRA their PTCDPs and PTCSPs.56 expects it will cost approximately governed host railroads will increase by $10,000, over the ten-year period, to approximately 14, for a total of 49 host Table F below shows the number of review the additional data railroads will railroads. For purposes of this analysis, RFAs to PTCSPs that would be submit in their Biannual Reports of PTC FRA estimates that approximately 1.5 submitted under the existing regulations System Performance (Form FRA F new host railroads are added each year, compared to the final rule. Over a ten- 6180.152). As FRA considers these beginning in year two. year period, FRA estimates that the additional governmental costs to be de Currently, under FRA’s existing changes described in this final rule will minimis, they are not included in the regulations and without this final rule, result in railroads submitting economic analysis. FRA estimates that host railroads would approximately 590 fewer RFAs.

54 2019 Composite Surface Transportation Board 55 Total Annual Host Railroad Submissions Cost because each I–ETMS system is relatively similar (STB) Professional and Administrative hourly wage = Total New Complete Hour Burden × $77.47. and manufactured by the same set of suppliers, and rate of $44.27 burdened by 75-percent ($44.27 × 56 FRA expects that permitting host railroads to each E–ATC system is relatively similar and 1.75 = $77.47). submit joint RFAs will impact primarily host manufactured by the same set of suppliers. railroads implementing I–ETMS and E–ATC

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR1.SGM 27JYR1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 40172 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE F—ESTIMATED NUMBER OF RFASTOPTCSPS

Approximate number of Approximate RFAs to number of Total # of RFAs Current types of PTC systems PTCSPs per RFAs to to PTCSPs year under PTCSPs per eliminated existing year under final under final rule regulations rule

ACSES II ...... 8 8 0 CBTC ...... 1 1 0 E–ATC ...... 5 1 4 ITCS ...... 1 1 0 I–ETMS ...... 52 57 4 48

Subtotal in Year 1: ...... 67 15 52

FRA estimates the current burden is requirements in this final rule will cost to host railroads based on FRA 160 hours per RFA to a PTCSP based on reduce the burden hours by 50 percent, simplifying the RFA process under the existing RFA content requirements. resulting in 80 burden hours per RFA. § 236.1021, in this final rule. FRA’s simplification of the content Table G provides the estimated ten-year

TABLE G—TEN-YEAR COST OF JOINT RFAS AND SIMPLIFIED RFAS

Hour burden Total annual Year Submissions per submission cost savings 7-Percent 3-Percent

1 ...... 15 80 $92,967 $92,967 $92,967 2 ...... 15 80 92,967 86,885 90,259 3 ...... 15 80 92,967 81,201 87,630 4 ...... 15 80 92,967 75,889 85,078 5 ...... 15 80 92,967 70,924 82,600 6 ...... 15 80 92,967 66,284 80,194 7 ...... 15 80 92,967 61,948 77,858 8 ...... 15 80 92,967 57,895 75,591 9 ...... 15 80 92,967 54,108 73,389 10 ...... 15 80 92,967 50,568 71,251

Total ...... 150 ...... 929,670 698,669 816,818

Overall, FRA expects that simplifying railroads utilizing the same type of PTC $6.1 million, discounted at 7 percent, or the content requirements for RFAs to system to submit joint RFAs, will result $7.2 million, discounted at 3 percent, PTCSPs, as well as permitting host in business benefits of approximately over the ten-year period of this analysis.

TABLE H—TOTAL TEN-YEAR INDUSTRY BUSINESS BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH REVISED § 236.1021

Cost of joint Current host RFAs and Total annual Year railroad costs simplified business 7-Percent 3-Percent (without final RFA process benefits rule) (with final rule)

1 ...... $830,505 $92,967 $737,538 $737,538 $737,538 2 ...... 855,296 92,967 762,329 712,457 740,126 3 ...... 867,692 92,967 774,725 676,675 730,253 4 ...... 892,483 92,967 799,516 652,643 731,671 5 ...... 904,879 92,967 811,912 619,404 721,373 6 ...... 929,670 92,967 836,703 596,558 721,747 7 ...... 942,066 92,967 849,099 565,790 711,107 8 ...... 966,857 92,967 873,890 544,215 710,552 9 ...... 979,252 92,967 886,285 515,826 699,642 10 ...... 1,004,044 92,967 911,077 495,565 698,264

Total ...... 9,172,744 929,670 8,243,074 6,116,671 7,202,273

57 For I–ETMS systems, FRA estimates the total 4 (under the final rule)—i.e., 2 RFAs per year from set of railroads whose I–ETMS is certified as a non- number of annual RFAs to PTCSPs would be the set of railroads whose I–ETMS is certified as a vital, overlay PTC system. reduced from 52 (under the existing regulation) to mixed PTC system and 2 RFAs per year from the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR1.SGM 27JYR1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 40173

In addition, FRA’s changes to the RFA FRA will review a streamlined RFA assume there will be PTC system process will result in savings for the with the more focused information that changes that are complex and will government, through a reduction in time new paragraph (m)(2) requires. require additional time to review, as needed to review an RFA with the Table I below outlines the well as system changes that are less existing contents under 49 CFR assumptions FRA used to calculate the complex. 236.1021(d)(1)–(7). Under the final rule, government savings. FRA’s estimates

TABLE I—GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATIVE COST ASSUMPTIONS

Average employee Average Average Fully Savings per Staff level count hourly hourly burdened staff level needed burden salary rate

GS–15 ...... 1 10 $77.75 $136.07 $1,315 GS–14 ...... 2 105 62.34 109.10 19,171 GS–13 ...... 2 119 49.71 86.99 20,646

Total ...... 5 234 189.81 332.17 41,132

Without the final rule, FRA would be be submitted annually. FRA estimates million, undiscounted. Table J provides required to review and approve or deny that over the next ten years, the total an overview of the ten-year government all 67 of the RFAs to PTCSPs that would cost to the government would be $30.4 burden without this final rule.

TABLE J—TEN-YEAR GOVERNMENT BURDEN [Without final rule]

Government Year Submissions cost to review Total annual 7-Percent 3-Percent each submission cost

1 ...... 67 $41,132 $2,755,871 $2,755,871 $2,755,871 2 ...... 69 41,132 2,838,136 2,652,463 2,755,471 3 ...... 70 41,132 2,879,268 2,514,864 2,713,986 4 ...... 72 41,132 2,961,533 2,417,493 2,710,222 5 ...... 73 41,132 3,002,665 2,290,719 2,667,829 6 ...... 75 41,132 3,084,930 2,199,512 2,661,088 7 ...... 76 41,132 3,126,062 2,083,027 2,618,028 8 ...... 78 41,132 3,208,327 1,997,985 2,608,664 9 ...... 79 41,132 3,249,460 1,891,215 2,565,153 10 ...... 81 41,132 3,331,724 1,812,237 2,553,489

Total ...... 740 411,324 30,437,976 22,615,387 26,609,802

Based on the changes to § 236.1021 in year. This reduction is the same as seen the RFAs will be reduced to $6.2 this final rule, the number of RFAs that in the government savings estimate million, undiscounted, over the ten-year FRA will review will decrease from 67 above. The resulting reduction means period. Table K below outlines the to 15 per year, beginning in the first that the new government cost to review government costs under the final rule.

TABLE K—TEN-YEAR NEW GOVERNMENT BURDEN

Government Total annual Year Submissions cost to review government 7-Percent 3-Percent each submission cost

1 ...... 15 $41,132 $616,986 $616,986 $616,986 2 ...... 15 41,132 616,986 576,622 599,016 3 ...... 15 41,132 616,986 538,899 581,568 4 ...... 15 41,132 616,986 503,644 564,630 5 ...... 15 41,132 616,986 470,696 548,184 6 ...... 15 41,132 616,986 439,902 532,218 7 ...... 15 41,132 616,986 411,124 516,716 8 ...... 15 41,132 616,986 384,228 501,666 9 ...... 15 41,132 616,986 359,091 487,054 10 ...... 15 41,132 616,986 335,600 472,868

Total ...... 150 411,324 6,169,860 4,636,793 5,420,906

FRA estimates that its changes to government savings of approximately or $21.2 million, discounted at 3 § 236.1021 will result in a ten-year $18.0 million, discounted at 7 percent, percent.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR1.SGM 27JYR1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 40174 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE L—GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATIVE SAVINGS

Current government Government Total annual Year cost to review cost to review government 7-Percent 3-Percent submissions submissions savings (without final rule) (with final rule)

1 ...... $2,755,871 $616,986 $2,138,885 $2,138,885 $2,138,885 2 ...... 2,838,136 616,986 2,221,150 2,075,841 2,156,456 3 ...... 2,879,268 616,986 2,262,282 1,975,965 2,132,418 4 ...... 2,961,533 616,986 2,344,547 1,913,849 2,145,592 5 ...... 3,002,665 616,986 2,385,679 1,820,023 2,119,645 6 ...... 3,084,930 616,986 2,467,944 1,759,610 2,128,870 7 ...... 3,126,062 616,986 2,509,076 1,671,904 2,101,312 8 ...... 3,208,327 616,986 2,591,341 1,613,757 2,106,998 9 ...... 3,249,460 616,986 2,632,474 1,532,124 2,078,099 10 ...... 3,331,724 616,986 2,714,738 1,476,638 2,080,621

Total ...... 30,437,976 6,169,860 24,268,116 17,978,594 21,188,896

Results Although FRA is expanding that railroad industry of $6.1 million, reporting requirement, this final rule discounted at 7 percent, or $7.2 million, This final rule will reduce the burden reduces the regulatory and discounted at 3 percent. In addition, on railroads while not adversely administrative burden on host railroads during the same period, FRA expects affecting railroad safety. To oversee the overall. For example, the simplification that these changes will produce performance and reliability of railroads’ of RFAs to PTCSPs will reduce the government savings amounting to $18.0 PTC systems, FRA is expanding the number of burden hours per RFA. Also, million, discounted at 7 percent, or reporting requirement under 49 CFR FRA is permitting host railroads that $21.2 million, discounted at 3 percent. 236.1029(h), as described above. FRA utilize the same type of PTC system to FRA estimates that the total net estimates that the total ten-year industry submit joint RFAs to their PTCDPs and benefits associated with this final rule cost associated with the expanded PTCSPs, thus reducing the number of will be $22.6 million, discounted at 7 reporting requirement under RFAs railroads must submit in the percent, or $26.6 million, discounted at § 236.1029(h) will be $1.5 million, future. 3 percent. The annualized cost savings discounted at 7 percent, or $1.8 million, During the ten-year period in FRA’s will be $3.2 million, discounted at 7 discounted at 3 percent. analysis, FRA expects that its changes percent, or $3.1 million, discounted at will result in business benefits for the 3 percent.

TABLE M—TOTAL TEN-YEAR NET BENEFITS

Total industry Total Total Total Year business government industry net 7-Percent 3-Percent benefits savings costs benefits

1 ...... $737,538 $2,138,885 $238,615 $2,637,808 $2,637,808 $2,637,808 2 ...... 762,329 2,221,150 248,842 2,734,637 2,555,736 2,654,988 3 ...... 774,725 2,262,282 259,068 2,777,939 2,426,359 2,618,474 4 ...... 799,516 2,344,547 154,945 2,989,118 2,440,011 2,735,466 5 ...... 811,912 2,385,679 161,763 3,035,828 2,316,019 2,697,294 6 ...... 836,703 2,467,944 175,398 3,129,249 2,231,111 2,699,318 7 ...... 849,099 2,509,076 176,018 3,182,157 2,120,406 2,665,007 8 ...... 873,890 2,591,341 183,455 3,281,776 2,043,725 2,668,384 9 ...... 886,285 2,632,474 187,174 3,331,585 1,939,013 2,629,984 10 ...... 911,077 2,714,738 194,611 3,431,204 1,866,348 2,629,732

Total ...... 8,243,074 24,268,116 1,979,887 30,531,303 22,576,536 26,636,455

Annualized ...... 3,214,391 3,122,605

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and considered a small entity based on as the costs are minimal and the Executive Order 13272; Regulatory revenue and employee size. Therefore, business benefits of this rule outweigh Flexibility Certification FRA has determined that this final rule the costs. Therefore, the impact on the The final rule will apply to all host will have an impact on a substantial small entity will be positive, taking the railroads subject to 49 U.S.C. 20157, number of small entities (one affected form of business benefits that are greater including, in relevant part, five Class II small entity out of one applicable small than any new costs imposed on the or III, short line, or terminal railroads, entity). entity. and 23 intercity passenger railroads or However, FRA has determined that For the railroad industry over a ten- commuter railroads. FRA has the impact on the small entity affected year period, FRA estimates that issuing determined that one of these railroads is by the final rule will not be significant the final rule will result in new costs of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR1.SGM 27JYR1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 40175

$1.5 million, discounted at 7 percent, total, for the ten-year period of this C. Paperwork Reduction Act and $1.8 million, discounted at 3 analysis, the final rule will result in a The information collection percent. FRA estimates that $37,852 net benefit of $111,623, discounted at 7 requirements in this final rule are being (discounted at 7 percent) and $43,212 percent, and $130,770, discounted at 3 submitted for approval to OMB under (discounted at 3 percent) of the total percent, for a small entity. the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, costs associated with implementing the Consistent with the findings in FRA’s 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. Please note that final rule will be borne by a small initial regulatory flexibility analysis, any new or revised requirements, as entity. Therefore, less than three percent and the lack of any comments received adopted in the final rule, are marked by of the final rule’s total costs will be on it, the Administrator of FRA hereby asterisks (*) in the table below. The borne by a small entity. Additionally, certifies that this final rule will not have sections that contain the current and FRA estimates that the final rule will a significant economic impact on a new information collection result in business benefits of $149,474, substantial number of small entities. requirements under OMB Control No. discounted at 7 percent, and $173,983, 2130–0553 58 and the estimated time to discounted at 3 percent, for the small fulfill each requirement are as follows: entity impacted by this final rule. In

Total annual 59 Total annual Average time per Total annual CFR section/subject Respondent universe responses response burden hours dollar cost equivalent 60

235.6(c)—Expedited application for approval of certain 42 railroads ...... 10 expedited applica- 5 hours ...... 50 $3,850 changes described in this section. tions. —Copy of expedited application to labor union ...... 42 railroads ...... 10 copies ...... 30 minutes ...... 5 385 —Railroad letter rescinding its request for expedited 42 railroads ...... 1 letter ...... 6 hours ...... 6 462 application of certain signal system changes. —Revised application for certain signal system 42 railroads ...... 1 application ...... 5 hours ...... 5 385 changes. —Copy of railroad revised application to labor union 42 railroads ...... 1 copy ...... 30 minutes ...... 5 39 236.1—Railroad maintained signal plans at all 700 railroads ...... 25 plan changes ...... 15 minutes ...... 6.3 485 interlockings, automatic signal locations, and controlled points, and updates to ensure accuracy. 236.15—Designation of automatic block, traffic control, 700 railroads ...... 10 timetable instruc- 30 minutes ...... 5 385 train stop, train control, cab signal, and PTC territory in tions. timetable instructions. 236.18—Software management control plan—New rail- 2 railroads ...... 2 plans ...... 160 hours ...... 320 24,640 roads. 236.23(e)—The names, indications, and aspects of road- 700 railroads ...... 2 modifications ...... 1 hour ...... 2 154 way and cab signals shall be defined in the carrier’s Operating Rule Book or Special Instructions. Modifica- tions shall be filed with FRA within 30 days after such modifications become effective. 236.587(d)—Certification and departure test results ...... 742 railroads ...... 4,562,500 train depar- 5 seconds ...... 6,337 487,949 tures. 236.905(a)—Railroad Safety Program Plan (RSPP)— 2 railroads ...... 2 RSPPs ...... 40 hours ...... 80 6,160 New railroads. 236.913(a)—Filing and approval of a joint Product Safety 742 railroads ...... 1 joint plan ...... 2,000 hours ...... 2,000 240,000 Plan (PSP). (c)(1)—Informational filing/petition for special ap- 742 railroads ...... 0.5 filings/approval pe- 50 hours ...... 25 1,925 proval. titions. (c)(2)—Response to FRA’s request for further data 742 railroads ...... 0.25 data calls/docu- 5 hours ...... 1 77 after informational filing. ments. (d)(1)(ii)—Response to FRA’s request for further in- 742 railroads ...... 0.25 data calls/docu- 1 hour ...... 0.25 19 formation within 15 days after receipt of the Notice ments. of Product Development (NOPD). (d)(1)(iii)—Technical consultation by FRA with the 742 railroads ...... 0.25 technical con- 5 hours ...... 1.3 100 railroad on the design and planned development of sultations. the product. (d)(1)(v)—Railroad petition to FRA for final approval 742 railroads ...... 0.25 petitions ...... 1 hour ...... 0.25 19 of NOPD. (d)(2)(ii)—Response to FRA’s request for additional 742 railroads ...... 1 request ...... 50 hours ...... 50 3,850 information associated with a petition for approval of PSP or PSP amendment. (e)—Comments to FRA on railroad informational fil- 742 railroads ...... 0.5 comments/letters .. 10 hours ...... 5 385 ing or special approval petition. (h)(3)(i)—Railroad amendment to PSP ...... 742 railroads ...... 2 amendments ...... 20 hours ...... 40 3,080 (j)—Railroad field testing/information filing document 742 railroads ...... 1 field test document .. 100 hours ...... 100 7,700

58 See also 84 FR 72121 (Dec. 30, 2019) (60-day were due on March 31, 2021. See 49 U.S.C. approximately December 31, 2021, per 49 U.S.C. ICR notice); 85 FR 15022 (Mar. 16, 2020) (30-day 20157(c)(1), (2). 20157(j). ICR notice); 85 FR 82400 (Dec. 18, 2020) (NPRM). 60 The dollar equivalent cost is derived from the 62 In response to a public comment, FRA revised On June 5, 2020, OMB approved the revised ICR, 2019 STB Full Year Wage A&B data series using the the average time per submission from 12 hours, as entitled ‘‘PTC and Other Signal Systems,’’ under appropriate employee group hourly wage rate that estimated in the NPRM, to 48 hours. In addition, OMB Control No. 2130–0553, for a period of three includes a 75-percent overhead charge. For for the applicable three-year period for PRA years, expiring on June 30, 2023. Executives, Officials, and Staff Assistants, this cost purposes, FRA revised the number of annual 59 The burdens associated with Forms FRA F amounts to $120 per hour. For Professional/ responses from 76 to 73, which aligns with the 6180.165 (Quarterly PTC Progress Reports) and FRA Administrative staff, this cost amounts to $77 per economic estimates in this final rule, including the F 6180.166 (Annual PTC Progress Reports) have hour. assumption that each year 1.5 additional PTC- been completed. By law, railroads’ final Quarterly 61 The temporary Statutory Notification of PTC governed railroads will submit these biannual PTC Progress Reports were due on January 31, 2021, System Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177) expires on reports. and railroads’ final Annual PTC Progress Reports

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR1.SGM 27JYR1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 40176 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

Total annual 59 Total annual Average time per Total annual CFR section/subject Respondent universe responses response burden hours dollar cost equivalent 60

236.917(a)—Railroad retention of records: Results of 13 railroads with PSP 13 PSP safety results 160 hours ...... 2,080 160,160 tests and inspections specified in the PSP. (b)—Railroad report that frequency of safety-relevant 13 railroads ...... 1 report ...... 40 hours ...... 40 3,080 hazards exceeds threshold set forth in PSP. (b)(3)—Railroad final report to FRA on the results of 13 railroads ...... 1 report ...... 10 hours ...... 10 770 the analysis and countermeasures taken to reduce the frequency of safety-relevant hazards. 236.919(a)—Railroad Operations and Maintenance Man- 13 railroads ...... 1 OMM update ...... 40 hours ...... 40 3,080 ual (OMM). (b)—Plans for proper maintenance, repair, inspec- 13 railroads ...... 1 plan update ...... 40 hours ...... 40 3,080 tion, and testing of safety-critical products. (c)—Documented hardware, software, and firmware 13 railroads ...... 1 revision ...... 40 hours ...... 40 3,080 revisions in OMM. 236.921 and 923(a)—Railroad Training and Qualification 13 railroads ...... 1 program ...... 40 hours ...... 40 3,080 Program. 236.923(b)—Training records retained in a designated lo- 13 railroads ...... 350 records ...... 10 minutes ...... 58 4,466 cation and available to FRA upon request. Form FRA F 6180.177—Statutory Notification of PTC 38 railroads ...... 144 reports/forms ...... 1 hour ...... 144 11,088 System Failures (Under 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4)) 61. 236.1001(b)—A railroad’s additional or more stringent 38 railroads ...... 1 rule or instruction .... 40 hours ...... 40 4,800 rules than prescribed under 49 CFR part 236, subpart I.

236.1005(b)(4)(i)–(ii)—A railroad’s submission of esti- The burden is accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1009(a) and 236.1021. mated traffic projections for the next 5 years, to sup- port a request, in a PTCIP or an RFA, not to implement a PTC system based on reductions in rail traffic.

(b)(4)(iii)—A railroad’s request for a de minimis ex- 7 Class I railroads ...... 1 exception request .... 40 hours ...... 40 3,080 ception, in a PTCIP or an RFA, based on a mini- mal quantity of PIH materials traffic.

(b)(5)—A railroad’s request to remove a line from its The burden is accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1009(a) and 236.1021. PTCIP based on the sale of the line to another railroad and any related request for FRA review from the acquiring railroad.

(g)(1)(i)—A railroad’s request to temporarily reroute 38 railroads ...... 45 rerouting extension 8 hours ...... 360 27,720 trains not equipped with a PTC system onto PTC- requests. equipped tracks and vice versa during certain emergencies. (g)(1)(ii)—A railroad’s written or telephonic notice of 38 railroads ...... 45 written or tele- 2 hours ...... 90 6,930 the conditions necessitating emergency rerouting phonic notices. and other required information under 236.1005(i). (g)(2)—A railroad’s temporary rerouting request due 38 railroads ...... 720 requests ...... 8 hours ...... 5,760 443,520 to planned maintenance not exceeding 30 days. (h)(1)—A response to any request for additional in- 38 railroads ...... 10 requests ...... 2 hours ...... 20 1,540 formation from FRA, prior to commencing rerouting due to planned maintenance. (h)(2)—A railroad’s request to temporarily reroute 38 railroads ...... 160 requests ...... 8 hours ...... 1,280 98,560 trains due to planned maintenance exceeding 30 days. 236.1006(b)(4)(iii)(B)—A progress report due by Decem- 262 railroads ...... 5 reports ...... 16 hours ...... 80 6,160 ber 31, 2020, and by December 31, 2022, from any Class II or III railroad utilizing a temporary exception under this section.

(b)(5)(vii)—A railroad’s request to utilize different The burden is accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1015 and 236.1021. yard movement procedures, as part of a freight yard movements exception.

236.1007(b)(1)—For any high-speed service over 90 The burden is accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1015 and 236.1021. miles per hour (mph), a railroad’s PTC Safety Plan (PTCSP) must additionally establish that the PTC sys- tem was designed and will be operated to meet the fail-safe operation criteria in Appendix C.

(c)—An HSR–125 document accompanying a host 38 railroads ...... 1 HSR–125 document 3,200 hours ...... 3,200 384,000 railroad’s PTCSP, for operations over 125 mph. (c)(1)—A railroad’s request for approval to use for- 38 railroads ...... 0.3 requests ...... 8,000 hours ...... 2,667 205,359 eign service data, prior to submission of a PTCSP. (d)—A railroad’s request in a PTCSP that FRA ex- 38 railroads ...... 1 request ...... 1,000 hours ...... 1,000 120,000 cuse compliance with one or more of this section’s requirements. 236.1009(a)(2)—A PTCIP if a railroad becomes a host 264 railroads ...... 1 PTCIP ...... 535Note: ...... 535 64,200 railroad of a main line requiring the implementation of a PTC system, including the information under 49 U.S.C. 20157(a)(2) and 49 CFR 236.1011. (a)(3)—Any new PTCIPs jointly filed by a host rail- 264 railroads ...... 1 joint PTCIP ...... 267 hours ...... 267 32,040 road and a tenant railroad. (b)(1)—A host railroad’s submission, individually or 264 railroads ...... 1 document ...... 8 hours ...... 8 616 jointly with a tenant railroad or PTC system sup- plier, of an unmodified Type Approval.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR1.SGM 27JYR1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 40177

Total annual 59 Total annual Average time per Total annual CFR section/subject Respondent universe responses response burden hours dollar cost equivalent 60

(b)(2)—A host railroad’s submission of a PTCDP 264 railroads ...... 1 PTCDP ...... 2,000 hours ...... 2,000 154,000 with the information required under 49 CFR 236.1013, requesting a Type Approval for a PTC system that either does not have a Type Approval or has a Type Approval that requires one or more variances.

(d)—A host railroad’s submission of a PTCSP ...... The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1015.

(e)(3)—Any request for full or partial confidentiality of 38 railroads ...... 10 confidentiality re- 8 hours ...... 80 6,160 a PTCIP, Notice of Product Intent (NPI), PTCDP, quests. or PTCSP. (h)—Any responses or documents submitted in con- 38 railroads ...... 36 interviews and doc- 4 hours ...... 144 11,088 nection with FRA’s use of its authority to monitor, uments. test, and inspect processes, procedures, facilities, documents, records, design and testing materials, artifacts, training materials and programs, and any other information used in the design, development, manufacture, test, implementation, and operation of the PTC system, including interviews with rail- road personnel. (j)(2)(iii)—Any additional information provided in re- 38 railroads ...... 1 set of additional in- 400 hours ...... 400 30,800 sponse to FRA’s consultations or inquiries about a formation. PTCDP or PTCSP.

236.1011(a)–(b)—PTCIP content requirements ...... The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1009(a) and (e) and 236.1021.

(e)—Any public comment on PTCIPs, NPIs, PTCDPs, 38 railroads ...... 2 public comments ..... 8 hours ...... 16 1,232 and PTCSPs.

236.1013, PTCDP and NPI content requirements ...... The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1009(b), (c), and (e) and 236.1021.

236.1015—Any new host railroad’s PTCSP meeting all 264 railroads ...... 1 PTCSP ...... 8,000 hours ...... 8,000 616,000 content requirements under 49 CFR 236.1015.

(g)—A PTCSP for a PTC system replacing an exist- 38 railroads ...... 0.3 PTCSPs ...... 3,200 hours ...... 1,067 82,159 ing certified PTC system. (h)—A quantitative risk assessment, if FRA requires 38 railroads ...... 0.3 assessments ...... 800 hours ...... 267 20,559 one to be submitted. 236.1017(a)—An independent third-party assessment, if 38 railroads ...... 0.3 assessments ...... 1,600 hours ...... 533 63,960 FRA requires one to be conducted and submitted. (b)—A railroad’s written request to confirm whether a 38 railroads ...... 0.3 written requests .... 8 hours ...... 3 231 specific entity qualifies as an independent third party. —Further information provided to FRA upon request 38 railroads ...... 0.3 sets of additional 20 hours ...... 7 539 information. (d)—A request not to provide certain documents oth- 38 railroads ...... 0.3 requests ...... 20 hours ...... 7 539 erwise required under Appendix F for an inde- pendent, third-party assessment. (e)—A request for FRA to accept information cer- 38 railroads ...... 0.3 requests ...... 32 hours ...... 11 847 tified by a foreign regulatory entity for purposes of 49 CFR 236.1017 and/or 236.1009(i). 236.1019(b)—A request for a passenger terminal main 38 railroads ...... 1 MTEA ...... 160 hours ...... 160 12,320 line track exception (MTEA). (c)(1)—A request for a limited operations exception 38 railroads ...... 1 request and/or plan 160 hours ...... 160 12,320 (based on restricted speed, temporal separation, or a risk mitigation plan). (c)(2)—A request for a limited operations exception 10 railroads ...... 1 request ...... 160 hours ...... 160 12,320 for a non-Class I, freight railroad’s track. (c)(3)—A request for a limited operations exception 7 railroads ...... 1 request ...... 160 hours ...... 160 12,320 for a Class I railroad’s track. (d)—A railroad’s collision hazard analysis in support 38 railroads ...... 0.3 collision hazard 50 hours ...... 17 1,309 of an MTEA, if FRA requires one to be conducted analysis. and submitted.

(e)—Any temporal separation procedures utilized The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1019(c)(1). under the 49 CFR 236.1019(c)(1)(ii) exception.

236.1021(a)–(d)—Any RFA to a railroad’s PTCIP or 38 railroads ...... 10 RFAs ...... 160 hours ...... 1,600 123,200 PTCDP. (e)—Any public comments, if an RFA includes a re- 5 interested parties ..... 10 RFA public com- 16 hours ...... 160 12,320 quest for approval of a discontinuance or material ments. modification of a signal or train control system and a Federal Register notice is published.

(l)—Any jointly filed RFA to a PTCDP or PTCSP The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1021(a)–(d) and (m). (* Note: This is a new proposed paragraph to au- thorize host railroads to file joint RFAs in certain cases, but such RFAs are already required under FRA’s existing regulations*).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR1.SGM 27JYR1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 40178 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

Total annual 59 Total annual Average time per Total annual CFR section/subject Respondent universe responses response burden hours dollar cost equivalent 60

(m)—Any RFA to a railroad’s PTCSP (* Note: Re- 38 railroads ...... 15 RFAs ...... 80 hours ...... 1,200 s 92,400 vised requirement. This is a new proposed para- graph with a simplified process governing RFAs to PTCSPs*). 236.1023(a)—A railroad’s PTC Product Vendor List, 38 railroads ...... 2 updated lists ...... 8 hours ...... 16 1,232 which must be continually updated.

(b)(1)—All contractual arrangements between a rail- The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1015 and 236.1021. road and its hardware and software suppliers or vendors for certain immediate notifications.

(b)(2)–(3)—A vendor’s or supplier’s notification, upon 10 vendors or sup- 10 notifications ...... 8 hours ...... 80 6,160 receipt of a report of any safety-critical failure of its pliers. product, to any railroads using the product.

(c)(1)–(2)—A railroad’s process and procedures for The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1015 and 236.1021. taking action upon being notified of a safety-critical failure or a safety-critical upgrade, patch, revision, repair, replacement, or modification, and a rail- road’s configuration/revision control measures, set forth in its PTCSP.

(d)—A railroad’s submission, to the applicable ven- 38 railroads ...... 2.5 notifications ...... 16 hours ...... 40 3,080 dor or supplier, of the railroad’s procedures for ac- tion upon notification of a safety-critical failure, up- grade, patch, or revision to the PTC system and actions to be taken until it is adjusted, repaired, or replaced. (e)—A railroad’s database of all safety-relevant haz- 38 railroads ...... 38 database updates .. 16 hours ...... 608 46,816 ards, which must be maintained after the PTC sys- tem is placed in service. (e)(1)—A railroad’s notification to the vendor or sup- 38 railroads ...... 8 notifications ...... 8 hours ...... 64 4,928 plier and FRA if the frequency of a safety-relevant hazard exceeds the threshold set forth in the PTCDP and PTCSP, and about the failure, mal- function, or defective condition that decreased or eliminated the safety functionality. (e)(2)—Continual updates about any and all subse- 38 railroads ...... 1 update ...... 8 hours ...... 8 616 quent failures.

(f)—Any notifications that must be submitted to FRA The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1023(e), (g), and (h). under 49 CFR 236.1023.

(g)—A railroad’s and vendor’s or supplier’s report, 38 railroads ...... 0.5 reports ...... 40 hours ...... 20 1,540 upon FRA request, about an investigation of an accident or service difficulty due to a manufac- turing or design defect and their corrective actions. (h)—A PTC system vendor’s or supplier’s reports of 10 vendors or sup- 20 reports ...... 8 hours ...... 160 12,320 any safety-relevant failures, defective conditions, pliers. previously unidentified hazards, recommended mitigation actions, and any affected railroads.

(k)—A report of a failure of a PTC system resulting The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1023(e), (g), and (h) and 49 CFR part 233. in a more favorable aspect than intended or other condition hazardous to the movement of a train, including the reports required under part 233.

236.1029(b)(4)—A report of an en route failure, other fail- 150 host and tenant 1,000 reports ...... 30 minutes ...... 500 38,500 ure, or cut out to a designated railroad officer of the railroads. host railroad. (h)—Form FRA F 6180.152—Biannual Report of 38 railroads ...... 73 reports ...... 48 hours ...... 3,504 269,808 PTC System Performance (*Revised requirement and new form *) 62.

236.1033—Communications and security requirements ... The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1009 and 236.1015.

236.1035(a)–(b)—A railroad’s request for authorization to 38 railroads ...... 10 requests ...... 40 hours ...... 400 30,800 field test an uncertified PTC system and any responses to FRA’s testing conditions.

236.1037(a)(1)–(2)—Records retention ...... The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1009 and 236.1015.

(a)(3)–(4)—Records retention ...... The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1039 and 236.1043(b).

(b)—Results of inspections and tests specified in a 38 railroads ...... 800 records ...... 1 hour ...... 800 61,600 railroad’s PTCSP and PTCDP. (c)—A contractor’s records related to the testing, 20 contractors ...... 1,600 records ...... 10 minutes ...... 267 20,559 maintenance, or operation of a PTC system main- tained at a designated office.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR1.SGM 27JYR1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 40179

Total annual 59 Total annual Average time per Total annual CFR section/subject Respondent universe responses response burden hours dollar cost equivalent 60

(d)(3)—A railroad’s final report of the results of the 38 railroads ...... 8 final reports ...... 160 hours ...... 1,280 98,560 analysis and countermeasures taken to reduce the frequency of safety-related hazards below the threshold set forth in the PTCSP. 236.1039(a)–(c), (e)—A railroad’s PTC Operations and 38 railroads ...... 2 OMM updates ...... 10 hours ...... 20 1,540 Maintenance Manual (OMM), which must be main- tained and available to FRA upon request. (d)—A railroad’s identification of a PTC system’s 38 railroads ...... 1 identified new com- 1 hour ...... 1 77 safety-critical components, including spare equip- ponent. ment. 236.1041(a)–(b) and 236.1043(a)—A railroad’s PTC 38 railroads ...... 2 programs ...... 10 hours ...... 20 1,540 Training and Qualification Program (i.e., a written plan). 236.1043(b)—Training records retained in a designated 150 host and tenant 150 PTC training 1 hour ...... 150 11,550 location and available to FRA upon request. railroads. record databases.

Total ...... N/A ...... 4,567,897 responses .. N/A ...... 50,969 4,250,307

All estimates include the time for required by statute, unless the Federal FRA has analyzed this final rule in reviewing instructions; searching government provides the funds accordance with the principles and existing data sources; gathering or necessary to pay the direct compliance criteria contained in Executive Order maintaining the needed data; and costs incurred by State and local 13132. As explained above, FRA has reviewing the information. For governments or the agency consults determined that this final rule has no information or a copy of the paperwork with State and local government federalism implications, other than the package submitted to OMB, contact Ms. officials early in the process of possible preemption of State laws under Hodan Wells, Information Collection developing the regulation. Where a Federal railroad safety statutes, Clearance Officer, at 202–493–0440. regulation has federalism implications specifically 49 U.S.C. 20106. Organizations and individuals and preempts State law, the agency Accordingly, FRA has determined that desiring to submit comments on the seeks to consult with State and local preparation of a federalism summary collection of information requirements officials in the process of developing the impact statement for this final rule is should direct them via email to Ms. regulation. not required. Wells at [email protected]. FRA has analyzed this final rule E. International Trade Impact under the principles and criteria OMB is required to make a decision Assessment concerning the collection of information contained in Executive Order 13132. requirements contained in this rule FRA has determined this final rule will The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 between 30 and 60 days after not have a substantial direct effect on prohibits Federal agencies from publication of this document in the the States or their political subdivisions; engaging in any standards or related Federal Register. Therefore, a comment on the relationship between the Federal activities that create unnecessary to OMB is best assured of having its full government and the States or their obstacles to the foreign commerce of the effect if OMB receives it within 30 days political subdivisions; or on the United States. Legitimate domestic of publication. FRA is not authorized to distribution of power and objectives, such as safety, are not impose a penalty on persons for responsibilities among the various considered unnecessary obstacles. The violating information collection levels of government. In addition, FRA statute also requires consideration of requirements that do not display a has determined this final rule does not international standards and where current OMB control number, if impose substantial direct compliance appropriate, that they be the basis for required. costs on State and local governments. U.S. standards. This final rule is purely Therefore, the consultation and funding domestic in nature and is not expected D. Federalism Implications requirements of Executive Order 13132 to affect trade opportunities for U.S. Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ do not apply. firms doing business overseas or for requires FRA to develop an accountable This final rule could have preemptive foreign firms doing business in the process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and effect by the operation of law under a United States. timely input by State and local officials provision of the former Federal Railroad F. Environmental Impact in the development of regulatory Safety Act of 1970, repealed and policies that have federalism recodified at 49 U.S.C. 20106. Section FRA has evaluated this final rule implications.’’ See 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 20106 provides that States may not consistent with the National 10, 1999). ‘‘Policies that have federalism adopt or continue in effect any law, Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 implications’’ are defined in the regulation, or order related to railroad U.S.C. 4321, et seq.), the Council of Executive Order to include regulations safety or security that covers the subject Environmental Quality’s NEPA having ‘‘substantial direct effects on the matter of a regulation prescribed or implementing regulations at 40 CFR States, on the relationship between the order issued by the Secretary of parts 1500–1508, and FRA’s NEPA national government and the States, or Transportation (with respect to railroad implementing regulations at 23 CFR part on the distribution of power and safety matters) or the Secretary of 771, and determined that it is responsibilities among the various Homeland Security (with respect to categorically excluded from levels of government.’’ Id. Under railroad security matters), except when environmental review and therefore Executive Order 13132, the agency may the State law, regulation, or order does not require the preparation of an not issue a regulation with federalism qualifies under the ‘‘essentially local environmental assessment (EA) or implications that imposes substantial safety or security hazard’’ exception to environmental impact statement (EIS). direct compliance costs and that is not section 20106. Categorical exclusions (CEs) are actions

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR1.SGM 27JYR1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 40180 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

identified in an agency’s NEPA requirements within the DOT Order in PART 236—RULES, STANDARDS, AND implementing regulations that do not rulemaking activities, as appropriate. INSTRUCTIONS GOVERNING THE normally have a significant impact on FRA has evaluated this final rule and INSTALLATION, INSPECTION, the environment and therefore do not has determined it will not cause MAINTENANCE, AND REPAIR OF require either an EA or EIS. See 40 CFR disproportionately high and adverse SIGNAL AND TRAIN CONTROL 1508.4. Specifically, FRA has human health and environmental effects SYSTEMS, DEVICES, AND determined that this final rule is on minority populations or low-income APPLIANCES— categorically excluded from detailed populations. environmental review pursuant to 23 ■ 1. The authority citation for part 236 CFR 771.116(c)(15), ‘‘Promulgation of H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of continues to read as follows: rules, the issuance of policy statements, 1995 the waiver or modification of existing Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102–20103, 20107, regulatory requirements, or Under section 201 of the Unfunded 20133, 20141, 20157, 20301–20303, 20306, Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 20501–20505, 20701–20703, 21301–21302, discretionary approvals that do not 21304; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR result in significantly increased 104–4, 2 U.S.C. 1531), each Federal 1.89. emissions of air or water pollutants or agency ‘‘shall, unless otherwise noise.’’ prohibited by law, assess the effects of ■ 2. In § 236.1003 amend paragraph (b) The purpose of this rulemaking is to Federal regulatory actions on State, by adding the definitions of ‘‘Cut out,’’ revise FRA’s PTC regulations to reduce local, and tribal governments, and the ‘‘Initialization failure,’’ and unnecessary costs and facilitate private sector (other than to the extent ‘‘Malfunction’’ in alphabetical order to innovation, while improving FRA’s that such regulations incorporate read as follows: oversight. This final rule does not requirements specifically set forth in § 236.1003 Definitions. directly or indirectly impact any law).’’ Section 202 of the Act (2 U.S.C. environmental resources and will not 1532) further requires that ‘‘before * * * * * result in significantly increased promulgating any general notice of (b) * * * emissions of air or water pollutants or proposed rulemaking that is likely to Cut out means any disabling of a PTC noise. Instead, the final rule is likely to result in promulgation of any rule that result in safety benefits. In analyzing the system, subsystem, or component en includes any Federal mandate that may applicability of a CE, FRA must also route (including when the PTC system result in the expenditure by State, local, consider whether unusual cuts out on its own or a person cuts out circumstances are present that would and tribal governments, in the aggregate, the system with authorization), unless warrant a more detailed environmental or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 the cut out was necessary to exit PTC- review. See 23 CFR 771.116(b). FRA has or more (adjusted annually for inflation) governed territory and enter non-PTC concluded that no such unusual in any 1 year, and before promulgating territory. circumstances exist with respect to this any final rule for which a general notice * * * * * regulation, and the final rule meets the of proposed rulemaking was published, Initialization failure means any requirements for categorical exclusion the agency shall prepare a written instance when a PTC system fails to under 23 CFR 771.116(c)(15). statement’’ detailing the effect on State, activate on a locomotive or train, unless Pursuant to Section 106 of the local, and tribal governments and the the PTC system successfully activates National Historic Preservation Act and private sector. This final rule will not during a subsequent attempt in the same its implementing regulations, FRA has result in the expenditure, in the location or before entering PTC- determined this undertaking has no aggregate, of $100,000,000 or more (as governed territory. For the types of PTC potential to affect historic properties. adjusted annually for inflation) in any systems that do not initialize by design, See 16 U.S.C. 470. FRA has also one year, and thus preparation of such a failed departure test is considered an determined that this rulemaking does a statement is not required. initialization failure for purposes of the not approve a project resulting in a use I. Energy Impact reporting requirement under of a resource protected by Section 4(f). § 236.1029(h), unless the PTC system See Department of Transportation Act of Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions successfully passes the departure test 1966, as amended (Pub. L. 89–670, 80 Concerning Regulations That during a subsequent attempt in the same Stat. 931); 49 U.S.C. 303. Significantly Affect Energy Supply, location or before entering PTC- G. Executive Order 12898 Distribution, or Use,’’ requires Federal governed territory. (Environmental Justice) agencies to prepare a Statement of * * * * * Executive Order 12898, ‘‘Federal Energy Effects for any ‘‘significant Malfunction means any instance Actions to Address Environmental energy action.’’ 66 FR 28355 (May 22, when a PTC system, subsystem, or Justice in Minority Populations and 2001). FRA has evaluated this final rule component fails to perform the Low-Income Populations,’’ and DOT under Executive Order 13211 and functions mandated under 49 U.S.C. Order 5610.2B, dated November 18, determined that this final rule is not a 20157(i)(5), this subpart, or the 2020, require DOT agencies to consider ‘‘significant energy action’’ within the applicable host railroad’s PTCSP. environmental justice principles by meaning of Executive Order 13211. * * * * * identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 236 ■ 3. Amend § 236.1021 by: and adverse human health or Penalties, Positive train control, ■ a. Revising paragraphs (a), (c), (d) environmental effects of their programs, Railroad safety, Reporting and introductory text, and (d)(4); policies, and activities on minority recordkeeping requirements. ■ b. Removing paragraph (d)(7); and populations and low-income populations. The DOT Order instructs In consideration of the foregoing, FRA ■ c. Adding paragraphs (l) and (m). DOT agencies to address compliance is amending 49 CFR part 236, as The revisions and additions read as with Executive Order 12898 and follows: follows:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR1.SGM 27JYR1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 40181

§ 236.1021 Discontinuances, material for the proposed changes, including (h) Biannual Report of PTC System modifications, and amendments. whether the changes are necessary to Performance. (1) Each host railroad (a) No changes, as defined by this address or resolve an emergency or subject to 49 U.S.C. 20157 or this section, to a PTCIP or PTCDP may be urgent issue; subpart shall electronically submit a made unless: (ii) Any associated software release Biannual Report of PTC System (1) The railroad files a request for notes; Performance on Form FRA F 6180.152, amendment (RFA) to the applicable (iii) A confirmation that the host containing the following information for PTCIP or PTCDP with the Associate railroad has notified any applicable the applicable reporting period, Administrator; and tenant railroads of the proposed separated by the host railroad, each (2) The Associate Administrator changes, any associated effect on the applicable tenant railroad, and each approves the RFA. tenant railroads’ operations, and any PTC-governed track segment (e.g., * * * * * actions the tenant railroads must take in territory, subdivision, district, main (c) In lieu of a separate filing under accordance with the configuration line, branch, or corridor), consistent part 235 of this chapter, a railroad may control measures set forth in the host with the railroad’s PTC Implementation request approval of a discontinuance or railroad’s PTCSP; Plan: material modification of a signal or train (iv) A statement from a qualified (i) The total number of PTC system control system by filing an RFA to its representative of the host railroad, initialization failures, and subtotals PTCIP or PTCDP with the Associate verifying that the modified PTC system identifying the number of initialization Administrator. would meet all technical requirements failures where the source or cause was (d) FRA will not approve an RFA to under this subpart, provide an the onboard subsystem, wayside a PTCIP or PTCDP unless the request equivalent or greater level of safety than subsystem, communications subsystem, includes: the existing PTC system, and not back office subsystem, or a non-PTC * * * * * adversely impact interoperability with component; (4) The changes to the PTCIP or any tenant railroads; and (ii) The total number of PTC system (v) Any other information that FRA PTCDP, as applicable; cut outs, and subtotals identifying the requests; and number of cut outs where the source or * * * * * (3) A host railroad shall not make any cause was the onboard subsystem, (l) Any RFA to a PTCDP or PTCSP changes, as specified under paragraph wayside subsystem, communications pursuant to this section may be (h)(3) or (4) of this section, to its PTC subsystem, back office subsystem, or a submitted jointly with other host system until the Director of FRA’s Office non-PTC component; railroads utilizing the same type of PTC of Railroad Systems and Technology (iii) The total number of PTC system system. However, only host railroads approves the RFA. malfunctions, and subtotals identifying with the same PTC System Certification (i) FRA will approve, approve with the number of malfunctions where the classification under § 236.1015(e) may conditions, or deny the RFA within 45 source or cause was the onboard jointly file an RFA to their PTCSPs. Any days of the date on which the RFA was subsystem, wayside subsystem, joint RFA to multiple host railroads’ filed under paragraph (m)(2) of this communications subsystem, back office PTCSPs must include the information section. subsystem, or a non-PTC component; required under paragraph (m) of this (ii) FRA reserves the right to notify a (iv) The total number of enforcements section. The joint RFA must also railroad that changes may proceed prior by the PTC system; include the written confirmation and to the 45-day mark, including in an (v) The number of enforcements by statement specified under paragraphs emergency or under other circumstances the PTC system in which an accident or (m)(2)(iii) and (iv) of this section from necessitating a railroad’s immediate incident was prevented; each host railroad jointly filing the RFA. implementation of the proposed (vi) The number of scheduled (m) No changes, as specified under changes to its PTC system. attempts at initialization of the PTC paragraph (h)(3) or (4) of this section, (iii) FRA may require a railroad to system; and may be made to an FRA-certified PTC modify its RFA or its PTC system to the (vii) The number of train miles system or an FRA-approved PTCSP extent necessary to ensure safety or governed by the PTC system. unless the host railroad first complies compliance with the requirements of (2) A host railroad’s Biannual Report with the following process: this part. of PTC System Performance (Form FRA (1) The host railroad revises its PTCSP (iv) Following any FRA denial of an F 6180.152) shall also include a to account for each proposed change to RFA, each applicable railroad is summary of any actions the host its PTC system and summarizes such prohibited from making the proposed railroad and its tenant railroads are changes in a chronological table of changes to its PTC system until the taking to reduce the frequency and rate revisions at the beginning of its PTCSP; railroad both sufficiently addresses of initialization failures, cut outs, and (2) The host railroad electronically FRA’s questions, comments, and malfunctions, such as any actions to submits the following information in an concerns and obtains FRA’s approval. correct or eliminate systemic issues and RFA to the Director of FRA’s Office of Consistent with paragraph (l) of this specific problems. Railroad Systems and Technology: section, any host railroads utilizing the (3) Each host railroad shall (i) A summary of the proposed same type of PTC system, including the electronically submit a Biannual Report changes to any safety-critical elements same certification classification under of PTC System Performance (Form FRA of a PTC system, including a summary § 236.1015(e), may jointly submit F 6180.152) to FRA by the following due of how the changes to the PTC system information to address FRA’s questions, dates: July 31 (covering the period from would affect its safety-critical comments, and concerns following any January 1 to June 30), and January 31 functionality, how any new hazards denial of an RFA under this section. (covering the period from July 1 to have been addressed and mitigated, ■ 4. Amend § 236.1029 by revising December 31 of the prior calendar year). whether each change is a planned paragraph (h) to read as follows: (4) Each tenant railroad that operates change that was previously included in on a host railroad’s PTC-governed main all required analysis under § 236.1015 § 236.1029 PTC system use and failures. line(s), unless the tenant railroad is or an unplanned change, and the reason * * * * * currently subject to an exception under

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR1.SGM 27JYR1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 40182 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

§ 236.1006(b)(4) or (5), shall submit the until the effective date of the 2022 (2,345 kg), leaving 88.6 percent of the information required under paragraphs management measures, as published in quota unharvested. (h)(1) and (2) of this section to each the Federal Register. NMFS is The NMFS West Coast Region applicable host railroad on a continuous authorized to implement inseason Regional Administrator (RA) considered basis. management actions to modify fishing the landed catch of Pacific halibut to (5) Any railroad operating a PTC seasons and quotas as necessary to date and the amount of quota remaining, system classified under FRA Type provide fishing opportunity while and determined that this inseason Approval Nos. FRA–TA–2010–001 or meeting management objectives for the action was necessary to meet FRA–TA–2013–003 must begin affected species (50 CFR 660.409). management goals set preseason. submitting the metric required under Inseason actions in the salmon fishery Inseason modification of the species paragraph (h)(1)(iv) of this section not may be taken directly by NMFS (50 CFR that may be caught and landed during later than January 31, 2023. 660.409(a)—Fixed inseason specific seasons is authorized by 50 CFR 660.409(b)(1)(ii). Issued in Washington, DC. management provisions) or upon Amitabha Bose, consultation with the Chairman of the Inseason Action #20 Pacific Fishery Management Council Deputy Administrator. (Council) and the appropriate State Description of the action: The July [FR Doc. 2021–15544 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] Directors (50 CFR 660.409(b)—Flexible 2021 quota for the commercial salmon BILLING CODE 4910–06–P inseason management provisions). troll fishery from Humbug Mountain, Management of the salmon fisheries is OR, to the Oregon/California border generally divided into two geographic (Oregon Klamath Management Zone DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE areas: North of Cape Falcon (NOF) (KMZ)) is increased from 200 Chinook (U.S./Canada border to Cape Falcon, salmon to 216 Chinook salmon through National Oceanic and Atmospheric OR), and south of Cape Falcon (SOF) an impact-neutral rollover of unused Administration (Cape Falcon, OR, to the U.S./Mexico quota from the June commercial salmon border). The actions described in this troll fishery in the same area. Effective date: Inseason action #20 50 CFR Part 660 document affected both the NOF and took effect on July 1, 2021, and remains SOF commercial salmon troll fishery as [Docket No. 210505–0101; RTID 0648– in effect until superseded. XB216] set out under the heading Inseason Reason and authorization: The 2021 Actions. commercial salmon troll fishery in the Fisheries Off West Coast States; Consultation on these inseason Oregon KMZ includes two quota Modification of the West Coast actions occurred on June 25, 2021. managed seasons: June (300 Chinook Commercial Salmon Fisheries; Representatives from NMFS, salmon) and July (200 Chinook salmon) Inseason Action #19–#21 Washington Department of Fish and (86 FR 26425, May 14, 2021). The first Wildlife, Oregon Department of Fish quota season opened on June 1, 2021, AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries and Wildlife, California Department of Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and and closed on June 16, 2021 (86 FR Fish and Wildlife, and Council staff 34161, June 29, 2021) to prevent Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), participated in the consultation. Commerce. exceeding the 300 Chinook salmon These inseason actions were quota. After the closure, 24 Chinook ACTION: Inseason modification of 2021 announced on NMFS’ telephone hotline salmon remained uncaught. The annual management measures. and U.S. Coast Guard radio broadcast on management measures (86 FR 26425, June 28, 2021 (50 CFR 660.411(a)(2)). SUMMARY: NMFS announces three May 14, 2021) provide that any inseason actions in the 2021 ocean Inseason Actions remaining portion of Chinook salmon quotas in this fishery may be transferred salmon fisheries. These inseason actions Inseason Action #19 modify the commercial salmon troll inseason on an impact neutral basis to fisheries in the area from the U.S./ Description of the action: Retention of the next open quota period. The Canada border to the U.S./Mexico halibut caught incidental to the Council’s Salmon Technical Team border. commercial salmon troll fishery (U.S./ calculated the impact neutral transfer of Canada border to U.S./Mexico border) is 24 Chinook salmon from the June DATES: The effective dates for the extended past June 30, 2021, and season to the July season would result inseason actions are set out in this remains in effect until superseded. in adding 16 Chinook salmon to the July document under the heading Inseason Effective date: Inseason action #19 quota, resulting in an adjusted July Actions, and remain in effect until took effect on July 1, 2021, and remains quota of 216 Chinook salmon. This superseded or modified. in effect until superseded. quota transfer is impact neutral for FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Reason and authorization: The 2021 spawning escapement goals for Klamath Shannon Penna at 562–676–2148, salmon management measures (86 FR River fall-run Chinook salmon (KRFC), Email: [email protected]. 26425, May 14, 2021) authorize the and Sacramento River fall-run Chinook SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: retention of Pacific halibut caught salmon stocks and for KRFC age-4 ocean incidental to the commercial salmon harvest rate limits. The quota transfer Background troll fishery in 2021 during April, May, also preserves 50/50 KRFC harvest In the 2021 annual management and June, and after June 30, 2021, if sharing between non-tribal and Klamath measures for ocean salmon fisheries (86 quota remains and announced on the River tribal fisheries. This action did not FR 26425, May 14, 2021), NMFS NMFS telephone hotline for salmon increase overall 2021 Chinook salmon announced management measures for fisheries. The 2021 incidental Pacific quota in the SOF commercial salmon the commercial and recreational halibut quota for the commercial salmon troll fishery. fisheries in the area from the U.S./ troll fishery is 45,198 pounds (head off) The NMFS West Coast Region RA Canada border to the U.S./Mexico (20,501 Kilograms (kg)). Landings considered the landings of Chinook border, effective from 0001 hours Pacific reported by the states, through June 25, salmon in the SOF commercial salmon Daylight Time (PDT), May 16, 2021, 2021, totaled 5,170 pounds (head off) fishery, fishery effort occurring to date

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR1.SGM 27JYR1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 40183

as well as anticipated under the proposal, and the Chinook salmon quota and an opportunity for public comment proposal, and the Chinook salmon quota remaining and determined that this on these actions, as notice and comment remaining and determined that this inseason action was necessary to meet would be impracticable and contrary to inseason action was necessary to meet management and conservation the public interest. Prior notice and management and conservation objectives. Inseason modification of opportunity for public comment on objectives. Inseason modification of fishing seasons is authorized by 50 CFR these actions was impracticable because quotas is authorized by 50 CFR 660.409(b)(1)(i). NMFS had insufficient time to provide 660.409(b)(1)(i). All other restrictions and regulations for prior notice and the opportunity for remain in effect as announced for the public comment between the time Inseason Action #21 2021 ocean salmon fisheries (86 FR Pacific halibut and Chinook salmon Description of the action: The landing 26425, May 14, 2021), as modified by abundance, catch, and effort and possession limit in the commercial previous inseason action (86 FR 34161, information was developed and salmon troll fishery in the Oregon KMZ June 29, 2021; 86 FR 37249, July 15, fisheries impacts were calculated, and is reduced from 20 Chinook salmon to 2021). the time the fishery modifications had 10 Chinook salmon per vessel per The NMFS West Coast Region RA to be implemented in order to ensure landing week (Thursday–Wednesday). determined that these inseason actions that fisheries are managed based on the Effective date: Inseason action #21 were warranted based on the best best scientific information available. As took effect on July 1, 2021, and remains available information on Pacific salmon previously noted, actual notice of the in effect until superseded. abundance forecasts and anticipated regulatory action was provided to Reason and authorization: The 2021 fishery effort. The states manage the fishers through telephone hotline and annual management measures (86 FR fisheries in state waters adjacent to the radio notification. This action complies 26425, May 14, 2021) for the areas of the U.S. exclusive economic with the requirements of the annual commercial salmon troll fishery in the zone consistent with these Federal management measures for ocean salmon Oregon KMZ included a weekly landing actions. As provided by the inseason fisheries (86 FR 26425, May 14, 2021), and possession limit of 20 Chinook notice procedures at 50 CFR 660.411, the Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery salmon per vessel per landing week actual notice of the described regulatory Management Plan (FMP), and (Thursday–Wednesday) from June 1, action was given, prior to the time the regulations implementing the FMP 2021 to July 31, 2021. Fishing effort and action was effective, by telephone under 50 CFR 660.409 and 660.411. catch rates in June resulted in NMFS hotline numbers 206–526–6667 and There is good cause under 5 U.S.C. taking inseason action to avoid 800–662–9825, and by U.S. Coast Guard 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in exceeding the June quota in the Oregon Notice to Mariners broadcasts on effective date, as a delay in effectiveness KMZ (86 FR 37249, July 15, 2021). In Channel 16 VHF–FM and 2182 kHz. consideration of the smaller quota in of these actions would allow fishing at July and anticipated fishing effort, the Classification levels inconsistent with the goals of the State of Oregon proposed reducing the NMFS issues these actions pursuant FMP and the current management weekly landing limit for July from 20 to section 305(d) of the Magnuson- measures. Chinook salmon to 10 Chinook salmon Stevens Fishery Conservation and Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. per vessel per landing week (Thursday– Management Act. These actions are Dated: July 22, 2021. Wednesday). authorized by 50 CFR 660.409, which The NMFS West Coast Region RA was issued pursuant to section 304(b) of Jennifer M. Wallace, considered the landings of Chinook the MSA, and is exempt from review Acting Director, Office of Sustainable salmon in the SOF commercial salmon under Executive Order 12866. Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. fishery, fishery effort occurring to date Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), [FR Doc. 2021–15940 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] as well as anticipated under the there is good cause to waive prior notice BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\27JYR1.SGM 27JYR1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 40184

Proposed Rules Federal Register Vol. 86, No. 141

Tuesday, July 27, 2021

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER Guard: Telephone (410) 576–2596, River, safety concerns will be contains notices to the public of the proposed [email protected]. heightened due to the small margin of issuance of rules and regulations. The SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: error for safe passage. The vessel transit purpose of these notices is to give interested in this area is anticipated to occur persons an opportunity to participate in the I. Table of Abbreviations during daylight hours only, and in wind rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules. CFR Code of Federal Regulations conditions of 25 knots or less. Hazards COTP Captain of the Port associated with the movement of a large DHS Department of Homeland Security freight vessel with an oversized cargo FR Federal Register DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND severely restricted in its ability to NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking maneuver while transiting confined SECURITY § Section U.S.C. United States Code shipping channels include injury or loss Coast Guard of life and damage to property and the II. Background, Purpose, and Legal environment resulting from collisions 33 CFR Part 165 Basis with other vessels. The COTP Maryland- National Capital Region has determined [Docket Number USCG–2021–0414] On June 28, 2021, Ports America Chesapeake, LLC notified the Coast that potential hazards associated with RIN 1625–AA00 Guard that the M/V ZHEN HUA 24 will the crane delivery operation would be a be transporting four new Super-Post safety concern for any vessel required to Safety Zone; M/V ZHEN HUA 24, Crane Panamax container cranes to the Port of transit the navigation channels in the Delivery Operation, Chesapeake Bay Baltimore. The vessel transit is taking Chesapeake Bay and the Patapsco River and Patapsco River, Baltimore, MD place from Shanghai, China. The M/V that would meet, pass, or overtake the M/V ZHEN HUA 24. AGENCY: ZHEN HUA 24 is anticipated to arrive Coast Guard, DHS. The Coast Guard is requesting that ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. between August 26, 2021, and September 15, 2021. The current interested parties provide comments within a shortened comment period of SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing estimated arrival date is September 5, 15 days instead of the typical 30 days to establish a temporary safety zone for 2021, but is subject to change. These for this notice of proposed rulemaking. certain waters of the Chesapeake Bay cranes will be delivered to, and installed at, the Seagirt Marine Terminal The Coast Guard believes the 15-day and Patapsco River. This action is comment period still provides for a necessary to provide for the safety of life at Baltimore, MD. Prior to transiting to Baltimore, MD, the vessel will arrive in reasonable amount of time for interested on these navigable waters during the parties to review the proposal and the Chesapeake Bay near Annapolis, movement of the M/V ZHEN HUA 24 provide informed comments on it while MD, to anchor and conduct appropriate while it is transporting four new Super- also ensuring that the Coast Guard has cargo configuration for transit. Post Panamax container cranes to the time to review and respond to any Port of Baltimore, anticipated to arrive The cranes exceed the beam of the M/V ZHEN HUA 24 on the port side by significant comments and has a final between August 26, 2021, and rule in effect in time for the scheduled September 15, 2021. This proposed approximately 129 feet and on the starboard side by approximately 228 event. rulemaking would prohibit persons and The Coast Guard is proposing this feet. The total beam for the vessel with vessels from being in the safety zone rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. the cranes aboard is approximately 489 unless authorized by the Captain of the 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). Port Maryland-National Capital Region feet. The maximum height of the cranes or a designated representative. We aboard the vessel is approximately 176 III. Discussion of Proposed Rule invite your comments on this proposed feet. This beam width and cargo height The COTP is proposing to establish a rulemaking. will severely restrict the M/V ZHEN safety zone during the inbound transit DATES: Comments and related material HUA 24’s ability to maneuver and create of the M/V ZHEN HUA 24. The M/V must be received by the Coast Guard on a hazard to navigation if required to ZHEN HUA 24 is currently anticpated to or before August 11, 2021. meet or pass other large vessels arrive at Baltimore sometime between transiting the navigation channels. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments August 26, 2021, and September 15, Because of the size of the cargo and the 2021. The current estimated arrival date identified by docket number USCG– width of the navigation channels, 2021–0414 using the Federal Decision is September 5, 2021, but is subject to vessels will not be able to transit around change. Inbound transit is expected to Making Portal at https:// the M/V ZHEN HUA 24, necessitating www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public last approximately 7 hours. closure of the navigation channels The safety zone would cover all Participation and Request for Chesapeake Channel Lighted Buoy 90 navigable waters of the Chesapeake Bay Comments’’ portion of the (LLNR 7825) in position 38°58′18.53″ N, and Patapsco River within 500 feet of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for 076°23′18.96″ W, and the Seagirt Marine the M/V ZHEN HUA 24 while it is further instructions on submitting Terminal in position 39°15′02.43″ N, transiting between Chesapeake Channel comments. 076°32′20.50″ W, Baltimore, MD. During Lighted Buoy 90 (LLNR 7825) in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If the transit of the M/V ZHEN HUA 24 position 38°58′18.53″ N, 076°23′18.96″ you have questions about this proposed under the William P. Lane, Jr. Memorial W, and the Seagirt Marine Terminal in rulemaking, call or email MST3 Melissa (US–50/301) Bridges across the position 39°15′02.43″ N, 076°32′20.50″ Kelly, Sector Maryland-NCR, Waterways Chesapeake Bay and the Francis Scott W, Baltimore, MD. The duration of the Management Division, U.S. Coast Key (I–695) Bridge across the Patapsco zone is intended to ensure the safety of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:28 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27JYP1.SGM 27JYP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Proposed Rules 40185

vessels and these navigable waters reasons stated in section IV.A above, E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act before, during, and after the scheduled this proposed rule would not have a The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act crane delivery operation. No vessel or significant economic impact on any of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires person would be permitted to enter the vessel owner or operator. Federal agencies to assess the effects of safety zone without obtaining If you think that your business, their discretionary regulatory actions. In permission from the COTP or a organization, or governmental particular, the Act addresses actions designated representative. jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity that may result in the expenditure by a The regulatory text we are proposing and that this proposed rule would have State, local, or tribal government, in the appears at the end of this document. a significant economic impact on it, aggregate, or by the private sector of please submit a comment (see IV. Regulatory Analyses $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it more in any one year. Though this We developed this proposed rule after qualifies and how and to what degree proposed rule would not result in such considering numerous statutes and this proposed rule would economically an expenditure, we do discuss the Executive orders related to rulemaking. affect it. effects of this rulemaking elsewhere in Below we summarize our analyses Under section 213(a) of the Small this preamble. based on a number of these statutes and Business Regulatory Enforcement Executive orders, and we discuss First Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), F. Environment Amendment rights of protestors. we want to assist small entities in We have analyzed this proposed rule understanding this proposed rule. If the A. Regulatory Planning and Review under Department of Homeland proposed rule would affect your small Security Directive 023–01, Rev. 1, Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 business, organization, or governmental associated implementing instructions, direct agencies to assess the costs and jurisdiction and you have questions and Environmental Planning benefits of available regulatory concerning its provisions or options for COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which alternatives and, if regulation is compliance, please call or email the guide the Coast Guard in complying necessary, to select regulatory person listed in the FOR FURTHER with the National Environmental Policy approaches that maximize net benefits. INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and This NPRM has not been designated a Guard will not retaliate against small have made a preliminary determination ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under entities that question or complain about that this action is one of a category of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this proposed rule or any policy or actions that do not individually or the NPRM has not been reviewed by the action of the Coast Guard. cumulatively have a significant effect on Office of Management and Budget C. Collection of Information the human environment. This proposed (OMB). rule involves a safety zone lasting 7 This regulatory action determination This proposed rule would not call for enforcement hours that would prohibit is based on the size and duration of the a new collection of information under entry within certain navigable waters of safety zone, which would impact only the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the Chesapeake Bay and Patapsco River. vessel traffic required to transit certain (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). Normally such actions are categorically navigation channels of the Chesapeake D. Federalism and Indian Tribal excluded from further review under Bay and the Patapsco River for a total Governments paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table no more than 7 enforcement-hours. 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023–01– A rulemaking has implications for Although these waterways support both 001–01, Rev. 1. A preliminary Record of federalism under Executive Order 13132 commercial and recreational vessel Environmental Consideration (Federalism), if it has a substantial traffic, the downriver portions of the supporting this determination is direct effect on the States, on the waterway would be reopened as the available in the docket. For instructions relationship between the National M/V ZHEN HUA 24 transits northward on locating the docket, see the Government and the States, or on the in the Chesapeake Bay and up the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. We Patapsco River. Moreover, the Coast distribution of power and seek any comments or information that Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to responsibilities among the various may lead to the discovery of a Mariners via VHF–FM marine channel levels of government. We have analyzed significant environmental impact from 16 about the zone. this proposed rule under that Order and this proposed rule. have determined that it is consistent B. Impact on Small Entities with the fundamental federalism G. Protest Activities The Regulatory Flexibility Act of principles and preemption requirements The Coast Guard respects the First 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, described in Executive Order 13132. Amendment rights of protesters. requires Federal agencies to consider Also, this proposed rule does not have Protesters are asked to call or email the the potential impact of regulations on tribal implications under Executive person listed in the FOR FURTHER small entities during rulemaking. The Order 13175 (Consultation and INFORMATION CONTACT section to term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises small Coordination with Indian Tribal coordinate protest activities so that your businesses, not-for-profit organizations Governments) because it would not message can be received without that are independently owned and have a substantial direct effect on one or jeopardizing the safety or security of operated and are not dominant in their more Indian tribes, on the relationship people, places, or vessels. fields, and governmental jurisdictions between the Federal Government and with populations of less than 50,000. Indian tribes, or on the distribution of V. Public Participation and Request for The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. power and responsibilities between the Comments 605(b) that this proposed rule would not Federal Government and Indian tribes. We view public participation as have a significant economic impact on If you believe this proposed rule has essential to effective rulemaking, and a substantial number of small entities. implications for federalism or Indian will consider all comments and material While some owners or operators of tribes, please call or email the person received during the comment period. vessels intending to transit the safety listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION Your comment can help shape the zone may be small entities, for the CONTACT section. outcome of this rulemaking. If you

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:28 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27JYP1.SGM 27JYP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 40186 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Proposed Rules

submit a comment, please include the § 165.T05–0414 Safety Zone; M/V ZHEN DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR docket number for this rulemaking, HUA 24, Crane Delivery Operation, indicate the specific section of this Chesapeake Bay and Patapsco River, Fish and Wildlife Service document to which each comment Baltimore, MD. applies, and provide a reason for each (a) Location. The following area is a 50 CFR Part 17 suggestion or recommendation. safety zone: All waters of the [FF09E21000 FXES11110900000212] Submitting comments. We encourage Chesapeake Bay and Patapsco River, you to submit comments through the within 500 feet of the M/V ZHEN HUA Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Federal Decision Making Portal at 24 while it is transiting between and Plants; 90-Day Findings for Three https://www.regulations.gov. To do so, Chesapeake Channel Lighted Buoy 90 Species go to https://www.regulations.gov, type (LLNR 7825) in position 38°58′18.53″ N, USCG–2021–0414 in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 076°23′18.96″ W, and the Seagirt Marine Interior. box and click ‘‘SEARCH.’’ Next, look for ° ′ ″ Terminal in position 39 15 02.43 N, ACTION: Notification of petition findings this document in the Search Results ° ′ ″ column, and click on it. Then click on 076 32 20.50 W, Baltimore, MD. These and initiation of status reviews. the Comment option. If you cannot coordinates are based on WGS 84. submit your material by using https:// (b) Definitions. As used in this SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and www.regulations.gov, call or email the section— Wildlife Service (Service), announce 90- day findings on two petitions to add person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION Captain of the Port (COTP) means the CONTACT section of this proposed rule species to the Lists of Endangered and Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Threatened Wildlife and Plants and one for alternate instructions. Maryland-National Capital Region. Viewing material in docket. To view petition to remove a species (‘‘delist’’) documents mentioned in this proposed Designated representative means a under the Endangered Species Act of rule as being available in the docket, Coast Guard Patrol Commander, 1973, as amended (Act). Based on our find the docket as described in the including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty review, we find that the petitions to list previous paragraph, and then select officer, or other officer operating a Coast the Alexander Archipelago wolf (Canis ‘‘Supporting & Related Material’’ in the Guard vessel and a Federal, State, and lupus ligoni) and western ridged mussel Document Type column. Public local officer designated by or assisting (Gonidea angulata) present substantial comments will also be placed in our the Captain of the Port Maryland- scientific or commercial information online docket and can be viewed by National Capital Region (COTP) in the indicating that the petitioned actions following instructions on the https:// enforcement of the safety zone. may be warranted. Therefore, with the www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked publication of this document, we (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general announce that we plan to initiate status Questions web page. We review all safety zone regulations in subpart C of comments received, but we will only reviews of these species to determine this part, you may not enter the safety whether the petitioned actions are post comments that address the topic of zone described in paragraph (a) of this the proposed rule. We may choose not warranted. We find that the petition to section unless authorized by the COTP to post off-topic, inappropriate, or delist the golden-cheeked warbler or the COTP’s designated representative. duplicate comments that we receive. (Dendroica chrysoparia) does not Personal information. We accept (2) To seek permission to enter, present substantial scientific or anonymous comments. Comments we contact the COTP or the COTP’s commercial information indicating the post to https://www.regulations.gov will representative by telephone at 410–576– petitioned action may be warranted. include any personal information you 2693 or on Marine Band Radio VHF–FM Therefore, we are not initiating a status have provided. For more about privacy channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Those in the review of the species. To ensure that the status reviews are comprehensive, we and submissions in response to this safety zone must comply with all lawful are requesting scientific and commercial document, see DHS’s eRulemaking orders or directions given to them by the data and other information regarding the System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, COTP or the COTP’s designated March 11, 2020). species and factors that may affect their representative. status. Based on the status reviews, we List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 (d) Enforcement officials. The U.S. will issue 12-month petition findings, Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation Coast Guard may be assisted in the which will address whether or not the (water), Reporting and recordkeeping patrol and enforcement of the safety petitioned actions are warranted, in requirements, Security measures, zone by Federal, State, and local accordance with the Act. Waterways. agencies. DATES: These findings were made on For the reasons discussed in the (e) Enforcement period. This section July 27, 2021. As we commence our preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing will be enforced during inbound transit status reviews, we seek any new to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: of the M/V ZHEN HUA 24 to the Port information concerning the status of, or of Baltimore. threats to, the species or their habitats. PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION Any information we receive during the AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS Dated: July 20, 2021. course of our status reviews will be David E. O’Connell, considered. ■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the ADDRESSES: continues to read as follows: Port Sector Maryland-NCR. Supporting documents: Summaries of Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR [FR Doc. 2021–15918 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] the basis for the petition findings 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; BILLING CODE 9110–04–P contained in this document are Department of Homeland Security Delegation available on http://www.regulations.gov No. 0170.1. under the appropriate docket number ■ 2. Add § 165.T05–0414 to read as (see table under SUPPLEMENTARY follows: INFORMATION). In addition, this

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:28 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27JYP1.SGM 27JYP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Proposed Rules 40187

supporting information is available by INFORMATION). Then, click on the (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail contacting the appropriate person, as ‘‘Search’’ button. After finding the to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: specified in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION correct document, you may submit [Insert appropriate docket number; see CONTACT. information by clicking on ‘‘Comment table under SUPPLEMENTARY Status reviews: If you have new Now!’’ If your information will fit in the INFORMATION], U.S. Fish and Wildlife scientific or commercial data or other provided comment box, please use this Service, MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg information concerning the status of, or feature of http://www.regulations.gov, as Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041–3803. threats to, the species for which we are it is most compatible with our initiating status reviews, please provide We request that you send information information review procedures. If you those data or information by one of the only by the methods described above. attach your information as a separate following methods: We will post all information we receive (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal document, our preferred file format is on http://www.regulations.gov. This eRulemaking Portal: http:// Microsoft Word. If you attach multiple generally means that we will post any www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, comments (such as form letters), our personal information you provide us. enter the appropriate docket number preferred format is a spreadsheet in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (see table under SUPPLEMENTARY Microsoft Excel.

Species common name Contact person

Alexander Archipelago wolf ...... Douglass Cooper, Ecological Services Branch Chief, Anchorage Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office, 907– 271–1467, [email protected]. Golden-cheeked warbler ...... Adam Zerrener, Field Supervisor, Austin Ecological Services Field Office, 512–490–0057 x248, Adam_ [email protected]. Western ridged mussel ...... Paul Henson, State Supervisor, Portland Ecological Services Field Office, 503–231–6179, paul_henson@ fws.gov.

If you use a telecommunications device 424.14(h)(1)(i); before 2016, 50 CFR ‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either for the deaf, please call the Federal 424.14(b)). together or separately—the source of the Relay Service at 800–877–8339. A species may be determined to be an action or condition, or the action or SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: endangered species or a threatened condition itself. However, the mere species because of one or more of the identification of any threat(s) may not Background five factors described in section 4(a)(1) be sufficient to compel a finding that the Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)). The information in the petition is substantial and its implementing regulations in title five factors are: information indicating that the 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (a) The present or threatened petitioned action may be warranted. The (50 CFR part 424) set forth the destruction, modification, or information presented in the petition procedures for adding species to, curtailment of its habitat or range must include evidence sufficient to removing species from, or reclassifying (Factor A); suggest that these threats may be species on the Federal Lists of (b) Overutilization for commercial, affecting the species to the point that the Endangered and Threatened Wildlife recreational, scientific, or educational species may meet the definition of an and Plants (Lists or List) in 50 CFR part purposes (Factor B); endangered species or threatened 17. Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires (c) Disease or predation (Factor C); species under the Act. that we make a finding on whether a (d) The inadequacy of existing petition to add a species to the List (i.e., regulatory mechanisms (Factor D); and If we find that a petition presents ‘‘list’’ a species), remove a species from (e) Other natural or manmade factors such information, our subsequent status the List (i.e., ‘‘delist’’ a species), or affecting its continued existence (Factor review will evaluate all identified change a listed species’ status from E). threats by considering the individual-, endangered to threatened or from These factors represent broad categories population-, and species-level effects threatened to endangered (i.e., of natural or human-caused actions or and the expected response by the ‘‘reclassify’’ a species) presents conditions that could have an effect on species. We will evaluate individual substantial scientific or commercial a species’ continued existence. In threats and their expected effects on the information indicating that the evaluating these actions and conditions, species, then analyze the cumulative petitioned action may be warranted. To we look for those that may have a effect of the threats on the species as a the maximum extent practicable, we are negative effect on individuals of the whole. We also consider the cumulative to make this finding within 90 days of species, as well as other actions or effect of the threats in light of those our receipt of the petition and publish conditions that may ameliorate any actions and conditions that are expected the finding promptly in the Federal negative effects or may have positive to have positive effects on the species— Register. effects. such as any existing regulatory Our regulations establish that We use the term ‘‘threat’’ to refer in mechanisms or conservation efforts that substantial scientific or commercial general to actions or conditions that are may ameliorate threats. It is only after information with regard to a 90-day known to, or are reasonably likely to, conducting this cumulative analysis of petition finding refers to credible affect individuals of a species threats and the actions that may scientific or commercial information in negatively. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes ameliorate them, and the expected effect support of the petition’s claims such actions or conditions that have a direct on the species now and in the that a reasonable person conducting an impact on individuals (direct impacts), foreseeable future, that we can impartial scientific review would as well as those that affect individuals determine whether the species meets conclude that the action proposed in the through alteration of their habitat or the definition of an endangered species petition may be warranted (50 CFR required resources (stressors). The term or threatened species under the Act.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:28 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27JYP1.SGM 27JYP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 40188 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Proposed Rules

If we find that a petition presents complete a status review in accordance Summaries of Petition Findings substantial scientific or commercial with our prioritization methodology for The petition findings contained in information indicating that the 12-month findings (81 FR 49248; July this document are listed in the table petitioned action may be warranted, the 27, 2016). below, and the basis for each finding, Act requires that we promptly along with supporting information, is commence a review of the status of the available on http://www.regulations.gov species, and we will subsequently under the appropriate docket number. TABLE—STATUS REVIEWS

Common name Docket No. URL to docket on http://www.regulations.gov

Alexander Archipelago wolf ...... FWS–R7–ES–2020–0147 https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FWS-R7-ES-2020-0147 Golden-cheeked warbler ...... FWS–R2–ES–2016–0062 https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FWS-R2-ES-2016-0062 Western ridged mussel ...... FWS–R1–ES–2020–0150 https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FWS-R1-ES-2020-0150

Evaluation of a Petition To List America (Guatemala, Honduras, substantial scientific or commercial Alexander Archipelago Wolf Nicaragua, and El Salvador). information indicating the petitioned action may be warranted for the golden- Species and Range Petition History cheeked warbler. Because the petition Alexander Archipelago wolf (Canis On December 27, 1990, the Service does not present substantial information lupus ligoni); Alaska and Canada. published in the Federal Register (55 indicating that delisting the golden- FR 53153) a final rule to list the golden- Petition History cheeked warbler may be warranted, we cheeked warbler as an endangered are not initiating a status review of this We received a petition on July 15, species. On June 30, 2015, we received species in response to this petition. 2020, dated the same, from the Center a petition dated June 29, 2015, from However, we ask that the public submit for Biological Diversity, Alaska Nancie G. Marzulla (Marzulla Law, to us any new information that becomes Rainforest Defenders, and Defenders of LLC—Washington, DC) and Robert available concerning the status of, or Wildlife, requesting that we list the Henneke (Texas Public Policy threats to, this species or its habitat at Alexander Archipelago wolf as an Foundation—Austin, TX) requesting any time by contacting the appropriate endangered species or a threatened that we remove the golden-cheeked person listed under FOR FURTHER species and designate critical habitat for warbler from the Federal List of INFORMATION CONTACT, above. this species under the Act. The petition Endangered and Threatened Wildlife The basis for our finding on this clearly identified itself as such and (‘‘delist’’ the species) due to recovery or petition, and other information included the requisite identification error in information. The petition regarding our review of the petition, can information for the petitioner, required clearly identified itself as such and be found as an appendix at http:// at 50 CFR 424.14(c). This finding included the requisite identification www.regulations.gov under Docket No. addresses the petition. information for the petitioner, required FWS–R2–ES–2016–0062 under the at now 50 CFR 424.14(c) (before 2016, Supporting Documents section. Finding 50 CFR 424.14(a)). Based on our review of the petition On December 11, 2015, we received Evaluation of a Petition To List Western and sources cited in the petition, we supplemental information from the Ridged Mussel petitioners that included additional find that the petition presents Species and Range substantial scientific or commercial published studies and an unpublished information indicating the petitioned report. These studies, as well as others Western ridged mussel (Gonidea action may be warranted for the known to the Service and in our files at angulata); California, Oregon, Alexander Archipelago wolf due to the time the supplement was received, Washington, Idaho, Nevada, and the potential threats associated with the were considered, as appropriate. On Canadian Province of British Columbia. following: Logging and road June 3, 2016, we published in the Petition History development (Factor A); illegal and Federal Register (81 FR 35698) our On August 21, 2020, we received a legal trapping and hunting (Factor B); finding that the petition did not provide petition dated August 18, 2020, from the the effects of climate change (Factor E); substantial scientific or commercial Xerces Society for Invertebrate and loss of genetic diversity and information indicating that the petition Conservation, requesting that we list the inbreeding depression (Factor E). action may be warranted. western ridged mussel as an endangered The basis for our finding on this The General Land Office of Texas species and designate critical habitat for petition, and other information (GLO) challenged our June 3, 2016, this species under the Act. The petition regarding our review of the petition, can negative 90-day finding on the petition clearly identified itself as such and be found as an appendix at http:// to delist. The District Court found in included the requisite identification www.regulations.gov under Docket No. favor of the Service. The GLO appealed information for the petitioner, required FWS–R7–ES–2020–0147 under the the June 3, 2016, 90-day finding that at 50 CFR 424.14(c). Supporting Documents section. decision, and the Circuit Court vacated and remanded it to the Service. This Finding Evaluation of a Petition To Delist finding addresses the petition in Golden-Cheeked Warbler response to the court’s decision. Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we Species and Range Finding find that the petition presents Golden-cheeked warbler (Dendroica Based on our review of the petition substantial scientific or commercial chrysoparia = Setophaga chrysoparia); and sources cited in the petition, we information indicating that the Texas, Mexico (Chiapas), and Central find that the petition does not present petitioned action may be warranted for

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:28 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27JYP1.SGM 27JYP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Proposed Rules 40189

the western ridged mussel due to 0150 under the Supporting Documents determined that the petition potential threats associated with the section. summarized above for the golden- cheeked warbler does not present following: Habitat destruction, Conclusion modification, and curtailment of range; substantial scientific or commercial impacts to water quantity, water quality, On the basis of our evaluation of the information indicating that the and natural flow and temperature information presented in the petitions petitioned action may be warranted. We under sections 4(b)(3)(A) and regimes; aquatic invasive species (Factor are, therefore, not initiating a status 4(b)(3)(D)(i) of the Act, we have A); and disease (Factor C). review of this species in response to this determined that the petitions petition. We find that the petition presents summarized above for Alexander substantial scientific or commercial Archipelago wolf and western ridged Authors information indicating that regulatory mussel present substantial scientific or The primary authors of this document mechanisms may be inadequate to commercial information indicating that are staff members of the Ecological ameliorate or reduce those threats the petitioned actions may be Services Program, U.S. Fish and (Factor D). We determined that the warranted. We are, therefore, initiating Wildlife Service. petition does not provide substantial status reviews of these species to documentation for the threats of determine whether the actions are Authority overutilization of the species for warranted under the Act. At the The authority for these actions is the commercial, recreational, scientific, or conclusion of the status reviews, we Endangered Species Act of 1973, as educational purposes (Factor B) and loss will issue findings, in accordance with amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). of genetic diversity (Factor E). The basis section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, as to whether the petitioned actions are not Martha Williams, for our finding on this petition, and warranted, warranted, or warranted but Principal Deputy Director Exercising the other information regarding our review precluded by pending proposals to Delegated Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish of the petition, can be found as an determine whether any species is an and Wildlife Service. appendix at http://www.regulations.gov endangered species or a threatened [FR Doc. 2021–15497 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] under Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2020– species. In addition, we have BILLING CODE 4333–15–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:28 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\27JYP1.SGM 27JYP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 40190

Notices Federal Register Vol. 86, No. 141

Tuesday, July 27, 2021

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER the validity of the methodology and providers and the infants, children, and contains documents other than rules or assumptions used; ways to enhance the teens they serve. It will update the proposed rules that are applicable to the quality, utility and clarity of the picture of the CACFP after updated meal public. Notices of hearings and investigations, information to be collected; and ways to pattern requirements went into effect in committee meetings, agency decisions and minimize the burden of the collection of October 2017. Under the updated rulings, delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency information on those who are to requirements, CACFP meals and snacks statements of organization and functions are respond, including through the use of must include a wider variety of fruits examples of documents appearing in this appropriate automated, electronic, and vegetables, more whole grains, and section. mechanical, or other technological less added sugar and saturated fat. The collection techniques or other forms of updated requirements are also designed information technology. to encourage breastfeeding. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Comments regarding this information Need and Use of the Information: collection received by August 26, 2021 SNACS–II will collect data in program Submission for OMB Review; will be considered. Written comments year 2022–2023 to address eight broad Comment Request; Correction and recommendations for the proposed objectives: (1) CACFP provider information collection should be AGENCY: characteristics, (2) nutritional quality of Rural Housing Service, submitted within 30 days of the Department of Agriculture. foods offered, (3) children’s dietary publication of this notice on the intakes, (4) children’s physical activity ACTION: Notice; correction. following website www.reginfo.gov/ and household characteristics, (5) public/do/PRAMain. Find this SUMMARY: The Rural Housing Service, CACFP plate waste, (6) teens’ physical Department of Agriculture, published a particular information collection by activity and household characteristics, document in the Federal Register of selecting ‘‘Currently under 30-day (7) infants’ dietary intakes and physical July 16, 2021, concerning request for Review—Open for Public Comments’’ or activity while in care, and (8) the cost by using the search function. comments on specifications for the to produce CACFP meals and snacks. An agency may not conduct or Direct Single Family Housing Loan and SNACS–II will largely replicate the sponsor a collection of information methods used in the first Study of Grant Program. The document unless the collection of information contained an incorrect number of Nutrition and Activity in Child Care displays a currently valid OMB control Settings because comparing key respondents and total burden hours. number and the agency informs SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: outcomes at the two points in time is an potential persons who are to respond to important focus of the study. SNACS–II Correction the collection of information that such will collect data from nationally persons are not required to respond to representative samples of CACFP In the Federal Register of July 16, the collection of information unless it providers, including family day care 2021, in FR Doc 2021–15117, on page displays a currently valid OMB control homes, child care centers, Head Start 37732, in the second column, correct number. the Number of Respondents: to read centers, at-risk afterschool centers, and 248,919 and correct the Total Burden Food and Nutrition Service outside-school-hours care centers; Hours: to read 305,646. Title: Study of Nutrition and Activity infants, children, and teens; and parents/guardians. To address the array Levi S. Harrell, in Child Care Settings II (SNACS–II) OMB Control Number: 0584–NEW. of research questions under the eight Departmental Information Collection Summary of Collection: The Child study objectives, the data collection Clearance Officer. and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP), activities to be undertaken subject to [FR Doc. 2021–15900 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] administered by the U.S. Department of this notice include the following: BILLING CODE 3410–XV–P Agriculture (USDA) Food and Nutrition • The Provider Survey and Service (FNS), provides reimbursement Environmental Observation Form will for nutritious meals and snacks served be used to describe the characteristics of DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE to eligible children enrolled in CACFP providers. • Submission for OMB Review; participating child care programs. The Menu Survey will be used to Comment Request Reimbursable meals and snacks must assess the nutritional quality of foods meet CACFP’s meal pattern offered. The Department of Agriculture has requirements. Section 28(a) of the • The Meal Observation Booklet and submitted the following information Richard B. Russell National School the Automated Self-Administered 24- collection requirement(s) to OMB for Lunch Act (NSLA) authorizes the USDA Hour dietary recall interview (ASA24) review and clearance under the Secretary to conduct performance will be used to describe children’s Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, assessments of CACFP, including the dietary intakes. Public Law 104–13. Comments are nutritional quality of the meals and the • The Parent Interview and Height requested regarding; whether the cost of producing them. Under Section and Weight Form collect data on collection of information is necessary 28(c), entities participating in CACFP children’s physical activity and for the proper performance of the shall cooperate in the conduct of household characteristics. functions of the agency, including evaluations and studies. • The Food and Physical Activity whether the information will have SNACS–II is the second Experiences Survey and Teen Parent practical utility; the accuracy of the comprehensive, nationally Interview collect data on teens’ physical agency’s estimate of burden including representative assessment of CACFP activity and household characteristics.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM 27JYN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Notices 40191

• The Infant Menu Survey will be Type of Request: Regular submission, entering either the title of the collection used to assess the nutrition quality of Request for Extension Without Change. or the OMB Control Number 0607–0139. foods offered to infants. The Infant Number of Respondents: 30,000 Sheleen Dumas, Intake Form collect information on annually for a total of 90,000 over the infants’ dietary intakes while in care. Department PRA Clearance Officer, Office of • three year period. the Chief Information Officer, Commerce The Pre-Visit Cost Interview, Pre- Department. Visit Cost Form, Sponsor/Center Cost Average Hours per Response: 20 Interview, Center Director Cost minutes. [FR Doc. 2021–15909 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] Interview, Center Food Service Cost Burden Hours: 10,000 annually for a BILLING CODE 3510–07–P Interview, and Self-Administered Cost total of 30,000 over the three year Questionnaire collect information on period. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE the cost to produce CACFP meals and Needs and Uses: The BC–170 is an snacks. integral part of the application process Census Bureau Description of Respondents: State for persons interested in applying for Agencies, Private Sector (Business-for- Request for Nominations of Members Census field positions. Administrative profit and not-for profit), Individuals To Serve on the Census Scientific staff review the information provided on and Households. Advisory Committee this form to determine eligibility for our Number of Respondents: 19,373. field jobs. Hiring officials use the form Frequency of Responses: Reporting: AGENCY: Census Bureau, Department of to evaluate applicants in order to select Once. Commerce. Total Burden Hours: 26,538. the best possible candidates for these ACTION: Notice of request for positions. nominations. Ruth Brown, While the BC–171 is a voluntary form SUMMARY: Departmental Information Collection which collects information not used to The Director of the Census Bureau (Director) is seeking Clearance Officer. make selection decisions, it serves to nominations for the Census Scientific [FR Doc. 2021–15886 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] allow the Census Bureau to comply with Advisory Committee (CSAC). The BILLING CODE 3410–30–P Federal directives, described in Section purpose of the CSAC is to provide 11 of this document, Justification for advice to the Director on the full range Sensitive Questions, and to evaluate its of Census Bureau programs and DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE recruiting sources. The Education and activities including communications, Recruiting Sources information gathered decennial, demographic, economic, Census Bureau on the BC–171 will assist the Census field operations, geographic, Bureau in determining if recruiting Agency Information Collection information technology, and statistics. advertisements and tactics are working Activities; Submission to the Office of The Director has determined that the to produce qualified applicants and Management and Budget (OMB) for work of the CSAC is in the public determine if persons at all education Review and Approval; Comment interest and relevant to the duties of the levels are attracted to the positions Request; Form BC–170, U.S. Census Census Bureau. Therefore, the Director available. Employment Application and Form is seeking nominations to fill vacancies BC–171, Additional Applicant Affected Public: Individuals on the CSAC. Additional information Information interested in applying for Census field concerning the CSAC can be found by positions. visiting the CSAC’s website at: https:// The Department of Commerce will Frequency: Applicants will only be www.census.gov/about/cac/sac.html. submit the following information required to use these forms one time DATES: Nominations must be received collection request to the Office of unless, after two years, they have not on or before September 30, 2021. Management and Budget (OMB) for been selected for a position and wish to Nominations must contain a completed review and clearance in accordance resume. The Census Bureau will retain with the Paperwork Reduction Act of reapply. Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary. nominations received after the 1995, on or after the date of publication September 30, 2021 date for of this notice. We invite the general Legal Authority: This collection is consideration should additional public and other Federal agencies to authorized by Title 13, United States vacancies occur. The resume must be comment on proposed, and continuing Code, Section 23 a and c. sent to the address below. information collections, which helps us This information collection request assess the impact of our information ADDRESSES: Please submit nominations may be viewed at www.reginfo.gov. collection requirements and minimize to the Census Scientific Advisory the public’s reporting burden. Public Follow the instructions to view the Committee email address, comments were previously requested Department of Commerce collections census.scientific.advisory.committee@ via the Federal Register on March 16, currently under review by OMB. census.gov (subject line ‘‘2021 CSAC 2021 during a 60-day comment period. Written comments and Nominations’’). This notice allows for an additional 30 recommendations for the proposed FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: days for public comments. information collection should be Shana J. Banks, Chief, Advisory Agency: U.S. Census Bureau, submitted within 30 days of the Committee Branch, Office of Program, Department of Commerce. publication of this notice on the Performance and Stakeholder Title: Form BC–170, U.S. Census following website www.reginfo.gov/ Integration (PPSI), Census Bureau, by Employment Application and Form BC– public/do/PRAMain. Find this telephone at 301–763–3815 or by email 171, Additional Applicant Information. particular information collection by at [email protected]. OMB Control Number: 0607–0139. selecting ‘‘Currently under 30-day Individuals who use telecommunication Form Number(s): Form BC–170 and Review—Open for Public Comments’’ or devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the BC–171. by using the search function and Federal Information Relay Service

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM 27JYN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 40192 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Notices

(FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 between 8:00 based on their expertise in or responsibilities, review of materials, as a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard represenation of specific areas as well as participation in conference calls, Time, Monday through Friday. needed by the Census Bureau. webinars, working groups, and/or SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 3. The CSAC members will serve for special committee activities. a three-year term. All members will be 3. The Department of Commerce is Background reevaluated at the conclusion of each committed to equal opportunity in the In accordance with the Federal term with the prospect of renewal, workplace and seeks diverse CSAC Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Title pending the committee needs. Active membership. 5, United States Code, Appendix 2, attendance and participation in Ron S. Jarmin, Acting Director, Section 10, the Director of the Census meetings and activities (e.g., conference Census Bureau, approved the Bureau is seeking nominations for the calls and assignments) will be factors publication of this Notice in the Federal Census Scientific Advisory Committee considered when determining term Register. (CSAC). The CSAC will operate under renewal or membership continuance. Dated: July 20, 2021. the provisions of the FACA and will Members may be appointed for a second Sheleen Dumas, report to the Secretary of the three-year term at the discretion of the Department of Commerce through the Director. Department PRA Clearance Officer, Office of 4. Membership is open to persons the Chief Information Officer, Commerce Director of the Census Bureau. Department. The CSAC will advise the Director of who are not seated on other Census the Census Bureau on the full range of Bureau stakeholder entities (i.e., State [FR Doc. 2021–15901 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] Census Bureau programs and activities. Data Centers, Census Information BILLING CODE 3510–07–P The CSAC will provide scientific and Centers, Federal State Cooperative on Populations Estimates Program, other technical expertise from the following DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE disciplines: Demographics, economics, advisory committees, etc.). Members geography, psychology, statistics, survey who have served on one Census Bureau International Trade Administration methodology, social and behavioral Advisory committee may not be sciences, information technology and reappointed or serve on the CSAC until [A–427–832, A–580–912, A–201–855] computing, marketing and other fields at least three years have passed from the of expertise, as appropriate, to address termination of previous service. Acrylonitrile-Butadiene Rubber From Census Bureau program needs and 5. Members will serve as ‘‘Special France, the Republic of Korea, and objectives. Government Employees (SGEs).’’ SGEs Mexico: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair- will be subject to the ethics rules Value Investigations Objectives and Duties applicable to SGEs. Members will be 1. The CSAC advises the Director of individually advised of the capacity in AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, the Census Bureau (Director) on the full which they will serve through their International Trade Administration, range of Census Bureau programs and appointment letters. Committee Department of Commerce. activities including communications, members are selected from academia, DATES: Applicable July 20, 2021. decennial, demographic, economic, public and private enterprise, and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: field operations, geographic, nonprofit organizations, which are Patrick Barton at (202) 482–0012 information technology, and statisics. further diversified by business type or (France); Andre Gziryan at (202) 482– 2. The CSAC will address census industry, geography, and other factors. 2201 (Republic of Korea); and Dennis policies, research and methodology, Miscellaneous McClure at (202) 482–5973 (Mexico); tests, operations, communications/ AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and messaging, and other activities to 1. Members of the CSAC serve Compliance, International Trade ascertain needs and best practices to without compensation, but receive Administration, U.S. Department of improve censuses, surveys, operations, reimbursement for committee-related Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue and programs. travel and lodging expenses. NW, Washington, DC 20230. 3. The CSAC will provide formal 2. The CSAC meets at least twice a SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: review and feedback on internal and year, budget permitting, but additional external working papers, reports, and meetings may be held as deemed The Petitions other documents related to the design necessary by the Census Bureau Director On June 30, 2021, the Department of and implementation of census programs or Designated Federal Officer. All CSAC Commerce (Commerce) received and surveys. meetings are open to the public in antidumping duty (AD) petitions 4. The CSAC will function solely as accordance with the FACA. an advisory body and shall comply fully concerning imports of acrylonitrile- Nomination Process with the provisions of the FACA. butadiene rubber (AB Rubber) from 1. Nominations should satisfy the France, the Republic of Korea (Korea), Membership requirements described in the and Mexico filed in proper form on 1. The CSAC consists of up to 21 Membership section above. behalf of the petitioner,1 a domestic members who serve at the discretion of 2. Individuals, groups, and/or producer of AB Rubber.2 the Director. The Census Bureau is organizations may submit nominations On July 2, 2021, July 6, 13, and 14, seeking six qualified candidates to be on behalf of candidates. A summary of 2021, Commerce requested considered for appointment. the candidate’s qualifications (resume´ supplemental information pertaining to 2. The CSAC aims to have a balanced or curriculum vitae) must be included certain aspects of the Petitions in representation among its members, along with the nomination letter. considering such factors as geography, Nominees must be able to actively 1 Zeon Chemicals L.P. and Zeon GP, LLC age, sex, race, ethnicity, technical participate in the tasks of the (collectively, Zeon) (the petitioner). 2 committee, including, but not limited See Petitioner’s Letter, ‘‘Petitions for the expertise, community involvement, and Imposition of Antidumping Duties: Acrylonitrile- knowledge of census programs and/or to, regular meeting attendance, Butadiene Rubber from France, Mexico and South activities. Individuals will be selected committee meeting discussant Korea,’’ dated June 30, 2021 (the Petitions).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM 27JYN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Notices 40193

separate supplemental questionnaires.3 petitioner is an interested party, as is 10 calendar days from the initial The petitioner filed responses to the defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. comment deadline. supplemental questionnaires on July 7, Commerce also finds that the petitioner Commerce requests that any factual 12, 14, 15, 2021.4 demonstrated sufficient industry information that parties consider In accordance with section 732(b) of support for the initiation of the relevant to the scope of the the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the requested AD investigations.5 investigations be submitted during this Act), the petitioner alleged that imports period. However, if a party subsequently of AB Rubber from France, Korea, and Periods of Investigation finds that additional factual information Mexico are being, or are likely to be, Because the Petitions were filed on pertaining to the scope of the sold in the United States at less than fair June 30, 2021, pursuant to 19 CFR investigations may be relevant, the party value (LTFV) within the meaning of 351.204(b)(1), the period of may contact Commerce and request section 731 of the Act, and that imports investigation (POI) for the France, permission to submit the additional of such products are materially injuring, Korea, and Mexico AD investigations is information. All such submissions must or threatening material injury to, the April 1, 2020, through March 31, 2021. be filed on the records of the concurrent domestic AB Rubber industry in the AD investigations. United States. Consistent with section Scope of the Investigations Filing Requirements 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petitions are The product covered by these accompanied by information reasonably investigations is AB Rubber from All submissions to Commerce must be available to the petitioner supporting its France, Korea, and Mexico. For a full filed electronically via Enforcement and allegations. description of the scope of these Compliance’s Antidumping Duty and Commerce finds that the petitioner investigations, see the appendix to this Countervailing Duty Centralized 10 filed the Petitions on behalf of the notice. Electronic Service System (ACCESS). domestic industry, because the An electronically filed document must Comments on the Scope of the be received successfully in its entirety 3 See Commerce’s Letters, ‘‘Petitions for the Investigations by the time and date it is due. Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Acrylonitrile-Butadiene Rubber from France, On July 2, 2021, Commerce requested Comments on Product Characteristics Mexico, and the Republic of Korea: Supplemental information and clarification from the Commerce is providing interested Questions,’’ dated July 2, 2021 (General Issues petitioner regarding the proposed scope Supplemental); ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of parties an opportunity to comment on Antidumping Duties on Imports of Acrylonitrile- to ensure that the scope language in the the appropriate physical characteristics Butadiene Rubber from France: Supplemental Petitions is an accurate reflection of the Questions,’’ dated July 6, 2021 (France of AB Rubber to be reported in response products for which the domestic to Commerce’s AD questionnaires. This Supplemental); ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of 6 Antidumping Duties on Imports of Acrylonitrile- industry is seeking relief. On July 7, information will be used to identify the 7 Butadiene Rubber from the Republic of South 2021, the petitioner revised the scope. key physical characteristics of the Korea: Supplemental Questions,’’ dated July 6, The description of merchandise covered subject merchandise in order to report 2021; ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping by these investigations, as described in Duties on Imports of Acrylonitrile-Butadiene the relevant costs of production Rubber from Mexico: Supplemental Questions,’’ the appendix to this notice, reflects accurately, as well as to develop dated July 6, 2021 (Mexico Supplemental); these clarifications. appropriate product-comparison Memorandum, ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of As discussed in the Preamble to Antidumping Duties on Imports of Acrylonitrile- criteria. Butadiene Rubber from France: Phone Call with Commerce’s regulations, we are setting Interested parties may provide any Counsel to the Petitioner,’’ dated July 13, 2021; aside a period for interested parties to information or comments that they feel Memorandum, ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of raise issues regarding product coverage are relevant to the development of an Antidumping Duties on Imports of Acrylonitrile- (i.e., scope).8 Commerce will consider Butadiene Rubber from the Republic of Korea: accurate list of physical characteristics. Phone Call with Counsel to the Petitioner,’’ dated all comments received from interested Specifically, they may provide July 13, 2021; Memorandum, ‘‘Petition for the parties and, if necessary, will consult comments as to which characteristics Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of with interested parties prior to the are appropriate to use as: (1) General Acrylonitrile-Butadiene Rubber from Mexico: issuance of the preliminary Phone Call with Counsel to the Petitioner,’’ dated product characteristics; and (2) product July 13, 2021; Memorandum, ‘‘Petition for the determinations. If scope comments comparison criteria. We note that it is Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of include factual information,9 all such not always appropriate to use all Acrylonitrile-Butadiene Rubber from France: Phone factual information should be limited to product characteristics as product Call with Counsel to the Petitioner,’’ dated July 14, 2021; and Memorandum, ‘‘Petition for the public information. To facilitate comparison criteria. We base product Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of preparation of its questionnaires, comparison criteria on meaningful Acrylonitrile-Butadiene Rubber from Mexico: Commerce requests that all interested commercial differences among products. Phone Call with Counsel to Petitioner,’’ dated July parties submit such comments by 5:00 In other words, although there may be 14, 2021. p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on August 9, 4 See Petitioner’s Letters, ‘‘Zeon Chemical L.P. some physical product characteristics and Zeon GP, LLC’s Response to General Issues 2021, which is 20 calendar days from utilized by manufacturers to describe Questionnaire,’’ dated July 7, 2021 (General Issues the signature date of this notice. Any AB Rubber, it may be that only a select Supplement); ‘‘Acrylonitrile Butadiene Rubber from rebuttal comments, which may include few product characteristics take into France: Supplemental Questionnaire,’’ dated July 12, 2021; ‘‘Acrylonitrile Butadiene Rubber from the factual information, must be filed by Republic of South Korea: Supplemental 5:00 p.m. ET on August 19, 2021, which 10 See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Questionnaire,’’ dated July 12, 2021; ‘‘Acrylonitrile Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Butadiene Rubber from Mexico: Supplemental Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 5 See infra, section on ‘‘Determination of Industry Questionnaire,’’ dated July 12, 2021; ‘‘Zeon 39263 (July 6, 2011); see also Enforcement and Support for the Petitions.’’ Chemical L.P. and Zeon GP, LLC’s Response to Compliance; Change of Electronic Filing System 6 Questions Raised in July 13, 2021 Phone Call with See General Issues Supplemental at 3–4. Name, 79 FR 69046 (November 20, 2014) for details Counsel to the Petitioner,’’ dated July 14, 2021; and 7 See General Issues Supplement at 2–4. of Commerce’s electronic filing requirements, ‘‘Acrylonitrile-Butadiene Rubber from France and 8 See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, effective August 5, 2011. Information on help using Mexico: Zeon Chemical L.P. and Zeon GP, LLC’s Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997) ACCESS can be found at https://access.trade.gov/ Response to Questions Raised in July 14, 2021 (Preamble). help.aspx and a handbook can be found at https:// Phone Call with Counsel to the Petitioner,’’ dated 9 See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) (defining ‘‘factual access.trade.gov/help/Handbook_on_Electronic_ July 15, 2021. information’’). Filing_Procedures.pdf.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM 27JYN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 40194 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Notices

account commercially meaningful product,11 they do so for different industry.16 We relied on data provided physical characteristics. In addition, purposes and pursuant to a separate and by the petitioner for purposes of interested parties may comment on the distinct authority. In addition, measuring industry support.17 order in which the physical Commerce’s determination is subject to Our review of the data provided in the characteristics should be used in limitations of time and information. Petitions, the General Issues matching products. Generally, Although this may result in different Supplement, and other information Commerce attempts to list the most definitions of the like product, such readily available to Commerce indicates important physical characteristics first differences do not render the decision of that the petitioner has established 18 and the least important characteristics either agency contrary to law.12 industry support for the Petitions. last. First, the Petitions established support In order to consider the suggestions of Section 771(10) of the Act defines the from domestic producers (or workers) interested parties in developing and domestic like product as ‘‘a product accounting for more than 50 percent of issuing the AD questionnaires, all which is like, or in the absence of like, the total production of the domestic like product characteristics comments must most similar in characteristics and uses product and, as such, Commerce is not be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on August 9, with, the article subject to an required to take further action in order 2021, which is 20 calendar days from investigation under this title.’’ Thus, the to evaluate industry support (e.g., the signature date of this notice. Any reference point from which the polling).19 Second, the domestic rebuttal comments must be filed by 5:00 domestic like product analysis begins is producers (or workers) have met the p.m. ET on August 19, 2021. All ‘‘the article subject to an investigation’’ statutory criteria for industry support comments and submissions to (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act Commerce must be filed electronically be investigated, which normally will be because the domestic producers (or using ACCESS, as explained above, on the scope as defined in the petition). workers) who support the Petitions the record of each of the AD With regard to the domestic like account for at least 25 percent of the investigations. product, the petitioner does not offer a total production of the domestic like 20 Determination of Industry Support for definition of the domestic like product product. Finally, the domestic the Petitions distinct from the scope of the producers (or workers) have met the investigations.13 Based on our analysis statutory criteria for industry support Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act that a petition be filed on behalf of the of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that AB because the domestic producers (or domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) workers) who support the Petitions of the Act provides that a petition meets Rubber, as defined in the scope, constitutes a single domestic like account for more than 50 percent of the this requirement if the domestic production of the domestic like product producers or workers who support the product, and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like produced by that portion of the industry petition account for: (i) At least 25 expressing support for, or opposition to, product.14 percent of the total production of the the Petitions.21 Accordingly, Commerce domestic like product; and (ii) more In determining whether the petitioner determines that the Petitions were filed than 50 percent of the production of the has standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) on behalf of the domestic industry domestic like product produced by that of the Act, we considered the industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) portion of the industry expressing support data contained in the Petitions of the Act.22 support for, or opposition to, the with reference to the domestic like petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) product as defined in the ‘‘Scope of the Allegations and Evidence of Material of the Act provides that, if the petition Investigations,’’ in the appendix to this Injury and Causation does not establish support of domestic notice. To establish industry support, The petitioner alleges that the U.S. producers or workers accounting for the petitioner provided its own industry producing the domestic like more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product product is being materially injured, or is production of the domestic like product, in 2020.15 The petitioner states that it is threatened with material injury, by Commerce shall: (i) Poll the industry or the only domestic producer of AB reason of the imports of the subject rely on other information in order to merchandise sold at LTFV. In addition, determine if there is support for the Rubber; therefore the Petitions are supported by 100 percent of the U.S. the petitioner alleges that subject petition, as required by subparagraph imports exceed the negligibility (A); or (ii) determine industry support 11 See section 771(10) of the Act. using a statistically valid sampling 16 12 See the Petitions at Volume I at 2–4 and method to poll the ‘‘industry.’’ See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. Exhibits I–1 through I–5; see also General Issues Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), Supplement at 5 and Exhibits GI–8 and GI–9. the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers as a aff’d 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). 17 See the Petitions at Volume I at 2–4 and whole of a domestic like product. Thus, 13 See the Petitions at Volume I at 14–25 and Exhibits I–1 through I–5; see also General Issues Exhibits I–4, I–6, I–12, and I–13; see also General Supplement at 5 and Exhibits GI–8 and GI–9. to determine whether a petition has the 18 See the Petitions at Volume I at 2–4 and requisite industry support, the statute Issues Supplement at 1 and Exhibit GI–2. 14 For a discussion of the domestic like product Exhibits I–1 through I–5; see also General Issues directs Commerce to look to producers analysis as applied to these cases and information Supplement at 5 and Exhibits GI–8 and GI–9. and workers who produce the domestic regarding industry support, see Checklists, 19 See the Petitions at Volume I at 2–4 and like product. The International Trade ‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Exhibits I–1 through I–5; see also General Issues Supplement at 5 and Exhibits GI–8 and GI–9; and Commission (ITC), which is responsible Checklists: Acrylonitrile-Butadiene Rubber from France, Mexico, and the Republic of Korea,’’ section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act. for determining whether ‘‘the domestic (Country-Specific AD Initiation Checklists) at 20 See the Petitions at Volume I at 2–4 and industry’’ has been injured, must also Attachment II, Analysis of Industry Support for the Exhibits I–1 through I–5; see also General Issues determine what constitutes a domestic Antidumping Duty Petitions Covering Acrylonitrile- Supplement at 5 and Exhibits GI–8 and GI–9. For like product in order to define the Butadiene Rubber from France, Mexico, and the further discussion, see Attachment II of the Republic of Korea (Attachment II). These checklists Country-Specific AD Initiation Checklists. industry. While both Commerce and the are dated concurrently with this notice and on file 21 See Attachment II of the Country-Specific AD ITC must apply the same statutory electronically via ACCESS. Initiation Checklists. definition regarding the domestic like 15 See the Petitions at Volume I at Exhibit I–17. 22 Id.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM 27JYN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Notices 40195

threshold provided for under section subject merchandise for the EP determinations no later than 140 days 771(24)(A) of the Act.23 calculated for Korea.27 after the date of this initiation. The petitioner contends that the Normal Value 28 Respondent Selection industry’s injured condition is illustrated by significant and increasing For France, Korea, and Mexico, the In the Petitions, the petitioner named market share of subject imports; lost petitioner stated it was unable to obtain one company in France (i.e., Arlanxeo sales and revenues; underselling and home market or third country prices to Emulsion Rubber France), one company 29 price depression and/or suppression; use as a basis for NV. Accordingly, the in Mexico (i.e., INSA (Dynasol Group)), increase in cost of goods sold per unit petitioner based NV on constructed and two companies in Korea (i.e., 30 of production; declines in production, value (CV). For further discussion of Kumho Petrochemical and LG shipments, and capacity utilization, and CV, see the section ‘‘Normal Value Chemical, Ltd.) as producers/exporters decline in financial performance.24 We Based on Constructed Value.’’ of AB Rubber, while providing independent, third-party information as assessed the allegations and supporting Normal Value Based on Constructed support.34 We currently know of no evidence regarding material injury, Value threat of material injury, causation, as additional producers/exporters of AB As noted above, the petitioner was not well as negligibility, and we have Rubber from France, Korea, and Mexico. able to obtain home market prices or determined that these allegations are Accordingly, Commerce intends to third country prices to use as a basis for properly supported by adequate individually examine these producers/ NV. Accordingly, the petitioner based evidence, and meet the statutory exporters in the France, Korea, and NV on CV.31 Pursuant to section 773(e) requirements for initiation.25 Mexico investigations, respectively. We of the Act, the petitioner calculated CV invite interested parties to comment on Allegations of Sales at LTFV as the sum of the cost of manufacturing, this issue. Such comments may include selling, general, and administrative factual information within the meaning The following is a description of the expenses, financial expenses, and of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21). Parties allegations of sales at LTFV upon which profit.32 wishing to comment must do so within Commerce based its decision to initiate three business days of the publication of AD investigations of imports of AB Fair Value Comparisons this notice in the Federal Register. Rubber from France, Korea, and Mexico. Based on the data provided by the Commerce will not accept rebuttal The sources of data for the deductions petitioner, there is reason to believe that comments regarding respondent and adjustments relating to U.S. price imports of AB Rubber from France, selection. Comments must be filed and normal value (NV) are discussed in Korea, and Mexico are being, or are electronically using ACCESS. An greater detail in the Country-Specific likely to be, sold in the United States at electronically-filed document must be AD Initiation Checklists. LTFV. Based on comparisons of EP to received successfully in its entirety by U.S. Price NV, in accordance with sections 772 Commerce’s electronic records system, and 773 of the Act, the estimated ACCESS, by 5 p.m. ET on the specified For France, Korea, and Mexico, the dumping margins for AB Rubber for deadline. Because we intend to examine petitioner based export price (EP) on each of the countries covered by this all known producers/exporters, if no average unit values (AUVs) of imports initiation are as follows: (1) France— comments are received or if comments into the United States during the POI, 41.73 percent; (2) Korea—105.38 received further support the existence of under United States Harmonized Tariff percent; and (3) Mexico—92.70 only the above-mentioned producers/ Schedule (HTSUS) subheading percent.33 exporters in France, Korea, and Mexico, 4002.59.0000, which is discrete to AB Initiation of LTFV Investigations we do not intend to conduct respondent Rubber. As the AUVs used for EP are selection and will proceed to issuing the stated on a free-on-board (FOB) basis, Based upon the examination of the initial antidumping questionnaires to for France and Mexico, the petitioner Petitions and supplemental responses, the companies identified. However, if deducted foreign inland freight as an we find that they meet the requirements comments are received which create a adjustment to calculate a net ex-factory of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we 26 need for a respondent selection process, U.S. price. The petitioner was unable are initiating AD investigations to we intend to finalize our decisions to identify a public source to determine whether imports of AB regarding respondent selection within approximate the average distance Rubber from France, Korea and Mexico 20 days of publication of this notice. between the nearest container port and are being, or are likely to be, sold in the Interested parties must submit the addresses of the Korean AB Rubber United States at LTFV. In accordance applications for disclosure under plants identified in Volume I of the with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and administrative protective order (APO) in Petitions. Accordingly, the petitioner 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). did not make an inland freight we will make our preliminary Instructions for filing such applications adjustment to the FOB per-unit value of may be found on Commerce’s website at 27 Id. http://enforcement.trade.gov/apo. 23 See Petitions at Volume I at 26 and Exhibit I– 28 In accordance with section 773(b)(2) of the Act, 10; see also General Issues Supplement at 6 and for France, Korea, and Mexico investigations, Distribution of Copies of the AD Exhibit GI–12. Commerce will request information necessary to Petitions 24 See Petitions at Volume I at 25–34 and Exhibits calculate the constructed value and cost of I–9, I–10, I–14, I–15, and I–17 through I–19; see also production (COP) to determine whether there are In accordance with section General Issues Supplement at Exhibits GI–10 reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR through GI–14. of the foreign like product have been made at prices that represent less than the COP of the product. 351.202(f), copies of the public version 25 See Country-Specific AD Initiation Checklists 29 of the Petitions have been provided to at Attachment III, Analysis of Allegations and See Country-Specific AD Initiation Checklists. Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the 30 Id. the governments of France, Korea, and Antidumping Duty Petitions Covering Acrylonitrile- 31 Id. Butadiene Rubber from France, Mexico, and the 32 Id. 34 See Petitions at Volume I at 11–12 and Exhibits Republic of Korea. 33 See Country-Specific AD Initiation Checklists I–2 and I–4; see also General Issues Supplement at 26 See Country-Specific AD Initiation Checklists. for details of calculations. 1–2 and Exhibits GI–3 and GI–4.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM 27JYN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 40196 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Notices

Mexico via ACCESS. To the extent situation (PMS) for purposes of CV, submitting factual information in these practicable, we will attempt to provide stating that ‘‘if a particular market investigations. a copy of the public version of the AD situation exists such that the cost of Certification Requirements Petitions to each exporter named in the materials and fabrication or other AD Petitions, as provided under 19 CFR processing of any kind does not Any party submitting factual 351.203(c)(2). accurately reflect the cost of production information in an AD proceeding must in the ordinary course of trade, the certify to the accuracy and completeness ITC Notification administering authority may use of that information.39 Parties must use Commerce will notify the ITC of our another calculation methodology under the certification formats provided in 19 initiation, as required by section 732(d) this subtitle or any other calculation CFR 351.303(g).40 Commerce intends to of the Act. methodology.’’ When an interested reject factual submissions if the Preliminary Determinations by the ITC party submits a PMS allegation pursuant submitting party does not comply with to section 773(e) of the Act, Commerce the applicable certification The ITC will preliminarily determine, will respond to such a submission requirements. within 45 days after the date on which consistent with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v). Notification to Interested Parties the AD Petitions were filed, whether If Commerce finds that a PMS exists there is a reasonable indication that under section 773(e) of the Act, then it Interested parties must submit imports of AB Rubber from France, will modify its dumping calculations applications for disclosure under APO Korea, and/or Mexico are materially appropriately. in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. injuring, or threatening material injury Neither section 773(e) of the Act, nor Parties wishing to participate in these 35 to, a U.S. industry. A negative ITC 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v), set a deadline investigations should ensure that they determination for any country will for the submission of PMS allegations meet the requirements of 19 CFR result in the investigation being and supporting factual information. 351.103(d) (e.g., by filing the required terminated with respect to that However, in order to administer section letter of appearance). Note that 36 country. Otherwise, these AD 773(e) of the Act, Commerce must Commerce has temporarily modified investigations will proceed according to receive PMS allegations and supporting certain of its requirements for serving statutory and regulatory time limits. factual information with enough time to documents containing business Submission of Factual Information consider the submission. Thus, should proprietary information, until further an interested party wish to submit a 41 Factual information is defined in 19 notice. PMS allegation and supporting new This notice is issued and published CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence factual information pursuant to section submitted in response to questionnaires; pursuant to sections 732(c)(2) and 777(i) 773(e) of the Act, it must do so no later of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c). (ii) evidence submitted in support of than 20 days after submission of a Dated: July 20, 2021. allegations; (iii) publicly available respondent’s initial section D information to value factors under 19 questionnaire response. Christian Marsh, CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR Extensions of Time Limits and Compliance. 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on Parties may request an extension of Appendix—Scope of the Investigations the record by Commerce; and (v) time limits before the expiration of a evidence other than factual information time limit established under 19 CFR The product covered by these described in (i)–(iv). Section 351.301(b) 351.301, or as otherwise specified by investigations is commonly referred to as of Commerce’s regulations requires any Commerce. In general, an extension acrylonitrile butadiene rubber or nitrile rubber (AB Rubber). AB Rubber is a synthetic party, when submitting factual request will be considered untimely if it information, to specify under which rubber produced by the emulsion is filed after the expiration of the time polymerization of butadiene and acrylonitrile subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the limit established under 19 CFR 351.301. 37 with or without the incorporation of a third information is being submitted and, if For submissions that are due from component selected from methacrylic acid or the information is submitted to rebut, multiple parties simultaneously, an isoprene. This scope covers AB Rubber in clarify, or correct factual information extension request will be considered solid or non-aqueous liquid form. The scope already on the record, to provide an untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET also includes carboxylated AB Rubber. explanation identifying the information on the due date. Under certain Excluded from the scope of these already on the record that the factual circumstances, we may elect to specify investigations is AB Rubber in latex form information seeks to rebut, clarify, or a different time limit by which (commonly classified under Harmonized correct.38 Time limits for the Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) extension requests will be considered subheading 4002.51.0000). Latex AB Rubber submission of factual information are untimely for submissions which are due addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which is commonly either (a) acrylonitrile/ from multiple parties simultaneously. In butadiene polymer in latex form or (b) provides specific time limits based on such a case, we will inform parties in a acrylonitrile/butadiene/methacrylic acid the type of factual information being letter or memorandum of the deadline polymer in latex form. The broader definition submitted. Interested parties should (including a specified time) by which of latex refers to a water emulsion of a review the regulations prior to extension requests must be filed to be synthetic rubber obtained by polymerization. submitting factual information in these considered timely. An extension request investigations. must be made in a separate, stand-alone 39 See section 782(b) of the Act. submission; under limited 40 See Certification of Factual Information to Particular Market Situation Allegation Import Administration During Antidumping and circumstances we will grant untimely- Section 773(e) of the Act addresses Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July filed requests for the extension of time the concept of particular market 17, 2013) (Final Rule). Answers to frequently asked limits. Parties should review Extension questions regarding the Final Rule are available at of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_ 35 See section 733(a) of the Act. info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf. 36 Id. (September 20, 2013), available at 41 See Temporary Rule Modifying AD/CVD 37 See 19 CFR 351.301(b). http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013- Service Requirements Due to COVID–19; Extension 38 See 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2). 09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to of Effective Period, 85 FR 41363 (July 10, 2020).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM 27JYN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Notices 40197

Also excluded from the scope of these Title: Safety and Health Information SUMMARY: This notice establishes investigations is: (a) AB Rubber containing Collection. selection criteria and requirements for additives (e.g., nitrile rubber further OMB Control Number 0693–0080. the NOAA Rear Admiral Richard T. compounded with fillers, reinforcement Form Number(s): None. Brennan Ocean Mapping Matching agents, vulcanization agents, etc.; by Type of Request: Regular. Fund program, to be known as the example, products classified under HTSUS Number of Respondents: 999. subheading 4005); (b) AB Rubber containing Brennan Matching Fund. The purpose Average Hours per Response: 10 of this notice is to encourage non- rubber processing chemicals, AB Rubber minutes. containing other materials used for further Federal entities to partner with the Burden Hours: 168. NOAA National Ocean Service ocean processing beyond the polymerization Needs and Uses: The National process; (c) hydrogenated AB Rubber and coastal mapping programs on Institute of Standards and Technology (commonly referred to as HNBR) produced jointly funded ocean and coastal (NIST) is a unique federal campus by subsequent dissolution and hydrogenation surveys and related activities of mutual of AB Rubber; (d) reactive liquid polymers which hosts daily a range of non-federal interest. NOAA would receive and containing acrylonitrile and butadiene with individuals. Non-federal individuals match partner funds and rely on its amine, epoxy, carboxyl, or methacrylate may include NIST Associates, existing contract arrangements to vinyl chemical functionality. volunteers, students, and visitors. In Subject merchandise includes material conduct the surveying and mapping order to provide these individuals with activities in FY 2023. matching the above description that has been proper health care and health DATES: Proposals must be received via finished, packaged, or otherwise processed in documentation, NIST is pursuing a third country, including by modifying email by 5 p.m. ET on October 29, 2021. renewal of approval of three health unit physical form or packaging with another Applicants must submit via email any forms. product, or performing any other finishing, accompanying geographic information packaging, or processing that would not Affected Public: Some Associates, volunteers, and visitors to NIST. system (GIS) files, which are due no otherwise remove the merchandise from the later than November 5, 2021. If an entity scope of the investigations if performed in Frequency: As needed. the country of manufacture of the AB Rubber. Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary. is unable to apply for this particular The merchandise subject to these This information collection request opportunity but has an interest in investigations is classified in the HTSUS at may be viewed at www.reginfo.gov. participating in similar, future subheading 4002.59.0000. While the HTSUS Follow the instructions to view the opportunities, NOAA requests a one- subheading numbers are provided for Department of Commerce collections page statement of interest, instead of a convenience and customs purposes, the currently under review by OMB. proposal, also by October 29, 2021, to written description of the merchandise under Written comments and help gauge whether to offer the Brennan investigation is dispositive. recommendations for the proposed Matching Fund program in future years. [FR Doc. 2021–15895 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] information collection should be ADDRESSES: Proposals must be BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P submitted within 30 days of the submitted in PDF format via email to publication of this notice on the [email protected] by the October following website www.reginfo.gov/ 29, 2021, deadline. NOAA strongly DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE public/do/PRAMain. Find this encourages interested entities to submit particular information collection by their proposals in advance of the National Institute of Standards and selecting ‘‘Currently under 30-day deadline. Technology Review—Open for Public Comments’’ or FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information Collection Activities; by using the search function and Requests for additional information Submission to the Office of entering either the title of the collection should be directed to Ashley Chappell, Management and Budget (OMB) for or the OMB Control Number 0693–0080. NOAA Integrated Ocean and Coastal Review and Approval; Comment Sheleen Dumas, Mapping Coordinator, 240–429–0293, or Request; Safety and Health Department PRA Clearance Officer, Office of [email protected]. Information Collection the Chief Information Officer, Commerce SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Department. The Department of Commerce will Background [FR Doc. 2021–15911 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] submit the following information BILLING CODE 3510–13–P NOAA’s Office of Coast Survey (OCS) collection request to the Office of and National Geodetic Survey (NGS) are Management and Budget (OMB) for responsible for conducting review and clearance in accordance DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE hydrographic surveys and coastal with the Paperwork Reduction Act of mapping for safe navigation, the 1995, on or after the date of publication National Oceanic and Atmospheric conservation and management of coastal of this notice. We invite the general Administration and ocean resources, and emergency public and other Federal agencies to response. NOAA is committed to comment on proposed, and continuing Notice of Matching Fund Opportunity meeting these missions as information collections, which helps us for Ocean and Coastal Mapping and collaboratively as possible, adhering to assess the impact of our information Request for Partnership Proposals the Integrated Ocean and Coastal collection requirements and minimize AGENCY: Office of Coast Survey (OCS), Mapping (IOCM) principle of ‘‘Map the public’s reporting burden. Public National Ocean Service (NOS), National Once, Use Many Times.’’ comments were previously requested Oceanic and Atmospheric One of IOCM’s strongest advocates, via the Federal Register on April 19, Administration (NOAA), Department of Rear Admiral Richard T. Brennan, 2021 during a 60-day comment period. Commerce (DOC). developed an Ocean Mapping Plan for This notice allows for an additional 30 OCS in which IOCM plays a large role. ACTION: Announcement of matching days for public comments. Responsive to the June 2020 fund program opportunity, request for Agency: National Institute of publications of the National Strategy for proposals, and request for interest by Standards and Technology (NIST), Mapping, Exploring, and Characterizing October 29, 2021. Commerce. the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM 27JYN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 40198 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Notices

(NOMEC) and the Alaska Coastal Coast Survey has considerable In addition to matching partner funds, Mapping Strategy (ACMS), OCS’s Ocean hydrographic expertise, including NOAA will manage survey planning, Mapping Plan includes a goal to map cutting edge understanding of the quality-assure all data and products, the full extent of waters subject to U.S. science and related acoustic systems. provide the data and products to the jurisdiction to modern standards (all More detail on Coast Survey’s surveying partners on an agreed-upon timeframe, three plans are available at https:// expertise and capabilities is available in and handle data submission to the iocm.noaa.gov/about/strategic- the NOAA Coast Survey Ocean Mapping National Centers for Environmental plans.html.) Although we lost RDML Capabilities report (https:// Information for archiving and public Brennan tragically and unexpectedly in nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/about/docs/ accessibility. All ocean and coastal data May 2021, we continue to implement about/ocean-mapping-capabilies.pdf). and related products resulting from this his vision and passion for collaborative Information on the Hydrographic program will be available to the public ocean mapping through this and other Services Contract Vehicle and the types to the greatest extent allowed by avenues. of data and services available can be applicable laws. The Coast Survey Ocean Mapping found at https:// Specific value-added services NOAA Plan describes a number of motivating www.nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/data/ will provide include: forces for surveying and mapping waters hydrographic-surveys-contract- • Project management and GIS-based subject to U.S. jurisdiction, including, vehicle.html. task order planning, negotiation and but not limited to: The NOAA Coastal Mapping Program award of necessary procurement • Safe marine transportation; under NGS, responsible for updating the contracts: • Coastal community resilience; shoreline and nearshore bathymetry for Æ Tailored to meet the interests of • A need to better understand the application to NOAA Nautical Charts influence of the ocean’s composition on matching fund partners and other coastal applications, relies in Æ Managed on aerial, shipboard, and related physical and ecosystem part on its NGS Shoreline Mapping uncrewed/autonomous vehicles processes that affect climate, weather, Services contract. This contract also • Data acquisition collection methods and coastal and marine resources and supports additional NGS geodetic and include, but are not limited to: infrastructure; surveying missions in support of the • Æ Interest in capitalizing on the Blue National Spatial Reference System and Multibeam Echosounder Economy in growth areas like seafood Æ Side Scan Sonar the Aeronautical Survey Program (more Æ production, tourism and recreation, information at https://geodesy.noaa.gov/ Lidar (topographic, bathymetric, marine transportation, and ocean ContractingOpportunities/). mobile) exploration; Æ Subsurface and airborne feature • The national prerogative to exercise Description investigations Æ U.S. sovereign rights to explore, This notice announces the Brennan Sediment sampling manage, and conserve natural resources Matching Fund, a program to match • Managing survey compliance with in waters subject to U.S. jurisdiction; funds with NOAA for ocean and coastal applicable laws, such as the National and survey and mapping partnerships. Environmental Policy Act and National • International commitments to map NOAA will select proposals using the Historic Preservation Act. the global oceans by 2030. review process and criteria evaluation Products acquired may include, but Ocean mapping data is needed for described under Review Process and not be limited to: safe navigation and also informs Evaluation Criteria section of this • Bathymetric data (multibeam, single decisions regarding emergency notice. beam, lidar) planning, climate adaptation and The goal of this program is to leverage • Backscatter resilience, economic investment, NOAA and partner funds to acquire • Water column (depth dependent) infrastructure development, and habitat more ocean and coastal survey data for • Side scan sonar imagery protection. Additional sectors that mutual benefit, including for safe • Feature detection reports require high-resolution seafloor surveys navigation, integrated ocean and coastal • Sensor/data corrections and include deep sea mineral exploration, mapping, coastal zone management, calibrations (e.g., conductivity, national security, and maritime domain coastal and ocean science, climate temperature and depth casts, awareness in the Arctic Ocean. preparedness, infrastructure horizontal/vertical position Numerous other fields that rely on high- investments, and other activities and uncertainty) resolution ocean mapping data include also to a consistent standard for projects • Survey and control services, fisheries management and sustainable during FY2023. The program relies on including the installation, operation, use of natural resources, offshore NOAA’s mapping, charting, and and removal of water level and Global renewable energy construction, and geodesy expertise, appropriated funds, Positioning System stations tsunami and hurricane modelling. and its authority to receive and expend • Data processing, quality assessment Bathymetry provides critical matching funds contributed by partners and review of all acquired information for assessing and to conduct surveying and mapping hydrographic data responding to threats from climate activities. This program is subject to • Data management and stewardship change, sea level rise, flooding, and funding availability. If appropriated through data archive at the National storm surge, in order to protect our funds are available, NOAA will match Centers for Environmental coastal communities and maintain a funds contributed by selected entities Information sustainable economy. However, the for ocean and coastal surveys. NOAA • High-resolution topographic/ resources needed to fully achieve the will receive partner funds through bathymetric product generation goal of comprehensively mapping U.S. memoranda of agreement using the More information on Coast Survey’s oceans and coasts currently exceed authority granted to NOAA under the Hydrographic Surveys Specifications NOAA’s capacity. Mapping the full Coast and Geodetic Survey Act of 1947 and Deliverables publication can be extent of waters subject to U.S. to receive and expend funds for found at https:// jurisdiction means relying on partners collaborative hydrographic surveys (33 nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/publications/ to contribute to the effort. U.S.C. 883e). docs/standards-and-requirements/

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM 27JYN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Notices 40199

specs/HSSD_2021.pdf. More status.html). Mapping these gap areas Funding Availability information on NGS Specifications and would increase U.S. contributions to the In the second year of this program, Deliverables can be found at https:// global Seabed 2030 Project. NOAA anticipates funding between two geodesy.noaa.gov/ Proposal Eligibility to five survey projects at a 50 percent ContractingOpportunities/cmp-sow- v15.pdf. These specifications are based This matching fund opportunity is match of up to $1 million per project. in part on the International available to non-Federal entities. All projects are expected to have a Hydrographic Organization’s Standards Examples of non-Federal entities FY2023 project start date and all non- for Hydrographic Surveys, Special include state and local governments, Federal partner matching funds must be Publication 44 (https://iho.int/uploads/ tribal entities, universities, researchers received by NOAA no later than user/pubs/Drafts/S-44_Edition_6.0.0- and academia, the private sector, non- September 2022. NOAA reserves the Final.pdf). Background information, governmental organizations (NGOs), and right to increase or decrease the questions and answers, and slides that philanthropic partners. Qualifying available amount of matching funds potential applicants might find useful proposals must demonstrate the ability based on the quality and feasibility of from the expired FY2022 matching fund to provide at least 50 percent matching proposals received. This notice is program webinar are available at https:// funds, which must be transferred to subject to the availability of iocm.noaa.gov/planning/contracts- NOAA by September 2022 using a appropriations. grants-agreements.html. memorandum of agreement. A coalition Project Period NOAA would also like to continue to of non-Federal entities may assemble assess interest in the Brennan Matching matching funds and submit a proposal NOAA intends to complete each Fund by eligible, non-Federal entities jointly. Use of other Federal agency selected project within two years. that do not plan to apply this year but funds as part of the non-Federal entities’ However, the period to complete a that would consider applying in future match funds will be considered on a project may be extended, with no years. NOAA welcomes eligible entities case-by-case basis and only as additional funding, if additional time is to submit a one-page statement of authorized by applicable laws. In-kind needed. NOAA will submit a final interest by October 29, 2021, to use in contributions are welcome to strengthen report to the non-Federal partner within evaluating whether to offer the Brennan the proposal, but do not count toward 60 days of the conclusion of each Matching Fund program in future years. the match and are not required. project. Areas of Focus Deadlines and Process Dates Submission Requirements For this opportunity, proposals will All submissions must be emailed to Project Proposal—To qualify, a be considered that are aligned with [email protected]. Partner proposal shall not exceed six total pages national priorities for climate and proposals are due by 5 p.m. ET on (plus GIS files of project areas) and must infrastructure, and the goals of the October 29, 2021 (see Submission include the following three components: NOMEC, ACMS, the Coast Survey Requirements). Please include all 1. A project title; executive summary Ocean Mapping Plan (all available at required components of the proposal in (three to five sentences); and the names, https://iocm.noaa.gov/about/strategic- one email. Incomplete and late affiliations, and roles of the project plans.html). Those goals include: submissions will not be considered. partners and any co-investigators, as 1. Map the United States Exclusive • Informational Webinar, September well as the project lead that will serve Economic Zone (EEZ): The goal is to 9th, 2021, 2 p.m. ET; register at as primary contact (one page coordinate mapping efforts to compile a https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/ maximum). complete map of deep water by 2030 register/7914808480326041357 2. A justification and statement of and nearshore waters by 2040. • October 29, 2021: Due date for need; description and graphics of the Completing this goal will give the proposals proposed survey area polygon(s) United States unprecedented and • October 29, 2021: Due date for including relevance to the strategic detailed information about the depth, statements of interest regarding areas of focus noted under Areas of shape, and composition of the seafloor potential future proposals Focus section and degree of flexibility • of the United States EEZ (NOMEC Goal November 5, 2021: Due date for on timing of survey effort (four pages 2). additional GIS files supporting a maximum). 2. Expand Alaska Coastal Data proposal Collection to Deliver the Priority • 3. A project budget that lists the January 7, 2022: NOAA issues its source(s) and amount(s) of funding that Geospatial Products Stakeholders decisions on proposals (subject to the Require: Mapping the Alaska coast is the partner would provide as its 50 availability of appropriations) percent contribution to NOAA. Budget challenging. However, using targeted • February 2022: NOAA works with must confirm that partner funds can be and coordinated data collections will selected partners to develop transferred to NOAA by September 2022 potentially reduce overall costs and memoranda of agreement to facilitate (one page maximum). improve the cost-to-benefit ratio of the transfer of funds from the non- expanded mapping activities (ACMS Federal partner to NOAA Proposals must use 12-point, Times Goal 2). • May 2022: NOAA finalizes the New Roman font, single spacing, and 3. Map the full extent of waters memoranda of agreement with one inch margins. Failure to adhere to subject to U.S. jurisdiction to modern partners these requirements will result in the standards: Based on the January 2021 • June–September 2022: Non-Federal proposal being returned without review analysis of data holdings at NOAA’s partners transfer matching funds to and eliminated from further National Centers for Environmental NOAA; funds must be available to consideration. NOAA welcomes the Information, 53 percent of waters NOAA for contracting in October submission of GIS files of project areas subject to U.S. jurisdiction are 2022 noted under Submission Requirements unmapped, covering an area of about 3.6 • January–September 2023: NOAA as ancillary attachments to the proposal million square nautical miles (https:// issues task orders to its survey to facilitate review. These files will not iocm.noaa.gov/seabed-2030- contractors for NOAA/partner projects count toward the six page proposal

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM 27JYN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 40200 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Notices

limit. The GIS files must arrive no later project size, location, weather, NOAA comment preceding submission of the than November 5, 2021. analysis of environmental compliance collection to OMB. implications, project flexibility and Review Process and Evaluation Criteria DATES: To ensure consideration, adaptability to existing NOAA plans comments regarding this proposed Proposals will be evaluated by the and schedules, and other factors. information collection must be received Brennan Matching Fund Program During the proposal review period, by September 27, 2021. Management Team. Submissions will be NOAA reserves the right to engage with ADDRESSES: Interested persons are ranked based on the following criteria: invited to submit written comments to 1. Project justification (30 points)— proposal points of contact to ask Adrienne Thomas, NOAA PRA Officer, This criterion ascertains whether there questions and provide feedback on at [email protected]. Please is intrinsic IOCM value in the proposed project costs and feasibility. reference OMB Control Number ‘‘0648– work and/or relevance to NOAA Management and Oversight missions and priorities, including 0016’’ in the subject line of your downstream partner proposals and uses. Once selections are made, NOAA will comments. Do not submit confidential Use of, and reference to, national coordinate the development of the business information or otherwise priorities on climate and infrastructure, memoranda of agreement, funding sensitive or protected information. NOMEC, ACMS and the Coast Survey transfers, project planning, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ocean Mapping Plan (all available at environmental compliance, acquisition Requests for additional information or https://iocm.noaa.gov/about/strategic- awards and quality assurance process. specific questions related to collection plans.html); gap assessment tools such NOAA may bring in additional partners activities should be directed to Rich as the U.S. Bathymetry Gap Analysis and/or funding (Federal and/or non- Malinowski, National Marine Fisheries (https://iocm.noaa.gov/seabed-2030- Federal) to expand a project further if Service (NMFS), Sustainable Fisheries bathymetry.html); and the U.S. feasible. Projects will be reviewed by Division, 263 13th Avenue S, St. Interagency Elevation Inventory (https:// NOAA on an annual basis to ensure Petersburg, Florida 33701, phone: (727) catalog.data.gov/dataset/united-states- they are responsive to partner interests 824–5305, email: rich.malinowski@ interagency-elevation-inventory-usiei), and NOAA mission requirements, and noaa.gov. among others, are recommended. Coast to identify opportunities for outreach SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Survey’s Hydrographic Health Model and education on the societal benefits of showing priority survey areas for the work. I. Abstract navigation safety is available upon Authority: The Coast and Geodetic This request is for an extension and request. The U.S. Federal Mapping Survey Act of 1947, 33 U.S.C. 883e. revision of a current information collection. Coordination site shows current Coast Kathryn Ries, Survey and NGS mapping plans Participants in most federally Performing the Duties of Director, Office of (fedmap.seasketch.org); email managed fisheries in the NMFS Coast Survey, National Ocean Service, Southeast Region are currently required [email protected] for assistance National Oceanic and Atmospheric with the layers on this site if needed. Administration. to keep and submit catch and effort logbooks from their fishing trips. A 2. Statement of need (10 points)— [FR Doc. 2021–15970 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] This criterion assesses clarity of project subset of fishermen on these vessels also BILLING CODE 3510–JE–P need, partner project funding provides information on the species and alternatives if not selected, anticipated quantities of fish, shellfish, marine outcomes and public benefit. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE turtles, and marine mammals that are 3. Specified partner match (20 caught and discarded or have interacted points)—The proposal identifies a point National Oceanic and Atmospheric with the fishing gear. A subset of of contact for the entity submitting the Administration fishermen on these vessels also provides proposal, as well as any partnering information about dockside prices, trip entities, a clear statement on partner Agency Information Collection operating costs, and annual fixed costs. matching funds provenance (e.g., state Activities; Submission to the Office of An intercept survey for vessels with appropriations, NGO funds, or other Management and Budget (OMB) for Federal charter vessel/headboat permits sources), and timing of funds Review and Approval; Comment is designed to support and validate the availability. In-kind contributions are Request; Southeast Region Family of electronic logbooks. welcome to strengthen the proposal, but Forms The data are used for scientific do not count toward the funding match analyses that support critical and are not required. AGENCY: National Oceanic & conservation and management decisions 4. Project costs (15 points)—This Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), made by national and international criterion evaluates whether the Commerce. fishery management organizations. proposed budget is realistic and ACTION: Notice of information collection; Interaction reports are needed for commensurate with the proposed request for comment. fishery management planning and to project needs and timeframe. If needed, help protect endangered species and please contact [email protected] SUMMARY: The Department of marine mammals. Price and cost data for a rough estimate of cost per square Commerce, in accordance with the will be used in analyses of the economic nautical mile for surveys in a particular Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 effects of proposed and existing region; this figure will not be exact, as (PRA), invites the general public and regulations. actual cost will be negotiated by region other Federal agencies to comment on Regulatory Amendment 29 effective and scale of project. proposed, and continuing information July 15, 2020 would require at least one 5. Project feasibility and flexibility (25 collections, which helps to assess the descending device to be on board and points)—This criterion assesses the impact of information collection ready for use on commercial, for-hire, likelihood that the proposal would requirements and minimize the public’s and private recreational vessels while succeed based on survey conditions at reporting burden. The purpose of this fishing for or possessing snapper- the proposed time of year, such as notice is to allow for 60 days of public grouper species in the South Atlantic.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM 27JYN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Notices 40201

Most recently the Descend Act was down exemption request, 5 minutes; SUMMARY: The Corporation for National passed, which added a new section 321 trip declaration, 2 minutes; and and Community Service, operating as to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery proposed intercept survey, 15 minutes. AmeriCorps, has submitted a public Conservation and Management Act. Estimated Total Annual Burden information collection request (ICR) This requires commercial and Hours: 69,752. entitled AmeriCorps Program Life Cycle recreational fishermen to possess a Estimated Total Annual Cost to Evaluation—Opioid Recovery Coach venting tool or descending device that is Public: $1,706,211. Model Bundled Evaluation for review rigged and ready for use when fishing Respondent’s Obligation: Mandatory. and approval in accordance with the for reef fish in the Gulf Exclusive Legal Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Paperwork Reduction Act. Economic Zone. IV. Request for Comments DATES: Written comments must be Descending devices increase submitted to the individual and office survivability from barotrauma, which is NMFS is soliciting public comments to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed listed in the ADDRESSES section by injury caused by internal gas expansion August 26, 2021. when reeled up from depth. In addition information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, ADDRESSES: Written comments and to being asked to report the number of recommendations for the proposed fish released respondents would be including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the information collection should be sent asked to report the number of fish within 30 days of publication of this released with descending devices as accuracy of the time and cost burden estimates for this proposed collection, notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ part of their current logbook PRAMain. Find this particular submissions. The purpose of asking including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) information collection by selecting respondents to distinguish between fish ‘‘Currently under 30-day Review—Open releases without descending devices Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to for Public Comments’’ or by using the and fish released with descending search function. devices is to provide data needed by be collected; and (d) Minimize the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: NMFS to accurately account for fishing reporting burden on those who are to Copies of this ICR, with applicable mortality when performing stock respond, including the use of automated supporting documentation, may be assessments. collection techniques or other forms of NMFS seeks to revise this collection information technology. obtained by calling AmeriCorps, to add an additional question to the Comments that you submit in Xiaodong Zhang, at 703–251–0883 or by recreational Headboat part of the response to this notice are a matter of email to [email protected]. collection to make it more consistent public record. NMFS will include or SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The OMB with the data collected through the summarize each comment in our request is particularly interested in comments commercial discard logbook. The new to OMB to approve this information which: • column (#DESCENDED) will be added collection request. Before including Evaluate whether the proposed to the (#KEPT) and (#RELEASED) your address, phone number, email collection of information is necessary columns that are currently on the form. address, or other personal identifying for the proper performance of the This will provide fishermen an information in your comment, you functions of CNCS, including whether opportunity to report which unwanted should be aware that your entire the information will have practical comment, including your personal utility; fish will be released to the bottom of the • ocean, providing them a better chance at identifying information, may be made Evaluate the accuracy of the survival. publicly available at any time. While agency’s estimate of the burden of the you may ask us in your comment to proposed collection of information, II. Method of Collection withhold your personal identifying including the validity of the The information is submitted on information from public review, NMFS methodology and assumptions; • paper forms and electronic cannot guarantee that will occur. Propose ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the transmissions. The intercept survey is Sheleen Dumas, collected through in-person interviews information to be collected; and Department PRA Clearance Officer, Office of • at verified landing locations. Propose ways to minimize the the Chief Information Officer, Commerce burden of the collection of information Department. III. Data on those who are to respond, including [FR Doc. 2021–15955 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] OMB Control Number: 0648–0016. through the use of appropriate Form Number(s): None. BILLING CODE 3510–22–P automated, electronic, mechanical, or Type of Review: Regular submission other technological collection (extension and revision of a current techniques or other forms of information information collection). CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND technology. Affected Public: Businesses or other COMMUNITY SERVICE for-profit organizations; individuals. Comments Estimated Number of Respondents: Agency Information Collection A 60-day Notice requesting public 6,971. Activities; Submission to the Office of comment was published in the Federal Estimated Time per Response: Annual Management and Budget for Review Register on May 17, 2021 at 26702– fixed-cost report, 45 minutes; discard and Approval; Comment Request; 26703. This comment period ended July logbook, 15 minutes; headboat, charter AmeriCorps Program Life Cycle 16, 2021. No public comments were vessel, golden crab, reef fish-mackerel, Evaluation—Opioid Recovery Coach received from this Notice. economic cost per trip, wreckfish, 10 Model Bundled Evaluation Title of Collection: AmeriCorps minutes; no-fishing report for golden AGENCY: Corporation for National and Program Life Cycle Evaluation—Opioid crab, reef fish-mackerel, charter vessels, Community Service. Recovery Coach Model Bundled and wreckfish, 2 minutes; installation of Evaluation. ACTION: Notice of information collection; a vessel monitoring unit, 5 hours; OMB Control Number: TBD. Type of request for comment. landing location request and power- Review: New.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM 27JYN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 40202 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Notices

Respondents/Affected Public: ACTION: Notice of information collection; OMB Control Number: TBD. Type of Grantees, program implementers, request for comment. Review: New. volunteer organizations and volunteers. Respondents/Affected Public: SUMMARY: Total Estimated Number of Annual The Corporation for National Grantees, program implementers, Responses: 422 respondents. and Community Service, operating as volunteer organizations and volunteers. AmeriCorps, has submitted a public Total Estimated Number of Annual Total Estimated Number of Annual information collection request (ICR) Burden Hours: 218 hours. Responses: 914 respondents. entitled AmeriCorps Program Life Cycle Abstract: The purpose of this Total Estimated Number of Annual Evaluation—Volunteer Generation Fund evaluation is to study questions Burden Hours: 392 hours. Grant Program Evaluation for review Abstract: The purpose of this regarding grantees’ use of the peer and approval in accordance with the evaluation is to understand grantees’ recovery coach model and better Paperwork Reduction Act. use of Volunteer Generation Fund (VGF) determine how effective the model is at DATES: Written comments must be grant program funds to support increasing individuals’ recovery capital, submitted to the individual and office volunteer organizations and determine increasing attendance of health services, listed in the ADDRESSES section by how effective grantees’ approaches are and decreasing incidence of substance August 26, 2021. at enhancing the capacity of these use as well as on the peer recovery ADDRESSES: Written comments and organizations, increasing volunteer coaches and grantee organizations. The recruitment and retention, and research questions for this evaluation recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent increasing implementation of volunteer are: management best practices within their 1. Determine what recovery coach within 30 days of publication of this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ states. The research questions for this models look like (activity, setting, evaluation are: modality, etc.). PRAMain. Find this particular information collection by selecting 1. What are the grantees’ approaches 2. Describe promising practices and ‘‘Currently under 30-day Review—Open for utilizing VGF funds to improve challenges in implementing these for Public Comments’’ or by using the volunteer recruitment, retention, and models. search function. support of volunteers within their states 3. Measure the effectiveness of the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: and among volunteer organizations? recovery coach model in improving 2. What are promising practices and Copies of this ICR, with applicable outcomes for grantee organizations, challenges in implementing these supporting documentation, may be recovery coaches, and beneficiaries. programs? obtained by calling AmeriCorps, AmeriCorps will conduct a bundled 3. What are preliminary outcomes of Xiaodong Zhang, at 703–251–0883 or by evaluation of grantees that are these programs on volunteer email to [email protected]. implementing opioid recovery coaching organizations? models. Bundling allows AmeriCorps to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The OMB ICF will conduct a bundled combine a group of small programs is particularly interested in comments evaluation of grantees that are using across different funding streams with which: VGF funds to increase recruitment and • Evaluate whether the proposed similar program models and intended retention efforts within their states. By collection of information is necessary outcomes into a single evaluation. bundling, this evaluation combines a for the proper performance of the Spanning 27 months, the evaluation group of state commissions with similar functions of CNCS, including whether will work with 14 grantees to examine program approaches into a single the information will have practical program design, implementation, and evaluation. Spanning 27 months, the utility; evaluation includes 14 grantees to outcomes using surveys, interviews, and • Evaluate the accuracy of the focus groups with a wide range of examine program design, agency’s estimate of the burden of the implementation, and outcomes using stakeholders, including grantee staff, proposed collection of information, volunteers who support the peer surveys, interviews, and focus groups including the validity of the with a wide range of stakeholders recovery coach model, beneficiaries, methodology and assumptions; and staff at organizations which partner • including grantee staff, program Propose ways to enhance the implementers, volunteer organizations, with grantees. This is a new information quality, utility, and clarity of the collection. and volunteers. This is a new information to be collected; and information collection. Dated: July 21, 2021. • Propose ways to minimize the Mary Hyde, burden of the collection of information Dated: July 21, 2021. Director, Office of Research and Evaluation. on those who are to respond, including Mary Hyde, Director, Office of Research and Evaluation. [FR Doc. 2021–15913 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or [FR Doc. 2021–15933 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6050–28–P other technological collection BILLING CODE 6050–28–P techniques or other forms of information CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND technology. COMMUNITY SERVICE Comments DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Agency Information Collection A 60-day Notice requesting public Federal Energy Regulatory Activities; Submission to the Office of comment was published in the Federal Commission Register on May 17, 2021 at 26703– Management and Budget for Review [Project No. 2955–011] and Approval; Comment Request; 26704. This comment period ended July AmeriCorps Program Life Cycle 16, 2021. No public comments were City of Watervliet, New York; Notice of Evaluation—Volunteer Generation received from this Notice. Waiver Period for Water Quality Fund Grant Program Evaluation Title of Collection: AmeriCorps Certification Application Program Life Cycle Evaluation— AGENCY: Corporation for National and Volunteer Generation Fund Grant On July 12, 2021, the City of Community Service. Program Evaluation. Watervliet, New York filed with the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM 27JYN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Notices 40203

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Date Waiver Occurs for Failure to Act: Dated: July 21, 2021. a copy of its application for a Clean July 12, 2022. Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Water Act section 401(a)(1) water If New York DEC fails or refuses to act Deputy Secretary. quality certification submitted to New on the water quality certification request [FR Doc. 2021–15926 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] York State Department of by the above waiver date, then the BILLING CODE 6717–01–P Environmental Conservation (New York agency’s certifying authority is deemed DEC), in conjunction with the above waived pursuant to section 401(a)(1) of captioned project. Pursuant to 40 CFR DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 121.6, we hereby notify the New York the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. DEC of the following: 1341(a)(1). Federal Energy Regulatory Date of Receipt of the Certification Commission Request: July 12, 2021. Reasonable Period of Time to Act on Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt the Certification Request: One year. Wholesale Generator Status

Docket No.

West Medway II, LLC ...... EG21–119–000 BMP Wind LLC ...... EG21–120–000 Kei Mass Energy Storage I, LLC ...... EG21–121–000 Niyol Wind, LLC ...... EG21–122–000 Clines Corners Wind Farm LLC ...... EG21–123–000 Duran Mesa LLC ...... EG21–124–000 Red Cloud Wind LLC ...... EG21–125–000 Tecolote Wind LLC ...... EG21–126–000 Samson Solar Energy III LLC ...... EG21–127–000 Triple Butte LLC ...... EG21–128–000 St-Felicien, Societe en commandite ...... EG21–129–000 Irish Creek Wind, LLC ...... EG21–130–000 Heartland Divide Wind II, LLC ...... EG21–131–000 Little Blue Wind Project, LLC ...... EG21–132–000 Sac County Wind, LLC ...... EG21–133–000 Minco Wind Energy II, LLC ...... EG21–134–000 SP Garland Solar Storage, LLC ...... EG21–135–000 SP Tranquillity Solar Storage, LLC ...... EG21–136–000 BLCP Power Limited ...... FC21–3–000 Chaiyaphum Wind Farm Company Limited ...... FC21–4–000 EGCO Cogeneration Company Limited ...... FC21–5–000 G-Power Source Company Limited ...... FC21–6–000 Gulf Power Generation Company Limited ...... FC21–7–000 Gulf Yala Green Company Limited ...... FC21–8–000 Nam Theun 2 Power Company Limited ...... FC21–9–000 Natural Energy Development Company Limited ...... FC21–10–000 Nong Khae Cogeneration Company Limited ...... FC21–11–000 Paju Energy Services Company Limited ...... FC21–12–000 PT Darajat Geothermal Indonesia ...... FC21–13–000 Roi-Et Green Company Limited ...... FC21–14–000 San Buenaventura Power Limited Company ...... FC21–15–000 Solarco Company Limited ...... FC21–16–000 Star Energy Geothermal Darajat I, Ltd ...... FC21–17–000 Star Energy Geothermal Darajat II, Ltd ...... FC21–18–000 Star Energy Geothermal Salak, Ltd ...... FC21–19–000 Star Energy Geothermal Salak Pratama, Ltd ...... FC21–20–000 Star Energy Geothermal (Wayang Windu) Ltd ...... FC21–21–000 Theppana Wind Farm Company Limited ...... FC21–22–000 Xayaburi Power Company Limited ...... FC21–23–000 Convergent Canada Companies ...... FC21–24–000

Take notice that during the month of DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Power Act of Lincoln Land June 2021, the status of the above- Wind, LLC. captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Federal Energy Regulatory Filed Date: 7/20/21. Generators or Foreign Utility Companies Commission Accession Number: 20210720–5124. became effective by operation of the Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/10/21. Combined Notice of Filings #1 Commission’s regulations. 18 CFR Take notice that the Commission 366.7(a) (2020). Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt Dated: July 21, 2021. received the following electric corporate wholesale generator filings: filings: Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Docket Numbers: EG21–198–000. Docket Numbers: EC21–107–000. Applicants: Glacier Sands Wind Deputy Secretary. Applicants: Lincoln Land Wind, LLC. Power, LLC. [FR Doc. 2021–15925 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] Description: Application for Description: Notice of Self- BILLING CODE 6717–01–P Authorization Under Section 203 of the Certification of Exempt Wholesale

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM 27JYN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 40204 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Notices

Generators Status of Glacier Sands Wind Filed Date: 7/19/21. Accession Number: 20210720–5062. Power, LLC. Accession Number: 20210719–5154. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/10/21. Filed Date: 7/21/21. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/9/21. Docket Numbers: ER21–2468–000. Accession Number: 20210721–5073. Docket Numbers: ER21–60–000. Applicants: PacifiCorp, Nevada Power Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/11/21. Applicants: PacifiCorp. Company, Sierra Pacific Power Take notice that the Commission Description: PacifiCorp submits Company. received the following electric rate Supplement to October 7, 2020 Cost Description: Joint Petition for Limited filings: Justification Filing. Waiver of PacifiCorp, et al. Docket Numbers: ER20–2108–005. Filed Date: 7/19/21. Filed Date: 7/19/21. Applicants: Great Bay Solar II, LLC. Accession Number: 20210719–5219. Accession Number: 20210719–5221. Description: Compliance filing: Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/9/21. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/26/21. Compliance Filing (ER20–2108–000, et Docket Numbers: ER21–62–000. Docket Numbers: ER21–2469–000. al) to be effective 8/19/2020. Applicants: Uniper Global Applicants: Renewable World Filed Date: 7/21/21. Commodities North America LLC. Energies, LLC. Accession Number: 20210721–5045. Description: Uniper Global Description: Request for Limited Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/11/21. Commodities North America LLC Waiver, et al. of Renewable World Docket Numbers: ER21–40–000. submits Supplement to October 7, 2020 Energies. Applicants: ConocoPhillips Company. Cost Justification Filing. Filed Date: 7/21/21. Description: Supplement to Cost Filed Date: 7/19/21. Accession Number: 20210721–5024. Justification Filing of ConocoPhillips Accession Number: 20210719–5214. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/11/21. Company. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/9/21. Docket Numbers: ER21–2470–000. Filed Date: 7/19/21. Docket Numbers: ER21–65–000. Applicants: AEP Texas Inc. Accession Number: 20210719–5148. Applicants: Tri-State Generation and Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/9/21. Transmission Association, Inc. AEPTX–OCI Sunray System Upgrade Docket Numbers: ER21–42–000. Description: Tri-State Generation and Agreement to be effective 7/7/2021. Applicants: Tenaska Power Services Transmission Association, Inc. submits Filed Date: 7/21/21. Co. Amended and Restated Soft Price Cap Accession Number: 20210721–5033. Description: Tenaska Power Services Report for August 2020. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/11/21. Co. submits Supplement to October 7, Filed Date: 7/19/21. Docket Numbers: ER21–2471–000. 2020 Cost Justification Filing. Accession Number: 20210719–5104. Applicants: AEP Texas Inc. Filed Date: 7/19/21. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/9/21. Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Accession Number: 20210719–5222. Docket Numbers: ER21–135–000. AEPTX-House Mountain Generation Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/9/21. Applicants: EDF Trading North Interconnection Agreement to be Docket Numbers: ER21–47–000. America, LLC. effective 7/7/2021. Applicants: Tucson Electric Power Description: EDF Trading North Filed Date: 7/21/21. Company. America, LLC submits Supplement to Accession Number: 20210721–5037. Description: Tucson Electric Power October 16, 2020 Cost Justification Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/11/21. Company submits Supplement to Filing. Docket Numbers: ER21–2472–000. October 7, 2020 Cost Justification Filing. Filed Date: 7/19/21. Applicants: Mid-Atlantic Interstate Filed Date: 7/19/21. Accession Number: 20210719–5223. Transmission, LLC, PJM Accession Number: 20210719–5213. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/9/21. Interconnection, L.L.C. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/9/21. Docket Numbers: ER21–434–000. Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Mid- Docket Numbers: ER21–52–000. Applicants: Nevada Power Company. Atlantic Interstate Transmission submits Applicants: Public Service Company Description: Nevada Power Company Revised IA SA No. 4577 to be effective of New Mexico. submits Supplement to November 18, 9/21/2021. Description: Public Service Company 2020 Cost Justification Filing. Filed Date: 7/21/21. of New Mexico submits Supplement to Filed Date: 7/19/21. Accession Number: 20210721–5039. October 7, 2020 Cost Justification Filing. Accession Number: 20210719–5217. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/11/21. Filed Date: 7/19/21. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/9/21. Docket Numbers: ER21–2473–000. Accession Number: 20210719–5216. Docket Numbers: ER21–1994–001. Applicants: Liberty Utilities (Granite Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/9/21. Applicants: El Paso Electric Company. State Electric) Corp. Docket Numbers: ER21–56–000. Description: Tariff Amendment: Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Applicants: Guzman Energy, LLC. Service Agreement No. 353, LGIA with Borderline Sales Rate Sheet Update Description: Guzman Energy LLC National Grid Renewables to be effective Revised per PUC Order July 2021 to be submits Supplement to October 7, 2020 12/31/9998. effective 7/1/2021. Cost Justification Filing. Filed Date: 7/20/21. Filed Date: 7/21/21. Filed Date: 7/16/21. Accession Number: 20210720–5094. Accession Number: 20210721–5048. Accession Number: 20210716–5192. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/10/21. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/11/21. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/6/21. Docket Numbers: ER21–2466–000. Docket Numbers: ER21–2474–000. Docket Numbers: ER21–58–000. Applicants: Northern States Power Applicants: Pleinmont Solar 2, LLC. Applicants: TransAlta Energy Company, a Minnesota corporation. Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Marketing (U.S.) Inc. Description: Notice of Cancellation of Reactive Power Compensation Filing to Description: TransAlta Energy the Operation and Maintenance be effective 7/23/2021. Marketing (U.S.) Inc. submits Agreement (Service Agreement No. 259) Filed Date: 7/21/21. Supplement to October 7, 2020 Notice of Northern States Power Company, a Accession Number: 20210721–5061. and Justification for Spot Sales above Minnesota corporation. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/11/21. Soft Cap. Filed Date: 7/20/21. Docket Numbers: ER21–2475–000.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM 27JYN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Notices 40205

Applicants: PJM Interconnection, must file in accordance with Rules 211 PLACE: Via tele-conference. L.L.C. and 214 of the Commission’s STATUS: Meeting of the Board of Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and Directors, open to the public. Original WMPA, Service Agreement No. 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 6033; Queue No. AG1–337 to be time on the specified comment date. D Call to order effective 6/21/2021. Protests may be considered, but D IAF President/CEO Report Filed Date: 7/21/21. intervention is necessary to become a D Management Team Updates Accession Number: 20210721–5088. party to the proceeding. D Adjournment Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/11/21. eFiling is encouraged. More detailed Portion to be Closed to the Public: Docket Numbers: ER21–2476–000. information relating to filing D Executive session closed to the public Applicants: PJM Interconnection, requirements, interventions, protests, as provided for by 22 CFR 1004.4(b) L.L.C. service, and qualifying facilities filings Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/ CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Original WMPA, Service Agreement No. docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For Aswathi Zachariah, General Counsel, 6118; Queue No. AG1–330 to be other information, call (866) 208–3676 (202) 683–7118. effective 6/21/2021. (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502–8659. For Dial-in Information Contact: Karen Vargas, Board Liaison, (202) 524– Filed Date: 7/21/21. Dated: July 21, 2021. Accession Number: 20210721–5092. 8869. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/11/21. Debbie-Anne A. Reese, The Inter-American Foundation is Deputy Secretary. Docket Numbers: ER21–2477–000. holding this meeting under the Applicants: Tri-State Generation and [FR Doc. 2021–15927 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 Transmission Association, Inc. BILLING CODE 6717–01–P U.S.C. 552(b). Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Rate Aswathi Zachariah, Schedule FERC No. 328 between Tri- General Counsel. State and Mountain View to be effective FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION [FR Doc. 2021–15966 Filed 7–23–21; 11:15 am] 7/22/2021. BILLING CODE 7025–01–P Filed Date: 7/21/21. Sunshine Act Meetings Accession Number: 20210721–5109. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/11/21. TIME AND DATE: July 28, 2021; 10:00 a.m. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Docket Numbers: ER21–2478–000. PLACE: This meeting will be held by video-conference only. Applicants: Milford Power Company, National Park Service LLC. STATUS: Part of this meeting will be Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: open to the public and will be streamed [NPS–WASO–IEV–NPS0031819; Administrative Cancellations and live, accessible from www.fmc.gov. The PPWOIEADC0, PPMVSIE1Y.Y00000 (211); OMB Control Number 1024–NEW] Revisions to Tariffs to be effective 9/20/ rest of the meeting will be closed to the 2021. public. Agency Information Collection Filed Date: 7/21/21. PORTIONS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC: Activities; Education Reservation Accession Number: 20210721–5115. 1. Commissioner Bentzel, Update on Request Form Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/11/21. Equipment Manufacturing and Docket Numbers: ER21–2479–000. Availability Research AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. Applicants: Illinois Power Marketing 2. Commissioner Dye, Interim ACTION: Notice of information collection; Company. Recommendations International request for comment. Description: Compliance filing: Ocean Transportation Supply Chain SUMMARY: Administrative Cancellations and Engagement, Fact Finding 29 In accordance with the Revisions to Tariffs to be effective 9/20/ 3. Passenger Vessel Financial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, 2021. Responsibility the National Park Service (NPS) are proposing a new information collection. Filed Date: 7/21/21. PORTIONS CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC: DATES: Interested persons are invited to Accession Number: 20210721–5116. 1. Investigation into Conditions Created Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/11/21. submit comments on or before August by Canadian Ballast Water 26, 2021. Take notice that the Commission Regulations in the U.S./Canada received the following public utility Great Lakes Trade ADDRESSES: Send written comments on holding company filings: this information collection request (ICR) CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: to the Office of Management and Docket Numbers: PH21–14–000. Rachel Dickon, Secretary, (202) 523– Budget’s (OMB) Desk Officer for the Applicants: NextEra Energy, Inc. 5725. Department of the Interior by email at Description: NextEra Energy, Inc. Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b. submits FERC–65B Notice of Non- [email protected]; or by Material Change in Fact to Waiver Rachel Dickon, facsimile at 202–395–5806. Please Notification. Secretary. provide a copy of your comments to Filed Date: 7/21/21. [FR Doc. 2021–15880 Filed 7–23–21; 4:15 pm] Phadrea Ponds, Information Collection Accession Number: 20210721–5094. BILLING CODE 6730–02–P Clearance Officer, National Park Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/11/21. Service, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, The filings are accessible in the Reston, VA 20192; or by email at [email protected]. Please Commission’s eLibrary system (https:// INTER-AMERICAN FOUNDATION elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/ reference OMB Control Number 1024– fercgensearch.asp) by querying the Sunshine Act Meetings NEW (EdForm) in the subject line of docket number. your comments. Any person desiring to intervene or TIME AND DATE: July 27, 2021, 10:00 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To protest in any of the above proceedings a.m.–11:30 a.m. request additional information about

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM 27JYN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 40206 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Notices

this ICR, contact Linda Rosenblum, publicly available at any time. While The authority for this action is the Education Program Manager, by email at you can ask us in your comment to Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 [email protected], or by withhold your personal identifying U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). telephone at 202–577–6469. You may information from public review, we Phadrea Ponds, also view the ICR at http:// cannot guarantee that we will be able to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. do so. Information Collection Clearance Officer, National Park Service. Individuals who are hearing or speech Abstract: The NPS is authorized by 54 impaired may call the Federal Relay U.S.C. 100701 Protection, interpretation, [FR Doc. 2021–15899 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] Service at 1–800–877–8339 for TTY and research in System to administer BILLING CODE 4312–52–P assistance. education programs for audiences including but not limited to school SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR accordance with the Paperwork groups, scouting groups, extracurricular Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the groups, and home school groups. To National Park Service general public and other Federal effectively manage requests received for [NPS–AKRO–ANIA–DENA–CAKR–LACL– agencies with an opportunity to NPS educational programs, the NPS Washington Support Office Division of KOVA–WRST–GAAR–32018; comment on new, proposed, revised, PPAKAKROR4; PPMPRLE1Y.LS0000] and continuing collections of Interpretation, Education, and information. This helps us assess the Volunteers seeks approval for the use of National Park Service Alaska Region impact of our information collection a new Service-wide form, the Education Subsistence Resource Commission requirements and minimize the public’s Reservation Request Form. Program; Notice of Public Meetings reporting burden. It also helps the The proposed form would collect public understand our information necessary reservation information, AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. collection requirements and provide the including: (1) Person(s) or ACTION: Meeting notice. requested data in the desired format. organization(s) requesting education A Federal Register notice with a 60- program services, (2) type of program SUMMARY: The National Park Service day public comment period soliciting requested, (3) logistical details (NPS) is hereby giving notice that the comments on this collection of including, date, time, grade level, Aniakchak National Monument information was published on January number of students, (4) technology Subsistence Resource Commission 19, 2021 (86 FR 5247). No comments available to group for distance learning (SRC), the Denali National Park SRC, the were received. programming, and (5) criteria for Cape Krusenstern National Monument As part of our continuing effort to academic fee waiver eligibility. SRC, the Lake Clark National Park SRC, reduce paperwork and respondent This information will facilitate the Kobuk Valley National Park SRC, burdens, we are again soliciting operational aspects of scheduling the Wrangell-St. Elias National Park comments from the public and other groups for in-park education programs, SRC, and the Gates of the Arctic Federal agencies on the proposed ICR ranger in classroom programs, and/or National Park SRC will meet as that is described below. We are online distance learning programs. The indicated below. especially interested in public comment form will be fully electronic and DATES: The Aniakchak National addressing the following: available on participating parks Monument SRC will meet via (1) Whether or not the collection of websites for the purpose of making teleconference from 1:30 p.m. to 5:00 information is necessary for the proper school group reservations and p.m. or until business is completed on performance of the functions of the accommodating public requests for Tuesday, October 19, 2021. The agency, including whether or not the group education programming. alternate meeting date is Wednesday, information will have practical utility. Title of Collection: Education October 20, 2021, from 1:30 p.m. to 5:00 (2) The accuracy of our estimate of the Reservation Request Form. p.m. or until business is completed at burden for this collection of OMB Control Number: 1024–NEW. the same location. Teleconference information, including the validity of Form Number: None. participants must call the NPS office at the methodology and assumptions used. Type of Review: New. (907) 246–2154 prior to the meeting to (3) Ways to enhance the quality, Respondents/Affected Public: receive teleconference passcode utility, and clarity of the information to Educators at public and private schools, information. For more detailed be collected. homeschool groups, school-age clubs. information regarding these meetings, or (4) How might the agency minimize Total Estimated Number of Annual if you are interested in applying for SRC the burden of the collection of Respondents: 62,000. membership, contact Designated Federal information on those who are to Total Estimated Number of Annual Officer Mark Sturm, Superintendent, at respond, including through the use of Responses: 62,000. (907) 246–2120, or via email at mark_ appropriate automated, electronic, Estimated Completion Time per [email protected], or Linda Chisholm, mechanical, or other technological Response: 5 minutes. Subsistence Coordinator, at (907) 246– collection techniques or other forms of Total Estimated Number of Annual 2154 or via email at linda_chisholm@ information technology, e.g., permitting Burden Hours: 5,167. nps.gov, or Joshua Ream, Federal electronic submission of response. Respondent’s Obligation: Required to Advisory Committee Group Federal Comments that you submit in obtain a benefit. Officer, at (907) 644–3596 or via email response to this notice are a matter of Frequency of Collection: On occasion. at [email protected]. public record. Before including your Total Estimated Annual Nonhour The Denali National Park SRC will address, phone number, email address, Burden Cost: None. meet in-person or via teleconference or other personal identifying An agency may not conduct or from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. or until information in your comment, you sponsor and a person is not required to business is completed on Thursday, should be aware that your entire respond to a collection of information August 12, 2021. The alternate meeting comment—including your personal unless it displays a currently valid OMB date is Thursday, August 26, 2021, from identifying information—may be made control number. 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. or until business

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM 27JYN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Notices 40207

is completed at the same location. (907) 644–3596 or via email at joshua_ Wednesday, November 10, 2021. The Teleconference participants must call [email protected]. alternate meeting dates are Tuesday, the NPS office at (907) 644–3604 prior The Kobuk Valley National Park SRC November 16, 2021, from 8:30 a.m. to to the meeting to receive teleconference will meet in-person or via 5:00 p.m., and Wednesday, November passcode information. For more detailed teleconference from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 17, 2021, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. or information regarding these meetings, or p.m. on Thursday, October 28, 2021, until business is completed at the same if you are interested in applying for SRC and from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on location. Teleconference participants membership, contact Designated Federal Friday, October 29, 2021, or until must call the NPS office at (907) 455– Officer Brooke Merrell, Deputy business is completed. The alternate 0639 prior to the meeting to receive Superintendent, at (907) 683–9627, or meeting dates are Thursday, November teleconference passcode information. via email at [email protected] or 4, 2021, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., and For more detailed information regarding Amy Craver, Subsistence Coordinator, at Friday, November 5, 2021, from 9:00 this meeting or if you are interested in (907) 644–3604 or via email at amy_ a.m. to 12:00 p.m. or until business is applying for SRC membership, contact [email protected] or Joshua Ream, Federal completed at the same location. Designated Federal Officer Greg Advisory Committee Group Federal Teleconference participants must call Dudgeon, Superintendent, at (907) 457– Officer, at (907) 644–3596 or via email the NPS office at (907) 442–8342 prior 5752, or via email at greg_dudgeon@ at [email protected]. to the meeting to receive teleconference nps.gov or Marcy Okada, Subsistence The Cape Krusenstern National passcode information. For more detailed Coordinator, at (907) 455–0639 or via Monument SRC will meet in-person or information regarding this meeting or if email at [email protected] or via teleconference from 1:00 p.m. to you are interested in applying for SRC Joshua Ream, Federal Advisory 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, October 26, 2021, membership, contact Designated Federal Committee Group Federal Officer, at and from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on Officer Peter Christian, Acting (907) 644–3596 or via email at joshua_ Wednesday, October 27, 2021, or until Superintendent, at (907) 644–3512, or [email protected]. business is completed. The alternate via email at [email protected], or ADDRESSES: The Aniakchak National meeting dates are Tuesday, November 2, Hannah Atkinson, Cultural Resource Monument SRC will meet via 2021, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., and Specialist, at (907) 442–8342 or via teleconference. The Denali National Wednesday, November 3, 2021, from email at [email protected] or Park SRC will meet in-person in the 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. or until business Joshua Ream, Federal Advisory Community Hall, Cantwell Community is completed at the same location. Committee Group Federal Officer, at Teleconference participants must call (907) 644–3596 or via email at joshua_ Center, Milepost 1 Denali Highway, the NPS office at (907) 442–8342 prior [email protected]. Cantwell, AK 99729 or in Classroom B, to the meeting to receive teleconference The Wrangell-St. Elias National Park at the Murie Science Learning Center, passcode information. For more detailed SRC will meet in-person or via 237 Parks Highway, Denali National information regarding this meeting or if teleconference from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 Park and Preserve, AK 99755. If an in- you are interested in applying for SRC p.m. on Tuesday, September 28, 2021, person meeting is not feasible or membership, contact Designated Federal and from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. or until advisable, the meeting will be held Officer Peter Christian, Acting business is completed on Wednesday solely by teleconference. The Cape Superintendent, at (907) 644–3512, or September 29, 2021. If business is Krusenstern National Monument SRC via email at [email protected], or completed on September 28, 2021, the will meet in-person in the conference Hannah Atkinson, Cultural Resource meeting will adjourn, and no meeting room at the Northwest Arctic Heritage Specialist, at (907) 442–8342 or via will take place on September 29, 2021. Center, 171 3rd Avenue, Kotzebue, AK email at [email protected] or The alternate meeting dates are 99752. If an in-person meeting is not Joshua Ream, Federal Advisory Tuesday, October 5, 2021, from 9:00 feasible or advisable, the meeting will Committee Group Federal Officer, at a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and Wednesday, be held solely by teleconference. The (907) 644–3596 or via email at joshua_ October 6, 2021, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 Lake Clark National Park SRC will meet [email protected]. p.m. or until business is completed at in-person at the Nondalton Community The Lake Clark National Park SRC the same location. Teleconference Building, 49 Main St, Nondalton, AK will meet in-person or via access to the meeting may be requested 99640. If an in-person meeting is not teleconference from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 by calling the NPS office at (907) 822– feasible or advisable, the meeting will p.m. or until business is completed on 7236 at least two business days prior to be held solely by teleconference. The Wednesday, September 29, 2021. The the meeting to receive teleconference Kobuk Valley National Park SRC will alternate meeting date is Wednesday, passcode information. For more detailed meet in-person in the conference room October 6, 2021, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 information regarding these meetings, or at the Northwest Arctic Heritage Center, p.m. or until business is completed at if you are interested in applying for SRC 171 3rd Avenue, Kotzebue, AK 99752. If the same location. Teleconference membership, contact Designated Federal an in-person meeting is not feasible or participants must call the NPS office at Officer Ben Bobowski, Superintendent, advisable, the meeting will be held (907) 644–3648 prior to the meeting to (907) 822–5234, or via email at ben_ solely by teleconference. The Wrangell- receive teleconference passcode [email protected] or Barbara Cellarius, St. Elias National Park SRC will meet in- information. For more detailed Subsistence Coordinator, at (907) 822– person at the NPS office in the Copper information regarding this meeting or if 7236 or via email at barbara_cellarius@ Center Visitor Center Complex, you are interested in applying for SRC nps.gov or Joshua Ream, Federal Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and membership, contact Designated Federal Advisory Committee Group Federal Preserve, Mile 106.8 Richardson Officer Susanne Green, Superintendent, Officer, at (907) 644–3596 or via email Highway, Copper Center, AK 99573 and at (907) 644–3627, or via email at at [email protected]. via teleconference. If an in-person [email protected] or Liza Rupp, The Gates of the Arctic National Park meeting is not feasible or advisable, the Subsistence Manager, at (907) 644–3648 SRC will meet in-person or via meeting will be held solely by or via email at [email protected] teleconference from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 teleconference. The Gates of the Arctic or Joshua Ream, Federal Advisory p.m. or until business is completed on National Park SRC will meet in-person Committee Group Federal Officer, at both Tuesday, November 9, 2021, and in Zach’s Boardroom Sophie Station

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM 27JYN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 40208 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Notices

Hotel, 1717 University Avenue S, information from public review, we 4. Discussion of Council Priorities Fairbanks, AK 99709. If an in-person cannot guarantee that we will be able to 5. Elect New Council Chair meeting is not feasible or advisable, the do so. 6. Public Comments meeting will be held solely by Authority: 5 U.S.C. appendix 2. A teleconference may substitute for an teleconference. in-person meeting if public health Alma Ripps, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NPS restrictions are in effect. In the event of Chief, Office of Policy. a switch to teleconference, notification is holding meetings pursuant to the [FR Doc. 2021–15972 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 and access information will be posted BILLING CODE 4312–52–P U.S.C. appendix 1–16). The NPS SRC by August 6, 2021, to the Committee’s program is authorized under title VIII, website at https://www.nps.gov/tusk/ index.htm. section 808 of the Alaska National DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Interest Lands Conservation Act (16 The meeting is open to the public. U.S.C. 3118). National Park Service Interested persons may make oral or SRC meetings are open to the public written presentations to the Council and will have time allocated for public [NPS–PWRO–TUSK–31997; PPPWTUSK00, during the business meeting or file PPMPSPD1Z.YM0000] testimony. The public is welcome to written statements. Such requests should be made to the Superintendent present written or oral comments to the Tule Springs Fossil Beds National SRC. SRC meetings will be recorded and prior to the meeting. Members of the Monument Advisory Council Notice of public may submit written comments by meeting minutes will be available upon Public Meeting request from the Superintendent for mailing them to Derek Carter, public inspection approximately six AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. Superintendent, 601 Nevada Way, Boulder City, NV 89005, or by email weeks after the meeting. ACTION: Meeting notice. _ Purpose of the Meeting: The agenda derek [email protected]. All written may change to accommodate SRC SUMMARY: In accordance with the comments will be provided to members business. The proposed meeting agenda Federal Advisory Committee Act of of the Council. for each meeting includes the following: 1972, the National Park Service is Due to time constraints during the meeting, the Council is not able to read 1. Call to Order—Confirm Quorum hereby giving notice that the Tule written public comments submitted into 2. Welcome and Introduction Springs Fossil Beds National Monument the record. Requests by individuals 3. Review and Adoption of Agenda Advisory Council (Council) will meet as seeking to make oral comments during 4. Approval of Minutes indicated below. the meeting should be made to the 5. Superintendent’s Welcome and DATES: The meeting will be held on Superintendent prior to the meeting. Review of the SRC Purpose Wednesday, August 11, 2021, at 5:00 Depending on the number of people 6. SRC Membership Status p.m. until 7:00 p.m. (PACIFIC). A who wish to speak and the time 7. SRC Chair and Members’ Reports teleconference may substitute for an in- available, the time for individual 8. Superintendent’s Report person meeting if public health comments may be limited. 9. Old Business restrictions are in effect. Public Disclosure of Comments: 10. New Business ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 11. Federal Subsistence Board Update Before including your address, phone 11357 N Decatur Boulevard, CCSP08, number, email address, or other 12. Alaska Boards of Fish and Game Las Vegas, Nevada 89131. Update personal identifying information in your 13. National Park Service Staff Reports FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: comment, you should be aware that a. Superintendent/Ranger Reports Further information concerning the your entire comment—including your b. Resource Manager’s Report meeting may be obtained from Christie personal identifying information—may c. Subsistence Manager’s Report Vanover, Public Affairs Officer, Lake be made publicly available at any time. 14. Public and Other Agency Comments Mead National Recreation Area, 601 While you can ask us in your comment 15. Work Session Nevada Way, Boulder City, Nevada to withhold your personal identifying 16. Set Tentative Date and Location for 89005, via telephone at (702) 293–8691, information from public review, we _ Next SRC Meeting or email at christie [email protected]. cannot guarantee that we will be able to 17. Adjourn Meeting SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The do so. SRC meeting location and date may Council was established pursuant to Authority: 5 U.S.C. Appendix 2. change based on inclement weather or Section 3092(a)(6) of Public Law 113– Alma Ripps, 291 and in accordance with the exceptional circumstances, including Chief, Office of Policy. provisions of the Federal Advisory public health advisories or mandates. If [FR Doc. 2021–15974 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] the meeting date and location are Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix 1– BILLING CODE 4312–52–P changed, the Superintendent will issue 16). The purpose of the Council is to a press release and use local newspapers advise the Secretary of the Interior with and/or radio stations to announce the respect to the preparation and INTERNATIONAL TRADE rescheduled meeting. implementation of the management COMMISSION Public Disclosure of Comments: plan. Before including your address, phone Purpose of the Meeting: The Council [Investigation No. 337–TA–1272] number, email address, or other agenda will include: personal identifying information in your 1. Superintendent Update Certain Integrated Circuits and comment, you should be aware that • Update on General Management Products Containing Same; Institution your entire comment—including your Plan Pre-Planning of Investigation • personal identifying information—may Update on Tufa Trail AGENCY: International Trade be made publicly available at any time. 2. Subcommittee Update on Parking Commission. While you can ask us in your comment Areas ACTION: Notice. to withhold your personal identifying 3. Resource Management Update

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM 27JYN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Notices 40209

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a to determine whether there is a Continental Automotive GmbH, complaint was filed with the U.S. violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of Vahrenwalder Strasse 9, 30165 International Trade Commission on June section 337 in the importation into the Hanover, Germany 21, 2021, under section 337 of the Tariff United States, the sale for importation, Continental Automotive Systems, Inc., 1 Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of or the sale within the United States after Continental Drive, Auburn Hills, MI MediaTek Inc. of Taiwan and MediaTek importation of certain products 48326 USA Inc. of San Jose, California. identified in paragraph (2) by reason of Supplements to the complaint were infringement of one or more of claims Robert Bosch GmbH, Robert-Bosch-Platz filed on July 9, 2021. The complaint 1–16 of the ’928 patent; claims 1, 3, 4, 1, 70839 Gerlingen-Schillerho¨he, alleges violations of section 337 based 7–10, 14–16, 19, and 20 of the ’474 Germany upon the importation into the United patent; claims 13, 19–22, and 24 of the Robert Bosch LLC, 38000 Hills Tech States, the sale for importation, and the ’580 patent; claims 5–7 and 13–17 of the Drive, Farmington Hills, MI 48331 sale within the United States after ’017 patent; and claims 11–20 of the importation of certain integrated circuits ’228 patent, and whether an industry in (c) The Office of Unfair Import and products containing same by reason the United States exists as required by Investigations, U.S. International Trade of infringement of certain claims of U.S. subsection (a)(2) of section 337; Commission, 500 E Street SW, Suite Patent No. 8,772,928 (‘‘the ’928 patent’’); (2) Pursuant to section 210.10(b)(1) of 401, Washington, DC 20436; and U.S. Patent No. 7,231,474 (‘‘the ’474 the Commission’s Rules of Practice and (5) For the investigation so instituted, patent’’); U.S. Patent No. 10,264,580 Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10(b)(1), the the Chief Administrative Law Judge, (‘‘the ’580 patent’’); U.S. Patent No. plain language description of the U.S. International Trade Commission, 10,616,017 (‘‘the ’017 patent’’); and U.S. accused products or category of accused shall designate the presiding Patent No. 10,200,228 (‘‘the ’228 products, which defines the scope of the Administrative Law Judge. patent’’). The complaint further alleges investigation, is ‘‘NXP integrated that an industry in the United States circuits and evaluation boards; and Responses to the complaint and the exists as required by the applicable modules, control units, navigation notice of investigation must be Federal Statute. The complainants systems, and infotainment systems that submitted by the named respondents in request that the Commission institute an contain NXP integrated circuits;’’ accordance with section 210.13 of the investigation and, after the (3) Pursuant to Commission Rule Commission’s Rules of Practice and investigation, issue a limited exclusion 210.50(b)(l), 19 CFR 210.50(b)(1), the Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to order and cease and desist orders. presiding administrative law judge shall 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), as ADDRESSES: The complaint, except for take evidence or other information and amended in 85 FR 15798 (March 19, any confidential information contained hear arguments from the parties or other 2020), such responses will be therein, may be viewed on the interested persons with respect to the considered by the Commission if Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) public interest in this investigation, as received not later than 20 days after the at https://edis.usitc.gov. For help appropriate, and provide the date of service by the complainants of accessing EDIS, please email Commission with findings of fact and a the complaint and the notice of [email protected]. Hearing impaired recommended determination on this investigation. Extensions of time for individuals are advised that information issue, which shall be limited to the submitting responses to the complaint on this matter can be obtained by statutory public interest factors set forth and the notice of investigation will not contacting the Commission’s TDD in 19 U.S.C. l337(d)(l), (f)(1), (g)(1); be granted unless good cause therefor is (4) For the purpose of the terminal on (202) 205–1810. Persons shown. with mobility impairments who will investigation so instituted, the following need special assistance in gaining access are hereby named as parties upon which Failure of a respondent to file a timely to the Commission should contact the this notice of investigation shall be response to each allegation in the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205– served: complaint and in this notice may be 2000. General information concerning (a) The complainants are: deemed to constitute a waiver of the the Commission may also be obtained MediaTek Inc., No. 1, Dusing Road 1, right to appear and contest the by accessing its internet server at Hsinchu Science Park, Hsinchu City allegations of the complaint and this https://www.usitc.gov. 30078, Taiwan notice, and to authorize the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MediaTek USA Inc., 2840 Junction administrative law judge and the Pathenia Proctor, Office of Unfair Avenue, San Jose, California 95134 Commission, without further notice to Import Investigations, U.S. International (b) The respondents are the following the respondent, to find the facts to be as Trade Commission, telephone (202) entities alleged to be in violation of alleged in the complaint and this notice 205–2560. section 337, and are the parties upon and to enter an initial determination SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority: which the complaint is to be served: and a final determination containing The authority for institution of this NXP Semiconductors N.V., High Tech such findings, and may result in the investigation is contained in section 337 Campus 60, 5656 AG Eindhoven, issuance of an exclusion order or a cease of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, Netherlands and desist order or both directed against 19 U.S.C. 1337, and in section 210.10 of NXP USA, Inc., 6501 W. William the respondent. the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Cannon Dr., Austin, TX 78735 By order of the Commission. Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2020). Avnet, Inc., 2211 South 47th Street, Scope of Investigation: Having Phoenix, AZ 85034 Issued: July 21, 2021. considered the complaint, the U.S. Arrow Electronics, Inc., 9201 East Dry Lisa Barton, International Trade Commission, on Creek Road, Centennial, CO 80112 Secretary to the Commission. July 21, 2021, ordered that— Mouser Electronics, Inc., 1000 North [FR Doc. 2021–15906 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] (1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of Main Street, Mansfield, TX 76063 BILLING CODE 7020–02–P section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as Continental AG, Vahrenwalder Strasse amended, an investigation be instituted 9, 30165 Hanover, Germany

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM 27JYN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 40210 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE whether the information will have (# of respondents) * 677.12822 (# of practical utility; responses per respondent) * .0176728 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms —Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s (1.06 minutes). and Explosives estimate of the burden of the 7. An Explanation of the Change in proposed collection of information, Estimates: The increase in total [OMB 1140–0067] including the validity of the respondents by 1,457, is due to more Agency Information Collection methodology and assumptions used; firearms manufacturers responding to Activities; Proposed eCollection of —Evaluate whether and if so how the this collection. However, the total eComments Requested; Revision of a quality, utility, and clarity of the responses and burdens hours decreased Currently Approved Collection; information to be collected can be by 4,378,792 and 75,4040 hours Licensed Firearms Manufacturers enhanced; and respectively, because less firearms were Records of Production, Disposition, —Minimize the burden of the collection produced since the last renewal of this and Supporting Data of information on those who are to collection in 2018. respond, including through the use of If additional information is required AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, appropriate automated, electronic, contact: Melody Braswell, Department Firearms and Explosives, Department of mechanical, or other technological Clearance Officer, United States Justice. collection techniques or other forms Department of Justice, Justice ACTION: 60-Day notice. of information technology, e.g., Management Division, Policy and permitting electronic submission of Planning Staff, Two Constitution SUMMARY: The Bureau of Alcohol, responses. Square, 145 N Street NE, Mail Stop Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Overview of This Information 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530. (ATF), Department of Justice (DOJ), will Collection Dated: July 22, 2021. submit the following information collection request to the Office of 1. Type of Information Collection Melody Braswell, Management and Budget (OMB) for (check justification or form 83): Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. review and approval in accordance with Revision of a currently approved Department of Justice. the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. collection. [FR Doc. 2021–15946 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] The proposed collection OMB 1140– 2. The Title of the Form/Collection: BILLING CODE 4410–FY–P 0067 (Licensed Firearms Manufacturers Licensed Firearms Manufacturers Records of Production, Disposition, and Records of Production, Disposition, and DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Supporting Data) is being revised due to Supporting Data. 3. The agency form number, if any, an increase in respondents, although the Antitrust Division total responses and burden hours have and the applicable component of the reduced since the last renewal in 2018. Department sponsoring the collection: Granting of Requests for Early This information collection is also being Form number (if applicable): None. Termination of the Waiting Period published to obtain comments from the Component: Bureau of Alcohol, Under the Premerger Notification public and affected agencies. Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Rules DATES: Comments are encouraged and Department of Justice. will be accepted for 60 days until 4. Affected public who will be asked Section 7A of the Clayton Act, 15 September 27, 2021. or required to respond, as well as a brief U.S.C. 18a, as added by Title II of the abstract: Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If Primary: Business or other for-profit. Improvements Act of 1976, requires you have additional comments Other (if applicable): None. persons contemplating certain mergers regarding the estimated public burden Abstract: Firearms manufacturers or acquisitions to give the Federal Trade or associated response time, must create and maintain permanent Commission and the Assistant Attorney suggestions, or need a copy of the records of all firearms manufactured General advance notice and to wait proposed information collection and disposed of. These records support designated periods before instrument with instructions, or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, consummation of such plans. Section additional information, please contact: Firearms and Explosives’ mission to 7A(b)(2) of the Act permits the agencies, Dawn Smith, ATF Firearms Industry inquire into the disposition of any in individual cases, to terminate this Programs Branch, either by mail at 244 firearm, during the course of during the waiting period prior to its expiration Needy Road, Martinsburg, WV 25405, course a criminal investigation. and requires that notice of this action be by email at fipb-informationcollection@ 5. An estimate of the total number of published in the Federal Register. The atf.gov, or by telephone at 202–648– respondents and the amount of time following transaction was granted early 0890. estimated for an average respondent to termination—on the date indicated—of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Written respond: An estimated 10,513 the waiting period provided by law and comments and suggestions from the respondents will respond 677.12822 the premerger notification rules. The public and affected agencies concerning times per year to this information listing includes the transaction number the proposed collection of information collection, and it will take each and the parties to the transaction. The are encouraged. Your comments should respondent approximately 1.06 minutes Federal Trade Commission and the address one or more of the following to complete a response. Assistant Attorney General for the four points: 6. An estimate of the total public Antitrust Division of the Department of —Evaluate whether the proposed burden (in hours) associated with the Justice made the grants. Neither agency collection of information is necessary collection: The estimated annual public intends to take any action with respect for the proper performance of the burden associated with this collection is to these proposed acquisitions during functions of the agency, including 123,801 hours, which is equal to 10,513 the applicable waiting period.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM 27JYN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Notices 40211

EARLY TERMINATION GRANTED [07/21/2021]

20211736 ...... G Green Dot Corporation; Republic Bancorp, Inc.; Republic Bank & Trust Company.

Suzanne Morris, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Controlled substance Drug Schedule In Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics, code accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this Antitrust Division, Department of Justice. Gamma Hydroxybutyric Acid .... 2010 I is notice that on June 17, 2021, [FR Doc. 2021–15904 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] Lysergic Acid Diethylamide ...... 7315 I Novitium Pharma, LLC., 70 Lake Drive, BILLING CODE 4410–11–P East Windsor, New Jersey 08520, The company plans to import the applied to be registered as a bulk above controlled substances as finished manufacturer of the following basic DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE dosage unit products for clinical trials, class(es) of controlled substance(s): research, and analytical activities. No Drug Enforcement Administration Drug other activity for these drug codes is Controlled substance code Schedule authorized for this registration. [Docket No. DEA–866] Approval of permit applications will Psilocybin ...... 7347 I Psilocyn ...... 7348 I Importer of Controlled Substances occur only when the registrant’s business activity is consistent with what Application: Catalent Pharma The company plans to bulk is authorized under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2). Solutions, LLC. manufacture the above controlled Authorization will not extend to the substances to produce Active AGENCY: Drug Enforcement import of Food and Drug Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API) and Administration, Justice. Administration-approved or non- finished dosage forms for clinical trial approved finished dosage forms for ACTION: Notice of application. purposes. No other activities for these commercial sale. drug codes are authorized for this SUMMARY: Catalent Pharma Solutions, Brian S. Besser, registration. LLC. has applied to be registered as an Acting Assistant Administrator. importer of basic class(es) of controlled Brian S. Besser, substance(s). Refer to SUPPLEMENTARY [FR Doc. 2021–15919 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] Acting Assistant Administrator. BILLING CODE P INFORMATION listed below for further [FR Doc. 2021–15920 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] drug information. BILLING CODE 4410–09–P DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE the affected basic class(es), and applicants therefore, may file written Drug Enforcement Administration DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on Notice of Lodging of Proposed [Docket No. DEA–867] or before August 26, 2021. Such persons Consent Decree Under the Clean Water Act may also file a written request for a Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled hearing on the application on or before Substances Application: Novitium On July 16, 2021, the U.S. Department August 26, 2021. Pharma, LLC of Justice (DOJ) lodged a proposed ADDRESSES: Written comments should Amendment to Consent Decree with the AGENCY: be sent to: Drug Enforcement Drug Enforcement United States District Court for the Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Administration, Justice. Northern District of Indiana in United Register Representative/DPW, 8701 ACTION: Notice of application. States and State of Indiana v. City of Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia Elkhart, Indiana, Civil Action No. SUMMARY: 22152. All requests for a hearing must Novitium Pharma, LLC has 2:11CV328. The lodging of the proposed be sent to: Drug Enforcement applied to be registered as a bulk Amendment to Consent Decree, by the Administration, Attn: Administrator, manufacturer of basic class(es) of United States on behalf of the U.S. 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, controlled substance(s). Refer to Environmental Protection Agency, with Virginia 22152. All request for a hearing SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION listed the concurrence of the State of Indiana should also be sent to: (1) Drug below for further drug information. on behalf of the Indiana Department of Enforcement Administration, Attn: DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of Environmental Management, modifies Hearing Clerk/OALJ, 8701 Morrissette the affected basic class(es), and the Consent Decree in this action that Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and applicants therefore, may file written was entered by the Court on November (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, comments on or objections to the 30, 2011. Attn: DEA Federal Register issuance of the proposed registration on The 2011 Consent Decree resolved Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette or before September 27, 2021. Such claims for civil penalties as well as Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. persons may also file a written request injunctive relief in the form of a Long SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In for a hearing on the application on or Term Control Plan (LTCP) for violations accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this before September 27, 2021. of the Clean Water Act and related State is notice that on June 2, 2021, Catalent ADDRESS: Written comments should be law claims in connection with the City Pharma Solutions, LLC., 3031 Red Lion sent to: Drug Enforcement of Elkhart’s operation of its municipal Road, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Administration, Attention: DEA Federal wastewater and sewer system. The 19114, applied to be registered as an Register Representative/DPW, 8701 proposed Amendment to Consent importer of the following basic class(es) Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia Decree modifies the LTCP by allowing of controlled substance(s): 22152. the City to change the technology

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM 27JYN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 40212 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Notices

currently used to treat the wastewater review and approval in accordance with to penalty for failing to comply with a originating from its combined sewer the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 collection of information that does not system, allowing one additional year to (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are display a valid OMB Control Number. implement such change. invited. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. The publication of this notice opens DATES: The OMB will consider all DOL seeks PRA authorization for this a period for public comment on the written comments that agency receives information collection for three (3) proposed Consent Decree. Comments on or before August 26, 2021. years. OMB authorization for an ICR should be addressed to the Acting ADDRESSES: Written comments and cannot be for more than three (3) years Assistant Attorney General, recommendations for the proposed without renewal. The DOL notes that Environment and Natural Resources information collection should be sent information collection requirements Division, and should refer to United within 30 days of publication of this submitted to the OMB for existing ICRs States and State of Indiana v. City of notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ receive a month-to-month extension Elkhart, Indiana, D.J. Ref. No. 90–5–1– PRAMain. Find this particular while they undergo review. 1–08202. All comments must be information collection by selecting Agency: DOL–OSHA. submitted no later than thirty (30) days ‘‘Currently under 30-day Review—Open Title of Collection: Cotton Dust after the publication date of this notice. for Public Comments’’ or by using the Standard. Comments may be submitted either by search function. OMB Control Number: 1218–0061. email or by mail: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether Affected Public: Private Sector: the collection of information is Business or other for-profits. Total Estimated Number of To submit necessary for the proper performance of comments: Send them to: Respondents: 4,543. the functions of the Department, Total Estimated Number of By email ...... pubcomment–ees.enrd@ including whether the information will Responses: 17,217. usdoj.gov. have practical utility; (2) if the Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: By mail ...... Acting Assistant Attorney information will be processed and used 6,379 hours. General, in a timely manner; (3) the accuracy of Total Estimated Annual Other Costs U.S. DOJ—ENRD, the agency’s estimates of the burden and Burden: $845,662. P.O. Box 7611, cost of the collection of information, Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D). Washington, DC 20044–7611. including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (4) Crystal Rennie, During the public comment period, ways to enhance the quality, utility and Senior PRA Analyst. the proposed Consent Decree may be clarity of the information collection; and [FR Doc. 2021–15931 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] examined and downloaded at this (5) ways to minimize the burden of the BILLING CODE 4510–26–P Justice Department website: http:// collection of information on those who www.justice.gov/enrd/consent-decrees. are to respond, including the use of We will provide a paper copy of the DEPARTMENT OF LABOR proposed Consent Decree upon written automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. request and payment of reproduction Agency Information Collection FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: costs. Please mail your request and Activities; Submission for OMB payment to: Consent Decree Library, Crystal Rennie by telephone at 202– _ _ Review; Comment Request; U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, 693–0456 or by email at DOL PRA Bloodborne Pathogens Standard Washington, DC 20044–7611. [email protected]. Please enclose a check or money order SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The ACTION: Notice of availability; request for $18.25 (25 cents per page purpose of the cotton dust standard and for comments. reproduction cost), payable to the its information collection requirements United States Treasury. is to provide protection for employees SUMMARY: The Department of Labor from the adverse health effects (DOL) is submitting this Occupational Patricia McKenna, associated with occupational exposure Safety and Health Administration Assistant Section Chief, Environmental to cotton dust. Employers must monitor (OSHA)-sponsored information Enforcement Section, Environment and employee exposure, reduce employee collection request (ICR) to the Office of Natural Resources Division. exposure to within permissible Management and Budget (OMB) for [FR Doc. 2021–15934 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] exposure limits, provide employees review and approval in accordance with BILLING CODE 4410–15–P with medical examinations and training, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and establish and maintain employee (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are exposure monitoring and medical invited. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR records. For additional substantive DATES: The OMB will consider all information about this ICR, see the written comments that agency receives Agency Information Collection related notice published in the Federal on or before August 26, 2021. Activities; Submission for OMB Register on April 27, 2021 (86 FR ADDRESSES: Written comments and Review; Comment Request; Cotton 22277). recommendations for the proposed Dust Standard This information collection is subject information collection should be sent ACTION: Notice of availability; request to the PRA. A Federal agency generally within 30 days of publication of this for comments. cannot conduct or sponsor a collection notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ of information, and the public is PRAMain. Find this particular SUMMARY: The Department of Labor generally not required to respond to an information collection by selecting (DOL) is submitting this Occupational information collection, unless the OMB ‘‘Currently under 30-day Review—Open Safety and Health Administration approves it and displays a currently for Public Comments’’ or by using the (OSHA)-sponsored information valid OMB Control Number. In addition, search function. collection request (ICR) to the Office of notwithstanding any other provisions of Comments are invited on: (1) Whether Management and Budget (OMB) for law, no person shall generally be subject the collection of information is

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM 27JYN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Notices 40213

necessary for the proper performance of Total Estimated Number of covered credit unions to develop and the functions of the Department, Respondents: 701,563. maintain a capital plan and submit this including whether the information will Total Estimated Number of plan to NCUA by March 31 of each year. have practical utility; (2) if the Responses: 26,841,471. The rule applies to all FICUs that report information will be processed and used Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: $10 billion or more in assets on their in a timely manner; (3) the accuracy of 5,720,498 hours. March 31 Call Report. the agency’s estimates of the burden and Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Affected Public: Private Sector: Not- cost of the collection of information, Burden: $52,516,112.50. for-profit institutions. including the validity of the Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D). Estimated No. of Respondents: 18. methodology and assumptions used; (4) Estimated No. of Responses per Crystal Rennie, ways to enhance the quality, utility and Respondent: 1. clarity of the information collection; and Senior PRA Analyst. Estimated Total Annual Responses: (5) ways to minimize the burden of the [FR Doc. 2021–15932 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] 18. collection of information on those who BILLING CODE 4510–26–P Estimated Burden Hours per are to respond, including the use of Response: 223.89. automated collection techniques or Estimated Total Annual Burden other forms of information technology. NATIONAL CREDIT UNION Hours: 4,030. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: ADMINISTRATION Request for Comments: Comments Crystal Rennie by telephone at 202– submitted in response to this notice will Agency Information Collection 693–0456 or by email at DOL_PRA_ be summarized and included in the Activities: Proposed Collection; [email protected]. request for Office of Management and Comment Request; Capital Planning Budget approval. All comments will SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The and Stress Testing Bloodborne Pathogen Standard is an become a matter of public record. The occupational safety and health standard AGENCY: National Credit Union public is invited to submit comments that prevents occupational exposure to Administration (NCUA). concerning: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the bloodborne pathogens. The standard’s ACTION: Notice and request for comment. information collection requirements are proper execution of the function of the essential components that protect SUMMARY: The National Credit Union agency, including whether the workers from occupational exposure. Administration (NCUA), as part of a information will have practical utility; The information is used by employers continuing effort to reduce paperwork (b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate and workers to implement the and respondent burden, invites the of the burden of the collection of protection required by the Standard. general public and other Federal information, including the validity of OSHA compliance officers will use agencies to comment on the following the methodology and assumptions used; some of the information in their extension of a currently approved (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, enforcement of the Standard. For collection, as required by the Paperwork and clarity of the information to be additional substantive information Reduction Act of 1995. collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of the about this ICR, see the related notice DATES: Written comments should be information on the respondents, published in the Federal Register on received on or before September 27, including the use of automated April 15, 2021 (86 FR 19904). 2021 to be assured consideration. This information collection is subject collection techniques or other forms of ADDRESSES: Interested persons are information technology. to the PRA. A Federal agency generally invited to submit written comments on cannot conduct or sponsor a collection By Melane Conyers-Ausbrooks, the information collection to Dawn Secretary of the Board, the National of information, and the public is Wolfgang, National Credit Union generally not required to respond to an Credit Union Administration, on July Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Suite 20, 2021. information collection, unless the OMB 6032, Alexandria, Virginia 22314; email approves it and displays a currently at [email protected]. Given the Dated: July 22, 2021. valid OMB Control Number. In addition, limited in-house staff because of the Dawn D. Wolfgang, notwithstanding any other provisions of COVID–19 pandemic, email comments NCUA PRA Clearance Officer. law, no person shall generally be subject are preferred. [FR Doc. 2021–15924 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] to penalty for failing to comply with a FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: BILLING CODE 7535–01–P collection of information that does not Address requests for additional display a valid OMB Control Number. information to Mackie Malaka at the See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. address above or telephone 703–548– NATIONAL CREDIT UNION DOL seeks PRA authorization for this 2279. ADMINISTRATION information collection for three (3) years. OMB authorization for an ICR SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: [NCUA 2021–0102] cannot be for more than three (3) years OMB Number: 3133–0199. Request for Information and Comment without renewal. The DOL notes that Title: Capital Planning and Stress on Digital Assets and Related information collection requirements Testing, 12 CFR part 702, subpart E. Technologies submitted to the OMB for existing ICRs Type of Review: Extension of a receive a month-to-month extension currently approved collection. AGENCY: National Credit Union while they undergo review. Abstract: To protect the National Administration (NCUA). Agency: DOL–OSHA. Credit Union Share Insurance Fund ACTION: Notice; request for information Title of Collection: Bloodborne (NCUSIF) and the credit union system, and comment. Pathogens Standard. the largest Federally Insured Credit OMB Control Number: 1218–0180. Unions (FICUs) must have systems and SUMMARY: The NCUA Board (Board) is Affected Public: Private Sector: processes to monitor and maintain their gathering information and soliciting Businesses or other for-profits. capital adequacy. The rule requires comments from interested parties

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM 27JYN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 40214 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Notices

regarding the current and potential unions, and charters and regulates intermediary. However, as a practical impact of activities connected to digital federal credit unions (FCUs). The NCUA matter, most members of the public do assets and related technologies on is charged with protecting the safety and not have a means of converting dollars federally insured credit unions (FICUs), soundness of credit unions and, in turn, into digital assets on their own. related entities, and the NCUA. The the National Credit Union Share Software developers and entrepreneurs NCUA is broadly interested in receiving Insurance Fund (NCUSIF) through have created exchanges to facilitate the input on commenters’ views in this regulation and supervision. The NCUA’s exchange of dollars for digital assets and area, including current and potential mission is to ‘‘provide, through digital wallets to provide customers a uses in the credit union system, and the regulation and supervision, a safe and convenient way to store their encryption risks associated with them. sound credit union system, which keys required to verify ownership of DATES: Comments must be received on promotes confidence in the national their digital assets. These entities serve 1 or before September 27, 2021 to ensure system of cooperative credit.’’ The as intermediaries in the new digital consideration. NCUA also works to protect credit ledger payment systems. union members and consumers. Since the introduction of DLT, ADDRESSES: You may submit comments Consistent with these aims, the NCUA thousands of projects have used the by any one of the following methods has statutory responsibility for a wide technology to lower the cost of verifying (Please send comments by one method variety of regulations that protect the ownership, storing distributed data, or only): • credit union system, members, and the tracking information. The projects have Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// NCUSIF. covered everything from tracking www.regulations.gov. Follow the ownership in national land registries to instructions for submitting comments Decentralized Finance, Digital Assets, tracking the history of a product in the for NCUA Docket 2021–0102. and Related Technologies food supply chain. While DeFi offers a • Fax: (703) 518–6319. Include Decentralized Finance (DeFi) is the number of potential benefits and ‘‘[Your name] Comments on ‘‘Request broad category of applications adopting opportunities for the credit union for Information and Comment on Digital peer-to-peer networks, Distributed system, it also presents several risks, for Assets and Related Technologies.’’ Ledger Technology (DLT), and related example: (1) The permanent nature of • Mail: Address to Melane Conyers- uses, such as smart contracts, to create the transactions necessitates questions Ausbrooks, Secretary of the Board, digital assets like cryptocurrency and about consumer recourse for fraudulent National Credit Union Administration, crypto-assets, clearing and settlement financial activities; (2) the ability to 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia systems, identity management systems, source funds for new projects has the 22314–3428. and record retention systems.2 As noted, downside of individuals or groups • Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as DLT is the digital process to record manipulating the price of tokens; (3) the mailing address. transactions that are behind many of storage of digital assets poses risks of Public Inspection: You may view all these innovations. DLT consists of a lost or stolen cryptographic keys; and public comments on the Federal shared electronic database where copies (4) the ability to transfer value through eRulemaking Portal at http:// of the same information are stored on a peer-to-peer networks creates www.regulations.gov as submitted, distributed network of computers. This unregulated money transmitters that except for those we cannot post for shared immutable digital ledger both could provide liquidity to those who technical reasons. NCUA will not edit or ensures the data cannot be altered and want to launder money or participate in remove any identifying or contact serves to add new information to the tax-avoidance schemes. information from the public comments database. Information is only added to The NCUA is publishing this request submitted. Due to social distancing the distributed ledger when consensus for information with the aim of engaging measures in effect, the usual is reached that the information is valid. the broad credit union industry and opportunity to inspect paper copies of As a result, any attempt to modify the other stakeholders and learning how comments in the NCUA’s law library is information on one computer will not emerging DLT and DeFi applications are not currently available. After social impact the information on other viewed and used. The NCUA hopes to distancing measures are relaxed, visitors computers. ‘‘Blockchains’’ are one type learn how the credit union community may make an appointment to review of distributed ledger. In a blockchain, a is using these emerging technologies paper copies by calling (703) 518–6540 chronological record of all transactions and gain additional feedback as to the or emailing [email protected]. is created and stored on the ledger by role the NCUA can play in safeguarding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: sequentially grouping all transactions the financial system and consumers in Policy and Analysis: Scott Borger, together in blocks. the context of these emerging Senior Financial Modeler and Todd Digital assets can be transferred technologies. The accelerating pace of Sims, National Payment Systems between two people without an change information technology brings, Officer, Office of National Examinations coupled with the widespread diffusion and Supervision, (703) 518–6640; Legal: 1 https://www.ncua.gov/about-ncua/mission- of computing power and the growing values. importance of networks, is raising new Thomas Zells, Senior Staff Attorney, 2 There are a number of terms used to describe Office of General Counsel, (703) 518– DLT-based tokens, including virtual currencies, opportunities and challenges. In order 6540; or by mail at National Credit cryptocurrencies, crypto-assets, utility tokens, and to continue to fulfill its mandate to Union Administration, 1775 Duke digital assets. There are a variety of reasons these maintain a safe and sound credit union Street, Alexandria, VA 22314. terms have evolved including the fact that these system and protect credit union digital tokens fail to exhibit the qualities of a members, the NCUA is working to better SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: currency, and therefore, should not be confused by a term like cryptocurrencies. The term DeFi understand the implications of these I. Background recognizes that because DLT has been used to changes and the associated benefits or develop a broader set of financial products beyond challenges that may exist. NCUA Overview value transfer mechanisms, DeFi encompasses a broader range of different digital and financial II. Request for Comment The NCUA is an independent federal products including settlement systems, security-like agency that insures shares at FICUs, and equity-like financial instruments, non-fungible The Board seeks comments on the protects the members who own credit tokens, and discount tokens. current and potential impact of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM 27JYN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Notices 40215

activities related to DLT and DeFi on the union system’s ability to utilize DeFi 17. What considerations have credit union system. The NCUA is applications? commenters given to how to maintain broadly interested in receiving input on 7. Apart from anything listed in this continued compliance with State and parties’ views in this area, including Request for Information, what other Federal laws and regulations that may current and potential uses. Commenters actions should the NCUA take? Please be applicable to various DLT and DeFi are also encouraged to discuss any and be as precise as possible, including, but applications, including, but not limited all relevant issues they believe the not limited to, necessary regulatory to, those governing securities, Bank Board should consider with respect to changes, additional guidance, and legal Secrecy Act (BSA) and anti-money these technologies and related matters. opinions. laundering, and consumer protection? The Board reiterates that this request for Operational Questions Have those obligations, or uncertainty information does not modify any related to potential obligations, existing requirements applicable to 8. What are the advantages and impacted commenters DLT and DeFi FICUs and does not grant FICUs any disadvantages of FICUs developing DLT activities? How do commenters’ DLT new authorities or limit any existing and DeFi projects through third-party and DeFi activities address authorities. The request for information relationships versus through a credit requirements in these areas? does not speak to the permissibility or union service organization (CUSO)? 18. How specifically do DLT and DeFi impermissibility of any specific activity. 9. How dependent will FICUs be on projects in the credit union system third-party software and open-source address BSA and Know Your Customer Questions Regarding Usage and the libraries for their own DLT projects? (KYC) requirements? Marketplace Questions Regarding Risk and 19. How can FICUs address fraud and 1. How are those in the credit union Compliance Management other consumer protections with an system currently using or planning to immutable digital ledger? How can use DLT and DeFi applications? 10. To what extent are existing risk FICUs ensure continued compliance 2. What, if any, DLT or DeFi and compliance management with any applicable consumer applications are those in the credit frameworks designed to identify, protection requirements that may arise union system currently engaging in or measure, monitor, and control risks with various DLT and DeFi considering? Please explain, including associated with various DLT and DeFi applications, such as obligations related the nature and scope of the activity. applications? Do some DLT and DeFi to fair lending, electronic funds More specifically: applications more easily align with transfers, and funds availability? a. What, if any, types of specific existing risk and compliance 20. If utilizing, or planning to utilize, products or services related to these management frameworks compared to any of these or related technologies, technologies are those in the credit others? Do, or would, some DLT and what steps have been taken in providing union system currently offering or DeFi applications result in FICUs the services and what has been done to considering offering to members? Are developing entirely new or materially ensure the services are being utilized credit union members asking for different risk and compliance safely and in compliance with all specific products or services related to management frameworks? applicable laws and regulations? Please these technologies? 11. What unique or specific risks are describe: b. To what extent are those in the challenging to measure, monitor, and a. The process for developing a sound credit union system engaging in or control for various DLT and DeFi business case and presenting it to the considering DeFi applications or applications? What unique controls or board of directors for approval; providing services related to digital processes are or could be implemented b. The process for ensuring the assets that have direct balance sheet to address such risks? consideration of all of the risks and risk impacts? 12. What unique benefits or risks to categories; c. To what extent are those in the operations do FICUs consider as they c. The level of due diligence credit union system engaging in or analyze various DLT and DeFi performed on any vendors or third considering DLT for other purposes, applications? parties and whether the vendors were a such as to facilitate internal operations? 13. How are FICUs integrating, or how new entry in the market or an d. To what extent, if any, are those in would FICUs integrate, operations established technology provider; the credit union system aware of cross- related to DLT and DeFi applications d. The process for assessing the jurisdiction or cross-border transactions with legacy FICU systems? quality and level of internal information related to DLT and digital assets. 14. Please identify any potential systems and technology staff to support 3. In terms of the marketplace, where benefits, and any unique risks, of systems and applications; and do those in the credit union system see particular DLT and DeFi applications to e. The process for developing internal the greatest demand for DeFi FICUs and their members. oversight of the program. application services, and who are the 15. What impact will DLT and DeFi largest drivers for such services? applications have on FICUs’ earnings? Questions Regarding Supervision and 4. Are there new developments that How will FICUs ensure they account for Activities might affect use of DeFi applications by any negative impact, such as potential 21. Are there any unique aspects the those in the credit union system in the lost interchange income as peer-to-peer NCUA should consider from a future? transactions grow? supervisory perspective? 5. Are DeFi applications a competitive 16. How are those in the credit union 22. Are there any areas in which the threat for those in the credit union system integrating these new NCUA should clarify or expand existing system? technologies into their existing supervisory guidance to address these 6. What concerns, if any, do those in Information Technology environment activities? the credit union system have related to securely, including existing 23. The NCUA’s Part 721 application current statutory or regulatory cybersecurity functions and data procedures may be applicable to certain limitations on their ability to utilize privacy/data protection policies? How DLT activities.3 Is additional clarity DeFi applications? Are there any are the risks in this area being changes that would influence the credit evaluated? 3 12 CFR part 721.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM 27JYN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 40216 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Notices

needed? Would any changes to NCUA’s ACTION: Notice of proposed collection; Dated: July 22, 2021. regulations be helpful in addressing comment request. Daniel Beattie, uncertainty surrounding the Director, Guidelines and Panel Operations, permissibility of particular types of DLT SUMMARY: The National Endowment for Administrative Services, National activity, in order to support FICUs the Arts (NEA), as part of its continuing Endowment for the Arts. considering or engaging in such effort to reduce paperwork and [FR Doc. 2021–15976 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] activities? respondent burden, conducts a BILLING CODE 7537–01–P preclearance consultation program to Questions Regarding Share Insurance provide the general public and federal and Resolution agencies with an opportunity to NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 24. Are there any steps the NCUA comment on proposed and/or should consider to ensure FICU continuing collections of information in Sunshine Act Meeting members can distinguish between accordance with the Paperwork The National Science Board’s uninsured digital asset products and Reduction Act of 1995. This program Committee on Awards & Facilities insured shares? helps to ensure that requested data is hereby gives notice of the scheduling of 25. Are there distinctions or provided in the desired format; a teleconference for the transaction of similarities between stablecoins reporting burden (time and financial National Science Board business, as (cryptocurrencies that are backed by a resources) is minimized; collection follows: currency like the U.S. Dollar and are instruments are clearly understood; and designed to have a stable value the impact of collection requirements on TIME AND DATE: Tuesday, August 3, 2021, compared to other cryptocurrencies) respondents is properly assessed. from 10:45–11:45 a.m. EDT. and stored value products where the Currently, the NEA is soliciting PLACE: This meeting will be held by underlying funds are held at FICUs and, comments concerning the proposed teleconference through the National for which pass-through share insurance information collection of: Applications Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower may be available to members in limited from Students for Agency Initiatives Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314. scenarios? Poetry Out Load or the Musical Theater STATUS: Closed. 26. If the NCUA were to encounter Songwriting Challenge for High School MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The agenda any of the digital assets use cases in the Students.’’ A copy of the current of the teleconference is: Committee resolution process or in a information collection request can be Chair’s Opening Remarks; approval of conservatorship capacity, what obtained by contacting the office listed Prior Minutes; Action Item: Rubin complexities might be encountered in below in the address section of this Observatory Management Reserve; valuing, marketing, transferring, notice. Action Item: Arecibo Observatory Clean- operating, or resolving the DeFi activity? DATES: Written comments must be up Costs Award; Committee Chair’s What actions should be considered to submitted to the office listed in the Closing Remarks. overcome the complexities? address section below within 60 days CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Additional Considerations from the date of this publication in the Point of contact for this meeting is: Federal Register. The NEA is Chris Blair, [email protected], 703/292– Commenters are invited to address particularly interested in comments 7000. Meeting information and updates any other DLT and DeFi applications or that: may be found at http://www.nsf.gov/ related information they seek to bring to • Evaluate whether the proposed nsb/meetings/notices.jsp#sunshine. the NCUA’s attention. Commenters are collection of information is necessary Please refer to the National Science encouraged to provide the specific basis for the proper performance of the Board website www.nsf.gov/nsb for for their comments and, to the extent functions of the agency, including general information. feasible, documentation to support any whether the information will have comments. practical utility; Chris Blair, Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1756 and 1784. • Evaluate the accuracy of the Executive Assistant to the National Science Board Office. By the National Credit Union agency’s estimate of the burden of the [FR Doc. 2021–16104 Filed 7–23–21; 4:15 pm] Administration Board on July 22, 2021. proposed collection of information, BILLING CODE 7555–01–P Melane Conyers-Ausbrooks, including the validity of the Secretary of the Board. methodology and assumptions used; • Enhance the quality, utility, and [FR Doc. 2021–15948 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] clarity of the information to be NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION BILLING CODE 7535–01–P collected; and Sunshine Act Meeting • Can help the agency minimize the burden of the collection of information The National Science Board’s NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE on those who are to respond, including Committee on External Engagement ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES through the electronic submission of hereby gives notice of the scheduling of responses. a teleconference for the transaction of National Endowment for the Arts ADDRESS: Email comments to Daniel National Science Board business as Beattie, Director, Office of Guidelines follows: 60-Day Notice for ‘‘Applications From and Panel Operations, National TIME AND DATE: Tuesday, August 3, 2021, Students for Agency Initiatives Poetry Endowment for the Arts, at: 202–682– from 11:00–11:45 a.m. p.m. EDT. Out Loud or the Musical Theater 5688 or [email protected]. PLACE: This meeting will be held by Songwriting Challenge for High School teleconference through the National Students’’ FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Beattie, Director of Guidelines Science Foundation. AGENCY: National Endowment for the and Panel Operations, National STATUS: Open. Arts, National Foundation on the Arts Endowment for the Arts, at: 202–682– MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The agenda and the Humanities. 5688 or [email protected]. of the teleconference is: Opening

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM 27JYN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Notices 40217

remarks and approval of minutes; Science, Tourism and Conservation Act first was published in the Federal highlights of Tennessee Roundtable; of 1996, has developed regulations for Register and one comment was rollout of S&E Indicators Elementary the establishment of a permit system for received. NSF is forwarding the and Secondary STEM education report; various activities in Antarctica and proposed renewal submission to the discuss S&E Indicators 2022 engagement designation of certain animals and Office of Management and Budget plan; and discuss Strategic Engagement certain geographic areas a requiring (OMB) for clearance simultaneously Tool. special protection. The regulations with the publication of this second CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: establish such a permit system to notice. Point of contact for this meeting is: designate Antarctic Specially Protected DATES: Written comments and Nadine Lymn, [email protected], 703/292– Areas. recommendations for the proposed 7000. To listen to this teleconference, Application Details information collection should be sent members of the public must send an within 30 days of publication of this email to [email protected] at Permit Application: 2022–004 notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ least 24 hours prior to the 1. Applicant: Dr. Dale Andersen, SETI PRAmain. Find this particular teleconference. The National Science Institute, 189 Bernardo Ave. #200, information collection by selecting Board Office will send requesters a toll- Mountain View, CA 94043 ‘‘Currently under 30-day Review—Open free dial-in number. Meeting Activity for Which Permit is for Public Comments’’ or by using the information and updates may be found Requested: Waste management. The search function. at the National Science Board website at applicant seeks a waste management FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: www.nsf.gov/nsb. permit to conduct multi-disciplinary Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Chris Blair, research activities to expand both short- Officer, National Science Foundation, Executive Assistant to the National Science and long-term studies of ecological 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Board Office. responses in Antarctic ecosystems. This VA 22314, or send email to splimpto@ [FR Doc. 2021–16111 Filed 7–23–21; 4:15 pm] permit covers accidental release of nsf.gov. Individuals who use a BILLING CODE 7555–01–P wastes generated through planned telecommunications device for the deaf research and logistical operations. (TDD) may call the Federal Information Wastes include solid and liquid waste, Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877– NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION including designated pollutants and 8339, which is accessible 24 hours a release to air. The applicant has day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year Notice of Permit Applications Received provided a detailed mitigation plan for (including federal holidays). Comments Under the Antarctic Conservation Act these categories of waste as well as a regarding this information collection are of 1978 plan for removal of waste at the end of best assured of having their full effect if AGENCY: National Science Foundation. deployment. The applicant also plans to received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) ACTION: Notice of permit applications use small, battery-operated, remotely may be obtained by calling 703–292– received. controlled aircraft systems to collect imagery to aid in the mapping of 7556. SUMMARY: The National Science geomorphological structures and to NSF may not conduct or sponsor a Foundation (NSF) is required to publish collect information on local climate. collection of information unless the a notice of permit applications received Aircrafts will be flown at altitudes less collection of information displays a to conduct activities regulated under the than 100m by experienced pilots and currently valid OMB control number, Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. will not fly over concentrations of and the agency informs potential NSF has published regulations under wildlife, should any be in the area. persons who are to respond to the the Antarctic Conservation Act in the Location: Queen Maud Land, East collection of information that such Code of Federal Regulations. This is the Antarctica. persons are not required to respond to required notice of permit applications Dates of Permitted Activities: October the collection of information unless it received. 20, 2021–February 28, 2026. displays a currently valid OMB control number. DATES: Interested parties are invited to Erika N. Davis, submit written data, comments, or SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Program Specialist, Office of Polar Programs. Title of Collection: Hispanic-Serving views with respect to this permit [FR Doc. 2021–15968 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] application by August 26, 2021. This Institutions Certification. BILLING CODE 7555–01–P OMB Approval Number: 3145–0247. application may be inspected by Type of Request: Intent to seek interested parties at the Permit Office, approval to extend with revision an address below. NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION information collection for three years. ADDRESSES: Comments should be Abstract: To enhance the quality of addressed to Permit Office, Office of Agency Information Collection undergraduate STEM education at Polar Programs, National Science Activities: Comment Request Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs), the Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, AGENCY: National Science Foundation. National Science Foundation (NSF) Alexandria, Virginia 22314. ACTION: Submission for OMB review; established the Improving FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: comment request. Undergraduate STEM Education: Polly Penhale, ACA Permit Officer, at Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSI the above address, 703–292–7420, or SUMMARY: The National Science Program), in response to the [email protected]. Foundation (NSF) has submitted the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following information collection (Pub. L. 115–31) and the American National Science Foundation, as requirement to OMB for review and Innovation and Competitiveness Act directed by the Antarctic Conservation clearance under the Paperwork (Pub. L. 114–329). The lead institution Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95–541, 45 CFR Reduction Act of 1995. This is the submitting a proposal to the HSI 671), as amended by the Antarctic second notice for public comment; the Program must be an HSI as defined by

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM 27JYN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 40218 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Notices

law in section 502 of the Higher NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Antarctic Program (USAP) construction Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1101a) of a new pier. A permit is requested for (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/ Notice of Permit Applications Received potential harmful interference of avian PLAW-110publ315/html/PLAW- Under the Antarctic Conservation Act species during the construction process. 110publ315.htm). Hence there is a need of 1978 Noise generated by the demolition of the for institutions to self-certify via an HSI AGENCY: National Science Foundation. existing pier and construction of a new Certification Form. ACTION: Notice of permit applications pier may cause disturbance to avian The HSI Program includes a specific received. species in the vicinity of the project track that provides a funding area. Mitigation measures will be put opportunity for institutions that are new SUMMARY: The National Science into place to minimize potential to NSF[5] or are Primarily Foundation (NSF) is required to publish disturbance to wildlife in the area. Undergraduate Institutions (PUIs [6]), a notice of permit applications received including community colleges. PUIs are to conduct activities regulated under the The applicant also requests a permit ‘‘accredited colleges and universities Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. for the importation of commercially (including two-year community NSF has published regulations under available, proprietary bacterial colleges) that award Associates degrees, the Antarctic Conservation Act in the supplements for use in Marine Bachelor’s degrees, and/or Master’s Code of Federal Regulations. This is the Sanitation Devices aboard vessels degrees in NSF-supported fields, but required notice of permit applications deployed in support of the Palmer Pier have awarded 20 or fewer Ph.D./D.Sci. received. Replacement Project. These supplements are used to improve degrees in all NSF-supported fields DATES: Interested parties are invited to during the combined previous two submit written data, comments, or wastewater treatment operation. academic years.’’ PUI definition views with respect to this permit Bacteria would not be released into the obtained from https://www.nsf.gov/ application by August 26, 2021. This environment, and all effluent is to _ _ funding/pgm summ.jsp?pims id=5518. application may be inspected by undergo complete disinfection prior to Hence there is a need for institutions interested parties at the Permit Office, discharge. to provide a self-certification of PUI address below. Location: Palmer Station, Antarctic eligibility for this track. The following ADDRESSES: Comments should be Peninsula. language is used: addressed to Permit Office, Office of Dates of Permitted Activities: October Certification of PUI Eligibility. A Polar Programs, National Science 1, 2021–January 31, 2023. Certification of PUI Eligibility, following Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, the format below and executed by an Alexandria, Virginia 22314. Erika N. Davis, Authorized Organizational FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Program Specialist, Office of Polar Programs. Representative, must be included in PUI Polly Penhale, ACA Permit Officer, at [FR Doc. 2021–15967 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] requests (Planning or Pilot Projects the above address, 703–292–7420, or BILLING CODE 7555–01–P (PPP) only). A current, signed [email protected]. Certification, included on institutional SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The letterhead, should be scanned and National Science Foundation, as NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION included as a PDF file. directed by the Antarctic Conservation Certification of PUI Eligibility Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95–541, 45 CFR Sunshine Act Meeting 670), as amended by the Antarctic By submission of this proposal, the Science, Tourism and Conservation Act The National Science Board’s institution hereby certifies that the of 1996, has developed regulations for Committee on Strategy hereby gives originating and managing institution is the establishment of a permit system for notice of the scheduling of a an accredited college or university that various activities in Antarctica and teleconference for the transaction of awards Associates degrees, Bachelor’s designation of certain animals and National Science Board business, as degrees, and/or Master’s degrees in certain geographic areas a requiring follows: NSF-supported fields, but has awarded special protection. The regulations 20 or fewer Ph.D./D.Sci. degrees in all establish such a permit system to TIME AND DATE: Friday, July 30, 2021, NSF-supported fields during the designate Antarctic Specially Protected from 10:00–11:00 a.m. EDT. combined previous two academic years. Areas. PLACE: This meeting will be held by Authorized Organizational Application Details teleconference through the National Representative Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Typed Name and Title Permit Application: 2022–005 Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314. Signature 1. Applicant: Leidos Innovations Group, STATUS: Closed. Date Antarctic Support Contract; 7400 S Expected respondents: Hispanic- Tucson Way, Centennial, CO 80112 MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The agenda Serving Institutions. Activity for Which Permit is of the teleconference is: Committee Estimate of burden: We anticipate 175 Requested: Harmful Interference, Chair’s Opening Remarks; Discussion of proposals for 2 minutes which is introduce non-indigenous species into NSF’s 2022–2026 Strategic Plan. Antarctica. The applicant is requesting approximately 6 hours. CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: a permit for two aspects of the Palmer Dated: July 21, 2021. Pier Replacement Project—the potential Point of contact for this meeting is: Suzanne H. Plimpton, harmful interference to avian species Chris Blair, [email protected], 703/292– Reports Clearance Officer, National Science and the introduction of non-indigenous 7000. Meeting information and updates Foundation. species for use in a Marine Sanitation may be found at http://www.nsf.gov/ [FR Doc. 2021–15905 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] Device—to support the National Science nsb/meetings/notices.jsp#sunshine. BILLING CODE 7555–01–P Foundation (NSF) funded United States Please refer to the National Science

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM 27JYN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Notices 40219

Board website www.nsf.gov/nsb for sensors for measuring pressure, POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION general information. temperature, humidity, and hydrogen gas concentration inside a dry storage [Docket Nos. CP2021–62; MC2021–115 and CP2021–117] Chris Blair, canister containing aluminum-clad SNF. Executive Assistant to the National Science A detailed meeting agenda will be New Postal Products Board Office. available on the Board’s website at [FR Doc. 2021–16109 Filed 7–23–21; 4:15 pm] www.nwtrb.gov approximately one week AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. BILLING CODE 7555–01–P before the meeting. ACTION: Notice. The meeting will be open to the public, and opportunities for public SUMMARY: The Commission is noticing a NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL comment will be provided. Details on recent Postal Service filing for the REVIEW BOARD how to submit public comments during Commission’s consideration concerning the meeting will be provided on the a negotiated service agreement. This Board Meeting Board’s website along with the details notice informs the public of the filing, for viewing the meeting. A limit may be invites public comment, and takes other The U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical administrative steps. Review Board will hold a virtual public set on the time allowed for the DATES: meeting on August 24, 2021. presentation of individual remarks. Comments are due: July 29, Board meeting: August 24, 2021—The However, written comments of any 2021. U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review length may be submitted to the Board ADDRESSES: Submit comments Board will hold an online virtual public staff by mail or electronic mail. All electronically via the Commission’s meeting to review information on the comments received in writing will be Filing Online system at http:// Department of Energy’s (DOE) included in the meeting record, which www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit technology development activities will be posted on the Board’s website comments electronically should contact related to packaging, drying, and dry after the meeting. An archived recording the person identified in the FOR FURTHER storage of DOE aluminum-clad spent of the meeting will be available on the INFORMATION CONTACT section by nuclear fuel (SNF). Board’s website following the meeting. telephone for advice on filing Pursuant to its authority under The transcript of the meeting will be alternatives. section 5051 of Public Law 100–203, available on the Board’s website by October 24, 2021. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at (NWPAA) of 1987, the U.S. Nuclear The Board was established in the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act 202–789–6820. Waste Technical Review Board will SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: hold an online virtual public meeting on of 1987 as an independent federal Tuesday, August 24, 2021, to review agency in the Executive Branch to Table of Contents information on the U.S. Department of evaluate the technical and scientific validity of DOE activities related to the I. Introduction Energy’s (DOE) technology development II. Docketed Proceeding(s) activities related to packaging, drying, management and disposal of SNF and and dry storage of DOE aluminum-clad high-level radioactive waste, and to I. Introduction provide objective expert advice to spent nuclear fuel (SNF). The Commission gives notice that the Congress and the Secretary of Energy on The meeting will begin at 11:30 a.m. Postal Service filed request(s) for the these issues. Board members are experts Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) and is Commission to consider matters related in their fields and are appointed to the scheduled to adjourn at 5:10 p.m. EDT. to negotiated service agreement(s). The Board by the President from a list of Speakers representing the DOE Office of request(s) may propose the addition or candidates submitted by the National Environmental Management and the removal of a negotiated service Academy of Sciences. The Board reports national laboratories conducting the agreement from the market dominant or its findings, conclusions, and work for DOE will report on DOE’s the competitive product list, or the recommendations to Congress and the technology development program on modification of an existing product Secretary of Energy. All Board reports, aluminum-clad SNF packaging, drying, currently appearing on the market correspondence, congressional and dry storage. Speakers will describe dominant or the competitive product testimony, and meeting transcripts and DOE’s program, including plans and list. related materials are posted on the goals, scope, and technical approach to Section II identifies the docket better understand the characteristics Board’s website. For information on the meeting number(s) associated with each Postal and performance of aluminum-clad SNF agenda, contact Bret Leslie: leslie@ Service request, the title of each Postal that will be packaged and sealed into nwtrb.gov or Dan Ogg: [email protected]. Service request, the request’s acceptance canisters designed for storage, For information on logistics, or to date, and the authority cited by the transportation and disposal. Speakers request copies of the meeting agenda or Postal Service for each request. For each will address the primary challenge to transcript, contact Davonya Barnes: request, the Commission appoints an extended dry storage of aluminum-clad [email protected]. All three may be officer of the Commission to represent SNF, which is centered on the behavior reached by mail at 2300 Clarendon the interests of the general public in the of hydrated oxides and radiolytic Boulevard, Suite 1300, Arlington, VA proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 breakdown of associated adsorbed and 22201–3367; by telephone at 703–235– (Public Representative). Section II also chemically-bound water. Laboratory 4473; or by fax at 703–235–4495. establishes comment deadline(s) speakers will address drying of pertaining to each request. aluminum-clad SNF surrogates, and Dated: July 21, 2021. The public portions of the Postal radiolytic gas generation during storage Nigel Mote, Service’s request(s) can be accessed via in unsealed canisters and during Executive Director, U.S. Nuclear Waste the Commission’s website (http:// extended dry storage (>50 years) in Technical Review Board. www.prc.gov). Non-public portions of sealed canisters. The final speaker will [FR Doc. 2021–15887 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] the Postal Service’s request(s), if any, describe efforts to develop remote BILLING CODE 6820–AM–P can be accessed through compliance

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM 27JYN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 40220 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Notices

with the requirements of 39 CFR Form 1–U SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 3011.301.1 The Commission invites comments on Notice is hereby given that, pursuant Reporting and Recordkeeping whether the Postal Service’s request(s) to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Requirements Under OMB Review in the captioned docket(s) are consistent (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities AGENCY: with the policies of title 39. For and Exchange Commission Small Business Administration. request(s) that the Postal Service states (‘‘Commission’’) is soliciting comments ACTION: 30-Day notice. concern market dominant product(s), on the collection of information SUMMARY: The Small Business applicable statutory and regulatory summarized below. The Commission Administration (SBA) is seeking requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 plans to submit this existing collection approval from the Office of Management U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3030, and 39 of information to the Office of and Budget (OMB) for the information CFR part 3040, subpart B. For request(s) Management and Budget for extension collection described below. In that the Postal Service states concern and approval. accordance with the Paperwork competitive product(s), applicable Form 1–U (17 CFR 239.93) is used to Reduction Act and OMB procedures, statutory and regulatory requirements file current event reports by Tier 2 SBA is publishing this notice to allow include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, issuers under Regulation A, an all interested members of the public an 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3035, and exemption from registration under the additional 30 days to provide comments 39 CFR part 3040, subpart B. Comment Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et on the proposed collection of deadline(s) for each request appear in seq.). Form 1–U provides information to information. section II. the public within four business days of DATES: Submit comments on or before II. Docketed Proceeding(s) fundamental changes in the nature of the issuer’s business and other August 26, 2021. 1. Docket No(s).: CP2021–62; Filing significant events. We estimate that ADDRESSES: Written comments and Title: USPS Notice of Amendment to approximately 144 issuers file Form 1– recommendations for this information Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail U annually. We estimate that Form 1– collection request should be sent within Contract 122, Filed Under Seal; Filing U takes approximately 5.0 hours to 30 days of publication of this notice to Acceptance Date: July 21, 2021; Filing prepare. We estimate that 85% of the 5.0 www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Authority: 39 CFR 3035.105; Public hours per response is prepared by the Find this particular information Representative: Kenneth R. Moeller; company for a total annual burden of collection request by selecting ‘‘Small Comments Due: July 29, 2021. 612 hours (4.25 hours per response × Business Administration’’; ‘‘Currently 2. Docket No(s).: MC2021–115 and 144 responses). Under Review,’’ then select the ‘‘Only CP2021–117; Filing Title: USPS Request Show ICR for Public Comment’’ to Add Priority Mail & First-Class Written comments are invited on: (a) checkbox. This information collection Package Service Contract 200 to Whether this proposed collection of can be identified by title and/or OMB Competitive Product List and Notice of information is necessary for the proper Control Number. Filing Materials Under Seal; Filing performance of the functions of the Acceptance Date: July 21, 2021; Filing agency, including whether the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: You Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR information will have practical utility; may obtain a copy of the information 3040.130 through 3040.135, and 39 CFR (b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate collection and supporting documents 3035.105; Public Representative: of the burden imposed by the collection from Curtis Rich, Agency Clearance Kenneth R. Moeller; Comments Due: of information; (c) ways to enhance the Office, [email protected] (202) 205– July 29, 2021. quality, utility, and clarity of the 7030, or from www.reginfo.gov/public/ This Notice will be published in the information collected; and (d) ways to do/PRAMain. Federal Register. minimize the burden of the collection of Copies: You may obtain a copy of the information on respondents, including information collection and supporting Erica A. Barker, through the use of automated collection documents from the Agency Clearance Secretary. techniques or other forms of information Officer. [FR Doc. 2021–15941 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] technology. Consideration will be given SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P to comments and suggestions submitted requested information is submitted by in writing within 60 days of this homeowners or renters when applying publication. for federal financial assistance (loans) to SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE An agency may not conduct or help in their recovery from a declared COMMISSION sponsor, and a person is not required to disaster. SBA uses the information to [SEC File No. 270–660, OMB Control No. respond to, a collection of information determine the creditworthiness of these 3235–0722] unless it displays a currently valid loan applicants, as well as their control number. eligibility for financial assistance. Proposed Collection; Comment Please direct your written comment to Request Solicitation of Public Comments David Bottom, Director/Chief Upon Written Request Copies Available Information Officer, Securities and Comments may be submitted on (a) From: Securities and Exchange Exchange Commission, c/o Cynthia whether the collection of information is Commission, Office of FOIA Services, Roscoe, 100 F Street NE, Washington, necessary for the agency to properly 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC DC 20549 or send an email to: PRA_ perform its functions; (b) whether the 20549–2736 [email protected]. burden estimates are accurate; (c) whether there are ways to minimize the Extension: Dated: July 22, 2021. burden, including through the use of J. Matthew DeLesDernier, automated techniques or other forms of 1 See Docket No. RM2018–3, Order Adopting Assistant Secretary. Final Rules Relating to Non-Public Information, information technology; and (d) whether June 27, 2018, Attachment A at 19–22 (Order No. [FR Doc. 2021–15943 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] there are ways to enhance the quality, 4679). BILLING CODE 8011–01–P utility, and clarity of the information.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM 27JYN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Notices 40221

OMB Control Number: 3245–0018. SSA is soliciting comments on the The information collections below are Title: Disaster Home Loan accuracy of the agency’s burden pending at SSA. SSA will submit them Application. estimate; the need for the information; to OMB within 60 days from the date of Description of Respondents: Disaster its practical utility; ways to enhance its this notice. To be sure we consider your Survivors. quality, utility, and clarity; and ways to comments, we must receive them no Estimated Annual Responses: 34,273. minimize burden on respondents, later than September 27, 2021. Estimated Annual Hour Burden: including the use of automated Individuals can obtain copies of the 42,841. collection techniques or other forms of collection instruments by writing to the Curtis Rich, information technology. Mail, email, or above email address. fax your comments and Management Analyst. 1. Application for Parent’s Insurance recommendations on the information [FR Doc. 2021–15937 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] Benefits—20 CFR 404.370, 404.371, collection(s) to the OMB Desk Officer BILLING CODE 8026–03–P 404.373, 404.374 & 404.601–404.603— and SSA Reports Clearance Officer at 0960–0012. Section 202(h) of the Social the following addresses or fax numbers. Security Act (Act) establishes the (OMB): Office of Management and SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION conditions of eligibility a claimant must Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for SSA, meet to receive monthly benefits as a [Docket No: SSA–2021–0022] Comments: https://www.reginfo.gov/ parent of a deceased worker who was public/do/PRAMain. Submit your Agency Information Collection comments online referencing Docket ID contributing at least one-half of the Activities: Proposed Request Number [SSA–2021–0022]. parent’s support at the time of the worker’s death or when the worker The Social Security Administration (SSA): Social Security became disabled. SSA uses information (SSA) publishes a list of information Administration, OLCA, Attn: Reports from Form SSA–7–F6, Application for collection packages requiring clearance Clearance Director, 3100 West High by the Office of Management and Rise, 6401 Security Blvd., Baltimore, Parent’s Insurance Benefits, to Budget (OMB) in compliance with MD 21235, Fax: 410–966–2830, Email determine if the claimant meets the Public Law 104–13, the Paperwork address: [email protected]. eligibility and application criteria. The Reduction Act of 1995, effective October Or you may submit your comments respondents are applicants filing for 1, 1995. This notice includes revisions, online through https://www.reginfo.gov/ Parent’s Insurance Benefits. and an extension of OMB-approved public/do/PRAMain, referencing Docket Type of Request: Revision of an OMB- information collections. ID Number [SSA–2021–0022]. approved information collection.

Average wait Average time in Average Estimated total theoretical field office or Total annual Modality of completion Number of Frequency of burden per annual burden hourly cost for opportunity respondents response response (hours) amount teleservice cost (minutes) (dollars) * centers (dollars) *** (minutes) **

SSA–7–F6 (Paper) ...... 4 1 15 1 * $27.07 0 *** $27 Interview (MCS) ...... 325 1 15 81 * 27.07 ** 21 *** 5,279

Totals ...... 329 ...... 82 ...... *** 5,306 * We based this figure on the average U.S. worker’s hourly wages, as reported by Bureau of Labor Statistics data (https://www.bls.gov/oes/ current/oes_nat.htm#00-0000). ** We based this figure on averaging both the average FY 2021 wait times for field offices and teleservice centers, based on SSA’s current management information data. *** This figure does not represent actual costs that SSA is imposing on recipients of Social Security payments to complete this application; rather, these are theoretical opportunity costs for the additional time respondents will spend to complete the application. There is no actual charge to respondents to complete the application.

2. Employment Relationship Relationship Questionnaire, to individuals, households, businesses, Questionnaire—20 CFR 404.1007— determine the existence of an employer- and state or local governments seeking 0960–0040. When SSA needs employee relationship. We use the to establish their status as employees, information to determine a worker’s information to develop the employment and their alleged employers. employment status to maintain a relationship; specifically, to determine Type of Request: Revision of an OMB- worker’s earning records, the agency whether a beneficiary is self-employed approved information collection. uses Form SSA–7160, Employment or an employee. The respondents are

Average Average Estimated total theoretical Average wait Total annual Modality of completion Number of Frequency of burden per annual burden hourly cost time in field opportunity respondents response response (hours) amount office cost (minutes) (dollars) * (minutes) ** (dollars) ***

SSA–7160 ...... 45 1 25 19 *$22.14 **24 ***$820 * We based this figure on the average U.S. worker’s hourly wages of $27.07 (https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm); the median hourly wage of $21.10 for public sector Information and Records Clerks (https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes434199.htm); and the median hourly wage of $18.25 for State and Local government Information and Records Clerks (https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes434199.htm), as reported by Bu- reau of Labor Statistics data. We used the average of these three wages to calculate the combined Average Theoretical Hourly Wage of $22.14. ** We based this figure on the average FY 2021 wait times for field offices, based on SSA’s current management information data.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM 27JYN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 40222 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Notices

*** This figure does not represent actual costs that SSA is imposing on recipients of Social Security payments to complete this application; rather, these are theoretical opportunity costs for the additional time respondents will spend to complete the application. There is no actual charge to respondents to complete the application.

3. Statement of Self-Employment year. SSA uses Form SSA–766, credit additional quarters of coverage to Income—20 CFR 404.101, 404.110, & Statement of Self-Employment Income, give the individual insured status and 404.1096(a)(d)—0960–0046. To qualify to collect the information we need to expedite benefit payments. Respondents for insured status, and collect Social determine if the individual earned at are self-employed individuals Security benefits, self-employed least the minimum amount of SEI potentially eligible for Social Security individuals must demonstrate they needed for one or more quarters of benefits. earned the minimum amount of self- coverage in the current year. Based on Type of Request: Revision of an OMB- employment income (SEI) in a current the information we obtain, we may approved information collection.

Average Average Estimated total theoretical Total annual Modality of completion Number of Frequency of burden per annual burden hourly cost opportunity respondents response response (hours) amount cost (minutes) (dollars) * (dollars) **

≤SSA–766 ...... 910 1 5 76 *$27.07 **$2,057 * We based this figure on average U.S. worker’s hourly wages, as reported by Bureau of Labor Statistics data (https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/ oes_nat.htm#00-0000). ** This figure does not represent actual costs that SSA is imposing on recipients of Social Security payments to complete this application; rath- er, these are theoretical opportunity costs for the additional time respondents will spend to complete the application. There is no actual charge to respondents to complete the application.

4. Substitution of Party Upon Death of Regarding Substitution of Party Upon wishes regarding an oral hearing or Claimant—20 CFR 404.957(c)(4) & Death of Claimant, which allows them decision on the record; and (4) admit 416.1457(c)(4)—0960–0288. A judge to request to become a substitute party the data into the claimant’s official may dismiss a request for a hearing on for the deceased claimant. The judge record as an exhibit. The respondents a pending claim of a deceased and the hearing office support staff use are individuals requesting to be individual for Social Security benefits the information from the HA–539 to: (1) substitute parties for a deceased or Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Maintain a written record of request; (2) claimant. payments. Individuals who believe the establish the relationship of the dismissal may adversely affect them requester to the deceased claimant; (3) Type of Request: Revision of an OMB- may complete Form HA–539, Notice determine the substituted individual’s approved information collection.

Average Average Estimated total theoretical Total annual Modality of completion Number of Frequency of burden per re- annual burden hourly cost opportunity respondents response sponse (hours) amount cost (minutes) (dollars) * (dollars) **

HA–539 ...... 4,000 1 5 333 *$10.95 **$3,646 * We based this figure on the average DI payments based on SSA’s current FY 2021 data (https://www.ssa.gov/legislation/2021FactSheet.pdf). ** This figure does not represent actual costs that SSA is imposing on recipients of Social Security payments to complete this application; rath- er, these are theoretical opportunity costs for the additional time respondents will spend to complete the application. There is no actual charge to respondents to complete the application.

5. Claimant Statement about Loan of food and shelter to SSI applicants or income for SSI purposes. This Food or Shelter; Statement about Food recipients. SSA uses Forms SSA–5062, determination may affect claimants’ or or Shelter Provided to Another—20 CFR Claimant Statement about Loan of Food recipients’ eligibility for SSI as well as 416.1130–416.1148—0960–0529. SSA or Shelter, and SSA–L5063, Statement the amounts of their SSI payments. The bases an SSI claimant’s or recipient’s about Food or Shelter Provided to respondents are claimants and eligibility on need, as measured by the Another, to obtain statements about recipients for SSI payments, and amount of income an individual food or shelter provided to SSI individuals who provide loans of food receives. Per our calculations, income claimants or recipients. SSA uses this or shelter to them. includes other people providing in-kind information to determine whether the Type of Request: Revision of an OMB- support and maintenance in the form of food or shelter are bona fide loans or approved information collection.

Average Average Estimated total theoretical Average wait Total annual Modality of completion Number of Frequency of burden per annual burden hourly cost time in field opportunity respondents response response (hours) amount office cost (minutes) (dollars) * (minutes) ** (dollars) ***

SSA–5062—Paper Version ...... 29,026 1 10 4,838 *$19.01 **24 ***$312,676 SSA–L5063—Paper Version ...... 29,026 1 10 4,838 *19.01 **24 ***312,676

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM 27JYN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Notices 40223

Average Average Estimated total theoretical Average wait Total annual Modality of completion Number of Frequency of burden per annual burden hourly cost time in field opportunity respondents response response (hours) amount office cost (minutes) (dollars) * (minutes) ** (dollars) ***

SSA–5062—SSI Claims System ...... 29,026 1 10 4,838 *19.01 **24 ***312,676 SSA–L5063—SSI Claims System ...... 29,026 1 10 4,838 * 19.01 ** 24 *** 312,676

Totals ...... 116,104 ...... 19,352 ...... *** 1,250,704 * We based this figure on averaging both the average DI payments based on SSA’s current FY 2021 data (https://www.ssa.gov/legislation/ 2021FactSheet.pdf), and the average U.S. worker’s hourly wages, as reported by Bureau of Labor Statistics data (https://www.bls.gov/oes/cur- rent/oes_nat.htm). ** We based this figure on the average FY 2021 wait times for field offices, based on SSA’s current management information data. *** This figure does not represent actual costs that SSA is imposing on recipients of Social Security payments to complete this application; rather, these are theoretical opportunity costs for the additional time respondents will spend to complete the application. There is no actual charge to respondents to complete the application.

6. Application for Circuit Court Law— AR pertain to the claimant’s case, and readjudication. The respondents are 20 CFR 404.985 & 416.1485—0960– if the claimant is entitled to claimants for Social Security benefits 0581. Individuals claiming that an readjudication. If readjudication is and SSI payments, who request a acquiescence ruling (AR) would change appropriate, SSA considers the issues readjudication of their claim based on SSA’s prior determination or decision the AR covers. Any new determination an AR notice. must submit a written readjudication or decision is subject to administrative Type of Request: Extension of an OMB request with specific information. SSA or judicial review as specified in the approved information collection. reviews the information in the requests regulations, and the claimants must to determine if the issues stated in the provide information to request

Average Average Estimated theoretical Total annual Modality of completion Number of Frequency of burden per total annual hourly cost opportunity respondents response response burden amount cost (minutes) (hours) (dollars) * (dollars) **

AR-based Readjudication Requests ...... 10,000 1 17 2,833 * $10.95 ** $31,021 * We based this figure on the average DI payments based on SSA’s current FY 2021 data (https://www.ssa.gov/legislation/2021FactSheet.pdf). ** This figure does not represent actual costs that SSA is imposing on recipients of Social Security payments to complete this application; rath- er, these are theoretical opportunity costs for the additional time respondents will spend to complete the application. There is no actual charge to respondents to complete the application.

7. Social Security Administration upgrade their health IT systems and of health information they possess; and Health IT Partner Program products to meet adopted standards and (2) the content value of their electronic Assessment—Participating Facilities implementation specifications. To health records’ systems for our and Available Content Form—20 CFR support expansion of SSA’s health IT disability adjudication processes. SSA 404.1614 & 416.1014—0960–0798. The initiative as defined under HITECH, reviews the completeness of Health Information Technology for SSA developed Form SSA–680, the organizations’ SSA–680 responses as Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Health IT Partner Program one part of our careful analysis of their Act promotes the adoption and Assessment—Participating Facilities readiness to enter into a health IT meaningful use of health information and Available Content Form. The SSA– partnership with us. The respondents technology (IT), particularly in the 680 allows healthcare providers to are healthcare providers and context of working with government provide the information SSA needs to organizations exchanging information agencies. Similarly, section 3004 of the determine their ability to exchange Public Health Service Act requires health information with the agency with the agency. health care providers or health electronically. We evaluate potential Type of Request: Revision of an OMB- insurance issuers with government partners (i.e., healthcare providers and approved information collection. contracts to implement, acquire, or organizations) on: (1) The accessibility

Average Average Estimated theoretical Total annual Modality of completion Number of Frequency of burden per total annual hourly cost opportunity respondents response response burden amount cost (minutes) (hours) (dollars) * (dollars) **

SSA–680 ...... 30 1 300 150 *$41.30 **$6,195 * We based this figures on average Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations, as reported by Bureau of Labor Statistics data. (https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#00-0000). ** This figure does not represent actual costs that SSA is imposing on recipients of Social Security payments to complete this application; rath- er, these are theoretical opportunity costs for the additional time respondents will spend to complete the application. There is no actual charge to respondents to complete the application.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM 27JYN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 40224 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Notices

8. Authorization for the Social • Insured status (e.g., earnings, custodian with a copy of the SSA–8510. Security Administration to Obtain employer verification) Once the respondent completes the Personal Information—20 CFR 404.704, • Marriage or divorce SSA–8510, either using the paper form • Pension offsets or using the Personal Information 404.820 404.823, 404.1926, 416.203, & • Wages verification Authorization Intranet version, SSA 418.3001—0960–0801. SSA uses Form • Annuities uses the form as the authorization to SSA–8510, Authorization for the Social • Dividends, royalties, or other Security Administration to Obtain obtain personal information regarding similar payments the respondent from third parties until Personal Information, to contact a • Property information the authorizing person (respondent) public or private custodian of records • Benefit verification from a State withdraws their claim or revokes the on behalf of an applicant or recipient of agency or third party an SSA program to request evidence • Immigration status (rare instances) permission of its use. The collection is information or proofs, which may • Income verification from public voluntary; however, failure to verify the individuals’ eligibility can prevent SSA support a benefit application or agencies or private individuals • from making an accurate and timely payment continuation. SSA also uses Unemployment benefits • decision for their benefits. The this form to obtain evidence or proofs to Insurance policies • Alimony or Child Support respondents are individuals who may determine the claimant’s payment payments. file for, or currently receive, Social amount. We ask for information such as If the custodian of the records Security benefits, SSI payments, or the following: requires a signed authorization from the Medicare Part D subsidies. • Age requirements (e.g., birth individual(s) whose information SSA Type of Request: Revision of an OMB- certificate, court documents) requests, SSA may provide the approved information collection.

Average Average Estimated theoretical Average wait Total annual Modality of completion Number of Frequency of burden per total annual hourly cost time in opportunity respondents response response burden amount field office cost (minutes) (hours) (dollars) * (minutes) ** (dollars) ***

Paper SSA-8510 for general evidence pur- poses ...... 8,226 1 5 686 *$19.01 **24 ***$75,584 Personal Information Authorization Intranet Screens for general evidence purposes (SSI Claims System) 192,235 1 5 16,020 * 19.01 ** 24 *** 1,766,295 Totals ...... 200,461 ...... 16,706 ...... *** 1,841,879 * We based this figure on averaging both the average DI payments based on SSA’s current FY 2021 data (https://www.ssa.gov/legislation/ 2021FactSheet.pdf), and the average U.S. worker’s hourly wages, as reported by Bureau of Labor Statistics data (https://www.bls.gov/oes/ current/oes_nat.htm). ** We based this figure on the average FY 2021 wait times for field offices, based on SSA’s current management information data. *** This figure does not represent actual costs that SSA is imposing on recipients of Social Security payments to complete this application; rather, these are theoretical opportunity costs for the additional time respondents will spend to complete the application. There is no actual charge to respondents to complete the application.

Dated: July 21, 2021. Contemporary Art San Diego, La Jolla, Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of Naomi Sipple, California, and at possible additional 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. Reports Clearance Officer, Social Security exhibitions or venues yet to be 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of Administration. determined, are of cultural significance, Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, [FR Doc. 2021–15898 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] and, further, that their temporary and Delegation of Authority No. 236–3 BILLING CODE 4191–02–P exhibition or display within the United of August 28, 2000. States as aforementioned is in the national interest. I have ordered that Matthew R. Lussenhop, DEPARTMENT OF STATE Public Notice of these determinations be Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of published in the Federal Register. Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department [Public Notice: 11472] of State. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chi [FR Doc. 2021–15959 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] Notice of Determinations; Culturally D. Tran, Program Administrator, Office Significant Objects Being Imported for of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of BILLING CODE 4710–05–P Exhibition—Determinations: ‘‘Niki de State (telephone: 202–632–6471; email: Saint Phalle in the 1960s’’ Exhibition [email protected]). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, L/ SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the PD, 2200 C Street NW (SA–5), Suite following determinations: I hereby 5H03, Washington, DC 20522–0505. determine that certain objects being imported from abroad pursuant to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The agreements with their foreign owners or foregoing determinations were made custodians for temporary display in the pursuant to the authority vested in me exhibition ‘‘Niki de Saint Phalle in the by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 1960s’’ at The Menil Collection, 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order Houston, Texas, the Museum of 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM 27JYN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Notices 40225

DEPARTMENT OF STATE imported from abroad pursuant to an Notice of these determinations be agreement with their foreign owner or published in the Federal Register. [Public Notice: 11480] custodian for temporary display in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chi Notice of Determinations; Culturally exhibition ‘‘Joan Mitchell’’ at the San D. Tran, Program Administrator, Office Significant Objects Being Imported for Francisco Museum of Modern Art, San of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of Conservation and Display in ‘‘Lives of Francisco, California, the Baltimore State (telephone: 202–632–6471; email: the Gods: Divinity in Maya Art’’ Museum of Art, Baltimore, Maryland, [email protected]). The mailing Exhibition and at possible additional exhibitions or address is U.S. Department of State, L/ venues yet to be determined, are of PD, 2200 C Street NW (SA–5), Suite SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the cultural significance, and, further, that 5H03, Washington, DC 20522–0505. following determinations: I hereby their temporary exhibition or display SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The determine that certain objects being within the United States as foregoing determinations were made imported from abroad pursuant to aforementioned is in the national pursuant to the authority vested in me agreements with their foreign owners or interest. I have ordered that Public by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. custodians for temporary conservation Notice of these determinations be 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order and display in the exhibition ‘‘Lives of published in the Federal Register. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign the Gods: Divinity in Maya Art’’ at The FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chi Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of D. Tran, Program Administrator, Office 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. New York; the Kimbell Art Museum, of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of Fort Worth, Texas; and at possible 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of State (telephone: 202–632–6471; email: Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, additional exhibitions or venues yet to [email protected]). The mailing be determined, are of cultural and Delegation of Authority No. 236–3 address is U.S. Department of State, L/ of August 28, 2000. significance, and, further, that their PD, 2200 C Street NW (SA–5), Suite temporary conservation and exhibition 5H03, Washington, DC 20522–0505. Matthew R. Lussenhop, or display within the United States as SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of aforementioned is in the national foregoing determinations were made Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department interest. I have ordered that Public pursuant to the authority vested in me of State. Notice of these determinations be by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. [FR Doc. 2021–15961 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] published in the Federal Register. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order BILLING CODE 4710–05–P FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chi 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign D. Tran, Program Administrator, Office Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. DEPARTMENT OF STATE State (telephone: 202–632–6471; email: 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of [Public Notice: 11468] [email protected]). The mailing Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, address is U.S. Department of State, and Delegation of Authority No. 236–3 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information L/PD, 2200 C Street NW (SA–5), Suite of August 28, 2000. Collection: Law Enforcement Officers 5H03, Washington, DC 20522–0505. Safety Act (LEOSA) Photographic Matthew R. Lussenhop, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Identification Card Application foregoing determinations were made Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department ACTION: Notice of request for public pursuant to the authority vested in me of State. by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. comment and submission to OMB of [FR Doc. 2021–15962 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order proposed collection of information. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign BILLING CODE 4710–05–P SUMMARY: The Department of State has Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of submitted the information collection 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. DEPARTMENT OF STATE described below to the Office of 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of Management and Budget (OMB) for Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, [Public Notice: 11471] approval. In accordance with the and Delegation of Authority No. 236–3 Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 we of August 28, 2000. Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Being Imported for are requesting comments on this Matthew R. Lussenhop, Exhibition—Determinations: ‘‘Jasper collection from all interested Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Johns: Mind/Mirror’’ Exhibition individuals and organizations. The Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department purpose of this Notice is to allow 30 of State. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the days for public comment. [FR Doc. 2021–15964 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects being DATES: Submit comments up to August BILLING CODE 4710–05–P imported from abroad pursuant to 26, 2021. agreements with their foreign owners or ADDRESSES: Written comments and DEPARTMENT OF STATE custodians for temporary display in the recommendations for the proposed exhibition ‘‘Jasper Johns: Mind/Mirror’’ information collection should be sent [Public Notice: 11474] at the Whitney Museum of American within 30 days of publication of this Art, New York, New York, and at notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ Notice of Determinations; Culturally PRAMain. Find this particular Significant Objects Being Imported for possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, are of information collection by selecting Exhibition—Determinations: ‘‘Joan ‘‘Currently under 30-day Review—Open Mitchell’’ Exhibition cultural significance, and, further, that their temporary exhibition or display for Public Comments’’ or by using the SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the within the United States as search function. following determinations: I hereby aforementioned is in the national FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: determine that certain objects being interest. I have ordered that Public Direct requests for additional

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM 27JYN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 40226 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Notices

information regarding the collection Methodology venues yet to be determined, are of listed in this notice, including requests Applicants will download the cultural significance, and, further, that for copies of the proposed collection application form from the Department’s their temporary exhibition or display instrument and supporting documents, public website, fill it out either within the United States as to Elizabeth Twerdahl, 1801 N Lynn electronically or by hand, and submit aforementioned is in the national Street, Arlington, VA 22209], who may via email or mail. interest. I have ordered that Public be reached on 571–345–2187 or at Notice of these determinations be [email protected]. Kevin E. Bryant, published in the Federal Register. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Deputy Director, Office of Directives • Title of Information Collection: Management, Department of State. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chi LEOSA Photographic Identification [FR Doc. 2021–15917 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] D. Tran, Program Administrator, Office Card Application. BILLING CODE 4710–43–P of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of • OMB Control Number: None. State (telephone: 202–632–6471; email: • Type of Request: New Collection. [email protected]). The mailing • Originating Office: Diplomatic DEPARTMENT OF STATE address is U.S. Department of State, L/ PD, 2200 C Street NW (SA–5), Suite Security, Domestic Operations [Public Notice: 11478] Directorate (DS/DO). 5H03, Washington, DC 20522–0505. • Form Number: No form. Determination Regarding Foreign SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: • Respondents: Current and former The Assistance to the Central Government foregoing determinations were made Diplomatic Security Service special of Nicaragua agents. pursuant to the authority vested in me • Estimated Number of Respondents: Pursuant to section 7047(c)(1) of the by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 70. Department of State, Foreign 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order • Estimated Number of Responses: Operations, and Related Programs 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign 70. Appropriations Act, 2021 (Div. K, Pub. Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of • Average Time per Response: 1 hour. L. 116–260) and section 7047(c)(1) of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. • Total Estimated Burden Time: 70 the FY 2020 SFOAA (Div. G, Pub. L. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of hours. 116–94), I hereby determine that the Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, • Frequency: Once per application. Government of Nicaragua has and Delegation of Authority No. 236–3 • Obligation to Respond: Voluntary. recognized the independence of, or has of August 28, 2000. We are soliciting public comments to established diplomatic relations with, Matthew R. Lussenhop, permit the Department to: the Russian Federation occupied • Evaluate whether the proposed Georgian territories of Abkhazia and Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department information collection is necessary for Tskhinvali Region/South Ossetia. the proper functions of the Department. of State. • This determination shall be published Evaluate the accuracy of our in the Federal Register and on the [FR Doc. 2021–15963 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] estimate of the time and cost burden for Department of State website and, along BILLING CODE 4710–05–P this proposed collection, including the with the accompanying Memorandum validity of the methodology and of Justification, shall be reported to assumptions used. Congress. DEPARTMENT OF STATE • Enhance the quality, utility, and Dated. June 16, 2021. clarity of the information to be [Public Notice: 11477] collected. Antony J. Blinken, • Minimize the reporting burden on Secretary of State. Determination Regarding Foreign those who are to respond, including the [FR Doc. 2021–15985 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] Assistance to the Central Government use of automated collection techniques BILLING CODE 4710–23–P of Nauru or other forms of information technology. Pursuant to section 7047(c)(1) of the Please note that comments submitted DEPARTMENT OF STATE Department of State, Foreign in response to this Notice are public [Public Notice: 11476] Operations, and Related Programs record. Before including any detailed Appropriations Act, 2021 (Div. K, Pub. personal information, you should be Notice of Determinations; Culturally L. 116–260) (FY 2021 SFOAA), section aware that your comments as submitted, Significant Objects Being Imported for 7047(c)(1) of the FY 2019 SFOAA (Div. including your personal information, Exhibition—Determinations: ‘‘Rebel, F, Pub. L. 116–6), and section 7047(c)(1) will be available for public review. Jester, Mystic, Poet: Contemporary of the FY 2020 SFOAA (Div. G, Pub. L. Abstract of Proposed Collection Persians—The Mohammed Afkhami 116–94), I hereby determine that the Collection’’ Exhibition Government of Nauru has recognized This information is being collected in the independence of, or has established response to the Department’s SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the diplomatic relations with, the Russian requirements under the Law following determinations: I hereby Federation occupied Georgian territories Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004 determine that certain objects being (LEOSA), as amended and codified at 18 imported from abroad pursuant to an of Abkhazia and Tskhinvali Region/ U.S.C. 926C, which exempts a agreement with their foreign owner or South Ossetia. ‘‘qualified retired law enforcement custodian for temporary display in the This determination shall be published officer’’ carrying a LEOSA photographic exhibition ‘‘Rebel, Jester, Mystic, Poet: in the Federal Register and on the identification card from most state and Contemporary Persians—The Department of State website and, along local laws prohibiting the carriage of Mohammed Afkhami Collection’’ at the with the accompanying Memorandum concealed firearms, subject to certain Asia Society, New York, New York, and of Justification, shall be reported to restrictions and exceptions. at possible additional exhibitions or Congress.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM 27JYN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Notices 40227

Dated. June 16, 2021. Notice of these determinations be 224, Denver, CO 80249, 303–342–1251, Antony J. Blinken, published in the Federal Register. [email protected]. Documents Secretary of State. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chi reflecting this FAA action may be [FR Doc. 2021–15984 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] D. Tran, Program Administrator, Office reviewed at the above locations. BILLING CODE 4710–23–P of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the State (telephone: 202–632–6471; email: provisions of Title 49, U.S.C. 47153(c), [email protected]). The mailing and 47107(h)(2), the FAA is considering DEPARTMENT OF STATE address is U.S. Department of State, L/ a proposal from the Director of Aviation, [Public Notice: 11479] PD, 2200 C Street NW (SA–5), Suite Colorado Springs Airport, to change a 5H03, Washington, DC 20522–0505. portion of the Colorado Springs Airport Determination Regarding Foreign SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The from aeronautical use to non- Assistance to the Central Government foregoing determinations were made aeronautical use. The proposal consists of Syria pursuant to the authority vested in me of 19.62 acres of vacant land located on by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. the Northeast side of the airport, shown Pursuant to section 7047(c)(1) of the 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order as Parcel 635 on the Airport Layout Department of State, Foreign 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Plan. Operations, and Related Programs Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of The parcel does not have airfield Appropriations Act, 2021 (Div. K, Pub. 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. access and will be developed for L. 116–260) (FY 2021 SFOAA), section 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of commercial use. The FAA concurs that 7070(c)(1) of the FY 2018 SFOAA, Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, the parcel is no longer needed for section 7047(c)(1) of the FY 2019 and Delegation of Authority No. 236–3 aeronautical purposes. The proposed SFOAA (Div. F, Pub. L. 116–6), and of August 28, 2000. use of this property is compatible with section 7047(c)(1) of the FY 2020 existing airport operations in SFOAA (Div. G, Pub. L. 116–94), I Matthew R. Lussenhop, accordance with FAA’s Policy and hereby determine that the Government Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Procedures Concerning the Use of of the Syrian Arab Republic has Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department Airport Revenue, as published in the recognized the independence of, or has of State. Federal Register on February 16, 1999. [FR Doc. 2021–15960 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] established diplomatic relations with, Issued in Denver, Colorado, on July 21, the Russian Federation occupied BILLING CODE 4710–05–P 2021. Georgian territories of Abkhazia and John P. Bauer, Tskhinvali Region/South Ossetia. Manager, Denver Airports District Office. This determination shall be published DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION in the Federal Register and on the [FR Doc. 2021–15938 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] Department of State website and, along Federal Aviation Administration BILLING CODE 4910–13–P with the accompanying Memorandum Public Notice for Waiver of of Justification, shall be reported to DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Congress. Aeronautical Land Use Assurance Colorado Springs Airport, Colorado Dated: June 16, 2021. Springs, Colorado Federal Highway Administration Antony J. Blinken, Uniform Relocation Assistance and Secretary of State. AGENCY: Federal Aviation Real Property Acquisition for Federal [FR Doc. 2021–15982 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] Administration, (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice. and Federally-Assisted Programs; BILLING CODE 4710–23–P Fixed Payment for Moving Expenses; SUMMARY: Notice is being given that the Residential Moves FAA is considering a proposal from the DEPARTMENT OF STATE AGENCY: Federal Highway City of Colorado Springs Airport Administration (FHWA), Department of [Public Notice: 11473] Director of Aviation to change a portion Transportation. of the airport from aeronautical use to Notice of Determinations; Culturally non-aeronautical use at Colorado ACTION: Notice. Significant Object Being Imported for Springs Airport, Colorado Springs, SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is Exhibition—Determinations: ‘‘Great Colorado. The proposal involves a Hall Installation: Maya Art’’ Exhibition to publish changes in the Fixed parcel of airport property on the Residential Moving Cost Schedule SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the Northeast side of the airfield. (schedule) for the States and Territories following determinations: I hereby DATES: Comments are due within 30 of Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, determine that one object being days of the date of the publication of California, Connecticut, Delaware, imported from abroad pursuant to an this notice in the Federal Register. Florida, Guam, Hawaii, Kentucky, agreement with its foreign owner or Emailed comments can be provided to Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, custodian for temporary display in the Mr. Michael Matz, Project Manager/ Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New exhibition ‘‘Great Hall Installation: Compliance Specialist, Denver Airports York, North Dakota, N. Mariana Islands, Maya Art’’ at The Metropolitan Museum District Office, [email protected]. Ohio, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South of Art, New York, New York, and at FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Dakota, Virgin Islands, Utah, possible additional exhibitions or Gregory Phillips, Director of Aviation, Washington, West Virginia, and venues yet to be determined, is of Colorado Springs Airport, 7770 Milton Wisconsin as provided for by section cultural significance, and, further, that E. Proby Parkway, Suite 50, Colorado 202(b) of the Uniform Relocation its temporary exhibition or display Springs, CO 80916, 719–550–1910; or Assistance and Real Property within the United States as Michael Matz, Project Manager/ Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as aforementioned is in the national Compliance Specialist, Denver Airports amended (Uniform Act). The schedule interest. I have ordered that Public District Office, 26805 E 68th Ave., Suite amounts for the States and Territories

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM 27JYN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 40228 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Notices

not listed above remain unchanged. The regulations: U.S. Department of Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Uniform Act applies to all programs or Agriculture; U.S. Department of Mexico, New York, North Dakota, N. projects undertaken by Federal Agencies Commerce; U.S. Department of Defense; Mariana Islands, Ohio, Oklahoma, or with Federal financial assistance that U.S. Department of Education; U.S. Puerto Rico, South Dakota, Virgin cause the displacement of any person. Department of Energy; U.S. Islands, Utah, Washington, West DATES: The provisions of this notice are Environmental Protection Agency; U.S. Virginia, and Wisconsin. The schedule effective August 26, 2021, or on such General Services Administration; U.S. amounts for the States and Territories earlier date as an agency elects to begin Department of Health and Human not listed above remain unchanged. The operating under this schedule. Services; U.S. Department of Homeland payment amounts listed in the table FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Security; U.S. Department of Housing below apply on a State-by-State basis. Melissa L. Corder, Office of Real Estate and Urban Development; U.S. Two exceptions apply to all States and Services, (202) 366–5853, email address: Department of Justice; U.S. Department Territories as referenced in 49 CFR [email protected]; David Sett, of Labor; National Aeronautics and 24.302. Payment is limited to $100.00 if Office of the Chief Counsel, (404) 562– Space Administration; Tennessee Valley either of the following conditions 3676, email address: david.Sett@ Authority; Federal Emergency applies: dot.gov; Federal Highway Management Agency; U.S. Department (a) A person has minimal possessions Administration, 1200 New Jersey of the Interior; and U.S. Department of and occupies a dormitory style room, or Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Veterans Affairs. (b) A person’s residential move is Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 42 U.S.C. 4622(b) provides that as an performed by an agency at no cost to the p.m., E.T., Monday through Friday, alternative to being paid for actual person. except Federal holidays. residential moving and related expenses, a displaced individual or SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The schedule continues to be based family may elect payment for moving on the ‘‘number of rooms of furniture’’ Electronic Access expenses on the basis of a moving owned by a displaced individual or An electronic copy of this document expense schedule established by the family. In the interest of fairness and may be downloaded from the Office of head of the lead agency. The accuracy, and to encourage the use of the Federal Register’s website at governmentwide regulations at 49 CFR the schedule (and thereby simplify the www.FederalRegister.gov and the 24.302 provide that FHWA will computation and payment of moving Government Publishing Office’s website develop, approve, maintain, and update expenses), an agency should increase at www.GovInfo.gov. this schedule, as appropriate. the room count for the purpose of The purpose of this notice is to applying the schedule if the volume of Background update the schedule published on July possessions in a single room or space The Uniform Relocation Assistance 24, 2015, at 80 FR 44182. The schedule actually exceeds the normal contents of and Real Property Acquisition Policies is being updated to account for the one room of furniture or other personal Act of 1970, as amended, 42 U.S.C. increased costs associated with moving property. For example, a basement may 4601–4655 (Uniform Act), established a personal property. The updated count as two rooms if the equivalent of program, which includes the payment of amounts are based on review of the two rooms worth of possessions is moving and related expenses, to assist respective States’ current moving cost located in the basement. In addition, an persons who move because of Federal or market data and any proposed increases agency may elect to pay for items stored federally assisted projects. The FHWA is to the current schedule amounts as outside the dwelling unit by adding the the lead agency for implementing the requested from all State highway appropriate number of rooms. agencies. This update increases the provisions of the Uniform Act and has Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4622(b) and schedule amounts in the States and issued governmentwide implementing 4633(b); 49 CFR 1.48 and 24.302. regulations at 49 CFR part 24. Territories of Alabama, Alaska, The following 17 Federal departments Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Stephanie Pollack, and agencies have, by cross-reference, Delaware, Florida, Guam, Hawaii, Acting Administrator, Federal Highway adopted the governmentwide Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Administration.

UNIFORM RELOCATION ASSISTANCE AND REAL PROPERTY ACQUISITION POLICIES ACT—RESIDENTIAL MOVING EXPENSE AND DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE—2021 PAYMENT SCHEDULE

1 Addt’l 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Addt’l room/ room State room rooms rooms rooms rooms rooms rooms rooms room no no furn. furn.

1. Alabama...... 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 250 400 100 2. Alaska...... 850 1100 1350 1625 1875 2075 2300 2500 350 600 250 3. American Samoa...... 282 395 508 621 706 790 875 960 85 226 28 4. Arizona...... 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 100 395 60 5. Arkansas...... 650 900 1100 1350 1600 1825 2050 2275 225 450 125 6. California...... 780 1000 1250 1475 1790 2065 2380 2690 285 510 100 7. Colorado...... 675 895 1115 1270 1425 1580 1735 1890 155 385 55 8. Connecticut...... 715 930 1150 1350 1640 1920 2200 2500 175 260 70 9. Delaware...... 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 150 500 100 10. District of Columbia ...... 800 1000 1200 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 200 500 100 11. Florida...... 800 975 1150 1350 1575 1750 1950 2200 325 550 175 12. Georgia...... 600 975 1300 1600 1875 2125 2325 2525 200 375 100 13. Guam...... 850 1200 1550 1900 2200 2500 2750 3000 350 300 175 14. Hawaii...... 850 1200 1550 1900 2200 2500 2750 3000 350 300 175 15. Idaho...... 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 200 350 100

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM 27JYN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Notices 40229

UNIFORM RELOCATION ASSISTANCE AND REAL PROPERTY ACQUISITION POLICIES ACT—RESIDENTIAL MOVING EXPENSE AND DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE—2021 PAYMENT SCHEDULE—Continued

1 Addt’l 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Addt’l room/ room State room rooms rooms rooms rooms rooms rooms rooms room no no furn. furn.

16. Illinois...... 850 1000 1150 1250 1400 1600 1750 2050 450 650 150 17. Indiana...... 500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 200 400 100 18. Iowa...... 550 700 800 900 1000 1100 1225 1350 125 500 50 19. Kansas...... 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 200 250 50 20. Kentucky...... 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 200 400 100 21. Louisiana...... 600 800 1000 1200 1300 1550 1700 1900 300 400 70 22. Maine...... 650 900 1150 1400 1650 1900 2150 2400 250 400 100 23. Maryland...... 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 200 500 100 24. Massachusetts...... 800 950 1100 1250 1400 1550 1700 1850 250 450 150 25. Michigan...... 750 1000 1200 1350 1500 1650 1800 1950 300 500 200 26. Minnesota...... 575 725 925 1125 1325 1525 1725 1925 275 450 150 27. Mississippi...... 750 850 1000 1200 1400 1550 1700 1850 300 400 100 28. Missouri...... 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 200 400 100 29. Montana...... 550 750 950 1150 1350 1550 1750 1950 200 350 100 30. Nebraska...... 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 200 350 50 31. Nevada...... 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 200 450 150 32. New Hampshire ...... 500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 200 200 150 33. New Jersey ...... 650 750 850 1000 1150 1300 1400 1600 200 200 50 34. New Mexico ...... 650 850 1050 1250 1500 1650 1850 2050 200 400 60 35. New York ...... 675 900 1125 1350 1575 1800 2025 2250 225 400 125 36. North Carolina ...... 550 750 1050 1200 1350 1600 1700 1900 150 350 50 37. North Dakota ...... 550 750 950 1150 1350 1550 1750 1950 200 475 75 38. N. Mariana Is ...... 350 550 700 850 1000 1100 1200 1300 100 300 70 39. Ohio...... 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 200 400 100 40. Oklahoma...... 750 950 1150 1350 1550 1750 1900 2050 200 350 100 41. Oregon...... 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 200 350 100 42. Pennsylvania...... 500 750 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 200 400 70 43. Puerto Rico ...... 525 725 900 1225 1300 1350 1400 1450 150 300 50 44. Rhode Island...... 600 850 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 150 300 100 45. South Carolina ...... 700 805 1095 1285 1575 1735 1890 2075 225 500 75 46. South Dakota...... 500 650 800 950 1100 1250 1400 1600 200 300 100 47. Tennessee...... 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 250 400 100 48. Texas...... 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1750 1900 150 400 50 49. Utah...... 750 950 1150 1350 1550 1750 1950 2150 200 600 200 50. Vermont...... 400 550 650 850 1000 1100 1200 1300 150 300 75 51. Virgin Islands ...... 500 700 900 1050 1200 1350 1500 1700 150 450 100 52. Virginia...... 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 300 400 75 53. Washington...... 800 1100 1400 1700 2000 2300 2600 2900 300 500 100 54. West Virginia...... 750 900 1050 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 200 400 100 55. Wisconsin...... 600 825 1050 1275 1500 1725 1950 2175 250 465 115 56. Wyoming...... 540 800 870 1020 1170 1325 1500 1670 200 370 60 Exceptions: 1. The payment to a person with minimal possessions who is in occupancy of a dormitory style room or whose residential move is performed by an agency at no cost to the person is limited to $100.00. 2. An occupant will be paid on an actual cost basis for moving his or her mobile home from the displacement site. In addition, a reasonable payment to the occupant for packing and securing property for the move may be paid at the agency’s discretion.

[FR Doc. 2021–15930 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] ACTION: Notice of availability and date to the extent practicable and BILLING CODE 4910–22–P request for comments. without delaying implementation of valuable or necessary modifications to SUMMARY: This document provides the PTC systems. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION public with notice that nineteen host ADDRESSES: railroads recently submitted requests for Federal Railroad Administration Comments: Comments may be amendments (RFA) to their FRA- submitted by going to https:// [Docket Numbers FRA–2010–0028, –0029, approved Positive Train Control Safety www.regulations.gov and following the –0039, –0042, –0043, –0045, –0048, –0051, Plans (PTCSP). As these RFAs may online instructions for submitting –0054, –0056, –0057, –0058, –0059, –0060, involve requests for FRA’s approval of comments. –0061, –0062, –0064, –0065, and –0070] proposed material modifications to Instructions: All submissions must FRA-certified positive train control Railroads’ Requests To Amend Their include the agency name and the (PTC) systems, FRA is publishing this applicable docket number. The relevant Positive Train Control Safety Plans and notice and inviting public comment on Positive Train Control Systems PTC docket numbers for the host railroads’ RFAs to their PTCSPs. railroads that filed RFAs to their AGENCY: Federal Railroad DATES: FRA will consider comments PTCSPs are cited above and in the Administration (FRA), Department of received by August 16, 2021. FRA may Supplementary Information section of Transportation (DOT). consider comments received after that this notice. For convenience, all active

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM 27JYN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 40230 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Notices

PTC dockets are hyperlinked on FRA’s –0039, –0042, –0043, –0045, –0048, petitioned the Federal Railroad website at https://railroads.dot.gov/ –0051, –0054, –0056, –0057, –0058, Administration (FRA) to extend an train-control/ptc/ptc-annual-and- –0059, –0060, –0061, –0062, –0064, existing temporary suspension of some quarterly-reports. All comments –0065, and –0070. visual track inspections to allow for received will be posted without change Interested parties are invited to continuation of a previously-approved to https://www.regulations.gov; this comment on any RFAs to railroads’ Test Program designed to test track includes any personal information. PTCSPs by submitting written inspection technologies (i.e., an FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: comments or data. During FRA’s review autonomous track geometry Gabe Neal, Deputy Staff Director, Signal, of railroads’ RFAs, FRA will consider measurement system) and new Train Control, and Crossings Division, any comments or data submitted within operational approaches to track telephone: 816–516–7168, email: the timeline specified in this notice and inspections (i.e., combinations of [email protected]. to the extent practicable, without autonomous inspection and traditional delaying implementation of valuable or visual inspections). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In general, necessary modifications to PTC systems. Title 49 United States Code (U.S.C.) FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yu- See 49 CFR 236.1021; see also 49 CFR Section 20157(h) requires FRA to certify Jiang Zhang, Staff Director, Track and 236.1011(e). Under 49 CFR 236.1021, that a host railroad’s PTC system Structures Division, Office of Railroad FRA maintains the authority to approve, complies with 49 CFR part 236, subpart Safety, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue approve with conditions, or deny I, before the technology may be operated SE, Washington, DC 20590, telephone railroads’ RFAs to their PTCSPs at in revenue service. Before making (202) 493–6460 or email yujiang.zhang@ FRA’s sole discretion. certain changes to an FRA-certified PTC dot.gov; Aaron Moore, Attorney, Office system or the associated FRA-approved Privacy Act Notice of Chief Counsel, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, PTCSP, a host railroad must submit, and In accordance with 49 CFR 211.3, obtain FRA’s approval of, an RFA to its telephone (202) 493–7009 or email FRA solicits comments from the public [email protected]. PTCSP under Title 49 Code of Federal to better inform its decisions. DOT posts SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July Regulations (CFR) Section 236.1021. these comments, without edit, including Under 49 CFR 236.1021(e), FRA’s 22, 2020, FRA conditionally approved any personal information the the Test Program and CP’s petition regulations provide that FRA will commenter provides, to https:// publish a notice in the Federal Register under 49 CFR 211.51 to suspend www.regulations.gov, as described in §§ 213.233(b)(3) and 213.233(c) as and invite public comment in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL– accordance with 49 CFR part 211, if an applied to operations under the Test 14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at Program. A copy of the Test Program, RFA includes a request for approval of https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. a material modification of a signal and FRA’s conditional approval of the Test See https://www.regulations.gov/ Program, and a previously published train control system. Accordingly, this privacy-notice for the privacy notice of notice informs the public that host Federal Register notice explaining regulations.gov. To facilitate comment FRA’s rational for approving the Test railroads’ recent RFAs to their PTCSPs tracking, we encourage commenters to are available in their respective public Program and related suspension are provide their name, or the name of their available for review in the docket.1 PTC dockets, and this notice provides organization; however, submission of an opportunity for public comment on As approved, the Test Program names is completely optional. If you includes three separate phases over the these RFAs. wish to provide comments containing On July 16, 2021, the following 19 course of 12 months as outlined in proprietary or confidential information, 2 host railroads jointly submitted an RFA Exhibit C of the Program. CP began the please contact FRA for alternate Test Program on August 7, 2020. to their respective PTCSPs for their submission instructions. Interoperable Electronic Train Accordingly, the Test Program is Management Systems (I–ETMS): Alaska Issued in Washington, DC. currently set to expire on August 7, Railroad Corporation (ARR), The Belt Carolyn R. Hayward-Williams, 2021. CP is requesting to extend the Test Railway Company of Chicago (BRC), Director, Office of Railroad Systems and Program until April 6, 2022 to complete BNSF Railway (BNSF), Peninsula Technology. [FR Doc. 2021–15973 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] the Program. CP cites the impact of Corridor Joint Powers Board (PCMZ), COVID–19 as the primary reason for BILLING CODE 4910–06–P Canadian National Railway (CN), requesting the extension, noting that the Canadian Pacific Railway (CP), railroad’s efforts to safeguard the health Consolidated Rail Corporation (CRSH), DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION of its employees and variety of CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSX), Kansas restrictions associated with COVID–19 City Terminal Railway (KCT), Kansas Federal Railroad Administration have ‘‘impacted logistics, training, and City Southern Railway (KCS), National change management activities Passenger Railroad Corporation [Docket No. FRA–2020–0056] associated with the Test Program.’’ In (Amtrak), New Mexico Rail Runner support of its request, CP states that it Express (NMRX), Northeast Illinois Petition for Approval Extension: Canadian Pacific Railway Company will continue to comply with all other Regional Commuter Railroad conditions and requirements of FRA’s Corporation (Metra), Northern Indiana AGENCY: Federal Railroad July 22, 2020, approval letter. CP further Commuter Transportation District Administration (FRA), Department of notes that for phase 3 of the Test (NICD), Norfolk Southern Railway (NS), Transportation (DOT). South Florida Regional Transportation ACTION: Notice of petition for extension 1 https://www.regulations.gov/document/FRA- Authority (SFRV), Southern California of approval of track inspection test 2020-0056-0001 (Test Program); https:// Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink), program. www.regulations.gov/document/FRA-2020-0056- Terminal Railroad Association of St. 0002 (FRA’s approval decision); https:// www.regulations.gov/document/FRA-2020-0056- Louis, and Union Pacific Railroad (UP). SUMMARY: This document provides the 0004 (FRA’s published notice of approval). Their joint RFA is available in Docket public notice that on July 7, 2021, 2 See https://www.regulations.gov/document/ Numbers FRA–2010–0028, –0029, Canadian Pacific Railway (CP) FRA-2020-0056-0001.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM 27JYN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Notices 40231

Program, it intends to take a more giving notice that a virtual public billing, and insurance and air conservative approach than that meeting of the Air Ambulance and ambulance payment systems. The AAPB provided for in FRA’s approval letter by Patient Billing (AAPB) Advisory Advisory Committee also discussed continuing manual visual inspections at Committee will take place on August 11, disclosure and separation of charges, the frequency specified in phase 2 of the 2021. The AAPB Advisory Committee cost shifting, and balance billing. Test Program. will discuss the impact of the Airline On February 4, 2020, the Department A copy of the petition, as well as any Deregulation Act (ADA) on States’ established three Subcommittees: (1) written communications concerning the ability to regulate air ambulance The Subcommittee on Disclosure and petition, if any, are available for review operations and whether to recommend Distinction of Charges and Coverage for online at www.regulations.gov. that the ADA be amended as a means of Air Ambulance Services; (2) the Interested parties are invited to improving the regulation of air Subcommittee on Prevention of Balance participate in these proceedings by ambulance providers. Billing, and (3) the Subcommittee on submitting written views, data, or DATES: The AAPB Advisory Committee comments. State and DOT Consumer Protection will hold a virtual meeting on August Authorities. On January 11, 2021, the All communications concerning these 11, 2021, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., Subcommittees filed reports and draft proceedings should identify the Eastern Daylight Time. Requests to recommendations for the full appropriate docket number and may be attend the meeting must be received by Committee’s review. submitted by any of the following August 10, 2021. Requests for methods: The AAPB Advisory Committee held • accommodations because of a disability Website: http:// must be received by August 3, 2021. If a second public meeting on May 27–28, www.regulations.gov. Follow the online you wish to speak during the meeting, 2021. The Committee discussed the instructions for submitting comments. you must submit a written copy of your draft recommendations of the Communications received by August remarks to DOT by August 3, 2021. Subcommittees and developed its own 26, 2021 will be considered by FRA Requests to submit written materials to recommendations.1 At the conclusion of before final action is taken. Comments be reviewed during the meeting must be the May 28 meeting, Committee received after that date will be received no later than August 3, 2021. members expressed an interest in considered if practicable. Anyone can discussing the ADA’s impact on States’ search the electronic form of any written ADDRESSES: The virtual meeting will be ability to regulate the activities of air communications and comments open to the public and held via the ambulance services and in making received into any of our dockets by the Zoom Webinar Platform. Virtual recommendations related to the ADA, name of the individual submitting the attendance information will be provided Public Law 95–504, as a means of comment (or signing the document, if upon registration. An agenda will be improving the regulation of air submitted on behalf of an association, available on the AAPB Advisory ambulance providers. The Committee’s business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 Committee website at https:// Designated Federal Officer (DFO) U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/ from the public to better inform its AAPB at least one week before the indicated that a supplemental processes. DOT posts these comments, meeting, along with copies of the Committee meeting would be held to without edit, including any personal meeting minutes after the meeting. discuss and consider this matter, if the information the commenter provides, to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To Department determined that the www.regulations.gov, as described in register and attend this virtual meeting, Committee had authority to do so after the system of records notice (DOT/ALL– please contact the Department by email a careful review of the Committee’s 14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at at [email protected]. Attendance is open to charter and the 2018 FAA Act. The https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. the public subject to any technical and/ Department has now determined that See also https://www.regulations.gov/ or capacity limitations. For further the Committee has the authority to privacy-notice for the privacy notice of information, contact Robert Gorman, discuss and make recommendations regulations.gov. Senior Attorney, at (202) 366–9342 or by related to the ADA. While email at [email protected]. representatives of DOT and HHS are Issued in Washington, DC. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: voting members of the AAPB Advisory John Karl Alexy, Committee, those two representatives Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety I. Background will abstain from voting on the merits of Chief Safety Officer. The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 any recommendation that the [FR Doc. 2021–15935 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] (2018 FAA Act) requires the DOT Committee may develop regarding the BILLING CODE 4910–06–P Secretary, in consultation with the ADA. Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), to establish an advisory II. Summary of the Agenda DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION committee to review options to improve During the August 11, 2021 meeting, Office of the Secretary the disclosure of charges and fees for air the AAPB Advisory Committee will medical services, better inform deliberate the issue of whether and how [Docket No. DOT–OST–2018–0206] consumers of insurance options for such to recommend that Congress amend the services, and protect consumers from Air Ambulance and Patient Billing ADA. A more detailed agenda will be balance billing. On September 12, 2019, made available at least one week before Advisory Committee Notice of Public the Department announced the creation Meeting the meeting at https:// of the AAPB Advisory Committee. www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/ The AAPB Advisory Committee held AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), AAPB. Department of Transportation (DOT). a public meeting on January 15–16, 2020. At that meeting, the AAPB ACTION: Notice of public meeting. 1 Presentations, Subcommittee reports, and other Advisory Committee gathered materials from the first two public meetings are SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of information about the air ambulance available for public review on the AAPB Advisory Transportation (Department or DOT) is industry, air ambulance costs and Committee’s docket, DOT–OST–2018–0206.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM 27JYN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 40232 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Notices

III. Public Participation www.regulations.gov. After entering the Electronic Availability The meeting will be open to the docket number (DOT–OST–2018–0206), click the tab labeled ‘‘Browse & The Specially Designated Nationals public and attendance may be limited and Blocked Persons List and additional due to virtual meeting constraints. To Comment on Documents’’ and choose the document to review. information concerning OFAC sanctions register, please send an email to the programs are available on OFAC’s FOR Issued in Washington, DC, this 21st day of Department as set forth in the website (www.treasury.gov/ofac). FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. July 2021. The Department is committed to John E. Putnam, Notice of OFAC Action(s) providing equal access to this meeting Acting General Counsel. for all participants. If you need [FR Doc. 2021–15882 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] On July 22, 2021, OFAC determined that the property and interests in alternative formats or services because BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P of a disability, such as sign language property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of interpreter or other ancillary aids, the following persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authority listed please contact the person listed in the DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT below. section no later than August 3, 2021. Office of Foreign Assets Control Individual Members of the public may also present written comments at any time. Notice of OFAC Sanctions Actions 1. LOPEZ MIERA, Alvaro (Latin: LO´ PEZ The docket number referenced above MIERA, A´ lvaro), Cuba; DOB 26 Dec 1943; AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets (DOT–OST–2018–0206) has been POB Havana, Cuba; nationality Cuba; Gender Control, Treasury. established for committee documents, Male (individual) [GLOMAG]. including any written comments that ACTION: Notice. Designated pursuant to section may be filed. At the discretion of the 1(a)(ii)(C)(1) of Executive Order 13818 of SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of the December 20, 2017, ‘‘Blocking the Property of Chair, after completion of the planned Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets agenda, individual members of the Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Control (OFAC) is publishing the names Abuse or Corruption’’ (E.O. 13818) for being public may provide comments through of one or more persons that have been the ‘‘Q&A’’ feature of the webinar a foreign person who is or has been a leader placed on OFAC’s Specially Designated or official of an entity, including any platform or orally, time permitting. Any Nationals and Blocked Persons List government entity, that has engaged in, or oral comments presented must be (SDN List) based on OFAC’s whose members have engaged in, serious limited to the objectives of the determination that one or more human rights abuse, relating to the leader’s committee and will be limited to five (5) applicable legal criteria were satisfied. or official’s tenure. minutes per person. Individual All property and interests in property members of the public who wish to subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these Entities present oral comments must notify the persons are blocked, and U.S. persons 1. BRIGADA ESPECIAL NACIONAL DEL Department of Transportation contact are generally prohibited from engaging MINISTERIO DEL INTERIOR, Cuba; Target noted above via email that they wish to in transactions with them. Type Government Entity [GLOMAG]. attend and present oral comments no DATES: See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(B) later than August 3, 2021. section for applicable date(s). of E.O. 13818 for being owned or controlled Speakers are requested to submit a by, or to have acted or purported to act for FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: written copy of their prepared remarks or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, the OFAC: Andrea Gacki, Director, tel.: for inclusion in the meeting records and MINISTRY OF INTERIOR, a person whose for circulation to AAPB Advisory 202–622–2490; Associate Director for property and interests in property are Committee members by August 3, 2021. Global Targeting, tel.: 202–622–2420; blocked pursuant to the Order. Assistant Director for Sanctions All prepared remarks submitted on time Dated: July 22, 2021. will be accepted and considered as part Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202–622– Bradley T. Smith, of the meeting’s record. 2490; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202–622–2480; or the Assistant Acting Director, Office of Foreign Assets IV. Viewing Documents Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel. 202– Control, U.S. Department of the Treasury. You may view documents mentioned 622–4855. [FR Doc. 2021–15957 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] in this notice at https:// SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: BILLING CODE 4810–AL–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM 27JYN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 FEDERAL REGISTER

Vol. 86 Tuesday, No. 141 July 27, 2021

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

40 CFR Part 300 National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; Monitoring Requirements for Use of Dispersants and Other Chemicals; Final Rule

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\27JYR2.SGM 27JYR2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 40234 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION information is not publicly available, H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That AGENCY e.g., CBI or other information whose Significantly Affect Energy Supply, disclosure is restricted by statute. Distribution or Use 40 CFR Part 300 Certain other material, such as I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act [EPA–HQ–OPA–2006–0090; FRL–4526.1– copyrighted material, is not placed on J. Executive Order 12898: Environmental 01–OLEM] the internet and will be publicly Justice (EJ) available only in hard copy form. K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) RIN 2050–AH16 Publicly available docket materials are Part 300—National Oil and Hazardous National Oil and Hazardous available electronically through http:// Substances Pollution Contingency Plan www.regulations.gov. Substances Pollution Contingency I. General Information Plan; Monitoring Requirements for Use FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For In April 2010, the Deepwater Horizon of Dispersants and Other Chemicals general information, contact the underwater oil well blowout discharged AGENCY: Environmental Protection Superfund, TRI, EPCRA, RMP, and Oil significant quantities of oil into the Gulf Agency (EPA). Information Center at 800–424–9346 or of Mexico. The blowout discharged oil ACTION: Final rule. TDD at 800–553–7672 (hearing from one mile below the sea surface. impaired). In the Washington, DC Approximately one million gallons of SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection metropolitan area, contact the dispersants over a three-month period Agency (EPA or the Agency) is Superfund, TRI, EPCRA, RMP, and Oil were deployed on surface slicks over amending the requirements in Subpart J Information Center at 703–412–9810 or thousands of square miles of the Gulf, of the National Oil and Hazardous TDD 703–412–3323. For more detailed and approximately three quarters of a Substances Pollution Contingency Plan information on this final rule contact million additional gallons of dispersants (NCP) that govern the use of dispersants, Gregory Wilson at 202–564–7989 were, for the first time, injected directly other chemicals and other spill ([email protected]). The contact into the oil gushing from the well riser. mitigating substances when responding address is: U.S. Environmental This raised questions about the to oil discharges into waters of the Protection Agency, Office of Emergency challenges of making dispersant use United States. Specifically, this action Management, Regulations decisions in response operations for establishes monitoring requirements for Implementation Division, 1200 certain atypical dispersant use dispersant use in response to major oil Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, situations. EPA is establishing new discharges and/or certain dispersant use DC 20460–0002, Mail Code 5104A, or monitoring requirements under Subpart situations in the navigable waters of the visit the Office of Emergency J of the National Oil and Hazardous United States and adjoining shorelines, Management website at http:// Substances Pollution Contingency Plan the waters of the contiguous zone, and www.epa.gov/oem/. (NCP) to address these challenges. the high seas beyond the contiguous SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Specifically in this action, the Agency zone in connection with activities under contents of this preamble are: establishes monitoring requirements for the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, I. General Information dispersant use in response to major activities under the Deepwater Port Act II. Entities Potentially Affected by This discharges and/or certain dispersant use of 1974, or activities that may affect Proposed Rule situations: Any subsurface use of natural resources belonging to, III. Statutory Authority and Delegation of dispersant in response to an oil appertaining to, or under the exclusive Authority discharge, surface use of dispersant in management authority of the United IV. Background response to oil discharges of more than States, including resources under the V. This Action 100,000 U.S. gallons occurring within a Magnuson Fishery Conservation and A. Monitoring the Use of Dispersants 24-hour period, and surface use of Management Act of 1976 (‘‘navigable B. Information on Dispersant Application dispersant for more than 96 hours after waters of the United States and C. Water Column Sampling initial application in response to an oil adjoining shorelines’’). These new D. Oil Distribution Analyses discharge. These new requirements are monitoring requirements are anticipated E. Ecological Characterization F. Immediate Reporting intended to address the challenges of to better target dispersant use, thus atypical dispersant use situations, reducing the risks to the environment. G. Daily Reporting VI. Overview of New Rule Citations including those identified during Further, the amendments are intended VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Deepwater Horizon. to ensure that On-Scene Coordinators A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory EPA estimates industry may incur a (OSCs) and Regional Response Teams Planning and Review and Executive total incremental cost of approximately (RRTs) have relevant information to Order 13563: Improving Regulation and $32,000 to $3.0 million annually. Note support response decision-making Regulatory Review that the annualized cost is the same for regarding dispersant use. B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) both the 3% and 7% discount rates DATES: This final rule is effective on C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) because the cost is the same every year January 24, 2022. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act prior to being annualized. This action E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism ADDRESSES: EPA has established a F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation does not impose significant impacts on docket for this action under Docket ID and Coordination With Indian Tribal a substantial number of small entities. No. EPA–HQ–OPA–2006–0090. All Governments The Regulatory Impact Analysis, which documents in the docket are listed on G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of can be found in the docket, provides the http://www.regulations.gov website. Children From Environmental Health more detail on the cost methodology Although listed in the index, some Risks and Safety Risks and benefits of this action.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR2.SGM 27JYR2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 40235

COST OF THE FINAL RULE

Annualized cost, 20 years Annualized at Annualized at 3% 7%

Scenario 1—Low End ...... $32,124 $32,124 Scenario 4—High End ...... 3,033,569 3,033,569

II. Entities Potentially Affected by This Proposed Rule

NAICS code Industrial category

211120 ...... Crude Petroleum Extraction. 211130 ...... Natural Gas Extraction. 324110 ...... Petroleum Refineries. 424710 ...... Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals. 424720 ...... Petroleum and Petroleum Products Merchant Wholesalers (except Bulk Stations and Terminals). 483111 ...... Deep Sea Freight Transportation. 483113 ...... Coastal and Great Lakes Freight Transportation. 486110 ...... Pipeline Transportation of Crude Oil.

The list of potentially affected entities schedule. See 40 CFR 300.900 et. seq. variability in waters, weather in the above table includes oil The President is further authorized to conditions, organisms living in the exploration and production industries revise or otherwise amend the NCP from waters, and types of oil that might be with the potential for an oil discharge time to time, as the President deems discharged requires this approach. into navigable waters of the United advisable. 33 U.S.C. 1321(d)(3). The The Deepwater Horizon underwater States and adjoining shorelines. The authority of the President to implement oil well blowout in 2010 raised Agency’s goal is to provide a guide for section 311(d)(2)(G) of the CWA is questions about the challenges of readers to consider regarding entities delegated to EPA in Executive Order making chemical agent use decisions in that potentially could be affected by this 12777 (56 FR 54757, October 22, 1991). response operations, particularly for action. However, this action may affect Subpart J of the NCP establishes the certain atypical dispersant use other entities not listed in this table. If framework for the use of dispersants situations. To address these challenges, you have questions regarding the and any other chemical agents in in 2015 the Agency proposed applicability of this action to a response to oil discharges (40 CFR part amendments to Subpart J of the NCP particular entity, consult the person(s) 300 series 900). that included revisions to the existing listed in the preceding section entitled product listing, testing protocols, and IV. Background FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. authorization of use procedures, as well In the United States and around the as new provisions for dispersant III. Statutory Authority and Delegation world, chemical agents are among the monitoring. The proposed new of Authority oil spill mitigation technologies monitoring provisions under Subpart J Under sections 311(d) and 311(j) of available that responders may consider. were focused on dispersant use in the Clean Water Act (CWA), as amended Subpart J of the NCP sets forth the response to major oil discharges and on by section 4201 of the Oil Pollution Act regulatory requirements for the use of certain dispersant use situations in the of 1990 (OPA), Public Law 101–380, the chemical agents, including provisions navigable waters of the United States President is directed to prepare and for product testing and listing, and for and adjoining shorelines. The proposed publish the NCP for removal of oil and authorization of use procedures. These new monitoring provisions were also hazardous substances. Specifically, requirements provide the structure for aimed at ensuring that the response section 311(d)(2)(G) directs the the On-Scene Coordinator (OSC) to community is equipped with relevant President to include a Schedule determine in each case the waters and data and information to authorize and identifying ‘‘(i) dispersants, other quantities in which dispersants or other use the products in a judicious and chemicals, and other spill mitigating chemical agents may be safely used in effective manner. Final action on the devices and substances, if any, that may such waters. This determination is proposed revisions to the product be used in carrying out the Plan, (ii) the based on all relevant circumstances, listing, testing protocols, and waters in which such dispersants, other testing and monitoring data and authorization of use procedures will be chemicals, and other spill mitigating information, and is to be made in taken separately from this action. devices and substances may be used, accordance with the authorization of and (iii) the quantities of such use procedures, including the V. This Action dispersant, other chemicals, or other appropriate concurrences and This final action addresses spill mitigating device or substance consultations, found within the environmental monitoring of dispersant which can be used safely in such regulation. When taken together, the use in response to major discharges and waters’’ as part of the NCP. The Agency Subpart J regulatory requirements to certain dispersant use situations. has promulgated both the NCP, see 40 address the types of waters and the Specifically, in this action, the Agency CFR 300.1 et seq., and the schedule of quantities of listed agents that may be establishes monitoring requirements for dispersants as required by section 311 authorized for use in response to oil any subsurface use of dispersant in (d)(2)(G), known as the NCP product discharges. EPA believes the wide response to an oil discharge, surface use

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR2.SGM 27JYR2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 40236 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

of dispersant in response to oil support agencies provide feedback on possible damage related to spill discharges of more than 100,000 U.S. the submitted DMQAPP and has the mitigating products used. gallons occurring within a 24 hour discretionary authority to require the 1. General period, and surface use of dispersant for responsible party to address any more than 96 hours after initial concerns associated with it. The Several Non-Governmental application in response to an oil responsible party is required to Organizations (NGO), private citizens, discharge. The discussion below implement the new monitoring and local, state, and federal government explains the specific requirements and requirements when these dispersant use agencies generally supported the also summarizes and responds to public conditions are met, and for the duration proposed new monitoring requirements, comments received on the proposal. of dispersant operations. The with some also requesting some clarifications. A commenter stated that A. Monitoring the Use of Dispersants monitoring and data submissions that serve as the basis of this rule were while they agree with the concept of The goal of establishing a Schedule established in the 2013 National requiring monitoring for dispersant use, under the NCP is to protect the Response Team (NRT) Environmental the current language undermines the environment from possible damage Monitoring for Atypical Dispersant contingency planning process and related to spill mitigating products used Operations document. The Agency is illegally assigns responsibilities to the in response to oil discharges. The new aware that industry and OSROs have OSC and the responsible party. The monitoring requirements for certain been preparing to monitor dispersant commenter stated this usurps authority discharge situations in this action use this rule since the issuance of the from all other agencies, tribes and the supplements the existing regulatory NRT guidance document in 2013. The public, which they see as a breach of the provisions under Subpart J which Agency encourages the continuation of responsibilities of the federal already include test data and planning and preparedness efforts and government to protect public trust information requirements for chemical continues to support these efforts with resources. The Agency agrees with commenters agents as well as procedures for our interagency partners. authorizing the use of those agents to expressing support for this final action. Subpart J of the NCP is intended to respond to oil discharges and threats of The Agency disagrees with the provide tools that support planning for discharge. comments that this action undermines The new § 300.913 establishes and responding to oil discharges. To the contingency planning process and requirements for the responsible party this end, the monitoring requirements illegally assigns responsibilities to the to monitor any subsurface use of for certain discharge situations OSC and the responsible party. The EPA dispersant in response to an oil promulgated in this final rule serve as acknowledges the importance of discharge, surface use of dispersant in a complement to the existing regulatory effective contingency planning to the response to oil discharges of more than approach under Subpart J. When achievement of a timely and effective 100,000 U.S. gallons occurring within a dispersants are applied in response to response. Planning and preparedness 24 hour period, and surface use of an oil discharge, environmental field provisions are currently addressed dispersant for more than 96 hours after monitoring data can support decision- under Subpart C of the NCP or as initial application in response to an oil making in dispersant use operations by codified in regulations implementing discharge, and to submit a Dispersant gathering site-specific information on CWA 311(j)(5) authorities as delegated Monitoring Quality Assurance Project the overall effectiveness, including the to other NRT member agencies by E.O. Plan (DMQAPP) to the OSC. The transport and environmental effects of 12777. The Agency is amending the requirements are established for the the dispersants and the dispersed oil. proposed language in the opening responsible party as they operate in Environmental field monitoring data is paragraph of the monitoring section to those environments where applicable at the core of any response, as without clarify the new provisions are for the discharges may occur and should be in it the extent of the problem cannot be responsible party to implement. EPA the best position to monitor the evaluated nor can a path forward for an disagrees with comments that state the response. The Agency removed appropriate response be established. structure of the new monitoring language included in the proposal that The purpose of monitoring subsurface requirements usurps other governmental specified these actions were to be taken application is to characterize the authorities or constitutes a breach of ‘‘As directed by OSC . . .’’. The dispersed oil, follow the plume integrity responsibilities of the federal clarification in this action is and transport with the underwater government to protect public trust unnecessary as 33 U.S.C. 1321 and current, and identify and assess the resources. The NCP designates the OSC § 300.120 of the NCP already establish potential adverse effects from the as the person who is authorized to the OSC’s oversight role over the dispersed oil. Product testing conducted direct response efforts and to coordinate responsible party. The Agency has also under standardized laboratory all other efforts at the scene of a changed language associated with the conditions is useful for comparison discharge, including the new DMQAPP to remove the proposed ‘‘for between different products. However, monitoring requirements. The NCP approval’’ qualifier in this final action. standardized laboratory conditions do designates those Agencies providing the The change is to better reflect that the not necessarily reflect field conditions. OSC for a response, including requirement to develop the DMQAPP is Monitoring of agents in the field informs designating USCG to provide the OSC directed at the responsible party, and the OSC and support agencies on the for oil spills into or threatening the that the provision is not intended to overall effectiveness of dispersant use, coastal zone. See, e.g., 40 CFR 300.120. establish a DMQAPP approval timeline including the environmental effects and The NCP requires that the OSC ensure for the OSC relative to dispersant use. transport of dispersed oil. These new that the natural resource trustees are Rather, the DMQAPP submission is monitoring requirements, in promptly notified in the event of any intended to provide the OSC, and other conjunction with the existing testing discharge of oil to the maximum extent agencies with NCP responsibilities, with and information requirements for practicable as provided in the Fish and a better understanding of the monitoring chemical agents, and the procedures for Wildlife and Sensitive Environments data to inform dispersant use decisions. authorizing the use of those agents, Plan annex to the Area Contingency The OSC may request that response serve to protect the environment from Plan (ACP) for the area in which the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR2.SGM 27JYR2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 40237

discharge occurs. The NCP also directs use of chemical agents in accordance includes an evaluation of the threat to the OSC and the trustees to coordinate with Subpart J and other applicable public health or welfare of the United assessments, evaluations, investigations, provisions of the NCP. States or the environment. and planning with respect to The Agency reiterates that the new A commenter suggested that for oil appropriate removal actions, including provisions are focused on spill events where product the OSC consulting with the affected environmental monitoring and are preauthorization has not been granted, trustees on the appropriate removal applicable only to the following atypical the rule should require that action to be taken. Finally, none of new dispersant use situations: any authorization of use be contingent on requirements in this action in any way subsurface use of dispersant in response the Area Committee having a current limit current existing NCP authorities, to an oil discharge, surface use of Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) but rather they inform the OSC and dispersant in response to oil discharges approved by the RRT, NRT, and facilitate compliance with regulatory of more than 100,000 U.S. gallons federally recognized Tribal responsibilities. occurring within a 24-hour period, and representatives for the collection and Several commenters supported the any surface use of dispersant for more reporting of all environmental data as proposed amendments and suggested than 96 hours after initial application in part of the preauthorization plan. The the monitoring requirements be response to an oil discharge. However, commenter further suggested extended to all products listed on the these new requirements in no way authorization be contingent on the Product Schedule. Another commenter preclude the OSC from directing the Natural Resource Trustees having expressed similar concerns, stating that monitoring of any substance, including completed baseline ecosystem studies in monitoring should occur anytime any chemical agents used, or their use the area impacted by the spill. Another product is used during a response within different time frames than those commenter recommended that the activity. The commenter suggested these listed above, as part of the existing development, approval, and update additional requirements for product authorities set forth in the NCP. The process for the QAPP be moved under effectiveness data would then be Agency is clarifying the applicability the provisions for authorization of available for future releases, allowing provisions of the monitoring chemical agent use. They also suggested for a refined set of response options. requirements relative to the duration of that withdrawal of concurrence, Another commenter stated that EPA their implementation. Specific to regarding product use following should include language indicating that subsurface application of dispersants, protocols also under authorization of the new monitoring requirements are a the Agency is offering language further use provisions, would mean that use of minimum and that additional clarifying the monitoring provisions are a product would cease until monitoring may be required based on to be implemented for the entire concurrence was reestablished. conditions, dispersant type, and duration of the subsurface dispersant A commenter proposed that the location. A commenter also use. For dispersant application on the Natural Resource Trustees should select recommended that, at a minimum, the surface in response to oil discharges and manage peer-reviewed scientific requirements include monitoring of situations of greater than 100,000 U.S. studies that implement the approved public health effects following the gallons occurring within a 24-hour QAPP for spills where the dispersant application. period, the monitoring provisions are to preauthorization conditions for product The Agency interprets the specific be implemented as soon as possible for use are met. The commenter suggested requirements set forth in this final the entire or remaining duration of the Natural Resource Trustees seek action as the minimum set of surface dispersant use, as applicable. concurrence from the Department of monitoring activities expected during a Finally, for any dispersant used on the Labor/OSHA and Department of Human response involving the atypical surface for more than 96 hours after Health and Services/CDC dispersant use conditions specified. initial application, the new monitoring representatives to the RRT, federally However, the Agency does not believe it provisions in this action are to be recognized Tribal representatives, and is necessary to amend regulatory text for implemented for the remaining duration the RRT representative from the state(s) this purpose. The new requirements in of surface dispersant use, consistent with jurisdiction over waters and no way impede the existing OSC with the 2013 National Response Team adjoining shorelines within the authority 1 to direct the responsible (NRT) Environmental Monitoring for geographic area impacted for these party to conduct additional monitoring Atypical Dispersant Operations scientific studies. Other commenters if deemed necessary due to incident- document. Additional discussion generally suggested that the proposed specific circumstances including regarding this clarifying language is requirements ensure peer-review as part location, oil type, or conditions of use. found in Section C of this preamble— of the monitoring process. EPA notes that incident-specific Water Column Sampling. The Agency recognizes that any circumstances may extend beyond the While the new provisions established monitoring to be conducted should examples provided. The incident- in this action are specific to follow a QAPP and has included new specific data gathered through these environmental monitoring, the Agency provisions to that effect. The Agency is new monitoring requirements, in notes there are other impacts potentially modifying the provision by specifically conjunction with the OSC authority to resulting from an oil discharge and requiring a DMQAPP to avoid confusion direct additional monitoring, offers associated response operations that are with the existing definition of a QAPP flexibility in accounting for differences addressed under different provisions of in the NCP. Further, given that the in regional environments that may have the NCP. Of note, the OSC initiates a monitoring requirements are directed at the potential to impact any discharge preliminary assessment as per the NCP. the responsible party, the Agency situation. The USCG provides a This preliminary assessment is believes it is most appropriate for the designated OSC for oil discharges into conducted using available information responsible party to develop a DMQAPP or threatening the coastal zone as per 40 and is supplemented where necessary covering the environmental data CFR 300.120. The OSC authorizes the and possible by an on-scene inspection. collection, which includes quality 40 CFR 300.305(a)–(b). The preliminary assurance documentation. The 1 See 33 U.S.C. 1321(c); See also 40 CFR 300.120, assessment undertaken by the OSC in DMQAPP developed by the responsible 40 CFR 300.305. accordance with 40 CFR 300.305 party is to be submitted to the OSC to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR2.SGM 27JYR2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 40238 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

allow for a better understanding of the monitoring that occurs during a spill specific information on the overall monitoring data. The Agency response and therefore suggested that effectiveness, including the transport encourages the use of the guidance in monitoring continue for several months and environmental effects of the Section 4.0 Quality Assurance Project following the dispersant application to dispersant and the dispersed oil. Plan of the 2013 NRT Environmental allow for the assessment of both acute Monitoring the overall effectiveness of Monitoring for Atypical Dispersant and chronic effects on fish and other dispersant use in the field provides the Operations document for preparation of species. RRT member agencies with concurrence the DMQAPP. EPA also encourages the EPA agrees with commenters who and consultation roles with information RP to develop a DMQAPP, to the requested that the new monitoring for operational decision making during maximum extent possible, as part of the requirements also include site-specific atypical dispersant applications. RP’s response planning to facilitate baseline monitoring, prior to application Adverse effects on ecological monitoring preparedness among other of dispersant, and is amending the receptors from exposures to dispersant members of the response community. proposed rule text to reflect this change use depend on the length of time and The OSC has the expertise of the in the final rule. The Agency believes concentration of the exposure, which Scientific Support Coordinator (SSC) this a rational and necessary addition are dependent on the transport of the and other pertinent response agencies since an understanding of baseline dispersed oil. Given that each oil available to provide feedback on the conditions is required for understanding discharge represents a unique situation, submitted DMQAPP, as well as the the effects of dispersants in a specific the Agency believes comprehensive discretionary authority to require the area. The Agency believes that baseline monitoring is important for those responsible party to address any monitoring will provide pre- and post- discharge situations which are concerns raised. For oil discharges in dispersant application data to better addressed in this final action. This the coastal zone it is National Oceanic evaluate the effects, including physical monitoring data will enhance the and Atmospheric Administration dispersion, of the dispersants. Further information available for an effective (NOAA) that generally provides the details on this change to the proposed response without delaying the use of SSC. The Agency disagrees that these requirements is found in the Water dispersants. The Agency believes that new monitoring provisions cannot be Column Sampling discussion in this comprehensive monitoring in certain implemented without having a preamble. This final action also discharge situations is necessary to DMQAPP specifically included in the recognizes the need for ecological determine the overall effectiveness of applicable ACP. Likewise, characterization. The new monitoring dispersants and should extend beyond implementation of the new monitoring provisions include requirements for the the initial dispersant application to requirements has no impact on baseline responsible party to characterize the include the transport and potential ecosystem studies conducted by the ecological receptors (e.g., aquatic environmental effects of the dispersant Natural Resource Trustees. The Agency species, wildlife, and/or other biological and dispersed oil in the water column. notes that the roles and responsibilities resources), their habitats, and exposure While all the data collected for of the Natural Resource Trustees are pathways that may be present in the dispersant operations purposes may be delineated under the current NCP, and discharge area. Specific comments on made available to Natural Resource that commenters’ recommendations these new provisions are found in the Damage Assessment (NRDA) personnel specific to a DMQAPP evaluation by the Ecological Characterization discussion as soon as practicable, the new in this preamble. The Agency notes that monitoring requirements are intended to Natural Resource Trustees to select and the new monitoring provisions are for inform operational decision-making manage peer-reviewed scientific studies ecological monitoring of atypical specific to atypical dispersant use; use are outside the scope of this action. dispersant use operations subject to this of collected data in the NRDA process Similarly, issues regarding authorization regulatory action (i.e., any subsurface is incidental to this rulemaking. The of chemical agent use are outside of the dispersant use, prolonged surface NRDA data gathering efforts apply more scope of this action. dispersant use, and surface dispersant broadly than just to dispersant use as A commenter supported the proposed use in response to major discharges). part of the response. monitoring requirements but suggested Other potential impacts from an oil A commenter generally supported the they include establishing baseline discharge and from other associated concept of monitoring following conditions prior to product application. response operations are addressed dispersant use and recommended any Another commenter also suggested the under different provisions of the NCP. monitoring data generated during a requirements include pre-application The OSC initiates a preliminary response acknowledge the uncertainty monitoring of biological resources. A assessment under the NCP. This associated with the difficulty in commenter suggested the concept of preliminary assessment is conducted estimating the effectiveness of short-term damage assessments be using available information and is dispersant actions in the field. A included in this section, including rapid supplemented where necessary and commenter recommended that EPA characterization of vulnerable aquatic possible by an on-scene inspection. The develop a set of standards for assessing species and habitats, and potential preliminary assessment includes an dispersant application monitoring data impacts to public health. Similarly, evaluation of the threat to public health in the field to supplement and validate commenters also recommended longer- or welfare of the United States or the results from laboratory-based studies. term monitoring and damage assessment environment. The Agency agrees that because of the activities as part of these new The Agency recognizes that some nature of the operations, a certain requirements; a commenter stated that effects of dispersant use on the aquatic degree of uncertainty associated with monitoring should occur for the ecosystem may take longer to manifest monitoring data generated during a duration of the response and until the than the duration of dispersant response is to be expected. The Agency product is no longer detected in the application or the monitoring time believes that the requirement for the water. Another commenter suggested frames during a response. However, the responsible party to develop and submit that effects of dispersants on aquatic new field monitoring provisions are a DMQAPP will help address some of organisms may take longer to manifest designed to support and inform those uncertainties. The Agency expects themselves than the duration of operational decisions by gathering site- that the DMQAPP will address sample

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR2.SGM 27JYR2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 40239

collection methodology, handling, chain SMART monitoring program. The discharge. The Agency recognizes the of custody, and decontamination requirements in this final action follow inherent uncertainties with a subsurface procedures to ensure the highest quality recommendations from the application approach, which is an data possible will be collected and Environmental Monitoring for Atypical integral part of the basis for the new maintained. The Agency disagrees that Dispersant Operations: Including monitoring requirements in this final it should develop a set of standards for Guidance for Subsea Application and action. For pre-authorization of assessing dispersant application Prolonged Surface Application dispersant use requests, the final action monitoring data in the field to developed by NRT member agency does not prevent the RRT from supplement and validate results from representatives in 2013 and focus on establishing additional criteria to laboratory-based studies. Product testing monitoring atypical use of dispersants address incident-specific concerns conducted under standardized during an oil discharge in order to beyond those requirements in the final laboratory conditions is useful for provide data for operational response rule, or from establishing incident- comparison between different products. decision-making. Further details on the specific criteria for those situations not However, standardized laboratory SMART protocols can be found in the covered in the final rule. RRT conditions do not necessarily reflect Field monitoring to support operational authorities and responsibilities are set field conditions. The monitoring decisions discussion in this preamble. forth in the NCP and are outside the requirements in this final action are A commenter also requested scope of this action. intended to supplement and clarification on the statement suggesting Some commenters further advocated compliment SMART procedures, as that subsurface dispersant application making all monitoring results and applicable, and inform the OSC and close to the release source reduces information publicly available; some support agencies on the overall environmental impacts. They requested commenters suggested daily reporting effectiveness of dispersant use for elaboration on the specifics of this and public notification protocols and decision-making in the response. statement in the context of the that results of dispersant monitoring A commenter expressed concerns that discussions of dispersant harm to performed during the Deepwater the proposed requirements may not aquatic organisms found in other places Horizon oil spill response be released to account for regional differences, which in the proposed rule. The commenter provide an example of the types of would be dealt with more effectively at suggested elaborating on the language, information that can be obtained from the regional level, as opposed to the or if there is inherent uncertainty, to existing methods and technologies. national level. This commenter also allow RRTs to participate in research or The final action includes requested clarification on the testing associated with pre- requirements for the responsible party distinction between dispersant efficacy authorization of dispersant use requests. to provide reporting to the OSC, and toxicity. The commenter suggested The proposed rule preamble at 80 FR including daily reporting of the the reference to ‘‘overall effectiveness’’ 3394 states: ‘‘Equipment is being monitoring data results. EPA expects is confusing and should be revised to contemplated to inject dispersants that daily reporting would be reflective clearly address both the effectiveness subsurface, directly into the oil near the of an operational schedule based upon and toxicity of the dispersant and source of the discharge. This type of a 24-hour time period. Further details of dispersed oil. The commenter also application is intended to minimize those requirements are found in the suggested that local field efficacy testing dispersant dilution in the water before Immediate Reporting and Daily be conducted prior to dispersant use to the dispersant has had an opportunity to Reporting discussions in this preamble. understand site-specific conditions and interact with the oil. This application Regarding public notification protocols, that efficacy testing be conducted as approach that is closer to the source is EPA notes that the OSC directs response outlined in the Special Monitoring of expected to reduce potential adverse efforts and coordinates all other efforts Applied Response Technologies environmental consequences from the at the scene of a discharge, including (SMART) Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III use of excessive quantities of public information and community protocols during the application dispersants. However, applying relations. See 40 CFR 300.120. The NCP monitoring. The commenter dispersant to an oil discharge does not provides instruction to the OSC on recommended that, if this type of result in the physical recovery of oil ensuring all appropriate public and monitoring is not possible, dispersant from the environment. Instead, private interests are kept informed and use be considered on a case-by-case dispersing oil increases the potential that their concerns are considered basis as outlined under the regulatory exposure of aquatic organisms to the throughout a response. See 40 CFR provisions for authorization of chemical dispersant-oil mixture, at least 300.155. The OSC public agent use. transiently, and subsurface application communications authorities under the The Agency again notes the OSC has has the potential to more immediately NCP are outside the scope of this action. authority to direct additional and effectively increase these exposures The Agency worked with Federal monitoring and data collection beyond near the discharge.’’ EPA disagrees with interagency partners in developing the that which is specified in the new the commenter that clarification is 2013 NRT Environmental Monitoring for requirements, including for dispersant needed on the cited statement, as the Atypical Dispersant Operations use situations outside the scope of the commenter had only cited a portion of guidance, which includes examples of new provisions. This may include local the full statement. When taken in its full the types of information that can be field efficacy testing prior to dispersant context, the statement is highlighting obtained from relevant methods and use to better understand and account for that this new subsurface dispersant technologies, and which serves as a site-specific conditions in operational application approach is intended to basis for this action. Additionally, while decision-making. While the SMART reduce the risk of using excessive the Agency did incorporate lessons protocols may be utilized in pre- quantities of dispersants. The full learned from dispersant use operations deployment field testing and as part of statement recognizes that dispersing oil during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill the overall response, the atypical uses of does not remove it from the into this final action, the new dispersant during a response that are environment and that in some instances monitoring requirements are addressed in this action were neither subsurface dispersant use has the performance based and focused on envisioned nor addressed in the existing potential to increase exposures near the information requirements. The Agency

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR2.SGM 27JYR2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 40240 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

believes this approach provides the harmful impacts to any marine life OSAT Report. The commenter did not opportunity to consider relevant following dispersant applications. The specify which 2011 OSAT report. The technologies and to capture advances in commenter requested that new February 10, 2011, OSAT report is a technologies. monitoring requirements for the summary for fate and effects of remnant A commenter expressed concerns dispersant use situations applicable to oil in the beach environment. The July over proposed language that seems to this action be reconsidered in the 8, 2011, report is an ecotoxicity suggest that EPA views comprehensive context of recent scientific research. A addendum entitled ‘‘Summary Report and quantitative monitoring of commenter requested EPA review recent for Sub-Sea and Sub-Surface Oil and dispersant effectiveness at sea as a publications that suggest the Dispersant Detection: Ecotoxicity feasible proposition. This commenter effectiveness of dispersant use, citing Addendum.’’ EPA’s understanding is stated that currently, this type of results from monitoring and testing that the OSAT reports focused on monitoring is not technically possible during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill information to guide response actions and suggested that the word response. Further, a commenter stated and do not draw conclusions about ‘‘comprehensive’’ be replaced with the that the new monitoring requirements long-term environmental impacts of the word ‘‘adaptive’’ throughout this are unnecessary until EPA can provide spilled oil. Specifically, the OSAT section. The commenter noted that this published results indicating harm from ecotoxicity addendum report states that change would allow decisions related to dispersant use to the environment or its purpose was to provide the OSC with dispersant use to be revisited as public health. Similarly, a commenter information on the remaining toxicity of circumstances surrounding the release stated that if there is no intention to released oil and dispersant to change. include recent research in the proposed representative water column and The Agency disagrees that update, the new requirements should sediment-dwelling organisms at the comprehensive and quantitative not be promulgated. time the samples were collected and monitoring of dispersant effectiveness at intended to inform the OSC regarding sea is not currently technically possible. The Agency believes it has demonstrated the need for these new transition of nearshore activities from The requirements set forth in this action the emergency response phase to the are informed by lessons learned during monitoring requirements to inform operational decision-making specific to long-term recovery and restoration the Deepwater Horizon response and are phase. The new monitoring consistent with the 2013 NRT atypical dispersant use. As already highlighted, the new requirements are requirements promulgated in this action Environmental Monitoring for Atypical will serve to inform dispersant use Dispersant Operations guidance. consistent with the 2013 NRT Environmental Monitoring for Atypical decisions during a response by Further, the Agency disagrees that the providing environmentally relevant data narrative describing the monitoring Dispersant Operations guidance, which addresses the dispersant use situations and information to the OSC and other requirements should replace the term Agencies with roles and responsibilities ‘‘comprehensive’’ with the term addressed by this action. Further, the under the NCP where atypical ‘‘adaptive.’’ The commenter stated that Agency disagrees that recent scientific dispersants are deployed. Under the describing the monitoring requirements research would necessitate NCP, the OSC directs the response as ‘‘adaptive’’ would allow decisions reconsidering the minimum set of consistent with provisions including 40 related to dispersant use to be revisited monitoring requirements for the atypical CFR 300.120, 40 CFR 300.150, and as circumstances surrounding the dispersant use situations as specified in Subpart D, which includes threats to the release change. The Agency disagrees this action. EPA recognizes public health. that characterizing the specific uncertainties still surrounding regulatory provisions in this action as dispersant use, particularly for the The Agency acknowledges that comprehensive would in any way atypical dispersant use situations scientific research continues regarding preclude the OSC to adapt operational contemplated since their use during the dispersant use in general and with decisions based on the monitoring data. Deepwater Horizon oil spill. EPA respect to the Deepwater Horizon oil The Agency is describing the new continues to participate in scientific spill. The Agency disagrees with the monitoring requirements as efforts with scientists and researchers commenter that the monitoring comprehensive because they go beyond from industry, academia, and public requirements should be removed the initial dispersant application to also organizations, such as the multi-year because EPA did not include references include the transport and environmental State-of-the-Science for Dispersant Use that the commenter characterized as the effects of the dispersant and dispersed in Arctic Waters effort sponsored by numerous scientific, peer-reviewed oil in the water column. NOAA though the Coastal Response publications published since May 2012 A commenter requested that EPA Research Center, which continue to in the 2015 preamble that the provide additional supporting identify unknowns and uncertainties commenter stated to have examined the references for the proposed relative to this response technology. dispersant use during DWH. The requirements. The commenter suggested EPA also continues to actively commenter did not provide a list of that supporting references could include participate as a standing member of the references or examples as illustrations, peer-reviewed articles published since Interagency Coordinating Committee on nor included those that may be relevant 2012 that examine the use of dispersants Oil Pollution Research (ICCOPR), a 15- to the monitoring provisions. The during the Deepwater Horizon response member Interagency Committee Agency believes that the new or the 48 studies initiated by established by Title VII of the Oil monitoring requirements will provide government agencies cited in a 2012 Pollution Act of 1990 (Section 7001). information and data to inform future U.S. Government Accountability Office EPA’s own research efforts and on-going response decisions for atypical (GAO) report. They also suggested that engagement with the broader research dispersant use situations reflective of reference be made to the 2011 Federal community support the need for the the Deepwater Horizon oil spill-type On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC) new monitoring provisions established and other scenarios. Furthermore, these Deepwater Horizon Operational Science in this final action. Finally, the Agency new monitoring requirements will Advisory Team (OSAT) Report, which notes the commenter’s request to provide information and data that indicated that there were no identifiable recognize the 2011 Deepwater Horizon address knowledge gaps identified in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR2.SGM 27JYR2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 40241

the 2012 GAO report, ‘‘U.S. Government Atypical Dispersant Operations existing RRT and OSC authorities and Accountability Office Report, Oil guidance document. The Agency is responsibilities under the NCP. Finally, Dispersants, Additional Research aware that industry and OSROs have the requirements set forth in this action Needed, Particularly on Subsurface and been preparing for the requirements of are informed by lessons learned during Arctic Applications,’’ which this rule since the 2013 interagency the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and are commenters also referenced. signing of the NRT guidance document. consistent with the 2013 NRT The Clean Water Act provides that the This final action provides notice for a Environmental Monitoring for Atypical National Contingency Plan ‘‘shall potential responsible party to identify Dispersant Operations guidance. include, but not be limited to, the and prepare for deployment of The Agency acknowledges the following: . . . (F) Procedures and monitoring assets including identifying recommendation to renumber the techniques to be employed in response personnel, equipment, and monitoring section but is not making identifying, containing, dispersing, and sampling materials. Potential this change because the numerical order removing oil and hazardous substances. responsible parties also have time to of the provisions has no practical effect (G) A schedule, prepared in cooperation identify and plan for the need of on the regulatory requirements. with the States, identifying—(i) alternative resources to account for 2. Roles and Responsibilities for dispersants, other chemicals, and other events such as equipment failure, rather Monitoring Operations spill mitigating devices and substances, than wait until an incident occurs. The if any, that may be used in carrying out Agency encourages the continuation of Several commenters expressed the [NCP], (ii) the waters in which such planning and preparedness efforts and concern specific to the requirements for dispersants, other chemicals, and other continues to support these efforts with the responsible party to monitor the use spill mitigating device and substances our interagency partners. of dispersants under the direction of the may be used, and (iii) the quantities of A commenter indicated that OSC. A commenter stated that the such dispersant, other chemicals, or monitoring of dispersants in the coastal responsible party should not oversee other spill mitigating device or zone should be under the authority of monitoring for impacts related to the substance which can be used safely in the United States Coast Guard (USCG). spill for which they are responsible. such waters . . . .’’ In conjunction with This commenter suggested that the RRT Similarly, other commenters suggested the existing testing requirements, listing and OSC should have decision-making the OSC select a qualified third party to of agents, and authorization of use authority as indicated in NRT’s be responsible for monitoring and water procedures, the promulgation of these Environmental Monitoring for Atypical column testing processes during the new monitoring requirements provide Dispersant Operations and the SMART response instead of the responsible data which can be used to inform the document. Another commenter stated party. Further, the commenters stated decision making of the OSC and of the that this section of the proposed rule that the third party should be required other Agencies with roles and should be consistent with, and pose no to disclose any relationship with the responsibilities under the NCP. The conflict to, the NRT guidance found in responsible party to avoid potential wide variability in waters, weather the 2013 Environmental Monitoring for conflicts of interest and suggested that conditions, organisms living in the Atypical Dispersant Operations the OSC oversee transparency in the waters, and types of oil that might be document. monitoring and water quality testing discharged requires this combined The Agency recognizes OSC roles, processes. Commenters suggested that approach. responsibilities and authorities as this third-party monitor should be A commenter expressed concerns that described in the NCP, including USCG acceptable to the OSC, EPA, Department in the event of a spill these new OSC roles and responsibilities in the of Interior (DOI) RRT representatives monitoring requirements may hamper coastal zone as described in 40 CFR (potentially including DOC RRTs), as response activities from occurring in a 300.120 and § 300.140. EPA has well as the responsible party. A timely manner. They recommended that responsibilities under Subpart J of the commenter also suggested that because effectiveness monitoring be conducted NCP that apply to the use of chemical the QAPP will include DOI trust as a set of tabletop exercises first, to agents in the coastal and inland zones, resources, it should be submitted and determine whether the monitoring including an authorization of use role as approved by DOI RRT representatives protocols are feasible. This commenter provided in 40 CFR 300.910 (states and and the OSC. Commenters also suggest also requested recognition for other other federal agencies also have adding a timeline for submission and analytical options such as in-situ responsibilities under this provision). approval of the QAPP documentation. analytical techniques. The Agency acknowledges that the EPA recognizes commenters’ concerns The Agency disagrees with the atypical dispersant use situations regarding the responsible party premise that monitoring requirements subject to the new monitoring conducting dispersant monitoring due could hamper response activities from requirements will likely be overseen by to inherent conflicts of interest. The occurring in a timely manner. The a USCG OSC. The President has Agency notes that under the NCP the Agency notes the time frame for the delegated EPA the authority under CWA OSC coordinates, directs and reviews deployment of subsurface dispersant 311(d) to revise or otherwise amend the the work of the responsible party. See, injection equipment by vessels for NCP and to establish requirements for e.g., 40 CFR 300.120. The Agency offshore facilities is not expected to be dispersants, other chemicals, and other believes the responsible party must be different than the time frame for spill mitigating devices and substances, prepared for and provide resources to deploying monitoring equipment. which are found in Subpart J of the gather data and information to inform Monitoring requirements should not NCP. The Agency has structured the decisions regarding dispersant use delay or impede response actions amendments to Subpart J of the NCP to operations. The approach to this final related to the deployment of mechanical include not only the testing and listing action is consistent with the NCP recovery, in-situ burning, or dispersant- protocols, and the authorization of use response framework, taking advantage related equipment. The monitoring and procedures, but also the monitoring of the knowledge and geographic data submissions that serve as the basis provisions to ensure agents are being proximity of the responsible party as of this rule were established in the 2013 used appropriately. The new monitoring applicable, and allowing for the NRT Environmental Monitoring for requirements are consistent with effective allocation of limited

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR2.SGM 27JYR2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 40242 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

governmental resources. Additionally, completed under the direction of the implemented by the responsible party. the new monitoring requirements in this OSC. The commenter indicated that the The Agency notes that under the NCP final action do not, for example, NCP provides for a three-tiered the OSC has an established oversight preclude the OSC from seeking a approach, including the Federal role over the responsible party; the OSC qualified third party to conduct government directing all public and continues to have authority to direct additional monitoring or testing, from private spill response efforts for certain additional monitoring and data requiring the responsible party to use a types of spill events; Area Committees collection beyond that which is third party to conduct the monitoring or developing detailed, location-specific specified in the new requirements. This testing where the OSC deems it Area Contingency Plans; and vessel and may include local field efficacy testing appropriate, or from seeking certain facility owners and operators prior to dispersant use to better supplemental data and information preparing Facility Response Plans. The understand and account for site specific separately. Similarly, the final rule does commenter suggested that this type of conditions in operational decision- not preclude the consideration of third- tiered approach allows for Federal making. While the SMART protocols party testing or test results. oversight without dismissing local may be utilized not only in pre- The Agency notes that the NCP interests and knowledge and enables the deployment field testing but also as part already provides for the natural resource efficient allocation of limited resources of the overall response, the atypical uses trustees’ roles relative to dispersant use. for response actions. of dispersant during a response that are Further, this final rule does not amend The Agency agrees that the USCG addressed in this action were neither any regulatory requirements or OSC generally oversees the responsible envisioned nor addressed in the existing authorities, including EPA-delegated party during coastal zone response SMART monitoring program. The authorities under Subpart J, or regarding operations, which includes requirements in this final action follow the OSC role to direct public and private implementation of the new monitoring recommendations from the spill response efforts, the Area requirements. The new monitoring Environmental Monitoring for Atypical Committee responsibilities for requirements fall within the existing Dispersant Operations developed by developing Area Contingency Plans, or NCP framework of federal government NRT member agency representatives in the responsible party’s obligations for oversight through the OSC. The NCP 2013. The 2013 NRT guidance focuses preparing Facility or Vessel Response serves as the federal government’s on monitoring atypical use of Plans, as applicable. The NCP blueprint for responding to oil dispersants during an oil discharge in establishes the Regional Response discharges or threats of discharge, order to provide data that will inform Teams and their roles and ensuring national response capabilities decision-making for dispersant use responsibilities in the National and promoting coordination among the operations in a response. Further Response System, including hierarchy of responders and discussion on SMART protocols can be coordinating preparedness, planning, contingency plans. The approach to this found in the Field monitoring to support and response at the regional level. final action is consistent with the NCP operational decisions discussion in this Nothing in this final action precludes response framework, taking advantage preamble. OSC consideration of local interests and of the knowledge and geographic knowledge for effective allocation of proximity of the responsible party as The Agency recognizes OSC roles, resources, nor interferes with NCP applicable, and allowing for the responsibilities, and authorities as established roles and responsibilities for effective allocation of limited described in the NCP, including USCG response actions. The DMQAPP governmental resources. These new OSC roles and responsibilities in the developed by the responsible party will provisions of minimal monitoring coastal zone as described in 40 CFR be submitted to the OSC to provide requirements under Subpart J for 300.120 and 300.140, with additional context and allow for better specific atypical dispersant use clarification provided in previous understanding of monitoring data and situations are consistent with the Federal Register notices (e.g., 59 FR information. The OSC has not only the existing NCP authorities and objectives. 47389). EPA has responsibilities under expertise of the SSC available to assist A commenter suggested that Subpart J of the NCP that apply to the with the data collected following the monitoring be required as directed by use of chemical agents in both the DMQAPP, it also has available within the OSC. The commenter suggested that coastal and inland zones, including an the existing NCP authorities the every response is unique in terms of the authorization of use role as provided in expertise of the respective state (as type of spill and appropriate actions, 40 CFR 300.910 (states and other federal applicable), DOI RRT representatives and therefore, discretion should be agencies also have responsibilities and other pertinent agencies. The NCP given to the OSC to determine under this provision). The Agency designates the RRT as the appropriate monitoring requirements. This acknowledges that the atypical regional mechanism for coordination of commenter indicated that any dispersant use situations subject to the assistance and advice to the OSC during monitoring requirements should be new monitoring requirements will likely such response actions. As specified in consistent with the phased approach to be overseen by a USCG OSC. The the final regulatory text, the responsible monitoring that is discussed in the President has delegated EPA the party must submit a DMQAPP to the SMART protocols. The commenter also authority under CWA 311(d) to revise or OSC covering the collection of pointed out that USCG Strike Teams otherwise amend the NCP and to environmental data within this section have monitoring requirements and establish requirements for dispersants as part of implementing the monitoring asked EPA for clarification related to the and other chemicals, and other spill requirements. The Agency again reasoning behind changing the existing mitigating devices and substances, encourages planning and preparedness monitoring process and oversight which are found in Subpart J of the efforts and continues to support these structure. NCP. The Agency has structured the efforts with our interagency partners. The Agency agrees discretion needs to amendments to Subpart J of the NCP to A commenter suggested that although be afforded to the OSC to account for include the testing and listing protocols, the proposed rule requires the incident- specific circumstances in a the authorization of use procedures, and responsible party to conduct response. This action specifies that the the monitoring provisions to ensure monitoring, these operations would be new monitoring requirements are to be agents are being used appropriately. The

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR2.SGM 27JYR2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 40243

new monitoring requirements are recovery, in-situ burning, or dispersant- in a short time frame for an incident of consistent with existing RRT and OSC related equipment. this scale. The applicability criteria in authorities and responsibilities under Other commenters added that the the final rule are consistent with the the NCP. Finally, EPA is unaware of any proposed requirements deviate NRT Environmental Monitoring for regulatory requirements issued by the significantly from existing monitoring Atypical Dispersant Operations USCG Strike Teams regarding regimes from the NRT in its guidelines. dispersant use monitoring. Environmental Monitoring for Atypical As noted in the proposed rule, the Dispersant Operations, which the goal of establishing a Schedule under 3. Field Monitoring To Support commenters characterized as advocating the NCP is to protect the environment Operational Decisions for the adaptation of the SMART from potential damage related to spill Several commenters expressed monitoring regimen. Some commenters mitigating products used in response to concerns that the proposal does not requested that EPA adjust the language oil discharges. This goal is consistent effectively justify the additional to require SMART Tier I efficacy with past preambles related to Subpart monitoring requirements. These monitoring for the first use of J. For example, the 1994 NCP final rule commenters believe the additional dispersants, followed by environmental (59 FR 47407) noted, ‘‘. . . EPA believes monitoring requirements could cause impact monitoring no later than 96 that Congress’ primary intent in delays in response actions, preclude hours after the first application. regulating products under the NCP dispersant use, and result in additional Some commenters also suggested that Product Schedule is to protect the environmental damages. Some the proposed rule goes beyond what is environment from possible deleterious commenters expressed concerns that the required by the NRDA. These effects caused by the application or use proposed rule may hinder timely commenters also stated that the new of these products. In looking at the long- response operations, as opposed to requirements appear to focus on the and short-term effects on the improve real-time decision-making. environmental effects of dispersant use environment of all spill mitigating They suggested the monitoring rather than the health and safety of devices and substances, EPA has requirements should be designed by the response workers. One commenter concluded that chemical and OSC to fit the needs of the given asked EPA to clarify that the primary bioremediation countermeasures pose objective of characterizing the efficacy environment. the greatest threat for causing of response agents is to protect response deleterious effects on the environment.’’ The Agency disagrees with the personnel health and safety. The While EPA recognizes that worker premise that monitoring requirements commenters also suggested the OSC health and safety are integral to any oil could hamper response activities from employ the Net Environmental Benefits spill response, provisions for these occurring in a timely manner. The Analysis (NEBA) structure to assess the specific concerns are found under 40 Agency notes the time frame for the overall benefits of dispersant use. CFR 300.150 of the NCP and are outside deployment of subsurface dispersant Another commenter expressed concern the scope of this action. injection equipment by vessels for about this type of monitoring informing EPA disagrees with commenters that offshore facilities is not expected to be response decision-making. Other the new provisions should require different than the time frame for commenters requested that EPA clarify SMART Tier I efficacy monitoring for deploying monitoring equipment. The between short-term monitoring result the first use of dispersants, followed by Agency reiterates the new monitoring that must be disseminated extremely environmental impact monitoring no provisions do not change current quickly and those that are part of a more later than 96 hours after the first preparedness or planning regulatory comprehensive longer-term monitoring application. While EPA recognizes the requirements; the monitoring and data process. application of SMART Tier I protocols submissions that serve as the basis of The new monitoring section is for evaluating initial dispersant efficacy, this rule were established in the 2013 modeled after the 2013 NRT guidance these protocols are based on aerial NRT Environmental Monitoring for document, Environmental Monitoring visual assessments by trained observers Atypical Dispersant Operations for Atypical Dispersant Operations, or advanced remote sensing instruments document. The Agency is also aware developed following the Deepwater flying over the oil slick. To help that industry and OSROs have been Horizon oil spill and tailored to evaluate visual assessments, NOAA preparing for the requirements of this monitoring atypical dispersant use developed a Dispersant Application rule since the 2013 interagency signing situations. These NRT guidelines Observer Job Aid, which is a field guide of the referenced NRT guidance specified that atypical use of dispersants for trained observers to promote document. This final action provides during a response are not addressed in consistency in identification of notice for a potential responsible party the existing SMART monitoring dispersed and undispersed oil, to identify and prepare for deployment program. In addition to the criteria describing oil characteristics, and of monitoring assets including outlined in the NRT guidelines, the reporting this information to decision- identifying response personnel, Agency included applicability criteria makers. The SMART protocols equipment, and sampling materials. for the new monitoring requirements for recognize that visual observations do Potential responsible parties also have situations where the surface use of not always provide confirmation that time to identify and plan for the need dispersants is authorized in response to the oil is dispersed, and that dispersant of alternative resources to account for oil discharges of more than 100,000 U.S. operations effectiveness can be difficult events such as equipment failure, rather gallons occurring within a 24-hour to determine by visual observation than wait until an incident occurs. The period. The Agency chose 100,000 U.S. alone. Agency encourages the continuation of gallons as a threshold criterion based on The SMART protocols do not monitor planning and preparedness efforts and the NCP classification of major the fate, effects, or impacts of dispersed continues to support these efforts with discharges to coastal waters. EPA oil. The monitoring of atypical our interagency partners. Additionally, combined this 100,000 U.S. gallons dispersant use necessitates specific monitoring requirements should not major discharge criterion with a 24-hour considerations beyond those addressed delay or impede response actions time frame, considering that a larger by SMART. The 2013 NRT related to the deployment of mechanical quantity of dispersant may be required Environmental Monitoring for Atypical

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR2.SGM 27JYR2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 40244 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

Dispersant Operations recognizes such Dispersants are not the only option for however, the monitoring requirements atypical uses of dispersant during a oil spill response, as other mitigation in this action apply specifically to response are not addressed in the options are available that may lower the certain atypical dispersant use existing SMART monitoring program. potential overall environmental damage. situations. The Agency acknowledges Further, the SMART protocols do not Decisions to use dispersants and other some commenters’ support for the new apply to any subsurface dispersant chemical agents used during a response monitoring requirements applying to application. EPA is unaware of any are to be made in accordance with any subsurface dispersant use in a similar NRT-approved protocols or Subpart J of the NCP and all applicable response. The Agency considered the NOAA-developed job aids related to statutes. Any environmental tradeoff alternative threshold and applicability subsurface dispersant application. The methodologies for oil spill responses criteria some commenters offered for new monitoring requirements in this where dispersants and other chemical atypical surface dispersant uses: 50,000 final action are intended to supplement, agents are considered must be in or 21,000 U.S. gallons within a 24-hour not to replace, the SMART protocols. conformance with the statutory and period and surface use of dispersants for The new requirements recognize that regulatory authorities that govern their more than 48 or 24 hours. Another SMART monitoring protocols are use. commenter suggested that any enhanced monitoring beyond that required in the expected to have already been deployed 4. Criteria for Triggering Monitoring SMART protocols should commence in atypical dispersant use situations. Requirements While some monitoring requirements within seven days. However, EPA are included in the SMART Tier III EPA received comments specific to disagrees with revising the proposed protocol (e.g., turbidity, pH, the proposed thresholds or applicability applicability thresholds for surface Conductivity, Temperature), other criteria for triggering the monitoring dispersant use, including those requirements important to the requirements. A commenter indicated commenters who requested a more understanding of dispersant that although they agree with EPA’s relaxed set of thresholds for the effectiveness (e.g., in situ droplet size proposal to include thresholds above proposed discharge volume of 100,000 distribution) are not. which monitoring requirements would U.S. gallons. apply, they suggested that the spill rate A commenter noted that this action While modeled after the 2013 NRT and volume be reduced. The commenter may be an opportunity to broaden the guidance, the Agency included the recommended that the trigger proposed requirements to cover all additional applicability criterion for the applicability volume threshold for new monitoring requirements for response approaches. Other commenters monitoring be set to a discharge of more situations where the surface use of also suggested the RRT should have the than 50,000 U.S. gallons within 24 dispersants is authorized in response to ability to require field testing of a given hours and surface use of dispersants for oil discharges of more than 100,000 U.S. approach prior to response action more than 48 hours. Another gallons occurring within a 24-hour approval. A commenter expressed that recommended a lower release threshold period. The Agency chose 100,000 U.S. this type of monitoring does inform of 21,000 gallons (500 barrels), and any gallons as a threshold criterion based on response decision-making; the dispersant use lasting more than 24 the NCP classification of major commenter requested that EPA clarify hours. In contrast, other commenters discharges to coastal waters. EPA between short-term monitoring results requested further clarification, and yet combined this 100,000 U.S. gallons that must be disseminated extremely others a more relaxed set of thresholds major discharge criterion with a 24hour quickly and those that are part of a more for comprehensive monitoring. A time frame, considering that a larger comprehensive longer-term monitoring commenter suggested that the proposed quantity of dispersant may be required process. release volume of 100,000 gallons be in a short time frame for an incident of While this action specifically relaxed, stating there are other factors to this scale. The Agency believes the addresses certain atypical dispersant consider that influence spill outcomes potential variability in response actions use operations, the Agency notes the beyond the spill volume. Commenters for an incident of this magnitude, OSC continues to have authority to also expressed concern regarding the 96- including consideration of the time direct additional monitoring and data hour duration threshold requirement for needed for deployment, merits this collection beyond that which is set forth dispersant use and suggested that scenario being included as a trigger for in the new monitoring requirements. especially for earlier life stages near the applicability of the new monitoring Under the NCP, the OSC has the surface, a 96-hour exposure has the requirement. authority to direct monitoring and data potential for adverse effects. Citing the The Agency recognizes that especially collection for any and all approaches information above, a commenter for earlier life stages near the surface, a utilized during a response. This may proposed a 24-hour threshold for longer exposure time frame has the include field efficacy testing prior to comprehensive monitoring instead of 96 potential for adverse effects. The 96- dispersant use to better understand and hours. Finally, a commenter asked for hour time frame in this action is based account for site-specific conditions in clarification on the requirements for on 96 hours being a common exposure operational decision-making. RRT monitoring of dispersants use when the duration used in toxicological studies of authorities and responsibilities are set spill volume is less than 100,000 gallons dispersants. While recognizing that the forth in the NCP and are outside the in the first 24 hours or for dispersant 24- and 48-hour time frames may also be scope of this action. However, for pre- use occurring over a period of less than used in toxicological studies, the authorization of dispersant use requests, 96 hours. Agency’s intent in proposing these the Agency notes that this final action The Agency received support for specific monitoring requirements was to does not prevent a RRT from establishing monitoring requirements, have them apply to atypical spill establishing additional criteria to with commenters also offering opposing situations with the potential for larger address incident-specific concerns perspectives on the applicability amounts of dispersants being used. The beyond those requirements in the final thresholds that would trigger these Agency also disagrees with relaxing the rule, or from establishing incident- requirements. The Agency agrees with time frame for the new requirements to specific criteria for those situations not the concept of monitoring the use of all begin monitoring within seven days, as covered in the final rule. chemical agents during a response; the upper limit of that time frame would

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR2.SGM 27JYR2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 40245

be outside what the NRT has recognized As stated before, the final rule A commenter suggested the use of as an atypical surface dispersant use provides notification for a responsible SMART Tier I monitoring protocols for situation. The Agency continues to party to identify and prepare for all surface dispersant use and believe that the applicability thresholds potential deployment of monitoring monitoring of long-term effects of for both the quantities and durations for assets prior to the incident. Monitoring dispersant use specific to a particular surface dispersant use as proposed serve assets for a responsible party to identify incident. Another suggested that to capture the potential for the broader and prepare for include response efficacy monitoring should follow the ecosystem impacts resulting from the personnel, equipment, sampling SMART Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III larger spills that are the focus of the new materials, and alternative resources to protocols. Some commenters also monitoring requirements. Finally, the account for equipment failure. The suggested that monitoring information applicability criteria in the final rule are Agency also considered the steps taken can be used to verify planning consistent with NRT Environmental for the deployment of subsurface assumptions and also to support seafood Monitoring for Atypical Dispersant dispersant injection equipment, safety decisions and NRDA activities. A Operations guidelines. including their associated time frames. commenter suggested the proposed rule A commenter indicated that the The Agency does not believe deploying may not offer enough flexibility to allow phrase ‘‘upon initiation and for the monitoring equipment should take for an appropriate level of monitoring duration of subsurface dispersant use’’ longer than the deployment of and requested that EPA revise the can be misconstrued to mean that subsurface dispersant injection requirements to allow for OSC and RRT monitoring should be conducted at all equipment. Replacing the applicability assessments of monitoring needs at each times. They suggested that monitoring criteria with a single criterion that ‘‘any site instead of on a discharge volume requirements be determined by the OSC enhanced monitoring beyond SMART basis. given the potential variability in shall commence within seven days’’ The Agency disagrees with extending response actions. This would allow the would result in subsurface dispersant these new specific requirements to all OSC to determine the best timing for application without any subsurface instances of dispersant use. However, it operational monitoring deployment. monitoring in place or surface agrees in part with commenters that This commenter also stated that the monitoring beyond the intended dispersant use should be monitored and volume and duration criteria for applicability of SMART. that monitoring of discharges not monitoring should be replaced with a Some commenters were against meeting the thresholds for these atypical having thresholds or applicability monitoring requirements should, at a single criterion that ‘‘any enhanced criteria for triggering the monitoring minimum, follow the NRT-approved monitoring beyond SMART shall requirements and suggested that EPA SMART Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III commence within seven days.’’ should require comprehensive protocols. EPA notes that RRTs typically According to the commenter, this monitoring in all instances of dispersant include SMART monitoring as an ensures that the best experts can be or any other product use, regardless of essential element in their authorization mobilized to respond to the spill, the spill volume or duration, especially of use review which is implemented monitoring vessels can be located and in Arctic waters. Some commenters during a response EPA disagrees with mobilized, sampling strategies can be asserted that this type of comprehensive commenters who stated that all surface developed, and appropriate safety monitoring would better capture acute dispersant use should use the SMART considerations can be reviewed. effects on aquatic organisms. Other Tier I protocol. While EPA recognizes EPA proposed new monitoring asserted comprehensive monitoring is the value of the SMART Tier I protocol requirements for the responsible party important as it may represent the only in evaluating initial dispersant efficacy, to implement when any subsurface and opportunity to test the efficacy of these it is based on aerial visual assessments certain surface dispersant use agents in a field or ‘‘real world’’ setting. by trained observers or advanced remote conditions are met: ‘‘When these The Agency recognizes that there may sensing instruments flying over the oil dispersant use conditions are met, and be other factors to consider that slick. To help evaluate visual for the duration of dispersant influence spill outcomes beyond the assessments, NOAA developed a operations, the responsible party shall spill volume. Further, surface dispersant Dispersant Application Observer Job . . .’’. EPA disagrees that the phrase can use situations outside those specifically Aid, which is a field guide for trained be misconstrued when taken within the covered by the applicability criteria observers to promote consistency in context of the new monitoring established in this final rule may also identification of dispersed and requirements because it is qualified have adverse impacts. Thus, there is undispersed oil, describing oil with the statement: ‘‘When these value in conducting operational characteristics, and reporting this dispersant use conditions are met . . .’’. monitoring for all instances of information to decision-makers. The Further, the new minimum set of dispersant or any other chemical agent SMART Tier I protocol recognizes requirements for the specified atypical use, regardless of the spill volume, visual observations do not always dispersant use conditions fall within the duration, or affected ecosystem. The provide confirmation that the oil is construct of the NCP and do not prevent new monitoring requirements in this dispersed, and that dispersant the OSC to further consider the action do not preclude an OSC from operations effectiveness can be difficult potential variability for any given directing the responsible party to adopt to determine by visual observation response action. Additionally, the similar procedures for dispersant use alone. The SMART protocols do not responsible party is required to submit situations not covered by the monitor the fate, effects, or impacts of a DMQAPP to the OSC, in which some established applicability criteria. This dispersed oil. of the incident-specific considerations action does not impact the OSC The monitoring of atypical dispersant to implementing monitoring operations authority to direct any monitoring use necessitates specific considerations can be addressed while still meeting the necessary to evaluate dispersant efficacy beyond those addressed by the SMART regulatory provisions. Thus, the Agency and address potential toxicity concerns protocols. The new monitoring section disagrees that the new provisions may on aquatic organisms specific to the in this rule is modeled after the 2013 not offer enough flexibility to allow for response, including in remote settings NRT guidance document Environmental an appropriate level of monitoring. such as Arctic waters. Monitoring for Atypical Dispersant

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR2.SGM 27JYR2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 40246 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

Operations, developed following the The Agency disagrees with the aspect of dispersant efficacy and Deepwater Horizon oil spill and comments that the new monitoring toxicity is studied would be specifically tailored to the type of requirements should include thresholds impracticable and overly restrictive. atypical dispersant use situations for maximum dispersant application However, EPA agrees an important covered by these new requirements. The volumes over time, after which aspect of dispersant use decision- 2013 NRT guidelines specify that dispersants use should be ceased. making is documenting information and atypical uses of dispersants during a Establishing dispersant use volumes associated uncertainties of dispersant response are not addressed in the depends not only on incident-specific efficacy and toxicity specific to the existing SMART monitoring protocols. factors, but also on many site-specific conditions and geographical location Again, the SMART protocols do not factors (e.g., local hydrodynamic where they are intended for use. The apply to subsurface dispersant conditions, species sensitivities), final monitoring requirements direct the applications. EPA is unaware of any making this suggested approach overly responsible party to document the similar NRT-approved protocols or restrictive. However, the Agency shares dispersant used and the rationale for NOAA-developed job aids related to the commenters’ concerns regarding the dispersant choice(s), including the subsurface dispersant application. The impact of atypical use of dispersants on results of any efficacy and toxicity tests. new monitoring requirements in this the affected environments. The decision Documentation of any additional final action are intended to supplement, not to establish maximum dispersant efficacy and toxicity testing results, data and not to replace, the SMART application volumes over time, as part or information specific to the area or site protocols. The new requirements take of these new monitoring requirements, conditions, and associated uncertainties into account that the SMART should not be interpreted to mean that will assist the OSC and RRT(s) in monitoring activities are expected to the Agency supports unlimited choosing the appropriate dispersant use have already been deployed in atypical dispersant use. When responding under approach. The listing of a specific dispersant use situations. While some the NCP, decisions on dispersants and dispersant (i.e., dispersant product) on monitoring requirements are included other chemical agents used are to be the NCP Product Schedule is not a in the SMART Tier III protocol (e.g., made in accordance with the rationale to use a dispersant in any turbidity, pH, Conductivity, authorization of use procedures in 40 given situation. Further, the listing of a Temperature), other requirements (e.g., CFR 300.910 of Subpart J. The specific dispersant on the NCP Product in-situ droplet size distribution) that are provisions under Subpart J are driven by Schedule does not mean that EPA important to the understanding of the statutory requirement to develop a approves, recommends, licenses, dispersant effectiveness are not. schedule (see CWA 311(d)(2)(G)) that certifies, or authorizes its use on an oil With respect to a commenter who identifies the waters and quantities in discharge. The listing means only that recommended monitoring of long-term which dispersants and other chemical the required data have been submitted effects of dispersant use specific to a agents may be safely used in such to EPA as required by Subpart J of the particular incident, the Agency agrees waters. The OSC is to make dispersant National Contingency Plan, 40 CFR 300.915. that potential long-term effects of use determinations for each response Finally, EPA agrees with commenters dispersant use should be considered based on all relevant circumstances and who requested the new monitoring during dispersant use decision-making. in accordance with existing authorization of use procedures under requirements also include site-specific However, monitoring the long-term baseline monitoring prior to application Subpart J of the NCP. The data and effects of dispersant use specific to a of dispersant and is amending the final information resulting from the new particular incident is part of the NRDA rule to reflect this change. The Agency monitoring requirements promulgated process. Again, these new monitoring believes this a rational and necessary in this action will serve to inform requirements are intended to inform addition since an understanding of dispersant use decisions during a operational decision-making specific to baseline conditions is required for response by the OSC and other Agencies atypical dispersant use and not understanding the effects of dispersants with roles and responsibilities under the intended to be part of the NRDA. The in a specific area. The Agency believes NCP where atypical dispersants are broader NRDA data gathering efforts that baseline monitoring will provide deployed. The new monitoring may apply to dispersant operations or pre- and post- dispersant application other parts of the response. provisions, when taken together with data to better evaluate the effects, Some commenters stated that the the existing testing requirements, listing including physical dispersion, of the efficacy of dispersants in Arctic waters of agents, and authorization of use dispersants. Further discussion on this is poorly understood and until procedures under Subpart J address the change to the proposed requirements is additional scientific data is available, types of waters and the quantities of found in Water Column Sampling monitoring following any dispersant use listed agents that may be used safely in discussion in this preamble. should be required. A commenter such waters in a response. The wide suggested that in addition to the variability in waters, weather 5. Surface vs. Subsurface Monitoring monitoring requirements, EPA should conditions, organisms living in the A commenter suggested that EPA establish thresholds for the maximum waters, and types of oil that might be distinguish between surface and dispersant application volumes over discharged requires this approach. Any subsurface monitoring in the first time, after which dispersants use should environmental tradeoff methodologies paragraph of the proposed rule. They be ceased. Another suggested that all applied to dispersant use decisions also suggested that the OSC should dispersant use should be curtailed until must be in conformance with the authorize dispersant use and evaluate there is a more robust understanding of statutory and regulatory authorities that the need for monitoring actions. The the toxic effects of these types of govern the dispersant use. commenter suggested the proposed chemicals. Another commenter The Agency continues to engage with updates seem to inappropriately replace suggested that EPA should require site- the research community to incorporate the three-tiered SMART protocols specific testing and monitoring of advances in scientific understandings of which this commenter indicated should products to determine efficacy prior to, dispersant use into existing policies. be implemented for surface dispersant during, and after response actions. Curtailing all dispersant use until every use using USCG resources. They also

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR2.SGM 27JYR2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 40247

requested that the rule specify that the excess of commercially available periodically reevaluated as conditions responsible party monitor subsurface resources. The SMART protocols do not dictate, including a description of the dispersant injections. They also asked limit surface dispersant monitoring to method, associated uncertainties, and that the monitoring requirement updates only USCG resources. The availability of materials; (3) the dispersant used, not impede response actions or government resources is not assured and rationale for dispersant choice(s) dispersant use and should be does not satisfy the regulatory standard including the results of any efficacy and implemented only after there are or intent of this rulemaking. Finally, toxicity tests specific to area or site available resources during a response. while the OSC may choose to conditions, recommended dispersant-to- Regarding subsurface monitoring, the implement separate monitoring oil ratio (DOR); and (4) the application commenter also proposed that EPA use activities, the new monitoring method(s) and procedures, including a the documentation in the published requirements in this final rule are for description of the equipment to be used, Industry Recommended Subsea the responsible party to implement and hourly application rates, capacities, and Dispersant Monitoring Plan—Version not directed towards any government total amount of dispersant. For 1.0 as their basis for subsurface agency or resources. subsurface discharges, the responsible monitoring protocols. Similarly, a EPA does not believe the monitoring party must also document the best commenter requested a restructuring of requirement will in any way impede estimate of the discharge flow rate of the proposed rule to provide separate response actions or dispersant use and any associated volatile petroleum guidance for surface and subsurface disagrees that monitoring requirements hydrocarbons, periodically reevaluated dispersant use. should be implemented only after there as conditions dictate, including a The Agency believes the monitoring are available resources during a description of the method, associated section is clear relative to the response. The Agency also notes steps uncertainties, and materials. Methods requirements for the subsurface and taken for the deployment of subsurface and materials are commonly used surface monitoring and that dividing the dispersant injection equipment, terminology in the technical and monitoring section into separate including their associated time frames. scientific community, explaining the subsections would be duplicative and The Agency does not believe deploying procedures and equipment used to unnecessary. However, the final rule monitoring equipment should occur on obtain the results. The description does identify specific requirements a time frame that is longer than the should allow the reader to understand relative to surface versus subsurface deployment of subsurface dispersant how the data was obtained and to applicability. This preamble provides injection equipment. As observed reconstruct the methodology to get additional context to the intent of the elsewhere in this preamble, the new similar results. regulatory requirements for surface and monitoring provisions do not change As addressed in the preamble, the subsurface monitoring. current preparedness or planning new monitoring requirements in this EPA notes that dispersant regulatory requirements; the monitoring final action do not, for example, authorization of use is governed by a and data submissions that serve as the preclude the OSC from seeking a separate section of Subpart J (40 CFR basis of this rule were established in the qualified third party to conduct 300.910) and is outside the scope of the 2013 NRT Environmental Monitoring for additional monitoring or testing, from new monitoring requirements for Atypical Dispersant Operations requiring the responsible party to use a atypical dispersant use in this final document. The Agency believes that third party to conduct the monitoring or action. The monitoring section of the both industry and oil spill response testing where the OSC deems it final rule provides a minimum set of organizations (OSROs) are aware of the appropriate, or from seeking requirements the Agency believes are NRT guidance document referenced supplemental information separately. necessary for monitoring the use of immediately above and have since been Similarly, the final rule does not dispersants in those situations covered preparing for monitoring requirements preclude the consideration of third- by the applicability criteria. described in this rule. This final action party testing or test results. The Agency disagrees that the provides notice to potential responsible A commenter expressed concern proposed updates inappropriately parties of the expectation to identify and regarding the reliance on potentially replace the three-tiered SMART prepare for deployment of monitoring responsible parties for spill protocols, which the commenter assets, to obtain data and information characterization including estimates of indicated should be implemented for required during those discharge blowout flow rates and spill volumes as surface dispersant use using USCG situations subject to this action, the basis for dispersant application resources. According to the 2013 NRT including response personnel, volumes. A commenter suggested that Environmental Monitoring for Atypical equipment, and sampling materials. the responsible party should be required Dispersant Operations, atypical uses of This final action also allows potential to disclose all information used in dispersant during a response were not responsible parties time to identify and determining estimates of flow rates and addressed in the existing SMART have strategies in place to provide spill volumes. Another commenter monitoring program. The SMART alternative resources for eventualities recommended that any estimates of spill protocols do not apply to subsurface such as equipment failure, rather than volumes or blowout rates should be dispersant application, and the wait until an incident occurs. The independently derived and not under monitoring requirements for surface Agency encourages planning and the purview of the potential responsible application are intended to supplement, preparedness efforts and supports these party. This commenter also indicated not replace, the SMART protocols. efforts with our interagency partners. concern that the rule seems to only EPA disagrees that surface dispersant contain reference to blowout-type monitoring should be implemented B. Information on Dispersant releases and argued that all potential using USCG resources to meet these Application types and sources of spills should be regulatory requirements. The provisions In the new monitoring regulations, the included in the updates to the rule. The of dispersant monitoring are responsible party is required to commenter also stated that other appropriately the responsibility of the document: (1) The characteristics of the parameters (e.g., oil viscosity, regulated community. USCG resources source oil; (2) the best estimate of the oil emulsification, dispersant formulation, are intended to provide support in discharge volume or flow rate, dose rate, mixing energy, water salinity,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR2.SGM 27JYR2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 40248 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

and potential for dilution) should be removed, it should be amended to say Response: Boom and Nozzle Systems; included in the dispersant application hourly application rates are to be ASTM F1413/F1413M–18 Standard decision-making process. provided for subsurface dispersant Guide for Oil Spill Dispersant The Agency understands the concerns applications only. They indicated that Application Equipment: Boom and regarding the reliance on responsible an hourly application rate would not Nozzle Systems) may include parties for spill characterization, apply to aerial or vessel types of procedures to assist in determining including estimates of blowout flow application which are measured on the dispersant application rates. rates and spill volumes as the basis for basis or spray assets, application speed, Furthermore, EPA clarified in the dispersant application volumes. EPA is and spray system swath widths. This regulatory text that the daily reporting specifying ‘‘volume’’ since the commenter also recommended that the requirements for the actual amount of monitoring requirements also apply to section discussing the DOR be edited to dispersant used is intended for each certain near instantaneous discharges indicate that the ratio may need to be dispersant application platform. where ‘‘flow rate’’ is not as applicable changed from the initial recommended EPA does not believe that the DOR (e.g., catastrophic tank vessel casualty). ratio in response to site-specific should be qualified as ‘‘initial’’ to However, the new monitoring environmental conditions or the account for site-specific environmental requirements do not preclude the OSC weathering condition of the oil. conditions or the weathering condition from seeking non-responsible party EPA disagrees that the responsible of the oil. To the extent that the evaluations, including independent party should not be required to provide responsible party believes the DOR government agencies or academia, for documentation at the onset of a should be changed from the initial spill characterization including response if the documentation was recommendation, they may request a estimates of discharge flow rates and previously provided in the preparedness change and should provide supporting volumes. or planning stages and also disagrees documentation justifying the change for The new provisions require the with the suggestion that the section consideration by the OSC and RRT, as responsible party to document the addressing such be removed from the appropriate. characteristics of the source oil and proposed rule. The Agency also A commenter also suggested that EPA provide the best estimate of the oil disagrees that listing of a dispersant or should remove the requirement for discharge flow rate, periodically other agent on the Schedule defines it measuring volatile petroleum reevaluated as conditions dictate, as a viable response option for any given hydrocarbons. They indicated these including a description of the method, response. types of measurements are very difficult associated uncertainties, and materials. Requiring the responsible party to to obtain and fluctuate due to shifts in EPA agrees that the responsible party provide documentation ensures that wind speed and direction or changes in should disclose to the OSC all relevant information is directly provided to the sun exposure. They also argued that information used in determining OSC and is relevant to the incident- EPA should use already existing best estimates of flow rates and spill specific discharge situation and also practices for dispersant monitoring such volumes. This will provide the OSC avoids any potential delays in as the American Petroleum Institute with the necessary information for information gathering. The Agency calls (API) guidelines on subsurface operational decision-making and attention to existing regulatory dispersant monitoring, API TR 1152. coordination of the dispersant requirements clearly establishing that The commenter proposed specific application monitoring. being listed on the NCP Product language for this change. The Agency agrees that other Schedule is not itself a rationale or The Agency disagrees with the parameters (e.g., oil viscosity) may authorization to use that dispersant in suggestion to remove the requirement inform the dispersant decision-making any given situation, but rather that the for measuring volatile petroleum process, including dispersant product is available for consideration as hydrocarbons. EPA recognizes the application. For example, oil viscosity is a response option, as appropriate. 40 concern that these types of an important parameter in CFR 300.920. The listing of a specific measurements may be difficult to obtain characterizing the source oil and in dispersant on the NCP Product and may fluctuate due to shifts in wind conducting trajectory modeling as Schedule does not mean that EPA speed and direction or changes in sun described in the Oil Distribution approves, recommends, licenses, exposure for air sampling. However, Analyses discussion in this preamble. certifies, or authorizes the use of that these factors should not adversely affect The Agency believes these parameters dispersant on an oil discharge. The measurements of these petroleum are already inherently captured in the listing means only that data have been constituents in the water column as the monitoring section, including the submitted to EPA as required by result of a discharge where the Dispersant Application and Oil Subpart J of the National Contingency subsurface application of dispersant Distribution Analyses discussions in Plan, 40 CFR 300.915. may occur. this preamble, and therefore it is The Agency disagrees that the final The Agency disagrees with replacing unnecessary to specifically list rule should require hourly application ‘‘. . . collection of all environmental additional parameters. rates be provided only for subsurface data.’’ with ‘‘. . . collection of A commenter stated that the dispersant applications. Even if aerial or operational monitoring data.’’ However responsible party should not be required vessel types of application are measured for clarity, the Agency has replaced to provide documentation at the onset of based on spray assets, application ‘‘. . . collection of all environmental a response if the documentation was speed, and spray system swath widths, data.’’ with ‘‘. . . collection of previously provided in the preparedness the responsible party can calculate the environmental data within this section.’’ or planning stages. The commenter volume of dispersant applied during the The monitoring requirements focus on suggested removing this section from time in which it is applied. Certain collecting environmental data to the proposed rule. They stated that if a American Society for Testing and support dispersant use decision-making dispersant or other agent is on the Materials (ASTM) Standards (e.g., in response operations, and not on Schedule, then by definition it is a ASTM F1737/F1737M–19 Standard overall operational monitoring to viable response option. This commenter Guide for Use of Oil Spill Dispersant evaluate how well other response also stated that if the section is not Application Equipment During Spill options (e.g., in-situ burning) may

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR2.SGM 27JYR2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 40249

mitigate the negative effects of the oil EPA recognizes the concern regarding updates and suggested that the sampling discharge on sensitive environmental the role of the responsible party in also include background areas to better resources. The Agency recognizes an dispersant operations and product delineate the plume. That commenter overall response strategy may selection. However, the NCP establishes stated that the sample collection and incorporate operation monitoring to the OSC’s authority to direct response analysis should be paired with aerial evaluate reducing the overall impact of efforts, including overseeing dispersant and strobe imagery to more effectively an oil discharge and may include use and monitoring in accordance with assess the plume area. Another response options that are outside the Subpart J of the NCP. See, e.g., 40 CFR commenter also suggested the use of the scope of the dispersant monitoring 300.120. Also, SSCs may provide ‘‘Dispersed Oil Monitoring Plan’’ section. However, the monitoring scientific support for operational developed by California Office of Spill section in the final rule focuses on the decisions and coordinate on-scene Prevention and Response (OSPR), which environmental monitoring related to scientific activity during a response, as provides an approach for water column dispersant use. In addition, dispersants described in the NCP under 40 CFR sampling. Another commenter are not the only response option; there 300.145(c). The use of other response supported the proposed monitoring are other response options (e.g., mitigation technologies is outside the requirements but suggested they include mechanical recovery) available that may scope of this final action. establishing baseline conditions prior to lower overall environmental damage. product application. Another Decisions on use of dispersants and C. Water Column Sampling commenter suggested that EPA add an other agents during a response are to be 1. Background and Baseline Sampling exception clause to the proposed rule made in accordance with the NCP and which would require responsible parties The final action requires the the governing statute(s). Environmental to document why some or all sample responsible party to collect a tradeoff methodologies where collection requirements were not representative set of ambient dispersants are considered must be in feasible during a given incident background water column samples in conformance with the statutory and response. areas not affected by the discharge of regulatory authorities that govern The Agency agrees with the oil, at the closest safe distance from the dispersant use when considering the commenter’s suggestion to include discharge as determined by the OSC, extent to which they can be used. background water sampling and has As noted in the proposed rule, the and in the directions of likely oil included such requirements in the final goal of establishing a Schedule under transport considering surface and rule. The Agency believes this a rational the NCP is to protect the environment subsurface currents. The responsible and necessary addition since an from possible damage related to spill party is also required to collect a understanding of background conditions mitigating products used in response to representative set of baseline water is required for understanding the oil discharges. This goal is consistent column samples at such depths and incremental effects of dispersants. with past preambles related to Subpart locations affected by the discharge of oil Ambient background sampling J. For example, the 1994 NCP final rule absent dispersant application, characterizes relevant ambient water (59 FR 47407) noted, ‘‘. . . EPA believes considering surface and subsurface conditions unaffected by the discharged that Congress’ primary intent in currents, oil properties, and discharge oil, serves to check instrument regulating products under the NCP conditions. This collection of performance, and informs dispersed oil Product Schedule is to protect the background and baseline water column plume behavior and delineating plume environment from possible deleterious samples is to follow standard operating boundaries. The Agency recognizes effects caused by the application or use and quality assurance procedures. These imagery technology may assist in more of these products. In looking at the long- representative sets must be analyzed for effectively assessing the plume area and short-term effects on the the following variables: (1) In-situ oil when paired with water sampling. The environment of all spill mitigating droplet size distribution, including mass final rule requires that the responsible devices and substances, EPA has or volume mean diameter for droplet party consider available technologies to concluded that chemical and sizes ranging from 2.5 to 2,000 mm, with characterize dispersant effectiveness bioremediation countermeasures pose the majority of data collected between and oil distribution, which may include the greatest threat for causing the 2.5 and 100 mm size; (2) in-situ imagery technology. The Agency deleterious effects on the environment.’’ fluorometry and fluorescence signatures believes the specific approach suggested A commenter indicated that they do targeted to the type of oil discharged for water column sampling as outlined not support the proposed provisions and referenced against the source oil; (3) in the ‘‘Dispersed Oil Monitoring Plan’’ and expressed concerns regarding the dissolved oxygen (DO) (subsurface developed by OSPR is consistent with role of the responsible party in only); (4) total petroleum hydrocarbons, the approach established in these dispersant operations and product individual resolvable constituents monitoring provisions. selection. The commenter suggested that including volatile organic compounds EPA agrees with commenters who all dispersant-related activities and (VOC), aliphatic hydrocarbons, requested the new monitoring product selections be primarily advised monocyclic, polycyclic, and other requirements also include site-specific by the NOAA SSC through the OSC and aromatic hydrocarbons including baseline monitoring of the oil discharge RRT with operational support from the alkylated homologs, and hopane and in the absence of dispersant application responsible party. Similarly, a sterane biomarker compounds; (5) and is including such requirement in commenter requested that EPA clarify methane, if present (subsurface only); the final rule. The Agency believes that that the OSC, and not the responsible (6) heavy metals, including nickel and baseline monitoring will provide data party, has final authority regarding the vanadium; (7) turbidity; (8) water absent dispersant application to dispersant application practices. The temperature; (9) pH; and (10) evaluate physical dispersion relative to commenter also suggested that new conductivity. the effects of dispersant use. The technologies such as open-cell A commenter expressed support for baseline requirement is intended to elastomeric foams be used in the proposed background sampling consider the currents and oil conjunction with dispersants to mitigate requirements. Another commenter characteristics, as well as other relevant environmental damage. expressed support for the proposed discharge conditions such as the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR2.SGM 27JYR2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 40250 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

discharge configuration or multiple dispersant use prior to the 96-hour after monitored for baseline data and for the discharge locations. The Agency also initial application threshold) or capable duration of dispersant operations. included similar clarifying language for of being applied by aircraft prior to EPA disagrees with the commenter the water column sampling in the dispersant monitoring vessels being who suggested the addition of an dispersed oil plume provision. deployed (e.g., for surface dispersant exception clause, which would require Conducting baseline monitoring absent application for oil discharges greater responsible parties to document why dispersant application reduces potential than 100,000 U.S. gallons within a 24- some or all sample collection uncertainties associated with dispersant hour period). The final rule is not requirements were not feasible during a effectiveness in the field and supports intended to impede surface dispersant given incident response. The dispersant use decision-making in application until vessels are deployed to commenter did not identify why some response operations. For subsurface begin baseline monitoring prior to the or all sample collection requirements dispersant application, this means first dispersant application, nor to stop would not be feasible. The Agency initiating monitoring immediately prior such operations once they have been believes that such an exception would to dispersant application to avoid authorized. However, EPA also be overly broad. The responsible party disrupting dispersant application once understands that deployment of is required to follow established it is initiated. The Agency does not monitoring assets should begin before standard operating and quality believe that collection of baseline the 96-hour after initial application assurance procedures when collecting monitoring data immediately prior to threshold is reached so as not to delay water column samples. Some subsurface dispersant application will monitoring operations. Likewise, the commenters expressed general agreement with the need for monitoring delay response actions. Equipment for initial application of authorized surface but said that the proposed requirements subsurface dispersant injection typically dispersant use by aircraft should not be add unnecessary analytical parameters takes days to be deployed by vessels for delayed until surface monitoring assets and that such requirements may offshore facilities and become are deployed. The Agency believes actually delay response actions. A operationally ready. Thus, there is an surface dispersant monitoring should be commenter also stated that monitoring opportunity to also deploy monitoring operational as soon as possible to allow should be incident specific and be equipment, prior to or concurrent with for baseline monitoring because of its under the responsibility of the OSC and that of subsurface dispersant injection ability to inform the response efforts equipment, without delaying subsurface responsible party. and is to be operational in accordance The Agency disagrees that the dispersant application. Of note, EPA is with the new monitoring requirements not requiring 24-hour analyses be proposed requirements add unnecessary where the discharge meets the 96-hour analytical parameters and that such conducted and results be provided after initial application threshold. To requirements may actually delay before dispersant application may begin; address concerns raised by commenters response actions. Each oil discharge only that samples be collected. The and avoid any misinterpretation that represents a unique situation with Agency notes again that the new initial surface dispersant use by aircraft distinct conditions which may require monitoring provisions do not change would be delayed, the Agency is various response methods. When current preparedness or planning clarifying the regulatory text, and dispersants are applied to an oil regulatory requirements; the monitoring specifically that for the monitoring discharge, field monitoring can be used and data submissions that serve as the requirements for any surface dispersant to inform operational decisions by basis of this rule were established in the use in response to oil discharges of more gathering site-specific information on 2013 NRT Environmental Monitoring for than 100,000 U.S. gallons occurring the overall effectiveness, including the Atypical Dispersant Operations within a 24-hour period. The Agency is transport and environmental effects of document. Further, the Agency believes specifying that when any dispersant is the dispersant and the dispersed oil. that industry and OSROs have been used on the surface in response to oil The Agency disagrees that the preparing for the requirements of this discharges of greater than 100,000 U.S. monitoring requirements for dispersant rule since the 2013 issuance of the NRT gallons occurring within a 24-hour use are limited in scope to evaluating guidance document, and notes API period, the responsible party shall the initial effectiveness of the dispersant issued its own guidelines in 2013 on implement paragraphs (a) through (g) of application. The Agency is requiring subsurface dispersant monitoring (API this section as soon as possible for the that sample collection follow TR 1152). This final action provides entire or remaining duration of surface established standard operating and notice for a potential responsible party dispersant use, as applicable. Finally, quality assurance procedures that are to identify and prepare for deployment the Agency recognizes the differences in reliable and defensible. Elements of of monitoring assets including subsurface versus surface dispersant monitoring plans are generally identifying response personnel, application relative to discharge described in various guidance equipment, and sampling materials. location. Dispersant application in the documents on standard operating and Potential responsible parties also have subsurface generally occurs close to the quality assurance procedures for time to identify and plan for the need oil discharge location, while surface environmental sampling. of alternative resources to account for dispersant application to oil patches The Agency disagrees with the events such as equipment failure, rather may at times occur further away from premise that monitoring requirements than wait until an incident occurs. The the oil discharge location. Multiple oil could hamper response activities from Agency, along with our interagency patches provide multiple opportunities occurring in a timely manner. partners, continues to support and to monitor surface dispersant Specifically, the monitoring encourage these planning and application activities, including requirements are not designed to delay preparedness efforts. baseline monitoring. EPA is not or impede response actions related to The Agency recognizes that for certain suggesting that every oil patch in which the deployment of mechanical recovery, atypical oil discharge situations where dispersant is applied must be in-situ burning, or dispersant-related surface dispersants have been monitored, but that the responsible equipment. The Agency also notes the authorized, dispersant application may party implement a sampling strategy time frame for deployment of subsurface already be underway (e.g., surface where representative oil patches are dispersant injection equipment by

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR2.SGM 27JYR2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 40251

vessels for offshore facilities is not Agency is requiring water samples be monitoring guidance for timing, sample expected to be different than the analyzed for heavy metals, including frequency, number of samples, spatial deployment of subsurface dispersant nickel and vanadium, which are locations, and sampling depths. The injection equipment. The final rule typically found in crude petroleum oil. Agency believes that the final rule provides notification for a responsible EPA does not specify sample collection provides flexibility to develop party to identify and prepare for methods or devices in the water column monitoring strategies that can be potential deployment of monitoring sampling requirements. The Agency is tailored to an incident-specific assets prior to an incident. These assets requiring that sample collection follow dispersant use situation. Because these may include response personnel, established standard operating and situations may vary, the Agency did not equipment, and sampling materials, as quality assurance procedures that are establish specific parameters for sample well as alternative resources and reliable and defensible; standard frequency, number of samples, spatial procedures to account for events such as operating procedures should describe locations, and sampling depths other equipment failure. Comments regarding the appropriateness of the sampling than what has been provided in the final the OSC’s roles and responsibilities are method, including the equipment rule. However, the monitoring approach addressed in Roles and Responsibilities needed for sample collection. should include periodic sampling of for Monitoring Operations discussion in A commenter indicated support previously sampled locations including this preamble. specifically for daily water column near the discharge source to evaluate A commenter stated that elements of sampling in the dispersed plume. This changes in parameters over time at those 3–D and 4–D modelling should be commenter also suggested that EPA locations. included to broaden the overall develop protocols for surface and Additionally, EPA did not propose to understanding of subsurface conditions. subsurface current tracking. EPA establish monitoring thresholds in the The Agency acknowledges the modeling acknowledges a commenter’s support monitoring section and the suggestion and addresses trajectory specifically for daily water column establishment of thresholds is out of modeling in the Oil Distribution sampling in the dispersed plume. EPA scope for these final monitoring Analyses discussion in this preamble. does not believe it is appropriate to provisions. EPA recognizes the The same commenter recommended develop protocols for surface and commenter’s concern regarding updates to the proposed rule language subsurface current tracking because the monitoring in benthic biota, sediment droplet size distribution analysis; Agency believes these issues are best characterization, and UV radiation however, the Agency believes that the addressed in a DMQAPP. The final rule monitoring. The final action does not commenter intended for the droplet size requires that the responsible party prevent the OSC or appropriate RRT to be in micrometers (mm) instead of consider available technologies to agencies from requiring additional picometers (pm) in its recommended characterize dispersant effectiveness monitoring parameters, which may rule language because for the purpose of and oil distribution. include benthic biota monitoring, measuring dispersed oil, droplet size is A commenter expressed support for sediment characterization, or UV typically reported in micrometer units. the proposed monitoring requirements radiation monitoring. The final rule Some commenters indicated that but suggested that EPA provide requires that the responsible party water sampling requirements are more minimum required monitoring consider available technologies to appropriate for the NRDA process. The guidance. Such guidance might include characterize the dispersant effectiveness Agency disagrees that the water timing, sample frequency, number of and oil distribution to determine sampling requirements in this final samples, spatial locations, and sampling changes in the condition of the oil due action are more appropriate for the depths. This commenter also had to weathering. NRDA process and believes that questions regarding thresholds for each A commenter suggested that comprehensive monitoring for discharge of the proposed monitoring parameters incorporating API TR1152 (Industry situations subject to this action is that would require a cessation of Recommended Subsea Dispersant necessary to determine the overall adjustment in response actions. For Monitoring Plan, Version 1.0, API effectiveness of dispersants and should example, they questioned whether there Technical Report 1152, September 2013) extend beyond the initial dispersant is a threshold lower value for pH or DO by reference would meet the application to include the transport and in the water column, at which point requirements of the subsection. The environmental effects of the dispersant responders would shift response actions Agency disagrees that the monitoring and dispersed oil in the water column. until the parameter values were within requirements need to incorporate by Furthermore, the Agency notes that the the acceptable range. The commenter reference API TR1152 or that adherence SMART Tier III protocol also includes suggested that these thresholds should to it meets the requirements of the water sampling. be established for each sampled subsection. For example, API TR1152 Another commenter supported the parameter. Due to the potential for presents a phased approach which proposed monitoring requirement and dispersants to enhance bioavailability to allows subsurface dispersant injection suggested that EPA require sampling aquatic organisms, the commenter also to commence after implementing and analysis of VOCs, semi-volatile requested that bioaccumulation of Total limited visual confirmation and air compounds, and the full suite of metals Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) and monitoring. The Agency disagrees that and metalloids. This commenter also heavy metals in benthic biota be added such an approach is appropriate for the recommended the use of specific to the monitoring requirements along atypical situations expected to trigger sampling devices. This final action with characterization of these applicability of these requirements, requires water column samples in the components in the sediment. They also particularly for subsurface dispersant dispersed oil plume to be analyzed for indicated that Ultraviolet (UV) radiation application. While SMART protocols total petroleum hydrocarbons, which monitoring could enhance plume include visual observation for surface includes VOCs and semi-volatile characterization as these data are dispersant use, air monitoring is used compounds. Additionally, the inexpensive to collect and are useful for for in-situ burning situations. In commenter is not clear about which understanding the oil weathering state. addition, the SMART protocols are not metals and metalloids to analyze for and The Agency acknowledges the applicable to subsurface dispersant which analytical methods to use. The commenter’s suggestions regarding application. The expectation is that for

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR2.SGM 27JYR2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 40252 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

those atypical dispersant use situations, i. In-Situ Oil Droplet Size Distribution party to determine and document in the the expanded monitoring provisions put Analysis, Including the Mass or Volume DMQAPP. The Agency is requiring that forth in this action are necessary to Mean Diameters Between Droplet Sizes droplet size information be collected effectively inform dispersant use. As Ranging From 2.5 to 2000 mm, With the because oil droplet sizes generally previously discussed in this preamble, Majority of Data Collected Between the decrease with dispersant addition and the requirements set forth in this action 2.5 and 100 mm Sizes because oil droplets below 100 mm are informed by lessons learned during A commenter requested additional generally remain entrained into the the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and are descriptions of the methodology for water column, relative to larger particles consistent with the 2013 NRT determining droplet size. They that may eventually resurface over time. Environmental Monitoring for Atypical expressed concern that while Furthermore, collecting oil droplet sizes of a broader range informs trajectory Dispersant Operations guidance techniques such as Laser In-situ modeling used to predict the fate and document. Scattering and Transmissometry (LISST) transport of dispersed oil and to inform can measure droplet size, there needs to 2. Dispersed Oil Plume Daily Sampling sampling locations. This final rule be a process for confirming that the requires that sample collection follow particles are dispersed oil versus other The new provisions require the established standard operating and types of suspended particles. They responsible party to collect daily water quality assurance procedures that are suggested the concurrent use of column samples in the dispersed oil reliable and defensible; standard fluorometers to help differentiate oil plume, following standard operating operating procedures should include the droplets from other particles. Another and quality assurance procedures, at equipment needed for sample such depths and locations where commenter similarly suggested that EPA collection. The Agency agrees with the dispersed oil is likely to be present. This clarify that droplet measurement concurrent use of fluorometers to help daily sampling must include the methods should include fluorometers or differentiate oil droplets from other following variables: (1) In-situ oil similar instrumentation. This particles. The final rule includes droplet size distribution, including mass commenter also stated that the use of fluorometry as part of the water or volume mean diameter for droplet fluorometry could aid in confirming the sampling requirements. The Agency sizes ranging from 2.5 to 2,000 mm, with measurement of actual oil droplets as does not designate specific methods or the majority of data collected between opposed to other particles in the water devices in this final rule, including the 2.5 and 100 mm size; (2) in-situ column. methods for measuring droplet size such fluorometry and fluorescence signatures A commenter discussed concerns as high definition, high speed targeted to the type of oil discharged related to the feasibility of in-situ photography, or sonar. and referenced against the source oil; (3) droplet size measurements. They dissolved oxygen (DO) (subsurface indicated that LISST has a droplet size ii. In-Situ Fluorometry and only); (4) total petroleum hydrocarbons, detection limit of around 500 mm, well Fluorescence Signatures Targeted to the Type of Oil Discharged and Referenced individual resolvable constituents below the upper limit of the proposed Against the Source Oil including volatile organic compounds, range of 2.5–2000 mm. They also stated aliphatic hydrocarbons, monocyclic, that there is currently no commercially A commenter indicated that the polycyclic, and other aromatic available droplet measurement proposed fluorometry measurements are hydrocarbons including alkylated instrumentation that is operational in redundant and less informative than the homologs, and hopane and sterane deep water to size ranges up to 2000 mm. droplet size measurements. They biomarker compounds; (5) methane, if They indicated that if this suggested that collection of these present (subsurface only); (6) heavy instrumentation did become available in measurements be optional and handled metals, including nickel and vanadium; the future, it would likely require on a case-by-case basis. This commenter (7) turbidity; (8) water temperature; (9) remotely operated vehicles (ROV) or also requested that EPA substantiate the pH; and (10) conductivity. Several additional vessel support, which would need to replace the existing SMART commenters indicated support for the be impossible to deploy without protocols, which provide similar water column sampling section of this interfering with response activities. This monitoring approaches including the final rule and agreed that these commenter recommended that EPA use of simple fluorometry in the provisions will add value during a allow for alternative methods for SMART Tier II protocol. measuring droplet size including high Another commenter suggested response. definition, high speed photography, or additional resources for planning and 3. Water Column Samples Analyses sonar as these technologies mature. conducting sample collection and A commenter indicated strong monitoring in the field. They indicated The responsible party must collect support for the proposed updates to this that the use of SMART Tier III ambient background, baseline, and section of the proposed rule, stating that fluorometry tows could facilitate the dispersed oil plume water column droplet size measurement is critical for collection of before and after treatment samples following standard operating response actions. Similarly, a samples from outside and inside the and quality assurance procedures. The commenter stated that they agreed with slick area. water column samples are to be EPA that the collection of droplet size Other commenters expressed support analyzed, as applicable, for: Droplet size distributions will add valuable for the proposed fluorometry distribution; fluorometry and information during response actions. measurements, but requested fluorescence; dissolved oxygen; total The Agency is not requiring the use clarification related to the use of in-situ petroleum hydrocarbons; methane; of specific oil size droplet measurement fluorometry in the response context. heavy metals; turbidity; water methods or instrumentation. Further, These commenters suggested that EPA temperature; pH; and conductivity. The the Agency is not requiring the use of clarify that oil weathering and Agency is not including the proposed single instrument, methodology, vessel, dispersion can impact the fluorescence requirement to analyze for carbon or ROV be used to collect the required of oil components. These commenters dioxide in this final action. The specific information. How to collect the also indicated that site-specific provisions are as follows: information is left for the responsible calibration may be necessary in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR2.SGM 27JYR2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 40253

response to changing turbidity or iii. Dissolved Oxygen (DO) (Subsurface under the NCP, consider adding DO as particle size distribution. A commenter Only) a monitoring requirement for surface suggested that EPA should make it clear A commenter indicated support for dispersant application in surface waters that without measurement of the collection of DO samples and agreed where DO is believed to be limited. fluorescence signatures (fluorescence with the proposed approach of using the iv. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons, measures across multiple wavelengths), Winkler titration method to verify Individual Resolvable Constituents, most commonly used in-situ sample results. A commenter requested Including Volatile Organic Compounds, fluorometers only provide an that the proposed rule be updated to Aliphatic Hydrocarbons, Monocyclic, approximate indication of oil in the require DO measurements using the best Polycyclic, and Other Aromatic water column. These commenters available devices. They also indicated Hydrocarbons, Including Alkylated requested that EPA clarify that these that measurement verification using Homologs, and Hopane and Sterane methods cannot distinguish oil signals, Winkler titration is impractical and Biomarker Compounds and added that most dispersants outdated. They recommended instead A commenter expressed support for fluoresce as well, potentially adding to that verification be conducted by the difficulties interpreting in-situ the proposed requirements to analyze use of consistent sensor cleaning TPHs, individual resolvable fluorescence measurements. procedures, calibration tests, and The Agency agrees that collection of constituents, including volatile redundant sensors which can be petroleum hydrocarbons and branched/ samples from outside and inside the compared. In an effort to avoid slowing normal aliphatic hydrocarbons. A slick area prior to and after dispersant the process and information flow, they commenter also indicated support for application serves to inform the initial recommended that verification should the requirements to analyze monocyclic, effectiveness of surface dispersant only be required on a fraction of polycyclic, and other aromatic application. SMART Tier II and III collected samples instead of for every hydrocarbons, including their alkylated protocols similarly note three primary sample. homologs and hopane/sterane target locations: (1) Ambient The Agency recognizes that relying biomarker compounds. They suggested background water (no oil); (2) oiled solely on measurements from in-situ that results from these analyses can surface slicks prior to dispersant oxygen instruments may lead to an inform forensic assessment of collected application, and (3) post-application, erroneous interpretation of oxygen data. samples. A commenter suggested that after the oil has been treated with While the Agency does not require EPA should specify a standard dispersants. EPA emphasizes that these Winkler titration as confirmatory analytical method for performing these water column sampling requirements analysis in the final rule, the Agency analyses (from the multiple methods are not replacing the SMART protocols believes that ex-situ DO measurements available) for water column samples. A and that EPA assumes the SMART Tier should generally be conducted using commenter indicated that, as discussed III protocol is also being implemented as Winkler titrations to confirm in-situ DO by EPA, measurement of TPH alone is part of the response. EPA is requiring measurements and notes that the OSC inadequate when attempting to assess that sample collection under the new can require DO measurements be the fate and effects of dispersed oil monitoring requirements follow conducted using Winkler titrations if during a response. A commenter also established standard operating and necessary. The Agency disagrees that communicated support for the proposed quality assurance procedures. measuring DO using Winkler titrations rule, adding that identifying The Agency disagrees that is impractical and outdated. For concentrations of oil and associated fluorometry is a redundant example, the use of Winkler titrations to components, as opposed to only the measurement. For crude petroleum oils, measure dissolved oxygen provides for presence or absence of oil, is critical. the aromatic fraction is responsible for accurate measurements in subsurface A commenter suggested that EPA the fluorescence property of petroleum. waters where DO may already be low. adopt quick-screening methods for Instruments that measure particle size, Additionally, the final rule does not sampling TPHs by means of a hand-held such as the LISST, do not distinguish state the number of samples required for gas chromatograph flame ionization between oil droplets and other types of DO verification because this and the detector (GC–FID). They indicated that particles in the same size range. confirmatory analysis methodology detailed analysis for these components Fluorometers can be targeted to the type should be addressed in the DMQAPP to will not inform response decision- of oil discharged and the excitation and ensure that DO measurements follow making and should instead be emission wavelengths chosen should established standard operating and completed as part of the NRDA process. match the aromatic properties of the oil quality assurance procedures that are This commenter also suggested that the discharged. Fluorescence is a valuable reliable and defensible. analytical requirements should apply to screening tool deployed during a The Agency agrees with commenters’ a fraction of the collected samples as response, providing a rapid indication concerns regarding tailoring DO opposed to every water sample. of potential dispersed oil in the water measurements. DO is an important EPA did not propose to use only TPH column, as well as an indicator of variable to monitor in the application of measurements to assess the fate and dispersion effectiveness. The final rule dispersants, particularity in subsurface effects of dispersed oil, but rather requires the responsible party to waters that may inform operational included it along with other monitoring conduct a fluorescence intensity decisions. For surface dispersant approaches in the final rule to assess the analyses on water samples collected to application, DO is expected to be higher fate and effects of dispersed oil. The determine fluorescence signatures of the in the mixed layer in the surface water. Agency is not specifying the type of dispersed oil. To the extent the Because DO is expected to be higher in analytical equipment or methods commenter believes that most the mixed layer of the surface water, the needed for sample collection. The dispersants fluoresce, potentially adding Agency is not finalizing the proposed Agency believes that standard operating to the difficulty interpreting in-situ DO requirements for surface dispersant procedures should describe the fluorescence measurements, the Agency application. However, the Agency appropriateness of the sampling method expects this concern will be addressed strongly recommends RRTs and OSCs, and should be included in the in the DMQAPP. as part of their authorized activities DMQAPP.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR2.SGM 27JYR2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 40254 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

The Agency disagrees that the response decision-making. Crude the passage of light through the water. detailed analysis of oil constituents is petroleum oil may contain heavy Suspended materials may include soil more appropriate for the NRDA process, metals, including nickel and particles (clay, silt, and sand), algae, and believes that comprehensive vanadium.2 The December 17, 2010 plankton, microbes, and other monitoring in certain discharge OSAT report entitled ‘‘Summary Report substances. Turbidity measurements situations is necessary to determine the for Sub-Sea and Sub-Surface Oil and provide a relatively quick assessment of overall effectiveness of dispersants and Dispersant Detection: Sampling and suspended materials in the water bodies should extend beyond the initial Monitoring’’ specifically included and are useful in determining the dispersant application to include the nickel and vanadium as part of the presence of materials that could transport and environmental effects of water sampling analyses. Furthermore, interfere with oil particle size the dispersant and dispersed oil in the EPA specifies that dispersant products measurements. Finally, turbidity is water column. The final rule requires must be analyzed for arsenic, cadmium, included as a monitoring parameter in that sample collection follow chromium, copper, lead, mercury, the SMART Tier III protocol. established standard operating and nickel, zinc, plus any other metals that The Agency notes that prohibition of quality assurance procedures that are may be reasonably expected to be in the the use of chemical agents is not reliable and defensible. Additionally, product sample as part of the NCP addressed in this final action. the final rule does not state the number product listing requirements under 40 Furthermore, dispersants are not sinking of water samples required for analysis CFR 300.915(a)(11)(i). Dispersing oil agents because they are not intended to because this is to be determined on a may increase the bioavailability of those sink the oil to the bottom of a water case-by-case basis. heavy metals to marine organisms. In body and are defined separately from sinking agents in the NCP. However, the v. Methane, if Present (Subsurface Only) addition, monitoring heavy metals serves to inform water quality standards Agency recognizes concerns regarding A commenter responded to this and thus is an important parameter to the potential for dispersed oil as one section of the proposed rule which include in the monitoring requirements. pathway to contribute to Marine Oil requires the measurement of methane in The Agency does not expect these Snow Sedimentation and Flocculent water column samples during response monitoring requirements to lead to Accumulation (MOSSFA) in the water activities. This commenter stated that delays given the flexibility provided column that could potentially lead to monitoring of methane is unnecessary under the new daily reporting settling. This final action does not because it is linked to potential oxygen provisions. Furthermore, the Agency prevent the OSC or RRTs, as part of depletion, and therefore, is sufficiently disagrees with the characterization that their authorized activities under the covered with the monitoring these analyses lead to unnecessary costs NCP, from requiring additional requirements for DO. for the reasons stated above in this monitoring parameters, which may The Agency agrees that methane paragraph and elsewhere in this include benthic biota monitoring, biodegradation may lead to oxygen Response to Comments document that sediment characterization, and other depletion but disagrees that it is address the appropriateness of this final physical measurements of solids in the sufficiently covered by the monitoring action. water (e.g., total suspended solids). requirements for DO. Depletion of DO may be caused by other factors such as vii. Turbidity viii. Water Temperature, pH, and Conductivity the biodegradation of lower molecular Commenters indicated support for the weight alkanes. Should DO depletion proposed turbidity measurement The Agency received no comments occur, understanding the correlation of requirement. A commenter stated that specific to these provisions and is potential substrates to DO is an turbidity measurements are useful for finalizing the requirements as proposed. important factor relative to the effects of determining the potential for ix. Carbon Dioxide (CO2)—Removed dispersant use and may inform response dispersants and other products to act as decision-making. A commenter responded to the sinking agents. The commenter section of the proposed rule which vi. Heavy Metals Analysis, Including suggested that in cases where turbidity requires the measurement of CO2 in Nickel and Vanadium may cause treated oil to sink, the use of water column samples during response Some commenters expressed support dispersants or other treating agents activities. This commenter indicated for the proposed updates. They agreed should be prohibited. that the proposed rule is unclear in term A commenter who also indicated that heavy metals should be analyzed in of the benefits that CO2 monitoring monitoring samples, including nickel support for the proposed requirements provides that are not already provided and vanadium concentrations. A for the collection of turbidity data by DO monitoring. They also expressed commenter expressed concern that the agreed with EPA regarding concerns concern that there is a limit to the analysis of heavy metals in water about the potential for agents to enhance number of sensors that can be deployed column samples does not have any the formation of oil-mineral aggregates from a vessel during a response. The (OMA) and marine oil snow (MOS) in relevance to monitoring of dispersed oil commenter stated that adding CO2 to the and does little to inform response the water column, putting benthic analysis suite complicates the decision-making. The commenter ecosystems at risk. deployment of these instrument arrays. indicated they see no operational The Agency acknowledges The Agency notes that the aerobic reasoning behind the collection of these commenters’ support for the turbidity biodegradation of oil constituents not data and suggested that the requirement requirement. Turbidity is a general only consumes DO but would also measure of water clarity and is for heavy metal analyses would lead to produce CO2. Increases in the CO2 unnecessary delays and costs during measured by how much the amount of concentration that coincide with response efforts. material suspended in water decreases decreases in the DO concentration The Agency disagrees that the would provide credible evidence that 2 Walters, C. (2021). Petroleum. In Kirk-Othmer analyses of heavy metals in water Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, (Ed.). biodegradation of oil is occurring. The column has no relevance to monitoring https://doi.org/10.1002/ Agency proposed measuring the in-situ of dispersed oil and does little to inform 0471238961.1518090702011811.a01.pub3. CO2 for subsurface dispersant

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR2.SGM 27JYR2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 40255

applications because the Agency aspect of dispersed oil movement as the information requested as the dispersant believed it would be a good indicator of result of dispersant application, plume quickly dilutes or cannot be microbial oxidation and inform the OSC particularly in areas where water found. on potential fate. However, the Agency currents are highly influential to the oil The Agency believes the final rule is agrees that adding CO2 sensors may not discharge and inform water sampling clear relative to the requirements for always be practicable and that the other locations. EPA agrees with concerns that subsurface and surface monitoring and monitoring requirements indirectly these uncertainties could affect that dividing the monitoring section inform potential biodegradation. sampling and monitoring programs. into separate subsections is Therefore, the Agency is not finalizing Therefore, the Agency is amending the unnecessary. The Agency has noted in this proposed requirement at this time. regulatory text to recognize the regulatory text and provided The RRTs and OSCs, as part of their uncertainties associated with trajectory additional clarification in this preamble authorized activities under the NCP, modeling as part of the distribution to delineate where requirements are may still consider adding CO2 analysis. different. EPA recognizes the measurements and other biodegradation A commenter suggested including a commenter’s concern relative to the characterization assessments on a case- NOAA SSC in the review of data term ‘‘best available technology’’ but by-case basis. provided in this section to provide disagrees that it should be changed to valuable credibility and support to the ‘‘best practicable technologies’’ to avoid D. Oil Distribution Analyses OSC, while noting that perceptions of equipment that is not suitable for field The new provisions include the responsible party directing the conditions. The proposal did not specify requirements for the responsible party process should be avoided. Another equipment in the Oil Distribution to characterize the dispersant commenter suggested EPA might want Analyses section, but rather included effectiveness and oil distribution, to consider including directions for the the term ‘‘best available technology’’ to including trajectory analysis. As the use of local expertise in these analyses. capture advances in technology (e.g., OSC’s oversight role over the The NCP describes the role of SSCs modeling and equipment). The intent responsible party is already established under 40 CFR 300.145(c) to include was to ensure these advances in in the NCP, the Agency has removed the providing scientific support for characterizing the dispersant phrase ‘‘in consultation with the OSC’’ operational decisions and for effectiveness and oil distribution for § 300.913(c) the oil distribution coordinating on-scene scientific activity continue to be implemented. For analysis. This characterization is to during a response, as requested by the example, oil distribution is typically consider available technologies, account OSC. Coordinating on-scene scientific informed by trajectory modeling to for the condition of oil, dispersant, and activity during a response may include predict the movement of dispersed oil dispersed oil components from the consideration of input from local plumes. The Agency recognizes that discharge location, and describe any experts. The NCP also describes the improvements to trajectory modeling associated uncertainties. OSC’s roles and responsibilities under continue over time and seeks to Several commenters supported EPA’s 40 CFR 300.120, which includes incorporate such advancements in the proposed language for § 300.913(c). A directing response efforts and new monitoring requirements. The commenter supported this section but coordinating all other efforts at the Agency is finalizing the term commented that the regulation should scene of a discharge. As a result, EPA ‘‘considering available technologies’’ recognize the limitations of oil believes the NCP already sufficiently instead of the term ‘‘best available distribution analyses in areas that lack recognizes the SSC’s role in support of technology.’’ Available technologies good ocean current predictive models or the OSC. used and their applicability to the observational data. Another commenter Some commenters stated that the rule specific discharge situation should be expressed strong support for efforts to needs to be clearer on what is required described in the DMQAPP. The Agency elucidate dispersant effectiveness but for surface monitoring and what is believes this new provision provides the noted that effectiveness monitoring required for subsea monitoring, opportunity for the OSC to consider should be used only when it does not suggesting that each subsection should relevant technologies and addresses the impede response operations. Another be divided into the aspects. These intent to capture advances in commenter stated that EPA should commenters also suggested that EPA technology. acknowledge that the available methods should consider changing ‘‘best EPA disagrees that aerial for anticipating the movement of available technologies’’ to ‘‘best photography, as a tool to measure dispersed oil plumes are limited and practicable technologies’’ in this effectiveness, should be acknowledged may complicate the monitoring process. section, to avoid equipment that is not as a best available technology. EPA A commenter noted that sampling and suitable for field conditions. A recognizes that the SMART Tier I monitoring programs should commenter stated that the best available protocol bases initial dispersant acknowledge uncertainties about where technology requirement should effectiveness assessment using an oil plumes may travel. acknowledge aerial photography as a photographic job aids or advanced The Agency recognizes oil tool to measure effectiveness, as this remote sensing instruments flying over distribution analyses may be affected by was a key method of assessment during the oil slick with a trained observer. the data quality used to inform the the Deepwater Horizon response. The EPA also recognizes that NOAA analysis, which also includes commenter also stated that the relative developed a Dispersant Application parameters based on assumptions. In effectiveness of surface application Observer Job Aid, which is a field guide addition, trajectory models, which are should be determined using the SMART for responders trained in observing and used to predict the movement of protocols, noting that the amount of oil identifying dispersed and undispersed dispersed oil plumes, may have on the surface to which dispersants are oil, describing oil characteristics, and uncertainties associated with modeling being sprayed is impossible to reporting this information to decision- parameters. EPA is amending the determine, so effectiveness can’t be makers. However, EPA is unaware of regulatory text to clarify that oil quantified, and that the analytical any similar NRT-approved protocols or distribution analyses includes trajectory equipment often cannot return to the NOAA-developed job aids to assess the modeling since this is an essential spray site in time to capture the initial effectiveness of subsurface

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR2.SGM 27JYR2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 40256 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

dispersant application. Furthermore, the Agency believes monitoring provides § 300.305(e)—Phase II—Preliminary requirements for monitoring surface information on dispersant effectiveness, assessment and initiation of action. dispersant application for atypical including for those occurrences of non- E. Ecological Characterization dispersant applications necessitate detection of dispersed oil after specific considerations beyond those dispersant application. The Agency also The new provisions include addressed by SMART. According to the notes that advances in technology using requirements for the responsible party 2013 NRT Environmental Monitoring for remote sensing vehicles may allow for to characterize the ecological receptors Atypical Dispersant Operations data collection prior to and after (e.g., aquatic species, wildlife, and/or guidance document, such atypical uses dispersant application with responders other biological resources) and their of dispersant during a response were not in an offset area to inform the fate and habitats that may be present in the addressed in the existing SMART transport of the oil plume. discharge area and their exposure monitoring program. While some A commenter stated the monitoring pathways. As the OSC’s oversight role monitoring requirements are only requirements need the concurrence of over the responsible party is already included in the SMART Tier III protocol the DOI’s regional response team (RRT) established in the NCP, the Agency has (e.g., turbidity, pH, conductivity, representative as well, since these removed the phrase ‘‘in consultation temperature), other requirements (e.g., results provide information relevant to with the OSC’’ for § 300.913(d) in-situ droplet size distribution) DOI’s trust resources. In addition, a ecological characterization. As part of important to understanding dispersant commenter stated that because of this characterization, the responsible party must include in this effectiveness are not. inherent conflict of interest, a qualified characterization those species that may third party acceptable to the OSC, EPA, A commenter stated that the relative be in sensitive life stages, transient or and the DOI RRT representatives should effectiveness of the surface application migratory species, breeding or breeding- conduct all monitoring. should be determined by using the related activities (e.g., embryo and SMART protocols, but also noted the EPA recognizes conflicts of interest larvae development), and threatened analysis equipment often cannot return concerns. The Agency notes that the and/or endangered species that may be to the spray site in time to capture the NCP addresses the OSC’s oversight role exposed to the oil that is not dispersed, information requested, because the of the responsible party as part of the the dispersed oil, and the dispersant dispersant plume quickly dilutes or OSC’s authority. The final rule does not alone. The responsible party must also cannot be found. According to the preclude the OSC from seeking a estimate an acute toxicity level of SMART protocols, Tier II and III use qualified third party to conduct concern for the dispersed oil using towed fluorometry to characterize additional monitoring or from available dose/response information effectiveness, requiring the vessel to consulting with relevant governmental relevant to potentially exposed species. pass through the oil slick after agencies, or from performing or having Several commenters agreed with dispersant is applied. For the SMART a third party perform monitoring. The EPA’s proposed language requiring Tier II protocol, the team collects data Agency disagrees that decisions ecological characterization and the use in three primary target locations: (1) regarding monitoring of oil distribution of species sensitivity distributions and Ambient background water (no oil); (2) and weathering are left up to the ecotoxicity benchmarks. These oiled surface slicks prior to dispersant responsible party as the Clean Water Act commenters emphasized that careful application, and (3) post-application, and the NCP give the OSC clear monitoring of biological receptors is after the oil has been treated with authority to direct the responsible party important but commented that this dispersants. The Tier III protocol during a response. The Agency also should be done by independent follows procedures from the Tier II disagrees that the responsible party is scientists, and not by the responsible protocol, and in addition collects the primary advisor for aspects of party because of conflict of interest. information on the transport and dispersant decision-making and Another commenter generally supported dispersion of the oil in the water monitoring. The monitoring the proposed additions to § 300.913(d). column to help verify that the dispersed requirements are intended to provide Another commenter stated that oil is diluting toward background levels. decision-makers, whose roles and ecological characterizations should be The commenter’s characterization that responsibilities are described in the done by scientists on behalf of local the dispersant plume quickly dilutes or NCP, with relevant information to resource agencies, given that the cannot be found seems contrary to their consider. The monitoring requirements required information can be complex recommendation to use the SMART do not prevent the OSC and other and subtle, requiring expertise on protocols data collection procedures. response decision-makers from seasonality, life cycles, habitat The Agency notes that the commenter considering monitoring information, interactions, important and sensitive did not provide supporting evidence including monitoring information habitats, and other physical and that the dispersed oil plume always collected by other entities besides the biological factors that influence how quickly dilutes and cannot be found. responsible party, to also be used to ecosystem components respond to oil, The assumption that dispersed oil inform dispersant use decisions. While dispersant, and dispersed oil. plume quickly dilutes and cannot be the final rule places the monitoring Some commenters offered found does not account for the many requirements on the responsible party, amendments to this section. A factors that impact dispersant these requirements should not be commenter stated that EPA should effectiveness, including for example the interpreted or perceived as the require consultation with the DOI and specifics of the discharge situations responsible party directing the process Department of Commerce (DOC) natural (e.g., continuous discharges), the or controlling how the dispersant resource trustees, not just the OSC, weathering of the oil, and the mixing effectiveness and dispersed oil fate data when developing ecological-receptor conditions. Both the SMART protocols are interpreted. The Agency notes that characterization. Another commenter and the monitoring provisions finalized the NCP already provides for natural stated that sensitive receptors and in this action are designed to provide resource trustee input for dispersant use toxicity thresholds should be developed feedback on the efficacy of dispersant as a response option under 40 CFR at a local/regional level based on the application in dispersing the oil. The 300.910—Authorization of Use, and marine ecosystem, food web, abundance

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR2.SGM 27JYR2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 40257

of primary and secondary producers, period of time for such considerations determining dispersant use. Dispersants and other factors that influence suggested in the proposed rule. Another are not the only option for oil spill ecotoxicity, given significant variation commenter agreed that monitoring to response: Other response options may throughout the United States. determine possible environmental also prevent or lower overall The Agency recognizes commenters’ effects is too time consuming and added environmental damage. When position that independent scientists that monitoring required to determine responding under the NCP, decisions on conduct monitoring of biological possible environmental effects is dispersants and/or other chemical receptors, rather than the responsible already accommodated within the agents made by the OSC and other party, because of potential conflict of existing Incident Command System federal agencies with roles and interest. The Agency notes that the NCP (ICS) structure (e.g., wildlife team and responsibilities under the NCP during a addresses the OSC’s oversight role of the the NRDA team). A commenter stated response are to be made in accordance responsible party. The monitoring that while known ecological with the NCP. While there is no amendments in the final rule do not benchmarks may be constructive, it is prohibition on the use of environmental preclude the OSC from seeking not clear how exceedances of the tradeoff methodologies, the use of such independent parties to conduct thresholds would impact decision- methodologies must be in conformance additional monitoring, including from making in practice. This commenter with the statutory and regulatory local, state and federal agencies. EPA stated that requiring dispersant authorities that govern dispersant use. agrees with concerns that the required operations to stop due to a single- Furthermore, the Agency noted in the information can be complex and subtle, species exceedance may result in higher proposed rule (80 FR 3398) relevant requiring expertise on seasonality, life environmental damage overall. The sources of information (e.g., cycles, habitat interactions, important commenter suggested that SSDs are a environmental assessments or and sensitive habitats, and other misuse of the method that is counter to statements, Federal and state physical and biological factors that establishing frameworks appropriate to environmental databases, ACP-Fish and influence how ecosystem components dynamic ocean settings. The Wildlife and Sensitive Environments respond to oil, dispersant, and commenters stated that NEBA should be Plan Annex; NOAA-Environmental dispersed oil. Furthermore, the NCP the basis to make operational decisions Sensitivity Indices) that the responsible provides for natural resource trustee on whether dispersants and/or other party may refer to in developing the input for dispersant use as a response agents should be used during a characterization of ecological receptors. option under 40 CFR 300.910— response. In addition, applicable facility or vessel Authorization of Use, and § 300.305(e)— response plans may also have relevant The Agency agrees with comments Phase II—Preliminary assessment and information. It is important to note that that support environmental monitoring initiation of action. Therefore, the this final action is not requiring this as contributing to operational decision- Agency does not believe it is necessary information to be included in these making, but disagrees with the comment for additional requirements under the planning documents, rather that these that monitoring to determine possible monitoring section to recognize the role documents may serve as resources of and responsibilities of natural resource environmental effects is too time relevant information. Finally, it is trustees relative to the responsible party consuming to support dispersant unclear how methodologies cited and developing ecological-receptor operations decisions and that supported by commenters evaluate characterization. monitoring required to determine environmental trade-offs for decision- The Agency agrees with commenters possible environmental effects is making without the characterization of that sensitive receptors and toxicity already accommodated within the ecological receptors. thresholds should consider relevant existing ICS organizational structure Another commenter noted that the local/regional factors. EPA agrees with (e.g., wildlife team and the NRDA team). phrase ‘‘but not be limited to’’ should be commenters that the review of acute A goal of NRDA is to compensate the added to a phrase in the proposal so the toxicity information should include public for losses to natural resources term ‘‘include’’ is not interpreted as actual toxicity test results of potentially and resource services resulting from limiting. ‘‘The Agency believes that the exposed species in the area of the spill, injury as a result of an oil discharge. ecological characterization should but the Agency also recognizes that the While a NRDA team may be recognized include, but not be limited to, those use of a surrogate species when in the ICS, it is independent of, and species that may be in sensitive life constructing the species sensitivity complementary to, the response action. stages . . . .’’ distribution (SSD) may be necessary if The monitoring requirements are The Agency acknowledges the relevant toxicity data for site-specific tailored to dispersant use and to inform commenter’s suggestion that the phrase species is unavailable. response decision-making regarding that ‘‘but not be limited to’’ be added to a Some commenters stated that they use, while other ICS organizations focus phrase in the proposal so the term support environmental monitoring that on general environmental effects of the ‘‘include’’ is not interpreted to be contributes to operational decision- response, not necessarily related to limiting, so that the sentence reads: making, but also stated that the required dispersant use. The Agency also ‘‘The Agency believes that the monitoring to determine possible disagrees that conducting the required ecological characterization should environmental effects is too time ecological characterization of the spill include, but not be limited to, those consuming to support dispersant site may not be possible in the available species that may be in sensitive life operations decisions and that response time frame. The premise that stages . . .’’. The Agency did not intend conducting the required ecological untreated oil is likely to drift ashore and and does not believe that the term characterization of the spill site may not impact a sensitive coastal resource ‘‘including’’ is limiting. However, the be possible in the available response within a day or two unless it is Agency is modifying the sentence in the time frame. The commenters stated that dispersed implies that no other response proposal to reflect this suggested change if the untreated oil is likely to drift options are available to prevent impacts for clarity. ashore and impact a sensitive coastal to sensitive coastal resources and that A commenter stated that the resource within a day or two unless it these sensitive coastal resources are the regulation should specify that an is dispersed, there will be a very finite sole response priority to consider in invitation to participate, at least in a

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR2.SGM 27JYR2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 40258 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

consultation and review role, should be • The commenter expressed concern concern are determined using the SSD extended to the appropriate federal, about EPA’s approach to derive chronic approach. state, and local authorities. A toxicity benchmarks by applying safety EPA did not propose in the commenter stated that EPA should add factors to the acute toxicity EBs because monitoring section that dispersant to § 300.913(d) that a DOI representative the specific chemicals and toxicity operations stop due to a single-species should participate in this process. mechanisms involved in acute toxicity exceedance. However, EPA does not Applicable Area Contingency Plans are different from those involved in agree that stopping dispersant use over include input from relevant local, state, chronic toxicity. a single species exceedance will and federal agencies whose roles and The proposed rule discussed an necessarily result in higher responsibilities are identified in the approach to monitor acute toxicity in environmental damage overall. NCP for the Area Committee. While the the water column by comparing TPH Dispersants are not the only available Agency did not propose to amend concentrations in water samples to TPH- response tool, and other response requirements for Area Contingency based EBs or to chronic toxicity options may also lower overall Planning and those requirements are benchmarks derived by applying a environmental damage. EPA believes outside the scope of this final action, safety factor to the acute toxicity EBs. that Congress’ primary intent in EPA recognizes the Area Committee’s The Agency stated that SSDs, which regulating products (e.g., dispersants) role in ecological characterization as allow for species relevant to the location under Subpart J is to protect the provided in the Fish and Wildlife and of the discharge to be considered, could environment, including the water Sensitive Environments Plan in 40 CFR be developed for representative oils column, from possible deleterious 300.210(c)(4). The final rule does not (e.g., crude oils) using existing acute effects caused by the application or use prohibit the OSC from seeking input toxicity values where sufficient species of these products. Decisions on the use from the appropriate federal, state, and diversity are available. The Agency of dispersants and other agents used local authorities. acknowledges that examining only acute during a response are to be made in A commenter asked EPA to clarify toxicity data does not capture the full accordance with the NCP and the that toxicity monitoring is required effects of a spill because it does not take governing statute(s). Environmental following dispersant applications. into account indirect or sub-lethal tradeoff methodologies where Another commenter suggested the effects. The Agency recognizes that dispersants are considered must be in following revisions to EPA’s approach specific chemicals and toxicity conformance with the statutory and to ecotoxicity benchmarks (EBs): mechanisms involved in acute toxicity regulatory authorities that govern • The proposed approach will not can be different from those involved in dispersant use. chronic toxicity. However, applying fully characterize potential impacts on F. Immediate Reporting safety factors to the acute toxicity-based biological resources. Where EBs exist for benchmarks to derive chronic The new provisions require the these other hydrocarbon constituents, benchmarks is not intended to discern responsible party to immediately report measured concentrations of those toxicity mechanisms; rather it is to the OSC and, in coordination with parameters need to be compared to intended to account for potential toxic the OSC, to the RRT any: (1) Deviation these more specific toxicological impacts to relevant species. of more than 10 percent from the mean benchmarks; hourly dispersant use rate for subsurface • Furthermore, EPA recognizes that not The toxicity level should also all acute toxicity data is derived using application, based on the dispersant include the dispersant since it has been similar exposure conditions and that volume authorized for 24 hours use, and found that dispersants alone are SSDs should be calculated from acute the reason for the deviation; and (2) generally less toxic than oil, but that toxicity data that reflects the site- ecological receptors of environmental most dispersant and oil mixtures are specific exposure profiles. Finally, EPA importance, and any other ecological more toxic than oil alone; receptors as designated by the OSC or • recognizes the proposed approach does The proposed approach to compare not fully characterize potential impacts the Natural Resource Trustees, water concentrations with EBs for heavy on biological resources from other including any threatened or endangered metals and total petroleum hydrocarbon exposure mechanisms that may cause species that may be exposed based on will not fully characterize potential adverse impacts, such as oil smothering dispersed plume trajectory modeling impacts on biological resources; and coating. and level of concern information. • Examining only acute toxicity data While the Agency did not propose to Several commenters supported EPA’s does not capture the full effects of a establish specific EB thresholds, EPA proposed immediate reporting spill, since it does not take into account recognizes that EBs should be consistent provisions. Some commenters indirect or sub-lethal effects, which with information in applicable ACPs. advocated for a 10 percent threshold for could also alter populations and The Agency noted in the proposed rule reporting deviations from the planned ecological communities; that EBs could be computed from the application rates for surface application • The review of acute toxicity fifth percentile of the SSD as the hazard in addition to subsurface application, information should include actual concentration 5 percent (HC5), as they while another commenter stated they do toxicity test results of potentially are considered protective of 95 percent not support any subsurface application. exposed species in the area of the spill, of species, have been used by EPA for A commenter stated that because the since the use of a surrogate species developing ambient water quality responsible party is already required to could vastly underestimate the actual criteria, and are generally accepted by report hourly surface application rates toxicity of species in the area; the international risk science on a daily basis under § 300.913(f), the • EPA should calculate separate SSDs community. For the reasons above, EPA commenter believes that adding a for unique environments; disagrees with commenters who requirement for immediate reporting • Toxicity testing using natural light suggested that SSDs is counter to requirement in the case of deviations will be important given the well establishing frameworks appropriate to will add little, if any, marginal documented phenomenon of photo- dynamic ocean settings. Furthermore, compliance costs. enhanced toxicity of certain oil EPA is clarifying the final rule text to In this action, the Agency is not constituents; and, specify that acute toxicity levels of including a reporting requirement of a

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR2.SGM 27JYR2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 40259

10 percent deviation threshold for dispersant applications which in 24-hour increments. The OSC makes reporting requirement from the planned inadvertently spray birds, marine authorization of use decisions within application rates for surface dispersant mammals, sea turtles, or other sensitive the NCP framework. Authorization of application. The Agency recognizes species. While the commenter refers to use is outside the scope of the differences in the subsurface and § 300.910(e), the Agency believes that monitoring requirements in this final surface application of dispersants. For a the commenter intended to include action. While an environmental trade- continuous discharge, subsurface § 300.913(e) because the heading of the off framework may inform dispersant applications may occur uninterrupted at section to the comment referred to use, it is not required under the NCP. relatively few discharge locations. § 300.913(e–f). The Agency agrees that Results from daily water column Surface application is typically made by the RRT, which includes the natural sampling provide input data to refine one or more aircraft which have a resource trustees, should receive this predictions of the likely dispersed oil relatively limited capacity to apply information within the command direction using trajectory modeling and dispersant over multiple oil patches. structure of the National Response may also inform decisions to alter This limited capacity requires aircraft to System (NRS). Working within the dispersant application in order to refuel and resupply. While multiple command structure provides an orderly minimize effects on ecological aircraft may be used, deviations of and efficient review of monitoring and receptors, including biological surface dispersant application rate from other response-related information by resources. a single aircraft are not expected to the OSC and allows the OSC to develop A commenter stated real-time confound monitoring data interpretation situational awareness and efficiently ecological receptor analysis is in a similar manner as 10 percent and effectively collaborate with agencies unrealistic and should be part of a deviation from subsurface application. designated in the NCP that have Consensus Ecological Risk Assessment Furthermore, the Agency is requiring relevant roles and responsibilities in the (CERA)/NEBA process. Another daily reports of the specific hourly response. EPA has revised the commenter requested that any field dispersant application rate and total regulatory language in the final rule by observations of impacts to sensitive amount of dispersant used for surface adding a new provision, § 300.913(g), to species be reported to the OSC and application to monitor dispersant use provide that the responsible party must trustee agencies. The new monitoring activity. The daily reports will inform immediately report to the OSC and requirements provide that the changes in surface dispersant coordinate with the OSC to provide the responsible party will characterize the application usage. Finally, the RIA does applicable RRT(s) (including any ecological receptors (e.g., aquatic not include a compliance cost because incident-specific RRTs) with this species, wildlife, and/or other biological the proposed provision addressing more information. The Agency notes that resources), their habitats, and exposure than 10 percent deviation for surface including the RRT(s) as recipients of the pathways that may be present in the applications is not being finalized. immediate reporting information discharge area. The Agency understands A commenter stated that all reports addresses a commenter’s request to that some ecological receptors are likely should simultaneously be made public. include natural resource trustees. to be impacted and is clarifying that the EPA recognizes the commenter’s request Some commenters stated that EPA immediate reporting requirement that all reports should simultaneously should not develop requirements for focuses on ecological receptors of be made public. While EPA shares the daily authorizations of dispersant environmental importance, as well as commenter’s desire to make this quantities. Another commenter also any other ecological receptors as information publicly available in a noted that the rule requires reporting identified by the OSC or the natural timely fashion, the Agency disagrees based on deviations from authorized resource trustees, including threatened that this reporting should occur dispersant application in a 24-hour or endangered species that may be simultaneously with reporting to the period, stating that EPA should not have exposed to dispersed oil based on OSC. Public communications daily authorizations for dispersant trajectory modeling and the estimated authorities under the NCP are outside application because such restrictions acute toxicity level of concern. EPA the scope of this action. The Agency would tremendously complicate recognizes that the OSC or the natural notes that the OSC directs response dispersant operations and circumvent resource trustees may also want to efforts and coordinates all other efforts the NEBA process. include critical habitats as applicable at the scene of a discharge in accordance EPA did not establish requirements within the immediate reporting with the NCP, including public on daily authorization of dispersant requirements for ecological receptors. information and community relations. quantities in the final rule on the The NCP already provides an existing The NCP provides instruction to the monitoring requirements. The Agency is organizational structure that allows the OSC on ensuring all appropriate public establishing an immediate reporting natural resource trustees to relay any and private interests are kept informed provision in this final action to provide requests they have regarding the and that their concerns are a margin for variation within 10 percent monitoring requirements and resulting appropriately considered throughout a of the mean hourly subsurface information to the OSC. The Agency is response. The Agency believes the OSC dispersant application rate to account revising the regulatory language in the should be given the opportunity to for equipment performance. The Agency final rule to reflect this clarification. evaluate response-related information believes this margin adequately This revision also addresses a and communicate relevant results to the accounts for variations in dispersant commenter’s request to recognize prey public within the existing NCP injection equipment without being species which these receptors depend framework. overly restrictive. The intent of the upon for food that may be impacted by A commenter suggested that specifics requirement is for immediate reporting the discharge or the response. required in § 300.910(e) should be of more than 10 percent deviations for A commenter said the OSC should provided to the OSC and RRT. A the subsurface dispersant application have discretion to determine the commenter requested that any field that were authorized during that frequency of reporting and that the rule observations of impacts to sensitive reporting period. EPA did not intend to does not specify what happens if the species be reported to the OSC and require, and § 300.913(e) does not reporting requirements are not met for trustee agencies. This could include establish, that authorization is required any reason. The Agency recognizes that

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR2.SGM 27JYR2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 40260 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

the OSC may require other immediate analyze if the application rates are at, that provides the OSC and pertinent notifications beyond those provided in below, or exceeding the authorized response agencies context for the the final rule and that the final rule quantities, if dispersant use is per collected data. This approach allows provides a minimum set of immediate manufacturer’s recommendations, and if sampling and analytical methods to reporting criteria. Finally, the Agency the response actions are effective. continue to advance without the need to notes that enforcement of regulatory EPA is also revising the regulatory periodically modify regulatory text to provisions is outside the scope of the text in the final rule to reflect that reflect any such advances. Finally, for final rule. The final rule does not § 300.913(c) changed ‘‘. . . best analyses that take more than 24 hours change any existing enforcement available technology . . .’’ to ‘‘. . . due to analytical methods, the Agency authorities. considering available technologies . . .’’ is clarifying that the responsible party which includes trajectory modeling. See report data and results if it becomes G. Daily Reporting the Oil Distribution Analyses discussion available prior to the 5-day period. The new provisions require daily in this preamble. The Agency is also Reporting results and data as soon as it reporting by the responsible party to the revising the final rule text to include becomes available avoids unnecessary OSC and to the RRT water sampling and RRT as recipients of the daily reporting delays in providing decision-makers, data analyses collected in § 300.913(b). information for similar reasons as including relevant regulatory agencies, These reports are to include: (1) For described in Immediate Reporting with timely information. each application platform, the actual discussion in this preamble. A commenter noted that the amount of dispersant used for each one- Several commenters supported EPA’s requirements for daily reporting of hour period, and the total amount of proposal to require daily reporting of water sampling data in § 300.913(f) dispersant used for the previous 24-hour sampling and data analyses within a should only apply to subsea dispersant reporting period; (2) all collected data time frame necessary for making sound injection and are not useful for and analyses of those data within a time operational decisions. However, a dispersant decision-making. The frame necessary to make operational commenter stated that existing sampling commenter stated that daily sampling decisions (e.g., within 24 hours of and analytical methods might not and testing is arbitrary, overly collection), including documented provide complete or accurate burdensome, and unnecessary, observations, photographs, video, and information. They requested that EPA suggesting that OSCs should have any other information related to identify suggested methods or models discretion in the frequency of sampling dispersant use, unless an alternate time that can accurately estimate the ‘‘daily after the initial efficacy tests. frame is authorized by the OSC; (3) for transport of dispersed and non- Additionally, this commenter stated that analyses that take more than 24 hours dispersed oil’’ with sufficient accuracy the five day turnaround is unrealistic, due to analytical methods, provide such to inform the coordination of given that it can take several days for data and results as available but no later monitoring activities. sample transport and analysis. This than 5 days after sample collection, EPA acknowledges a commenter’s commenter cited the quantity of unless an alternate time frame is concern that existing sampling and samples and backlogs that resulted from authorized by the OSC; and (4) analytical methods might not provide the Deepwater Horizon response. estimates of the daily transport of complete or accurate information. EPA disagrees with the comment that dispersed and non-dispersed oil and However, the Agency believes existing stated daily reporting of water sampling associated volatile petroleum sampling and analytical methods data is not useful to dispersant decision- hydrocarbons, and dispersants, using continue to improve and generally serve making, burdensome, or unrealistic available technology as described in their intended purpose for decision- given the experiences of the Deepwater § 300.913(c). making during a response. The Agency Horizon oil spill. The final monitoring Section 300.913(f)(1) of the final rule recognizes that there may be other provisions require daily reporting of was altered to provide clarity. The text sampling and analytical methods used sampling and data analyses collected ‘‘For each application platform, the to inform other aspects of the response within the time frame necessary to make . . .’’ was added prior to the draft as a result of the oil discharge, such as operational decisions unless an language, to ensure that the reporting those used in injury assessment that are alternate time frame is authorized by the would be for each platform, instead of conducted to support the NRDA OSC. Additionally, a schedule is the response as a whole. The term process. Results from daily water required for any data analyses that ‘‘application platform’’ includes column sampling conducted by the require time beyond 24 hours due to individual aircraft, vessels, and any responsible party would provide input analytical methods; this schedule is not other structures, devices, or other means data to refine predictions of the likely to exceed five days (i.e., 120 hours) that are used to apply dispersants. This dispersed oil direction using trajectory unless authorized by the OSC. Timely section was also modified, replacing the modeling. The daily reporting sample analyses afford the OSC and term ‘‘actual dispersant application rate provisions requires the responsible other responders and decision makers for each one-hour period’’ with ‘‘the party to report the estimated daily with multiple relevant data that can be actual amount of dispersant used for transport of dispersed and non- analyzed together to inform situational each one-hour period’’. This revision dispersed oil, associated volatile awareness of dispersant operations and clarifies that the reported information petroleum hydrocarbons if applicable, adjust dispersant application as must reflect the actual amount of and dispersants, considering available necessary. The Agency believes that a dispersant applied each hour, rather technologies as described in five-day window for analyses requiring than an hourly rate based on the total § 300.913(c). The Agency is not additional time provides an adequate amount of dispersant applied averaged including suggested methods or models opportunity for the RP to arrange to over a 24-hour period. The requirement to estimate the ‘‘daily transport of conduct all requested analyses in a is intended to show hourly changes of dispersed and non-dispersed oil.’’ timely manner without being overly the actual amount of dispersant used, Rather, the Agency is establishing a restrictive. The Agency believes the which a calculated average hourly rate framework in which the responsible final rule provides flexibility for the would not provide. This information party must identify sampling and OSC to provide an alternative time will allow the OSC and RRT to better analytical methods within a DMQAPP frame that is operationally relevant for

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR2.SGM 27JYR2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 40261

analyses that take more than 24 hours under 40 CFR 300.150 and to Area B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) due to analytical methods. Contingency Planning requirements The information collection The Agency disagrees that daily water under 40 CFR 300.210(c) are outside the requirements in this final action have sampling and testing is burdensome and scope of this final action on monitoring been submitted for approval to the therefore also disagrees that only the requirements. The Agency refers readers Office of Management and Budget OSC should determine the sampling to the Immediate Reporting discussion (OMB) under the PRA. The Information frequency after initial efficacy tests. The where similar comments are addressed Collection Request (ICR) document Agency believes monitoring dispersant relative to public notification of prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA use in the field informs the OSC and dispersant-related information for ICR No. 2675.01 (OMB Control No. response support agencies on its overall further analysis of this issue. 2050–NEW). A copy of the ICR is effectiveness, including potential provided in the docket for this rule and environmental effects and transport of VI. Overview of New Rule Citations it is briefly summarized here. The dispersed oil. Daily reporting serves to The Table below provides an ensure information is received in a monitoring provisions of the final rule overview of the new rule citations under include documentation of information timely manner. The final rule provides 40 CFR part 300, subpart J, for a quick notification for a responsible party to about dispersant application; water reference of the changes. New section, sampling, oil distribution, and identify what analytical resources will § 300.913, Monitoring the Use of be needed ahead of time rather than ecological characterization analysis; Dispersants, adds regulatory and, immediate and daily reporting. wait until an incident occurs to do so. requirements for monitoring certain A responsible party can also arrange for For this ICR, EPA has estimated an prolonged surface and subsurface use of annualized cost for monitoring oil a schedule to prepare, transport, dispersants. process, and analyze samples as part of discharges for dispersants in the range of $32,000 to $3.0 million per year. This response planning. The Agency believes SECTION 300.913 DISTRIBUTION TABLE that the responsible party can identify estimated range reflects the fact that analytical processing resources (e.g., costs can vary significantly depending § 300.913 Monitoring General Applicability. upon the frequency, volume, duration, analytical laboratories) and arrange a the Use of sampling and processing schedule prior Dispersants. and location of oil discharges. EPA to any incident. § 300.913(a) ...... Information on Dis- based its estimates on a range of oil The Agency disagrees that daily persant Application. discharge scenarios capturing different reporting of water sampling data should § 300.913(b) ...... Water Column Sam- spill sources, volumes, and monitoring apply only to subsurface dispersant pling. durations. The annual monitoring cost injection. Daily reporting of sampling § 300.913(c) ...... Oil Distribution Anal- also reflects EPA’s estimated applicable- data and other relevant information yses. discharge rate of 0.2 incidents per year, § 300.913(d) ...... Ecological Character- equally serves to inform surface or one applicable discharge every five ization. years, based on EPA’s analysis of dispersant application. The daily § 300.913(e) ...... Immediate Reporting. reporting requirement for collected data § 300.913(f) ...... Daily Reporting. historical discharges. and analyses is necessary to make § 300.913(g) ...... Immediate and Daily EPA has carefully considered the operational decisions, including Reporting to RRTs. burden imposed upon the regulated documented observations, photographs, community by the regulations. EPA video, and any other information related VII. Statutory and Executive Order believes that the activities required are to dispersant use, unless an alternate Reviews necessary and, to the extent possible, time frame is authorized by the OSC. has attempted to minimize the burden While the responsible party shall Additional information about these imposed. The minimum requirements provide data and results within five statutes and Executive Orders can be specified in the final rule are intended days, the final action provides flexibility found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws- to ensure that, when needed, product to establish an alternate time frame regulations/laws-and-executive-orders. use is properly monitored in the field so authorized by the OSC for analyses that A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory that the oil discharge response is take more than 24 hours due to Planning and Review and Executive performed in a manner protective of analytical methods. Order 13563: Improving Regulation and human health and the environment. A commenter also suggested Regulatory Review Respondents/affected entities: Oil combining the Daily Reporting section discharge responsible parties. with the Immediate Reporting section This action is a significant regulatory Respondent’s obligation to respond: and included recommended language. action that was submitted to the Office Mandatory (40 CFR part 300, subpart J). EPA believes keeping these sections of Management and Budget (OMB) for Estimated number of respondents: 0– separate more clearly identifies the review. This action raises novel legal or 1 per year. specific requirements within the two policy issues arising out of legal Frequency of response: 0.2 time per different time frames. mandates, the President’s priorities, or year. Another commenter stated that EPA the principles set forth in the Executive Total estimated cost: $32,000– should make plans to protect worker Order. Any changes made in response to $3,033,000 (per year for monitoring oil health and public health required in OMB recommendations have been discharges). ACPs along with already required plans documented in the docket for this An agency may not conduct or to protect wildlife and to require daily action. In addition, EPA prepared an sponsor, and a person is not required to public notification of product use, analysis of the potential costs and respond to, a collection of information location, and quantity. The Agency benefits associated with this action. unless it displays a currently valid OMB notes that the NCP requires compliance This analysis, ‘‘Regulatory Impact control number. The OMB control with applicable worker health and Analysis, National Oil and Hazardous numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 safety regulations, including OSHA, Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When under 40 CFR 300.150. Amendments to Subpart J Monitoring Requirements’’, is OMB approves this ICR, the Agency will worker health and safety requirements available in the docket for this action. announce that approval in the Federal

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR2.SGM 27JYR2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 40262 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

Register and publish a technical duty on any state, local, or tribal with public comments, in the final rule amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display governments or the private sector. development. the OMB control number for the In addition to consultation with E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism approved information collection tribes, EPA also conducted outreach to activities contained in this final rule. This action does not have federalism tribes over the two years before implications. It will not have substantial consultation. EPA staff participated in C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) direct effects on the States, on the several tribal conferences and meetings I certify that this action will not have relationship between the national where the proposed rulemaking was a significant economic impact on a government and the States, or on the discussed, and information distributed substantial number of small entities distribution of power and to all participating tribes. Rulemaking under the RFA. In making this responsibilities among the various outreach literature promoted awareness determination, the impact of concern is levels of government. and coordination about the proposed any significant adverse economic regulation. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation impact on small entities. As required by section 7(a), EPA’s and Coordination With Indian Tribal Tribal Consultation Official has certified EPA conducted a small business Governments analysis consistent with the Agency’s that the requirements of the executive 2006 small business guidance. The EPA has concluded that this action order have been met in a meaningful Agency’s analysis indicates that 9,527 may have tribal implications because all and timely manner. A copy of the affected entities are small businesses in tribes can be affected by oil spills and certification is included in the docket the following industries: Crude the subsequent use of oil spill mitigating for this action. Petroleum Extraction, Natural Gas agents, such as dispersants and G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Extraction, Petroleum Refineries, bioremediation agents. However, this Children From Environmental Health Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals, action will neither impose substantial Risks and Safety Risks Natural Gas Extraction, Petroleum and direct compliance costs on tribal Petroleum Products Merchant governments, nor preempt Tribal law, EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 Wholesalers (except Bulk Stations and similarly to the effect on states. as applying only to those regulatory Terminals), Petroleum and Petroleum EPA consulted with tribal officials actions that concern environmental Products Merchant Wholesalers (except under EPA Policy on Consultation and health or safety risks that EPA has Bulk Stations and Terminals), Deep Sea Coordination with Indian Tribes early in reason to believe may Freight Transportation, Coastal and the process of developing this regulation disproportionately affect children, per Great Lakes Freight Transportation, and to enable them to have meaningful and the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory Pipeline Transportation of Crude Oil. timely input into its development. The action’’ in section 2–202 of the Executive Order. This action is not In conducting the small business NCP is the federal government’s subject to Executive Order 13045 analysis, the agency compared the blueprint for responding to both oil because it does not concern an incremental annualized compliance cost spills and hazardous substance releases. environmental health risk or safety risk. to the annual sales revenue for the Among other provisions, Subpart J of smallest entities. The results indicate the NCP governs environmental H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That that if a small entity is responsible for monitoring of dispersants and other Significantly Affect Energy Supply, a relatively large oil discharge, then the chemical agents to respond to oil spills Distribution or Use impact on that individual entity could in jurisdictional waters. Under the NCP, This action is not a ‘‘significant be significant. However, there are tribes are included in the definition of energy action’’ because it is not likely to important factors to consider when ‘‘State’’ found in 40 CFR 300.5 except have a significant adverse effect on the assessing the rule’s overall effect on where specifically noted, and may supply, distribution, or use of energy. small businesses, including that participate as members of Area The final rule focuses on monitoring historically, the RPs for applicable Committees, on RRTs, and on Tribal requirements to address subsurface and discharges are not very small entities, Emergency Response Commissions. See certain surface applications of which constitute the vast majority of 40 CFR 300.5. dispersants that meet applicability potential impacted entities in this EPA’s government-to-government criteria specified by the final rule and analysis. In addition, the rarity of consultation period occurred from minimizing potential adverse impacts applicable discharges historically March 11, 2015, to March 26, 2015, from their use; thus, the rule will result suggests that there will be only one when EPA headquarters held five in greater overall environmental entity affected by the rule (whether teleconference consultation events that protection. The final rule will not cause significantly or nonsignificantly) every informed tribes of the possible changes reductions in the supply or production five years, on average. For these reasons, to the regulation as it was proposed in of oil, fuel, coal, or electricity; nor will EPA concludes that the final rule’s the Federal Register. Representatives it result in increased energy prices, requirements will not have a significant from 10 tribes, tribal associations and increased cost of energy distribution, or impact on a substantial number of small organizations participated. During these an increased dependence on foreign entities (SISNOSE). The small business calls, senior EPA staff fielded questions supplies of energy. analysis is available for review in the about the rulemaking as well as Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA). recorded comments and feedback. I. National Technology Transfer and Tribal leaders and/or their delegated Advancement Act D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act representatives raised questions about This rulemaking does not involve This action does not contain any the use of dispersants and ensuring technical standards. unfunded mandate of $100 million or habitat and resource protection when more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. responding to oil spills in Indian J. Executive Order 12898: 1531–1538, and does not significantly or Country. EPA considered the input from Environmental Justice (EJ) uniquely affect small governments. This these consultation calls and EPA believes that this action does not final rule imposes no new enforceable coordination activities, in conjunction have disproportionately high and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR2.SGM 27JYR2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 40263

adverse human health or environmental Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq; 42 U.S.C. hydrocarbons, periodically reevaluated effects on minority populations, low- 9601–9657; E.O. 13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, as conditions dictate, including a income populations, and/or indigenous 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, description of the method, associated peoples, as specified in Executive Order 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 uncertainties, and materials. FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193. 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). (b) Collect a representative set of The documentation for this decision Subpart J—Use of Dispersants, and ambient background water column is contained in Regulatory Impact Other Chemicals samples in areas not affected by the Analysis (RIA) for this action. This final discharge of oil, at the closest safe rule is consistent with EPA’s ■ 2. Add § 300.913 to read as follows: distance from the discharge as Environmental Justice Strategy and the determined by the OSC, and in all § 300.913 Monitoring the use of directions of likely oil transport Office of Land and Emergency dispersants. Management (OLEM) Environmental considering surface and subsurface The responsible party shall monitor Justice Action Agenda. To address the currents. Collect a representative set of any subsurface use of dispersant in goals of the Strategy and the Agenda, baseline water column samples absent response to an oil discharge, any surface EPA conducted a qualitative analysis of dispersant application at such depths use of dispersant for more than 96 hours the environmental justice issues under and locations affected by the oil after initial application in response to this final rule. discharge, considering surface and an oil discharge, and any surface use of subsurface currents, oil properties, and Historically, EPA has not found any dispersant in response to oil discharges evidence that the use of dispersant other relevant discharge conditions. On of more than 100,000 U.S. gallons a daily basis, collect dispersed oil agents on oil discharges in the United occurring within a 24-hour period, and States has had any disproportionate plume water column samples at such shall submit a Dispersant Monitoring depths and locations where dispersed effect on any environmental justice Quality Assurance Project Plan communities. Moreover, the final rule is oil is likely to be present, considering (DMQAPP) covering the collection of surface and subsurface currents, oil anticipated to improve the efficacy of environmental data within this section dispersant application activities through properties, and other relevant discharge to the OSC. When any dispersant is conditions. Collect these ambient monitoring requirements and thereby used subsurface in response to an oil mitigate what could otherwise occur as background, baseline, and dispersed oil discharge, the responsible party shall plume water column samples following adverse impacts from potentially less implement paragraphs (a) through (g) of effective dispersant use. EPA will standard operating and quality this section for the entire duration of the assurance procedures. Analyze the monitor the implementation of the rule subsurface dispersant use. When any to ensure the monitoring of dispersant collected ambient background, baseline, dispersant is used on the surface in and dispersed oil plume water column agents has no disproportionate effect on response to oil discharges of greater any EJ communities. samples for: than 100,000 U.S. gallons occurring (1) In-situ oil droplet size distribution, K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) within a 24-hour period, the responsible including mass or volume mean party shall implement paragraphs (a) diameter for droplet sizes ranging from This action is subject to the CRA, and through (g) of this section as soon as 2.5 to 2,000 mm, with the majority of the EPA will submit a rule report to possible for the entire or remaining data collected between the 2.5 and 100 each House of the Congress and to the duration of surface dispersant use, as mm size. Comptroller General of the United applicable. When any dispersant is used (2) In-situ fluorometry and States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ on the surface in response to an oil fluorescence signatures targeted to the as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). discharge for more than 96 hours after type of oil discharged and referenced List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 initial application, the responsible party against the source oil. shall implement paragraphs (a) through (3) Dissolved oxygen (DO) (subsurface Environmental protection, Area (g) of this section for the remaining only). contingency planning, Chemical agents, duration of surface dispersant use. (4) Total petroleum hydrocarbons, Daily reporting, Dispersants, Hazardous (a) Document: individual resolvable constituents Substances, Intergovernmental relations, (1) The characteristics of the source including volatile organic compounds, Monitoring, Natural resources, Oil oil. aliphatic hydrocarbons, monocyclic, pollution, Oil spills, Oil spill mitigating (2) The best estimate of the oil polycyclic, and other aromatic devices, On-scene coordinator, Quality discharge volume or flow rate, hydrocarbons including alkylated assurance, Regional response teams, periodically reevaluated as conditions homologs, and hopane and sterane Reporting and recordkeeping dictate, including a description of the biomarker compounds. requirements, Responsible party. method, associated uncertainties, and (5) Methane, if present (subsurface Dated: July 6, 2021. materials. only). (3) The dispersant used, rationale for Michael S. Regan, (6) Heavy metals, including nickel dispersant choice(s) including the Administrator. and vanadium. results of any efficacy and toxicity tests (7) Turbidity. For the reasons set out in the specific to area or site conditions, (8) Water temperature. preamble, the Environmental Protection recommended dispersant-to-oil ratio (9) pH. Agency amends 40 CFR part 300 as (DOR). (10) Conductivity. follows: (4) The application method(s) and (c) Considering available procedures, including a description of technologies, characterize the dispersant PART 300—NATIONAL OIL AND the equipment to be used, hourly effectiveness and oil distribution HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES application rates, capacities, and total including trajectory, accounting for the POLLUTION CONTINGENCY PLAN amount of dispersant. condition of oil, dispersant, and (5) For subsurface discharges, the best dispersed oil components from the ■ 1. The authority citation for part 300 estimate of the discharge flow rate of discharge location, and describing continues to read as follows: any associated volatile petroleum associated uncertainties.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR2.SGM 27JYR2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 40264 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

(d) Characterize the ecological rate for subsurface application, based on (e.g., within 24 hours of collection), receptors (e.g., aquatic species, wildlife, the dispersant volume authorized for 24 including documented observations, and/or other biological resources) and hours use, and the reason for the photographs, video, and any other their habitats that may be present in the deviation. information related to dispersant use, discharge area and their exposure (2) Ecological receptors of unless an alternate time frame is pathways. The characterization shall environmental importance, and any authorized by the OSC. include, but is not limited to, those other ecological receptors as identified (3) For analyses that take more than species that may be in sensitive life by the OSC or the Natural Resource 24 hours due to analytical methods, stages, transient or migratory species, Trustees, including any threatened or breeding or breeding-related activities endangered species that may be exposed provide such data and results as (e.g., embryo and larvae development), based on dispersed plume trajectory available but no later than five days, and threatened and/or endangered modeling and level of concern unless an alternate time frame is species that may be exposed to the oil information. authorized by the OSC. that is not dispersed, the dispersed oil, (f) Report daily to the OSC water (4) Estimates of the daily transport of and the dispersant alone. The sampling and data analyses collected in dispersed oil, non-dispersed oil, the responsible party shall also estimate an paragraph (b) of this section and associated volatile petroleum acute toxicity level of concern for the include: hydrocarbons, and dispersants, using dispersed oil using available dose- (1) For each application platform, the available technology as described in response information relevant to actual amount of dispersant used for paragraph (c) of this section. each one-hour period and the total potentially exposed species following a (g) Report all information provided to amount of dispersant used for the species sensitivity distribution. the OSC under paragraphs (e) and (f) of (e) Immediately report to the OSC previous 24-hour reporting period. this section to the applicable RRT(s). any: (2) All collected data and analyses of (1) Deviation of more than 10 percent those data within a time frame [FR Doc. 2021–15122 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] from the mean hourly dispersant use necessary to make operational decisions BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\27JYR2.SGM 27JYR2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 FEDERAL REGISTER

Vol. 86 Tuesday, No. 141 July 27, 2021

Part III

Department of Energy

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 18 CFR Part 35 Building for the Future Through Electric Regional Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation and Generator Interconnection; Proposed Rule

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:36 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\27JYP2.SGM 27JYP2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 40266 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY interested persons to submit comments Energy Regulatory Commission, Office on the potential reforms and in response of the Secretary, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Federal Energy Regulatory to specific questions. Rockville, MD 20852. Commission DATES: Comments are due October 12, The Comment Procedures Section of 2021 and Reply Comments are due this document contains more detailed 18 CFR Part 35 November 9, 2021. filing procedures. [Docket No. RM21–17–000] ADDRESSES: Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Building for the Future Through following ways. Electronic filing David Borden (Technical Information), Electric Regional Transmission through https://www.ferc.gov, is Office of Energy Policy and Planning and Cost Allocation and preferred. Innovation, 888 First Street NE, Generator Interconnection • Electronic Filing: Documents must Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502– be filed in acceptable native 8734, [email protected] AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory applications and print-to-PDF, but not Commission. Christopher Gore (Technical in scanned or picture format. Information), Office of Energy Market • For those unable to file ACTION: Advance notice of proposed Regulation, 888 First Street NE, electronically, comments may be filed rulemaking. Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502– by U.S. Postal Service mail or by hand 8507, [email protected]. SUMMARY: The Federal Energy (including courier) delivery. Regulatory Commission (Commission) is Æ Mail via U.S. Postal Service only: Lina Naik (Legal Information), Office of issuing an Advance Notice of Proposed Addressed to: Federal Energy the General Counsel, 888 First Street Rulemaking (ANOPR) presenting Regulatory Commission, Office of the NE, Washington, DC 20426, (202) potential reforms to improve the electric Secretary, 888 First Street NE, 502–8882, [email protected] regional transmission planning and cost Washington, DC 20426. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: allocation and generator interconnection Æ For delivery via any other carrier processes. The Commission invites all (including courier): Deliver to: Federal Table of Contents

Paragraph Nos.

I. Introduction ...... 1 II. Background ...... 6 A. Regional Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation Process ...... 6 1. Regional Transmission Planning Requirements ...... 8 2. Nonincumbent Transmission Developer Reforms ...... 9 3. Regional Transmission Cost Allocation ...... 11 4. Interregional Transmission Coordination ...... 12 B. Overview of Transmission Planning ...... 13 1. Reliability Needs ...... 14 2. Economic Needs ...... 15 3. Public Policy Requirement Needs ...... 16 4. Local Transmission Facilities in the Regional Transmission Planning Process ...... 17 C. Overview of Generator Interconnection ...... 18 D. Interaction Between the Regional Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation and Generator Interconnection Processes ...... 23 E. Current Funding Paradigm ...... 24 1. Regional Transmission Cost Allocation ...... 24 2. Local Transmission Facilities ...... 25 3. Interconnection-Related Network Upgrades ...... 28 III. The Potential Need for Reform ...... 30 A. The Existing Regional Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation and Generator Interconnection Processes May Be Inadequate To Ensure Just and Reasonable Rates ...... 30 1. Considering Anticipated Future Generation ...... 31 2. Results of Existing Local and Regional Transmission Planning Processes ...... 37 3. Cost Responsibility for Transmission Facilities and Interconnection-Related Network Upgrades ...... 38 IV. Consideration of Potential Reforms and Request for Comment ...... 44 A. Regional Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation Processes ...... 44 1. Potential Reforms and Request for Comment ...... 44 a. Planning for the Transmission Needs of Anticipated Future Generation ...... 44 i. Future Scenarios and Modeling Anticipated Future Generation ...... 46 ii. Identifying Geographic Zones That Have Potential for High Amounts of Renewable Resource Development to Meet Increased Demand ...... 54 iii. Incentivizing Regional Transmission Facilities ...... 61 iv. Enhanced Interregional or State-to-State Coordination ...... 62 b. Coordinating Between the Regional Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation and Generator Interconnection Processes ...... 65 B. Identification of Cost and Responsibility for Regional Transmission Facilities and Interconnection-Related Network Upgrades ...... 69 1. Relevant Cost Causation Precedent ...... 74 2. Cost Allocation for Transmission Facilities Planned through the Regional Transmission Planning Process ...... 75 a. Background ...... 76 b. Potential Need for Reform ...... 83 c. Potential Reforms and Request for Comment ...... 90 3. Participant Funding and Crediting Policy for Funding Interconnection-Related Network Upgrades ...... 100 a. Background ...... 101 i. Original Rationale for the Order No. 2003 Interconnection-Related Network Upgrade Funding Requirements ...... 101 (a) Crediting Policy ...... 102 (b) Participant Funding ...... 105 b. Potential Need for Reform ...... 111 i. Participant Funding ...... 111 ii. Crediting Policy ...... 120 c. Potential Reforms and Request for Comment ...... 121 i. Eliminate Participant Funding for Interconnection-Related Network Upgrades ...... 123 ii. Revisions to the Existing Crediting Policy ...... 131

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:36 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27JYP2.SGM 27JYP2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Proposed Rules 40267

Paragraph Nos.

(a) Transmission Providers Provide Upfront Funding for All Interconnection-Related Network Upgrades ...... 132 (b) Interconnection Customers Contribute to the Upfront Funding of Interconnection-Related Network Upgrades Through a Fee 135 (c) Transmission Providers Provide Upfront Funding for Only Higher Voltage Interconnection-Related Network Upgrades ...... 139 (d) Allocate the Upfront Cost of Interconnection-Related Network Upgrades on a Percentage Basis ...... 146 iii. Additional Considerations ...... 150 (a) Interconnection-Related Network Upgrade Cost Sharing ...... 150 (b) Option To Build ...... 151 (c) Interconnection Request Limit ...... 153 (d) Fast-Track for Interconnection of Generating Facilities Committed to Regional Transmission Facilities ...... 154 (e) Fast-Track for Interconnection of ‘‘Ready’’ Generating Facilities ...... 157 (f) Grid-Enhancing Technologies ...... 158 C. Enhanced Transmission Oversight ...... 159 1. Potential Need for Reform ...... 160 2. Potential Reforms and Request for Comment ...... 163 a. State Oversight ...... 176 b. Limitation on Recovery of Costs for Abandoned Projects ...... 178 c. Additional Oversight Approaches ...... 180 D. Transition ...... 181 V. Comment Procedures ...... 183 VI. Document Availability ...... 186

I. Introduction jurisdictional service are just and reasonable and that reliability is maintained.5 1. Pursuant to its authority under in light of changing conditions in the Accordingly, we will consider herein industry. In addition, the Commission section 206 of the Federal Power Act whether and which reforms and believes that these reforms address (FPA),1 the Federal Energy Regulatory revisions are necessary to the opportunities for undue discrimination by Commission’s regulations on these Commission (Commission) is public utility transmission providers.4 considering the potential need for topics. This Advanced Notice of reforms or revisions to existing 3. More than a decade after Order No. Proposed Rulemaking (ANOPR) regulations to improve the electric 1000, we believe it appropriate to discusses proposals or concepts for regional transmission planning and cost review the issues addressed by that changes to existing processes in several broad categories: Regional transmission allocation and generator interconnection order and other transmission-related planning, regional cost allocation, processes. regulations and determine whether generator interconnection funding, 2. Approximately 10 years ago, the additional reforms to the regional 2 generator interconnection queueing Commission issued Order No. 1000. transmission planning and cost processes and consumer protection, and That order stated its purpose generally allocation and generator interconnection in several instances the ANOPR also in its introduction: processes or revisions to existing offers a potential rationale or argument regulations are needed to ensure rates The reforms herein are intended to for potential proposals. We note that the improve transmission planning processes for Commission-jurisdictional service Commission has not predetermined that and cost allocation mechanisms under the remain just and reasonable, and not pro forma Open Access Transmission Tariff any specific proposal discussed herein unduly discriminatory or preferential. shall or should be made or in what final (OATT) to ensure that the rates, terms and The electricity sector is transforming as conditions of service provided by public form; rather, we seek comment from the utility transmission providers are just and the generation fleet shifts from resources public on these proposals and welcome reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or located close to population centers commenters to offer additional or preferential. This Final Rule builds on Order toward resources, including renewables, 3 alternative proposals for consideration. No. 890, in which the Commission, among that may often be located far from load 5. We believe it appropriate to review other things, reformed the pro forma OATT centers. The growth of new resources to require each public utility transmission whether there are questions that should seeking to interconnect to the be explored and possible solutions provider to have a coordinated, open, and transmission system and the differing transparent regional transmission planning proposed regarding any potential process. After careful review of the characteristics of those resources are shortcomings in the existing regional voluminous record in this proceeding, the creating new demands on the transmission planning and cost Commission concludes that the additional transmission system. Ensuring just and allocation and generator interconnection reforms adopted herein are necessary at this reasonable rates as the resource mix processes, which may have become time to ensure that rates for Commission- changes, while maintaining grid evident since the Commission issued reliability, remains the priority in the Order No. 2003,6 Order No. 890, and 1 16 U.S.C. 824e. Section 206 requires that regional transmission planning and cost Order No. 1000. We seek comment on transmission rates be just and reasonable, and not allocation and generator interconnection unduly discriminatory or preferential. several topics across transmission 2 Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation by processes. planning and cost allocation and Transmission Owning and Operating Public 4. In light of these evolving interconnection queue processes, as Utilities, Order No. 1000, 136 FERC ¶ 61,051 (2011), well as oversight of transmission order on reh’g, Order No. 1000–A, 139 FERC conditions, we believe it timely and ¶ 61,132, order on reh’g and clarification, Order No. appropriate to consider whether there infrastructure development. Examples 1000–B, 141 FERC ¶ 61,044 (2012), aff’d sub nom. should be changes in the regional S.C. Pub. Serv. Auth. v. FERC, 762 F.3d 41 (D.C. Cir. transmission planning and cost 5 16 U.S.C. 824e. 2014). allocation and generator interconnection 6 Standardization of Generator Interconnection 3 Preventing Undue Discrimination and Agreements and Procedures, Order No. 2003, 104 Preference in Transmission Service, Order No. 890, processes and, if so, which changes are FERC ¶ 61,103 (2003), order on reh’g, Order No. 118 FERC ¶ 61,119, order on reh’g, Order No. 890– necessary to ensure that transmission 2003–A, 106 FERC ¶ 61,220, order on reh’g, Order A, 121 FERC ¶ 61,297 (2007), order on reh’g, Order rates remain just and reasonable and not No. 2003–B, 109 FERC ¶ 61,287 (2004), order on No. 890–B, 123 FERC ¶ 61,299 (2008), order on unduly discriminatory or preferential reh’g, Order No. 2003–C, 111 FERC ¶ 61,401 (2005), reh’g, Order No. 890–C, 126 FERC ¶ 61,228, order aff’d sub nom. Nat’l Ass’n of Regul. Util. Comm’rs on clarification, Order No. 890–D, 129 FERC v. FERC, 475 F.3d 1277 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (NARUC ¶ 61,126 (2009). 4 Order No. 1000, 136 FERC ¶ 61,051 at P 1. v. FERC).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:36 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27JYP2.SGM 27JYP2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 40268 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Proposed Rules

of such questions for which we will customers of load serving entities; 9 (6) issued Order No. 890 to remedy flaws in seek comment in this ANOPR include, whether and which reforms are the pro forma OATT, and in so doing, among others: (1) Whether the existing necessary to the generator required coordinated, open, and regional transmission planning and cost interconnection process to ensure a transparent transmission planning on allocation processes appropriately more purposeful integration with the both a local and regional level. considers the transmission needs of regional transmission planning and cost Specifically, the Commission required, anticipated future generation to drive allocation processes, a more efficient among other things, that each study assumptions, or instead relies on queueing process, and a more efficient transmission provider’s 11 local less comprehensive information, such as and cost-effective allocation of transmission planning process satisfy existing interconnection requests with interconnection costs; (7) whether the nine transmission planning principles: completed facilities studies, and regional transmission planning and cost (1) Coordination; (2) openness; (3) whether such current planning criteria allocation processes may have resulted transparency; (4) information exchange; are appropriate or should be revised; (2) in transmission facilities addressing an (5) comparability; (6) dispute resolution; whether the regional transmission unduly narrow set of transmission (7) regional participation; (8) economic needs, including needs located in a planning studies; and (9) cost allocation planning and cost allocation processes’ 12 consideration of transmission needs single transmission owner’s footprint, for new projects. 7. In 2011, the Commission issued driven by reliability, economic and having limited region-wide benefits, but that, collectively, may impose Order No. 1000 to build on the considerations, and Public Policy transmission planning requirements of Requirements 7 are inappropriately significant costs on customers; (8) whether and how to better coordinate Order No. 890. Order No. 1000 included siloed from one another, and, if so, a package of reforms to ensure that the whether this influences the between regional and local transmission planning processes to identify more transmission planning and cost consideration of potential benefits of a allocation mechanisms embodied in the regional transmission facility (and the efficient or cost-effective solutions; and (9) whether it is necessary, and how, to pro forma OATT were adequate to associated beneficiaries for purposes of more clearly identify the lines of support the development of more allocating the costs of such a facility); 8 regulatory authority and oversight efficient or cost-effective transmission (3) whether criteria in addition to those 13 between states and federal authorities facilities. The reforms in Order No. related to reliability, economic, and with regard to regional and local 1000 fell into the following categories: Public Policy Requirements needs transmission facilities to ensure (1) Regional transmission planning; (2) should be planned for and considered in appropriate vetting of transmission transmission needs driven by Public the evaluation of benefits, and used to infrastructure. In addition, we seek Policy Requirements; (3) nonincumbent determine cost allocation in the regional comment regarding whether the current transmission developer reforms; (4) transmission planning process, and approach to oversight of transmission regional and interregional cost these needs should be clear, credibly investment adequately protects allocation; and (5) interregional quantifiable and not speculative; (4) customers, particularly given the transmission coordination. Here we how to appropriately identify and potentially significant and very costly provide a brief overview of the Order allocate the costs of new transmission investments proposed to meet the No. 1000 regional transmission planning infrastructure in a manner that satisfies transmission needs driven by a requirements, nonincumbent developer the Commission’s cost-causation changing resource mix, and, if reforms, regional transmission cost principle that costs are allocated to customers are not adequately protected allocation rules, and interregional beneficiaries in a manner that is at least from excessive costs, which potential transmission coordination. roughly commensurate with estimated reforms may be required and are legally 1. Regional Transmission Planning benefits; (5) whether or not it is permissible to ensure just and Requirements appropriate for the costs of state or local reasonable rates. public policy-driven transmission 8. Order No. 1000 requires that each facilities to be shifted through regional II. Background transmission provider participate in a regional transmission planning process cost allocation to consumers in non- A. Regional Transmission Planning and participating states, or whether changes that produces a regional transmission Cost Allocation Process 14 to current interconnection cost plan. Through the regional allocation mechanisms may unjustly 6. In 1996, the Commission issued transmission planning process, and unreasonably shift costs to Order No. 888 and the accompanying transmission providers must evaluate, pro forma OATT, setting forth certain in consultation with stakeholders,

7 minimum requirements for transmission Public Policy Requirements are requirements 10 established by local, state, or federal laws or planning. In 2007, the Commission Transmission Access Policy Study Group v. FERC, regulations (i.e., enacted statutes passed by the 225 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2000), aff’d sub nom. New legislature and signed by the executive and 9 Under current Commission policy, the costs of York v. FERC, 535 U.S. 1 (2002). regulations promulgated by a relevant jurisdiction, interconnection-related network upgrades are either 11 In this order, we use the term ‘‘transmission whether within a state or at the federal level). Order (1) directly assigned to the interconnection provider’’ when referring to a public utility that No. 1000, 136 FERC ¶ 61,051 at P 2. The customer or (2) funded initially by the owns, controls, or operates transmission facilities. Commission clarified that Public Policy interconnection customer and reimbursed through The term transmission provider should be read to Requirements established by state or federal laws or transmission service credits. include the transmission owner when the regulations include duly enacted laws or 10 Promoting Wholesale Competition Through transmission owner is separate from the regulations passed by a local governmental agency, Open Access Non-Discriminatory Transmission transmission provider, as is the case in regional such as a municipal or county government. Order Services by Public Utilities; Recovery of Stranded transmission organizations (RTOs) and independent No. 1000–A, 139 FERC ¶ 61,132 at P 319. Order No. Costs by Public Utilities and Transmitting Utilities, system operators (ISOs). 1000 left planning and cost allocation for Public Order No. 888, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,036 (1996) 12 Order No. 890, 118 FERC ¶ 61,119 at PP 418– Policy Requirements largely to the discretion of (cross-referenced at 75 FERC ¶ 61,080), order on 601. transmission providers. See also infra P 16. reh’g, Order No. 888–A, FERC Stats. & Regs. 13 Order No. 1000, 136 FERC ¶ 61,051 at PP 11– 8 A regional transmission facility is a ¶ 31,048 (cross-referenced at 78 FERC ¶ 61,220), 12, 42–44; Order No. 1000–A, 139 FERC ¶ 61,132 transmission facility located entirely in one order on reh’g, Order No. 888–B, 81 FERC ¶ 61,248 at PP 3, 4–6. transmission planning region. Order No. 1000, 136 (1997), order on reh’g, Order No. 888–C, 82 FERC 14 Order No. 1000, 136 FERC ¶ 61,051 at PP 146, FERC ¶ 61,051 at n.374. ¶ 61,046 (1998), aff’d in relevant part sub nom. 148.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:36 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27JYP2.SGM 27JYP2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Proposed Rules 40269

alternative transmission solutions that and not unduly discriminatory process their reliability, economic, and Public might meet the region’s reliability, for evaluating whether to select a Policy Requirements needs, consistent economic, and Public Policy proposed transmission facility in the with Order Nos. 890 and 1000. Requirements needs 15 more efficiently regional transmission plan for purposes 1. Reliability Needs or cost-effectively than solutions that of cost allocation.22 Furthermore, the transmission providers identified in regional transmission planning process 14. Transmission providers within their local transmission planning must provide a nonincumbent transmission planning regions conduct processes.16 Order No. 1000 also transmission developer with the same reliability planning studies to help requires that the regional transmission eligibility as an incumbent transmission ensure the ability of the transmission planning process satisfy the Order No. developer to use a cost allocation system to serve firm transmission use. 890 transmission planning principles.17 method(s) for any sponsored These studies may extend 10 to 15 years Therefore, these transmission planning transmission facility selected in the into the future depending on the principles, which the Commission regional transmission plan for purposes transmission planning region’s adopted with respect to local of cost allocation.23 transmission planning process and tests transmission planning processes in for violations of established North 3. Regional Transmission Cost Order No. 890, also apply to the regional American Electric Reliability Allocation transmission planning processes Corporation (NERC) reliability established in Order No. 1000. 11. Order No. 1000 requires each requirements.28 Additional regional and transmission provider to have in place local reliability criteria may also apply 2. Nonincumbent Transmission a method, or set of methods, for in specific transmission planning Developer Reforms allocating the costs of new regional regions. In order to meet applicable 9. Order No. 1000 institutes a number transmission facilities selected in the reliability planning criteria, the regional of reforms that seek to ensure that regional transmission plan for purposes transmission planning process focuses nonincumbent transmission developers of cost allocation.24 Each regional cost on studying and producing a have an opportunity to participate in the allocation method must satisfy six transmission system that is robust regional transmission development regional cost allocation principles,25 enough to be able to withstand a range process.18 In particular, Order No. 1000 including the principle that the cost of of probable contingencies (e.g., the requires that each transmission provider transmission facilities must be allocated sudden loss of a generator or high eliminate provisions in Commission- to those in the transmission planning voltage transmission line) while reliably jurisdictional tariffs and agreements that region that benefit from the facilities in serving customer demand and establish a federal right of first refusal a manner that is roughly commensurate preventing cascading outages.29 for an incumbent transmission provider with estimated benefits.26 Generally, transmission providers with respect to transmission facilities 4. Interregional Transmission identify areas not in compliance with selected in a regional transmission plan Coordination planning criteria and develop plans to for purposes of cost allocation.19 Order achieve compliance. Transmission No. 1000 defines a transmission facility 12. Order No. 1000 requires each providers examine facilities to mitigate selected in a regional transmission plan transmission provider, through its identified reliability criteria violations regional transmission planning process, for purposes of cost allocation as one for their feasibility, impact, and to establish further procedures with that has been selected because it is a comparative costs, culminating in a each of its neighboring transmission more efficient or cost-effective solution recommended regional transmission 20 planning regions for the purpose of to a regional transmission need. plan. 10. In addition, Order No. 1000 coordinating and sharing the results of requires that each regional transmission respective regional transmission plans 2. Economic Needs planning process include not unduly to identify possible interregional 15. Transmission providers within discriminatory qualification criteria and transmission facilities that could transmission planning regions also plan information requirements for address transmission needs more transmission facilities to meet economic transmission developers that want to efficiently or cost-effectively than needs. In Order No. 1000, the propose a transmission facility for separate regional transmission facilities. Commission recognized that Order No. selection in the regional transmission The interregional coordination 890 placed no affirmative obligation on plan for purposes of cost allocation.21 processes must provide for: (1) The The regional transmission planning sharing of information regarding the 28 For example, Reliability Standard TPL–001–4 process must also have a transparent respective needs of each region and requires that Transmission Planners conduct an potential solutions to those needs; and annual planning assessment of their region’s 15 Order No. 1000’s requirement to consider (2) the identification and evaluation of portion of the bulk electric system and document transmission needs driven by Public Policy interregional transmission facilities that summarized results of the steady state analyses, Requirements is described below. short circuit analyses, and stability analyses. TPL– may be more efficient or cost-effective 001–4 also requires that Transmission Planners 16 Order No. 1000, 136 FERC ¶ 61,051 at PP 11, 27 conduct these analyses using a model of their 148. solutions to those regional needs. systems operating under a wide variety of potential 17 Id. P 151. Order No. 890 explains these B. Overview of Transmission Planning conditions to see under what, if any, conditions the transmission planning principles. system will fail to meet reliability criteria. TPL– 18 For purposes of Order No. 1000, 13. The next few paragraphs provide 001–4 lays out the variety of these conditions, ‘‘nonincumbent transmission developer’’ refers to an overview of how transmission including system peak, off-peak, single two categories of transmission developer: (1) A providers plan their systems to meet contingency, multiple contingencies (both transmission developer that does not have a retail sequential and simultaneous), severe contingencies distribution service territory or footprint; and (2) a on adjacent systems, sensitivity analyses to 22 Id. P 328; Order No. 1000–A, 139 FERC transmission provider that proposes a transmission underlying model assumptions, and extreme events. ¶ 61,132 at P 452. facility outside of its existing retail distribution 29 The regional transmission planning process 23 Order No. 1000, 136 FERC ¶ 61,051 at P 332. service territory or footprint, where it is not the will identify the necessary transmission system 24 incumbent for purposes of that project. Id. P 225. Id. P 558. facilities (which have varying costs and lead times 19 Id. P 313. 25 Id. P 603. for when they can be placed into service) that are 20 Id. PP 5, 63. 26 Id. PP 622, 639. needed to achieve reliable transmission system 21 Id. PP 225, 323, 325. 27 Id. P 396. operations.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:36 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27JYP2.SGM 27JYP2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 40270 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Proposed Rules

transmission providers to perform mandate the consideration of any transmission providers’ OATTs economic planning studies absent a particular transmission need driven by incorporate the pro forma LGIP and pro request by stakeholders. To remedy this a Public Policy Requirement.34 As a forma LGIA. deficiency, Order No. 1000 required result, the process for identifying and 19. In Order No. 2003, the that, in addition to economic planning considering such needs varies from Commission also retained a distinction studies requested by stakeholders, transmission planning region to between interconnection facilities, transmission providers evaluate, transmission planning region. which are located between the through a regional transmission interconnection customer’s generating planning process and in consultation 4. Local Transmission Facilities in the facility and the transmission provider’s with stakeholders, alternative Regional Transmission Planning Process transmission system, and network transmission solutions that might meet 17. Generally, the transmission upgrades,40 which include only the needs of the transmission planning facilities that transmission providers facilities at or beyond the point where region more efficiently or cost- include in their individual local the interconnection customer’s effectively than solutions identified by transmission plans are incorporated into generating facility interconnects to the individual transmission providers in regional transmission plans as inputs, transmission provider’s transmission their local transmission planning with minimal opportunity for system.41 This distinction is important process. These regional transmission stakeholder review in the regional because the determination of which solutions could include transmission transmission planning process. That is entity is ultimately responsible for the facilities needed to meet reliability because the analysis of local cost of a facility can depend on whether requirements, address economic transmission plans in the regional that facility is an interconnection considerations, and/or meet transmission planning process is limited facility or an interconnection-related transmission needs driven by Public mainly to a reliability analysis to ensure network upgrade. Policy Requirements.30 As Order No. that local transmission plans do not 20. To initiate the generator 890 explains, the purpose of economic negatively affect the reliability of the interconnection process set forth in 42 transmission planning is to plan regional transmission system. Order No. 2003, the interconnection transmission to alleviate congestion customer submits an interconnection through the integration of new C. Overview of Generator request associated with its proposed generation resources or an expansion of Interconnection generating facility that includes the regional transmission system, by an 18. In Order No. 2003, the preliminary site documentation, certain amount that justifies its cost, usually by Commission recognized a need for a technical information about the a defined threshold.31 However, to single set of interconnection procedures proposed generating facility, and the implement the requirement in Order No. for jurisdictional transmission providers expected in-service date along with a 43 1000 to affirmatively plan for economic and a single, uniformly applicable deposit. The transmission provider needs, transmission providers interconnection agreement for large uses this information to determine the implemented thresholds that vary across generators.35 The Commission interconnection facilities and the regions. Examples of regional explained that generator interconnection-related network transmission facilities driven by interconnection is a ‘‘critical component upgrades necessary to accommodate the economic needs include transmission interconnection request and their of open access transmission service and 44 facilities that relieve historical or thus is subject to the requirement that associated costs. 21. After the transmission provider projected transmission congestion and utilities offer comparable service under determines that the interconnection allow lower-cost power to flow to the OATT.’’ 36 The Commission also request is complete, the interconnection consumers. determined that, because of the request will enter the interconnection inefficiency of addressing generator 3. Public Policy Requirement Needs queue with other pending requests, and interconnection issues on a case-by-case 16. Order No. 1000 requires the transmission provider will assign basis,37 it was appropriate to establish a transmission providers to consider the request a queue position based on standard set of generator transmission needs driven by Public the date and time of receipt. The queue interconnection procedures to Policy Requirements in their local and position will determine the order in ‘‘minimize opportunities for undue regional transmission planning which the transmission provider will processes.32 However, the requirement discrimination and expedite the perform three phases of interconnection in Order No. 1000 to consider development of new generation, while studies for the interconnection request. protecting reliability and ensuring that The three phases in order are: (1) The transmission needs driven by Public 38 Policy Requirements is limited, and the rates are just and reasonable.’’ To this feasibility study; (2) the system impact Commission provided transmission end, the Commission adopted the pro providers with flexibility in how to forma Large Generator Interconnection generating facilities that have a generating facility meet the requirement. For example, Procedures (LGIP) and pro forma Large capacity of more than 20 MW. 40 Order No. 1000 does not require that a Generator Interconnection Agreement For clarity, this ANOPR will refer to these (LGIA) 39 and required that all facilities as interconnection-related network separate class of transmission facilities upgrades. be created in the regional transmission 41 Id. P 21. ‘‘provide flexibility for public utility transmission 42 planning process to address providers to develop procedures appropriate for While we provide a broad description of the transmission needs driven by Public their local and regional transmission planning generator interconnection process under Order No. 2003 as background here, we recognize that many Policy Requirements,33 nor does it processes’’). 34 transmission providers have adopted (and the Id. P 215. Commission has accepted) variations to many of the 30 Order No. 1000, 136 FERC ¶ 61,051 at PP 147– 35 Order No. 2003, 104 FERC ¶ 61,103 at P 11. terms in the pro forma LGIP and the pro forma 148. 36 Id. P 9 (citing Tenn. Power Co., 90 FERC LGIA. Consequently, some or many of the details 31 Order No. 890, 118 FERC ¶ 61,119 at P 549. ¶ 61,238 (2000)). of a particular transmission provider’s generator 32 Order No. 1000, 136 FERC ¶ 61,051 at PP 203, 37 Id. P 10. interconnection process may vary considerably 222; Order No. 1000–A, 139 FERC ¶ 61,132 at P 208. 38 Id. P 11. from the broad description provided here. 33 Order No. 1000, 136 FERC ¶ 61,051 at P 220 39 The pro forma LGIP and pro forma LGIA 43 Id. P 35. (explaining that the Final Rule is intended to govern large generating facilities, which are 44 Pro forma LGIP Section 3.1.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:36 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27JYP2.SGM 27JYP2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Proposed Rules 40271

study; and (3) the facilities study, all of E. Current Funding Paradigm a transmission provider’s local which are necessary to determine the transmission plan be subject to approval 1. Regional Transmission Cost interconnection facilities and at the regional or interregional level, Allocation interconnection-related network unless that transmission provider seeks upgrades needed to accommodate the 24. As noted above, Order No. 1000’s to have any of those facilities selected interconnection request and the cost allocation reforms require each in the regional transmission plan for interconnection customer’s cost transmission provider to participate in a purposes of cost allocation.53 responsibility for these facilities.45 regional transmission planning process 27. Moreover, local transmission that features a regional cost allocation 22. At the completion of the facilities facilities planned through a local method or methods for allocating the study, the transmission provider will transmission planning process are not cost of new regional transmission issue a report, which includes a ‘‘best eligible to use the Order No. 1000 facilities selected in a regional estimate of the costs to effect the regional cost allocation method and transmission plan for purposes of cost requested interconnection,’’ and provide instead their costs are allocated to the allocation. The Commission also transmission provider in whose retail a draft generator interconnection required that such regional cost agreement to the interconnection distribution service territory or footprint 46 allocation methods satisfy six regional the local transmission facility is located. customer. If the interconnection cost allocation principles, including the customer wishes to proceed, after In support of this, the Commission principle that the cost of transmission explained that it continues to permit an negotiations, the interconnection facilities must be allocated to those in customer enters into a generator incumbent transmission provider to the transmission planning region that meet its reliability needs or service interconnection agreement with the benefit from the facilities in a manner transmission provider or requests that obligations by choosing to build new that is roughly commensurate with transmission facilities that are located the transmission provider file the estimated benefits.49 agreement with the Commission solely within its retail distribution unexecuted.47 2. Local Transmission Facilities service territory or footprint as long as the transmission provider does not 25. In Order No. 1000, the D. Interaction Between the Regional receive regional cost allocation for the Commission explained that the local Transmission Planning and Cost 54 transmission planning process is the facilities. Further, the Commission Allocation and Generator clarified that nothing in Order No. 1000 Interconnection Processes transmission planning process that a transmission provider performs for its restricts an incumbent transmission provider from developing a local 23. The interaction between a individual retail distribution service transmission solution that is not eligible transmission provider’s current territory or footprint pursuant to the for regional cost allocation to meet its generator interconnection process and requirements of Order No. 890.50 The reliability needs or service obligations its regional transmission planning and outcome of the local transmission in its own retail distribution service cost allocation processes appears to be planning processes are local territory or footprint.55 limited. The primary interaction is that transmission facilities. In Order No. the baseline regional transmission 1000, the Commission defined a local 3. Interconnection-Related Network planning models generally only transmission facility as a transmission Upgrades facility located solely within a incorporate interconnection projects 28. The Commission’s transmission provider’s retail that are near the end of the interconnection pricing policy 56 allows distribution service territory or footprint interconnection process and have for two general approaches on how to completed a facilities study. In addition, that is not selected in the regional transmission plan for purposes of cost assign the cost of interconnection- when creating interconnection study related network upgrades, one of which models, transmission providers allocation.51 26. The Commission clarified that, if we refer to as the crediting policy and incorporate transmission planning the other as participant funding. We information into the interconnection the transmission provider has a retail distribution service territory and/or will discuss the rationale that the base cases, but what information is Commission provided when accepting incorporated varies for each footprint, then only a transmission facility that it decides to build within each of the two approaches in later transmission provider. The base cases sections. for interconnection studies impact the that retail distribution service territory or footprint, and that is not selected in 29. In Order No. 2003, the cost assignment for interconnection Commission established the crediting customers, often dramatically, and at a regional transmission plan for purposes of cost allocation, may be policy as a requirement of the present, most transmission providers’ Commission’s interconnection pricing OATTs do not contain requirements for considered a local transmission facility. Further, the Commission explained that, policy. Pursuant to the crediting policy, what information is included in base the interconnection customer is solely cases.48 in the case of an RTO/ISO whose footprint covers the entire region, local responsible for the costs of transmission facilities are defined by interconnection facilities, and 45 Order No. 2003, 104 FERC ¶ 61,103 at PP 35– interconnection-related network 36. The interconnection customer is responsible for reference to the retail distribution the costs of interconnection studies and any service territories or footprints of its upgrades are funded initially by the necessary restudies. underlying transmission owing 46 Id. P 38. members.52 The Commission did not 53 Id. P 190. 54 47 Id. require that the transmission facilities in Id. PP 366, 379, 425, 428. 48 For example, some transmission providers have 55 Order No. 1000, 136 FERC ¶ 61,051 at P 329. details regarding what information is included in an 56 We use the term interconnection pricing policy 49 interconnection study base case in their tariffs, see Order No. 1000, 136 FERC ¶ 61,051 at PP 622, to refer collectively to both Order No. 2003’s e.g. Sw. Power Pool, Inc., 172 FERC ¶ 61,283, at P10 639. The six Order No. 1000 regional cost allocation establishment of the crediting policy for financing (2020), while others limit that information to the principles are discussed further below. interconnection-related network upgrades and business practices manuals. See, e.g., NYISO 50 Id. P 68. Order No. 2003’s allowance of participant funding Manual 26, Reliability Planning Process Manual at 51 Id. P 63. for interconnection-related network upgrades in 15–16. 52 Order No. 1000–A, 139 FERC ¶ 61,132 at P 429. RTOs/ISOs.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:36 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27JYP2.SGM 27JYP2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 40272 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Proposed Rules

interconnection customer (unless the III. The Potential Need for Reform customers already in the queue. It appears that these types of transmission transmission provider elects to fund A. The Existing Regional Transmission facilities may not currently be planned them) and the transmission provider Planning and Cost Allocation and and built in advance to meet the needs reimburses the interconnection Generator Interconnection Processes of anticipated future generation and as customer through transmission service May Be Inadequate To Ensure Just and 57 a result, interconnection customers are credits. The Commission reasoned Reasonable Rates that ‘‘it is appropriate for the assigned the costs to construct large, 30. As a result of changing Interconnection Customer to pay high-voltage transmission facilities. circumstances since the Commission 34. In addition, because transmission initially the full cost of Interconnection issued Order Nos. 890, 1000, and 2003, planning processes generally do not Facilities and [interconnection-related] we believe it is now appropriate to plan for the needs of anticipated future Network Upgrades that would not be examine whether the existing regional generation, transmission infrastructure 58 needed but for the interconnection.’’ transmission planning and cost that is being developed in order to While the interconnection customer allocation and generator interconnection facilitate new generation is constructed pays for the costs of the processes adequately account for the largely through the generator interconnection-related network transmission needs of the changing interconnection process, which is upgrades upfront, the transmission resource mix, or whether reforms may unlikely to result in the economies of provider must reimburse the total be necessary to ensure that transmission scale that could more efficiently or cost- amount that the interconnection rates remain just and reasonable and not effectively meet the needs of the customer paid for interconnection- unduly discriminatory or preferential. changing resource mix. 35. Likewise, the existing generator related network upgrades, plus interest, 1. Considering Anticipated Future interconnection process appears to as credits against the charges for Generation transmission service taken with respect focus on the limited set of facilities to the interconnection customer’s 31. Expansion of the transmission needed to reliably interconnect a single system generally occurs by design generating facility as such charges are interconnection customer (or cluster of through a transmission provider’s incurred. The transmission provider requests) at the interconnection service transmission planning processes, or ad level that the interconnection customer recovers the cost of interconnection- hoc through its generator related network upgrades funded under requests. The generator interconnection interconnection process. At present, it process may not adequately consider the crediting policy through its appears that regional transmission 59 whether it may be more efficient or cost- embedded cost transmission rates. planning processes may not adequately effective to consider the The second pricing approach for model future scenarios to ensure that interconnection-related network interconnection-related network those scenarios incorporate sufficiently upgrades needed for multiple upgrades is called participant funding. long-term and comprehensive forecasts anticipated future generators that are Participant funding for interconnection- of future transmission needs, including not in the same cluster or are not yet in related network upgrades refers to the considering the needs of anticipated the interconnection queue in areas that direct assignment to a particular future generation in identifying needed have abundant wind or solar attributes interconnection customer of the costs of transmission facilities. Although that could support multiple future interconnection-related network regional transmission planning generators.61 upgrades that would not be needed but processes may include some level of 36. In addition, there may be a need for the interconnection.60 The generation development in different for coordination between the regional Commission has accepted as just and future scenarios analyses, it appears that transmission planning process and the reasonable various participant funding they tend to include in their baseline generator interconnection process, the approaches proposed by RTOs/ISOs as reliability models only those generators absence of which may result in independent entity variations from the that have completed facilities studies, inefficient investment in transmission pro forma requirements of Order No. and thus are far along in the generator infrastructure and ultimately unjust and 2003. interconnection process. These baseline unreasonable or unduly discriminatory reliability models, by relying only on or preferential rates. By considering the generators that have completed facilities transmission needs of anticipated future 57 Order No. 2003, 104 FERC ¶ 61,103 at P 22. studies, may only account for generation generation in its regional transmission 58 Id. P 694. ‘‘But for’’ interconnection-related that will come online in the short term. planning and cost allocation processes, network upgrades are those interconnection-related 32. As a result, the generator a transmission provider may identify network upgrades that would not have been interconnection process appears to be transmission facilities that could constructed ‘‘but for’’ the interconnection request. the principal means by which facilitate both the interconnection of See N.Y. Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 122 FERC infrastructure is built to accommodate new generation as well as address other ¶ 61,267, at n.3 (2008). identified transmission system needs— 59 new generators. That process, however, The embedded cost pricing ‘‘attempts to such as mitigating a reliability violation allocate costs among customers based upon usage.’’ focuses on a single interconnection Fla. Power & Light Co., 70 FERC ¶ 61,158 (1995). request (or cluster of requests). In other or reducing congestion—at a lower total Embedded cost rates reflect ‘‘system average costs words, the generator interconnection cost than pursuing two separate including the cost of the [interconnection-related] process is not designed to consider how transmission projects through the network upgrades, and incremental cost rates to address anything beyond the ‘‘reflect [ ] just the cost of the [interconnection- reliability interconnection-related 61 We note that certain regions do have the ability related] network upgrades.’’ See Interstate Power & network upgrades required for a specific to share costs of network upgrades with future generation, but this is generally limited to the short Light Co. v. ITC Midwest, LLC, 144 FERC ¶ 61,052, interconnection request or group of at P 36 (2013) (emphasis added). term. For example, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.’s (MISO’s) Shared Network 60 Order No. 845–B, 166 FERC ¶ 61,092 at P 5; see interconnection requests. Upgrade construct allows interconnection also Order No. 2003, 104 FERC ¶ 61,103 at P 679 33. New transmission facilities often have a development lead time that customers to be repaid for portions of an (pursuant to a ‘‘policy of participant funding . . . interconnection-related network upgrade’s cost if those [that] benefit from a particular project pay for exceeds the interconnection timing another interconnection customer uses that network it’’). needs of those interconnection upgrade within five years.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:36 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27JYP2.SGM 27JYP2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Proposed Rules 40273

generator interconnection and regional appropriately allocate the costs of those receive a favorable queue position and transmission planning and cost transmission facilities to the entities reduce their interconnection-related allocation processes. Without co- that ultimately benefit from them. network upgrade costs.63 When optimization of the two processes, 39. The current regional transmission interconnection customers ‘‘test the however, there appears to be no system planning process considers transmission waters’’ in this manner, it may lead to in place to jointly assess the benefits needs driven by reliability, economics, late-stage withdrawals of the excess and allocate the costs of transmission and Public Policy Requirements. We interconnection requests that can then facilities that yield benefits to both seek comment whether, by separating impede the transmission provider’s system loads and new generation. transmission facilities into types, ability to process its interconnection transmission planning processes may queue in an efficient manner. Because of 2. Results of Existing Local and Regional fail to take into account the benefits of the changing interconnection landscape Transmission Planning Processes multi-faceted projects for the purposes since Order No. 2003, the Commission’s 37. We seek to better understand of cost allocation. interconnection pricing policy, and in whether the current transmission 40. The current approach to allocating particular participant funding, now may planning processes may be resulting the costs of interconnection-related result in a situation where increasingly in transmission facilities network upgrades may fail to allocate interconnection customers have a addressing a narrow set of transmission costs in a manner that is roughly financial incentive to submit multiple needs, often located in a single commensurate with benefits. As speculative projects. As a result, we transmission owner’s footprint. To the discussed above, the generator believe it may be time to reexamine the extent that the requirements of the interconnection process identifies the rationale behind the Commission’s regional transmission planning process interconnection facilities and pricing policy established for result in transmission providers interconnection-related network interconnection-related network expanding predominately local upgrades needed to interconnect a upgrades and to consider reforms to transmission facilities, that process may single interconnection request (or generator interconnection processes that fail to identify more efficient or cost- cluster of requests). Under the would make such processes more effective transmission facilities needed participant funding approach to efficient, less costly, and ensure that to accommodate anticipated future financing the cost of interconnection- generation projects that are more generation. We seek to better related network upgrades, the ‘‘ready’’ than others are not unduly understand how the reforms of the interconnection customer pays for the delayed in the queue. In consideration federal right of first refusal in Order No. costs of such upgrades, even where they of generator interconnection process 1000 have shaped the type and would provide benefits to other reforms, we remain mindful of the need characteristics of transmission facilities customers such as resolving congestion to ensure that interconnection costs are developed through regional and local on the transmission system. At the time not unjustly and unreasonably shifted to transmission planning processes, such that the Commission issued Order No. customers of load-serving entities. as a relative increase in investment in 2003, it was less likely that 42. While a reassessment of Order No. local transmission facilities or the interconnection customers would be 2003’s assumptions pertaining to the diversity of projects resulting from assigned significant interconnection- Commission’s interconnection pricing competitive bidding processes. related network upgrades through the policy may be necessary, our focus is in interconnection study process. Now, 3. Cost Responsibility for Transmission line with Order No. 2003’s finding that however, there is little remaining Facilities and Interconnection-Related ‘‘relatively unencumbered entry into the existing interconnection capacity on the Network Upgrades market is necessary for competitive transmission system, particularly in markets.’’ 64 Furthermore, the purpose 38. The Commission cannot ensure areas with high degrees of renewable of this examination is also consistent just and reasonable rates without resources that may require new with the original objectives of Order No. considering how to allocate the costs of resources to fund interconnection- 2003, namely to ‘‘limit opportunities for transmission facilities and related network upgrades that are more Transmission Providers to favor their interconnection-related network extensive and, as a result, more owner generation’’ and to ‘‘facilitate upgrades that result from the regional expensive. The more significant the market entry for generation competitors transmission planning and cost interconnection-related network by reducing interconnection costs and allocation and generator interconnection upgrades needed to accommodate a new time.’’ 65 At the same time, there is processes to the entities that benefit resource, the greater the potential that reason to question the contention in from those facilities. As the Commission such upgrades may benefit more than Order No. 2003 that participant funding explained in Order No. 1000, the costs just the interconnection customer. provides more ‘‘efficient price signals of transmission infrastructure must be Where an interconnection customer and a more equitable allocation of costs allocated to its beneficiaries in a manner elects not to pursue a generating facility than the crediting approach.’’ 66 Also, that is at least roughly commensurate with system-wide benefits that exceeds while the crediting policy ‘‘recognizes with the benefits that they draw from such facility’s cost, net beneficial the reliability benefits of a stronger those facilities.62 We seek to better infrastructure would not be developed, understand whether the current potentially leaving a wide range of 63 See, e.g., Review of Generator Interconnection approach to allocating the costs of customers worse off as a result. Agreements and Procedures, Technical Conference transmission infrastructure, including 41. We also note that the cost of Transcript, Docket No. RM16–12–000, at Tr. 211:10–21 (May 13, 2016) (Steve Naumann, Exelon transmission facilities developed interconnection-related network Corporation) (filed Aug. 23, 2016) (‘‘We would look through the regional transmission upgrades can depend entirely on both at putting let’s say new gas fired generation in PJM, planning and cost allocation processes the timing of when and the specific site it may have four queue positions. And we only and interconnection-related network where the interconnection customer intend to go through with one, that’s not speculation, that’s trying to get information on upgrades planned through the generator enters the interconnection queue that which is the most viable.’’). interconnection process, continues to may result in interconnection customers 64 Order No. 2003, 104 FERC ¶ 61,103 at P 11. submitting multiple speculative 65 Id. P 12. 62 Order No. 1000, 136 FERC ¶ 61,051 at P 10. interconnection requests in an effort to 66 Id. P 695.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:36 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27JYP2.SGM 27JYP2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 40274 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Proposed Rules

transmission infrastructure and more 45. Below, we describe potential leads to rates that are unjust or competitive power markets that result changes to the regional transmission unreasonable. from a policy that facilitates the planning and cost allocation processes 47. The current regional transmission interconnection of new generating that may be components of a process planning and cost allocation processes facilities,’’ 67 we raise questions on that plans for transmission needs vary regarding how far into the future whether there are improvements that associated with anticipated future transmission providers look when can be made to the crediting policy or generation. We seek comment on each evaluating transmission needs driven by whether a different pricing policy may of these potential changes, including reliability, economic considerations, or be more efficient. whether and, if so, how the potential Public Policy Requirements. In general, 43. We note that ensuring just and changes may lead to identification of however, the extent to which regional reasonable rates, while maintaining grid more efficient or cost-effective transmission planning processes plan reliability, remain the priorities for transmission solutions to meet the for anticipated future generation is often regional transmission planning, and cost needs of anticipated future generation. limited to generation in the generator allocation processes, and generator We also seek comment on whether there interconnection queue with a completed interconnection processes, and any exist other potential revisions that could facilities study, which represents a comments proposing revisions to improve regional transmission planning relatively short-term outlook, and existing regulations should address their and cost allocation for anticipated therefore may under-forecast anticipated impact on reliability and costs to future generation, either as alternatives future generation on a longer-term basis customers. All proposed reforms or to potential reforms discussed herein or (and the associated transmission needs revisions to regulations proposed in this as supplementary reforms. of that anticipated future generation). As proceeding must be consistent with the noted, planning and developing the i. Future Scenarios and Modeling transmission facilities needed to address Commission’s authority under section Anticipated Future Generation 206 of the FPA. more efficiently or cost-effectively the 46. We seek comment on whether transmission needs of a changing IV. Consideration of Potential Reforms reforms are needed regarding how the resource mix will often take and Request for Comment regional transmission planning and cost considerably longer than the typical A. Regional Transmission Planning and allocation processes model future development timeline of a generating Cost Allocation Processes scenarios to ensure that those scenarios facility that has completed a facilities incorporate sufficiently long-term and study and by considering such a limited 1. Potential Reforms and Request for comprehensive forecasts of future subset of generation resources, more Comment transmission needs. We seek comment cost-effective transmission facilities that a. Planning for the Transmission Needs on what factors shaping the generation address longer-term needs may never be of Anticipated Future Generation mix are appropriate to use for developed. transmission planning purposes, such 48. In light of the above, we seek 44. We seek comment regarding as, for example: (1) Federal, state, and comment on whether, and if so, how the whether transmission providers in each local climate and clean energy laws and regional transmission planning process transmission planning region should regulations; (2) federal, state, and local should be restructured to consider a amend the regional transmission climate and clean energy goals that have longer-term outlook. We seek comment planning and cost allocation processes not been enshrined into law; (3) utility on whether developing plausible long- to plan for the transmission needs of and corporate energy and climate goals; term scenarios would lead to the anticipated future generation to meet a (4) trends in technology costs within identification of more efficient or cost- changing resource mix, including and outside of the electricity supply effective transmission solutions in generation that is not yet in the industry, including shifts toward regional transmission plans, whether interconnection queue. We seek electrification of buildings and building transmission facilities to comment on whether the existing transportation; and (5) resource accommodate anticipated future regional transmission planning and cost retirements. With regard to each factor generation is required to render rates allocation processes fail to adequately that may be considered for inclusion in just and reasonable, and whether there account for anticipated future scenario modeling, we seek comment on are deficiencies in existing regional generation. We also seek comment on the source of the Commission’s transmission planning and cost whether the possible failure to account authority to incorporate that factor in allocation processes that would be for anticipated future generation results the regional transmission planning and cured by conducting such future in inefficient investment in cost allocation processes. In addition, scenarios planning. Specifically, we transmission infrastructure and causes we seek comment on whether the seek comment on whether the customers to pay unjust and Commission should establish minimum development of longer-term scenarios unreasonable rates for transmission requirements regarding future scenarios for planning purposes should be service. We also seek comment on for transmission providers to use in pursued and, if so: (1) The number of whether, and, if so, how the their regional transmission planning, years into the future the scenarios Commission could structure and including modeling anticipated future should consider (including an implement a framework for considering generation in those scenarios. explanation of how far ahead it is the transmission needs of anticipated Commenters should also address reasonable to forecast anticipated future future generation in the regional whether and how any reforms or generation and system requirements); transmission planning and cost revisions to existing rules could (2) the inputs that should be considered allocation processes. Commenters unjustly and unreasonably shift in modeling anticipated future should address how each suggested additional costs to customers of load generation; (3) different transmission reform or revision to existing rules is serving entities. Commenters should planning methods, including whether consistent with the Commission’s also address whether the status quo consideration should be given to authority under the FPA. does or does not allocate costs in a multiple future scenarios, as well as manner roughly commensurate with how the planning process should 67 Order No. 2003–A, 106 FERC ¶ 61,220 at P 584. benefits, and whether the status quo consider the probabilities of future

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:36 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27JYP2.SGM 27JYP2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Proposed Rules 40275

scenarios; (4) whether and how 50. We also seek comment on which transmission needs. For example, as transmission providers should account inputs and assumptions transmission discussed below, should transmission for an array of different future scenarios providers would need to model to providers focus on a broader set of when identifying more efficient or cost- represent new generation sources, such benefits for transmission facilities and a effective transmission solutions in as renewable resources, in order to portfolio of transmission facilities in regional transmission plans; (5) whether reflect their actual performance, such as identifying the more efficient or cost- and how transmission providers should active power-frequency control, reactive effective transmission solutions? If so, account for federal, state, local, and power-voltage control, and fault ride- how should regional planning processes individual utility energy and climate through capabilities, in the planning determine the right set of benefits to goals (including federal, state and local study cases and any additional studies factor into such an evaluation? Is laws and regulations, as well as other in order to ensure that transmission maximizing net benefits an appropriate policies or goals), and the source of the planning solutions result in operating criterion to use to identify efficient and Commission’s authority to account for reliability for the future. cost-effective transmission solutions? such laws, regulations, policies and 51. We seek comment on the extent to Should the willingness of some goals; (6) whether and how transmission which anticipated generation and beneficiaries to pay for certain providers should plan for expected transmission facility retirements are transmission infrastructure, for example future generator retirements; (7) whether reflected in future scenarios modeled by utilities or corporations with renewable and how Grid-Enhancing transmission providers, and whether resource or zero carbon goals, be Technologies 68 should be accounted for modifications to regional market rules considered in determining whether to in determining what transmission is and coordination processes between include the benefits within a broader set needed under such scenarios; (8) how local and regional plans could facilitate of benefits from transmission facilities, benefits and costs of transmission more accurate regional transmission and if so then how? Is there a need to infrastructure should be accounted for plans that reflect such anticipated establish a minimum set of transmission in such models, including how adjusted retirements. facility benefits that transmission production costs should be calculated; 52. In addition, should the use of providers must incorporate into regional (9) any other aspects of future scenarios certain long-term scenarios be shown transmission planning decisions, and if modeling, including planning for appropriate as part of ensuring just and so, is there also a need to regularly anticipated future generation and reasonable rates, we seek comment on update the minimum set of transmission associated transmission needs that whether and how the Commission facility benefits? should ensure that the regional would be useful for the Commission to ii. Identifying Geographic Zones That consider. transmission planning and cost allocation processes develop a Have Potential for High Amounts of 49. In addition, we seek comment on sufficiently wide range of future Renewable Resource Development To whether greater use of probabilistic scenarios. We seek comment on whether Meet Increased Demand transmission planning approaches may the Commission should consider better assess the benefits of regional 54. We seek comment on whether the principles or minimum requirements as transmission facilities. While some Commission should require a basis for establishing such scenarios. transmission providers consider a small transmission providers in each Given that states or other local number of future scenarios as part of transmission planning region to governing bodies may be uniquely their transmission planning process, establish, as part of their regional situated in determining how much more advanced approaches, such as transmission planning and cost anticipated future generation is needed, stochastic 69 techniques, may provide an allocation processes, a process to or in providing information related to identify geographic zones that have the opportunity to consider a broader array infrastructure siting or resource mix as of potential future conditions. potential for the development of large influenced by state and local policies, amounts of renewable generation and Accordingly, we seek comment on we seek comment on how their input potential benefits and drawbacks of plan transmission to facilitate the should be reflected by transmission integration of renewable resources in such techniques in regional providers in developing a sufficiently transmission planning assessments, those zones. wide range of future scenarios, 55. Examples of transmission including whether these or other new including those for anticipated future approaches may facilitate the co- planning and development initiatives generation, and the more efficient or that have identified geographic zones optimization of generation siting and cost-effective transmission facilities that transmission development, whether with the potential for the development may be necessary to facilitate those of significant amounts of renewable such methods capture savings in future scenarios. We seek comment on generation capital costs as well as resources and transmission to facilitate whether it is necessary to require the integration of renewable resources production expenses that can be transmission providers to modify the realized from transmission additions, in those zones include the Public Utility regional transmission planning and cost Commission of Texas’s (Texas and whether implementing such allocation processes, such as requiring methods is required to render rates just Commission) Competitive Renewable additional stakeholder input, to develop 70 and reasonable. Energy Zones (CREZ) initiative and future scenarios, including those for MISO’s Multi-Value Projects (MVP).71 anticipated future generation, such that 56. California Independent System 68 Grid Enhancing Technologies increase the there are sufficient opportunities for Operator Corporation (CAISO) offers capacity, efficiency, or reliability of transmission stakeholders to assess the facilities. These technologies include, but are not another example of a regional limited to: (1) Power flow control and transmission reasonableness of the results, as well as transmission planning process switching equipment; (2) storage technologies, and for future modifications to the planning identifying transmission facilities to (3) advanced line rating management technologies. process. accommodate renewable resources in FERC, Grid Enhancing Technologies, Notice of 53. Finally, we seek comment on Workshop, Docket No. AD19–9–000 (Sept. 9, 2019). 69 Stochastic models are frameworks for whether and how such long-term 70 http://www.ercot.com/committee/crez. addressing optimization problems that involve scenarios should be used in identifying 71 https://www.misoenergy.org/planning/ uncertainty. and selecting solutions to meet future planning/multi-value-projects-mvps/.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:36 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27JYP2.SGM 27JYP2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 40276 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Proposed Rules

geographic zones that have the potential FPA’s prohibition of unduly will influence the location and amount for high amounts of renewable discriminatory or preferential rates. of future renewable resources. We note resources. In a petition for declaratory 58. We seek comment on whether the that the CREZ process was highly order, the Commission approved a Commission should require collaborative, with the Electric mechanism to facilitate the financing transmission providers to account for Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) and development of transmission trends in the resource mix in developing conducting workshops with facilities to interconnect multiple energy zones for anticipated future stakeholders over a six-month period to resources that met CAISO’s eligibility generation as part of planning for consider and evaluate multiple requirements, including a high voltage transmission needs related to such transmission scenarios.74 In addition to level and providing access to areas rich resources and if so, what would be the seeking comment on technical and in renewable energy.72 best way to do so? We seek comment collaborative approaches to identify whether it would be appropriate, as the 57. We seek comment on whether the geographic zones for future renewable resource mix further develops, to Commission should require resources, we seek comment on develop similar zones for the transmission providers in each potential alternative proposals from transmission needs driven by the transmission planning region to stakeholders on how to identify where development and interconnection of establish, as part of their regional transmission facilities may be needed to energy storage resources and how to do transmission planning and cost accommodate anticipated future so. allocation processes, a process that generation. Commenters should address 59. In order to ensure that the more whether, if implemented, such a identifies geographic zones that have efficient or cost-effective transmission the potential for the development of scenario planning process should be the facilities are selected and that rates are same or different in non-RTO/ISO large amounts of new generation, just and reasonable, we also seek particularly renewable resources. We versus RTO/ISO regions, and if comment on whether: (1) Eligibility different, what those differences should seek comment on whether and how thresholds or criteria (e.g., voltage such a process might interrelate with be. Commenters should address how levels, amount of new generation any proposed changes to the regional existing regional transmission planning located within a given geographic area and cost allocation processes within planning and cost allocation processes or load zone, etc.) may be appropriate to increase the efficiency, or lower the each region, and how long-term scenario determine whether a proposed regional planning discussed above may be used costs, of such processes and whether transmission facility should be such changes will help ensure a reliable in this process or other relevant regional considered as part of the regional transmission planning and cost power supply and/or will reduce or transmission planning and cost control the costs of transmission and allocation processes. In addition, we allocation process for transmission seek comment on whether reforms to generation services that are ultimately facilities built for anticipated future passed on to customers of load serving the current interregional transmission generation; (2) whether the CREZ, MISO coordination process are needed or entities. Commenters should also MVP, CAISO approaches, or other address proposed cost allocation. appropriate for making an approach processes for identifying and planning along these lines effective. We also seek for the needs of anticipated future iii. Incentivizing Regional Transmission comment on: (1) How the Commission generation are models for any potential Facilities should structure this potential requirements and, if so, which aspects 61. To prioritize regional transmission requirement; and (2) any potential best of those initiatives the Commission facilities that may have greater benefit- practices, analyses, models, and metrics should consider requiring transmission to-cost ratios than local alternatives, we that could be used to identify such providers to implement, for example, seek comment on whether and, if so, zones, including the amount and type of the CREZ model of requiring future how to expand or improve any potential generation that could be generation to financially commit in incentives to incent the development of located there. As with the future advance of construction; (3) whether regional transmission facilities that scenarios transmission planning there is a need for mechanisms to limit demonstrably may offer a more efficient discussed above, we seek comment on the risk to customers from planning for or cost-effective solution to an identified whether and how states and local anticipated future generation, for need than local alternatives. As an entities may provide input into the example, we note CAISO’s use of an ex example of a possible regional identification of such zones. We seek ante cap on the total cost exposure to transmission incentive, we seek comment on whether, and, if so, how transmission customers in addressing comment on whether or not any transmission providers can assess generation resource interconnection, as available return on equity adder 73 whether there is sufficient commercial one potential approach; and (4) incentive that may be available for RTO/ interest in developing generation in any whether specific proposals are ISO participation should be limited in potential zones and transmission to consistent with the Commission’s FPA applicability only to regional, and not interconnect the potential generation section 206 authority. local, transmission facilities, when (for example, through studies or formal 60. We also seek comment on whether those regional transmission facilities are declarations of interest). We also seek the regional transmission planning selected as the more efficient or cost- comment on whether and, if so, what process could be structured in such a effective solution to an identified safeguards or incentives might be way that is more collaborative, relying transmission need. necessary to ensure that transmission on the knowledge and experience that infrastructure is built only to satisfy transmission providers, project iv. Enhanced Interregional or State-to- expected transmission needs and not developers, state commissions, and State Coordination overly speculative commercial interests. other stakeholders have regarding 62. We recognize that potential We also seek comment on whether any optimal locations, the topography of the reforms discussed for comment above such requirement is consistent with the transmission network, and Public Policy may require greater interregional or Requirements, among other factors that 72 Cal. Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 119 FERC 74 See Texas Commission, Order on Rehearing, ¶ 61,061 (2007). 73 Id. P 6. Docket No. 33672, at 3 (Oct. 7, 2008).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:36 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27JYP2.SGM 27JYP2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Proposed Rules 40277

state-regional coordination to be fully future generation or geographic interconnection-related network realized in a just, reasonable and not generation zones. upgrades. As indicated earlier, we also unduly discriminatory or preferential seek comment on whether and how b. Coordinating Between the Regional manner. As a result, we seek comment transmission providers could Transmission Planning and Cost incorporate anticipated future on whether reforms to the current Allocation and Generator generation, including resources in the interregional transmission coordination Interconnection Processes process, including potentially requiring interconnection queue, in the regional interregional transmission planning, are 65. We seek comment on whether transmission planning and cost needed or appropriate for making the reforms are needed to improve the allocation processes. In particular, we potential approaches discussed above coordination between the regional encourage commenters to discuss how effective, and whether such reforms are transmission planning and cost to address concerns regarding consistent with the Commission’s allocation and generator interconnection uncertainty, including speculative authority under section 206 of the FPA. processes. We seek comment on projects, in planning for anticipated 63. We seek comment on whether, whether the Commission should require future generation. because an interregional project must transmission providers to operate their 68. Further, we seek comment on first be selected in each of the regional transmission planning and cost whether and how more effectively neighboring regions’ regional planning allocation and generator interconnection accounting for anticipated future processes before being selected in the processes on concurrent, coordinated generation in transmission planning timeframes, with the same or similar interregional process, this challenge to may reduce the costs of interconnection- assumptions and methods, and whether the current interregional coordination related network upgrades. To the extent such a potential requirement may process is impeding the selection and this is the case, how should such identify more efficient or cost-effective development of efficient, cost-effective benefits be identified, and should they transmission solutions that could interregional projects and, if so, what factor into the regional transmission address needs shared between the two revisions are necessary to address that planning and cost allocation process? processes. barrier. Should the Commission require 66. We seek comment on how the B. Identification of Cost and joint planning processes, rather than regional transmission planning and cost Responsibility for Regional simply joint coordination, for allocation and generator interconnection Transmission Facilities and neighboring regions? In light of the processes could be better coordinated or Interconnection-Related Network potential reforms to regional planning integrated. For example, would use of Upgrades and cost allocation and generator similar timeframes and assumptions 69. The Commission has repeatedly interconnection processes being facilitate more efficient or cost-effective recognized that, where cost allocation considered in this ANOPR, are there transmission solutions? How could methods do not appropriately account core principles or approaches that the these processes most effectively be co- for benefits associated with new Commission should also consider when optimized? We seek comment on transmission facilities, they may result reviewing the existing approach to whether and, if so, how interconnection in rates that are not just and reasonable interregional planning? For example, requests that trigger the need for or are unduly discriminatory or should the Commission establish interconnection-related network preferential.75 interregional reliability planning criteria upgrades that may provide regional 70. We seek comment on whether the or consider renewable resource transmission benefits could be studied existing approach to cost allocation in geographic zones during interregional in a way that accounts for the potential regional transmission planning planning? Beyond interregional broader transmission benefits associated processes fails to consider the full suite planning, can and should the with, for example, resource adequacy, of benefits—and the associated Commission provide alternate pathways operating reliability, and similar needs, beneficiaries—produced by for transmission facilities that benefit and in coordination with the regional transmission facilities developed to multiple regions to be assigned cost transmission planning process? We seek meet the transmission needs of the allocation to customers across multiple comment on whether and how relevant changing resource mix. We seek regions? For example, should the information from the generator comment on whether the current Commission allow for identification of interconnection process could be approach omits relevant benefits of new benefits, and allocation of integrated into regional transmission transmission infrastructure and, if so, commensurate costs, to one region of a planning in a timely manner, and thereby fails to consider the entities that project selected in a neighboring whether and how transmission receive those benefits in the cost region’s regional transmission planning providers could move beyond using the allocation process. What, specifically, process? Finally, comments should outputs of each process as a are those other benefits that should be address whether taking any proposed deterministic input into the other rather considered? In addition, while the action is consistent with the than optimizing together across regional transmission planning process Commission’s authority under section approaches. We also seek comment on considers transmission needs driven by 206 of the FPA. whether it may be possible and reliability, economic considerations, 64. In addition, we seek comment on beneficial to combine certain aspects of and Public Policy Requirements, these whether and, if so, how a regional states the transmission planning and generator types of transmission needs are, in committee or other organized body of interconnection processes, and if so, state officials should participate in the how? 75 See Order No. 890, 118 FERC ¶ 61,119 at P 557 development and evaluation of 67. We also seek comment on whether (finding that how ‘‘the costs of new transmission facilities are allocated is critical to the development assumptions or criteria used for regional and how the Commission could revise of new infrastructure’’ because ‘‘[t]ransmission transmission planning and cost transmission planning criteria that providers and customers cannot be expected to allocation and interregional transmission providers use in the support the construction of new transmission generator interconnection process so unless they understand who will pay the associated coordination and cost allocation for cost’’); Order No. 1000, 136 FERC ¶ 61,051 at PP transmission needs related to future that they could better identify more 484–487; see also Ill. Commerce Comm’n v. FERC, scenarios, including for anticipated efficient or cost-effective 576 F.3d 470, 476 (7th Cir. 2009) (ICC v. FERC).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:36 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27JYP2.SGM 27JYP2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 40278 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Proposed Rules

many cases, considered in isolation of the generator interconnection process the costs of new facilities, it may be said from one another and the cost allocation results in only a subset of beneficiaries to have ‘caused’ a part of those costs to methods for transmission facilities paying for transmission infrastructure be incurred, as without the expectation developed in response to these needs that, in practice, may benefit many. of its contributions the facilities might are generally separated by type. We seek 72. We seek comment on whether not have been built, or might have been comment as to whether the existing separating the regional transmission delayed.’’ 80 Courts ‘‘evaluate regional transmission planning and cost planning and cost allocation and compliance with this . . . principle by allocation processes may not fully generator interconnection processes comparing the costs assessed against a account for the full suite of benefits, may increasingly result in an only party to the burdens imposed or benefits including hard-to-quantify benefits, and partial-accounting of the benefits of new drawn by that party.’’ 81 In ICC v. FERC, may impede the allocation of the costs transmission infrastructure, leaving the Seventh Circuit also stated that a of transmission facilities needed to meet some transmission and interconnection cost allocation method can satisfy the the transmission needs of the changing customers potentially bearing a cost causation principle if the resource mix in a manner that is at least disproportionate cost burden. We seek Commission ‘‘has an articulable and roughly commensurate with the actual comment on whether any changes to the plausible reason to believe that the benefits of those facilities. Getting that criteria used for considering which benefits are at least roughly balance right is important not only to transmission facilities are selected in commensurate with’’ the allocation of comply with the cost causation the regional transmission plan for the costs.82 The Seventh Circuit stated, principle, but also because efforts to purposes of regional cost allocation, as however, that satisfying this plan the transmission system to meet well as the formula for the regional requirement does not require exacting the needs of the changing resource mix allocation of costs of regional precision, and the Commission need not will succeed only if the associated cost transmission facilities and for the cost of ‘‘calculate benefits to the last penny, or allocation methods are transparent, interconnection-related network for that matter to the last million or ten equitable, and practicable.76 upgrades, including changes to the million or perhaps hundred million 71. With respect to cost allocation in definition of beneficiary, hold the dollars.’’ 83 the generator interconnection process, potential to unjustly and unreasonably 2. Cost Allocation for Transmission we seek comment as to whether the shift costs to customers of load serving participant funding approach for Facilities Planned Through the Regional entities. We seek comment on how any Transmission Planning Process interconnection-related network contemplated reforms or revisions to upgrades required for an existing regulations are consistent with 75. Potential reforms for which we interconnection request in RTOs/ISOs the FPA and its requirement for just and seek comment in this ANOPR may no longer be just and reasonable. reasonable and not unduly contemplate a more forward-looking Participant funding may result in costly discriminatory or preferential rates. approach to the regional transmission interconnection-related network 73. In the following sections, we planning process that plans for upgrades being allocated entirely to address the relevant court and anticipated future generation, interconnection customers while failing Commission precedent governing cost potentially producing a different and to account for the significant benefits allocation and seek comment on a broader set of benefits and beneficiaries. that these interconnection-related number of potential reforms to address The following sections seek comment network upgrades may provide to other these concerns and ensure that on potential reforms that may be anticipated future generators seeking to transmission rates remain just and necessary to ensure that the costs of interconnect and/or existing or future reasonable and not unduly transmission facilities developed to transmission customers. We further seek discriminatory or preferential. meet the transmission needs of the comment on whether the narrow focus changing resource mix are allocated in 1. Relevant Cost Causation Precedent a manner that is roughly commensurate 76 Cf. BNP Paribas Energy Trading GP v. FERC, 74. Pursuant to FPA sections 205 and with those benefits, while ensuring that 743 F.3d 264, 268–269 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (BNP 206, the Commission is responsible for any potential reforms or revisions to Paribas Energy) (‘‘[T]he cost causation principle existing cost-allocation rules do not itself manifests a kind of equity. This is most ensuring that the rates, terms, and obvious when we frame the principle (as we and conditions for transmission of electricity unjustly or unreasonably shift costs to the Commission often do) as a matter of making in interstate commerce are just, any type of market participant or sure that burden is matched with benefit.’’ (citing reasonable, and not unduly customers of load serving entities. We Midwest ISO Transmission Owners v. FERC, 373 seek comment on whether certain F.3d 1361, 1368 (D.C. Cir. 2004) and Se. Mich. Gas discriminatory or preferential.77 For a Co. v. FERC, 133 F.3d 34, 41 (D.C. Cir. 1998))); cost allocation approach to satisfy this benefits are not appropriate to account Order No. 1000, 136 FERC ¶ 61,051 at P 669 standard, it must satisfy the cost for under the FPA, and whether (explaining that requiring cost allocation methods causation principle. The cost causation allocation of costs based on such be open and transparent ensures that such methods benefits may be inconsistent with the are just and reasonable and not unduly principle requires that ‘‘all approved discriminatory or preferential, aids in development rates reflect to some degree the costs Commission’s statutory mandate. and construction of new transmission, and may actually caused by the customer who avoid contentious litigation or prolonged a. Background 78 stakeholder debate); KN Energy, Inc. v. FERC, 968 must pay them’’ and that costs ‘‘be 76. In Order No. 1000, the F.2d 1295, 1300–01 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (describing allocated to those who cause the costs properly designed rates as producing revenues Commission determined that the lack of to be incurred and reap the resulting clear ex ante cost allocation methods ‘‘ ‘which match, as closely as practicable, the costs benefits.’’ 79 As the U.S. Court of to serve each class or individual customer’ ’’ that identify beneficiaries of proposed (emphasis in original)) (quoting Ala. Elec. Coop., Appeals for the Seventh Circuit regional transmission facilities was Inc. v. FERC, 684 F.2d 20, 27 (D.C. Cir. 1982)); Pub. (Seventh Circuit) further explained, to Serv. Co. of Colo., 163 FERC ¶ 61,204, at P 14 (2018) ‘‘the extent that a utility benefits from (recognizing that ‘‘feasibility’’ is part of ratemaking, 80 ICC v. FERC, 576 F.3d at 476. such that the Commission may appropriately 81 Midwest ISO Transmission Owners v. FERC, ‘‘balance maximally reflecting cost causation with 77 16 U.S.C. 824d, 824e. 373 F.3d at 1368. other competing policy goals,’’ such as promoting 78 KN Energy, Inc. v. FERC, 968 F.2d at 1300. 82 576 F.3d at 477. more efficient or cost-effective regional 79 S.C. Pub. Serv. Auth., 762 F.3d at 87 (quoting 83 Id. (citing Midwest ISO Transmission Owners v. transmission planning). NARUC v. FERC, 475 F.3d at 1285). FERC, 373 F.3d at 1369).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:36 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27JYP2.SGM 27JYP2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Proposed Rules 40279

impairing the ability of transmission Policy Requirements.91 Although the of transmission projects.94 The costs of providers to implement more efficient Commission required the regional cost this MVP portfolio are allocated on a or cost-effective transmission solutions allocation methods to determine postage stamp basis across the MISO identified in the regional transmission benefits and identify beneficiaries in a region.95 transparent manner, the Commission planning process. According to the 80. Southwest Power Pool’s (SPP) also recognized that ‘‘identifying which Commission, the failure to address cost Balanced Portfolio process similarly allocation in a way that aligns with the types of benefits are relevant for cost considers broader transmission benefits of new transmission facilities allocation purposes, which beneficiaries benefits.96 SPP evaluates economic could lead to needed transmission are receiving those benefits, and the benefits of a portfolio of transmission facilities not being built, adversely relative benefits that accrue to various impacting ratepayers.84 The beneficiaries can be difficult and facilities to achieve a balance where the Commission therefore required controversial.’’ 92 Consistent with this benefits of the portfolio to each zone (as transmission providers to have in place notion, the Commission declined to measured by adjusted production cost a method, or set of methods, for require transmission providers to adopt savings) equal or exceed the costs allocating the costs of new transmission a universal or comprehensive definition allocated to each zone over a 10-year facilities selected in a regional of ‘‘benefits’’ and ‘‘beneficiaries’’ 93 of period. By allocating costs such that the transmission plan for purposes of cost regional transmission facilities, instead benefits to each zone will equal or allocation. To guide transmission allowing for regional flexibility and exceed those costs, the Balanced providers, the Commission established a examining each region’s definitions on Portfolio process ensures that SPP set of cost allocation principles that compliance. allocates costs in a manner that is least transmission providers’ cost allocation 78. The result is that transmission roughly commensurate with benefits by methods must satisfy, with the goal of providers in each transmission planning design. In addition, SPP may reallocate ensuring that the costs of transmission region have implemented varying costs to ensure that the portfolio is solutions chosen to meet regional regional transmission cost allocation balanced and, under certain conditions, transmission needs would be allocated methods to comply with the cost including cancellation of a transmission to those that received benefits from allocation principles of Order No. 1000, facility or unanticipated decreases in them.85 The Commission determined the majority of which allocate the costs benefits or increases in costs, may that this principles-based approach of regional transmission facilities that review a previously approved Balanced would result in the allocation of the address reliability needs separately from Portfolio and recommend reconfiguring costs of new transmission facilities in a those that address economic needs and the portfolio.97 separately from those that address manner that is at least roughly 81. As for allocating the costs of commensurate with the benefits Public Policy Requirements. In other words, most regional transmission cost regional transmission facilities to received by those that pay those costs generators, in Order No. 1000, while while allowing for regional flexibility.86 allocation methods do not consider commenters requested that the 77. The six regional cost allocation whether a regional transmission facility Commission allow such costs to be principles that the Commission adopted addresses more than one category of allocated to generators as beneficiaries, in Order No. 1000 are: (1) Costs of needs, and therefore provides more than the Commission determined that transmission facilities must be allocated one category of transmission benefits. 79. That said, some transmission generator interconnection was outside to those within the transmission providers’ Order No. 1000-compliant 98 planning region that benefit from those the scope of the rulemaking. However, regional transmission cost allocation facilities in a manner that is at least the Commission also stated that methods may recognize a broader roughly commensurate with estimated transmission providers could propose a number of benefits than others and benefits; (2) those that receive no benefit regional transmission cost allocation identify the broader benefits across a from transmission facilities, either at method that allocates costs directly to portfolio of transmission facilities rather present or in a likely future scenario, generators as beneficiaries, but any than on a facility-by-facility basis, must not be involuntarily allocated any effort to do so must not be inconsistent whereas others may be more of the costs of those transmission with the Order No. 2003 generator constrained. For example, MISO’s MVP facilities; 87 (3) a benefit to cost interconnection process. The process is designed to identify a Commission noted that in not threshold ratio, if adopted, cannot portfolio of regional transmission exceed 1.25 to 1; 88 (4) costs must be addressing these issues, it was neither facilities that: (1) Reliably and minimizing the importance of allocated solely within the transmission economically enable regional public planning region unless another entity evaluating the impact of generator policy needs; (2) provide multiple types interconnection requests during outside the region voluntarily assumes a of regional economic value; and/or (3) portion of those costs; 89 (5) the method transmission planning, nor limiting the provide a combination of regional ability of transmission providers to use for determining benefits and identifying reliability and economic value. beneficiaries must be transparent; 90 and requests for generator interconnections Specifically, MISO MVPs must be above in developing assumptions to be used in (6) there may be different methods for 100 kV, have a project cost of $20 different types of transmission facilities, million or more, and have a combined 94 such as those needed for reliability, benefit-to-cost ratio greater than 1.0 and MISO, FERC Electric Tariff, Attachment FF, congestion relief, or to achieve Public Section II.C (85.0.0). must be evaluated as part of a portfolio 95 Id. Section III.A.2.g. 96 SPP’s Balanced Portfolio was an initiative to 84 Order No. 1000, 136 FERC ¶ 61,051 at P 499. 91 Id. P 685. develop a group of economic transmission projects 85 Id. PP 9, 482–83. 92 Id. P 501. that benefit the entire SPP region and to allocate 86 Id. P 10; Order No. 1000–A, 139 FERC ¶ 61,132 93 Order No. 1000–A, 139 FERC ¶ 61,132 at P 679 those transmission project costs regionally. The SPP at P 647. (explaining that Order No. 1000 does not define Board of Directors approved the Balanced Portfolio 87 Order No. 1000, 136 FERC ¶ 61,051 at P 637. benefits and beneficiaries but rather requires transmission projects in April 2009. 88 Id. P 646. transmission providers to be definite about benefits 97 SPP OATT, attach. J (Recovery of Costs 89 Id. P 657. and beneficiaries for purposes of their cost Associated With New Facilities), Section III.D. 90 Id. P 668. allocation methods). 98 Order No. 1000, 136 FERC ¶ 61,051 at P 760.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:36 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27JYP2.SGM 27JYP2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 40280 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Proposed Rules

the regional transmission planning additional costs to customers of load considered in a silo from one another; process.99 serving entities. These reforms cannot the cost allocation methods for regional 82. Nevertheless, at least one be successful without ensuring that transmission facilities developed in transmission provider considers transmission providers and customers response to these needs are similarly for interconnection customers as alike are able to identify the types of the most part separated by type. We beneficiaries of new transmission benefits of these transmission facilities seek comment on whether the result is facilities. The Commission approved can provide and also identify the a paradigm that may potentially fail to CAISO’s proposal whereby transmission beneficiaries that would receive those consider the suite of benefits that customers initially fund the benefits, along with the relative transmission facilities provide and transmission expansion needed to proportion of benefits that accrue to therefore fails to allocate the costs of facilitate interconnection through the each of those beneficiaries. The failure such facilities roughly commensurate transmission revenue requirement of the to account for all the benefits of a with the benefits. constructing transmission provider, and transmission facility while taking into 86. We seek comment as to whether interconnection customers are assigned account all the costs of the transmission a shift to a more integrated and holistic their pro rata share of the going-forward facility does not allow for a fair process for regional transmission costs of using the transmission facility examination of whether the costs are planning and cost allocation is as their generators interconnect to the allocated roughly commensurate with appropriate. Such a shift may raise transmission system. Under CAISO’s the benefits. We seek comment on novel questions around which proposal, all transmission system users whether ignoring benefits of these customers should pay for new pay the costs of the unsubscribed transmission facilities may impair more transmission facilities and concerns portion of a new transmission facility efficient or cost-effective transmission about free riders benefitting from the until the line is fully subscribed.100 The development by limiting the number of transmission expansion without paying CAISO approach also includes an ex facilities that overcome the cost-benefit for their fair share. Under the potential ante cap on the total cost exposure to threshold needed to justify the cost of reforms for which we seek comment in transmission customers, which was set new transmission, and if so, what the this ANOPR, the regional transmission at 15% of the sum total of the net high- appropriate standard should be for planning process would identify voltage transmission plant of all identifying such benefits. This potential transmission facilities that support transmission providers, as reflected in concern goes to the need to not only future scenarios, including anticipated their transmission revenue requirements identify the types of benefits of these future generation, and improve pricing and in the CAISO transmission access new transmission facilities, and to and cost allocation for interconnection- charge.101 quantify those benefits where possible, related network upgrades. In that scenario, interconnection customers b. Potential Need for Reform but likewise to the need for transparent methods to calculate benefits and themselves could be considered 83. This statement in Order No. 1000 ascertain beneficiaries without being so beneficiaries of transmission facilities rings as true today as it did then— burdensome that the methods hinder that facilitate their interconnection, ‘‘identifying which types of benefits are transmission development. We seek even if those transmission facilities relevant for cost allocation purposes, comment on whether customers of load were built prior to the generators which beneficiaries are receiving those serving entities should be required to entering the interconnection queue. We benefits, and the relative benefits that pay the costs of regional transmission seek comment on whether merely accrue to various beneficiaries can be facilities that provide them only with making interconnection customers the difficult and controversial.’’ 102 This is unquantifiable or purported benefits, or beneficiaries fails to capture all of the especially true for larger, regional be required to pay for costs driven by relevant types of benefits for purposes of transmission facilities that are both the public policies of state and local cost allocation of a regional costly and could have potentially broad governments in states other than their transmission facility built to benefits. As the Commission recognized own.104 accommodate anticipated future in Order No. 890, the manner in which 85. Currently, most regional cost generation. We also seek comment on the costs of new transmission facilities allocation methods do not consider whether it may therefore be preferable are allocated is ‘‘critical’’ to developing whether a regional transmission facility to consider developing new regional those facilities as is identifying the addresses more than one category of transmission cost allocation methods types of benefits and the associated needs, thereby providing more than one that measure all of the benefits of beneficiaries of those facilities.103 category of transmission benefits. regional transmission facilities that are 84. The possible reforms for which we Specifically, although the regional being assessed for potential selection in seek comment in this ANOPR seek to transmission planning process considers the regional transmission plan for ensure the development of regional transmission needs driven by reliability, purposes of cost allocation and that transmission facilities needed to meet economic considerations, and Public accrue to both transmission and the transmission needs of the changing Policy Requirements,105 these types of interconnection customers. resource mix occurs in a more efficient transmission needs are generally 87. We cannot ignore, of course, that or cost-effective manner, at just and it may be difficult to precisely quantify reasonable rates. Commenters should 104 See, e.g., PJM’s State Agreement Approach. some of the benefits of transmission also address whether and how any PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 142 FERC ¶ 61,214, at facilities, which can be a barrier to more reforms or revisions to existing rules PP 142–143 (2013), order on reh’g and compliance, broadly allocating the costs of those could unjustly and unreasonably shift 147 FERC ¶ 61,128, at P 92 (2014); facilities among transmission and 105 Order No. 1000 left planning and cost allocation for Public Policy Requirements largely to interconnection customers. Unlike 99 Id. P 760. the discretion of transmission providers. See supra costs, which are clearly defined and 100 Cal. Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 119 FERC P 16. Moreover, under PJM’s State Agreement easily quantified, the scope of which ¶ 61,061. Approach (see supra n.104), the costs of transmission benefits count for purposes 101 Cal. Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 119 FERC transmission facilities required to meet the public ¶ 61,061, at P 6. policy requirements of an individual state or group of cost allocation, and how well they 102 Order No. 1000, 136 FERC ¶ 61,051 at P 501. of states may not be shifted to customers in other, need to be documented in order to be 103 Order No. 890, 118 FERC ¶ 61,119 at P 557. non-participating states. allocated to customers, is a distinct

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:36 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27JYP2.SGM 27JYP2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Proposed Rules 40281

challenge to achieving a fair allocation. c. Potential Reforms and Request for cost-effective solution for customers of Requiring transmission providers to Comment the load serving entities both inside an produce overly detailed reports on 90. We seek comment on whether RTO/ISO and in non-RTO/ISO region. benefits before the costs of a broader transmission benefits should be Any proposals for changes to planning transmission facility can be allocated to taken into account when planning the criteria and cost allocation should transmission and interconnection transmission system for anticipated consider whether such proposals result customers could lead to cost allocations future generation, and how such in unjustly and unreasonably shifting that undervalue the largest transmission benefits should be identified and costs to customers. We seek comment expansions, no matter their efficiency. quantified. Some transmission on whether the use of planning criteria The task is in striking the right balance providers, e.g., SPP, MISO, CAISO, and beyond reliability and economic to ensure just and reasonable rates and recently the New York Independent considerations may place the burden for the allocation of transmission costs System Operator, Inc. (NYISO), have the costs driven by Public Policy roughly commensurate with benefits. used broader transmission benefits in Requirements of one state on customers 88. We also note that, with greater selecting regional transmission facilities of load serving entities in non- deployment of renewable resources, and for purposes of cost allocation in their participating states. in part to the extent that regions focus regional transmission planning 93. We seek comment on the current on a project-specific regional processes. approaches that transmission providers transmission cost allocation method, it 91. In addition, under a portfolio take in defining transmission benefits is possible that benefits may be approach to regional transmission cost for purposes transmission planning and distributed unevenly across regions. For allocation, multiple transmission cost allocation. For example, we are example, there are likely zones or sub- facilities are considered together, and interested in how transmission zones within a region that are rich in the collective benefits of the providers calculate adjusted production renewable resources and therefore have transmission facilities are measured. costs, the extent to which transmission generation significantly in excess of the MISO’s MVP and SPP’s Balanced providers go beyond adjusted local load. These zones, and generators Portfolio method are examples of production costs in identifying in these zones, may not be the only portfolio approaches to regional transmission benefits, the types of beneficiaries of regional transmission transmission cost allocation. We seek benefits, and the methods for facilities built to access these resources comment on whether a portfolio estimating. We also seek comment on as customers outside those zones may approach recognizes that a regional the extent to which it may be challenging, for certain types of benefits, reap reliability or economic benefits that transmission planning process that to identify the beneficiaries for cost result from the expanded transmission considers a group of transmission allocation purposes. We seek comment system and access to low cost resources. facilities that collectively provide on the extent to which the same set of We seek comment on whether current multiple benefits, including reliability, benefits is currently used in regional regional transmission cost allocation economic, and Public Policy transmission planning processes and approaches may not adequately address Requirements benefits, among others, their associated cost allocation these circumstances and may not may be able to better identify more processes, or whether some benefits are provide workable frameworks for the efficient or cost-effective transmission identified but not factored into cost identification of transmission facilities when compared to a process that focuses only on individual allocation. Should the same set of beneficiaries and sharing of benefits. benefits be used in all processes? If not, 89. We seek comment on whether transmission facilities or individual benefits. We seek comment on whether would it be appropriate to consider there should be reforms to cost different benefits during the allocation in regional transmission an approach that both estimates broader transmission benefits for regional transmission planning and cost planning and cost allocation processes, allocation stages? If so, what would be including considering potentially a transmission facilities beyond those that are currently considered and that also the basis for doing so? portfolio approach to assessing regional 94. We seek comment on the types of allocates the costs for a portfolio of transmission facilities and consideration benefits provided by transmission those individual transmission facilities of a minimum set of transmission facilities needed to meet the may provide a cost allocation method benefits, while seeking additional transmission needs of anticipated future information about cost allocation that better matches benefits to burdens 106 generation that are relevant for cost approaches that may inform such over time. We seek comment on allocation purposes and the manner in reforms. Commenters proposing specific whether such an approach may also be which those benefits can be quantified, changes to cost allocation should more accurate or less likely to lead to if at all. This includes consideration of address how such proposals will result anomalous results. whether there are transmission benefits 92. At the same time, we seek in costs being allocated in a manner beyond those that transmission comment on whether there are roughly commensurate with benefits, providers already take into account in and demonstrate that costs will not be circumstances in which the use of allocating costs that the Commission disproportionately borne by any given criteria other than reliability and should require all transmission class of customers in a manner economic considerations may result in providers to consider for regional inconsistent with the requirements of projects being selected in the regional transmission facilities. In other words, the FPA and precedent. Commenters transmission plan for purposes of cost should the Commission require should also address how such proposals allocation that do not represent the transmission providers to establish a impact customers of load serving optimal solution to the reliability or broader set of transmission benefits for entities and whether and how proposed congestion problems identified and thus purposes of cost allocation than new cost allocation formulae may shift may not represent the most efficient or currently in use and, likewise, should costs to new categories of customers and the Commission adopt a minimum set of 106 See BNP Paribas Energy, 743 F.3d at 268–69 whether such cost-shifting is just and (framing the cost causation principle ‘‘as a matter transmission benefits that must be reasonable and consistent with the of making sure that burden is matched with considered? Such benefits could requirements of the FPA. benefit’’). encompass economic benefits (e.g.,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:36 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27JYP2.SGM 27JYP2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 40282 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Proposed Rules

congestion reduction); resource effective in allocating the costs of such predominately large, centralized adequacy benefits (e.g., allowing facilities roughly commensurate with resources to include a large proportion imports to replace more expensive local benefits? Are there threshold of smaller renewable generators that, generation, lowering required planning transmission system conditions that due to their distance from load centers, targets through increased diversity would enable the Commission to often require extensive interconnection- benefits); and reliability benefits (e.g., reasonably conclude that regional (or related network upgrades to avoided or deferred reliability some greater or lesser geographical interconnect to the transmission system. transmission facilities, improved scope) allocation of costs is appropriate The significant interconnection-related reserves sharing, increased voltage (such as the amount of congestion or network upgrades necessary to support). And to what extent are there level of interconnectedness in a accommodate geographically remote benefits that will differ from region-to- particular area)? This necessarily links generation are a result that the region? to our earlier questions about how to Commission did not contemplate when 95. If there are types of benefits that quantify benefits and what level of it established the interconnection cannot be quantified, but which are real precision is required. pricing policy for interconnection- and relevant to allocating the costs of 98. Along the same lines of related network upgrades. Because the regional transmission facilities roughly identifying beneficiaries, we seek large-scale changes since Order No. commensurate with benefits, we seek comment on whether the costs of 2003 may have impacted the underlying comment on how transmission transmission facilities planned in the rationale for the interconnection pricing providers can document and account for regional transmission planning process policy, we seek comment on whether those benefits in crafting a cost for which we seek comment in this the Commission should modify the allocation method. Similarly, we seek ANOPR should be allocated to both participant funding and crediting comment on whether the inability to transmission and interconnection policies, as discussed in further detail precisely quantify benefits of customers. As explained earlier, we are below. transmission facilities can be a barrier to concerned about potential free-rider the development of those facilities, problems associated with a. Background particularly those with potentially broad interconnection customers that later i. Original Rationale for the Order No. transmission benefits. If so, we are connect to transmission facilities 2003 Interconnection-Related Network interested in what types of transmission planned for anticipated future Upgrade Funding Requirements facilities are most impacted and what generation. We are therefore interested 101. As discussed above, the types of benefits are typically associated in approaches to cost allocation to Commission in Order No. 2003 with those types of transmission ensure that both transmission and described two general approaches for facilities, and how those benefits can be interconnection customers that benefit assigning the costs of interconnection- justified and quantified. from those facilities pay their fair share. related network upgrades needed to 96. To the extent that there are While we propose to potentially reform interconnect a generating facility to the relevant benefits that are difficult to participant funding by interconnection transmission system: (1) the crediting quantify, we seek comment on ways in customers of interconnection-related policy, whereby the interconnection which the Commission can consider network upgrades, we are also customer initially funds the whether those benefits are appropriately considering how best to allocate costs of interconnection-related network credited to a regional transmission regional transmission facilities to upgrades and is reimbursed through facility and accounted for as part of interconnection customers (e.g., transmission credits; 107 and (2) allocating the costs to beneficiaries. This whether cost allocation methods for participant funding, where the costs of includes consideration of when benefits regional transmission facilities should interconnection-related network of a transmission facility are sufficiently allocate a portion of the costs of a certain to justify a commensurately regional transmission facility directly to upgrades in RTOs/ISOs are assigned broad cost allocation, especially where interconnection customers based on, for directly to the interconnection those benefits are not susceptible to example, the capacity of the customer. Central to discussions of the precise quantification. We also seek interconnection customer’s generating Commission’s interconnection-related comment on whether it is appropriate to facility). network upgrade funding requirements credit benefits that cannot be credibly 99. We seek comment on the cost is Order No. 2003’s continued quantified and whether, and if so, how, effectiveness of the reforms discussed prohibition of ‘‘and’’ pricing. This it is appropriate to factor such benefits herein. If the regional transmission prohibition provides that, when ‘‘a into regional cost allocation. planning and cost allocation processes Transmission Provider must construct 97. In addition to identifying benefits, are to consider transmission needs we also seek comment on best practices 107 Order No. 2003–B states that ‘‘the period for driven by anticipated future generation, reimbursement may not be longer than the period for identifying the beneficiaries of a is there a tradeoff between facilitating that would be required if the Interconnection transmission facility. For example, some the construction of transmission Customer paid for transmission service directly and interconnection-related network facilities that are needed to connect received credits on a dollar-for-dollar basis, or 20 upgrades for generator interconnection years [from the generating facility’s commercial such anticipated future generation, and operation date], whichever is less.’’ Order No. may benefit more than a single ensuring against building more 2003–B, 109 FERC ¶ 61,287 at PP 3, 36. If credits interconnecting generator, however the transmission than is necessary? If so, have not fully reimbursed the upfront payment scope (temporal and geographic) of such how should the Commission approach within 20 years, Order No. 2003 requires ‘‘a balloon beneficiaries may not be clear. We seek that tradeoff? payment’’ at the end of year 20. Id. P 36. The comment on the efficacy and crediting policy also requires that affected system 3. Participant Funding and Crediting operators provide credits for transmission service desirability of a regional transmission taken on an affected system. Id. P 42. Even if the planning and cost allocation process Policy for Funding Interconnection- interconnection customer does not take that seeks to plan for future scenarios, Related Network Upgrades transmission service over the affected system, however, the affected system operator must still including planning for anticipated 100. Since the issuance of Order No. provide the 20-year balloon payment to refund any future generation. What methods for 2003, the composition of the generation remaining balance to the interconnection customer. ascertaining beneficiaries are most fleet has rapidly shifted from Order No. 2003–C, 111 FERC ¶ 61,401 at P 13.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:36 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27JYP2.SGM 27JYP2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Proposed Rules 40283

[interconnection-related] Network Transmission Provider are properly of costs than the crediting Upgrades to provide new or expanded allocable to the Interconnection approach.’’ 119 Therefore, the transmission service, the Commission Customer through direct assignment Commission stated that it would generally allows the Transmission because upgrades to the transmission provide RTOs/ISOs with the flexibility Provider to charge the higher of the grid benefit all customers.’’ 113 The to propose participant funding for embedded costs of the Transmission Commission also stated that the interconnection-related network System with expansion costs rolled in, crediting policy has a two-fold purpose. upgrades for a generator or incremental expansion costs, but not First, by providing the transmission interconnection.120 In accordance with the sum of the two.’’ 108 The provider with a source of funds to this flexibility, the Commission did not Commission also explained that construct the interconnection-related prescribe specific policies for RTOs/ allowing the transmission provider to network upgrades, the upfront payment ISOs but instead provided them with charge either the higher of an embedded by the interconnection customer the flexibility to adopt policies of their cost rate for transmission service or an alleviates any delay that might result if own choosing, subject to Commission incremental rate designed to recover the the transmission provider were forced to approval.121 Over time, each RTO/ISO cost of the interconnection-related secure funding elsewhere. Second, by sought, and the Commission accepted, network upgrades ‘‘provides the placing the interconnection customer independent entity variations to adopt Transmission Provider with a cost initially at risk for the full cost of the some form of participant funding rather recovery mechanism that ensures that interconnection-related network than the crediting policy. native load and other transmission upgrades, the upfront payment provides 106. The Commission expressed its customers will not subsidize service to the interconnection customer with a willingness to consider a well-designed the Interconnection Customer.’’ 109 strong incentive to make efficient siting participant funding approach in decisions and, in general, to make good response to commenter concerns that (a) Crediting Policy faith requests for interconnection the crediting policy ‘‘mutes somewhat 102. The Commission instituted the service.114 the Interconnection Customer’s crediting policy to achieve multiple 104. In NARUC v. FERC,115 multiple incentive to make an efficient siting objectives. First, the Commission found petitioners challenged the crediting decision that takes new transmission that this policy would avoid prohibited policy established in Order No. 2003. costs into account, and it provides the ‘‘and’’ pricing for interconnection- The petitioners argued that the crediting Interconnection Customer with what related network upgrades because it policy was inconsistent with the cost many view as an improper subsidy, ensures that the interconnection causation principle because they particularly when the Interconnection customer will not be charged twice for disagreed with the Commission’s Customer chooses to sell its output off- the use of the transmission system by conclusions that ‘‘[interconnection- system.’’ 122 Additionally, while the paying both for the incremental cost of related] Network Upgrades benefit the Commission mandated the crediting 116 the upgrade and an embedded-cost rate entire network,’’ and therefore, all policy for non-independent (with the cost of that interconnection- transmission customers should transmission providers, Order No. 2003 related network upgrade rolled in) for essentially pay for those acknowledged that the concerns that use of the transmission system.110 Also, interconnection-related network gave rise to the adoption of the crediting the Commission stated that the crediting upgrades through the crediting policy do not apply to RTOs/ISOs. For 117 policy was intended to facilitate the policy. The U.S. Court of Appeals for example, Order No. 2003 noted that ‘‘a efficient construction of the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. number of aspects of the ‘but for’ interconnection-related network Circuit) agreed with the Commission’s approach are subjective, and a upgrades and enhance competition in position and noted that the D.C. Circuit Transmission Provider that is not an bulk power markets by promoting the had previously ‘‘endorsed the approach independent entity has the ability and construction of new generation 111 of ‘assign[ing] the costs of system-wide the incentive to exploit this subjectivity Furthermore, the Commission found benefits to all customers on an to its own advantage’’ by, for example, 118 that the crediting policy would ensure integrated transmission grid.’ ’’ finding ‘‘that a disproportionate share of the costs of expansions needed to serve comparable treatment for (b) Participant Funding interconnection customers that are not its own power customers is attributable 105. In Order No. 2003, the affiliated with the transmission to competing Interconnection Commission stated that ‘‘under the right Customers.’’ 123 In contrast, however, provider, as transmission providers circumstances, a well-designed and the Commission noted that RTOs and traditionally roll the costs of independently administered participant ISOs are independent, and neither own interconnection-related network funding policy for [interconnection- nor have affiliates that own generating upgrades associated with their own related] Network Upgrades offers the facilities and thus do not have an generating facilities into their potential to provide more efficient price incentive to discourage new generation transmission rates.112 signals and a more equitable allocation by competitors.124 103. Additionally, in Order No. 2003– 107. The Commission also explained A, the Commission stated that it does 113 Order No. 2003–A, 106 FERC ¶ 61,220 at P that participant funding might speed up ‘‘not believe that the costs of 212. As noted in the discussion below on the development of new transmission [interconnection-related] Network participant funding, the Commission has allowed infrastructure. In particular, Order No. Upgrades required to interconnect a direct assignment of interconnection-related network upgrade costs to generators interconnecting 2003 postulated that ‘‘participant Generating Facility to the Transmission to independent transmission providers such as System of a non-independent RTOs/ISOs. 119 Order No. 2003, 104 FERC ¶ 61,103 at P 695. 114 Id. P 613. 120 Id. P 28. 108 Order No. 2003, 104 FERC ¶ 61,103 at n.111. 115 475 F.3d 1277. 121 Order No. 2003–A, 106 FERC ¶ 61,220 at P 109 Order No. 2003–A, 106 FERC ¶ 61,220 at P 116 Id., 475 F.3d at 1285. 696. 613. 117 Id. (citing Pub. Serv. Co. of Colo., 62 FERC 122 Order No. 2003, 104 FERC ¶ 61,103 at P 695. 110 Order No. 2003, 104 FERC ¶ 61,103 at P 694. ¶ 61,013, at 61,061 (1993)). 123 Id. n.111. 111 Id. PP 612, 694. 118 Id. (citing W. Mass. Elec. Co. v. FERC, 165 F.3d 124 Order No. 2003–A, 106 FERC ¶ 61,220 at P 112 Id. P 694. 922, 927 (DC Cir. 1999)). 691.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:36 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27JYP2.SGM 27JYP2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 40284 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Proposed Rules

funding of [interconnection-related consider.129 Moreover, RTOs/ISOs are capacity, or energy-only).133 In CAISO, network] upgrades may provide the ‘‘not required to provide transmission full cash reimbursement is only pricing framework needed to overcome capacity rights where . . . the network available for the costs of certain the reluctance of incumbent upgrades create no additional categories of interconnection-related Transmission Owners in many parts of transmission capability.’’ 130 To this network upgrades, up to $60,000 per the country to build transmission, with point, the Commission in Old Dominion MW of installed generation capacity, the result that badly needed Electric Cooperative v. PJM and interconnecting generators receive transmission infrastructure could be put Interconnection, L.L.C. explained that, congestion revenue rights in exchange in place quickly.’’ 125 while Order No. 2003 ‘‘stated that for funding any upgrades that are not 108. RTOs/ISOs that have adopted a generation interconnection customers eligible for cash reimbursement. SPP, participant funding approach do not would receive capacity rights, those NYISO, PJM, and ISO-New England, reimburse interconnection customers statements were based on the Inc. use a participant funding approach with transmission service credits for the assumption that a network upgrade where the transmission provider assigns cost of the interconnection-related provided by an interconnection 100% of the interconnection-related network upgrades. Instead, the customer would create additional network upgrade costs to the Commission allowed interconnection transmission capability beyond that interconnection customer and the customers to receive well-defined needed to simply interconnect with the interconnection customer may receive 131 capacity rights that are created by the grid.’’ compensation through transmission 134 interconnection-related network 110. Again, each RTO/ISO sought an capacity rights. independent entity variation to adopt a upgrades.126 As an example, the participant funding approach rather b. Potential Need for Reform Commission in Order No. 2003 pointed than adopt the crediting policy. In i. Participant Funding to PJM Firm Transmission Rights and MISO, an interconnection customer is Capacity Interconnection Rights, which, 111. Since the issuance of Order No. responsible for 100% of it stated, are ‘‘created by the 2003, changing circumstances have cast interconnection-related network [interconnection-related] Network doubt on whether it continues to be just upgrade costs, with a possible 10% Upgrades for which the Interconnection and reasonable to provide RTOs/ISOs reimbursement or ‘‘crediting’’ for Customer pays, and they are well- with the flexibility to adopt participant interconnection-related network defined, long-term and tradeable.’’ 127 funding approaches for interconnection- upgrades that are 345 kV and above.132 related network upgrades. We seek The Commission stated that provision of In CAISO, the interconnection such ‘‘well-defined capacity rights’’ in comment on whether these customer’s cost responsibility for a developments suggest that the lieu of credits does not violate the particular interconnection-related prohibition of ‘‘and’’ pricing because the allowance of participant funding for network upgrade depends on how interconnection-related network ‘‘Interconnection Customer pays CAISO classified the interconnection- separate charges for separate services,’’ upgrades, both as a concept and in its related network upgrade (i.e., whether application, may no longer be just and namely ‘‘an access charge for the interconnection-related network transmission service that may involve reasonable. Moreover, it appears that the upgrade is considered area, local, or incentives created by participant an obligation to pay congestion charges, reliability) and the interconnection- and in exchange for its ‘but for’ funding in this context may produce related network upgrade’s deliverability outcomes that are counter to the payment, [the interconnection status (e.g., full capacity, partial customer] receives these well-defined Commission’s intentions in allowing flexibility for RTOs/ISOs to adopt capacity rights, which provide some 129 PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 108 FERC protection for having to actually pay the participant funding in Order No. 2003. ¶ 61,025, at P 20 (2004); see also Midwest Indep. 112. To begin with, participant congestion charges.’’ 128 Transmission Sys. Operator, Inc., 114 FERC ¶ 61,106, at P 66 (2006). funding may allocate the costs of 109. Commission precedent makes 130 Old Dominion Elec. Coop. v. PJM extensive interconnection-related clear that the purpose of providing Interconnection, L.L.C., 119 FERC ¶ 61,052, at P 18 network upgrades entirely to ‘‘well-defined’’ rights is not to provide (2007) (ODEC v. PJM). interconnection customers without 131 full reimbursement for the costs of ODEC v. PJM, 119 FERC ¶ 61,052 at P 18; see accounting for the significant benefits interconnection-related network also id. P 16 (‘‘Not every system upgrade required simply to interconnect a generating facility safely to that these interconnection-related upgrades. In fact, where an RTO/ISO the grid entitles the generator to capacity rights; network upgrades may provide to adopts a participant funding approach however, a generation interconnection customer transmission customers. As a result, for interconnection-related network would be ‘allowed to receive’ capacity rights if a there are circumstances where this upgrades required to interconnect an [interconnection-related] network upgrade creates additional transmission capability.’’). allocation of interconnection-related interconnection customer, there is no 132 See, e.g., Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, network upgrade costs may not be requirement that the capacity rights Inc., 164 FERC ¶ 61,158, at P 5 (2018) (‘‘MISO’s roughly commensurate with the being awarded for interconnection- Interconnection Customer Funding Policy . . . distribution of benefits. For instance, a related network upgrades have equal requiring the interconnection customer to ‘participant fund’ 90–100 percent of its large interconnection-related network value to the cost of the interconnection- [interconnection-related] network upgrades . . . upgrade built on a consistently related network upgrades because the was accepted, under the Order No. 2003 congested portion of the transmission costs would not exist ‘‘but for’’ the independent entity variation standard in 2009.’’); system may provide significant proposed interconnection and are Midwest Indep. Transmission Sys. Operator, Inc., 129 FERC ¶ 61,060, at P 8 (2009) (accepting MISO’s simply part of a project’s construction ‘‘proposed change [that] would result in the 133 Cal. Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 140 FERC costs and business risk that the interconnection customer bearing 100 percent of the ¶ 61,070, at PP 24–27 (2012). interconnection customer must costs of [interconnection-related] network upgrades 134 PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 108 FERC rated below 345 kV and bearing 90 percent of the ¶ 61,025 (2004); Sw. Power Pool, Inc., 127 FERC costs of [interconnection-related] network upgrades ¶ 61,283 (2009); Sw. Power Pool, Inc., 171 FERC 125 Order No. 2003, 104 FERC ¶ 61,103 at P 703. rated at 345 kV and above (with the remaining 10 ¶ 61,272 (2020); N.Y. Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 108 126 Id. P 700. percent being recovered on a system-wide basis’’)); FERC ¶ 61,159 (2004), order on reh’g, 111 FERC 127 Id. Midwest Indep. Trans. Sys. Operator, Inc., 114 ¶ 61,347 (2005); ISO New Eng. Inc., 133 FERC 128 Id. FERC ¶ 61,106, at P 62 (2006). ¶ 61,229 (2010).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:36 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27JYP2.SGM 27JYP2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Proposed Rules 40285

economic and reliability benefits to 114. We seek comment on whether markets because it causes the transmission customers. Also, costs allocated to interconnection interconnection customer to face the transmission customers, in some customers pursuant to participant same marginal cost price signal that it instances, can make use of any excess funding approaches have increased over would face in a competitive market.138 transmission capacity created by a time, and if so, why. We seek comment We seek comment on whether to participant funded interconnection- on whether this increase in costs is reconsider these findings in light of related network upgrade without paying evidence that regional transmission current circumstances. any of the capital costs that are paid for planning processes are not building 117. We note, for instance, that the through a participant funding approach. adequate transmission system capacity. Commission’s view of efficient siting of Allowing transmission customers to We seek comment on whether the generation in Order No. 2003 was from receive the benefits of interconnection- Commission’s policies on participant a transmission costs perspective, i.e., related network upgrades without funding have impacted the which points of interconnection would paying for a proportionate share of their interconnection queue, e.g., through require the least expensive costs is an example of the ‘‘free rider’’ late-state withdrawals, and if so, how interconnection-related network problem that the Commission’s and to what degree. In the case that upgrades. We seek comment on whether ‘‘beneficiary pays’’ cost causation there are late-stage withdrawals from this perspective may be at odds with the principle is supposed to avoid.135 the interconnection queue, we seek primary siting considerations for 113. Furthermore, while the comment on the ability of transmission renewable generation developers interconnection customer may receive providers to efficiently process decades later. That is, interconnection at well-defined capacity rights associated interconnection requests from other locations where renewable generation with the increased transfer capability interconnection customers affected by may experience higher efficiency factors caused by the interconnection-related the withdrawal. Finally, we seek (e.g., because they have abundant wind network upgrade, these well-defined comment on whether uncertainty or sun) may still be uneconomic where capacity rights do not compensate the regarding interconnection costs drives participant funding applies because the interconnection customer for the broad up the cost of developing supply costs of interconnection-related network range of benefits that the resources and thereby ultimately upgrades for that location may be interconnection-related network increases the cost of electricity supply significant and would not be allocated upgrades can provide to the for customers. beyond the interconnection customer. transmission system and therefore do 115. Participant funding also may We seek comment on whether interconnection at such locations may not solve the ‘‘free rider’’ problem. This create a separate incentive for the be considered economic, however, if the is because the well-defined capacity interconnection customer that may cost of the interconnection-related rights do not capture reductions in undermine the development of network upgrades were allocated more congestion costs paid by transmission interconnection-related network broadly among those that benefit. Thus, customers that were the result of the upgrades that produce greater benefits. because the price signal participant expansion of the transfer capability Specifically, the interconnection funding sends does not account for the created by the interconnection-related customer, knowing that it will be broader economic efficiencies from network upgrade; nor do they capture responsible for all interconnection- siting renewable generation in fuel-rich transmission service charges for use of related network upgrade costs, is likely to strongly oppose any addition or areas, it can instead encourage the the excess capacity created by the development of renewable generation in modification to the transmission system interconnection-related network less productive locations. Because beyond what is necessary to support its upgrade. Instead, well-defined capacity increased renewable resource own interconnection, even if such rights capture congestion costs paid by penetration in RTOs/ISOs is likely to additions and modifications may transmission customers on a going continue, it may make less sense to ultimately benefit it and others by forward basis across the relevant retain a policy that encourages providing improved reliability or transmission path on which the renewable developers to develop lower economic outcomes.136 interconnection-related network quality, less dependable renewable 116. An additional rationale that the upgrade increased transmission resources. capacity. To the extent that the Commission provided in Order No. 118. Further, given the uncertainty interconnection-related network 2003 for allowing participant funding created by the RTO/ISO queue backlogs upgrade may have eliminated most of was the concern that the and cascading interconnection-related the ex ante congestion on the relevant interconnection crediting policy would network upgrade cost allocations that paths, the transmission customers that ‘‘mute somewhat the Interconnection move from withdrawing higher-queued transact across such paths and have Customer’s incentive to make an interconnection customers to lower- their congestion costs reduced as a efficient siting decision that takes queued interconnection customers, 137 result of the large interconnection- transmission costs into account.’’ participant funding may no longer related network upgrade now in service The Commission in Order No. 2003 also provide efficient price signals that allow will receive this benefit for free in most found that participant funding in RTOs/ generators to act freely to achieve the cases. ISOs is consistent with the policy of desirable level of entry of new cost- promoting competitive wholesale effective generating capacity. We 135 See, e.g., Order No. 1000–A, 139 FERC understand that a contributing factor to ¶ 61,132 at P 562 (‘‘Given the nature of transmission 136 See Review of Generator Interconnection the interconnection queue backlog is a operations, it is possible that an entity that uses part Agreements and Procedures, Technical Conference of the transmission grid will obtain benefits from Transcript, Docket No. RM16–12–000 at Tr: 193: tendency by interconnection customers transmission facility enlargements and 20–24 (Steve Naumann, Exelon) (filed Aug. 23, to submit multiple interconnection improvements in another part of that grid regardless 2016) (‘‘[Y]ou need to also deal with the requests at different points of of whether they have a contract for service on that [interconnection] customer who says, ‘Okay, I will interconnection, with the intention of part of the grid and regardless of whether they pay be perfectly willing to take the risk, but I don’t want for those benefits. This is the essence of the ‘free to pay for a single upgrade more than I have to [to] discovering the lowest cost site for a rider’ problem the Commission is seeking to have a the reliability interconnection.’’). address through its cost allocation reforms.’’). 137 Order No. 2003, 104 FERC ¶ 61,103 at P 695. 138 Id. P 702.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:36 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27JYP2.SGM 27JYP2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 40286 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Proposed Rules

project (from an interconnection for the costs of interconnection-related upgrades.139 Moreover, no potential perspective), and then withdrawing network upgrades in all regions. We reform presented here would modify the higher-cost projects from the queue later seek comment on these options and existing requirement that an in the process. This tendency can invite alternative suggestions by interconnection customer bear cost require numerous restudies and commenters that take into consideration responsibility for the interconnection reallocation of interconnection-related the concerns discussed above. facilities that would not be needed but network upgrade costs, compounding 122. Additionally, for each of the for its interconnection request. the uncertainty surrounding the amount reforms contemplated below, we seek 125. We seek comment on whether of interconnection-related network comment on whether there are the removal of participant funding of upgrade costs that will be attributable to articulable and plausible reasons to interconnection-related network viable projects as the queue progresses. believe that these reforms would upgrades may also have the potential to 119. We seek comment on whether it allocate the costs of interconnection- increase integration of generation by is appropriate to eliminate or reduce related network upgrades in a manner removing the possibly prohibitive cost participant funding for interconnection- that is at least roughly commensurate assignment that participant funding can related network upgrades in RTOs/ISOs with the benefits of those place on some interconnection and whether any specific proposed interconnection-related network customers. Furthermore, it may reduce changes to interconnection funding upgrades and that do not unjustly and cost uncertainty to those resources in mechanisms allocate costs in a manner unreasonably shift costs to customers of the interconnection queue, and by roughly commensurate with benefits load serving entities or are otherwise extension, increase the likelihood that and are otherwise consistent with the inconsistent with the Commission’s an interconnection request will result in Commission’s authority under the FPA statutory authority. a developed generating facility.140 and do not unjustly or unreasonably i. Eliminate Participant Funding for 126. Additionally, we seek comment shift costs to customers of load serving Interconnection-Related Network on whether eliminating participant entities. Upgrades funding may reduce the queue backlogs ii. Crediting Policy that plague many regions because 123. We seek comment on whether interconnection customers would have 120. We seek comments on whether participant funding of interconnection- less incentive to submit multiple we should revisit the crediting policy in related network upgrades may be unjust interconnection requests in an attempt all regions by requiring that and unreasonable. We seek comment on to lower their interconnection costs, and transmission providers, instead of whether RTOs/ISOs with previously may no longer drop out of interconnection customers, fund upfront approved independent entity variations interconnection queues at late stages all or a portion of the interconnection- that directly assign some or all the cost due to unforeseen interconnection- related network upgrade costs. We responsibility for interconnection- related network upgrade cost increases. describe multiple variations of this related network upgrades to To these points, we seek comment on proposal below. Some generation interconnection customers should be the number of interconnection requests developers may find it difficult to required to revise their tariffs to remove that have withdrawn from the queue provide upfront funding for the costs of the participant funding of because the direct assignment of network upgrades when the interconnection-related network significant interconnection-related upgrade requirements and instead reimbursement period can be as long as network upgrade costs made otherwise implement the crediting policy as 20 years. Accordingly, we seek viable interconnection requests comment on whether the current prescribed in the pro forma LGIA. 124. The potential proposal to uneconomic. approach may unjustly and 127. We seek comment on whether eliminate participant funding of unreasonably allocate significant the independent entity variation granted interconnection-related network financing costs for interconnection- to RTOs/ISOs in Order No. 2003 is no upgrades in RTOs/ISOs would related network upgrades to longer just and reasonable. In general, recognize, however, that simply because interconnection customers when the we seek comment on whether the an interconnection request makes an benefits of the interconnection-related incentives created by participant interconnection-related network network upgrades accrue to the broader funding of interconnection-related system. We seek comment on whether, upgrade necessary for interconnection (and in that sense, ‘‘causes’’ the need for network upgrades in RTOs/ISOs may if interconnection-related network produce outcomes that are counter to upgrade costs are increasing on average, interconnection-related network upgrades that would not be needed ‘‘but the Commission’s transmission it is possible that these upfront funding planning and cost allocation efforts. costs may pose an unjust and for’’ an interconnection request), an interconnection-related network unreasonable barrier to entry for 139 As noted below, however, we are exploring generation developers. Given these upgrade may sufficiently benefit reforms to the existing crediting policy approach considerations, below we seek comment transmission customers that it is (that could be adopted alone or in combination with on some potential reforms to the appropriate to allocate the the elimination of participant funding) that could interconnection-related network reduce the level of upfront funding to be provided crediting policy. by the interconnection customers. upgrade costs more broadly. Also, this c. Potential Reforms and Request for 140 See, e.g., Review of Generator Interconnection potential proposal could address the Agreements and Procedures, Technical Conference Comment free rider problem that is created by Transcript, Docket No. RM16–12–000, at Tr. 25: 8– 121. We seek comment on whether participant funding of interconnection- 15 (May 13, 2016) (Dean Gosselin, NextEra) (filed Aug. 23, 2016) (‘‘I’d like to just talk about what is the Commission should eliminate the related network upgrades. We note, optimal . . . as a developer . . . trying to advance independent entity variations that allow however, that the specific proposal is to [a project] to fruition .... I would say for the RTOs/ISOs to use participant funding eliminate participant funding and interconnection queue that the initial results closely for interconnection-related network replace it with the crediting policy, a match final results in a defined and reasonable timeline, that would be my definition.’’); id. at upgrades. We also seek comment on pricing approach that still requires 134:5–7 (Omar Martino, EDF Renewable Energy) potential approaches for modifying or interconnection customers to initially (‘‘[C]osts can change dramatically between [the] replacing the existing crediting policy fund interconnection-related network system impact and [the] facility study.’’).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:36 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27JYP2.SGM 27JYP2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Proposed Rules 40287

128. We are aware that there could be interconnection-related network customers by creating a more complications associated with upgrades have provided to the system, competitive market for energy. implementing the crediting policy in such as the value of congestion relieved 134. There may also be additional RTOs/ISOs with zonal transmission by interconnection-related network efficiency benefits to removing the rates that do not occur outside RTOs/ upgrades. We are also interested in any crediting policy because the financing of ISOs. Outside RTOs/ISOs, a single other concerns related to the ‘‘well- interconnection-related network transmission provider owns and defined capacity rights’’ that upgrades would follow the same operates its transmission system and interconnection customers receive and financing process that the transmission generally charges a single rate for the the ability of these ‘‘well-defined owners apply to the other transmission entire system, regardless of the specific capacity rights’’ to reflect the value of infrastructure that they fund and build transmission customer’s location. In the full incremental capacity and on their system. That is, there could be contrast, an RTO/ISO operates the congestion benefits added to the an efficiency gain from using one combined transmission assets of transmission system by the financing process for all transmission multiple transmission owners within its interconnection-related network system facilities instead of the existing footprint at non-pancaked transmission upgrades. two: one for interconnection-related rates, and generally has separate network upgrades and another for other ii. Revisions to the Existing Crediting transmission pricing zones. The transmission system facilities. In Policy transmission rates for each zone are addition to that particular inefficiency, generally designed to recover the costs 131. We seek comment on possible under the current crediting approach of transmission facilities located within revisions to the Order No. 2003 applied in non-RTO/ISO regions, each each zone. As a result, we seek interconnection crediting policy, which interconnection-related network comment on whether simply applying requires that interconnection customers upgrade is financed twice—initially by the crediting policy currently used provide upfront funding for the interconnection customer and then outside RTOs/ISOs in RTOs/ISOs may interconnection-related network again by the transmission provider disproportionately increase the burden upgrades and receive reimbursement when the interconnection customer to the native load of transmission zones through transmission service credits or receives credits as it takes transmission where large amounts of interconnection- a balloon payment after 20 years. We service or receives a balloon payment related network upgrades are enumerate multiple proposals below. after 20 years. Without the initial constructed to facilitate the Not all of these proposals are mutually funding by the interconnection interconnection of location-constrained exclusive, and some could be customer, interconnection-related resources, which ultimately may benefit implemented in tandem. network upgrades would only need to the entire RTO/ISO footprint. (a) Transmission Providers Provide be financed once. 129. Under a crediting policy in an Upfront Funding for All (b) Interconnection Customers RTO/ISO, there may be a need for an Interconnection-Related Network Contribute to the Upfront Funding of appropriate mechanism to reimburse the Upgrades Interconnection-Related Network interconnection customers, including a Upgrades Through a Fee mechanism for determining which 132. Pursuant to this potential transmission owner(s) or zonal proposal, each transmission provider 135. Another possible reform to the transmission rates will include the would provide upfront funding for all current crediting policy is to consider interconnection-related network the interconnection-related network the establishment of a non-refundable upgrade costs. For example, there is a upgrades on its transmission system. fee to be charged for submitting an question of whether it would be just and Then, once such an interconnection- interconnection request and that is not reasonable to allocate the costs only related network upgrade is in service, reimbursable through transmission within the transmission zone where the the transmission provider would be able service credits. Under this approach, an interconnection-related network to include the cost of that appropriate fee should not be so large upgrade is located or more broadly to interconnection-related network that it creates barriers to entry for multiple transmission zones.141 We upgrade in its transmission service rate smaller developers. Potential benefits of therefore seek comment on how to base and recover a return on, and of, the this type of fee could include: (1) implement the crediting policy in network upgrade capital costs through Defraying some of the cost to RTOs/ISOs and what principles should the cost-of-service transmission rates in transmission customers for be used to guide the application of the its OATT. Thus, interconnection interconnection-related network crediting policy in RTOs/ISOs. customers that take transmission service upgrades and therefore decreasing the 130. Finally, given the concerns about on a transmission system would still overall impact on transmission the free-rider problem and whether the pay for a portion of interconnection- customers of the related potential ‘‘well-defined capacity rights’’ received related network upgrades through reform to eliminate participant funding by interconnection customers capture transmission rates. We seek comment on of interconnection-related network the benefits the interconnection-related (1) this approach and (2) how this upgrades in RTOs/ISOs; (2) network upgrades provide to the system, approach could be implemented in a discouraging the submission of we seek comment on: (1) The value of just and reasonable manner. speculative interconnection requests; the ‘‘well-defined capacity rights’’ that 133. This option would reduce the and (3) for some variable fees, providing interconnection customers have initial financing burden that a price signal to interconnection received for funding interconnection- interconnection customers currently customers that could incent efficient related network upgrades; and (2) the may encounter when significant siting decisions where possible. We seek value of the benefits that interconnection-related network comment on (1) whether to impose a upgrades are required for their non-refundable, non-reimbursable fee 141 See, e.g., Interstate Power & Light Co. v. ITC interconnection request. Furthermore, on each submitted interconnection Midwest, LLC, 144 FERC ¶ 61,052, at P 40 (2013), this option may increase generator request and (2) how this approach could order on reh’g, clarification and compliance, 146 FERC ¶ 61,113 (2014). See also Sw. Power Pool, competition by lowering barriers to be implemented in a just and reasonable Inc., 127 FERC ¶ 61,283, at P 5 (2009). entry, which in turn will benefit manner.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:36 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27JYP2.SGM 27JYP2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 40288 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Proposed Rules

136. We seek comment on two (c) Transmission Providers Provide approach in MISO, albeit in the context specific versions of this approach. First, Upfront Funding for Only Higher of responsibility for payment of we seek comment on the potential Voltage Interconnection-Related interconnection-related network establishment of a fixed fee applied to Network Upgrades upgrade costs themselves and not just each interconnection request, which 139. We seek comment on whether it the upfront funding of them as would be the same for all would be appropriate to require discussed here. MISO’s tariff provides interconnection requests, irrespective of transmission providers to fund upfront for some cost sharing for the generating facility’s capacity or the costs of any interconnection-related interconnection-related network project location. We seek comment on network upgrade that is rated at or upgrades under which transmission providers recover the costs of 10% of whether establishing a fixed fee would above a certain voltage threshold. interconnection-related network be appropriate and, if so, the Interconnection customers would be upgrades rated 345 kV and above on a appropriate amount of such a fee. responsible for upfront funding the cost of interconnection-related network system-wide basis while directly 137. Second, we seek comment on the upgrades below that threshold and be assigning through participant funding potential establishment of a variable fee reimbursed through transmission 90% of the costs of such upgrades to the applied to each interconnection request. service credits pursuant to the crediting interconnection customer whose The amount of the variable fee could policy. interconnection required the network depend upon the generating facility 140. Because higher voltage upgrade.144 Furthermore, on multiple capacity associated with the transmission facilities tend to produce occasions, the Commission has interconnection request and/or the greater and broader benefits to permitted RTOs/ISOs to define different identified interconnection-related transmission systems than lower voltage transmission facility categories and network upgrades. For example, the fee transmission facilities, this option may adopt different cost allocation methods could be based on a percentage of the better satisfy the requirement that the for transmission facilities based on the allocation of costs be at least roughly transmission facility’s voltage estimated interconnection-related 145 network upgrade costs or be calculated commensurate with the distribution of threshold. benefits.143 Thus, where an 143. If the Commission were to split based on the generating facility capacity the upfront funding responsibility for and/or the voltage rating of the interconnection-related network upgrade’s voltage exceeds a defined interconnection-related network interconnection-related network upgrades between the transmission upgrade. We seek comment on the threshold and is likely to produce system-wide benefits, it may be provider and the interconnection appropriate size of this fee and the customer, it may be useful to create a structure of the fee, if the Commission appropriate to require that transmission providers fund the costs of such split based on voltage. For example, were to require one. We also seek interconnection-related network adopting an interconnection-related comment on whether it is possible to upgrades upfront. network upgrade voltage threshold to be use a percentage of interconnection- 141. The Commission could also funded upfront by the transmission related network upgrade cost estimates adopt a modified version of this provider has the potential to for this fee, and if so, at which point in approach by requiring transmission significantly reduce interconnection- the generator interconnection process a providers to upfront fund the portion of related network upgrade financing costs transmission provider would calculate the costs of higher voltage by eliminating interconnection that cost. interconnection-related network customers’ need to fund upfront the likely more expensive higher voltage 138. Finally, we seek comment on upgrades that exceeds a pre-determined cost threshold. For example, the interconnection-related network whether such a fee should be upgrades. It could be appropriate to established at the outset of the generator Commission could require transmission providers to upfront fund the costs of a require the transmission provider to interconnection process, or whether an fund upfront the cost of higher voltage escalating fee should be imposed as the 345 kV interconnection-related network upgrade that exceed $10 million. interconnection-related network interconnection request moves through upgrades because higher voltage Pursuant to this modified version, in the study process. For example, a transmission facilities are likely to this example of a 345 kV smaller fee could be required for entry produce greater region-wide benefits interconnection-related network into the feasibility study phase, with a than lower voltage ones. upgrade, the Commission would require larger fee for the system impact study 144. Whatever the selected voltage the interconnection customer to fund all threshold might be, interconnection phase and the largest fee required to network upgrade costs up to $10 million enter the facilities study.142 In this customers would still be required to and require the transmission provider to upfront fund the costs of manner, speculative projects could be provide upfront funding for all discouraged from entering the later interconnection-related network interconnection-related network upgrades (subject to the crediting stages of the generator interconnection upgrade costs above the $10 million process, while still allowing policy) that do not meet that threshold. threshold. Even in this situation, Thus, the selection of a voltage interconnection customers to use the however, the transmission provider feasibility study process as it was threshold would necessarily exclude would still have to provide transmission from transmission provider upfront designed, to determine project service credits to reimburse the funding some interconnection-related feasibility for a broader range of project interconnection customer for its $10 network upgrades that produce regional sizes and locations. million subject to the crediting policy. 142. We note that the Commission has 144 MISO Tariff, Attach. FF (Transmission 142 These non-refundable fees would be in approved a version of this cost sharing Expansion Planning Protocol), Section III.A2.d addition to, and distinct from, the initial deposit (81.0.0). submitted with an interconnection request and 143 See, e.g., Old Dominion Elec. Coop. v. FERC, 145 See Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., study deposits that are applied toward an 898 F.3d 1254, 1260 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (adopting 172 FERC ¶ 61,095 (2020) (accepting MISO’s interconnection customer’s interconnection study Commission finding that ‘‘high-voltage power lines proposal to change the qualifying voltage threshold costs. produce significant regional benefits’’). for a certain class of project from 345 kV to 230 kV).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:36 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27JYP2.SGM 27JYP2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Proposed Rules 40289

transmission benefits. We think it upgrades, interconnection customers iii. Additional Considerations important to ensure that, if the will have the ability to retain some (a) Interconnection-Related Network Commission requires that transmission control over the speed of Upgrade Cost Sharing providers establish a voltage threshold interconnection-related network for sharing the responsibility to fund upgrade construction because they will 150. If the Commission does not eliminate participant funding of upfront the cost of interconnection- be able to provide initial funding in interconnection-related network related network upgrades, then the cases where the transmission owner voltage threshold should be based upon upgrades, we seek comment regarding does not have the funding readily on potential cost-sharing measures to the likelihood that interconnection- hand to pay for certain construction related network upgrades that meet that account for the fact that later-in-time milestones. Transmission providers will threshold produce more transmission interconnection customers may accrue benefit because this construct will retain benefits than interconnection-related benefits from interconnection-related network upgrades below that threshold. the price signal to interconnection network upgrades built to accommodate Furthermore, we recognize that there is customers regarding siting decisions, as a prior interconnection request. That is, some tension between such an interconnection customers would still if a later-in-time interconnection approach, which would eliminate the have to upfront fund (i.e., finance) the customer benefits from the requirement that interconnection costs of more expensive larger interconnection-related network customers upfront fund some interconnection-related network upgrades required to interconnect an interconnection-related network upgrades associated with their earlier-in-time interconnection upgrades based on voltage, thus interconnection requests and the costs customer, the later-in-time reducing the interconnection customers’ related to financing interconnection- interconnection customers may also be financing costs only on larger related network upgrades (e.g., interest assigned a portion of those costs. The interconnection-related network payments due on the loan) should transmission provider could require the upgrades, and Order No. 2003’s general increase as the costs of the allocation of costs in proportion to the acknowledgement that interconnection- interconnection-related network benefits that the later-in-time interconnection customers receive from related network upgrades, regardless of upgrades increase. voltage or size, ‘‘benefit all users.’’ 146 network upgrades or be based on a Additionally, if the Commission 148. We note that adoption of the different method, such as a percent adopted this option, in order to avoid transmission planning and cost share based on usage. To make this the responsibility to upfront fund, allocation reforms discussed above is approach workable, the transmission transmission providers will have an likely to result in the development of provider could also dictate a point after incentive to identify a lower voltage regional transmission facilities intended which a later-in-time interconnection interconnection-related network to accommodate significant amounts of customer would be insulated from upgrade rather than identifying a higher generation, and thus, has the potential bearing the costs of a specific voltage project that may be more to reduce the need for more extensive interconnection-related network efficient or cost-effective. and costly interconnection-related upgrade, e.g., prohibiting allocation of 145. We seek comment on: (1) This network upgrades relative to those interconnection-related network approach; (2) the appropriate voltage identified in the generator upgrade costs to interconnection threshold and any pre-determined cost interconnection process at present. customers that enter the queue five threshold; and (3) how this approach Thus, the adoption of this generator years or more after the interconnection- related network upgrade’s could be implemented in a just and interconnection reform, in conjunction energization.147 As we noted above, the reasonable manner. with the regional transmission planning Commission has previously approved (d) Allocate the Upfront Cost of and cost allocation reforms discussed tariff provisions pursuant to which Interconnection-Related Network above, could result in a significant earlier-in-time interconnection Upgrades on a Percentage Basis reduction in interconnection customer customers receive a form of 146. We seek comment on whether to financing costs while still maintaining a reimbursement for the network upgrade reduce the allowable percentage of price signal for siting decisions. costs from later-in-time customers.148 interconnection-related network 149. We seek comment on: (1) This We note that the sharing of costs upgrade costs that interconnection approach; (2) the appropriate percentage between earlier-in-time and later-in- customers must fund upfront (i.e., from for the interconnection customer’s time interconnection customers would 100% to a lower percentage). The upfront funding; and (3) how this only apply in situations where the crediting policy would apply to the approach could be implemented in a earlier-in-time interconnection customer portion of the interconnection-related just and reasonable manner. As part of was assigned any of the costs of the network upgrade costs that the this inquiry, we are interested in interconnection-related network upgrade under the participant funding interconnection customer upfront funds. hearing perspectives on the extent to framework. We seek comment on a just To allow flexibility, we seek comment which partial upfront funding by an and reasonable method to calculate cost on whether an interconnection customer interconnection customer may preserve should have the option to elect to sharing for shared network upgrades. or reduce the incentive for that upfront fund 100% of the We also seek comment on whether to customer to efficiently site a project. We interconnection-related network require, and the appropriate duration of, seek comment on whether there are upgrade if it chooses. a time after which a later-in-time 147. This method could benefit both there other mechanisms, beyond interconnection customer would not be the interconnection customer and the customer upfront funding, that may transmission provider. With the ability incent a customer to site efficiently, and 147 For the purpose of this order, we will refer to to provide partial to full upfront funding that could be adopted in conjunction this time period as the sunset period. with the elimination of participant 148 See NYISO Tariff, attach S (Rules to Allocate for interconnection-related network Responsibility for the Cost of New Interconnection funding. Facilities), Section 25.7.2; see also MISO Tariff, 146 Order No. 2003, 104 FERC ¶ 61,103 at P 65. Attach. FF Section III.A.2.d.2 (81.0.0).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:36 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27JYP2.SGM 27JYP2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 40290 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Proposed Rules

allocated the costs of an we seek comment on what changes may development of future generation, it interconnection-related network be necessary to ensure that the option to may become important to streamline the upgrade. build provisions remain just and generator interconnection process for reasonable and to retain flexibility for generating facilities that are committed (b) Option To Build interconnection customers in light of to interconnecting to these transmission 151. Order No. 2003 established, and the potential change to the funding facilities. Order No. 845 expanded, the policy. 155. Therefore, we seek comment on interconnection customer’s option to whether a fast-track generator build transmission provider’s (c) Interconnection Request Limit interconnection process should be interconnection facilities 149 and stand 153. We understand that a developed to facilitate interconnection alone network upgrades.150 In a non- contributing factor to the of generating facilities that have firmly RTO/ISO, if an interconnection interconnection queue backlog is a committed to connecting to new customer elects to exercise the option to tendency by interconnection customers regional transmission facilities. An build, the interconnection customer to submit multiple interconnection example of such a fast-track option may assumes the responsibility to design, requests at different points of be to allow the transmission provider to procure, and construct the transmission interconnection, with the intention of perform a limited system impact study provider’s interconnection facilities and discovering the lowest cost location to for only the cluster of generating stand alone network upgrades and is site the generating facility (from an facilities committed under the regional repaid by the transmission provider interconnection perspective), and then transmission planning process and to pursuant to the crediting policy. withdrawing higher-cost move to the facilities study without 152. Importantly, the option to build interconnection requests from the queue waiting for earlier studies to complete. allows interconnection customers to later in the process. We also understand We recognize that the timeline for have some control over their own that, absent an appropriately-sized transmission facility permitting and timelines and construction schedules penalty (or reasonable restriction) construction often far exceeds that of and potentially achieve cost savings associated with submitting an the generator interconnection and associated with the design, interconnection request and then construction process but seek comment procurement, and construction of the subsequently withdrawing such an nonetheless on whether a faster transmission provider’s interconnection interconnection request, there still may generator interconnection process in facilities and stand alone network be an incentive to submit speculative this scenario would be beneficial. upgrades. If the Commission revises the interconnection requests under any of 156. We seek comment on whether requirement that interconnection the potential interconnection reforms such a process would constitute customers upfront fund all or some of discussed above. Therefore, we seek inappropriate ‘‘queue jumping,’’ or the costs all of interconnection-related comment on whether there should instead would be more appropriately network upgrades, corresponding penalties for submitting speculative viewed as an extension of the changes may be necessary to the option requests, how such should be defined, previously approved first-ready, first- to build provisions as they apply to and whether there should be a limit on served queueing practice. In this case, stand alone network upgrades to the number of interconnection requests are generating facilities that have put up recognize that an interconnection that a developer can submit in an financial collateral to ensure that a customer that wants to exercise the interconnection queue study year and regional transmission facility is option to build would no longer be how narrowly such a limit should apply constructed to serve them appropriately responsible to upfront fund the full cost (e.g., by transmission provider or by considered ‘‘ready’’ projects? We seek of those network upgrades. Therefore, transmission pricing zone). We also seek comment on the feasibility of comment on how to determine a just establishing such a proposal, as well as 149 Order No. 2003 defined two categories of and reasonable limit to the number of the implications on the rest of the interconnection facility: (1) Transmission provider’s interconnection requests. Finally, we generator interconnection queue and on interconnection facilities, which refer to all facilities and equipment owned, controlled or seek comment on how to address any legal challenges related to a operated by the transmission provider from the interconnection requests made by potential ‘‘queue jumping’’ concern. point of change of ownership to the point of affiliated companies and whether those (e) Fast-Track for Interconnection of interconnection, including any modifications, interconnection requests should count additions or upgrades to such facilities and ‘‘Ready’’ Generating Facilities equipment;’’ and (2) interconnection customer’s against the limit to the number of interconnection facilities, which are located interconnection requests if one is 157. In addition to considering a fast- between the generating facility and the point of imposed. track generator interconnection process change of ownership and which the interconnection for interconnection customers that have customer must design, procure, construct, and own. (d) Fast-Track for Interconnection of committed financially to new regional See pro forma LGIA art. 1 (Definitions); pro forma Generating Facilities Committed to transmission facilities, we are LGIA art. 5.10. Regional Transmission Facilities 150 Order No. 2003, 104 FERC ¶ 61,103 at P 353; considering whether allowing a fast- Reform of Generator Interconnection Procedures 154. As discussed above, we seek track for ‘‘ready’’ interconnection and Agreements, Order No. 845, 163 FERC ¶ 61,043, comment on the model established by requests would remove barriers to entry at P 85 (2018), order on reh’g, Order No. 845–A, 166 FERC ¶ 61,137, order on reh’g, Order No. 845–B, ERCOT to construct the CREZ for interconnection requests that have 168 FERC ¶ 61,092 (2019). Stand alone network transmission projects. For those met certain readiness criteria. For upgrades refer to interconnection-related network transmission projects to be approved, example, interconnection requests for upgrades ‘‘that are not part of an Affected System ERCOT required a certain percentage of which the developer has already that an Interconnection Customer may construct without affecting day-to-day operations of the capacity to be reserved by generation executed a power purchase agreement Transmission System during their construction. developers with existing projects, or that have been chosen in a state or Both the Transmission Provider and the projects under construction, projects utility request for proposals may be Interconnection Customer must agree as to what with signed interconnection agreements, appropriately deemed more ‘‘ready’’ constitutes Stand Alone Network Upgrades and identify them in Appendix A to the Standard Large or posted collateral. In the case that this than projects that enter the Generator Interconnection Agreement.’’ See pro model may improve the coordination interconnection queue without either forma LGIP Section 1 (Definitions). between transmission planning and the contractual arrangement. Another

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:36 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27JYP2.SGM 27JYP2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Proposed Rules 40291

example of an interconnection request C. Enhanced Transmission Oversight various processes. For example, we seek that demonstrates a higher degree of 159. The potential for a significant comment whether in non-RTO/ISO readiness could be one sited at a investment in the transmission system regions individual transmission owning previously developed point of in the coming years underscores the members’ local transmission planning interconnection that can make use of importance of ensuring that ratepayers processes may not be as well publicized existing interconnection facilities. Such are not saddled with costs for or follow as well understood processes interconnection requests may be transmission facilities that are unneeded to provide information as in RTO/ISO considered more ready because they or imprudent. As part of this package of regions. We seek comment on whether have more ready access to the potential reforms, we are considering this may result in material costs being transmission system. Both of these whether reforms may be needed to imposed on consumers with limited examples could be considered more enhance oversight of transmission visibility into the actual need for a local ready than interconnection requests planning and transmission providers’ transmission facility or support for a proposed at points of interconnection spending on transmission facilities to specific local transmission solution. We where the interconnection customer or ensure that transmission rates remain also seek comment on whether, in light the transmission provider must acquire just and reasonable. of the significant potential costs of new rights-of-way, permits, and transmission and this potential deficit agreements with landowners, or that 1. Potential Need for Reform in transparency, customers and other face other obstacles to rapid 160. As discussed above, the stakeholders might benefit from development. We seek comment on electricity sector is in the midst of a enhanced oversight over identification which types of interconnection requests fundamental transition as the generation and costs of transmission facilities. could be considered more ‘‘ready’’ and mix shifts rapidly from largely 2. Potential Reforms and Request for able to advance through the centralized resources located close to Comment interconnection queue more quickly, as population centers towards renewable well as comments on the just and resources located far from customers. a. Independent Transmission Monitor reasonable structure for such a fast-track Potential reforms to regional 163. We seek comment on which option. We also seek comment on how transmission planning and cost potential measures the Commission to implement such a proposal in a allocation and generator interconnection could take to ensure that there is manner that is not unduly should help protect customers appropriate oversight over how new discriminatory. As in the prior proposed throughout this transition by directing regional transmission facilities are reform, we seek comment on how to planning toward the more efficient or identified and paid for. For example, we address possible concerns related to cost-effective transmission facilities. seek comment on whether, to improve what some may consider ‘‘queue Nevertheless, particularly in light of oversight of transmission facility costs, jumping’’ or whether appropriate factors potential costs of new transmission it would be appropriate for the may justify such measures. infrastructure that may be needed to Commission to require that transmission (f) Grid-Enhancing Technologies meet the needs of the changing resource providers in each RTO/ISO, or more mix, we seek comment on whether broadly, in non-RTO/ISO transmission 158. We seek comment on whether additional measures may be necessary planning regions, establish an there is the potential for Grid-Enhancing to ensure that the planning processes for independent entity to monitor the Technologies not only to increase the the development of new transmission planning and cost of transmission capacity, efficiency, and reliability of facilities, and the costs of the facilities, facilities in the region. transmission facilities, but, in so doing, do not impose excessive costs on 164. We seek comment on the also to reduce the cost of consumers. Commission’s authority to require an interconnection-related network 161. We seek comment on whether independent entity to monitor 151 upgrades. In light of the potential of the relatively large investment in transmission spending in each Grid-Enhancing Technologies, we seek transmission facilities resulting from the transmission planning region, as well as comment on whether the Commission regional transmission planning and cost the role that such monitor(s) would should require that transmission allocation processes reflects the more play. For example, this independent providers consider Grid-Enhancing efficient or cost-effective solutions for transmission monitor might potentially Technologies in interconnection studies meeting transmission needs, including review transmission planning processes, to assess whether their deployment can those associated with a changing planning criteria that lead to the more cost-effectively facilitate resource mix. The transparency with identification of particular transmission interconnections. To the extent which transmission needs are identified needs and facilities, as well as the rules transmission providers currently and transmission facilities approved is and regulations governing such consider Grid-Enhancing Technologies an important element in ensuring that processes. Additionally, the in the generator interconnection excessive costs are not being imposed independent transmission monitor process, what, if any, shortcomings exist on consumers. Although Order No. 890 could review transmission provider in that consideration? If the Commission requires that transmission planning spending on transmission facilities and were to require greater consideration of processes comply with the transmission identify instances of potentially Grid-Enhancing Technologies, how planning principles, including excessive transmission facility costs, should it do so? What, if any, challenges transparency and openness, including through inefficiencies exist in establishing such a requirement transmission providers comply with between local and regional transmission and how might these challenges be those requirements in various ways. planning processes. Further, the addressed? 162. We seek comment on whether independent transmission monitor the current transmission planning could identify instances in which 151 Commission staff led a workshop in 2019 to processes provide sufficient transmission facilities were selected in explore the role, benefits, and challenges of Grid- the regional transmission plan for cost Enhancing Technologies. FERC, Grid-Enhancing transparency for stakeholders to Technologies, Notice of Workshop, Docket No. understand how best to obtain allocation when it may not be clear that AD19–19–000 (Sept. 9, 2019). information and fully participate in the such projects were the more efficient or

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:36 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27JYP2.SGM 27JYP2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 40292 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Proposed Rules

cost-effective transmission solutions, or estimates for transmission facilities. 169. The independent transmission were approved for regional cost Given the challenges of reviewing all monitor could also identify and report allocation when credible less-costly transmission facilities, we seek on situations in which non-wires alternatives were available. If the comment on whether it would be useful alternatives could more cost-effectively independent transmission monitor for the Commission or the independent address transmission system needs. We identifies such examples, it could make entity to develop criteria (such as a seek comment on the value of such a referral to the Commission. The minimum spending threshold) to reporting and whether such information Commission could then conduct a determine which transmission facilities could improve the ability for states to review of the relevant transmission should be subject to review. participate in the regional transmission planning processes and/or transmission 167. We seek comment on tools that planning process and provide a greater facility costs under section 206 of the could be developed to assist such a opportunity for input. Similarly, we FPA. We seek comment on the proposal transmission monitor or the seek comment on whether an outlined in this paragraph. Commission in reviewing transmission- independent transmission monitor or 165. We seek comment on whether related spending. For example, such a other oversight mechanism should the independent transmission monitor’s monitor might develop benchmark cost evaluate and report on transmission review could potentially focus on the estimates that would be independent of providers’ consideration of Grid- transmission planning process and costs cost estimates developed by a Enhancing Technologies in the of transmission facilities before transmission provider, which could transmission planning process. If so, construction starts.152 We seek comment serve as a mechanism to assess how should that evaluation be on whether and how the Commission performance for each transmission conducted and what information should might modify the regional transmission provider for the applicable transmission be reported? planning and cost allocation processes facilities. The independent transmission 170. Additionally, we seek comment or rate recovery rules and procedures so monitor could create separate estimates on whether oversight of the planning as to facilitate such up-front review. for regional versus local transmission and approval of local transmission 166. We also seek comment on how facilities and classify facility costs by facilities is necessary to ensure that an independent transmission monitor criteria (such as voltage level), with transmission rates are just and could approach cost oversight. One estimates based on well-established reasonable. We seek comment on possible method would be to scrutinize methods using the best information whether an independent transmission the relevant regional transmission available just prior to the start of monitor should evaluate whether the plan(s) to determine whether a different construction to minimize the error in transmission needs identified in the portfolio of local and regional cost estimation. The Commission could local transmission planning processes transmission facilities would lead to then review the costs for transmission could be better considered during higher net benefits. With regard to facilities that significantly exceed the regional transmission planning individual transmission facilities cost estimates, either sua sponte or on processes to allow for the identification selected via the regional transmission the recommendation of the independent of more efficient or cost-effective planning processes or chosen through transmission monitor or a third party. transmission solutions. In addition, we the local transmission planning An independent transmission monitor seek comment on whether oversight processes, the independent entity could could also seek information from should consider the development and provide information to assist the transmission providers regarding the application of transmission planning Commission in determining whether the variances between actual and estimated criteria. Finally, we encourage selection of a given transmission facility costs for selected regional transmission commenters to identify any other factors warrants additional Commission review. facilities and use this information in its that they believe the Commission Such assistance may include the assessment of whether further should consider for oversight within the development of independent cost Commission review is recommended. local transmission planning process. At 168. We seek comment on whether an the same time, we seek comment on 152 This is different than the safeguards provided independent transmission monitor whether such a role for a federally- under the transmission formula rate protocols that should provide advice on the design regulated regional transmission monitor have been implemented for formula rates in and implementation of the regional would improperly or inappropriately transmission providers’ OATTs. The transmission transmission planning and cost expand the role of federal regulation formula rate protocols are generally designed to allocation processes in addition to provide interested parties sufficient opportunity to over local utility regulation and/or obtain and review information necessary to evaluate oversight of the regional transmission potentially increase administrative and the implementation of the formula rate, which planning process and the costs of the legal costs of local transmission allows public utilities to recover the cost for development of individual transmission planning with no commensurate transmission facilities that are already constructed facilities. The independent transmission and placed in service, except in limited benefits for customers. More broadly, circumstances (e.g., a transmission provider may monitor could review the design of the we seek comment on whether there is a recover a return on costs of plant that is in the regional transmission planning and cost need to delineate more clearly the process of construction by receiving regulatory allocation processes on an ongoing basis oversight roles of federal and state approval to include such costs of construction work and highlight areas where regulators over local transmission in progress in rate base under its formula rate). The protocols outline the process for the annual formula improvements could be made (for planning. rate informational filing at the Commission, example, optimization between local 171. In addition, we seek comment on transparency around the transmission formula rate and regional transmission planning). whether there is sufficient clarity on the information exchange, the scope of participation, The independent transmission monitor roles and responsibilities between state and the ability of customers to challenge transmission providers’ implementation of the could also review mechanisms used in and federal regulators regarding the formula rate. See Midwest Indep. Transmission Sys. transmission planning processes, such local transmission planning criteria and Operator, Inc., 139 FERC ¶ 61,127 (2012); Midwest as adjusted production cost modeling the development of local transmission Indep. Transmission Sys. Operator, Inc., 143 FERC tools, and assess the extent to which facilities (e.g., ‘‘Supplemental Projects’’ ¶ 61,149 (2013); Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 146 FERC ¶ 61,212 (2014); Midcontinent modifications to such mechanisms in PJM). We seek comment on whether Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 150 FERC ¶ 61,025 might yield more efficient transmission such transmission facilities require (2015). spending decisions. additional oversight and whether

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:36 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27JYP2.SGM 27JYP2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Proposed Rules 40293

additional coordination among state and respect to other aspects of prudence, or determine whether transmission federal regulators would be beneficial. transmission facility selection against upgrades for remote resources will be Similarly, we seek comment on whether alternatives, the independent included in the regional transmission and how greater oversight may improve transmission monitor would not planning process and the role of coordination between individual supplant the Commission’s authority transmission owners in proposing transmission provider’s planning with respect to prudence, but could transmission upgrades in the regional processes and regional transmission inform the Commission as to whether a planning process.’’ 154 planning processes. Order No. 1000 further review is warranted; the final 177. We seek comment on whether requires the evaluation of ‘‘alternative determination on whether costs are this type of model, or other models that transmission solutions that might meet prudently incurred remains with the may be proposed, could be expanded to the needs of the transmission planning Commission. Similarly, the record other regions and other topics; for region more efficiently or cost- created by the independent example, whether a state-led committee effectively than solutions identified by transmission monitor could help the could: Provide insight into regional individual public utility transmission Commission in ensuring that the design transmission facility costs and cost providers.’’ 153 We seek comment on of the regional transmission planning allocation methods; evaluate whether whether current rules and processes are and cost allocation processes remain the transmission needs identified in the adequately aligned with and facilitate just and reasonable and not unduly local transmission planning processes such consideration or evaluation, and if discriminatory or preferential. could be better considered during not, whether there are oversight 174. We seek comment on (1) the regional transmission planning measures or other mechanisms, independent transmission monitor processes; inform the Commission as to including via an independent proposal, and (2) any alternative options whether a further review is warranted of transmission monitor, that could better for improving oversight of transmission whether incurred costs are prudent; or facilitate the consideration of more costs or the effectiveness of provide the Commission with an efficient or cost-effective alternatives. transmission planning processes. additional means of ensuring that rates For example, we seek comment on Additionally, we seek comment on are just and reasonable. We also seek whether individual transmission whether the concerns regarding comment on how such a model may be provider practices regarding retirement transmission oversight are best combined with other oversight tools or and replacement of transmission addressed by an independent entity mechanisms explored herein. For facilities sufficiently align with the similar to the role of an independent example, given state regulatory directive to ensure evaluation of market monitor, or whether the authority over the approval of non-wires alternative transmission solutions and concerns can be adequately addressed solutions, can or should a regional state whether these practices sufficiently by the RTO/ISO or transmission committee play a role in identifying consider the more efficient or cost- providers in non-RTO/ISO regions, or circumstances under which a non-wires effective ways to serve future needs. We through another approach. solution would be the more efficient or also seek comment on whether 175. We also seek comment on (1) cost-effective solution to solving an sufficient transparency exists in how an independent transmission identified regional transmission need, retirement decisions to allow for such monitor (or set of regional monitors) and facilitating a process by which the regional assessment. We seek comment would be created or authorized; (2) relevant state regulator could be given on what role can or should an whether a single monitor should be an opportunity to approve such a independent transmission monitor play appointed for each transmission region, solution? in facilitating enhanced coordination. or instead a given monitor might review 172. Furthermore, we seek comment transmission across several regions; (3) c. Limitation on Recovery of Costs for on whether additional transparency the Commission’s authority to require Abandoned Projects measures are appropriate or should be an independent transmission monitor in 178. There is always a risk that once in place for transmission providers, all transmission planning regions; (4) approved, a regional project may be including those outside of RTO/ISO how this entity would work in practice, abandoned before going into service for regions. If so, we seek comment on in both the RTO/ISO and non-RTO/ISO a variety of reasons including a failure whether the Commission should apply regions; and (5) the scope of review to obtain all necessary state and federal transparency measures, some of which such monitor(s) should be charged with approvals, including, for example, state are currently utilized within RTO/ISO carrying out, including whether such certificates of public convenience and regions (e.g., dedicated transmission monitoring should extend to oversight necessity. The Commission’s general planning web pages, requirements to of the generator interconnection policy for recovery of the costs of publish and detail full transmission process. abandoned plant under section 205 of plan at end of each transmission b. State Oversight the FPA allows recovery of and return planning cycle, scorecards), or consider on 50% of the prudently incurred different or new transparency measures 176. Another way to add oversight to investment costs incurred in connection for transmission providers outside of the transmission planning and cost with the abandoned plant.155 In RTO/ISO regions. We seek comment on allocation processes could be to involve whether new or different transparency state commissions in those processes. 154 SPP, Governing Documents Tariff, Bylaws, measures are needed within the RTO/ By way of example, SPP has a Regional Section 7.2 (Regional State Committee) (1.0.0). ISO regions. State Committee (RSC), which provides 155 New Eng. Power Co., Opinion No. 295, 42 173. An independent transmission collective state regulatory agency input FERC ¶ 61,016, at 61,081–82, order on reh’g, Opinion No. 295–A, 43 FERC ¶ 61,285 (1988). The monitor would not replace the in areas under the RSC’s primary Commission also allows recovery under section 205 Commission’s rate jurisdiction but responsibilities and on matters of of return on 50% of investment costs incurred to instead could provide the Commission regional importance related to the construct transmission facilities (and other non- with an additional means of ensuring development and operation of the bulk pollution control plant) through the inclusion of Construction Work in Progress (CWIP) in rate base that rates are just and reasonable. With electric transmission system. Pursuant during the construction period, provided certain to the SPP Bylaws, ‘‘with respect to conditions are met. Construction Work In Progress 153 Order No. 1000, 136 FERC ¶ 61,050 at P 148. transmission planning, the RSC will Continued

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:36 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27JYP2.SGM 27JYP2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 40294 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Proposed Rules

addition, the Commission may grant as plans, including treatment of VI. Document Availability an incentive under section 219 of the interconnection customers in the 186. In addition to publishing the full FPA for transmission facilities meeting various stages of the generator text of this document in the Federal the qualifications for the incentive, interconnection process and those that Register, the Commission provides all recovery of 100% of prudently-incurred have already interconnected as well as interested persons an opportunity to costs related to such facilities if they are when the more holistic regional view and/or print the contents of this abandoned for reasons beyond the transmission planning and cost document via the internet through the control of the transmission owner.156 In allocation processes would begin Commission’s Home Page (https:// light of potential costs of new regional (including when the broader category of www.ferc.gov). At this time, the transmission infrastructure and the regional transmission facilities would be Commission has suspended access to corresponding risk that some of those established). the Commission’s Public Reference projects may be abandoned, we seek 182. The Commission also seeks input Room due to the President’s March 13, comment on whether the Commission as to the length of time that might be 2020 proclamation declaring a National should revisit its policies regarding necessary to implement any reforms that Emergency concerning the Novel abandoned plant to better protect result from this process. Specifically, Coronavirus Disease (COVID–19). consumers from increased costs due to the Commission requests input as to never-built transmission facilities. 187. From the Commission’s Home 179. For example, one proposal to how much time transmission providers Page on the internet, this information is protect consumers would be to limit the might need to develop compliance available in its eLibrary. The full text of recovery of costs through abandonment filings related to all of the proposals in this document is available in the by allowing only the recovery of some this ANOPR. eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word portion of actual development or pre- V. Comment Procedures format for viewing, printing, and/or commercial costs, and/or no recovery of downloading. To access this document a return on equity on such costs prior 183. The Commission invites in eLibrary, type the docket number of to the project receiving all necessary interested persons to submit comments this document excluding the last three regulatory approvals. We therefore seek on these matters and any related matters digits in the docket number field. comment on this or other proposals to or alternative proposals that 188. User assistance is available for limit the amount that can be recovered commenters may wish to discuss. eLibrary and the Commission’s website for regional transmission facilities that Comments are October 12, 2021 and during normal business hours from the are abandoned prior to going into Reply Comments are due November 9, Commission’s Online Support at 202– service. Commenters are, of course, 2021. Comments must refer to Docket 502–6652 (toll free at 1–866–208–3676) welcome to address all issues and No. RM21–17–000 and must include the or email at [email protected], concerns pertinent to such proposals. commenter’s name, the organization or the Public Reference Room at (202) they represent, if applicable, and their 502–8371, TTY (202) 502–8659. Email d. Additional Oversight Approaches address in their comments. All the Public Reference Room at 180. Finally, we seek comment on comments will be placed in the [email protected]. additional oversight approaches the Commission’s public files and may be By direction of the Commission. Commission might take to ensure that viewed, printed, or downloaded Chairman Glick and Commissioner wholesale transmission spending is cost remotely as described in the Document Clements are concurring with a joint effective. For example, performance- Availability section below. Commenters separate statement attached. based regulation. We ask how on this proposal are not required to Commissioner Chatterjee is not performance-based regulation may be serve copies of their comments on other participating. Commissioner Danly is designed to ensure that rates are just commenters concurring with a separate statement. and reasonable, ensure reliability of the Commissioner Christie is concurring 184. The Commission encourages transmission system, promote regional with a separate statement. comments to be filed electronically via expansion of transmission facilities for the eFiling link on the Commission’s Issued: July 15, 2021. a sufficiently wide range of future website at https://www.ferc.gov. The Debbie-Anne A. Reese, scenarios, including anticipated future Commission accepts most standard generation, and encourage transmission Deputy Secretary. word processing formats. Documents provider participation. Department of Energy created electronically using word D. Transition processing software must be filed in Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 181. To implement any of the native applications or print-to-PDF Building for the Future Through Electric proposals outlined above, transmission format and not in a scanned format. Regional Transmission Planning and providers must transition to new Commenters filing electronically do not Cost Allocation and Generator interconnection pricing paradigms and need to make a paper filing. Interconnection new regional transmission planning and 185. Commenters that are not able to cost allocation processes. Therefore, we file comments electronically may file an Docket No. RM21–17–000 seek comment on appropriate transition original of their comment by USPS mail GLICK, Chairman, CLEMENTS, or by courier-or other delivery services. Commissioner, concurring: for Public Utilities; Inclusion of Costs in Rate Base, For submission sent via USPS only, 1. The generation resource mix is Order No. 298, 48 FR 24,323 (June 1, 1983), FERC filings should be mailed to: Federal changing rapidly. Due to a myriad of Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,455, order on reh’g, Order No. 298–A, 48 FR 46,012 (Oct. 11, 1983), FERC Stats. Energy Regulatory Commission, Office factors—including improving & Regs., ¶ 30,500 (1983), order on reh’g, Order No. of the Secretary, 888 First Street NE, economics, customer and corporate 298–B, 48 FR 55,281 (Dec. 12, 1983), FERC Stats. Washington, DC 20426. Submission of demand for clean energy, public utility & Regs. ¶ 30,524 (1983) (Order No. 298). filings other than by USPS should be commitments and integrated resource 156 Promoting Transmission Investment through Pricing Reform, Order No. 679, 116 FERC ¶ 61,057, delivered to: Federal Energy Regulatory plans, as well as federal, state, and local order on reh’g, Order No. 679–A, 117 FERC ¶ 61,345 Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, public policies—renewable resources in (2006), order on reh’g, 119 FERC ¶ 61,062 (2007). Rockville, MD 20852. particular are coming online at an

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:36 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27JYP2.SGM 27JYP2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Proposed Rules 40295

unprecedented rate.1 As a result, the statutory obligations under the Federal make utility-scale solar and wind transmission needs of the electricity Power Act. generation cost-competitive with central grid of the future are going to look very * * * * * station fossil generation sources in different than those of the electricity 4. The generation mix is shifting many parts of the country.6 Moreover, grid of the past. rapidly from large resources located customers—both residential and 2. We are concerned that the current close to population centers toward commercial—are increasingly approach to transmission planning and renewable resources, often combined demanding clean energy, particularly cost allocation cannot meet those future with onsite storage, that tend to be energy from renewable resources— transmission needs in a manner that is located where their fuel source is best— which is itself causing utilities and just and reasonable and not unduly i.e., where the wind blows hardest or independent power producers to discriminatory or preferential. In the sun shines brightest. According to attempt to send large quantities of particular, we believe that the status the National Renewable Energy renewable energy onto the grid.7 In quo approach to planning and allocating Laboratory (NREL), total renewable addition, dozens of the biggest utilities the costs of transmission facilities may generation capacity nearly doubled from in the country have established their lead to an inefficient, piecemeal 2009 to 2018, increasing from 11.7% of own decarbonization goals, the expansion of the transmission grid that total generation capacity to 20.5%.3 And achievement of which will require their would ultimately be far more expensive that is just the beginning: Of the roughly for customers than a more forward- 750 GW of generation in Lazard’s%20latest%20annual%20Levelized% 20 Cost,build%20basis%2C%20continue%20to looking, holistic approach that interconnection queues around the proactively plans for the transmission %20maintain; Ryan Wiser et al., Expert elicitation country, nearly 700 GW are renewable survey predicts 37% to 49% declines in wind needs of the changing resource mix. A resources,4 providing every reason to energy costs by 2050, Lawrence Berkeley National myopic transmission development believe that the dramatic shift toward Laboratory (Apr. 2021), https://eta- process that leaves customers paying publications.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/wind_lcoe_ renewable generation will only _ _ _ more than necessary to meet their elicitation ne pre-print april2021.pdf (finding that accelerate in the years ahead. the decrease in levelized cost of energy for wind transmission needs is not just and 5. That shift is the result of many power from 2015–2020 outpaced the decrease reasonable. factors. First and foremost, the cost of predicted by experts, and that experts continue to 3. In that regard, we are pleased to see predict significant declines in levelized cost of renewable resources is plummeting. For the Commission taking a consensus first energy). example, in its annual report on the 6 step toward updating its rules and See Lazard’s Levelized Cost of Energy levelized cost of energy, Lazard found Analysis—Version 14.0, at 3, 7 (Oct. 19, 2020), regulations to ensure that we are that between 2009 to 2020, the levelized https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost- meeting the nation’s evolving of-energy-and-levelized-cost-of-storage-2020/#:∼: cost of energy from unsubsidized wind transmission needs in a cost-effective text=Lazard’s%20latest%20annual%20Levelized% generation and unsubsidized utility- 20Cost,build%20basis%2C%20continue%20to and efficient fashion. Today’s action scale solar generation decreased by 71% %20maintain. complements our recently established 7 and 90%, respectively 5—enough to See, e.g., Deloitte Resources 2020 Study at 22, joint federal-state task force with the https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/insights/ National Association of Regulatory us/articles/6655_Resources-study-2020/DI_ 3 2018 Renewable Energy Data Book at 26, NREL, Utility Commissioners,2 which we Resources-study-2020.pdf (showing that U.S. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy20osti/75284.pdf. corporate renewable generation purchase power expect to produce a robust dialogue on Wind and solar resources, in particular, have grown agreements increased from 0.3 GW in 2009 to 13.6 many of the issues addressed herein. In at a disproportionate rate, with solar generation GW in 2019); Kevin O’Rourke & Charles Harper, our view, this advance notice of capacity increasing roughly 5,000% from 1,054 MW Corporate Renewable Procurement and to 51,899 MW nationwide, and wind generation proposed rulemaking (ANOPR) is just Transmission Planning: Communicating Demand to capacity more than tripling from 31,155 MW to RTOs Necessary to Secure Future Procurement the first step. Ensuring that transmission 96,442 MW. Options, A Renewable America (October 2018), rates remain just and reasonable will 4 See Joseph Rand, Queued Up: Characteristics of https://acore.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/ require further action, including reforms Power Plants Seeking Transmission Interconnection Corporates-Renewable-Procurement-and- to interregional transmission planning as of the End of 2020, Lawrence Berkeley National Transmission-Report.pdf (indicating that a group of Laboratory, May 2021, https://eta- corporations, forming the Renewable Energy Buyers and cost allocation, as well as other publications.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/queued_up_ Alliance, has set a goal to purchase 60 GW of new reforms to our regional transmission may_2021.pdf. Equally important, this shift is renewable energy capacity in the U.S. by 2025); planning and cost allocation and taking place across the country, not just in a few Stanley Porter et al., Utility Decarbonization generator interconnection processes areas. For example, as of the issuance of this Strategies, Renew, Reshape, and Refuel to Zero, ANOPR, in Midcontinent Independent System Deloitte Insights (Sept. 2021), https:// beyond those contemplated herein. Operator, Inc. (MISO), solar and wind projects www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/power- Nevertheless, we believe that today’s comprise 80% of all active projects in the current and-utilities/utility-decarbonization-strategies.html unanimous Commission action interconnection queue, or about 73 GW of total (indicating that 43 of 55 utilities surveyed have represents a solid foundation for an capacity. MISO, Generator Interconnection Queue— emissions reductions targets and 22 have net-zero Active Projects Map, https:// or carbon-free electricity goals); Esther Whieldon, expeditious inquiry into how we can giqueue.misoenergy.org/PublicGiQueueMap/ Path to net zero: 70% of biggest US utilities have regulate to achieve the transmission index.html. Similarly, in PJM Interconnection, deep decarbonization targets, S&P Global Market needs of our changing electricity system L.L.C. (PJM), solar and wind projects with a total Intelligence (Dec. 9, 2020) at 3–6, https:// in a manner consistent with our capacity of 62 GW comprise 79% of all active www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news- projects in the current interconnection queue as of insights/latest-news-headlines/path-to-net-zero-70- the issuance of this ANOPR. PJM, New Services of-biggest-us-utilities-have-deep-decarbonization- 1 See, e.g., Joseph Rand et al., Queued Up: Queue, https://www.pjm.com/planning/services- targets-61622651 (indicating that review of utilities’ Characteristics of Power Plants Seeking requests/interconnection-queues.aspx. In California climate goals decarbonization plans, as of December Transmission Interconnection as of the End of 2020, Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO), 2020, shows that 70% of the 30 largest utilities have Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, May 2021, renewable and storage capacity of 23 GW comprise net-zero carbon targets or are moving to comply https://eta-publications.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/ 78% of all active projects in the current with similarly aggressive state mandates); see also queued_up_may_2021.pdf; Electric Power Monthly, interconnection queue as of the issuance of this Rich Glick and Matthew Christiansen, FERC and Table 6.1 Electric Generating Summer Capacity ANOPR. CAISO, Generator Interconnection Queue, Climate Change, 40 Energy L.J. 1, 7–12 (2019) (‘‘The Changes (MW), U.S. Energy Information https://www.caiso.com/Documents/ growth of renewable resources is also a function of Administration, (Mar. 2021 to Apr. 2021), https:// ISOGeneratorInterconnectionQueueExcel.xls. consumers’ desire for clean energy. Customers— www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_ 5 See, e.g., Lazard’s Levelized Cost of Energy including residential, commercial, and even grapher.php?t=table_6_01. Analysis—Version 14.0, at 9 (Oct. 19, 2020), https:// industrial consumers—are increasingly demanding 2 Joint Federal-State Task Force on Electric www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of- that their energy come from renewable or zero- Transmission, 175 FERC ¶ 61,224 (2021). energy-and-levelized-cost-of-storage-2020/#:∼:text= emissions sources’’).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:36 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27JYP2.SGM 27JYP2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 40296 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Proposed Rules

own significant investment in 7. Dramatic changes in the resource attempting to meet the needs of the renewable generation.8 mix inevitably come with similarly changing resource mix through such a 6. Finally, federal, state, and local dramatic changes in transmission needs. short-term lens will lead to inefficient policymakers have adopted a range of As noted, the increasingly cost- transmission investments. As a result, public policies that are driving the competitive renewable resources that under the status quo, customers could changing resource mix. For example, 30 customers and public policies demand end up paying far more to meet their states and the District of Columbia have tend to be developed farther away from transmission needs than they would adopted renewable portfolio standards,9 customers where their fuel sources are under a more forward-looking approach with those standards contributing to strong and development costs are low that identifies the more efficient or cost- roughly 50% of the total growth in rather than in close proximity to their effective investments in light of the renewable generation over the last two ultimate customers. As a result, the changing resource mix.14 decades.10 In addition, several states future resource mix will likely present 9. Relatedly, we are also concerned have doubled down on the clean energy new transmission needs, different from that the current approach to transition by enacting measures that those of the large resources located close transmission planning and cost require that most or all of their to population centers that have allocation is failing to adequately electricity come from zero emissions dominated electricity generation in the identify the benefits and allocate the resources.11 All told, ‘‘states and past. Meeting those transmission needs costs of new transmission infrastructure. utilities that have committed to will likely require both the Although the regional transmission transitioning to 100 percent clean power infrastructure necessary to interconnect planning process considers transmission serve nearly 83 million households and new resources to the transmission needs driven by reliability, economics, businesses, representing around 50 system efficiently and the infrastructure and Public Policy Requirements,15 those percent of all U.S. electricity demand in necessary to reliably move the transmission needs are often viewed in 2019.’’ 12 electricity produced by those resources isolation from one another and the cost to where it is needed. This could make allocation methods for projects selected 8 See, e.g., Corporate Renewable Procurement and it considerably more expensive than to meet those needs are similarly siloed. Transmission Planning: Communicating Demand to necessary to bring in the low-cost RTOs Necessary to Secure Future Procurement As a result, the status quo may be Options, A Renewable America, October 2018, generation demanded by customers and disproportionately producing https://acore.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/ meet federal, state, and local public transmission facilities that address a Corporates-Renewable-Procurement-and- policies. narrow set of needs, providing Transmission-Report.pdf; Esther Whieldon, Path to 8. This Commission cannot sit idly net zero: 70% of biggest US utilities have deep comparatively modest benefits, but at a decarbonization targets, S&P Global Market by. Our role is to ensure just and still-substantial total cost instead of Intelligence, Dec. 9, 2020, at 3–6, https:// reasonable rates and support reliability developing the type of transmission www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news- in light of changes in the market, not to infrastructure that could provide the insights/latest-news-headlines/path-to-net-zero-70- pretend those changes are not of-biggest-us-utilities-have-deep-decarbonization- most significant benefits for customers. targets-61622651. happening. We are concerned that, in In the same vein, we are also concerned 9 Nat’l Conference of State Legislatures, State light of evolving transmission needs, the that many customers who share in the Renewable Portfolio Standards and Goals (Nov. 7, current regional transmission planning diverse array of benefits that 2021), https://www.ncsl.org/research/energy/ and cost allocation and generator renewable-portfolio-standards.aspx#:∼:text=Thirty transmission infrastructure can offer %20states%2C%20Washington%2C%20DC interconnection processes may no may not be paying their fair share, as %2C,have%20set%20renewable%20energy longer ensure just and reasonable rates required by the cost causation %20goals. Renewable portfolio standards are for transmission service.13 In particular, principle.16 policies that are designed to increase the amount of we are concerned that existing regional 10. In addition, we are concerned renewable energy sources used for electricity generation. transmission planning processes may be that, largely due to the potential 10 See, e.g., Berkeley Lab, U.S. Renewables siloed, fragmented, and not sufficiently shortcomings with the current regional Portfolio Standards: 2019 Annual Status Update forward-looking, such that transmission transmission planning and cost (Aug. 2019), https://emp.lbl.gov/publications/us- facilities are being developed through a allocation processes, transmission renewables-portfolio-standards-2. piecemeal approach that is unlikely to infrastructure is increasingly being 11 Carbon Pricing in Organized Wholesale Elec. Markets, 175 FERC ¶ 61,036, at P 2 (2021) produce the type of transmission (‘‘Thirteen states—California, Hawaii, Maine, solutions that could more efficiently 14 See generally Eric Larson et al., Net-Zero Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New and cost-effectively meet the needs of America: Potential Pathways, Infrastructure, and _ _ _ _ _ Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Virginia, and the changing resource mix. Regional Impact (2020), Princeton NZA Interim Report 15 Washington—and the District of Columbia have Dec_2020_FINAL.pdf (discussing different adopted clean energy or renewable portfolio transmission planning processes pathways for meeting decarbonization goals, standards of 50% or greater.’’). In addition, ‘‘a generally do little to proactively plan for including differing approaches to transmission number of states—including Colorado, Connecticut, the resource mix of the future, including investment). Nevada, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin—have both commercially established 15 See Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation established 100% clean electricity goals or targets by Transmission Owning and Operating Public by executive order or other non-binding resources, such as onshore wind and Utilities, Order No. 1000, 136 FERC ¶ 61,051, at P commitment.’’ See id. At the local level, cities and solar, as well as emerging ones, such as 11 (2011), order on reh’g, Order No. 1000–A, 139 counties are also accelerating clean energy offshore wind. We are also concerned FERC ¶ 61,132, order on reh’g and clarification, commitments. Kelly Trumbull et al., Progress that current regional transmission Order No. 1000–B, 141 FERC ¶ 61,044 (2012), aff’d Toward 100% Clean Energy in Cities and States sub nom. S.C. Pub. Serv. Auth. v. FERC, 762 F.3d Across the U.S., University of California—Los planning processes are not sufficiently 41 (D.C. Cir. 2014). Angeles Luskin Center for Innovation (November integrated with the generator 16 Cf. BNP Paribas Energy Trading GP v. FERC, 2019) at 10, https://innovation.luskin.ucla.edu/wp- interconnection processes, and are 743 F.3d 264, 268–269 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (‘‘[T]he cost content/uploads/2019/11/100-Clean-Energy- overwhelmingly focused on relatively causation principle itself manifests a kind of equity. Progress-Report-UCLA-2.pdf (finding over 200 cities near-term transmission needs, and that This is most obvious when we frame the principle and counties across 37 U.S. states have 100 percent (as we and the Commission often do) as a matter clean energy commitments). of making sure that burden is matched with 12 National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), annual-energy-report-slow-and-steady-will-not-win- benefit.’’ (citing Midwest ISO Transmission Owners NRDC’s 8th Annual Energy Report: Slow and race?nrdcpreviewlink=rmmB6NM6zpiOTruhuObZ v. FERC, 373 F.3d 1361, 1368 (D.C. Cir. 2004) and Steady Will Not Win the Climate Race (Dec. 2, JdH92bCOvmZTY1hx72xCSzQ#renewables. Se. Michigan Gas Co. v. FERC, 133 F.3d 34, 41 (D.C. 2020), https://www.nrdc.org/resources/nrdcs-8th- 13 16 U.S.C. 824e. Cir. 1998))).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:36 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27JYP2.SGM 27JYP2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Proposed Rules 40297

developed through the generator transmission needs and select the more Department of Energy interconnection process. That means efficient or cost-effective solution to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that infrastructure with potentially meet those needs, including needs significant benefits for a broad range of driven by resources that are not yet in Building for the Future Through Electric entities may be developed through a operation or even under development. Regional Transmission Planning and process that focuses exclusively on the Doing so has the potential to address the Cost Allocation and Generator needs of a comparatively small number transmission needs of the future Interconnection of interconnection customers—a generation mix while costing customers Docket No. RM21–17–000 dynamic that is almost sure to result in considerably less than they would pay (Issued July 15, 2021) comparatively inefficient investment to meet those same needs under the decisions. The participant funding status quo. That, in our view, is what is DANLY, Commissioner, concurring: approach to financing interconnection- necessary to ensure that the rates for 1. I concur with the issuance of this related network upgrades will often transmission service remain just and Advance Notice of Proposed mean that the interconnection reasonable as the resource mix changes. Rulemaking (ANOPR) because the customer(s) alone must pay for all—or Commission is always entitled to solicit the vast majority—of the costs of that 13. We anticipate that this effort will comments on possible changes to transmission infrastructure, even where be the Commission’s principal focus in existing rules and a number of the it provides significant benefits to other the months to come. In addition to questions raised here are worthy of entities. That, in turn, may cause those reviewing the record assembled in consideration. interconnection customers to withdraw response to today’s order, we intend to 2. I write separately to highlight one projects from the queue, causing explore technical conferences and other overarching concern. The ANOPR poses considerable uncertainty and delay, and avenues for augmenting that record— several questions where the answer is may mean that net beneficial including through the joint federal-state ‘‘no.’’ Many of the contemplated transmission infrastructure is never task force 18—before proceeding to proposals would exceed or cede our developed due to a misalignment in reform our rules and regulations. We jurisdictional authority, violate cost how that infrastructure would be paid recognize that the issues addressed causation principles, create stifling for. herein are highly technical, complex layers of oversight and ‘‘coordination,’’ 11. Finally, we are also concerned problems that do not lend themselves to trample transmission owners’ rights, force neighboring states’ ratepayers to that the Commission’s current approach easy solutions. That being said, we also to overseeing transmission investment shoulder the costs of other states’ public recognize the urgent need to address the may not adequately protect consumers. policy choices, treat renewables as a transmission needs of the changing While transmission infrastructure can new favored class of generation with provide a broad spectrum of benefits, it resource mix and appreciate that we do line-jumping privileges, and perhaps is itself a significant investment that not have the luxury of sitting back and inadvertently lead to much less represents a major component of debating these issues ad nauseum. transmission being built and at much customers’ electric bills. The * * * * * greater all-in cost to ratepayers. Commission must vigorously oversee 14. The electricity sector is at a 3. There are obviously problems with the existing transmission regime. I, for the rules governing how transmission pivotal moment. With the clean energy example, have long been troubled by projects are planned and paid for if we transition gaining steam, we can either are to satisfy our responsibility to interconnection logjams and have continue with the status quo, trying to wondered whether we are needlessly protect customers from excessive rates meet the transmission needs of the and charges.17 propping up fantasy projects while The potential bases for future by building out the grid in a invigorating our oversight of viable projects get lost in the crowd.1 myopic, piecemeal fashion, or we can transmission spending contemplated in This is but one example; there are any start holistically and proactively today’s order have the potential to go a number of other critical transmission long way toward ensuring that we fulfill planning for those future transmission planning reforms that bear investigation. that function. needs. We believe that today’s advance 4. My hope therefore is that 12. Today’s action plants the seeds for notice of proposed rulemaking commenters will supply us with a full addressing the concerns outlined above. represents an important and essential record on each issue raised in the A forward-looking, holistic approach to first step in the right direction and ANOPR: Whether and why the existing transmission planning has the potential toward the type of transmission rule works or not, and whether and why to identify the more efficient or cost- planning and cost allocation paradigm the possible reform may work or not. effective solutions for meeting the that is necessary to protect customers, With every proposed change, I transmission needs of the changing support reliability, and ensure just and specifically solicit comments on two resource mix, including those resources reasonable rates. subjects. First: Is the contemplated that are not yet under development. reform a proper exercise of the For these reasons, we respectfully Commission’s authority, i.e., is it within Such an approach would allow concur. transmission planners to proactively our jurisdiction? That is always the lllllllllllllllllllll identify the areas of the transmission threshold question before we turn to Richard Glick, grid that will have significant policy. Second: what will be the Chairman. ultimate effect on ratepayers? I fear that 17 Cf., e.g., California ex rel. Lockyer v. FERC, 383 lllllllllllllllllllll in the enthusiasm to build transmission, F.3d 1006, 1017 (9th Cir. 2004) (rejecting ‘‘an Allison Clements, many may tout the benefits of new interpretation [that] comports neither with the transmission while overlooking the Commissioner. statutory text nor with the Act’s ‘primary purpose’ costs that will eventually be borne by of protecting consumers’’); City of Chicago v. FPC, 458 F.2d 731, 751 (D.C. Cir. 1971) (‘‘[T]he primary ratepayers. No proposed policy, purpose of the Natural Gas Act is to protect consumers.’’ (citing, inter alia, City of Detroit v. 1 See, e.g., PacifiCorp, 171 FERC ¶ 61,112 (2020) FPC, 230 F.2d 810, 815 (D.C. Cir. 1955)). 18 See supra n.2. (Danly, Comm’r, concurring).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:49 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27JYP2.SGM 27JYP2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 40298 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Proposed Rules

however worthy, can evade our challenge of maintaining reliability predetermined that any specific statutory duty to ensure that rates are through the changing generation mix proposal in this ANOPR has already just and reasonable. and efforts to reduce carbon emissions. been or will ultimately be approved. 5. I encourage everyone with an 2. The broad goal of the Commission’s Rather, we seek comment from all interest to file. I look forward to learning regulation of our nation’s power grid interested persons and organizations on from the parties that submit comments under the Federal Power Act (FPA) is to the wide range of proposals contained and to engaging with my colleagues to ensure a reliable power supply to herein, as well as the submission of consider whether there are legally consumers, which includes residential alternative proposals. Today is the durable, economically sound reforms customers as well as the businesses beginning of a long process and I look that we might consider to improve the providing jobs for tens of millions of forward to hearing from all concerned. reliability of the transmission system at Americans, at just and reasonable rates. just and reasonable rates. Transmission is one of the three 5. Similarly, my concurrence to issue For these reasons, I respectfully essential elements of a reliable power today’s ANOPR does not represent an concur. system, along with generation and endorsement at this point in the process lllllllllllllllllllll distribution, so continually working to of any one or more of the proposals James P. Danly, make America’s transmission system included in the order. This ANOPR Commissioner. more reliable, more efficient, and more contains a number of good proposals, cost-effective is our job at FERC. some potentially good proposals Department of Energy 3. As with Order No. 1000, the (depending on how they are fleshed Federal Energy Regulatory Commission statutory framework governing our out), and frankly, some proposals that potential actions in this proceeding Building for the Future Through Electric are not—and may never be—ready for remains section 206 of the FPA, which Regional Transmission Planning and prime time, or could potentially cause requires us to ensure that all Cost Allocation and Generator massive increases in consumers’ bills transmission planning processes and Interconnection for little to no commensurate benefit or cost allocation mechanisms subject to inappropriately expand the role of Docket No. RM21–17–000 our jurisdiction result in jurisdictional federal regulation over local utility (Issued July 15, 2021) services being provided at rates, terms regulation. Given the early stage of this and conditions that are just, reasonable, process, however, I agree it is CHRISTIE, Commissioner, concurring: and not unduly discriminatory or worthwhile to submit a broad range of 1. I concur with today’s ANOPR preferential. Any proposals ultimately proposals to the public for comment in because approximately ten years after adopted by this Commission for reforms the Commission issued Order No. 1000, or revisions to existing regulations must the hope that the final result will be a it is appropriate to review the be consistent with this authority. more reliable, more efficient, and more implementation of that order, assess the 4. As Paragraph 4 of the ANOPR cost-effective transmission system. successes and problems that have makes clear,1 we have not For these reasons, I respectfully become evident over the past decade, concur. and consider reforms and revisions to 1 ANOPR at P 4 (‘‘We note that the Commission lllllllllllllllllllll has not predetermined that any specific proposal existing regulations governing regional Mark C. Christie, transmission planning and cost discussed herein shall or should be made or in what final form; rather, we seek comment from the public Commissioner. allocation. This consideration of on those proposals and welcome commenters to [FR Doc. 2021–15512 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] potential reforms is especially timely as offer additional or alternative proposals for the transmission system faces the consideration.’’). BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:36 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\27JYP2.SGM 27JYP2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 i

Reader Aids Federal Register Vol. 86, No. 141 Tuesday, July 27, 2021

CUSTOMER SERVICE AND INFORMATION CFR PARTS AFFECTED DURING JULY

Federal Register/Code of Federal Regulations At the end of each month the Office of the Federal Register General Information, indexes and other finding 202–741–6000 publishes separately a List of CFR Sections Affected (LSA), which aids lists parts and sections affected by documents published since Laws 741–6000 the revision date of each title. 592...... 37251 Presidential Documents 3 CFR Executive orders and proclamations 741–6000 Proclamations: 10 CFR The United States Government Manual 741–6000 10231...... 35385 50...... 38905 Other Services 10232...... 38207 52...... 34905 Electronic and on-line services (voice) 741–6020 10233...... 38535 110...... 40141 Privacy Act Compilation 741–6050 Administrative Orders: 431...... 37001 Memorandums: Proposed Rules: Memorandum of June 2...... 39980 ELECTRONIC RESEARCH 29, 2021 ...... 35383 52...... 34999, 35023 World Wide Web Memorandum of July 171...... 39980 19, 2021 ...... 39939 429...... 36018 Full text of the daily Federal Register, CFR and other publications Notices: 430 ...... 35660, 35668, 37687, is located at: www.govinfo.gov. Notice of July 7, 38594 Federal Register information and research tools, including Public 2021 ...... 36479, 36481 431 ...... 36018, 37069, 37708 Notice of July 20, Inspection List and electronic text are located at: 12 CFR www.federalregister.gov. 2021 ...... 38901, 38903 Executive Orders: 204...... 38905 E-mail 14036...... 36987 655...... 37671 702...... 34924 FEDREGTOC (Daily Federal Register Table of Contents Electronic 5 CFR 1022...... 35595 Mailing List) is an open e-mail service that provides subscribers Ch. XII...... 36199 with a digital form of the Federal Register Table of Contents. The 890...... 36872 Proposed Rules: digital form of the Federal Register Table of Contents includes 6 CFR 43...... 38607 HTML and PDF links to the full text of each document. Ch. I ...... 38209 244...... 38607 To join or leave, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/ 373...... 38607 USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your email address, then 7 CFR 1234...... 38607 follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your 457...... 38537 subscription. 13 CFR 925...... 37213 121...... 38537 PENS (Public Law Electronic Notification Service) is an e-mail 1218...... 37669 124...... 38537 service that notifies subscribers of recently enacted laws. 1291...... 39941 To subscribe, go to http://listserv.gsa.gov/archives/publaws-l.html 1710...... 36193 14 CFR and select Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow 1714...... 36193 1...... 39942 the instructions. 1717...... 36193 25...... 37013, 37015 1718...... 36193 FEDREGTOC and PENS are mailing lists only. We cannot 39 ...... 34933, 35217, 35387, 1721...... 36193 respond to specific inquiries. 35599, 35601, 36061, 36064, 1726...... 36193 36202, 36205, 36207, 36483, Reference questions. Send questions and comments about the 1730...... 36193 Federal Register system to: [email protected] 36485, 36487, 36491, 36633, 1767...... 36193 36635, 36638, 37017, 37019, The Federal Register staff cannot interpret specific documents or Proposed Rules: 37219, 37221, 37224, 37226, regulations. 986...... 35409 37229, 37231, 37891, 38209, 1218...... 38590 38212, 38214, 38218, 38220, FEDERAL REGISTER PAGES AND DATE, JULY 8 CFR 38223, 38225, 38407, 38410, 38538, 38541, 38907, 38909, 34905–35216...... 1 212...... 37670 38912, 38914, 39942 35217–35382...... 2 214...... 37670 61...... 36493, 39942 35383–35594...... 6 245...... 37670 71 ...... 34937, 35221, 36210, 35595–36060...... 7 274a...... 37670 36212, 37234, 37235, 37238, 36061–36192...... 8 Proposed Rules: 37672, 38229, 38916, 39918, 36193–36482...... 9 214...... 35410 38919, 39949, 39952, 39953, 36483–36632...... 12 248...... 35410 39956, 39957, 39958, 40143, 36633–36986...... 13 274a.12...... 35410 40145, 40146 36987–37212...... 14 95...... 37893 37213–37668...... 15 9 CFR 97 ...... 34938, 34941, 36641, 37669–37890...... 16 352...... 37216 36642, 37897, 37899 37891–38206...... 19 Proposed Rules: 101...... 39942 38207–38406...... 20 327...... 37251 107...... 39942 38407–38536...... 21 351...... 37251 141...... 36493 38537–38904...... 22 354...... 37251 Proposed Rules: 38905–39938...... 23 355...... 37251 39 ...... 35027, 35410, 35413, 39939–40140...... 26 381...... 37251 35416, 35690, 35692, 35695, 40141–40298...... 27 500...... 37251 35697, 36241, 36243, 36516,

VerDate Sep 11 2014 19:00 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4712 E:\FR\FM\27JYCU.LOC 27JYCU lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with FR_CU ii Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Reader Aids

37087, 37255, 27258, 37936, 301...... 39910 37 CFR 147...... 36872 38239, 38242, 38608, 38613, 149...... 36872 27 CFR 1...... 35226, 35229 38615, 38941, 38943, 38946, 2...... 35229 155...... 36071 38949, 38950, 39984 9...... 34952, 34955 156...... 36872 71 ...... 35233, 35235, 35237, Proposed Rules: 70...... 34957 1...... 35429 Proposed Rules: 35419, 35420, 37090, 37939, Proposed Rules: 147...... 35156 37941, 38245, 38419, 38617, 9...... 37260, 37265 38 CFR 155...... 35156 38953, 38954, 39986 Proposed Rules: 156...... 35156 259...... 38420 28 CFR 1...... 38958 260...... 38420 50...... 37674 46 CFR 39 CFR 15 CFR Proposed Rules Ch. I ...... 37238 16...... 38624, 38955 20...... 40153 744 ...... 35389, 36496, 37901 111...... 35606 47 CFR 29 CFR 233...... 38413 16 CFR Ch. I ...... 37061 1910...... 37038, 38232 Proposed Rules: 0...... 38542 54...... 37058, 38570 2590...... 36872 Ch. III ...... 36246 64...... 35632 1...... 38542 4000...... 36598 323...... 37022 40 CFR 73 ...... 34965, 35231, 37058, 4262...... 36598 37935, 38934, 38935, 38936, Proposed Rules: 51...... 37918 Proposed Rules: 38937 Ch. I ...... 35239 52 ...... 35404, 35608, 35610, 10...... 38816 74...... 37060 23...... 38816 36227, 36665, 37053, 37918, 17 CFR 38562, 38928, 38931, 39978 Proposed Rules: 1402...... 38627 1...... 37972 Proposed Rules: 1910...... 36073 62...... 35406 246...... 38607 80...... 37681 2...... 35700, 37982 30 CFR 81...... 37683 15 ...... 35046, 35700, 37982, 18 CFR 180...... 36666, 37055 38969 550...... 38557 73...... 37972, 37982 Proposed Rules: 926...... 37039 228...... 38563 35...... 40266 300...... 40234 74...... 35046, 37982 90...... 35700, 37982 31 CFR Proposed Rules: 19 CFR 95...... 35700, 37982 1...... 35396 52 ...... 35030, 35034, 35042, Ch. I...... 38554, 38556 35244, 35247, 36673, 37942, 589...... 37904, 37907 48 CFR 10...... 35566 38433, 38627, 38630, 38643, Proposed Rules: 204...... 36229 102...... 35566 33...... 35156 38652, 39988 212...... 36229 132...... 35566 520...... 35399 62...... 35044 134...... 35566 81...... 35254 252...... 36229 145...... 38553 32 CFR 141...... 37948 501...... 34966 163...... 35566 552...... 34966 169...... 37676 182...... 35566 41 CFR 570...... 34966 169a...... 37676 190...... 35566 Proposed Rules: Proposed Rules: 199...... 36213 51-1...... 38960 615...... 35257 Proposed Rules: 310...... 38560 102...... 35422 51-2...... 38960 652...... 35257 177...... 35422 33 CFR 51-3...... 38960 51-4...... 38960 49 CFR 20 CFR Ch. I ...... 37238 51-5...... 38960 100 ...... 35399, 35604, 37045, 236...... 40154 200...... 35221 51-6...... 38960 381...... 35633 37239, 38233, 39959 51-7...... 38960 295...... 34942 117 ...... 35402, 39961, 39963 382...... 35633 404...... 38920 51-8...... 38960 383...... 35633 165 ...... 34958, 34960, 34961, 51-9...... 38960 416...... 38920 34963, 34964, 35224, 35225, 384...... 35633, 38937 51-10...... 38960 385...... 35633 21 CFR 35403, 36066, 36067, 36068, 36070, 36646, 37047, 37049, 42 CFR 390...... 35633 573...... 37035, 37037 391...... 35633 37051, 37242, 37244, 37677, 414...... 38569 1141...... 36509 37910, 37911, 37914, 37916, Ch. XII...... 38209 1305...... 38230 510...... 36229 38236, 38238, 38925, 38926, 600...... 35615 Proposed Rules: 1308...... 37672 385...... 35443 40149 Proposed Rules: Proposed Rules: 207...... 37246 393...... 35449 1308...... 37719, 38619 403...... 39104 210...... 35225 405...... 39104 214...... 35226 50 CFR 24 CFR 409...... 35874 273...... 37053 410...... 39104 17 ...... 34979, 38570, 38572 11...... 35391 274...... 37249 411...... 39104 20...... 37854 92...... 34943 326...... 37246 413...... 36322 300...... 35653, 38415 Proposed Rules: Proposed Rules: 414...... 39104 622...... 38416 267...... 38607 100...... 35240, 37270 415...... 39104 635...... 36669 165...... 35242, 40184 648...... 36671, 38586 25 CFR 423...... 39104 424...... 35874, 39104 660 ...... 36237, 37249, 40182 34 CFR 48...... 34943 425...... 39104 665...... 36239 224...... 40147 Ch. II...... 36217, 36220, 36222, 484...... 35874 679 ...... 36514, 38418, 38588 36510, 36648, 37679 488...... 35874 Proposed Rules: 26 CFR Ch. III...... 36656, 39965 489...... 35874 17 ...... 35708, 36678, 37091, 54...... 36872 686...... 36070 498...... 35874 37410, 38246, 40186 Proposed Rules: 512...... 36322 218...... 37790 1...... 39910 36 CFR 635...... 38262 53...... 39910 Proposed Rules: 45 CFR 648...... 36519 54...... 36870, 39910 7...... 37725 144...... 36872 665...... 37982

VerDate Sep 11 2014 19:00 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4712 E:\FR\FM\27JYCU.LOC 27JYCU lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with FR_CU Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Reader Aids iii

Register but may be ordered of 2021 (July 26, 2021; 135 listserv.gsa.gov/cgi-bin/ in ‘‘slip law’’ (individual Stat. 304) wa.exe?SUBED1=PUBLAWS- LIST OF PUBLIC LAWS pamphlet) form from the Last List July 26, 2021 L&A=1 Superintendent of Documents, This is a continuing list of U.S. Government Publishing public bills from the current Office, Washington, DC 20402 Note: This service is strictly session of Congress which (phone, 202–512–1808). The Public Laws Electronic for email notification of new have become Federal laws. text will also be made Notification Service laws. The text of laws is not This list is also available available at https:// (PENS) available through this service. online at https:// www.govinfo.gov. Some laws PENS cannot respond to www.archives.gov/federal- may not yet be available. specific inquiries sent to this register/laws. PENS is a free email H.R. 26/P.L. 117–28 notification service of newly address. The text of laws is not Construction Consensus enacted public laws. To published in the Federal Procurement Improvement Act subscribe, go to https://

VerDate Sep 11 2014 19:00 Jul 26, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\27JYCU.LOC 27JYCU lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with FR_CU