Vol. 85 Monday, No. 120 June 22, 2020

Pages 37331–37546

OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL REGISTER

VerDate Sep 11 2014 21:05 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\22JNWS.LOC 22JNWS II Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020

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: 85 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.

.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 21:05 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\22JNWS.LOC 22JNWS III

Contents Federal Register Vol. 85, No. 120

Monday, June 22, 2020

Agriculture Department Denali Commission See Forest Service NOTICES NOTICES Fiscal Year 2021 Draft Work Plan, 37436–37438 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 37416 Drug Enforcement Administration NOTICES Bonneville Power Administration Importer of Controlled Substances Application: NOTICES Organic Standards Solutions International, LLC, 37471 Public Hearing: Suspension of the Financial Reserves Policy Surcharge for the Remainder of the BP–20 Rate Period; Education Department Opportunities for Public Review and Comment, NOTICES 37444–37447 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection Protection and Advocacy of Individual Rights Program Assurances, 37444 RULES Advisory Opinions Pilot, 37331–37333 Applications for New Awards: PROPOSED RULES Out of School Time Career Pathway Program, 37438– Advisory Opinions Proposal, 37394–37396 37443

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Energy Department NOTICES See Bonneville Power Administration Meetings, 37455–37456 See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Meetings: See Western Area Power Administration Board of Scientific Counselors, National Institute for NOTICES Occupational Safety and Health, 37454–37455 Meetings: Environmental Management Site–Specific Advisory Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Board, Nevada, 37447–37448 NOTICES Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, 37447 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 37456–37457 Environmental Protection Agency RULES Civil Rights Commission Final Approval of State Underground Storage Tank Program NOTICES Revisions and Incorporation by Reference: Meetings: Texas, 37347–37354 New Jersey Advisory Committee, 37417 Toxic Chemical Release Reporting: Addition of Certain Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances, Coast Guard 37354–37364 RULES PROPOSED RULES Special Local Regulations: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Great Western Tube Float; Colorado River, Parker, AZ, Promulgations: 37339–37341 Iowa; Air Quality Implementation Plan-Muscatine Sulfur USA Triathlon, Milwaukee Harbor, Milwaukee, WI, Dioxide Nonattainment Area and Start-up, 37337–37339 Shutdown, Malfunction State Implementation Plan PROPOSED RULES Call Withdrawal, 37405–37411 Safety Zone: Missouri; Control of Emissions from Industrial Surface I–5 Bridge Construction Project, Columbia River, Coating Operations, 37411–37413 Vancouver, WA, 37397–37399 Final Approval of State Underground Storage Tank Program Revisions and Incorporation by Reference: Commerce Department Texas, 37413–37414 See International Trade Administration See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Federal Aviation Administration See Patent and Trademark Office RULES Airworthiness Directives: Copyright Office, Library of Congress Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Airplanes, 37333– RULES 37335 Group Registration of Short Online Literary Works, 37341– NOTICES 37347 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, PROPOSED RULES Submissions, and Approvals: Exemptions to Permit Circumvention of Access Controls on Operational Waivers for Small Unmanned Aircraft Copyrighted Works, 37399–37403 Systems, 37493

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:25 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\22JNCN.SGM 22JNCN IV Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Contents

Federal Communications Commission RULES RULES Removal of 30-Day Processing Provision for Asylum Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Applicant-Related Form I–765 Employment Year 2020, 37364–37376 Authorization Applications, 37502–37546 NOTICES PROPOSED RULES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Retrospective Analysis of the Chemical Facility Anti– Submissions, and Approvals, 37450–37452 Terrorism Standards, 37393–37394 Meetings: Hospital Robocall Protection Group, 37452–37453 Indian Health Service Order Denying Stay Petition, 37453 PROPOSED RULES Removal of Suspended Regulations, 37414–37415 Federal Emergency Management Agency Interior Department NOTICES Final Flood Hazard Determinations, 37469 See Fish and Wildlife Service See Land Management Bureau Federal Energy Regulatory Commission International Boundary and Water Commission, United NOTICES States and Mexico Combined Filings, 37448–37449 NOTICES Federal Highway Administration Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: NOTICES United States Section: Arroyo Colorado at Harlingen Final Federal Agency Actions: Flood Flow Improvement Project, Cameron County, Proposed Highway in California, 37494–37495 TX, 37470–37471 International Trade Administration Federal Maritime Commission PROPOSED RULES NOTICES Steel Import Monitoring and Analysis System: Investigation into Conditions Created by Canadian Ballast Modification of Regulations; Correction, 37397 Water Regulations in the U.S./Canada Great Lakes NOTICES Trade, 37453–37454 Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Fish and Wildlife Service Certain Quartz Surface Products from India and the NOTICES Republic of Turkey, 37431–37432 Permit Application: Certain Quartz Surface Products from India and Turkey, Endangered Species; Recovery, 37469–37470 37422–37424 Food and Drug Administration Certain Walk-Behind Lawn Mowers and Parts Thereof from the People’s Republic of China, 37426–37429 NOTICES Certain Walk-Behind Lawn Mowers and Parts Thereof Meetings: from the People’s Republic of China and the Socialist Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee; Establishment of a Republic of Vietnam, 37417–37422 Public Docket, 37458–37459 Large Diameter Welded Pipe from Greece, 37424–37426 Withdrawal of Approval of New Drug Applications; Magnesium Metal from the People’s Republic of China, Correction: 37429–37431 Hospira, Inc., et al., 37459 Justice Department Forest Service See Drug Enforcement Administration NOTICES See Prisons Bureau Meetings: Ketchikan Resource Advisory Committee, 37416–37417 Land Management Bureau NOTICES Health and Human Services Department Realty Action: See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Competitive Issuance of a Communications Use Lease in See Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Hinsdale County, CO, 37470 See Food and Drug Administration See Health Resources and Services Administration Library of Congress See Indian Health Service See Copyright Office, Library of Congress See National Institutes of Health Management and Budget Office Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES NOTICES Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board Supplemental Award: Membership, 37471 Education Development Center for the Home Visiting Collaborative Improvement and Innovation Network National Archives and Records Administration 2.0 Cooperative Agreement, 37459–37460 NOTICES Records Schedules, 37472–37473 Homeland Security Department See Coast Guard National Credit Union Administration See Federal Emergency Management Agency NOTICES See U.S. Customs and Border Protection Meetings; Sunshine Act, 37473

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:25 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\22JNCN.SGM 22JNCN Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Contents V

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration NOTICES NOTICES Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance: Meetings: Michelin North America, Inc., 37495–37496 Gas and Liquid Pipeline Safety Advisory Committees, 37496–37497 National Institutes of Health NOTICES Postal Regulatory Commission Meetings: PROPOSED RULES Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Periodic Reporting, 37403–37405 Health and Human Development, 37463 NOTICES National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 37460–37462 New Postal Products, 37476–37479 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 37460–37464 Postal Service National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, NOTICES 37464 Market Test of Experimental Product: Prospective Grant of an Exclusive Patent License: Extended Mail Forwarding, 37479 Development and Commercialization of Fenoterol and Product Change: Certain Fenoterol Analogues for the Treatment of Priority Mail—Non-Published Rates, 37479 Cancer, 37464–37466 Ointment for the Topical Administration to Ischemic Prisons Bureau Treat and/or Neuropathic Ulcers in Humans, 37461 RULES National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Video Visiting and Telephone Calls Under the Coronavirus RULES Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, 37335–37337 Atlantic Highly Migratory Species: Commercial Aggregated Large Coastal Shark and Securities and Exchange Commission Hammerhead Shark Management Group in the NOTICES Atlantic Region; Retention Limit Adjustment, 37390– Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: 37392 Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc., 37488 International Fisheries: Cboe Exchange, Inc., 37479–37483 Eastern Pacific Tuna Fisheries; Western and Central ICE Clear Credit, LLC, 37483–37486 Pacific Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species; Area NYSE Arca, Inc., 37488–37491 of Overlap Between the Convention Areas of the The Nasdaq Stock Market, LLC, 37486–37488 Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission and the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, State Department 37376–37390 NOTICES NOTICES Delegation of Authority: Application for Exempted Fishing Permits: Authorities of the Director of the Office of Foreign West Coast Pelagic Conservation Group, 37433 Missions, 37492 Applications for Permits: Modified Display Dates Due to the COVID–19 Pandemic, Endangered Species; File Nos. 21111, 23683, and 23851, for Culturally Significant Objects Imported for 37433–37434 Exhibition, 37491–37492 Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery: Application for Exempted Fishing Permits; California Surface Transportation Board Wetfish Producers Association, 37434–37435 NOTICES Abandonment Exemption: National Science Foundation CSX Transportation, Inc.; Greenbrier and Fayette NOTICES Counties, WV, 37492–37493 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Quarterly Rail Cost Adjustment Factor, 37493 Submissions, and Approvals, 37473–37474

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Transportation Department NOTICES See Federal Aviation Administration License Renewal: See Federal Highway Administration Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Humboldt Bay See National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, 37474– See Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 37475 Administration Meetings; Sunshine Act, 37475–37476 NUREG; Issuance: U.S. Customs and Border Protection Report to Congress on Abnormal Occurrences: Fiscal Year NOTICES 2019; Dissemination of Information, 37476 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Patent and Trademark Office Commercial Invoice, 37467 NOTICES Guam-Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Visa Waiver Information, 37466 Submissions, and Approvals Meetings: Global Intellectual Property Academy Surveys, 37435– Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee, 37436 37467–37468

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:25 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\22JNCN.SGM 22JNCN VI Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Contents

Veterans Affairs Department Separate Parts In This Issue NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Part II Submissions, and Approvals: Homeland Security Department, 37502–37546 Conflicting Interests Certification for Proprietary Schools, 37498–37499 Reader Aids Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for Western Area Power Administration phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice NOTICES of recently enacted public laws. Rate Order: To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents Pacific Northwest-Pacific Southwest Intertie Project, electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/ 37450 accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:25 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\22JNCN.SGM 22JNCN Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Contents VII

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.

6 CFR Proposed Rules: 27...... 37393 8 CFR 208...... 37502 12 CFR Ch. X...... 37331 Proposed Rules: Ch. X...... 37394 14 CFR 39...... 37333 19 CFR Proposed Rules: 360...... 37397 28 CFR 540...... 37335 33 CFR 100 (2 documents) ...... 37337, 37339 Proposed Rules: 165...... 37397 37 CFR 201...... 37341 202...... 37341 Proposed Rules: 201...... 37399 39 CFR Proposed Rules: 3050...... 37403 40 CFR 282...... 37347 372...... 37354 Proposed Rules: 52 (2 documents) ...... 37405, 37411 282...... 37413 42 CFR Proposed Rules: 136a...... 37414 47 CFR 1...... 37364 50 CFR 300...... 37376 635...... 37390

VerDate Sep 11 2014 21:33 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4711 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\22JNLS.LOC 22JNLS 37331

Rules and Regulations Federal Register Vol. 85, No. 120

Monday, June 22, 2020

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER that is useful for compliance additional assistance in understanding contains regulatory documents having general professionals, other industry legal requirements; second, that AOs applicability and legal effect, most of which stakeholders, and the public, or include could create confusion; and third, that are keyed to and codified in the Code of practical suggestions for how entities interpretations are better made via Federal Regulations, which is published under might choose to go about complying notice and comment. 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510. with those requirements.3 Additionally, Comments on the Bureau’s Proposed The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Bureau provides individualized Policy on No-Action Letters and the the Superintendent of Documents. ‘‘implementation support’’ to regulated BCFP Product Sandbox 6 also addressed entities through its Regulatory Inquiries whether the Bureau should include an Function (RIF).4 Neither Compliance interpretive letter (IL) or AO program to BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL Aids nor the RIF are intended to the Compliance Assistance Sandbox PROTECTION interpret ambiguities in legal (CAS). Commenters supporting the requirements. inclusion of an IL or AO program to the 12 CFR Chapter X The Bureau is establishing the Pilot CAS said that the Bureau could further AO Program in response to feedback compliance and clarify regulatory Advisory Opinions Pilot received from external stakeholders expectations by issuing interpretive AGENCY: Bureau of Consumer Financial encouraging the Bureau to provide legal opinions in circumstances Protection. written guidance in cases of regulatory warranting further legal clarity on a ACTION: Procedural rule. uncertainty. The Bureau received particular practice or activity. They requests of this nature in comments noted that other regulatory agencies SUMMARY: The Bureau of Consumer submitted in response to the Request for provide for opinions of this kind. A Financial Protection (Bureau) Information Regarding Bureau Guidance commenter opposing the inclusion of an announces the establishment of a new and Implementation Support (Guidance IL or AO program to the CAS reiterated pilot advisory opinion program (Pilot RFI). The Guidance RFI noted, among the objections made by commenters on AO Program). other things, current Bureau forms of the Guidance RFI that AOs could DATES: This procedural rule is individualized support to regulated increase confusion and that applicable on June 22, 2020. entities—principally the RIF—and interpretations are better made via asked whether the Bureau should notice and comment. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For consider an AO program to provide After considering these comments, the additional information about the Pilot interpretations, including the particular Bureau is establishing the Pilot AO AO Program, contact Marianne Roth, scope and benefits of AOs that would be Program to provide guidance with Chief Risk Officer, Office of Strategy, at distinct from generalized frequently interpretive content that is: Focused on 202–435–7684. If you require this asked questions (FAQs), and the types regulatory uncertainty identified by document in an alternative electronic of questions or issues that could or requestors; reliable for the requestor and format, please contact CFPB_ could not be appropriately dealt with by all similarly situated parties as the [email protected]. AOs.5 Bureau’s authoritative interpretation of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In response to the Guidance RFI, the law; and publicly released for the I. Background several respondents recommended the awareness of all affected persons. The Bureau issue such AOs. Commenters Bureau appreciates the concerns raised Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street that supported AOs wrote that a Bureau by some commenters on the Guidance Reform and Consumer Protection Act AO program would reduce ambiguity RFI and the CAS about an AO program. (Dodd-Frank Act),1 the Bureau’s and increase regulatory certainty, With respect to concerns that AOs ‘‘primary functions’’ include issuing support proactive consumer protection, would not provide meaningful guidance implementing Federal and enhance timeliness of guidance. assistance to stakeholders regarding the consumer financial law.2 The Bureau Several of these commenters suggested interpretation of legal requirements, the believes that providing clear and useful that AOs be binding, ultimately be Bureau believes that the comments guidance to regulated entities is an incorporated into a central location (like described above indicate that there is important aspect of facilitating markets the Official Interpretations to Bureau meaningful demand for the resolution of that serve consumers. regulations), and be accessible and regulatory uncertainty beyond the The Bureau currently issues several useful to third parties as well as Bureau’s existing tools for issuing types of guidance regarding the statutes requestors. guidance. Accordingly, the Pilot AO that it administers and regarding the Other commenters responded to the Program can help enhance compliance. regulations and Official Interpretations Guidance RFI and opposed the issuance With respect to comments that AOs that it normally issues through the of AOs. They had three primary could create confusion, the Bureau notice-and-comment process. On objections: First, that AOs will not believes that clear communication of the occasion, the Bureau provides guidance provide the public with meaningful status of AOs issued under the Pilot AO in interpretive rules or general Program as interpretive rules under the statements of policy. The Bureau also 3 See Policy Statement on Compliance Aids, 85 Administrative Procedure Act (APA) FR 4579 (Jan. 27, 2020). routinely issues Compliance Aids that will minimize potential for confusion as present legal requirements in a manner 4 See Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection Request for Information Regarding Bureau Guidance and Implementation Support (Guidance RFI), 83 FR 6 See Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection 1 Public Law 111–203, 124 Stat. 2081 (2010). 13959, 13961–62 (Apr. 2, 2018). Policy on No-Action Letters and the BCFP Product 2 12 U.S.C. 5511(c)(5). 5 Guidance RFI, at 13964. Sandbox, 83 FR 64036–64045 (Dec. 13, 2018).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:36 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM 22JNR1 37332 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

to the significance of different types of Records and Information,10 to the extent D. Factors in Bureau Selection of Topics guidance. Further, AOs will be signed applicable. The Bureau encourages for AOs by the Director, addressing concerns requestors to identify any such The Bureau intends to consider the that an AO program could lead to the information to the extent they choose to following factors as part of its proliferation of conflicting staff-level include it in their submissions. For the consideration of whether to address opinions. pilot program, requestors will be limited topics through AOs.17 The Bureau will With respect to comments regarding to covered persons or service providers prioritize open questions within the the importance of notice and comment, that are subject to the Bureau’s Bureau’s purview that can legally be the Bureau agrees that broad stakeholder supervisory authority under sections addressed through an interpretive rule, input is valuable in many contexts. As 1024, 1025, or 1026(e) of the Dodd- where an AO is an appropriate tool explained below, the Bureau does not Frank Act or subject to the Bureau’s relative to other Bureau tools for intend to issue advisory opinions on enforcement authority under subtitle E resolving that question. Initial factors issues that are better addressed through of the Dodd-Frank Act.11 The Bureau weighing for the appropriateness of an the notice-and-comment process. will not accept requests from third AO include: That the interpretive issue However, as the APA contemplates by parties, such as trade associations or law has been noted during prior Bureau exempting interpretive rules from examinations as one that might benefit notice-and-comment requirements, the firms, on behalf of unnamed entities as part of the pilot program. from additional regulatory clarity; that Bureau also believes that there are the issue is one of substantive contexts where it is appropriate to C. Characteristics of AOs importance or impact or one whose interpret the applicable law through clarification would provide significant timely guidance without needing to AOs under the pilot program will be benefit; and/or that the issue concerns 12 engage in a sometimes-lengthy notice- interpretive rules under the APA that an ambiguity that the Bureau has not and-comment process. respond to a specific request for clarity previously addressed through an The Bureau is initiating its program on an interpretive question. The Bureau interpretive rule or other authoritative for AOs in the form of a pilot, which will publish AOs in the Federal source. Factors weighing strongly for a will allow the Bureau to gain additional Register and on consumerfinance.gov, presumption that an AO is not an experience with AOs. Public comments including the Bureau’s summary of the appropriate tool include: That the on the Bureau’s concurrent proposal, material facts and the Bureau’s legal interpretive issue is the subject of an together with the Bureau’s experience analysis of the issue.13 Unless otherwise ongoing Bureau investigation or with the pilot, will inform how the stated, each AO will be applicable to the enforcement action; that the interpretive Bureau uses AOs in the future. requestor and to similarly situated issue is the subject of an ongoing or II. Parameters of the Pilot AO Program parties to the extent that their situations planned rulemaking; that the issue is conform to the Bureau’s summary of better suited for the notice-and- A. Overview material facts in the AO.14 comment process; that the issue could be addressed effectively through a The primary purpose of the Pilot AO Where a statutory safe harbor is Compliance Aid; or that there is clear Program is to provide a mechanism applicable to an AO, the AO will through which the Bureau may more Bureau or court precedent that is explain that fact. The Truth in Lending effectively carry out its statutory already available to the public on the Act (TILA), Equal Credit Opportunity purposes and objectives by better issue. Act (ECOA), Electronic Fund Transfer enabling compliance in the face of The Bureau intends to further regulatory uncertainty. Under the Act (EFTA), and Real Estate Settlement evaluate potential topics for AOs based program, parties will be able to request Procedures Act (RESPA) provide certain on additional factors, including: interpretive guidance, in the form of an protections from liability for acts or Alignment with the Bureau’s statutory AO, to resolve such regulatory omissions done in good faith in objectives; size of the benefit offered to uncertainty.7 conformity with an interpretation by the consumers by resolution of the Bureau.15 The Fair Debt Collection interpretive issue; known impact on the B. Submission and Content of Requests Practices Act (FDCPA) contains similar actions of other regulators; and impact Requests may be submitted via email protections, specifically using the term on available Bureau resources. The Pilot to [email protected], or through ‘‘advisory opinion.’’ 16 AO Program will primarily focus on the other means designated by the Bureau.8 following statutory objectives of the Requests must identify the requestor.9 10 12 CFR 1070. Bureau: (1) That consumers are Where information submitted to the 11 12 U.S.C. 5514, 5515, 5516(e), 5561–5567. provided with timely and Bureau is information the requestor 12 5 U.S.C. 553(b). understandable information to make would not normally make public, the 13 An AO will not necessarily adopt any proposed responsible decisions about financial Bureau intends to treat it as confidential interpretation offered by the requestor. The Bureau transactions; (2) that outdated, retains the discretion to answer requests with its pursuant to its rule, Disclosure of own interpretation regardless of the proposed unnecessary, or unduly burdensome interpretation of the requestor. regulations are regularly identified and 7 For convenience, this document uses the term 14 Accordingly, the initial request drafted by the addressed in order to reduce ‘‘regulatory uncertainty’’ to encompass uncertainty requestor is not necessarily a reliable guide to the unwarranted regulatory burdens; (3) that with respect to regulatory or, where applicable, scope or terms of an AO; the scope and terms of Federal consumer financial law is an AO will be set out in the AO itself. Moreover, statutory provisions. enforced consistently, without regard to 8 Applications should not include sensitive the Bureau will not normally investigate the personal information, such as account numbers or underlying facts of the requestor’s situation, and an the status of a person as a depository Social Security numbers, or names of other AO is not applicable to the requestor if the individuals. underlying facts of the requestor’s situation do not 17 The following are factors that the Bureau 9 The Bureau notes that during the Pilot AO conform to the Bureau’s summary of material facts. intends to weigh when deciding which topics to Program, requestors are not required to include the 15 See 15 U.S.C. 1640(f) (TILA); 15 U.S.C. prioritize in the AO program, based on all of the additional information set out in the Bureau’s 1691e(e) (ECOA); 15 U.S.C. 1693m(d) (EFTA); 12 information available to the Bureau. AO requests separate Federal Register document regarding the U.S.C. 2617, 12 CFR 1024.4 (RESPA). need not address these factors in order to be fully Proposed AO Program. 16 See 15 U.S.C. 1692(k)(e) (FDCPA). considered by the Bureau.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:36 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM 22JNR1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 37333

institution, in order to promote fair electronically sign this document to call (816) 329–4148. It is also available competition; and (4) that markets for Laura Galban, a Bureau Federal Register on the internet at https:// consumer financial products and Liaison, for purposes of publication in www.regulations.gov by searching for services operate transparently and the Federal Register. and locating Docket No. FAA–2019– efficiently to facilitate access and Dated: June 18, 2020. 1024. innovation.18 The Pilot AO Program will focus Laura Galban, Examining the AD Docket primarily on clarifying ambiguities in Federal Register Liaison, Bureau of Consumer You may examine the AD docket on the Bureau’s regulations, although AOs Financial Protection. the internet at https:// may clarify statutory ambiguities. The [FR Doc. 2020–13504 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] www.regulations.gov by searching for Bureau will not issue AOs on issues that BILLING CODE 4810–AM–P and locating Docket No. FAA–2019– require notice-and-comment rulemaking 1024; or in person at Docket Operations under the APA,19 or that are better between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday addressed through that process. For DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION through Friday, except Federal holidays. example, the Bureau does not intend to The AD docket contains this final rule, issue an advisory opinion that would Federal Aviation Administration the regulatory evaluation, any change a regulation. Similarly, where a comments received, and other regulation or statute establishes a 14 CFR Part 39 information. The address for Docket general standard that can only be [Docket No. FAA–2019–1024; Product Operations is U.S. Department of applied through highly fact-intensive Identifier 2019–CE–002–AD; Amendment Transportation, Docket Operations, M– analysis, the Bureau does not intend to 39–21126; AD 2020–11–01] 30, West Building Ground Floor, Room replace it with a bright-line standard W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, that eliminates all of the required RIN 2120–AA64 Washington, DC 20590. analysis. Highly fact-intensive Airworthiness Directives; Gulfstream FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: applications of general standards, such Aerospace Corporation Airplanes Myles Jalalian, Aerospace Engineer, as of the statutory prohibition on unfair, Atlanta ACO Branch, FAA, 1701 deceptive, or abusive acts or practices, AGENCY: Federal Aviation Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia pose particular challenges for issuing Administration (FAA), DOT. 30337; phone: (404) 474–5572; fax: (404) advisory opinions, although there may ACTION: Final rule. 474–5606; email: myles.jalalian@ be times when the Bureau is able to faa.gov. offer advisory opinions that provide SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new additional clarity on the meaning of airworthiness directive (AD) for certain SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: such standards. Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Discussion (Gulfstream) Model GVI airplanes. This III. Regulatory Requirements The FAA issued a notice of proposed AD was prompted by a report that the rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR The Bureau has concluded that the primary flight control actuation system part 39 by adding an AD that would Pilot AO Program constitutes a rule of (PFCAS) linear variable displacement apply to certain Gulfstream Aerospace agency organization, procedure, or transducer (LVDT) mechanical Corporation (Gulfstream) Model GVI practice, and that it is, therefore, exempt disconnect monitor may not trigger the airplanes. The NPRM published in the from the notice-and-comment disconnect of the affected control 20 Federal Register on December 16, 2019 rulemaking requirements of the APA. surfaces as required in the event of a (84 FR 68363). For the same reason, it is not subject to control surface failure. This AD requires the 30-day delayed effective date for The NPRM was prompted by a report updating the software of each PFCAS substantive rules under section 553(d) from Gulfstream that the PFCAS LVDT remote electronics unit (REU), which of the APA.21 Because no notice of mechanical disconnect monitor may not includes an improvement to the LVDT. proposed rulemaking is required, the trigger the disconnect of the affected The FAA is issuing this AD to address Regulatory Flexibility Act does not control surfaces as required in the event the unsafe condition on these products. require an initial or final regulatory of a control surface failure. The Model flexibility analysis.22 DATES: This AD is effective July 27, GVI flight control computer actuator 2020. LVDT disconnect monitor should IV. Signing Authority The Director of the Federal Register disable the control surface for ailerons, The Director of the Bureau, having approved the incorporation by reference elevators, and rudder in the event that reviewed and approved this document, of certain publications listed in this AD one of those control surfaces fails. is delegating the authority to as of July 27, 2020. Gulfstream developed an REU software ADDRESSES: For the Gulfstream and update that provides improvements to 18 See 12 U.S.C. 5511(b)(1), (3)–(5). The Bureau Parker service information identified in the LVDT of the PFCAS, which has a further statutory objective, that consumers are protected from unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts this final rule, contact Gulfstream addresses the LVDT disconnect monitor and practices (UDAAPs) and from discrimination. Aerospace Corporation, Technical problem. 12 U.S.C. 5511(b)(2). The Bureau considers this Publications Dept., P.O Box 2206, This condition, if not addressed, objective to be at least as important as its other Savannah, GA 31402–2206; telephone: could lead to spoiler hard-over or loss objectives, and it does not plan to issue an AO that is in conflict with this objective. But because other (800) 810–4853; fax: (912) 965–3520; of structural integrity due to excessive regulatory tools are often more suitable for email: [email protected]; internet: surface deflection and result in loss of addressing UDAAPs and discrimination, the Bureau https://www.gulfstream.com/customer- control of the airplane. has chosen not to highlight this objective as a support. You may view this service The NPRM proposed to require primary focus when selecting issues for the Pilot AO Program. information at the FAA, Airworthiness updating the software of each PFCAS 19 5 U.S.C. 553(b). Products Section, Operational Safety REU, which includes an improvement 20 5 U.S.C. 553(b). Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas City, to the LVDT. The FAA is issuing this 21 5 U.S.C. 553(d). Missouri 64106. For information on the AD to address the unsafe condition on 22 5 U.S.C. 603(a), 604(a). availability of this material at the FAA, these products.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:36 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM 22JNR1 37334 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

Comments dated September 28, 2017; which procedures for updating the software of specify incorporating Gulfstream G650 the REU from Label 34 to Label 35. This The FAA gave the public the Aircraft Service Change 069, dated update includes improved LVDT opportunity to participate in developing September 28, 2017, or Gulfstream disconnect and oscillatory monitoring, this final rule. The FAA received no G650ER Aircraft Service Change 069, force fight mitigation, troubleshooting, comments on the NPRM or on the dated September 28, 2017. This service and rectification of other reported determination of the cost to the public. information differs because each problems. Conclusion document applies to a different airplane This service information is reasonably designation. available because the interested parties The FAA reviewed the relevant data The FAA also reviewed Gulfstream and determined that air safety and the have access to it through their normal G650 Aircraft Service Change 069, dated course of business or by the means public interest require adopting this September 28, 2017, and Gulfstream identified in the ADDRESSES section. final rule as proposed. G650ER Aircraft Service Change 069, Related Service Information Under 1 dated September 28, 2017, which Costs of Compliance CFR Part 51 provide and reference procedures for preparing the REU for a software The FAA estimates that this AD The FAA reviewed Gulfstream G650 update. affects 161 products installed on Customer Bulletin Number 201, dated The FAA reviewed Parker Service airplanes of U.S. registry. September 28, 2017, and Gulfstream Bulletin 469000–27–003, Revision 1, The FAA estimates the following G650ER Customer Bulletin Number 201, dated October 11, 2017, which contains costs to comply with this AD:

ESTIMATED COSTS

Cost per Cost on U.S. Action Labor cost Parts cost product operators

Update REU software ...... 386 work-hours × $85 per hour = $32,810 ..... None ...... $32,810 $5,282,410

According to the manufacturer, some government and the States, or on the Docket No. FAA–2019–1024; Product of the costs of this d AD may be covered distribution of power and Identifier 2019–CE–002–AD. under warranty, thereby reducing the responsibilities among the various (a) Effective Date cost impact on affected individuals. The levels of government. This AD is effective July 27, 2020. FAA does not control warranty coverage For the reasons discussed above, I for affected individuals. As a result, the certify that this AD: (b) Affected ADs FAA has included all costs in this cost (1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory None. estimate. action’’ under Executive Order 12866, (c) Applicability (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation Authority for This Rulemaking This AD applies to Gulfstream Aerospace in Alaska, and Corporation Model GVI airplanes, certificated Title 49 of the United States Code (3) Will not have a significant in any category, serial numbers 6001 through specifies the FAA’s authority to issue economic impact, positive or negative, 6111, 6113 through 6133, and 6135 through rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, on a substantial number of small entities 6274. section 106, describes the authority of under the criteria of the Regulatory Note 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD: Model the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Flexibility Act. GVI airplanes are also referred to by the Aviation Programs, describes in more marketing designations G650 and G650ER. detail the scope of the Agency’s List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 authority. Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation (d) Subject The FAA is issuing this rulemaking safety, Incorporation by reference, Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/ under the authority described in Safety. Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight Controls. Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section Adoption of the Amendment 44701: General requirements. Under (e) Unsafe Condition that section, Congress charges the FAA Accordingly, under the authority This AD was prompted by a report that the with promoting safe flight of civil delegated to me by the Administrator, primary flight control actuation system aircraft in air commerce by prescribing the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as (PFCAS) linear variable displacement regulations for practices, methods, and follows: transducer (LVDT) mechanical disconnect procedures the Administrator finds monitor may not trigger the disconnect of the necessary for safety in air commerce. PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS affected control surfaces as required in the DIRECTIVES event of a control surface failure. This This regulation is within the scope of condition, if not addressed, could lead to that authority because it addresses an ■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 spoiler hard-over or loss of structural unsafe condition that is likely to exist or continues to read as follows: integrity due to excessive surface deflection develop on products identified in this and result in loss of control of the airplane. rulemaking action. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. (f) Compliance Regulatory Findings § 39.13 [Amended] Comply with this AD within the This AD will not have federalism ■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding compliance times specified, unless already done. implications under Executive Order the following new airworthiness 13132. This AD will not have a directive (AD): (g) Software Upgrade substantial direct effect on the States, on 2020–11–01 Gulfstream Aerospace Within the next 24 months after July 27, the relationship between the national Corporation: Amendment 39–21126; 2020 (the effective date of this AD), update

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:36 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM 22JNR1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 37335

the software for each PFCAS remote (iii) Gulfstream G650 Aircraft Service States declared that a national electronics unit (REU) from Label 34 to Label Change 069, dated September 28, 2017. emergency existed with respect to the 35 by following the Accomplishment (iv) Gulfstream G650ER Aircraft Service outbreak of the novel coronavirus, Instructions in Gulfstream G650 Customer Change 069, dated September 28, 2017. SARS–CoV–2, known as Coronavirus (v) Parker Service Bulletin 469000–27–003, Bulletin Number 201, dated September 28, Disease 2019 (COVID–19). Proclamation 2017, or Gulfstream G650ER Customer Revision 1, dated October 11, 2017 Bulletin Number 201, dated September 28, (3) For Gulfstream and Parker service 9994 of March 13, 2020, 85 FR 15337 2017; the Modification Instructions, sections information identified in this AD, Gulfstream (Mar. 18, 2020), available at https:// A through C, in Gulfstream G650 Aircraft Aerospace Corporation, Technical www.whitehouse.gov/presidential- Service Change No. 069, dated September 28, Publications Dept., P.O Box 2206, Savannah, actions/proclamation-declaring- 2017, or Gulfstream G650ER Aircraft Service GA 31402–2206; telephone: (800) 810–4853; national-emergency-concerning-novel- Change No. 069, dated September 28, 2017; fax: (912) 965–3520; email: pubs@ coronavirus-disease-covid-19-outbreak/. and the Accomplishment Instructions in gulfstream.com; internet: https:// In the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Parker Service Bulletin 469000–27–003, www.gulfstream.com/customer-support. (4) You may view this service information Economic Security (CARES) Act, Revision 1, dated October 11, 2017; except Congress provided that, during the you are not required to submit information to at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, emergency period beginning on the date the manufacturer. Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information the President declared a national (h) Alternative Methods of Compliance on the availability of this material at the emergency with respect to COVID–19 (AMOCs) FAA, call (816) 329–4148. In addition, you and ending on the date 30 days after the (1) The Manager, Atlanta ACO Branch, can access this service information on the date on which the national emergency internet at https://www.regulations.gov by FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs declaration terminates, if the Attorney searching for and locating Docket No. FAA– for this AD, if requested using the procedures 2019–1024. General finds that emergency conditions found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with (5) You may view this service information will materially affect the functioning of 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your that is incorporated by reference at the the Bureau of Prisons (Bureau), the principal inspector or local Flight Standards National Archives and Records Director of the Bureau shall promulgate District Office, as appropriate. If sending Administration (NARA). For information on a regulation regarding the ability of information directly to the manager of the the availability of this material at NARA, inmates to conduct visitation through certification office, send it to the attention of email [email protected], or go to: https:// the person identified in paragraph (i)(1) of video teleconferencing and by phone, www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr- free of charge to inmates. See CARES this AD. locations.html. (2) Before using any approved AMOC, Act, Public Law 116–136, § 12003(c)(1), notify your appropriate principal inspector, Issued on May 15, 2020. 134 Stat 281, 618 (2020) [HR 748]. or lacking a principal inspector, the manager Lance T. Gant, On April 6, 2020, the Attorney of the local flight standards district office/ Director, Compliance & Airworthiness General authorized the Bureau of certificate holding district office. Division, Aircraft Certification Service. Prisons to exercise this authority under (3) For service information that contains [FR Doc. 2020–12799 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] the CARES Act. The CARES Act also steps that are labeled as Required for exempted these regulations from the Compliance (RC), the provisions of BILLING CODE 4910–13–P paragraphs (h)(3)(i) and (ii) of this AD apply. requirement of public notice and (i) The steps labeled as RC, including comment in the Administrative substeps under an RC step and any figures DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553. See id. identified in an RC step, must be done to § 12003(c)(2). comply with the AD. An AMOC is required Bureau of Prisons The final rule amends Title 28 of the for any deviations to RC steps, including Code of Federal Regulations, part 540, to substeps and identified figures. 28 CFR Part 540 add new § 540.106, Video Visiting and (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be Telephone Calls Under the CARES Act. deviated from using accepted methods in [Docket No. BOP–1177I] Section 540.106 establishes that during accordance with the operator’s maintenance RIN 1120–AB77 the covered emergency period, when the or inspection program without obtaining Attorney General determines that approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, Video Visiting and Telephone Calls including substeps and identified figures, can emergency conditions will materially still be done as specified, and the airplane Under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and affect the functioning of the Bureau of can be put back in an airworthy condition. Economic Security (CARES) Act Prisons, the Bureau may, on a case-by- case basis, authorize inmates to conduct AGENCY: Bureau of Prisons, Department (i) Related Information visitation through video of Justice. For more information about this AD, teleconferencing and telephonically, contact Myles Jalalian, Aerospace Engineer, ACTION: Final rule. free of charge to inmates, Atlanta ACO Branch, FAA, 1701 Columbia SUMMARY: The Bureau of Prisons notwithstanding provisions in part 540 Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337; phone: to the contrary. (404) 474–5572; fax: (404) 474–5606; email: amends its regulations to provide [email protected]. inmates in federal custody with the As a general matter, the Attorney opportunity for free video- General has authorized the Director of (j) Material Incorporated by Reference teleconferencing and telephone usage the Bureau of Prisons to exercise or (1) The Director of the Federal Register during the national emergency with perform any of the authority, functions, approved the incorporation by reference respect to Coronavirus Disease 2019. or duties conferred or imposed upon the (IBR) of the service information listed in this Attorney General by laws relating to the DATES: This rule is effective June 22, paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR commitment, control, or treatment of 2020. part 5. persons charged with or convicted of (2) You must use this service information FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: offenses against the United States. See as applicable to do the actions required by Sarah Qureshi, Office of General this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. 28 CFR 0.96. (i) Gulfstream G650 Customer Bulletin Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, phone (202) The final rule also indicates that Number 201, dated September 28, 2017. (ii) 353–8248. access to video and telephone visitation Gulfstream G650ER Customer Bulletin SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March will only occur consistent with Number 201, dated September 28, 2017. 13, 2020, the President of the United logistical and security provisions in this

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:48 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM 22JNR1 37336 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

subpart to ensure Bureau safety, security emergency to facilitate inmates’ governments, in the aggregate, or by the and good order and protection of the communiation with their families. private sector, of $100,000,000 or more public, and may be modified, Furthermore, notwithstanding the in any one year, and it will not terminated, or reinstated during the preparation of this rule, the Bureau significantly or uniquely affect small emergency period based upon a implemented no-cost calling for inmates governments. Therefore, no actions were determination by the Director, as on April 9, 2020, for the same reason. deemed necessary under the provisions designee of the Attorney General, Based on recent inmate usage, the of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act regarding the level of material effect that Bureau projects that free-of-charge of 1995. emergency conditions continue to have phone calls for inmates will cost the Congressional Review Act on Bureau of Prisons functions. Further, Bureau approximately $7 million per misuse of Bureau systems or technology month during the COVID emergency This regulation is not a major rule as may result in communication and video sessions will cost defined by the Congressional Review restrictions and/or disciplinary action approximately $170,000 per month. Act, 5 U.S.C. 804. This regulation will under 28 CFR part 541, and inmates are These costs are being covered out of not result in an annual effect on the advised that they may challenge the current Bureau of Prisons economy of $100,000,000 or more; a Bureau’s decisions under this section appropriations. The total cost of the major increase in costs or prices; or through the Bureau’s administrative regulation is uncertain, however, significant adverse effects on remedy program under 28 CFR part 542. because the length of the emergency and competition, employment, investment, its impact on Bureau operations is not productivity, innovation, or on the Regulatory Analyses predictable. ability of United States-based Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and Even with that uncertainty, the companies to compete with foreign- 13771 expected benefits of the rule outweigh based companies in domestic and the cost for several reasons. First, the export markets. This final rule has been drafted and provision of free telephone and video reviewed in accordance with Executive visitation is a compassionate response List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 540 Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771. This to the COVID emergency. Enabling free Prisoners. final rule is not a ‘‘significant regulatory visitation by alernatives means that action’’ under section 3(f) of Executive prisoners are able to maintain contact Michael D. Carvajal, Order 12866. Accordingly, it was not with their families during the COVID Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons. reviewed by OMB. emergency. Second, maintaining some By way of background, the Bureau Under rulemaking authority vested in form of visitation is a means of ensuring manages its own inmate telephone the Attorney General in 5 U.S.C. 301; 28 good order and discipline during the system (ITS). There are three U.S.C. 509, 510 and delegated to the emergency, which benefits the safety of components that make up the system Director of the Bureau of Prisons in 28 prisoners and staff. Third, expending and currently each has a different CFR 0.96, 28 CFR part 540 is amended resources on video and telephone vendor: One provides software that as follows: visitation benefits the health of facilitates the call processing and billing ■ prisoners and staff, as well as public 1. The authority citation for 28 CFR of the call; a second is the call carrier health overall, during the emergency by part 540 is revised to read as follows: that transmits/facilitates the voice over limiting physical contact that could Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 551, 552a; 18 internet protocol (VOIP) call outside the spread COVID. The Bureau has not U.S.C. 1791, 3621, 3622, 3624, 4001, 4042, prison; and a third provides the identified any specific cost savings from 4081, 4082 (Repealed in part as to offenses software that maintains the inmate’s the rule. committed on or after November 1, 1987), account, digital call recording storage, 5006–5024 (Repealed October 12, 1984 as to and security settings. Executive Order 13132 offenses committed after that date), 5039; 28 The Bureau provides inmates with the U.S.C. 509, 510; Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and This regulation will not have Economic Security Act, Sec. 12003(c). option of placing direct dial; collect; substantial direct effect on the States, on and prepaid collect telephone calls via the relationship between the national ■ 2. In subpart I, add § 540.106 to read the ITS. Inmates housed in Bureau government and the States, or on as follows: facilities normally pay the following per distribution of power and § 540.106 Video visiting and telephone minute rates for direct dial telephone responsibilities among the various calls to their called parties: Direct Dial— calls under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and levels of government. Therefore, under Economic Security (CARES) Act. Local: $0.06; Direct Dial—Long Executive Order 13132, this regulation (a) During the ‘‘covered emergency Distance: $0.21; Direct Dial—Canada: does not have sufficient federalism period’’ as defined by the CARES Act $0.35; Direct Dial—Mexico: $0.55; and implications to warrant the preparation with respect to the coronavirus disease Direct Dial—International: $0.99. If of a Federalism Assessment. inmates place collect or prepaid collect (COVID–19), when the Attorney General calls, the called party will be charged Regulatory Flexibility Act determines that emergency conditions applicable rates (not direct dial rates). The Department of Justice certifies will materially affect the functioning of Inmates at those facilties that provide that this rule will not have a significant the Bureau of Prisons (Bureau), the video visitation normally pay a rate of economic impact upon a substantial Bureau may, on a case-by-case basis, $6.00 for a 25 minute video session. number of small entities because it authorize inmates to conduct visitation The volume of calls and video pertains to the functioning of the through video teleconferencing and sessions by prisoners normally BUREAU and funds authorized and telephonically, free of charge to inmates, fluctuates during non-emergency appropriated for that purpose by notwithstanding provisions in part 540 situtations. Inmates are ordinarily Congress. to the contrary. limited to calling 300 minutes per (b) Access to video and telephone month, but the Bureau raised the limit Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 visitation will only occur consistent to 500 minutes on March 13, 2020 in This regulation will not result in the with logistical and security provisions recognition of the impact of the COVID expenditure by State, local and tribal in this subpart to ensure Bureau safety,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:36 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM 22JNR1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 37337

security and good order and protection Sector Lake Michigan Waterways take place next year, and asked whether of the public. Management Division, U.S. Coast the City of Milwaukee was aware of the (c) Access to video and telephone Guard; telephone 414–747–7148, email event. In response to this comment, the visitation under this section may be [email protected]. process of issuing a special local modified, terminated, or reinstated SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: regulation for this event does not during the emergency period based constitute approval of the event. The upon a determination by the Director, as I. Table of Abbreviations Coast Guard is working closely with designee of the Attorney General, CFR Code of Federal Regulations state and local governments, health regarding the level of material effect that DHS Department of Homeland Security officials, and sponsors of marine events emergency conditions continue to have FR Federal Register to determine whether an event can be on Bureau functions. NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking held safely. At the time this regulation (d) Misuse of Bureau systems or § Section will be published, we still face technology may result in U.S.C. United States Code uncertainty with regard to how the communication restrictions and/or II. Background Information and COVID–19 pandemic will play out in disciplinary action under 28 CFR part Regulatory History the months to come. As we get closer to 541. the event date, there may be the On January 10, 2020, USA Triathlon (e) Inmates may challenge the possibility that the event will be notified the Coast Guard that it will be Bureau’s decisions under this section cancelled due to ongoing state or local hosting a triathlon in Milwaukee, WI through the Bureau’s administrative restrictions put in place for large from August 7, 2020 through August 9, remedy program under 28 CFR part 542. gatherings as a result of the COVID–19 2020. Over the course of the three days pandemic. That being said, the COTP is [FR Doc. 2020–13004 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] this triathlon is being held, there will be continuing to implement these special BILLING CODE 4410–05–P as many as 6,000 participants involved local regulations in case this event does in the swim portion of the triathlon in occur as scheduled, in order to protect the Lake Shore State Park Lagoon within persons, vessels, and the navigable DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND the Milwaukee Harbor. In response, on waters of the United States. As of the SECURITY April 8, 2020, the Coast Guard publication of this rule, the COTP is not published a Notice Of Proposed aware of any plans from the sponsor of Coast Guard Rulemaking (NPRM) titled ‘‘Special this event to postpone this event until Local Regulation; USA Triathlon, 2021. Additionally, the City of 33 CFR Part 100 Milwaukee Harbor, Milwaukee, WI’’ (85 Milwaukee maintains a separate FR 19709). There we stated why we [Docket Number USCG–2020–0207] permitting process, independent from issued the NPRM, and invited the process employed by the Coast RIN 1625–AA08 comments on our proposed regulatory Guard. The City of Milwaukee is aware action related to this triathlon swim Special Local Regulation; USA of this event and will act in accordance event. During the comment period that Triathlon, Milwaukee Harbor, with their own regulations, policies, and ended May 8, 2020, the Coast Guard Milwaukee, WI procedures. received five comments. AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. Two comments expressed concern for III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule the adequacy of environmental ACTION: Temporary final rule. The Coast Guard is issuing this rule protection due to this regulation. Both SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70041. The comments expressed concern that this establishing a temporary special local Captain of the Port Lake Michigan regulation places priority on the regulation for certain waters of the (COTP) has determined that potential protection of human life, rather than Milwaukee Harbor. This action is hazards associated with the swim wildlife, and that a triathlon would necessary to provide for the safety of life portion of the triathlon from August 7, disturb wildlife in the event area. on these navigable waters within the 2020 through August 9, 2020 will be a Paragraph IV.F of the NPRM published Lake Shore State Park Lagoon during a safety concern for anyone within the on April 8, 2020 discusses the triathlon swim event. This rulemaking Lake Shore State Park Lagoon. The environmental review for this special will prohibit persons and vessels from purpose of this rule is to protect safety local regulation, which has been being in the regulated area unless of persons, vessels, and the navigable conducted in accordance with the authorized by the Captain of the Port waters in the safety zone before, during, National Environmental Policy Act of Lake Michigan or a designated and after the scheduled event. 1969 (NEPA). Under NEPA, a review of representative. this regulation evaluated the potential IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, effect on the human environment. DATES: This rule is effective from 8 a.m. and the Rule NEPA, as codified in 40 CFR 1508.14, on August 7, 2020 through 2 p.m. on As noted above, we received five clarifies the ‘‘human environment shall August 9, 2020. comments on our NPRM published be interepreted comprehensively to ADDRESSES: To view documents April 8, 2020. There are no changes in include the natural and physical mentioned in this preamble as being the regulatory text of this rule from the environment and the relationship of available in the docket, go to https:// proposed rule in the NPRM. people with that environment.’’ As www.regulations.gov, type USCG–2020– One comment expressed agreement such, the environmental review 0207 in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click with the proposed rule in that it is conducted for this regulation has taken ‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on Open Docket necessary to protect triathlon into account potential effects on Folder on the line associated with this participants from potential injury. endangered and threatened species, rule. One comment expressed concern critical habitats, migratory birds, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If regarding whether it was appropriate to wildlife refuges and reserves, essential you have questions on this rule, call or hold this event during the COVID–19 fish habitats, and coastal management email Chief Petty Officer Kyle Weitzell, pandemic, asked whether this event can zones, in addition to historical and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:36 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM 22JNR1 37338 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

cultural impacts. Given the action taken from the requirements of Executive about this rule or any policy or action by the COTP to limit access to a small Order 13771. of the Coast Guard. portion of navigable waters of the This regulatory action determination C. Collection of Information United States that is routinely used for is based on location, size, and duration recreation, it was determined, as stated of this proposed special local regulation. This rule will not call for a new in the NPRM published on April 8, This regulation will be in effect only on collection of information under the 2020, that actions such as this have been the Lake Shore State Park Lagoon during Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 found to have no significant effect on the swim portion of the triathlon from U.S.C. 3501–3520). the environment and are excluded from August 7, 2020 through August 9, 2020. D. Federalism and Indian Tribal further review. Refer to Paragraph V.F of Additionally, the COTP may consider Governments this temporary rule for more the movement of persons and vessels information on environmental review of through or within the regulated, if it is A rule has implications for federalism this regulation. safe to do so. under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct Finally, one comment was beyond the B. Impact on Small Entities effect on the States, on the relationship scope of the proposed regulation and is between the National Government and not addressed herein. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of the States, or on the distribution of This rule establishes a special local 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider power and responsibilities among the regulation from 8 a.m. on August 7, various levels of government. We have 2020 through 2 p.m. on August 9, 2020. the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The analyzed this rule under that Order and The special local regulation will cover have determined that it is consistent all navigable waters of the Lake Shore term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations with the fundamental federalism State Park Lagoon in the Milwaukee principles and preemption requirements Harbor within an area bound by that are independently owned and ° ′ ° ′ operated and are not dominant in their described in Executive Order 13132. coordinates 43 02.20 N, 087 53.69 W, Also, this rule does not have tribal ° ′ ° ′ fields, and governmental jurisdictions then South to 43 01.75 N, 087 53.71 implications under Executive Order ° ′ with populations of less than 50,000. W, then Southwest to 43 01.73 N, 13175, Consultation and Coordination ° ′ The Coast Guard received no comments 087 53.96 W, then Northeast to with Indian Tribal Governments, ° ′ ° ′ from the Small Business Administration 43 02.20 N, 087 53.83 W, then East to because it does not have a substantial on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard point of origin. The duration of the direct effect on one or more Indian certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this regulation is intended to protect the tribes, on the relationship between the rule will not have a significant safety of persons, vessels, and these Federal Government and Indian tribes, economic impact on a substantial navigable waters before, during, and or on the distribution of power and number of small entities. after the swim portion of the traithlon. responsibilities between the Federal While some owners or operators of No vessel or person, except those Government and Indian tribes. participating in the event, would be vessels intending to transit the regulated permitted to enter the regulated area area may be small entities, for the E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act without obtaining permission from the reasons stated in section V.A above, this The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act COTP or the Patrol Commander. The rule will not have a significant of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires daily schedule of the swim portion of economic impact on any vessel owner Federal agencies to assess the effects of the triathlon will be made available or operator. their discretionary regulatory actions. In publicly by Broadcast Notice to Under section 213(a) of the Small particular, the Act addresses actions Mariners. Business Regulatory Enforcement that may result in the expenditure by a Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), V. Regulatory Analyses State, local, or tribal government, in the we want to assist small entities in aggregate, or by the private sector of We developed this rule after understanding this rule. If the rule $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or considering numerous statutes and would affect your small business, more in any one year. Though this rule Executive orders related to rulemaking. organization, or governmental will not result in such an expenditure, Below we summarize our analyses jurisdiction and you have questions we do discuss the effects of this rule based on a number of these statutes and concerning its provisions or options for elsewhere in this preamble. Executive orders, and we discuss First compliance, please call or email the Amendment rights of protestors. person listed in the FOR FURTHER F. Environment INFORMATION CONTACT section. We have analyzed this rule under A. Regulatory Planning and Review Small businesses may send comments Department of Homeland Security Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 on the actions of Federal employees Directive 023–01, Rev. 1, associated direct agencies to assess the costs and who enforce, or otherwise determine implementing instructions, and benefits of available regulatory compliance with, Federal regulations to Environmental Planning COMDTINST alternatives and, if regulation is the Small Business and Agriculture 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast necessary, to select regulatory Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman Guard in complying with the National approaches that maximize net benefits. and the Regional Small Business Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 Executive Order 13771 directs agencies Regulatory Fairness Boards. The U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have to control regulatory costs through a Ombudsman evaluates these actions determined that this action is one of a budgeting process. This rule has not annually and rates each agency’s category of actions that do not been designated a ‘‘significant responsiveness to small business. If you individually or cumulatively have a regulatory action,’’ under Executive wish to comment on actions by significant effect on the human Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has employees of the Coast Guard, call 1– environment. This rule involves a not been reviewed by the Office of 888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). The special local regulation lasting three Management and Budget (OMB), and Coast Guard will not retaliate against days that would prohibit entry in the pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt small entities that question or complain Lake Shore State Park Lagoon within the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:36 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM 22JNR1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 37339

Milwaukee Harbor during the swim them by the COTP or the Patrol DHS Department of Homeland Security portion of a triathlon. It is categorically Commander. FR Federal Register excluded from further review under (c) Effective dates. These regulations NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking are in effect from 8 a.m. on August 7, § Section paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 U.S.C. United States Code of DHS Instruction Manual 023–01– 2020 through 2 p.m. on August 9, 2020. 001–01, Rev. 1. A Memorandum for Public notice of specific enforcement II. Background Information and Record supporting this determination is times will be made available through Regulatory History available in the docket. For instructions Broadcast Notice to Mariners. The Great Western Tube Float is an on locating the docket, see the Dated: June 4, 2020 annual recurring event listed in Table 1, ADDRESSES section of this preamble. T.J. Stuhlreyer, Item 9 of 33 CFR 100.1102, Annual G. Protest Activities Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Marine Events on the Colorado River, between Davis Dam (Bullhead City, The Coast Guard respects the First Port Lake Michigan. [FR Doc. 2020–12494 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] Arizona) and Headgate Dam (Parker, Amendment rights of protesters. Arizona). Special local regulations exist BILLING CODE 9110–04–P Protesters are asked to call or email the for the marine event to allow for special person listed in the FOR FURTHER use of the Colorado River, Parker, AZ for INFORMATION CONTACT section to DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND this event. coordinate protest activities so that your SECURITY On March 17, 2020, the Parker Area message can be received without Chamber of Commerce notified the jeopardizing the safety or security of Coast Guard Coast Guard that the location of the people, places or vessels. marine event was being changed. The List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100 33 CFR Part 100 new location for the Great Western Tube Float will provide effective control over Marine safety, Navigation (water), [Docket Number USCG–2020–0217] the marine event and insure safety of Reporting and recordkeeping RIN 1625–AA08 life in the regatta or marine parade area. requirements, Waterways. In response, on April 27, 2020, the Coast For the reasons discussed in the Special Local Regulation; Great Guard published a notice of proposed preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 Western Tube Float; Colorado River, rulemaking (NPRM) titled Special Local CFR part 100 as follows: Parker, AZ Regulation; Great Western Tube Float; Colorado River, Parker, AZ (85 FR AGENCY: PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON Coast Guard, DHS. 23264). There we stated why we issued NAVIGABLE WATERS ACTION: Final rule. the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related ■ 1. The authority citation for part 100 SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is changing to this annual marine event. During the continues to read as follows: the location of the special local comment period that ended May 12, regulation for the annual Great Western Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70041; 33 CFR 1.05– 2020, we received 1 comment. 1. Tube Float, which is held on the navigable waters of the Colorado River III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule ■ 2. Add § 100.T09–0207 to read as in Parker, AZ. The change of the follows: The Coast Guard is issuing this rule location for the special local regulation under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70041. The § 100.T09–0207 Special Local Regulation; is necessary to provide for the safety of Captain of the Port San Diego (COTP) USA Triathlon, Milwaukee Harbor, life on the navigable waters during the has determined this rule is needed to Milwaukee, WI. event. This action will restrict vessel change the location of the marine event (a) Regulated area. This area includes traffic in certain waters of the Colorado to the navigable waters of the Colorado all waters of the Lake Shore State Park River, from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. one River from Buckskin Mountain State Lagoon in the Milwaukee Harbor within Saturday in June, from Buckskin Park to La Paz County Park, to reflect ° ′ an area bound by coordinates 43 02.20 Mountain State Park to La Paz County the actual location of this event. This ° ′ N, 087 53.69 W, then South to Park. change is needed to accommodate the ° ′ ° ′ 43 01.75 N, 087 53.71 W, then DATES: This rule is effective July 22, sponsor’s event plan and ensure that Southwest to 43°01.73′ N, 087°53.96′ W, 2020. adequate regulations are in place to then Northeast to 43°02.20′ N, ADDRESSES: protect the safety of vessels and 087°53.83′ W, then East to point of To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being individuals that may be present in the origin. regulated area. (b) Special Local Regulations. (1) The available in the docket, go to https:// regulations in this section, along with www.regulations.gov, type USCG–2020– IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, the regulations of § 100.901, apply to 0217 in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click and the Rule this marine event. No vessel may enter, ‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on Open Docket As noted above, we received 1 transit through, or anchor within the Folder on the line associated with this comment on our NPRM published April regulated area without the permission of rule. 27, 2020. The commenter supported the the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If Coast Guard’s proposal to change the (COTP) or the Patrol Commander. you have questions on this rule, call or location of the marine event. The (2) Vessel operators desiring to enter Lieutenant Briana Biagas, Waterways commenter noted they have rafted down or operate within the regulated area Management, U.S. Coast Guard; the Colorado River many times and shall contact the COTP or the Patrol telephone 619–278–7656, email know how treacherous the river can be. Commander on VHF–FM Channel 16 to [email protected]. There are no changes in the regulatory obtain permission to do so. Vessel SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: text of this rule from the proposed rule operators given permission to enter or in the NPRM. operate within the regulated area must I. Table of Abbreviations This rule changes the location of the comply with all directions given to CFR Code of Federal Regulations Great Western Tube Float, an annual

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:36 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM 22JNR1 37340 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

event normally held on a Saturday in This regulatory action determination about this rule or any policy or action June on the waters of the Colorado is based on the size, location, duration, of the Coast Guard. River, Parker, AZ. and time-of-day of the special local C. Collection of Information 33 CFR 100.1102 lists the annual regulation. This event takes place marine events and special local annually on one Saturday in June and This rule will not call for a new regulations on the Colorado River, will utilize only a small portion of the collection of information under the between Davis Dam (Bullhead City, Colorado River during the event. This Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 Arizona) and Headgate Dam (Parker, event is already included in our U.S.C. 3501–3520). Arizona). The enforcement date and regulations, the only change is to the D. Federalism and Indian Tribal regulated location for this marine event location on the river where the event Governments are listed in Table 1, Item 9 of Section would take place. The Coast Guard will 100.1102. publish a local notice to mariners in the A rule has implications for federalism This rule changes the location to the weeks before the event that details the under Executive Order 13132, navigable waters of the Colorado River vessel restrictions of the regulated area. Federalism, if it has a substantial direct from Buckskin Mountain State Park to effect on the States, on the relationship La Paz County Park, to reflect the actual B. Impact on Small Entities between the National Government and location of this event. This change is The Regulatory Flexibility Act of the States, or on the distribution of needed to accommodate the sponsor’s 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, power and responsibilities among the event plan and ensure that adequate requires Federal agencies to consider various levels of government. We have regulations are in place to protect the the potential impact of regulations on analyzed this rule under that Order and safety of vessels and individuals that small entities during rulemaking. The have determined that it is consistent may be present in the regulated area. term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises small with the fundamental federalism The special local regulations are businesses, not-for-profit organizations principles and preemption requirements necessary to provide for the safety of the that are independently owned and described in Executive Order 13132. crew, spectators, participants, and other operated and are not dominant in their Also, this rule does not have tribal vessels and users of the Colorado River fields, and governmental jurisdictions implications under Executive Order waterway. Persons and vessels will with populations of less than 50,000. 13175, Consultation and Coordination continue to be prohibited from The Coast Guard received 00 comments with Indian Tribal Governments, anchoring, blocking, loitering, or from the Small Business Administration because it does not have a substantial impeding within this regulated on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard direct effect on one or more Indian waterway during the enforcement certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this tribes, on the relationship between the period unless authorized by the COTP, rule will not have a significant Federal Government and Indian tribes, or his designated representative. economic impact on a substantial or on the distribution of power and Additionally, movement of all vessels number of small entities. responsibilities between the Federal within the regulated area and entry of While some owners or operators of Government and Indian tribes. all vessels into the regulated area will be vessels intending to transit the safety E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act restricted. Before the effective period, zone may be small entities, for the the Coast Guard will publish reasons stated in section V.A above, this The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act information on the event in the weekly rule will not have a significant of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires LNM. The proposed regulatory text economic impact on any vessel owner Federal agencies to assess the effects of appears at the end of this document. or operator. their discretionary regulatory actions. In Under section 213(a) of the Small particular, the Act addresses actions V. Regulatory Analysis Business Regulatory Enforcement that may result in the expenditure by a We developed this rule after Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), State, local, or tribal government, in the considering numerous statutes and we want to assist small entities in aggregate, or by the private sector of Executive orders related to rulemaking. understanding this rule. If the rule $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or Below we summarize our analyses would affect your small business, more in any one year. Though this rule based on a number of these statutes and organization, or governmental will not result in such an expenditure, Executive orders, and we discuss First jurisdiction and you have questions we do discuss the effects of this rule Amendment rights of protestors. concerning its provisions or options for elsewhere in this preamble. compliance, please call or email the A. Regulatory Planning and Review person listed in the FOR FURTHER F. Environment Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 INFORMATION CONTACT section. We have analyzed this rule under direct agencies to assess the costs and Small businesses may send comments Department of Homeland Security benefits of available regulatory on the actions of Federal employees Directive 023–01, Rev. 1, associated alternatives and, if regulation is who enforce, or otherwise determine implementing instructions, and necessary, to select regulatory compliance with, Federal regulations to Environmental Planning COMDTINST approaches that maximize net benefits. the Small Business and Agriculture 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Executive Order 13771 directs agencies Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman Guard in complying with the National to control regulatory costs through a and the Regional Small Business Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 budgeting process. This rule has not Regulatory Fairness Boards. The U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have been designated a ‘‘significant Ombudsman evaluates these actions determined that this action is one of a regulatory action,’’ under Executive annually and rates each agency’s category of actions that do not Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has responsiveness to small business. If you individually or cumulatively have a not been reviewed by the Office of wish to comment on actions by significant effect on the human Management and Budget (OMB), and employees of the Coast Guard, call 1– environment. This rule involves the pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt 888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). The establishment of marine event special from the requirements of Executive Coast Guard will not retaliate against local regulations on the navigable Order 13771. small entities that question or complain waters of the Colorado River. It is

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:36 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM 22JNR1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 37341

categorically excluded from further coordinate protest activities so that your PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON review under paragraph L61of message can be received without NAVIGABLE WATERS Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction jeopardizing the safety or security of Manual 023–01–001–01, Rev. 1. A people, places or vessels. ■ 1. The authority citation for part 100 Record of Environmental Consideration continues to read as follows: List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100 supporting this determination is Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70041; 33 CFR 1.05– available in the docket. For instructions Marine safety, Navigation (water), 1. on locating the docket, see the Reporting and recordkeeping ■ 2. In § 100.1102, in Table 1 to ADDRESSES section of this preamble. requirements, and Waterways. § 100.1102, revise item ‘‘9’’ to read as G. Protest Activities follows: For the reasons discussed in the The Coast Guard respects the First preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 § 100.1102 Annual Marine Events on the Amendment rights of protesters. CFR part 100 as follows: Colorado River, between Davis Dam Protesters are asked to call or email the (Bullhead City, Arizona) and Headgate Dam person listed in the FOR FURTHER (Parker, Arizona). INFORMATION CONTACT section to * * * * *

TABLE 1 TO § 100.1102

*******

9. Great Western Tube Float

Sponsor ...... City of Parker, AZ. Event Description ...... River float. Date ...... One Saturday in June. Location ...... Parker, AZ. Regulated Area ...... The navigable waters of the Colorado River from Buckskin Mountain State Park to La Paz County Park.

*******

Dated: June 3, 2020. copyright claimant or claimants for each I. Background T.J. Barelli, work. The works must all be published The Copyright Act authorizes the Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the online within a three-calendar-month Register of Copyrights to specify by Port San Diego. period. If these requirements have been regulation the administrative classes of [FR Doc. 2020–12627 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] met, the applicant may submit up to 50 works for the purpose of seeking a BILLING CODE 9110–04–P works with one application and one registration and the deposit required for filing fee. The applicant must complete each class.1 The Act also gives the an online application designated for a Register the discretion to allow groups LIBRARY OF CONGRESS group of ‘‘Short Online Literary Works’’ of related works to be registered with and upload a .ZIP file containing a one application and one filing fee.2 This Copyright Office separate digital file for each work. The procedure is known as group Office will examine each work to registration.3 37 CFR Parts 201 and 202 determine if it contains a sufficient This rulemaking was initiated in [Docket No. 2018–12] amount of creative authorship, and if response to a petition jointly submitted the Office registers the claim, the by the National Writers Union Group Registration of Short Online registration will cover each work as a (‘‘NWU’’), the American Society of Literary Works separate work of authorship. Journalists and Authors, the Science AGENCY: U.S. Copyright Office, Library Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, DATES: Effective August 17, 2020. of Congress. Inc. (‘‘SFWA’’), and the Horror Writers ACTION: Final rule. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Association, requesting a rulemaking to Regan A. Smith, General Counsel and create a new group registration option to SUMMARY: The U.S. Copyright Office is Associate Register of Copyrights; Robert accommodate works distributed online amending its regulations to establish a J. Kasunic, Associate Register of by individual writers, that would not 4 new group registration option for short Copyrights and Director of Registration qualify as contributions to periodicals. online literary works. This final rule Policy and Practice; Kevin R. Amer, The petition requested that the Office largely adopts the eligibility create a new group registration Deputy General Counsel; or Erik Bertin, requirements set forth in the Office’s procedure for ‘‘short-form works’’ which Deputy Director of Registration Policy December 2018 notice of proposed and Practice, by telephone at 202–707– rulemaking, with certain updates. To 1 17 U.S.C. 408(c)(1). 3000, or by email at regans@ qualify for this option, each work must 2 Id. contain at least 50 but no more than copyright.gov, [email protected], 3 See generally 37 CFR 202.3(b)(5), 202.4. 17,500 words. The works must be [email protected], or ebertin@ 4 See NWU et al. Comments and Petition for copyright.gov. Rulemaking at 4 (Jan. 30, 2017) (the ‘‘Petition’’), created by the same individual, or https://www.regulations.gov/ jointly by the same individuals, and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: contentStreamer?documentId=COLC-2016-0013- each creator must be named as the 0003&attachmentNumber=1&contentType=pdf.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:36 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM 22JNR1 37342 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

would allow individual writers to final rule that closely follows the contains at least 100 words and no more submit one ‘‘application and fee every proposed rule, with certain than 17,500 words. The 100-word three months.’’ 5 The Authors Guild, the modifications. First, the final rule threshold was intended to exclude short Association of Garden Communicators, lowers the minimum number of words phrases and slogans, which are the Society of Children’s Book Authors each work must contain from 100 to 50 ineligible for copyright protection,11 as and Illustrators, the Songwriters Guild words. Second, the final rule allows well as other short forms of expression of America, and the Textbook & group registration of joint works, that contain less than a paragraph of Academic Authors Association provided that all works within the text. The latter works are ill-suited to endorsed this petition.6 They stated that application are jointly authored and the group registration, the Office noted, writers ‘‘urgently need a group joint authors are identical for each work. because assessing their copyrightability registration [option] for short pieces, Third, the rule requires claims under would require the Office to engage in a especially those disseminated online,’’ this option to be submitted using a new careful case-by-case analysis that could including ‘‘blogs, public Facebook posts online application specifically for GRTX undermine the efficiency that this . . ., short articles, and even filings, rather than on the Standard option is designed to promote. The copyrightable tweets.’’ 7 Application, and makes certain 17,500-word upper limit was intended On December 21, 2018, the Office technical amendments in accordance to exclude novels, novellas, or other published a notice of proposed with that change. Finally, the rule longer works, which ‘‘are more likely to rulemaking (‘‘NPRM’’) to establish a provides that works in the group should require significant time to create and do new group registration option for ‘‘short be uploaded to the electronic not lend themselves to a rapid and online literary works,’’ to be known as registration system in a .ZIP file continuous publication schedule.’’ 12 8 ‘‘GRTX.’’ The NPRM proposed containing a separate file for each work, Several commenters proposed that the allowing an applicant to register up to rather than uploaded individually. Office modify one or both of these word- 50 literary works with one application II. The Final Rule count requirements. The Copyright and one filing fee using the online Alliance, the Authors Guild, SFWA, and Standard Application designated for a A. Eligibility Requirements Joseph Savage requested that the Office ‘‘Literary Work.’’ Each work would have 1. Works That May Be Included in the lower the 100-word threshold, pointing to contain at least 100 words but no to common types of short literary works more than 17,500 words. The works Group The Copyright Act defines a ‘‘literary that might be excluded by such a rule, would have to be created by the same including poems, blog and microblog individual, and that individual must be work’’ as a work ‘‘expressed in words, entries, and ‘‘bite-sized fiction.’’ 13 The named as the copyright claimant for numbers, or other verbal or numerical Copyright Alliance and the Authors each work. The works would have to be symbols or indicia, regardless of the Guild proposed a 50-word threshold, published on a website or online nature of the material objects . . . in arguing that it would address the needs platform within a three-calendar-month which [it is] embodied.’’ 9 The NPRM for efficient review and examination period. provided that to qualify for the GRTX group registration option, an eligible processes, while also accommodating a In response to the NPRM, the Office 14 received comments from SFWA, the literary work must contain a sufficient broader variety of short literary works. Copyright Alliance, the Authors Guild, number of words and may not be The Office is persuaded by these the Association of American Publishers comprised mainly of numbers or other commenters that a 100-word threshold (‘‘AAP’’), NWU and National Press verbal or numerical symbols or indicia. might exclude many copyrightable Photographers Association (‘‘NWU/ The Office noted that it would accept literary works that otherwise would be NPPA’’), Patrice A. Lyons, Marcos Arias, deposit copies that contain text eligible for group registration under this and Joseph Savage. The comments were combined with another form of option. At the same time, as these broadly favorable to the new group authorship, but that claims in any form commenters also recognized, some registration option, but also requested of authorship other than ‘‘text’’ would lower limit is necessary to avoid various modifications to the proposed not be permitted on the application due difficult and potentially time- rule. In general, commenters were to the additional time and effort consuming questions over whether interested in expanding eligibility for necessary to examine works containing extremely short works contain more this option to greater numbers of works. multiple forms of authorship. than de minimis expression. Ultimately, Proposals included broadening the Commenters generally accepted these the Office agrees with the Copyright word-count range for eligible works, limitations. NWU/NPPA noted that Alliance and the Authors Guild that a increasing the number of works that some authors, such as bloggers, find it 50-word threshold strikes an may be included in the group, and burdensome to register visual works appropriate balance, and accordingly extending eligibility to joint works and separately from related literary works. has incorporated this change into the works made for hire. However, NWU/NPPA did not request final rule. This lower limit, of course, Having carefully considered each of that the GRTX group option be applies only to eligibility for the GRTX the comments, the Office now issues a expanded to include visual works, and registration option; the Office is not for reasons of administrability, the purporting to define a word-count-based 5 Petition at 13–14; see also NWU et al. Comment Office is not prepared to do so with this threshold to govern copyrightability on Mandatory Deposit of Electronic Books and group registration option.10 The final determinations for literary works Sound Recordings Available Only Online at 3–4, 8– generally. 10, 17–19 (Aug. 18, 2016), https:// rule therefore retains the language www.regulations.gov/ defining an eligible literary work as one contentStreamer?documentId=COLC-2016-0005- ‘‘consisting of text.’’ 11 37 CFR 202.1(a). 0009&attachmentNumber=1&contentType=pdf. With respect to the length of eligible 12 83 FR at 65,614. 6 Authors Guild et al. Comment at 8–9 (Nov. 17, works, the proposed rule defined a 13 Copyright Alliance Comment at 3; Authors 2017), https://www.regulations.gov/ Guild Comment at 3–4; SFWA at 3; Joseph Savage contentStreamer?documentId=COLC-2017-0009- ‘‘short’’ online literary work as one that Comment at 2. 0108&attachmentNumber=1&contentType=pdf. 14 Copyright Alliance Comment at 3; Authors 7 See id. 9 17 U.S.C. 101. Guild Comment at 3–4. Neither SFWA nor Joseph 8 83 FR 65612 (December 21, 2018). 10 NWU/NPPA Comment at 2. Savage proposed a specific lower limit.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:36 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM 22JNR1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 37343

The Copyright Alliance, the Authors authors. An author could, however, the beginning of the group title, so that Guild, and SFWA also requested that include his or own comments as the Office could differentiate these the Office increase the proposed 17,500- separate works within a group, provided applications from others filed on the word upper limit.15 The Copyright they satisfy the eligibility criteria. Standard Application. Because, as Alliance suggested a ceiling of at least discussed below, the Office is 2. Number of Works That May be 20,000 words, while the Authors Guild implementing a new electronic and SFWA proposed 40,000 words. The Included in the Group application specifically for GRTX, this Authors Guild asserted that the 17,500 The NPRM proposed that an applicant requirement is no longer necessary and threshold is arbitrary and noted that be allowed to include up to 50 literary is not included in the final rule. The freelance articles written for online works in each submission. Several final rule does, however, add a publications are sometimes greater than commenters requested modification of requirement that the application specify 20,000 words. SFWA disagreed with the this requirement. Marcos Arias the total number of short online literary Office’s decision to exclude novellas, suggested that the limit be lowered to 10 works that are included in the group. arguing that they are ‘‘distinct from works per application, arguing that a 50- 4. Author and Claimant novels in both length and content,’’ and work limit would lead to lengthy noting that they are ‘‘frequently processing times and would not Under the proposed rule, to be published in the same venues and in the significantly improve efficiency.20 Other eligible for the GRTX option, the author same manner as . . . other forms of commenters sought to increase the must be named as the copyright short fiction.’’ 16 proposed limit. SFWA suggested that a claimant on the application, even if a The Office understands that defining limit of 100 works would be more likely different party actually owns the a category of ‘‘short’’ literary works is to represent the output of an average copyright in each work. The Copyright inherently imprecise and that some professional writer/blogger, based on an Alliance and AAP both questioned this online works of more than 17,500 words estimate of one post per day.21 The requirement.25 While they may share common features with Copyright Alliance and the Authors acknowledged that this practice will shorter works. But the commenters Guild similarly argued that the limit advance the efficient examination of advocating the inclusion of novellas and should be designed to accommodate each application by allowing the Office other longer-form works did not writers who publish on a daily basis.22 to focus on each work’s copyrightability, demonstrate a particular need for group NWU/NPPA suggested a limit of up to they expressed concern that it may registration of such works. They offered 500 works to accommodate authors who make for an inaccurate public record of 26 nothing to contradict the Office’s frequently publish works on multiple current ownership. The Office takes conclusion that, in contrast to blog platforms.23 these concerns seriously but believes entries, social media posts, and the like, The Office understands commenters’ they are outweighed in this instance by novellas and similar lengthy works desire to increase the number of works the need to provide an efficient typically are not created or updated on allowable within a single GRTX examination process. Where a copyright a rapid and continuing basis.17 application to accommodate daily claimant is not the author of the work, Moreover, contrary to the Author’s bloggers and other authors who create the Copyright Act requires the Guild’s suggestion, the 17,500-word and publish a high volume of works. For application to include a statement of limit was not chosen arbitrarily. As the reasons discussed in the NPRM, how claimant obtained ownership of the 27 discussed in the NPRM, it is based on however, the Office continues to believe copyright. Examiners reviewing classifications that appear to be widely that a limit of 50 works strikes an claims of this type would be required to established in the marketplace, as appropriate balance between authors’ verify that the application contained a indicated by their use in connection interests and the Office’s administrative legally sufficient statement to this with three well known literary capabilities. The final rule therefore effect—a process that could involve awards.18 Therefore, the final rule retains this limitation. The Office correspondence to resolve retains the 17,500-word upper limit. reiterates, however, that there is no limit discrepancies. Moreover, as noted in the One commenter, Joseph Savage, to the number of applications that may NPRM, requiring the author to be named requested that the Office clarify whether be submitted. We are hopeful that that as the claimant is consistent with the the GRTX option extends to written option will mitigate much of this longstanding principle that an author may always be named as the copyright interactions an author may have with concern.24 other parties in connection with an claimant, even if she does not own any online work—for example, postings in a 3. Title Information of the exclusive rights when the claim 28 comments section in response to a work The NPRM provided that an applicant is submitted. on a social media platform.19 To the must provide a title for each work in the Furthermore, with respect to the extent this comment is asking whether group and a title for the group as a concern over potential inaccuracies in an applicant may include comments whole. No commenters objected to these the public record, it should be noted authored by other persons within an requirements, and therefore they are that if someone other than the author application, the answer is no, as the rule retained in the final rule. The NPRM has acquired all the rights in the works, a copyright registration is not requires that all works in the group be also included a requirement that the necessarily the best way to add that created by the same individual or (as applicant append the term ‘‘GRTX’’ to discussed below) by the same joint information to the public record. In most cases, registration simply provides 20 Marcos Arias Comment at 1. 15 Copyright Alliance Comment at 3; Authors 21 SFWA Comment at 3. a ‘‘snapshot’’ of who owned the Guild Comment at 3–4; SFWA Comment at 2. 22 Copyright Alliance Comment at 5 (proposing 90 16 SFWA Comment at 2. works); Authors Guild Comment at 3 (proposing 25 Copyright Alliance Comment at 5; AAP 17 See 83 FR 65,614 (‘‘[I]t seems unlikely that 100 works). Comment at 2–3. even a prolific author would be able to write, edit, 23 NWU/NPPA Comment at 4. 26 Copyright Alliance Comment at 5–6; AAP and publish 50 ‘long form’ works within a three- 24 See SFWA Comment at 3 (‘‘We understand that Comment at 2–3. month period.’’). more than one application can be submitted, and 27 17 U.S.C. 409(5). 18 See 83 FR 65,614. if the fee is reasonable, that would to some extent 28 See 83 FR at 65,615 (citing Compendium of 19 Joseph Savage Comment. address this concern.’’). U.S. Copyright Office Practices sec. 619.7).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:36 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM 22JNR1 37344 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

copyright as of the effective date of certain smaller business entities who to certain authors. The Authors Guild, registration. Instead, a change in may also face resource limitations.32 the Copyright Alliance, and NWU/ ownership can be added to the public The Office appreciates the needs of NPPA commented that authors may record by recording the document that smaller entities who face similar have no control over whether a transferred the copyright with the economic challenges in registration as publisher distributes their works online Office. individual creators. However, the Office or in physical form and that such does not currently have a mechanism to The proposed rule also provided that authors may not know if their works differentiate those entities from larger the works submitted under the GRTX were first published online, first corporate authors for purposes of published in physical form, or group option must be created by the registration. While the Office is open to simultaneously published online and in same individual, thus excluding joint considering possible avenues through print.37 NWU/NPPA accordingly works from eligibility. SFWA contended which it could extend the GRTX option requested that the Office remove the that this requirement would be a to certain corporate authors in the word ‘‘first’’ from the references to problem for collaborations between two future, it does not have the tools 38 29 online publication. The Authors Guild or more authors. It requested that joint necessary to do so at this time. The final requested that ‘‘simultaneous’’ authors be allowed to use GRTX, as long rule accordingly retains the exclusion of publication be defined to mean as the collaborators are listed in the works for hire. ‘‘published within 30 days.’’ 39 copyright notice for each work.30 The Office understands that 5. Publication Information The Office understands that there may determinations regarding the fact and be circumstances under which joint Under the proposed rule, eligible timing of publication may present authors produce the types of short works were required to be published as difficult legal questions, especially in online literary works that may benefit part of a website or online platform the online context. However, the statute from the GRTX option. Therefore, the (such as an online newspaper, social requires that the registration application final rule expands eligibility for the media website, or social networking include, for published works, the date option to joint authors of literary works, platform), and all had to be published and nation of the work’s first in addition to individual authors. Under within a three-month calendar period. publication.40 In light of this this option, all literary works within an The NPRM explained that a work would requirement, as well as the technical application must be jointly authored, satisfy this requirement if it was first constraints of the Office’s current and the joint authors must be identical published online or simultaneously registration system, the Office believes for each literary work. For example, a published online and in physical form. that the inclusion of both categories of group consisting of ten literary works By contrast, a work would not be works in the GRTX option would eligible for GRTX if it was published jointly authored by the same two undermine the efficiency of the solely in physical form or if it was first individuals, and one additional literary examination process, and therefore the published in physical form and then work authored by those persons and a final rule retains the publication subsequently published online.33 41 third co-author, would not be eligible. requirement. The Office notes, The Copyright Alliance and the however, that under its registration The Office intends to strictly enforce Authors Guild argued that authors this requirement to ensure an efficient practices, the Office ‘‘will accept the should be allowed to register their applicant’s representation that website registration process. GRTX applications works under this option regardless of for joint works that do not comply will content is published or unpublished, whether they are published or unless that statement is implausible or be refused without correspondence. To unpublished.34 The Copyright Alliance facilitate compliance, the Office will is contradicted by information provided noted that many authors struggle with elsewhere in the registration materials prepare public informational materials the complex legal distinctions between or in the Office’s records or by warning of this consequence. It also 35 published an unpublished works. The information that is known to the should be noted that any claim in Authors Guild asserted that the registration specialist.’’ 42 Further, the individual or joint authorship under distinction serves no apparent need and Office is currently exploring issues this option must be limited to ‘‘text’’ exacerbates the potential for confusion. regarding publication more generally in and cannot include other forms of These and other organizations requested an effort to provide greater guidance to authorship that can be claimed on a that the Office provide additional registration applicants.43 Standard Application for a literary guidance on what constitutes Commenters further argued that the work. publication in the online rule should not be limited to works Finally, the proposed rule excluded environment.36 published online but should also works made for hire. As explained in Commenters also argued that the facts provide for group registration of works the NPRM, the GRTX option ‘‘is relevant to publication may be unknown intended to benefit individual writers 37 Authors Guild Comment at 4–5; Copyright who publish their works on the internet, 32 Copyright Alliance Comment at 5; AAP Alliance Comment at 4–5; NWU/NPA Comment at but do not have the time or resources to Comment at 2. 5–6. 33 AAP requested clarification on whether other 38 NWU/NPA Comment at 5–6. register their works with the Office. This qualifying online works would be eligible for this 39 Authors Guild Comment at 4–5. is less of a concern for corporate authors option ‘‘if they reside on platforms behind a 40 17 U.S.C. 409(8). or authors who are hired to create a paywall.’’ AAP Comment at 3. The fact that a work 41 The proposed rule required applicants to list work for another party.’’ 31 Commenters is located behind a paywall would not disqualify the earliest date that the works were published. In it from eligibility, provided it is ‘‘published as part light of additional functionality in the new GRTX generally accepted this rationale, but the of a website or online platform.’’ Indeed, the final application that was not available in the Standard Copyright Alliance and AAP rule expressly includes ‘‘online newspapers,’’ Application, the final rule adds a requirement that encouraged the Office to consider which commonly display articles behind paywalls. the applicant also list the latest date that the works expanding the GRTX option to include 34 Copyright Alliance Comment at 4–5; Authors were published. Guild Comment at 4–5. 42 U.S. Copyright Office, Compendium of U.S. 35 Copyright Alliance Comment at 4–5. Copyright Office Practices 1008.3 (F) (3d ed. 2017) 29 SFWA Comment at 3. 36 Copyright Alliance Comment at 4–5; Authors (‘‘Compendium (Third)’’). 30 SFWA Comment at 3. Guild Comment at 4–5; SFWA Comment at 3; AAP 43 See Online Publication, 84 FR 66,328 (Dec. 4, 31 83 FR at 65,614. Comment at 3. 2019).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:36 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM 22JNR1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 37345

published in physical form.44 NWU/ The proposed rule included language should be amended to provide for NPPA specifically noted that the that would allow the Office to waive the submission of works in a single upload. petition requested, in addition to a electronic filing requirement upon The final rule still requires that each group option for works in electronic written request in exceptional work in the group be contained in a format, an option to register ‘‘multiple circumstances.47 This provision has separate digital file, but it provides that written works by the same creator first been retained in the final rule. One they should be uploaded together in a published on multiple dates, regardless commenter requested that the Office .ZIP file. The final rule retains the of whether they were published as allow applicants to use paper forms requirement that the file name for each contributions to periodicals.’’ 45 The without obtaining a waiver, suggesting work match the corresponding title primary focus of the petition and that that option may be more efficient entered on the application.53 supporting facts, however, was the need for some applicants.48 The Office D. Filing Fee for an accommodation for works concludes, however, that a general published in electronic format,46 and requirement of electronic filing best The NPRM provided that the filing fee the GRTX option was tailored to address promotes the efficient use of for the GRTX option would be $55, the that demonstrated area of need. The examination resources, and that the fee applicable to claims submitted on final rule therefore remains limited to waiver option adequately the Standard Application. It further works published online. accommodates applicants unable to noted that the Office had recently meet that requirement. As noted in the proposed to increase the Standard B. Application Requirements NPRM, the Office expects such cases to Application fee to $75 and that if that Under the rule as initially proposed, be rare given that creators of works proposal were adopted, the new fee 54 applicants would have been required to eligible for this option typically will be would apply to GRTX claims. capable of using the electronic Subsequently, the Office submitted a submit their claims using the online 49 Standard Application designated for a registration system. final proposed schedule and analysis of The proposed rule also required that ‘‘Literary Work.’’ Since the close of the fees to Congress in which it reduced the the applicant submit a sequentially 55 comment period, however, the Office proposed increase to $65. Based on numbered list containing a title/file has worked with the Library of the comments received in the fee study name for each work in the group, and Congress’s Office of the Chief proceeding, and in light of the Office’s that the list satisfy certain technical and Information Officer, and a new online inability under the current registration formatting requirements.50 Some application is being developed system to charge different prices for commenters urged the Office to provide different types of works submitted on specifically for GRTX that applicants detailed instructional materials to will be able to access and submit the Standard Application, the Office ensure that applicants are able to satisfy reiterated its recommendation that the through the electronic registration these and other provisions.51 The Office system (‘‘eCO’’). The final rule GRTX fee be the same as the Standard intends to provide such guidance in the 56 accordingly has been updated to require Application fee. online materials noted above. Following the 120-day statutory applicants to submit claims using that 57 application. The Office expects to C. Deposit Requirements period for congressional review, the prepare an online tutorial to provide Office promulgated a final rule Under the proposed rule, applicants implementing the proposed fee guidance on using the new application must submit one complete copy of each 58 and will include help text within the schedule. The rule noted the Office’s work in the group, the copies must be expectation that GRTX registrations application itself. The Office also uploaded to the electronic registration intends to update the sections of the ‘‘would require a workflow similar to system in a specified file format, and all claims submitted on the Standard Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office of the files must be submitted in the Application’’ and that commenters in Practices that discuss the Office’s same format. No commenters took issue the fee study proceeding generally procedures for group registration to with these requirements, which are supported linking the two fees.59 address this new option. reflected in the final rule. The proposed rule also required Nevertheless, to avoid potential The new application is expected to be confusion, the Office did not adopt the implemented into the eCO system by copies to be submitted in an ‘‘orderly’’ manner, meaning that each work was to GRTX fee as part of that rule, noting that August 2020. The Office has provided it instead would adopt the fee when it for the final rule to take effect that be uploaded in a separate digital file. The Authors Guild found this issued a final rule implementing the month and is publishing the rule now GRTX option.60 to give authors of eligible works requirement ‘‘unduly laborious and unnecessary,’’ arguing that applicants Although the Office is now providing sufficient advance notice of this new a standalone application for GRTX option, so that they may gather their should be allowed to submit their works in a single document with each work data in anticipation of submitting 53 starting on a new page, or, alternatively, See 83 FR at 65,616. applications. Nevertheless, the 54 83 FR at 65,616. availability of the GRTX application is to provide a single upload using file 55 U.S. Copyright Office, Proposed Schedule and 52 ultimately dependent on the completion compression. In light of this comment, Analysis of Copyright Fees to Go into Effect in and based on the Office’s experience Spring 2020 21 (2019) (‘‘Fee Study’’), available at of system development and may be https://www.copyright.gov/rulemaking/ affected by unanticipated delays in that administering other recently adopted group registration options, the Office feestudy2018/proposed-fee-schedule.pdf. process. The Office will issue a public 56 agrees that the regulatory language Fee Study at 29. announcement when implementation is 57 See 17 U.S.C. 708(b)(5). 58 Copyright Office Fees, 85 FR 9374 (Feb. 19, complete and this option is available to 47 applicants. 83 FR at 65,615. 2020). 48 Marcus Arias Comment at 1. 59 Id. at 9380–81. 49 83 FR at 65,615. 60 Id. The Office is following the same approach 44 Authors Guild Comment at 6; NWU/NPA 50 83 FR at 65,615. in implementing its proposed new registration Comment at 6–7. 51 See Authors Guild Comment at 6–7; Copyright option for a group of works on an album of music. 45 NWU/NPA Comment at 6–7. Alliance Comment at 3. See Group Registration of Works on an Album of 46 See Petition at 13–14. 52 Authors Guild Comment at 6. Music, 84 FR 22,762 (May 20, 2019).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:36 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM 22JNR1 37346 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

submissions, it continues to believe it is compliant without communicating with ■ 2. Amend § 201.3 in table 1 to appropriate to charge the same fee as is the applicant. paragraph (c) by redesignating charged for Standard Application As noted, however, the Office intends paragraphs (c)(10) through (27) as filings. While the initial proposal was to issue additional instructional paragraphs (c)(11) through (28), made in part due to an inability to adopt materials to assist applicants in respectively, and adding new paragraph differential pricing for Standard determining their eligibility for this (c)(10). Application claims, the Office believes option and in completing the The addition reads as follows: that it is reasonable to set the GRTX fee, application. More generally, the Office § 201.3 Fees for registration, recordation, at least initially, at the same fee, given will continue to explore tools to assist and related services, special services, and the similarities in expected workflow applicants as it moves toward services performed by the Licensing associated with examining these claims. implementation of a next-generation Division. The final rule therefore establishes a $65 electronic registration system. The * * * * * fee. Given, however, that the Office now Office is hopeful that these resources (c) * * * has greater flexibility to adjust fees will provide useful guidance to authors specifically for this option, it will gather interested in exercising this option and TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (c) additional data to determine if this will minimize the need for amount should be adjusted once this correspondence. option is implemented, including G. Supplementary Registrations ***** aligning this fee to other group options (10) Registration of a claim in a such as that relevant to contributions to A supplementary registration is a group of short online literary a periodical. special type of registration that may be works ...... 65 used ‘‘to correct an error in a copyright E. The Scope of a Group Registration registration or to amplify the ***** The NPRM provided that claims in information given in a registration.’’ 62 the selection, coordination, or The Office has created multiple versions PART 202—PREREGISTRATION AND arrangement of the group as a whole of a form that may be used to correct or REGISTRATION OF CLAIMS TO will not be permitted on the application, amplify information in registrations COPYRIGHT and the group will not be considered a made under specified group registration compilation or a collective work for options, but the Office has not yet ■ 3. The authority citation for part 202 purposes of sections 101, 103(b), or created a version for a registration of a continues to read as follows: 504(c)(1) of the Copyright Act. No group of short online literary works. Authority: 17 U.S.C. 408(f), 702. Therefore, the final rule clarifies that commenters took issue with this aspect ■ 4. Amend § 202.4 as follows: of the NPRM. applicants should contact the Office of ■ a. Add paragraph (j). Registration Policy & Practice to obtain F. Correspondence and Refusals ■ b. In paragraph (n), in the first instructions before seeking a sentence, remove ‘‘paragraphs’’ and add The NPRM stated that the Office may supplementary registration involving in its place ‘‘paragraph’’ and in the refuse the entire claim if it is defective these types of claims. second sentence, remove ‘‘paragraphs on certain grounds, including, among This update constitutes a change to a (c), (g), (h), (i), or (k)’’ and add in their other reasons, if the applicant submits a ‘‘rule[] of agency . . . procedure[] or 63 place ‘‘paragraph (c), (g), (h), (i), (j), or paper form; the applicant submits more practice.’’ It does not ‘‘alter the rights (k)’’. than 50 works; a work falls outside the or interests of parties,’’ but merely The addition reads as follows: word-count parameters; the applicant ‘‘alter[s] the manner in which the asserts a claim in ‘‘text’’ and another parties present themselves or their § 202.4 Group Registration. form of authorship; works in the group viewpoints to the agency.’’ 64 It therefore * * * * * were published more than three months is not subject to the notice and comment (j) Group registration of short online apart; or the names provided in the requirements of the Administrative literary works. Pursuant to the authority author and claimant fields do not Procedure Act. granted by 17 U.S.C. 408(c)(2), the match. The Authors Guild and the List of Subjects Register of Copyrights has determined Copyright Alliance advocated a more that a group of literary works may be lenient review policy, urging the Office 37 CFR Part 201 registered in Class TX with one to correspond with applicants to correct Copyright, General provisions. application, the required deposit, and errors of this type.61 The Office the filing fee required by § 201.3(c) if the recognizes that rejecting applications for 37 CFR Part 202 following conditions are met: technical noncompliance can present Copyright, Preregistration and (1) The group may include up to 50 burdens for applicants, some of whom registration of claims to copyright. short online literary works, and the application must specify the total may conclude that the cost of For the reasons set forth in the number of short online literary works submitting a new application is not preamble, the Copyright Office amends that are included in the group. For worth it. At the same time, the Office 37 CFR parts 201 and 202 as follows: must ensure that its examination purposes of this section, a short online resources are used in a manner that PART 201—GENERAL PROVISIONS literary work is a work consisting of text maintains the efficiency of group that contains at least 50 words and no registration. The Office therefore ■ 1. The authority citation for part 201 more than 17,500 words, such as a reserves the right to refuse any continues to read as follows: poem, short story, article, essay, application that does not comply with Authority: 17 U.S.C. 702. column, blog entry, or social media the requirements set forth in the final post. The work must be published as part of a website or online platform, rule, or modify the claim to become 62 17 U.S.C. 408(d). 63 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). including online newspapers, social 61 Authors Guild Comment at 6–7; Copyright 64 JEM Broad. Co. v. F.C.C., 22 F.3d 320, 326 (D.C. media websites, and social networking Alliance Comment at 2–3. Cir. 1994). platforms. The group may not include

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM 22JNR1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 37347

computer programs, audiobooks, § 202.6 [Amended] 1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: podcasts, or emails. Claims in any form ■ 5. Amend § 202.6 by adding ‘‘or for a https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the of authorship other than ‘‘text’’ or group of short online literary works on-line instructions for submitting claims in the selection, coordination, or registered under § 202.4(j),’’ after comments. arrangement of the group as a whole ‘‘§ 202.4(c),’’ in paragraph (e)(2). 2. Email: [email protected]. will not be permitted on the application. Instructions: Direct your comments to Dated: May 26, 2020. (2) All of the works must be published Docket ID No. EPA–R06–UST–2018– within a three-calendar-month period, Maria Strong, 0704. EPA’s policy is that all comments and the application must identify the Acting Register of Copyrights and Director received will be included in the public earliest and latest date that the works of the U.S. Copyright Office. docket without change and may be were published. Approved by: available online at https:// (3) All the works must be created by Carla D. Hayden, www.regulations.gov, including any the same individual, or jointly by the Librarian of Congress. personal information provided, unless same individuals, and each creator must [FR Doc. 2020–12041 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] the comment includes information be named as the copyright claimant or BILLING CODE 1410–30–P claimed to be Confidential Business claimants for each work in the group. Information (CBI) or other information (4) The works must not be works whose disclosure is restricted by statute. made for hire. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Do not submit information that you (5) The applicant must provide a title AGENCY consider to be CBI or otherwise for each work and a title for the group protected through https:// 40 CFR Part 282 as a whole. www.regulations.gov, or email. The Federal https://www.regulations.gov (6) The applicant must complete and [EPA–R06–UST–2018–0704; FRL–10009– website is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ submit the online application 03–Region 6] system, which means the EPA will not designated for a group of short online know your identity or contact literary works. The application may be Texas: Final Approval of State information unless you provide it in the submitted by any of the parties listed in Underground Storage Tank Program body of your comment. If you send an § 202.3(c)(1). Revisions and Incorporation by Reference email comment directly to the EPA (7) The applicant must submit one without going through https:// complete copy of each work. The works AGENCY: Environmental Protection www.regulations.gov, your email must be assembled in an orderly form Agency (EPA). address will be automatically captured with each work in a separate digital file. ACTION: Direct final rule. and included as part of the comment The file name for each work must match that is placed in the public docket and the title as submitted on the application. SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Resource made available on the internet. If you All of the works must be submitted in Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA submit an electronic comment, the EPA one of the electronic formats approved or Act), the Environmental Protection recommends that you include your by the Office, and must be uploaded to Agency (EPA) is taking direct final name and other contact information in the electronic registration system in a action to approve revisions to the State the body of your comment. If the EPA .ZIP file. The file size for each uploaded of Texas’s Underground Storage Tank cannot read your comment due to .ZIP file must not exceed 500 (UST) program submitted by the State. technical difficulties, and cannot megabytes. EPA has determined that these revisions contact you for clarification, the EPA (8) The applicant must submit a satisfy all requirements needed for may not be able to consider your sequentially numbered list containing a program approval. This action also comment. Electronic files should avoid title/file name for each work in the codifies EPA’s approval of Texas’s State the use of special characters, any form group. The list must also include the program and incorporates by reference of encryption, and be free of any defects publication date and word count for those provisions of the State regulations or viruses. each work. The numbered list must be that we have determined meet the The index to the docket for this action contained in an electronic file in Excel requirements for approval. The is available electronically at format (.xls), Portable Document Format provisions will be subject to EPA’s www.regulations.gov. (PDF), or other electronic format inspection and enforcement authorities You can view and copy the approved by the Office, and the file under sections 9005 and 9006 of RCRA documents that form the basis for this name for the list must contain the title Subtitle I and other applicable statutory codification and associated publicly of the group and the case number and regulatory provisions. available docket materials are available assigned to the application by the DATES: This rule is effective August 21, either through www.regulations.gov or electronic registration system (e.g., 2020, unless EPA receives adverse at the Environmental Protection Agency, ‘‘Title Of Group Case Number comment by July 22, 2020. If EPA Region 6, 1201 Elm Street, Suite #500, 16283927239.xls’’). receives adverse comment, it will Dallas, Texas 75270. This facility is (9) In an exceptional case, the publish a timely withdrawal in the open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Copyright Office may waive the online Federal Register informing the public Monday through Friday, excluding filing requirement set forth in paragraph that the rule will not take effect. The Federal holidays and facility closures (j)(6) of this section or may grant special incorporation by reference of certain due to COVID–19. We recommend that relief from the deposit requirement publications listed in the regulations is you telephone Audray Lincoln, under § 202.20(d), subject to such approved by the Director of the Federal Environmental Protection Specialist, at conditions as the Associate Register of Register, as of August 21, 2020, in (214) 665–2239, before visiting the Copyrights and Director of the Office of accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 Region 6 office. Interested persons Registration Policy and Practice may CFR part 51. wanting to examine these documents impose on the applicant. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments by should make an appointment with the * * * * * one of the following methods: office at least two weeks in advance.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:36 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM 22JNR1 37348 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: of Agreement outlining the roles and not have another opportunity to Audray Lincoln, (214) 665–2239, responsibilities of the EPA and the comment. If you want to comment on [email protected]. Out of an implementing agency, a statement of this approval, you must do so at this abundance of caution for members of certification from the Attorney General, time. and copies of all relevant State statutes the public and our staff, the EPA Region F. For what has Texas previously been and regulations. 6 office will be closed to the public to approved? reduce the risk of transmitting COVID– We have reviewed the application and 19. We encourage the public to submit have determined that the revisions to On April 17, 1995, EPA finalized a comments via https:// Texas’s UST program are no less rule approving the UST program www.regulations.gov, as there will be a stringent than the corresponding submitted by Texas to be implemented delay in processing mail and no courier Federal requirements in subpart C of 40 by TCEQ in lieu of the Federal or hand deliveries will be accepted. CFR part 281 and the Texas program program.1 On March 18, 1996, EPA Please call or email the contact listed provides for adequate enforcement of codified the approved Texas program above if you need alternative access to compliance (40 CFR 281.11(b)). that is subject to EPA’s inspection and material indexed but not provided in Therefore, the EPA grants Texas final enforcement authorities under RCRA the docket. approval to operate its UST program sections 9005 and 9006, 42 U.S.C. 6991d and 6991e, and other applicable SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: with the changes described in the program revision application, and as statutory and regulatory provisions.2 I. Approval of Revisions to Texas’s outlined below in Section I.G of this G. What changes are we approving with Underground Storage Tank Program document. The Texas Commission on this action? Environmental Quality (TCEQ) is the A. Why are revisions to state programs In order to be approved, the program necessary? lead implementing agency for the UST program in Texas, except in Indian must provide for adequate enforcement States which have received final Country. of compliance as described in 40 CFR 40 approval from the EPA under RCRA CFR 281.11 and part 281, Subpart D. section 9004(b) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. C. What is the effect of this approval The TCEQ has broad statutory authority 6991c(b), must maintain an decision? to regulate the installation, operation, underground storage tank program that This action does not impose maintenance, closure of USTs, and UST is equivalent to, consistent with, and no additional requirements on the releases under Texas Water Code less stringent than the Federal regulated community because the (TWC), as amended, effective October underground storage tank program. regulations being approved by this rule 2018, Title 2, Water Administration: When EPA makes revisions to the are already effective in the State of Subtitle A, Executive Agencies, Chapter regulations that govern the UST Texas, and they are not changed by this 5, Texas Commission on Environmental program, States must revise their action. This action merely approves the Quality and Chapter 7, Enforcement; programs to comply with the updated existing State regulations as meeting the Subtitle D, Water Quality Control, regulations and submit these revisions Federal requirements and renders them Chapter 26, Water Quality Control. to the EPA for approval. Changes to federally enforceable. Specific authorities to regulate the State UST programs may be necessary installation, operation, maintenance, when Federal or State statutory or D. Why is EPA using a direct final rule? closure of USTs, and UST releases are regulatory authority is modified or The EPA is publishing this direct final found under Texas Administrative Code when certain other changes occur. Most rule without a prior proposed rule (TAC), Title 30 Environmental Quality, commonly, States must change their because we view this as a Part I Texas Commission on programs because of changes to the noncontroversial action and anticipate Environmental Quality, Chapter 334 EPA’s regulations in 40 Code of Federal no adverse comment. Texas did not Underground and Aboveground Storage Regulations (CFR) part 280. States can receive any comments during its Tanks, as amended effective through also initiate changes on their own to comment period when the rules and May 31, 2018. The aforementioned their underground storage tank program regulations being considered today were regulations satisfy the requirements of and these changes must then be proposed at the State level. 40 CFR 281.40 and 281.41.3 approved by EPA. The TCEQ Office of Compliance and E. What happens if the EPA receives Enforcement requires that respondents B. What decisions has the EPA made in comments that oppose this action? provide notice and opportunity for this rule? Along with this direct final, the EPA public comment on all proposed On October 15, 2018, in accordance is publishing a separate document in the settlements of civil enforcement actions, with 40 CFR 281.51(a), Texas submitted ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ section of this except where immediate emergency a complete program revision application Federal Register that serves as the action is necessary to adequately protect seeking approval for its UST program proposal to approve the State’s UST human health, safety, and the revisions corresponding to the EPA final program revision, providing opportunity environment. The TCEQ investigates rule published on July 15, 2015 (80 FR for public comment. If EPA receives and provides responses to citizen 41566) which finalized revisions to the comments that oppose this approval, complaints about violations. 1988 UST regulation and to the 1988 EPA will withdraw the direct final rule Requirements for public participation State program approval (SPA) by publishing a document in the can be found in the Texas Government regulation. As required by 40 CFR Federal Register before the rule Code Chapter 552, the Texas Water 281.20, the State submitted the becomes effective. The EPA will base Code at Chapters 5 and 7, and TAC Title following: A transmittal letter from the any further decision on the approval of Governor requesting approval, a the State program changes on the 1 60 FR 14372 (March 17, 1995). description of the program and proposal to approve after considering all 2 61 FR 1223 (January 18, 1996). 3 Please see the TSD located in the docket for this operating procedures, a demonstration comments received during the comment rulemaking for a more in depth explanation of how of the State’s procedures to ensure period. EPA will then address all public the State’s program satisfies the RCRA and its adequate enforcement, a Memorandum comments in a later final rule. You will corresponding regulations.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:36 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM 22JNR1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 37349

30 Part I, Texas Commission on 334.49 Corrosion Protection, 334.50 necessary requirements for release Environmental Quality, Chapter 334 at Release Detection, 334.51 Spill and detection as required by 40 CFR 281.33. section 334.82. Texas has met the public Overfill Prevention and Control, and 40 CFR 281.34 contains the participation requirements found in 40 334.71 Applicability and Deadlines requirements for release reporting, CFR 281.42. require that USTs be designed, investigation, and confirmation that To qualify for final approval, a State’s constructed, and installed in a manner must be met in order for the State’s program must be ‘‘no less stringent’’ that will prevent releases for their submission to be considered no less than the Federal program in all elements operating life due to manufacturing stringent than Federal requirements. 30 of the revised EPA final rule published defects, structural failure, or corrosion TAC 334.72 Reporting of Suspected on July 15, 2015 (80 FR 41566).4 EPA and be provided with equipment to Releases, 334.73 Investigation Due to added new operation and maintenance prevent spills and tank overfills when Off-Site Impacts, 334.74 Release requirements and addressed UST new tanks are installed or existing tanks Investigation and Confirmation Steps, systems deferred in the 1988 UST are upgraded, unless the tank does not and 334.75 Reporting and Cleanup of regulation. The changes also added receive more than 25 gallons at one Surface Spills and Overfills contain the secondary containment requirements for time. These sections also require UST necessary requirements as required by new and replaced tank and piping, system owners and operators to notify 40 CFR 281.34 for release reporting, operator training requirements, periodic the implementing agency of any new investigation, and confirmation. operation and maintenance UST systems, including instances where 40 CFR 281.35 contains the requirements for UST systems, one assumes ownership of an existing requirements for release response and requirement to ensure UST system UST. corrective action that must be met in compatibility before storing certain 40 CFR 281.31 requires that most order for the State’s submission to be biofuel blends. It removed past deferrals existing UST systems meet the considered no less stringent than for emergency generator tanks, field requirements of 281.30, are upgraded to Federal requirements. 30 TAC 334.76 constructed tanks and airport hydrant prevent releases for their operating life Initial Response to Releases, 334.77 Initial Abatement Measures and Site systems. due to corrosion, spills, or overfills, or The TCEQ made updates to their Check, 334.78 Site Assessment, 334.79 are permanently closed. 30 TAC regulations to ensure that they were no Removal of Non-Aqueous Phase 334.1(b) and 334.71(a) Applicability, less stringent than the Federal Liquids, 334.80 Investigation for Soil 334.44. Implementation Schedules, regulations which were revised on July and Groundwater Cleanup, 334.81 334.47 Technical Standards for Existing 15, 2015 (80 FR 41566). 40 CFR 281.30 Corrective Action Plan, and 334.82 Underground Storage Tank Systems, through 281.39 contain the ‘‘no less Public Participation contain the 334.49 Corrosion Protection, 334.50 stringent than’’ criteria that a State must required provisions as listed in 40 CFR Release Detection, and 334.52 meet in order to have its UST program 281.35 for release response and Underground Storage Tank System approved. In the State’s application for corrective action. Repairs and Relining contain the approval of its UST program, the Texas 40 CFR 281.36 contains the Attorney General certified that it meets appropriate requirements that UST requirements for out of service UST the requirements listed in 40 CFR systems be upgraded to prevent releases systems and closures that must be met 281.30 through 281.39. EPA has relied during their operating life due to in order for the State’s submission to be on this certification in addition to the corrosion, spills, or overfills. considered no less stringent than analysis submitted by the State in 40 CFR 281.32 contains the general Federal requirements. 30 TAC 334.1 making our determination. For further operating requirements that must be met Purpose and Applicability, 334.50 information on EPA’s analysis of the in order for the State’s submission to be Release Detection, 334.54 Temporary State’s application, see the chart in the considered no less stringent than the Removal from Service, 334.55 Technical Support Document (TSD) Federal requirements. 30 TAC 334.7 Permanent Removal from Service, contained in the docket for this Registration for Underground Storage 334.56 Change to Exempt or Excluded rulemaking. The corresponding State Tanks (USTs) and UST Systems, 334.10 Status, and 334.71 Applicability and regulations are as follows: Reporting and Recordkeeping, 334.42 Deadlines contain the necessary 40 CFR 281.30 lists the Federal General Standards, 334.45 Technical requirements as listed in 40 CFR 281.36 requirements for new UST system Standards for New Underground Storage for out of service UST systems and design, construction, installation, and Tank Systems, 334.48 General Operating closures. notification with which a State must and Management Requirements, 334.49 40 CFR 281.37 contains the comply in order to be found to be no Corrosion Protection, 334.50 Release requirements for financial responsibility less stringent than Federal Detection, 334.51 Spill and Overfill for UST systems containing petroleum requirements. 30 TAC 334.1 Prevention and Control, and TAC that must be met in order for the State’s Applicability, 334.2 Definitions, 334.5 334.52 Underground Storage Tank submission to be considered no less General Prohibitions for Underground System Repairs and Relining contain the stringent than Federal requirements. 30 Storage Tanks (USTs) and UST Systems, necessary general operating TAC 37.371 Local Government 334.7 Registration for Underground requirements required by 40 CFR Financial Test, 37.381 Local Storage Tanks (USTs) and UST Systems, 281.32. Government Guarantee, and Chapter 37, 334.8 Certification for Underground 40 CFR 281.33 contains the Subchapter I, Financial Assurance for Storage Tanks (USTs) and UST Systems, requirements for release detection that Petroleum Underground Storage Tanks 334.10 Reporting and Recordkeeping, must be met in order for the State’s (37.801 through 37.895) contain the 334.44 Implementation Schedules, submission to be considered no less necessary requirements as listed in 40 334.45 Technical Standards for New stringent than Federal requirements. 30 CFR 281.37 for financial responsibility Underground Storage Tank Systems, TAC 334.1 Purpose and Availability, for UST systems. 334.46 Installation Standards for New 334.48 General Operating and 40 CFR 281.38 contains the Underground Storage Tank Systems, Management Requirements, 334.50 requirements for lender liability that Release Detection, and 334.71 must be met in order for the State’s 4 See 40 CFR 281.11(b). Applicability and Deadlines contain the submission to be considered no less

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:36 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM 22JNR1 37350 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

stringent than Federal requirements. 30 obligations with respect to State 1151) within the State. This authority TAC 334.15 Limits on Liability of notification and other regulatory remains with EPA. Therefore, this Lender contains the requirements for information. action has no effect in Indian Country. lender liability as listed in 40 CFR At Sections 334.15 and 334.18 there See 40 CFR 281.12(a)(2). 281.38. are references to ASTs that are broader 40 CFR 281.39 contains the in scope than the Federal program. II. Codification requirements for operator training that State fees are generally broader in A. What is codification? must be met in order for the State’s scope. Texas includes state-specific fee Codification is the process of placing submission to be considered no less requirements at 30 TAC 334.19 Fee on a State’s statutes and regulations that stringent than Federal requirements. 30 Delivery of Petroleum Product, comprise the State’s approved UST TAC Chapter 334 Subchapter N Subchapter B. Underground Storage program into the CFR. Section 9004(b) (334.601 through 334.606) Operator Tank Fees (TAC 334.21 through 334.23). Training contains the requirements for Texas includes a State-only of RCRA, as amended, allows the EPA operator training as required by 40 CFR Reimbursement Program at 30 TAC to approve State UST programs to 281.39. Chapter 334, Subchapter H. operate in lieu of the Federal program. Reimbursement Program (TAC 334.301 The EPA codifies its authorization of H. Where are the revised rules different State programs in 40 CFR part 282 and from the Federal rules? through 334.322) and Subchapter M. Reimbursable Cost Specifications for the incorporates by reference State Broader in Scope Provisions Petroleum Storage Tank Reimbursement regulations that the EPA will enforce under sections 9005 and 9006 of RCRA The following statutory and Program. These are State-only programs with no Federal counterparts and are and any other applicable statutory regulatory provisions are considered provisions. The incorporation by broader than the Federal program: broader in coverage. Texas includes State-only licensing reference of State authorized programs Texas includes in their statutes in the CFR should substantially enhance references to the broader in scope and registration of occupations that are not included in the Federal program at the public’s ability to discern the aboveground storage tank program. The current status of the approved State following provisions are broader in 30 TAC Chapter 334 Subchapter I. program and State requirements that can scope because they contain references to Underground Storage Tank On-site be Federally enforced. This effort Aboveground Storage Tanks (ASTs) or Supervisor Licensing and Contract provides clear notice to the public of the apply only to ASTs: Texas Water Code, Registration (TAC 334.401, 334.407, and scope of the approved program in each Title 2, Subtitle D, Chapter 26: Water 334.424). State. Quality Control, Sections 26.341(b)(1), Where an approved State program has 26.342(9), (12)(A), (14), (15), 26.344, a greater scope of coverage than B. What is the history of codification of 26.3441, 26.345, 26.346, 26.349, 26.351, required by Federal law, the additional Texas’ UST program? 26.3511, 26.3514 through 26.3516. coverage is not part of the federally- approved program. 40 CFR The EPA incorporated by reference 26.354 through 26.356, and 26.358. Texas’ then approved UST program The following provisions from Texas 281.12(a)(3)(ii). effective March 18, 1996 (61 FR 1223; Water Code, Title 2, Subtitle D, Chapter More Stringent Provisions January 18, 1996). In this document, the 26: Water Quality Control are broader in EPA is revising 40 CFR 282.93 to scope than the Federal program for the The following regulatory provisions include the approval revision actions. reasons stated: are considered more stringent than the These items are associated with the Federal rules and are included in the C. What codification decisions have we State-only clean up and remediation state’s federally approved program: made in this rule? funds—Sections 26.342(2), (4), (16), and Texas requires that professional In this rule, we are finalizing (18), 26.3512, 26.3571, 26.3573, engineers and geoscientists be licensed regulatory text that includes 26.35731, and 26.361; by the State (30 TAC 334.10(a)(10)). The provision at 26.342(16–a) is Texas requires owners and operators incorporation by reference. In associated with the State-only broader to maintain records for five years (30 accordance with the requirements of 1 in scope contaminated soil program; TAC 334.51(c)(2) and CFR 51.5, we are finalizing the The provisions at 26.3574 and 334.48(g)(3)(A)&(B). This is longer than incorporation by reference of the Texas 26.35745 are associated with fees and the three years required by the federal rules described in the amendments to 40 reporting for State-only fees; rules at 40 CFR 280.35(c), therefore the CFR part 282 set forth below. The EPA The provisions at 26.364 through Texas requirement is more stringent. has made, and will continue to make, 26.367 are associated with the State- Texas requires that all corrective these documents generally available only registration of contractors who action services be performed by or be through www.regulations.gov and in perform or supervise corrective action; coordinated by a person or entity hard copy at the EPA Region 6 office and registered as a corrective action (see the ADDRESSES section of this The provisions at 26.451, 26.452 and specialist (30 TAC 334.451(b)). preamble for more information). 26.456 describe State-only occupational Texas does not allow exceptions to The purpose of this Federal Register licensing and registration for the secondary containment document is to codify Texas’s approved occupations not covered under the requirements for piping that are allowed UST program. The codification reflects Federal program. by the Federal program (at 40 the State program that would be in The Texas regulatory provisions CFR280.252(a)); therefore, the State is effect at the time the EPA’s approved definition section at 30 TAC 334.2 more stringent with respect to this revisions to the Texas UST program contains a definition (at 334.2(4)) and requirement (30 TAC 334.45(d)(1)(E)). addressed in this direct final rule references to Aboveground Storage become final. The document Tanks (ASTs) that are broader in scope I. How does this action affect Indian incorporates by reference Texas’s UST than the Federal program. Country (18 U.S.C. 1151) in Texas? regulations and clarifies which of these At Section 334.9 Texas requires a tank Texas is not authorized to carry out its provisions are included in the approved seller to disclose to a purchaser certain Program in Indian Country (18 U.S.C. and federally enforceable program. By

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:36 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM 22JNR1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 37351

codifying the approved Texas program ‘‘broader in coverage’’ cannot be D. Executive Order 13132: Federalism and by amending the Code of Federal enforced by EPA; the State, however, Regulations (CFR), the public will more will continue to implement and enforce This action will not have substantial easily be able to discern the status of the such provisions under State law. direct effects on the States, on the federally-approved requirements of the relationship between the national Texas program. III. Statutory and Executive Order government and the States, or on the The EPA is incorporating by reference Reviews distribution of power and the Texas approved UST program in 40 responsibilities among the various This action only applies to Texas’s CFR 282.93. Section 282.93(d)(1)(i)(A) levels of government, as specified in UST Program requirements pursuant to incorporates by reference for Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, RCRA Section 9004 and imposes no enforcement purposes the State’s August 10, 1999), because it merely requirements other than those imposed regulations. Section 282.93 also approves and codifies State by State law. It complies with references the Attorney General’s requirements as part of the State RCRA applicable EOs and statutory provisions Statement, Demonstration of Adequate underground storage tank program as follows: Enforcement Procedures, the Program without altering the relationship or the Description, and the Memorandum of A. Executive Order 12866 Regulatory distribution of power and Agreement, which are approved as part Planning and Review, Executive Order responsibilities established by RCRA. of the UST program under Subtitle I of 13563: Improving Regulation and RCRA. Regulatory Review E. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health D. What is the effect of Texas’s and Safety Risks codification on enforcement? The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this action from The EPA retains the authority under the requirements of Executive Order This action also is not subject to sections 9003(h), 9005 and 9006 of 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, Subtitle I of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991b(h), and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, April 23, 1997), because it is not 6991d and 6991e, and other applicable 2011). This action approves and codifies economically significant and it does not statutory and regulatory provisions to State requirements for the purpose of make decisions based on environmental undertake corrective action, inspections RCRA section 9004 and imposes no health or safety risks. and enforcement actions and to issue additional requirements beyond those orders in approved States. With respect F. Executive Order 13211: Actions That to these actions, EPA will rely on imposed by State law. Therefore, this Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Federal sanctions, Federal inspection action is not subject to review by OMB. Distribution, or Use authorities, and Federal procedures B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing rather than the State authorized analogs This rule is not subject to Executive Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning to these provisions. Therefore, the EPA Costs is not incorporating by reference such Regulations that Significantly Affect particular, approved Texas procedural This action is not an Executive Order Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 and enforcement authorities. Section 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017) FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is 282.93(d)(1)(ii) of 40 CFR lists those regulatory action because actions such not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as approved Texas authorities that would as this final approval of Texas’s revised defined under Executive Order 12866. fall into this category. underground storage tank program G. National Technology Transfer and E. What State provisions are not part of under RCRA are exempted under Advancement Act the codification? Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, I certify that this action will not have a Under RCRA section 9004(b), EPA The public also needs to be aware that significant economic impact on a grants a State’s application for approval some provisions of the State’s UST substantial number of small entities as long as the State meets the criteria program are not part of the federally under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 required by RCRA. It would thus be approved State program. Such U.S.C. 601 et seq.). inconsistent with applicable law for provisions are not part of the RCRA EPA, when it reviews a State approval Subtitle I program because they are C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and application, to require the use of any ‘‘broader in coverage’’ than Subtitle I of Executive Order 13175: Consultation particular voluntary consensus standard RCRA. 40 CFR 281.12(a)(3)(ii) states that and Coordination With Indian Tribal in place of another standard that where an approved State program has Governments otherwise satisfies the requirements of provisions that are broader in coverage RCRA. Thus, the requirements of than the Federal program, those Because this action approves and section 12(d) of the National provisions are not a part of the federally codifies pre-existing requirements under Technology Transfer and Advancement approved program. As a result, State State law and does not impose any Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not provisions which are ‘‘broader in additional enforceable duty beyond that apply. coverage’’ than the Federal program are required by State law, it does not not incorporated by reference for contain any unfunded mandate or H. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice purposes of enforcement in part 282. significantly or uniquely affect small Reform Section 282.93(d)(1)(iii) of the governments, as described in the codification simply lists for reference Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 As required by section 3 of Executive and clarity the Texas statutory and (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538). For the same Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, regulatory provisions which are reason, this action also does not 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has ‘‘broader in coverage’’ than the Federal significantly or uniquely affect the taken the necessary steps to eliminate program and which are not, therefore, communities of tribal governments, as drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize part of the approved program being specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 potential litigation, and provide a clear codified today. Provisions that are FR 67249, November 9, 2000). legal standard for affected conduct.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:36 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM 22JNR1 37352 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

I. Executive Order 12630: Governmental will be effective August 21, 2020 in accordance with section 9004 of Actions and Interference With because it is a direct final rule. RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991c, and 40 CFR part Constitutionally Protected Property 281, subpart E. If Texas obtains approval List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 282 Rights for the revised requirements pursuant to Environmental protection, EPA has complied with Executive section 9004 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991c, Administrative practice and procedure, the newly approved statutory and Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, Confidential business information, 1988) by examining the takings regulatory provisions will be added to Hazardous substances, Incorporation by this subpart and notice of any change implications of the rule in accordance reference, Insurance, Intergovernmental with the ‘‘Attorney General’s will be published in the Federal relations, Oil pollution, Penalties, Register. Supplemental Guidelines for the Petroleum, Reporting and recordkeeping Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of (d) Final program approval. Texas has requirements, Surety bonds, Water final approval for the following Unanticipated Takings’’ issued under pollution control, Water supply. the executive order. elements of its program application Dated: May 5, 2020. originally submitted to EPA and J. Paperwork Reduction Act Kenley McQueen, approved effective April 17, 1995, and This rule does not impose an Regional Administrator, EPA Region 6. the program revision application information collection burden under the approved by EPA effective on August For the reasons set forth in the 21, 2020: provisions of the Paperwork Reduction preamble, EPA is amending 40 CFR part (1) State statutes and regulations—(i) Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 282 as follows: ‘‘Burden’’ is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Incorporation by reference. The PART 282—APPROVED provisions cited in this paragraph are K. Executive Order 12898: Federal UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK incorporated by reference as part of the Actions To Address Environmental PROGRAMS underground storage tank program Justice in Minority Populations and under Subtitle I of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. Low-Income Populations ■ 1. The authority citation for part 282 6991 et seq. The Director of the Federal Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, continues to read as follows: Register approves this incorporation by February 16, 1994) establishes Federal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6912, 6991c, 6991d, reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. executive policy on environmental and 6991e. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may obtain copies of Texas UST regulations justice. Its main provision directs ■ 2. Revise § 282.93 to read as follows: Federal agencies, to the greatest extent that are incorporated by reference in practicable and permitted by law, to § 282.93 Texas State-Administered this paragraph from Thomson Reuters, make environmental justice part of their Program. 610 Opperman Drive, Eagan, MN 55123; mission by identifying and addressing, (a) History of the approval of Texas’s Phone: 1–888–728–7677; website: as appropriate, disproportionately high program. The State of Texas is approved http:// and adverse human health or to administer and enforce an legalsolutions.thomsonreuters.com or environmental effects of their programs, underground storage tank program in the Texas Secretary of State office policies, and activities on minority lieu of the Federal program under website at https://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/ _ populations and low-income Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation public/readtac$ext.ViewTAC?tac populations in the United States. and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), as view=4&ti=30&pt=1&ch=334. You may Because this rule approves pre-existing amended, 42 U.S.C. 6991 et seq. The inspect all approved material at the EPA State rules which are at least equivalent State’s program, as administered by the Region 6, 1201 Elm Street, Suite #500, to, and no less stringent than existing Texas Department of Environmental Dallas, Texas 75270 (phone number Federal requirements, and imposes no Quality, was approved by EPA pursuant (214) 665–2239) or the National additional requirements beyond those to 42 U.S.C. 6991c and Part 281 of this Archives and Records Administration imposed by State law, and there are no Chapter. EPA published the notice of (NARA). For information on the anticipated significant adverse human final determination approving the Texas availability of this material at NARA, health or environmental effects, the rule underground storage tank base program email [email protected], or go to: is not subject to Executive Order 12898. effective on April 17, 1995. A http://www.archives.gov/federal- subsequent program revision register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. L. Congressional Review Act application was approved effective on (A) ‘‘EPA-Approved Texas Regulatory The Congressional Review Act, 5 August 21, 2020. Requirements Applicable to the U.S.C. 801–808, generally provides that (b) Enforcement authority. Texas has Underground Storage Tank Program, before a rule may take effect, the agency primary responsibility for administering October 2019’’. Those provisions are promulgating the rule must submit a and enforcing its federally approved listed in Appendix A to Part 282. rule report, which includes a copy of underground storage tank program. (B) [Reserved] the rule, to each House of the Congress However, EPA retains the authority to (ii) Legal basis. EPA evaluated the and to the Comptroller General of the exercise its corrective action, inspection following statutes and regulations United States. EPA will submit a report and enforcement authorities under which provide the legal basis for the containing this document and other sections 9003(h), 9005 and 9006 of State’s implementation of the required information to the U.S. Senate, Subtitle I of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. underground storage tank program, but the U.S. House of Representatives, and 6991b(h),6991d and 6991e, as well as they are not being incorporated by the Comptroller General of the United under any other applicable statutory reference and do not replace Federal States prior to publication in the and regulatory provisions. authorities: Federal Register. A major rule cannot (c) Retaining program approval. To (A) The statutory provisions include: take effect until 60 days after it is retain program approval, Texas must (1) Texas Water Code, as amended, published in the Federal Register. This revise its approved program to adopt effective October 2018. Title 2, Water action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined new changes to the Federal Subtitle I Administration, Subtitle A, Executive by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). However, this action program which make it more stringent, Agencies:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:36 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM 22JNR1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 37353

(i) Chapter 5. Texas Commission on (iii) Provisions not incorporated by though not incorporated by reference, Environmental Quality, Subchapter B. reference. The following specifically are referenced as part of the approved Organization of the Texas Natural identified sections and rules applicable underground storage tank program Resource Conservation Commission, to the Texas underground storage tank under Subtitle I of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. Section 5.012, Subchapter D. General program that are broader in coverage 6991 et seq. Powers and Duties of the Commission, than the Federal program, are not part (3) Demonstration of procedures for Sections 5.103, and 5.105; Subchapter E. of the approved program, and are not adequate enforcement. The Administrative Provision for incorporated by reference herein for ‘‘Demonstration of Procedures for Commission, Sections 5.173, 5.176, enforcement purposes: Adequate Enforcement’’ submitted as 5.1765, and 5.177; Subchapter L. (A) Texas Water Code, as amended, part of the original application on April Emergency and Temporary Orders, effective October 2018, Title 2, Water 28, 1994 and as part of the program Sections 5.510, 5.511, 5.515, and 5.516; Administration, Subtitle D, Water revision application for approval on (ii) Chapter 7. Enforcement, Quality Control: Chapter 26 Water October 15, 2018 though not Subchapter A, General Provisions, Quality Control, Sections 26.341(b)(1), incorporated by reference, is referenced Sections 7.002 and 7.006; Subchapter B. 26.342(2), 26.342(4), 26.342(9) as it as part of the approved underground Corrective Action and Injunctive Relief, applies to aboveground storage tanks, storage tank program under Subtitle I of Section 7.032; Subchapter C. 26.342(12) as it applies to aboveground RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991 et seq. Administrative Penalties, Sections 7.053 storage tanks, 26.342(14) and 26.342(15) (4) Program description. The program and 7.075; Subchapter D. Civil as they apply to aboveground storage description and any other material Penalties, Sections 7.101, 7.102, 7.103, tanks, 26.342(16), 26.342(16–a), submitted as part of the original 7.105, 7.106, 7.107, 7.108, and 7.110; 26.342(18), 26.343(a)(1), 26.344 as it application on April 28, 1994 and as Subchapter E. Criminal Offenses and applies to aboveground storage tanks, part of the program revision application Penalties, Sections 7.149 and 7.156. 26.3441, 26.345 and 26.346 as they on October 15, 2018, though not (2) Texas Water Code, as amended, apply to aboveground storage tanks, incorporated by reference, are effective October 2018. Title 2, Water 26.349 as it applies to aboveground referenced as part of the approved Administration, Subtitle D, Water storage tanks, 26.351 and 26.3511 as underground storage tank program Quality Control: Chapter 26. Water they apply to aboveground storage under Subtitle I of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. Quality Control, Subchapter B, General tanks, 26.3512 as it applies to petroleum 6991 et seq. Powers and Duties, Sections 26.011, storage tank remediation account, (5) Memorandum of Agreement. The 26.013, 26.014, 26.015, 26.0151, 26.017, 26.3514 through 26.3516 as they apply Memorandum of Agreement between to aboveground storage tanks, 26.354 26.019, 26.020, 26.021, 26.022, 26.039, EPA Region 6 and the Texas Department through 26.356 as they apply to and 26.042; Subchapter D. Prohibition of Environmental Quality, signed by the aboveground storage tanks, 26.3571, Against Pollution; Enforcement, EPA Regional Administrator on July 29, 26.3573, 26.35731, 26.3574, 26.35745, Sections 26.341 (except 26.341(b)(1), 2019, though not incorporated by 26.358, 26.361, 26.364 through 26.367; 26.342 (except 26.342(2), (4), (5), (16), reference, is referenced as part of the Subchapter K. Occupational Licensing (16–a), (18), and references to approved underground storage tank and Registration, Sections 26.451, aboveground storage tanks at (9), (12), program under Subtitle I of RCRA, 42 26.452 and 26.456. (14), (15), 26.343 (except 26.343(a)(1)), U.S.C. 6991 et seq. (B) Texas Administrative Code, Title ■ 3. Appendix A to part 282 is amended 26.344 (except reference to aboveground 30, Part I. Texas Commission on storage tanks), 26.3441, 26.345 (except by revising the entry for Texas to read Environmental Quality, Chapter 334 as follows: reference to aboveground storage tanks), Underground and Aboveground Storage 26.346 (except reference to aboveground Tanks, effective May 31, 2018: Sections Appendix A to Part 282—State storage tanks), 26.3465, 26.3467, 26.347, 334.2 ‘‘Definitions’’ as applied to Requirements Incorporated by 26.348, 26.349 (except reference to aboveground storage tanks (ASTs), 334.9 Reference in Part 282 of the Code of aboveground storage tanks), 26.350, ‘‘Seller’s Disclosure’’, 334.19 ‘‘Fee on Federal Regulations 26.351 and 26.3511 (except references to Delivery of Petroleum Product, 334.21 aboveground storage tanks), 25.3512 * * * * * ‘‘Fee Assessment’’ through 334.23 Texas (except reference to petroleum storage ‘‘Disposition of Fees, Interest, and (a) The regulatory provisions include: tank remediation account), 26.3513, Penalties’’, 334.121 ‘‘Purpose and 1. Texas Administrative Code, Title 30, 26.3514 through 26.3516 (except Applicability for Aboveground Storage Part I. Texas Commission on Environmental references to aboveground storage Tanks (ASTs)’’ through 334.132 ‘‘Other Quality, Chapter 37 Financial Assurance, as tanks), 26.352, 26.354 through 26.356 General Provisions for Aboveground amended effective through May 31, 2018: (except references to aboveground Storage Tanks (ASTs)’’, 334.201 Subchapter I. Financial Assurance for storage tanks), 26.357, 26.3572, ‘‘Purpose, Applicability, and Deadlines’’ Petroleum Underground Storage Tank 26.35735, 26.359, 26.362 and 26.363. through 334.208 ‘‘Model Institutional Systems (B) The regulatory provisions include: Section 37.801 Applicability Controls’’, 334.301 ‘‘Applicability of Section 37.802 Definitions (1) Texas Administrative Code, Title this Subchapter’’ through 334.322 Section 37.815 Amount and Scope of 30, Part I. Texas Commission on ‘‘Subchapter H Definitions’’, 334.401 Required Financial Assurance Environmental Quality, Chapter 334 ‘‘License and Registration Required’’, Section 37.820 Allowable Mechanisms and Underground and Aboveground Storage 334.407 ‘‘Other Requirements for an Combinations of Mechanisms Tanks, effective May 31, 2018, Section Underground Storage Tank Contractor’’, Section 37.825 Financial Test of Self- 334.14 Memorandum of Understanding 334.424 ‘‘Other Requirements for an On- Insurance between the Attorney General of Texas site Supervisor’’ and 334.560 Section 37.830 Guarantee and the Texas Natural Resource Section 37.835 Insurance and Risk ‘‘Reimbursable Cost Specifications’’. Retention Group Coverage Conservation Commission, 334.82 (2) Statement of legal authority. The Section 37.840 Surety Bond Public Participation, and 334.83 Attorney General’s Statements, signed Section 37.845 Letter of Credit Enforcement. by the Attorney General of Texas on Section 37.850 Trust Fund (2) [Reserved] January 11, 1994 and October 22, 2018, Section 37.855 Standby Trust Fund

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:36 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM 22JNR1 37354 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

Section 37.860 Substitution of Financial Section 334.47 ‘‘Technical Standards for readtac$ext.ViewTAC?tac_ Assurance Mechanisms by Owner or Existing Underground Storage Tank view=4&ti=30&pt=1&ch=334. Operator Systems’’ [FR Doc. 2020–10065 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] Section 37.865 Cancellation or Non- Section 334.48 ‘‘General Operating and BILLING CODE 6560–50–P Renewal by a Provider of Financial Management Requirements’’ Assurance Section 334.49 ‘‘Corrosion Protection’’ Section 37.867 Duty to Empty Tanks After Section 334.50 ‘‘Release Detection’’ Termination of Financial Assurance Section 334.51 ‘‘Spill and Overfill ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Section 37.870 Reporting, Registration, and Prevention and Control’’ AGENCY Certification Section 334.52 ‘‘Underground Storage Section 37.875 Financial Assurance Tank System Repairs and Relining’’ 40 CFR Part 372 Recordkeeping Section 334.53 ‘‘Reuse of Used Tanks’’ Section 37.880 Drawing on Financial Section 334.54 ‘‘Temporary Removal [EPA–HQ–TRI–2020–0142; FRL–10008–09] Assurance Mechanisms from Service’’ Section 37.885 Release from the Section 334. 55 ‘‘Permanent Removal RIN 2070–AK63 Requirements from Service’’ Section 37.890 Bankruptcy or Other Section 334.56 ‘‘Change to Exempt or Incapacity of Owner or Operator or Implementing Statutory Addition of Excluded Status’’ Provider of Financial Assurance Certain Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Section 37.895 Replenishment of Subchapter D. Release Reporting and Substances; Toxic Chemical Release Corrective Action: Guarantees, Letters of Credit or Surety Reporting Bonds Section 334.71 ‘‘Applicability and 2. Texas Administrative Code, Title 30, Deadlines’’ Section 334.72 ‘‘Reporting of Suspected AGENCY: Environmental Protection Part I. Texas Commission on Environmental Agency (EPA). Quality, Chapter 334 Underground and Releases’’ Aboveground Storage Tanks; effective May Section 334.73 ‘‘Investigation Due to Off- ACTION: Final rule. 31, 2018: Site Impacts’’ Section 334.74 ‘‘Release Investigation and Subchapter A. General Provisions: SUMMARY: EPA is adding 172 per- and Confirmation Steps’’ Section 334.1 ‘‘Purpose and Section 334.75 ‘‘Reporting and Cleanup polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) to Applicability’’ of Surface Spills and Overfills’’ the list of toxic chemicals subject to Section 334.2 ‘‘Definitions’’ (except as Section 334.76 ‘‘Initial Response to reporting under section 313 of the they apply to aboveground storage tanks Emergency Planning and Community (ASTs)) Releases’’ Section 334.3 ‘‘Exemptions for Section 334.77 ‘‘Initial Abatement Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) and section Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) and Measures and Site Check’’ 6607 of the Pollution Prevention Act UST Systems’’ Section 334.78 ‘‘Site Assessment’’ (PPA). EPA is also setting a Section 334.4 ‘‘Exclusions for Section 334.79 ‘‘Removal of Non- manufacture, processing, and otherwise Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) and Aqueous Phase Liquids (NAPLs)’’ use reporting threshold of 100 pounds UST Systems’’ Section 334.80 ‘‘Investigation of Soil and for each PFAS being added to the list. Section 334.5 ‘‘General Prohibitions for Groundwater Cleanup’’ Section 334.81 ‘‘Corrective Action Plan’’ These actions are being taken to comply Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) and with section 7321 of the National UST Systems’’ Section 334.84 ‘‘Corrective Action by the Section 334.6 ‘‘Construction Notification Agency’’ Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal for Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) Section 334.85 ‘‘Management of Wastes’’ Year 2020 enacted on December 20, and UST Systems’’ Subchapter J. Leaking Petroleum Storage 2019. As this action is being taken to Section 334.7 ‘‘Registration for Tank Corrective Action Specialist conform the regulations to a Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) and Registration and Project Manager Congressional legislative mandate, UST Systems’’ Licensing: notice and comment rulemaking is Section 334.8 ‘‘Certification for Section 334.451 ‘‘Applicability of unnecessary, and this rule is effective Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) and Subchapter J’’ immediately. UST Systems’’ Section 334.454 ‘‘Exception for Section 334.10 ‘‘Reporting and Emergency Abatement Actions’’ DATES: This rule is effective June 22, Recordkeeping’’ Section 334.455 ‘‘Notice to Owner or 2020. Section 334.12 ‘‘Other General Operator’’ Provisions’’ Subchapter N. Operator Training: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For Section 334.15 ‘‘Limits on Liability of Section 334.601 technical information contact: Daniel R. Lender’’ (except as it applies to ‘‘Purpose and aboveground storage tanks (ASTs)) Applicability’’ Bushman, Toxics Release Inventory Section 334.16 ‘‘Limits on Liability of Section 334.602 ‘‘Designation and Program Division, Mailcode 7410M, Corporate Fiduciary’’ Training of Classes of Operators’’ Office of Pollution Prevention and Section 334.18 ‘‘Limits on Liability of Section 334.603 ‘‘Acceptable Operator Toxics, Environmental Protection Taxing Unit’’ (except as it applies to Training and Certification Processes’’ Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, aboveground storage tanks (ASTs)) Section 334.604 ‘‘Operator Training Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone Deadlines’’ Subchapter C. Technical Standards: number: (202) 566–0743; email address: Section 334.605 ‘‘Operator Training Section 334.41 ‘‘Applicability’’ [email protected]. Section 334.42 ‘‘General Standards’’ Frequency’’ Section 334.43 ‘‘Variances and Section 334.606 ‘‘Documentation of For general information contact: The Alternative Procedures’’ Operator Training’’ Emergency Planning and Community Section 334.44 ‘‘Implementation (b) Copies of the Texas UST regulations Right-to-Know Hotline; telephone Schedules’’ that are incorporated by reference are numbers: toll free at (800) 424–9346 Section 334.45 ‘‘Technical Standards for available from Thomson Reuters, 610 (select menu option 3) or (703) 348– New Underground Storage Tank Opperman Drive, Eagan, MN 55123; Phone: 5070 in the Washington, DC Area and Systems’’ 1–888–728–7677; website: http:// International; or go to https:// Section 334.46 ‘‘Installation Standards for legalsolutions.thomsonreuters.com; or the www.epa.gov/home/epa-hotlines. New Underground Storage Tank Texas Secretary of State office website at Systems’’ https://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/public/ SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:36 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM 22JNR1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 37355

I. General Information should carefully examine the • Require that person to reassert and applicability criteria in part 372, subpart substantiate or resubstantiate that claim A. Does this action apply to me? B of title 40 of the Code of Federal in accordance with TSCA section 14(f) You may be potentially affected by Regulations. Federal facilities are (15 U.S.C. 2613(f)). this action if you manufacture, process, required to report under Executive or otherwise use any of the PFAS listed In addition, if EPA determines that Order 13834 (https://www.govinfo.gov/ the chemical identity of a PFAS or class in this rule. The following list of North content/pkg/FR-2018-05-22/pdf/2018- American Industrial Classification PFAS qualifies for protection from 11101.pdf) as explained in the disclosure, EPA must include the PFAS System (NAICS) codes is not intended Implementing Instructions from the or class of PFAS, on the toxics release to be exhaustive, but rather provides a Council on Environmental Quality inventory in a manner that does not guide to help readers determine whether (https://www.sustainability.gov/pdfs/ disclose the protected information. this document applies to them. eo13834_instructions.pdf). If you have Potentially affected entities may questions regarding the applicability of The names and CASRNs for some of include: this action to a particular entity, consult the chemicals listed under 40 CFR • Facilities included in the following the person listed under FOR FURTHER 721.9582 and/or 40 CFR 721.10536 are NAICS manufacturing codes INFORMATION CONTACT. subject to a claim of protection from (corresponding to Standard Industrial disclosure. Therefore, the chemicals that Classification (SIC) codes 20 through B. What action is the Agency taking? are subject to a claim of protection from 39): 311*, 312*, 313*, 314*, 315*, 316, EPA is adding 172 PFAS to the disclosure will not be added to the 321, 322, 323*, 324, 325*, 326*, 327, EPCRA section 313 list of toxic EPCRA section 313 toxic chemical list 331, 332, 333, 334*, 335*, 336, 337*, chemicals (more commonly known as until EPA completes the process 339*, 111998*, 211130*, 212324*, the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)). provided by section 7321(e) of the 212325*, 212393*, 212399*, 488390*, EPA is also setting a manufacture, NDAA. Updates regarding this process 511110, 511120, 511130, 511140*, processing, and otherwise use reporting will be provided via the Addition of 511191, 511199, 512230*, 512250*, threshold of 100 pounds for each PFAS Certain PFAS to the TRI by the National 519130*, 541713*, 541715* or 811490*. being added to the list. Defense Authorization Act web page: *Exceptions and/or limitations exist for II. Background https://www.epa.gov/toxics-release- these NAICS codes. inventory-tri-program/addition-certain- • Facilities included in the following On December 20, 2019 the National pfas-tri-national-defense-authorization- NAICS codes (corresponding to SIC Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal act. Therefore, 172 PFAS will be added codes other than SIC codes 20 through Year 2020 (NDAA) was signed into law at this time. Note that not every 39): 212111, 212112, 212113 (Pub. L. 116–92, https:// substance subject to §§ 721.9582 and (corresponds to SIC code 12, Coal www.congress.gov/public-laws/116th- 721.10536 was added to the TRI Mining (except 1241)); or 212221, congress). Among other provisions, chemical list, only those substances that 212222, 212230, 212299 (corresponds to section 7321 of the NDAA adds certain met the listing criteria in the NDAA. SIC code 10, Metal Mining (except 1011, PFAS to the EPCRA section 313 list of 1081, and 1094)); or 221111, 221112, reportable toxic chemicals as of January As established by the NDAA, the 221113, 221118, 221121, 221122, 1, 2020. Specifically, the NDAA addition of these PFAS is to be effective 221330 (limited to facilities that identifies 14 chemicals by name and/or January 1 of the calendar year following combust coal and/or oil for the purpose Chemical Abstract Service Registry the date of enactment of the NDAA. of generating power for distribution in Number (CASRN) in section 7321(b) and Accordingly, these 172 non-CBI PFAS commerce) (corresponds to SIC codes identifies additional PFAS or class of are reportable for the 2020 reporting 4911, 4931, and 4939, Electric Utilities); PFAS that must be added based on the year (i.e., reports due July 1, 2021). EPA or 424690, 425110, 425120 (limited to following criteria: is issuing this final rule revising the facilities previously classified in SIC • It is listed as an active chemical EPCRA section 313 list of reportable code 5169, Chemicals and Allied substance in the February 2019 update chemicals in 40 CFR 372.65 to include Products, Not Elsewhere Classified); or to the inventory under TSCA section the 172 non-CBI PFAS added by the 424710 (corresponds to SIC code 5171, 8(b)(1) (15 U.S.C. 2607(b)(1)); and NDAA to the EPCRA section 313 list of Petroleum Bulk Terminals and Plants); • On the date of enactment of the reportable chemicals in 40 CFR 372.65. or 562112 (limited to facilities primarily NDAA, is subject to the provisions of 40 In addition, the NDAA established a engaged in solvent recovery services on CFR 721.9582 or 40 CFR 721.10536. manufacture, processing, and otherwise a contract or fee basis (previously EPA has reviewed the above-listed use reporting threshold of 100 pounds classified under SIC code 7389, criteria and found 170 chemicals that for each of the listed PFAS chemicals Business Services, NEC)); or 562211, meet the requirements of this part of the listed under the NDAA. The NDAA also 562212, 562213, 562219, 562920 NDAA and whose identity is not requires that no later than 5 years from (limited to facilities regulated under the confidential business information (CBI). the date of enactment of the NDAA that Resource Conservation and Recovery Twelve of these are among the 14 PFAS EPA must: Act, subtitle C, 42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.) specifically listed in the NDAA; with • Determine whether revision of the (corresponds to SIC code 4953, Refuse the addition of the other two, there are threshold is warranted; and Systems). a total of 172 PFAS subject to this law • • Federal facilities. whose identity is not CBI. Under section If EPA determines a revision to the A more detailed description of the 7321 of the NDAA, EPA must review threshold is warranted, initiate a types of facilities covered by the NAICS CBI claims before adding any PFAS to revision under EPCRA section 313(f)(2) codes subject to reporting under EPCRA the list whose identity is subject to a (42 U.S.C. 11023(f)(2)). section 313 can be found at: https:// claim of protection from disclosure Therefore, EPA is amending the www.epa.gov/toxics-release-inventory- under 5 U.S.C. 552(a). Under the NDAA regulatory text by adding the 172 PFAS tri-program/tri-covered-industry-sectors. EPA must: to 40 CFR 372.65 with reporting To determine whether your facility • Review a claim of protection from thresholds of 100 pounds identified in would be affected by this action, you disclosure; and 40 CFR 372.29.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:36 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM 22JNR1 37356 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

III. Good Cause Exception this information was mandated by an G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A), the act of Congress effective 1/1/2020. EPA and Coordination With Indian Tribal notice-and-comment requirements of will follow up this emergency ICR with Governments the Federal Administrative Procedure a revision to the existing ICR that covers This action does not have tribal Act (5 U.S.C. 551–706) do not apply reporting under EPCRA section 313. implications as specified in Executive where the Agency ‘‘for good cause finds You can find a copy of the emergency Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, . . . that notice and public procedure ICR in the docket for this rule, estimated 2000). This rule will not impose thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, impacts are presented here. substantial direct compliance costs on or contrary to the public interest.’’ Respondents/affected entities: Indian Tribal Governments. Thus, Because this action is being taken to Facilities that submit annual reports Executive Order 13175 does not apply comply with an Act of Congress where under section 313 of EPCRA and section to this action. Congress added these chemicals to the 6607 of PPA. H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of TRI and lowered the reporting Respondent’s obligation to respond: Children From Environmental Health thresholds for these chemicals, and thus Mandatory (EPCRA section 313). Risks and Safety Risks EPA has no discretion as to the outcome Estimated number of respondents: of this rule, EPA hereby finds that 500. EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), as notice and comment on this action are Frequency of response: Annual. unnecessary. The action merely fulfills applying only to those regulatory a mandate from Congress by aligning the Total estimated burden: 17,852 hours actions that concern health or safety CFR with the self-effectuating changes (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR risks, such that the analysis required provided by the NDAA. This action is 1320.3(b). under section 5–501 of Executive Order effective immediately upon publication Total estimated cost: $1 million (per 13045 has the potential to influence the in the Federal Register. Under 5 U.S.C. year), includes $0 annualized capital or regulation. This action is not subject to 553(d)(3), 30-day advance notice of a operation & maintenance costs. Executive Order 13045 because it does rule is not required where the Agency An agency may not conduct or not establish an environmental standard provides otherwise for good cause. EPA sponsor, and a person is not required to intended to mitigate health or safety finds that good cause for an immediate respond to, a collection of information risks. effective date exists in this case because, unless it displays a currently valid OMB I. Executive Order 13211: Actions as explained above, this rule merely control number. The OMB control Concerning Regulations That amends the regulations in 40 CFR part numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 372 to reflect the action taken by CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. Distribution, or Use Congress. D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) This action is not a ‘‘significant IV. Statutory and Executive Order energy action’’ as defined in Executive Reviews This rule is not subject to the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., which generally Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, Additional information about these requires an agency to prepare a 2001), because it is not likely to have a statutes and Executive orders can be regulatory flexibility analysis for any significant adverse effect on the supply, found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws- rule that is estimated to have a distribution or use of energy. regulations/laws-and-executive-orders. significant economic impact on a J. National Technology Transfer and A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory substantial number of small entities. Advancement Act (NTTAA) This rule is not subject to notice and Planning and Review and Executive This rulemaking does not involve comment requirements under the APA Order 13563: Improving Regulation and technical standards that would require or any other statute because although Regulatory Review Agency consideration under NTTAA the rule is subject to the APA, the This action is not a significant section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 note. Agency has invoked the ‘‘good cause’’ regulatory action and was therefore not exemption under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) (see K. Executive Order 12898: Federal submitted to the Office of Management Unit III.). Actions To Address Environmental and Budget (OMB) for review under Justice in Minority Populations and Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Low-Income Populations October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, (UMRA) January 21, 2011). This action does not entail special This action does not contain any considerations of environmental justice B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing unfunded mandate as described in related issues as delineated by Regulations and Controlling Regulatory UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, Costs not significantly or uniquely affect small February 16, 1994), because it does not This action is not a regulatory action governments. The action will impose no establish an environmental health or under Executive Order 13771 (82 FR enforceable duty on any state, local or safety standard. This action involves 9339, February 3, 2017) because this tribal governments or the private sector. additions to reporting requirements that action is not significant under Executive F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism will not affect the level of protection Order 12866. provided to human health or the This action does not have federalism environment. C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) implications, as specified in Executive The Office of Management and Budget Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, V. Congressional Review Act (CRA) (OMB) has approved the information 1999). It will not have substantial direct This action is subject to the CRA, 5 collection activities contained in this effects on the states, on the relationship U.S.C. 801 et seq., and the EPA will rule under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et between the National Government and submit a rule report to each House of seq., and has assigned OMB control the States, or on the distribution of the Congress and to the Comptroller number 2070–0212. This was an power and responsibilities among the General of the United States. The CRA emergency ICR since the collection of various levels of government. allows the issuing agency to make a rule

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:36 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM 22JNR1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 37357

effective sooner than otherwise ■ a. In the introductory text, remove the ■ 7. Amend § 372.65 as follows: provided by the CRA if the agency text ‘‘Except as provided in §§ 372.27 ■ a. By revising the introductory text; makes a good cause finding that notice- and 372.28’’ and add in its place and and-comment rulemaking procedures ‘‘Except as provided in § 372.27, ■ b. By adding paragraphs (d) and (e). are impracticable, unnecessary or § 372.28, and § 372.29’’. contrary to the public interest (5 U.S.C. ■ b. In paragraphs (f), (g), and (h), The revision and additions read as 808(2)). The EPA has made a good cause remove the text ‘‘§ 372.25, § 372.27, or follows: finding for this rule as discussed in Unit § 372.28’’ add in its place ‘‘this section § 372.65 Chemicals and chemical III., including the basis for that finding. or § 372.27, § 372.28, or § 372.29’’. categories to which this part applies. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as ■ 4. Add § 372.29 to subpart B to read defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The requirements of this part apply to as follows: the chemicals and chemical categories List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 372 § 372.29 Thresholds for per- and listed in this section. This section Environmental protection, polyfluoroalkyl substances. contains five listings. Paragraph (a) of Community right-to-know, Reporting Notwithstanding § 372.25, for the this section is an alphabetical order and recordkeeping requirements, Toxic chemicals set forth in § 372.65(d) and (e) listing of those chemicals that have an chemicals. the manufacturing, processing, and associated Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) Registry number. Paragraph (b) of Dated: May 18, 2020. otherwise use thresholds are 100 pounds. this section contains a CAS number Alexandra Dapolito Dunn, order list of the same chemicals listed Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical § 372.30 [Amended] in paragraph (a) of this section. Safety and Pollution Prevention. ■ 5. Amend § 372.30 as follows: Paragraph (c) of this section contains the Therefore, 40 CFR part 372 is ■ a. In paragraph (a), remove the text ‘‘in chemical categories for which reporting amended as follows: § 372.25, § 372.27, or § 372.28’’ and add is required. These chemical categories are listed in alphabetical order and do PART 372—[AMENDED] in its place ‘‘in § 372.25, § 372.27, § 372.28, or § 372.29’’. not have CAS numbers. Paragraph (d) of ■ 1. The authority citation for part 372 ■ b. In paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(3) this section is an alphabetical order continues to read as follows: introductory text, and (b)(3)(i) and (iv), listing of the per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances and their associated CAS Authority: 42 U.S.C. 11023 and 11048. remove the text ‘‘§ 372.25, § 372.27, or § 372.28’’ and add in its place ‘‘§ 372.25, Registry number. Paragraph (e) of this § 372.22 [Amended] § 372.27, § 372.28, or § 372.29.’’ section contains a CAS number order list of the same chemicals listed in ■ 2. Amend § 372.22(c) by removing the § 372.38 [Amended] paragraph (d) of this section. Each text ‘‘§ 372.25, § 372.27, or § 372.28’’ listing identifies the effective date for and adding in its place ‘‘§ 372.25, ■ 6. Amend § 372.38(b), (c), (d), (f), (g), reporting under § 372.30. § 372.27, § 372.28, or § 372.29’’. and (h) by removing the text ‘‘§ 372.25, § 372.27, or § 372.28’’ and adding in its * * * * * § 372.25 [Amended] place ‘‘§ 372.25, § 372.27, § 372.28, or (d) Per- and polyfluoroalkyl ■ 3. Amend § 372.25 as follows: § 372.29.’’ substances alphabetical listing.

TABLE 4 TO PARAGRAPH (d)

Effective Chemical name CAS No. date

Alcohols, C8-14, g-w-perfluoro ...... 68391–08–2 1/1/20 Alkenes, C8-14 a-, d-w-perfluoro ...... 97659–47–7 1/1/20 Alkyl iodides, C4-20, g-w-perfluoro ...... 68188–12–5 1/1/20 Ammonium perfluorooctanoate ...... 3825–26–1 1/1/20 1,4-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, dimethyl ester, reaction products with bis(2-hydroxyethyl)terephthalate, ethylene glycol, a-fluoro-w-(2-hydroxyethyl)poly(difluoromethylene), hexakis(methoxymethyl)melamine and poly- ethylene glycol ...... 68515–62–8 1/1/20 Butanoic acid, 4-[[3-(dimethylamino)propyl]amino]-4-oxo-, 2(or 3)-[(g-w-perfluoro-C6-20-alkyl)thio] derivs...... 68187–25–7 1/1/20 2-[Butyl[(heptadecafluorooctyl)sulfonyl]amino]ethyl acrylate ...... 383–07–3 1/1/20 Chromium(III) perfluorooctanoate ...... 68141–02–6 1/1/20 Cyclohexanesulfonic acid, decafluoro(pentafluoroethyl)-, potassium salt ...... 67584–42–3 1/1/20 Cyclohexanesulfonic acid, decafluoro(trifluoromethyl)-, potassium salt ...... 68156–07–0 1/1/20 Cyclohexanesulfonic acid, nonafluorobis(trifluoromethyl)-, potassium salt ...... 68156–01–4 1/1/20 Cyclohexanesulfonic acid, undecafluoro-, potassium salt ...... 3107–18–4 1/1/20 Decane, 1,1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8-heptadecafluoro-10-iodo- ...... 2043–53–0 1/1/20 1-Decanesulfonic acid, 1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,10-heneicosafluoro-, ammonium salt ...... 67906–42–7 1/1/20 1-Decanesulfonyl chloride, 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,10-heptadecafluoro- ...... 27619–90–5 1/1/20 1-Decanol, 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,10-heptadecafluoro- ...... 678–39–7 1/1/20 Disulfides, bis(g-w-perfluoro-C6-20-alkyl) ...... 118400–71–8 1/1/20 Dodecane, 1,1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10-heneicosafluoro-12-iodo- ...... 2043–54–1 1/1/20 1-Dodecanesulfonyl chloride, 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,11,11,12,12,12-heneicosafluoro- ...... 27619–91–6 1/1/20 1-Dodecanol, 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,11,11,12,12,12-heneicosafluoro- ...... 865–86–1 1/1/20 1-Eicosanol, 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,11,11,12,12,13,13,14,14,15,15,16,16,17,17,18, 18,19,19,20,20,20-heptatriacontafluoro- ...... 65104–65–6 1/1/20 Ethanaminium, N,N-diethyl-N-methyl-2-[(2-methyl-1-oxo-2-propenyl)oxy]-, methyl sulfate, polymer with 2- ethylhexyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate, a-fluoro-w-[2-[(2-methyl-1-oxo-2-pro- penyl)oxy]ethyl]poly(difluoromethylene), 2-hydroxyethyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate and N-(hydroxymethyl)-2- propenamide ...... 65636–35–3 1/1/20

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM 22JNR1 37358 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 4 TO PARAGRAPH (d)—Continued

Effective Chemical name CAS No. date

Ethanaminium, N,N,N-triethyl-, salt with 1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,8-heptadecafluoro-1-octanesulfonic acid (1:1) ...... 56773–42–3 1/1/20 Ethaneperoxoic acid, reaction products with 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,10-heptadecafluorodecyl thiocyanate and 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,8-tridecafluorooctyl thiocyanate ...... 182176–52–9 1/1/20 Ethanol, 2,2′-iminobis-, compd. with a-fluoro-w-[2-(phosphonooxy)ethyl]poly(difluoromethylene) (1:1) ...... 65530–74–7 1/1/20 Ethanol, 2,2′-iminobis-, compd. with a-fluoro-w-[2-(phosphonooxy)ethyl]poly(difluoromethylene) (2:1) ...... 65530–63–4 1/1/20 Ethanol, 2,2′-iminobis-, compd. with a,a′-[phosphinicobis(oxy-2,1-ethanediyl)]bis[w- fluoropoly(difluoromethylene)] (1:1) ...... 65530–64–5 1/1/20 N-Ethyl-N-(2-hydroxyethyl)perfluorooctanesulfonamide ...... 1691–99–2 1/1/20 2-[Ethyl[(heptadecafluorooctyl)sulfonyl]amino]ethyl acrylate ...... 423–82–5 1/1/20 2-[Ethyl[(heptadecafluorooctyl)sulfonyl]amino]ethyl methacrylate ...... 376–14–7 1/1/20 Fatty acids, C6-18, perfluoro, ammonium salts ...... 72623–77–9 1/1/20 Fatty acids, C7-13, perfluoro, ammonium salts ...... 72968–38–8 1/1/20 Fatty acids, linseed-oil, g-w-perfluoro-C8-14-alkyl esters ...... 178535–23–4 1/1/20 Glycine, N-ethyl-N-[(heptadecafluorooctyl)sulfonyl]-, potassium salt ...... 2991–51–7 1/1/20 Glycine, N-[(heptadecafluorooctyl)sulfonyl]-N-propyl-, potassium salt ...... 55910–10–6 1/1/20 Glycine, N-ethyl-N-[(pentadecafluoroheptyl)sulfonyl]-, potassium salt ...... 67584–62–7 1/1/20 Glycine, N-ethyl-N-[(tridecafluorohexyl)sulfonyl]-, potassium salt ...... 67584–53–6 1/1/20 Glycine, N-ethyl-N-[(undecafluoropentyl)sulfonyl]-, potassium salt ...... 67584–52–5 1/1/20 3-[[(Heptadecafluorooctyl)sulfonyl]amino]-N,N,N-trimethyl-1-propanaminium iodide ...... 1652–63–7 1/1/20 2-[[(Heptadecafluorooctyl)sulfonyl]methylamino]ethyl acrylate ...... 25268–77–3 1/1/20 1-Heptanesulfonamide, 1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,7-pentadecafluoro-N-(2-hydroxyethyl)-N-methyl- ...... 68555–76–0 1/1/20 1-Heptanesulfonamide, N-ethyl-1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,7-pentadecafluoro- ...... 68957–62–0 1/1/20 1-Heptanesulfonic acid, 1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,7-pentadecafluoro-, ammonium salt ...... 68259–07–4 1/1/20 1-Heptanesulfonic acid, 1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,7-pentadecafluoro-, compd. with 2,2′-iminobis[ethanol] (1:1) 70225–15–9 1/1/20 1-Heptanesulfonic acid, 1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,7-pentadecafluoro-, potassium salt ...... 60270–55–5 1/1/20 1-Heptanesulfonyl fluoride, 1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,7-pentadecafluoro- ...... 335–71–7 1/1/20 Hexadecane, 1,1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,11,11,12,12,13,13,14,14-nonacosafluoro-16-iodo- ...... 65510–55–6 1/1/20 1-Hexadecanol, 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,11,11,12,12,13,13,14,14,15,15,16,16,16-nonacosafluoro- ...... 60699–51–6 1/1/20 Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid ...... 13252–13–6 1/1/20 Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid ammonium salt ...... 62037–80–3 1/1/20 Hexane, 1,6-diisocyanato-, homopolymer, g-w-perfluoro-C6-20-alc.-blocked ...... 135228–60–3 1/1/20 1-Hexanesulfonamide, 1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,6-tridecafluoro-N-(2-hydroxyethyl)-N-methyl- ...... 68555–75–9 1/1/20 1-Hexanesulfonic acid, 1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,6-tridecafluoro-, ammonium salt ...... 68259–08–5 1/1/20 1-Hexanesulfonic acid, 1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,6-tridecafluoro-, potassium salt ...... 3871–99–6 1/1/20 1-Hexanesulfonic acid, 1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,6-tridecafluoro-, compd. with 2,2′-iminobis[ethanol] (1:1) ...... 70225–16–0 1/1/20 Lithium (perfluorooctane)sulfonate ...... 29457–72–5 1/1/20 Methyl perfluorooctanoate ...... 376–27–2 1/1/20 1-Nonanesulfonic acid, 1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,9-nonadecafluoro-, ammonium salt ...... 17202–41–4 1/1/20 Octadecanoic acid, pentatriacontafluoro- ...... 16517–11–6 1/1/20 1-Octadecanol, 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7, 8,8,9,9,10,10,11,11,12,12,13,13,14,14,15,15, 16,16,17,17,18,18,18- tritriacontafluoro- ...... 65104–67–8 1/1/20 1-Octanesulfonamide, 1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,8-heptadecafluoro-N-methyl- ...... 31506–32–8 1/1/20 1-Octanesulfonamide, 1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,8-heptadecafluoro-N-(2-hydroxyethyl)-N-methyl- ...... 24448–09–7 1/1/20 1-Octanesulfonamide, N-butyl-1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,8-heptadecafluoro-N-(2-hydroxyethyl)- ...... 2263–09–4 1/1/20 1-Octanesulfonamide, N-ethyl-1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,8-heptadecafluoro-N-[3-(trimethoxysilyl)propyl]- ..... 61660–12–6 1/1/20 1-Octanesulfonamide, N-[3-(dimethyloxidoamino)propyl]-1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,8-heptadecafluoro-, po- tassium salt ...... 178094–69–4 1/1/20 1-Octanesulfonamide, N-ethyl-1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,8-heptadecafluoro-N-[2-(phosphonooxy)ethyl]-, diammonium salt ...... 67969–69–1 1/1/20 1-Octanesulfonic acid, 1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,8-heptadecafluoro-, ammonium salt ...... 29081–56–9 1/1/20 1-Octanesulfonic acid, 1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,8-heptadecafluoro-, compd. with 2,2′-iminobis[ethanol] (1:1) ...... 70225–14–8 1/1/20 Octanoyl fluoride, pentadecafluoro- ...... 335–66–0 1/1/20 1-Pentanesulfonamide, 1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,5-undecafluoro-N-(2-hydroxyethyl)-N-methyl- ...... 68555–74–8 1/1/20 1-Pentanesulfonic acid, 1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,5-undecafluoro-, potassium salt ...... 3872–25–1 1/1/20 1-Pentanesulfonic acid, 1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,5-undecafluoro-, ammonium salt ...... 68259–09–6 1/1/20 1-Pentanesulfonic acid, 1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,5-undecafluoro-, compd. with 2,2′-iminobis[ethanol] (1:1) ...... 70225–17–1 1/1/20 Pentanoic acid, 4,4-bis[(g-w-perfluoro-C8-20-alkyl)thio] derivs...... 71608–60–1 1/1/20 Perfluorodecanoic acid ...... 335–76–2 1/1/20 Perfluorododecanoic acid ...... 307–55–1 1/1/20 Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid ...... 355–46–4 1/1/20 Perfluorononanoic acid ...... 375–95–1 1/1/20 Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ...... 1763–23–1 1/1/20 Perfluorooctanoic acid ...... 335–67–1 1/1/20 Perfluorooctyl Ethylene ...... 21652–58–4 1/1/20 Perfluorooctylsulfonyl fluoride ...... 307–35–7 1/1/20 Perfluoropalmitic acid ...... 67905–19–5 1/1/20 Perfluorotetradecanoic acid ...... 376–06–7 1/1/20 Phosphinic acid, bis(perfluoro-C6-12-alkyl) derivs...... 68412–69–1 1/1/20 Phosphonic acid, perfluoro-C6-12-alkyl derivs...... 68412–68–0 1/1/20

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:36 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM 22JNR1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 37359

TABLE 4 TO PARAGRAPH (d)—Continued

Effective Chemical name CAS No. date

Phosphoric acid, g-w-perfluoro-C8-16-alkyl esters, compds. with diethanolamine ...... 74499–44–8 1/1/20 Poly(difluoromethylene), a-[2-(acetyloxy)-3-[(carboxymethyl)dimethylammonio]propyl]-w-fluoro-, inner salt ...... 123171–68–6 1/1/20 Poly(difluoromethylene), a-[2-[(2-carboxyethyl)thio]ethyl]-w-fluoro- ...... 65530–83–8 1/1/20 Poly(difluoromethylene), a-[2-[(2-carboxyethyl)thio]ethyl]-w-fluoro-, lithium salt ...... 65530–69–0 1/1/20 Poly(difluoromethylene), a-fluoro-w-(2-hydroxyethyl)-, dihydrogen 2-hydroxy-1,2,3-propanetricarboxylate ...... 65605–56–3 1/1/20 Poly(difluoromethylene), a-fluoro-w-(2-hydroxyethyl)-, hydrogen 2-hydroxy-1,2,3-propanetricarboxylate ...... 65605–57–4 1/1/20 Poly(difluoromethylene), a-fluoro-w-(2-hydroxyethyl)-, 2-hydroxy-1,2,3-propanetricarboxylate (3:1) ...... 65530–59–8 1/1/20 Poly(difluoromethylene), a-fluoro-w-[2-[(2-methyl-1-oxo-2-propenyl)oxy]ethyl]- ...... 65530–66–7 1/1/20 Poly(difluoromethylene), a-fluoro-w-[2-[(1-oxo-2-propenyl)oxy]ethyl]-, homopolymer ...... 65605–73–4 1/1/20 Poly(difluoromethylene), a-fluoro-w-[2-[(1-oxooctadecyl)oxy]ethyl]- ...... 65530–65–6 1/1/20 Poly(difluoromethylene), a-fluoro-w-[2-(phosphonooxy)ethyl]- ...... 65530–61–2 1/1/20 Poly(difluoromethylene), a-fluoro-w-[2-(phosphonooxy)ethyl]-, ammonium salt ...... 95144–12–0 1/1/20 Poly(difluoromethylene), a-fluoro-w-[2-(phosphonooxy)ethyl]-, diammonium salt ...... 65530–72–5 1/1/20 Poly(difluoromethylene), a-fluoro-w-[2-(phosphonooxy)ethyl]-, monoammonium salt ...... 65530–71–4 1/1/20 Poly(difluoromethylene), a-fluoro-w-[2-sulphoethyl)- ...... 80010–37–3 1/1/20 Poly(difluoromethylene), a,a′-[phosphinicobis(oxy-2,1-ethanediyl)]bis[w-fluoro- ...... 65530–62–3 1/1/20 Poly(difluoromethylene), a,a′-[phosphinicobis(oxy-2,1-ethanediyl)]bis[w-fluoro-, ammonium salt ...... 65530–70–3 1/1/20 Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), a-[2-[ethyl[(tridecafluorohexyl)sulfonyl]amino]ethyl]-w-hydroxy- ...... 56372–23–7 1/1/20 Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), a-[2-[ethyl[(heptadecafluorooctyl)sulfonyl]amino]ethyl]-w-hydroxy- ...... 29117–08–6 1/1/20 Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), a-[2-[ethyl[(pentadecafluoroheptyl)sulfonyl]amino]ethyl]-w-methoxy- ...... 68958–60–1 1/1/20 Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), a-[2-[ethyl[(heptadecafluorooctyl)sulfonyl]amino]ethyl]-w-methoxy- ...... 68958–61–2 1/1/20 Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), a-[2-[ethyl[(undecafluoropentyl)sulfonyl]amino]ethyl]-w-hydroxy- ...... 68298–80–6 1/1/20 Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), a-[2-[ethyl[(pentadecafluoroheptyl)sulfonyl]amino]ethyl]-w-hydroxy- ...... 68298–81–7 1/1/20 Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), a-hydro-w-hydroxy-, ether with a-fluoro-w-(2-hydroxyethyl)poly(difluoromethylene) (1:1) ...... 65545–80–4 1/1/20 Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), a-methyl-w-hydroxy-, 2-hydroxy-3-[(g-w-perfluoro-C6-20-alkyl)thio]propyl ethers ...... 70983–59–4 1/1/20 Poly[oxy(methyl-1,2-ethanediyl)], a-[2-[ethyl[(heptadecafluorooctyl)sulfonyl]amino]ethyl]-w-hydroxy- ...... 37338–48–0 1/1/20 Poly[oxy(methyl-1,2-ethanediyl)], a-[2-[ethyl[(pentadecafluoroheptyl)sulfonyl]amino]ethyl]-w-hydroxy- ...... 68259–39–2 1/1/20 Poly[oxy(methyl-1,2-ethanediyl)], a-[2-[ethyl[(tridecafluorohexyl)sulfonyl]amino]ethyl]-w-hydroxy- ...... 68259–38–1 1/1/20 Poly[oxy(methyl-1,2-ethanediyl)], a-[2-[ethyl[(undecafluoropentyl)sulfonyl]amino]ethyl]-w-hydroxy- ...... 68310–17–8 1/1/20 Potassium perfluorooctanesulfonate ...... 2795–39–3 1/1/20 1-Propanaminium, 3-amino-N-(carboxymethyl)-N,N-dimethyl-, N-[2-[(g-w-perfluoro-C4-20-alkyl)thio]acetyl] derivs., inner salts ...... 1078715–61–3 1/1/20 1-Propanaminium, 3-[[(heptadecafluorooctyl)sulfonyl]amino]-N,N,N-trimethyl-, chloride ...... 38006–74–5 1/1/20 1-Propanaminium, 2-hydroxy-N,N,N-trimethyl-, 3-[(g-w-perfluoro-C6-20-alkyl)thio] derivs., chlorides ...... 70983–60–7 1/1/20 1-Propanaminium, N,N,N-trimethyl-3-[[(tridecafluorohexyl)sulfonyl]amino]-, chloride ...... 52166–82–2 1/1/20 1-Propanaminium, N,N,N-trimethyl-3-[[(pentadecafluoroheptyl)sulfonyl]amino]-, iodide ...... 67584–58–1 1/1/20 1-Propanaminium, N,N,N-trimethyl-3-[[(pentadecafluoroheptyl)sulfonyl]amino]-, chloride ...... 68555–81–7 1/1/20 1-Propanaminium, N,N,N-trimethyl-3-[[(tridecafluorohexyl)sulfonyl]amino]-, iodide ...... 68957–58–4 1/1/20 1-Propanaminium, N,N,N-trimethyl-3-[[(undecafluoropentyl)sulfonyl]amino]-, chloride ...... 68957–55–1 1/1/20 1-Propanaminium, N,N,N-trimethyl-3-[[(undecafluoropentyl)sulfonyl]amino]-, iodide ...... 68957–57–3 1/1/20 Propanedioic acid, mono(g-w-perfluoro-C8-12-alkyl) derivs., bis[4-(ethenyloxy)butyl] esters ...... 238420–80–9 1/1/20 Propanedioic acid, mono(g-w-perfluoro-C8-12-alkyl) derivs., di-me esters ...... 238420–68–3 1/1/20 1,3-Propanediol, 2,2-bis[[(g-w-perfluoro-C10-20-alkyl)thio]methyl] derivs., phosphates, ammonium salts ...... 148240–89–5 1/1/20 1,3-Propanediol, 2,2-bis[[(g-w-perfluoro-C4-10-alkyl)thio]methyl] derivs., phosphates, ammonium salts ...... 148240–85–1 1/1/20 1,3-Propanediol, 2,2-bis[[(g-w-perfluoro-C6-12-alkyl)thio]methyl] derivs., phosphates, ammonium salts ...... 148240–87–3 1/1/20 1,3-Propanediol, 2,2-bis[[(g-w-perfluoro-C6-12-alkyl)thio]methyl] derivs., polymers with 2,2-bis[[(g-w-perfluoro- C10-20-alkyl)thio]methyl]-1,3-propanediol, 1,6-diisocyanato-2,2,4(or 2,4,4)-trimethylhexane, 2-heptyl-3,4- bis(9-isocyanatononyl)-1-pentylcyclohexane and 2,2′-(methylimino)bis[ethanol] ...... 1078142–10–5 1/1/20 1-Propanesulfonic acid, 2-methyl-, 2-[[1-oxo-3-[(g-w-perfluoro-C4-16-alkyl)thio]propyl]amino] derivs., sodium salts ...... 68187–47–3 1/1/20 2-Propenoic acid, butyl ester, telomer with 2-[[(heptadecafluorooctyl)sulfonyl]methylamino]ethyl 2-propenoate, 2-[methyl[(nonafluorobutyl)sulfonyl]amino]ethyl 2-propenoate, a-(2-methyl-1-oxo-2-propenyl)-w- hydroxypoly(oxy-1,4-butanediyl), a-(2-methyl-1-oxo-2-propenyl)-w-[(2-methyl-1-oxo-2-propenyl)oxy]poly(oxy- 1,4-butanediyl), 2-[methyl[(pentadecafluoroheptyl)sulfonyl]amino]ethyl 2-propenoate, 2- [methyl[(tridecafluorohexyl)sulfonyl]amino]ethyl 2-propenoate, 2- [methyl[(undecafluoropentyl)sulfonyl]amino]ethyl 2-propenoate and 1-octanethiol ...... 68227–96–3 1/1/20 2-Propenoic acid, 2-[butyl[(heptadecafluorooctyl)sulfonyl]amino]ethyl ester, telomer with 2- [butyl[(pentadecafluoroheptyl)sulfonyl]amino]ethyl 2-propenoate, methyloxirane polymer with oxirane di-2- propenoate, methyloxirane polymer with oxirane mono-2-propenoate and 1-octanethiol ...... 68298–62–4 1/1/20 2-Propenoic acid, esters, 2-methyl-, dodecyl ester, polymer with a-fluoro-w-[2-[(2-methyl-1-oxo-2-propen-1- yl)oxy]ethyl]poly(difluoromethylene) ...... 65605–58–5 1/1/20 2-Propenoic acid, 2-[ethyl[(pentadecafluoroheptyl)sulfonyl]amino]ethyl ester ...... 59071–10–2 1/1/20 2-Propenoic acid, 2-[[(heptadecafluorooctyl)sulfonyl]methylamino]ethyl ester, polymer with 2- [methyl[(nonafluorobutyl)sulfonyl]amino]ethyl 2-propenoate, 2- [methyl[(pentadecafluoroheptyl)sulfonyl]amino]ethyl 2-propenoate, 2- [methyl[(tridecafluorohexyl)sulfonyl]amino]ethyl 2-propenoate, 2- [methyl[(undecafluoropentyl)sulfonyl]amino]ethyl 2-propenoate and a-(1-oxo-2-propenyl)-w-methoxypoly(oxy- 1,2-ethanediyl) ...... 68867–60–7 1/1/20 2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, 2-(dimethylamino)ethyl ester, polymers with Bu acrylate, g-w-perfluoro-C8-14-alkyl acrylate and polyethylene glycol monomethacrylate, 2,2′-azobis[2,4-dimethylpentanenitrile]-initiated ...... 150135–57–2 1/1/20

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:36 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM 22JNR1 37360 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 4 TO PARAGRAPH (d)—Continued

Effective Chemical name CAS No. date

2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, 2-(dimethylamino)ethyl ester, polymers with g-w-perfluoro-C10-16-alkyl acrylate and vinyl acetate, acetates ...... 196316–34–4 1/1/20 2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, dodecyl ester, polymer with a-fluoro-w-[2-[(2-methyl-1-oxo-2-propen-1- yl)oxy]ethyl]poly(difluoromethylene) and N-(hydroxymethyl)-2-propenamide ...... 65605–59–6 1/1/20 2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, 2-ethylhexyl ester, polymer with a-fluoro-w-[2-[(2-methyl-1-oxo-2-propen-1- yl)oxy]ethyl]poly(difluoromethylene), 2-hydroxyethyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate and N-(hydroxymethyl)-2- propenamide ...... 68239–43–0 1/1/20 2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, 2-[ethyl[(heptadecafluorooctyl)sulfonyl]amino]ethyl ester, polymer with 2- [ethyl[(nonafluorobutyl)sulfonyl]amino]ethyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate, 2- [ethyl[(pentadecafluoroheptyl)sulfonyl]amino]ethyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate, 2- [ethyl[(tridecafluorohexyl)sulfonyl]amino]ethyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate, 2- [ethyl[(undecafluoropentyl)sulfonyl]amino]ethyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate and octadecyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate 68555–91–9 1/1/20 2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,11,11,12,12,12-heneicosafluorododecyl ester ...... 2144–54–9 1/1/20 2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,10-heptadecafluorodecyl ester ...... 1996–88–9 1/1/20 2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,11,11,12,12,13,13,14,14,15,15,16,16,16- nonacosafluorohexadecyl ester ...... 4980–53–4 1/1/20 2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, octadecyl ester, polymer with 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,11,11,12,12,12- heneicosafluorododecyl 2-propenoate, 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,10-heptadecafluorodecyl 2- propenoate and 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,11,11,12,12,13,13,14,14,14-pentacosafluorotetradecyl 2- propenoate ...... 142636–88–2 1/1/20 2-Propenoic acid, 2-[methyl[(pentadecafluoroheptyl)sulfonyl]amino]ethyl ester ...... 68084–62–8 1/1/20 2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9, 10,10,11,11,12,12,13,13,14,14,14- pentacosafluorotetradecyl ester ...... 6014–75–1 1/1/20 2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, polymer with butyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate, 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,10- heptadecafluorodecyl 2-propenoate, 2-hydroxyethyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate and methyl 2-methyl-2- propenoate ...... 200513–42–4 1/1/20 2-Propenoic acid, 2-[methyl[(tridecafluorohexyl)sulfonyl]amino]ethyl ester ...... 67584–57–0 1/1/20 2-Propenoic acid, 2-[methyl[(undecafluoropentyl)sulfonyl]amino]ethyl ester ...... 67584–56–9 1/1/20 Pyridinium, 1-(3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,10-heptadecafluorodecyl)-, salt with 4-methylbenzenesulfonic acid (1:1) ...... 61798–68–3 1/1/20 Silane, (3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,10-heptadecafluorodecyl)trimethoxy- ...... 83048–65–1 1/1/20 Silane, trichloro(3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,10-heptadecafluorodecyl)- ...... 78560–44–8 1/1/20 Silicic acid (H4SiO4), disodium salt, reaction products with chlorotrimethylsilane and 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,10-heptadecafluoro-1-decanol ...... 125476–71–3 1/1/20 Siloxanes and Silicones, (3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,10-heptadecafluorodecyl)oxy Me, hydroxy Me, Me octyl, ethers with polyethylene glycol mono-Me ether ...... 143372–54–7 1/1/20 Sodium perfluorooctanoate ...... 335–95–5 1/1/20 Sulfluramid ...... 4151–50–2 1/1/20 Sulfonic acids, C6-12-alkane, g-w-perfluoro, ammonium salts ...... 180582–79–0 1/1/20 Tetradecane, 1,1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5, 5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,11,11,12,12-pentacosafluoro-14-iodo- ...... 30046–31–2 1/1/20 1-Tetradecanesulfonyl chloride, 3,3,4,4,5,5,6, 6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,11,11,12,12,13,13,14,14,14-pentacosafluoro- 68758–57–6 1/1/20 1-Tetradecanol, 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,11,11,12,12,13,13,14,14,14-pentacosafluoro- ...... 39239–77–5 1/1/20 1,1,2,2-Tetrahydroperfluorodecyl acrylate ...... 27905–45–9 1/1/20 1,1,2,2-Tetrahydroperfluorododecyl acrylate ...... 17741–60–5 1/1/20 1,1,2,2-Tetrahydroperfluorohexadecyl acrylate ...... 34362–49–7 1/1/20 1,1,2,2-Tetrahydroperfluorotetradecyl acrylate ...... 34395–24–9 1/1/20 Thiocyanic acid, g-w-perfluoro-C4-20-alkyl esters ...... 97553–95–2 1/1/20 Thiols, C4-10, g-w-perfluoro ...... 68140–18–1 1/1/20 Thiols, C4-20, g-w-perfluoro, telomers with acrylamide and acrylic acid, sodium salts ...... 1078712–88–5 1/1/20 Thiols, C6-12, g-w-perfluoro ...... 68140–20–5 1/1/20 Thiols, C8-20, g-w-perfluoro, telomers with acrylamide ...... 70969–47–0 1/1/20 Thiols, C10-20, g-w-perfluoro ...... 68140–21–6 1/1/20

(e) Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances CAS number listing.

TABLE 5 TO PARAGRAPH (e)

Effective CAS No. Chemical name date

307–35–7 ...... Perfluorooctylsulfonyl fluoride ...... 1/1/20 307–55–1 ...... Perfluorododecanoic acid ...... 1/1/20 335–66–0 ...... Octanoyl fluoride, pentadecafluoro- ...... 1/1/20 335–67–1 ...... Perfluorooctanoic acid ...... 1/1/20 335–71–7 ...... 1-Heptanesulfonyl fluoride, 1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,7-pentadecafluoro- ...... 1/1/20 335–76–2 ...... Perfluorodecanoic acid ...... 1/1/20 335–95–5 ...... Sodium perfluorooctanoate ...... 1/1/20 355–46–4 ...... Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid ...... 1/1/20

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:36 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM 22JNR1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 37361

TABLE 5 TO PARAGRAPH (e)—Continued

Effective CAS No. Chemical name date

375–95–1 ...... Perfluorononanoic acid ...... 1/1/20 376–06–7 ...... Perfluorotetradecanoic acid ...... 1/1/20 376–14–7 ...... 2-[Ethyl[(heptadecafluorooctyl)sulfonyl]amino]ethyl methacrylate ...... 1/1/20 376–27–2 ...... Methyl perfluorooctanoate ...... 1/1/20 383–07–3 ...... 2-[Butyl[(heptadecafluorooctyl)sulfonyl]amino]ethyl acrylate ...... 1/1/20 423–82–5 ...... 2-[Ethyl[(heptadecafluorooctyl)sulfonyl]amino]ethyl acrylate ...... 1/1/20 678–39–7 ...... 1-Decanol, 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,10-heptadecafluoro- ...... 1/1/20 865–86–1 ...... 1-Dodecanol, 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,11,11,12,12,12-heneicosafluoro- ...... 1/1/20 1652–63–7 ...... 3-[[(Heptadecafluorooctyl)sulfonyl]amino]-N,N,N-trimethyl-1-propanaminium iodide ...... 1/1/20 1691–99–2 ...... N-Ethyl-N-(2-hydroxyethyl)perfluorooctanesulfonamide ...... 1/1/20 1763–23–1 ...... Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ...... 1/1/20 1996–88–9 ...... 2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,10-heptadecafluorodecyl ester ...... 1/1/20 2043–53–0 ...... Decane, 1,1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8-heptadecafluoro-10-iodo- ...... 1/1/20 2043–54–1 ...... Dodecane, 1,1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10-heneicosafluoro-12-iodo- ...... 1/1/20 2144–54–9 ...... 2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,11,11,12,12,12-heneicosafluorododecyl ester .. 1/1/20 2263–09–4 ...... 1-Octanesulfonamide, N-butyl-1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,8-heptadecafluoro-N-(2-hydroxyethyl)- ...... 1/1/20 2795–39–3 ...... Potassium perfluorooctanesulfonate ...... 1/1/20 2991–51–7 ...... Glycine, N-ethyl-N-[(heptadecafluorooctyl)sulfonyl]-, potassium salt ...... 1/1/20 3107–18–4 ...... Cyclohexanesulfonic acid, undecafluoro-, potassium salt ...... 1/1/20 3825–26–1 ...... Ammonium perfluorooctanoate ...... 1/1/20 3871–99–6 ...... 1-Hexanesulfonic acid, 1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,6-tridecafluoro-, potassium salt ...... 1/1/20 3872–25–1 ...... 1-Pentanesulfonic acid, 1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,5-undecafluoro-, potassium salt ...... 1/1/20 4151–50–2 ...... Sulfluramid ...... 1/1/20 4980–53–4 ...... 2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, ...... 1/1/20 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,11,11,12,12,13,13,14,14,15,15,16,16,16- ...... nonacosafluorohexadecyl ester ...... 6014–75–1 ...... 2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,11,11,12,12,13,13,14,14,14- 1/1/20 pentacosafluorotetradecyl ester. 13252–13–6 ...... Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid ...... 1/1/20 16517–11–6 ...... Octadecanoic acid, pentatriacontafluoro- ...... 1/1/20 17202–41–4 ...... 1-Nonanesulfonic acid, ...... 1/1/20 1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,9- ...... nonadecafluoro-, ammonium salt ...... 17741–60–5 ...... 1,1,2,2-Tetrahydroperfluorododecyl acrylate ...... 1/1/20 21652–58–4 ...... Perfluorooctyl Ethylene ...... 1/1/20 24448–09–7 ...... 1-Octanesulfonamide, 1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,8-heptadecafluoro-N-(2-hydroxyethyl)-N-methyl- ...... 1/1/20 25268–77–3 ...... 2-[[(Heptadecafluorooctyl)sulfonyl]methylamino]ethyl acrylate ...... 1/1/20 27619–90–5 ...... 1-Decanesulfonyl chloride, ...... 1/1/20 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,10-heptadecafluoro- ...... 27619–91–6 ...... 1-Dodecanesulfonyl chloride, ...... 1/1/20 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,11,11,12,12,12-heneicosafluoro- ...... 27905–45–9 ...... 1,1,2,2-Tetrahydroperfluorodecyl acrylate ...... 1/1/20 29081–56–9 ...... 1-Octanesulfonic acid, ...... 1/1/20 1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,8-heptadecafluoro-, ammonium salt ...... 29117–08–6 ...... Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), a-[2-[ethyl[(heptadecafluorooctyl) sulfonyl]amino]ethyl]-w-hydroxy- ...... 1/1/20 29457–72–5 ...... Lithium (perfluorooctane)sulfonate ...... 1/1/20 30046–31–2 ...... Tetradecane, 1,1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,11,11,12,12-pentacosafluoro-14-iodo- ...... 1/1/20 31506–32–8 ...... 1-Octanesulfonamide, 1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,8- heptadecafluoro-N-methyl- ...... 1/1/20 34362–49–7 ...... 1,1,2,2-Tetrahydroperfluorohexadecyl acrylate ...... 1/1/20 34395–24–9 ...... 1,1,2,2-Tetrahydroperfluorotetradecyl acrylate ...... 1/1/20 37338–48–0 ...... Poly[oxy(methyl-1,2-ethanediyl)], a-[2-[ethyl[(heptadecafluorooctyl) sulfonyl]amino]ethyl]-w-hydroxy- ...... 1/1/20 38006–74–5 ...... 1-Propanaminium, 3-[[(heptadecafluorooctyl) sulfonyl]amino]-N,N,N- trimethyl-, chloride ...... 1/1/20 39239–77–5 ...... 1-Tetradecanol, 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,11,11,12,12,13,13,14,14,14-pentacosafluoro- ...... 1/1/20 52166–82–2 ...... 1-Propanaminium, N,N,N-trimethyl-3-[[(tridecafluorohexyl) sulfonyl]amino]-, chloride ...... 1/1/20 55910–10–6 ...... Glycine, N-[(heptadecafluorooctyl) sulfonyl]-N-propyl-, potassium salt ...... 1/1/20 56372–23–7 ...... Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), a-[2-[ethyl[(tridecafluorohexyl) sulfonyl]amino]ethyl]-w-hydroxy- ...... 1/1/20 56773–42–3 ...... Ethanaminium, N,N,N-triethyl-, salt with 1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,8- heptadecafluoro-1-octanesulfonic 1/1/20 acid (1:1). 59071–10–2 ...... 2-Propenoic acid, 2-[ethyl[(pentadecafluoroheptyl) sulfonyl]amino]ethyl ester ...... 1/1/20 60270–55–5 ...... 1-Heptanesulfonic acid, 1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,7-pentadecafluoro-, potassium salt ...... 1/1/20 60699–51–6 ...... 1-Hexadecanol, 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,11,11,12,12,13,13,14,14,15,15,16,16,16-nonacosafluoro- .... 1/1/20 61660–12–6 ...... 1-Octanesulfonamide, N-ethyl-1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,8-heptadecafluoro-N-[3-(trimethoxysilyl)propyl]- 1/1/20 61798–68–3 ...... Pyridinium, 1-(3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,10-heptadecafluorodecyl)-, salt with 4-methylbenzenesulfonic 1/1/20 acid (1:1). 62037–80–3 ...... Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid ammonium salt ...... 1/1/20 65104–65–6 ...... 1-Eicosanol, 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9, 1/1/20 9,10,10,11,11,12,12,13,13,14,14,15,15,16,16,17,17,18,18,19,19,20,20,20-heptatriacontafluoro-. 65104–67–8 ...... 1-Octadecanol, 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,11,11,12,12,13,13,14,14,15,15,16,16,17,17,18,18,18- 1/1/20 tritriacontafluoro-. 65510–55–6 ...... Hexadecane, 1,1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,11,11,12,12,13,13,14,14-nonacosafluoro-16-iodo- .... 1/1/20 65530–59–8 ...... Poly(difluoromethylene), a-fluoro-w-(2-hydroxyethyl)-, 2-hydroxy-1,2,3-propanetricarboxylate (3:1) ...... 1/1/20

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM 22JNR1 37362 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 5 TO PARAGRAPH (e)—Continued

Effective CAS No. Chemical name date

65530–61–2 ...... Poly(difluoromethylene), a-fluoro-w-[2-(phosphonooxy)ethyl]- ...... 1/1/20 65530–62–3 ...... Poly(difluoromethylene), a,a′-[phosphinicobis(oxy-2,1-ethanediyl)]bis[w-fluoro- ...... 1/1/20 65530–63–4 ...... Ethanol, 2,2′-iminobis-, compd. with a-fluoro-w-[2-(phosphonooxy)ethyl]poly(difluoromethylene) (2:1) ...... 1/1/20 65530–64–5 ...... Ethanol, 2,2′-iminobis-, compd. with a,a′-[phosphinicobis(oxy-2,1-ethanediyl)]bis[w- 1/1/20 fluoropoly(difluoromethylene)] (1:1). 65530–65–6 ...... Poly(difluoromethylene), a-fluoro-w-[2-[(1-oxooctadecyl)oxy]ethyl]- ...... 1/1/20 65530–66–7 ...... Poly(difluoromethylene), a-fluoro-w-[2-[(2-methyl-1-oxo-2-propenyl)oxy]ethyl]- ...... 1/1/20 65530–69–0 ...... Poly(difluoromethylene), a-[2-[(2-carboxyethyl)thio]ethyl]-w-fluoro-, lithium salt ...... 1/1/20 65530–70–3 ...... Poly(difluoromethylene), a,a′-[phosphinicobis(oxy-2,1-ethanediyl)]bis[w-fluoro-, ammonium salt ...... 1/1/20 65530–71–4 ...... Poly(difluoromethylene), a-fluoro-w-[2-(phosphonooxy)ethyl]-, monoammonium salt ...... 1/1/20 65530–72–5 ...... Poly(difluoromethylene), a-fluoro-w-[2-(phosphonooxy)ethyl]-, diammonium salt ...... 1/1/20 65530–74–7 ...... Ethanol, 2,2′-iminobis-, compd. with a-fluoro-w-[2-(phosphonooxy)ethyl]poly(difluoromethylene) (1:1) ...... 1/1/20 65530–83–8 ...... Poly(difluoromethylene), a-[2-[(2-carboxyethyl)thio]ethyl]-w-fluoro- ...... 1/1/20 65545–80–4 ...... Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), a-hydro-w-hydroxy-, ether with a-fluoro-w-(2-hydroxyethyl)poly(difluoromethylene) 1/1/20 (1:1). 65605–56–3 ...... Poly(difluoromethylene), a-fluoro-w-(2-hydroxyethyl)-, dihydrogen 2-hydroxy-1,2,3-propanetricarboxylate ...... 1/1/20 65605–57–4 ...... Poly(difluoromethylene), a-fluoro-w-(2-hydroxyethyl)-, hydrogen 2-hydroxy-1,2,3-propanetricarboxylate ...... 1/1/20 65605–58–5 ...... 2-Propenoic acid, esters, 2-methyl-, dodecyl ester, polymer with a-fluoro-w-[2-[(2-methyl-1-oxo-2-propen-1- 1/1/20 yl)oxy]ethyl]poly(difluoromethylene). 65605–59–6 ...... 2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, dodecyl ester, polymer with a-fluoro-w-[2-[(2-methyl-1-oxo-2-propen-1- 1/1/20 yl)oxy]ethyl]poly(difluoromethylene) and N-(hydroxymethyl)-2-propenamide. 65605–73–4 ...... Poly(difluoromethylene), a-fluoro-w-[2-[(1-oxo-2-propenyl)oxy]ethyl]-, homopolymer ...... 1/1/20 65636–35–3 ...... Ethanaminium, N,N-diethyl-N-methyl-2-[(2-methyl-1-oxo-2-propenyl)oxy]-, methyl sulfate, polymer with 2- 1/1/20 ethylhexyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate, a-fluoro-w-[2-[(2-methyl-1-oxo-2-pro- penyl)oxy]ethyl]poly(difluoromethylene), 2-hydroxyethyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate and N-(hydroxymethyl)-2- propenamide. 67584–42–3 ...... Cyclohexanesulfonic acid, decafluoro(pentafluoroethyl)-, potassium salt ...... 1/1/20 67584–52–5 ...... Glycine, N-ethyl-N-[(undecafluoropentyl)sulfonyl]-, potassium salt ...... 1/1/20 67584–53–6 ...... Glycine, N-ethyl-N-[(tridecafluorohexyl)sulfonyl]-, potassium salt ...... 1/1/20 67584–56–9 ...... 2-Propenoic acid, 2-[methyl[(undecafluoropentyl)sulfonyl]amino]ethyl ester ...... 1/1/20 67584–57–0 ...... 2-Propenoic acid, 2-[methyl[(tridecafluorohexyl)sulfonyl]amino]ethyl ester ...... 1/1/20 67584–58–1 ...... 1-Propanaminium, N,N,N-trimethyl-3-[[(pentadecafluoroheptyl)sulfonyl]amino]-, iodide ...... 1/1/20 67584–62–7 ...... Glycine, N-ethyl-N-[(pentadecafluoroheptyl)sulfonyl]-, potassium salt ...... 1/1/20 67905–19–5 ...... Perfluoropalmitic acid ...... 1/1/20 67906–42–7 ...... 1-Decanesulfonic acid, 1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,10-heneicosafluoro-, ammonium salt ...... 1/1/20 67969–69–1 ...... 1-Octanesulfonamide, N-ethyl-1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,8-heptadecafluoro-N-[2-(phosphonooxy)ethyl]-, 1/1/20 diammonium salt. 68084–62–8 ...... 2-Propenoic acid, 2-[methyl[(pentadecafluoroheptyl)sulfonyl]amino]ethyl ester ...... 1/1/20 68140–18–1 ...... Thiols, C4–10, g-w-perfluoro ...... 1/1/20 68140–20–5 ...... Thiols, C6–12, g-w-perfluoro ...... 1/1/20 68140–21–6 ...... Thiols, C10–20, g-w-perfluoro ...... 1/1/20 68141–02–6 ...... Chromium(III) perfluorooctanoate ...... 1/1/20 68156–01–4 ...... Cyclohexanesulfonic acid, nonafluorobis(trifluoromethyl)-, potassium salt ...... 1/1/20 68156–07–0 ...... Cyclohexanesulfonic acid, decafluoro(trifluoromethyl)-, potassium salt ...... 1/1/20 68187–25–7 ...... Butanoic acid, 4-[[3-(dimethylamino)propyl]amino]-4-oxo-, 2(or 3)-[(g-w-perfluoro-C6–20-alkyl)thio] derivs...... 1/1/20 68187–47–3 ...... 1-Propanesulfonic acid, 2-methyl-, 2-[[1-oxo-3-[(g-w-perfluoro-C4–16-alkyl)thio]propyl]amino] derivs., sodium 1/1/20 salts. 68188–12–5 ...... Alkyl iodides, C4–20, g-w-perfluoro ...... 1/1/20 68227–96–3 ...... 2-Propenoic acid, butyl ester, telomer with 2-[[(heptadecafluorooctyl)sulfonyl]methylamino]ethyl 2- 1/1/20 propenoate, 2-[methyl[(nonafluorobutyl)sulfonyl]amino]ethyl 2-propenoate, a-(2-methyl-1-oxo-2-propenyl)- w-hydroxypoly(oxy-1,4-butanediyl), a-(2-methyl-1-oxo-2-propenyl)-w-[(2-methyl-1-oxo-2-pro- penyl)oxy]poly(oxy-1,4-butanediyl), 2-[methyl[(pentadecafluoroheptyl)sulfonyl]amino]ethyl 2-propenoate, 2- [methyl[(tridecafluorohexyl)sulfonyl]amino]ethyl 2-propenoate, 2- [methyl[(undecafluoropentyl)sulfonyl]amino]ethyl 2-propenoate and 1-octanethiol. 68239–43–0 ...... 2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, 2-ethylhexyl ester, polymer with a-fluoro-w-[2-[(2-methyl-1-oxo-2-propen-1- 1/1/20 yl)oxy]ethyl]poly(difluoromethylene), 2-hydroxyethyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate and N-(hydroxymethyl)-2- propenamide. 68259–07–4 ...... 1-Heptanesulfonic acid, 1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,7-pentadecafluoro-, ammonium salt ...... 1/1/20 68259–08–5 ...... 1-Hexanesulfonic acid, 1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,6-tridecafluoro-, ammonium salt ...... 1/1/20 68259–09–6 ...... 1-Pentanesulfonic acid, 1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,5-undecafluoro-, ammonium salt ...... 1/1/20 68259–38–1 ...... Poly[oxy(methyl-1,2-ethanediyl)], a-[2-[ethyl[(tridecafluorohexyl)sulfonyl]amino]ethyl]-w-hydroxy- ...... 1/1/20 68259–39–2 ...... Poly[oxy(methyl-1,2-ethanediyl)], a-[2-[ethyl[(pentadecafluoroheptyl)sulfonyl]amino]ethyl]-w-hydroxy- ...... 1/1/20 68298–62–4 ...... 2-Propenoic acid, 2-[butyl[(heptadecafluorooctyl)sulfonyl]amino]ethyl ester, telomer with 2- 1/1/20 [butyl[(pentadecafluoroheptyl)sulfonyl]amino]ethyl 2-propenoate, methyloxirane polymer with oxirane di-2- propenoate, methyloxirane polymer with oxirane mono-2-propenoate and 1-octanethiol. 68298–80–6 ...... Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), a-[2-[ethyl[(undecafluoropentyl)sulfonyl]amino]ethyl]-w-hydroxy- ...... 1/1/20 68298–81–7 ...... Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), a-[2-[ethyl[(pentadecafluoroheptyl)sulfonyl]amino]ethyl]-w-hydroxy- ...... 1/1/20 68310–17–8 ...... Poly[oxy(methyl-1,2-ethanediyl)], a-[2-[ethyl[(undecafluoropentyl)sulfonyl]amino]ethyl]-w-hydroxy- ...... 1/1/20 68391–08–2 ...... Alcohols, C8–14, g-w-perfluoro ...... 1/1/20 68412–68–0 ...... Phosphonic acid, perfluoro-C6–12-alkyl derivs...... 1/1/20 68412–69–1 ...... Phosphinic acid, bis(perfluoro-C6–12-alkyl) derivs...... 1/1/20

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:36 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM 22JNR1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 37363

TABLE 5 TO PARAGRAPH (e)—Continued

Effective CAS No. Chemical name date

68515–62–8 ...... 1,4-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, dimethyl ester, reaction products with bis(2-hydroxyethyl)terephthalate, ethyl- 1/1/20 ene glycol, a-fluoro-w-(2-hydroxyethyl)poly(difluoromethylene), hexakis(methoxymethyl)melamine and pol- yethylene glycol. 68555–74–8 ...... 1-Pentanesulfonamide, 1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,5-undecafluoro-N-(2-hydroxyethyl)-N-methyl- ...... 1/1/20 68555–75–9 ...... 1-Hexanesulfonamide, 1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,6-tridecafluoro-N-(2-hydroxyethyl)-N-methyl- ...... 1/1/20 68555–76–0 ...... 1-Heptanesulfonamide, 1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,7-pentadecafluoro-N-(2-hydroxyethyl)-N-methyl- ...... 1/1/20 68555–81–7 ...... 1-Propanaminium, N,N,N-trimethyl-3-[[(pentadecafluoroheptyl)sulfonyl]amino]-, chloride ...... 1/1/20 68555–91–9 ...... 2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, 2-[ethyl[(heptadecafluorooctyl)sulfonyl]amino]ethyl ester, polymer with 2- 1/1/20 [ethyl[(nonafluorobutyl)sulfonyl]amino]ethyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate, 2- [ethyl[(pentadecafluoroheptyl)sulfonyl]amino]ethyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate, 2- [ethyl[(tridecafluorohexyl)sulfonyl]amino]ethyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate, 2- [ethyl[(undecafluoropentyl)sulfonyl]amino]ethyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate and octadecyl 2-methyl-2- propenoate. 68758–57–6 ...... 1-Tetradecanesulfonyl chloride, 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,11,11,12,12,13,13,14,14,14- 1/1/20 pentacosafluoro-. 68867–60–7 ...... 2-Propenoic acid, 2-[[(heptadecafluorooctyl)sulfonyl]methylamino]ethyl ester, polymer with 2- 1/1/20 [methyl[(nonafluorobutyl)sulfonyl]amino]ethyl 2-propenoate, 2- [methyl[(pentadecafluoroheptyl)sulfonyl]amino]ethyl 2-propenoate, 2- [methyl[(tridecafluorohexyl)sulfonyl]amino]ethyl 2-propenoate, 2- [methyl[(undecafluoropentyl)sulfonyl]amino]ethyl 2-propenoate and a-(1-oxo-2-propenyl)-w- methoxypoly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl). 68957–55–1 ...... 1-Propanaminium, N,N,N-trimethyl-3-[[(undecafluoropentyl)sulfonyl]amino]-, chloride ...... 1/1/20 68957–57–3 ...... 1-Propanaminium, N,N,N-trimethyl-3-[[(undecafluoropentyl)sulfonyl]amino]-, iodide ...... 1/1/20 68957–58–4 ...... 1-Propanaminium, N,N,N-trimethyl-3-[[(tridecafluorohexyl)sulfonyl]amino]-, iodide ...... 1/1/20 68957–62–0 ...... 1-Heptanesulfonamide, N-ethyl-1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,7-pentadecafluoro- ...... 1/1/20 68958–60–1 ...... Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), a-[2-[ethyl[(pentadecafluoroheptyl)sulfonyl]amino]ethyl]-w-methoxy- ...... 1/1/20 68958–61–2 ...... Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), a-[2-[ethyl[(heptadecafluorooctyl)sulfonyl]amino]ethyl]-w-methoxy- ...... 1/1/20 70225–14–8 ...... 1-Octanesulfonic acid, 1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,8-heptadecafluoro-, compd. with 2,2′-iminobis[ethanol] 1/1/20 (1:1). 70225–15–9 ...... 1-Heptanesulfonic acid, 1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,7-pentadecafluoro-, compd. with 2,2′-iminobis[ethanol] 1/1/20 (1:1). 70225–16–0 ...... 1-Hexanesulfonic acid, 1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,6-tridecafluoro-, compd. with 2,2′-iminobis[ethanol] (1:1) ...... 1/1/20 70225–17–1 ...... 1-Pentanesulfonic acid, 1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,5-undecafluoro-, compd. with 2,2′-iminobis[ethanol] (1:1) ...... 1/1/20 70969–47–0 ...... Thiols, C8–20, g-w-perfluoro, telomers with acrylamide ...... 1/1/20 70983–59–4 ...... Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), a-methyl-w-hydroxy-, 2-hydroxy-3-[(g-w-perfluoro-C6–20-alkyl)thio]propyl ethers ..... 1/1/20 70983–60–7 ...... 1-Propanaminium, 2-hydroxy-N,N,N-trimethyl-, 3-[(g-w-perfluoro-C6–20-alkyl)thio] derivs., chlorides ...... 1/1/20 71608–60–1 ...... Pentanoic acid, 4,4-bis[(g-w-perfluoro-C8–20-alkyl)thio] derivs...... 1/1/20 72623–77–9 ...... Fatty acids, C6–18, perfluoro, ammonium salts ...... 1/1/20 72968–38–8 ...... Fatty acids, C7–13, perfluoro, ammonium salts ...... 1/1/20 74499–44–8 ...... Phosphoric acid, g-w-perfluoro-C8–16-alkyl esters, compds. with diethanolamine ...... 1/1/20 78560–44–8 ...... Silane, trichloro(3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,10-heptadecafluorodecyl)- ...... 1/1/20 80010–37–3 ...... Poly(difluoromethylene), a-fluoro-w-[2-sulphoethyl)- ...... 1/1/20 83048–65–1 ...... Silane, (3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,10-heptadecafluorodecyl)trimethoxy- ...... 1/1/20 95144–12–0 ...... Poly(difluoromethylene), a-fluoro-w-[2-(phosphonooxy)ethyl]-, ammonium salt ...... 1/1/20 97553–95–2 ...... Thiocyanic acid, g-w-perfluoro-C4–20-alkyl esters ...... 1/1/20 97659–47–7 ...... Alkenes, C8–14 a-, d-w-perfluoro ...... 1/1/20 118400–71–8 ..... Disulfides, bis(g-w-perfluoro-C6–20-alkyl) ...... 1/1/20 123171–68–6 ..... Poly(difluoromethylene), a-[2-(acetyloxy)-3-[(carboxymethyl)dimethylammonio]propyl]-w-fluoro-, inner salt ..... 1/1/20 125476–71–3 ..... Silicic acid (H4SiO4), disodium salt, reaction products with chlorotrimethylsilane and 1/1/20 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,10-heptadecafluoro-1-decanol. 135228–60–3 ..... Hexane, 1,6-diisocyanato-, homopolymer, g-w-perfluoro-C6–20-alc.-blocked ...... 1/1/20 142636–88–2 ..... 2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, octadecyl ester, polymer with 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,11,11,12,12,12- 1/1/20 heneicosafluorododecyl 2-propenoate, 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,10-heptadecafluorodecyl 2- propenoate and 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,11,11,12,12,13,13,14,14,14-pentacosafluorotetradecyl 2- propenoate. 143372–54–7 ..... Siloxanes and Silicones, (3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,10-heptadecafluorodecyl)oxy Me, hydroxy Me, Me 1/1/20 octyl, ethers with polyethylene glycol mono-Me ether. 148240–85–1 ..... 1,3-Propanediol, 2,2-bis[[(g-w-perfluoro-C4–10-alkyl)thio]methyl] derivs., phosphates, ammonium salts ...... 1/1/20 148240–87–3 ..... 1,3-Propanediol, 2,2-bis[[(g-w-perfluoro-C6–12-alkyl)thio]methyl] derivs., phosphates, ammonium salts ...... 1/1/20 148240–89–5 ..... 1,3-Propanediol, 2,2-bis[[(g-w-perfluoro-C10–20-alkyl)thio]methyl] derivs., phosphates, ammonium salts ...... 1/1/20 150135–57–2 ..... 2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, 2-(dimethylamino)ethyl ester, polymers with Bu acrylate, g-w-perfluoro-C8–14- 1/1/20 alkyl acrylate and polyethylene glycol monomethacrylate, 2,2′-azobis[2,4-dimethylpentanenitrile]-initiated. 178094–69–4 ..... 1-Octanesulfonamide, N-[3-(dimethyloxidoamino)propyl]-1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,8-heptadecafluoro-, 1/1/20 potassium salt. 178535–23–4 ..... Fatty acids, linseed-oil, g-w-perfluoro-C8–14-alkyl esters ...... 1/1/20 180582–79–0 ..... Sulfonic acids, C6–12-alkane, g-w-perfluoro, ammonium salts ...... 1/1/20 182176–52–9 ..... Ethaneperoxoic acid, reaction products with 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,10-heptadecafluorodecyl 1/1/20 thiocyanate and 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,8-tridecafluorooctyl thiocyanate. 196316–34–4 ..... 2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, 2-(dimethylamino)ethyl ester, polymers with g-w-perfluoro-C10–16-alkyl acrylate 1/1/20 and vinyl acetate, acetates.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:36 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM 22JNR1 37364 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 5 TO PARAGRAPH (e)—Continued

Effective CAS No. Chemical name date

200513–42–4 ..... 2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, polymer with butyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate, 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,10- 1/1/20 heptadecafluorodecyl 2-propenoate, 2-hydroxyethyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate and methyl 2-methyl-2- propenoate. 238420–68–3 ..... Propanedioic acid, mono(g-w-perfluoro-C8–12-alkyl) derivs., di-me esters ...... 1/1/20 238420–80–9 ..... Propanedioic acid, mono(g-w-perfluoro-C8–12-alkyl) derivs., bis[4-(ethenyloxy)butyl] esters ...... 1/1/20 1078142–10–5 ... 1,3-Propanediol, 2,2-bis[[(g-w-perfluoro-C6–12-alkyl)thio]methyl] derivs., polymers with 2,2-bis[[(g-w- 1/1/20 perfluoro-C10–20-alkyl)thio]methyl]-1,3-propanediol, 1,6-diisocyanato-2,2,4(or 2,4,4)-trimethylhexane, 2- heptyl-3,4-bis(9-isocyanatononyl)-1-pentylcyclohexane and 2,2′-(methylimino)bis[ethanol]. 1078712–88–5 ... Thiols, C4–20, g-w-perfluoro, telomers with acrylamide and acrylic acid, sodium salts ...... 1/1/20 1078715–61–3 ... 1-Propanaminium, 3-amino-N-(carboxymethyl)-N,N-dimethyl-, N-[2-[(g-w-perfluoro-C4–20-alkyl)thio]acetyl] 1/1/20 derivs., inner salts.

[FR Doc. 2020–10990 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] I. Administrative Matters level the playing field between domestic BILLING CODE 6560–50–P A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and foreign licensed space stations by assessing a regulatory fee on commercial 1. As required by the Regulatory space stations licensed by other 1 Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), the administrations (non-U.S. licensed FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS Commission has prepared a Final space stations) with United States Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) COMMISSION market access, among other things. We relating to this Report and Order. The also adjust the FTE allocation for the 47 CFR Part 1 FRFA is located towards the end of this document. international bearer circuit (IBC) category, and we decline to grant a [MD Docket No. 19–105; MD Docket No. 20– B. Final Paperwork Reduction Act of categorically lower regulatory fee for 105; FCC 20–64; FRS 16782] 1995 Analysis VHF stations to account for signal 2. This document does not contain limitations. Assessment and Collection of new or modified information collection Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2020 requirements subject to the Paperwork III. Report and Order Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public 1. In this Report and Order, we level AGENCY: Federal Communications Law 104–13. In addition, therefore, it Commission. the playing field among space stations does not contain any new or modified by assessing a regulatory fee on non- ACTION: Final actions. information collection burden for small U.S. licensed space stations with United business concerns with fewer than 25 States market access and including employees, pursuant to the Small SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal those non-U.S. licensed space stations Communications Commission Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. in the current regulatory fee categories (Commission) acts on several proposals 3506(c)(4). for geostationary (GSO) and non- that will impact FY 2020 regulatory geostationary (NGSO) space stations. We fees. C. Congressional Review Act impose this fee regardless of whether 3. The Commission has determined, the non-U.S. licensed space station DATES: These final actions are effective and the Administrator of the Office of operator obtains the market access July 22, 2020. Information and Regulatory Affairs, through a declaratory ruling or through FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Office of Management and Budget, an earth station applicant as a point of Roland Helvajian, Office of Managing concurs that these rules are non-major communication. We also take the Director at (202) 418–0444. under the Congressional Review Act, 5 related action of adding four FTEs into U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission will the satellite regulatory fee category to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a send a copy of this Report & Order to account for the work that benefits these summary of the Commission’s Report Congress and the Government and Order, FCC 20–64, MD Docket No. new fee payors. We further adjust the Accountability Office pursuant to 5 FTE allocation for the international 19–105, and MD Docket No. 20–105, U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). adopted on May 12, 2019 and released bearer circuit (IBC) category from 6.9 on May 13, 2020. The full text of this II. Introduction FTEs to eight FTEs to reflect direct FTE document is available for public 4. In this Report and Order, we follow work in the International Bureau that inspection and copying during normal through on our proposal in the FY 2019 benefits the fee payors in the IBC business hours in the FCC Reference Report and Order and Further Notice of regulatory fee category. Finally, we Center (Room CY–A257), 445 12th Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) 2 to decline to categorically lower regulatory Street SW, Washington, DC 20554, or by fees for VHF stations to account for 1 See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601– signal limitations. downloading the text from the 612, has been amended by the Small Business Commission’s website at http:// Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_ (SBREFA), Public Law 104–121, Title II, 110 Stat. Business/2017/db0906/FCC-17- 847 (1996). The SBREFA was enacted as Title II of the Contract with America Advancement Act of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 34 FCC Rcd 8199 111A1.pdf. 1996 (CWAAA). (2019) (FY 2019 Report and Order (84 FR 50890 2 Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees (September 26, 2019) and FY 2019 FNPRM (84 FR for Fiscal Year 2019, Report and Order and Further 56734 (October 23, 2019))).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:36 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM 22JNR1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 37365

A. Assessing Regulatory Fees on Non- concluded that the four FTEs working non-U.S. licensed space stations appear U.S. Licensed Space Stations With U.S. on market access petitions or other to benefit from the Commission’s Market Access matters involving non-U.S. licensed regulatory activities in much the same space stations should be removed from manner as U.S. licensed space 2. The Commission currently assesses the regulatory fee assessments for U.S. stations.’’ 13 The Commission noted that regulatory fees on GSO and NGSO space licensed space stations and considered its initial decision in 1999 was premised stations licensed by the Commission but indirect for regulatory fee purposes.8 on the Commission’s understanding at does not assess regulatory fees on non- 3. The issue of assessing regulatory the time that its authority reached only U.S. licensed space stations that have fees on non-U.S. licensed space stations space station ‘‘licensees,’’ i.e., those been granted market access to the with U.S. market access has been raised licensed under Title III. We observed United States.3 The issue of assessing several times since Congress originally that section 9 of Communications Act, regulatory fees on non-U.S. licensed adopted the statutory schedule of as amended by the RAY BAUM’S Act, space stations with U.S. market access 9 regulatory fees originally in 1993. In does not mention ‘‘licensees’’ but only has been raised several times exercising our Congressional mandate to the ‘‘number of units’’ in each payor previously. In the FY 1999 Report and collect regulatory fees each fiscal year, category—and that the ‘‘unit’’ used for Order, the Commission declined to we proceed with careful consideration assessing satellite space station adopt such a fee.4 In 2013 and again in and make changes in our process only regulatory fees is ‘‘per operational 2014, the Commission sought comment after fully developing the record. This station in geostationary orbit’’ or ‘‘per on assessing regulatory fees on non-U.S. may mean, as it did here, that the operational system in non-geostationary licensed space stations with U.S. market Commission considers the adoption of a orbit,’’ units that do not distinguish access,5 but the Commission declined to new fee category or a change in between the government issuing the adopt such a fee at the time because it categories multiple times and only license.14 The Commission also sought might ‘‘raise[ ] significant issues proceeds with making a change when it comment on reallocating four regarding our authority to assess such a develops sufficient basis for making the International Bureau indirect FTEs as fee as well as the policy implications if change. This meticulous approach to direct, if regulatory fees are adopted for other countries decided to follow our making changes moreover serves the 15 6 non-U.S. licensed space stations. example.’’ The following year, the goal of ensuring that our actions in 5. We conclude that we can and Commission observed that excluding assessing regulatory fees are fair, should adopt regulatory fees for non- non-U.S. licensed satellite operators administrable, and sustainable.10 U.S. licensed space stations with U.S. from fees amounted to a subsidy of such 4. In the FY 2019 FNPRM, the market access. On the question of operators by U.S. licensed satellite Commission again sought comment on 7 whether we may assess regulatory fees operators. The Commission thus assessing regulatory fees on non-U.S. on non-U.S. licensed space stations with licensed space stations with U.S. market U.S. market access, we start with the 3 Under the Commission’s rules, a satellite access, noting that the International statutory text. The Act contemplates licensed by an administration other than the United Bureau’s policy, regulatory, States may seek to communicate with satellite earth that we impose fees on regulatees that stations in the United States through a process international, user information, and reflect the ‘‘benefits provided to the called market access. 47 CFR 25.137. Market access enforcement activities all benefit non- payor of the fee by the Commission’s is either requested by the space station operator U.S. licensed space stations that access 16 through a petition for declaratory ruling from the 11 activities.’’ The Act specifically the U.S. market. Non-U.S. licensed contemplates the subset of regulatees Commission that market access by the non-U.S. space stations are monitored to ensure licensed space station is in the public interest, or that must be exempted from regulatory through an application by a U.S. licensed earth that their operators satisfy all conditions fees in a section entitled ‘‘Parties to station to communicate with the non-U.S. licensed placed on their grant of U.S. market which fees are not applicable.’’ 17 space station. 47 CFR 25.137(a). In either case, the access, including space station Commission does not license the space station, but the request for U.S. market access requires the implementation milestones and 13 Id. at 8213, paragraph 64. submission and review of the same legal and operational requirements, and are 14 Id. technical information for the non-U.S. licensed subject to enforcement action if the 15 Id. at 8214, paragraph 66. space station as would be required in a license conditions are not met.12 The 16 47 U.S.C. 159(d). application for that space station. 47 CFR 25.137(b). 17 The statute exempts governmental and 4 Commission specifically sought Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees nonprofit entities, amateur radio operators, and for Fiscal Year 1999, Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd comment on whether ‘‘we should or must assess regulatory fees on non-U.S. noncommercial radio and television stations are 9868, 9883, paragraph 39 (1999) (79 FR 37982, exempt from regulatory fees under section 9(e)(1). paragraphs 53–56 (July 3, 2014) (FY 1999 Report licensed space stations serving the 47 U.S.C. 159(e)(1); 47 CFR 1.1162. Moreover, we and Order). United States under section 9, given that note that the exemption for noncommercial radio ad 5 Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees television stations, which Congress added to the for Fiscal Year 2014, Notice of Proposed statute in the RAY BAUM’s Act, was a codification Rulemaking, Second Further Notice of Proposed paragraphs 24–26 (September 17, 2015)) (FY 2015 Report and Order). of an exemption that the Commission had Rulemaking, and Order, 29 FCC Rcd 6417, 6433– previously established in its rules. See 47 CFR 8 FY 2015 Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 34, paragraphs 47–50 (2014) (79 FR 37982, 1.1162(e) (1994); also compare current section 9(e) 10278, paragraph 24. paragraphs 53–56 (July 3, 2014)) (FY 2014 NPRM); with the now-deleted section 9(h). The Commission 9 Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Section 6002(a) of the Omnibus Budget adopted the exemption based on its interpretation Fiscal Year 2013, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Reconciliation Act of 1993 (hereinafter, ‘‘1993 of the legislative history and Congressional and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 28 Budget Act’’). See Public Law 103–66, Title VI, direction. See Implementation of Section 9 of the FCC Rcd 7790, 7809–810, paragraphs 47–49 (2013) 6002(a), 107 Stat. 397 (approved August 10, 1993). Communications Act, Notice of Proposed (78 FR 34612, paragraphs 53–55 (June 10, 2013)) Congress made subsequent minor amendments to Rulemaking, 9 FCC Rcd 6957 at paragraphs 18 (FY 2013 NPRM). the schedule. through 22 (59 FR 12570 (March 17, 1994)) 6 Assessment and Collection for Regulatory Fees 10 See FY 2012 NPRM at 8464–65, paragraphs 14– (explaining noncommercial broadcast exemption for Fiscal Year 2014, Report and Order and Further 16 (77 FR 29275 (May 17, 2012)). The concept of based on legislative history and wording of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 29 FCC Rcd at administrability includes the difficulty in collecting statute) (1994); Implementation of Section 9 of the 10781, paragraph 34 (79 FR 54190 (September 11, regulatory fees under a system that could have Communications Act, Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd. 2014)) (FY 2014 Report and Order). unpredictable dramatic shifts in assessed fees in 533 at paragraphs 13, 20–21 (59 FR 30984 (June 16, 7 Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees certain categories from year to year. 1994)) (1994). In addition, Congress also codified in for Fiscal Year 2015, Report and Order and Further 11 FY 2019 Report and Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 8212, the RAY BAUM’s Act the Commission’s de minimis Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 30 FCC Rcd at paragraph 63. rule through the adoption of new section 9(e)(2). 10278, paragraph 24 (2015) (80 FR 55775, 12 Id. Continued

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:36 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM 22JNR1 37366 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

Notably, Congress did not include ‘‘licensees’’ in the amended section 9.22 Committee intends that fees in this operators of non-U.S. licensed space Telesat argues that ‘‘[t]he number of category be assessed on operators of stations with U.S. market access in that ‘units’ says nothing about which entities U.S. facilities, consistent with FCC list, and thus did not require the are subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction. Therefore, these fees will Commission to exempt them from an regulatory fee authority in the first apply only to space stations directly assessment of regulatory fees. Moreover, instance.’’ 23 Inmarsat contends that licensed by the Commission under Title the Commission’s authority to waive ‘‘the plain language of RAY BAUM’S III of the Communications Act. Fees will regulatory fees is limited to specific Act is not directed to the entities from not be applied to space stations instances and the Commission has which the Commission may collect fees, operated by international organizations consistently rejected consideration of but the manner in which the subject to the International waiving the regulatory fee for classes of Commission may adjust fees.’’ 24 Such Organizations Immunities Act, 22 U.S.C. regulatees.18 Given the framework arguments, however, are a double-edged Section 288 et seq.’’ 28 where the Commission has a mandate to sword because the word ‘‘licensees’’ in 10. To understand these committee collect fees from its regulatees, coupled that sentence was the only textual hook reports, it is helpful to recognize that in with a limited list of exempt entities (under prior law) that such advocates 1991 there was a very different and narrow waiver authority, nothing in had for arguing that the Commission’s marketplace and regulatory the text of the statute supports authority was limited to assessing fees environment than now exists in 2020. In maintaining a blanket exception from on licensees. And so, although we tend 1991, U.S. licensed space stations regulatory fees for non-U.S. licensed to agree that this change does not imply operated as either domestic satellites space stations granted market access. a change in who could be assessed, we (domsats) 29 or international systems 6. U.S. licensed operators agree, also find that the use of the word (separate satellite systems).30 Satellite arguing that we have the authority to ‘‘licensee’’ did not imply that only services in the United States, however, impose regulatory fees on non-U.S. licensees could be assessed. In other were mainly provided by INTELSAT licensed space station operators with words, whether Congress intended to and INMARSAT, which were treaty- market access because section 9 expand the reach of regulatory fees with based international governmental provides that the purpose of regulatory this language is irrelevant. The question organizations. Both were the product of fees is to recover the costs of the instead remains whether Congress a unique set of initiatives undertaken by Commission’s activities taking ‘‘into precluded us from imposing regulatory the United States and other countries to account factors that are reasonably fees on non-U.S. licensed space stations develop the global communications related to the benefits provided to the that clearly benefit from market access satellite systems. As a result, they both payor of the fee by the Commission’s to the United States and the activities of benefited from a framework of activities.’’ 19 Commenters contend that the Commission—and nothing in the protections based in statute,31 treaty, the use of the term ‘‘number of units’’ language of the Act suggests Congress in the amended section 9(c)(1)(A), intended to preclude such regulatees 28 House and Senate Reports, Committee on instead of ‘‘licensee,’’ broadens the from the ambit of regulatory fees. Energy and Commerce, 102 H. Rpt. 207, at 33 (Sept. 17, 1991). The language of the 1991 House and language of the statute so that it appears 8. Absent any textual hook, Senate Report was incorporated by reference in the to be applicable to both U.S. licensed commenters turn to the legislative Conference Report accompanying the 1993 Budget and non-U.S. licensed space stations.20 history of section 9 25 and argue that the Reconciliation Act, which included the regulatory SpaceX contends that the Commission Commission has taken this position fee program. See Conference Report H. Rept. No. 26 213, 103d Cong., 1st Sess. 499 (1993); see also FY ‘‘must consider increases and decreases previously. Indeed, in the FY 1999 1995 Report and Order at 13550. The 1991 language only in the ‘number of units’ of Report and Order, the Commission related to a comparable bill that passed the House operational GSO satellites and NGSO based its conclusion on legislative in 1991 but was not passed into law. See PanAmSat systems regardless of licensing history from 1991.27 We find that it is Corp. v. FCC, 198 F.3d 890, 895 (D.C. Cir. 1999). 21 The Conference Report accompanying the 1993 administration.’’ Based on the plain appropriate to re-evaluate this Budget Reconciliation Act did not provide any language of statute—and the absence of conclusion at this time. statement on space station regulatory fees beyond any express limitation that we impose 9. The legislative history referred to in incorporating by reference the language from 1991. regulatory fees only on ‘‘licensees’’ or the FY 1999 Report and Order and the 29 Domestic Communications Satellite Facilities, that we exempt non-U.S. licensed space FY 1995 Report and Order is found in 22 FCC 2d 86 (1970). The Commission’s the House and Senate Reports, Transborder Policy did permit the use of domsats stations with U.S. market access, we for certain international services based on criteria conclude that there is no statutory bar Committee on Energy and Commerce, set forth in a letter dated July 23, 1981 from then to adopting a new regulatory fee for 102 H. Rpt. 207, September 17, 1991, in Under Secretary of State James L. Buckley to then non-U.S. licensed space stations with which the Committee stated: ‘‘The FCC Chairman Mark Fowler (Buckley Letter). The Buckley Letter stated that domsats could be used for U.S. market access. public international telecommunications with 22 7. We dismiss the arguments of some OneWeb Comments at 4–7; Telesat Canada nearby countries where: (1) INTELSAT could not commenters that focus on whether (Telesat) Comments at 3–4 & Reply Comments at 9– provide the service; or (2) it would be clearly 10; Myriota Comments at 5–6; Eutelsat Comments uneconomical or impractical to provide the planned Congress intended to expand our at 5; Kepler Communications (Kepler) Reply authority by removing the word service over the INTELSAT system. See Comments at 2–3; Inmarsat Reply Comments at 2– Transborder Satellite Video Services, 88 FCC2d 258 3. (1981); Satellite Business Systems, 88 FCC2d 195 See FY 2019 Report and Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 23 Telesat Comments at 10. (1981). 8206–07, paragraphs 46 through 47. 24 Inmarsat Reply Comments at 3. 30 Establishment of Satellite Systems Providing 18 47 CFR 1.1166. 25 Telesat Comments at 2; Eutelsat Comments at International Communications, 101 FCC2d 1046 19 U.S. Satellite Licensees Comments at 8 (quoting 4–5; Inmarsat Reply Comments at 2–3. (1985), recon. grtd, 61 R.R. 2d 649 (1986), further 47 U.S.C. 159(d)). These joint commenters are 26 FY 1999 Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 9883, recon. grtd 1 FCC Rcd 439 (1986). The term EchoStar Satellite Services, LLC (EchoStar), Hughes paragraph 39; Assessment and Collection of ‘‘separate satellite system’’ refers to U.S. licensed Network Systems, LLC (Hughes), Intelsat License Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 1995, Report and international systems that are owned and operated LLC (Intelsat), and Space Exploration Technologies Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13512, 13550, paragraph 110 separately from the INTELSAT global satellite Corp. (SpaceX). (1995) (60 FR 34004, paragraphs 16–18 (June 29, system. 20 U.S. Satellite Licensees Comments at 8–9; 1995)) (FY 1995 Report and Order). 31 The Communications Satellite Act of 1962 SpaceX Comments at 4–7; SpaceX Reply Comments 27 FY 1999 Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 9883, declared it U.S. policy to join with other countries at 6. paragraph 39; FY 1995 Report and Order, 10 FCC to create a commercial, global communications 21 SpaceX Comments at 5. Rcd at 13550, paragraph 110. satellite system. Public Law 87–624, 87th Cong., 2d

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:36 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM 22JNR1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 37367

and Commission policy that protected 12. Today, there are many commercial legislative history 41 purportedly and preserved the status of each non-U.S. licensed satellite companies limiting regulatory fees to U.S. licensed international governmental offering service in the United States. satellites is no longer relevant because organization. The two International Government in stating that ‘‘[f]ees will not be applied 11. In this context, the phrase ‘‘space Organizations operating satellites at that to space stations operated by stations operated by international time—INTELSAT and INMARSAT—are international organizations’’ it was not organizations subject to the no longer International Governmental exempting from regulatory fees International Organizations Immunities Organizations but instead are commercial non-U.S. licensed satellites Act, 22 U.S.C. Section 288 et seq.’’ used commercial enterprises. INTELSAT with general U.S. market access, which in the 1991 legislative history referred to became a private company in 2001, did not exist at that time, but two INTELSAT and INMARSAT, which at Intelsat, Ltd., after 37 years as an International Governmental that time were international International Governmental Organizations that no longer exist. In governmental organizations formed as a Organization.35 Intelsat’s corporate other words, we find that the legislative result of international treaties and with headquarters are in Luxembourg and the history of the Act poses no bar to explicit support by the United States United States, and it currently has a assessing regulatory fees on non-U.S. through statutory and regulatory fleet of more than 50 satellites.36 licensed space stations with U.S. market mechanisms.32 This conclusion is borne INMARSAT, now Inmarsat, Inc., is access. Operators of non-U.S. licensed out by the focus in the same legislative headquartered in London, England, has space stations contend that Congress did history on licenses issued directly by offices in over 40 countries, and owns in fact contemplate certain the FCC (as opposed to indirect and operates 13 satellites.37 Other circumstances in which non-US regulation of provision of INTELSAT commercial non-U.S. licensed satellite licensed space stations could be used to and INMARSAT services through companies include Eutelsat provide service in the United States.42 licenses issued to COMSAT) and on the Communications SA, a public But at that time, Congress could not International Organization Immunities corporation, which has 38 satellites, is have been contemplating non-U.S. Act, which provides certain exemptions, headquartered in France,38 and has licensed space stations that provide immunities, and privileges to satellites licensed by France and other commercial service in the United States international organizations and their countries, including the United on an ongoing, unrestricted basis under employees, such as exemption from States; 39 and Telesat, a private the same regulatory framework as their custom duties and internal-revenue Canadian satellite company, with 16 U.S. licensed counterparts.43 The taxes,33 and which applied to both satellites.40 These companies, and circumstances that the operators cite INTELSAT and INMARSAT as others, have U.S. market access and consisted of very limited provision of international governmental compete with the U.S. licensed satellite service in the U.S. through non-U.S. organizations. Further, it was not until companies such as commenters licensed space stations upon a showing 1997 that the Commission adopted a EchoStar Satellite Services (EchoStar) that existing U.S. domestic satellite formal process for granting market and Space Exploration Technologies capacity was inadequate to satisfy access to non-U.S. licensed space (SpaceX). We find that the 1991 specific service requirements.44 Such stations.34 case-by-case approval of use of a non- satellite markets to foreign systems licensed by U.S. licensed satellite on a bilateral, Sess. (Aug. 31, 1962), 76 Stat. 419. Similarly, the other WTO member countries. Fourth Protocol to government-to-government basis to International Maritime Satellite the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) provide limited services was much more Telecommunications Act of 1978 declared it U.S. (April 30, 1996), 36 I.L.M. 336 (1997) (entered into policy to provide for U.S. participation in force Jan. 1, 1998). The Commission therefore rare, and of a very different nature, than INMARSAT in order to develop a global maritime adopted procedures to give satellite systems the regulations that the Commission satellite system that will meet the maritime licensed by other countries access to the U.S. adopted years later to permit U.S. commercial and safety needs of the United States market. Amendment of the Commission’s Regulatory Policies to Allow Non–U.S. Licensed market access by non-U.S. licensed and foreign countries. Public Law 95–564, 92 Stat. 45 2392 (1978). The statutes provided that COMSAT Space Stations to Provide Domestic and space stations. would be the U.S. signatory to both INTELSAT and International Satellite Service in the United States, INMARSAT. COMSAT, itself, had its own unique Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 24094 (1997) (62 FR 41 SpaceX observes that this legislative history is status under treaties. All three entities were 64167 (December 4, 1997)) (DISCO II). Prior to the nearly 30 years old and ‘‘extremely dated.’’ SpaceX privatized by 2000/2001 in accordance with the adoption of DISCO II, the Commission allowed very Reply Comments at 6–7. requirements of the ORBIT Act. For a review of the limited provision of service in the U.S. through 42 Letter from Joseph A. Godles, Attorney for privatization process for these entities, refer to the non-U.S. licensed space stations only upon a Telesat Canada, et al., to Marlene H. Dortch, FCC’s multiple ORBIT Act reports. See, e.g., FCC showing that existing U.S. domestic satellite Secretary, FCC (filed April 22, 2020) (Godles April Report to Congress as Required by the ORBIT Act, capacity was inadequate to satisfy specific service 22 Ex Parte). requirements. Letter from Bertram Rein, Deputy 15 FCC Rcd 11288 (2000); FCC Report to Congress 43 See DISCO II, 12 FCC Rcd at 24098, paragraph Assistant Secretary of Bureau of Economic and as Required by the ORBIT Act, 16 FCC Rcd 12810 7 (stating that ‘‘[a]s required by Title III of the Business Affairs, U.S. Department of State, to (2001). Communications Act of 1934, as amended Kenneth Williamson, Minister of Embassy of 32 Communications Satellite Corp. v. FCC, 836 (Communications Act), we will examine all Canada (Nov. 7, 1972). See also Letter from Thomas F.2d 623 (1988) (providing a helpful description of requests to determine whether grant of authority is Tycz, Chief, Satellite and Radiocommunication the statutory and treaty-based genesis of INTELSAT, consistent with the public interest, convenience Division, F.C.C. International Bureau, to Teresa and the complicated regulatory framework whereby and necessity.’’ See also DISCO II, 12 FCC Rcd at Baer, Attorney, Latham & Watkins (Feb. 13, 1996) it provided international services to the U.S. 24098, paragraph 7, n.7 (citing 47 U.S.C. 301, et (confirming verbal grant of special temporary domestic market); Satellites that Form a Global seq.). authority for Hughes Communications Galaxy, Inc. Communications System in Geostationary Orbit, 44 to lease capacity from a Brazilian satellite to See footnote [49], supra. Memorandum Opinion, Order and Authorization, 45 In 1993, the Commission considered and 15 FCC Rcd 15460, recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd provide domestic U.S. service). 35 See http://www.intelsat.com/about-us/history/. rejected the adoption of the type of market access 25234 (2000), further proceedings, 16 FCC Rcd provisions that the Commission would adopt 36 See http://www.intelsat.com/global-network/ 12280 (2001). As such, they had the unique several years later. Amendment of the satellites/overview/. circumstance that their global satellite systems were Commission’s Rules to Establish Rules & Policies 37 not licensed by any national licensing authority. See https://www.inmarsat.com/about-us/our- Pertaining to A Non-Voice, Non-Geostationary 33 22 U.S.C. 288a (Privileges, exemptions, and technology/our-satellites/. Mobile-Satellite Serv., Report and Order, 8 FCC immunities of international organizations). 38 See https://www.eutelsat.com/en/group/our- Rcd. 8450, 8454 paragraph 13 (1993) (58 FR 68053 34 The adoption by the United States in 1997 of history.html. (December 23, 1993)) (adopting rules clarifying ‘‘the the WTO Agreement on Basic Telecommunications 39 Eutelsat Comments at 1. basic tenets that [non-voice, non-geostationary orbit Services obligated the United States to open its 40 See https://www.telesat.com/services. Continued

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:36 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM 22JNR1 37368 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

13. Non-U.S. licensed space station 14. On the policy question of whether contends that non-U.S. licensed operators contend that Congressional we should assess regulatory fees on non- satellites do not benefit from FCC silence subsequent to the Commission’s U.S. licensed space stations with U.S. regulatory activities because oversight of statements regarding the legislative market access, we start with the fact that their operations is accomplished by the history of section 9 presumes Congress’s these non-U.S. licensed space stations country that licenses the satellite, not by approval of the Commission’s prior benefit from the Commission’s the FCC.55 interpretation and argue that the regulatory activities in much the same 16. We find that the Commission ‘‘acquiescence doctrine’’ supports their manner as U.S. licensees.50 Operators of devotes significant resources to position.46 While this doctrine U.S. licensed space stations argue that processing the growing number of recognizes that Congressional silence non-U.S. licensed operators consume, market access petitions of non-U.S. may have some bearing on the and benefit from, Commission resources licensed satellites and that they benefit interpretation of a statute, it neither just as do U.S. licensees.51 They from much of the same oversight and requires that an agency’s interpretation estimate that nearly half of all satellite regulation by the Commission as the be cemented in stone if not overtaken by space station authorizations granted U.S. licensed satellites. For example, subsequent legislative action, nor between 2014 and 2018 (30 of 62) were processing a petition for market access forecloses an agency from changing its filed by non-U.S. operators 52 and that requires evaluation of the same legal interpretation of a statute and how the non-U.S. operators participate actively and technical information as required of legislative history should inform such in Commission rulemaking proceedings U.S. licensed applicants. The operators interpretation,47 no matter how and benefit from Commission of non-U.S. licensed space stations also longstanding, particularly when the monitoring and enforcement benefit from the Commission’s oversight prior interpretation is based on error.48 activities.53 efforts regarding all space and earth Here we acknowledge a change in our 15. Certain non-U.S. licensed space station operations in the U.S. market, interpretation of the legislative history stations argue that they should not since enforcement of Commission rules underlying section 9 based on a fuller contribute regulatory fees because the and policies in connection with all and more accurate analysis of the Commission incurs no costs regulating operators—whether licensed by the context of the legislative history at the them and that non-U.S. licensed space United States or otherwise—provides a time it was adopted.49 stations do not benefit from the FCC’s fair and safe environment for all regulatory activities, including participants in the U.S. marketplace. satellite service] transceivers operating in the international coordination and Likewise, the Commission’s United States must communicate with or through enforcement activities.54 Inmarsat adjudication, rulemaking, and U.S. authorized space stations only, and that such international coordination efforts communications must be authorized as well by the space station licensee or an authorized vendor’’ and non-U.S. licensed space station operators state that benefit all U.S. marketplace participants explicitly rejecting a proposal that the FCC ‘‘devise ‘‘[n]othing in Ray Baum’s Act, or in the associated by evaluating and minimizing the risks a rule that will allow domestically authorized user legislative history, evidences any intent to alter the of radiofrequency interference, transceivers to access foreign-licensed [non-voice, FCC’s understanding that its authority to impose increasing the number of participants in non-geostationary orbit satellite service] space regulatory fees on space stations is limited to those station systems’’ stating that ‘‘[w]e do not believe licensed pursuant to Title III,’’ Godles April 22 Ex the U.S. satellite market, opening up that this type of arrangement should be dealt with Parte at 4, it could equally be said that Congress additional frequency bands for use by by regulation.’’) (emphasis added). demonstrated no intent to endorse our prior satellite services, providing a level and 46 See Godles April. 22 Ex Parte at 3. interpretation or reiterate some intent to exempt non-U.S. licensed space stations in the legislative uniform regime for mitigating the 47 Courts do not uniformly embrace the danger of orbital debris, and proposition that Congressional silence denotes history of the RAY BAUM’S Act. acquiescence. See Chisholm v. FCC, 538 F.2d 349, 50 FY 2019 Report and Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 8213, streamlining Commission rules that 361 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (‘‘We begin by noting that paragraph 64. apply to all providers of satellite attributing legal significance to Congressional 51 See, e.g., U.S. Satellite Licensees Comments at services in the United States, whether inaction is a dangerous business’’), citing Power 1–2. 52 through U.S. licensed or non-U.S. Reactor Development Co. v. International Union of In addition, they note that there are more 56 Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL–CIO, market access requests than new satellite licensed space stations. The active 367 U.S. 396, 408–10 (1961). The Supreme Court applications; in 2019 there were nine new market has said that Congressional failure to repudiate access requests, but only six new U.S. satellite Comments at 4 (‘‘[Non-U.S. licensed space stations] particular decisions ‘‘frequently betokens license applications. U.S. Satellite Licensees Reply do not receive the benefit of United States-led unawareness, preoccupation, or paralysis’’ rather Comments at 2–3. coordination negotiations, relying instead on the than conscious choice, Zuber v. Allen, 396 U.S. 168, 53 U.S. Satellite Licensees Reply Comments at 2. country of licensure.’’). 185–86 n.21 (1969) and ‘‘affords the most dubious Furthermore, SpaceX highlights that Eutelsat and 55 Inmarsat Reply Comments at 4 (‘‘Spacecraft foundation for drawing positive inferences,’’ United Telesat are also involved in a proceeding to maintenance, end-of-life, and orbital debris States v. Price, 361 U.S. 304, 310–11 (1960) (Harlan, repurpose C-band satellite spectrum in which these mitigation are supervised not by the United States, J.). See also Jones v. Liberty Glass Co., 332 U.S. 524, non-U.S. operators and others have argued that they but by the administration issuing the license.’’) 533 (1947) (‘‘The doctrine of legislative may not be denied access to portions of the 3700– 56 FY 2019 Report and Order, 34 FCC Rcd at acquiescence is at best only an auxiliary tool for use 4200 GHz band in the United States without 8212–13, paragraph 63 (citing Mitigation of Orbital in interpreting ambiguous statutory provisions’’). significant compensation. SpaceX Reply Comments Debris in the New Space Age, IB Docket No. 18– 48 Chisholm v. FCC, 538 F.2d 349, 364 (D.C. Cir. at 2–3. 313, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order on 1976) (‘‘We note initially that an administrative 54 Eutelsat Comments at 2–3 (‘‘Foreign-licensed Reconsideration, 33 FCC Rcd 11352 (2018) (84 FR agency is permitted to change its interpretation of satellite operators do not receive a Commission 4742 (February 19, 2019)) (Orbital Debris NPRM); a statute, especially where the prior interpretation license or the benefits that come with it.’’); Myriota Amendment of Parts 2 and 25 of the Commission’s is based on error, no matter how longstanding.’’) Comments at 3 (‘‘Foreign-licensed satellite system Rules to Facilitate the Use of Earth Stations in (internal citations omitted). Similarly, an agency operators do not receive an FCC space station Motion Communicating with Non-Geostationary may change its policies and standards, so long as license or the significant benefits associated with it. Orbit Space Stations in Frequency Bands Allocated it provides a reasoned explanation for change. See, . . .’’); Eutelsat Comments at 3 (‘‘While to the Fixed-Satellite Service, IB Docket No. 18–315, e.g., FCC vs. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. [compliance] oversight is ongoing, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 33 FCC Rcd 11416 502, 514–15 (2009); National Labor Relations Board administrative burden is both minimal and (2018) (83 FR 67180 (December 28, 2018)) (ESIM v. CNN America, Inc., 865 F.3d 740, 751 (D.C. Cir. conducted for the benefit of United States space and NPRM); Amendment of the Commission’s Policies 2017). earth station licensees.’’); Myriota Comments at 3 and Rules for Processing Applications in the Direct 49 We also note that when Congress recently re- (‘‘Although [compliance] oversight is ongoing, Broadcast Satellite Service, IB Docket No. 06–160, visited section 9 as part of the RAY BAUM’S Act, however, the actual administrative cost of such Second Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 33 FCC it did not elect to amend the list of entities monitoring is minimal and imposing a recurring Rcd 11303 (2018) 84 FR 2126 (February 6, 2019); exempted from assessment of regulatory fees to regulatory fee to recover these de minimis costs Amendment of Parts 2 and 25 of the Commission’s include non-U.S. licensed space stations. Although would not be appropriate.’’); Inmarsat Reply Rules to Facilitate the Use of Earth Stations in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:36 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM 22JNR1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 37369

participation of operators of non-U.S. imposing regulatory fees will negatively decision.67 We find that our actions are licensed space stations in these impact U.S. consumers because smaller consistent with the DISCO II decision adjudications and rulemakings—either foreign operators will bypass the U.S. because we are treating non-U.S. individually or through involvement in market and the increased costs will be licensed space station operators the industry trade organizations— passed on to U.S. consumers.62 same as U.S. licensed space station demonstrates that they recognize Imposing such a fee, they argue, would operators in assessing regulatory fees. benefits from Commission action to jeopardize the United States’ position in 20. Non-U.S. licensed space station their operations within the U.S. market, the global satellite market and other operators argue that it would be unfair since they would not participate in such jurisdictions could also now impose now to assess regulatory fees on non- proceedings if they held no possibility similar charges on U.S. licensed U.S. licensed space stations accessing of benefit to them.57 Thus, the satellites.63 the U.S. market because they have relied significant benefits to non-U.S. licensed 18. We agree with the comments of on a prior finding that regulatory fees satellites with market access support U.S. licensed space station operators— for space stations were to be assessed on including them in regulatory fees. who express more concern about fee only those stations licensed by the 17. In the FY 2019 FNPRM, we also inequity in the United States than the United States and that they have made sought comment on whether assessing prospect of new or increased fees in business plans based on this long- non-U.S. licensed space stations would other markets—that entities receiving standing prior finding.68 Licensees have promote regulatory parity among space U.S. market access, through either a no vested right to an unchanged station operators.58 U.S. licensees argue space station or earth station regulatory framework.69 This is as true that the current fee system is inequitable authorization, should be subject to the for market access grantees as it is for and encourages companies to simply same satellite regulatory fees as those licensees, since both are subject to the move overseas to evade fees and assessed on U.S. licensed space station Commission’s regulatory framework oversight.59 Non-U.S. licensed satellite systems.64 Indeed, we are not convinced while providing service in the United operators respond by contending that by the parade of horribles cited by non- States. Moreover, each year the imposing regulatory fees on non-U.S. U.S. licensed satellite operators as they Commission engages in a proceeding licensed satellites would place those offer insufficient evidence to support seeking comment on its proposed fees entities at a competitive disadvantage.60 their claims. for the year and frequently makes Non-U.S. licensed satellite operators are 19. Non-U.S. licensed satellite adjustments to the regulatory scheme to already paying regulatory fees in their operators also argue that an assessment reflect changes in fact and law. For the own jurisdictions and, they assert, our of fees conflicts with international trade reasons stated herein, we have regulatory fees would be a duplicative agreements under the WTO Agreement concluded that non-U.S. licensed space fee.61 Operators of non-U.S. licensed on Basic Telecommunications stations accessing the U.S. market space stations also contend that Services.65 Eutelsat and Telesat contend should be subject to assessment of that under the Commission’s DISCO II regulatory fees under section 9.70 Motion Communicating with Geostationary Orbit decision, the Commission rejected the 21. Including non-U.S. licensed space Space Stations in Frequency Bands Allocated to the idea of issuing a separate license for stations in the Commission’s assessment Fixed Satellite Service, IB Docket No 17–95, Report 66 and Order and Further Notice of Proposed non-U.S. licensed space stations. In of regulatory fees is important to Rulemaking, 32 FCC Rcd 9327 (2018) (84 FR 53630 response, SpaceX asserts that spreading fulfilling Congress’s mandate that the (October 8, 2019) and 84 FR 5654 (February 22, the regulatory costs evenly across U.S. Commission recover the costs associated 2019)); Further Streamlining Part 25 Rules with its activities, since market access Governing Satellite Services, IB Docket No. 18–314, and non-U.S. licensed space station Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 33 FCC Rcd 11502 operators instead of imposing the entire by non-U.S. licensed space stations has (2018) (84 FR 638 (January 31, 2019)) (Part 25 cost on U.S. space station licensees is become a significant portion of the Further Streamlining NPRM); Streamlining fully consistent with the DISCO II satellite services regulated by the Licensing Procedures for Small Satellites, IB Docket Commission and exemption of non-U.S. No. 18–86, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 33 FCC Rcd 4152 (2018) (83 FR 24064 (May 24, 2018)); 62 OneWeb Comments at 7–8 & Reply Comments licensed space stations places the Update to Parts 2 and 25 Concerning Non- at 6; Myriota Comments at 3–4; Kepler Reply burden of regulatory fees—which are Geostationary, Fixed-Satellite Service Systems and Comments at 4–5; Telesat Reply Comments at 4. designed to defray the costs of Related Matters, IB Docket No. 16–408, Report and 63 OneWeb Comments at 7–8 & Reply Comments Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, at 4–5; Myriota Comments at 3–4; Eutelsat Commission regulatory activities (which 32 FCC Rcd 7809 (2017) (82 FR 59972 (December Comments at 6–8; Telesat Reply Comments at 5; we undertake to serve the overall 18, 2017) and 82 FR 52869 (November 15, 2017)); Inmarsat Reply Comments at 4; Kepler Reply interests of the public, including all Amendment of Parts 2 and 25 of the Commission’s Comments at 4. parties engaged in the communications Rules to Facilitate the Use of Earth Stations in 64 U.S. Satellite Licensees Comments at 6–7. marketplace)—solely on the shoulders Motion Communicating with Geostationary Orbit SpaceX proposes that earth station operators that Space Stations in Frequency Bands Allocated to the received U.S. market access prior to August 27, Fixed-Satellite Service, IB Docket No. 17–95, Notice 2019, the release date of the FY 2019 Report and 67 SpaceX Reply Comments at 8–9. of Proposed Rulemaking, 32 FCC Rcd 4239 (2017) Order, would be exempt from such regulatory fees 68 Godles April 22 Ex Parte at 3. (82 FR 27652 (June 16, 2017)). under this proposal. SpaceX Comments at 2–3. 69 Improving Public Safety Communications in 57 Market access recipients filed comments in 65 Telesat Comments at 12 & Reply Comments at the 800 Mhz Band, 21 FCC Rcd 678, 682 (2006); nearly all of the Commission’s recent satellite 5; Kepler Reply Comments at 3; Inmarsat Reply Motient Communications Inc., 19 FCC Rcd 13086, rulemaking proceedings. See, e.g., Comments of Comments at 4–5. AT&T disagrees that this 13093 (2004), citing Amendment of Part 1 of WorldVu Satellites Limited d/b/a OneWeb, SES assessment of fees would be precluded by Commission’s Rules—Competitive Bidding Americom and Eutelsat in Orbital Debris NPRM, international agreements. AT&T Reply Comments at Procedures, Order on Reconsideration of the Third (filings made Apr. 5, 2019); ESIM NPRM (filings 5–6; OneWeb Reply Comments at 7–8. Report and Order, Fifth Report and Order, and made Feb. 11, 2019) and Part 25 Further 66 Eutelsat Comments at 2, 7, citing DISCO II at Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 15 Streamlining NPRM (filings made Mar. 18, 2019). 24174, paragraph 188; Telesat Reply Comments at FCC Rcd 15293, 15306 paragraph 22 (2000) (65 FR 58 FY 2019 Report and Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 6. OneWeb also argues that our proposal would 52323 (August 29, 2000) and 65 FR 52401 (August 8212–13, paragraph 63. violate DISCO II because it would put non-U.S. 29, 2000)). 59 U.S. Satellite Licensees Comments at 2. licensed satellite operators at a disadvantage. 70 Congress mandates that the Commission 60 WorldVu Satellites Limited d/b/a OneWeb OneWeb Comments at 2. We disagree, as discussed recover as an offsetting collection its fiscal year (OneWeb) Comments at 1–4; Kepler Reply above, because the U.S. licensed satellite operators appropriation and prescribes the mechanism to do Comments at 4. competing against non-U.S. licensed operators, are so. Congress has prescribed that regulatees bear the 61 Eutelsat Comments at 2, 7; Telesat Reply disadvantaged due to the imposition of regulatory FTE burden associated with the Commission’s work Comments at 3–4. fees on the U.S. licensed operators. in respect to a given set of regulatees.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:36 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM 22JNR1 37370 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

of U.S. licensees, either directly or 23. We next address the mechanisms penalties, non-payment may result in indirectly.71 We find that this is not of assessment when non-U.S. satellite removal of the delinquent non-U.S. sustainable, since the ability to gain the operators gain market access through space station as a point of same benefits of Commission activities earth stations. As of October 1, 2019, communication for any associated earth without being assessed regulatory fees there are approximately 25 non-U.S. station authorizations. Non-payment presents an incentive for space station licensed space stations serving the U.S. may also prevent such space station to operators, even U.S.-based companies, market through earth station licensees. obtain future U.S. market access or other to elect to be licensed by a foreign SpaceX proposes creating a new regulatory benefits until such matters administration in order to still have regulatory fee category for earth station are resolved.76 This action eliminates access to the U.S. market, but without authorizations that include a first-time any regulatory arbitrage or gaming being assessed regulatory fees. In market access grant for a satellite system opportunity by eliminating any summary, we conclude that assessing to ‘‘apply the same regulatory fee regulatory fee differences between the same regulatory fees on non-U.S. applicable to non-U.S. licensed systems receiving U.S. market access directly licensed space stations with market granted market access at the space through a petition for declaratory ruling access as we assess on U.S. licensed station level.’’ 72 SpaceX asserts that or indirectly, through an earth station space stations will better reflect the doing so ‘‘would eliminate an license application. benefits received by these operators opportunity for regulatory arbitrage 25. In some cases, non-U.S. licensed through the Commission’s adjudicatory, while ensuring that the Commission’s space stations that do not access earth enforcement, regulatory, and regulatory fee structure equitably covers stations aboard aircraft (ESAA) international coordination activities. satellite systems granted access to the terminals in the United States or its Moreover, it will promote regulatory U.S. market regardless of the territorial waters have been identified as 73 parity and fairness among space station mechanism used to achieve that end.’’ a point of communication for U.S. operators by evenly distributing the We agree with SpaceX that assessing a licensed ESAA terminals.77 To the regulatory cost recovery. regulatory fee to cover non-U.S. licensed extent such license clearly limits U.S. space stations that gain market access licensed ESAA terminals’ access to 22. In the interest of equity and to through an earth station serves the these non-U.S. licensed space stations to eliminate regulatory arbitrage, we public interest, although we assess the situations in which these terminals are further conclude that regulatory fees for space station benefiting from the market in foreign territories and/or over non-U.S. licensed space stations should access rather than the earth station international waters and the license be contributed regardless of the method operator(s). Doing so will place the does not otherwise allow the non-U.S. by which the space station obtains U.S. responsibility with the space station licensed space station access to the U.S. market access. In addition to receiving operator directly benefiting from market market, the non-U.S. licensed space U.S. market access directly through a access rather than one or multiple earth station does not fall within the category petition for declaratory ruling, a non- stations that may be communicating of a non-U.S. licensed space station U.S. licensed space station operator may with many other satellites as well. with access to the U.S. market for also receive market access by being 24. We will therefore require non-U.S. regulatory fee purposes. In addition, a added as a point of communication in licensed space stations that enter into non-U.S. licensed space station that an earth station license application. In the U.S. market through earth station communicates with a U.S. licensed either case, the Commission’s review of authorizations to be subject to earth station solely for tracking, the space station market access request regulatory fees similar to those space telemetry and command (TT&C) is the same. The earth station stations receiving U.S. market access purposes will not fall within the application may be filed by the non-U.S. directly through a petition for category of a non-U.S. licensed space licensed operator, one of its 74 declaratory ruling. Failure to pay a station with access to the U.S. market subsidiaries, or an independent third regulatory fee will subject the operator for regulatory fee purposes.78 The party. Currently, neither the earth of the non-U.S. licensed space station to relevant earth station license, however, station licensee nor the non-U.S. statutory penalties and the must clearly limit the non-U.S. licensed satellite operator with market access Commission’s rules governing space station’s access to TT&C through that earth station pays a 75 nonpayment. In addition to other communications only. If it does not regulatory fee despite the benefits it include such a limitation, the relevant receives and the additional Commission 72 SpaceX Comments at 8. Kepler argues that it non-U.S. licensed space station will be resources consumed by such market would be inequitable to assess the same regulatory fee on a foreign satellite operator with a single earth access. We find that it serves the public station. Kepler Reply Comments at 5. We note the Improvement Act of 1996. These remedies include interest to assess regulatory fees in the same argument can be made regardless of whether offsetting regulatory fee debt against monies owed same manner against all non-U.S. the foreign operator communicating with only one to the debtor by the Commission, and referral of the licensed satellite operators with U.S. earth station does so through a petition for debt to the United States Treasury for further declaratory ruling and an earth station license or collection efforts, including centralized offset market access, regardless of how that solely through an earth station license. against monies other Federal agencies may owe the access is obtained. 73 SpaceX Comments at 8. debtor. 31 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.; 31 CFR part 901; 47 74 As a general matter, a single NGSO CFR 1.1901. The failure to timely pay regulatory 71 The Commission’s prior solution in 2015 of constellation that includes both U.S. and foreign- fees also subjects regulatees to the Commission’s recategorizing four International Bureau FTEs as licensed satellites will be treated the same as any ‘‘red light’’ rule and revocation of authorizations. 47 indirect to avoid assessing U.S. licensed space wholly U.S. or foreign-licensed constellation for CFR 1.1910 and 1.1164(f). stations for work that directly benefited non-U.S. regulatory fee purposes. 76 See 47 U.S.C. 159A(c)(3) (dismissal of licensed space stations that did not pay regulatory 75 Under sections 9A(c)(1) & (2) of the Act, the applications or filings); id. at 159A(c)(4) fees still required U.S. licensees to bear the costs Commission is required to impose a late payment (revocations); 47 CFR 1.1164(f) (same). of the non-U.S. licensed space station operators penalty of 25 percent of the unpaid regulatory fee 77 See Letter from Karis Hastings, Counsel to SES, participation in the regulatory environment; it debt and to assess interest on the unpaid regulatory to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal simply broadened the base of U.S. licensees bearing fee (including the 25 percent penalty) until the debt Communications Commission, at 2 (May 5, 2020). those costs, since the costs were labeled as indirect, is paid in full. The Commission is also required to 78 See Letter from Pamela L. Meredith, Counsel to and therefore borne by all FCC entities that were pursue collection of all past due regulatory fees Kongsberg Satellite Services AS, to Marlene H. assessed regulatory fees. See FY 2015 Report and (including penalty and interest) using all collection Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 10278, paragraph 24. remedies available to it under the Debt Collection Commission, at 1–2 (May 5, 2020).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:36 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM 22JNR1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 37371

subject to regulatory fees. Accordingly, so that a non-U.S. licensed space station section 9 requirement that the non-U.S. licensed space station operator would not be prejudiced by Commission set regulatory fees to operators may notify the Commission by non-action of a third-party earth station ‘‘reflect the full-time equivalent number July 15, 2020, as discussed below, to licensee. of employees within the bureaus and certify that their access is solely for 27. Accordingly, we will issue an offices of the Commission adjusted to TT&C and identify the relevant earth invoice for the annual space station take into account factors that are station licenses for any needed express regulatory fee to the non-U.S. licensed reasonably related to the benefits condition that the relevant non-U.S. space station operator of record listed provided to the payor of the fee by the licensed space station is identified a on the Schedule S filed in connection Commission’s activities.’’ 88 We point of communication for TT&C with a grant of a petition for declaratory accordingly add four FTEs to the purposes only.79 Otherwise, they will be ruling to access the U.S. market, or with satellite regulatory fee category as direct assessed regulatory fees. an earth station application to add the FTEs to account for the work that was 26. We understand that non-U.S. non-U.S. licensed space station as a allocated as indirect previously. We licensed satellite operators have not point of communication, as of July 16, note, however, that we add back these always been conscientious in the past 2020.83 To facilitate administration of four FTEs only to correct the total about advising the Commission when regulatory fees, we require that all non- number of direct FTEs in the they have ceased to provide service to U.S. licensed space station operators International Bureau for regulatory fee the U.S. from a particular satellite. To with such market access to obtain an purposes. The apportionment of fees provide a clear deadline for operators to FCC Registration Number by August 1, among International Bureau regulatees correct the record and afford the 2020.84 Further, we remind non-U.S. is calculated based on the factors International Bureau and the Office of licensed space station operators who do reasonably related to the benefits Managing Director an opportunity to not pay the regulatory fees in a timely provided to the payors of the fee, as create a definitive list of market access fashion that they will be in violation of discussed below. grants from which to develop the final our regulatory fee rules and, while being 29. Finally, we find that subjecting fee amounts, non-U.S. licensed space subject to other regulatory fee non-U.S. licensed space stations with station operators with U.S. market enforcement consequences, may be U.S. market access to the space station access may notify the Commission by unable to obtain future U.S. market regulatory fees is an amendment as 85 July 15, 2020 whether they want to access until such matters are resolved. defined in section 9(d) of the Act.89 relinquish that market access.80 To reiterate, this fee will be assessed on Such an amendment must be submitted Operators that relinquish their U.S. any non-U.S. licensed space station that to Congress at least 90 days before it market access will not be assessed has been granted market access through becomes effective pursuant to section regulatory fees this year. Accordingly, existing earth stations licensees as of 9A(b)(2).90 86 for FY 2020 we will require regulatory July 16, 2020. 28. We also conclude that we should B. Apportionment of Fees Among fees to be paid by those non-U.S. reallocate four International Bureau International Bureau Regulatees licensed space stations that have U.S. indirect FTEs as direct to account for market access after July 15, 2020.81 We 30. The Commission has previously our decision to assess regulatory fees on instruct the International Bureau, when determined over the course of several non-U.S. licensed space stations. The it receives a notice of surrender of orders that a significant number of FTEs Commission previously recategorized market access by the operator of a non- in the International Bureau do work that four International Bureau FTEs as U.S. licensed space station, to remove should be considered indirect for indirect to avoid assessing U.S. licensed the space station as a point of regulatory fee purposes and set the space stations for work that directly number of direct FTEs at 24.91 The communication in all earth station involved non-U.S. licensed space licenses, regardless of whether the earth stations that did not pay regulatory 88 47 U.S.C. 159(d). station licensee itself requests removal fees.87 We find that it is appropriate to of the non-U.S. licensed space station as 89 Id. make this adjustment to account for our 90 a point of communication.82 We do this 47 U.S.C. 159A(b)(2). decision to assess regulatory fees on 91 In FY 2013, the Commission proposed that all Satellite Division FTEs working on issues involving 79 non-U.S. licensed space stations and the We note that an earth station authorization regulatees, 25 FTEs, be considered direct FTEs for allowing any other kind of data acquisition by a determining the regulatory fees for space stations non-U.S. licensed space station will be considered Notices of Actions Taken for satellite space and earth stations. and earth stations. FY 2013 NPRM, 28 FCC Rcd at to have access to the U.S. market and will be subject 7800, paragraphs 22–23. The Commission further 83 In some cases, a single GSO satellite with to the regulatory fees. proposed that two FTEs from the 80 access to the U.S. market may be operated by more Such a voluntary surrender of market access Telecommunications and Analysis Division be than one entity, as reflected in the terms of the can be made through existing procedures for allocated as direct FTEs for regulatory fee purposes. license or market access grant. In such cases, the surrender of grants of market access or removal of Id. at 7802, paragraph 27. The Commission also satellite operators should notify OMD which a non-U.S. licensed space station as a point of proposed that the Global Strategy and Negotiation operator/FRN is the contact for the space station communications in an earth station license. Division would be considered indirect because their regulatory fee purposes and that operator/FRN will 81 We note that after FY 2020 it is the activities benefit the Commission as a whole and be billed. If no notification is received, OMD will responsibility of a non-U.S. licensed space station are not specifically focused on International Bureau assign one party as the FRN contact for billing with U.S. market access to inform the Commission regulatees. Id. at 7802–803, paragraph 28. The purposes. (International Bureau) by September 30th before the Commission adopted the proposal, but revised the 84 new fiscal year begins that it is relinquishing its https://apps.fcc.gov/coresWeb/publicHome.do. number of direct International Bureau FTEs to 28. U.S. market access; failing timely notification, the 85 See 47 U.S.C. 159(a). Assessment and Collection of FY 2013 Regulatory non-U.S. licensed station will be assessed 86 For FY 2021 and subsequent years, the date of Fees, Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 12351, 12355– regulatory fees for the ensuing fiscal year. For assessment will be October 1, which is the standard 56, paragraph 14 (78 FR 52433 (August 23, 2013)) example, in FY 2021, a non-U.S. licensed space date of assessment for space and earth stations. (FY 2013 Report and Order). Then, in 2015, the station with U.S. market access must inform the 87 FY 2015 Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd at Commission further reduced the number of direct Commission (International Bureau) by September 10278, paragraph 24. At the time, the Commission FTEs in the International Bureau to 24 due to the 30, 2020 that it wishes to relinquish its market stated that the number of market access requests by number of International Bureau FTEs in the access or it will be charged the FY 2021 regulatory these entities can vary; however, four FTEs was Satellite Division working on non-U.S. licensed fee in September 2021. appropriate to be reallocated as indirect in space station market access requests. FY 2015 82 The International Bureau will include notice of calculating benefit to International Bureau fee Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 10278, paragraph such surrenders in its routine weekly Public payors at the time. See id. paragraph 24, and n. 94. 24.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:36 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM 22JNR1 37372 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

International Bureau fees are divided service providers including submarine times the expected $1,084,125 into a satellite category (with cable operators.96 regulatory fee revenue for NGSO subcategories of GSO space stations, 33. The Submarine Cable Coalition satellite operators.102 This imbalance in NGSO space stations, and earth stations) also argues that the number of FTEs in regulatory fee revenue results from the and an international bearer circuits the International Bureau was not large disparity in number of units category (consisting of submarine cable appropriately reduced when the Office between GSO space stations (98) and systems in one subcategory and of Economics and Analytics was created NGSO space stations (7),103 even though terrestrial and satellite international and the reassignment of staff led to under a single NGSO license hundreds, facilities in another). In the FY 2019 decreases in the direct FTEs in the or thousands, of satellites can be Report and Order, the Commission Media, Wireline Competition, and operated while counting as a single unit 97 explained that we currently allocate Wireless Telecommunication Bureaus. for regulatory fee purposes, whereas 17.1 of the 24 International Bureau FTEs None of the 24 FTEs from the only one satellite can be operated per 104 to the satellite category and 6.9 to the International Bureau identified as direct GSO space station regulatory fee unit. for regulatory fee purposes, however, international bearer circuits category.92 36. We agree with the GSO Satellite were moved to the Office of Economics Including the 4 FTEs that were Operators that the significantly larger and Analytics. Therefore, the number of amount of regulatory fee payments by previously considered indirect because direct FTEs in the International Bureau GSO operators cannot be attributed to of their work with non-U.S. licensed was not reduced due to the creation of them benefiting more from the space stations as discussed above brings the Office of Economics and Analytics. Commission’s regulatory activities. We those totals to 21.1 FTEs assigned to the Accordingly, we reject these arguments. instead allocate 80% of space station satellite category and 6.9 to the In the FY 2019 Report and Order we fees to Space Stations (Geostationary international bearer circuit category. recognized that the increase to fees for Orbit) and 20% to Space Stations (Non- 31. In the FY 2019 FNPRM, we sought International Bureau regulatees was not Geostationary Orbit). We consider three comment on whether we should adjust trivial when we rejected similar factors that reflect the benefits of the apportionment among fee categories arguments and explained that such an Commission oversight to GSO and within the International Bureau.93 In increase was consistent with previous NGSO operators: The number of response, the International Bureau FTE shifts we have made as well as the applications processed (that is, the undertook a review of its work, staffing, statute.98 benefits of adjudication), the number of and distribution of responsibilities 34. GSO and NGSO Space Stations changes made to the Commission’s rules benefiting its fee payers, division by Apportionment. In the FY 2019 FNPRM, (that is, the benefit of rulemaking), and division and between the we sought comment on adjustments to the number of FTEs working on Telecommunications and Analysis the allocation of FTEs among GSO and oversight for each category of operators. Division and the Satellite Division. NGSO space and earth station 37. First, using the data compiled 99 Based on this review, we find that operators. The FY 2019 annual from the International Bureau Filing adjusting the FTE allocation for the regulatory fee per unit for Space System, we looked at the applications international bearer circuit category to 8 Stations (Geostationary Orbit) is received and processed by the FTEs rather than 6.9 FTEs would better $159,625, and the comparable fee per International Bureau for each of the unit for Space Stations (Non- most recent three years (that is, 2017– reflect the direct FTE work in the 100 International Bureau that benefits the Geostationary Orbit) is $154,875. 2019).105 The breakdown shows that 35. In response, SES Americom, fee payors in the international bearer GSO applications accounted for 79% Intelsat, EchoStar, and Hughes circuit category. This action brings the (108/136) of applications disposed in (collectively, the GSO Satellite FTEs for the satellite category to 20 and 2019 and 79% (124/157) of applications Operators), request that the Commission received in 2019. For 2018, the GSO the total number of direct FTEs for the rebalance the cost allocations between International Bureau to 28. share is 75% (88/117) disposed and GSO and NGSO space stations to 84% (77/92) received. For 2017, the 32. We are not persuaded by the address perceived unfairness in the GSO share is 84% (122/146) disposed Submarine Cable Coalition’s assertion current balance and because the current and 77% (128/167) received. Thus, the that two FTEs from the balance purportedly does not align with Telecommunications and Analysis 101 underlying costs. The GSO Satellite 102 Id. at 2 (citing FY 2019 Report and Order, 34 Division are sufficient for international Operators observe that, for FY 2019, the FCC Rcd at 8223–24, Appendix B). bearer circuit regulation.94 As we expected regulatory fee revenue from 103 It may also arise from the fact that the explained in the FY 2015 Report and GSO satellite operators was Commission does not assess regulatory fees on Order, two FTEs do not take into $15,643,250, which is more than 14 licenses that do not have operational satellites associated with them. Thus, even though there may account all the work provided for this be an increase in NGSO licensing in recent years, industry by the International Bureau.95 96 One exception is the work in the there would not be an increase in regulatory fees Currently, almost all of the work of the Telecommunications and Analysis Division on if those licensed systems had not yet launched and foreign ownership issues under section 310 of the Telecommunications and Analysis operated satellites. Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 310, which benefits 104 See, e.g., Space Exploration Holdings, LLC, Division, as well as some of the work by domestic common carrier wireless providers by Application for Approval for Orbital Deployment the Office of the Bureau Chief, benefits facilitating foreign investment in wireless carriers. and Operating Authority for the SpaceX NGSO 97 international telecommunications Submarine Cable Coalition Comments at 4–5. Satellite System, IBFS File Nos. SAT–LOA– 98 FY 2019 Report and Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 8195, 20161115–00118, SAT–LOA–20170726–00110, 33 paragraphs 15–18. FCC Rcd 3391 (2018). 92 FY 2019 Report and Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 8197, 99 Id. at 8214, paragraph 67 (citing Letter from 105 The application counts include applications paragraph 20. Jennifer A. Manner, Senior Vice President, EchoStar from U.S. and non-U.S. space station operators for 93 Id. at 8214, paragraph 67. Satellite Operating Corporation and Hughes new systems, requests for modification or 94 Submarine Cable Coalition Comments at 3–4. Network Systems, LLC, to Marlene H. Dortch, amendment, and requests for special temporary The Commission initially indicated the number of Secretary, FCC, MD Docket No. 19–105, Attachment authority. By reporting the data as part of this FTEs was two in 2013. FY 2013 NPRM, 28 FCC Rcd at 1 (filed Aug. 8, 2019) (EchoStar August 8 Ex Parte proceeding, we address the request of the Satellite at 7802, paragraph 27. Letter)). Industry Association to provide additional factual 95 FY 2015 Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 10273, 100 47 CFR 1.1156(a). detail on fee decisions. Satellite Industry paragraph 12. 101 GSO Satellite Operators Comments at 1–2. Association Comments at 17.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:36 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM 22JNR1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 37373

total number of applications received regulatory activities in the International 42. We decline to adopt any changes and disposed of in this three-year period Bureau from previous years and the at this time. We find that there is continues to support a significantly International Bureau does not separate insufficient evidence in the record to greater allocation of adjudication FTEs by work done on GSO versus increase the apportionment of fees paid benefits to GSO than NGSO systems in NGSO matters.109 Indeed, a single FTE by earth station licensees. GSO Satellite the range of 75% to 84%. may work on authorizations and Operators state that earth station 38. Second, using compiled data for rulemakings that benefit both categories licensees collectively are responsible for the last three years on the number of of satellite operations. Because we are $1,402,500 in total regulatory fees, Commission-level items originating unable to assess benefits based on a which is less than one-eleventh of the from the Satellite Division of the clearly identifiable division of work by regulatory fees paid by GSO space International Bureau, we considered assigned FTEs, we must estimate the station licensees.112 Although the GSO each items’ relative precedential value relative percentage of FTEs that are Satellite Operators claim that this to GSO and NGSO operators.106 The list attributable to benefitting either GSO or proportion is out of synch with actual consists of 6 items during 2017–2019,107 NGSO systems based on the factors relative costs,113 they do not provide of which 3 held more benefit for GSOs above. any data to support this claim, or 108 and 3 held more benefit for NGSOs. 40. We recognize the considerable propose an appropriate apportionment Accordingly, the data presented challenge of assigning a precise number of fees between earth and space stations. suggests that there was approximately to the apportionment of regulatory fees In support of their claim, GSO Satellite the same rulemaking benefit to GSO between GSO and NGSO space stations. Operators point solely to a pair of operators as to NGSO operators. We Taking all of the foregoing factors and proceedings focused on Earth Stations 114 note, however, that, quantifying only data into consideration we conclude, in Motion (ESIMs). Although earth the most recent rulemaking activities however, that the GSO/NGSO ratio station licensees do benefit from these does not take into account any should be adjusted to reflect that GSO proceedings, we also find that the continued benefits derived from older space stations derived roughly 75–84% proceedings are of equal, if not more, rulemakings. Some of those continued of the benefit from the Commission’s benefit to space station licensees, which benefits are received through the efforts adjudicatory efforts. Given that our would gain access to additional of adjudication and administration of consideration of FTE activities did not frequency bands in which to sell the rules adopted in those rulemakings. yield a clearly identifiable division transponder capacity for mobility Accordingly, we find that attributing a between GSO and NGSO, and because it services and increased streamlining of value to rulemaking activities directly is is difficult to be precise in quantifying their regulatory environment. a somewhat subjective exercise and benefits of rulemaking activities, we Accordingly, the record does not support an increase of the lacks precision. believe a number in the middle of the 39. Third, we considered whether we apportionment of fees paid by earth 75–84% range is appropriate. We are could examine FTE activities directly, station licensees at this time. also mindful that the number of NGSO but there has been no change in the 43. We also find that the record does units for which regulatory fees are number of FTEs attributable to satellite not support implementing different assessed is small, so selection of a classes of earth stations for regulatory number at the bottom end of the 75– 106 We limited our review to Commission-level fee purposes or increasing earth station items because of their greater precedential value 84% range would result in a much regulatory fees. GSO Satellite Operators and because they include rulemaking proceedings greater change in the regulatory fee suggest that blanket-licensed earth that affect the industry as a whole, rather than a assessed. We find that selecting a station licensees involving multiple particular entity. number in the middle of the 75–84% 107 Notices of Proposed Rulemakings that resulted antennas under a single authorization in the adoption of an Order within the same three- range best reflects the other factors should pay higher fees than other earth year period were not included since inclusion considered in our re-balancing and station licensees because blanket- could result in double-counting of an eventual imposes a balanced burden in that range licensed earth station licensees require benefit. on all space station operators, including more regulatory oversight.115 The GSO 108 The following proceedings primarily benefit the smaller number of NGSO system GSO systems: (1) Amendment of the Commission’s Satellite Operators, however, provide no Policies and Rules for Processing Applications in operators. Accordingly, for FY 2020, factual support for the proposition other the Direct Broadcast Satellite Service, Second GSO and NGSO space stations will be than a conclusory statement. GSO Report & Order, IB Docket No. 06–160 (rel. Sep. 27, allocated 80% and 20% of the space Satellite Operators instead observe that 2019); (2) Further Streamlining Part 25 Rules station fees, respectively. Governing Satellite Services, Notice of Proposed the fee schedule originally adopted by Rulemaking, 33 FCC Rcd 11502 (2018); and (3) 41. Earth Station and Space Station Congress differentiated between Facilitating the Communications of Earth Stations Apportionment. Although the FY 2019 blanket-licensed earth stations and in Motion with Non-Geostationary Orbit Space FNPRM did not propose adjusting the 116 Stations, Report and Order and Further Notice of stand-alone antennas. But the prior Proposed Rulemaking, 33 FCC Rcd 9327 (84 FR allocation within the satellite category statutory differentiation pertained to 53630 (October 8, 2019) and 84 FR 5654 (February for earth station regulatory fees, certain application fees, not regulatory fees— 22, 2019)) (2018). The following rulemaking satellite operators asked that we review proceedings primarily benefit NGSO systems: (1) such apportionment 110 and suggested 112 Id. Mitigation of Orbital Debris in the New Space Age, 113 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 33 FCC Rcd 11352 that we implement different earth Id. (2019); (2) Streamlining Licensing Procedures for station subcategories for regulatory fee 114 Id. (citing Amendment of Parts 2 and 25 of the Small Satellites, Report and Order, 34 FCC Rcd purposes.111 Commission’s Rules to Facilitate the Use of Earth 13077 (2019); (3) Facilitating the Communications Stations in Motion Communicating with of Earth Stations in Motion with Non-Geostationary Geostationary Orbit Space Stations in Frequency Orbit Space Stations, Notice of Proposed 109 Similarly, the International Bureau also does Bands Allocated to the Fixed-Satellite Service, Rulemaking, 33 FCC Rcd 11416 (83 FR 67180 not separate FTEs by work done on U.S. licensed Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 32 FCC Rcd 4239 (December 28, 2018)) (2018). One of the six items, versus non-U.S. licensed space stations. Most (2017); Facilitating the Communications of Earth Mitigation of Orbital Debris in the New Space Age, regulatory activities benefit all space stations, Stations in Motion with Non-Geostationary Orbit could be seen as benefitting both GSOs and NGSOs, whether U.S. licensed or not. Space Stations, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 33 but since the item largely addresses mitigation of 110 GSO Satellite Operators Comments, at 4; SIA FCC Rcd 11416 (2018). debris resulting from new space operations in Comments at 9. 115 GSO Satellite Operators Comments at 4. NGSOs, it was counted as benefitting NGSO more. 111 GSO Satellite Operators Comments at 4. 116 Id. at 4–5.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:36 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM 22JNR1 37374 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

i.e., it was not tied to the statutory levels, resulting in an increase in the IV. Final Regulatory Flexibility factors that bind us in setting regulatory theoretical, but not the actual, Analysis fees.117 Accordingly, we find no basis in population served and higher regulatory 1. As required by the Regulatory the record to support an increase in fees under the new methodology.123 Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended regulatory fees for earth station licenses PMCM TV argues that we should assess (RFA),127 an Initial Regulatory or to support the creation of a separate, VHF stations, and especially low band higher regulatory fee for blanket- Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was VHF stations, a significantly lower included in the FY 2019 Further Notice licensed earth stations. 124 regulatory fee. Maranatha of Proposed Rulemaking.128 The C. Regulatory Fees Paid by VHF Broadcasting proposes that we average Commission sought written public Broadcasters the fee amounts assessed to the comment on these proposals including commercial full power UHF stations in comment on the IRFA. This Final 44. In the FY 2018 Report and Order, a given market and apply the average we adopted a new methodology for Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) UHF fee as the fee to be assessed VHF conforms to the IRFA.129 assessment of broadcast television stations in the same market.125 regulatory fees, finding that the service Maranatha Broadcasting argues that the A. Need for, and Objectives of, the contour-based population method more population methodology does not Report and Order accurately reflects the actual market properly account for ‘‘the inherent 2. In this Report and Order, the served by full-power television stations technical inferiority of the VHF signal in for purposes of assessing regulatory fees Commission assesses for the first time a the digital broadcast world,’’ and that regulatory fee on non-U.S. licensed than the DMA-based methodology we VHF stations should not be charged 118 space stations with United States market previously employed. We also said more than UHF stations in the same that we would phase in implementation access, by including those non-U.S. market.126 of the new methodology in two years, licensed space stations in the current using a transitional fee structure for FY 47. We decline to categorically lower regulatory fee categories for GSO and 2019 fees and the new methodology for regulatory fees for VHF stations to NGSO space stations. This fee is assessment of FY 2020 fees.119 account for signal limitations. assessed regardless of whether the 45. In the FY 2019 FNPRM, we sought Inconsistencies in the reports of low- foreign satellite operator obtains the comment on whether we should adjust VHF reception issues have led the market access through a declaratory population counts for the new Media Bureau to conclude that there is ruling or through an earth station methodology to address a signal nothing inherent in VHF transmission applicant as a point of communication. limitation issue raised by commenters to that creates signal deficiencies but that In either case, the Commission’s review the FY 2019 NPRM.120 Specifically, environmental noise issues can affect of the space station market access those commenters argued that VHF reception in certain areas and situations. request is the same. The earth station channels should have lower regulatory And although we agree that application may be filed by the foreign fees because the predicted contour environmental noise blockages affecting operator, one of its subsidiaries, or an distance does not adequately account signal strength and reception exist, they independent third party. Currently, the for all of the possible effects on the VHF do not exist across the board. The regulatory fee paid by an earth station station signal, such as environmental impact of signal disruptions, to the licensee that has secured market access noise issues, the result of which may extent they exist, varies widely from for a foreign satellite operator is the limit the signal and the population service area to service area and does not same as the fee paid by any other earth reached. Thus, they argued, the lend itself to an across-the-board rule. station licensee in its class, despite the population count is overstated for VHF However, we do agree with NAB and additional Commission resources stations and should be adjusted propose to take into account the consumed by such market access downward accordingly.121 licensed power increases that go beyond requests. For these reasons, and because 46. Commenters reiterate and amplify the maximum allowed for VHF stations. it is inequitable and anticompetitive for the signal limitation concern. NAB Therefore, we will assess the fees for U.S. licensed space stations to pay explains that following the digital those VHF stations that are licensed regulatory fees while non-U.S. licensed transition, some VHF channels with a power level that exceeds the space stations with U.S. market access encountered environmental noise that maximum based on the maximum do not, the Commission assesses its affected the reliability of those power level specified for channels 2–6 existing GSO and NGSO regulatory fee 122 broadcasters’ signals. As a in § 73.622(f)(6) and for channels 7–13 categories on non-U.S. licensed space compensatory measure, some VHF in § 73.622(f)(7). stations that have access to the United stations have increased their power States market, either through a petition 123 NAB Comments at 3–4; NAB suggests a for market access or through an earth 117 The GSO Satellite Operators cite section station’s original DTV contour is a more accurate station. 159(g) of Title 47 of the United States Code in reflection of a VHF station’s actual coverage and support, which was repealed in 2018. GSO Satellite population reach. See also Maranatha Broadcasting B. Summary of the Significant Issues Operators Comments at 5 n.12. Section 159(g) was Comments at 1–4. Raised by the Public Comments in entitled ‘‘Application of Application Fees’’ and 124 PMCM Comments at 4. PMCM TV and addressed the separate issue of FCC filing fees, not Maranatha Broadcasting observe that the Response to the IRFA regulatory fees. advertising revenues for TV are based on the DMA 118 3. None. Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees where the station is located, because that is where for Fiscal Year 2018, Report and Order and Order, most of the audience is, and not on the population 33 FCC Rcd 8497, 8501–8502, paragraphs 13–15 outside the DMA that may also be able to reach the 127 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601–612 has (2018) (83 FR 47079, paragraphs 13–15 (September station. PMCM TV Comments at 4; Maranatha been amended by the Small Business Regulatory 18, 2018)) (FY 2018 Report and Order). Broadcasting Comments at 5. Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Public 119 Id. 125 Maranatha Broadcasting Comments at 6–7. See Law 104–121, Title II, 110 Stat. 847 (1996). 120 FY 2019 Report and Order, 34 FCC Rcd at also Letter from Barry Fisher, President, Maranatha 128 Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees 8214–15, paragraph 68 and FY 2019 NPRM (84 FR Broadcasting Company, Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, for Fiscal Year 2019, Report and Order and Further 26234 (June 5, 2019)). Secretary, FCC, MD Docket No. 19–105, (filed May Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 34 FCC Rcd 8189 121 Id. 1, 2020). (2019) (FY 2019 FNPRM). 122 NAB Comments at 2. 126 Maranatha Broadcasting Comments at 7. 129 5 U.S.C. 604.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:36 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM 22JNR1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 37375

C. Response to Comments by the Chief First, while there are industry specific purpose governments in the United Counsel for Advocacy of the Small size standards for small businesses that States.142 Of this number there were 37, Business Administration are used in the regulatory flexibility 132 General purpose governments 4. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs analysis, according to data from the (county,143 municipal and town or Act of 2010, which amended the RFA, SBA’s Office of Advocacy, in general a township 144) with populations of less the Commission is required to respond small business is an independent than 50,000 and 12,184 Special purpose business having fewer than 500 governments (independent school to any comments filed by the Chief 136 Counsel for Advocacy of the Small employees. These types of small districts 145 and special districts 146) Business Administration (SBA), and to businesses represent 99.9% of all with populations of less than 50,000. businesses in the United States which provide a detailed statement of any 137 The 2012 U.S. Census Bureau data for change made to the proposed rules as a translates to 28.8 million businesses. 7. Next, the type of small entity most types of governments in the local result of those comments. In this section described as a ‘‘small organization’’ is government category show that the respond specifically to any comment generally ‘‘any not-for-profit enterprise majority of these governments have filed by Chief Counsel of SBA. The 147 which is independently owned and populations of less than 50,000. Chief Counsel did not file any operated and is not dominant in its Based on this data we estimate that at comments in response to the proposed field.’’ 138 Nationwide, as of August least 49,316 local government rules in the Further Notice of Proposed 2016, there were approximately 356,494 jurisdictions fall in the category of Rulemaking in this proceeding small organizations based on ‘‘small governmental jurisdictions.’’ 148 D. Description and Estimate of the registration and tax data filed by Number of Small Entities To Which the nonprofits with the Internal Revenue 142 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Census of Rules Will Apply Service (IRS).139 Governments, Local Governments by Type and 8. Finally, the small entity described State: 2012—United States—States, https:// 5. The RFA directs agencies to factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/COG/ provide a description of, and where as a ‘‘small governmental jurisdiction’’ 2012/ORG02.US01. Local governmental feasible, an estimate of the number of is defined generally as ‘‘governments of jurisdictions are classified in two categories— General purpose governments (county, municipal small entities that may be affected by cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special and town or township) and Special purpose the proposed rules and policies, if governments (special districts and independent 130 districts, with a population of less than school districts). adopted. The RFA generally defines 140 fifty thousand.’’ 143 the term ‘‘small entity’’ as having the U.S. Census Bureau See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Census of data from the 2012 Census of Governments, County Governments by Population- same meaning as the terms ‘‘small 141 Size Group and State: 2012—United States—States. business,’’ ‘‘small organization,’’ and Governments indicate that there were 90,056 local governmental https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ ‘‘small governmental jurisdiction.’’ 131 COG/2012/ORG06.US01. There were 2,114 county jurisdictions consisting of general In addition, the term ‘‘small business’’ governments with populations less than 50,000. purpose governments and special 144 has the same meaning as the term See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Census of ‘‘small business concern’’ under the Governments, Subcounty General-Purpose 136 Governments by Population-Size Group and State: 132 See SBA, Office of Advocacy, ‘‘Frequently Small Business Act. A ‘‘small Asked Questions, Question 1—What is a small 2012—United States—States. https:// business concern’’ is one which: (1) Is business?’’ https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/ factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/COG/ independently owned and operated; (2) advocacy/SB-FAQ-2016_WEB.pdf (June 2016). 2012/ORG07.US01. There were 18,811 municipal is not dominant in its field of operation; 137 See SBA, Office of Advocacy, ‘‘Frequently and 16,207 town and township governments with Asked Questions, Question 2—How many small populations less than 50,000. and (3) satisfies any additional criteria businesses are there in the U.S.?’’ https:// 145 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Census of 133 established by the SBA. Nationwide, www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/advocacy/SB-FAQ- Governments, Elementary and Secondary School there are a total of approximately 27.9 2016_WEB.pdf (June 2016). Systems by Enrollment-Size Group and State: million small businesses, according to 138 5 U.S.C. 601(4). 2012—United States—States. https:// 134 139 Data from the Urban Institute, National Center factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/COG/ the SBA. 2012/ORG11.US01. There were 12,184 independent 6. Small Businesses, Small for Charitable Statistics (NCCS) reporting on nonprofit organizations registered with the IRS was school districts with enrollment populations less Organizations, Small Governmental used to estimate the number of small organizations. than 50,000. Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, Reports generated using the NCCS online database 146 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Census of may affect small entities that are not indicated that as of August 2016 there were 356,494 Governments, Special District Governments by easily categorized at present. We registered nonprofits with total revenues of less Function and State: 2012—United States—States. than $100,000. Of this number, 326,897 entities https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ therefore describe here, at the outset, filed tax returns with 65,113 registered nonprofits COG/2012/ORG09.US01. The U.S. Census Bureau three broad groups of small entities that reporting total revenues of $50,000 or less on the data did not provide a population breakout for could be directly affected herein.135 IRS Form 990–N for Small Exempt Organizations special district governments. and 261,784 nonprofits reporting total revenues of 147 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Census of $100,000 or less on some other version of the IRS Governments, County Governments by Population- 130 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3). Form 990 within 24 months of the August 2016 data Size Group and State: 2012—United States—States. 131 5 U.S.C. 601(6). release date. See http://nccs.urban.org/sites/all/ https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ 132 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the nccs-archive/html//tablewiz/tw.php where the COG/2012/ORG06.US01; Subcounty General- definition of ‘‘small-business concern’’ in the Small report showing this data can be generated by Purpose Governments by Population-Size Group Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. selecting the following data fields: Report: ‘‘The and State: 2012—United States—States—https:// 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business Number and Finances of All Registered 501(c) factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/COG/ applies ‘‘unless an agency, after consultation with Nonprofits’’; Show: ‘‘Registered Nonprofits’’; By: 2012/ORG07.US01; and Elementary and Secondary the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business ‘‘Total Revenue Level (years 1995, Aug to 2016, School Systems by Enrollment-Size Group and Administration and after opportunity for public Aug)’’; and For: ‘‘2016, Aug’’ then selecting ‘‘Show State: 2012—United States—States. https:// comment, establishes one or more definitions of Results.’’ factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/COG/ such term which are appropriate to the activities of 140 5 U.S.C. 601(5). 2012/ORG11.US01. While U.S. Census Bureau data the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the 141 See 13 U.S.C. 161. The Census of Government did not provide a population breakout for special Federal Register.’’ is conducted every five (5) years compiling data for district governments, if the population of less than 133 15 U.S.C. 632. years ending with ‘‘2’’ and ‘‘7’’. See also Program 50,000 for this category of local government is 134 See SBA, Office of Advocacy, ‘‘Frequently Description Census of Government https:// consistent with the other types of local governments Asked Questions,’’ https://www.sba.gov/sites/ factfinder.census.gov/faces/affhelp/jsf/pages/ the majority of the 38, 266 special district default/files/advocacy/SB-FAQ-2016_WEB.pdf. metadata.xhtml?lang=en&type=program&id= governments have populations of less than 50,000. 135 See 5 U.S.C. 601(3)–(6). program.en.COG#. 148 Id.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:36 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM 22JNR1 37376 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

Governmental entities are, however, following four alternatives, among Federal Communications Commission. exempt from application fees.149 others: (1) The establishment of Cecilia Sigmund, 9. All Other Telecommunications. The differing compliance or reporting Federal Register Liaison Officer. ‘‘All Other Telecommunications’’ requirements or timetables that take into [FR Doc. 2020–11348 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] category is comprised of establishments account the resources available to small BILLING CODE 6712–01–P primarily engaged in providing entities; (2) the clarification, specialized telecommunications consolidation, or simplification of services, such as satellite tracking, compliance or reporting requirements DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE communications telemetry, and radar under the rule for small entities; (3) the station operation.150 This industry also use of performance, rather than design, National Oceanic and Atmospheric includes establishments primarily standards; and (4) an exemption from Administration engaged in providing satellite terminal coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, stations and associated facilities 156 for small entities. 50 CFR Part 300 connected with one or more terrestrial 12. This Report and Order does not systems and capable of transmitting [Docket No. 200528–0149] telecommunications to, and receiving adopt any new reporting requirements. telecommunications from, satellite Therefore, no adverse economic impact RIN 0648–BH59 systems.151 Establishments providing on small entities will be sustained based internet services or voice over internet on reporting requirements. In keeping International Fisheries; Eastern Pacific protocol (VoIP) services via client- with the requirements of the Regulatory Tuna Fisheries; Western and Central supplied telecommunications Flexibility Act, we have considered Pacific Fisheries for Highly Migratory connections are also included in this certain alternative means of mitigating Species; Area of Overlap Between the industry.152 The SBA has developed a the effects of fee increases to a particular Convention Areas of the Inter- small business size standard for All industry segment. For example, The American Tropical Tuna Commission Other Telecommunications, which Commission’s annual de minimis and the Western and Central Pacific consists of all such firms with annual threshold of $1,000, replaced last year Fisheries Commission 153 with a new section 9(e)(2) annual receipts of $35 million or less. For AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries regulatory fee exemption of $1,000, will this category, U.S. Census Bureau data Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and reduce burdens on small entities with for 2012 shows that there were 1,442 Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), annual regulatory fees that total $1,000 firms that operated for the entire Commerce. year.154 Of those firms, a total of 1,400 or less. Also, regulatees may also seek had annual receipts less than $25 waivers or other relief on the basis of ACTION: Final rule. financial hardship. See 47 CFR 1.1166. million and 15 firms had annual SUMMARY: Under authority of the receipts of $25 million to $49, G. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Western and Central Pacific Fisheries 999,999.155 Thus, the Commission Overlap, or Conflict Convention Implementation Act estimates that the majority of ‘‘All Other (WCPFCIA) and the Tuna Conventions Telecommunications’’ firms potentially 13. None. Act, NMFS issues this final rule that affected by our action can be considered V. Ordering Clauses revises the management regime for U.S. small. fishing vessels that target tunas and E. Description of Projected Reporting, 14. Accordingly, it is ordered that, other highly migratory fish species Recordkeeping and Other Compliance pursuant to the authority found in (HMS) in the area of overlapping Requirements sections 4(i) and (j), 9, 9A, and 303(r) of jurisdiction in the Pacific Ocean 10. This Report and Order does not the Communications Act of 1934, as between the Inter-American Tropical adopt any new reporting, recordkeeping, amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 159, Tuna Commission (IATTC) and the or other compliance requirements. 159A, and 303(r), this Report and Order Commission for the Conservation and is hereby adopted. Management of Highly Migratory Fish F. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Stocks in the Western and Central 15. It is further ordered that the Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Pacific Ocean (WCPFC). The rule Report and Order shall be effective 30 Significant Alternatives Considered applies all regulations implementing days after publication in the Federal IATTC resolutions in the area of 11. The RFA requires an agency to Register. describe any significant alternatives that overlapping jurisdiction and some it has considered in reaching its 16. It is further ordered that the regulations implementing WCPFC approach, which may include the amendment adopted in section III A provisions. NMFS is undertaking this shall be effective 90 days after notice to action based on an evaluation of the 149 47 U.S.C. 158(d)(1)(A). Congress, pursuant to section 159A(b) of management regime in the area of 150 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS the Communications Act of 1934, as overlapping jurisdiction, in order to Definitions, NAICS Code ‘‘517919 All Other amended, 47 U.S.C. 159A(b), satisfy the obligations of the United Telecommunications’’, https://www.census.gov/cgi- bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?input=517919&search= 17. It is further ordered that the States as a member of the IATTC and 2017+NAICS+Search&search=2017. Commission’s Consumer and the WCPFC, pursuant to the authority of 151 Id. Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference the Western and Central Pacific 152 Id. Information Center, shall send a copy of Fisheries Convention Implementation 153 See 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517919. this Report and Order, including the Act (WCPFCIA) and the Tuna 154 U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United States, Table EC1251SSSZ4, Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis in Conventions Act. Information: Subject Series—Estab and Firm Size: this document, to Congress and the DATES: This rule is effective on July 22, Receipts Size of Firms for the United States: 2012, Government Accountability Office 2020, except for 50 CFR 300.218, which NAICS code 517919, https://factfinder.census.gov/ pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). bkmk/table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/51SSSZ4// is delayed. NOAA will publish a naics∼517919. document in the Federal Register 155 Id. 156 5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1)–(c)(4). announcing the effective date.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:36 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM 22JNR1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 37377

ADDRESSES: Copies of supporting WCPFC and IATTC decisions (described overlap area is unnecessary and would documents prepared for this final rule, below) regarding the overlap area. make fishing in the overlap area more including the regulatory impact review Specifically, this final rule changes logistically complicated and unduly (RIR) and the environmental assessment management of the overlap area so that burdensome than if the rule did not (EA), as well as the proposed rule (84 all NMFS regulations implementing continue to apply that requirement in FR 60040; November 7, 2019), are IATTC resolutions apply in the overlap the overlap area. If this requirement available via the Federal e-rulemaking area. NMFS regulations implementing continues to apply, vessels would Portal, at www.regulations.gov (search WCPFC conservation and management continue to need to carry two observers for Docket ID NOAA–NMFS–2018– measures that place limits or restrictions (an IATTC observer and a WCPFC 0049). Those documents are also on catch, fishing effort, and bycatch observer) or carry a cross-endorsed available from NMFS at the following mitigation no longer apply in the observer 1 when fishing the overlap area. address: Michael D. Tosatto, Regional overlap area, except that existing NMFS has reexamined the proposed Administrator, NMFS, Pacific Islands WCPFC regulations prohibiting rule and believes the following Regional Office (PIRO), 1845 Wasp transshipments at sea from or to purse regulations, proposed to be maintained Blvd., Building 176, Honolulu, HI seine vessels continue to apply. A few in the overlap area in the proposed rule, 96818. regulations implementing WCPFC need not apply in the overlap area for A final regulatory flexibility analysis conservation and management the United States to fulfill its obligations (FRFA) prepared under authority of the measures, will continue to apply in the under the WCPF Convention: Regulatory Flexibility Act is included in overlap area for the reasons described • Transshipment observer the Classification section of the below, in the section that follows Table requirements (50 CFR 300.215(b) and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 1. (d)); this document. The WCPFC and IATTC decisions • general requirements to carry Written comments regarding the addressing the overlap area (IATTC WCPFC observers (50 CFR 300.215(c)(1) burden-hour estimates or other aspects Recommendation C–12–11, ‘‘IATTC– and (2)); of the collection-of-information WCPFC Overlap Area,’’ and the WCPFC • transshipping, bunkering, and net requirements contained in this rule may decision documented in ‘‘Summary sharing requirements (50 CFR be submitted to PIRO at the address Report of the Ninth Regular Session of 300.216(b)(2)–(3) and (c)); listed above, by email to OIRA_ the Commission for the Conservation • transshipment reporting [email protected], or by fax to and Management of Highly Migratory requirements (50 CFR 300.218(b) and (202) 395–5806. Fish Stocks in the Western and Central (d)); Pacific Ocean,’’ Manila, Philippines, 2– • discard reporting requirements (50 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rini 6 December, 2012, paragraph 80, Ghosh, NMFS PIRO, 808–725–5033. CFR 300.218(e)); hereafter ‘‘WCPFC–IATTC joint decision • net sharing reporting requirements SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: on the overlap area’’), broadly indicate (50 CFR 300.218(f)); • Background that a member of both commissions, daily purse seine fishing effort such as the United States, may decide reports (50 CFR 300.218(g)); and On June 12, 2018, NMFS published an and notify both commissions which • purse seine observer coverage (50 advance notice of proposed rulemaking commission’s conservation and CFR 300.223(e)). in the Federal Register (83 FR 27305) management measures it intends to Therefore, this final rule removes the seeking public input about whether it apply. above WCPFC regulations, in addition should change the management regime In the proposed rule, NMFS proposed to those WCPFC regulations identified for fishing vessels that target tunas and that regulations implementing WCPFC in the proposed rule, from application other HMS in the area of overlapping measures that control fishing activity, in the overlap area. jurisdiction in the Pacific Ocean such as purse seine fishing restrictions, Under this final rule, a few other between the IATTC and the WCPFC. On longline fishing restrictions, and WCPFC regulations continue to apply in November 7, 2019, NMFS published a bycatch mitigation measures would no the overlap area, as explained in more proposed rule in the Federal Register longer apply in the overlap area, and detail below in the section describing (84 FR 60040) proposing to revise that that WCPFC management measures the action. management regime. The proposed rule related to monitoring, control, and The preamble to the proposed rule was open for public comment until surveillance (MCS) would continue to provides additional information on all November 22, 2019. apply. NMFS stated in the proposed relevant IATTC and WCPFC regulations, This final rule is issued under the rule that it currently implements, and including additional information on the authority of the WCPFCIA (16 U.S.C. would continue to implement, the MCS regulations that previously applied in 6901 et seq.) and the Tuna Conventions measures pursuant to its obligations the overlap area and the development of Act (16 U.S.C. 951 et seq.). The United under the Convention on the the proposed rule, which is not repeated States is a member of both IATTC and Conservation and Management of here. WCPFC. NMFS implements decisions of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the WCPFC under the authority of the Western and Central Pacific Ocean The Action WCPFCIA and decisions of IATTC (WCPF Convention). This final rule changes the definition under the authority of the Tuna As described in more detail in the of ‘‘IATTC Convention Area’’ at 50 CFR Conventions Act. The convention areas Comments and Responses section 300.21 to include the overlap area with for the IATTC (IATTC Area) and below, NMFS received comments on the respect to all the regulations at 50 CFR WCPFC (WCPFC Area) overlap in the proposed rule expressing concern part 300, subpart C, with the effect that Pacific Ocean waters within an area regarding continued application of bounded by 50° S latitude, 4° S latitude, WCPFC MCS management measures in 1 A cross-endorsed observer is an observer that is 150° W longitude, and 130° W longitude the overlap area. In particular, U.S. ‘‘cross-endorsed’’ pursuant to a Memorandum of Cooperation between the WCPFC and the IATTC (‘‘overlap area’’). purse seine industry representatives that specifies a process to allow the observer to This final rule changes management indicated that the requirement for meet the observer requirements of both of the overlap area in accordance with vessels to carry WCPFC observers in the organizations.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:36 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM 22JNR1 37378 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

all regulations at 50 CFR part 300, the restrictions on retention of • purse seine fishing effort limits (50 subpart C, now apply in the overlap area incidental catch by purse seine vessels CFR 200.223(a)); (except in cases where particular (84 FR 70040; December 20, 2019; • purse seine fish aggregating device regulations apply to more specific areas corrected in 85 FR 8198; February 13, (FAD) restrictions (50 CFR 300.223(b)); within the IATTC Area). The 2020). Under that final rule, all purse • purse seine catch retention requirements under the Marine Mammal seine vessels are required to release all requirements (50 CFR 300.223(d)); Protection Act and the Agreement on billfish, ray (except mobulid ray), • purse seine observer coverage (50 the International Dolphin Conservation dorado, and other fish species, except CFR 300.223(e)); Program (AIDCP), including observer tuna, tuna-like species, and fish retained • purse seine sea turtle bycatch requirements at 50 CFR 216.24(e), for consumption aboard the vessel. That mitigation requirements (50 CFR which already applied in the overlap final rule became generally effective on 300.223(f)); area, continue to apply under the final January 21, 2020; however, new or • whale shark bycatch mitigation rule. Table 1, below, lists the specific revised requirements related to requirements (50 CFR 300.223(g)–(h)); regulations, including citations, collection of information, including the • longline bigeye tuna catch limits new IMO number requirements, are not implementing WCPFC management (50 CFR 300.224(a)); yet in effect. The regulations measures and IATTC management • oceanic whitetip and silky shark implementing this rule are found at 50 measures that apply in the overlap area interaction mitigation (50 CFR 300.226); under the final rule. A detailed CFR part 300, subpart C, and are 2 and description of these regulations is applicable in the overlap area. • Under this final rule, the following reporting requirements that are provided in the proposed rule preamble associated with the regulations listed and below. regulations at 50 CFR part 300, subpart O, which implement WCPFC above that would no longer apply in the In addition to those IATTC conservation and management overlap area (transshipment reporting regulations described in the proposed measures, no longer apply in the requirements at 50 CFR 300.218(b) and rule, this final rule will apply several overlap area: 3 (d); discard reporting requirements at 50 newly implemented IATTC regulations • Transshipment observer CFR 300.218(e); net sharing reporting in the overlap area. Subsequent to requirements (50 CFR 300.215(b) and requirements at 50 CFR 300.218(f); daily publication of the proposed rule, NMFS (d)); purse seine fishing effort reports at 50 published a final rule that expands the • general requirements to carry CFR 300.218(g), and whale shark requirement for vessel owners to obtain WCPFC observers (50 CFR 300.215(c)(1) reporting requirements at 50 CFR International Maritime Organization and (c)(2)); 300.218(h)) (IMO) numbers to include smaller U.S. • transshipping, bunkering, and net Table 1 shows the regulations that vessels fishing for tuna and tuna-like sharing requirements (50 CFR apply and no longer apply in the species in the IATTC Area and relaxes 300.216(b)(2)–(3) and (c)); overlap area under the final rule. TABLE 1—TABLE OF REGULATIONS UNDER THE FINAL RULE

Regulations implementing WPCFC decisions Regulations implementing IATTC decisions Applies in overlap area Applies in overlap area Changed from 50 CFR 300 subpart O under final rule? 50 CFR 300 subpart C or 50 CFR 216 under final rule? proposed rule

§ 300.223(a) Purse seine fishing ef- No ...... § 300.25(e) Purse seine closures ...... Yes ...... No. fort limits. § 300.223(b) Purse seine fish aggre- No ...... § 300.28 Purse seine FAD restrictions ...... Yes ...... No. gating devices (FADs). § 300.223(d) Purse seine catch re- No ...... § 300.27(a) Tuna retention requirements for Yes ...... No. tention. purse seine vessels. § 300.223(f) Purse seine sea turtle No ...... § 300.27(c) Purse seine sea turtle handling and Yes ...... No. mitigation. release. § 300.223(g)–(h) Purse seine whale No ...... § 300.27(g)–(h) Purse seine whale shark re- Yes ...... No. shark mitigation. strictions for purse seine vessels. § 300.224 Longline fishing restric- No ...... § 300.25(a) Longline tuna catch limits ...... Yes ...... No. tions. § 300.226 Oceanic whitetip shark No ...... § 300.27(d) Oceanic whitetip shark restrictions; Yes ...... No. and silky shark. § 300.27(e)–(f) Silky shark restrictions. No comparable requirements ...... N/A ...... § 300.25(b) Use of tender vessels ...... Yes ...... No (though not included in description of pro- posed rule). No comparable requirements ...... N/A ...... § 300.25(f) Restrictions on fishing in proximity Yes ...... No. to data buoys. No comparable requirements ...... N/A ...... § 300.25(g) Pacific bluefin tuna catch limits ...... Yes ...... No. No comparable requirements ...... N/A ...... § 300.27(b) Release requirements for non-tuna Yes ...... No. species on purse seine vessels. No comparable requirements ...... N/A ...... § 300.27(i)–(j) Mobulid ray restrictions ...... Yes ...... No. No comparable requirements ...... N/A ...... § 300.27(k) Shark handling and release require- Yes ...... No. ments for purse seine vessels. No comparable requirements ...... N/A ...... § 300.27(l) Shark line prohibition for longline Yes ...... No. vessels.

2 NMFS published a proposed rule on January 24, Special Emphasis on the Silky Sharks 3 This list includes those regulations that NMFS 2020 (85 FR 4250), to implement provisions in (Carcharhinus Falciformis), for the Years 2020– proposed removing from application in the overlap IATTC Resolutions C–19–01 (‘‘Amendment to 2021’’), and C–18–07 (‘‘Resolution on Improving area under the proposed rule, as well as the Resolution C–18–05 on the Collection and Analysis Observer Safety At Sea: Emergency Action Plan’’), additional regulations described above that were of Data on Fish Aggregating Devices (FADs)’’), C– and AIDCP Resolution A–18–03 (‘‘On Improving not included in the proposed rule. 19–05 (‘‘Amendment to the Resolution C–16–06 Observer Safety At Sea: Emergency Action Plan’’). Conservation Measures for Shark Species, with

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:36 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM 22JNR1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 37379

TABLE 1—TABLE OF REGULATIONS UNDER THE FINAL RULE—Continued

Regulations implementing WPCFC decisions Regulations implementing IATTC decisions Applies in overlap area Applies in overlap area Changed from 50 CFR 300 subpart O under final rule? 50 CFR 300 subpart C or 50 CFR 216 under final rule? proposed rule

§ 300.212 WCPFC vessel permit en- Yes ...... § 300.22(b) IATTC vessel register requirements Yes ...... No. dorsements. § 300.213 Vessel information re- Yes ...... No comparable requirements ...... N/A ...... No. quirements for fishing in foreign exclusive economic zones (EEZs). § 300.214 Compliance with Laws of Yes ...... No comparable requirements ...... N/A ...... No. Other Nations. § 300.215(c)(3), (c)(4), and (c)(5) Yes ...... § 216.24(e) Purse seine observers * ...... Yes ...... No. Accommodating observers. § 300.215(b), (c)(1), (c)(2), and (d) No ...... No comparable requirements ...... N/A ...... Yes. Observers and Transshipment ob- servers. § 300.216(b)(1) Purse seine trans- Yes ...... § 300.25(c) Purse seine transshipment require- Yes ...... No. shipment at sea. ments. § 300.216(b)(2)–(3) and (c) Trans- No ...... No comparable requirements ...... N/A ...... Yes. shipping, bunkering and net shar- ing. § 300.217 Vessel identification ...... Yes ...... § 300.22(b)(3)(ii) IMO numbers ...... Yes ...... No. § 300.218 Reporting and record- Yes ** ...... § 300.22 Recordkeeping and reporting require- Yes ...... Yes.** keeping requirements. ments. § 300.219 Vessel monitoring system Yes ...... § 300.26 Vessel Monitoring System ...... Yes ...... No. § 300.221 Facilitation of enforcement Yes ...... No comparable requirements ...... N/A ...... No. and inspection. § 300.223(e) Purse seine observer No ...... § 216.24(e) Purse seine observers * ...... Yes ...... Yes. coverage. No comparable requirements ...... N/A ...... § 216.24 Requirements for U.S. purse seine Yes ...... No. vessels fishing under the requirements of the AIDCP (e.g., vessel and operator permit re- quirements, requirements for fishing on dol- phins, etc.)*. * These regulations also implement provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program, and are not located at 50 CFR part 300, subpart C, but instead are located at 50 CFR part 216, subpart C. ** The transshipment reporting requirements at 50 CFR 300.218(b) and (d), the discard reporting requirements at 50 CFR 300.218(e), the net sharing reporting re- quirements at 50 CFR 300.218(f), the daily purse seine fishing effort reports at 50 CFR 300.218(g), and the whale shark reporting requirements at 50 CFR 300.218(h) no longer apply in the overlap area. The whale shark reporting requirements were described as no longer applicable in the overlap area under the proposed rule. However, the other requirements listed here that no longer apply in the overlap area are changes from the proposed rule. Note: Titles of regulation sections have been modified in some instances to include additional descriptive information.

The narrative that follows provides an transshipments of fish caught in the areas of national jurisdiction’’ and explanation of why certain WCPFC overlap area and transshipped in the ‘‘ensure that all such fishing vessels are regulations continue to apply in the overlap area. entered in that record’’ (Article 24, overlap area, while other WCPFC The reporting requirements at 50 CFR Paragraphs 2 and 4). Accordingly, to regulations no longer apply in the 300.218 (e), (f), (g), and (h), regarding continue to fulfill these requirements, overlap area, under this final rule. The purse seine discards, purse seine net NMFS is maintaining the regulations at narrative is organized into topic areas. sharing, daily purse seine fishing effort, 50 CFR 300.212 and 300.213 in the Recordkeeping and Reporting and whale shark encirclements no overlap area. longer apply in the overlap area. Vessel Identification The regulations at 50 CFR 300.218(a) Vessel Authorizations and Information for catch and effort reporting continue The vessel identification requirements to apply in the overlap area under the The requirements for vessel owners at 50 CFR 300.217 continue to apply in final rule. NMFS is required to maintain and operators to apply for and obtain the overlap area. The requirements these provisions to fulfill its obligations from NMFS an endorsement to fish in include specific vessel marking under the WCPF Convention (see Annex the WCPFC Area (WCPFC Area requirements as well as requirements for III, Article 5, requiring vessel operators Endorsement) and to provide certain obtaining IMO numbers. NMFS must to ‘‘record and report vessel position, information to NMFS if the vessel is maintain the marking requirement to catch of target and non-target species, used for fishing in waters under the fulfill its obligations under both the fishing effort, and other relevant jurisdiction of a nation other than the WCPF Convention (see Annex III, fisheries data’’). United States (50 CFR 300.212 and 50 Article 6, Paragraph 3, stating that The regulations for transshipment CFR 300.213) continue to apply in the vessels must be ‘‘marked and identified reporting and notices at 50 CFR overlap area. The United States is in accordance with the FAO Standard 300.218(b) and (d) apply to required by the WCPF Convention to Specifications for the Marking and transshipment of fish caught in the prohibit fishing vessels entitled to fly its Identification of Fishing Vessels or such WCPFC Area and transshipped flag to fish beyond its areas of national alternative standard as may be adopted anywhere. Thus, they continue to apply jurisdiction unless they have been by the Commission’’) and the to transshipments of fish caught in the authorized to do so and the United regulations implementing the High Seas WCPFC Area outside the overlap area States must also ‘‘maintain a record of Fishing Compliance Act (see 50 CFR and transshipped inside the overlap fishing vessels entitled to fly its flag and 300.36). NMFS is maintaining the area under this final rule. However, authorized to be used for fishing in the requirement for obtaining IMO numbers these regulations no longer apply to [WCPF] Convention Area beyond its in the overlap area (50 CFR 300.217(c)).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:36 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM 22JNR1 37380 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

A parallel IATTC regulation (50 CFR Convention Area to use near real-time the fisheries management, surveillance 300.22(b)) imposes the same satellite position-fixing transmitters and enforcement authorities of the requirement, so maintaining orremoving while in such areas’’). members of the Commission.’’ Title 50 the WCPFC regulation in the overlap NMFS implements the WCPFC VMS CFR 300.221(a)(3) requires that an up- area would have no effect on vessel requirements so that the vessel owner to-date copy of the International Code of owners and operators at this time. As and operator must continuously operate Signals (INTERCO) is on board and noted above, NMFS has published a the VMS unit at all times, except that accessible at all times, as required by final rule that expands the requirement the VMS unit may be shut down while Annex III, Article 6, Paragraph 5 of the for vessel owners to obtain IMO the vessel is at port or otherwise not at WCPF Convention. Title 50 CFR numbers to include smaller U.S. vessels sea, provided that the owner and 300.221(a)(4) requires specific fishing for tuna and tuna-like species in operator follows certain steps (50 CFR provisions for facilitating the work of the IATTC Area (84 FR 70040; 300.219(c)(3)). Thus, similar to the WCPFC transshipment monitors, as December 20, 2019; corrected in 85 FR requirements regarding accommodation required by Annex III, Article 4, 8198; February 13, 2020). of WCPFC observers, these regulations Paragraph 2, which states ‘‘[t]he are not specific to a particular operator shall allow and assist any Observers geographic area and continue to apply person authorized by the Commission or The majority of the requirements in the overlap area under this final rule. by the member of the Commission in implementing WCPFC conservation and Compliance With Laws of Other Nations whose designated port or area a management measures regarding transhipment takes place to have full observers no longer apply in the overlap Regulations regarding compliance access to and use of facilities and area under this final rule. However, the with laws of other nations (50 CFR equipment which such authorized requirements for accommodating 300.214) continue to apply in the person may determine is necessary to observers at 50 CFR 300.215(c)(3), (4), overlap area under this final rule. NMFS carry out his or her duties, including and (5) continue to apply in the overlap is required to maintain this provision in full access to the bridge, fish on board area, as they apply in all locations order to fulfill its obligations under the and areas which may be used to hold, where a WCPFC observer is on board WCPF Convention (see Annex III, process, weigh and store fish, and full the vessel. The specific provisions Article 2, stating that vessel operators access to the vessel’s records, including regarding accommodation of WCPFC must ‘‘comply with the applicable its log and documentation for the observers at 50 CFR 300.215(c) will national laws of each coastal State Party purpose of inspection and continue to apply in the overlap area so to this Convention in whose jurisdiction photocopying. The operator shall also there is no gap in these requirements, it enters and shall be responsible for the allow and assist any such authorized which are intended for the safety and compliance by the vessel and its crew person to remove samples and gather well-being of WCPFC observers, just with such laws and the vessel shall be any other information required to fully because the vessel has entered the operated in accordance with such monitor the activity. The operator or overlap area. laws’’). any member of the crew shall not Transshipment and Net Sharing Facilitation of Enforcement and assault, obstruct, resist, delay, refuse Inspection boarding to, intimidate or interfere with Requirements implementing the any such authorized person in the WCPFC decisions regarding Regulations for facilitating performance of such person’s duties. transshipment and net sharing no longer enforcement and inspection (50 CFR Every effort should be made to ensure apply in the overlap area under this 300.221) continue to apply in the that any disruption to fishing operations final rule, except for the prohibition on overlap area under this final rule. NMFS is minimized during inspections of transshipments at sea from or to purse is required to maintain the regulations trans[s]hipments.’’ seine vessels at 50 CFR 300.216(b)(1). found in 50 CFR 300.221(a) in order to The regulations at 50 CFR 300.221(b) NMFS is required to maintain the purse fulfill its obligations under the WCPF set forth specific requirements regarding seine transshipment prohibition to Convention. 50 CFR 300.221(a)(1) boarding and inspection on the high fulfill its obligation under the WCPF requires certain documentation be seas. NMFS is required by the WCPF Convention (see Article 29, Paragraph 5, carried onboard, as required by Annex Convention to implement procedures stating that ‘‘transshipment at sea by III, Article 6, Paragraph 1 of the WCPF for boarding and inspection established purse seine vessels operating within the Convention. This provision states that by the WCPFC (see Article 26, Convention Area shall be prohibited’’). ‘‘the authorization issued by the flag Paragraph 3, stating that Commission Regulations that implement IATTC State of the vessel and if applicable, any members ‘‘shall ensure that fishing management measures for license issued by a coastal State Party to vessels flying its flag accept boarding by transshipment also include prohibitions this Convention, or a duly certified copy duly authorized inspectors in on at-sea transshipment for purse seine . . . shall be carried on board the vessel accordance with such procedures’’). The vessels (50 CFR 300.25(c)). at all times and produced at the request regulations found in § 300.221(b) of an authorized enforcement official of implement those WCPFC procedures Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) any member of the Commission.’’ 50 (Conservation and Management Regulations implementing WCPFC CFR 300.221(a)(2) requires continuous Measure (CMM) 2006–08, ‘‘Western and VMS measures continue to apply in the monitoring of certain radio frequencies, Central Pacific Fisheries Commission overlap area under this final rule (50 as required by Annex III, Article 6, Boarding and Inspection Procedures’’), CFR 300.219). NMFS is required to Paragraph 4 of the WCPF Convention, and therefore, NMFS is maintaining maintain the VMS provisions in order to which states that vessel operators ‘‘shall these provisions in the overlap area. fulfill its obligations under the WCPF ensure the continuous monitoring of the The regulations at 50 CFR 300.221(c) Convention (see Article 24, Paragraph 8, international distress and calling require transiting fishing vessels to store stating that ‘‘[e]ach member of the frequency 2182 khz (HF) or the gear when transiting in an area they are Commission shall require its fishing international safety and calling not authorized to fish, as required by vessels that fish for highly migratory frequency 156.8 Mhz (channel 16, VHF– Annex III, Article 6, Paragraph 6 of the fish stocks on the high seas in the FM) to facilitate communication with WCPF Convention (‘‘At all times when

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:36 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM 22JNR1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 37381

[a] vessel is navigating through an area seine vessels to carry WCPFC observers both the WCPF Convention and the under the national jurisdiction of a on all fishing trips in the overlap area Convention for the Strengthening of the member of the Commission in which it would make fishing in the overlap area Inter-America Tropical Tuna does not have a license to fish, and at more logistically complicated and more Commission Established by the 1949 all times when the vessel is navigating expensive than if those regulations did Convention between the United States on the high seas in the Convention Area not continue to apply in the overlap of America and the Republic of Costa and has not been authorized by its flag area. One commenter stated that more Rica (Antigua Convention), and NMFS’ state to fish on the high seas, all fishing U.S. purse seine vessels are choosing to rationale for maintaining both equipment on board the vessel shall be fish exclusively in the IATTC Area for requirements is unclear. According to stowed or secured in such a manner that all or a significant part of the year, the commenter, NMFS’ 2016 rule is not readily available to be used for rather than in the exclusive economic regarding the overlap area did continue fishing’’). zones (EEZs) of Pacific island parties to to apply both WCPFC and IATTC the South Pacific Tuna Treaty. If the Comments and Responses observer requirements for purse seine requirement to carry a WCPFC observer vessels, but stated that NMFS only NMFS received 10 comment letters in continues in the overlap area, vessels continued to apply the IATTC observer response to the proposed rule, several of would continue to need to carry two requirements at 50 CFR 300.22(b) to which included similar comments. observers (an IATTC observer and a fulfill U.S. obligations under the AIDCP Below, NMFS summarizes the matters WCPFC observer) or to carry a cross- (2016 final rule; 81 FR 24501; April 26, raised in each of the individual endorsed observer when fishing in the 2016). The proposed rule does not comment letters, grouping similar overlap area. Commenters stated that all similarly identify any U.S. treaty comments together, and provides a cross-endorsed observers are WCPFC obligations that would be undermined response to each of these matters. observers that receive additional or abrogated by following the clear Comment 1: Several commenters training from the IATTC to operate in intent of the WCPFC–IATTC joint expressed support for changing the IATTC Area and that there are no decision on the overlap area. The management of the overlap area so that cross-endorsed observers from the commenter stated that the proposed rule regulations implementing IATTC IATTC that are similarly approved to draws an unwarranted and unsupported decisions rather than regulations operate in the WCPFC Area. One distinction between conservation and implementing WCPFC decisions would commenter stated that a vessel management measures for fish stocks apply. One commenter stated that the departing from a port in the IATTC Area and those for MCS purposes that runs IATTC rules are fairer, more has two options for obtaining a WCPFC contrary to the decisions of both transparent, and more clearly delineated observer: (1) Fly the observer to the port organizations and fails to acknowledge in terms of the rules to be applied than of departure, at the cost of the travel as are the WCPFC rules, thus reducing that all WCPFC decisions related to the well as lost fishing time of a week or operations of fishing vessels, including considerable uncertainty with respect to more; or (2) steam to Christmas Island potential violations. According to the those for MCS purposes, are or other port to pick the observer up, implemented by binding conservation commenter, the IATTC regime again at the loss of significant fishing establishes a more level playing field for and management measures. The time and fuel costs in excess of $20,000. commenter stated that with respect to the U.S. fleet when compared to other One commenter stated that it is fleets; the management measures are the continued application of certain important to note that purse seine WCPFC rules in the overlap area, the more effectively monitored and vessels currently fishing exclusively in concern is not with the application of enforced to ensure that everyone is the IATTC Area do not embark cross- the requirements themselves. The abiding by the same rules. The endorsed observers and thus are not concern is that the continued commenter also stated that for these able to fish in the overlap area. application of the WCPFC MCS reasons, applying the IATTC rules to the According to the commenter, measures in the overlap area appears to overlap area would benefit the U.S. tuna maintaining the existing observer require vessels to carry cross-endorsed purse seine fleet, which, according to requirements for the overlap area would observers, which, as noted, will the commenter, operates at a significant perpetuate this inequity, run counter to unnecessarily limit the benefits of the competitive disadvantage to its foreign the proposed rule’s specified intent of proposed rule for vessels fishing competitors, and has been recently applying IATTC rules instead of WCPFC reduced in size by approximately one rules in the overlap area, and exclusively in the IATTC Area. Another quarter due to the adverse economic significantly reduce the potential commenter stated that it did not believe conditions affecting the fleet. According benefits of the proposed rule to the that there are issues relating to legal to the commenter, if adopted and purse seine fleet. The commenter also obligations for carrying an observer applied correctly, this proposed change stated that the EA for the proposed rule under either the WCPF Convention or could be one important step to mitigate shows that requiring cross-endorsed the Antigua Convention, since both these conditions and stabilize the observers and other WCPFC MCS conventions require purse seine vessels current situation. It would also respond measures in the overlap area in addition just to carry an observer, and do not to some of the concerns of American to IATTC regulations would not provide specify that the observer needs to be a Samoa Governor Moliga regarding the any additional conservation benefit. WCPFC observer or an IATTC observer. adverse effects of current conditions on Commenters requested NMFS to Response: As stated above, NMFS has the economy of American Samoa. modify the proposed rule so that purse reconsidered the specific WCPFC Response: NMFS acknowledges the seine vessels fishing exclusively in the observer coverage requirements for comments. This final rule maintains the IATTC Area, including the overlap area, purse seine vessels in 50 CFR regulations in the proposed rule that not be required to carry WCPFC 300.223(e). We agree that NMFS need apply IATTC management measures in observers, and be subject to only the not apply the observer provisions in 50 the overlap area. IATTC-related observer requirements. CFR 300.223(e) in the overlap area in Comment 2: Several commenters One commenter stated that it order for the U.S. to fulfill its expressed concern that the proposal to understood that this is the practice of all obligations under the WCPF continue the requirement for purse others that are Contracting Parties to Convention. Moreover, requiring both a

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:36 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM 22JNR1 37382 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

WCPFC observer and an IATTC instead of the western and central Comment 4: One commenter observer, or a cross-endorsed observer, Pacific Ocean (WCPO). questioned why the WCPFC is giving up would not provide any additional In addition, the commenter stated, for or ceding its right to determine fishing conservation or monitoring benefit, and vessels that are on both the IATTC RVR regulations in the overlap area. may be cost-prohibitive for vessels and the WCPFC Record of Fishing Response: Under the WCPF fishing in the IATTC Area who wish to Vessels and operate from ports in the Convention, the WCPFC continues to enter the overlap area. However, for the EPO, the requirement to carry a WCPFC have management competence over the reasons discussed above, the observer results in trip delays and tens overlap area. However, the WCPFC and requirements for accommodating of thousands of dollars in additional IATTC decided that members of both observers at 50 CFR 300.215(c)(3) costs for every fishing trip in the overlap commissions, like the United States, can continue to apply in the overlap area. area. According to the commenter, it choose whether to apply WCPFC In response to the comment that the takes the IATTC approximately 24 hours management measures or IATTC proposed rule did not identify any U.S. to assign an observer to a vessel leaving management measures in the overlap treaty obligation that would be out of a port in the EPO, but the process area (see WCPFC–IATTC joint decision undermined by continuing to apply to obtain a WCPFC observer that is a on the overlap area). Table 1, above, certain WCPFC regulations in the cross endorsed-observer is substantially shows the domestic regulations overlap area, NMFS has identified more burdensome. The commenter implementing WCPFC decisions and specific provisions of the WCPF stated that it takes at least two weeks which regulations implementing IATTC Convention which impose continuing advance notice to have a cross-endorsed decisions that NMFS is applying in the requirements upon NMFS in the overlap observer assigned to a vessel in the EPO, overlap area under this final rule. area. NMFS is continuing to apply if such as an observer is even available. Comment 5: One commenter stated WCPFC regulations which are necessary According to the commenter, once the that the use of FADs can pose a serious to continue to fulfill its obligations vessel owner notifies the FFA that a risk to young fish populations, under the WCPF Convention. Please see cross-endorsed observer is needed, the specifically juvenile yellowfin and discussion above for a description of FFA begins the process of finding an bigeye tuna. The commenter requested these obligations. observer who is willing to travel to that the more stringent FAD restrictions Comment 3: One commenter objected South America. The vessel owner must enacted through the WCPFC-derived to NMFS’ conclusions that the proposed then pay for a round trip ticket for the regulations remain in effect and not be rule would not have any observer and obtain all required visas replaced by regulations implementing disproportionate economic impacts for the travel, which amount to IATTC measures. According to the based on vessel size, gear, or homeport approximately $6,000 per trip. If the commenter, populations of younger and that the rule would only bring FFA cannot provide an observer willing yellowfin and bigeye tuna tend to modest increases in compliance costs to to travel to South America, a vessel congregate near FADs much more purse seine vessels. According to the based out of an EPO port must travel frequently than their adult counterparts. commenter, the purse seine observer with an IATTC observer on board, cross The commenter stated that FADs are coverage requirements under the into the WCPFC Area and pick up a believed to be effective because they proposed rule would permanently WCPFC observer, and then enter the provide fish with a sense of security prevent some vessels that are active on overlap area. Such a trip takes at least from lurking predators in the open sea, the IATTC Regional Vessel Register four days out of the way to get to the and that younger fish seek this (RVR) from being able to fish in the closest port in the WCPFC Area, which protection much more than adult fish. overlap area. The commenter stated that costs upwards of $20,000 in fuel costs, The commenter provided information since publication of the 2016 final rule, in addition to the crew and other vessel regarding the behavioral tendencies of repeated requests have been made to costs and lost fishing time. fish around FADs and cited a NMFS to assist in getting IATTC Response: Please see the response to publication by the Pew Environment observers approved as cross-endorsed Comment 2, above, regarding Group. According to the commenter, observers, but there are still no IATTC application of WCPFC purse seine FADs place juvenile fish populations at observers that are cross-endorsed observer coverage requirements in the risk of being overfished, which can lead observers. In addition, the commenter overlap area under this final rule. The to sharp declines in overall fish stated that the WCPFC and the Pacific WCPFC observer coverage requirements populations, and place our natural Islands Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) for purse seine vessels found in 50 CFR resources in jeopardy. The commenter have stated that a WCPFC observer will 300.223(e) no longer apply in the stated that the regulations implementing never be placed on board a vessel that overlap area under this final rule. The the WCPFC 5-month FAD prohibition is not on the WCPFC Record of Fishing analysis in the FRFA below, provides an period should remain in effect in the Vessels. Thus, according to the updated discussion of the compliance overlap area. commenter, U.S. purse seine vessels costs of the final rule, including a Response: As stated in the EA, the that are on the IATTC RVR but not on discussion of potential disproportionate change in application in the overlap the WCPFC Record of Fishing Vessels economic impacts. NMFS notes that the area from the WCPFC purse seine would not be permitted to fish in the requirement to carry a WCPFC observer fishing effort limits and FAD restrictions overlap area under the proposed rule. on U.S. purse seine vessels when in the to the IATTC purse seine fishing The commenter stated that unlike overlap area was not newly proposed in seasonal closures and FAD restrictions IATTC vessels from every other nation, the proposed rule (i.e., it was an existing could affect the fishing patterns and and any U.S. flagged purse seine vessel requirement). Thus, the proposed rule practices of U.S. purse seine vessels that operates in the WCPFC Area would not have introduced any new fishing in the overlap area, leading to outside of the overlap area, its vessel compliance costs regarding observers for greater fishing effort in the overlap area would be completely excluded from U.S. purse seine vessels when fishing in and possibly greater flexibility and fishing in the overlap area, and suffer the overlap area, and would not have fishing opportunities in the WCPO as a the resulting disproportionate economic led to disproportionate economic whole. However, when agreeing on the impact simply because it operates from impacts based on vessel size, gear, or joint WCPFC–IATTC decision on the a port in the eastern Pacific Ocean (EPO) homeport. overlap area, the WCPFC and IATTC

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:36 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM 22JNR1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 37383

recognized that a member may choose to whether the commenter is referring to address the concerns expressed (by the apply the conservation and management the regulatory changes described in the same commenter) regarding the need for measures of only the WCPFC or the proposed rule or to regulations that U.S. purse seine vessels fishing in the IATTC. Moreover, as stated in the EA, were already in effect. Table 1 above overlap area to carry a cross-endorsed because many other factors contribute to details the regulations that were already observer. the status of the stocks (fishing activities in effect, the regulations that go into Response: NMFS acknowledges the by non-U.S. fleets, oceanographic effect under this final rule, and the comment. As detailed in the response to conditions, etc.), and because the changes from the proposed rule. Please Comment 2, above, the WCPFC purse overlap area is a small part of the total see the response to Comment 2, above, seine observer coverage requirements at area available for fishing in the Pacific regarding application of WCPFC purse 50 CFR 300.223(e) no longer apply in Ocean, the direct and indirect effects to seine observer requirements in the the overlap area under this final rule. fish stocks from implementation of this overlap area under this final rule. The Comment 9: One commenter final rule is expected to be small. The WCPFC observer coverage requirements requested protection for tuna fisheries stocks of skipjack tuna, yellowfin tuna, for purse seine vessels found in 50 CFR and the areas where tuna live. and bigeye tuna in the Pacific Ocean are 300.223(e) no longer apply in the Response: NMFS acknowledges the not currently in an overfished condition overlap area under this final rule. U.S. comment. As detailed in Table 1, above, or experiencing overfishing (except the purse seine vessels operating from NMFS regulations that implement EPO stock of yellowfin tuna). American Samoa must comply with the conservation and management measures Comment 6: One commenter stated IATTC observer measures for purse for tuna fisheries apply in the overlap that the overlap area is an important seine vessels found in 50 CFR 216.24(e) area under this final rule. fishing ground for the U.S. purse seine when operating in the overlap area, fleet based in American Samoa, due to which can be satisfied by carrying either Changes From Proposed Rule the geographic proximity of the overlap an IATTC observer or a cross-endorsed In this final rule, several regulations area to American Samoa. The observer. The current list of cross- implementing WCPFC decisions, which commenter also stated that U.S. purse endorsed observers includes 86 would have applied in the overlap area seine vessels do not have to pay access individuals (list dated September 26, under the proposed rule, no longer fees for fishing on the high seas in the 2019), all from Pacific Island countries, apply in the overlap area. These overlap area, unlike the access fees and thus, they are generally more regulations are as follows: needed to fish in the EEZs of the Parties readily available to depart from • Transshipment observer to the Nauru Agreement, Tokelau, and American Samoa than are IATTC requirements (50 CFR 300.215(b) and the Cook Islands. According to the observers. (d)); commenter, the current practice of Comment 7: A commenter stated that • general WCPFC observer coverage applying both the WCPFC and IATTC there is no need to have an area of requirements (50 CFR 300.215(c)(1) and management measures to the overlap overlap between two fishing (2)); area is redundant and is a wasteful use commissions that manage tuna. • transshipping, bunkering, and net of compliance, monitoring, surveillance According to the commenter, the IATTC sharing regulations (50 CFR and regulatory resources. Similarly, the covers more overall territory and the 300.216(b)(2)–(3) and (c)); commenter stated, the proposed rule IATTC’s distribution of fishing zones is • transshipment reporting seems wasteful and operationally more precise and evenly spaced. Thus, requirements (50 CFR 300.218(b) and impractical in that it requires both the commenter stated, it would be more (d)); IATTC observers and WCPFC observers efficient for the overlap area to be • discard reporting requirements at or a cross-endorsed observer for fishing managed by the IATTC, but questioned (50 CFR 300.218(e)); in the overlap area. According to the what those on the U.S. west coast and • net sharing reporting requirements commenter, cross-endorsed observers in the Pacific islands would receive in at (50 CFR 300.218(f)); are not always available, so U.S. purse return. According to the commenter, the • daily purse seine fishing effort seine vessels operating from American proposed rule does not seem to provide reports (50 CFR 300.218(g)); and Samoa may not be able to fish in the a detailed solution to revoking territory • purse seine observer coverage (50 overlap area if an IATTC observer or a from the WCPFC. CFR 300.223(e)). cross-endorsed observer is unavailable. Response: NMFS acknowledges the The reasons for these changes from The commenter stated that the comment. However, the matter raised by the proposed rule are described in American Samoa government is trying the commenter is outside the scope of greater detail above in the Background to attract fishing vessels to operate out this rulemaking. The WCPF Convention section. of American Samoa so that the specifies the WCPFC’s area of This final rule also includes an canneries will have access to their competence, which includes the overlap administrative change to the definition catch; locally based U.S. purse seine area, and the Antigua Convention of Effort Limit Area for Purse Seine, or vessels are critically important for the specifies the IATTC’s area of ELAPS, to further clarify that the supply of tuna to the dependent competence, which includes the overlap regulations at 50 CFR 300.223(a) economy. The commenter stated that area. As these boundaries are implementing WCPFC purse seine U.S. purse seine vessels need access to established by international agreement, fishing effort limits, no longer apply in the overlap area, but access would be NMFS has no authority to alter them. the overlap area, and an administrative effectively blocked if the vessels have to Comment 8: A commenter stated that change to the definition of overlap area. take observers from both the WCPFC there may be protocols in place between Based on NMFS’ reexamination of the and the IATTC and such observers or the IATTC and the Secretariat of the proposed rule, NMFS believes these cross-endorsed observers are not Pacific Community (and by extension administrative changes will help clarify available. WCPFC) for sharing observer data for the intent of the final rule. Response: NMFS acknowledges the vessels carrying IATTC observers in the comment. However, the term ‘‘current overlap area. The commenter requests Classification practice’’ in the comment is unclear to that NMFS consider whether any such The Assistant Administrator for NMFS and NMFS does not know arrangement might be sufficient to Fisheries has determined that this final

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:36 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM 22JNR1 37384 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

rule is consistent with the WCPFCIA, conclusions regarding disproportionate final rule are described earlier in the the Tuna Conventions Act, and other economic impacts and compliance preamble, as well as in the preamble to applicable laws. costs. Several other comments on the the proposed rule. The classes of small proposed rule related to NMFS’ entities subject to the requirements and Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) assessment of the economic effects of the expected costs of complying with NMFS determined that this action is the proposed rule, and thus could be the requirements are described in this consistent to the maximum extent relevant to the IRFA. See the discussion Classification section of this final rule. practicable with the enforceable policies above summarizing Comments 1, 2, 3, As described in the Paperwork of the approved coastal management and 6 and NMFS’s responses to those Reduction Act (PRA) subsection below, program of American Samoa, the comments. this final rule contains a revised Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana collection-of-information requirement Description of Small Entities to Which Islands (CNMI), Guam, and the State of subject to review and approval by OMB the Rule Will Apply Hawaii. NMFS submitted under the PRA. determinations to Hawaii and each of For RFA purposes only, NMFS has Fulfillment of the requirements under the Territories on February 7, 2019, for established a small business size the final rule is not expected to require review by the responsible state and standard for businesses, including their any professional skills that affected territorial agencies under section 307 of affiliates, whose primary industry is vessel owners and operators do not the CZMA. The CNMI replied by letter commercial fishing (50 CFR 200.2). A already possess. dated March 7, 2019, stating that based business primarily engaged in For longline fishing entities, although on the information provided, it has commercial fishing (NAICS code as previously described there are about determined that the action will be 114111) is classified as a small business 144 such entities that are authorized to undertaken in a manner that is if it is independently owned and be used for fishing in the overlap area, consistent to the maximum extent operated, is not dominant in its field of there has been very little fishing activity practicable with the enforceable policies operation (including its affiliates), and in the overlap area (and no longline of the CNMI’s coastal management has combined annual receipts not in fishing activity at all since 2010), and program. Hawaii replied by letter dated excess of $11 million for all its affiliated NMFS has not identified any factors February 15, 2019, stating that, because operations worldwide. affecting the longline fishing status quo. the overlap area is outside of the The final rule would apply to owners The overlap area is distant from the jurisdiction of the Hawaii Coastal Zone and operators of U.S. commercial general areas of operation of the U.S. Management Program’s enforceable fishing vessels used to fish for HMS in longline fisheries in the Pacific Ocean. policies, it would not be responding to the overlap area, including longline Moreover, the longline bigeye tuna the consistency determination. No vessels, albacore troll vessels, and purse catch limit for the WCPFC area is 3,554 responses were received from Guam or seine vessels. The number of such metric tons (mt) per year, while the American Samoa, and thus, concurrence vessels is the number authorized to fish longline bigeye tuna catch limit for the with the respective consistency in both the IATTC Area and WCPFC IATTC area through 2020 is 750 mt per determinations is presumed (15 CFR Area. The numbers as of January 27, year for vessel over 24 meters in overall 930.41). 2020, as reflected on the IATTC RVR length. Thus, at least for large vessels and the WCPFC Record of Fishing that are capable of making the trip to the Executive Order 12866 Vessels, were 144 longline vessels, 25 overlap area, the change in management This final rule has been determined to albacore troll vessels, and 15 purse of the overlap area from WCPFC be not significant for purposes of seine vessels. regulations to IATTC regulations is not Executive Order 12866. Based on limited financial expected to provide an increased information about the affected fishing incentive to fish in the overlap area. Executive Order 13771 fleets, and using individual vessels as Consequently, NMFS expects the final This final rule is considered an proxies for individual businesses, rule to have little or no effect in terms Executive Order 13771 deregulatory NMFS believes that all of the affected of recordkeeping, reporting, or other action. longline and albacore troll fishing compliance requirements for affected entities, and almost 85 percent of the longline fishing entities. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) purse seine fishing entities, are small For albacore troll fishing entities, A final regulatory flexibility analysis entities as defined by the RFA; that is, NMFS does expect fishing activity in (FRFA) was prepared as required by they are independently owned and the overlap area, so affected troll fishing section 604 of the RFA. The FRFA operated and not dominant in their entities could experience effects from incorporates the initial regulatory fields of operation, and have annual the final rule. Under the final rule, two flexibility analysis (IRFA) prepared for receipts of no more than $11.0 million. substantive sets of requirements that the proposed rule. The analysis in the Within the purse seine fleet, analysis of implement conservation and IRFA is not repeated here in its entirety. the average revenue, by vessel, for the management measures for fishing A description of the action, why it is three years of 2016–2018 (most recent activity are newly applied to the overlap being considered, and the legal basis for data available) reveals that average area: The regulations to implement this action are contained above in the annual revenue among vessels in the IATTC conservation and management SUMMARY section and this fleet was about $9.0 million, and the 3- measures that restrict fishing in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of year annual averages were less than the proximity to data buoys (50 CFR the preamble of this final rule. The $11 million threshold for 12 of the 15 300.25(f)), and the regulations to FRFA analysis follows: vessels on both the RVR and the WCPFC implement IATTC conservation and Record of Fishing Vessels. management measures prohibiting the Significant Issues Raised by Public retention of mobulid rays (with limited Comments in Response to the IRFA Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Other exceptions) and requiring that they be NMFS received one comment that Compliance Requirements handled and released in specified responded specifically to the IRFA. The reporting, recordkeeping and manners (50 CFR 300.27(i)–(j)). The new Comment 3, above, objected to NMFS’ other compliance requirements of this data buoy requirements could increase

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:36 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM 22JNR1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 37385

operating costs by increasing the time use of tender vessels (50 CFR 300.25(b)). not directly comparable, the IATTC spent at sea in the overlap area. For However, because the affected albacore measures provide greater fishing example, the vessel operator and crew troll fishing entities are already required opportunities to most or all affected would have to avoid interactions with to comply with these requirements purse seine fishing entities than those of data buoys, and if the vessel or gear when fishing in the IATTC Area, the WCPFC, because the IATTC purse seine becomes entangled with a data buoy application of these requirements in the closure period is shorter than the purse they would need to make sure to overlap area would not require seine closures that have been in effect disentangle the gear carefully, to cause substantial changes in practices and on the high seas in the WCPO due to the as little damage to the data buoys as would not be expected to bring any purse seine fishing effort limits possible. As NMFS found in the change in compliance costs. specified by the WCPFC (in 2015, analysis in support of the 2011 For the purse seine fishing entities, closure from June 15 through December rulemaking establishing these the removal of several regulations that 31, 2015; in 2016, closure from requirements throughout the IATTC implement WCPFC conservation and September 2 through December 31, Area, NMFS expects interactions with management measures for fishing 2016; in 2018, closure from September data buoys to be rare (76 FR 68332; activity from the overlap area is 18 through December 31, 2018; in 2019, November 4, 2011). Moreover, data from expected to reduce compliance costs, closure from October 9 through the National Data Buoy Center (NDBC) but those reductions will be somewhat November 28, 2019, and December 10 indicates that only one anchored data offset by compliance costs associated through December 31, 2019) or the buoy is located in the overlap area. with the imposition of similar WCPFC FAD prohibition periods. Since interactions with data buoys regulations to implement IATTC Further, the vessels operating under would be unlikely to occur in the conservation and management measures IATTC measures have greater overlap area, the compliance costs are in the overlap area. The regulations that operational certainty (affording expected to be minor or nil. NMFS does are removed from the overlap area logistical and maintenance not expect the mobulid ray under this final rule are the annual predictability) because the vessel owner requirements to lead to any compliance limits on purse seine fishing effort and chooses between one of two closure periods rather than being subject to a costs for albacore troll fishing vessels, the seasonal prohibitions on setting on variable closure date under WCPFC because there is very little bycatch in FADs (50 CFR 300.223(b)), as well as the measures. It is not possible to predict albacore troll fisheries (81 FR 50401; requirements to carry WCPFC observers the degree to which those opportunities August 1, 2016). on all fishing trips (50 CFR 300.223(e)). would be taken advantage of, but the Some of the regulations implementing The IATTC-related regulations that are greater opportunities and flexibility they WCPFC conservation and management now applied in the overlap area are the provide indicate that application of measures (at 50 CFR part 300, subpart seasonal closures on purse seine fishing IATTC measures in the overlap area will O) no longer apply in the overlap area, and purse seine FAD restrictions (50 likely reduce compliance costs for the CFR 300.28), as well as the IATTC but they are replaced with comparable directly affected purse seine fishing regulations implementing IATTC observer coverage requirements that entities. conservation and management measures have already been in effect (50 CFR Purse seine fishing entities authorized (at 50 CFR part 300, subpart C) that now 216.24(e)). Aside from the observer to fish in the WCPFC Area but not in the apply in this area. Specifically, the coverage requirements, the respective overlap area (because they are on the IATTC prohibition against retaining purse seine measures of IATTC and WCPFC Record of Fishing Vessels but oceanic whitetip shark, implemented by WCPFC are not directly comparable, not on the IATTC RVR) would not be 50 CFR 300.27(d)), now applies in the and NMFS cannot predict their directly affected by the final rule, but overlap area. The requirements under respective potential compliance costs they could be indirectly affected. The the regulations implementing WCPFC with any precision. Accordingly, only a fishing effort limits set forth in WCPFC conservation and management measures qualitative comparison of their conservation and management measures and IATTC conservation and respective compliance costs is possible. no longer apply in the overlap area, management measures are similar, and The measures as they apply on the high allowing greater fishing effort in the NMFS does not expect any substantive seas are what matter for this analysis, overlap area. Additionally, under the change in compliance costs for albacore since no portion of the U.S. EEZ is final rule, fishing effort in the overlap troll fishing entities. The regulations within the overlap area, and no U.S. area is not counted against WCPFC implementing WCPFC requirements for commercial HMS fishing vessels have limits, potentially increasing fishing observer coverage for transshipments at had a history of fishing in the foreign opportunities for the U.S. purse seine sea, transshipping and bunkering, and EEZs in the overlap area. Under the fleet outside the overlap area. This is for transshipment reporting for fish final rule, U.S. purse seine fishing based on trends in recent years showing caught in the overlap area no longer vessels are subject to one of the IATTC’s increased U.S. purse seine fishing apply in the overlap area. However, two 72-day prohibitions on purse seine activity in the overlap area. Since all of available information indicates that fishing (50 CFR 300.25(e)) in the overlap the fishing days in the overlap area no albacore troll vessels have not been area each year. If instead the WCPFC longer count towards the WCPFC- transshipping in the WCPFC Area, measures continued to apply in the specified fishing effort limits, it is likely including the overlap area, in recent overlap area, U.S. purse seine fishing that more fishing days would be years. There are also new requirements entities would be allowed, collectively, available to U.S. purse seine vessels on of a more administrative nature that to spend 1,270 fishing days on the high the high seas in the WCPFC Area apply in the overlap area for albacore seas in the WCPFC Area each year, with outside of the overlap area. troll fishing entities under regulations fishing days spent in the overlap area The removal of the requirement for implementing IATTC conservation and counting against that limit, and they purse seine vessels to carry WCPFC management measures, including would be subject to 5-month observers on all fishing trips in the logbook reporting requirements (50 CFR prohibitions on fishing on FADs in the overlap area is expected to reduce 300.22(a)(1)), VMS requirements (50 overlap area each year (50 CFR 300.223). compliance costs, as U.S. purse seine CFR 300.26), and the prohibition on the Although, the two sets of measures are vessels no longer need to carry both a

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:36 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM 22JNR1 37386 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

WCPFC observer and an IATTC observer generally do not target or catch Pacific shark (50 CFR 300.27(d)), and not to or a cross-endorsed observer when bluefin tuna. retain silky shark (50 CFR 300.27(e)); fishing in the overlap area. As detailed The data buoy requirements could requirements regarding sea turtle in the comment summary and response increase operating costs for purse seine handling and release (50 CFR 300.27(c)); section, above, obtaining a cross- vessels by increasing the time spent at whale shark restrictions (50 CFR endorsed observer or a WCPFC observer sea for a given amount of fishing. For 300.27(g)–(h)); and whale shark is costly and difficult for U.S. purse example, vessels now are not allowed to encirclement reporting requirements (50 seine vessels departing from ports in the fish within 1 nautical mile of an CFR 300.22(a)(2)). For these EPO, so this final rule will provide relief anchored data buoy, they must avoid requirements, the two sets of regulations from that cost. interactions with data buoys, and if the are similar, and NMFS does not expect In addition to the changes to the purse vessel or its gears becomes entangled any substantive change in compliance seine-specific regulations just described, with a data buoy, the operator and crew costs. several substantive requirements apply need to make sure to disentangle the There are also six additional to purse seine fishing entities in the gear carefully to cause as little damage requirements for purse seine fishing overlap area under the final rule that to the data buoys as possible. As NMFS entities under the regulations did not previously apply in that area: found in the 2011 rulemaking that implementing IATTC conservation and The regulations implementing IATTC established these requirements management measures that are in effect conservation and management measures throughout the IATTC Area, NMFS under the final rule. These requirements on FADs (50 CFR 300.28), the Pacific expects interactions with data buoys to include reporting on FAD interactions bluefin tuna catch limit (50 CFR be rare (76 FR 68332; November 4, (50 CFR 300.22(a)(3)(i)), reporting on 300.25(g)), restrictions on fishing in 2011). Moreover, there is a small active FADs (50 CFR 300.22(a)(3)(ii)), proximity to data buoys (50 CFR number of data buoys located in the logbook reporting requirements (50 CFR 300.25(f)), requirements to release non- overlap area. Based on data from the 300.22(a)(1)), the prohibition on the use tuna and non-tuna-like species (50 CFR NDBC, only one anchored data buoy is of tender vessels (50 CFR 300.25(b)), 300.27), requirements to release located in the overlap area. Thus, the transshipment requirements (50 CFR mobulid rays (with limited exceptions) compliance costs are expected to be 300.25(c)), and VMS requirements (50 and release them in specified manners minor. CFR 300.26). The first two requirements (50 CFR 300.27(i)–(j)), and requirements The requirements to release non-tuna (reporting on FAD interactions and to release sharks and handle them in species and non-tuna-like species, specified manners (50 CFR 300.27(k)), mobulid rays, and sharks are not reporting on active FADs) bring as explained in more detail below. expected to substantially affect business substantive new requirements for The FAD management measures revenues, because none of the affected fishing activities in the overlap area. include FAD identification regulations fishing entities target non-tuna species Regarding the requirement for reporting that require that deployed FADs be and non-tuna-like species, sharks, or on FAD interactions, as NMFS found in physically marked with unique rays. However, the requirements could the 2016 rulemaking that established the identifiers, as well as limits on the lead to increased time spent by vessel requirement throughout the IATTC Area number of active FADs, restrictions on operators and crew handling and (excepting the overlap area), NMFS FAD deployments and removals, and releasing incidentally caught non-tuna expects a minimal additional time FAD design regulations, which require species and non-tuna-like species, burden for owners and operators of large that all FADs on board or deployed meet sharks, and rays in the specified purse seine vessels to record the certain specifications, particularly with manner, and so could bring modest specified information for FAD respect to the use of netting. Although compliance costs. In addition, these interactions activities, and expects this final rule changes the area of requirements could detrimentally affect minor impacts on business incomes (81 application of the FAD management revenues if targeted tuna are FR 86966; December 2, 2016). Regarding regulations at 50 CFR 300.28, all of the incidentally released when these reporting on active FADs, as NMFS affected vessels are currently complying species are intentionally released from found in the 2018 rulemaking with those regulations when fishing in the brailer to comply with the establishing the requirement throughout the EPO. Data from 2014–2018 show regulations. However, affected U.S. the IATTC Area (excepting the overlap that all current U.S. purse seine vessels purse seine vessel owners and operators area), NMFS does not expect any that fished in the overlap area also are already subject to these increase in compliance costs, because it fished in the EPO. For affected entities, requirements when fishing in the IATTC is likely that vessel operators are already the change in area of application of the Area, and thus the small change in the collecting the necessary information (83 FAD management regulations probably area of application of these FR 15503; April 11, 2018). The latter will only bring a minor increase in costs requirements is not expected to four requirements (prohibition on the or no increased costs, as they are substantially increase compliance costs. use of tender vessels, logbook reporting already complying with those Some regulations implementing requirements, transshipment regulations when fishing in the EPO WCPFC conservation and management requirements, and VMS requirements) outside the overlap area. Moreover, measures for bycatch (at 50 CFR part are not expected to bring any new there are comparable limits for the 300, subpart O) no longer apply in the compliance costs, because the affected number of active FADs currently overlap area. However, comparable purse seine fishing entities are currently applicable in the overlap area under the regulations that implement IATTC subject to those regulations when regulations implementing WCPFC conservation and management measures fishing in the IATTC Area outside of the decisions at 50 CFR 300.223(b). for bycatch (at 50 CFR part 300, subpart overlap area, and the addition of these The Pacific bluefin tuna catch limits C) now apply in the overlap area. regulations in the overlap area will not that will go into effect in the overlap Regulations that have shifted in this require substantial changes in practices. area under the final rule are not manner include the requirements to Moreover, the regulations implementing expected to bring compliance costs to retain all catch of bigeye tuna, skipjack the IATTC prohibition on at-sea the large U.S. purse seine vessels that tuna, and yellowfin tuna (50 CFR transshipments for purse seine vessels fish in the overlap area, as these vessels 300.27(a)), not to retain oceanic whitetip are essentially identical to regulations in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:36 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM 22JNR1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 37387

effect in the overlap area implementing 50 CFR 300.217; (7) reporting and inspection vessels must follow when the WCPF Convention and WCPFC recordkeeping requirements at 50 CFR conducting such boarding and decisions. Similarly, the regulations 300.218(a); (8) VMS requirements at 50 inspections and requires inspections to implementing the IATTC VMS CFR 300.219; and (9) facilitation of be completed within four hours unless provisions are essentially identical to enforcement and inspection at 50 CFR evidence of a serious violation is found. regulations in effect in the overlap area 300.221. The regulations regarding the Thus, such high seas boarding and implementing the WCPF Convention prohibition on transshipments to and inspections, if they do occur, would not and WCPFC decisions, but would just from purse seine vessels at sea, vessel be expected to lead to substantial apply to a smaller group of vessels— identification requirements, and VMS compliance costs unless evidence of a vessels 24 meters or more in overall requirements are not expected to bring serious violation is found; it is difficult length. Given that the requirements any new compliance costs, as U.S. purse to predict how often that would occur implementing the WCPF Convention seine vessels fishing in the EPO are and what type of compliance costs already apply and continue to apply already subject to similar or identical under the final rule to vessels of all would be incurred in such a situation. requirements, as discussed above. The Overall, the compliance costs under this sizes, there will be no new VMS regulations for accommodating WCPFC requirements under the proposed rule, final rule for U.S. purse seine vessels observers also are not expected to bring fishing exclusively in the EPO are not and all U.S. commercial fishing vessels any new compliance costs, as they expected to be substantial. fishing for HMS in the overlap area are apply only when WCPFC observers are still required to continuously operate on board the vessel and U.S. purse seine In summary, this final rule is the VMS at all times, with certain vessels fishing exclusively in the EPO, expected to have little or no effect on exceptions. including the overlap area, are not the compliance costs of any affected Several other regulations expected to be carrying WCPFC entities, except purse seine fishing implementing WCPFC conservation and observers. The requirements for entities, for which a positive economic management measures for U.S. purse complying with the laws of other impact is expected. For purse seine seine vessels no longer apply in the nations also are not expected to bring fishing entities, this rule is likely to overlap area under this final rule. These any new compliance costs, as it is include the discard reporting bring modest increases in compliance unlikely these purse seine vessels will requirements at 50 CFR 300.218(e); the costs associated with several fish in areas subject to the laws of other transshipping, bunkering, and net requirements that will go into effect in sharing regulations at 50 CFR nations. Similarly, vessel information the overlap area. However, these costs 300.216(b)(3) and 50 CFR 300.216(c); requirements for fishing in foreign EEZs will be counteracted by a potentially the net sharing reporting requirements at 50 CFR 300.213 would not be substantial reduction in compliance at 50 CFR 300.218(f); and the daily expected to bring any new compliance costs associated with removal of the purse seine fishing effort reports at 50 costs. Applying for and obtaining the regulations to implement WCPFC CFR 300.218(g). However, under WCPFC Area Endorsements will result conservation and management measures regulations implementing the WCPF in some minor compliance costs—the for fishing effort limits and FAD Convention and IATTC resolutions, U.S. application fee for the five-year prohibition periods from application in authorization is $58 and the estimated purse seine vessels are prohibited from the overlap area, making the overall time for completing the application is transshipping at sea, so the removal of economic impacts positive. the transshipping, bunkering, and net one hour. Submission of the vessel sharing regulations will have little or no information for fishing in foreign EEZs Disproportionate Impacts effect. Removal of the reporting is estimated to take 1.5 hours, so again, NMFS does not expect any requirements is expected to reduce there will be some minor compliance some compliance costs. costs associated with this requirement. disproportionate economic impacts Based on the comments received on The reporting and recordkeeping between small and large entities the proposed rule, NMFS is now aware requirements also may bring some operating vessels resulting from this that several U.S. purse seine vessels that compliance costs, but these costs are not rule. Furthermore, NMFS does not fish exclusively in the EPO will likely expected to be substantial. The fishing expect any disproportionate economic fish in the overlap area under this final report requirements at 50 CFR impacts based on vessel size, gear, or rule. These vessels are already subject to 300.218(a) may be fulfilled by homeport. Comment 3, above, all the regulations implementing IATTC completion of the IATTC reporting questioned NMFS’ conclusions resolutions that apply to the overlap requirements at 50 CFR 300.22. The regarding disproportionate impacts in area under this final rule when fishing requirements for facilitation of the proposed rule. The commenter in the EPO. However, these vessels will enforcement and inspection could bring stated its belief that vessels fishing be subject to the regulations some compliance costs, but these solely in the IATTC Area, including the implementing WCPFC conservation and compliance costs are also unlikely to be overlap area, would experience management measures that continue to substantial. Maintaining appropriate disproportionate impacts from the apply in the overlap area. These documentation on board the vessel, WCPFC purse seine observer coverage monitoring certain radio frequencies, regulations include the following: (1) requirements set forth in 50 CFR and adhering to gear stowage Vessel permit endorsements at 50 CFR 300.223(e). As stated above, the purse 300.212; (2) vessel information requirements is not expected to lead to seine observer coverage requirements at requirements for fishing in foreign EEZs substantial compliance costs. at 50 CFR 300.213; (3) compliance with Facilitating high seas boarding and 50 CFR 300.223(e) no longer apply laws of other nations at 50 CFR 300.214; inspections would only lead to under this final rule. Additionally, as (4) accommodating observers at 50 CFR compliance costs when they occur stated above, the compliance costs 300.215(c)(3); (5) prohibition on WCPFC CMM 2006–08, ‘‘Western and under this final rule for U.S. purse seine transshipments to and from purse seine Central Pacific Fisheries Commission vessels fishing exclusively in the IATTC vessels at sea at 50 CFR 300.216(b)(1); Boarding and Inspection Procedures’’ Area or EPO are not expected to be (6) vessel identification requirements at details the specific procedures that substantial.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:36 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM 22JNR1 37388 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

Duplicating, Overlapping, and required to take to comply with a rule PART 300—INTERNATIONAL Conflicting Federal Regulations or group of rules. NMFS has prepared FISHERIES REGULATIONS NMFS has not identified any Federal small entity compliance guides for this Subpart C—Eastern Pacific Tuna regulations that conflict with these rule, and will send the appropriate Fisheries regulations. NMFS has identified guides to holders of permits in the relevant fisheries. The guides and this several Federal regulations that ■ 1. The authority citation for part 300, final rule also will be available via the duplicate or overlap with the subpart C, continues to read as follows: regulations. These include: The logbook Federal e-rulemaking Portal, at reporting requirements at 50 CFR www.regulations.gov (search for Docket Authority: 16 U.S.C. 951 et seq. 300.22(a)(1), which overlap with ID NOAA–NMFS–2018–0049) and by ■ 2. In § 300.21, revise the definition of existing regulations at 50 CFR request from NMFS PIRO (see ‘‘Convention Area or IATTC Convention 300.34(b)(1) and 300.218(a), the ADDRESSES). Area’’ to read as follows: transshipment requirements at 50 CFR Paperwork Reduction Act § 300.21 Definitions. 300.25(c), which overlap with existing * * * * * regulations at 50 CFR 300.216(b), the This final rule contains revised Convention Area or IATTC vessel identification requirements at 50 collection-of-information requirements Convention Area means all waters of the CFR 300.217, which overlap with subject to review and approval by OMB Pacific Ocean within the area bounded requirements at 50 CFR 300.22(b)(3) and under the PRA. These requirements by the west coast of the Americas and 50 CFR 300.336(b)(2), and the VMS have been submitted to OMB for by 50° N latitude from the coast of North regulations at 50 CFR 300.26, which approval under Control Numbers 0648– America to its intersection with 150° W overlap with existing regulations at 50 0649 and 0648–0218 and pertain to the longitude, then 150° W longitude to its CFR 300.45 and 300.219. However, as reporting and recordkeeping intersection with 50° S latitude, and described above, these regulations requirements that would no longer then 50° S latitude to its intersection impose requirements which are apply in the overlap area and would not with the coast of South America. substantially similar to, or in some cases affect the estimated public reporting * * * * * identical to, requirements imposed burden of these collections. Other under regulations currently applicable existing collection of information Subpart O—Western and Central in the overlap area. Thus, application of requirements apply in the overlap area, Pacific Fisheries for Highly Migratory these overlapping requirements is not under the following Control Numbers: Species expected to create significant economic (1) 0648–0148, West Coast Region burdens on vessel owners and operators. Pacific Tuna Fisheries Logbook and Fish ■ 3. The authority citation for 50 CFR Alternatives to the Final Rule Aggregating Device Data Collection; (2) part 300, subpart O, continues to read as follows: NMFS has sought to identify 0648–0595, WCPFC Vessel Information alternatives that would minimize the Family of Forms; and (3) 0648–0204, Authority: 16 U.S.C. 6901 et seq. final rule’s economic impacts on small West Coast Region Family of Forms. ■ 4. In § 300.211, revise the definition of entities (‘‘significant alternatives’’). For Send comments on these or any other ‘‘Effort Limit Area for Purse Seine, or most affected entities, the final rule is aspects of the collection of information ELAPS’’ and add the definition of likely to have no economic impact or a to Michael D. Tosatto, Regional ‘‘Overlap Area’’ in alphabetical order to positive economic impact compared to Administrator, NMFS PIRO (see read as follows: the no-action alternative. NMFS also ADDRESSES), and by email to OIRA § 300.211 Definitions. considered the alternative of removing [email protected] or fax to 202– * * * * * application from the overlap area of all 395–5806. Notwithstanding any other Effort Limit Area for Purse Seine, or regulations derived from WCPFC provision of the law, no person is ELAPS, means, within the area between conservation and management measures required to respond to, and no person ° ° and from the WCPF Convention. This 20 N latitude and 20 S latitude, areas shall be subject to penalty for failure to within the Convention Area that either alternative would likely result in lower comply with, a collection of information compliance costs than this final rule for are high seas or within the EEZ, except subject to the requirements of the PRA, for the Overlap Area. some affected entities, but NMFS unless that collection of information * * * * * believes maintaining the application of displays a currently valid OMB control some of those regulations is necessary to Overlap Area means the area within number. ° fulfill U.S. obligations under the WCPF the Pacific Ocean bounded by 50 S ° ° Convention, as detailed above. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 300 latitude, 4 S latitude, 150 W longitude, ° Therefore, NMFS rejected this and 130 W longitude. alternative. Administrative practice and * * * * * procedure, Fish, Fisheries, Fishing, ■ 5. In § 300.215, revise paragraphs Small Entity Compliance Guide Fishing vessels, Marine resources, (c)(1) and (2), (d)(1)(ii), and (d)(2)(v) to Reporting and recordkeeping Section 212 of the Small Business read as follows: Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of requirements, Treaties. 1996 states that, for each rule or group Dated: May 28, 2020. § 300.215 Observers. of related rules for which an agency is Samuel D. Rauch, III, * * * * * required to prepare a FRFA, the agency (c) * * * (1) Fishing vessels specified Deputy Assistant Administrator for shall publish one or more guides to Regulatory Programs, National Marine in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this assist small entities in complying with Fisheries Service. section must carry, when directed to do the rule, and shall designate such so by NMFS, a WCPFC observer on publications as ‘‘small entity For the reasons set out in the fishing trips during which the vessel at compliance guides.’’ The agency shall preamble, 50 CFR part 300 is amended any time enters or is within any part of explain the actions a small entity is as follows: the Convention Area other than the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:36 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM 22JNR1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 37389

Overlap Area. The operator and each only includes fish caught within such notice is submitted to NMFS at the member of the crew of the fishing vessel waters. address specified by the Pacific Islands shall act in accordance with paragraphs (ii) Bunkering, supplying and Regional Administrator at least 36 hours (c)(3), (4), and (5) of this section with provisioning. Only fishing vessels that prior to the start of the transshipment. respect to any WCPFC observer. are authorized to be used for fishing in The notice must be reported in the (2) Fishing vessels specified in the EEZ may engage in bunkering in the format provided by the Pacific Islands paragraph (a)(3) of this section must EEZ. A fishing vessel of the United Regional Administrator and must carry an observer when required to do States used for commercial fishing for contain the following information: so under paragraph (d) of this section, HMS shall not be used to provide * * * * * except for within the Overlap Area. The bunkering, to receive bunkering, or to (2) Emergency transshipments. This operator and each member of the crew exchange supplies or provisions with section shall not apply to a of the fishing vessel shall act in another vessel in the Convention Area, transshipment that takes place entirely accordance with paragraphs (c)(3), (4), except for the Overlap Area, unless one within the Overlap Area and only and (5) of this section, as applicable, or more of the following is satisfied: includes fish caught within such waters. with respect to any WCPFC observer. * * * * * The owner and operator of a fishing * * * * * (c) * * * vessel of the United States used for (d) * * * (1) The owner and operator of a commercial fishing for HMS that (1) * * * fishing vessel of the United States shall offloads or receives a transshipment of (ii) The transshipment takes place not conduct net sharing in the HMS in the Convention Area or a entirely within the territorial seas or Convention Area, except for within the transshipment of HMS caught in the archipelagic waters of any nation, as Overlap Area, unless all of the following Convention Area anywhere that is defined by the domestic laws and conditions are met: allowed under § 300.216(b)(4) but regulations of that nation and * * * * * would otherwise be prohibited under recognized by the United States, or ■ 7. In § 300.218: the regulations in this subpart, must entirely within the Overlap Area, and ■ a. Revise paragraphs (c), (d)(1) ensure that a notice is submitted by fax only includes fish caught in such introductory text, (d)(2) introductory or email to the Commission at the waters; or text, and (e); address specified by the Pacific Islands * * * * * ■ b. Add introductory text to paragraph Regional Administrator, and a copy is (2) * * * (f); and submitted to NMFS at the address (v) The transshipment takes place ■ c. Revise paragraphs (g) and (h). specified by the Pacific Islands Regional entirely within the territorial seas or The revisions and addition read as Administrator within 12 hours of the archipelagic waters of any nation, as follows: completion of the transshipment. The defined by the domestic laws and notice must be reported in the format regulations of that nation and § 300.218 Reporting and recordkeeping provided by the Pacific Islands Regional recognized by the United States, or requirements. Administrator and must contain the entirely within the Overlap Area, and * * * * * following information: only includes fish caught in such (c) Exceptions to transshipment * * * * * waters; or reporting requirements. Paragraph (b) of (e) Purse seine discard reports. The * * * * * this section shall not apply to a transshipment that takes place entirely owner and operator of any fishing vessel ■ 6. In § 300.216, revise paragraphs of the United States equipped with (b)(2) introductory text, (b)(3)(i)(D), within the Overlap Area or within the territorial seas or archipelagic waters of purse seine gear must ensure that a (b)(3)(ii) introductory text, and (c)(1) report of any at-sea discards of any introductory text to read as follows: any nation, as defined by the domestic laws and regulations of that nation and bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus), § 300.216 Transshipping, bunkering and recognized by the United States, and yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares), or net sharing. only includes fish caught within such skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) * * * * * waters. caught in the Convention Area, except (b) * * * (d) * * * for within the Overlap Area, is (2) Restrictions on at-sea (1) High seas transshipments. This completed, using a form that is available transshipments. If a transshipment takes section shall not apply to a from the Pacific Islands Regional place entirely within the territorial seas transshipment that takes place entirely Administrator, and recording all the or archipelagic waters of any nation, as within the Overlap Area and only information specified on the form. The defined by the domestic laws and includes fish caught within such waters. report must be submitted within 48 regulations of that nation and The owner and operator of a fishing hours after any discard to the recognized by the United States, or vessel of the United States used for Commission by fax or email at the entirely within the Overlap Area, and commercial fishing that offloads or address specified by the Pacific Islands only includes fish caught within such receives a transshipment of HMS on the Regional Administrator. A copy of the waters, this paragraph does not apply. high seas in the Convention Area or a report must be submitted to NMFS at the address specified by the Pacific * * * * * transshipment of HMS caught in the Islands Regional Administrator by fax or (3) * * * Convention Area anywhere on the high email within 48 hours after any such (i) * * * seas and not subject to the requirements (D) The transshipment takes place of paragraph (d)(2) of this section, must discard. A hard copy of the report must entirely within the territorial seas or ensure that a notice is submitted to the be provided to the observer on board the archipelagic waters of any nation, as Commission by fax or email at least 36 vessel, if any. defined by the domestic laws and hours prior to the start of such (f) Net sharing reports. This paragraph regulations of that nation and transshipment at the address specified (f) does not apply to net sharing activity recognized by the United States, or by the Pacific Islands Regional within the Overlap Area. entirely within the Overlap Area, and Administrator, and that a copy of that * * * * *

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:36 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM 22JNR1 37390 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

(g) Daily purse seine fishing effort DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Atlantic) quotas for all management reports. If directed by NMFS, the owner groups except those for blue shark, or operator of any fishing vessel of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric porbeagle shark, pelagic sharks (other United States equipped with purse seine Administration than porbeagle or blue sharks), and the gear must report to NMFS, for the shark research fishery for LCS and period and in the format and manner 50 CFR Part 635 sandbar sharks. The boundary between directed by the Pacific Islands Regional [Docket No. 191125–0090; RTID 0648– the Gulf of Mexico region and the Administrator, within 24 hours of the XA230] Atlantic region is defined at end of each day that the vessel is at sea § 635.27(b)(1) as a line beginning on the in the Convention Area, except for Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; East Coast of Florida at the mainland at within the Overlap Area, the activity of Commercial Aggregated Large Coastal 25°20.4′ N lat, proceeding due east. Any the vessel (e.g., setting, transiting, Shark and Hammerhead Shark water and land to the north and east of searching), location and type of set, if a Management Group in the Atlantic that boundary is considered, for the set was made during that day. Region; Retention Limit Adjustment purposes of setting and monitoring (h) Whale shark encirclement reports. quotas, to be within the Atlantic region. The owner and operator of a fishing AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries This inseason action only affects the vessel of the United States used for Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and aggregated LCS and hammerhead shark commercial fishing in the Convention Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), management groups in the Atlantic Area that encircles a whale shark Commerce. region. (Rhincodon typus) with a purse seine in ACTION: Temporary rule; inseason Under § 635.24(a)(8), NMFS may the Convention Area shall ensure that retention limit adjustment. adjust the commercial retention limits the incident is recorded by the end of in the shark fishery during the fishing SUMMARY: NMFS is adjusting the the day on the catch report forms season. Before making any adjustment, commercial aggregated large coastal maintained pursuant to § 300.34(c)(1), NMFS must consider specified shark (LCS) and hammerhead shark in the format specified by the Pacific regulatory criteria (see § 635.24(a)(8)(i) management groups’ retention limits for Islands Regional Administrator. This through (vi)). After considering these directed shark limited access permit paragraph (h) does not apply in the criteria as discussed below, NMFS has holders in the Atlantic region from 36 territorial seas or archipelagic waters of concluded that increasing the retention LCS other than sandbar sharks per any nation, as defined by the domestic limit of the Atlantic aggregated LCS and vessel per trip to 55 LCS other than laws and regulations of that nation and hammerhead management groups for sandbar sharks per vessel per trip. This recognized by the United States, or in directed shark limited access permit action is based on consideration of the the Overlap Area. holders in the Atlantic region will allow regulatory determination criteria use of available quotas for the ■ 8. In § 300.223, revise the introductory regarding inseason adjustments. The aggregated LCS and hammerhead shark text to read as follows: retention limit will remain at 55 LCS management groups. Therefore, NMFS § 300.223 Purse seine fishing restrictions. other than sandbar sharks per vessel per is increasing the commercial Atlantic None of the requirements of this trip in the Atlantic region through the aggregated LCS and hammerhead shark section apply in the territorial seas or rest of 2020 or until NMFS announces retention limit in the Atlantic region archipelagic waters of the United States via a notice in the Federal Register from 36 to 55 LCS other than sandbar or any other nation, as defined by the another adjustment to the retention shark per vessel per trip. domestic laws and regulations of that limit or a fishery closure. This retention NMFS considered the inseason nation and recognized by the United limit adjustment affects anyone with a retention limit adjustment criteria listed States, or within the Overlap Area. All directed shark limited access permit at § 635.24(a)(8)(i) through (vi), which fishing for LCS in the Atlantic region. include: dates used in this section are in • Universal Coordinated Time, also DATES: This retention limit adjustment The amount of remaining shark known as UTC; for example: The year is effective on June 19, 2020, through quota in the relevant region. Based on dealer reports through June 2013 starts at 00:00 on January 1, 2013 December 31, 2020, or until NMFS 11, 2020, 29.2 metric tons (mt) dressed UTC and ends at 24:00 on December 31, announces via a notice in the Federal weight (dw) (64,384 lb dw), or 17 2013 UTC; and July 1, 2013, begins at Register another adjustment to the percent, of the 168.9 mt dw shark quota 00:00 UTC and ends at 24:00 UTC. retention limit or a fishery closure, if warranted. for aggregated LCS management group * * * * * and 9.7 mt dw (21,493 lb dw), or 36 ■ 9. In § 300.224, add introductory text FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: percent, of the 27.1 mt dw shark quota to read as follows: Karyl Brewster-Geisz at karyl.brewster- for the hammerhead management group [email protected], Guy Eroh at guy.eroh@ have been harvested in the Atlantic § 300.224 Longline fishing restrictions. noaa.gov, or Lauren Latchford at region. This means that approximately None of the requirements of this [email protected]. 83 percent of the aggregated LCS quota section apply in the Overlap Area. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The remains available and approximately 64 * * * * * Atlantic shark fishery is managed under percent of the hammerhead shark quota ■ 10. In § 300.226, add introductory text the 2006 Consolidated Highly Migratory remains available. NMFS is increasing to read as follows: Species (HMS) Fishery Management the retention limit to 55 LCS other than Plan (FMP), its amendments, and sandbar shark per vessel per trip to § 300.226 Oceanic whitetip shark and silky implementing regulations (50 CFR part promote the use of available quota. shark. 635) issued under authority of the • The catch rates in the relevant None of the requirements of this Magnuson-Stevens Fishery region. section apply in the Overlap Area. Conservation and Management Act (16 Based on the current commercial * * * * * U.S.C. 1801 et seq.). retention limit and average catch rate of [FR Doc. 2020–11981 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] The Atlantic shark fishery has landings data from dealer reports, BILLING CODE 3510–22–P separate regional (Gulf of Mexico and harvest in the Atlantic region on a daily

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:36 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM 22JNR1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 37391

basis is low, and the overall available retention limit from 36 to 55 LCS other allowing the fishery to operate for the quota is remains high. Using current than sandbar sharks per vessel per trip remainder of the year. catch rates and comparing to catch rates in order to provide additional Accordingly, as of June 19, 2020, from last year, projections indicate that opportunities for fishermen to fully NMFS is increasing the retention limit landings would not reach the quota utilize the quota in the entire Atlantic for the commercial aggregated LCS and before the end of 2020 (December 31, region. hammerhead shark management groups 2020). A higher retention limit • The effects of catch rates in one part in the Atlantic region for directed shark authorized under this action will of a region precluding vessels in another limited access permit holders from 36 provide increased fishing opportunities part of that region from having a LCS other than sandbar sharks per and utilization of available quota in the reasonable opportunity to harvest a vessel per trip to 55 LCS other than Atlantic region. portion of the relevant quota. sandbar sharks per vessel per trip. This • The estimated date of fishery NMFS’s goal for the 2020 commercial retention limit adjustment does not closure based on projections. shark fishery is to ensure fishing apply to directed shark limited access If landings of either the aggregated opportunities throughout the fishing permit holders if the vessel is properly LCS or hammerhead shark management season across the Atlantic region. While permitted to operate as a charter vessel groups reach 80 percent of their dealer reports indicate that, under or headboat for HMS and is engaged in respective quotas, and those landings current catch rates, the aggregated LCS a for-hire trip, in which case the are projected to reach 100 percent of the and hammerhead shark management recreational retention limits for sharks quota by the end of the year, NMFS groups in the Atlantic region would and ‘‘no sale’’ provisions apply would, as required by the regulations at remain open for the remainder of the (§ 635.22(a) and (c)); or if the vessel § 635.28(b)(3), close the aggregated LCS year, the catch rates also indicate that possesses a valid shark research permit and hammerhead shark management the quotas would likely not be fully under § 635.32 and a NMFS-approved groups since they are ‘‘linked quotas.’’ harvested under the current retention observer is onboard, in which case the However, without the adjustment limit. If the harvest of these species is restrictions noted on the shark research undertaken in this action, current catch increased through an increased permit apply. rates would likely result in both retention limit, NMFS estimates that the All other retention limits in the management groups remaining open for fishery would remain open for the Atlantic region remain unchanged. This the remainder of the year with quota remainder of the year and fishermen retention limit will remain at 55 LCS unused at the end of the year. The throughout the Atlantic region would other than sandbar sharks per vessel per higher retention limit should increase have a reasonable opportunity to harvest trip for the rest of 2020, or until NMFS the likelihood of full utilization of the a large portion of the quota. announces another adjustment to the quota in the Atlantic region, while also On November 29, 2019 (84 FR 65690), retention limit or a fishery closure via allowing both management groups to NMFS announced in a final rule that the a notice in the Federal Register, if remain open for the remainder of the fishery for the aggregated LCS and warranted. year. hammerhead shark management groups • The effects of the adjustment on for the Atlantic region would open on Classification accomplishing the objectives of the 2006 January 1 with a quota of 168.9 mt dw The Assistant Administrator for Consolidated HMS FMP and its (372,552 lb dw) and 27.1 mt dw (59,736 NMFS (AA) finds that it is impracticable amendments. lb dw), respectively, and a commercial and contrary to the public interest to Increasing the retention limit on the retention limit of 36 LCS other than provide prior notice of, and an aggregated LCS and hammerhead sandbar sharks per trip for directed opportunity for public comment on, this management groups in the Atlantic shark limited access permit holders. action for the following reasons: region from 36 to 55 LCS other than NMFS published a proposed rule on Based on recent data, NMFS has sandbar sharks per vessel per trip would September 19, 2019 (84 FR 49236), and determined that landings have been continue to allow for fishing invited and considered public comment. very low (17 percent, of the 168.9 mt dw opportunities throughout the rest of the In the final rule, NMFS explained that shark quota for aggregated LCS year consistent with objectives if it appeared that the quota is being management group and 36 percent, of established in the 2006 Consolidated harvested too quickly, thus precluding the 27.1 mt dw shark quota for the HMS FMP, and would manage these fishing opportunities throughout the hammerhead management group). groups within previously-established, entire region (e.g., if approximately 35 Delaying this action for prior notice and science-based quotas, consistent with percent of the quota is caught at the public comment would unnecessarily requirements to prevent overfishing and beginning of the year), NMFS would limit opportunities to harvest available rebuild overfished stocks. consider reducing the commercial aggregated LCS management group and • The variations in seasonal retention limit to 3 or fewer LCS other hammerhead shark management group distribution, abundance, or migratory than sandbar sharks, and then later quotas, which may have negative social patterns of the relevant shark species. consider increasing the retention limit and economic impacts for U.S. fishers. The directed shark fishery in the later in the year consistent with the This action does not raise conservation Atlantic region is composed of a mix of applicable regulatory requirements. and management concerns. Adjusting species, with a high abundance of Based on dealer reports through June 11, retention limits does not affect the aggregated LCS caught in conjunction 2020, approximately 83 percent and 64 overall aggregated LCS management with hammerhead sharks. Migratory percent of the aggregated LCS and group and hammerhead shark patterns of many LCS in the Atlantic hammerhead shark quotas remain management groups quotas, and region indicate that sharks move farther unharvested, respectively. Commercial available data show the adjustment north in the summer and then return shark landings in the Atlantic region at would have a minimal risk of exceeding south in the fall. However, based on this point in the season are the allocated shark quotas set for the dealer reports through June 11, 2020, uncharacteristically low. A higher aggregated LCS and hammerhead shark daily harvest throughout the entirety of retention limit should increase the management groups for the Atlantic the Atlantic region has been low. likelihood of full utilization of the quota region in the November 29, 2019 final Therefore, NMFS is increasing the in the Atlantic region, while also rule (84 FR 65690). NMFS notes that the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:36 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM 22JNR1 37392 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

public had an opportunity to comment of the above reasons, there is also good Dated: June 17, 2020. on the underlying rulemakings that cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive He´le`ne M.N. Scalliet, established the quota and retention limit the 30-day delay in effectiveness. Acting Director, Office of Sustainable adjustment criteria. Therefore, the AA This action is being taken under Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. § 635.24(a)(2) and is exempt from [FR Doc. 2020–13373 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the review under Executive Order 12866. BILLING CODE 3510–22–P opportunity for public comment. For all Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:36 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM 22JNR1 37393

Proposed Rules Federal Register Vol. 85, No. 120

Monday, June 22, 2020

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER Do not submit comments that include operation of CFATS over the last contains notices to the public of the proposed trade secrets, confidential commercial decade. CISA intends to use the issuance of rules and regulations. The or financial information, Chemical- retrospective analysis: (1) To improve purpose of these notices is to give interested terrorism Vulnerability Information the accuracy of cost estimates incurred persons an opportunity to participate in the (CVI), Protected Critical Infrastructure by regulated facilities since 2007; (2) as rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules. Information (PCII), or Sensitive Security a basis for future regulatory changes to Information (SSI) to the public the CFATS program; and (3) to perform regulatory docket. Comments containing cumulative impact analysis on the full DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND this type of protected information costs of the program as it evolves. SECURITY should be appropriately marked as Based on the retrospective analysis, containing such information and CISA believes that the regulatory impact 6 CFR Part 27 submitted by mail to the address assessment (RIA) for the 2007 CFATS provided above. CISA will not place IFR overestimated the costs of the [Docket No. DHS–2014–0016] comments containing protected program imposed on chemical facilities Retrospective Analysis of the information in the public docket and and that the actual costs are 83 percent Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism will handle them in accordance with lower than previously estimated. Standards applicable safeguards and restrictions Because CFATS was a new regulatory on access. Additionally, CISA will hold program that was developed under a AGENCY: Cybersecurity and them in a separate file to which the six-month Congressional deadline, there Infrastructure Security Agency, DHS. public does not have access and place was limited time to conduct economic ACTION: Announcement of availability; a note in the public docket that CISA studies and collect data to establish the request for comments. has received such protected materials pre-statutory security baseline at high- from the commenter. If CISA receives a risk chemical facilities.2 As CFATS was SUMMARY: Through this document, the request to examine or copy this a new program, there was no historical Cybersecurity and Infrastructure information, CISA will treat it as any data that could inform the analysis. In Security Agency (CISA) is making other request under the Freedom of order to meet the Congressional available a retrospective analysis of the Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, deadline, the Department relied heavily data, assumptions, and methodology and the Department’s FOIA regulation on the elicitation of subject matter used to support the 2007 interim final found in part 5 of Title 6 of the Code expert (SME) judgment to estimate the rule for the Chemical Facility Anti- of Federal Regulations (CFR). cost of the regulation in the 2007 RIA. Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program. Docket: For access to the docket and Now that CISA has fully implemented The purpose of the retrospective to read the retrospective analysis or the CFATS, CISA was able to replace the analysis is to provide an updated comments received, go to http:// SME judgments with historical data assessment of the costs and burdens of www.regulations.gov. provided by industry through the the CFATS program. Based on data FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chemical Security Assessment Tool, observed by the program for over ten Lona Saccomando, (703) 603–4868, CFATS compliance data, and lessons years, CISA estimates that the actual [email protected]. learned. As a result, the retrospective costs of the CFATS program is 83 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The analysis provides a more accurate percent lower than estimated in 2007. Department published an ANPRM on estimate of the cost that the CFATS The retrospective analysis has been August 18, 2014 seeking public program imposed on chemical facilities added to the docket for the CFATS comment on the CFATS interim final between 2007 to 2017. The retrospective Advanced Notice of Proposed rule (IFR) published in 2007 (72 FR analysis resulted in a decrease in the Rulemaking (ANPRM) published in 17687) and a final rule for Appendix A estimated 10-year cost, discounted at 2014. to the CFATS regulations published in 7%, of CFATS from $9.84 billion to DATES: Comments are due by September 2007 (72 FR 65395). The 2014 ANPRM $1.68 billion. The main drivers of this 21, 2020. was an initial step towards maturing the substantial reduction in cost were the ADDRESSES: You may send comments, program. See 79 FR 48693 (August 18, 2007 CFATS IFR’s overestimation of: (1) identified by docket number DHS– 2014). To better inform the ongoing The number of chemical facilities that 2014–0016, by any of the following rulemaking process, CISA has would be covered by CFATS; and (2) the methods: performed a retrospective analysis of the costs of security measures implemented • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// costs and burdens of the 2007 CFATS by CFATS covered facilities. www.regulations.gov. Follow the IFR on regulated facilities.1 The CISA encourages public comment on instructions for sending comments. retrospective analysis updates cost the retrospective analysis. Commenters • Mail: DHS/CISA/ISD/OCS, ATTN: estimates from the 2007 CFATS IFR DHS Docket No. DHS–2014–0016, 245 with new estimates based on data 2 On October 4, 2006, the President signed the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Murray Lane SW, Mail Stop 0610, observed from the implementation and Act of 2007, which provided DHS with the Arlington, VA 20528–0610. authority to regulate the security of high-risk Instructions: All comments received 1 The original regulatory impact assessment for chemical facilities. See Public Law 109–295, sec. for the public docket will be posted the IFR may be viewed at https:// 550. Section 550 required the Secretary of www.regulations.gov/document?D=DHS-2006-0073- Homeland Security to promulgate interim final without change to http:// 0116 and the IFR published on April 9, 2007 may regulations ‘‘establishing risk-based performance www.regulations.gov, including any be viewed at https://www.federalregister.gov/d/E7- standards for security of chemical facilities’’ by personal information provided. 6363. April 4, 2007. See also 72 FR 17689 (Apr. 9, 2007).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM 22JNP1 37394 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules

can find a copy of the analysis in the number. Because paper mail in the with those requirements.3 The Bureau docket. Comments that will provide the Washington, DC area and at the Bureau also provides individualized most assistance to CISA will refer to a is subject to delay, and in light of ‘‘implementation support’’ to regulated specific section, appendix, figure, and/ difficulties associated with mail and entities through its Regulatory Inquiries or table of the analysis, explain the hand deliveries during the COVID–19 Function (RIF).4 Neither Compliance reason for any comments, and include pandemic, commenters are encouraged Aids nor the RIF are intended to other information or authority that to submit comments electronically. In interpret ambiguities in legal supports such comments. general, all comments received will be requirements. This document is issued under the posted without change to http:// The Bureau is presenting the authority of 6 U.S.C. 621 et seq. www.regulations.gov. In addition, once Proposed AO Program in response to feedback received from external Todd Klessman, the Bureau’s headquarters reopens, comments will be available for public stakeholders encouraging the Bureau to Deputy Director, Office of Chemical Security, provide written guidance in cases of Infrastructure Security Division, inspection and copying at 1700 G Street Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security NW, Washington, DC 20552, on official regulatory uncertainty. This feedback is Agency, Department of Homeland Security. business days between the hours of 10 summarized in the Background section [FR Doc. 2020–13147 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. of the Advisory Opinions Pilot (AO Pilot) Federal Register document BILLING CODE 9110–9P–P You can make an appointment to inspect the documents by telephoning published elsewhere in today’s edition (202) 435–9169. All comments, of the Federal Register. The Bureau issues this request for public comment BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL including attachments and other on the Proposed AO Program and PROTECTION supporting materials, will become part of the public record and subject to associated information collection 12 CFR Chapter X public disclosure. Sensitive personal concurrent with the establishment of the information, such as account numbers Pilot AO Program. The Proposed AO [Docket No. CFPB–2020–0019] or Social Security numbers, should not Program represents the next phase in full implementation of the Bureau’s AO Advisory Opinions Proposal be included. Comments generally will not be edited to remove any identifying capability, with the intent of replacing AGENCY: Bureau of Consumer Financial or contact information. the AO Pilot, and allowing the Bureau to further provide timely guidance that Protection. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For ACTION: Proposed procedural rule; additional information about the enables compliance by resolving proposed information collection; Proposed AO Program, contact outstanding regulatory uncertainty, request for comment. Marianne Roth, Chief Risk Officer, thereby supporting the Bureau’s statutory purpose of ensuring SUMMARY: The Bureau of Consumer Office of Strategy, at 202–435–7684. If you require this document in an consumers have access to markets for Financial Protection (Bureau) invites the consumer financial products and public to comment on a new advisory alternative electronic format, please contact [email protected]. services and that markets for consumer opinion program (Proposed AO financial products and services are fair, Program), and a proposed information SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: transparent, and competitive. collection associated with requests I. Background submitted by persons requesting II. Parameters of the Proposed AO advisory opinions under the Proposed Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Program AO Program, as required by the Reform and Consumer Protection Act A. Overview Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. (Dodd-Frank Act),1 the Bureau’s The primary purpose of the Proposed DATES: Written comments on the ‘‘primary functions’’ include issuing AO Program is to provide a mechanism Proposed AO Program are encouraged guidance implementing Federal 2 through which the Bureau may more and must be received on or before consumer financial law. The Bureau effectively carry out its statutory August 21, 2020. believes that providing clear and useful purposes and objectives by better ADDRESSES: You may submit comments guidance to regulated entities is an important aspect of facilitating markets enabling compliance in the face of on the Proposed AO Program, identified regulatory uncertainty. Under the by Docket No. [CFPB–2020–0019], by that serve consumers. The Bureau currently issues several program, parties will be able to request any of the following methods: interpretive guidance, in the form of an • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// types of guidance regarding the statutes AO, to resolve such regulatory www.regulations.gov. Follow the that it administers and regarding the uncertainty.5 instructions for submitting comments. regulations and Official Interpretations • Email: 2020-RFC- that it normally issues through the B. Submission and Content of Requests notice-and-comment process. On [email protected]. Include Requests would be submitted through Docket No. [CFPB–2020–0019] in the occasion, the Bureau provides guidance in interpretive rules or general means, such as an email address, subject line of the email. designated by the Bureau. Parties • Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: statements of policy. The Bureau also requesting AOs will be required to Comment Intake, Bureau of Consumer routinely issues Compliance Aids that Financial Protection, 1700 G Street NW, present legal requirements in a manner 3 See Policy Statement on Compliance Aids, 85 Washington, DC 20552. Please note that that is useful for compliance FR 4579 (Jan. 27, 2020). due to circumstances associated with professionals, other industry 4 See Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection the COVID–19 pandemic, the Bureau stakeholders, and the public, or include Request for Information Regarding Bureau Guidance discourages the submission of practical suggestions for how entities and Implementation Support (Guidance RFI), 83 FR comments by hand delivery, mail, or might choose to go about complying 13959, 13961–62 (Apr. 2, 2018). 5 For convenience, this document uses the term courier. ‘‘regulatory uncertainty’’ to encompass uncertainty Instructions: All submissions should 1 Public Law 111–203, 124 Stat. 2081 (2010). with respect to regulatory or, where applicable, include the agency name and docket 2 12 U.S.C. 5511(c)(5). statutory provisions.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM 22JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules 37395

submit certain information in order for to offer additional information, topics through AOs.14 The Bureau will a request to be complete; where including, as applicable, an explanation prioritize open questions within the information submitted to the Bureau is of the potential consumer benefits and Bureau’s purview that can legally be information the requestor would not risks associated with resolution of the addressed through an interpretive rule, normally make public, the Bureau interpretive question and the proposed where an AO is an appropriate tool intends to treat it as confidential interpretation; and an explanation of relative to other Bureau tools for pursuant to its rule, Disclosure of how the proposed interpretation relates resolving the identified uncertainty. Records and Information,6 to the extent to the Bureau’s statutory objectives.9 Initial factors weighing for the applicable. The Bureau encourages C. Characteristics of AOs appropriateness of an AO include: That requestors to identify any such the interpretive issue has been noted information to the extent they choose to AOs under the proposed program will during prior Bureau examinations as include it in their submissions. be interpretive rules under the one that might benefit from additional The requestor must be identified, Administrative Procedure Act (APA) 10 regulatory clarity; that the issue is one regardless of whether it is submitting a that respond to a specific request for of substantive importance or impact or request on its own behalf or submitting clarity on an interpretive question. The one whose clarification would provide a request on behalf of a third party (i.e., Bureau would publish AOs in the significant benefit; and/or that the issue on behalf of one or more clients or Federal Register and on concerns an ambiguity that the Bureau members). Outside counsel or a trade consumerfinance.gov, including the has not previously addressed through an association, for example, could submit a Bureau’s summary of the material facts interpretive rule or other authoritative request for AOs on behalf of one or more and the Bureau’s legal analysis of the source. Factors weighing strongly for clients or members, and those entities issue. Unless otherwise stated, each AO presumption that an AO is not an would not need to be named. will be applicable to the requestor and appropriate tool include that the Additionally, if the requestor is to similarly situated parties to the extent interpretive issue is the subject of an submitting a request on behalf of an that their situations conform to the ongoing Bureau investigation or unidentified third party, the requestor Bureau’s summary of material facts in enforcement action; that the interpretive 11 must provide a statement on whether the AO. issue is the subject of an ongoing or the unidentified third party is the Where a statutory safe harbor is planned rulemaking; that the issue is subject of an ongoing public Bureau applicable to an AO, the AO will better suited for the notice-and- enforcement action or an ongoing explain that fact. The Truth in Lending comment process; that the issue could Bureau enforcement investigation Act (TILA), Equal Credit Opportunity be addressed effectively through a conducted by the Bureau’s Office of Act (ECOA), Electronic Fund Transfer Compliance Aid; or that there is clear Enforcement. Act (EFTA), and Real Estate Settlement Bureau or court precedent that is The issue raised in the request must Procedures Act (RESPA) provide certain available to the public on the issue. be within the Bureau’s purview,7 and protections from liability for acts or the request must concern actual facts or omissions done in good faith in The Bureau intends to further a course of action that the requestor is conformity with an interpretation by the evaluate potential topics for AOs based considering engaging in, with the Bureau.12 The Fair Debt Collection on additional factors, including: requestor providing a statement of Practices Act (FDCPA) contains similar Alignment with the Bureau’s statutory whether the issue on which the AO is protections, specifically using the term objectives; size of the benefit offered to being requested is the subject of any ‘‘advisory opinion.’’ 13 consumers by resolution of the known or reasonably knowable active interpretive issue; known impact on the D. Factors in Bureau Selection of Topics litigation or federal or state agency actions of other regulators; and impact for AOs investigations. on available Bureau resources. The The requestor also must set forth as The Bureau intends to consider the Proposed AO Program will primarily completely as possible all material facts following factors as part of its focus on the following statutory and circumstances, including detailed consideration of whether to address objectives of the Bureau: (1) That specification of the legal question and consumers are provided with timely and supporting facts with respect to which regardless of the requestor’s proposed understandable information to make the requestor seeks an AO; and a interpretation. responsible decisions about financial proposed interpretation, identification 9 Requestors should describe relevant legal transactions; (2) that outdated, provisions and arguments with as much specificity unnecessary, or unduly burdensome of the potential uncertainty or ambiguity as practicable. The Bureau recognizes that in some that such interpretation would address, cases, the requestor may lack the legal resources to regulations are regularly identified and and explanation of why the requested provide a detailed and complete showing. In such addressed in order to reduce interpretation is an appropriate circumstances, the requestor should provide the unwarranted regulatory burdens; (3) that maximum specification practicable under the Federal consumer financial law is resolution of that uncertainty or circumstances and explain the limits on further ambiguity.8 Requestors may also choose specification. enforced consistently, without regard to 10 5 U.S.C. 553(b). the status of a person as a depository 6 12 CFR 1070. 11 Accordingly, the initial request drafted by the institution, in order to promote fair 7 Under title X of the Dodd-Frank Act (Consumer requestor is not necessarily a reliable guide to the competition; and (4) that markets for Financial Protection Act of 2010), the Bureau was scope or terms of an AO; the scope and terms of consumer financial products and created to regulate the offering and provision of an AO will be set out in the AO itself. Moreover, services operate transparently and consumer financial products and services under the Bureau will not normally investigate the federal consumer financial laws. 12 U.S.C. 5881. underlying facts of the requestor’s situation, and an The Act enumerates several consumer laws under AO is not applicable to the requestor if the 14 The following are factors that the Bureau the Bureau’s jurisdiction (in part or whole). 12 underlying facts of the requestor’s situation do not intends to weigh when deciding which topics to U.S.C. 5841(12). conform to the Bureau’s summary of material facts. prioritize in the advisory opinion program, based 8 The responsive AO will not necessarily adopt 12 See 15 U.S.C. 1640(f) (TILA); 15 U.S.C. on all of the information available to the Bureau. the requestor’s proposed interpretation. Under the 1691e(e) (ECOA); 15 U.S.C. 1693m(d) (EFTA); 12 Advisory opinion requests need not address these proposed program, the Bureau retains discretion to U.S.C. 2617, 12 CFR 1024.4 (RESPA). factors in order to be fully considered by the answer requests with its own interpretation 13 See 15 U.S.C. 1692(k)(e). Bureau.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM 22JNP1 37396 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules

efficiently to facilitate access and III. Regulatory Requirements Abstract: The Bureau of Consumer 15 innovation. The Bureau has concluded that, if Financial Protection (‘‘CFPB’’ or The Proposed AO Program would finalized, the Proposed AO Program ‘‘Bureau’’) is proposing to establish an focus primarily on clarifying would constitute a rule of agency Advisory Opinion (AO) program. AOs issued under the proposed program ambiguities in the Bureau’s regulations, organization, procedure, or practice, and would be interpretive rules under the although AOs may clarify statutory that it would therefore be exempt from Administrative Procedure Act (APA) ambiguities. The Bureau will not issue the notice-and-comment rulemaking 17 that respond to a specific request for AOs on issues that require notice-and- requirements of the APA. For the same 16 reason, it would not be subject to the 30- clarity on an interpretive question comment rulemaking under the APA, regarding a CFPB-administered or that are better addressed through that day delayed effective date for substantive rules under the APA.18 regulation or statue. Under the program, process. For example, the Bureau does Because no notice of proposed parties would be able to request not intend to issue an advisory opinion rulemaking is required, the Regulatory interpretive guidance, in the form of an that would change a regulation. Flexibility Act does not require an AO, to resolve regulatory uncertainty. Similarly, where a regulation or statute initial or final regulatory flexibility The Bureau would have discretion to establishes a general standard that can analysis.19 decide which AOs to respond to and only be applied through highly fact- would publish those with a description intensive analysis, the Bureau does not IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of the incoming request for the public to intend to replace it with a bright-line Under the Paperwork Reduction Act review. The information will be standard that eliminates all of the of 1995 (PRA), Federal agencies are collected from persons, primarily required analysis. Highly fact-intensive generally required to seek approval from business or other for-profit entities, who applications of general standards, such the Office of Management and Budget request AOs from the Bureau. The as of the statutory prohibition on unfair, (OMB) for information collection information will be used by the Bureau deceptive, or abusive acts or practices, requirements prior to implementation. to determine whether to pursue the pose particular challenges for issuing Under the PRA, the Bureau may not issuance of an AO responsive to the advisory opinions, although there may conduct or sponsor, and, request. be times when the Bureau is able to notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person is not required to respond Documentation prepared in support of offer advisory opinions that provide this information collection request is additional clarity on the meaning of to, an information collection unless the information collection displays a valid available at www.regulations.gov. such standards. control number assigned by OMB. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether The Bureau solicits comment on all As part of its continuing effort to the collection of information is aspects of the Proposed AO Program. In reduce paperwork and respondent necessary for the proper performance of particular, the Bureau solicits comment burden, the Bureau conducts a the functions of the Bureau, including on: (a) Application elements the Bureau preclearance consultation program to whether the information will have should require from parties requesting provide the general public and affected practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the AOs, and accommodations that should government agencies with an Bureau’s estimate of the burden of the be made for requestors with limited opportunity to comment on the new collection of information, including the legal resources; (b) how the Bureau information collection requirements in validity of the methods and the should prioritize requests for AO accordance with the PRA (See 44 U.S.C. assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance guidance; (c) how the Bureau should 3506(c)(2)(A)). This helps ensure that: the quality, utility, and clarity of the quantify benefit to consumers when the public understands the Bureau’s information to be collected; and (d) evaluating AO requests; (d) requirements or instructions, ways to minimize the burden of the respondents can provide the requested improvements that could be made to the collection of information on data in the desired format without Proposed AO Program to further respondents, including through the use unnecessary burden. enhance compliance; (e) how the of automated collection techniques or The proposal would require a new other forms of information technology. Bureau should handle sensitive information collection requirement to information submitted by requestors; Please submit your comments in submit an application to the Bureau to accordance with the procedure outlined and (f) how the Bureau can make AO obtain an advisory opinion from the guidance that has not been incorporated in the ADDRESSES section of this notice Bureau. This information collection is above. into the Official Interpretations codified voluntary. The likely respondents in the Code of Federal Regulations (or would be for-profit businesses that are V. Signing Authority Commentary) available to the public in CFPB regulated entities. a useful format. Title of Collection: Request for an The Director of the Bureau, having Advisory Opinion. reviewed and approved this document, 15 See 12 U.S.C. 5511(b)(1), (3)–(5). The Bureau OMB Control Number: 3170–00NEW. is delegating the authority to has a further statutory objective, that consumers are Type of Review: Request for a new electronically sign this document to protected from unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts OMB Control Number. Laura Galban, a Bureau Federal Register and practices (UDAAPs) and from discrimination. Liaison, for purposes of publication in 12 U.S.C. 5511(b)(2). The Bureau considers this Affected Public: Private Sector. objective to be at least as important as its other Estimated Number of Respondents: the Federal Register. objectives, and it does not plan to issue an AO that 100. Dated: June 18, 2020. is in conflict with this objective. But because other Estimated Total Annual Burden Laura Galban, regulatory tools are often more suitable for Hours: 6,000. addressing UDAAPs and discrimination, the Bureau Federal Register Liaison, Bureau of Consumer has chosen not to highlight this objective as a Financial Protection. primary focus when selecting issues for the 17 5 U.S.C. 553(b). Proposed AO Program. 18 5 U.S.C. 553(d). [FR Doc. 2020–13505 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] 16 5 U.S.C. 553(b). 19 5 U.S.C. 603(a), 604(a). BILLING CODE 4810–AM–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:13 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM 22JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules 37397

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Dated: June 10, 2020. U.S.C. United States Code Jeffrey I. Kessler, II. Background, Purpose, and Legal International Trade Administration Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Basis Compliance. 19 CFR Part 360 [FR Doc. 2020–12947 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] On September 6, 2020, through September 26, 2020, the Oregon BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P [Docket No. 200610–0155] Department of Transportation is RIN 0625–AB17 scheduled replace bridge components at the south end of the Northbound Modification of Regulations Regarding DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND Interstate Bridge over the Columbia the Steel Import Monitoring and SECURITY River at River Mile 106.5. As a result, Analysis System; Correction Coast Guard a large construction crane barge blocking the navigable channel will be AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 33 CFR Part 165 moving oversized equipment and bridge International Trade Administration, parts overhead and across the waterway Department of Commerce. [Docket Number USCG–2020–0247] resulting in potential hazards to the ACTION: Proposed rule; correction. waterway and its users. The Captain of RIN 1625–AA00 Port Sector Columbia River has SUMMARY: This document corrects an Safety Zone; I–5 Bridge Construction determined that the potential hazards inaccuracy in the proposed rule to associated with the construction project modify the Department of Commerce’s Project, Columbia River, Vancouver, WA would be a safety concern for anyone (Commerce’s) regulations regarding the within the designated area of the I–5 Steel Import Monitoring and Analysis AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. bridge construction project. (SIMA) system published on Monday, ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. The purpose of this rulemaking is to March 30, 2020. ensure the safety of vessels and the DATES: Applicable date: June 22, 2020. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing navigable waters within the designated ADDRESSES: The comment period for to establish a temporary safety zone for area of the I–5 bridge construction comments on the proposed rule closed certain waters of the Columbia River. project. on April 29, 2020. All comments This action is necessary to provide for The Coast Guard is proposing this received in response to the proposed the safety of life on these navigable rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. rule are available on the Federal waters around the Northbound 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). eRulemaking Portal at http:// Interstate Bridge at Columbia River Mile III. Discussion of Proposed Rule www.Regulations.gov. Commerce will 106.5. This proposed rulemaking would not accept any additional comments prohibit persons and vessels from being The COTP is proposing to establish a regarding the proposed rule. in the safety zone unless authorized by safety zone from 12:01 on September 6, 2020 through 11:59 p.m. on September FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie the Captain of the Port Sector Columbia 26, 2020. The safety zone would cover Al-Saadawi at (202) 482–1930 or River or a designated representative. We all navigable waters of the Columbia Brandon Custard at (202) 482–1823. invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking. River, directly below the lifting span of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The DATES: Comments and related material the I–5 bridge from the Washington following correction is made to the shoreline to the edge of the lifting span proposed rule to modify the regulations must be received by the Coast Guard on or before July 22, 2020. (approx. 800 ft) and approximately 400 regarding the SIMA system. (85 FR ft both east and west of the bridge. The 17515, March 30, 2020). Commerce is ADDRESSES: You may submit comments duration of the zone is intended to removing the following statements on identified by docket number USCG– ensure the safety of vessels and these page 17518, column two, first 2020–0247 using the Federal navigable waters while the bridge paragraph: ‘‘Because the mill test eRulemaking Portal at https:// construction is underway. No vessel or certification is not currently required by www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public person would be permitted to enter the CBP for entry purposes or required by Participation and Request for safety zone without obtaining Commerce for antidumping and Comments’’ portion of the permission from the COTP or a countervailing duty purposes, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for designated representative. The Commerce cannot guarantee each further instructions on submitting regulatory text we are proposing appears importer would have a copy of the mill comments. at the end of this document. test certification. However, Commerce FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If IV. Regulatory Analyses expects that the mill test certification you have questions about this proposed would be included with the standard rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant We developed this proposed rule after sales documentation for steel mill Commander Dixon Whitley, Waterways considering numerous statutes and imports and therefore would be readily Management Division, Marine Safety Executive orders related to rulemaking. available to the importer.’’ Commerce is Unit Portland, U.S. Coast Guard; Below we summarize our analyses replacing this language with the telephone 503–240–9319, email based on a number of these statutes and following: ‘‘Specifically, the mill test [email protected]. Executive orders, and we discuss First certification is currently required by SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Amendment rights of protestors. CBP for entry purposes, in accordance with 19 CFR 141.89 and 142.6, and I. Table of Abbreviations A. Regulatory Planning and Review Commerce expects that the mill test CFR Code of Federal Regulations Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 certification would be included with the DHS Department of Homeland Security direct agencies to assess the costs and standard sales documentation for steel FR Federal Register benefits of available regulatory mill imports and therefore would be NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking alternatives and, if regulation is readily available to the importer.’’ § Section necessary, to select regulatory

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM 22JNP1 37398 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules

approaches that maximize net benefits. INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast with the National Environmental Policy Executive Order 13771 directs agencies Guard will not retaliate against small Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and to control regulatory costs through a entities that question or complain about have made a preliminary determination budgeting process. This NPRM has not this proposed rule or any policy or that this action is one of a category of been designated a ‘‘significant action of the Coast Guard. actions that do not individually or regulatory action,’’ under Executive cumulatively have a significant effect on Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM C. Collection of Information the human environment. This proposed has not been reviewed by the Office of This proposed rule would not call for rule involves a safety zone lasting 20 Management and Budget (OMB), and a new collection of information under days that will prohibit vessel traffic to pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 transit underneath the lift span of the I– from the requirements of Executive (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). 5 Bridge during bridge repair and Order 13771. D. Federalism and Indian Tribal construction operations. Normally such This regulatory action determination Governments actions are categorically excluded from is based on the size, location, duration, further review under paragraph L60(a) and time-of-year of the safety zone. A rule has implications for federalism of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Vessel traffic would be able to safely under Executive Order 13132 Instruction Manual 023–01–001–01, transit around this safety zone which (Federalism), if it has a substantial Rev. 1. A preliminary Record of would impact a small designated area of direct effect on the States, on the Environmental Consideration the Columbia River during the bridge relationship between the National supporting this determination is construction project. Moreover, the Government and the States, or on the available in the docket. For instructions Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice distribution of power and on locating the docket, see the to Mariners via VHF–FM marine responsibilities among the various ADDRESSES section of this preamble. We channel 16 about the zone, and the rule levels of government. We have analyzed seek any comments or information that would allow vessels to seek permission this proposed rule under that Order and may lead to the discovery of a to enter the zone. have determined that it is consistent significant environmental impact from with the fundamental federalism B. Impact on Small Entities this proposed rule. principles and preemption requirements The Regulatory Flexibility Act of described in Executive Order 13132. G. Protest Activities 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, Also, this proposed rule does not have The Coast Guard respects the First requires Federal agencies to consider tribal implications under Executive Amendment rights of protesters. the potential impact of regulations on Order 13175 (Consultation and Protesters are asked to call or email the small entities during rulemaking. The Coordination with Indian Tribal person listed in the FOR FURTHER term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises small Governments) because it would not INFORMATION CONTACT section to businesses, not-for-profit organizations have a substantial direct effect on one or coordinate protest activities so that your that are independently owned and more Indian tribes, on the relationship message can be received without operated and are not dominant in their between the Federal Government and jeopardizing the safety or security of fields, and governmental jurisdictions Indian tribes, or on the distribution of people, places, or vessels. with populations of less than 50,000. power and responsibilities between the V. Public Participation and Request for The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. Federal Government and Indian tribes. Comments 605(b) that this proposed rule would not If you believe this proposed rule has have a significant economic impact on implications for federalism or Indian We view public participation as a substantial number of small entities. tribes, please call or email the person essential to effective rulemaking, and While some owners or operators of listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION will consider all comments and material vessels intending to transit the safety CONTACT section. received during the comment period. zone may be small entities, for the Your comment can help shape the reasons stated in section IV.A above, E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act outcome of this rulemaking. If you this proposed rule would not have a The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act submit a comment, please include the significant economic impact on any of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires docket number for this rulemaking, vessel owner or operator. Federal agencies to assess the effects of indicate the specific section of this If you think that your business, their discretionary regulatory actions. In document to which each comment organization, or governmental particular, the Act addresses actions applies, and provide a reason for each jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity that may result in the expenditure by a suggestion or recommendation. and that this rule would have a State, local, or tribal government, in the We encourage you to submit significant economic impact on it, aggregate, or by the private sector of comments through the Federal please submit a comment (see $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or eRulemaking Portal at https:// ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it more in any one year. Though this www.regulations.gov. If your material qualifies and how and to what degree proposed rule would not result in such cannot be submitted using https:// this rule would economically affect it. an expenditure, we do discuss the www.regulations.gov, call or email the Under section 213(a) of the Small effects of this rule elsewhere in this person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION Business Regulatory Enforcement preamble. CONTACT section of this document for Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), alternate instructions. we want to assist small entities in F. Environment We accept anonymous comments. All understanding this proposed rule. If the We have analyzed this proposed rule comments received will be posted rule would affect your small business, under Department of Homeland without change to https:// organization, or governmental Security Directive 023–01, Rev. 1, www.regulations.gov and will include jurisdiction and you have questions associated implementing instructions, any personal information you have concerning its provisions or options for and Environmental Planning provided. For more about privacy and compliance, please call or email the COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which submissions in response to this person listed in the FOR FURTHER guide the Coast Guard in complying document, see DHS’s eRulemaking

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM 22JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules 37399

System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, or the Sector Columbia River Command renewal petitions that are meaningfully March 11, 2020). Center on Channel 16 VHF–FM. Those opposed, will be considered pursuant to Documents mentioned in this NPRM in the safety zone must comply with all a more comprehensive rulemaking as being available in the docket, and all lawful orders or directions given to process similar to that of the seventh public comments, will be in our online them by the COTP or the COTP’s rulemaking, including three rounds of docket at https://www.regulations.gov designated representative. written comment, followed by public and can be viewed by following that (d) Enforcement period. This safety hearings, which may be conducted website’s instructions. Additionally, if zone is in effect from 12:01 on virtually. you go to the online docket and sign up September 6, 2020 through 11:59 p.m. DATES: Written petitions for renewal of for email alerts, you will be notified on September 26, 2020. It will be subject current exemptions must be received no when comments are posted or a final to enforcement this entire period unless later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on rule is published. the Captain of the Port, Columbia River July 22, 2020. Written comments in determines it is no longer needed. The List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 response to any petitions for renewal Coast Guard will inform mariners of any must be received no later than 11:59 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation change to this period of enforcement via p.m. Eastern Time on September 8, (water), Reporting and recordkeeping Broadcast Notice to Mariners. requirements, Security measures, 2020. Written petitions for new Dated: May 12, 2020. Waterways. exemptions must be received no later J.C. Smith, than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on For the reasons discussed in the Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the September 8, 2020. preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing Port Columbia River. to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: ADDRESSES: Written petitions for [FR Doc. 2020–13128 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] renewal of current exemptions must be PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION BILLING CODE 9110–04–P completed using the form provided on AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS the Office’s website at https:// www.copyright.gov/1201/2021/renewal- ■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS petition.pdf. Written petitions proposing continues to read as follows: new exemptions must be completed Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR Copyright Office using the form provided on the Office’s 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; website at https://www.copyright.gov/ Department of Homeland Security Delegation 37 CFR Part 201 1201/2021/new-petition.pdf. The No. 0170.1. [Docket No. 2020–11] Copyright Office is using the ■ 2. Add § 165.T13–0247 to read as regulations.gov system for the follows: Exemptions to Permit Circumvention submission and posting of public of Access Controls on Copyrighted petitions and comments in this § 165.T13–0247 Safety Zone[s]; Safety Works Zone; I–5 Bridge Construction Project, proceeding. All petitions and comments are therefore to be submitted Columbia River, Vancouver, WA. AGENCY: U.S. Copyright Office, Library electronically through regulations.gov. (a) Location. The following area is a of Congress. Specific instructions for submitting safety zone: All navigable waters of the ACTION: Notification of inquiry and petitions and comments are available on Columbia River, surface to bottom, request for petitions. the Copyright Office website at https:// encompassed by a line connecting the www.copyright.gov/1201/2021. If following points beginning at the SUMMARY: The United States Copyright electronic submission is not feasible, shoreline at 45°37′17.7″ N/122°40′31.4″ Office is initiating the eighth triennial please contact the Office using the W, southwest to 45°37′12.1″ N/ rulemaking proceeding under the Digital contact information below for special 122°40′35.0″ W, southeast to 45°37′08.8″ Millennium Copyright Act (‘‘DMCA’’), instructions. N/122°40′22.1″ W, thence northeast to to consider possible temporary 45°37′15.0″ N/122°40′18.3″ W, and exemptions to the DMCA’s prohibition FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: along the shoreline back to the against circumvention of technological Regan A. Smith, General Counsel and beginning point. measures that control access to Associate Register of Copyrights, (b) Definitions. As used in this copyrighted works. In this proceeding, [email protected] or Kevin R. Amer, section, designated representative the Copyright Office is again providing Deputy General Counsel, kamer@ means any Coast commissioned, a streamlined procedure for the renewal copyright.gov. They can be reached by warrant, or petty officer who has been of exemptions that were granted during telephone at (202) 707–3000. authorized by the Captain of the Port the seventh triennial rulemaking. If SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Columbia River (COTP) to act on his renewed, those current exemptions behalf, or a Federal, State, and local would remain in force for an additional I. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act officer designated by or assisting the three-year period (October 2021– and Section 1201 Captain of the Port Columbia River in October 2024). Members of the public The Digital Millennium Copyright Act the enforcement of the safety zone. seeking the renewal of current (‘‘DMCA’’) 1 has played a pivotal role in (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general exemptions should submit petitions as the development of the modern digital safety zone regulations in subpart C of described below; parties opposing such economy. Enacted by Congress in 1998 this part, you may not enter the safety renewal will then have the opportunity to implement the United States’ zone described in paragraph (a) of this to file comments in response. The Office obligations under two international section unless authorized by the COTP is also accepting petitions for new treaties,2 the DMCA was intended to or the COTP’s designated representative. exemptions to engage in activities not (2) Vessel operators desiring to enter currently permitted by existing 1 Public Law 105–304, 112 Stat. 2860 (1998). or operate with the safety zone may exemptions, which may include 2 WIPO Copyright Treaty, Dec. 20, 1996, 36 I.L.M. contact the COTP’s on-scene designated proposals that expand upon a current 65 (1997); WIPO Performances and Phonograms representative by calling (503) 209–2468 exemption. Those petitions, and any Treaty, Dec. 20, 1996, 36 I.L.M. 76 (1997).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM 22JNP1 37400 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules

foster the growth and development of a independent of any infringement of (v) such other factors as the Librarian thriving, innovative, and flexible digital copyright.8 considers appropriate.’’ 15 marketplace by making digital networks Section 1201 contains a number of II. Overview of the Rulemaking Process safe places to disseminate and use specific exemptions to these copyrighted materials.3 It did this by, prohibitions, to avoid curtailing To assess whether the implementation among other things, providing new legal legitimate activities such as security of access controls impairs the ability of protections for copyrighted content testing, law enforcement activities, or individuals to make noninfringing uses made available in digital formats.4 the protection of personally identifying of copyrighted works, the Copyright Office solicits exemption proposals from These protections, codified in section information.9 In addition, to the public and develops a 1201 of title 17, United States Code, accommodate changing marketplace comprehensive administrative record seek to balance the interests of copyright conditions and ensure that access to using information submitted by owners and users, including the copyrighted works for other lawful interested parties.16 Based on that personal interests of consumers, in the purposes is not unjustifiably record, the Register provides a written digital environment.5 Section 1201 diminished,10 the statute provides for a recommendation to the Librarian protects technological measures (also rulemaking proceeding where temporary exemptions to the concerning which exemptions are called technological protection warranted based on that record. The measures or TPMs) used by copyright prohibition on circumventing access controls may be adopted by the recommendation includes proposed owners to prevent unauthorized access regulatory text for adoption and to or use of their works.6 Section 1201 Librarian of Congress, upon the recommendation of the Register of publication in the Federal Register. contains three separate protections for The rulemaking process for the eighth TPMs. First, it prohibits circumvention Copyrights in consultation with the Assistant Secretary for Communications triennial proceeding will be generally of technological measures employed by the same as the process followed in the or on behalf of copyright owners to and Information of the Department of Commerce.11 In contrast to the seventh proceeding. This includes the protect access to their works (also streamlined procedure introduced in the known as access controls). Access permanent exemptions set out by statute, exemptions adopted pursuant to seventh proceeding through which controls include, for example, a members of the public may petition for password requirement limiting access to the rulemaking must be reconsidered every three years.12 By statute, the current temporary exemptions that were an online service to paying customers or granted during the previous rulemaking an authentication code in a video game triennial rulemaking process only addresses the prohibition on to remain in force for an additional console to prevent the playing of pirated three-year period (October 2021– copies. Second, the statute prohibits circumvention of access controls; the statute does not grant the authority to October 2024). trafficking in devices or services With this notification of inquiry, the primarily designed to circumvent access adopt exemptions to the anti-trafficking provisions.13 Copyright Office is initiating the controls. Finally, it prohibits trafficking petition phase of the rulemaking, calling in devices or services primarily For an exemption to be granted for the public to submit petitions both designed to circumvent TPMs used to through the triennial rulemaking, it to renew current exemptions, as well as protect the exclusive rights of the must be established that ‘‘persons who any comments in support of or copyright owner of a work (also known are users of a copyrighted work are, or opposition to such petitions, and to as copy controls). Copy controls protect are likely to be in the succeeding 3-year propose new exemptions. This two- against unauthorized uses of a period, adversely affected by the track petition process is described copyrighted work once access has been prohibition . . . in their ability to make below. After the close of the petition lawfully obtained. They include, for noninfringing uses under [title 17] of a phase, the Office will publish a notice example, technology preventing the particular class of copyrighted 14 of proposed rulemaking (‘‘NPRM’’) to copying of an e-book after it has been works.’’ In evaluating the evidence, initiate the next phase of the rulemaking downloaded to a user’s device. Because several statutory factors must be process, as described below. title 17 already provides remedies for weighed: ‘‘(i) the availability for use of Video tutorials explaining section copyright infringement, there is no copyrighted works; (ii) the availability 1201 in general and the rulemaking corresponding ban on the act of for use of works for nonprofit archival, process can be found on the Office’s circumventing a copy control.7 All these preservation, and educational purposes; 1201 rulemaking web page at https:// prohibitions supplement the preexisting (iii) the impact that the prohibition on www.copyright.gov/1201. rights of copyright owners under the the circumvention of technological Copyright Act of 1976 by establishing measures applied to copyrighted works III. Process for Seeking Renewal of separate and distinct causes of action has on criticism, comment, news Current Exemptions reporting, teaching, scholarship, or In the prior rulemaking, the Copyright 3 See Staff of H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 105th research; (iv) the effect of circumvention Office introduced a streamlined process Cong., Section-by-Section Analysis of H.R. 2281 as of technological measures on the market Passed by the United States House of for or value of copyrighted works; and 15 Id. Representatives on August 4th, 1998, at 2, 6 (Comm. 16 See H.R. Rep. No. 105–796, at 64 (1998) (Conf. Print 1998) (‘‘House Manager’s Report’’); H.R. Rep. 8 Rep.) (‘‘It is the intention of the conferees that . . . No. 105–551, pt. 2, at 21, 23 (1998); H.R. Rep. No. See U.S. Copyright Office, Section 1201 of Title the Register of Copyrights will conduct the 105–551, pt. 1, at 10 (1998); S. Rep. No. 105–190, 17, at i, iii, 43–45 (June 2017), https:// rulemaking, including providing notice of the at 1–2, 8–9 (1998). www.copyright.gov/policy/1201/section-1201-full- rulemaking, seeking comments from the public, 4 See House Manager’s Report at 6 (noting report.pdf (‘‘Section 1201 Study’’). 9 17 U.S.C. 1201(d)–(j). consulting with the Assistant Secretary for Congress’s intention to ‘‘support new ways of Communications and Information of the 10 H.R. Rep. No. 105–551, pt. 2, at 35–36. disseminating copyrighted materials to users, and to Department of Commerce and any other agencies 11 safeguard the availability of legitimate uses of those 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)(C); see also id. that are deemed appropriate, and recommending materials by individuals’’). 1201(a)(1)(B)–(D). final regulations in the report to the Librarian.’’); 5 See H.R. Rep. No. 105–551, pt. 2, at 26. 12 Id. 1201(a)(1)(C). see also H.R. Rep. No. 106–464, at 149 (1999) (Conf. 6 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)–(b). 13 Id. 1201(a)(1)(C), (a)(1)(E). Rep.) (‘‘[T]he Copyright Office shall conduct the 7 S. Rep. No. 105–190, at 12. 14 Id. 1201(a)(1)(C). rulemaking under section 1201(a)(1)(C) . . . .’’).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM 22JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules 37401

to facilitate the renewal of previously of a current exemption (as discussed minimal. The Office anticipates that adopted exemptions for which there below), the petition to renew will petitioners will provide a paragraph or was no meaningful opposition.17 This automatically be treated as a petition for two detailing this information, but there process was initiated shortly after the a new exemption, and will be is no page limit. While it is permissible Office concluded a comprehensive considered pursuant to the more to attach supporting documentary public policy study of section 1201.18 In comprehensive rulemaking proceeding. evidence as exhibits to the petition, it is that study, following careful analysis of If a proponent has petitioned both for not necessary. The Office’s petition form relevant legal principles and noting a renewal and an expansion, and the includes an example of what it regards broad consensus of stakeholders Office declines to recommend renewal, as a sufficient explanation. supporting an expedited process to the entire exemption (i.e., the current 4. Declaration and signature. One of consider renewal of such exemptions, exemption along with the proposed the petitioners named in the petition the Office concluded that ‘‘the statute expansion) will automatically be must sign a declaration attesting to the itself requires that exemptions cannot be considered under the more continued need for the exemption and renewed automatically, presumptively, comprehensive proceeding. the truth of the explanation provided in or otherwise, without a fresh Petition Form and Contents. The support. Where the petitioner is an determination concerning the next petition to renew is a short form entity, the declaration must be signed by three-year period.... [A] designed to let proponents identify an individual at the organization having determination must be made themselves and the relevant exemption, appropriate personal knowledge to specifically for each triennial period.’’ 19 and to make certain sworn statements to make the declaration. The declaration The Office further determined, however, the Copyright Office concerning the may be signed electronically. that ‘‘the statutory language appears to existence of a continuing need and For the attestation to be trustworthy be broad enough to permit justification for the exemption. Use of and reliable, it is important that the determinations to be based upon the Office’s prepared form is mandatory, petitioner make it based on his or her evidence drawn from prior proceedings, and petitioners must follow the own personal knowledge and but only upon a conclusion that this instructions contained in this notice and experience. This requirement should evidence remains reliable to support on the petition form. A separate petition not be burdensome, as a broad range of granting an exemption in the current form must be submitted for each current individuals have a sufficient level of proceeding.’’ 20 exemption for which renewal is sought. knowledge and experience. For Those seeking readoption of a current This is required for reasons of example, a blind individual having exemption may petition for renewal by administrability and so it is clear to difficulty finding and purchasing e- submitting the Copyright Office’s which exemption the stated basis for books with appropriate assistive required fillable form, available on the renewal applies. While a single petition technologies would have such personal Office’s website at https:// may not encompass more than one knowledge and experience to make the www.copyright.gov/1201/2021/renewal- current exemption, the same party may declaration with regard to the assistive petition.pdf. This form is for renewal submit multiple petitions. technology exemption; so would a petitions only. The Office has a separate The petition form has four relevant employee or volunteer at an form, discussed below, for petitions for components: organization like the American new exemptions. 1. Petitioner identity and contact Foundation for the Blind, which Scope of Renewal. Renewal may only information. The form asks for each advocates for the blind, visually be sought for current exemptions as they petitioner (i.e., the individual or entity impaired, and print disabled, is familiar are currently formulated, without seeking renewal) to provide its name with the needs of the community, and modification. This means that if a and the name of its representative, if is well-versed specifically in the e-book proponent seeks to engage in any any, along with contact information. accessibility issue. It would be activities not currently permitted by an Any member of the public capable of improper, however, for a general existing exemption, a petition for a new making the sworn declaration discussed member of the public to petition for exemption must be submitted. Where a below may submit a petition for renewal if he or she knows nothing petitioner seeks to engage in activities renewal, regardless of prior involvement more about matters concerning e-book that expand upon a current exemption, with past rulemakings. Petitioners and/ accessibility other than what he or she the Office recommends that the or their representatives should be might have read in a brief newspaper petitioner submit both a petition to reachable through the provided contact article, or simply opposes the use of renew the current exemption, and, information for the duration of the digital rights management tools as a separately, a petition for a new rulemaking proceeding. Multiple matter of general principle. exemption. In such cases, the petition petitioning parties may jointly file a The declaration also requires for a new exemption need only discuss single petition. affirmation that, to the best of the those issues relevant to the proposed 2. Identification of the current petitioner’s knowledge, there has not expansion of the current exemption. If exemption that is the subject of the been any material change in the facts, the Office recommends readoption of petition. The form lists all current law, or other circumstances set forth in the current exemption, then only those exemptions granted during the last the prior rulemaking record (available at discrete aspects relevant to the rulemaking (codified at 37 CFR 201.40), https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2018) expansion will be subject to the more with a check box next to each. The that originally demonstrated the need comprehensive rulemaking procedure exemption for which renewal is sought for the selected exemption, such that described below. is to be identified by marking the renewal of the exemption would not be Automatic Reconsideration. If the appropriate checkbox. justified. By ‘‘material change,’’ the Office declines to recommend renewal 3. Explanation of need for renewal. Office means a significant change in the The petitioner must provide a brief underlying conditions that originally 17 82 FR 29804 (June 30, 2017). explanation summarizing the basis for justified the exemption when it was first 18 See generally Section 1201 Study. claiming a continuing need and granted, such that the appropriateness 19 Id. at 142. justification for the exemption. The of continuing the exemption for another 20 Id. at 143. required showing is meant to be three years based on that original

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM 22JNP1 37402 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules

justification is called into question. This copyrighted works. Such evidence physical media or devices on which the attestation tells the Office that the prior could cause the Office to conclude that works are stored or the services through rulemaking record from when the the prior evidentiary record is too stale which the works are accessed; (3) the current exemption was originally to rely upon for an assessment affecting purposes for which the works need to be granted is still ripe and applicable in the subsequent three-year period. The accessed; (4) the types of users who considering whether or not the same Office may also consider whether want access; and (5) the barriers that exemption is appropriate for the opposition is meaningful only as to part currently exist or which are likely to subsequent triennial period. Only after of a current exemption. exist in the near future preventing these finding the old record to still be Unsupported conclusory opinion and users from obtaining access to the germane can the Office rely upon it in speculation will not be enough for the relevant copyrighted works. deciding, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. Office to refuse to recommend renewing To be clear, petitioners do not need to 1201(a)(1)(C), whether to recommend an exemption it would have otherwise propose precise regulatory language or renewal. recommended in the absence of any fully define the contours of an opposition, or to subject consideration exemption class in the petition. A short, C. Comments in Response to a Petition of this exemption to the more plain statement describing the nature of To Renew an Exemption comprehensive rulemaking procedure. the activities the petitioners wish to Any interested party may respond to IV. Process for Seeking New engage in is sufficient. Although there is a petition to renew a current exemption Exemptions no page limit, the Office anticipates that by submitting comments. While the petitioners will be able to adequately primary purpose of these comments is Those seeking to engage in activities describe in plain terms the relevant to allow for opposition to renewing the not currently permitted by an existing information in a few sentences. The exemption, comments in support of exemption, including activities that Office’s petition form includes examples renewal are also permitted. Although no expand upon a current exemption, may of what it regards as a sufficient form is being provided for such propose a new exemption by filing a description of a requested exemption. comments, the first page of any petition using the Copyright Office’s Nor does the Office intend for responsive comments must clearly required fillable form, available on the petitioners to deliver the complete legal identify which exemption’s readoption Office’s website at https:// and evidentiary basis for their proposals is being supported or opposed. While www.copyright.gov/1201/2021/new- in the petition, and specifically requests participants may comment on more than petition.pdf. Use of the Office’s that petitioners not do so. Rather, the one exemption, a single submission may prepared form is mandatory, and sole purpose of the petition is to provide petitioners must follow the instructions not address more than one exemption. the Office with basic information about contained in this notice and on the For example, a party that wishes to the uses of copyrighted works that are petition form. As in the seventh oppose the renewal of both the wireless adversely affected by the prohibition on rulemaking, a separate petition must be device unlocking exemption and the circumvention. The Office will then use filed for each proposed exemption. The jailbreaking exemption must file that information to itself formulate Office anticipates that it will, once separate comments for each.21 The categories of potential exemptions, and again, receive a significant number of Office acknowledges that this format group similar proposals into those submissions, and requiring separate may require some parties to repeat categories, for purposes of the next, submissions for each proposed certain general information (e.g., about more substantive, phase of the exemption will help both participants their organization) across multiple rulemaking beginning with the and the Office keep better track of the submissions, but the Office believes that publication of the NPRM. record for each proposed exemption. the administrative benefits of creating Indeed, as during the previous two Although a single petition may not self-contained, separate records for each rulemakings, even the NPRM will not encompass more than one proposed exemption will be worth the modest ‘‘put forward precise regulatory exemption, the same party may submit amount of added effort involved. language for the proposed classes, multiple petitions. Opposition to a renewal petition must because any specific language for The petition form has two be meaningful, such that, from the exemptions that the Register ultimately components: evidence provided, it would be 1. Petitioner identity and contact recommends to the Librarian will reasonable for the Office to conclude necessarily depend on the full record information. The form asks for each 22 that the prior rulemaking record and petitioner (i.e., the individual or entity developed during this rulemaking.’’ any further information provided in the proposing the exemption) to provide its Rather, the proposed categories of renewal petition are insufficient to name and the name of its representative, exemptions described in the NPRM will support recommending renewal of an if any, along with contact information. ‘‘represent only a starting point for exemption. For example, a change in Petitioners and/or their representatives further consideration in the rulemaking case law might affect whether a should be reachable through the proceeding, and will be subject to particular use is noninfringing, new further refinement based on the provided contact information for the 23 technological developments might affect duration of the rulemaking proceeding. record.’’ Thus, proponents will have the availability for use of copyrighted Multiple petitioning parties may jointly the opportunity to further refine or works, or new business models might file a single petition. expound upon their initial petitions affect the market for or value of 2. Description of the proposed during later phases of the rulemaking. exemption. At this stage, the Office is V. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 21 Commenters may, however, respond to multiple petitions to renew the same exemption in only asking petitioners to briefly explain the nature of the proposed new or Following receipt of all petitions, as a single submission. For instance, if the Office well as comments on petitions for receives six petitions in favor of readopting the expanded exemption. The information current wireless device unlocking exemption, a that would be most helpful to the Office commenter can file a single comment that addresses 22 82 FR at 29807 (quoting 79 FR 73856, 73859 points made in the six petitions. That comment, includes the following, to the extent (Dec. 12, 2014)). however, may not address petitions to readopt the relevant: (1) The types of copyrighted 23 Id. (internal quotation marks and citation jailbreaking exemption. works that need to be accessed; (2) the omitted).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM 22JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules 37403

renewal, the Office will evaluate the The Office expects to follow a similar I. Introduction material received and will issue an timeframe for issuance of the NPRM and On June 11, 2020, the Postal Service NPRM addressing all of the potential submission of comments that applied filed a petition pursuant to 39 CFR exemptions to be considered in the during the seventh rulemaking. In 3050.11 requesting that the Commission rulemaking. addition, as it did in the previous initiate a rulemaking proceeding to The NPRM will set forth which rulemaking, the Office will look for consider changes to analytical exemptions the Register will opportunities to discuss discrete issues, principles relating to periodic reports.1 recommend for readoption, along with including suggestions regarding The Petition identifies the proposed proposed regulatory language. The regulatory language, through its ex parte analytical changes filed in this docket as NPRM will also identify any exemptions meeting process, and to ask additional Proposal Three. the Register has declined to recommend post-hearing questions, where necessary for renewal under the streamlined to ensure sufficient stakeholder II. Proposal Three 25 process, after considering any participation. Background. The Postal Service’s opposition received. Those exemptions Dated: June 11, 2020. current In-Office Cost System (IOCS) will instead be subject to the more Regan A. Smith, design uses a multi-stage probability comprehensive rulemaking procedure in sample to randomly select craft order to build out the administrative General Counsel and Associate Register of Copyrights. employees, including city carriers, and record. The Register will not at the then an interval of work time from the NPRM stage make a final determination [FR Doc. 2020–12911 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1410–30–P employee’s tour for a ‘‘snapshot’’ of to reject recommendation of any work activities in the work interval. exemption that meets the threshold Petition, Proposal Three at 1. The Postal requirements of section 1201(a).24 POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION Service states that moving data For current exemptions for which collectors to distant delivery units for renewal was sought but which were not 39 CFR part 3050 carrier readings is costly so that in FY recommended for readoption through 2019, of over 250,000 individual the streamlined process and all new [Docket No. RM2020–10; Order No. 5548] readings scheduled on city carriers, over exemptions, including proposals to Periodic Reporting 85 percent were conducted by expand current exemptions, the NPRM telephone. Id. The Postal Service asserts will group them appropriately, describe AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. that the availability of detailed clock them, and initiate at least three rounds ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. ring data from the Time and Attendance of public comment. As with the seventh Collection System (TACS) allows rulemaking, the Office plans to SUMMARY: The Commission is reshaping of the sampling design to consolidate or group related and/or acknowledging a recent filing requesting improve sampling efficiency and data overlapping proposed exemptions the Commission initiate a rulemaking quality. Id. The Postal Service explains where possible to simplify the proceeding to consider changes to that In Docket No. RM2019–6, the rulemaking process and encourage joint analytical principles relating to periodic Commission approved the modelling of participation among parties with reports (Proposal Three). This document all Special Purpose Route (SPR) carrier common interests (though such informs the public of the filing, invites costs using TACS data and econometric collaboration is not required). As in public comment, and takes other equations.2 previous rulemakings, the exemptions administrative steps. Proposal. The Postal Service states as described in the NPRM will represent DATES: Comments are due: August 14, that Proposal Three would change IOCS only a starting point for further 2020. system design for city carriers to a consideration in the rulemaking ADDRESSES: cluster sampling utilizing census data proceeding, and will be subject to Submit comments from TACS to enable on-site data further refinement based on the record. electronically via the Commission’s collection at locations and times where The NPRM will provide guidance Filing Online system at http:// and when city carriers are working on regarding specific areas of legal and www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit the premises. Petition, Proposal Three at factual interest for the Office with comments electronically should contact FOR FURTHER 3. Rather than sampling individual respect to each proposed exemption, the person identified in the employees, the proposed design would and suggest particular types of evidence INFORMATION CONTACT section by sample blocks of time and then that participants may wish to submit for telephone for advice on filing subsample clusters of carriers working the record. It will also contain alternatives. during those blocks of time. Id. The additional instructions and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Postal Service asserts that this new requirements for submitting comments David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at design improves data quality with more and will detail the later phases of the 202–789–6820. on-site data rather than telephone rulemaking proceeding—i.e., public SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: readings and, thereby, improves data hearings, post-hearing questions, Table of Contents collection efficiency. Id. at 1. recommendation, and final rule—which I. Introduction will be similar to those of the seventh 1 II. Proposal Three Petition of the United States Postal Service for rulemaking. the Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider Proposed III. Notice and Comment Changes in Analytical Principles (Proposal Three), 24 See 79 FR 55687, 55692 (Sept. 17, 2014) IV. Ordering Paragraphs June 11, 2020 (Petition). The Postal Service also (explaining that part of the purpose of providing the filed a notice of filing of public and non-public information in the petition phase is so the Office 25 See 82 FR at 29808; U.S. Copyright Office, Ex materials relating to Proposal Three. Notice of can ‘‘confirm that the threshold requirements of Parte Communications, https://www.copyright.gov/ Filing of USPS–RM2020–10–1 and USPS–RM2020– section 1201(a) can be met’’); see also 79 FR at 1201/2018/ex-parte-communications.html; U.S. 10–NP1 and Application for Nonpublic Treatment, 73859 (noting that three petitions sought an Copyright Office, Additional Correspondence from June 11, 2020. exemption which could not be granted as a matter Participants in Proposed Class 10, https:// 2 Id. at 1–2. Docket No. RM2019–6, Order on of law and declining to put them forward for www.copyright.gov/1201/2018/additional- Analytical Principles Used in Periodic Reporting comment). correspondence/; Section 1201 Study at 150–51. (Proposal One), January 14, 2020 (Order No. 5405).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM 22JNP1 37404 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules

The Postal Service states that for in- periods out of the prior quarter.’’ Id. at training costs will be allocated to morning tests (prior to 1100), when 6. TACS workhours are grouped by CAG unidentified routes; whereas, in Non- carriers typically work on the premises finance number, district and time of day Cluster IOCS, numerous tallies are of postal facilities, on-site data and samples are on a quarterly basis. Id. assigned to the ambiguous route 99 collection of the associated carriers Table 1 of the Proposal presents the when carriers are not assigned to a using clustered on-site readings in Mode 1 quarterly sample size by CAG specific route or not working on a valid sampled individual finance numbers Group. Id. Table 2 shows the Mode 2 route. Id. The Postal Service asserts (within cost ascertainment group (CAG) quarterly sample size by CAG Group. Id. Table 6 of the Proposal demonstrates strata) would be used as described in at 7. Table 3 of the Proposal displays the that larger route categories appear stable the Proposal as Sampling Mode 1. Id. at proposed number of tests by each between the two systems. Id. at 13. 3. In the afternoon period (after 1100), Sampling Mode and CAG Group and the As its last rationale, the Postal Service when carriers are typically working on proposed number of ‘‘non-stop’’ states that use of the TACS system to the street, clustered telephone readings readings (when a carrier is actively weight tests by finance number or with one-hour intervals of time would working in the tested finance number) district means that the Postal Service no be sampled as described in the Proposal expected from each mode. Id. at 8. The longer needs to absorb the inefficiency as Sampling Mode 2. Id. Postal Service would estimate costs for of simple random sampling. TACS The Postal Service states that TACS carriers using quarterly TACS data to allows sampling at all CAGs, and data would be used to control totals for weight the IOCS-Cluster sample weights the results according to accrued supervisor costs incurred on weekdays readings. Id. The Postal Service states hours and costs. Id. by employees whose base craft is carrier that equations for the estimations are Impact. The Postal Service asserts that but clocked in as a supervisor craft. Id. provided in Appendix A of Library Table 7 of the Proposal demonstrates at 4. The Postal Service asserts that this Reference USPS–RM2020–10–1. Id. that the proposed IOCS-Cluster method was approved by the The Postal Service states that with the sampling would result in a 49 percent Commission in Order No. 5395 for approval of Proposal One in Docket No. increase in costs allocated based on Sundays and holidays.3 The Postal RM2019–6, tallies are no longer used to direct tallies, where the carrier was Service states that it will not conduct distribute SPR activity costs. Id. at 9. It handling a mailpiece and the mailpiece carrier readings on Sundays and states that the current proposal will was able to be sampled. Id. at 13–14. It holidays, but would expand the continue to sample SPR carriers, but also asserts that costs decreased for methodology to all days of the week. Id. will not use the readings to attribute any mixed mail, training, support and It would use TACS data to provide costs. Id. The Postal Service states that administrative activities, all readings control totals for carrier costs on the change in sampling methods does without an actual mailpiece. Id. Sundays and holidays described in not change the activity or mail-related The impacts at the Cost and Revenue Docket No. RM2018–5.4 questions of the data collectors; only Analysis (CRA) product level are Each of the Sampling Modes is administrative fields and back-end indicated in Table 8 of the Proposal. Id. described briefly in the Proposal. variables will be affected by the at 15. The Postal Service states that the Sampling Mode 1 is Morning On-site sampling methodology. Id. material cost changes are seen in Tests. Petition, Proposal Three at 3. The Rationale. The Postal Service states competitive products which increased Postal Service states that all carriers that there are numerous reasons it views overall, that First-Class Mail Single- working in the selected finance number the cost estimates from the new Piece Letter costs decreased, accounting are identified and software is used to sampling systems as more accurate than for most of the decrease in First-Class randomly subsample up to six carriers. the cost estimates from the current IOCS Mail, and that costs of other market Id. at 4–5. Typically a reading is sampling system. Id. at 10. It offers the dominant products increased. Id. at 14. conducted on each of the six carriers following reasons. Dedicated on-site Competitive product details were filed every 30 minutes from the start of their data collectors can provide valuable under seal in Library Reference USPS– workday until 1100. Id. at 5. Sampling information and validate data. Id. They RM2020–10–NP–1. Id. Mode 2 is Afternoon Telephone Tests. are trained and may better implement The Postal Service provides the Id. Telephone tests are scheduled for IOCS data collection procedures with a results of the coefficients of variation one-hour blocks of time between 1100 primary objective to complete their tests (CVs) by CRA Subproducts in Table 9 of and 1900. Id. Software randomly selects compared to the current data collecting the Proposal. Id. at 16–17. The Postal 30 carriers across a district and groups employees who also have other Service asserts that, using Quarter 2 FY them by finance numbers. Id. There are responsibilities. Id. On-site data 2020 data, the majority of CVs projected larger CAG groups and smaller CAG collectors will have time for increased for IOCS-Cluster were lower than during groups to allow for oversampling of sampling with less disruption and delay FY 2019. Id. at 16. The Postal Service smaller CAGs. Id. The Postal Service of carriers and respondent clerks and also asserts that the efficiency gains for states that a full description of the supervisors. Id. at 10–11. street time outweigh the slight increase sampling modes is provided in Based on Table 4 of the Proposal, the in CVs. Id. It claims that First-Class Mail Appendix A as part of Library Reference Postal Service asserts that direct experiences a slight increase in CVs due USPS–RM2020–10–1. Id. at 4. mailpiece costs using the allocation of to a drop in allocated costs, but that the The Postal Service states that the direct mailpiece tallies when carriers approval of modeling SPR costs in sampling methodology utilizes were in the office increased 44 percent, Docket No. RM2018–5 improved the probability proportional to size (PPS) and increased 223 percent when carriers CVs compared to the previous IOCS- sampling ‘‘based on the accrued TACS were in the parking lot. Id. at 10. It also Cluster filing. Id. workhours for carriers from two pay asserts that in-office mixed mail costs decreased 24 percent and that parking III. Notice and Comment 3 Id. at 4 n.4. See Docket No. RM2019–12, Order lot mixed mail costs decreased 9 The Commission establishes Docket on Analytical Principles Used in Periodic Reporting percent. Id. at 10–11. No. RM2020–10 for consideration of (Proposal Seven), January 6, 2020 (Order No. 5395). 4 Petition, Proposal Three at 4. See Docket No. The Postal Service asserts that there matters raised by the Petition. More RM2018–5, Order Approving In Part Proposal Two, will be a reduction in ambiguous route information on the Petition may be January 8, 2019 (Order No. 4972). costs. Id. at 12. No costs except certain accessed via the Commission’s website

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM 22JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules 37405

at http://www.prc.gov. Interested publishing a second supplemental discussed in this document or the EPA’s persons may submit comments on the notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) proposal to remove Iowa from the SSM Petition and Proposal Three no later to propose approval of Iowa’s State SIP Call, identified by Docket ID No. than August 14, 2020. Pursuant to 39 Implementation Plan (SIP) for the 2010 EPA–R07–OAR–2017–0416 at https:// U.S.C. 505, Katalin K. Clendenin is 1-hour Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) National www.regulations.gov. Modeling files are designated as an officer of the Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) provided in the docket to this Commission (Public Representative) to for the Muscatine nonattainment area, rulemaking but can also be requested represent the interests of the general including the attainment plan control from the EPA by contacting the person public in this proceeding. strategy. In this action, Region 7 is identified in the FOR FURTHER including additional technical INFORMATION CONTACT section of this IV. Ordering Paragraphs information in the docket. Region 7 is document. Once submitted, comments It is ordered: also considering adoption of an cannot be edited or removed from 1. The Commission establishes Docket alternative policy regarding startup, Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish No. RM2020–10 for consideration of the shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) any comment received to its public matters raised by the Petition of the exemption provisions in the Iowa SIP docket. Do not submit electronically any United States Postal Service for the that departs from the policy detailed in information you consider to be Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider EPA’s 2015 SSM SIP Action, as well as Confidential Business Information (CBI) Proposed Changes in Analytical proposing to withdraw the SIP call or other information whose disclosure is Principles (Proposal Three), filed June issued to Iowa as part of the 2015 SSM restricted by statute. Multimedia 11, 2020. SIP Action and to approve the submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 2. Comments by interested persons in attainment plan control strategy. accompanied by a written comment. this proceeding are due no later than DATES: Comments must be received on The written comment is considered the August 14, 2020.5 or before July 22, 2020. official comment and should include 3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the ADDRESSES: You may send comments, discussion of all points you wish to Commission appoints Katalin K. identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– make. The EPA will generally not Clendenin to serve as an officer of the OAR–2017–0416 to https:// consider comments or comment Commission (Public Representative) to www.regulations.gov. Follow the online contents located outside of the primary represent the interests of the general instructions for submitting comments. submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or public in this docket. Instructions: All submissions received other file sharing system). For 4. The Secretary shall arrange for must include the Docket ID No. for this additional submission methods, the full publication of this order in the Federal rulemaking. Comments received will be EPA public comment policy, Register. posted without change to https:// information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on By the Commission. www.regulations.gov/, including any making effective comments, please visit Erica A. Barker, personal information provided. For detailed instructions on sending https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ Secretary. comments and additional information commenting-epa-dockets. [FR Doc. 2020–13188 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] on the rulemaking process, see the II. Executive Summary BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P ‘‘Written Comments’’ section of this document. On August 24, 2017, the EPA’s Region 7 published a notice of proposed FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION rulemaking (NPRM) to propose approval AGENCY Tracey Casburn, Environmental of the Iowa SIP revision for attaining the Protection Agency, Region 7 Office, Air 2010 1-hour SO2 primary NAAQS for 40 CFR Part 52 Quality Planning Branch, 11201 Renner the Muscatine nonattainment area.1 As Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; a result of comments received on the [EPA–R07–OAR–2017–0416; FRL–10011– telephone number (913) 551–7016; 19–Region 7] NPRM, Region 7 published an SNPRM email address [email protected]. on January 9, 2018 to clarify the August Air Plan Approval; Iowa; Air Quality SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 24, 2017 NPRM and to provide Implementation Plan-Muscatine Sulfur Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ additional technical information in the Dioxide Nonattainment Area and Start- and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. docket.2 As a result of comments Up, Shutdown, Malfunction SIP Call Table of Contents received on the NPRM and SNPRM, Withdrawal Region 7 is issuing a second SNPRM to I. Written Comments provide additional detail regarding II. Executive Summary AGENCY: Environmental Protection technical support for approving the Agency (EPA). III. Background A. The EPA’s SIP Policy for Treatment of attainment demonstration contained in ACTION: Supplemental notice of Excess Emissions During Periods of Iowa’s submitted SIP revision. In proposed rulemaking. Startup, Shutdown, or Malfunction addition, Region 7 is considering in this (SSM) document adoption of an alternative SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection B. The SSM SIP Call for Iowa policy regarding SSM exemption Agency’s (EPA) Region 7 Office is C. The Muscatine Attainment Plan provisions in the Iowa SIP that departs IV. What is Being Addressed in This from the policy detailed in EPA’s 2015 5 The Commission reminds interested persons Document? 3 that its revised and reorganized Rules of Practice V. Region 7’s Evaluation of the Iowa SIP SSM SIP Action. Simultaneously, and Procedure became effective April 20, 2020, and VI. Additional Modeling Information Region 7 is also proposing to withdraw should be used in filings with the Commission after VII. What Action is EPA Region 7 Taking? the SIP call issued to Iowa as part of the April 20, 2020. The new rules are available on the VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 2015 SSM SIP Action and proposing to Commission’s website and can be found in Order No. 5407. Docket No. RM2019–13, Order I. Written Comments Reorganizing Commission Regulations and 1 82 FR 40086. Amending Rules of Practice, January 16, 2020 Submit your comments regarding the 2 83 FR 997. (Order No. 5407). supplemental modeling information 3 80 FR 33840.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM 22JNP1 37406 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules

approve the attainment plan control pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(5) to the CAA section 112 context to the strategy. certain states to amend those provisions. requirements of CAA section 110. CAA This action is referred to as the 2015 section 110(a)(2)(A) provides that SIPs III. Background SSM SIP Action. shall include ‘‘enforceable emission Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) section In the 2015 SSM SIP Action, among limitations and other control measures, 110 provides a framework for how states other things, the EPA defined the means, or techniques . . . as may be must adopt and periodically revise their following terms: necessary or appropriate to meet the SIPs with a goal of attaining and Automatic exemption: A generally applicable requirements of this 4 maintaining the NAAQS. State applicable provision in a SIP that would chapter.’’ The EPA’s application of the regulatory or statutory requirements are provide that if certain conditions Sierra Club decision to CAA section 110 submitted by the state to the EPA for existed during a period of excess SIP requirements rested on the Agency’s approval into the SIP. The CAA emissions, then those exceedances premise that the D.C. Circuit’s establishes the framework for EPA would not be considered violations of interpretation of the definition of 5 action on submitted SIP revisions, and the applicable emission limitations. ‘‘emission limitation’’ in CAA section the EPA must approve submitted SIP Emission limitation: In the context of 302(k) applied generally to the Act. The a SIP, a legally binding restriction on revisions that it determines meet the EPA thus determined that Sierra Club emissions from a source or source applicable requirements of the Act. was consistent with the EPA’s national category, such as a numerical emission Once approved by the EPA, the SIP policy, expressed through previously limitation, a numerical emission provisions become federally issued guidance documents and enforceable. limitation with higher or lower levels regulatory actions prohibiting There are times when a state will applicable during specific modes of exemption provisions for otherwise update or revise its SIP on its own source operation, a specific applicable emission limits in SIPs (such initiative due to revisions to state law or technological control measure as automatic exemptions granted for the need to update its regulations. requirement, a work practice standard, startup, shutdown, and malfunction Additionally, certain events trigger or a combination of these things as requirements that a state revise or components of a comprehensive and events). Based on this premise, the EPA update its SIP. Examples of mandatory continuous emission limitation in a SIP interpreted the lack of continuous SIP revisions triggered by specific provision. In this respect, the term control as creating a substantial risk that events include ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP emission limitation is defined as in exemptions could permit excess (iSIP) revisions, which are required 3 section 302(k) of the CAA. By emissions that could ultimately result in years after the promulgation of a new or definition, an emission limitation can a NAAQS violation. revised NAAQS, and ‘‘attainment plan’’ take various forms or a combination of B. The SSM SIP Call for Iowa SIP revisions, which are required after forms, but in order to be permissible in an area is designated or redesignated a SIP it must be applicable to the source As part of the Agency’s response to nonattainment for a NAAQS. A state continuously, i.e., cannot include the 2011 petition from Sierra Club, the may also be required to revise its SIP periods during which emissions from EPA evaluated dozens of existing SIP after the EPA revises its regulations to the source are legally or functionally provisions in 36 state SIPs—including clarify certain requirements of the CAA. exempt from regulation. Regardless of the Iowa SIP—related to automatic Another event that can result in a its form, a fully approvable SIP emission excess emission exemptions for required SIP revision is if the EPA limitation must also meet all substantive consistency with EPA’s policy. As a determines at any time that a state’s SIP requirements of the CAA applicable to result, the EPA issued findings in its is substantially inadequate to meet such a SIP provision, e.g., the statutory 2015 SSM SIP Action that certain SIP certain requirements of the Act, requirement of section 172(c)(1) for provisions for 36 states (including Iowa) including attaining or maintaining the imposition of reasonably available were substantially inadequate to meet relevant NAAQS or mitigating interstate control measures and reasonably CAA requirements. In the 2015 SSM SIP pollutant transport. In such cases, the available control technology (RACM and Action, the EPA granted the Sierra EPA will issue a ‘‘SIP call’’ pursuant to RACT) on sources located in designated Club’s petition with respect to Iowa CAA section 110(k)(5) requiring the nonattainment areas.6 Administrative Code (IAC) subrule 567– state to revise the SIP to address the The EPA used the D.C. Circuit’s 24.1(1), finding that the provision was inadequacy. decision in Sierra Club v. Johnson, 551 substantially inadequate and issuing a F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (Sierra Club), SIP call for that provision, and the EPA A. The EPA’s SIP Policy for Treatment to further support its position in the denied the petition with respect to IAC of Excess Emissions During Periods of 2015 SSM SIP Action that SIPs may not 567– 24.1(4).89 Startup, Shutdown, or Malfunction contain SSM exemption provisions. In (SSM) Sierra Club, the D.C. Circuit reviewed 8 IAC 567–24.1(1) states that excess emissions On June 30, 2011, Sierra Club an EPA rule promulgated pursuant to during a period of startup, shutdown, or cleaning (Petitioner) filed a petition for CAA section 112 that contained an of control equipment is not a violation of the rulemaking (petition) asking the EPA to emission standard if the startup, shutdown or automatic SSM exemption and found cleaning is accomplished expeditiously and in a consider how air agency rules in the that ‘‘the SSM exemption violates the way that is consistent with good practice for EPA-approved SIPs treated excess CAA’s requirement that some section minimizing emissions. emissions during periods of startup, 112 standard apply continuously.’’ 7 In 9 IAC 567–24.1(4) states that incidents of excess shutdown, or malfunction of industrial emissions (other than an incident during start-up, the 2015 SSM SIP Action, the EPA shutdown or cleaning of control equipment) are process or emission control equipment. applied the Sierra Club court’s violations. If the source believes that the excess On July 12, 2015, the EPA responded to interpretation of CAA section 302(k) emissions are due to a malfunction the source must the petition, restated and updated its definition of ‘‘emission limitation’’ in meet the burden of proof that the incident was not national policy regarding SSM preventable by reasonable maintenance and control measures. Meeting the burden of proof does not provisions in SIPs, and issued a SIP call 5 See 80 FR 33839, page 33842. guarantee that the excess emissions will not be 6 See 80 FR 33839, page 33842. enforced; the rule states that enforcement will be 4 See 40 CFR part 50. 7 551 F.3d at 1027–1028. considered after review of the source’s report.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM 22JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules 37407

In the 2015 SSM SIP Action, the EPA even if the EPA does not approve consist of an array of Federal and state found IAC 567–24.1(1) to be Condition 6 into the SIP, the continued requirements in the SIP that arise from substantially inadequate to meet the existence of IAC 567–24.1(1) in Iowa’s the relationship between states and the requirements of the Act on the basis that SIP means that Iowa cannot ensure Federal Government that underlies this provision automatically allows for continuous compliance with those implementation of the CAA. Congress’s exemptions from the otherwise ‘‘emission limitations.’’ 13 Therefore, primary goal in creating the SIP applicable SIP emission limitations as according to the comment, the EPA adoption and approval process was to required by CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A), should not approve the attainment plan ensure the NAAQS are attained and 110(a)(2)(C), and 302(k).10 Specifically, considering the policy and SIP call maintained.17 Region 7 is evaluating the IAC 567–24.1(1) explicitly states that issued by the EPA in 2015 and the overlapping requirements in the Iowa excess emissions during periods of requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) and SIP to assess whether exemptions startup, shutdown, and cleaning of 172(c)(6) of the CAA.14 during SSM periods are allowable. On control equipment are not violations of On January 9, 2018, the EPA the basis of that evaluation, Region 7 is the emission standard. Iowa has not published a supplemental proposal proposing to find that Iowa’s SSM submitted a SIP revision addressing IAC document that: (1) Provided additional provision is allowable, because of the 567.24.1(1). information in the docket and clarified proposed finding that the SIP as a whole that all information, including files that C. The Muscatine Attainment Plan is protective of the NAAQS, were too large to be provided in the accomplishing the task Congress set out On May 26, 2016, the State of Iowa docket, was available upon request; (2) for states and the EPA. If such an submitted a SIP revision for the purpose provided an 2018 projected emissions alternative policy is finalized, EPA of attaining the 2010 1-hour sulfur inventory that had been excluded from would withdraw the SSM SIP call for dioxide (SO2) primary National Ambient the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Iowa because, under such Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for the and, (3) re-opened the public comment circumstances, the SIP-called provision 15 Muscatine nonattainment area (herein period only on those specific aspects. would not be substantially inadequate. called an ‘‘attainment plan’’). As IV. What is being addressed in this As discussed above, the 2015 SSM

detailed in EPA’s 2014 SO2 proposal? SIP Action reiterated the EPA’s policy nonattainment area guidance, such that SIPs containing SSM exemptions attainment plans are to contain six In this second supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking related to Iowa’s were not allowable because they would CAA-required elements: an emissions create risk that excess emissions during inventory of current emissions for all 2016 submission, EPA Region 7 is considering adopting an alternative SSM events could cause a state to fail sources of SO2 within the to attain or maintain the NAAQS for one nonattainment area; a New Source policy to the national policy as stated in the 2015 SSM SIP Action specifically or more criteria pollutants. Region 7 is Review (NSR) permit program; an proposing to find that the inherent attainment demonstration using an EPA- regarding exemptions for excess emissions in the State of Iowa, and is flexibilities in the SIP development approved air dispersion model; process and the general requirements in contingency measures; Reasonable simultaneously proposing to withdraw the SIP call for Iowa if the alternative CAA section 110 mean that a state like Further Progress; and implementation of Iowa could ensure attainment and a control strategy.11 The state noted that SSM policy for the State is adopted (see Section V).16 Additionally, after maintenance despite one or more SSM as part of its control strategy, 58 exemptions in the SIP. construction permits in the attainment considering comments received to date Although the Sierra Club decision did plan relied on the SIP-called IAC 567– on the Agency’s proposed approval of not allow sources to be exempt from 24.1(1) (‘‘Condition 6’’ of each permit). all elements of the attainment plan for complying with CAA section 112 As such, the State’s nonattainment area the Muscatine 2010 SO2 nonattainment emission limitations during periods of plan SIP submission requested that the area, EPA Region 7 is proposing to SSM, that finding is not binding on EPA not act on Condition 6 of the approve additional modeling that Region 7’s consideration of SIPs under included permits. demonstrates attainment throughout the CAA section 110. In the Sierra Club On August 24, 2017, the EPA nonattainment area and at receptors on decision, the court explained, ‘‘[i]n published a notice of proposed adjacent properties (see Section VI). requiring that sources regulated under rulemaking to approve the attainment Region 7 is considering adopting an section 112 meet the strictest standards, plan.12 In that action, the EPA agreed alternative policy for Iowa regarding the Congress gave no indication that it with the State that it would not be continuous application of emission intended the application of MACT appropriate to approve Condition 6 of limits in section 110 SIPs. Specifically, standards to vary based on different each permit into the SIP and proposed although the Iowa SIP contains an time periods.’’ 18 to approve the permitted limits into the exemption for SSM, the SIP is That is, the court SIP without the condition. During the comprised of numerous overlapping found that when the EPA promulgates 30-day public comment period, the EPA planning requirements. Those standards pursuant to CAA section 112, received a comment that (1) because overlapping planning requirements CAA section 112-compliant standards Condition 6 provides for an exemption must apply continuously, but the court for excess emissions during periods of 13 As that term is defined in section 302(k) of the did not make any statement explicitly CAA. applying its finding beyond CAA SSM, and because Condition 6 refers to 14 The requirements of CAA section 172(c)(6) and implements IAC 567–24.1(1), the section 112. The decision itself did not parallel those in section 110(a)(2)(A), so Region 7 address whether the rationale construction permits do not ensure does not address them separately here. continuous compliance with the 15 See 83 FR 997. articulated with respect to SSM ‘‘emission limitations’’ therein; and (2) 16 If the proposed policy is finalized and the SIP exemptions in CAA section 112 rules call withdrawn and Iowa requests that EPA act on applies to SIPs approved under CAA Condition 6 of the 58 construction permits section 110. 10 See 80 FR 33969. submitted to the EPA as part of the control strategy 11 Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area for the attainment plan, EPA could propose to SIP Submissions; April 23, 2014. approve those provisions based on the rationale set 17 See, e.g., H.R. Rep. 91–1783 at 193–95 (1970). 12 See 82 FR 40086. forth in this document. 18 Sierra Club, 551 F. 3d at 1028.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM 22JNP1 37408 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules

The EPA took the position in the 2015 but does not direct the states on how to best suited to its particular situation.’’ SSM SIP Action that the legal reasoning achieve the NAAQS.23 The NAAQS, See Train v. Natural Res. Def. Council, in Sierra Club applied equally to CAA then, are fundamentally different in Inc., 421 U.S. 60, 79 (1975). States are section 112 rules and section 110 nature than the source-specific the best suited to determine how best to approved SIPs, but further consideration standards the EPA issues under section implement the NAAQS within their of the Iowa SIP has shown that an 112. As such, the D.C. Circuit’s concern jurisdiction and are given primary alternative reading of the relevant that 112 standards must apply responsibility under CAA section 110 to statutory sections is possible and ‘‘continuously’’ to regulate emissions do so. appropriate.19 More specifically, in the from a particular source are not Because the purposes of CAA sections 2015 SSM SIP Action the EPA necessarily applicable in the context of 110 and 112 are different, it is interpreted CAA section 302(k)’s section 110, where a state’s plan may reasonable to interpret the same term definition of ‘‘continuous’’ applied contain a broad range of measures, (emission limitation) to have different broadly to both sections 112 and 110.20 including limits on the emissions of meanings in those sections; a singular However, Region 7 believes that, given multiple pollutants from multiple interpretation may not necessarily apply Iowa’s particular factual situation, an sources of various source categories—all statute-wide. The U.S. Supreme Court alternative interpretation, that the targeted towards Congress’s broad goal has recognized that principles of court’s reasoning in Sierra Club does not of attainment and maintenance of an air statutory construction are not so rigid as extend to CAA section 110, is quality standard measured against to necessarily require that the same warranted. emissions contributions from a variety terminology has the exact same meaning Fundamentally, CAA sections 112 of sources over a specific geographic in different parts of the same statute. and 110 have different goals and area. See Envtl. Defense v. Duke Energy Corp., establish different approaches for It is important to also note that the list 549 U.S. 561, 574 (2007). The Court implementation by the state and the of potential CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) explained that there is ‘‘no effectively EPA. That is to say, the court in Sierra measures that a state must implement irrebuttable presumption that the same Club recognized that Congress intended are required only ‘‘as may be necessary defined term in different provisions of ‘‘that sources regulated under section or appropriate to meet the applicable the same statute must be interpreted 112 meet the strictest standards,’’ a requirements of this chapter.’’ This identically.’’ Id. at 575–6. ‘‘Context requirement without a similar analog in language suggests that Congress counts,’’ stated the Court; terms can CAA section 110.21 CAA section 112 intended to give states the flexibility to have ‘‘different shades of meaning’’ sets forth specific standards for specific craft a plan that makes the most sense reflecting ‘‘different implementation source categories once they are listed for for that state, so long as the set of strategies’’ even in the same statute. Id. regulation pursuant to CAA section emissions limitations, control measures, at 574, 76 (citations omitted). See also 112(c). Once listed, the statute directs means and techniques, when taken as a Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 573 the EPA to use a specific and exacting whole, meet the requirements of U.S. 302, 320 (2014) (‘‘a statutory term— process to establish nationally attaining and maintaining the NAAQS even one defined in the statute—may applicable, category-wide, technology- under subpart A. As such, Region 7 is take on distinct characters from based emissions standards under considering whether it may be association with distinct statutory section 112(d), requiring the EPA to appropriate to approve certain Iowa SIP objects calling for different establish emission standards (known as submissions notwithstanding the implementation strategies.’’ (citations ‘‘maximum achievable control existence of an exemption elsewhere in omitted)). technology’’ or ‘‘MACT’’ standards) for the Iowa SIP, so long as other provisions The text of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) major sources that ‘‘require the in the SIP remain in effect that would reflects the increased flexibility built maximum degree of reduction in ensure protection of the NAAQS. into section 110 as compared to section emissions of the hazardous air The U.S. Supreme Court has 112.24 The requirement that the pollutants subject to this section’’ that recognized that the CAA gives a state ‘‘emissions standards’’ the EPA issues EPA determines is achievable ‘‘wide discretion’’ to formulate its plan under section 112, see, e.g., section pursuant to CAA section 110 and went considering certain statutory factors.22 112(c)(2), apply continuously may, as so far as to say that ‘‘the State has In contrast, the CAA sets out a the D.C. Circuit held, prevent the EPA virtually absolute power in allocating different expectation for section 110 from providing SSM exemptions in emission limitations so long as the SIPs, reflecting that SIP development those standards. However, at the same national standards are met.’’ See, e.g., and implementation rely on a federal- time, it is reasonable to interpret the Union Elec. Co. v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, state partnership and are designed to be concept of continuous ‘‘emission 250 & 267 (1976). See also id. at 269 flexible for each state’s circumstances. limitations’’ in a SIP to be focused not (‘‘Congress plainly left with the States, The CAA sets the minimum on implementation of each individual so long as the national standards were requirements to attain, maintain, and limit, but rather on whether the various met, the power to determine which enforce ambient air quality standards, components of the approved SIP operate while allowing each state to customize sources would be burdened by regulation and to what extent.’’). The together in a continuous manner to its own approach for the sources and air Court has also explained, ‘‘so long as the ensure attainment and maintenance of quality challenges specific to each state. ultimate effect of a State’s choice of the NAAQS. Therefore, Region 7 It is important to note that the EPA sets emission limitations is compliance with believes it is reasonable to conclude that the NAAQS for each criteria pollutant to the national standards for ambient air, provide the requisite degree of 24 Under CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), each SIP shall the State is at liberty to adopt whatever protection for public health and welfare, include ‘‘enforceable emission limitations and mix of emission limitations it deems control measures, means, or techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable 19 See 80 FR at 33839. 23 The exemption to this general rule is when EPA permits, and auctions of emissions rights), as well 20 See 80 FR at 33874. promulgates a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may 21 Sierra Club at 1028. under CAA section 110(c)(1) because a state or tribe be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable 22 EPA can also set work practice standards under has failed to make a required SIP submission, or requirements of this chapter.’’ 42 U.S.C. CAA section 112(h). such submission does not comply with the NAAQS. 7410(a)(2)(A).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM 22JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules 37409

the Sierra Club decision’s disapproval of protect air quality and ensure consistent with implementation SSM provisions should not be extended attainment and maintenance of the schedules in federal laws and to CAA section 110. NAAQS: (1) Startup, shutdown and regulations.’’ For nonattainment areas, If Region 7 adopts the policy outlined cleaning is to be accomplished CAA section 172(c), among other in this section based on the analysis expeditiously; and, (2) startup, relevant statutory provisions, requires contained in this document, we are shutdown, and cleaning is to be state plans to provide for attainment as proposing to change the finding of the accomplished in a way that is consistent expeditiously as practicable and for the SIP call issued to Iowa as part of the with good practice for minimizing implementation of reasonable available 2015 SSM SIP Action that a SIP emissions. IAC 567–24.1(4) clarifies that control measures (RACM) as provision contained in the Iowa SIP is an ‘‘expeditious manner’’ is the time expeditiously as practicable. As substantially inadequate to meet CAA necessary to determine the cause of the mentioned previously, Iowa has a fully requirements. Specifically, if Region 7 excess emissions and to correct it within approved 2010 SO2 infrastructure SIP, adopts this alternative policy, we a reasonable period of time. IAC 567– meaning that EPA has, through notice propose to find that the subject SIP 24.1(4) also states that a ‘‘reasonable and comment rulemaking, found that provision is consistent with CAA period of time’’ is eight hours plus the the SIP provides for the requirements. If so adopted, the period of time required to shut down implementation, maintenance, and alternative SSM policy is a policy the process without damaging the enforcement of the NAAQS. Other than statement and would constitute process or control equipment. the Muscatine 2010 1-hr SO2 guidance within Region 7 for Iowa. As detailed in the EPA’s technical nonattainment area, previously Such a guidance would not bind states, support document for Iowa’s 2010 SO2 mentioned, there are no other the EPA or other parties; it would only iSIP approval, the director of the IDNR nonattainment areas, for any criteria reflect Region 7’s interpretation of the has the duty to ensure that the NAAQS pollutant, in the State.30 As can be seen CAA requirements as applicable to the is attained and maintained in via ambient air quality monitoring data Iowa SIP. The evaluation of any SIP accordance with Federal laws and for SO2, air quality in the Muscatine provision, and that provision’s regulations, and is granted broad area is well below the NAAQS of 75 interaction with the SIP, must be done oversight, authority, and discretion with parts per billion (ppb). The current 25 through a notice-and-comment process. which to do so. Iowa has the requisite three-year (2016–2018) SO2 design value statutory authority that provides an for the area is 34 ppb.31 V. Region 7’s Evaluation of the Iowa adequate framework for attaining and Furthermore, the SIP provides for SIP maintaining the NAAQS.26 emergency powers comparable to that of In proposing to conclude that the Iowa Code 455B.132 designates IDNR the EPA Administrator under CAA Iowa SIP in its entirety is protective of as the Agency to prevent, abate, or section 303, and the State has a fully the NAAQS, Region 7 has identified control air pollution. The approved emergency episodes plan that numerous provisions of the SIP that, Environmental Protection Commission meets the applicable requirements of 40 when taken as a whole, establish such (EPC) governs the environmental CFR part 51, subpart H, at IAC 567– a basis. First, the Iowa SIP details a services of IDNR and has the duty to 26.1–4. IAC 567–28.1, in concert with series of overlapping requirements that develop emission limits and compliance IAC 567–26.1–4 and the state’s statutory provide for robust testing, reporting, and schedules in order to abate, control, and provisions detailed further below, lay accountability for sources during prevent air pollution.27 The EPC adopts, out IDNR’s responsibility and authority periods of excess emissions. Such amends, or repeals rules that are for ensuring that air quality is protected, overlapping requirements enable Iowa necessary to obtain approval of the State and the NAAQS are attained and Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) SIP under CAA section 110.28 The EPC maintained in the state of Iowa, to implement the NAAQS, allowing is also charged with adopting, notwithstanding an exemption for IDNR to maintain oversight, work with amending, or repealing ambient air excess emissions in the SIP. The sources to maintain compliant quality standards necessary to protect attainment status of areas in the State as operation, and, if necessary, enforce public health and welfare.29 well as monitored air quality against sources. Furthermore, 455B.134(9) states that the demonstrate successful implementation Although IAC 567–24.1(1) was SIP director shall issue orders consistent on the part of the State. called in the EPA’s 2015 SSM SIP with rules to cause the abatement or Third, the Iowa SIP provides IDNR Action, the provision contains control of air pollution, or to secure with the specific discretion of whether limitations on whether SSM events are compliance with permit conditions. to issue a construction permit for a considered emission standard violations The IDNR director’s duty to ensure source based solely on an analysis of and requires that source owners or the NAAQS is attained and maintained that source’s impact on attainment or operators limit the duration and severity is reflected in specific provisions maintenance of the NAAQS. of SSM events. IAC 567–24.1(1) states: throughout Iowa’s SIP, as detailed Specifically, IAC 567–22.3(1) states: 24.1(1) Excess emission during a period of below. First, in adopting the NAAQS A construction permit shall be issued when startup, shutdown, or cleaning of control into its State regulations, IAC 567–28.1 the director concludes that (. . .) the equipment is not a violation of the emission requires that IDNR implement the expected emissions from the proposed source standard if the startup, shutdown or cleaning NAAQS ‘‘in a time frame and schedule or modification in conjunction with all other is accomplished expeditiously and in a emissions will not prevent the attainment or manner consistent with good practice for 25 83 FR 12486. maintenance of the ambient air quality minimizing emissions. Cleaning of control 26 83 FR 12486. standards specified in 567—Chapter 28. equipment which does not require the 27 Iowa Code 455B.133.1 (‘‘Duties’’). The EPC is shutdown of the process equipment shall be a panel of nine citizens who provide policy 30 The partial Pottawattamie County 2008 Lead limited to one six-minute period per one- oversight over Iowa’s environmental protection NAAQS nonattainment area was redesignated to hour period. efforts. The EPC’s members are appointed by the attainment in October 2018. See 83 FR 50024. Governor and confirmed by vote of the Senate for 31 At the time of this document, 2019 ambient air While the subrule does allow for an four-year terms. quality data had not been certified in the Air exemption for excess emissions, it also 28 Iowa Code 455B.133.2. Quality System. Annual data certification is not provides for two key backstops that 29 Iowa Code 455B.133.4. required until May 1.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM 22JNP1 37410 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules

Additionally, IAC 567–22.3(5) including testing, which ‘‘may be and therefore not federally enforceable, provides IDNR with the discretion to required as necessary to determine these codes provide supplemental modify ‘‘an existing permit for a major actual emissions from a source where support to the assertion that the State stationary source or an emission limit that source is believed to have a has considerable oversight and contained in an existing permit for a significant impact on the public health discretion to enforce against sources and major stationary source if necessary to or ambient air quality of an area.’’ IDNR ensure attainment and maintenance of attain or maintain an ambient air quality may also conduct independent emission the NAAQS. standard.’’ Accordingly, these testing as deemed necessary. These In light of the fact that Region 7 is provisions provide the State air agency provisions ensure that sources must considering an alternative policy with the authority to limit the issuance report periods of excess emissions and relating to exemptions of excess of construction permits and modify could be required to conduct testing emissions, and based on the above existing permits to ensure that the during such periods, thus ensuring that analysis of Iowa’s SIP, Region 7 is NAAQS is attained and maintained. the State is aware of any such events simultaneously proposing to withdraw This authority, when considered along and allowing the State to protect air the SIP call issued as part of the 2015 with the enforcement, maintenance, and quality and ensure attainment and SSM SIP Action and find that the oversight provisions discussed herein, maintenance of the NAAQS. subject SIP provision is not inconsistent ensures accountability for sources and, Owners or operators of any control with CAA requirements. when taken as a whole, protects air equipment are also required to maintain EPA’s CAA regulations allow EPA quality and provides for attainment and and repair equipment or control Regions to take actions that are maintenance of the NAAQS, even equipment in such a way that inconsistent with national policy when though the Iowa SIP allows exemptions minimizes and remedies any causes of the Region seeks and obtains for excess emissions during periods of excess emissions. IAC 567–24.2(1) concurrence from the relevant EPA startup, shutdown, and cleaning. Of details the maintenance and repair that Headquarters office. Pursuant to EPA’s note, the State has been implementing owners or operators are required to regional consistency regulations at 40 its SIP-approved construction program, undertake, including maintaining CFR 56.5(b), the Region 7 Regional which includes issuing construction operations that minimize emissions, Administrator sought and obtained permits with Condition 6, and has not undertaking scheduled routine concurrence from the EPA’s Office of monitored a NAAQS violation resulting maintenance, and remedying any cause Air and Radiation to propose an action in the need to revise a permit due solely of excess emissions in an expeditious that outlines an alternative policy that is on emissions from SSM events. manner (‘‘expeditious manner,’’ as inconsistent with the national EPA In addition to specific discretion discussed above, is defined in IAC 567– policy, most recently articulated in the afforded the IDNR director to ensure 24.1(4)). Furthermore, IAC 567– 2015 SSM SIP Action, on provisions attainment and maintenance of the 24.2(1)(c) states that owners or operators automatically exempting emissions NAAQS, there are a number of direct shall: exceeding otherwise applicable SIP requirements on sources in Iowa’s Minimize the amount and duration of any limitations during periods of unit approved SIP. IAC 567–24.1(2) details excess emission to the maximum extent startup, shutdown, and malfunction and the initial report that a source owner or possible during periods of such emissions. propose action consistent with that operator must submit when an emission These measures may include but not be alternative policy. The concurrence limit is exceeded. Such incidences are limited to the use of clean fuels, production request memorandum is included in the to be reported to the appropriate IDNR cutbacks, or the use of alternate process units public docket for this action. regional office within eight hours of the or, in the case of utilities, purchase of electrical power until repairs are completed. VI. Additional Modeling Information onset of an incident. Reports are to be submitted via email, in person, or over IAC 567 24.2(2) provides IDNR with During the public comment period for the telephone. At a minimum, initial the authority to require owners and the SNPRM, the EPA received comment incident reports are to include the operators to develop maintenance plans that the modeling for the Muscatine quantity, duration, cause and remedial where, ‘‘in the judgement of the nonattainment area did not include steps taken for periods of excess executive director a continued pattern receptors with adjacent property emissions. IAC 567–24.1(3) requires that of excess emissions indicative of boundaries. The commenter asserted a written report is to be submitted as a inadequate operation and maintenance that these areas could be considered follow-up to all required initial reports is occurring.’’ Such maintenance plans ‘‘ambient air’’ and that they therefore to the IDNR within seven days of the have been required of sources over time should have been included in the onset of the event. The written report is, as appropriate and are to include attainment demonstration modeling. at a minimum, to include the numerous maintenance and inspection The EPA agrees with the commenter information required for initial reports requirements. Most notably, these plans that these areas, as noted in the Code of under 24.1(2). In addition, written are to include a contingency plan Federal Regulations at 40 CFR part 51, reports are to include, if the owner intended to minimize the frequency, appendix W, Guideline on Air Quality claims that the excess emission was due duration, and severity of excess Models (hereafter referred to as to malfunction, documentation to emission events. ‘‘appendix W’’), would be considered support such a claim. Lastly, there are a number of Iowa- ambient air and should have model IAC 567–25.1(6), (7), and (8) detail the specific State regulations that help receptors included. To ensure a testing and sampling requirements for ensure attainment and maintenance of complete record for both the attainment owners and operators of pollution the NAAQS. Iowa Code 455B.139 states plan approval action, and adherence to control equipment. Specifically, any that, if the director has evidence that appendix W, the EPA performed facility required to install a continuous any person is causing air pollution that modeling that evaluated the impacts on monitoring system shall provide regular creates a public health and safety the properties of each of the modeled reports to IDNR, including periods of emergency, the director may, without facilities-Grain Processing Corporation excess emissions. Furthermore, IDNR is notice, issue an emergency order (GPC), Muscatine Power and Water granted the authority to require sources requiring the immediate discontinuation (MPW), Monsanto, and Louisa to conduct compliance demonstrations, of emissions. While not SIP-approved, Generating Station (LGS). The EPA used

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM 22JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules 37411

the same model version (i.e., AERMOD proposing approval of Iowa’s SIP for the The SIP is not approved to apply on version 14134) and modeling inputs 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS for the any Indian reservation land or in any (i.e., source characteristics and Muscatine nonattainment area, other area where EPA or an Indian tribe emissions rates, meteorological data, including the attainment plan control has demonstrated that a tribe has background value, etc.) that the State strategy. jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian used in its attainment plan modeling country, the rule does not have tribal demonstration. The only modification VIII. Statutory and Executive Order implications and will not impose the EPA made for its evaluation was Reviews substantial direct costs on tribal adding receptors at 50-meter spacing Under the CAA, the Administrator is governments or preempt tribal law as within each facility’s boundary. The required to approve a SIP submission specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 EPA modeled scenarios specific to each that complies with the provisions of the FR 67249, November 9, 2000). of the four facilities’ property, which Act and applicable Federal regulations. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 included receptors only on the property 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). of the facility in question and has all Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the Environmental protection, Air emissions sources from that facility EPA’s role is to approve state choices, pollution control, Incorporation by removed from the analysis. For provided that they meet the criteria of reference, SSM policy, Start-up, example, a scenario to evaluate the the CAA. Accordingly, this action shutdown and malfunction, Sulfur impacts on GPC’s facility property merely approves state law as meeting oxides. included receptors placed within GPC’s Federal requirements and does not Dated: June 16, 2020. facility fence line and with the emission impose additional requirements beyond James Gulliford, sources from LGS, Monsanto, and MPW those imposed by state law. For that Regional Administrator, Region 7. operating and GPC not operating. reason, this action: [FR Doc. 2020–13380 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] Table 1 provides the results of EPA’s • Is not a significant regulatory action BILLING CODE 6560–50–P modeling analysis, which showed no subject to review by the Office of violations within each of the four Management and Budget under facilities’ property when emissions from Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION the other facilities were considered. The October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, AGENCY greatest impacts occurred within Grain January 21, 2011); Processing Corporation’s property with • Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 40 CFR Part 52 a modeled highest 4th high of 164 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory [EPA–R07–OAR–2020–0289; FRL–10010– 3 action because SIP approvals are micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m ). 55–Region 7] exempted under Executive Order 12866. • TABLE 1—THE HIGHEST-4TH-HIGH Does not impose an information Air Plan Approval; Missouri; Control of PREDICTED IMPACTS ON EACH FA- collection burden under the provisions Emissions From Industrial Surface CILITY’S PROPERTY of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 Coating Operations U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); [Including background] • Is certified as not having a AGENCY: Environmental Protection significant economic impact on a Agency (EPA). 1-hour Model ACTION: SO2 substantial number of small entities Proposed rule. Impacted facility impacts NAAQS under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 (μg/m3) (μg/m3) U.S.C. 601 et seq.); SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection • Does not contain any unfunded Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve Grain Processing mandate or significantly or uniquely revisions to the Missouri State Corporation ...... 164 196 Implementation Plan (SIP) received on Muscatine Power affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act March 20, 2019. The submission revises and Water ...... 110 a Missouri regulation that restricts Monsanto ...... 97 of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); Louisa Generating • Does not have federalism emissions of volatile organic Station ...... 110 implications as specified in Executive compounds (VOCs) from industrial Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, surface coating operations in Clay, The EPA proposes that the modeling 1999); Jackson, and Platte Counties in submitted by Iowa with its • Is not an economically significant Missouri. Specifically, the revisions to nonattainment area plan, in addition to regulatory action based on health or the rule remove unnecessary restrictive the supplemental modeling performed safety risks subject to Executive Order words, adds exemptions, including by the EPA and described above, 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); definitions specific to the rule, corrects demonstrates that the area is attaining • Is not a significant regulatory action test method references, removes the NAAQS. subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR obsolete requirements specific to 28355, May 22, 2001); sources that have closed, changes VII. What action is EPA Region 7 • Is not subject to requirements of the sections to the standard rule format, and taking? National Technology Transfer and makes minor clarifications and In this second supplemental notice of Advancement Act (NTTA) because this grammatical changes. The new proposed rulemaking, the EPA is: (1) rulemaking does not involve technical exemptions are consistent with the Considering adoption of an alternative standards; and Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) policy regarding exemptions for excess • Does not provide EPA with the for several types of surface coating or emissions in the State of Iowa from the discretionary authority to address, as apply to activities that are regulated national policy detailed in the EPA’s appropriate, disproportionate human under other federal or state regulations 2015 SSM SIP Action; (2) proposing health or environmental effects, using that limit emissions of VOCs. The new simultaneously withdrawal of the SSM practicable and legally permissible exemptions are needed to make the rule SIP call for Iowa if the alternative SSM methods, under Executive Order 12898 consistent with the St. Louis version of policy for the State is adopted; and (3) (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). this rule, 10 Code of State Regulation

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM 22JNP1 37412 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules

(CSR) 10–5.330 Industrial Surface consider comments or comment determined that these changes will not Coating Operations. These exemptions contents located outside of the primary adversely impact air quality. are not expected to result in an emission submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or The EPA is soliciting comment on the increase. other file sharing system). For substantive and administrative revisions The other revisions are administrative additional submission methods, the full detailed in this proposal and the TSD. in nature and do not impact the EPA public comment policy, The EPA is not soliciting comment on stringency of the SIP or air quality. information about CBI or multimedia existing rule text that has been Approval of these revisions will ensure submissions, and general guidance on previously approved by the EPA into consistency between State and making effective comments, please visit the SIP. Final rulemaking will occur federally-approved rules. https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ after consideration of any comments. DATES: Comments must be received on commenting-epa-dockets. V. Incorporation by Reference or before July 22, 2020. II. What is being addressed in this In this document, the EPA is ADDRESSES: You may send comments, document? proposing to include regulatory text in identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– The EPA is proposing to approve an EPA final rule that includes OAR–2020–0289 to https:// incorporation by reference. In www.regulations.gov. Follow the online revisions to 10 CSR 10–2.230 ‘‘Control of Emissions from Industrial Surface accordance with the requirements of 1 instructions for submitting comments. CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to Instructions: All submissions received Coating Operations’’, which restricts emissions of volatile organic incorporate by reference the Missouri must include the Docket ID No. for this State Implementation Plan and rulemaking. Comments received will be compounds (VOCs) from industrial surface coating operations in Clay, Supplemental modeling analyses posted without change to https:// described in the proposed amendments www.regulations.gov/, including any Jackson, and Platte Counties in Missouri. These revisions are described to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The personal information provided. For EPA has made, and will continue to detailed instructions on sending in detail in the technical support document (TSD) included in the docket make, these materials generally comments and additional information available through www.regulations.gov on the rulemaking process, see the for this action. Missouri received three comments and at the EPA Region 7 Office (please ‘‘Written Comments’’ heading of the contact the person identified in the FOR SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of from EPA during the comment period. Missouri responded to all three FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. this preamble for more information). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: comments, as noted in the State William Stone, Environmental submission included in the docket for VI. Statutory and Executive Order Protection Agency, Region 7 Office, Air this action. In response to EPA’s Reviews comments, Missouri submitted a letter Quality Planning Branch, 11201 Renner Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the providing supplemental information Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; Administrator is required to approve a regarding the revisions. telephone number (913) 551–7714; SIP submission that complies with the email address [email protected]. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to provisions of the Act and applicable approve the revisions to this rule SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); because it will not have a negative Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP impact on air quality. and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. submissions, the EPA’s role is to III. Have the requirements for approval approve State choices, if they meet the Table of Contents of a SIP revision been met? criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this I. Written Comments action merely approves state law as The State submission has met the meeting Federal requirements and does II. What is being addressed in this document? public notice requirements for SIP III. Have the requirements for approval of a not impose additional requirements SIP revision been met? submissions in accordance with 40 CFR beyond those imposed by state law. For IV. What action is the EPA taking? 51.102. The submission also satisfied that reason, this action: V. Incorporation by Reference the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part • Is not a significant regulatory action VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 51, appendix V. The state provided subject to review by the Office of public notice of the revisions from I. Written Comments Management and Budget under August 1, 2018, to October 4, 2018, and Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, Submit your comments, identified by held a public hearing on September 27, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2020– 2018. The state received and addressed January 21, 2011); 0289, at https://www.regulations.gov. eight comments. As explained in more • Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 Once submitted, comments cannot be detail in the TSD which is part of this FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory edited or removed from Regulations.gov. docket, the SIP revision submission action because SIP approvals are The EPA may publish any comment meets the substantive requirements of exempted under Executive Order 12866. received to its public docket. Do not the CAA, including section 110 and • Does not impose an information submit electronically any information implementing regulations. collection burden under the provisions you consider to be Confidential IV. What action is the EPA taking? of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 Business Information (CBI) or other U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); information whose disclosure is The EPA is proposing to amend the • Is certified as not having a restricted by statute. Multimedia Missouri SIP by approving the State’s significant economic impact on a submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be request to revise 10 CSR 10–2.230 substantial number of small entities accompanied by a written comment. ‘‘Control of Emissions from Industrial under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 The written comment is considered the Surface Coating Operations’’. Approval U.S.C. 601 et seq.); official comment and should include of these revisions will ensure • Does not contain any unfunded discussion of all points you wish to consistency between State and mandate or significantly or uniquely make. The EPA will generally not federally-approved rules. The EPA has affect small governments, as described

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM 22JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules 37413

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act methods, under Executive Order 12898 Dated: June 10, 2020. of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). James Gulliford, • Does not have Federalism The SIP is not approved to apply on Regional Administrator, Region 7. implications as specified in Executive any Indian reservation land or in any For the reasons stated in the Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, other area where EPA or an Indian tribe preamble, the EPA proposes to amend 1999); has demonstrated that a tribe has 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below: • Is not an economically significant jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian regulatory action based on health or country, the rule does not have tribal PART 52—APPROVAL AND safety risks subject to Executive Order implications and will not impose PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); substantial direct costs on tribal • Is not a significant regulatory action governments or preempt tribal law as ■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 28355, May 22, 2001); continues to read as follows: FR 67249, November 9, 2000). • Is not subject to requirements of the Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. National Technology Transfer and List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Advancement Act (NTTA) because this Subpart AA—Missouri Environmental protection, Air rulemaking does not involve technical ■ 2. In § 52.1320, the table in paragraph standards; and pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Volatile organic compounds. (c) is amended by revising the entry • Does not provide EPA with the ‘‘10–2.230’’ to read as follows: discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human § 52.1320 Identification of plan. health or environmental effects, using * * * * * practicable and legally permissible (c) * * *

EPA-APPROVED MISSOURI REGULATIONS

State Missouri Title effective EPA approval date Explanation citation date

Missouri Department of Natural Resources

*******

Chapter 2—Air Quality Standards and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the Kansas City Metropolitan Area

******* 10–2.230 ...... Control of Emissions from In- 3/30/2019 [Date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Reg- dustrial Surface Coating ister], [Federal Register citation of the final rule]. Operations.

*******

* * * * * Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: [FR Doc. 2020–13049 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] revisions to the State of Texas https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the BILLING CODE 6560–50–P Underground Storage Tank (UST) on-line instructions for submitting program submitted by the State. This comments. action is based on EPA’s determination 2. Email: [email protected]. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION that these revisions satisfy all Instructions: Direct your comments to AGENCY requirements needed for program Docket ID No. EPA–R06–UST–2018– approval. This action also proposes to 0704. EPA’s policy is that all comments 40 CFR Parts 282 codify EPA’s approval of Texas’s State received will be included in the public program and to incorporate by reference docket without change and may be [EPA–R06–UST–2018–0704; FRL–10009– those provisions of the State regulations available online at https:// 04–Region 6] that we have determined meet the www.regulations.gov, including any Texas: Final Approval of State requirements for approval. The personal information provided, unless Underground Storage Tank Program provisions will be subject to EPA’s the comment includes information Revisions and Incorporation by inspection and enforcement authorities claimed to be Confidential Business Reference under sections 9005 and 9006 of RCRA Information (CBI) or other information subtitle I and other applicable statutory whose disclosure is restricted by statute. AGENCY: Environmental Protection and regulatory provisions. Do not submit information that you Agency (EPA). consider to be CBI or otherwise DATES: Send written comments by July ACTION: Proposed rule. protected through https:// 22, 2020. www.regulations.gov, or email. The SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Resource ADDRESSES: Submit any comments, Federal https://www.regulations.gov Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA identified by EPA–R06–UST–2018–0704 website is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ or Act), the Environmental Protection by one of the following methods: system, which means the EPA will not

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM 22JNP1 37414 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules

know your identity or contact Regulations’’ section of this Federal • Regular, Express, or Overnight Mail: information unless you provide it in the Register. You may mail comments to Indian body of your comment. If you send an Health Service, Attention: Evonne List of Subjects email comment directly to the EPA Bennett, Acting Director, NPRM, RIN without going through https:// Environmental protection, 0917–AA13, Division of Regulatory and www.regulations.gov, your email Administrative practice and procedure, Policy Coordination, Office of address will be automatically captured Confidential Business Information, Management Services, Indian Health and included as part of the comment Hazardous substances, Incorporation by Service, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mailstop: that is placed in the public docket and reference, Insurance, Intergovernmental 09E70, Rockville, Maryland 20857. made available on the internet. If you relations, Oil pollution, Penalties, All comments received by the submit an electronic comment, the EPA Petroleum, Reporting and recordkeeping methods and due date specified above recommends that you include your requirements, Surety bonds, Water will be posted without change to name and other contact information in pollution control, Water supply. content to http://www.regulations.gov, the body of your comment. If the EPA Authority: This rule is issued under the including any personal information cannot read your comment due to authority of Sections 2002(a), 9004, and provided about the commenter, and technical difficulties, and cannot 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as such posting may occur before or after contact you for clarification, the EPA amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912, 6991c, 6991d, and the closing of the comment period. may not be able to consider your 6991e. Docket: For complete access to comment. Electronic files should avoid Dated: May 5, 2020. background documents or posted the use of special characters, any form Kenley McQueen, comments, go to http:// of encryption, and be free of any defects Regional Administrator, EPA Region 6. www.regulations.gov and search for or viruses. For additional submission Docket ID number IHS–FRDOC–0001. [FR Doc. 2020–10066 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] methods, please contact Audray FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT BILLING CODE 6560–50–P : Lincoln, 214–665–2239, Evonne Bennett, Acting Director, [email protected]. Division of Regulatory and Policy Coordination, Office of Management The index to the docket for this action DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Services, IHS, 5600 Fishers Lane, is available electronically at HUMAN SERVICES www.regulations.gov. Rockville, MD 20857, Mail Stop: 09E70. Indian Health Service Telephone (301) 443–1116 (This is not FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: a toll-free number). Audray Lincoln, (214) 665–2239, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In [email protected]. Out of an 42 CFR Part 136a response to Executive Order 13777, Sec. abundance of caution for members of [Docket No. IHS–FRDOC–0001] 3(d), which directs agencies to repeal the public and our staff, the EPA Region existing regulations that are ‘‘outdated, 6 office will be closed to the public to RIN 0917–AA13 unnecessary or ineffective’’ from the reduce the risk of transmitting COVID– Indian Health; Removal of Suspended CFR, HHS proposes to remove the 19. We encourage the public to submit Regulations regulations appearing at 42 CFR part comments via https:// 136a. These regulations were www.regulations.gov, as there will be a AGENCY: Indian Health Service, promulgated as a final rule in 1987 and delay in processing mail and no courier Department of Health and Human were intended to replace the regulations or hand deliveries will be accepted. Services. appearing in the CFR at 42 CFR part Please call or email the contact listed ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 136. The new regulations, however, above if you need alternative access to were never implemented and have since material indexed but not provided in SUMMARY: The Indian Health Service been referred to as ‘‘suspended’’ in the the docket. (IHS) of the Department of Health and Federal Register. In the intervening Human Services (HHS or ‘‘the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the years, the IHS has continued to follow Department’’) is issuing this notice of final rules section of this Federal the regulations appearing at 42 CFR part proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing Register, the EPA is approving the 136, and the IHS does not propose to the removal of regulations appearing in State’s SIP submittal as a direct rule alter this practice. Instead, the IHS the Code of Federal Regulations. These without prior proposal because the proposes to remove the duplicative regulations have never been Agency views this as noncontroversial regulations at 42 CFR part 136a from the implemented and were referred to as submittal and anticipates no adverse CFR. Given how much time has passed ‘‘suspended’’ in a 1999 Federal Register comments. A detailed rationale for the since these regulations were initially Notice. approval is set forth in the direct final promulgated; the concern on the part of rule. If no relevant adverse comments DATES: Send comments on or before Congress regarding implementation of are received in response to this action August 21, 2020. the regulations; and the confusion no further activity is contemplated. If ADDRESSES: You may submit comments caused by having two sets of regulations the EPA receives relevant adverse to this proposed rule, identified by RIN addressing the same issue published in comments, the direct final rule will be 0917–AA14 by any of the following the CFR, the Agency proposes that the withdrawn and all public comments methods: suspended regulations at 42 CFR part received will be addressed in a • Federal eRulemaking Portal. You 136a be deleted in their entirety. subsequent final rule based on this may submit electronic comments at proposed rule. The EPA will not http://www.regulations.gov by searching Executive Orders 12866, 13563, 13771, institute a second comment period. Any for the Docket ID number IHS–FRDOC– and 13777 parties interested in commenting on this 0001. Follow the instructions http:// Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 action should do so at this time. For www.regulations.gov online for direct agencies to assess all costs and additional information, see the direct submitting comments through this benefits of available regulatory final rule published in the ‘‘Rules and method. alternatives. Section 3(f) of Executive

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM 22JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules 37415

Order 12866 defines a ‘‘significant Executive Order 13771, titled, Paperwork Reduction Act regulatory action’’ as an action that is ‘‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling likely to result in a rule: (1) Having an Regulatory Costs,’’ was issued on This action does not affect any annual effect on the economy of $100 January 30, 2017. Executive Order information collections. million or more in any 1 year, or 13771 directs agencies to categorize all List of Subjects in 42 CFR Part 136a adversely and materially affecting a impacts which generate or alleviate sector of the economy, productivity, costs associated with regulatory burden Government procurement, competition, jobs, the environment, and to determine the actions’ net Government programs—education, public health or safety, or State, local or incremental effect. HHS identifies this Grant programs—education, Grant Tribal governments or communities proposed rule as a deregulatory action programs—health, Grant programs— (also referred to as ‘‘economically (removing an obsolete rule from the Indians, Health care, Health professions, significant’’); (2) creating a serious Code of Federal Regulations) that Indians, Penalties, Reporting and inconsistency or otherwise interfering provides no cost savings. recordkeeping requirements, with an action taken or planned by Executive Order 13777, titled, Scholarships and fellowships, Student another agency; (3) materially altering ‘‘Enforcing the Regulatory Reform aid. the budgetary impacts of entitlement Agenda,’’ was issued on February 24, PART 136a—[REMOVED] grants, user fees, or loan programs or the 2017. As required by Section 3 of this rights and obligations of recipients Executive Order, HHS established a For the reasons set forth above, and thereof; or (4) raising novel legal or Regulatory Reform Task Force (HHS under the authority of the Snyder Act policy issues arising out of legal Task Force). Pursuant to Section 3(d)(ii), (25 U.S.C. 13) and the Transfer Act (42 mandates, the President’s priorities, or the HHS Task Force evaluated this U.S.C. 2001 et seq.), the Department of the principles set forth in the Executive rulemaking and determined that these Health and Human Services proposes to Order. A regulatory impact analysis regulations are ‘‘outdated, unnecessary, remove 42 CFR part 136a from the Code (RIA) must be prepared for major rules or ineffective.’’ Following this finding, of Federal Regulations. with economically significant effects the HHS Task Force advised IHS to ($100 million or more in any 1 year). initiate this rulemaking to remove the Dated: March 13, 2020. HHS submits that this proposed rule is unnecessary regulation from the Code of Michael D. Weahkee, not ‘‘economically significant’’ as Federal Regulations. RADM, Assistant Surgeon General, U.S. measured by the $100 million threshold, Public Health Service, Principal Deputy and hence not a major rule under the Regulatory Flexibility Act Director, Indian Health Service. Congressional Review Act. This rule has This action will not have a significant Approved: April 9, 2020. not been designated as a ‘‘significant economic impact on Indian health Alex M. Azar II, regulatory action’’ under Executive programs. Therefore, the regulatory Secretary, Department of Health and Human Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has flexibility analysis provided for under Services. not been reviewed by the Office of the Regulatory Flexibility Act is not [FR Doc. 2020–12754 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] Management and Budget (OMB). required. BILLING CODE 4165–16–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM 22JNP1 37416

Notices Federal Register Vol. 85, No. 120

Monday, June 22, 2020

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER the collection of information unless it DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE contains documents other than rules or displays a currently valid OMB control proposed rules that are applicable to the number. Forest Service public. Notices of hearings and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and Rural Utilities Service Ketchikan Resource Advisory rulings, delegations of authority, filing of Title: Electric System Emergency Committee petitions and applications and agency Restoration Plan. statements of organization and functions are AGENCY: OMB Control Number: 0572–0140. Forest Service, Department of examples of documents appearing in this Agriculture (USDA). section. Summary of Collection: Electric power systems have been identified in ACTION: Notice of meeting. Presidential Decision Directive 63, May SUMMARY: The Ketchikan Resource 1998, as one of the critical DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in infrastructures of the United States. The Ketchikan, Alaska. The committee is Submission for OMB Review; term ‘‘critical infrastructure’’ is defined authorized under the Secure Rural Comment Request in section 1016(e) of the USA Patriot Schools and Community Self- Act of 2001 (42 U.S.C. 5195c(e)). Rural Determination Act (the Act) and June 17, 2020. Utilities Service (RUS) and, more operates in compliance with the Federal The Department of Agriculture has importantly, RUS electric borrowers Advisory Committee Act. The purpose submitted the following information must be diligently proactive in electric of the committee is to improve collection requirement(s) to Office of infrastructure security. A substantial collaborative relationships and to Management and Budget (OMB) for portion of the electric infrastructure of provide advice and recommendations to review and clearance under the the United States resides in, and is the Forest Service concerning projects Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, maintained by, rural America. RUS is and funding consistent with Title II of Public Law 104–13. Comments are uniquely coupled with the electric the Act. RAC information can be found requested regarding: Whether the infrastructure of rural America and its at the following website: https:// collection of information is necessary electric borrowers serving rural www.fs.usda.gov/main/pts. for the proper performance of the America. To ensure that the electric functions of the agency, including infrastructure in rural America is DATES: The meeting will be held on whether the information will have adequately protected, RUS requires that Thursday, July 16, 2020, at 6:00 p.m. practical utility; the accuracy of the all current electric borrowers conduct a All RAC meetings are subject to agency’s estimate of burden including Vulnerability and Risk Assessment cancellation. For status of meeting prior the validity of the methodology and (VRA) of their respective systems and to attendance, please contact the person assumptions used; ways to enhance the utilize the results of this assessment to listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION quality, utility and clarity of the enhance an existing Emergency CONTACT. information to be collected; ways to Restoration Plan (ERP) or, create an minimize the burden of the collection of ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held ERP. information on those who are to virtual only. A conference line is set up Need and Use of the Information: The for those who would like to listen in by respond, including through the use of ERP provides written procedures appropriate automated, electronic, telephone. For the conference call detailing response and restoration number, please contact the person listed mechanical, or other technological efforts in the event of a major system collection techniques or other forms of under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION outage resulting from a natural or man- CONTACT. information technology. made disaster. RUS requires each Comments regarding this information Written comments may be submitted electric borrower to provide annually a collection received by July 22, 2020 will as described under SUPPLEMENTARY self-certification, in writing, that an ERP be considered. Written comments and INFORMATION. All comments, including exists and that an initial VRA has been recommendations for the proposed names and addresses when provided, performed. If this information were not information collection should be are placed in the record and are collected, vulnerabilities may exist in submitted within 30 days of the available for public inspection and the electric system infrastructure. The publication of this notice on the copying. The public may inspect result would be increased risk to public following website www.reginfo.gov/ comments received at Ketchikan Misty safety and may affect the Government public/do/PRAMain. Find this Fjords Ranger District. Please call ahead loan security. to facilitate entry into the building. particular information collection by Description of Respondents: Not-for- FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: selecting ‘‘Currently under 30-day profit institutions. Review—Open for Public Comments’’ or Number of Respondents: 625. Penny L. Richardson, RAC Coordinator, by using the search function. Frequency of Responses: Reporting: by phone at 907–228–4105 or via email An agency may not conduct or Annually. at [email protected]. sponsor a collection of information Total Burden Hours: 313. Individuals who use unless the collection of information telecommunication devices for the deaf displays a currently valid OMB control Ruth Brown, (TDD) may call the Federal Information number and the agency informs Departmental Information Collection Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 potential persons who are to respond to Clearance Officer. between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., the collection of information that such [FR Doc. 2020–13353 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] Eastern Standard Time, Monday persons are not required to respond to BILLING CODE 3410–15–P through Friday.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices 37417

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The DATES: Friday, June 26, 2020, at 1:00 at the above phone number, email or purpose of the meeting is to: p.m. (EDT). street address. 1. Update members on past RAC Public Call-In Information: projects, and Agenda: Friday, June 26, 2020 at 1:00 Conference call number: 1–800–667– p.m. (EDT) 2. Propose new RAC projects. 5617 and conference call ID number: The meeting is open to the public. 7386659. I. Roll Call The agenda will include time for people II. Welcome to make oral statements of three minutes FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ivy III. Project Planning or less. Individuals wishing to make an L. Davis, at [email protected] or by phone IV. Other Business oral statement should request in writing at 202–376–7533. V. Next Meeting VI. Public Comments by July 13, 2020, to be scheduled on the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Interested VII. Adjourn agenda. Anyone who would like to members of the public may listen to the bring related matters to the attention of discussion by calling the following toll- Exceptional Circumstance: Pursuant the committee may file written free conference call number: 1–800– to 41 CFR 102–3.150, the notice for this statements with the committee staff 667–5617 and conference call ID meeting is given less than 15 calendar before or after the meeting. Written number: 7386659. Please be advised that days prior to the meeting because of the comments and requests for time to make before placing them into the conference exceptional circumstances of the oral comments must be sent to Penny L. call, the conference call operator may immediacy of the subject matter. Richardson, RAC Coordinator, ask callers to provide their names, their Dated: June 16, 2020. Ketchikan Misty Fjords Ranger District, organizational affiliations (if any), and David Mussatt, 3031 Tongass Avenue, Ketchikan, email addresses (so that callers may be Alaska 99901; by email to Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit. notified of future meetings). Callers can [FR Doc. 2020–13329 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] [email protected], or via expect to incur charges for calls they BILLING CODE 6335–01–P facsimile to 907–225–8738. initiate over wireless lines, and the Meeting Accommodations: If you are Commission will not refund any a person requiring reasonable incurred charges. Callers will incur no DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE accommodation, please make requests charge for calls they initiate over land- in advance for sign language line connections to the toll-free International Trade Administration interpreting, assistive listening devices, telephone number herein. or other reasonable accomodation. For Persons with hearing impairments [A–570–129; A–552–830] access to the facility or proceedings, may also follow the discussion by first please contact the person listed in the Certain Walk-Behind Lawn Mowers and calling the Federal Relay Service at 1– section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION Parts Thereof From the People’s 800–877–8339 and providing the CONTACT. All reasonable Republic of China and the Socialist operator with the toll-free conference accommodation requests are managed Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of Less- call number:1–800–667–5617and on a case-by-case basis. Than-Fair-Value Investigations conference call ID number: 7386659. Dated: June 17, 2020. Members of the public are invited to AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, Cikena Reid, make statements during the Public International Trade Administration, USDA Committee Management Officer. Comment section of the meeting or to Department of Commerce. [FR Doc. 2020–13394 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] submit written comments. The DATES: Applicable June 15, 2020. BILLING CODE 3411–15–P comments must be received in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin regional office approximately 30 days Kearney at (202) 482–0167; AD/CVD after each scheduled meeting. Written Operations, Enforcement and COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS comments may be mailed to the Eastern Compliance, International Trade Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Administration, U.S. Department of Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting Civil Rights, 1331 Pennsylvania of the New Jersey Advisory Committee Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue Avenue, Suite 1150, Washington, DC NW, Washington, DC 20230. 20425, or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at AGENCY: Commission on Civil Rights. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: [email protected]. Persons who desire ACTION: Announcement of meeting. additional information may contact the The Petitions Eastern Regional Office at (202) 376– SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given, On May 26, 2020, the U.S. 7533. pursuant to the provisions of the rules Department of Commerce (Commerce) and regulations of the U.S. Commission Records and documents discussed received antidumping duty (AD) on Civil Rights (Commission), and the during the meeting will be available for petitions concerning imports of certain Federal Advisory Committee Act public viewing, as they become walk-behind lawn mowers (lawn (FACA), that a planning meeting of the available at: https://gsageo.force.com/ mowers) from the People’s Republic of New Jersey Advisory Committee to the FACA/FACAPublicViewCommittee China (China) and the Socialist Commission will convene by conference Details?id=a10t0000001gzjVAAQ click Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) filed in call, on Friday, June 26, 2020 at 1:00 the ‘‘Meeting Details’’ and ‘‘Documents’’ proper form on behalf of the petitioner,1 p.m. (EDT). The purpose of the meeting links. Records generated from this a domestic producer of lawn mowers.2 is to receive updates from the Forfeiture meeting may also be inspected and and Licensing Workgroups about reproduced at the Eastern Regional 1 The petitioner is MTD Products Inc. suggestions for planning the Office, as they become available, both 2 See Petitioner’s Letter, ‘‘Petitions for the Committee’s briefing to examine its civil before and after the meetings. Persons Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Certain Walk- rights project on the collateral interested in the work of this advisory Behind Lawn Mowers from the People’s Republic of China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and consequences that a criminal record has committee are advised to go to the Countervailing Duties on Certain Walk-Behind on criminal asset forfeitures and Commission’s website, www.usccr.gov, Lawn Mowers from the People’s Republic of occupational licensing. or to contact the Eastern Regional Office China,’’ dated May 26, 2020 (the Petitions).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 37418 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices

The Petitions were accompanied by a Period of Investigation 16, 2020, which is 10 calendar days countervailing duty (CVD) petition from the initial comment deadline.12 concerning imports of lawn mowers Because China and Vietnam are non- Commerce requests that any factual from China.3 market economy (NME) countries, information parties consider relevant to pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), the the scope of the investigations be On May 29, 2020, Commerce period of investigation (POI) for the requested supplemental information submitted during this period. However, investigations is October 1, 2019 if a party subsequently finds that pertaining to certain aspects of the through March 31, 2020. Petitions in separate supplemental additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the questionnaires.4 On June 2, 2020, the Scope of the Investigations investigations may be relevant, the party petitioner filed responses to the The products covered by these may contact Commerce and request supplemental questionnaires.5 investigations are lawn mowers from permission to submit the additional In accordance with section 732(b) of China and Vietnam. For a full information. All such submissions must the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the description of the scope of these be filed on the records of the concurrent Act), the petitioner alleges that imports investigations, see the appendix to this AD and CVD investigations. of lawn mowers from China and notice. Vietnam are being, or are likely to be, Filing Requirements sold in the United States at less than fair Comments on the Scope of the All submissions to Commerce must be value (LTFV) within the meaning of Investigations filed electronically via Enforcement and section 731 of the Act, and that imports On May 29, 2020, Commerce Compliance’s (E&C’s) Antidumping of such products are materially injuring, requested further information from the Duty and Countervailing Duty or threatening material injury to, the petitioner regarding the proposed scope Centralized Electronic Service System domestic lawn mower industry in the to ensure that the scope language in the (ACCESS), unless an exception 13 United States. Consistent with section Petitions is an accurate reflection of the applies. An electronically filed 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petitions are products for which the domestic document must be received successfully accompanied by information reasonably industry is seeking relief.7 On June 2, in its entirety by the time and date it is available to the petitioner supporting 2020, the petitioner revised the scope.8 due. the allegations. The description of the merchandise Comments on Product Characteristics covered by these investigations, as Commerce finds that the petitioner Commerce is providing interested filed the Petitions on behalf of the described in the appendix to this notice, reflects these clarifications. parties an opportunity to comment on domestic industry, because the the appropriate physical characteristics petitioner is an interested party, as As discussed in the Preamble to of lawn mowers to be reported in defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. Commerce’s regulations, we are setting response to Commerce’s AD Commerce also finds that the petitioner aside a period for interested parties to questionnaires. This information will be demonstrated sufficient industry raise issues regarding product coverage used to identify the key physical 9 support for the initiation of the (i.e., scope). Commerce will consider characteristics of the subject requested AD investigations.6 all comments received from interested merchandise in order to report the parties and, if necessary, will consult relevant factors of production (FOPs) 3 Id. with interested parties prior to the accurately, as well as to develop 4 See Commerce’s Letters, ‘‘Petitions for the issuance of the preliminary appropriate product-comparison Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing determinations. If scope comments criteria. Duties on Imports of Certain Walk-Behind Lawn include factual information, all such Mowers and Parts Thereof from the People’s Interested parties may provide any Republic of China and the Socialist Republic of factual information should be limited to 10 information or comments that they feel Vietnam: General Issues Supplemental Questions’’ public information. To facilitate are relevant to the development of an (General Issues Supplemental); ‘‘Petition for the preparation of its questionnaires, accurate list of physical characteristics. Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Commerce requests that all interested Certain Walk-Behind Lawn Mowers and Parts In order to consider the suggestions of Thereof from the People’s Republic of China: parties submit such comments by 5:00 interested parties in developing and Supplemental Questions’’; and ‘‘Petition for the p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on July 6, 2020, issuing the AD questionnaires, all Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of which is the next business day after 20 product characteristics comments must Certain Walk-Behind Lawn Mowers and Parts calendar days from the signature date of Thereof from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 11 be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on July 6, 2020, Supplemental Questions,’’ all dated May 29, 2020. this notice. Any rebuttal comments, which is the next business day after 20 5 See Petitioner’s Letters, ‘‘Petitions for the which may include factual information, calendar days from the signature date of Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on July 14 Certain Walk-Behind Lawn Mowers from the this notice. Any rebuttal comments People’s Republic of China and the Socialist 7 Republic of Vietnam, and Countervailing Duties See General Issues Supplemental at 3–4. 12 See 19 CFR 351.303(b). from the People’s Republic of China: General Issues 8 See General Issues Supplemental at Exhibit S– 13 See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Supplemental Questions Response Volume I’’ I–3. Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; (General Issues Supplement); ‘‘Petitions for the 9 See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997) 39263 (July 6, 2011); see also Enforcement and Certain Walk-Behind Lawn Mowers from the (Preamble). Compliance; Change of Electronic Filing System People’s Republic of China: Supplemental 10 See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) (defining ‘‘factual Name, 79 FR 69046 (November 20, 2014) for details Questionnaire Response Volume III’’ (China AD information’’). of Commerce’s electronic filing requirements, Supplement); and ‘‘Petitions for the Imposition of 11 Commerce’s practice dictates that where a effective August 5, 2011. Information on help using Antidumping Duties on Imports of Certain Walk- deadline falls on a weekend or Federal holiday, the ACCESS can be found at https://access.trade.gov/ Behind Lawn Mowers from the Socialist Republic appropriate deadline is the next business day (in help.aspx and a handbook can be found at https:// of Vietnam: Supplemental Questionnaire Response this instance, May 11, 2020). See Notice of access.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on%20 Volume III’’ (Vietnam AD Supplement), all dated Clarification: Application of ‘‘Next Business Day’’ Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf. June 2, 2020. Rule for Administrative Determination Deadlines 14 See 19 CFR 351.303(b). Commerce practice 6 See the Petitions at section on ‘‘Determination Pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, As Amended, 70 dictates that where a deadline falls on a weekend of Industry Support for the Petitions.’’ FR 24533 (May 10, 2005) (Next Business Day Rule). or Federal holiday (in this instance, July 5, 2020),

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices 37419

must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on July Section 771(10) of the Act defines the In determining whether the petitioner 16, 2020. All comments and domestic like product as ‘‘a product has standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) submissions to Commerce must be filed which is like, or in the absence of like, of the Act, we considered the industry electronically using ACCESS, as most similar in characteristics and uses support data contained in the Petitions explained above, on the record of both with, the article subject to an with reference to the domestic like of the AD investigations. investigation under this title.’’ Thus, the product as defined in the ‘‘Scope of the reference point from which the Investigations,’’ in the appendix to this Determination of Industry Support for domestic like product analysis begins is notice. To establish industry support, the Petitions ‘‘the article subject to an investigation’’ the petitioner provided its 2019 Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to shipments of the domestic like that a petition be filed on behalf of the be investigated, which normally will be product.23 To estimate the 2019 domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) the scope as defined in the petition). shipments for the entire U.S. lawn of the Act provides that a petition meets With regard to the domestic like mowers industry, the petitioner relied this requirement if the domestic product, the petitioner does not offer a on 2019 shipment data reported by the producers or workers who support the definition of the domestic like product Outdoor Power Equipment Institute and petition account for: (i) At least 25 distinct from the scope of the made certain adjustments to reflect total 17 percent of the total production of the investigations. Based on our analysis shipments by U.S. producers of lawn domestic like product; and (ii) more of the information submitted on the mowers.24 The petitioner estimated the than 50 percent of the production of the record, we have determined that lawn production of the domestic like product domestic like product produced by that mowers, as defined in the scope, for the entire domestic industry based portion of the industry expressing constitute a single domestic like on shipment data, because production support for, or opposition to, the product, and we have analyzed industry data for the entire domestic industry support in terms of that domestic like were not available to the petitioner, and petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) 18 of the Act provides that, if the petition product. shipments are a close approximation of On June 10, 2020, we received does not establish support of domestic production in the lawn mowers comments on industry support from 25 producers or workers accounting for industry. We relied on data provided Sumec Hardware & Tools Co., Ltd. more than 50 percent of the total by the petitioner for purposes of (Sumec), a Chinese producer of subject 26 production of the domestic like product, measuring industry support. merchandise, and Merotec Inc Commerce shall: (i) poll the industry or Accordingly, Commerce determines that (Merotec), an importer of subject rely on other information in order to the Petitions were filed on behalf of the merchandise.19 The petitioner determine if there is support for the domestic industry within the meaning responded to the industry support 27 petition, as required by subparagraph of section 732(b)(1) of the Act. comments on June 11, 2020.20 On June (A); or (ii) determine industry support 12, 2020, we received surrebuttal Allegations and Evidence of Material using a statistically valid sampling comments from Sumec and Merotec Injury and Causation method to poll the ‘‘industry.’’ with regard to the petitioner’s June 11, The petitioner alleges that the U.S. Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines 2020 comments.21 The petitioner industry producing the domestic like the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers as a responded to these surrebuttal industry product is being materially injured, or is whole of a domestic like product. Thus, support comments on June 15, 2020.22 threatened with material injury, by to determine whether a petition has the reason of the imports of the subject requisite industry support, the statute 17 See Volume I of the Petitions at 18–24. merchandise sold at LTFV. In addition, directs Commerce to look to producers 18 For a discussion of the domestic like product the petitioner alleges that subject and workers who produce the domestic analysis as applied to these cases and information imports exceed the negligibility like product. The International Trade regarding industry support, see the China and Vietnam AD Initiation Checklists at Attachment II, threshold provided for under section Commission (ITC), which is responsible Analysis of Industry Support for the Antidumping 771(24)(A) of the Act.28 for determining whether ‘‘the domestic and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Certain The petitioner contends that the industry’’ has been injured, must also Walk-Behind Lawn Mowers from the People’s industry’s injured condition is determine what constitutes a domestic Republic of China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Attachment II). These checklists are dated illustrated by a significant and like product in order to define the concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this increasing volume of subject imports; industry. While both Commerce and the notice and on file electronically via ACCESS. declining market share; underselling ITC must apply the same statutory 19 See Sumec and Merotec’s Letter, ‘‘Walk-Behind and price depression and suppression; definition regarding the domestic like Lawn Mowers and Parts Thereof from the People’s 15 Republic of China, Request to the Department to product, they do so for different Poll the Industry,’’ dated June 10, 2020. 1521–1522 and 701–TA–648 (Preliminary): Response to Sumec Hardware & Tools Co., Ltd.’s purposes and pursuant to a separate and 20 See Petitioner’s Letter, ‘‘Investigations on Reply to Petitioner’s Response to the Request to Poll distinct authority. In addition, Certain Walk-Behind Lawn Mowers from the the Industry,’’ dated June 15, 2019. People’s Republic of China and the Socialist Commerce’s determination is subject to 23 See Volume I of the Petitions at 4–5 and Exhibit limitations of time and information. Republic of Vietnam, and Countervailing Duties from the People’s Republic of China, Inv. Nos. 731– I–2; see also General Issues Supplement at 7 and Although this may result in different 1521–1522 and 701–TA–648 (Preliminary): Exhibit S–I–5. definitions of the like product, such Response to Sumec Hardware & Tools Co., Ltd.’s 24 See Volume I of the Petitions at 4–5 and differences do not render the decision of Request to the Department to Poll the Industry,’’ Exhibits I–1, I–2, and I–23; see also General Issues Supplement at 7 and Exhibit S–I–5. either agency contrary to law.16 dated June 11, 2019. 21 See Sumec and Merotec’s Letter, ‘‘Walk-Behind 25 See Volume I of the Petitions at 4–5 and Exhibit Lawn Mowers and Parts Thereof from the People’s I–23. the appropriate deadline is the next business day. Republic of China, Reply to Petitioner’s Response 26 See Volume I of the Petitions at 4–5 and Exhibit See Next Business Day Rule, 70 FR at 24533. to the Request to Poll the Industry,’’ dated June 12, I–2; see also General Issues Supplement at 7 and 15 See section 771(10) of the Act. 2020. Exhibit S–I–5. For further discussion, see 16 See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 22 See Petitioner’s Letter, ‘‘Investigations on Attachment II of the China and Vietnam AD 2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. Certain Walk-Behind Lawn Mowers from the Initiation Checklists. v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), People’s Republic of China and the Socialist 27 Id. aff’d 865 F. 2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied 492 Republic of Vietnam, and Countervailing Duties 28 See Volume I of the Petitions at 24–25 and U.S. 919 (1989)). from the People’s Republic of China, Inv. Nos. 731– Exhibit I–8.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 37420 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices

lost sales and revenues; declines in country is an NME country shall remain Indian producers of comparable shipments, capacity utilization, and in effect until revoked by Commerce. merchandise.38 capital expenditures; plant closures and Therefore, we continue to treat China Fair Value Comparisons declines in employment variables; and Vietnam as NME countries for declining profitability; and the purposes of the initiation of these Based on the data provided by the magnitude of dumping.29 We assessed investigations. Accordingly, NVs in petitioner, there is reason to believe that the allegations and supporting evidence China and Vietnam are appropriately imports of lawn mowers from China and regarding material injury, threat of based on FOPs valued in surrogate Vietnam are being, or are likely to be, material injury, causation, as well as market economy countries, in sold in the United States at LTFV. Based negligibility, and we have determined accordance with section 773(c) of the on comparisons of EP to NV in that these allegations are properly Act. accordance with sections 772 and 773 of supported by adequate evidence, and With respect to China, the petitioner the Act, the estimated dumping margins meet the statutory requirements for argues that the Republic of Turkey for lawn mowers from China are initiation.30 (Turkey) is an appropriate surrogate 274.29–313.58 percent, and 289.63– country because Turkey is a market 416.00 percent for lawn mowers from Allegations of Sales at LTFV economy country that is at a level of Vietnam.39 The following is a description of the economic development comparable to allegations of sales at LTFV upon which that of China and is a significant Initiation of LTFV Investigations Commerce based its decision to initiate producer of comparable merchandise.33 Based upon the examination of the AD investigations of imports of lawn The petitioner submitted publicly Petitions and supplemental responses, mowers from China and Vietnam. The available information from Turkey to we find that they meet the requirements sources of data for the deductions and value all FOPs.34 Based on the of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we adjustments relating to U.S. price and information provided by the petitioner, are initiating AD investigations to normal value (NV) are discussed in we determine that it is appropriate to determine whether imports of lawn greater detail in the China and Vietnam use Turkey as a surrogate country for mowers from China and Vietnam are AD Initiation Checklists. China for initiation purposes. being, or are likely to be, sold in the For Vietnam, the petitioner claims United States at LTFV. In accordance U.S. Price that India is an appropriate surrogate with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and For both China and Vietnam, the country because India is a market 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, petitioner based export price (EP) on economy country that is at a level of we will make our preliminary two methodologies: (1) The average unit economic development comparable to determinations no later than 140 days values (AUVs) of publicly-available that of Vietnam and is a significant after the date of this initiation. import data adjusted to deduct foreign producer of comparable merchandise.35 inland freight expenses; and (2) a The petitioner provided publicly Respondent Selection transaction-specific AUV derived from available information from India to In the Petitions, the petitioner named official import data and tied to ship value all FOPs.36 Based on the 46 companies in China and three manifest data obtained from information provided by the petitioner, companies in Vietnam as producers/ Datamyne.31 we determine that it is appropriate to exporters of lawn mowers.40 use India as a surrogate country for In accordance with our standard Normal Value Vietnam for initiation purposes. practice for respondent selection in AD Commerce considers China and Interested parties will have the investigations involving NME countries, Vietnam to be NME countries.32 In opportunity to submit comments Commerce selects respondents based on accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of regarding surrogate country selections quantity and value (Q&V) the Act, any determination that a foreign and, pursuant to 19 CFR questionnaires in cases where it has 351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an determined that the number of 29 See Volume I of the Petitions at 27–40 and opportunity to submit publicly available companies is large, and it cannot Exhibits I–8 through I–11 and I–20 through I–22, information to value FOPs within 30 and I–24; see also General Issues Supplement at 2 individually examine each company and Exhibit S–I–1. days before the scheduled date of the based upon its resources. Therefore, 30 See the China and Vietnam AD Initiation preliminary determination. considering the number of producers Checklists at Attachment III, Analysis of Allegations Factors of Production and exporters identified in the Petitions, and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for Commerce will solicit Q&V information the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions For China and Vietnam, the petitioner Covering Certain Walk-Behind Lawn Mowers and that can serve as a basis for selecting Parts Thereof from the People’s Republic of China used its own product-specific exporters for individual examination in and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Attachment consumption rates as a surrogate to the event that Commerce decides to III). value Chinese and Vietnamese limit the number of respondents 31 See the China and Vietnam AD Initiation manufacturers’ FOPs.37 Additionally, individually examined pursuant to Checklists. the petitioner calculated factory 32 See, e.g., Antidumping Duty Investigation of section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. For Certain Aluminum Foil from the People’s Republic overhead; selling, general and Vietnam, because there are three of China: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of administrative expenses; and profit producers and exporters identified in Sales at Less-Than-Fair Value and Postponement of based on the experience of Turkish and the Petitions, Commerce has determined Final Determination, 82 FR 50858, 50861 (November 2, 2017), and accompanying Preliminary 33 See Volume II of the Petitions at 3 and Exhibit 38 Decision Memorandum at ‘‘China’s Status as a Non- See Volume II of the Petition at 9 and Exhibits II–2. Market Economy,’’ unchanged in Certain II–3 and II–12; Volume III of the Petitions at 4–5 34 Aluminum Foil from the People’s Republic of Id. at Exhibits II–3, II–14—II 16. and Exhibit III–18; China AD Supplement at Exhibit China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 35 See Volume III of the Petitions at 3–4 and S–II–3; and Vietnam AD Supplement at 2 and Fair Value, 83 FR 9282 (March 5, 2018); and Certain Exhibit III–1. Exhibit S–III–3. Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of 36 Id. at Exhibit III–11. 39 See China AD Supplement at Exhibit S–II–6; Vietnam: Final Results, and Final Results of No 37 See Volume II of the Petitions at 3 and Exhibits and Vietnam AD Supplement at Exhibit S–III–4. Shipments of the Antidumping Duty Administrative II–9 and II–10; and Volume III of the Petitions at 40 See Volume I of the Petitions at 2 and Exhibit Review; 2016–2017, 84 FR 18007 (April 29, 2019). 7 and Exhibits III–9 and III–10. I–5.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices 37421

that it will issue Q&V questionnaires to may be found on E&C’s website at both to mandatory respondents receiving an each potential respondent for which the http://enforcement.trade.gov/apo. individually calculated separate rate as well petitioner has provided a complete Comments must be filed as the pool of non-investigated firms address. However, because there are 46 electronically using ACCESS. An receiving the weighted-average of the individually calculated rates. This practice is producers and exporters for China electronically filed document must be referred to as the application of ‘‘combination identified in the Petitions, Commerce received successfully, in its entirety, by rates’’ because such rates apply to specific has determined to limit the number of ACCESS no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on combinations of exporters and one or more Q&V questionnaires that it will send out the deadline noted above. Commerce producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to to exporters and producers based on intends to finalize its decisions an exporter will apply only to merchandise U.S. Customs and Border Protection regarding respondent selection within both exported by the firm in question and (CBP) data for lawn mowers from China 20 days of publication of this notice. produced by a firm that supplied the exporter during the POI under the appropriate during the period of investigation.44 Separate Rates Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States number listed in the In order to obtain separate-rate status Distribution of Copies of the AD ‘‘Scope of the Investigation,’’ in the in an NME investigation, exporters and Petitions appendix. Accordingly, Commerce will producers must submit a separate-rate In accordance with section send Q&V questionnaires to the largest application.42 The specific requirements 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR producers and exporters that are for submitting a separate-rate 351.202(f), copies of the public version identified in the CBP data for which application in a China or Vietnam of the Petitions have been provided to there is address information on the investigation are outlined in detail in the governments of China and Vietnam record. the application itself, which is available via ACCESS. Furthermore, to the extent In addition, Commerce will post the on E&C’s website at http:// practicable, Commerce will attempt to Q&V questionnaire along with filing enforcement.trade.gov/nme/nme-sep- provide a copy of the public version of instructions on E&C’s website at http:// rate.html. The separate-rate application the Petitions to each exporter named in www.trade.gov/enforcement/news.asp. will be due 30 days after publication of the Petitions, as provided under 19 CFR Producers/exporters of lawn mowers this initiation notice.43 Exporters and 351.203(c)(2). producers who submit a separate-rate from China and Vietnam that do not ITC Notification receive Q&V questionnaires may still application and have been selected as submit a response to the Q&V mandatory respondents will be eligible Commerce will notify the ITC of our questionnaire and can obtain a copy of for consideration for separate-rate status initiation, as required by section 732(d) the Q&V questionnaire from E&C’s only if they respond to all parts of of the Act. website. In accordance with the Commerce’s AD questionnaire as Preliminary Determinations by the ITC standard practice for respondent mandatory respondents. Commerce selection in AD cases involving NME requires that companies from China or The ITC will preliminarily determine, countries, in the event Commerce Vietnam submit a response to both the within 45 days after the date on which decides to limit the number of Q&V questionnaire and the separate-rate the Petitions were filed, whether there respondents individually investigated, application by the respective deadlines is a reasonable indication that imports Commerce intends to base respondent in order to receive consideration for of lawn mowers from China and/or selection on the responses to the Q&V separate-rate status. Companies not Vietnam are materially injuring, or questionnaire that it receives. filing a timely Q&V questionnaire threatening material injury to, a U.S. 45 Responses to the Q&V questionnaire response will not receive separate rate industry. A negative ITC must be submitted by the relevant consideration. determination for any country will result in the investigation being Chinese and Vietnamese producers/ Use of Combination Rates exporters no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on terminated with respect to that 46 July 1, 2020. All Q&V questionnaire Commerce will calculate combination country. Otherwise, these AD responses must be filed electronically rates for certain respondents that are investigations will proceed according to via ACCESS. eligible for a separate rate in an NME statutory and regulatory time limits. On June 10, 2020, Commerce released investigation. The Separate Rates and Submission of Factual Information CBP data on imports of lawn mowers Combination Rates Bulletin states: Factual information is defined in 19 from China under administrative { } w hile continuing the practice of assigning CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence protective order (APO) to all parties separate rates only to exporters, all separate submitted in response to questionnaires; with access to information protected by rates that the {Commerce} will now assign in (ii) evidence submitted in support of APO, and indicated that interested its NME Investigation will be specific to allegations; (iii) publicly available parties wishing to comment on the CBP those producers that supplied the exporter information to value factors under 19 data must do so within three business during the period of investigation. Note, however, that one rate is calculated for the CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the days of the publication date of the exporter and all of the producers which adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR notice of initiation of this supplied subject merchandise to it during the 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on investigation.41 We further stated that period of investigation. This practice applies the record by Commerce; and (v) we will not accept rebuttal comments. evidence other than factual information Interested parties must submit 42 See Policy Bulletin 05.1: ‘‘Separate-Rates described in (i)–(iv). Section 351.301(b) Practice and Application of Combination Rates in applications for disclosure under APO of Commerce’s regulations requires any in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Antidumping Investigation involving NME Countries,’’ (April 5, 2005), available at http:// party, when submitting factual Instructions for filing such applications enforcement.trade.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf (Policy information, to specify under which Bulletin 05.1). subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the 41 See Memorandum, ‘‘Certain Walk-Behind 43 Although in past investigations this deadline Lawn Mowers and Parts Thereof from the People’s was 60 days, consistent with 19 CFR 351.301(a), Republic of China: Release of Customs Data from which states that ‘‘the Secretary may request any 44 See Policy Bulletin 05.1 at 6 (emphasis added). U.S. Customs and Border Protection,’’ dated June person to submit factual information at any time 45 See section 733(a) of the Act. 10, 2020. during a proceeding,’’ this deadline is now 30 days. 46 Id.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 37422 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices

information is being submitted 47 and, if reject factual submissions if the Environmental Protection Agency air the information is submitted to rebut, submitting party does not comply with pollution controls title 40, chapter I, clarify, or correct factual information the applicable certification subchapter U, part 1054 of the Code of already on the record, to provide an requirements. Federal Regulations standards for small non- explanation identifying the information road spark-ignition engines and equipment. Notification to Interested Parties However, lawn mowers that meet the already on the record that the factual physical descriptions above but that do not information seeks to rebut, clarify, or Interested parties must submit have engines certified under 40 CFR part correct.48 Time limits for the applications for disclosure under APO 1054 or other parts of subchapter U remain submission of factual information are in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On subject to the scope of these proceedings. addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which January 22, 2008, Commerce published For purposes of these investigations, an provides specific time limits based on Antidumping and Countervailing Duty unfinished and/or unassembled lawn mower the type of factual information being Proceedings: Documents Submission means at a minimum, a sub-assembly submitted. Interested parties should Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR comprised of an engine and a cutting deck review the regulations prior to 3634 (January 22, 2008). Parties wishing shell attached to one another. A cutting deck submitting factual information in these shell is the portion of the lawn mower— to participate in these investigations typically of aluminum or steel—that houses investigations. should ensure that they meet the and protects a user from a rotating blade. Extensions of Time Limits requirements of these procedures (e.g., Importation of the subassembly whether or the filing of letters of appearance as not accompanied by, or attached to, Parties may request an extension of discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)). Note additional components such as a handle, time limits before the expiration of a that Commerce has temporarily blade(s), grass catching bag, or wheel(s) time limit established under 19 CFR modified certain of its requirements for constitute an unfinished lawn mower for 351.301, or as otherwise specified by serving documents containing business purposes of these investigations. The Commerce. In general, an extension proprietary information, until July 17, inclusion in a third country of any request will be considered untimely if it 51 components other than the mower sub 2020, unless extended. assembly does not remove the lawn mower is filed after the expiration of the time This notice is issued and published limit established under 19 CFR 351.301. from the scope. A lawn mower is within the pursuant to sections 732(c)(2) and 777(i) scope of these investigations regardless of the For submissions that are due from of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c). origin of its engine. multiple parties simultaneously, an Dated: June 15, 2020. The lawn mowers subject to these extension request will be considered investigations are typically at subheading: Jeffrey I. Kessler, untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET 8433.11.0050. Lawn mowers subject to these on the due date. Under certain Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and investigations may also enter under circumstances, we may elect to specify Compliance. Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United a different time limit by which Appendix—Scope of the Investigations States (HTSUS) 8407.90.1010 and extension requests will be considered 8433.90.1090. The HTSUS subheadings are untimely for submissions which are due The merchandise covered by these provided for convenience and customs investigations consists of certain rotary walk- purposes only, and the written description of from multiple parties simultaneously. In behind lawn mowers, which are grass-cutting the merchandise under investigation is such a case, Commerce will inform machines that are powered by internal dispositive. parties in a letter or memorandum of the combustion engines. The scope of these [FR Doc. 2020–13385 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] deadline (including a specified time) by investigations covers certain walk-behind BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P which extension requests must be filed lawn mowers, whether self-propelled or non- to be considered timely. An extension self-propelled, whether finished or request must be made in a separate, unfinished, whether assembled or DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE stand-alone submission; under limited unassembled, and whether containing any circumstances we will grant untimely- additional features that provide for functions International Trade Administration in addition to mowing. filed requests for the extension of time Walk-behind lawn mowers within the [A–533–889, A–489–837] limits. Parties should review Extension scope of these investigations are only those of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 powered by an internal combustion engine Certain Quartz Surface Products From (September 20, 2013), available at with a power rating of less than 3.7 kilowatts. India and Turkey: Antidumping Duty http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013- These internal combustion engines are Orders 09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to typically spark ignition, single or multiple submitting factual information in these cylinder, air cooled, internal combustion AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, investigations. engines with vertical power take off shafts International Trade Administration, with a maximum displacement of 196cc. Department of Commerce. Certification Requirements Walk-behind lawn mowers covered by this SUMMARY: Based on affirmative final Any party submitting factual scope typically must be certified and comply with the Consumer Products Safety determinations by the Department of information in an AD or CVD Commission Safety Standard For Walk- Commerce (Commerce) and the proceeding must certify to the accuracy Behind Power Lawn Mowers under the 16 International Trade Commission (ITC), and completeness of that information.49 CFR part 1205. However, lawn mowers that Commerce is issuing antidumping duty Parties must use the certification meet the physical descriptions above, but are orders on certain quartz surface formats provided in 19 CFR not certified under 16 CFR part 1205 remain products (quartz surface products) from 351.303(g).50 Commerce intends to subject to the scope of these proceedings. India and the Republic of Turkey The internal combustion engines of the (Turkey). 47 See 19 CFR 351.301(b). lawn mowers covered by this scope typically 48 See 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2). must comply with and be certified under DATES: Applicable June 22, 2020. 49 See section 782(b) of the Act. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 50 See Certification of Factual Information to http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_ Charles Doss at (202) 482–4474 (India); Import Administration During Antidumping and info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf. Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 51 See Temporary Rule Modifying AD/CVD and Laurel LaCivita at (202) 482–4243 17, 2013) (Final Rule). Answers to frequently asked Service Requirements Due to COVID–19; Extension (Turkey) or Kyle Clahane at (202) 482– questions regarding the Final Rule are available at of Effective Period, 85 FR 29615 (May 18, 2020). 5449 (Turkey); AD/CVD Operations,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices 37423

Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, India and Turkey are materially injuring and exported by Ermas¸. However, International Trade Administration, a U.S. industry, unliquidated entries of entries of subject merchandise in any U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 such merchandise from India and other producer/exporter combination, Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, Turkey, which are entered or withdrawn e.g., merchandise produced by a third DC 20230. from warehouse for consumption, are party and exported by Ermas¸, or SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: subject to the assessment of produced by Ermas¸ and exported by a antidumping duties. third party, are subject to the applicable Background As a result of the ITC’s final cash deposit rates equal to the estimated In accordance with sections 735(d) affirmative determinations, in weighted-average dumping margins and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the noted below. as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs 351.210(c), on May 1, 2020, Commerce Continuation of Suspension of and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, Liquidation published its affirmative final upon further instruction by Commerce, determinations in the less-than-fair- antidumping duties equal to the amount In accordance with section 736 of the value (LTFV) investigations of quartz by which the normal value of the Act, except for subject merchandise surface products from India and merchandise exceeds the export price or produced and exported by Ermas¸, 1 Turkey. On June 15, 2020, the ITC constructed export price of the Commerce will instruct CBP to continue notified Commerce of its final merchandise, for all relevant entries of to suspend liquidation of quartz surface affirmative determinations that an quartz surface products from India and products from India and Turkey as industry in the United States is Turkey. Antidumping duties will be described in the Appendix to this notice materially injured within the meaning adjusted for export subsidies found in which are entered, or withdrawn from of section 735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, by the final determinations of the warehouse, for consumption on or after reason of the LTFV imports of quartz companion countervailing duty the date of publication of the ITC’s surface products from India and 4 notice of final determination in the 2 investigations. Antidumping duties Turkey. will be assessed on unliquidated entries Federal Register. These instructions Scope of the Orders of quartz surface products from India suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice. The merchandise covered by these and Turkey entered, or withdrawn from orders is quartz surface products from warehouse, for consumption on or after We will also instruct CBP to require India and Turkey. For a complete December 13, 2019, the date of cash deposits equal to the amount as description of the scope of the Orders, publication of the Preliminary indicated below. Accordingly, effective 5 see the Appendix to this notice. Determinations, but will not include on the date of publication of the ITC’s entries occurring after the expiration of final affirmative injury determination, Antidumping Duty Orders the provisional measures period and CBP will require, at the same time as On June 15, 2020, in accordance with before publication in the Federal importers would normally deposit sections 735(b)(1)(A)(i) and 735(d) of the Register of the ITC’s injury estimated duties on this subject Act, the ITC notified Commerce of its determination, as further described merchandise, a cash deposit equal to the final determinations that an industry in below. cash deposit rates listed below.6 The all- the United States is materially injured Additionally, because the estimated others rate applies to all producers or by reason of imports of quartz surface weighted-average dumping margin for exporters not specifically listed. products from India and Turkey.3 Ermas¸ Madencilik Turizm Sanayi Ve Estimated Weighted-Average Dumping Therefore, Commerce is issuing these Ticaret Anonim S¸irketi (Ermas¸) was Margins antidumping duty orders in accordance determined to be zero in the LTFV with sections 735(c)(2) and 736 of the investigation, Commerce is directing The estimated weighted-average Act. Because the ITC determined that CBP to not suspend liquidation of dumping margins for each antidumping imports of quartz surface products from entries of subject merchandise produced duty order are as follows:

Cash deposit rate Weighted-average (adjusted for Exporter/producer dumping margin subsidy offset(s)) (percent) (percent)

India

Antique Marbonite Private Limited; Shivam Enterprise; and Prism Johnson Limited ...... 5.15 3.58 Pokarna Engineered Stone Limited ...... 2.67 0.33 All Others ...... 3.19 1.02

Turkey

Belenco Dis¸ Ticaret A.S¸ . and Peker Yu¨zey Tasar(mlar( Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S¸ ...... 5.17 5.13

1 See Certain Quartz Surface Products from India: 2 See ITC’s Letter, ‘‘Notification of ITC Final Extension of Provisional Measures, 84 FR 68123 Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Determinations,’’ dated June 15, 2020 (ITC (December 13, 2019); Certain Quartz Surface Value and Final Negative Determination of Critical Notification Letter). Products from the Republic of Turkey: Preliminary Circumstances, 85 FR 25391 (May 1, 2020); see also 3 See ITC Notification Letter. Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Certain Quartz Surface Products from the Republic 4 See Final Determinations. Fair Value, Preliminary Negative Determination of of Turkey: Final Determination of Sales at Less 5 See Certain Quartz Surface Products from India: Critical Circumstances, Postponement of Final Than Fair Value and Final Negative Determination Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Determination, and Extension of Provisional of Critical Circumstances, 85 FR 25389 (May 1, Less Than Fair Value, Preliminary Negative Measures, 84 FR 68111 (December 13, 2019) 2020) (and accompanying decision memoranda) Determination of Critical Circumstances, (collectively, Preliminary Determinations). (collectively, Final Determinations). Postponement of Final Determination, and 6 See section 736(a)(3) of the Act.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 37424 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices

Cash deposit rate Weighted-average (adjusted for Exporter/producer dumping margin subsidy offset(s)) (percent) (percent)

All Others ...... 5.17 5.13

Provisional Measures Dated: June 16, 2020. Crushed glass surface products must meet Jeffrey I. Kessler, each of the following criteria to qualify for Section 733(d) of the Act states that Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and this exclusion: (1) The crushed glass content suspension of liquidation pursuant to an Compliance. is greater than any other single material, by affirmative preliminary determination actual weight; (2) there are pieces of crushed may not remain in effect for more than Appendix I glass visible across the surface of the product; (3) at least some of the individual pieces of four months, except that Commerce may Scope of the Orders crushed glass that are visible across the extend the four-month period to no The merchandise covered by these Orders surface are larger than 1 centimeter wide as more than six months at the request of is certain quartz surface products. Quartz measured at their widest cross-section (Glass exporters representing a significant surface products consist of slabs and other Pieces); and (4) the distance between any proportion of exports of the subject surfaces created from a mixture of materials single Glass Piece and the closest separate that includes predominately silica (e.g., merchandise. At the request of exporters Glass Piece does not exceed three inches. quartz, quartz powder, cristobalite, glass The products subject to the scope are that account for a significant proportion powder) as well as a resin binder (e.g., an currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff of quartz surface products from India unsaturated polyester). The incorporation of Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under and Turkey, we extended the four- other materials, including, but not limited to, the following subheading: 6810.99.0010. month period to six months in the pigments, cement, or other additives does not Subject merchandise may also enter under Preliminary Determinations published remove the merchandise from the scope of subheadings 6810.11.0010, 6810.11.0070, these Orders. However, the scope of these on December 13, 2019. Therefore, the 6810.19.1200, 6810.19.1400, 6810.19.5000, Orders only includes products where the 6810.91.0000, 6810.99.0080, 6815.99.4070, extended period, beginning on the date silica content is greater than any other single 2506.10.0010, 2506.10.0050, 2506.20.0010, of publication of the preliminary material, by actual weight. Quartz surface 2506.20.0080, and 7016.90.1050. The HTSUS determination, ended on June 9, 2020. products are typically sold as rectangular subheadings set forth above are provided for Pursuant to section 737(b) of the Act, slabs with a total surface area of convenience and U.S. Customs purposes the collection of cash deposits at the approximately 45 to 60 square feet and a only. The written description of the scope is nominal thickness of one, two, or three dispositive. rates listed above will begin on the date centimeters. However, the scope of these of publication of the ITC’s final injury Orders includes surface products of all other [FR Doc. 2020–13401 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] determination. sizes, thicknesses, and shapes. In addition to BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P Therefore, in accordance with section slabs, the scope of these Orders includes, but is not limited to, other surfaces such as 733(d) of the Act and our practice, we countertops, backsplashes, vanity tops, bar DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE will instruct CBP to terminate the tops, work tops, tabletops, flooring, wall suspension of liquidation and to facing, shower surrounds, fire place International Trade Administration liquidate, without regard to surrounds, mantels, and tiles. Certain quartz [A–484–803] antidumping duties, unliquidated surface products are covered by these Orders entries of quartz surface products from whether polished or unpolished, cut or uncut, fabricated or not fabricated, cured or Large Diameter Welded Pipe From India and Turkey entered, or withdrawn uncured, edged or not edged, finished or Greece: Final Results of Antidumping from warehouse, for consumption on or unfinished, thermoformed or not Duty Changed Circumstances Reviews after June 10, 2020, the first day thermoformed, packaged or unpackaged, and provisional measures were no longer in regardless of the type of surface finish. In AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, effect, until and through the day addition, quartz surface products are covered International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. preceding the date of publication of the by these Orders whether or not they are imported attached to, or in conjunction with, SUMMARY: On May 6, 2020, the ITC’s final injury determination in the non-subject merchandise such as sinks, sink Federal Register. Suspension of Department of Commerce (Commerce) bowls, vanities, cabinets, and furniture. If published the preliminary results of the liquidation will resume on the date of quartz surface products are imported changed circumstances review (CCR) of publication of the ITC’s final attached to, or in conjunction with, such the antidumping duty (AD) order on determination in the Federal Register. non-subject merchandise, only the quartz surface product is covered by the scope. large diameter welded pipe (welded Notification to Interested Parties Subject merchandise includes material pipe) from Greece which revoked, in matching the above description that has been part, this order as it relates to certain This notice constitutes the finished, packaged, or otherwise fabricated in specific welded pipe products. antidumping duty orders with respect to a third country, including by cutting, Commerce has adopted the scope quartz surface products from India and polishing, curing, edging, thermoforming, exclusion language in these final results. Turkey pursuant to section 736(a) of the attaching to, or packaging with another product, or any other finishing, packaging, or DATES: Applicable June 22, 2020. Act. Interested parties can find a list of fabrication that would not otherwise remove FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: antidumping duty orders currently in the merchandise from the scope of these Brittany Bauer, AD/CVD Operations, effect at http://enforcement.trade.gov/ Orders if performed in the country of Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, stats/iastats1.html. manufacture of the quartz surface products. International Trade Administration, The scope of these Orders does not cover U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 These orders are published in quarried stone surface products, such as accordance with section 736(a) of the granite, marble, soapstone, or quartzite. Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b). Specifically excluded from the scope of these DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3860. Orders are crushed glass surface products. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices 37425

Background of wall thickness, length, surface finish, 7305.12.5000, 7305.19.1030, On May 2, 2019, Commerce published grade, end finish, or stenciling. Large 7305.19.1060, and 7305.19.5000. the AD order on welded pipe from diameter welded pipe may be used to Merchandise currently classifiable Greece.1 On May 6, 2020, Commerce transport oil, gas, slurry, steam, or other under subheadings 7305.31.4000, published the Preliminary Results,2 in fluids, liquids, or gases. 7305.31.6090, 7305.39.1000 and which Commerce preliminarily revoked, Large diameter welded line pipe is 7305.39.5000 and that otherwise meets in part, the Order with respect to certain used to transport oil, gas, or natural gas the above scope language is also welded pipe products with specific liquids and is normally produced to the covered. While the HTSUS subheadings combinations of grades, diameters, and American Petroleum Institute (API) are provided for convenience and wall thicknesses. These products have specification 5L. Large diameter welded customs purposes, the written been incorporated into the exclusion line pipe can be produced to description of the scope of this Order is language of the scope, below in bold. comparable foreign specifications, dispositive. grades and/or standards or to Corinth Pipeworks Pipe Industry S.A. Final Results of CCR (Corinth) placed comments made by the proprietary specifications, grades and/or petitioners, representing ‘‘substantially standards, or can be non-graded Section 751(b) authorizes Commerce all’’ of the domestic industry,3 in the material. All line pipe meeting the to modify the scopes of AD and CVD CCRs of welded pipe from India on the physical description set forth above, orders only for those orders in which we record of this CCR. These comments including any dual- or multiple- conduct a CCR.6 Further, 19 CFR indicate that the domestic industry does certified/stenciled pipe with an API (or 351.216(c) states that ‘‘good cause’’ not currently produce the particular comparable) welded line pipe exists when Commerce conducts a CCR welded pipe products subject to this certification/stencil, is covered by the within 24 months of the publication of partial revocation request, and the scope of the Order. a final determination of an Subject merchandise also includes investment needed to do so far exceeds investigation. In the Initiation, large diameter welded line pipe that has the potential benefit of such investment. Commerce found that ‘‘good cause’’ been further processed in a third 7 In addition, in these same comments, existed to initiate this CCR. No parties country, including but not limited to the domestic producers provided an submitted comments regarding the coating, painting, notching, beveling, explanation indicating that the Preliminary Results. Therefore, for the cutting, punching, welding, or any other commercial reality has changed since reasons stated in the Initiation and processing that would not otherwise the Order was put in place. Preliminary Results, Commerce Both in the CCRs of welded pipe from remove the merchandise from the scope continues to find that it is appropriate India and the Preliminary Results, we of the Order if performed in the country to revoke the Order, in part, in found that there was ‘‘good cause’’ to of manufacture of the in-scope large accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(g)(1) conduct the CCRs less than 24 months diameter welded line pipe. with respect to certain welded pipe Excluded from the scope of the Order after the date of publication of notices products with specific combinations of is structural pipe, which is produced of the final determinations in the grades, diameters, and wall thicknesses, only to American Society for Testing investigations.4 In addition, in the as reflected in the ‘‘Scope of the Order’’ and Materials (ASTM) standards A500, Preliminary Results, we provided all section of this notice. A252, or A53, or other relevant interested parties an opportunity to We will instruct U.S. Customs and domestic specifications, or comparable comment and to request a public Border Protection to terminate the foreign specifications, grades and/or hearing regarding our preliminary suspension of liquidation for all standards or to proprietary findings.5 No interested party submitted shipments of the products subject to this specifications, grades and/or standards. comments. changed circumstances review that were Also excluded is large diameter welded entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, Scope of the Order pipe produced only to specifications of for consumption on or after the date of The merchandise covered by this the American Water Works Association publication of this notice of revocation Order is welded carbon and alloy steel (AWWA) for water and sewage pipe. in the Federal Register. All entries of line pipe (other than stainless steel Also excluded is large diameter welded the revoked products that were pipe), more than 406.4 mm (16 inches) pipe in the following combinations of suspended on or after the date of in nominal outside diameter (large grades, outside diameters, and wall publication of this revocation notice diameter welded line pipe), regardless thicknesses: will be liquidated without regard to • Grade X60, X65, or X70, 18 inches antidumping duties (i.e., refund all cash 1 outside diameter, 0.688 inches or greater See Large Diameter Welded Pipe from Greece: deposits). Amended Final Affirmative Antidumping wall thickness; Determination and Antidumping Duty Order, 84 FR • Grade X60, X65, or X70, 20 inches Notification to Interested Parties 18769 (May 2, 2019) (Order). outside diameter, 0.688 inches or greater 2 See Large Diameter Welded Pipe from Greece: wall thickness; We are issuing this determination and Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed • Grade X60, X65, X70, or X80, 22 publishing these final results and notice Circumstances Review, 85 FR 26924 (May 6, 2020) in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) (Preliminary Results). inches outside diameter, 0.750 inches or and 777(i)(1) and (2) of the Act and 19 3 See Corinth’s Letter, ‘‘Large Diameter Welded greater wall thickness; and Pipe from Greece: Request for Changed • Grade X60, X65, or X70, 24 inches Circumstances Review and Revocation, In Part,’’ outside diameter, 0.750 inches or greater 6 See Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from the dated January 3, 2020, at Exhibits 2–4. Commerce wall thickness. Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping has interpreted ‘‘substantially all’’ to mean at least Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 84 FR 13888 85 percent of the total production of the domestic The large diameter welded line pipe (April 8, 2019); see also Certain Steel Nails from the like product covered by the order. See, e.g., that is subject to this Order is currently People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Supercalendered Paper from Canada: Final Results classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, of Changed Circumstances Review and Revocation Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 84 FR 49508 (September 20, 2019). of Countervailing Duty Order, 83 FR 32268 (July 12, 7 See Large Diameter Welded Pipe from Greece: 2018). under subheadings 7305.11.1030, Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed 4 See 19 CFR 351.216(c). 7305.11.1060, 7305.11.5000, Circumstances Review, 85 FR 10150, 10151 5 See Preliminary Results, 85 FR at 26926. 7305.12.1030, 7305.12.1060, (Initiation).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 37426 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices

CFR 351.216(e), 351.221(b) and (c)(3), Petition,2 to which the petitioner filed aside a period for interested parties to and 351.222(g)(1) and (4). responses on June 2, 2020.3 raise issues regarding product coverage In accordance with section 702(b)(1) 6 Dated: June 16, 2020. (i.e., scope). Commerce will consider of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended all comments received from interested Jeffrey I. Kessler, (the Act), the petitioner alleges that the parties and, if necessary, will consult Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Government of China (GOC) is with interested parties prior to the Compliance. providing countervailable subsidies, issuance of the preliminary [FR Doc. 2020–13377 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] within the meaning of sections 701 and determination. If scope comments BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 771(5) of the Act, to producers of lawn include factual information,7 all such mowers in China and that such imports factual information should be limited to are materially injuring, or threatening public information. To facilitate material injury to, the domestic industry DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE preparation of its questionnaires, producing lawn mowers in the United Commerce requests that all interested International Trade Administration States. Consistent with section 702(b)(1) parties submit scope comments by 5:00 of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(b), for p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on July 6, 2020, those alleged programs on which we are [C–570–130] which is 20 calendar days from the initiating a CVD investigation, the signature date of this notice.8 Any Certain Walk-Behind Lawn Mowers and Petition is supported by information rebuttal comments, which may include Parts Thereof From the People’s reasonably available to the petitioner factual information, must be filed by Republic of China: Initiation of supporting its allegations. 5:00 p.m. ET on July 16, 2020, which is Countervailing Duty Investigation Commerce finds that the petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of the 10 calendar days from the initial comment deadline.9 AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, domestic industry because the International Trade Administration, petitioner is an interested party as Commerce requests that any factual Department of Commerce. defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. information the parties consider Commerce also finds that the petitioner relevant to the scope of the investigation DATES: Applicable June 15, 2020. demonstrated sufficient industry be submitted during this time period. support with respect to the initiation of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: However, if a party subsequently finds the requested CVD investigation.4 Terre Keaton Stefanova or Jacob Garten, that additional factual information AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Period of Investigation pertaining to the scope of the Enforcement and Compliance, investigation may be relevant, the party Because the Petition was filed on May may contact Commerce and request International Trade Administration, 26, 2020, the period of investigation permission to submit the additional U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 (POI) is January 1, 2019 through information. All such comments must Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, December 31, 2019.5 also be filed on the record of the DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1280 or Scope of the Investigation concurrent AD investigations. (202) 482–3342, respectively. The merchandise covered by this Filing Requirements SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: investigation is lawn mowers from The Petition China. For a full description of the All submissions to Commerce must be scope of this investigation, see the filed electronically using Enforcement On May 26, 2020, the U.S. appendix to this notice. and Compliance’s (E&C’s) Antidumping Department of Commerce (Commerce) Comments on Scope of the Investigation Duty and Countervailing Duty received a countervailing duty (CVD) Centralized Electronic Service System petition concerning imports of certain As discussed in the Preamble to (ACCESS), unless an exception walk-behind lawn mowers and parts Commerce’s regulations, we are setting applies.10 An electronically filed thereof (lawn mowers) from the People’s document must be received successfully 2 See Commerce’s Letters, ‘‘Petitions for the Republic of China (China) filed in Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing proper form on behalf of MTD Products, Duties on Imports of Certain Walk-Behind Lawn 6 See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Inc. (the petitioner).1 The Petition was Mowers and Parts Thereof from the People’s 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997) (Preamble). Republic of China and the Socialist Republic of 7 See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) (defining ‘‘factual accompanied by an antidumping duty Vietnam: General Issues Supplemental Questions,’’ information’’). (AD) petition concerning imports of and ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing 8 Commerce’s practice dictates that where a lawn mowers from China and the Duties on Imports of Certain Walk-Behind Lawn deadline falls on a weekend or Federal holiday, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Mowers and Parts Thereof from the People’s appropriate deadline is the next business day (in Republic of China: Supplemental Questions,’’ both this instance, May 11, 2020). See Notice of On May 29, 2020, Commerce dated May 29, 2020. Clarification: Application of ‘‘Next Business Day’’ requested supplemental information 3 See Petitioner’s Letters, ‘‘Petitions for the Rule for Administrative Determination Deadlines Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, As Amended, 70 pertaining to certain aspects of the Certain Walk-Behind Lawn Mowers from the FR 24533 (May 10, 2005). People’s Republic of China and the Socialist 9 See 19 CFR 351.303(b). Republic of Vietnam, and Countervailing Duties 10 See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty from the People’s Republic of China: General Issues Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Supplemental Questions Response Volume I,’’ Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR (General Issues Supplement), and ‘‘Petitions for the 39263 (July 6, 2011); see also Enforcement and Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of 1 See Petitioner’s Letter, ‘‘Petitions for the Compliance; Change of Electronic Filing System Certain Walk-Behind Lawn Mowers from the Name, 79 FR 69046 (November 20, 2014), for details Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Certain Walk- People’s Republic of China: Supplemental of Commerce’s electronic filing requirements, Behind Lawn Mowers from the People’s Republic Questionnaire Response Volume IV,’’ both dated effective August 5, 2011. Information on using of China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and June 2, 2020. ACCESS can be found at https://access.trade.gov/ Countervailing Duties on Certain Walk-Behind 4 See ‘‘Determination of Industry Support for the help.aspx and a handbook can be found at https:// Lawn Mowers from the People’s Republic of Petition’’ section, infra. access.trade.gov/help/Handbook_on_Electronic_ China,’’ dated May 26, 2020 (the Petition). 5 See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2). Filing_Procedures.pdf.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices 37427

in its entirety by the time and date it is distinct authority. In addition, with regard to the petitioner’s June 11, due. Commerce’s determination is subject to 2020 comments.19 The petitioner limitations of time and information. responded to these surrebuttal industry Consultations Although this may result in different support comments on June 15, 2020.20 Pursuant to sections 702(b)(4)(A)(i) definitions of the like product, such In determining whether the petitioner and (ii) of the Act, Commerce notified differences do not render the decision of has standing under section 702(c)(4)(A) the GOC of the receipt of the Petition either agency contrary to law.14 of the Act, we considered the industry and provided it the opportunity for Section 771(10) of the Act defines the support data contained in the Petition consultations with respect to the CVD domestic like product as ‘‘a product with reference to the domestic like Petition.11 The GOC requested which is like, or in the absence of like, product as defined in the ‘‘Scope of the consultations, which were held on June most similar in characteristics and uses Investigation,’’ in the appendix to this 12, 2020.12 with, the article subject to an notice. To establish industry support, Determination of Industry Support for investigation under this title.’’ Thus, the the petitioner provided its 2019 the Petition reference point from which the shipments of the domestic like domestic like product analysis begins is product.21 To estimate the 2019 Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires ‘‘the article subject to an investigation’’ shipments for the entire U.S. lawn that a petition be filed on behalf of the (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to mowers industry, the petitioner relied domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) be investigated, which normally will be on 2019 shipment data reported by the of the Act provides that a petition meets the scope as defined in the petition). Outdoor Power Equipment Institute and this requirement if the domestic With regard to the domestic like made certain adjustments to reflect total producers or workers who support the product, the petitioner does not offer a shipments by U.S. producers of lawn petition account for: (i) At least 25 definition of the domestic like product mowers.22 The petitioner estimated the percent of the total production of the distinct from the scope of the production of the domestic like product domestic like product; and (ii) more investigation.15 Based on our analysis of for the entire domestic industry based than 50 percent of the production of the the information submitted on the on shipment data, because production domestic like product produced by that record, we have determined that lawn data for the entire domestic industry are portion of the industry expressing mowers, as defined in the scope, not available, and shipments are a close support for, or opposition to, the constitute a single domestic like approximation of production in the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) product, and we have analyzed industry lawn mowers industry.23 We relied on of the Act provides that, if the petition support in terms of that domestic like data provided by the petitioner for does not establish support of domestic product.16 purposes of measuring industry producers or workers accounting for On June 10, 2020, we received support.24 more than 50 percent of the total comments on industry support from Our review of the data provided in the production of the domestic like product, Sumec Hardware & Tools Co., Ltd. Petition, the General Issues Supplement, Commerce shall: (i) Poll the industry or (Sumec), a Chinese producer of subject and other information readily available rely on other information in order to merchandise, and Merotec Inc to Commerce indicates that the determine if there is support for the (Merotec), an importer of subject petitioner has established industry petition, as required by subparagraph merchandise.17 The petitioner support for the Petition.25 First, the (A); or (ii) determine industry support responded to the industry support Petition established support from using a statistically valid sampling comments on June 11, 2020.18 On June domestic producers (or workers) method to poll the ‘‘industry.’’ 12, 2020, we received surrebuttal accounting for more than 50 percent of Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines comments from Sumec and Merotec the total production of the domestic like the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers as a product and, as such, Commerce is not whole of a domestic like product. Thus, 14 See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. required to take further action in order to determine whether a petition has the 2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. to evaluate industry support (e.g., requisite industry support, the statute v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff’d 865 F. 2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied 492 directs Commerce to look to producers U.S. 919 (1989)). 19 See Sumec and Merotec’s Letter, ‘‘Walk-Behind and workers who produce the domestic 15 See Volume I of the Petition at 18–24. Lawn Mowers and Parts Thereof from the People’s like product. The International Trade 16 For a discussion of the domestic like product Republic of China, Reply to Petitioner’s Response Commission (ITC), which is responsible analysis as applied to this case and information to the Request to Poll the Industry,’’ dated June 12, regarding industry support, see Countervailing Duty 2020. for determining whether ‘‘the domestic 20 Investigation Initiation Checklist: Certain Walk- See Petitioner’s Letter, ‘‘Investigations on industry’’ has been injured, must also Behind Lawn Mowers from the People’s Republic Certain Walk-Behind Lawn Mowers from the determine what constitutes a domestic of China (China CVD Initiation Checklist) at People’s Republic of China and the Socialist like product in order to define the Attachment II, Analysis of Industry Support for the Republic of Vietnam, and Countervailing Duties from the People’s Republic of China, Inv. Nos. 731– industry. While both Commerce and the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Certain Walk-Behind Lawn Mowers from 1521–1522 and 701–TA–648 (Preliminary): ITC must apply the same statutory the People’s Republic of China and the Socialist Response to Sumec Hardware & Tools Co., Ltd.’s definition regarding the domestic like Republic of Vietnam (Attachment II). This checklist Reply to Petitioner’s Response to the Request to Poll product,13 they do so for different is dated concurrently with this notice and on file the Industry,’’ dated June 15, 2019. 21 See Volume I of the Petition at 4–5 and Exhibit purposes and pursuant to a separate and electronically via ACCESS. 17 See Sumec and Merotec’s Letter, ‘‘Walk-Behind I–2; see also General Issues Supplement at 7 and Lawn Mowers and Parts Thereof from the People’s Exhibit S–I–5. 11 See Commerce’s Letter, ‘‘Certain Walk-Behind Republic of China, Request to the Department to 22 See Volume I of the Petition at 4–5 and Exhibit Lawn Mowers and Parts Thereof from the People’s Poll the Industry,’’ dated June 10, 2020. I–1, I–2, and I–23; see also General Issues Republic of China: Invitation for Consultation to 18 See Petitioner’s Letter, ‘‘Investigations on Supplement at 7 and Exhibit S–I–5. Discuss the Countervailing Duty Petition,’’ dated Certain Walk-Behind Lawn Mowers from the 23 See Volume I of the Petition at 4–5 and Exhibit June 1, 2020. People’s Republic of China and the Socialist I–23. 12 See Memorandum, ‘‘Certain Walk-Behind Republic of Vietnam, and Countervailing Duties 24 Id. at 4–5 and Exhibits I–1, I–2, and I–23; see Lawn Mowers and Parts Thereof from the People’s from the People’s Republic of China, Inv. Nos. 731– also General Issues Supplement at 7 and Exhibit S– Republic of China Countervailing Duty Petition: 1521–1522 and 701–TA–648 (Preliminary): I–5. For further discussion, see Attachment II of the Consultations with the Government of the People’s Response to Sumec Hardware & Tools Co., Ltd.’s China CVD Initiation Checklist. Republic of China,’’ dated June 15, 2020. Request to the Department to Poll the Industry,’’ 25 See Attachment II of the China CVD Initiation 13 See section 771(10) of the Act. dated June 11, 2019. Checklist.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 37428 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices

polling).26 Second, the domestic regarding material injury, threat of with access to information protected by producers (or workers) have met the material injury, causation, as well as APO and indicated that interested statutory criteria for industry support negligibility, and we have determined parties wishing to comment on the CBP under section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act that these allegations are properly data must do so within three business because the domestic producers (or supported by adequate evidence, and days of the publication date of the workers) who support the Petition meet the statutory requirements for notice of initiation of this account for at least 25 percent of the initiation.32 investigation.35 We further stated that total production of the domestic like Initiation of CVD Investigation we will not accept rebuttal comments. product.27 Finally, the domestic Interested parties must submit producers (or workers) have met the Based upon our examination of the applications for disclosure under APO statutory criteria for industry support Petition and supplemental responses, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act we find that the Petition meets the Instructions for filing such applications because the domestic producers (or requirements of section 702 of the Act. may be found on E&C’s website at workers) who support the Petition Therefore, we are initiating a CVD http://enforcement.trade.gov/apo. account for more than 50 percent of the investigation to determine whether Comments must be filed production of the domestic like product imports of lawn mowers from China electronically using ACCESS. An produced by that portion of the industry benefit from countervailable subsidies electronically filed document must be expressing support for, or opposition to, conferred by the GOC. Based on our received successfully, in its entirety, by the Petition.28 Accordingly, Commerce review of the Petition, we find that there ACCESS no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on determines that the Petition was filed on is sufficient information to initiate a the date noted above. Commerce intends behalf of the domestic industry within CVD investigation on all but one of the to finalize its decisions regarding 33 the meaning of section 702(b)(1) of the alleged programs. For a full discussion respondent selection within 20 days of Act.29 of the basis for our decision to initiate publication of this notice. on each program, see China CVD Injury Test Initiation Checklist. A public version of Distribution of Copies of the Petition Because China is a ‘‘Subsidies the initiation checklist for this In accordance with section Agreement Country’’ within the investigation is available on ACCESS. In 702(b)(4)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the 351.202(f), a copy of the public version section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless of the Petition has been provided to the this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC postponed, we will make our GOC via ACCESS. Furthermore, to the must determine whether imports of the preliminary determination no later than extent practicable, Commerce will subject merchandise from China 65 days after the date of this initiation. attempt to provide a copy of the public materially injure, or threaten material Respondent Selection version of the Petition to each exporter injury to, a U.S. industry. named in the Petition, as provided The petitioner named 46 companies under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2). Allegations and Evidence of Material in China as producers/exporters of lawn Injury and Causation mowers.34 Commerce intends to follow ITC Notification The petitioner alleges that imports of its standard practice in CVD Commerce will notify the ITC of its the subject merchandise are benefitting investigations and calculate company- initiation, as required by section 702(d) from countervailable subsidies and that specific subsidy rates in this of the Act. investigation. In the event Commerce such imports are causing, or threaten to Preliminary Determination by the ITC cause, material injury to the U.S. determines that the number of industry producing the domestic like companies is large and it cannot The ITC will preliminarily determine, product. In addition, the petitioner individually examine each company within 45 days after the date on which alleges that subject imports exceed the based upon Commerce’s resources, the Petition was filed, whether there is negligibility threshold provided for where appropriate, Commerce intends a reasonable indication that imports of under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.30 to select mandatory respondents based lawn mowers from China are materially The petitioner contends that the on U.S. Customs and Border Protection injuring, or threatening material injury industry’s injured condition is (CBP) data for U.S. imports of lawn to, a U.S. industry.36 A negative ITC illustrated by a significant and mowers from China during the POI determination will result in the increasing volume of subject imports; under the appropriate Harmonized investigation being terminated.37 declining market share; underselling Tariff Schedule of the United States Otherwise, this investigation will and price depression and suppression; numbers listed in the ‘‘Scope of the proceed according to statutory and lost sales and revenues; declines in Investigation,’’ in the appendix. regulatory time limits. On June 11, 2020, Commerce released shipments, capacity utilization, and Submission of Factual Information capital expenditures; plant closures and CBP data on imports of lawn mowers declines in employment variables; and from China under administrative Factual information is defined in 19 declining profitability.31 We assessed protective order (APO) to all parties CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence the allegations and supporting evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; 32 See China CVD Initiation Checklists at (ii) evidence submitted in support of Attachment III, Analysis of Allegations and 26 allegations; (iii) publicly available Id.; see also section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act. Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the 27 See Attachment II of the China CVD Initiation Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions information to value factors under 19 Checklist. Covering Certain Walk-Behind Lawn Mowers and 28 Id. Parts Thereof from the People’s Republic of China 35 See Memorandum, ‘‘Certain Walk-Behind 29 Id. and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Attachment Lawn Mowers, and Parts Thereof, from the People’s 30 See Volume I of the Petition at 24–25 and III). Republic of China Countervailing Duty Petition: Exhibit I–8. 33 We are also limiting the investigation on two Release of Customs Data from U.S. Customs and 31 Id. at 27–40 and Exhibits I–8 through I–11, I– other programs for lack of supporting information Border Protection,’’ dated June 11, 2020. 20 through I–22, and I–24; see also General Issues as to certain aspects of the allegations. 36 See section 703(a)(1) of the Act. Supplement at 2 and Exhibit S–I–1. 34 See Volume I of the Petition at 17. 37 Id.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices 37429

CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the Certification Requirements These internal combustion engines are typically spark ignition, single or multiple adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR Any party submitting factual 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on cylinder, air cooled, internal combustion information in an AD or CVD engines with vertical power take off shafts the record by Commerce; and (v) proceeding must certify to the accuracy with a maximum displacement of 196cc. evidence other than factual information and completeness of that information.41 Walk-behind lawn mowers covered by this described in (i)–(iv). Section 351.301(b) Parties must use the certification scope typically must be certified and comply of Commerce’s regulations requires any formats provided in 19 CFR with the Consumer Products Safety party, when submitting factual 351.303(g).42 Commerce intends to Commission Safety Standard For Walk- Behind Power Lawn Mowers under the 16 information, to specify under which reject factual submissions if the CFR part 1205. However, lawn mowers that subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the submitting party does not comply with meet the physical descriptions above, but are information is being submitted 38 and, if the applicable certification not certified under 16 CFR part 1205 remain the information is submitted to rebut, requirements. subject to the scope of this proceeding. The internal combustion engines of the clarify, or correct factual information Notification to Interested Parties already on the record, to provide an lawn mowers covered by this scope typically must comply with and be certified under explanation identifying the information Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO Environmental Protection Agency air already on the record that the factual in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On pollution controls title 40, chapter I, information seeks to rebut, clarify, or January 22, 2008, Commerce published subchapter U, part 1054 of the Code of correct.39 Time limits for the Federal Regulations standards for small non- Antidumping and Countervailing Duty road spark-ignition engines and equipment. submission of factual information are Proceedings: Documents Submission addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which However, lawn mowers that meet the Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR physical descriptions above but that do not provides specific time limits based on 3634 (January 22, 2008). Parties wishing have engines certified under 40 CFR part the type of factual information being to participate in this investigation 1054 or other parts of subchapter U remain submitted. Interested parties should should ensure that they meet the subject to the scope of this proceeding. review the regulations prior to requirements of these procedures (e.g., For purposes of this investigation, an submitting factual information in this the filing of letters of appearance as unfinished and/or unassembled lawn mower investigation. means at a minimum, a sub-assembly discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)). Note comprised of an engine and a cutting deck that Commerce has temporarily Extensions of Time Limits shell attached to one another. A cutting deck modified certain of its requirements for shell is the portion of the lawn mower— Parties may request an extension of serving documents containing business typically of aluminum or steel—that houses time limits before the expiration of a proprietary information, until July 17, and protects a user from a rotating blade. time limit established under 19 CFR 2020, unless extended.43 Importation of the subassembly whether or This notice is issued and published not accompanied by, or attached to, 351.301, or as otherwise specified by additional components such as a handle, Commerce. In general, an extension pursuant to sections 702 and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c). blade(s), grass catching bag, or wheel(s) request will be considered untimely if it constitute an unfinished lawn mower for is filed after the expiration of the time Dated: June 15, 2020. purposes of this investigation. The inclusion limit established under 19 CFR Jeffrey I. Kessler, in a third country of any components other 351.301.40 For submissions that are due Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and than the mower sub-assembly does not Compliance. remove the lawn mower from the scope. A from multiple parties simultaneously, lawn mower is within the scope of this an extension request will be considered Appendix—Scope of the Investigation investigation regardless of the origin of its untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET engine. on the due date. Under certain The merchandise covered by this The lawn mowers subject to this investigation consists of certain rotary walk- circumstances, Commerce may elect to investigation are typically at subheading: behind lawn mowers, which are grass-cutting 8433.11.0050. Lawn mowers subject to this specify a different time limit by which machines that are powered by internal extension requests will be considered investigation may also enter under combustion engines. The scope of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United untimely for submissions which are due investigation cover certain walk-behind lawn States (HTSUS) 8407.90.1010 and from multiple parties simultaneously. In mowers, whether self-propelled or non-self- 8433.90.1090. The HTSUS subheadings are such a case, Commerce will inform propelled, whether finished or unfinished, provided for convenience and customs parties in a letter or memorandum of the whether assembled or unassembled, and purposes only, and the written description of whether containing any additional features deadline (including a specified time) by the merchandise under investigation is that provide for functions in addition to dispositive. which extension requests must be filed mowing. to be considered timely. An extension Walk-behind lawn mowers within the [FR Doc. 2020–13384 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] request must be made in a separate, scope of this investigation are only those BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P stand-alone submission; under limited powered by an internal combustion engine circumstances we will grant untimely- with a power rating of less than 3.7 kilowatts. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE filed requests for the extension of time 41 See section 782(b) of the Act. limits. Parties should review Extension 42 See Certification of Factual Information to International Trade Administration of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 Import Administration During Antidumping and (September 20, 2013), available at Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July [A–570–896] http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013- 17, 2013) (Final Rule); see also frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule, available at Magnesium Metal From the People’s 09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_ Republic of China: Final Results of _ _ _ _ submitting extension requests or factual info final rule FAQ 07172013.pdf. Antidumping Duty Administrative information in this investigation. 43 See Temporary Rule Modifying AD/CVD Service Requirements Due to COVID–19, 85 FR Review; 2018–2019 17006 (March 26, 2020); and Temporary Rule 38 AGENCY: See 19 CFR 351.301(b). Modifying AD/CVD Service Requirements Due to Enforcement and Compliance, 39 See 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2). COVID–19; Extension of Effective Period, 85 FR International Trade Administration, 40 See 19 CFR 351.302. 29615 (May 18, 2020). Department of Commerce.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 37430 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce The subject merchandise includes the The merchandise subject to this order (Commerce) continues to find that following alloy magnesium metal is classifiable under items 8104.19.00, Tianjin Magnesium International, Co., products made from primary and/or and 8104.30.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Ltd. (TMI) and Tianjin Magnesium secondary magnesium including, Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Metal, Co., Ltd. (TMM) had no without limitation, magnesium cast into Although the HTSUS items are provided shipments of subject merchandise ingots, slabs, rounds, billets, and other for convenience and customs purposes, covered by the antidumping duty order shapes; magnesium ground, chipped, the written description of the on magnesium metal from the People’s crushed, or machined into rasping, merchandise is dispositive. Republic of China (China) for the period granules, turnings, chips, powder, Final Determination of No Shipments of review (POR) April 1, 2018 through briquettes, and other shapes; and March 31, 2019. products that contain 50 percent or In the Preliminary Results, Commerce DATES: Applicable June 22, 2020. greater, but less than 99.8 percent, determined that TMI and TMM had no magnesium, by weight, and that have shipments of subject merchandise to the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kyle been entered into the United States as United States during the POR.6 As we Clahane, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, conforming to an ‘‘ASTM Specification have not received any comments on our Enforcement and Compliance, for Magnesium Alloy’’ 3 and are thus preliminary finding, we continue to find International Trade Administration, outside the scope of the existing that TMI and TMM did not have any U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 antidumping orders on magnesium from shipments of subject merchandise Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, China (generally referred to as ‘‘alloy’’ during the POR and intend to issue DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–5449. magnesium). appropriate instructions that are SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The scope of this order excludes: (1) consistent with our ‘‘automatic All forms of pure magnesium, including Background assessment’’ clarification, for these final chemical combinations of magnesium results.7 On January 8, 2020, Commerce and other material(s) in which the pure published the Preliminary Results of the magnesium content is 50 percent or Assessment Rates administrative review of the greater, but less than 99.8 percent, by Commerce determined, and U.S. antidumping duty order on magnesium weight, that do not conform to an Customs and Border Protection (CBP) metal from China for the POR.1 We ‘‘ASTM Specification for Magnesium shall assess, antidumping duties on all invited parties to submit comments on Alloy’’; 4 (2) magnesium that is in liquid appropriate entries of subject the Preliminary Results. No party or molten form; and (3) mixtures merchandise in accordance with section submitted comments. Accordingly, the containing 90 percent or less 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR final results remain unchanged from the magnesium in granular or powder form 351.212(b). Commerce intends to issue Preliminary Results. by weight and one or more of certain assessment instructions to CBP 15 days Commerce conducted this review in non-magnesium granular materials to after the date of publication of the final accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of make magnesium-based reagent results of this review. the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the mixtures, including lime, calcium Additionally, consistent with Act). On April 24, 2020, Commerce metal, calcium silicon, calcium carbide, Commerce’s refinement to its tolled all deadlines in administrative calcium carbonate, carbon, slag assessment practice in nonmarket reviews by 50 days, thereby extending coagulants, fluorspar, nephaline syenite, economy cases, for TMI and TMM, the the deadline for these results until June feldspar, alumina (Al203), calcium exporters under review, which we 26, 2020.2 aluminate, soda ash, hydrocarbons, determined had no shipments of the graphite, coke, silicon, rare earth Scope of the Order subject merchandise during the POR, metals/mischmetal, cryolite, silica/fly any suspended entries of subject The product covered by this ash, magnesium oxide, periclase, merchandise from these companies (i.e., antidumping duty order is magnesium ferroalloys, dolomite lime, and made under TMI’s case number at TMI’s 5 metal from China, which includes colemanite. rate or made under TMM’s name) will primary and secondary alloy be liquidated at the China-wide rate. magnesium metal, regardless of 3 The meaning of this term is the same as that chemistry, raw material source, form, used by the American Society for Testing and Cash Deposit Requirements Materials in its Annual Book for ASTM Standards: shape, or size. Magnesium is a metal or Volume 01.02 Aluminum and Magnesium Alloys. The following cash deposit alloy containing by weight primarily the 4 The material is already covered by existing requirements will be effective upon element magnesium. Primary antidumping orders. See Notice of Antidumping publication of these final results of magnesium is produced by Duty Orders: Pure Magnesium from the People’s Republic of China, the Russian Federation and administrative review for shipments of decomposing raw materials into Ukraine; Notice of Amended Final Determination of subject merchandise from China magnesium metal. Secondary Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Antidumping Duty entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, magnesium is produced by recycling Investigation of Pure Magnesium from the Russian for consumption on or after the magnesium-based scrap into magnesium Federation, 60 FR 25691 (May 12, 1995); and Antidumping Duty Order: Pure Magnesium in publication date, as provided by section metal. The magnesium covered by this Granular Form from the People’s Republic of China, 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For order includes blends of primary and 66 FR 57936 (November 19, 2001). previously investigated or reviewed secondary magnesium. 5 This third exclusion for magnesium-based Chinese and non-Chinese exporters that reagent mixtures is based on the exclusion for reagent mixtures in the 2000–2001 investigations of 1 See Magnesium Metal from the People’s magnesium from China, Israel, and Russia. See FR 49347 (September 27, 2001). These mixtures are Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair not magnesium alloys, because they are not Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2018–19, Value: Pure Magnesium in Granular Form from the combined in liquid form and cast into the same 85 FR 879 (January 8, 2020) (Preliminary Results). People’s Republic of China, 66 FR 49345 ingot. 2 See Memorandum, ‘‘Tolling of Deadlines for (September 27, 2001); Final Determination of Sales 6 See Preliminary Results, 85 FR at 881. Antidumping and Countervailing Duty at Less Than Fair Value: Pure Magnesium from 7 See Non-Market Economy Antidumping Administrative Reviews in Response to Operational Israel, 66 FR 49349 (September 27, 2001); Final Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 Adjustments Due to COVID–19,’’ dated April 24, Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value: FR 65694 (October 24, 2011); see also ‘‘Assessment 2020. Pure Magnesium from the Russian Federation, 66 Rates’’ section infra.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices 37431

received a separate rate in a prior DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Countervailing Duty Orders segment of this proceeding, including On June 15, 2020, in accordance with TMI, the cash deposit rate will continue International Trade Administration sections 705(b)(1)(A)(i) and 705(d) of the to be the existing exporter-specific rate; [C–489–838, C–533–890] Act, the ITC notified Commerce of its (2) for all Chinese exporters of subject final determinations in these merchandise that have not been found Certain Quartz Surface Products From investigations, in which it found that an to be entitled to a separate rate, India and the Republic of Turkey: industry in the United States is including TMM, the cash deposit rate Countervailing Duty Orders materially injured by reason of imports will be the China-wide rate of 141.49 of quartz surface products from India percent; 8 and (3) for all non-Chinese AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, and Turkey, and that critical exporters of subject merchandise which International Trade Administration, circumstances do not exist with respect have not received their own rate, the Department of Commerce. to imports of subject merchandise from cash deposit rate will be the rate SUMMARY: Based on affirmative final India and Turkey that are subject to applicable to the Chinese exporter(s) determinations by the Department of Commerce’s affirmative critical that supplied that non-Chinese exporter. Commerce (Commerce) and the circumstances findings. Therefore, in These deposit requirements, when International Trade Commission (ITC), accordance with section 705(c)(2) of the imposed, shall remain in effect until Commerce is issuing countervailing Act, Commerce is issuing these further notice. duty orders on certain quartz surface countervailing duty orders. Because the products (quartz surface products) from ITC determined that imports of quartz Notification to Importers India and the Republic of Turkey surface products from India and Turkey This notice serves as a final reminder (Turkey). are materially injuring a U.S. industry, unliquidated entries of such to importers of their responsibility DATES: Applicable June 22, 2020. merchandise from India or Turkey, under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: entered or withdrawn from warehouse certificate regarding the reimbursement Kristen Johnson at (202–482–4793) for consumption, are subject to the of antidumping duties prior to (India) and Stephanie Berger at (202) assessment of countervailing duties. liquidation of the relevant entries 482–2483 (Turkey), AD/CVD Therefore, in accordance with section during this POR. Failure to comply with Operations, Office III, Enforcement and 706(a) of the Act, Commerce will direct Compliance, U.S. Department of this requirement could result in U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue Commerce’s presumption that (CBP) to assess, upon further instruction NW, Washington, DC 20230. reimbursement of antidumping duties by Commerce, countervailing duties for occurred and the subsequent assessment SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: all relevant entries of quartz surface of double antidumping duties. Background products from India and Turkey. Countervailing duties will be assessed Notification Regarding Administrative In accordance with section 705(d) of Protective Orders on unliquidated entries of quartz surface the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the products from India and Turkey Act), on May 1, 2020, Commerce This notice also serves as a reminder entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, published its affirmative final to all parties subject to administrative for consumption on or after October 11, determinations that countervailable protective order (APO) of their 2019, the date of publication of the subsidies are being provided to responsibility concerning the Preliminary Determinations,3 but will producers and exporters of quartz not include entries occurring after the disposition of proprietary information surface products from India and disclosed under APO in accordance 1 expiration of the provisional measures Turkey. On June 15, 2020, the ITC period and before publication of the with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written notified Commerce of its affirmative notification of the return/destruction of ITC’s final injury determination, as determinations that an industry in the further described below, for all APO materials or conversion to judicial United States is materially injured protective order is hereby requested. producers and exporters except Antique within the meaning of section Marbonite Private Limited (Antique Failure to comply with the regulations 705(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, by reason of Marbonite). For Antique Marbonite, and terms of an APO is a violation subsidized imports of subject 2 countervailing duties will be assessed which is subject to sanction. merchandise from India and Turkey. on unliquidated entries of quartz surface Notification to Interested Parties Scope of the Orders products from India entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for The scope of these orders covers This notice is issued and published in consumption on or after May 1, 2020, quartz surface products from India and accordance with sections 751(a) and the date on which Commerce published Turkey. For a complete description of 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR the Quartz Surface Products from India the scope, see the Appendix to this 351.213(d)(4). notice. Dated: June 15, 2020. 3 See Certain Quartz Surface Products from India: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Jeffrey I. Kessler, 1 See Certain Quartz Surface Products from India: Determination, Preliminary Affirmative Critical Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Circumstances Determination, In Part, and Determination and Final Affirmative Determination Compliance. Alignment of Final Determination With Final of Critical Circumstances, In Part, 85 FR 25398 Antidumping Duty Determination, 84 FR 54838 [FR Doc. 2020–13375 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] (May 1, 2020) (Quartz Surface Products from India (October 11, 2019); see also Certain Quartz Surface BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P Final Determination); see also Certain Quartz Products from the Republic of Turkey: Preliminary Surface Products from the Republic of Turkey: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Preliminary Affirmative Critical Circumstances Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Determination, and Alignment of Final 8 See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Circumstances, In Part, 85 FR 25400 (May 1, 2020). Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Magnesium Metal from the People’s Republic of 2 See ITC’s Letter, ‘‘Notification of ITC Final Determination, 84 FR 54841 (October 11, 2019) China, 70 FR 19928 (April 15, 2005). Determinations,’’ dated June 15, 2020. (collectively, Preliminary Determinations).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 37432 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices

Final Determination in the Federal period beginning on the date of the is not limited to, other surfaces such as Register.4 publication of the Preliminary countertops, backsplashes, vanity tops, bar Determinations ended on February 8, tops, work tops, tabletops, flooring, wall Suspension of Liquidation 2020. facing, shower surrounds, fire place In accordance with section 706 of the In accordance with section 703(d) of surrounds, mantels, and tiles. Certain quartz Act, Commerce will instruct CBP to the Act and our practice, we instructed surface products are covered by the orders reinstitute the suspension of liquidation CBP to terminate the suspension of whether polished or unpolished, cut or of quartz surface products from India liquidation and to liquidate, without uncut, fabricated or not fabricated, cured or and Turkey. We will also instruct CBP regard to countervailing duties, uncured, edged or not edged, finished or to require, pursuant to section 706(a)(1) unliquidated entries of quartz surface unfinished, thermoformed or not of the Act, countervailing duties for products from India and Turkey thermoformed, packaged or unpackaged, and each entry of the subject merchandise in entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, regardless of the type of surface finish. an amount based on the net for consumption after February 8, 2020, In addition, quartz surface products are countervailable subsidy rates for the the date the provisional measures covered by the orders whether or not they are subject merchandise. These instructions expired, until and through the day imported attached to, or in conjunction with, suspending liquidation will remain in preceding the date of publication of the non-subject merchandise such as sinks, sink effect until further notice. ITC’s final injury determination in the bowls, vanities, cabinets, and furniture. If Federal Register. Suspension of quartz surface products are imported Subsidy attached to, or in conjunction with, such Company rate liquidation will resume on the date of (percent) publication of the ITC’s final non-subject merchandise, only the quartz determination in the Federal Register, surface product is covered by the scope. India: Subject merchandise includes material Antique Marbonite Private Limited 5 .. 1.57 for all producers and exporters except Pokarna Engineered Stone Limited 6 2.34 Antique Marbonite for whom matching the above description that has been finished, packaged, or otherwise fabricated in All Others ...... 2.17 suspension of liquidation began on May Turkey: a third country, including by cutting, 1, 2020, the date on which Commerce Belenco Dis¸ Ticaret A.S¸ . and Peker polishing, curing, edging, thermoforming, Yu¨zey Tasar(mlar( Sanayi ve published the Quartz Surface Products attaching to, or packaging with another Ticaret A.S¸ 7 ...... 2.43 from India Final Determination in the All Others ...... 2.43 8 product, or any other finishing, packaging, or Federal Register. fabrication that would not otherwise remove Critical Circumstances Notifications to Interested Parties the merchandise from the scope of the orders if performed in the country of manufacture With regard to the ITC’s negative This notice constitutes the of the quartz surface products. critical circumstances determination on countervailing duty orders with respect The scope of the orders does not cover imports of quartz surface products from to quartz surface products from India quarried stone surface products, such as India and Turkey, we will instruct CBP and Turkey pursuant to section 706(a) of granite, marble, soapstone, or quartzite. to lift suspension and to refund any the Act. Interested parties can find a list Specifically excluded from the scope of the cash deposits made to secure the of countervailing duty orders currently orders are crushed glass surface products. in effect at http://enforcement.trade.gov/ payment of estimated countervailing Crushed glass surface products must meet duties with respect to entries of the stats/iastats1.html. each of the following criteria to qualify for These orders are issued and published subject merchandise entered, or this exclusion: (1) The crushed glass content in accordance with section 706(a) of the withdrawn from warehouse, for is greater than any other single material, by Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b). consumption on or after July 13, 2019 actual weight; (2) there are pieces of crushed (i.e., 90 days prior to the date of the Dated: June 16, 2020. glass visible across the surface of the product; publication of the Preliminary Jeffrey I. Kessler, (3) at least some of the individual pieces of Determinations), but before October 11, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and crushed glass that are visible across the 2019 (i.e., the date of publication of the Compliance. surface are larger than 1 centimeter wide as Preliminary Determinations). measured at their widest cross-section Appendix—Scope of the Orders Provisional Measures (‘‘Glass Pieces’’); and (4) the distance Quartz surface products consist of slabs between any single Glass Piece and the Section 703(d) of the Act states that and other surfaces created from a mixture of closest separate Glass Piece does not exceed instructions issued pursuant to an materials that includes predominately silica three inches. affirmative preliminary determination (e.g., quartz, quartz powder, cristobalite, glass The products subject to the scope are may not remain in effect for more than powder) as well as a resin binder (e.g., an unsaturated polyester). The incorporation of currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff four months. In the underlying Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under investigations, Commerce published the other materials, including, but not limited to, pigments, cement, or other additives does not the following subheading: 6810.99.0010. Preliminary Determinations on October remove the merchandise from the scope of Subject merchandise may also enter under 11, 2019. Therefore, the four-month the orders. However, the scope of the orders subheadings 6810.11.0010, 6810.11.0070, only includes products where the silica 6810.19.1200, 6810.19.1400, 6810.19.5000, 4 See Quartz Surface Products from India Final content is greater than any other single 6810.91.0000, 6810.99.0080, 6815.99.4070, Determination. material, by actual weight. Quartz surface 2506.10.0010, 2506.10.0050, 2506.20.0010, 5 The company’s legal name is Antique Marbonite products are typically sold as rectangular 2506.20.0080, and 7016.90.1050. The HTSUS Private Limited and trade name is Antique slabs with a total surface area of Marbonite Pvt. Ltd. Commerce found the following approximately 45 to 60 square feet and a subheadings set forth above are provided for companies to be cross owned with Antique nominal thickness of one, two, or three convenience and U.S. Customs purposes Marbonite Private Limited: Antique Granito centimeters. However, the scope of these only. The written description of the scope is Shareholders Trust, Prism Johnson Limited, and Shivam Enterprise. orders includes surface products of all other dispositive. 6 Commerce found Pokarna Engineered Stone sizes, thicknesses, and shapes. In addition to [FR Doc. 2020–13374 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] slabs, the scope of these orders includes, but Limited to be cross owned with Pokarna Limited. BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 7 Commerce found the following company to be cross owned with Belenco Dis¸ Ticaret A.S¸.: Peker 8 See Quartz Surface Products from India Final Yu¨ zey Tasar(mlar( Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S¸. Determination.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices 37433

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in ACL would be available for harvest by the required fields if you wish to remain other permissible fishing activities. National Oceanic and Atmospheric anonymous). After publication of this document in Administration FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: the Federal Register, NMFS may approve and issue permits to [RTID 0648–XW026] Lynn Massey, West Coast Region, NMFS, (562) 436–2462, lynn.massey@ participating vessels after the close of Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; noaa.gov. the public comment period. NMFS will consider comments submitted in General Provisions for Domestic SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This Fisheries; Application for Exempted action is authorized by the Coastal deciding whether to approve the Fishing Permits; West Coast Pelagic Pelagic Species (CPS) Fishery application as requested. NMFS may Conservation Group Management Plan (FMP) and approve the application in its entirety or regulations at 50 CFR 600.745, which may make any alterations needed to AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries achieve the goals of the EFP project. Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and allow NMFS Regional Administrators to Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), authorize exempted fishing permits Commerce. (EFPs) to test fishing activities that Dated: June 17, 2020. would otherwise be prohibited. He´le`ne M.N. Scalliet, ACTION: Notice; request for comments. On May 27, 2020, NMFS published a Acting Director, Office of Sustainable proposed rule (85 FR 31733) to SUMMARY: The Regional Administrator, Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. implement Pacific sardine harvest West Coast Region, NMFS, has made a [FR Doc. 2020–13378 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] specifications for the 2020–2021 fishing preliminary determination that an BILLING CODE 3510–22–P application for an Exempted Fishing year off the U.S. West Coast. This Permit warrants further consideration. proposed rule included a 4,288 metric The application, submitted by the West ton (mt) annual catch limit (ACL), a DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Coast Pelagic Conservation Group (a 4,000-mt annual catch target (ACT) and non-profit fishing industry group), a prohibition on directed fishing for National Oceanic and Atmospheric requests an exemption from the Pacific sardine off the coasts of Administration expected prohibition on primary Washington, Oregon, and California, directed fishing for Pacific sardine for except as part of the live bait or minor [RTID 0648–XA237] directed fisheries, or as part of EFP the 2020–2021 fishing year to collect Endangered Species; File Nos. 21111, Pacific sardine as part of an industry- fishing activities. On April 21, 2020, the West Coast 23683, and 23851 based scientific survey. NMFS requests Pelagic Conservation Group (WCPCG) public comment on the application. AGENCY submitted an EFP application to NMFS : National Marine Fisheries DATES: Comments must be received by requesting to directly harvest up to 5 mt Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and July 7, 2020. of Pacific sardine as part of their Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), ADDRESSES: You may submit comments ‘‘Collaborative ‘‘Proof of Concept Commerce. on this document, identified by NOAA– Project’’ for Nearshore Surveillance ACTION: Notice; receipt of applications NMFS–2020–0069, by the following Acoustic Trawl Methodology Survey of for permits and a permit modification. method: North West Coastal Waters’’ survey SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Electronic Submissions: Submit all during the 2020–2021 fishing year. At three applicants have applied in due public comments via the Federal the April 2020 Pacific Fishery form for a permit or permit modification e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to Management Council (Council) meeting, to take green (Chelonia mydas), www.regulations.gov/ although formal Council review and hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata), #!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2020- approval of EFPs was removed from the Kemp’s ridley (Lepidochelys kempii), 0069, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, Council’s agenda, the Council expressed leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), complete the required fields, and enter support for this EFP proposal during loggerhead (Caretta caretta), and olive or attach your comments. The Exempted their discussion of sardine management ridley (L. olivacea) sea turtles for Fishing Permit application will be measures. available under Supporting and Related Since 2017, the WCPCG has been purposes of scientific research. Materials through the same link. working with NMFS Southwest DATES: Written, telefaxed, or email Instructions: Comments must be Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) and comments must be received on or before submitted by the above method to the Washington Department of Fish and July 22, 2020. ensure that the comments are received, Wildlife to survey CPS in nearshore ADDRESSES: Each application and documented, and considered by NMFS. Oregon/Washington coastal waters. The related documents are available for Comments sent by any other method or purpose of the EFP is to collect review by selecting ‘‘Records Open for received after the end of the comment biological samples in areas inshore of Public Comment’’ from the Features box period, may not be considered. All the 2020 NMFS SWFSC acoustic trawl on the Applications and Permits for comments received are a part of the survey to better assess species Protected Species (APPS) home page, public record and will generally be composition and CPS distribution and https://apps.nmfs.noaa.gov, and then posted for public viewing on abundance. The collections under the selecting the applicable File No. from www.regulations.gov without change. EFP would take place in nearshore the list of available applications. These All personal identifying information waters of Oregon and Washington over documents are also available upon (e.g., name, address, etc.) submitted a 14-day period between approximately written request or by appointment in the voluntarily by the sender will be mid-June through August, 2020. Any Permits and Conservation Division, publicly accessible. Do not submit harvest under this EFP would count Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, confidential business information, or against the 2020–2021 ACL and ACT for 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, otherwise sensitive or protected Pacific sardine. If NMFS does not issue Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone: (301) information. NMFS will accept this EFP, then this 5-mt portion of the 427–8401; fax: (301) 713–0376.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 37434 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices

Written comments on this application Up to 45 green and 10 hawksbill sea Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), should be submitted to the Chief, turtles would be captured by hand or Commerce. Permits and Conservation Division, at tangle net, tagged (flipper, passive ACTION: Notice; request for comments. the address listed above. Comments may integrated transponder [PIT]), also be submitted by facsimile to (301) biologically sampled (skin), measured, SUMMARY: The Regional Administrator, 713–0376, or by email to weighed, and photographed/videoed, West Coast Region, NMFS, has made a [email protected]. Please annually, prior to release. A subset of preliminary determination that an include the File No. in the subject line turtles may receive a satellite tag (epoxy application for an Exempted Fishing of the email comment. attachment). The permit would be valid Permit warrants further consideration. Those individuals requesting a public for 10 years from the date of issuance. The application, submitted by the hearing should submit a written request File No. 23851: Michael Arendt, California Wetfish Producers to the Chief, Permits and Conservation South Carolina Department of Natural Association, requests an exemption Division at the address listed above. The Resources, Marine Resources, 217 Fort from the expected prohibition on request should set forth the specific Johnson Road, Charleston, South primary directed fishing for Pacific reasons why a hearing on the Carolina, proposed to assess the sardine for the 2020–2021 fishing year application would be appropriate. abundance, distribution, demographic to collect Pacific sardine as part of an industry-based scientific survey. NMFS FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: structure, genetics, and health of green, requests public comment on the Amy Hapeman or Erin Markin, (301) Kemp’s ridley, leatherback, loggerhead, application. 427–8401. and olive ridley sea turtles in waters off SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The the coasts of South Carolina, Georgia, DATES: Comments must be received by subject permits and permit modification and northern Florida. Up to 3 green, 30 July 7, 2020. are requested under the authority of the Kemp’s ridley, 1 leatherback, 130 ADDRESSES: You may submit comments Endangered Species Act of 1973, as loggerhead, and 2 olive ridley sea turtles on this document, identified by NOAA– amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and would be captured by trawl, tagged NMFS–2020–0067, by the following the regulations governing the taking, (flipper, PIT), biologically sampled method: importing, and exporting of endangered (blood, lesion, scute), measured, Electronic Submissions: Submit all and threatened species (50 CFR parts weighed, and photographed/videoed, public comments via the Federal 222–226). annually, prior to release. A subset of e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to File No. 21111–02: NMFS, Southwest turtles may receive a satellite or acoustic www.regulations.gov/ Fisheries Science Center, 8901 La Jolla tag (epoxy attachment). Up to 12 green, #!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2020- Shores Drive, La Jolla, California 92037, 1 Kemp’s ridley, and 1 loggerhead sea 0067, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, (Responsible Party: Robin LeRoux), turtles may be captured under another complete the required fields, and enter proposes to modify Permit No. 21111– authority, tagged (flipper, PIT), or attach your comments. The EFP 01. The permit, originally issued on biologically sampled (blood, lesion, application will be available under February 15, 2018 (83 FR 13731, March scute), measured, weighed, Supporting and Related Materials 30, 2018), authorizes researchers to photographed/videoed, and receive a through the same link. Instructions: Comments must be conduct long-term monitoring of satellite or acoustic tag (epoxy submitted by the above method to leatherback sea turtles off the coasts of attachment), annually, prior to release. ensure that the comments are received, California, Oregon, and Washington. Unintentional mortality of one green, documented, and considered by NMFS. Researchers may conduct vessel-based one Kemp’s ridley, one leatherback, and Comments sent by any other method or research on leatherbacks including two loggerhead sea turtles could happen received after the end of the comment captures, observation, transmitter over the life of the permit. The permit period, may not be considered. All attachment, marking, measurements, would be valid for up to 10 years from comments received are a part of the imaging, and biological sampling. The the date of issuance. public record and will generally be permit holder requests authorization to Dated: June 16, 2020. posted for public viewing on (1) use a manned ’spotter’ aircraft and Julia Marie Harrison, www.regulations.gov without change. unmanned aircraft system (UAS) to Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, All personal identifying information assist leatherback capture efforts, (2) Office of Protected Resources, National (e.g., name, address, etc.) submitted increase the number of animals Marine Fisheries Service. voluntarily by the sender will be captured from 15 to 20 animals annually [FR Doc. 2020–13358 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] publicly accessible. Do not submit in line 1 of the take table, (3) attach an BILLING CODE 3510–22–P confidential business information, or acoustic tag to animals to evaluate fine- otherwise sensitive or protected scale leatherback movements and information. NMFS will accept habitat use, (4) analyze the microbiome DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in of collected cloacal and fecal samples to the required fields if you wish to remain evaluate leatherback health and body National Oceanic and Atmospheric anonymous). condition, and (5) add personnel to Administration conduct the request aerial methods. The FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: permit is valid through September 30, [RTID 0648–XW025] Lynn Massey, West Coast Region, 2027. NMFS, (562) 436–2462, lynn.massey@ Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; noaa.gov. File No. 23683: Guam Division of General Provisions for Domestic Aquatic and Wildlife Resources, 163 Fisheries; Coastal Pelagic Species SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This Dairy Road, Mangilao, Guam 96913, Fishery; Application for Exempted action is authorized by the Coastal (Responsible Party: Jay Gutierrez), Fishing Permits; California Wetfish Pelagic Species (CPS) Fishery proposes to obtain information on green Producers Association Management Plan (FMP) and and hawksbill sea turtle movement, regulations at 50 CFR 600.745, which distribution, abundance, genetics, and AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries allow NMFS Regional Administrators to health status in waters around Guam. Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and authorize exempted fishing permits

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices 37435

(EFPs) to test fishing activities that for harvest by other permissible fishing States Patent and Trademark Office, would otherwise be prohibited. activities. P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313– On May 27, 2020, NMFS published a After publication of this document in 1450. proposed rule (85 FR 31733) to the Federal Register, NMFS may FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: implement Pacific sardine harvest approve and issue permits to Requests for additional information specifications for the 2020–2021 fishing participating vessels after the close of should be directed to J. David Binsted, year off the U.S. West Coast, which the public comment period. NMFS will Program Manager, Global Intellectual begins on July 1. This proposed rule consider comments submitted in Property Academy, United States Patent included a 4,288 metric ton (mt) annual deciding whether to approve the and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, catch limit (ACL), a 4,000-mt annual application as requested. NMFS may Alexandria, VA 22313–1450; by catch target (ACT), and a prohibition on approve the application in its entirety or telephone at 571–272–1500; or by email directed fishing for Pacific sardine off may make any alterations needed to at [email protected]. Additional the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and achieve the goals of the EFP project. information about this information California, except as part of the live bait Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. collection is also available at htttp:// or minor directed fisheries, or as part of Dated: June 17, 2020. www.reginfo.gov under ‘‘Information EFP fishing activities. Collection Review.’’ On April 6, 2020, the California He´le`ne M.N. Scalliet, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Wetfish Producers Association (CWPA) Acting Director, Office of Sustainable submitted an EFP application to NMFS Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. I. Abstract requesting to directly harvest up to 400 [FR Doc. 2020–13369 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] The United States Patent and mt of Pacific sardine as part of their CPS BILLING CODE 3510–22–P Nearshore Cooperative Survey (CPS– Trademark Office (USPTO) surveys NCS) during the 2020–2021 fishing year. international and domestic participants of the USPTO’s Global Intellectual At the April 2020 Pacific Fishery DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Management Council (Council) meeting, Property Academy (GIPA) training although formal Council review and Patent and Trademark Office programs to obtain feedback from the approval of EFPs was removed from the participants on the effectiveness of the Council’s agenda, the Council expressed Agency Information Collection various services provided to them in the support for this EFP proposal during Activities; Submission to the Office of training programs. GIPA was established their discussion of sardine management Management and Budget (OMB) for in 2006 to offer training programs on the measures. Review and Approval; Comment enforcement of intellectual property Since 2012 the California Department Request; Global Intellectual Property rights, patents, trademarks, and of Fish and Wildlife, in partnership Academy (GIPA) Surveys copyright. The training programs offered with the CWPA, has been conducting by GIPA are designed to meet the AGENCY: United States Patent and aerial surveys to estimate the biomass specific needs of foreign government Trademark Office, Department of and distribution of sardine and certain officials (including judges; prosecutors; Commerce. other CPS in nearshore waters in the police; customs officials; patent, Southern California Bight, and in the ACTION: Notice of information collection, trademark, and copyright officials; and Monterey-San Francisco area since the request for comment. policymakers) concerning various summer of 2017. Currently, there is intellectual property topics, such as SUMMARY: The United States Patent and uncertainty in the biomass estimates global intellectual property rights Trademark Office (USPTO), in protection, enforcement, and strategies from aerial spotter pilots. The CPS–NCS accordance with the Paperwork survey associated with the proposed to handle the protection and Reduction Act of 1995, invites EFP is part of research to quantify that enforcement issues in their respective comments on the extension and revision level of uncertainty by capturing CPS countries. of an existing information collection: schools identified by aerial spotter This information collection contains 0651–0065 (Global Intellectual Property pilots and validating the biomass and three surveys directed to separate Academy (GIPA) Surveys). The purpose species composition of the schools. A audiences: Overseas-program of this notice is to allow 60 days for portion of each point set (i.e., an participants, post-program participants, public comment preceding submission individual haul of fish captured with a and alumni. The Overseas-Program of the information collection to OMB. purse seine net) will be retained for survey is designed for international biological sampling, and the remainder DATES: To ensure consideration, participants at the conclusion of the will be sold by the participating comments regarding this information GIPA training program conducted fishermen and processors to offset collection must be received on or before overseas. This survey replaces the research costs and avoid unnecessary August 21, 2020. existing Pre-Program survey and is a discard. This research contributes to ADDRESSES: Interested persons are shortened version of the Post-Program broader efforts to understand CPS invited to submit written comments by survey. The Post-Program survey is used biomass in shallow, nearshore areas that any of the following methods. Do not to analyze the overall effectiveness of NMFS’ CPS offshore acoustic trawl submit Confidential Business the program and is conducted at the survey is unable to access. Information or otherwise sensitive or conclusion of training programs held at If NMFS issues this EFP, the CPS– protected information. US locations. The Alumni Survey is NCS will survey nearshore waters of the • Email: InformationCollection@ used to determine the benefit of the Southern California Bight for 7–10 days uspto.gov. Include ‘‘0651–0065 GIPA training program for the future job between July 1, 2020 and June 30, 2021. comment’’ in the subject line of the performance of the participant. The data Any harvest under this EFP would message. obtained from these 3 participation count against the 2020–2021 ACL and • Federal Rulemaking Portal: http:// surveys will be used to evaluate the ACT for Pacific sardine. If NMFS does www.regulations.gov. percentage of foreign officials trained by not issue this EFP, then this 400 mt- • Mail: Kimberly Hardy, Office of the GIPA who have increased their portion of the ACL would be available Chief Administrative Officer, United expertise in intellectual property,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 37436 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices

enhanced their professional abilities II. Method of Collection Estimated Number of Respondents: and future job performance, and 750 respondents per year. Items in this information collection developed their own nation’s may be submitted via online electronic Estimated Time per Response: The intellectual property program. All the USPTO estimates that it takes the public surveys have updated questions and submissions, and occasional in-person surveys. approximately 15 minutes (0.25 hours) answer options. to complete the surveys in this The GIPA surveys are voluntary III. Data information collection. This includes surveys and will be kept private, to the the time to gather the necessary extent provided by law. The USPTO OMB Control Number: 0651–0065. Form Number(s): None. information, respond to the survey, and does not intend to collect any submit it to the USPTO. personally identifying data from the Type of Review: Revision of a participants and intends to maintain the currently approved information Estimated Total Annual Respondent contact information for the participants collection. Burden Hours: 188 hours. in a separate file for the quantitative Affected Public: Federal Government Estimated Total Annual Respondent data. (Foreign Government). Cost Burden: $15,512.

TABLE 1—TOTAL HOURLY BURDEN FOR FOREIGN GOVERNMENT RESPONDENTS

Estimated Estimated time Estimated Rate 1 Estimated Item No. Item annual for response annual burden ($/hr) annual burden responses (hours) hours

(b) (a) (a) × (b) = (c) (d) (c) × (d) = (e)

1 ...... Overseas-Program Survey ...... 225 0.25 56 $82.51 $4,621 2 ...... Post-Program Survey ...... 150 0.25 38 82.51 3,135 3 ...... Alumni Survey ...... 375 0.25 94 82.51 7,756

Totals ...... 750 ...... 188 ...... 15,512 1 Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupation Employment Statistics wage 23–1021. https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes231021.htm. The hourly rate is $63.47 which results in a fully burdened rate of $82.51 (salary plus 30% for estimated overhead and benefits).

Estimated Total Annual Non-Hour to OMB to approve this information manner possible. The Commission is Respondent Cost Burden: $0 per year. collection. Before including your required to develop an annual work There are no maintenance, operation, address, phone number, email address, plan for future spending which will be capital start-up, postage, or or other personal identifying published in the Federal Register, recordkeeping costs associated with this information in a comment, you should providing an opportunity for a 30-day information collection. be aware that the entire comment— period of public review and written Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary. including personal identifying comment. This Federal Register notice IV. Request for Comments information—may be made publicly serves to announce the 30-day available at any time. While you may opportunity for public comment on the The USPTO is soliciting public ask us in your comment to withhold Denali Commission Draft Work Plan for comments to: your personal identifying information Federal Fiscal Year 2021 (FY 2021). (a) Evaluate whether the proposed from public view, USPTO cannot DATES: Comments and related material collection of information is necessary guarantee that it will be able to do so. to be received by July 31, 2020. for the proper performance of the ADDRESSES: functions of the agency, including Kimberly Hardy, Submit comments to the Denali Commission, Attention: Elinda whether the information will have Information Collections Officer, Office of the practical utility; Chief Administrative Officer, United States Hetami, 510 L Street, Suite 410, (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the Patent and Trademark Office. Anchorage, AK 99501. agency’s estimate of the burden of the [FR Doc. 2020–13292 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: proposed collection of information, BILLING CODE 3510–16–P Elinda Hetami, Denali Commission, 510 including the validity of the L Street, Suite 410, Anchorage, AK methodology and assumptions used; 99501. Telephone: (907) 271–3415. (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and Email: [email protected] DENALI COMMISSION clarity of the information to be SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: collected; and Denali Commission Fiscal Year 2021 Background: The Denali Commission’s (d) Minimize the burden of the Draft Work Plan mission is to partner with tribal, collection of information on those who Federal, state, and local governments are to respond, including through the AGENCY: Denali Commission. and collaborate with all Alaskans to use of appropriate automated, ACTION: Notice. improve the effectiveness and efficiency electronic, mechanical, or other of government services, to build and technological collection techniques or SUMMARY: The Denali Commission ensure the operation and maintenance other forms of information technology, (Commission) is an independent Federal of Alaska’s basic infrastructure, and to e.g., permitting electronic submission of agency based on an innovative Federal- develop a well-trained labor force responses. state partnership designed to provide employed in a diversified and All comments submitted in response critical utilities, infrastructure and sustainable economy. to this notice are a matter of public support for economic development and By creating the Commission, Congress record. USPTO will include or training in Alaska by delivering Federal mandated that all parties involved summarize each comment in the request services in the most cost-effective partner together to find new and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices 37437

innovative solutions to the unique • At the conclusion of the Federal other de-obligations that occur in any infrastructure and economic Register Public comment period given year. Approximately $117,000 of development challenges in America’s Commission staff provides the Federal the TAPL funds will be utilized for most remote communities. Pursuant to Co-Chair with a summary of public administrative expenses and non-project the Denali Commission Act, the comments and recommendations, if any, program support, leaving $2,800,000 Commission determines its own basic on the draft work plan. available for program activities. Absent operating principles and funding • If no revisions are made to the draft, any new specific direction or limitations criteria on an annual Federal fiscal year the Federal Co-Chair provides notice of provided by Congress in the current (October 1 to September 30) basis. The approval of the work plan to the Energy & Water Appropriations Bill, Commission outlines these priorities Commissioners, and forwards the work these funding sources are governed by and funding recommendations in an plan to the Secretary of Commerce for the following general principles, either annual work plan. The FY 2021 Work approval; or, if there are revisions the by statute or by language in the Work Plan was developed in the following Federal Co-Chair provides notice of Plan itself: manner. modifications to the Commissioners for • Funds from the Energy & Water • A workgroup comprised of Denali their consideration and approval, and Appropriation are eligible for use in all Commissioners and Commission staff upon receipt of approval from programs. developed a preliminary draft work Commissioners, forwards the work plan • TAPL funds can only be used for plan. to the Secretary of Commerce for bulk fuel related projects and activities. • The preliminary draft work plan approval. • Appropriated funds may be reduced was published on Denali.gov for review • The Secretary of Commerce due to Congressional action, rescissions by the public in advance of public approves the work plan. by OMB, and other Federal agency testimony. • • A public hearing was held to record The Federal Co-Chair then approves actions. • public comments and recommendations grants and contracts based upon the All Energy & Water and TAPL on the preliminary draft work plan. approved work plan. investment amounts identified in the • Written comments on the FY 2021 Appropriations Summary work plan, are ‘‘up to’’ amounts, and preliminary draft work plan were may be reassigned to other programs accepted for another ten days after the The Commission has historically included in the current year work plan, public hearing. received Federal funding from several if they are not fully expended in a • All public hearing comments and sources. The two primary sources at this program component area or a specific written comments were provided to time include the Energy & Water project. Commissioners for their review and Appropriation Bill (‘‘base’’ or • Energy & Water and TAPL funds set consideration. ‘‘discretionary’’ funds) and an annual aside for administrative expenses that • Commissioners discussed the allocation from the Trans-Alaska subsequently become available, may be preliminary draft work plan in a public Pipeline Liability (TAPL) fund. The used for program activities included in meeting and then voted on the work proposed FY 2021 Work Plan assumes the current year work plan. plan during the meeting. the Commission will receive • The Commissioners forwarded their $15,000,000 of base funds, which is the DENALI COMMISSION FY 2021 recommended work plan to the Federal amount referenced in the FUNDING SUMMARY Co-Chair, who then prepared the draft reauthorization of the Commission work plan for publication in the Federal passed by Congress in 2016 (ref: Pub. L. Energy & Water Funds: Register providing a 30-day period for 114–322), and a $2,917,000 TAPL FY 2021 Energy & Water Appro- public review and written comment. allocation based on discussions with the priation 1 ...... $11,000,000 During this time, the draft work plan Office of Management and Budget Subtotal ...... 11,000,000 will also be disseminated to (OMB). Approximately $4,000,000 of Commission program partners the base funds will be used for TAPL Funds: including, but not limited to, the Bureau administrative expenses and non-project FY 2021 Annual Allocation ...... 2,800,000 of Indian Affairs (BIA), the Economic program support, leaving $11,000,000 Grand Total ...... 13,800,000 Development Administration (EDA), available for program activities. The Notes: Department of Agriculture—Rural total base funding shown in the Work 1 If the final appropriation is less than $15 Utilities Service (USDA/RUS), and the Plan also includes an amount typically million the Federal Co-Chair shall reduce in- State of Alaska. available from project closeouts and vestments to balance the FY 2021 Work Plan.

Base TAPL Total

Energy Reliability and Security: Diesel Power Plants and Interties ...... $2,900,000 ...... $2,900,000 Wind, Hydro, Biomass, Other Proven Renewables and Emerging Technologies ...... 750,000 ...... 750,000 Audits, TA, & Community Energy Efficiency Improvements ...... 375,000 ...... 375,000 RPSU Maintenance and Improvement Projects ...... 900,000 ...... 900,000

Subtotal ...... 4,925,000 ...... 4,925,000 Bulk Fuel Safety and Security: New/Refurbished Facilities ...... 1,500,000 1,500,000 Maintenance and Improvement Projects ...... 700,000 700,000

Subtotal ...... 0 2,200,000 2,200,000 Village Infrastructure Protection ...... 500,000 ...... 500,000 Transportation ...... 1,000,000 ...... 1,000,000 Sanitation:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 37438 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices

Base TAPL Total

Village Water, Wastewater and Solid Waste ...... 1,500,000 ...... 1,500,000

Subtotal ...... 1,500,000 ...... 1,500,000 Health Facilities ...... 750,000 ...... 750,000 Housing ...... 500,000 ...... 500,000 Broadband ...... 750,000 ...... 750,000 Workforce Development: Energy and Bulk Fuel ...... 375,000 600,000 975,000 Other ...... 700,000 ...... 700,000

Subtotal ...... 1,075,000 600,000 1,675,000

Totals ...... 11,000,000 2,800,000 13,800,000

Dated: June 3, 2020. If you use a telecommunications (i.e., funded as of the application closing John Torgerson, device for the deaf (TDD) or a text date for the competition outlined in this Interim Federal Co-Chair. telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay notice), and an employer in an in- [FR Doc. 2020–13393 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877– demand industry sector or occupation. BILLING CODE 3300–01–P 8339. Although not required, the SEA may want the partnership to include an SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: institution of higher education (IHE) Full Text of Announcement when developing a student progression DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION I. Funding Opportunity Description along a career pathway continuum, in Applications for New Awards; Out-of- addition to an employer in an in- Purpose of Program: Consistent with School Time Career Pathway Program demand industry sector or occupation the purposes of the 21st CCLC program, and a 21st CCLC program subgrantee. AGENCY: Office of Elementary and the Out-of-School Time Career Pathway The goal of this partnership must be to Secondary Education, Department of program will make grants to SEAs that, serve students by expanding existing, or Education. in partnership with eligible entities (as building new, career pathway programs. ACTION: Notice. defined in section 4201(b)(3) of the In addition, the partnership must Elementary and Secondary Education disseminate information about its grant SUMMARY: The Department of Education Act of 1965, as amended by the Every activities to a national audience that is issuing a notice inviting applications Student Succeeds Act (ESEA)) in the includes, but is not limited to, 21st from State educational agencies (SEAs) State, will provide students expanded CCLC program coordinators. as the lead applicant and fiscal agent of options to participate in a career Background: In June 2017, President a partnership for an Out-of-School Time pathway (as defined in this notice) Trump issued Executive Order 13801, Career Pathway program under the program, outside regular school hours or ‘‘Expanding Apprenticeships in national activities authority in the Nita as part of an expanded learning America,’’ calling for both a new M. Lowey 21st Century Community program,1 that leads to a recognized emphasis on Federal support for Learning Centers (21st CCLC) program, postsecondary credential, such as an apprenticeships and broader efforts to Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance industry-recognized certification or a improve workforce preparation that will (CFDA) number 84.287D. certification of completion of an help students obtain the skills necessary DATES: apprenticeship in an in-demand to secure high-paying jobs in today’s Applications Available: June 22, 2020. industry sector or occupation. Such workforce. The President’s National Deadline for Notice of Intent to Apply: program should be aligned with an Council for the American Worker was July 22, 2020. existing program of study (as defined in also established to raise awareness of Deadline for Transmittal of this notice) for students so that in- the skills gap in science, technology, Applications: September 21, 2020. school and out-of-school time activities engineering, and mathematics (STEM), Deadline for Intergovernmental complement each other and maximize including computer science; help Review: November 19, 2020. student preparedness for postsecondary expand apprenticeships; and encourage education or a career. An SEA must investment in worker education. The ADDRESSES: For the addresses for propose to use grant funds to support an 21st CCLC program supports efforts to obtaining and submitting an existing partnership or a partnership establish or expand opportunities for application, please refer to our Common that has been formed during the academic enrichment and other Instructions for Applicants to application period and will continue to activities, including career and Department of Education Discretionary exist if awarded this grant funding. The technical education programs and Grant Programs, published in the partnership must consist of the SEA as internship or apprenticeship programs Federal Register on February 13, 2019 the lead applicant and fiscal agent, a linked to in-demand industry sectors or (84 FR 3768), and available at currently funded 21st CCLC subgrantee occupations for high school students www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019- that are designed to reinforce and 02-13/pdf/2019-02206.pdf. 1 An Out-of-School Time Career Pathway program complement the regular academic FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin may operate during the regular school day as part program of participating students. Shackel, U.S. Department of Education, of an expanded learning program if the State Subgrantees under the 21st CCLC 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room determines that the statutory requirements in ESEA program provide services to students section 4204(a)(2) for 21st CCLC expanded learning 3W111, LBJ, Washington, DC 20202. program activities are met, including the primarily during non-school hours and Telephone: (202) 453–6423. Email: requirement that such activities supplement but do are ideally positioned to support [email protected]. not supplant regular school day requirements. expanded access to career pathway

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices 37439

opportunities for high school students achieve this vision, the plan provides such as an industry-recognized and, if appropriate, students in middle for the following three goals: certification or a certificate of school. The Out-of-School Time Career • Build strong foundations for STEM completion of an apprenticeship, in an Pathway program will fund literacy. in-demand industry sector or demonstration partnership grants to • Increase diversity, equity, and occupation; and SEAs to expand options for students to inclusion in STEM. c. Assure that it will give priority participate in a career pathway program • Prepare the STEM workforce for the (e.g., award bonus points) to eligible outside regular school hours or as part future. entities that propose to build or expand of an expanded learning program that This competition also includes a career pathway programs, including leads to recognized postsecondary competitive preference priority for programs that lead to recognized credential, such as an industry- serving students in rural local postsecondary credentials, in each of its recognized certification or a certificate educational agencies, since these areas competitions under which it awards of completion of an apprenticeship, in may be underserved in terms of access new subgrants of 21st CCLC funds an in-demand industry sector or to out-of-school time career pathways during the project period of the grant occupation. programs that lead to a recognized awarded under this competition. postsecondary credential, such as an Competitive Preference Priorities: For Given the impact that the coronavirus industry-recognized certification or a FY 2020 and any subsequent year in disease 2019 (COVID–19) has had, and certification of completion of an which we make awards from the list of continues to have, on the Nation, apprenticeship in an in-demand unfunded applications from this workforce preparation is increasingly industry sector or occupation. competition, these priorities are important. Students will benefit from Priorities: This notice contains one competitive preference priorities. Under this program by building skills and absolute priority and two competitive 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i) we award up to earning credentials that will support preference priorities. We are an additional five points for their transition into the workforce. establishing the absolute priority for the Competitive Preference Priority 1 to an Employers will have the opportunity to FY 2020 grant competition and any application, depending on how well the work with apprentices or interns. subsequent year in which we make application meets the competitive Partnerships like these will help rebuild awards from the list of unfunded preference priority, and an additional the economy as the Nation recovers applications from this competition, in ten points for applicants that meet from COVID–19. accordance with section 437(d)(1) of the Competitive Preference Priority 2. An This competition includes a General Education Provisions Act applicant must clearly indicate in the competitive preference priority aligned (GEPA) (20 U.S.C. 1232(d)(1)). In abstract section of its application which with the aims of the Federal accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(ii), competitive preference priority or Government’s five-year strategic plan for competitive preference priority 1 is from priorities it addresses, including any STEM education entitled, Charting A the Department’s notice of Final relevant evidence (e.g., the relevant Course for Success: America’s Strategy Supplemental Priorities and Definitions National Center for Education Statistics for STEM Education (plan),2 published for Discretionary Grant Programs (NCES) school district identification in December 2018. The plan is (Supplemental Priorities) published in number and corresponding locale code responsive to the requirements of the Federal Register on March 2, 2018 for Competitive Preference Priority 2). section 101 of the America COMPETES (83 FR 9096), and competitive These priorities are: Reauthorization Act of 2010 (42 U.S.C. preference priority 2 is from the Competitive Preference Priority 1: 6621) and strengthens the Federal Department’s Administrative Priorities Promoting Science, Technology, commitment to equity and diversity, for Discretionary Grant Programs Engineering, or Math (STEM) Education, evidence-based practices, and published in the Federal Register on With a Particular Focus on Computer engagement with the national STEM March 9, 2020 (85 FR 13640). Science (Up to 5 points) Absolute Priority: This priority is an community through a nationwide Projects designed to improve student absolute priority. Under 34 CFR collaboration with learners, families, achievement or other educational 75.105(c)(3) we consider only educators, community leaders, and outcomes in one or more of the applications that meet this priority. employers. Beyond guiding Federal following areas: Science, technology, This priority is: agency actions over the next five years, engineering, math, or computer science the plan is intended to serve as a ‘‘North Out-of-School Time Career Pathway (as defined in this notice). These Star’’ for the STEM community as it Program projects must address supporting charts a course for collective success. To receive a grant under this programs that lead to recognized The Federal Government encourages competition, an SEA must— postsecondary credentials (as defined in STEM education stakeholders from a. Provide evidence (e.g., a section 3(52) of the Workforce across the Nation to support the goals of memorandum of understanding (MOU) Innovation and Opportunity Act this plan through their own actions. The or other written agreement) of a (WIOA)) 3 that align with the needs of STEM strategic plan is based on a vision partnership—with the SEA serving as industries in the State or regional for a future where all Americans have the lead applicant and fiscal agent—that economy involved for careers in STEM lifelong access to high-quality STEM includes at least one employer in an in- fields, including computer science. education and the United States is the demand industry sector or occupation, Competitive Preference Priority 2: Rural global leader in STEM literacy, and one existing 21st CCLC subgrantee; Applicants (0 or 10 points) innovation, and employment. To b. Provide evidence that the partnership will build or expand 3 The term ‘‘recognized postsecondary credential’’ 2 The White House, National Science and options for students to participate in a is defined in section 3(52) of WIOA as a credential Technology Council, ‘‘Charting A Course For career pathway program outside regular consisting of an industry-recognized certificate or Success: America’s Strategy For STEM Education,’’ certification, a certificate of completion of an www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/ school hours or as part of an expanded apprenticeship, a license recognized by the State STEM-Education-Strategic-Plan-2018.pdf learning program that leads to a involved or Federal Government, or an associate or (December 2018). recognized postsecondary credential, baccalaureate degree. (29 U.S.C. 3102(52)).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 37440 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices

Under this priority, an applicant must apprenticeships, and internships, Career pathway means a combination demonstrate that it proposes to serve offered through this project. of rigorous and high-quality education, students in a community that is served (7) An assurance that the SEA and training, and other services that— by one or more LEAs with a locale code each of its partners will cooperate with (a) Aligns with the skill needs of of 32, 33, 41, 42, or 43. Note: Applicants any evaluation conducted or facilitated industries in the economy of the State are encouraged to retrieve locale codes by the Department or its designees, or regional economy involved; from the NCES School District search which may require minimal time and (b) Prepares an individual to be tool (https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/ effort at the grantee’s expense after the successful in any of a full range of districtsearch/), where LEAs can be end of the awarded grant’s project secondary or postsecondary education looked up individually to retrieve locale period. options, including apprenticeships codes. (8) An assurance that the funds will registered under the Act of August 16, Requirements: We are establishing be used to supplement, and not 1937; these requirements for the FY 2020 supplant, other Federal, State, and local (c) Includes counseling to support an grant competition and any subsequent individual in achieving the individual’s year in which we make awards from the public funds expended to provide programs and activities authorized education and career goals; list of unfunded applications from this (d) Includes, as appropriate, competition, in accordance with section under the 21st CCLC program. (9) An assurance that the project will education offered concurrently with and 437(d)(1) of GEPA (20 U.S.C. in the same context as workforce 1232(d)(1)). target students who primarily attend schools eligible for schoolwide preparation activities and training for a Application Requirements: Each specific occupation or occupational application for funds must include the programs under section 1114 of the ESEA, and the families of such students, cluster; following: (e) Organizes education, training, and (1) A description of how the to the extent feasible and appropriate. other services to meet the particular partnership will use grant funds to Program Requirements: Grantees needs of an individual in a manner that expand options for students to under this program must— accelerates the educational and career participate in a career pathway (as (1) Explain their career pathway (as advancement of the individual to the defined in this notice) program outside defined in this notice) program(s) and extent practicable; regular school hours or as part of an share results of participating students (f) Helps an individual enter or expanded learning program that leads to (e.g., the extent to which participating advance within a specific occupation or an to a recognized postsecondary students earned or are on the path to occupational cluster; credential, such as an industry- earning recognized postsecondary (g) May lead, as appropriate, to at recognized certification or a certificate credentials) at the Department’s annual least one industry-recognized of completion of an apprenticeship, in meeting of 21st CCLC State credential. an in-demand industry sector or coordinators; Computer science means the study of occupation. (2) Disseminate information about its (2) A written partnership agreement computers and algorithmic processes career pathway(s) (as defined in this (e.g., an MOU or other written and includes the study of computing notice) program(s) and results of the agreement) describing how the SEA, as principles and theories, computational participating students (e.g., the extent the lead applicant and fiscal agent, will thinking, computer hardware, software that participating students earned or are partner with at least one existing 21st design, coding, analytics, and computer on the path to earning industry- CCLC subgrantee and at least one applications. recognized credentials or, as employer in an in-demand industry Computer science often includes appropriate, completed internships or sector or occupation as determined by computer programming or coding as a apprenticeships) to a national audience the State. tool to create software, including (3) If an applicant is seeking points (e.g., at the 21st CCLC summer applications, games, websites, and tools under Competitive Preference Priority 2, symposium, at another national to manage or manipulate data; or the applicant must specify which rural conference, or via a webinar). development and management of LEA(s) the project will serve by Definitions: For the FY 2020 grant computer hardware and the other including the National Center for competition and any subsequent year in electronics related to sharing, securing, Education Statistics (NCES) LEA which we make awards from the list of and using digital information. identification number in the project unfunded applications from this In addition to coding, the expanding abstract. competition, we are establishing field of computer science emphasizes (4) A description of how the definitions for the terms ‘‘career computational thinking and partnership assessed the need for the pathway’’ and ‘‘rural local educational interdisciplinary problem-solving to particular career pathway (as defined in agency (LEA)’’ in accordance with equip students with the skills and this notice) program(s) for which it is section 437(d)(1) of GEPA (20 U.S.C. abilities necessary to apply computation requesting funding. 1232(d)(1)). The definition of ‘‘career in our digital world. (5) A description of how the pathway’’ is based on the definition of Computer science does not include partnership will disseminate the term in section 3 of WIOA (29 U.S.C. using a computer for everyday activities, information about its grant activities to 3102(7)). The definition of ‘‘computer such as browsing the internet; use of a national audience, including, but not science’’ is from the Supplemental tools like word processing, limited to, 21st CCLC program Priorities. The definition of ‘‘program of spreadsheets, or presentation software; coordinators. study’’ is from section 3 of the Carl D. or using computers in the study and (6) A description of the ways the Perkins Career and Technical Education exploration of unrelated subjects. partnership will inform potential Act of 2006, as amended (20 U.S.C. Program of study means a participating students and their parents 2302). The definition of ‘‘State’’ is from coordinated, non-duplicative sequence about the career pathway (as defined in ESEA section 8101(48), and the of academic and technical content at the this notice) programs and components definition of ‘‘State educational agency’’ secondary and postsecondary level of such programs, such as credentialing, is from section ESEA section 8101(49). that—

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices 37441

(a) Incorporates challenging State Department in 2 CFR part 3474. (d) The The SEA grantee may award subgrants academic standards, including those Supplemental Priorities. to eligible entities it has identified in an adopted by a State under section approved application. II. Award Information 1111(b)(1) of the ESEA; 4. Equitable Services: A grantee under (b) Addresses both academic and Type of Award: Discretionary grants. this program is required to provide for technical knowledge and skills, Estimated Available Funds: the equitable participation of private including employability skills; $1,500,000.00 each year for five years school children, in accordance with (c) Is aligned with the needs of for a total investment of $7,500,000.00. section 8501 of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. industries in the economy of the State, Contingent upon the availability of 7881). region, Tribal community, or local area; funds and the quality of applications, IV. Application and Submission (d) Progresses in specificity we may make additional awards in Information (beginning with all aspects of an subsequent years from the list of industry or career cluster and leading to unfunded applications from this 1. Application Submission more occupation-specific instruction); competition. Instructions: Applicants are required to (e) Has multiple entry and exit points Estimated Range of Awards: follow the Common Instructions for that incorporate credentialing; and $375,000–$625,000 per year for five Applicants to Department of Education (f) Culminates in the attainment of a years. Discretionary Grant Programs, recognized postsecondary credential. Estimated Average Size of Awards: published in the Federal Register on State means each of the 50 States, the $500,000 per year for five years. February 13, 2019 (84 FR 3768) and District of Columbia, the Estimated Number of Awards: 2–4. available at www.govinfo.gov/content/ Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and pkg/FR-2019-02-13/pdf/2019-02206.pdf, each of the outlying areas. Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice. which contain requirements and State educational agency means the information on how to submit an agency primarily responsible for the Project Period: Up to 60 months. application. State supervision of public elementary III. Eligibility Information Grants.gov has relaxed the schools and secondary schools. requirement for applicants to have an Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking: 1. Eligible Applicants: SEAs in active registration in the System for Under the Administrative Procedure Act partnership (as described in this notice) Award Management (SAM) in order to (5 U.S.C. 553), the Department generally with, at a minimum, an existing 21st apply for funding during the COVID–19 offers interested parties the opportunity CCLC subgrantee and an employer in an pandemic. An applicant that does not to comment on proposed priorities, in-demand industry sector or have an active SAM registration can still definitions, requirements, and selection occupation, as determined by the State. register with Grants.gov, but must criteria. Section 437(d)(1) of GEPA, An SEA may submit more than one contact the Grants.gov Support Desk, however, allows the Secretary to exempt application; each application must toll-free, at 1–800–518–4726, in order to from rulemaking requirements propose to build or expand one project take advantage of this flexibility. regulations governing the first grant only, though one project may serve 2. Submission of Proprietary competition under a new or multiple sites. Information: Given the types of projects substantially revised program authority. Note: For purposes of this program, that may be proposed in applications for This is the first grant competition for the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) is the Out-of-School Time Career Pathway this program under section 4202(a)(2) of considered to be an SEA, and the program, your application may include the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7172(a)(2)) and, outlying areas (American Samoa, the business information that you consider therefore, the priorities, requirements, Commonwealth of Northern Mariana proprietary. In 34 CFR 5.11 we define and definitions established in this Islands, Guam, and the Virgin Islands) ‘‘business information’’ and describe the notice qualify for this exemption. In are eligible only to the extent that they process we use in determining whether order to ensure timely grant awards, the are using funds from the Consolidated any of that information is proprietary Secretary has decided to forgo public Grants to Insular Areas to implement a and, thus, protected from disclosure comment on the priorities, 21st CCLC program under Title IV, Part under Exemption 4 of the Freedom of requirements, and definitions B of the ESEA and have current 21st Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552, as established in accordance with section CCLC subgrantees. amended). 437(d)(1) of GEPA. 2. a. Cost Sharing or Matching: This Because we plan to make successful Program Authority: Title IV, Part B of competition does not require cost applications available to the public, you the ESEA, Section 4202(a)(2), 20 U.S.C. sharing or matching. may wish to request confidentiality of 7172(a)(2). b. Supplement-Not-Supplant: This business information. Applicable Regulations: (a) The program involves supplement-not- Consistent with Executive Order Education Department General supplant funding requirements. 12600, please designate in your Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR 3. Subgrantees: Under 34 CFR application any information that you parts 75, 76, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86, 97, 75.708(b) and (c), an SEA grantee under believe is exempt from disclosure under 98, and 99. (b) The Office of this competition may award subgrants— Exemption 4. In the appropriate Management and Budget Guidelines to to directly carry out project activities Appendix section of your application, Agencies on Governmentwide described in its application—to eligible under ‘‘Other Attachments Form,’’ Debarment and Suspension entities (as defined in section 4201(b)(3) please list the page number or numbers (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as of the ESEA): LEAs, community-based on which we can find this information. adopted and amended as regulations of organizations, Indian Tribes or Tribal For additional information please see 34 the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) organizations (as such terms are defined CFR 5.11(c). The Uniform Administrative in section 4 of the Indian Self- 3. Intergovernmental Review: This Requirements, Cost Principles, and Determination and Education Act (25 competition is subject to Executive Audit Requirements for Federal Awards U.S.C. 450b)), other public or private Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and entities, or consortia of two or more CFR part 79. Information about amended as regulations of the such agencies, organizations, or entities. Intergovernmental Review of Federal

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 37442 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices

Programs under Executive Order 12372 of the target population or other (2) In determining the quality of the is in the application package for this identified needs. (5 points). management plan for the proposed competition. (iii) The extent to which there is a project, the Secretary considers the 4. Notice of Intent to Apply: The conceptual framework underlying the following factors: Department will be able to review grant proposed research or demonstration (i) The adequacy of the management applications more efficiently if we know activities and the quality of that plan to achieve the objectives of the the approximate number of applicants framework. (5 points). proposed project on time and within that intend to apply. Therefore, we (iv) The extent to which the proposed budget, including clearly defined strongly encourage each potential project will integrate with or build on responsibilities, timelines, and applicant to notify us of its intent to similar or related efforts to improve milestones for accomplishing project submit an application. To do so, please relevant outcomes (as defined in 34 CFR tasks. (7 points). email the program contact person listed 77.1(c)), using existing funding streams (ii) How the applicant will ensure that under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION from other programs or policies a diversity of perspectives are brought to CONTACT with the subject line ‘‘Intent to supported by community, State, and bear in the operation of the proposed Apply,’’ and include the applicant’s Federal resources. (5 points). project, including those of parents, name and a contact person’s name and (c) Quality of project services. (Up to teachers, the business community, a email address. Applicants that do not 30 points). variety of disciplinary and professional submit a notice of intent to apply may (1) The Secretary considers the fields, recipients or beneficiaries of still apply for funding; applicants that quality of the services to be provided by services, or others, as appropriate. (7 do submit a notice of intent to apply are the proposed project. points). (2) In determining the quality of the not bound to apply or bound by the 2. Review and Selection Process: We services to be provided by the proposed information provided. remind potential applicants that in project, the Secretary considers the reviewing applications in any V. Application Review Information following factors: discretionary grant competition, the (i) The quality and sufficiency of 1. Selection Criteria: The selection Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR strategies for ensuring equal access and criteria for this competition are from 34 75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the treatment for eligible project CFR 75.210 and are as follows: applicant in carrying out a previous (a) Significance. (Up to 15 points). participants who are members of groups award, such as the applicant’s use of (1) The Secretary considers the that have traditionally been funds, achievement of project significance of the proposed project. underrepresented based on race, color, objectives, and compliance with grant (2) In determining the significance of national origin, gender, age, or conditions. The Secretary may also the proposed project, the Secretary disability. (5 points). consider whether the applicant failed to (ii) The extent to which the services considers the following factors: submit a timely performance report or (i) The extent to which the proposed to be provided by the proposed project submitted a report of unacceptable project is likely to yield findings that reflect up-to-date knowledge from quality. may be utilized by other appropriate research and effective practice. (10 In addition, in making a competitive points). agencies and organizations. (3 points). grant award, the Secretary requires (iii) The likely impact of the services (ii) The extent to which the proposed various assurances, including those to be provided by the proposed project project is likely to build local capacity applicable to Federal civil rights laws on the intended recipients of those to provide, improve, or expand services that prohibit discrimination in programs services. (15 points). that address the needs of the target or activities receiving Federal financial (d) Adequacy of resources. (Up to 21 assistance from the Department (34 CFR population. (5 points). points). (iii) The extent to which the proposed 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23). (1) The Secretary considers the 3. Risk Assessment and Specific project involves the development or adequacy of resources for the proposed demonstration of promising new Conditions: Consistent with 2 CFR project. 200.205, before awarding grants under strategies that build on, or are (2) In determining the adequacy of this competition the Department alternatives to, existing strategies. (3 resources for the proposed project, the conducts a review of the risks posed by points). Secretary considers the following applicants. Under 2 CFR 3474.10, the (iv) The extent to which the results of factors: the proposed project are to be (i) The adequacy of support, including Secretary may impose specific disseminated in ways that will enable facilities, equipment, supplies, and conditions and, in appropriate others to use the information or other resources, from the applicant circumstances, high-risk conditions on a strategies. (4 points). organization or the lead applicant grant if the applicant or grantee is not (b) Quality of the project design. (Up organization. (7 points). financially stable; has a history of to 20 points). (ii) The extent to which the costs are unsatisfactory performance; has a (1) The Secretary considers the reasonable in relation to the objectives, financial or other management system quality of the design of the proposed design, and potential significance of the that does not meet the standards in 2 project. proposed project. (7 points). CFR part 200, subpart D; has not (2) In determining the quality of the (iii) The potential for continued fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; design of the proposed project, the support of the project after Federal or is otherwise not responsible. Secretary considers the following funding ends, including, as appropriate, 4. Integrity and Performance System: factors: the demonstrated commitment of If you are selected under this (i) The extent to which the goals, appropriate entities to such support. (7 competition to receive an award that objectives, and outcomes to be achieved points). over the course of the project period by the proposed project are clearly (e) Quality of the management plan. may exceed the simplified acquisition specified and measurable. (5 points). (Up to 14 points). threshold (currently $250,000), under 2 (ii) The extent to which the design of (1) The Secretary considers the CFR 200.205(a)(2) we must make a the proposed project is appropriate to, quality of the management plan for the judgment about your integrity, business and will successfully address, the needs proposed project. ethics, and record of performance under

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices 37443

Federal awards—that is, the risk posed disseminate these public grant made substantial progress in achieving by you as an applicant—before we make deliverables. This dissemination plan the goals and objectives of the project; an award. In doing so, we must consider can be developed and submitted after whether the grantee has expended funds any information about you that is in the your application has been reviewed and in a manner that is consistent with its integrity and performance system selected for funding. For additional approved application and budget; and, (currently referred to as the Federal information on the open licensing if the Secretary has established Awardee Performance and Integrity requirements please refer to 2 CFR performance measurement Information System (FAPIIS)), 3474.20. requirements, the performance targets in accessible through the System for 4. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a the grantee’s approved application. Award Management. You may review grant under this competition, you must and comment on any information about ensure that you have in place the In making a continuation award, the yourself that a Federal agency necessary processes and systems to Secretary also considers whether the previously entered and that is currently comply with the reporting requirements grantee is operating in compliance with in FAPIIS. in 2 CFR part 170 should you receive the assurances in its approved Please note that, if the total value of funding under the competition. This application, including those applicable your currently active grants, cooperative does not apply if you have an exception to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit agreements, and procurement contracts under 2 CFR 170.110(b). discrimination in programs or activities from the Federal Government exceeds (b) At the end of your project period, receiving Federal financial assistance $10,000,000, the reporting requirements you must submit a final performance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, report, including financial information, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23). require you to report certain integrity as directed by the Secretary. If you information to FAPIIS semiannually. receive a multiyear award, you must VII. Other Information Please review the requirements in 2 CFR submit annual performance reports that Accessible Format: Individuals with part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant provide the most current performance disabilities can obtain this document plus all the other Federal funds you and financial expenditure information and a copy of the application package in receive exceed $10,000,000. as directed by the Secretary under 34 an accessible format (e.g., braille, large VI. Award Administration Information CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance print, audiotape, or compact disc) on 1. Award Notices: If your application reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For request to the program contact person is successful, we notify your U.S. specific requirements on reporting, listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION Representative and U.S. Senators and please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/ CONTACT. send you an email containing a link to apply/appforms/appforms.html. Electronic Access to This Document: access an electronic version of your (c) Under 34 CFR 75.250(b), the The official version of this document is GAN. We may notify you informally, Secretary may provide a grantee with the document published in the Federal also. additional funding for data collection If your application is not evaluated or Register. You may access the official analysis and reporting. In this case the edition of the Federal Register and the not selected for funding, we notify you. Secretary establishes a data collection 2. Administrative and National Policy Code of Federal Regulations at period. www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can Requirements: We identify 5. Performance Measures: The view this document, as well as all other administrative and national policy Department has established the requirements in the application package following Government Performance and documents of this Department and reference these and other Results Act of 1993 performance published in the Federal Register, in requirements in the Applicable measures for the Out-of-School Time text or Portable Document Format Regulations section of this notice. Career Pathway program: (PDF). To use PDF you must have We reference the regulations outlining (a) The cumulative, unduplicated Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is the terms and conditions of an award in number of students participating in a available free at the site. the Applicable Regulations section of program supported by this grant. You may also access documents of the this notice and include these and other (b) The cumulative number of Department published in the Federal specific conditions in the GAN. The program participants who receive an Register by using the article search GAN also incorporates your approved industry-recognized credential, and the feature at www.federalregister.gov. application as part of your binding cumulative number of credentials commitments under the grant. Specifically, through the advanced received, as a result of a program search feature at this site, you can limit 3. Open Licensing Requirements: supported by this grant. Unless an exception applies, if you are (c) The cumulative number of your search to documents published by awarded a grant under this competition, program participants who complete an the Department. you will be required to openly license internship as a result of a program Frank T. Brogan, to the public grant deliverables created supported by this grant. in whole, or in part, with Department Assistant Secretary for Elementary and (d) The cumulative number of Secondary Education. grant funds. When the deliverable program participants who complete an [FR Doc. 2020–13304 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] consists of modifications to pre-existing apprenticeship as a result of a program works, the license extends only to those supported by this grant. BILLING CODE 4000–01–P modifications that can be separately (e) The cumulative percentage of identified and only to the extent that program participants that received a open licensing is permitted under the credential or completed an internship or terms of any licenses or other legal apprenticeship. restrictions on the use of pre-existing 6. Continuation Awards: In making a works. Additionally, a grantee or continuation award under 34 CFR subgrantee that is awarded competitive 75.253, the Secretary considers, among grant funds must have a plan to other things: Whether a grantee has

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 37444 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Department’s information collection DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY requirements and provide the requested [Docket No.: ED–2020–SCC–0101] data in the desired format. ED is Bonneville Power Administration Agency Information Collection soliciting comments on the proposed [BPA File No.: BP–20E] Activities; Comment Request; information collection request (ICR) that Protection and Advocacy of Individual is described below. The Department of Suspension of the Financial Reserves Rights Program Assurances Education is especially interested in Policy Surcharge for the Remainder of public comment addressing the the BP–20 Rate Period; Public Hearing AGENCY: Office of Special Education and following issues: (1) Is this collection and Opportunities for Public Review Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), necessary to the proper functions of the and Comment Department of Education (ED). Department; (2) will this information be ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: Bonneville Power processed and used in a timely manner; Administration (Bonneville), SUMMARY: In accordance with the (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; Department of Energy (DOE). Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is (4) how might the Department enhance ACTION: Suspension of the Financial the quality, utility, and clarity of the proposing an extension of an existing Reserves Policy Surcharge for the information to be collected; and (5) how information collection. remainder of the BP–20 rate period. DATES: Interested persons are invited to might the Department minimize the submit comments on or before August burden of this collection on the SUMMARY: Bonneville is holding an 21, 2020. respondents, including through the use expedited rate proceeding pursuant to ADDRESSES: To access and review all the of information technology. Please note Section 7(i) of the Pacific Northwest documents related to the information that written comments received in Electric Power Planning and collection listed in this notice, please response to this notice will be Conservation Act (Northwest Power use http://www.regulations.gov by considered public records. Act) to suspend the application of the searching the Docket ID number ED– Title of Collection: Protection and Financial Reserves Policy Surcharge 2020–SCC–0101. Comments submitted Advocacy of Individual Rights Program (FRP Surcharge) for the remainder of the BP–20 rate period. The Northwest in response to this notice should be Assurances. submitted electronically through the Power Act requires that Bonneville’s Federal eRulemaking Portal at http:// OMB Control Number: 1820–0625. rates be established based on the record www.regulations.gov by selecting the Type of Review: An extension of an of a formal hearing. By this notice, Docket ID number or via postal mail, existing information collection. Bonneville announces the commencement of an expedited rate commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Respondents/Affected Public: State, proceeding, designated as the ‘‘BP–20E’’ If the regulations.gov site is not Local, and Tribal Governments. available to the public for any reason, proceeding, for the limited purpose of ED will temporarily accept comments at Total Estimated Number of Annual suspending the FRP Surcharge for the [email protected]. Please include the Responses: 57. remainder of the BP–20 rate period. As docket ID number and the title of the Total Estimated Number of Annual explained in Part IV.C, the effective date information collection request when Burden Hours: 9. would depend on the timing of approval requesting documents or submitting by the Federal Energy Regulatory Abstract: Section 509 of the comments. Please note that comments Commission. Rehabilitation Act of 1973 submitted by fax or email and those (Rehabilitation Act), as amended by the DATES: Prehearing Conference: The BP– submitted after the comment period will 20E proceeding begins with a not be accepted. Written requests for Title IV of Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) and its prehearing conference at 1:00 p.m. on information or comments submitted by Thursday, June 25, 2020, which will be postal mail or delivery should be implementing Federal Regulations at 34 CFR part 381, require the PAIR grantees held telephonically. Interested parties addressed to the Director of the Strategic may obtain the call-in information by to submit an application to the RSA Collections and Clearance Governance accessing Bonneville’s BP–20E rate case Commissioner in order to receive and Strategy Division, U.S. Department web page at https://www.bpa.gov/goto/ assistance under Section 509 of the of Education, 400 Maryland Ave. SW, BP20E or by contacting the Hearing LBJ, Room 6W–208D, Washington, DC Rehabilitation Act. The Rehabilitation Clerk at [email protected]. 20202–4537. Act requires that the application contain Intervention and Notice of Objection: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For Assurances to which the grantees must Anyone intending to become a party to specific questions related to collection comply. Section 509(f) of the the BP–20E expedited proceeding must activities, please contact Samuel Pierre, Rehabilitation Act specifies the file a petition to intervene on 202–245–6488. Assurances. All 57 PAIR grantees are Bonneville’s secure website no later SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The required to be part of the protection and than 4:30 p.m. on June 24, 2020. In Department of Education (ED), in advocacy system in each State addition, any person or entity that accordance with the Paperwork established under the Developmental intends to object to Bonneville’s Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights proposal must include a notice of 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 6041 et seq.). objection in its petition to intervene. See public and Federal agencies with an Dated: June 17, 2020. Part III in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION opportunity to comment on proposed, for details on requesting access to the Kate Mullan, revised, and continuing collections of secure website and filing a petition to information. This helps the Department PRA Coordinator, Strategic Collections and intervene. assess the impact of its information Clearance, Governance and Strategy Division, Participant Comments: Written collection requirements and minimize Office of Chief Data Officer. comments by non-party participants the public’s reporting burden. It also [FR Doc. 2020–13344 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] must be received by June 26, 2020, to be helps the public understand the BILLING CODE 4000–01–P considered in the Administrator’s

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices 37445

Record of Decision (ROD). See Part III in Part I—Introduction and Procedural Rules of Procedure provide for SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for details Matters expedited rate processes such as the on submitting participant comments. A. Introduction and Expedited Process BP–20E proceeding. An expedited FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. proceeding is necessary in this case in Bonneville’s proposal to suspend the Heidi Helwig, Bonneville order to enable prompt implementation Power and Transmission FRP Surcharge Communications, by phone at (503) of the proposal, which would result in for the remainder of the BP–20 rate 230–3458, or by email at hyhelwig@ a reduction to power rates and period is expected to result in a assurance transmission rates would not bpa.gov. reduction of Bonneville’s current power The Hearing Clerk for this proceeding go up. In order to facilitate the rates, providing rate relief to millions of expedited process, pursuant to Section can be reached via email at Pacific Northwest ratepayers during the [email protected]. 1010.1(e) of the Rules of Procedure, the COVID–19 pandemic. In FY 2021, this Administrator authorizes the Hearing Please direct questions regarding proposal would reduce power rates, as Bonneville’s secure website to the BP– Officer to waive any procedural the FRP Surcharge triggered in FY 2020 requirements of the rules for the 20E Rate Hearing Coordinator via email and is expected to again trigger in FY at [email protected] or, if the question purpose of developing the record and 2021. The proposal should not impact completing the proceeding on an is time-sensitive, via telephone at (503) transmission rates as the FRP Surcharge expedited basis. 230–5107. did not trigger in FY 2020 and is not Responsible Officials: Mr. Daniel H. expected to trigger in FY 2021. In B. Proposed Expedited Procedural Fisher, Power Rates Manager, is the compliance with the procedures for the Schedule official responsible for the development establishment of Bonneville rates set of Bonneville’s power rates, and Ms. forth in Section 7(i) of the Northwest The purpose of this proceeding is Rebecca E. Fredrickson, Deputy Vice Power Act, Bonneville is conducting the narrow, with the suspension of the FRP President of Transmission Marketing hearing process for the review of this Surcharge the only issue within its and Sales, is the official responsible for proposal on an expedited basis in an scope. Bonneville publicly announced the development of Bonneville’s effort to provide the opportunity for its proposal to suspend the FRP transmission rates. timely rate relief. Surcharge on May 29, 2020, and held a The Rules of Procedure that govern public meeting on June 5, 2020, to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Bonneville’s rate proceedings were discuss its proposal and the use of an Table of Contents published in the Federal Register, 83 FR expedited process and schedule. The Part I. Introduction and Procedural Matters 39993 (Aug. 13, 2018), and posted on Hearing Officer is directed to use this Part II. Scope of BP–20E Rate Proceeding Bonneville’s website at https:// schedule if no objections to the proposal Part III. Public Participation in BP–20E www.bpa.gov/Finance/RateCases/ are submitted with any of the petitions Part IV. Rate Proposal RulesProcedure/Pages/default.aspx. to intervene, as required by Part III.B of Part V. Proposed Rate Schedules Sections 1010.4(b)(4) and 1010.22 of the this notice.

Federal Register notice Initial proposal released publication date

Deadline for Petitions to Intervene and Notices of Objection ...... June 24, 2020. Prehearing Conference ...... June 25, 2020. Close of Participant Comments ...... June 26, 2020. Final Record of Decision ...... June 29, 2020.

If an objection is raised in a petition unnecessary or overly burdensome in proceeding. Except as provided, any to intervene, the Hearing Officer is consideration of the limited scope and communications with persons covered directed to adopt an alternative purpose of this case. The Administrator by the rule regarding the merits of any procedural schedule at the Prehearing does not intend to hold oral argument issue in the proceeding by other Conference to establish an expedited or issue a draft Record of Decision in executive branch agencies, Congress, process for the rest of the proceeding. If this proceeding, so the Hearing Officer existing or potential Bonneville an objection is raised, Bonneville will is directed to exclude those steps and customers, nonprofit or public interest hold a telephonic Scheduling any briefs on exception from the groups, or any other non-DOE parties Conference with prospective parties on procedural schedule. are prohibited. The rule explicitly excludes and does not prohibit June 25, 2020, at 9:00 a.m. to attempt to C. Ex Parte Communications develop an alternative procedural communications (1) relating to matters schedule to propose to the Hearing Section 1010.5 of the Rules of of procedure; (2) otherwise authorized Officer at the Prehearing Conference. Procedure prohibits ex parte by law or the Rules of Procedure; (3) Any procedural schedule adopted by communications. Ex parte from or to the Federal Energy Regulatory the Hearing Officer must provide for communications include any oral or Commission (Commission); (4) that all issuance of the Administrator’s Record written communication (1) relevant to litigants agree may be made on an ex of Decision no later than 90 days after the merits of any issue in the parte basis; (5) in the ordinary course of publication of this Federal Register proceeding; (2) that is not on the record; business, about information required to Notice. The Hearing Officer is strongly and (3) with respect to which reasonable be exchanged under contracts, or in encouraged to conclude the proceeding prior notice has not been given. The ex information responding to a Freedom of in less than 90 days and may parte rule applies to communications Information Act request; (6) between the circumscribe or reduce the timing or with all Bonneville and DOE employees Hearing Officer and Hearing Clerk; (7) in availability of any procedural activities and contractors, the Hearing Officer, meetings for which prior notice has in the case as he or she determines are and the Hearing Clerk during the been given; or (8) as otherwise specified

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 37446 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices

in Section 1010.5(b) of the Rules of Written comments by participants will be deemed to have made no Procedure. The prohibition on ex parte will be included in the record and objection. communications applies from the date considered by the Administrator if they C. Developing the Record of publication of this notice and remains are received by June 26, 2020. in effect until the Administrator’s Participants should submit comments The hearing record will include, Record of Decision is issued. through Bonneville’s website at https:// among other things, the transcripts of www.bpa.gov/comment. All comments the hearing, written evidence and Part II—Scope of BP–20E Rate should contain the designation ‘‘BP– argument entered into the record by Proceeding 20E’’ in the subject line. Bonneville and the parties, written The scope of the BP–20E rate comments from participants, and other proceeding is limited to consideration of B. Interventions and Notices of material accepted into the record by the the proposal to suspend the FRP Objections Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer Surcharge for the remainder of the BP– 1. Intervention will review the record and certify the 20 rate period. Bonneville may revise record to the Administrator. the scope of the proceeding to include Any entity or person intending to The Administrator will make a final new issues that arise as a result of become a party to in the BP–20E rate determination on the issue in this circumstances or events occurring proceeding must file a petition to proceeding based on the record and outside the proceeding that are intervene through Bonneville’s secure such other materials and information as substantially related to the rates under website (https://www.bpa.gov/secure/ may have been submitted to or consideration in the proceeding. See Ratecase/). A first-time user of developed by the Administrator. The Rules of Procedure, Section Bonneville’s secure website must create Final ROD will be made available to all 1010.4(b)(8)(iii), (iv). If Bonneville a user account to submit an parties. Bonneville will submit the Final revises the scope of the proceeding to intervention. Returning users may ROD and the hearing record to the include new issues, Bonneville will request access to the BP–20E rate Commission for confirmation and provide public notice on its website, proceeding through their existing approval after issuance of the Final ROD present testimony or other information accounts, and may submit interventions (see Part IV.C of this notice). regarding such issues, and provide a once their permissions have been Part IV—Rate Proposal reasonable opportunity to intervene and updated. The secure website contains a respond to Bonneville’s testimony or link to the user guide, which provides A. Background on the FRP Surcharge step-by-step instructions for creating other information. Id. The FRP Surcharge collects additional user accounts, generating filing Pursuant to Section 1010.4(b)(8) of the revenue through adjustments to rates numbers, submitting filings, and Rules of Procedure, the Administrator when Bonneville’s financial reserves uploading interventions. Please contact directs the Hearing Officer to exclude (cash and cash equivalents) fall below the Rate Hearing Coordinator via email from the record all argument, testimony, certain identified financial thresholds. at [email protected] or, if the question or other evidence that challenges the The surcharge is a component of the is time-sensitive, via telephone at (503) appropriateness or reasonableness of Financial Reserves Policy, which was 230–5107 with any questions regarding any other matter, issue, topic, or policy developed in the BP–18 rate proceeding. the submission process. A petition to that is not directly related to suspension The Financial Reserves Policy is intervene must conform to the format of the FRP Surcharge for the remainder designed to support the long-term and content requirements set forth in of the BP–20 rate period. financial health of the agency by Sections 1010.6 and 1010.11 of the ensuring Bonneville maintains a Part III—Public Participation in BP– Rules of Procedure and must be minimum level of financial reserves for 20E uploaded to the BP–20E rate proceeding liquidity and risk mitigation. The secure website by June 24, 2020. A. Distinguishing Between Financial Reserves Policy provides for ‘‘Participants’’ and ‘‘Parties’’ Pursuant to Section 1010.1(e) of the each of Bonneville’s business units Bonneville distinguishes between Rules of Procedure, the Administrator is (Power and Transmission) to maintain a ‘‘participants in’’ and ‘‘parties to’’ the modifying the procedures for objections minimum balance of financial reserves hearings. Separate from the formal to petitions to intervene provided under calculated as the equivalent to 60 days hearing process, Bonneville will receive Section 1010.6(d). For the BP–20E of operating cash. For Power, 60 days written comments, views, opinions, and proceeding, objections to a petition to cash is approximately $300 million; for information from participants who may intervene must be raised at the Transmission, 60 days cash is submit comments without being subject Prehearing Conference. All petitions approximately $100 million. If a to the duties of, or having the privileges and any objections will be ruled on by business unit’s financial reserves falls of, parties. Participants do not have the the Hearing Officer at the Prehearing below the identified threshold, the FRP same procedural rights and are not Conference. Late interventions are Surcharge triggers, increasing that subject to the same procedural strongly disfavored. Opposition to an business unit’s rates up to a specified requirements as parties. Bonneville untimely petition to intervene must be amount for the fiscal year. Power and customers whose rates are subject to this filed within two business days after Transmission financial reserves are proceeding, or their affiliated customer service of the petition. evaluated each fiscal year, with the groups, may not submit participant 2. Notice of Objections to BP–20E application of the FRP Surcharge (if comments. Members or employees of Proposal any) beginning with the December organizations that have intervened in billing cycle. the proceeding may submit participant A petition to intervene must also The FRP Surcharge for the FY 2020– comments as private individuals (that affirmatively state whether the entity 2021 rate period was established in the is, not speaking for their organizations) intends to object to the proposal in this BP–20 rate proceeding. The BP–20 rates but may not use the comment Federal Register Notice or the expedited received final Commission approval on procedures to address specific issues process and schedule. A petition to April 17, 2020. For FY 2020, the FRP raised by their intervenor organizations. intervene that does not state a position Surcharge for the Power business unit

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices 37447

triggered, resulting in a $30 million Part V—Proposed Rate Schedules recommendations to the Secretary on increase to power rates beginning in Bonneville’s proposed General Rate the Administration’s energy policies; December 2019. Based on current end- Schedule Provisions for the Power and the Department’s basic and applied of-year projections, the FRP Surcharge is Transmission Financial Reserves Policy research and development activities; expected to again trigger for the Power Surcharges for the remainder of the BP– economic and national security policy; business unit in FY 2021. The FRP 20 rate period are a part of this notice and other activities as directed by the Surcharge for the Transmission business and are available for viewing and Secretary. unit did not trigger in FY 2020 and is downloading on Bonneville’s website at Purpose of the Meeting: This meeting not expected to trigger in FY 2021. https://www.bpa.gov/goto/BP20E. is the fifth meeting of existing and new members under Secretary Perry, and B. Background on National Emergency Signing Authority now Secretary Brouillette. On March 13, 2020, the President This document of the Department of Tentative Agenda: The meeting will declared the outbreak of COVID–19 in Energy was signed on June 15, 2020, by start at 10:00 a.m. on July 28th. The the United States a national emergency. Elliot E. Mainzer, Administrator and tentative meeting agenda includes: Since then, much of the United States Chief Executive Officer of the Introduction of SEAB’s members, has been under stay-at-home orders. The Bonneville Power Administration, briefings from the Under Secretaries, impacts of COVID–19 on the national pursuant to delegated authority from the discussion on agency branding, and an economy are only beginning to be Secretary of Energy. That document opportunity for comments from the understood. With near-record with the original signature and date is public. The meeting will conclude at unemployment in many regional maintained by DOE. For administrative 3:00 p.m. Public Participation: The meeting is communities, Bonneville’s utility purposes only, and in compliance with open to the public. Individuals who customers have had to lay off staff, rely requirements of the Office of the Federal would like to attend must RSVP to Kurt on cash reserves, and/or use short-term Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Heckman no later than 5:00 p.m. on credit to maintain operations. Register Liaison Officer has been Wednesday, July 22, 2020, by email at: Throughout the pandemic, Bonneville authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for [email protected]. has cooperatively worked with its Individuals and representatives of publication, as an official document of customers to ensure that they are able to organizations who would like to offer the Department of Energy. This continue to provide essential utility comments and suggestions may do so administrative process in no way alters services to regional homes and during the meeting. Approximately 15 the legal effect of this document upon businesses. As part of these discussions, minutes will be reserved for public publication in the Federal Register. customers requested Bonneville to comments. Time allotted per speaker consider offering immediate rate relief Signed in Washington, DC, on June 16, will depend on the number who wish to through the suspension of the FRP 2020. speak but will not exceed five minutes. Surcharge. Treena V. Garrett, The Designated Federal Officer is C. Rate Proposal: Suspension of the FRP Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. empowered to conduct the meeting in a Surcharge Department of Energy. fashion that will facilitate the orderly [FR Doc. 2020–13248 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] conduct of business. Those wishing to Bonneville proposes to suspend the BILLING CODE 6450–01–P speak should register to do so via email, FRP Surcharge for the remainder of the [email protected], no later than 5 p.m. BP–20 rate period. Specifically, the on Wednesday, July 22, 2020. General Rate Schedule Provisions for DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Those not able to attend the meeting the Power and Transmission FRP or who have insufficient time to address Surcharges currently in effect would be Secretary of Energy Advisory Board the committee are invited to send a replaced by the rate schedules identified AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, written statement to Kurt Heckman, U.S. at https://www.bpa.gov/goto/BP20E. Department of Energy. Department of Energy, 1000 Bonneville intends to seek ACTION: Notice of open meeting. Independence Avenue SW, Washington, Commission approval effective on the DC 20585, or email to: [email protected]. first day of the month following the SUMMARY: This notice announces an Minutes: The minutes of the meeting issuance of the Administrator’s Final open meeting of the Secretary of Energy will be available on the SEAB website ROD. If the BP–20E proceeding follows Advisory Board (SEAB). This notice is or by contacting Mr. Heckman. He may the procedural schedule included in provided in accordance with the Federal be reached at the above postal address Part I.B of this notice, Bonneville would Advisory Committee Act. or email address, or by visiting SEAB’s seek Commission approval effective July DATES: Tuesday, July 28, 2020; 10:00 website at www.energy.gov/seab. 1, 2020. If the Commission were to grant a.m.–3:00 p.m. (EDT). Signed in Washington, DC, on June 17, approval of this proposal effective on ADDRESSES: Building 922 Conference 2020. any day other than the first day of the Center, National Energy Technology LaTanya Butler, month, then the rate relief would be Laboratory, 1538 Wallace Road, South Deputy Committee Management Officer. effective beginning the first day of the Park Township, Pennsylvania 15129. [FR Doc. 2020–13395 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] following month. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kurt BILLING CODE 6450–01–P Suspension of the Power FRP Heckman, SEAB Designated Federal Surcharge would also require small Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, changes to the Load Shaping Charge 1000 Independence Avenue SW, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Washington, DC 20585; Phone: (202) True-Up Rate and PF Melded Equivalent Environmental Management Site- 586–1212; email: [email protected]. Scalar for Fiscal Year 2020, both of Specific Advisory Board, Nevada which would be adjusted depending SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: upon the effective date provided by the Background: The Board was AGENCY: Office of Environmental Commission. established to provide advice and Management, Department of Energy.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 37448 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices

ACTION: Notice of open virtual meeting. Signed in Washington, DC, on June 16, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 2020. SUMMARY: This notice announces an LaTanya Butler, Federal Energy Regulatory online virtual meeting of the Deputy Committee Management Officer. Commission Environmental Management Site- [FR Doc. 2020–13307 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] Combined Notice of Filings #1 Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), BILLING CODE 6450–01–P Nevada. The Federal Advisory Take notice that the Commission Committee Act requires that public received the following exempt notice of this online virtual meeting be DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY wholesale generator filings: announced in the Federal Register. Federal Energy Regulatory Docket Numbers: EG20–189–000. DATES: Wednesday, July 15, 2020; 4:00 Commission Applicants: Orbit Bloom Energy, LLC. p.m.—6:30 p.m. Description: Notice of Self- ADDRESSES: Online Virtual Meeting. To Combined Notice of Filings Certification of Exempt Wholesale attend, please send an email to: nssab@ Generator Status of Orbit Bloom Energy, emcbc.doe.gov by no later than 4:00 Take notice that the Commission has LLC. p.m. PST, on Monday, July 13, 2020. received the following Natural Gas Filed Date: 6/16/20. Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings: To Submit Public Comments: Public Accession Number: 20200616–5130. comments will be accepted via email Docket Number: PR20–52–001. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/7/20. prior to and after the meeting. Applicants: ETC Katy Pipeline, Ltd. Docket Numbers: EG20–190–000. Comments received by no later than Description: Tariff filing per Applicants: Antelope Expansion 3A, 4:00 p.m. PST on Monday, July 13, 284.123(b),(e)+(g): ETC Katy Pipeline, LLC. 2020, will be read aloud during the LLC Revised SOC Effective April 1, Description: Self-Certification of virtual meeting. Comments will also be 2020 to be effective 4/1/2020. Antelope Expansion 3A, LLC. accepted after the meeting, by no later Filed Date: 6/12/2020. Filed Date: 6/16/20. than 4:00 p.m. PST on Friday, July 31, Accession Number: 202006125200. Accession Number: 20200616–5142. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/7/20. 2020. Please submit comments to Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/2/2020. Docket Numbers: EG20–191–000. [email protected]. 284.123(g) Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET Applicants: Antelope Expansion 3B, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 7/2/2020. LLC. Barbara Ulmer, Board Administrator, by Docket Numbers: RP20–956–000. Description: Self-Certification of EG of Phone: (702) 523–0894 or Email: nssab@ Applicants: Texas Eastern Antelope Expansion 3B, LLC. emcbc.doe.gov. Transmission, LP. Filed Date: 6/16/20. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of Description: Pre-Arranged/Pre-Agreed Accession Number: 20200616–5146. the Board: The purpose of the Board is (Settlement Agreement) Filing of Texas Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/7/20. to make recommendations to DOE–EM Eastern Transmission, LP under RP20– Take notice that the Commission and site management in the areas of 956. received the following electric rate environmental restoration, waste Filed Date: 6/12/20. filings: management, and related activities. Accession Number: 20200612–5265. Docket Numbers: ER19–1073–001; Tentative Agenda Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/24/20. ER11–3942–019; ER13–1139–018; ER13–1346–010; ER14–2630–001; 1. Briefing for Engine Maintenance The filings are accessible in the Commission’s eLibrary system by ER19–1074–001; ER19–1075–001; Assembly and Disassembly Path ER19–1076–001; ER19–529–001. Forward—Work Plan Item #6. clicking on the links or querying the docket number. Applicants: Alta Wind VIII, LLC, 2. Follow-up to Waste Verification Any person desiring to intervene or Brookfield Energy Marketing Inc., Strategy—Work Plan Item #1. protest in any of the above proceedings Brookfield Energy Marketing LP, Public Participation: Written must file in accordance with Rules 211 Brookfield Renewable Energy Marketing statements may be filed with the Board and 214 of the Commission’s US, Brookfield Renewable Trading and either before or after the meeting as Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and Marketi, Mesa Wind Power Corporation, there will not be opportunities for live 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Windstar Energy LLC, Imperial Valley public comment during this online time on the specified date(s). Protests Solar 1, LLC, Regulus Solar, LLC. virtual meeting. The Deputy Designated may be considered, but intervention is Description: Supplement to June 28, Federal Officer is empowered to necessary to become a party to the 2019 Updated Market Power Analysis conduct the meeting in a fashion that proceeding. for the Southwest Region of the will facilitate the orderly conduct of eFiling is encouraged. More detailed Brookfield Companies and the business. Individuals wishing to submit information relating to filing TerraForm Companies. public comments should email them as requirements, interventions, protests, Filed Date: 5/29/20. directed above. service, and qualifying facilities filings Accession Number: 20200529–5526. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/7/20. Minutes: Minutes will be available by can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/ writing or calling Barbara Ulmer, docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For Docket Numbers: ER19–1132–001. NSSAB Administrator, U.S. Department other information, call (866) 208–3676 Applicants: Midcontinent of Energy, EM Nevada Program, 100 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502–8659. Independent System Operator, Inc. North City Parkway, Suite 1750, Las Description: Midcontinent Vegas, NV 89106; Phone: (702) 523– Dated: June 16, 2020. Independent System Operator, Inc. 0894. Minutes will also be available at Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., submits tariff filing per 35.19a(b): the following website: http:// Deputy Secretary. Refund Report_NRG Cottonwood www.nnss.gov/NSSAB/pages/MM_ [FR Doc. 2020–13355 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] Tennant to be effective N/A. FY20.html. BILLING CODE 6717–01–P Filed Date: 6/16/20.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices 37449

Accession Number: 20200616–5035. Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Accession Number: 20200616–5159. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/7/20. 2020–06–16_SA 3041 Consumers Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/7/20. Docket Numbers: ER20–1313–000. Energy-METC 1st Rev GIA (G934) to be Docket Numbers: ER20–2070–000. Applicants: GridLiance High Plains effective 6/2/2020. Applicants: Wheatridge Wind II, LLC. LLC. Filed Date: 6/16/20, Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Accession Number: 20200616–5040, Description: Motion to Intervene and Wheatridge Wind II, LLC Application Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/7/20. Consolidate and Formal Challenge of for MBR Authority to be effective 8/16/ Xcel Energy Services Inc., on behalf of Docket Numbers: ER20–2063–000. 2020. Southwestern Public Service Company Applicants: Trafigura Trading LLC. Filed Date: 6/16/20. to March 16, 2020 Annual Informational Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Accession Number: 20200616–5161. Filing by GridLiance High Plains LLC. Baseline New to be effective 6/17/2020. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/7/20. Filed Date: 4/15/20. Filed Date: 6/16/20. Accession Number: 20200415–5211. Accession Number: 20200616–5098. Take notice that the Commission Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/7/20. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/7/20. received the following electric securities Docket Numbers: ER20–1395–000. Docket Numbers: ER20–2064–000. filings: Applicants: ND OTM LLC. Applicants: High Majestic Wind I, Docket Numbers: ES20–44–000. Description: Second Supplement to LLC. Applicants: Monongahela Power March 26, 2020 ND OTM LLC tariff Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Company. filing. High Majestic Wind I, LLC Appplication Description: Application Under Filed Date: 6/15/20. for MBR Authority to be effective 8/15/ Section 204 of the Federal Power Act for Accession Number: 20200615–5367. 2020. Authorization to Issue Securities of Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/6/20. Filed Date: 6/16/20. Monongahela Power Company. Docket Numbers: ER20–1600–000. Accession Number: 20200616–5105. Filed Date: 6/16/20. Applicants: Cubico Huntley Lessee, Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/7/20. Accession Number: 20200616–5109. LLC. Docket Numbers: ER20–2065–000. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/7/20. Description: Report Filing: Refund Applicants: Antelope Expansion 3A, Take notice that the Commission Report to be effective N/A. LLC. received the following electric Filed Date: 6/15/20. Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: reliability filings: Accession Number: 20200615–5190. Antelope Expansion 3A, LLC MBR Docket Numbers: RR20–4–000. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/6/20. Tariff to be effective 6/17/2020. Applicants: North American Electric Filed Date: 6/16/20. Docket Numbers: ER20–1601–000. Reliability Corporation. Applicants: Huntley Solar, LLC. Accession Number: 20200616–5107. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/7/20. Description: Petition of the North Description: Report Filing: Refund American Electric Reliability Report to be effective N/A. Docket Numbers: ER20–2066–000. Corporation for Approval of Amended Filed Date: 6/15/20. Applicants: Antelope Expansion 3B, Compliance and Certification Accession Number: 20200615–5191. LLC. Committee Charter. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/6/20. Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Filed Date: 6/12/20. Antelope Expansion 3B, LLC MBR Tariff Docket Numbers: ER20–2059–000. Accession Number: 20200612–5273. to be effective 6/17/2020. Applicants: DTE Garden Wind Farm, Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/6/20. LLC. Filed Date: 6/16/20. Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Accession Number: 20200616–5108. The filings are accessible in the DTE Garden Wind Farm LLC SFA Filing Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/7/20. Commission’s eLibrary system by to be effective 8/1/2020. Docket Numbers: ER20–2067–000. clicking on the links or querying the Filed Date: 6/15/20. Applicants: AEP Texas Inc. docket number. Accession Number: 20200615–5257. Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Any person desiring to intervene or Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/6/20. AEPTX-Brightside Solar Interconnection protest in any of the above proceedings Docket Numbers: ER20–2060–000. Agreement to be effective 6/11/2020. must file in accordance with Rules 211 Applicants: MPH Rockaway Peakers, Filed Date: 6/16/20. and 214 of the Commission’s LLC. Accession Number: 20200616–5117. Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/7/20. 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Application for Market-Based Rate Docket Numbers: ER20–2068–000. Protests may be considered, but Authority to be effective 6/26/2020. Applicants: Renewable Energy Asset intervention is necessary to become a Filed Date: 6/15/20. Management Group, LLC party to the proceeding. Accession Number: 20200615–5266. Description: Tariff Cancellation: eFiling is encouraged. More detailed Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/6/20. Notice of Cancellation of Market-Based information relating to filing Docket Numbers: ER20–2061–000. Rate Tariff to be effective 6/30/2020. requirements, interventions, protests, Applicants: Public Service Electric Filed Date: 6/16/20. service, and qualifying facilities filings and Gas Company. Accession Number: 20200616–5156. can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/ Description: Petition for Waiver of Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/7/20. docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For Tariff Revisions, et al of Public Service Docket Numbers: ER20–2069–000. other information, call (866) 208–3676 Electric and Gas Company. Applicants: Wheatridge Wind Energy, (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502–8659. Filed Date: 6/15/20. LLC. Accession Number: 20200615–5355. Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Dated: June 16, 2020. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/25/20. Wheatridge Wind Energy, LLC Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Docket Numbers: ER20–2062–000, Application for MBR Authority to be Deputy Secretary. Applicants: Midcontinent effective 8/16/2020. [FR Doc. 2020–13354 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] Independent System Operator, Inc. Filed Date: 6/16/20. BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 37450 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Secretary of Energy thereafter approved effective January 15, 2020, the Secretary the transmission service rates on an of Energy also delegated the authority to Western Area Power Administration interim basis from September 21, 2018, confirm, approve, and place such rates through December 3, 2018.2 On into effect on an interim basis to the Pacific Northwest-Pacific Southwest December 3, 2018, FERC approved and Under Secretary of Energy. By Intertie Project—Rate Order No. confirmed the extension of Rate Redelegation Order No. 00–002.10E, WAPA–192 Schedules INT–FT5 and INT–NFT4 effective February 14, 2020, the Under AGENCY: Western Area Power under Rate Order No. WAPA–181 Secretary of Energy further delegated Administration, DOE. through September 30, 2020.3 In the authority to confirm, approve, and accordance with 10 CFR 903.23(a),4 ACTION: Notice of proposed extension of place such rates into effect on an transmission service rates. WAPA is proposing to extend the interim basis to the Assistant Secretary existing Intertie transmission service for Electricity. SUMMARY: Western Area Power rates under Rate Schedules INT–FT5 In accordance with 10 CFR 903.23(a), Administration (WAPA) proposes to and INT–NFT4 through September 30, WAPA has determined that it is not extend its existing transmission service 2023. necessary to hold public information or rates for the Pacific Northwest-Pacific Extending these rate schedules public comment forums for this rate Southwest Intertie Project (Intertie) through September 30, 2023, will action but is initiating a 30-day through September 30, 2023. The provide WAPA and its customers time consultation and comment period to proposed rates are unchanged from the to evaluate the potential benefits of give the public an opportunity to existing transmission service rates combining transmission service rates on comment on the proposed extension. under Rate Schedules INT–FT5 and Federal projects located within WAPA’s WAPA will review and consider all INT–NFT4 that expire on September 30, Colorado River Storage Project timely comments at the conclusion of 2020. Management Center (CRSP) and Desert the consultation and comment period DATES: A consultation and comment Southwest Region (DSW). Ongoing and make adjustments to the proposal as period will begin June 22, 2020 and end efforts made towards combining appropriate. transmission rates, which up to this July 22, 2020. WAPA will accept written Signing Authority comments anytime during the time have been solely focused within consultation and comment period. DSW, have been expanded to include This document of the Department of CRSP transmission system rates. ADDRESSES: Written comments and Energy was signed on June 16, 2020, by Combining rates may lead to more Mark A. Gabriel, Administrator, requests to be informed of Federal efficient use of Federal transmission Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) pursuant to delegated authority from the systems, diversify the customers who Secretary of Energy. That document, actions concerning the proposed use those systems, and be financially transmission service rate extension with the original signature and date, is advantageous. If, after a thorough maintained by DOE. For administrative submitted by WAPA to FERC should be evaluation, WAPA determines that sent to: Ms. Tracey LeBeau, Regional purposes only, and in compliance with combining transmission service rates requirements of the Office of the Federal Manager, Desert Southwest Customer will produce material benefits, it would Service Region, Western Area Power Register, the undersigned DOE Federal initiate a public process before making Register Liaison Officer has been Administration, P.O. Box 6457, a decision to combine the rates. Phoenix, Arizona 85005–6457, or email: authorized to sign and submit the Additionally, repayments for federally document in electronic format for [email protected]. WAPA will post funded project investments are due to information about the proposed publication, as an official document of Treasury at the end of fiscal years 2021, the Department of Energy. This transmission service rate extension and 2022, and 2023. Project repayment is administrative process in no way alters the written comments it receives to its consistent with the cost recovery criteria the legal effect of this document upon website at: https://www.wapa.gov/ set forth in DOE Order RA 6120.2. The publication in the Federal Register. regions/DSW/Rates/Pages/intertie- existing rates provide sufficient revenue rates.aspx. to pay these required payments and all Signed in Washington, DC, on June 17, 2020. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. annual costs including interest expense. Treena V. Garrett, Tina Ramsey, Rates Manager, Desert Legal Authority Southwest Customer Service Region, Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Western Area Power Administration, By Delegation Order No. 00–037.00B, Department of Energy. P.O. Box 6457, Phoenix, Arizona 85005– effective November 19, 2016, the [FR Doc. 2020–13363 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 a.m.] 6457, (602) 605–2565, or email: Secretary of Energy delegated: (1) The BILLING CODE 6450–01–P [email protected]. authority to develop power and transmission rates to WAPA’s SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August Administrator; (2) the authority to 22, 2013, FERC approved and confirmed confirm, approve, and place such rates FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS Rate Schedules INT–FT5 and INT–NFT4 into effect on an interim basis to the COMMISSION under Rate Order No. WAPA–157 for a Deputy Secretary of Energy; and (3) the 5-year period through April 30, 2018.1 authority to confirm, approve, and place [OMB 3060–1256; FRS 16873] WAPA’s Administrator, under his into effect on a final basis, to remand, authority, subsequently approved the or to disapprove such rates to FERC. By Information Collection Being use of the existing Intertie transmission Delegation Order No. 00–002.00S, Submitted for Review and Approval to service rates for short-term sales for the Office of Management and Budget period between May 1, 2018, and 2 83 FR 47921 (Sept. 21, 2018) AGENCY: Federal Communications September 21, 2018. The Deputy 3 Order Confirming and Approving Rate Schedules on a Final Basis, FERC Docket No. EF18– Commission. 1 Order Confirming and Approving Rate 5–000, 165 FERC ¶ 62,137 (2018). ACTION: Notice and request for Schedules on a Final Basis, FERC Docket No. EF13– 4 50 FR 37835 (Sept. 18, 1985) and 84 FR 5347 comments. 4–000, 144 FERC ¶ 61,143 (2013). (Feb. 21, 2019).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices 37451

SUMMARY: As part of its continuing effort Reference Number. A copy of the FCC Commission will treat certain financial to reduce paperwork burdens, as submission to OMB will be displayed. and technical information submitted in required by the Paperwork Reduction SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As part of FCC Form 683 as confidential. In Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal its continuing effort to reduce addition, an applicant may use the Communications Commission (FCC or paperwork burdens, as required by the abbreviated process under 47 CFR the Commission) invites the general Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 0.459(a)(4) to request confidential public and other Federal Agencies to (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), the FCC invited treatment of the audited financial take this opportunity to comment on the the general public and other Federal statements that are submitted during the following information collection. Agencies to take this opportunity to post-selection review process. However, Pursuant to the Small Business comment on the following information if a request for public inspection for this Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the FCC collection. Comments are requested technical or financial information is seeks specific comment on how it might concerning: (a) Whether the proposed made under 47 CFR 0.461, and the ‘‘further reduce the information collection of information is necessary applicant has any objections to collection burden for small business for the proper performance of the disclosure, the applicant will be notified concerns with fewer than 25 functions of the Commission, including and will be required to justify continued employees.’’ whether the information shall have confidential treatment. To the extent The Commission may not conduct or practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the that an applicant seeks to have other sponsor a collection of information Commission’s burden estimates; (c) information collected in FCC Form 683 unless it displays a currently valid ways to enhance the quality, utility, and or during the post-selection review Office of Management and Budget clarity of the information collected; and process withheld from public (OMB) control number. No person shall (d) ways to minimize the burden of the inspection, the applicant may request be subject to any penalty for failing to collection of information on the confidential treatment pursuant to 47 comply with a collection of information respondents, including the use of CFR 0.459. subject to the PRA that does not display automated collection techniques or Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No a valid OMB control number. other forms of information technology. impact(s). DATES: Written comments and Pursuant to the Small Business Needs and Uses recommendations for the proposed Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public information collection should be Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), Connect America Fund Phase II submitted on or before July 22, 2020. the FCC seeks specific comment on how Auction ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to it might ‘‘further reduce the information The Commission is requesting the www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. collection burden for small business Office of Management and Budget Find this particular information concerns with fewer than 25 (OMB) approval for this revised collection by selecting ‘‘Currently under employees.’’ information collection. On November 30-day Review—Open for Public OMB Control Number: 3060–1256. 18, 2011, the Commission released the Comments’’ or by using the search Title: Application for Connect USF/ICC Transformation Order and function. Your comment must be America Fund Phase II and Rural Digital Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, submitted into www.reginfo.gov per the Opportunity Fund Auction Support. WC Docket No. 10–90 et al., FCC 11–161 above instructions for it to be Form Number: FCC Form 683. (USF/ICC Transformation Order and/or considered. In addition to submitting in Type of Review: Revision of a FNPRM), which comprehensively www.reginfo.gov also send a copy of currently approved collection. reformed and modernized the high-cost your comment on the proposed Respondents: Business or other for- program within the universal service information collection to Nicole Ongele, profit entities, Not-for-profit fund to focus support on networks FCC, via email to [email protected] and to institutions, and State, Local or Tribal capable of providing voice and [email protected]. Include in the governments. broadband services. Among other comments the OMB control number as Number of Respondents and things, the Commission created the shown in the SUPPLEMENTARY Responses: 530 respondents and 1,060 Connect America Fund (CAF) and INFORMATION below. responses. concluded that support in price cap FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For Time per Response: 2–12 hours (on areas would be provided through a additional information or copies of the average). combination of ‘‘a new forward-looking information collection, contact Nicole Frequency of Response: Annual model of the cost of constructing Ongele at (202) 418–2991. To view a reporting requirements, on occasion modern multi-purpose networks’’ and a copy of this information collection reporting requirement. competitive bidding process (CAF Phase request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go Obligation to Respond: Required to II auction or Auction 903). The to the web page http://www.reginfo.gov/ obtain or retain benefits. Statutory Commission also sought comment in the public/do/PRAMain, (2) look for the authority for this information collection accompanying USF/ICC Transformation section of the web page called 47 U.S.C. 154, 214, 254 and 303(r) of the FNPRM on proposed rules governing the ‘‘Currently Under Review,’’ (3) click on Communications Act of 1934, as CAF Phase II auction, including basic the downward-pointing arrow in the amended. auction design and the application ‘‘Select Agency’’ box below the Estimated Total Annual Burden: process. ‘‘Currently Under Review’’ heading, (4) 7,420 hours. In the CAF Phase II auction, service select ‘‘Federal Communications Total Annual Cost: No Cost. providers competed to receive support Commission’’ from the list of agencies Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: of up to $1.98 billion over 10 years to presented in the ‘‘Select Agency’’ box, Although most information collected in offer voice and broadband service in (5) click the ‘‘Submit’’ button to the FCC Form 683 will be made available unserved high-cost areas. The right of the ‘‘Select Agency’’ box, (6) for public inspection, the Commission information collection requirements when the list of FCC ICRs currently will withhold certain information reported under this collection are the under review appears, look for the Title collected in FCC Form 683 from routine result of several Commission decisions of this ICR and then click on the ICR public inspection. Specifically, the to implement the reform adopted in the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:36 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 37452 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices

USF/ICC Transformation Order and in order to ensure that the greatest DATES: Monday, July 27, 2020, move forward with conducting the CAF possible number of Americans will be beginning at 10:00 a.m. EDT. Phase II auction. In the April 2014 connected to the best possible networks, ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Connect America Order, WC Docket No. all at a competitive cost. Commission, 445 12th Street SW, 10–90 et al., FCC 14–54, the To implement the Rural Digital Washington, DC 20554. Commission adopted various rules Opportunity Fund auction (or Auction regarding participation in the CAF 904), the Commission adopted new FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Phase II auction, the term of support, rules for the Rural Digital Opportunity Donna Cyrus, Designated Federal and the eligible telecommunications Fund auction, including the adoption of Officer (DFO), at: (202) 418–7325 (voice) carrier (ETC) designation process. In the a two-stage application process. Like or email at: [email protected]. Phase II Auction Order, WC Docket No. with the CAF Phase II auction, this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 10–90 et al., FCC 16–64, the process includes a pre-auction short- Proposed Agenda: The agenda for the Commission adopted rules to govern the form application to be submitted by meeting will include introducing CAF Phase II auction, including the parties interested in bidding in the members of the HRPG, including the adoption of a two-stage application Rural Digital Opportunity Fund auction Committee Chair and Vice Chair, and process, which includes a pre-auction (FCC Form 183) and a post-auction long- establishing working groups that will short-form application to be submitted form application that must be submitted assist the HRPG in carrying out its work. by parties interested in bidding in the by winning bidders (or their designees) This agenda may be modified at the CAF Phase II auction and a post-auction seeking to become authorized to receive discretion of the HRPG Chair and the long-form application that must be Rural Digital Opportunity Fund support DFO. As will be discussed, the HRPG’s submitted by winning bidders seeking (FCC Form 683). The Commission is mission is to issue best practices to become authorized to receive CAF seeking approval for the short-form concerning (1) how voice service Phase II auction support. The application (FCC Form 183) in a providers can better combat unlawful Commission concluded, based on its separate collection under the OMB robocalls made to hospitals; (2) how experience with auctions and consistent control number 3060–1252. hospitals can better protect themselves with the record, that this two-stage This proposed revision seeks approval from such calls, including by using application process balances the need to of the disclosures and certifications unlawful robocall mitigation collect information essential to adopted by the Commission that must techniques; and (3) how the Federal conducting a successful auction and be made by winning bidders seeking to Government and State governments can authorizing CAF Phase II support with become authorized for Rural Digital help combat such calls. The meeting is administrative efficiency. Opportunity Fund support. The being moved to a wholly electronic On January 30, 2018, the Commission Commission plans to submit at a later format in light of continuing travel adopted a public notice that established date additional revisions or new restrictions affecting members of the the final procedures for the CAF Phase collections for OMB review to address HRPG related to public health concerns II auction, including the long-form other reforms adopted in the above- arising from the coronavirus (COVID– application disclosure and certification referenced Order. 19) pandemic. requirements for winning bidders The Commission therefore proposes The July 27th meeting will be open to seeking to become authorized to receive to revise this information collection to members of the general public via live CAF Phase II auction support. See Phase reflect these requirements to determine II Auction Procedures Public Notice, WC broadcast over the internet from the FCC the recipients of Connect America Phase Docket No. 17–182 et al., FCC 18–6. The Live web page at http://www.fcc.gov/ II auction and Rural Digital Opportunity Commission also adopted the Phase II live/. The public may also follow the Fund auction support. Auction Order on Reconsideration, WC meeting on Twitter @fcc or via the Docket No. 10–90 et al., FCC 18–5, Federal Communications Commission. Commission’s Facebook page at www.facebook.com/fcc. Members of the which modified the Commission’s letter Cecilia Sigmund, of credit rules to provide some public may submit any questions that Federal Register Liaison Officer. arise during the meeting to additional relief for CAF Phase II [FR Doc. 2020–13306 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] auction support recipients by reducing [email protected]. BILLING CODE 6712–01–P the costs of maintaining a letter of Open captioning will be provided for credit. the live stream. Other reasonable accommodations for people with The Commission proposes to reduce FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS disabilities are available upon request. the number of respondents that are COMMISSION subject to this collection now that the To request an accommodation, or for CAF Phase II auction winning bidders materials in accessible formats for [FRS 16872] have been announced. people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), Rural Digital Opportunity Fund Hospital Robocall Protection Group; Announcement of First Meeting send an email to [email protected] or call Auction the Consumer and Governmental Affairs On February 7, 2020 the Commission AGENCY: Federal Communications Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice), (202) released the Rural Digital Opportunity Commission. 418–0432 (TTY). Such requests should Fund Order, WC Docket Nos. 19–126, ACTION: Notice. include a detailed description of the 10–90, FCC 20–5 which will commit up accommodation needed. In addition, to $20.4 billion over the next decade to SUMMARY: In accordance with the please include a way for the support up to gigabit speed broadband Federal Advisory Committee Act, this Commission to contact the requester if networks in rural America. The funding notice announces, and provides a more information is needed to fulfill the will be allocated through a multi-round, preliminary agenda for the first meeting request. Please allow at least five days’ reverse, descending clock auction that of the Federal Communications advance notice; last-minute requests favors faster services with lower latency Commission’s (Commission) Hospital will be accepted but may not be possible and encourages intermodal competition Robocall Protection Group (HRPG). to accommodate.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices 37453

Federal Communications Commission. Review of the Commission’s Report and incumbents involved in the transition Gregory Haledjian, Order and Order of Proposed process. The cost of such delay and Legal Advisor, Office of the Bureau Chief, Modification in the above-captioned disruption could be enormous. In Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau. proceeding. Petitioners asked the addition to the public interest harms, [FR Doc. 2020–13372 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] Commission to stay the C-band auction grant of a stay would undercut the BILLING CODE 6712–01–P and transition process while their specific goal of U.S. leadership in 5G challenges to the 3.7 GHz Report and and the general goals of the auction Order are pending before the United program. Accordingly, we conclude that FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS States Court of Appeals for the District a stay of the Order and Order and COMMISSION of Columbia. In their Stay Petition, Proposed Modification Pending Judicial Petitioners argue that the 3.7 GHz Review is not warranted. [GN Docket No. 18–122; DA 20–609; FRS 16871] Report and Order will trigger a chain of Federal Communications Commission. events—beginning with the May 29, Amy Brett, 2020 election by eligible space station Order Denying Stay Petition Associate Division Chief, Competition and operators to relocate on an accelerated AGENCY: Federal Communications Infrastructure Policy Division, Wireless basis—that may be irreversible and that Telecommunications Bureau. Commission. will harm them by benefiting competing [FR Doc. 2020–13314 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] ACTION: Notice. space station operators that are eligible for relocation and accelerated relocation BILLING CODE 6712–01–P SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal payments and depriving them of Communications Commission spectrum access rights without (Commission) denies the Joint Petition compensation. They argue that the FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION for Stay of Report and Order and Order Commission exceeded its authority to [Docket No. 20–10; Petition No. P1–20] of Proposed Modification Pending modify their spectrum access rights, Judicial Review of ABS Global Ltd., allocated too much money available to Investigation Into Conditions Created Empresa Argentina de Soluciones certain space station incumbents in the by Canadian Ballast Water Regulations Satelitales S.A., and Hispamar Sate´lites form of accelerated relocation payments in the U.S./Canada Great Lakes Trade S.A., and Hispasat S.A. and reimbursement of relocation costs DATES: The Order Denying Stay Petition associated with new satellites, and AGENCY: Federal Maritime Commission. (DA 20–609) was released on June 10, arbitrarily excluded Petitioners from ACTION: Notice of investigation and 2020. receiving any relocation payments. request for comments. ADDRESSES: Federal Communications The Commission denies the Stay SUMMARY: The Federal Maritime Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Petition. First, Petitioners have not Washington, DC 20554. Commission has initiated an shown that they will suffer irreparable investigation into the allegations made FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: harm. The harm that Petitioners allege in a petition filed by the Lake Carriers’ Anna Gentry of the Wireless is not imminent, is conjectural, and Association that conditions created by Telecommunications Bureau, Mobility consists of economic injuries that are the Government of Canada are Division, at (202) 418–7769 or not severe enough to be cognizable as unfavorable to shipping in the United [email protected]. irreparable harm. Second, Petitioners States/Canada trade. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a have not shown a likelihood of success on the merits. The Commission DATES: Submit comments on or before summary of the Order Denying Stay July 22, 2020. Petition (DA 20–609) released on June addressed Petitioners’ principal 10, 2020. The complete text of the Order arguments at length in the 3.7 GHz ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, is available for viewing via the Report and Order. The Stay Petition identified by Docket No. 20–10, by the does not persuade the Commission that following method: Commission’s ECFS website by entering • the docket number, GN Docket No. 18– the Petitioners’ arguments are likely to Email: [email protected]. For 122. The complete text of the Order is succeed in court any more than they did comments, include in the subject line: also available for public inspection and before the agency. Third, Petitioners ‘‘Docket No. 20–10, Comments on copying from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. have not shown that the equities favor Conditions Created by Canadian Ballast Eastern Time (ET) Monday through a stay. Petitioners have not met their Water Regulations in the U.S./Canada Thursday or from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. burden of showing that the public Great Lakes Trade.’’ Comments should ET on Fridays in the FCC Reference interest militates in favor of a stay and be attached to the email as a Microsoft Information Center, 445 12th Street SW, that others would not be harmed by a Word or text-searchable PDF document. Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554, stay. Moreover, Petitioners have not Docket: For access to the docket to telephone 202–488–5300, fax 202–488– shown that the public interest would read background documents or public 5563, or you may contact BCPI at its favor grant of the stay. The comments received, go to the website: http://www.BCPIWEB.com. Commission’s actions to repurpose the Commission’s Electronic Reading Room When ordering documents from BCPI, C-band are an indispensable element of at: www2.fmc.gov/readingroom/ please provide the appropriate FCC its overall strategy of promoting the proceeding/20-10/. document number, for example, DA 20– deployment of fifth generation (5G) Unless otherwise directed by the 609. wireless services, with millions of jobs, commenter, all comments will be and billions of dollars in economic treated as confidential under 46 U.S.C. Synopsis growth and other public benefits, at 42105 and 46 CFR 550.104. On May 15, 2020, ABS Global Ltd., stake. Grant of a stay pending judicial FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For Empresa Argentina de Soluciones review would significantly delay the questions regarding submitting Satelitales S.A., and Hispamar Sate´lites auction and transition process and harm comments or the treatment of S.A., and Hispasat S.A. filed a Joint multiple stakeholders, including confidential information, contact Rachel Petition for Stay Pending Judicial prospective bidders and the diverse E. Dickon, Secretary; Phone: (202) 523–

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 37454 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices

5725; Email: [email protected]. For Petitioner argues that because of the consideration under the Commission’s technical questions, contact: Peter J. vessel type and age differences between regulations. See 46 CFR part 550, King, Deputy Managing Director; Phone the Canadian and U.S. fleets, the subpart D. The Commission has (202) 523–5800; Email: [email protected]. respective costs of implementing the therefore determined to initiate an SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: proposed regulations will be very investigation into whether the proposed different. Transport Canada estimates Transport Canada regulations create I. Introduction the cost of implementing the unfavorable conditions to shipping in On March 6, 2020, the Lake Carriers’ requirements on all Canadian vessels the foreign trade of the United States. To Association (Petitioner), a trade currently serving the trade would be that end, the Commission has association made up of U.S. owners and approximately 632 million Canadian designated the Deputy Managing operators of vessels serving the Great dollars. Petitioner argues that Director to lead an investigation into the Lakes (Lakers), filed a petition alleging implementing these same regulations on Petitioner’s allegations and to prepare a that conditions created by Transport all U.S. vessels currently serving the report on the investigation’s findings Canada, an agency of the Government of trade would cost nearly 1.132 billion and recommendations for Commission Canada, are unfavorable to shipping in Canadian dollars. Ultimately, Petitioner consideration. the United States/Canada trade, argues the proposed regulations will As an initial step in the investigation, pursuant to Section 19(1)(b) of the essentially double the U.S. Laker cost of interested persons are requested to Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (Section 19) participating in the trade while submit views, arguments and/or data on codified in 46 U.S.C. 42101. Section 19 Canadian carriers would experience a the Petition. Comments may address authorizes the Federal Maritime less than 1 Canadian dollar per ton cost any aspect of the Petition. Commission (Commission) to increase. As the Commission proceeds with investigate these conditions and to Petitioner argues that its members this investigation, it may determine the adopt regulations to adjust or meet such cannot comply with the regulations need to request additional comment or conditions. In this instance, Petitioner because of the prohibitive cost, and they gather information through other means requests that the Commission adopt cannot avoid the regulations and as authorized under 46 U.S.C. 42104 regulations in order to remedy a continue to carry United States exports and 46 CFR part 550. condition it alleges will result in to Canada because they must load irreparable harm to Petitioner’s ballast water as they offload cargo at By the Commission. members. Canadian ports. Petitioner also states Rachel Dickon, that its members cannot operate their Secretary. II. Summary of Petition vessels outside of the Great Lakes and [FR Doc. 2020–13313 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] Petitioner argues that Transport St. Lawrence River because of their ship BILLING CODE 6730–02–P Canada’s proposed regulations to design and current U.S. Coast Guard require the installation of ballast water certification is restricted to service on management systems (BWMS) on Laker the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River. vessels will effectively drive out U.S.- Should the regulations be finalized and DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND flag vessels from the cross-lakes U.S. if U.S. vessels were thereby forced out HUMAN SERVICES export trade to Canada. These of the trade, Petitioner contends that regulations, which were proposed by Canadian vessels would enjoy a Centers for Disease Control and Transport Canada on June 8, 2019, monopoly on the cross-lakes U.S. export Prevention would require Canadian vessels and trade to Canada. vessels in waters under Canadian Petitioner argues that prohibiting the [Docket No. NIOSH 278] jurisdiction to develop and implement a loading of ballast water without a ballast water management plan and BWMS serves no environmental Board of Scientific Counselors, comply with a performance standard purpose because, unlike discharging National Institute for Occupational that would limit the number of ballast water, loading ballast water in Safety and Health (BSC, NIOSH) organisms discharged, with a Canadian waters does not result in the compliance date of September 8, 2024. potential introduction of nonnative AGENCY: Centers for Disease Control and Ballast Water Regulations, Canada organisms into Canadian waters. Prevention (CDC), Department of Health Gazette, Part 1, Vol. 153, No. 23 at 15. Petitioner asserts that the regulations and Human Services (HHS). The proposed regulations would serve no environmental purpose and the ACTION: Notice of meeting and request exempt vessels of a non-signatory party cost of compliance is prohibitively high for comment. to the International Maritime for U.S. vessels, and suggests that the Organization (IMO) International real purpose of the regulations is to SUMMARY: In accordance with the Convention on the Management of drive out U.S. vessels from this trade. Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments, Petitioner is asking the Commission to CDC announces the following virtual such as the United States, if those issue a regulation to meet the unfair meeting of the Board of Scientific vessels operate exclusively within the competitive conditions created by Counselors, National Institute for Great Lakes Basin and do not load Transport Canada. Petitioner has Occupational Safety and Health (BSC, ballast water from or release ballast provided a proposed regulation that NIOSH). This meeting is open to the water into Canadian waters. Petitioner would assess a fee of 300,000.00 U.S. public, limited only by the availability alleges that this exemption would not dollars each time a Canadian vessel of telephone ports and webinar apply to its members’ vessels because enters any U.S. port. capacity. Time will be available for they need to load ballast water after public comment. If you wish to attend offloading export cargo at Canadian III. Investigation and Initial Request for by webcast or teleconference, please ports, and that in order for its members’ Comments register at the NIOSH website http:// vessels to comply with the proposed The Commission has reviewed the www.cdc.gov/niosh/bsc/ or call (404– regulations, they would need to install Petition and determined that it meets 498–2581) at least five business days in a BWMS on each vessel. the threshold requirements for advance of the meeting.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices 37455

DATES: The meeting will be held on 9777483. This meeting is open to the then discuss and finalize the report and August 4, 2020, from 1:00 p.m.–5:00 public, limited only by the number of recommendations to the NIOSH p.m., EDT. Adobe license seats available, which is Director. Agenda items are subject to Written comments received by July 100. change as priorities dictate. For more 27, 2020 will be provided to the Board information on the meeting agenda visit Public Participation prior to the meeting. Docket number the NIOSH website (http:// NIOSH–278, will close August 4, 2020, Comments received are part of the www.cdc.gov/niosh/bsc/). and will be considered by the National public record and are subject to public The Director, Strategic Business Firefighter Registry Program when disclosure. Do not include any Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief developing the final protocol. information in your comment or Operating Officer, Centers for Disease ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, supporting materials that you consider Control and Prevention, has been identified by Docket No. NIOSH–278 by confidential or inappropriate for public delegated the authority to sign Federal mail. CDC does not accept comment by disclosure. If you include your name, Register notices pertaining to email. contact information, or other announcements of meetings and other • Mail: Docket number NIOSH–278 information that identifies you in the committee management activities, for c/o Sherri Diana, NIOSH Docket Office, body of your comments, that both the Centers for Disease Control and National Institute for Occupational information will be on public display. Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Safety and Health, 1090 Tusculum CDC will review all submissions and Substances and Disease Registry. Avenue, MS C–34, Cincinnati, Ohio may choose to redact, or withhold, 45226. submissions containing private or Kalwant Smagh, Instructions: All submissions received proprietary information such as Social Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, must include the Agency name and Security numbers, medical information, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Docket Number. Written public inappropriate language, or duplicate/ comments submitted by August 4, 2020 near duplicate examples of a mass-mail [FR Doc. 2020–13300 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] will be provided to the BSC, NIOSH campaign. CDC will carefully consider BILLING CODE 4163–18–P prior to the meeting. Docket number all comments submitted into the docket. NIOSH–278 will close August 4, 2020 CDC does not accept comment by email. Oral Public Comment: The public is DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND and will be considered by the National welcome to participate during the HUMAN SERVICES Firefighter Registry Program when public comment period, from 2:00 p.m. developing the final protocol. to 2:15 p.m. EDT on August 4, 2020. Centers for Disease Control and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Please note that the public comment Prevention Emily J.K. Novicki, M.A., M.P.H., period ends at the time indicated above. Executive Secretary, BSC, NIOSH, CDC, Comments should be specifically related Notice of Closed Meeting 1600 Clifton Road, MS V24–4, Atlanta, to the National Firefighter Registry Pursuant to section 10(d) of the GA, 30329, telephone (404) 498–2581, protocol draft report which can be or email at [email protected]. Federal Advisory Committee Act, as found in docket number NIOSH–278 or amended, notice is hereby given of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: by visiting the subcommittee website: following meeting. Purpose: The Secretary, the Assistant https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/bsc/nfrs/. Secretary for Health, and by delegation The meeting will be closed to the Each commenter will be provided up to public in accordance with the the Director, Centers for Disease Control five minutes for comment. A limited and Prevention, are authorized under provisions set forth in sections number of time slots are available and 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., Sections 301 and 308 of the Public will be assigned on a first come-first Health Service Act to conduct directly as amended, and the Determination of served basis. the Director, Strategic Business or by grants or contracts, research, Procedure for Oral Public Comment: Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief experiments, and demonstrations Members of the public who wish to Operating Officer, CDC, pursuant to relating to occupational safety and address the NIOSH BSC are requested to Public Law 92–463. The grant health and to mine health. The Board of contact the Executive Secretary for applications and the discussions could Scientific Counselors provides guidance scheduling purposes (see contact disclose confidential trade secrets or to the Director, National Institute for information above). Occupational Safety and Health on Written Public Comment: Written commercial property such as patentable research and prevention programs. comments will also be accepted from material, and personal information Specifically, the Board provides those unable to attend the public concerning individuals associated with guidance on the Institute’s research session per the instructions provided in the grant applications, the disclosure of activities related to developing and the address section above. Written which would constitute a clearly evaluating hypotheses, systematically comments received in advance of the unwarranted invasion of personal documenting findings and meeting will be included in the official privacy. disseminating results. The Board record of the meeting. Name of Committee: Disease, evaluates the degree to which the Matters to be Considered: The agenda Disability, and Injury Prevention and activities of the National Institute for for the meeting addresses occupational Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP)— Occupational Safety and Health: (1) safety and health issues related to: The RFA–CE–20–005, Rigorously Evaluating Conform to appropriate scientific Board of Scientific Counselors Approaches to Prevent Adult- standards, (2) address current, relevant Subcommittee for the National Perpetrated Child Sex Abuse (CSA). needs, and (3) produce intended results. Firefighter Registry (the Subcommittee) Date: July 22–23, 2020. Meeting Information: Adobe Connect report pertaining to the protocol Time: 8:30 a.m.–5:30 p.m., EDT. webcast will be available at https:// including the questionnaire, enrollment Place: Zoom Video Conference/ odniosh.adobeconnect.com/nioshbsc/, process, and data sharing. The Teleconference. and teleconference is available toll-free Subcommittee will present their report Agenda: To review and evaluate grant at (855) 644–0229, Participant Pass Code and recommendations to BSC, who will applications.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 37456 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices

For Further Information Contact: information technology to minimize the Quality IT Product and Support Kimberly Leeks, Ph.D., M.P.H., information collection burden. Teams Scientific Review Official, National DATES: Comments must be received by Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501– Center for Injury Prevention and August 21, 2020. 3520), federal agencies must obtain Control, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway NE, ADDRESSES: When commenting, please approval from the Office of Management Building 106, MS S106–9, Atlanta, reference the document identifier or and Budget (OMB) for each collection of Georgia 30341, Telephone (770) 488– OMB control number. To be assured information they conduct or sponsor. 6562, [email protected]. consideration, comments and The term ‘‘collection of information’’ is The Director, Strategic Business recommendations must be submitted in defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief any one of the following ways: 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests Operating Officer, Centers for Disease 1. Electronically. You may send your or requirements that members of the Control and Prevention, has been comments electronically to http:// public submit reports, keep records, or delegated the authority to sign Federal www.regulations.gov. Follow the provide information to a third party. Register notices pertaining to instructions for ‘‘Comment or Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA announcements of meetings and other Submission’’ or ‘‘More Search Options’’ requires federal agencies to publish a committee management activities, for to find the information collection 60-day notice in the Federal Register both the Centers for Disease Control and document(s) that are accepting concerning each proposed collection of Prevention and the Agency for Toxic comments. information, including each proposed Substances and Disease Registry. 2. By regular mail. You may mail extension or reinstatement of an existing Kalwant Smagh, written comments to the following collection of information, before Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, address: CMS, Office of Strategic submitting the collection to OMB for Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers Operations and Regulatory Affairs, approval. To comply with this for Disease Control and Prevention. Division of Regulations Development, requirement, CMS is publishing this [FR Doc. 2020–13370 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] Attention: Document Identifier/OMB notice. ll BILLING CODE 4163–18–P Control Number , Room C4–26–05, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Information Collection Maryland 21244–1850. 1. Type of Information Collection DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND To obtain copies of a supporting Request: Revision with change of a HUMAN SERVICES statement and any related forms for the previously approved collection; Title: proposed collection(s) summarized in Part C Medicare Advantage Reporting Centers for Medicare & Medicaid this notice, you may make your request Requirements and Supporting Services using one of following: Regulations in 42 CFR 422.516(a); Use: 1. Access CMS’ website address at Section 1852(m) of the Social Security [Document Identifiers CMS–10261, CMS– https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and- Act (the Act) and CMS regulations at 42 10398, CMS–359/360 and CMS–10706] Guidance/Legislation/ CFR 422.135 allow Medicare Advantage PaperworkReductionActof1995/PRA- Agency Information Collection (MA) plans the ability to provide Listing.html. ‘‘additional telehealth benefits’’ to Activities: Proposed Collection; 2. Email your request, including your Comment Request enrollees starting in plan year 2020 and address, phone number, OMB number, treat them as basic benefits. MA AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & and CMS document identifier, to additional telehealth benefits are Medicaid Services, HHS. [email protected]. limited to services for which benefits 3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at ACTION: Notice. are available under Medicare Part B but (410) 786–1326. which are not payable under section SUMMARY: The Centers for Medicare & FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 1834(m) of the Act. In addition, MA Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing William N. Parham at (410) 786–4669. additional telehealth benefits are an opportunity for the public to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: services that been identified by the MA comment on CMS’ intention to collect plan for the applicable year as clinically information from the public. Under the Contents appropriate to furnish through Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the This notice sets out a summary of the electronic information and PRA), federal agencies are required to use and burden associated with the telecommunications technology (or publish notice in the Federal Register following information collections. More ‘‘electronic exchange’’) when the concerning each proposed collection of detailed information can be found in physician (as defined in section 1861(r) information (including each proposed each collection’s supporting statement of the Act) or practitioner (as defined in extension or reinstatement of an existing and associated materials (see section 1842(b)(18)(C) of the Act) collection of information) and to allow ADDRESSES). providing the service is not in the same 60 days for public comment on the CMS–10261 Part C Medicare location as the enrollee. Per proposed action. Interested persons are Advantage Reporting Requirements § 422.135(d), MA plans may only invited to send comments regarding our and Supporting Regulations in 42 CFR furnish MA additional telehealth burden estimates or any other aspect of 422.516(a) benefits using contracted providers. this collection of information, including CMS–10398 Generic Clearance for The data collected in this measure the necessity and utility of the proposed Medicaid and CHIP State Plan, will provide CMS with a better information collection for the proper Waiver, and Program Submissions understanding of the number of performance of the agency’s functions, CMS–359/360 Comprehensive organizations utilizing Telehealth per the accuracy of the estimated burden, Outpatient Rehabilitation Facility contract and to also capture those ways to enhance the quality, utility, and (CORF) Certification and Survey specialties used for both in-person and clarity of the information to be Forms Telehealth. This data will allow CMS to collected, and the use of automated CMS–10706 Generic Clearance for the improve its policy and process collection techniques or other forms of Center for Clinical Standards and surrounding Telehealth. In addition, the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices 37457

specialist and facility data we are Rehabilitation Facility (CORF) administering appropriate information collecting aligns with some of the Certification and Survey Forms; Use: systems so that the public can submit provider and facility specialty types that The form CMS–359 is an application for healthcare-related information. While organizations are required to include in health care providers that seek to beneficiaries ultimately benefit, the their networks and to submit on their participate in the Medicare program as primary users of (CIPST) are healthcare HSD tables in the Network Management a Comprehensive Outpatient facility employees and contractors. They Module in Health Plan Management Rehabilitation Facility (CORF). The are responsible for the collection and System. Form Number: CMS–10261 form initiates the process for facilities to submission of appropriate beneficiary (OMB control number: (OMB 0938– become certified as a CORF and it data to CMS to receive merit-based 1054); Frequency: Annual; Affected provides the CMS Location and State compensation. Public: Private Sector: Business or other Survey Agency (SA) staff identifying The generic clearance will allow a for-profits; Number of Respondents: information regarding the applicant that rapid response to inform CMS 681; Total Annual Responses: 5,448; is stored in the Automated Survey initiatives using a mixture of qualitative Total Annual Hours: 205,662. (For Processing Environment (ASPEN) and quantitative consumer research policy questions regarding this system. strategies (including formative research collection contact Maria Sotirelis at 410- The form CMS–360 is a survey tool studies and methodological tests) to 786–0552.) used by the SAs to record information improve information systems that serve 2. Type of Information Collection in order to determine a provider’s CMS audiences. CMS implements Request: Revision of a currently compliance with the CORF Conditions human-centered methods and activities approved collection; Title of of Participation (COPs) and to report for the improvement of policies, Information Collection: Generic this information to the Federal services, and products. As information Clearance for Medicaid and CHIP State government. The form includes basic systems and technologies are developed Plan, Waiver, and Program Submissions; information on the COP requirements, or improved upon, they can be tested Use: State Medicaid and CHIP agencies check boxes to indicate the level of and evaluated for end-user feedback are responsible for developing compliance, and a section for recording regarding utility, usability, and submissions to CMS, including state notes. CMS has the responsibility and desirability. The overall goal is to apply plan amendments and requests for authority for certification decisions a human-centered engagement model to waivers and program demonstrations. which are based on provider maximize the extent to which CMS States use templates when they are compliance with the COPs and this form CIPST product teams can gather ongoing available and submit the forms to supports this process. Form Number: feedback from consumers. Feedback review for consistency with statutory CMS–359/360 (OMB control number: helps engineers and designers arrive at and regulatory requirements (or in the 0938–0267); Frequency: Occasionally; better solutions, therefore minimizing case of waivers and demonstrations Affected Public: Private Sector (Business the burden on consumers and meeting whether the proposal is likely to or other for-profits); Number of their needs and goals. promote the objectives of the Medicaid Respondents: 49; Number of Responses: The activities under this clearance program). If the requirements are met, 8; Total Annual Hours: 74. (For involve voluntary engagement with we approve the states’ submissions questions regarding this collection target CIPST users to receive design and giving them the authority to implement contact Caroline Gallaher (410) 786– research feedback. Voluntary end-users the flexibilities. For a state to receive 8705.) from samples of self-selected customers, Medicaid Title XIX funding, there must 4. Type of Information Collection as well as convenience samples, with be an approved Title XIX state plan. Request: New collection (Request for a respondents selected either to cover a The development of streamlined new OMB control number); Title of broad range of customers or to include submissions forms enhances the Information Collection: Generic specific characteristics related to certain collaboration and partnership between Clearance for the Center for Clinical products or services. All collection of states and CMS by documenting our Standards and Quality IT Product and information under this clearance is for policy for states to use as they are Support Teams; Use: The Health use in both quantitative and qualitative developing program changes. Information Technology for Economic groups collecting data related to human- Streamlined forms improve efficiency of and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act is computer interactions with information administration by creating a common part of the American Reinvestment and system development. We will use the and user-friendly understanding of the Recovery Act (ARRA) of 2009. As noted findings to create the highest possible information we need to quickly process in the HITECH Act, CMS is responsible public benefit. Form Number: CMS– requests for state plan amendments, for defining ‘‘meaningful use’’ of 10706 (OMB control number: 0938– waivers, and demonstration, as well as certified electronic health record (EHR) NEW); Frequency: Occasionally; ongoing reporting. Form Number: CMS– technology and developing incentive Affected Public: Individuals and Private 10398 (OMB control number: 0938– payment programs for Medicare and Sector (Business or other for-profit and 1148); Frequency: Collection-specific, Medicaid providers. CMS is continually Not-for-profit institutions); Number of but generally the frequency is yearly, implementing and updating information Respondents: 11,476; Total Annual once, and occasionally; Affected Public: systems as legislation and requirements Responses: 11,476; Total Annual Hours: State, Local, or Tribal Governments; change. To support this initiative, CCSQ 4,957. (For policy questions regarding Number of Respondents: 56; Total IT Product and Support Teams (CIPST) this collection contact Stephanie Ray at Responses: 1,540; Total Hours: 154,104 must have the capacity for engagement 410–786–0971) (3-year total). (For policy questions with users in an ongoing variety of regarding this collection contact research, discovery, and validation Dated: June 16, 2020. Annette Pearson at 410–786–6858.) activities to create and refine systems William N. Parham, III, 3. Type of Information Collection that do not place an undue burden on Director, Paperwork Reduction Staff, Office Request: Extension of a currently users and instead are efficient, usable, of Strategic Operations and Regulatory approved information collection; Title and desirable. Affairs. of Information Collection: The Center for Clinical Standards and [FR Doc. 2020–13298 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] Comprehensive Outpatient Quality (CCSQ) is responsible for BILLING CODE 4120–01–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 37458 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND You may submit comments as made publicly available, submit your HUMAN SERVICES follows: comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two Electronic Submissions Food and Drug Administration copies total. One copy will include the Submit electronic comments in the [Docket No. FDA–2020–N–1539] information you claim to be confidential following way: with a heading or cover note that states • Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee; Federal eRulemaking Portal: ‘‘THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.’’ FDA Public Docket; Request for Comments instructions for submitting comments. will review this copy, including the Comments submitted electronically, claimed confidential information, in its AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, including attachments, to https:// consideration of comments. The second HHS. www.regulations.gov will be posted to copy, which will have the claimed ACTION: Notice; establishment of a the docket unchanged. Because your confidential information redacted/ public docket; request for comments. comment will be made public, you are blacked out, will be available for public solely responsible for ensuring that your SUMMARY: The Food and Drug viewing and posted on https:// comment does not include any www.regulations.gov. Submit both Administration (FDA) announces a confidential information that you or a forthcoming public advisory committee copies to the Dockets Management Staff. third party may not wish to be posted, If you do not wish your name and meeting of the Oncologic Drugs such as medical information, your or Advisory Committee. The general contact information be made publicly anyone else’s Social Security number, or function of the committee is to provide available, you can provide this confidential business information, such advice and recommendations to FDA on information on the cover sheet and not as a manufacturing process. Please note regulatory issues. The meeting will be in the body of your comments and you that if you include your name, contact open to the public. FDA is establishing must identify the information as information, or other information that a docket for public comment on this ‘‘confidential.’’ Any information marked identifies you in the body of your document. as ‘‘confidential’’ will not be disclosed comments, that information will be except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 DATES: The meeting will be held on July posted on https://www.regulations.gov. and other applicable disclosure law. For 14, 2020, from 9 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. • If you want to submit a comment more information about FDA’s posting ADDRESSES: Please note that due to the with confidential information that you of comments to public dockets, see 80 impact of this COVID–19 pandemic, all do not wish to be made available to the FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access meeting participants will be joining this public, submit the comment as a the information at: https:// advisory committee meeting via an written/paper submission and in the www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015- online teleconferencing platform. manner detailed (see ‘‘Written/Paper 09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf. Answers to commonly asked questions Submissions’’ and ‘‘Instructions’’). Docket: For access to the docket to about FDA advisory committee meetings Written/Paper Submissions read background documents or the may be accessed at: https:// electronic and written/paper comments Submit written/paper submissions as www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/ received, go to https:// AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ follows: • Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for www.regulations.gov and insert the ucm408555.htm. docket number, found in brackets in the FDA is establishing a docket for written/paper submissions): Dockets heading of this document, into the public comment on this meeting. The Management Staff (HFA–305), Food and ‘‘Search’’ box and follow the prompts docket number is FDA–2020–N–1539. Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers The docket will close on July 13, 2020. Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. and/or go to the Dockets Management Submit either electronic or written • For written/paper comments Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, comments on this public meeting by submitted to the Dockets Management Rockville, MD 20852, 240–402–7500. July 13, 2020. Please note that late, Staff, FDA will post your comment, as FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: untimely filed comments will not be well as any attachments, except for Yvette Waples, Center for Drug considered. Electronic comments must information submitted, marked and Evaluation and Research, Food and be submitted on or before July 13, 2020. identified, as confidential, if submitted Drug Administration, 10903 New The https://www.regulations.gov as detailed in ‘‘Instructions.’’ Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, electronic filing system will accept Instructions: All submissions received Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002, 301– comments until 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time must include the Docket No. FDA– 796–9001, Fax: 301–847–8533, email: at the end of July 13, 2020. Comments 2020–N–1539 for ‘‘Oncologic Drugs [email protected], or FDA Advisory received by mail/hand delivery/courier Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting; Committee Information Line, 1–800– (for written/paper submissions) will be Establishment of a Public Docket; 741–8138 (301–443–0572 in the considered timely if they are Request for Comments.’’ Received Washington, DC area). A notice in the postmarked or the delivery service comments, those filed in a timely Federal Register about last minute acceptance receipt is on or before that manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed modifications that impact a previously date. in the docket and, except for those announced advisory committee meeting Comments received on or before June submitted as ‘‘Confidential cannot always be published quickly 29, 2020, will be provided to the Submissions,’’ publicly viewable at enough to provide timely notice. committee. Comments received after https://www.regulations.gov or at the Therefore, you should always check the that date will be taken into Dockets Management Staff between 9 FDA’s website at https://www.fda.gov/ consideration by FDA. In the event that a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and the meeting is cancelled, FDA will Friday. Please call 240–402–7500 ahead scroll down to the appropriate advisory continue to evaluate any relevant of the meeting time to verify access. committee meeting link, or call the applications or information, and • Confidential Submissions—To advisory committee information line to consider any comments submitted to the submit a comment with confidential learn about possible modifications docket, as appropriate. information that you do not wish to be before coming to the meeting.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices 37459

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For press inquiries, please contact the (84 FR 3467), in FR Doc. 2019–02032, Agenda: The meeting presentations Office of Media Affairs at fdaoma@ the following correction is made: will be heard, viewed, captioned, and fda.hhs.gov or 301–796–4540. 1. On page 3467, in the table, the recorded through an online FDA welcomes the attendance of the entry for ANDA 077736 is removed. The teleconferencing platform. On July 14, public at its advisory committee approval of ANDA 077736 was 2020, the committee will discuss meetings and will make every effort to withdrawn effective November 2, 2018. biologic license application (BLA) accommodate persons with disabilities. In the Federal Register of April 2, 761158, for belantamab mafodotin, If you require accommodations due to a 2018 (83 FR 13994), FDA denied a submitted by GlaxoSmithKline disability, please contact Yvette Waples hearing and issued an order Intellectual Property Development Ltd. (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) withdrawing approval of multiple England. The proposed indication (use) at least 7 days in advance of the ANDAs for polyethylene glycol 3350, for this product is for the treatment of meeting. effective May 2, 2018. Breckenridge’s adults with relapsed or refractory FDA is committed to the orderly ANDA 077736 was included in the multiple myeloma who have received at conduct of its advisory committee April 2018 notice. In the Federal least four prior therapies including an meetings. Please visit our website at Register of July 30, 2018 (83 FR 36604), anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, a https://www.fda.gov/ FDA subsequently published a notice proteasome inhibitor, and an AdvisoryCommittees/ granting a temporary stay of the immunomodulatory agent. AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ effective date of the April 2018 notice, FDA intends to make background ucm111462.htm for procedures on extending the withdrawal of approval of material available to the public no later public conduct during advisory the ANDAs to November 2, 2018. Thus, than 2 business days before the meeting. committee meetings. the approval of ANDA 077736 was If FDA is unable to post the background Notice of this meeting is given under withdrawn effective November 2, 2018. material on its website prior to the the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2). Dated: June 12, 2020. meeting, the background material will Lowell J. Schiller, be made publicly available on FDA’s Dated: June 15, 2020. Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy. website at the time of the advisory Lowell J. Schiller, [FR Doc. 2020–13346 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] committee meeting. Background Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy. BILLING CODE 4164–01–P material and the link to the online [FR Doc. 2020–13345 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] teleconference meeting room will be BILLING CODE 4164–01–P available at https://www.fda.gov/ DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/ HUMAN SERVICES default.htm. Scroll down to the DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND appropriate advisory committee meeting HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Services link. The meeting will include slide Administration presentations with audio components to Food and Drug Administration allow the presentation of materials in a [Docket No. FDA–2019–N–0163] Notice of a Supplemental Award to manner that most closely resembles an Education Development Center for the in-person advisory committee meeting. Hospira, Inc., et al.; Withdrawal of Home Visiting Collaborative Procedure: Interested persons may Approval of 12 Abbreviated New Drug Improvement and Innovation Network present data, information, or views, Applications; Correction 2.0 Cooperative Agreement orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee. All electronic and AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, AGENCY: Health Resources and Services written submissions submitted to the HHS. Administration (HRSA), Department of Docket (see ADDRESSES) on or before ACTION: Notice; correction. Health and Human Services (HHS). June 29, 2020, will be provided to the ACTION: Notice of a Supplemental committee. Oral presentations from the SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Award to Education Development public will be scheduled between Administration (FDA) is correcting a Center for Home Visiting Collaborative approximately 11:30 a.m. and 12:30 notice that appeared in the Federal Improvement and Innovation Network p.m. Those individuals interested in Register of February 12, 2019. The 2.0 Cooperative Agreement. making formal oral presentations should document announced the withdrawal of notify the contact person and submit a approval of 12 abbreviated new drug SUMMARY: HRSA announces the award brief statement of the general nature of applications (ANDAs) from multiple of a supplemental award of the evidence or arguments they wish to applicants. The document erroneously approximately $330,000 per year to the present, the names and addresses of included ANDA 077736 for Education Development Center (EDC) proposed participants, and an Polyethylene Glycol 3350 Powder for for the Home Visiting Collaborative indication of the approximate time Oral Solution, 17 grams/scoopful, held Improvement and Innovation Network requested to make their presentation on by Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc. 2.0 (HV CoIIN 2.0) for fiscal years (FY) or before June 19, 2020. Time allotted (Breckenridge). This document corrects 2020, 2021 and 2022. The supplement for each presentation may be limited. If that error. will allow the recipient to build a the number of registrants requesting to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: continuous quality improvement (CQI) speak is greater than can be reasonably Kimberly Lehrfeld, Center for Drug health equity framework for the accommodated during the scheduled Evaluation and Research, Food and Maternal, Infant and Early Childhood open public hearing session, FDA may Drug Administration, 10903 New Home Visiting Program (MIECHV). conduct a lottery to determine the Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6226, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: speakers for the scheduled open public Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002, 301– Monique Fountain Hanna, Chief hearing session. The contact person will 796–3137. Medical Officer, Division Home Visiting notify interested persons regarding their SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the and Early Childhood Systems, HRSA, request to speak by June 22, 2020. Federal Register of February 12, 2019 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 18N180,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 37460 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices

Rockville, MD 20857, Phone: (215) 861– health equity framework utilizing relationship between the overall aim of 4385, or Email: [email protected]. quality improvement as a methodology. the project, the drivers that contribute SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The HVCoIIN 2.0 is designed to directly to the aim) change ideas, facilitate the delivery and accelerate the measures and proposed tests of change; Intended Recipient of Award: improvement of home visiting services • Implement a quality improvement Education Development Center, Inc. provided by MIECHV Program strategy such as: Breakthrough Series, Amount of Non-Competitive Award: recipients, including subrecipient local Plan-Do-Study-Act Cycles, to test and Approximately $330,000/year for FY implementing agencies (LIAs) utilizing eventually demonstrate improvements 2020, FY 2021, and FY 2022. continuous quality improvement in program outcomes through a health Budget Period: 09/01/2019–08/31/ methodologies. The CoIIN provides a equity collaborative; and pilot test with 2020; 09/01/2020–08/31/2021; 09/01/ platform and strategy for collaborative MIECHV awardees over 12–18 months; 2021–08/31/2022. learning and quality improvement • Apply the health equity framework CFDA Number: 93.110. toward common measurable aims— that demonstrated improvements to rapid-cycle tests of change ideas. twelve current HV CoIIN 2.0 scale topics Authority: Social Security Act, Title V, § 511 (42 U.S.C. 711). The HVCoIIN has three main priority (developmental screening, areas. Priority Area #2 is focused on breastfeeding, and maternal depression) Justification: The MIECHV Program, ‘‘testing of new change ideas.’’ This and new topic CoIINs (intimate partner an evidence-based home visiting priority area is designed to develop and violence and well child care); and program, seeks to improve maternal and subsequently refine discrete sets of • Create a final health equity CoIIN child health outcomes and address change ideas based on evidence in the playbook with measures, refined tests of various social determinants that impact field and relevance to home visiting change that can be used to spread health equity such as reducing child implementation. The grantee will carry lessons learned across home visiting abuse and neglect, addressing family out all the activities pertaining to the programs. EDC was awarded a 5-year violence, promoting child development development of the health equity HV CoIIN cooperative agreement on and school readiness, and improving framework. Proposed activities will September 1, 2017. They have family economic self-sufficiency for include: successfully led the first national effort families considered most at-risk. In • Identify a health equity framework utilizing CQI methods to assist awardees support of HRSA’s FY 2019–FY 2022 and adapt for MIECHV; in improving MIECHV Program Strategic Goals focused on health • Develop theory of change, (how and implementation, performance measures equity, the MIECHV Program proposes why the desired change is expected to and evidence based maternal and child to develop a home visiting specific happen); key driver diagrams, (the health outcomes.

Grantee/organization name Grant No. State FY 2020 funding FY 2021 funding FY 2022 funding

Education Development Center, Inc ...... UF4MC26525 MA $328,797 $329,980 $324,637

Thomas J. Engels, Name of Committee: Heart, Lung, and DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Administrator. Blood Initial Review Group; NHLBI HUMAN SERVICES Mentored Patient-Oriented Research Review [FR Doc. 2020–13338 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] Committee. National Institutes of Health BILLING CODE 4165–15–P Date: July 23–24, 2020. Time: 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. National Institute of Allergy and Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND applications. Meeting HUMAN SERVICES Place: National Institute of Health (NIH), One Rockledge Center, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Pursuant to section 10(d) of the National Institutes of Health Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Federal Advisory Committee Act, as Call). amended, notice is hereby given of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Contact Person: Stephanie Johnson Webb, following meeting. Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of The meeting will be closed to the Scientific Review/DERA, National Heart, public in accordance with the Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes provisions set forth in sections Federal Advisory Committee Act, as of Health, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Room 208– 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., amended, notice is hereby given of the V, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 827–7992, as amended. The grant applications and following meeting. [email protected]. the discussions could disclose The meeting will be closed to the (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, National Center for confidential trade secrets or commercial public in accordance with the property such as patentable material, provisions set forth in sections Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung and personal information concerning 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., Diseases Research; 93.839, Blood Diseases individuals associated with the grant as amended. The grant applications and and Resources Research, National Institutes applications, the disclosure of which the discussions could disclose of Health, HHS) would constitute a clearly unwarranted confidential trade secrets or commercial invasion of personal privacy. property such as patentable material, Dated: June 16, 2020. Ronald J. Livingston, Jr., Name of Committee: National Institute of and personal information concerning Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory individuals associated with the grant Emphasis Panel; ‘‘Emergency Awards: Rapid Committee Policy. applications, the disclosure of which Investigation of Severe Acute Respiratory would constitute a clearly unwarranted [FR Doc. 2020–13319 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS–CoV–2) and invasion of personal privacy. BILLING CODE 4140–01–P Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID–19).’’

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices 37461

Date: July 15, 2020. Intellectual Property applications will be made only as Time: 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. required and upon a request under the Agenda: To review and evaluate grant I. United States Provisional Patent Application No. 62/077,622 filed Nov. 10, Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. applications. 552. Place: Center for Scientific Review, 2014, ‘‘Topical Sodium Nitrite National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Formulations’’, [HHS Ref. No. E–149–2014– Dated: June 12, 2020. 0–US–01]; Drive, Room 1206, Bethesda, MD 20892 Richard U. Rodriguez, (Teleconference). II. International Patent Application No. PCT/US2015/060015 filed Nov. 10, 2015, Associate Director, Technology Transfer Contact Person: John C. Pugh, Ph.D., Center, National Cancer Institute. Scientific Review Officer, Center for ‘‘Topical Sodium Nitrite Formulations’’, Scientific Review, National Institutes of [HHS Reference No. E–149–2014–0–PCT–02]; [FR Doc. 2020–13315 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 1206, III. European National Stage Patent BILLING CODE 4140–01–P Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435–2398, Application No. 15798623.3, filed Nov. 10, 2015, ‘‘Topical Sodium Nitrite [email protected]. Formulations’’, [HHS Ref. No. E–149–2014– DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance 0–EP–03]; Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, IV. U.S. National Stage Patent Application HUMAN SERVICES and Transplantation Research; 93.856, No. 15/525,557 filed May 9, 2017, ‘‘Topical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Sodium Nitrite Formulations’’, [HHS Ref. No. National Institutes of Health Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS) E–149–2014–0–US–04]; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Dated: June 16, 2020. The patent rights in these inventions Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings Tyeshia M. Roberson, have been assigned and/or exclusively Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory licensed to the government of the Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Committee Policy. United States of America. Federal Advisory Committee Act, as [FR Doc. 2020–13324 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] The prospective exclusive license amended, notice is hereby given of the BILLING CODE 4140–01–P territory may be the United States only following meetings. and the field of use may be limited to The meetings will be closed to the the following: public in accordance with the DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ‘‘Treatment of neuropathic and/or provisions set forth in sections HUMAN SERVICES ischemic skin ulcers in humans’’. 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., This technology discloses a topical as amended. The grant applications and National Institutes of Health ointment formulation comprising about the discussions could disclose .5% to 3.0% by weight non-acidified confidential trade secrets or commercial Prospective Grant of an Exclusive sodium nitrite dispersed in white property such as patentable material, Patent License: Ointment for the petrolatum, mineral oil and bisabolol for and personal information concerning Topical Administration to Ischemic topical administration. Nitrite anions individuals associated with the grant Treat and/or Neuropathic Ulcers in may act as a vasodilator in vivo by applications, the disclosure of which Humans generating nitric oxide (NO) in tissues would constitute a clearly unwarranted AGENCY: National Institutes of Health, with lower oxygen tension and pH. invasion of personal privacy. HHS. Therapeutic application of sodium Name of Committee: National Heart, Lung, ACTION: Notice. nitrite through this specific topical and Blood Institute Special Emphasis Panel; formulation may provide selective Opportunities for Collaborative Research at SUMMARY: The National Cancer Institute, vasodilation to hypoxemic tissue that the NIH Clinical Center. an institute of the National Institutes of treat ulcers associated with chronic Date: July 23, 2020. Health, Department of Health and ischemic and neuropathic ulcer Time: 12:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Human Services, is contemplating the conditions associated with several Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications and/or proposals. grant of an Exclusive Patent License to diseases. Place: National Institutes of Health, practice the inventions embodied in the This notice is made in accordance Rockledge I, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, Patents and Patent Applications listed with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404. MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call). in the Supplementary Information The prospective exclusive license will Contact Person: YingYing Li-Smerin, MD, section of this notice to Emmaus be royalty bearing, and the prospective Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Medical Inc. located in 21250 exclusive license may be granted unless Scientific Review/DERA, National Heart, Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 800, within fifteen (15) days from the date of Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes Torrance, CA, 90503. this published notice, the National of Health, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Room 207– Cancer Institute receives written P, Bethesda, MD 20892–7924, (301) 827– DATES: Only written comments and/or 7942, [email protected]. applications for a license which are evidence and argument that establishes that the grant of the license would not Name of Committee: National Heart, Lung, received by the National Cancer and Blood Institute Special Emphasis Panel; Institute’s Technology Transfer Center be consistent with the requirements of Grant Review for NHLBI K Award Recipients. on or before July 7, 2020 will be 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404. Date: July 24, 2020. considered. In response to this Notice, the public Time: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. may file comments or objections. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the Comments and objections, other than applications. patent application, inquiries, and those in the form of a license Place: National Institutes of Health, comments relating to the contemplated application, will not be treated Rockledge I, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, an Exclusive Patent License should be confidentially, and may be made MD 20814 (Telephone Conference Call). Contact Person: Michael P Reilly, Ph.D., directed to: Edward Fenn, Senior publicly available. Licensing and Patenting Manager, NCI Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific License applications submitted in Review/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and Technology Transfer Center, Telephone: response to this Notice will be 240–276–6833 or Email: Tedd.Fenn@ Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, presumed to contain business 6705 Rockledge Drive, Room 208–Z, nih.gov. confidential information and any release Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 827–7975, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: of information in these license [email protected].

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 37462 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Dated: June 16, 2020. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Program Nos. 93.233, National Center for Tyeshia M. Roberson, HUMAN SERVICES Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Committee Policy. National Institutes of Health Diseases Research; 93.839, Blood Diseases [FR Doc. 2020–13387 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] and Resources Research, National Institutes National Institute of Allergy and of Health, HHS) BILLING CODE 4140–01–P Infectious Diseases Notice of Closed Meeting Dated: June 17, 2020. Ronald J. Livingston, Jr., DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory HUMAN SERVICES Federal Advisory Committee Act, as Committee Policy. amended, notice is hereby given of the [FR Doc. 2020–13388 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] National Institutes of Health following meeting. The meeting will be closed to the BILLING CODE 4140–01–P National Institute of Allergy and public in accordance with the Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Meeting as amended. The grant applications and HUMAN SERVICES Pursuant to section 10(d) of the the discussions could disclose National Institutes of Health Federal Advisory Committee Act, as confidential trade secrets or commercial amended, notice is hereby given of the property such as patentable material, National Institute of Allergy and following meeting. and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed The meeting will be closed to the Meeting applications, the disclosure of which public in accordance with the would constitute a clearly unwarranted provisions set forth in sections invasion of personal privacy. Pursuant to section 10(d) of the 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., Federal Advisory Committee Act, as as amended. The contract proposals and Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special amended, notice is hereby given of the the discussions could disclose following meeting. Emphasis Panel; NIH Support for confidential trade secrets or commercial Conferences and Scientific Meetings (Parent The meeting will be closed to the property such as patentable material, R13 Clinical Trial Not Allowed). public in accordance with the and personal information concerning Date: July 27–29, 2020. provisions set forth in sections individuals associated with the contract Time: 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., Agenda: To review and evaluate grant proposals, the disclosure of which applications. as amended. The grant applications and would constitute a clearly unwarranted Place: National Institute of Allergy and the discussions could disclose invasion of personal privacy. Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of confidential trade secrets or commercial Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3F40B, Name of Committee: National Institute of property such as patentable material, Rockville, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting). Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Contact Person: Kelly Y. Poe, Ph.D., and personal information concerning Emphasis Panel; Centers of Excellence for individuals associated with the grant Deputy Director, Scientific Review Program, Influenza Research and Response. Division of Extramural Activities, National applications, the disclosure of which Date: July 14–15, 2020. Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, would constitute a clearly unwarranted Time: 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers invasion of personal privacy. Agenda: To review and evaluate contract Lane, Room 3F40B, Bethesda, MD 20892– 9834, (240) 669–5036, [email protected]. Name of Committee: National Institute of proposals. Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Place: National Institute of Allergy and (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, Emphasis Panel; NIAID Clinical Trial Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G13B, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Planning and Implementation Grants (R34 Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Rockville, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference and U01). Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Date: July 16, 2020. Call). Time: 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Contact Person: Yong Gao, Ph.D., Scientific Dated: June 16, 2020. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Tyeshia M. Roberson, applications. Division of Extramural Activities, National Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Place: National Institute of Allergy and Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Committee Policy. Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers [FR Doc. 2020–13323 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3F58, Lane, Room 3G13B, Rockville, MD 20892– BILLING CODE 4140–01–P Rockville, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference 7616, (240) 669–5048, [email protected]. Call). (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Contact Person: Mario Cerritelli, Ph.D., Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review and Transplantation Research; 93.856, HUMAN SERVICES Program, Division of Extramural Activities, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS) National Institutes of Health Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Dated: June 16, 2020. National Institute of Allergy and Fishers Lane, Room 3F58, Rockville, MD Infectious Diseases Notice of Closed 20852, [email protected]. Tyeshia M. Roberson, Meeting (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, Committee Policy. Pursuant to section 10(d) of the and Transplantation Research; 93.856, [FR Doc. 2020–13326 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] Federal Advisory Committee Act, as Microbiology and Infectious Diseases BILLING CODE 4140–01–P amended, notice is hereby given of the Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS). following meeting.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices 37463

The meeting will be closed to the applications, the disclosure of which Emphasis Panel; NIAID 2020 Omnibus BAA public in accordance with the would constitute a clearly unwarranted (HHS–NIH–NIAID–BAA2020–1) Research provisions set forth in sections invasion of personal privacy. Area 003: Advanced Development of Vaccine Candidates for Biodefense and Emerging 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., Name of Committee: National Institute of as amended. The grant applications and Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Infectious Diseases. the discussions could disclose Emphasis Panel; Emergency Awards: Rapid Date: July 15, 2020. confidential trade secrets or commercial Investigation of Severe Acute Respiratory Time: 10:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. property such as patentable material, Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS–CoV–2) and Agenda: To review and evaluate contract and personal information concerning Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID–19). proposals. individuals associated with the grant Date: June 30, 2020. Place: National Institute of Allergy and applications, the disclosure of which Time: 10:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Agenda: To review and evaluate grant would constitute a clearly unwarranted Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G41B, applications. Rockville, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference invasion of personal privacy. Place: National Institute of Allergy and Call). Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Name of Committee: National Institute of Contact Person: Zhuqing (Charlie) Li, Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G41B, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Emphasis Panel; Emergency Awards: Rapid Rockville, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Investigation of Severe Acute Respiratory Call). Review Program, Division of Extramural Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS–CoV–2) and Contact Person: Zhuqing (Charlie) Li, Activities, National Institute of Allergy and Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID–19) (R21, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of R01 Clinical Trials Not Allowed) Review Program, Division of Extramural Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G41B, Date: July 14, 2020. Activities, National Institute of Allergy and Bethesda, MD 20892–9823, (240) 669–5068, Time: 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of [email protected]. Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G41B, Agenda: To review and evaluate grant (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance applications. Bethesda, MD 20892–9834, (240) 669–5068, Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, Place: National Institute of Allergy and [email protected]. and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of This notice is being published less than 15 Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3F30, days prior to the meeting due to the timing Rockville, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference limitations imposed by the review and Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Call). funding cycle. Dated: June 16, 2020. Contact Person: Ruth S. Grossman, DDS, (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Scientific Review Officer, Office Scientific Tyeshia M. Roberson, Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, Review, National Institute of General Medical Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 45 Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Committee Policy. Center Drive, Room 3AN12J, Bethesda, MD Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS) [FR Doc. 2020–13320 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] 20892, [email protected]. BILLING CODE 4140–01–P (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Dated: June 16, 2020. Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, Tyeshia M. Roberson, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Committee Policy. HUMAN SERVICES Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS) [FR Doc. 2020–13322 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] Dated: June 16, 2020. BILLING CODE 4140–01–P National Institutes of Health Tyeshia M. Roberson, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Committee Policy. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Institute of Child Health & Human [FR Doc. 2020–13328 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] HUMAN SERVICES Development Amended; Notice of BILLING CODE 4140–01–P National Institutes of Health Meeting National Institute of Allergy and Notice is hereby given of a change in DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed the meeting of the Function, Integration, HUMAN SERVICES Meeting and Rehabilitation Sciences Subcommittee, June 24, 2020, 8:00 a.m. National Institutes of Health Pursuant to section 10(d) of the to June 25, 2020, 05:00 p.m., NICHD Federal Advisory Committee Act, as Offices, 6710B Rockledge Drive, National Institute of Allergy and amended, notice is hereby given of the Bethesda, MD 20892 which was Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed following meeting. Meeting The meeting will be closed to the published in the Federal Register on April 06, 2020, 85 FR 19154. Pursuant to section 10(d) of the public in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as provisions set forth in sections The starting date and time for this amended, notice is hereby given of the 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., meeting have changed from June 24, following meeting. as amended. The contract proposals and 2020, 08:00 a.m. to June 25, 2020, 10:00 The meeting will be closed to the the discussions could disclose a.m. The meeting is closed to the public. confidential trade secrets or commercial public in accordance with the Dated: June 16, 2020. property such as patentable material, provisions set forth in sections Ronald J. Livingston, Jr., 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., and personal information concerning as amended. The grant applications and individuals associated with the contract Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory the discussions could disclose proposals, the disclosure of which Committee Policy. confidential trade secrets or commercial would constitute a clearly unwarranted [FR Doc. 2020–13325 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] property such as patentable material, invasion of personal privacy. BILLING CODE 4140–01–P and personal information concerning Name of Committee: National Institute of individuals associated with the grant Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 37464 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES HUMAN SERVICES HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health National Institutes of Health National Institutes of Health

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse National Institute of Allergy and Prospective Grant of an Exclusive and Alcoholism; Notice of Closed Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Patent License: Development and Meeting Meeting Commercialization of Fenoterol and Certain Fenoterol Analogues for the Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Treatment of Cancer Federal Advisory Committee Act, as Federal Advisory Committee Act, as AGENCY: National Institutes of Health, amended, notice is hereby given of the amended, notice is hereby given of the HHS. following meeting. following meeting. ACTION: Notice. The meeting will be closed to the The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the public in accordance with the SUMMARY: The National Institute on provisions set forth in sections provisions set forth in sections Aging, an institute of the National 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., Institutes of Health, Department of as amended. The grant applications and as amended. The grant applications and Health and Human Services, is the discussions could disclose the discussions could disclose contemplating the grant of an Exclusive confidential trade secrets or commercial confidential trade secrets or commercial Patent License to practice the inventions property such as patentable material, property such as patentable material, embodied in the Patents and Patent and personal information concerning and personal information concerning Applications listed in the individuals associated with the grant individuals associated with the grant Supplementary Information section of applications, the disclosure of which applications, the disclosure of which this Notice to Paz Pharmaceuticals, LLC would constitute a clearly unwarranted would constitute a clearly unwarranted of the State of Delaware. invasion of personal privacy. invasion of personal privacy. DATES: Only written comments and/or Name of Committee: National Institute on Name of Committee: Microbiology, applications for a license which are Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Special Infectious Diseases and AIDS Initial Review received by the National Cancer Emphasis Panel; RFA AA–20–007 Group; Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Institute’s Technology Transfer Center Medications Development for the Treatment B Subcommittee MID–B Review Committee on or before July 7, 2020 will be of Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD) or Alcohol- July 2020. considered. Related Organ Damage (AROD), or the Date: July 13–15, 2020. ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the Combination of AUD and AROD (U01 Time: 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. patent applications, inquiries, and Clinical Trial Optional). Agenda: To review and evaluate grant comments relating to the contemplated Date: July 24, 2020. applications. Exclusive Patent License should be Time: 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Place: National Institute of Allergy and directed to: Richard T. Girards, Jr., Esq., Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of MBA, Senior Technology Transfer applications. Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3F30, Manager, National Institutes of Health, Place: National Institute of Health, Rockville, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference NCI Technology Transfer Center by National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Call). email ([email protected]) or Alcoholism, 6700 B Rockledge Drive, Contact Person: Ellen S. Buczko, Ph.D., phone (240–276–6825). Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Call). Program, Division of Extramural Activities, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Contact Person: Ranga Srinivas, Ph.D., National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Intellectual Property Chief Extramural Project Review Branch, Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Fishers Lane, Room 3F30, Rockville, MD E–205–2006: Preparation of (R,R)- Alcoholism, National Institutes of Health, 20892–7616, 301–451–2676, ebuczko1@ fenoterol and (R,R)-or (R,S)-fenoterol 6700 B Rockledge Drive, Room 2114, niaid.nih.gov. analogues and their use in treating Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 451–2067, (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance congestive heart failure [email protected]. Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, 1. United States Provisional Patent (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Application No. 60/837,161, filed 10 August Program Nos. 93.271, Alcohol Research Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 2006 (HHS Reference No. E–205–2006–0– Career Development Awards for Scientists Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS) US–01); 2. United States Provisional Patent and Clinicians; 93.272, Alcohol National Dated: June 16, 2020. Research Service Awards for Research Application No. 60/927,825, filed 03 May Training; 93.273, Alcohol Research Programs; Tyeshia M. Roberson, 2007 (HHS Reference No. E–205–2006–1– US–01); 93.891, Alcohol Research Center Grants; Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory 3. United States Patent Application No. 12/ 93.701, ARRA Related Biomedical Research Committee Policy. 376,945, filed 09 February 2009 (HHS [FR Doc. 2020–13321 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] and Research Support Awards., National Reference No. E–205–2006–2–US–13); Institutes of Health, HHS) BILLING CODE 4140–01–P 4. United States Patent No. 8,703,826, Dated: June 16, 2020. issued 22 April 2014 (HHS Reference No. E– 205–2006–2–US–15); Melanie J. Pantoja, 5. United States Patent No. 9,522,871, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory issued 20 December 2016 (HHS Reference Committee Policy. No. E–205–2006–2–US–19); [FR Doc. 2020–13327 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] 6. United States Patent No. 9,908,841, issued 06 March 2018 (HHS Reference No. E– BILLING CODE 4140–01–P 205–2006–2–US–22);

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices 37465

7. United States Patent No. 10,308,591, 3. United States Patent No. 10,130,594, priority to any one of the foregoing, now or issued 04 June 2019 (HHS Reference No. E– issued 20 November 2018 (HHS Reference in the future. 205–2006–2–US–26); No. E–013–2010–0–US–10); 8. United States Patent No. 10,562,843, 4. United States Patent No. 10,617,654, The patent and patent application issued 18 February 2020 (HHS Reference No. issued 14 April 2020 (HHS Reference No. E– rights in these inventions have been E–205–2006–2–US–27); 013–2010–0–US–15); assigned and/or exclusively licensed to 5. United States Patent Application No. 16/ 9. International Patent Application No. the government of the United States of PCT/US2007/075731, filed 10 August 2007 806,659, filed 02 March 2020 (HHS Reference (HHS Reference No. E–205–2006–2–PCT–01); No. E–013–2010–0–US–16); America. 10. Australia Patent No. 2007286051, 6. International Patent Application No. The prospective exclusive license issued 26 April 2013 (HHS Reference No. E– PCT/US2011/027988, filed 10 March 2011 territory may be worldwide and the 205–2006–2–AU–02); (HHS Reference No. E–013–2010–0–PCT–02); fields of use may be limited to the 11. Australia Patent No. 2013202127, 7. Australia Patent No. 2011224241, issued issued 25 September 2014 (HHS Reference 21 August 2014 (HHS Reference No. E–013– following: The development, No. E–205–2006–2–AU–16); 2010–0–AU–03); manufacture, distribution, sale and use 12. Australia Patent Application No. 8. Australia Patent No. 2014210656, issued for the treatment of cancer of one or 2014224073, filed 11 September 2014 (HHS 30 June 2016 (HHS Reference No. E–013– more of fenoterol and its analogues, Reference No. E–205–2006–2–AU–20); 2010–0–AU–09); either in combination or not in 13. Brazil Patent Application No. 9. Brazil Patent Application No. combination with one or more other BR112012022552–9, filed 10 March 2011 PI0716495–5, filed 18 June 2009 (HHS therapeutic agents. Reference No. E–205–2006–2–BR–03); (HHS Reference No. E–013–2010–0–BR–04); 14. Canada Patent No. 2660707, issued 08 10. Canada Patent No. 2791702, issued 29 These technologies disclose, e.g., the July 2014 (HHS Reference No. E–205–2006– May 2018 (HHS Reference No. E–013–2010– use of fenoterol and its analogues for 2–CA–04); 0–CA–05); regulating cannabinoid (CB) receptor 15. China Patent No. 200780036155.9, 11. European Patent No. 2544676, issued 19 September 2018 (HHS Reference No. E– activity-related disorders and disease, issued 29 January 2014 (HHS Reference No. such as dysregulated CB receptors, E–205–2006–2–CN–05); 013–2010–0–EP–06) and all of its national 16. China Patent Application No. validations; including treating a disorder or disease. 201310705914.3, filed 10 August 2007 (HHS 12. Japan Patent No. 5837890, issued 13 These diseases may include but are not Reference No. E–205–2006–2–CN–18); November 2015 (HHS Reference No. E–013– limited to glioblastoma, hepatocellular 17. European Patent No. 2064174, issued 2010–0–JP–07); carcinoma, liver cancer, colon cancer, 13. any and all other U.S. and ex-U.S. 26 October 2016 (HHS Reference No. E–205– and/or lung cancer, all of which may be 2006–2–EP–06) and all of its national patents and patent applications claiming priority to any one of the foregoing, now or associated with altered cannabinoid validations; receptor activity. In one example, the 18. Hong Kong Patent Application No. in the future. 14107948.2, filed 04 August 2014 (HHS E–139–2012: Methods of regulating technologies include administering to a Reference No. E–205–2006–2–HK–21); cannabinoid receptor activity-related subject having or at risk of developing 19. Israel Patent No. 196965, issued 30 disorders and diseases a disorder or disease regulated by CB January 2016 (HHS Reference No. E–205– receptor activity an effective amount of 2006–2–IL–07); 1. United States Provisional Patent fenoterol or one of its analogues to 20. India Patent No. 266343, issued 28 Application No. 61/651,961, filed 25 May 2012 (HHS Reference No. E–139–2012–0– reduce one or more symptoms April 2015 (HHS Reference No. E–205–2006– associated with the disorder or disease 2–IN–08); US–01); 21. Japan Patent No. 5302194, issued 28 2. United States Provisional Patent regulated by CB receptor activity. June 2013 (HHS Reference No. E–205–2006– Application No. 61/789,629, filed 15 March This Notice is made in accordance 2013 (HHS Reference No. E–139–2012–1– 2–JP–09); with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404. The 22. Japan Patent Application No. 2013– US–01); 3. United States Patent Application No. 14/ prospective exclusive license will be 129406, filed 20 June 2013 (HHS Reference 403,516, filed 24 November 2014 (HHS royalty bearing, and the prospective No. E–205–2006–2–JP–17); Reference No. E–139–2012–2–US–06); 23. Korea (South) Patent No. 10–1378067, exclusive license may be granted unless 4. United States Patent No. 10,130,593, issued 19 March 2014 (HHS Reference No. E– within fifteen (15) days from the date of issued 20 November 2018 (HHS Reference this published Notice, the National 205–2006–2–KR–10); No. E–139–2012–2–US–11); 24. Mexico Patent No. 331996, issued 30 5. United States Patent No. 10,485,771, Cancer Institute receives written July 2015 (HHS Reference No. E–205–2006– issued 26 November 2019 (HHS Reference evidence and argument that establishes 2–MX–11); No. E–139–2012–2–US–13); that the grant of the license would not 25. Philippines Patent Application No. 1– 6. United States Patent Application No. 16/ be consistent with the requirements of 2009–500267, filed 10 August 2007 (HHS 600,234, filed 11 October 2019 (HHS 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404. Reference No. E–205–2006–2–PH–12); Reference No. E–139–2012–2–US–14); 26. South Africa Patent No. 2009/00938, 7. International Patent Application No. In response to this Notice, the public issued 28 April 2010 (HHS Reference No. E– PCT/US2013/042457, filed 23 May 2013 may file comments or objections. 205–2006–2–ZA–14); and (HHS Reference No. E–139–2012–2–PCT–01); Comments and objections, other than 27. any and all other U.S. and ex-U.S. 8. Australia Patent No. 2013266235, issued those in the form of a license patents and patent applications claiming 21 September 2017 (HHS Reference No. E– application, will not be treated priority to any one of the foregoing, now or 139–2012–2–AU–02); in the future. confidentially, and may be made 9. Canada Patent Application No. 2874655, publicly available. E–013–2010: Use of fenoterol and filed 23 May 2013 (HHS Reference No. E– fenoterol analogues in the treatment 139–2012–2–CA–03); License applications submitted in of glioblastomas and astrocytomas 10. European Patent No. 2854855, issued response to this Notice will be 27 April 2016 (HHS Reference No. E–139– presumed to contain business 1. United States Provisional Patent 2012–2–EP–04) and all of its national confidential information and any release Application No. 61/312,642, filed 10 March validations; of information from these license 2010 (HHS Reference No. E–013–2010–0– 11. Japan Patent No. 6130495, issued 21 US–01); April 2017 (HHS Reference No. E–139–2012– applications will be made only as 2. United States Patent No. 9,492,405, 2–JP–05); required and upon a request under the issued 15 November 2016 (HHS Reference 12. any and all other U.S. and ex-U.S. Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. No. E–013–2010–0–US–08); patents and patent applications claiming 552.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 37466 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices

Dated: June 12, 2020. regarding this notice. Individuals applicant’s identity and travel Richard U. Rodriguez, seeking information about other CBP documents. Associate Director, Technology Transfer programs should contact the CBP Several elements have been added to Center, National Cancer Institute. National Customer Service Center at the Form I–736. Updates are necessary [FR Doc. 2020–13316 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] 877–227–5511, (TTY) 1–800–877–8339, to be able to automate Form I–736, or CBP website at https://www.cbp.gov/. BILLING CODE 4140–01–P Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Information SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: CBP that is use in compliance with the invites the general public and other Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program. The DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND Federal agencies to comment on the new data elements are: the foreign SECURITY proposed and/or continuing information passport type, social media identifier, collections pursuant to the Paperwork valid email address, and social media U.S. Customs and Border Protection Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 provider/platform. The automation will et seq.). This process is conducted in [1651–0109] facilitate CBP to gather information on accordance with 5 CFR 1320.8. Written travelers from Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Agency Information Collection comments and suggestions from the Program countries to determine their Activities: Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver public and affected agencies should Information address one or more of the following admissibility to enter Guam or the four points: (1) Whether the proposed CNMI. In addition, CBP intends to AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border collection of information is necessary migrate from paper I–736 to a Protection (CBP), Department of for the proper performance of the mandatory automated environment; Homeland Security. functions of the agency, including therefore, the collection of a paper form ACTION: 60-Day notice and request for whether the information will have will no longer be acceptable. However, comments; extension of an existing practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the after the regulation implementing collection of information. agency’s estimate of the burden of the mandatory automation is published, proposed collection of information, CBP will grant a transition period of SUMMARY: The Department of Homeland including the validity of the three months to facilitate travelers Security, U.S. Customs and Border methodology and assumptions used; (3) adjusting to the new collection method. Protection will be submitting the suggestions to enhance the quality, At the end of the transition period, the following information collection request utility, and clarity of the information to paper I–736 form will become obsolete to the Office of Management and Budget be collected; and (4) suggestions to (OMB) for review and approval in and travelers must input and submit in minimize the burden of the collection of advance their personal information and accordance with the Paperwork information on those who are to Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). The respond to the eligibility questions respond, including through the use of using the new electronic format. The information collection is published in appropriate automated, electronic, the Federal Register to obtain comments travelers’ information is pre-screened or mechanical, or other technological vetted against law enforcement from the public and affected agencies. collection techniques or other forms of Comments are encouraged and must be databases. Based on the results of the information technology, e.g., permitting pre-screening, the application is submitted (no later than August 21, electronic submission of responses. The approved or denied. The system 2020) to be assured of consideration. comments that are submitted will be generates a board or no board status ADDRESSES: Written comments and/or summarized and included in the request suggestions regarding the item(s) for approval. All comments will become message to the carrier indicating a contained in this notice must include a matter of public record. denied or approved authorization to the OMB Control Number 1651–0109 in board before the flight. The applicant the subject line and the agency name. Overview of This Information also receives a message with the To avoid duplicate submissions, please Collection application status: approved, denied, use only one of the following methods Title: Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver canceled or pending. All information to submit comments: Information. will be saved in the newly created (1) Email. Submit comments to: CBP_ OMB Number: 1651–0109. Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program [email protected]. Form Number: I–736. database. (2) Mail. Submit written comments to Current Action: Renewal. Estimated Number of Respondents: CBP Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, Type of Review: Extension/Revision 1,560,000. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, (with change). Office of Trade, Regulations and Affected Public: Individuals. Estimated Number of Annual Rulings, Economic Impact Analysis Abstract: Public Law 110–229 Responses per Respondent: 1. Branch, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, provides for certain aliens to be exempt Estimated Number of Total Annual Washington, DC 20229–1177. from the nonimmigrant visa Responses: 1,560,000. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: requirement if seeking entry into Guam Estimated Time per Response: 19 Requests for additional PRA information or the Commonwealth of the Northern minutes (0.316 hours). should be directed to Seth Renkema, Mariana Islands (CNMI) as a visitor for Chief, Economic Impact Analysis a maximum stay of 45 days, provided Estimated Total Annual Burden Branch, U.S. Customs and Border that no potential threat exists to the Hours: 492,960. Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations welfare, safety, or security of the United Dated: June 16, 2020. and Rulings, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, States, or its territories, and other Seth D. Renkema, Washington, DC 20229–1177, criteria are met. Upon arrival at the Branch Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Telephone number 202–325–0056 or via Guam or CNMI Ports-of-Entry, each Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection. email [email protected]. Please applicant for admission presents a note that the contact information completed Form I–736 to CBP, which [FR Doc. 2020–13296 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] provided here is solely for questions collects information about the BILLING CODE 9111–14–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices 37467

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND proposed and/or continuing information Estimated Number of Respondents: SECURITY collections pursuant to the Paperwork 38,500. Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 Estimated Number of Annual U.S. Customs and Border Protection et seq.). This process is conducted in Responses per Respondent: 1,208. [1651–0090] accordance with 5 CFR 1320.8. Written Estimated Number of Total Annual comments and suggestions from the Responses: 46,500,000. Agency Information Collection public and affected agencies should Estimated Time per Response: 1 Activities: Commercial Invoice address one or more of the following minute. four points: (1) Whether the proposed Estimated Total Annual Burden AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border collection of information is necessary Hours: 744,000. Protection (CBP), Department of for the proper performance of the Dated: June 16, 2020. Homeland Security. functions of the agency, including Seth D. Renkema, ACTION: whether the information will have 60-Day notice and request for Branch Chief, Economic Impact Analysis comments; extension of an existing practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection. collection of information. agency’s estimate of the burden of the [FR Doc. 2020–13291 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] proposed collection of information, SUMMARY: U.S. Customs and Border including the validity of the BILLING CODE 9111–14–P Protection (CBP) of the Department of methodology and assumptions used; (3) Homeland Security will be submitting suggestions to enhance the quality, the following information collection DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND utility, and clarity of the information to SECURITY request to the Office of Management and be collected; and (4) suggestions to Budget (OMB) for review and approval minimize the burden of the collection of U.S. Customs and Border Protection in accordance with the Paperwork information on those who are to Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). The respond, including through the use of [Docket No. USCBP–2020–0033] information collection is published in appropriate automated, electronic, the Federal Register to obtain comments Commercial Customs Operations mechanical, or other technological Advisory Committee (COAC) from the public and affected agencies. collection techniques or other forms of Comments are encouraged and must be information technology, e.g., permitting AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border submitted (no later than August 21, electronic submission of responses. The Protection (CBP), Department of 2020) to be assured of consideration. comments that are submitted will be Homeland Security (DHS). ADDRESSES: Written comments and/or summarized and included in the request ACTION: Committee management; notice suggestions regarding the item(s) for approval. All comments will become of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting. contained in this notice must include a matter of public record. the OMB Control Number 1651–0090 in SUMMARY: The Commercial Customs Overview of This Information the subject line and the agency name. Operations Advisory Committee (COAC) Collection To avoid duplicate submissions, please will hold its quarterly meeting on use only one of the following methods Title: Commercial Invoice. Wednesday, July 15, 2020. The meeting to submit comments: OMB Number: 1651–0090. will be open to the public via webinar (1) Email. Submit comments to: CBP_ Form Number: None. only. There is no on-site, in-person [email protected]. Current Actions: This submission is option for this quarterly meeting. being made to extend the expiration (2) Mail. Submit written comments to: DATES: The COAC will meet on CBP Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, date with no change to the burden hours Wednesday, July 15, 2020, from 1:00 U.S. Customs and Border Protection, or to the information collected. p.m. to 5:00 p.m. EDT. Please note that Type of Review: Extension (without Office of Trade, Regulations and the meeting may close early if the change). Rulings, Economic Impact Analysis Affected Public: Businesses. committee has completed its business. Branch, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Abstract: The collection of the Comments must be submitted in writing Washington, DC 20229–1177. commercial invoice is necessary for no later than July 14, 2020. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: conducting adequate examination of ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held Requests for additional PRA information merchandise and determination of the via webinar. The webinar link and should be directed to Seth Renkema, duties due on imported merchandise as conference number will be provided to Chief, Economic Impact Analysis required by 19 U.S.C. 1481 and 1484 all registrants by 10:00 a.m. EDT on July Branch, U.S. Customs and Border and by 19 CFR 141.81, 141.82, 141.83, 15, 2020. For information on facilities or Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations 141.84, 141.85, 141.86, 141.87, 141.88, services for individuals with disabilities and Rulings, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, 141.89, 141.90, 141.91, and 141.92 . A or to request special assistance at the Washington, DC 20229–1177, commercial invoice is presented to CBP meeting, contact Ms. Florence Constant- Telephone number 202–325–0056 or via by the importer for each shipment of Gibson, Office of Trade Relations, U.S. email [email protected]. Please merchandise at the time the entry Customs and Border Protection (CBP), at note that the contact information summary is filed, subject to the (202) 344–1440 as soon as possible. provided here is solely for questions conditions set forth in the CBP FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. regarding this notice. Individuals regulations. The information is used to Florence Constant-Gibson, Office of seeking information about other CBP ascertain the proper tariff classification Trade Relations, U.S. Customs and programs should contact the CBP and valuation of imported merchandise, Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania National Customer Service Center at as required by the Tariff Act of 1930. To Avenue NW, Room 3.5A, Washington, 877–227–5511, (TTY) 1–800–877–8339, facilitate trade, CBP did not develop a DC 20229; telephone (202) 344–1440; or CBP website at https://www.cbp.gov/. specific form for this information facsimile (202) 325–4290; or Ms. Valarie SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: CBP collection. Importers are allowed to use M. Neuhart, Acting Executive Director invites the general public and other their existing invoices to comply with and Designated Federal Officer at (202) Federal agencies to comment on the these regulations. 344–1440.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 37468 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of Now!’’ button located on the top-right collaboration white paper and related this meeting is given under the hand side of the docket page. recommendations. authority of the Federal Advisory There will be multiple public 3. The Secure Trade Lanes comment periods held during the Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix. The Subcommittee will provide updates on meeting on July 15, 2020. Speakers are Commercial Customs Operations the four working groups currently Advisory Committee (COAC) provides requested to limit their comments to operating under the subcommittee. The advice to the Secretary of Homeland two (2) minutes or less to facilitate Trusted Trader Working Group will Security, the Secretary of the Treasury, greater participation. Please note that provide details on activities focusing on and the Commissioner of U.S. Customs the public comment period for speakers and Border Protection (CBP) on matters may end before the time indicated on the Customs Trade Partnership Against pertaining to the commercial operations the schedule that is posted on the CBP Terrorism (CTPAT) trade compliance of CBP and related functions within the web page, http://www.cbp.gov/trade/ implementation, developing a Department of Homeland Security and stakeholder-engagement/coac. methodology for managing program benefits, PGA (Partner Government the Department of the Treasury. Agenda Pre-registration: For members of the Agency) engagement, and new forced public who plan to participate via The COAC will hear from the current labor requirements. The subcommittee webinar, please register online at subcommittees on the topics listed will provide an update of the In-Bond https://teregistration.cbp.gov/ below and then will review, deliberate, Working Group’s analysis of trade- index.asp?w=203 by 5:00 p.m. EDT on provide observations, and formulate specific pain points within the current July 14, 2020. For members of the public recommendations on how to proceed: In-Bond processes by mode and will 1. The Rapid Response Subcommittee who are pre-registered to attend the make recommendations to improve the webinar and later need to cancel, please will provide updates and recommendations from the Broker Exam efficiency and effectiveness of the In- do so by July 14, 2020, utilizing the Modernization Working Group and the Bond regulations. The Export following link: https:// United States—Mexico—Canada Modernization Working Group will teregistration.cbp.gov/ Agreement (USMCA) Working Group. provide updates on its progress in cancel.asp?w=203. The subcommittee will also discuss the updating the export data elements and Please feel free to share this recommendations on changes to remove information with other interested COAC COVID–19 Recommendations redundancy and promote efficiency of members of your organization or and White Paper and the Executive data submission in support of U.S. association. Order on Regulatory Relief to Support To facilitate public participation, we Economic Recovery as well as announce exports. The Remote and Autonomous are inviting public comment on the the creation of a new Rapid Response Cargo Processing Working Group will issues the committee will consider prior Working Group that will focus on provide updates on the use of image to the formulation of recommendations automotive certification requirements technology for trains crossing land as listed in the Agenda section below. under USMCA. borders and leveraging partnerships Comments must be submitted in 2. The Intelligent Enforcement through the donations acceptance writing no later than July 14, 2020, and Subcommittee will provide updates and programs. Additionally, this working must be identified by Docket No. recommendations from the working group will provide an update on the groups under its jurisdiction for COAC’s USCBP–2020–0033, and may be concept of a driver identification card consideration. The Intellectual Property submitted by one (1) of the following for a more streamlined and efficient Rights (IPR) Working Group continues methods: to work on a background paper on the border crossing for non-Free and Secure • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// Trade Lane (FAST) drivers. www.regulations.gov. Follow the issue of a Bad Actors list. The concept 4. The Next Generation Facilitation instructions for submitting comments. is related to information sharing—using • Email: [email protected]. existing data more effectively to identify Subcommittee will provide an update Include the docket number in the bad actors, such as counterfeiters, based on the progress of the Unified Entry subject line of the message. on information from both the trade and Working Group which is moving • Fax: (202) 325–4290, Attention the U.S. Government. Through the towards an operational framework by Florence Constant-Gibson. subcommittee, CBP is creating another analyzing specific pain points within • Mail: Ms. Florence Constant- IPR working group to address industry the entry process. The Emerging Gibson, Office of Trade Relations, U.S. feedback regarding the Combating Technologies Working Group will cover Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Counterfeit & Pirated Goods Presidential its assessment of various technologies Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Room 3.5A, Memorandum with plans for that could be adapted for CBP and trade Washington, DC 20229. recommendations on these issues. The issues. Instructions: All submissions received AD/CVD Working Group continues to must include the words ‘‘Department of discuss complex issues with pipe spools Meeting materials will be available by Homeland Security’’ and the docket and trade remedies and plans to present July 13, 2020, at: http://www.cbp.gov/ number (USCBP–2020–0033) for this recommendations on these issues. The trade/stakeholder-engagement/coac/ action. Comments received will be Bond Working Group has continued coac-public-meetings. posted without alteration at http:// discussions with CBP on bond amounts Dated: June 17, 2020. www.regulations.gov. Please do not and requirements for Foreign Trade Valarie M. Neuhart, submit personal information to this Zones and Pipeline Operators and plans to present recommendations on these Acting Executive Director, Office of Trade docket. Relations. Docket: For access to the docket or to issues. The Forced Labor Working read background documents or Group will report on progress of its [FR Doc. 2020–13368 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] comments, go to http:// assessment of the current e-Allegations BILLING CODE 9111–14–P www.regulations.gov and search for submissions mechanism (portal) and Docket Number USCBP–2020–0033. To process for reporting forced labor submit a comment, click the ‘‘Comment violations and deliver an industry

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices 37469

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4104; 44 CFR 67.4. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: SECURITY Michael M. Grimm, Abby Gelb, 413–253–8212 (phone), or [email protected] (email). Federal Emergency Management Assistant Administrator for Risk Management, Department of Homeland Individuals who are hearing or speech Agency Security, Federal Emergency Management impaired may call the Federal Relay Service at 1–800–877–8339 for TTY [Docket ID FEMA–2020–0002] Agency. [FR Doc. 2020–13282 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] assistance. Final Flood Hazard Determinations BILLING CODE 9110–12–P SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We, the AGENCY: Federal Emergency U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on an Management Agency, Department of DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Homeland Security (DHS). application for a permit under section ACTION: Notice; withdrawal. Fish and Wildlife Service 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency [FWS–R5–ES–2020–N082; U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The requested Management Agency (FEMA) is FXES11130500000–201–FF05E00000] permit would allow the applicant to conduct activities intended to promote withdrawing its final notice concerning Endangered Species; Receipt of recovery of species that are listed as the flood hazard determinations for Recovery Permit Application Plymouth County, Massachusetts (All endangered under the ESA. Jurisdictions). AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Background Interior. DATES: The final notice concerning the flood hazard determinations for ACTION: Notice of receipt of permit With some exceptions, the ESA Plymouth County, Massachusetts (All application; request for comments. prohibits activities that constitute take of listed species unless a Federal permit Jurisdictions) published on March 27, SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and is issued that allows such activity. The 2020 (85 FR 17345), is withdrawn as of Wildlife Service, have received an ESA’s definition of ‘‘take’’ includes such June 22, 2020. application for a permit to conduct activities as pursuing, harassing, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick activities intended to enhance the trapping, capturing, or collecting in Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services propagation or survival of two Branch, Federal Insurance and endangered species under the addition to hunting, shooting, harming, Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 Endangered Species Act. We invite the wounding, or killing. C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, public and local, State, Tribal, and A recovery permit issued by us under (202) 646–7659, or (email) Federal agencies to comment on this section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA [email protected]. application. Before issuing the authorizes the permittee to conduct SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March requested permit, we will take into activities with endangered or threatened 27, 2020, FEMA published a notice at 85 consideration any information that we species for scientific purposes that FR 17347, containing final flood hazard receive during the public comment promote recovery or for enhancement of determinations for Plymouth County, period. propagation or survival of the species. Massachusetts (All Jurisdictions). DATES: We must receive your written Our regulations implementing section Communities within the Cape Cod comments on or before July 22, 2020. 10(a)(1)(A) for these permits are found at 50 CFR 17.22 for endangered wildlife Watershed study experienced ADDRESSES: Use one of the following species, 50 CFR 17.32 for threatened difficulties during the adoption and methods to request documents or wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.62 for compliance period resulting in the submit comments. Requests and endangered plant species, and 50 CFR inability to adopt the FIS and FIRM and comments should specify the applicant 17.72 for threatened plant species. thereby comply with the National Flood name and application number (e.g., Insurance Program (NFIP) regulations. TE123456): Permit Application Available for The final flood hazard determinations is • Email: [email protected]. Review and Comment hereby rescinded, and ordinances must • U.S. Mail: Abby Gelb, Ecological revert to the previously adopted FIS Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, We invite local, State, and Federal Report and FIRM. FEMA is withdrawing 300 Westgate Center Dr., Hadley, MA agencies; Tribes; and the public to the notice for the affected communities. 01035. comment on the following application.

Permit Application No. Applicant Species Location Activity Type of take action

TE01086D–1 .... Virginia Department of Game Oyster mussel (Epioblasma Virginia ...... Add activity: Health assess- Lethal ...... Amend. and Inland Fisheries, Rich- capsaeformis) and ment research of propagated mond, VA. Cumberlandian combshell mussels. (Epioblasma brevidens).

Public Availability of Comments your entire comment—including your businesses, and from individuals personal identifying information—may identifying themselves as Written comments we receive become be made publicly available at any time. representatives or officials of part of the administrative record While you can request in your comment organizations or businesses, will be associated with this action. Before that we withhold your personal made available for public disclosure in including your address, phone number, identifying information from public their entirety. email address, or other personal review, we cannot guarantee that we identifying information in your will be able to do so. Moreover, all comment, you should be aware that submissions from organizations or

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 37470 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices

Next Steps right-of-way regulations at 43 CFR part INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND If we decide to issue a permits to the 2800. WATER COMMISSION; UNITED applicant listed in this notice, we will Existing communication facilities at STATES AND MEXICO publish a notice in the Federal Register. the Hill 71 communication site include United States Section: Notice of Hinsdale County-owned buildings and a Authority Availability of the Draft Environmental BLM-owned tower. The existing Assessment and Finding of No Section 10(c) of the Endangered facilities are at capacity and unable to Significant Impact Arroyo Colorado at Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 accommodate additional uses. A second Harlingen Flood Flow Improvement U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). facility (building, tower, back-up Project, Cameron County Texas Pamela Toschik, generator, etc.) would provide for unmet current and future demand at the site. AGENCY: United States Section, Acting ARD, Ecological Services, Northeast International Boundary and Water Region. The BLM received three applications and one expression of interest for Commission, United States and Mexico [FR Doc. 2020–13398 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] (USIBWC). BILLING CODE 4333–15–P developing a communications-use ACTION: facility at the Hill 71 communication Notice. site. The BLM has not formally accepted SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR any of the three applications, thereby of the National Environmental Policy making this site suitable for competitive Act of 1969; the Council on Bureau of Land Management leasing. Environmental Quality Final [LLCOF07000.L14920000.ER0000.20X] The BLM has determined that Regulations, and the USIBWC competition exists for constructing a Operational Procedures for Notice of Realty Action: Competitive second communications facility at Hill Implementing Section 102 of NEPA, Issuance of a Communications Use published in the Federal Register Lease in Hinsdale County, CO 71, in accordance with 43 CFR 2804.23. The Hill 71 site is located in an area September 2, 1981, the USIBWC hereby gives notice that the Draft AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, with sensitive visual resources and the Environmental Assessment and Finding Interior. BLM has determined that only one of No Significant Impact Arroyo ACTION: Notice of realty action. additional facility is appropriate. Colorado at Harlingen Flood Flow The Hill 71 communication site is SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Improvement Project, Cameron County Management (BLM) is initiating a located approximately 7 miles southeast Texas is available. An Environmental competitive bid process for granting a of Lake City, Colorado, and legally Impact Statement will not be prepared communications-use lease on public described as: unless additional information which may affect this decision is brought to land in Hinsdale County, Colorado. The New Mexico Principal Meridian, Colorado successful bidder will be granted a our attention within 30 days from the T. 43 N., R. 4 W., date of this Notice. communications-use lease to construct a sec. 35, lots 6 and 7. new communications facility at the Hill FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 71 communications site. Granting a communications-use lease Kelly Blough, Environmental Protection Specialist, USIBWC, 4191 N Mesa, El DATES: Bid proposals must be received at the Hill 71 communication site no later than July 22, 2020. conforms with the BLM Gunnison Paso, Texas 79902. Telephone: (915) 832–4734, Fax: (915) 493–2428, email: Resource Area Approved Resource ADDRESSES: Mail bid proposals to Field [email protected]. Manager, BLM Gunnison Field Office, Management Plan, approved in Availability: The electronic version of 210 W Spencer Ave, Suite A, Gunnison, February 1993. the Draft EA is available on the USIBWC CO 81230. In conformance with the National web page: https://www.ibwc.gov/EMD/ FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Environmental Policy Act, an EIS_EA_Public_Comment.html. Marnie Medina, Realty Specialist, environmental analysis will be SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Gunnison Field Office, by telephone conducted once a successful bidder has USIBWC prepared the EA to evaluate (970) 642–4954 or by email at been identified. the environmental effects of several [email protected]. Persons who use a Bid Process: A Prospectus for An options that would restore the full flood telecommunications device for the deaf Opportunity to Construct, Operate, and conveyance capabilities to a 6.3-mile (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Maintain a Commercial reach of Arroyo Colorado between U.S. Service (FRS) at 1–800–877–8339 to Communications Facility at the Hill 71 Highway 77 Business (US 77 Business) contact Ms. Medina during normal Communications Site that describes the and Cemetery Road in Harlingen, business hours. The FRS is available 24 Cameron County Texas. The Preferred hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a details of the opportunity, the bid proposal requirements, and instructions Alternative would dredge sediment message or question. You will receive a from the channel throughout the reach for submitting a bid proposal for reply during normal business hours. and expand existing vegetation consideration is available at: https:// SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The BLM management operations. Vegetation go.usa.gov/xdUKK. Bid proposals will Gunnison Field Office determined there management currently occurs along a be evaluated according to the Evaluation is a competitive interest in providing an 3.7-mile reach of Arroyo Colorado additional communications-use facility Criteria described in the Prospectus. between US 77 Business and Farm-to- at the Hill 71 communication site in (Authority: 43 CFR 2800) Market Road 509 (FM 509). The Hinsdale County, Colorado. The Preferred Alternative would expand competitive bid process described in Jamie E. Connell, vegetation management operations to this Notice will be processed pursuant Colorado State Director. include the 2.6-mile reach from FM 509 to Title V of the Federal Land Policy [FR Doc. 2020–13352 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] to Cemetery Road. These actions are and Management Act of 1976 and BLM BILLING CODE 4310–JB–P intended to restore Arroyo Colorado’s

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices 37471

design flood conveyance capacity of DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE activities for these drug codes are 21,000 cubic feet per second. authorized for this registration. Drug Enforcement Administration The draft EA evaluates potential William T. McDermott, environmental impacts of the No Action [Docket No. DEA–670] Assistant Administrator. Alternative and the Preferred Importer of Controlled Substances [FR Doc. 2020–13336 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] Alternative. Two additional alternatives BILLING CODE 4410–09–P were considered and evaluated but were Application: Organic Standards Solutions International, LLC removed from consideration because they were either not effective or not ACTION: Notice of application. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND feasible. Potential impacts on natural, BUDGET cultural, and other resources were DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of evaluated. A Finding of No Significant the affected basic class(es), and Senior Executive Service Performance Impact has been prepared for the applicants therefore, may file written Review Board Membership Preferred Alternative based on a review comments on or objections to the AGENCY: Office of Management and issuance of the proposed registration on of the facts and analyses contained in Budget. the EA. or before July 22, 2020. Such persons ACTION: Notice. An open-house public scoping may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before meeting was held for the proposed SUMMARY: The Office of Management July 22, 2020. project on December 12, 2019, at the and Budget (OMB) publishes the names ADDRESSES: Harlingen Community Center located at Written comments should of the members selected to serve on its be sent to: Drug Enforcement 201 E. Madison Avenue, Harlingen, Senior Executive Service (SES) Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Texas 78552. Notifications of the Performance Review Board (PRB). This Register Representative/DPW, 8701 meeting and instructions to access notice supersedes all previous notices of Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia materials and provide comment the PRB membership. 22152. All requests for a hearing must DATES: Applicable: June 15, 2020 electronically were sent by mail to be sent to: Drug Enforcement FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: approximately 200 recipients. Administration, Attn: Administrator, Sarah Whittle Spooner, Assistant Recipients included adjacent 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Director for Management and landowners, regional and local Virginia 22152. All requests for a Operations, Office of Management and representatives of federal and state hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Budget, 725 17th Street NW, resource agencies, interested Native Enforcement Administration, Attn: Washington, DC 20503, 202–395–7402. American tribes, and local elected Hearing Clerk/OALJ, 8701 Morrissette officials. Additionally, notifications Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section were posted in newspapers of local (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, 4314(c) of Title 5, United States Code, circulation and on City of Harlingen and Attn: DEA Federal Register requires each agency to establish, in USIBWC media outlets during the first Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette accordance with regulations prescribed week of December. Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. by the Office of Personnel Management, one or more PRBs. The PRB shall review SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In Thirty-five attendees signed in and 13 and evaluate the initial appraisal of a accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this comments were received within the senior executive’s performance by the is notice that on December 31, 2019, comment period. Approximately seven supervisor, along with any response by Organic Standards Solutions commenters stated that they were in the senior executive, and make International, LLC, 7290 Investment general support of the Expanded recommendations to the final rating Drive, Unit B, North Charleston, South Vegetation & Sediment Removal authority relative to the performance of Carolina 29418–8305, applied to be Alternative (i.e., the Preferred the senior executive. registered as an importer of the Alternative). One commenter expressed The persons named below have been following basic class(es) of controlled selected to serve on OMB’s PRB. support for a combination of the three substances: actions that would include Off-Channel David C. Connolly, Chief, Storage, Expanded Vegetation Removal, Drug Transportation and General Services and Expanded Vegetation & Sediment Controlled substance code Schedule Administration Branch, General Removal. The remaining five comments Government Programs proposed additional actions outside of Marihuana Extract ...... 7350 I Alexander T. Hunt, Chief, Information Marihuana ...... 7360 I Policy Branch, Office of Information the scope of this project that may be Tetrahydrocannabinols .. 7370 I considered in the future. and Regulatory Affairs Adrienne E. Lucas, Deputy Associate The company plans to import the Dated: June 10, 2020. Director for Natural Resources Jennifer Pena, above-listed controlled substances to Ashley Frazier, Deputy Chief of Staff produce analytical reference standards Chief Legal Counsel, International Boundary David J. Rowe, Deputy Assistant and Water Commission, United States for distribution to its customers. Drug Director for Budget Section. codes 7350 (Marihuana Extract) and Sarah Whittle Spooner, Assistant 7360 (Marihuana) will be used for the [FR Doc. 2020–13330 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] Director for Management and manufacture of cannabidiol only. In Operations BILLING CODE 7010–01–P reference to drug code 7370 (Tetrahydrocannabinols), the company Sarah Whittle Spooner, plans to import the synthetic version of Assistant Director for Management and this controlled substance to produce Operations. analytical reference standards for [FR Doc. 2020–13381 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] distribution to its customers. No other BILLING CODE 3110–01–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 37472 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS each schedule, which you will need if happens to records when no longer ADMINISTRATION you submit comments on that schedule. needed for current Government We have uploaded the records business. The records schedules [NARA–20–0015; NARA–2020–050] schedules and accompanying appraisal authorize agencies to preserve records of Records Schedules; Availability and memoranda to the regulations.gov continuing value in the National Request for Comments docket for this notice as ‘‘other’’ Archives or to destroy, after a specified documents. Each records schedule period, records lacking continuing AGENCY: National Archives and Records contains a full description of the records administrative, legal, research, or other Administration (NARA). at the file unit level as well as their value. Some schedules are ACTION: Notice of availability of proposed disposition. The appraisal comprehensive and cover all the records proposed records schedules; request for memorandum for the schedule includes of an agency or one of its major comments information about the records. subdivisions. Most schedules, however, We will post comments, including cover records of only one office or SUMMARY: The National Archives and any personal information and program or a few series of records. Many Records Administration (NARA) attachments, to the public docket publishes notice of certain Federal unchanged. Because comments are of these update previously approved agency requests for records disposition public, you are responsible for ensuring schedules, and some include records authority (records schedules). We that you do not include any confidential proposed as permanent. publish notice in the Federal Register or other information that you or a third Agencies may not destroy Federal and on regulations.gov for records party may not wish to be publicly records without the approval of the schedules in which agencies propose to posted. If you want to submit a Archivist of the United States. The dispose of records they no longer need comment with confidential information Archivist grants this approval only after to conduct agency business. We invite or cannot otherwise use the thorough consideration of the records’ public comments on such records regulations.gov portal, you may contact administrative use by the agency of schedules. [email protected] for origin, the rights of the Government and instructions on submitting your DATES: NARA must receive comments of private people directly affected by the comment. by August 6, 2020. Government’s activities, and whether or We will consider all comments ADDRESSES: You may submit comments not the records have historical or other submitted by the posted deadline and value. Public review and comment on by either of the following methods. You consult as needed with the Federal must cite the control number, which these records schedules is part of the agency seeking the disposition Archivist’s consideration process. appears on the records schedule in authority. After considering comments, parentheses after the name of the agency we will post on regulations.gov a Schedules Pending that submitted the schedule. ‘‘Consolidated Reply’’ summarizing the • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 1. Department of the Air Force, Agency- comments, responding to them, and wide, Manufacturing Methods Records www.regulations.gov. noting any changes we have made to the • Mail: Records Appraisal and (DAA–AFU–2019–0001). proposed records schedule. We will 2. Department of the Air Force, Agency- Agency Assistance (ACR); National then send the schedule for final Archives and Records Administration; wide, Claims Records (DAA–AFU–2019– approval by the Archivist of the United 0023). 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD States. You may elect at regulations.gov 20740–6001. 3. Department of Defense, Defense Contract to receive updates on the docket, Audit Agency, Contract Audit Case Records FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: including an alert when we post the (DAA–0372–2020–0022). Kimberly Keravuori, Regulatory and Consolidated Reply, whether or not you 4. Department of Defense, Defense External Policy Program Manager, by submit a comment. If you have a Technical Information Center, email at regulation_comments @ question, you can submit it as a Administration, Management, and Policy nara.gov. For information about records comment, and can also submit any Records (DAA–0569–2018–0010). schedules, contact Records Management concerns or comments you would have 5. Department of Energy, Western Area Operations by email at to a possible response to the question. Power Administration, Power Sales and [email protected], by mail at We will address these items in Marketing (DAA–0201–2020–0001). the address above, or by phone at 301– consolidated replies along with any 6. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. 837–1799. other comments submitted on that Citizenship and Immigration Services, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: schedule. Indigent Notifications (DAA–0566–2020– We will post schedules on our Public Comment Procedures 0003). website in the Records Control Schedule 7. Department of Labor, Office of Workers’ We are publishing notice of records (RCS) Repository, at https:// Compensation Programs, Division of schedules in which agencies propose to www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/rcs, Longshore and Harbor Workers dispose of records they no longer need after the Archivist approves them. The Compensation (DAA–0271–2017–0005). to conduct agency business. We invite RCS contains all schedules approved 8. Department of Labor, Office of Workers’ public comments on these records since 1973. Compensation Programs, Division of Energy schedules, as required by 44 U.S.C. Employees’ Occupational Illness Background 3303a(a), and list the schedules at the Compensation (DAA–0271–2017–0006). end of this notice by agency and Each year, Federal agencies create 9. Department of the Navy, Agency-wide, subdivision requesting disposition billions of records. To control this Logistics (DAA–NU–2019–0014). authority. accumulation, agency records managers 10. Department of State, Office to Monitor In addition, this notice lists the prepare schedules proposing retention and Combat Trafficking-in-Persons, organizational unit(s) accumulating the periods for records and submit these Consolidated Schedule (DAA–0059–2019– records or states that the schedule has schedules for NARA’s approval. Once 0019). agency-wide applicability. It also approved by NARA, records schedules 11. Department of Transportation, Federal provides the control number assigned to provide mandatory instructions on what Highway Administration, Intelligent

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices 37473

Transportation Systems (ITS) CodeHub projects for use in planning. The draft 81–507) set forth NSF’s mission and (DAA–0406–2020–0001). version of the NSF BSR Guide is purpose: Laurence Brewer, available on the NSF website at: http:// ‘‘To promote the progress of science; _ to advance the national health, Chief Records Officer for the U.S. www.nsf.gov/bfa/lfo/lfo documents.jsp. Government. To facilitate review, a Change Log with prosperity, and welfare; to secure the brief comment explanations of the national defense. * * * ’’ [FR Doc. 2020–13335 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] changes is provided in the guide. The Act authorized and directed NSF BILLING CODE 7515–01–P to initiate and support: DATES: Written comments should be b Basic scientific research and received by August 21, 2020 to be research fundamental to the engineering assured of consideration. Comments NATIONAL CREDIT UNION process; ADMINISTRATION received after that date will be b Programs to strengthen scientific considered to the extent practicable. and engineering research potential; Sunshine Act: Notice of Agency ADDRESSES: Written comments b Science and engineering education Meeting regarding the information collection and programs at all levels and in all the requests for copies of the proposed various fields of science and TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Thursday, information collection request should be engineering; June 25, 2020. addressed to Suzanne Plimpton, Reports b Programs that provide a source of PLACE: Due to the COVID–19 Pandemic, Clearance Officer, National Science information for policy formulation; and the meeting will be open to the public Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Rm. b Other activities to promote these via live webcast only. Visit the agency’s 1265, Arlington, VA 22230, or by email ends. homepage (www.ncua.gov) and access to [email protected]. Among Federal agencies, NSF is a the provided webcast link. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: leader in providing the academic STATUS: This meeting will be open to the Suzanne Plimpton on (703) 292–7556 or community with advanced public. send email to [email protected]. instrumentation needed to conduct state-of-the-art research and to educate MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Individuals who use a 1. Board Briefing, Minority Depository telecommunications device for the deaf the next generation of scientists, Institution Annual Report. (TDD) may call the Federal Information engineers and technical workers. The 2. Board Briefing, NCUA Guaranteed Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877– knowledge generated by these tools Notes Oversight Program. 8339, which is accessible 24 hours a sustains U.S. leadership in science and 3. Request for Information, Strategies day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year engineering (S&E) to drive the U.S. for Future Examination and Supervision (including Federal holidays). economy and secure the future. NSF’s Utilizing Digital Technology. responsibility is to ensure that the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: research and education communities 4. NCUA Rules and Regulations, Comments: In addition to the type of Technical Amendments. have access to these resources, and to comments identified above, comments provide the support needed to utilize 5. NCUA Rules and Regulations, Risk- are also invited on: (a) Whether the Based Net Worth. them optimally, and implement timely proposed collection of information is upgrades. CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: necessary for the proper performance of The scale of advanced Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board, the functions of the Agency, including instrumentation ranges from small Telephone: 703–518–6304. whether the information shall have research instruments to shared practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Gerard Poliquin, resources or facilities that can be used Agency’s estimate of the burden of the Secretary of the Board. by entire communities. The demand for proposed collection of information; (c) such instrumentation is very high, and [FR Doc. 2020–13534 Filed 6–18–20; 4:15 pm] ways to enhance the quality, utility, and is growing rapidly, along with the pace BILLING CODE 7535–01–P clarity of the information on of discovery. For major facilities and respondents, including through the use shared infrastructure, the need is of automated collection techniques or particularly high. This trend is expected NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION other forms of information technology; to accelerate in the future as increasing and (d) ways to minimize the burden of Agency Information Collection numbers of researchers and educators the collection of information on rely on such large facilities, Activities: Proposed Collection; respondents, including through the use Comment Request instruments, and databases to provide of automated collection techniques or the reach to make the next intellectual AGENCY: National Science Foundation. other forms of information technology. leaps. After obtaining and considering public ACTION: Notice and request for NSF currently provides support for comment, NSF will prepare the comments. facility construction from two accounts: submission requesting OMB clearance The Major Research Equipment and SUMMARY: In accordance with the of this collection for no longer than 3 Facility Construction (MREFC) account, requirement of the Paperwork years. and the Research and Related Activities Reduction Act of 1995, the National Title of Collection: Business Systems (R&RA) account. The MREFC account, Science Foundation (NSF) is providing Review Guide. established in FY 1995, is a separate opportunity for public comment on the OMB Approval Number: 3145–NEW. budget line item that provides an NSF Business Systems Review Guide Expiration Date of Approval: Not agency-wide mechanism, permitting (BSR). This is the first clearance of applicable. directorates to undertake large facility Business Systems Review Guide. It Type of Request: Intent to seek projects that exceed 10% of the aligns with the Uniform Guidance and approval to extend with revision an Directorate’s annual budget; or roughly the NSF Major Facilities Guide which is information collection for three years. $70M or greater. Smaller projects intended for use by NSF staff and by Proposed Project: The National continue to be supported from the external proponents of major facility Science Foundation Act of 1950 (Pub. L. R&RA Account.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 37474 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices

Facilities are defined as shared-use good practices where appropriate and requirements on an annual basis; or infrastructure, instrumentation and bringing them into compliance, if 2,824 hours per year. With an average of equipment that are accessible to a broad needed. A team of BSR Participants is four (4) conducted a year, this equates community of researchers and/or assembled to assess the Recipient’s to roughly 5 FTEs or 11,296 public educators. Facilities may be centralized policies, procedures, and practices to burden hours annually. or may consist of distributed determine whether, taken collectively, Dated: June 16, 2020. installations. They may incorporate these administrative business systems Suzanne H. Plimpton, large-scale networking or computational used in managing the Facility meet NSF Reports Clearance Officer, National Science infrastructure, multi-user instruments or award expectations and comply with Foundation. networks of such instruments, or other Federal regulations. infrastructure, instrumentation and The BSR Guide is designed for use by [FR Doc. 2020–13318 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] equipment having a major impact on a both our customer community and NSF BILLING CODE 7555–01–P broad segment of a scientific or staff for guidance in leading these engineering discipline. Historically, reviews. The BSR Guide defines the awards have been made for such diverse overall framework and structure and NUCLEAR REGULATORY projects as accelerators, telescopes, summarizes the details outlined in the COMMISSION research vessels and aircraft, and internal operating guidelines and [Docket No. 72–27; NRC–2018–0282] geographically distributed but procedures used by BSR Participants to networked sensors and instrumentation. execute the review process. Pacific Gas & Electric Company; The growth and diversification of Management principles and practices Humboldt Bay Independent Spent Fuel large facility projects require that NSF are specified for seven core functional Storage Installation remain attentive to the ever-changing areas (CFA) and are used by BSR issues and challenges inherent in their Participants in performing these AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory planning, construction, operation, evaluations. Roles and responsibilities Commission. management and oversight. Most of the NSF stakeholders involved in the ACTION: License renewal; issuance. importantly, dedicated, competent NSF process are outlined in the BSR Guide SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory and awardee staff are needed to manage as well as the expectations of the Commission (NRC) has issued a and oversee these projects; giving the Recipient. renewed license to Pacific Gas and attention and oversight that good This version of the Business Systems Electric Company (PG&E), (‘‘licensee’’) practice dictates and that proper Guide aligns with the Uniform for Special Nuclear Materials (SNM) accountability to taxpayers and Guidance and the NSF Major Facilities License No. SNM–2514 for the receipt, Congress demands. To this end, there is Guide. possession, transfer, and storage of also a need for consistent, documented This Guide will be updated spent fuel from the Humboldt Bay requirements and procedures to be periodically to reflect changes in Nuclear Plant in the Humboldt Bay understood and used by NSF program requirements, policies and/or Independent Spent Fuel Storage managers and awardees for all such procedures. Award Recipients are Installation (ISFSI), located in major projects. expected to monitor and adopt the Use of the Information: Facilities are requirements and best practices Humboldt County, California. The an essential part of the science and included in the Guide. renewed license authorizes operation of engineering enterprise and supporting The submission of Award Recipient the Humboldt ISFSI in accordance with them is one major responsibility of the and Project administrative business the provisions of the renewed license National Science Foundation (NSF). process and procedural documentation and its technical specifications. The NSF makes awards to external entities— used in support of operations of the renewed license expires on November primarily universities, consortia of Major Facilities is part of the collection 17, 2065. universities or non-profit of information. This information is used DATES: The license referenced in this organizations—to undertake to help NSF fulfill this responsibility in document is available on June 10, 2020. construction, management and supporting merit-based research and ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID operation of facilities. Such awards education projects in all the scientific NRC–2018–0282 when contacting the frequently take the form of cooperative and engineering disciplines. The NRC about the availability of agreements. NSF does not directly Foundation also has a continuing information regarding this document. construct or operate the facilities it commitment to provide oversight on You may obtain publicly-available supports. However, NSF retains facilities design and construction which information related to this document responsibility for overseeing their must be balanced against monitoring its using any of the following methods: development, management and information collection so as to identify • Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to successful performance. Business and address any excessive review and https://www.regulations.gov and search Systems Reviews (BSR) of the National reporting burdens. for Docket ID NRC–2018–0282. Address Science Foundation’s (NSF) Major NSF has approximately twenty-four questions about NRC docket IDs in Facilities are designed to provide (24) Major Facilities in various stages of Regulations.gov to Jennifer Borges; reasonable assurance that the business design, construction, operations and telephone: 301–287–9127; email: systems (people, processes, and divestment. The need for a BSR and [email protected]. For technical technologies) of NSF Recipients are review scope is based on NSF’s internal questions, contact the individual(s) effective in meeting administrative annual Major Facility Portfolio Risk listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION responsibilities and satisfying Federal Assessment and the assessment of CONTACT section of this document. regulatory requirements, including various risks factors. • NRC’s Agencywide Documents those listed in NSF’s Proposal & Award Burden to the Public: The Foundation Access and Management System Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG). estimates that approximately one and (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly- These reviews are not considered half (1.5) Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) available documents online in the audits but are intended to be assistive in are necessary for each major facility ADAMS Public Documents collection at nature; aiding the Recipient in following project to respond to a BSR https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices 37475

adams.html. To begin the search, select Humboldt County, California. The ISFSI license and concluded, based on ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.’’ For renewed license SNM–2514 authorizes that evaluation that the ISFSI will problems with ADAMS, please contact and requires operation of the Humboldt continue to meet the regulations in 10 the NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR) Bay ISFSI in accordance with the CFR part 72. The NRC staff also reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301– provisions of the renewed license and prepared an environmental assessment 415–4737, or by email to pdr.resource@ its technical specifications. The and finding of no significant impact for nrc.gov. For the convenience of the renewed license will expire on the renewal of this license, which were reader, instructions about obtaining November 17, 2065. published on May 5, 2020 (85 FR The licensee’s application for a materials referenced in this document 26734). The NRC staff’s environmental renewed license complies with the are provided in the ‘‘Availability of assessment included the impacts of Documents’’ section. standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended continued storage of spent nuclear fuel FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (the Act), and the NRC’s rules and (as documented in NUREG–2157, Christopher T. Markley, Office of regulations. The NRC has made ‘‘Generic Environmental Impact Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, appropriate findings as required by the Statement for Continued Storage of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Act and the NRC’s regulations in Spent Fuel’’). The NRC staff concluded Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone: Chapter 1 of title 10 of the Code of that renewal of this ISFSI license will 301–415–6293, email: Federal Regulations (10 CFR), and sets not have a significant impact on the [email protected]. forth those findings in the renewed quality of the human environment. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: license. The agency afforded an II. Availability of Documents I. Discussion opportunity for a hearing in the Notice of Opportunity for a Hearing published The following table includes the Based upon the application dated July in the Federal Register on December 26, ADAMS accession numbers for the 10, 2018, as supplemented October 22, 2018 (83 FR 66314). The NRC received documents referenced in this notice. For 2018, July 1, 2019, July 25, 2019, and no request for a hearing or petition for additional information on accessing November 21, 2019, the NRC has issued leave to intervene following the notice. ADAMS, see the ADDRESSES section of a renewed license to the licensee for the The NRC staff prepared a safety Humboldt Bay ISFSI, located in evaluation report for the renewal of the this document.

Document ADAMS Accession No.

Licensee’s application, dated July 10, 2018 ...... ML18215A202 Response to First Request for Supplemental Information, dated October 22, 2018 ...... ML18330A050 Partial Response to Request for Additional Information, dated July 1, 2019 ...... ML19197A026 Remaining Response to Request for Referenced Information, dated July 25, 2019 ...... ML19221B564 Humboldt Bay Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, Revision to the Renewal Application (CAC/EPID No. ML19337C633 001028/L–2018–RNW–0016). Special Nuclear Materials License No. SNM–2514 ...... ML20161A027 SNM–2514 Technical Specifications ...... ML20161A028 NRC Safety Evaluation Report ...... ML20161A029 NRC Environmental Assessment ...... ML19252A248 NUREG–2157, ‘‘Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Storage of Spent Fuel’’ ...... ML14196A105 ML14196A107

Dated: June 17, 2020. Week of June 22, 2020 status of meetings, contact Denise For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. There are no meetings scheduled for McGovern at 301–415–0681 or via email John B. McKirgan, the week of June 22, 2020. at [email protected]. The schedule for Commission meetings is Chief, Storage and Transportation Licensing Week of June 29, 2020—Tentative Branch, Division of Fuel Management, Office subject to change on short notice. of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. There are no meetings scheduled for The NRC Commission Meeting [FR Doc. 2020–13379 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] the week of June 29, 2020. Schedule can be found on the internet BILLING CODE 7590–01–P Week of July 6, 2020—Tentative at https://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/ public-meetings/schedule.html. There are no meetings scheduled for the week of July 6, 2020. The NRC provides reasonable NUCLEAR REGULATORY accommodation to individuals with COMMISSION Week of July 13, 2020—Tentative disabilities where appropriate. If you There are no meetings scheduled for need a reasonable accommodation to [NRC–2020–0001] the week of July 13, 2020. participate in these public meetings or need this meeting notice or the Sunshine Act Meetings Week of July 20, 2020—Tentative transcript or other information from the There are no meetings scheduled for public meetings in another format (e.g., TIME AND DATE: Weeks of June 22, 29, the week of July 20, 2020. braille, large print), please notify Anne July 6, 13, 20, 27, 2020. Silk, NRC Disability Program Specialist, Week of July 27, 2020—Tentative at 301–287–0745, by videophone at PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference There are no meetings scheduled for 240–428–3217, or by email at Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, the week of July 27, 2020. [email protected]. Determinations on Maryland. CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: requests for reasonable accommodation STATUS: Public. For more information or to verify the will be made on a case-by-case basis.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 37476 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices

Members of the public may request to https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ licensed material at facilities located receive this information electronically. adams.html. To begin the search, select within their borders. If you would like to be added to the ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.’’ For The Federal Reports Elimination and distribution, please contact the Nuclear problems with ADAMS, please contact Sunset Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–68) Regulatory Commission, Office of the the NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR) requires that AOs be reported to Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301– reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301– Congress annually. The full report, 415–1969), or by email at 415–4737, or by email to pdr.resource@ NUREG–0090, Volume 42, ‘‘Report to [email protected] or Tyesha.Bush@ nrc.gov. The ADAMS accession number Congress on Abnormal Occurrences: nrc.gov. for each document referenced (if it is Fiscal Year 2019,’’ is also available The NRC is holding the meetings available in ADAMS) is provided the electronically at the NRC’s website at under the authority of the Government first time that it is mentioned in this https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc- in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b. document. collections/nuregs/staff/. Dated: June 18, 2020. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dated: June 17, 2020. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Minh-Thuy Nguyen, Office of Nuclear For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Denise L. McGovern, Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Policy Coordinator, Office of the Secretary. Regulatory Commission, Washington, Secretary of the Commission. DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415– [FR Doc. 2020–13487 Filed 6–18–20; 4:15 pm] [FR Doc. 2020–13347 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] 5163, email: Minh-Thuy.Nguyen@ BILLING CODE 7590–01–P BILLING CODE 7590–01–P nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section NUCLEAR REGULATORY 208 of the Energy Reorganization Act of POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION COMMISSION 1974, as amended (Pub. L. 93–438), [Docket Nos. CP2020–178; CP2020–179; defines an ‘‘abnormal occurrence’’ as an [NRC–2020–0142] CP2020–180; CP2020–181; CP2020–182; unscheduled incident or event that the MC2020–160 and CP2020–183; MC2020–161 Report to Congress on Abnormal NRC determines to be significant from and CP2020–184; MC2020–162 and CP2020– Occurrences: Fiscal Year 2019; the standpoint of public health or safety. 185; MC2020–163 and CP2020–186; Dissemination of Information The AO report, NUREG–0090, Volume MC2020–164 and CP2020–187; MC2020–165 42, ‘‘Report to Congress on Abnormal and CP2020–188; MC2020–166 and CP2020– AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Occurrences: Fiscal Year 2019’’ 189; MC2020–167 and CP2020–190; Commission. (ADAMS Accession No. ML20162A165), MC2020–168 and CP2020–191; MC2020–169 and CP2020–192; MC2020–170 and CP2020– ACTION: NUREG; issuance. describes those events that the NRC 193; MC2020–171 and CP2020–194; identified as AOs during FY 2019, based MC2020–172 and CP2020–195; CP2020–196; SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory on the criteria defined in Appendix A Commission (NRC) is issuing NUREG– MC2020–173 and CP2020–197; MC2020–174 of the report. and CP2020–198; MC2020–175 and CP2020– 0090, Volume 42, ‘‘Report to Congress This report describes nine events in 199; MC2020–176 and CP2020–200; on Abnormal Occurrences: Fiscal Year Agreement States and no events MC2020–177 and CP2020–201; MC2020–178 2019.’’ The report describes those events involving NRC licensees that were and CP2020–202] that the NRC or an Agreement State identified as AOs during FY 2019. identified as abnormal occurrences Seven AOs were medical events as New Postal Products (AOs) during fiscal year (FY) 2019, defined in title 10 of the Code of Federal AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. based on the criteria defined in the Regulations (10 CFR) part 35, ‘‘Medical ACTION: Notice. report. The report describes nine events Use of Byproduct Material.’’ One AO at Agreement State-licensed facilities was a human exposure event and one SUMMARY: The Commission is noticing a and no events at NRC-licensed facilities. AO involved the theft and recovery of recent Postal Service filings for the DATES: NUREG–0090, Volume 42, is Category 2 sources, as defined in 10 CFR Commission’s consideration concerning available June 22, 2020. part 37, ‘‘Physical Protection of Category negotiated service agreements. This ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID 1 and Category 2 Quantities of notice informs the public of the filings, NRC–2020–0142 when contacting the Radioactive Material.’’ The NRC did not invites public comment, and takes other NRC about the availability of identify any events at commercial administrative steps. information regarding this document. nuclear power plants as AOs. DATES: Comments are due: June 23, You may obtain publicly-available The NRC identified one event during 2020. information related to this document FY 2019 that meets the guidelines for ADDRESSES: Submit comments using any of the following methods: inclusion in Appendix B, ‘‘Other Events • Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to of Interest.’’ The event received electronically via the Commission’s https://www.regulations.gov and search significant media coverage due to Filing Online system at http:// for Docket ID NRC–2020–0142. Address extensive contamination of personnel www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit questions about NRC docket IDs in and building structures due to the comments electronically should contact FOR FURTHER Regulations.gov to Jennifer Borges; breaching of a sealed cesium-137 the person identified in the telephone: 301–287–9127; email: source. No events meet the guidelines INFORMATION CONTACT section by [email protected]. For technical for inclusion in Appendix C, ‘‘Updates telephone for advice on filing questions, contact the individual listed of Previously Reported Abnormal alternatives. in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION Occurrences.’’ FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: CONTACT section of this document. Agreement States are the 39 U.S. David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at • NRC’s Agencywide Documents States that currently have entered into 202–789–6820. Access and Management System formal agreements with the NRC SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly- pursuant to Section 274 of the Atomic available documents online in the Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA), Table of Contents ADAMS Public Documents collection at to regulate certain quantities of AEA- I. Introduction

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices 37477

II. Docketed Proceeding(s) 3035.105; Public Representative: Express International, Priority Mail I. Introduction Jennaca D. Upperman; Comments Due: International & First-Class Package June 23, 2020. International Service Contract 2 to The Commission gives notice that the 2. Docket No(s).: CP2020–179; Filing Competitive Product List and Notice of Postal Service filed request(s) for the Title: Notice of United States Postal Filing Materials Under Seal; Filing Commission to consider matters related Service of Filing a Functionally Acceptance Date: June 15, 2020; Filing to negotiated service agreement(s). The Equivalent Global Reseller Expedited Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR request(s) may propose the addition or Package 2 Negotiated Service Agreement 3040.130 through 3040.135, and 39 CFR removal of a negotiated service and Application for Non-Public 3035.105; Public Representative: Katalin agreement from the market dominant or Treatment of Materials Filed Under K. Clendenin; Comments Due: June 23, the competitive product list, or the Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: June 15, 2020. modification of an existing product 2020; Filing Authority: 39 CFR 8. Docket No(s).: MC2020–162 and currently appearing on the market 3035.105; Public Representative: CP2020–185; Filing Title: USPS Request dominant or the competitive product Jennaca D. Upperman; Comments Due: to Add International Priority Airmail, list. June 23, 2020. Commercial ePacket, Priority Mail Section II identifies the docket 3. Docket No(s).: CP2020–180; Filing Express International, Priority Mail number(s) associated with each Postal Title: Notice of United States Postal International & First-Class Package Service request, the title of each Postal Service of Filing a Functionally International Service Contract 3 to Service request, the request’s acceptance Equivalent Global Reseller Expedited Competitive Product List and Notice of date, and the authority cited by the Package 2 Negotiated Service Agreement Filing Materials Under Seal; Filing Postal Service for each request. For each and Application for Non-Public Acceptance Date: June 15, 2020; Filing request, the Commission appoints an Treatment of Materials Filed Under Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR officer of the Commission to represent Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: June 15, 3040.130 through 3040.135, and 39 CFR the interests of the general public in the 2020; Filing Authority: 39 CFR 3035.105; Public Representative: Katalin proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 3035.105; Public Representative: K. Clendenin; Comments Due: June 23, (Public Representative). Section II also Jennaca D. Upperman; Comments Due: 2020. establishes comment deadline(s) June 23, 2020. 9. Docket No(s).: MC2020–163 and pertaining to each request. 4. Docket No(s).: CP2020–181; Filing CP2020–186; Filing Title: USPS Request The public portions of the Postal Title: Notice of United States Postal to Add International Priority Airmail, Service’s request(s) can be accessed via Service of Filing a Functionally Commercial ePacket, Priority Mail the Commission’s website (http:// Equivalent Global Reseller Expedited Express International, Priority Mail www.prc.gov). Non-public portions of Package 2 Negotiated Service Agreement International & First-Class Package the Postal Service’s request(s), if any, and Application for Non-Public International Service Contract 4 to can be accessed through compliance Treatment of Materials Filed Under Competitive Product List and Notice of with the requirements of 39 CFR Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: June 15, Filing Materials Under Seal; Filing 3011.301.1 2020; Filing Authority: 39 CFR Acceptance Date: June 15, 2020; Filing The Commission invites comments on 3035.105; Public Representative: Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR whether the Postal Service’s request(s) Jennaca D. Upperman; Comments Due: 3040.130 through 3040.135, and 39 CFR in the captioned docket(s) are consistent June 23, 2020. 3035.105; Public Representative: Katalin with the policies of title 39. For 5. Docket No(s).: CP2020–182; Filing K. Clendenin; Comments Due: June 23, request(s) that the Postal Service states Title: Notice of United States Postal 2020. concern market dominant product(s), Service of Filing a Functionally 10. Docket No(s).: MC2020–164 and applicable statutory and regulatory Equivalent Global Reseller Expedited CP2020–187; Filing Title: USPS Request requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 Package 2 Negotiated Service Agreement to Add International Priority Airmail U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3030, and 39 and Application for Non-Public Contract 1 to Competitive Product List CFR part 3040, subpart B. For request(s) Treatment of Materials Filed Under and Notice of Filing Materials Under that the Postal Service states concern Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: June 15, Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: June 15, competitive product(s), applicable 2020; Filing Authority: 39 CFR 2020; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, statutory and regulatory requirements 3035.105; Public Representative: Curtis 39 CFR 3040.130 through 3040.135, and include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, E. Kidd; Comments Due: June 23, 2020. 39 CFR 3035.105; Public Representative: 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3035, and 6. Docket No(s).: MC2020–160 and Christopher C. Mohr; Comments Due: 39 CFR part 3040, subpart B. Comment CP2020–183; Filing Title: USPS Request June 23, 2020. deadline(s) for each request appear in to Add International Priority Airmail, 11. Docket No(s).: MC2020–165 and section II. Commercial ePacket, Priority Mail CP2020–188; Filing Title: USPS Request II. Docketed Proceeding(s) Express International, Priority Mail to Add Priority Mail Express International & First-Class Package International, Priority Mail 1. Docket No(s).: CP2020–178; Filing International Service with Reseller International, First-Class Package Title: Notice of United States Postal Contract 1 to Competitive Product List International Service & Commercial Service of Filing a Functionally and Notice of Filing Materials Under ePacket Contract 4 to Competitive Equivalent Global Reseller Expedited Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: June 15, Product List and Notice of Filing Package 2 Negotiated Service Agreement 2020; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, Materials Under Seal; Filing Acceptance and Application for Non-Public 39 CFR 3040.130 through 3040.135, and Date: June 15, 2020; Filing Authority: 39 Treatment of Materials Filed Under 39 CFR 3035.105; Public Representative: U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR 3040.130 through Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: June 15, Katalin K. Clendenin; Comments Due: 3040.135, and 39 CFR 3035.105; Public 2020; Filing Authority: 39 CFR June 23, 2020. Representative: Lawrence Fenster; 7. Docket No(s).: MC2020–161 and Comments Due: June 23, 2020. 1 See Docket No. RM2018–3, Order Adopting Final Rules Relating to Non-Public Information, CP2020–184; Filing Title: USPS Request 12. Docket No(s).: MC2020–166 and June 27, 2018, Attachment A at 19–22 (Order No. to Add International Priority Airmail, CP2020–189; Filing Title: USPS Request 4679). Commercial ePacket, Priority Mail to Add International Priority Airmail,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 37478 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices

Commercial ePacket, Priority Mail Representative: Lawrence Fenster; 39 CFR 3040.130 through 3040.135, and Express International, Priority Mail Comments Due: June 23, 2020. 39 CFR 3035.105; Public Representative: International & First-Class Package 17. Docket No(s).: MC2020–171 and Gregory S. Stanton; Comments Due: International Service Contract 5 to CP2020–194; Filing Title: USPS Request June 23, 2020. Competitive Product List and Notice of to Add International Priority Airmail, 22. Docket No(s).: MC2020–175 and Filing Materials Under Seal; Filing Commercial ePacket, Priority Mail CP2020–199; Filing Title: USPS Request Acceptance Date: June 15, 2020; Filing Express International, Priority Mail Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR International & First-Class Package to Add International Priority Airmail, 3040.130 through 3040.135, and 39 CFR International Service Contract 8 to International Surface Air Lift, 3035.105; Public Representative: Katalin Competitive Product List and Notice of Commercial ePacket, Priority Mail K. Clendenin; Comments Due: June 23, Filing Materials Under Seal; Filing Express International, Priority Mail 2020. Acceptance Date: June 15, 2020; Filing International & First-Class Package 13. Docket No(s).: MC2020–167 and Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR International Service with Reseller CP2020–190; Filing Title: USPS Request 3040.130 through 3040.135, and 39 CFR Contract 2 to Competitive Product List to Add International Priority Airmail, 3035.105; Public Representative: and Notice of Filing Materials Under Commercial ePacket, Priority Mail Christopher C. Mohr; Comments Due: Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: June 15, Express International, Priority Mail June 23, 2020. 2020; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, International & First-Class Package 18. Docket No(s).: MC2020–172 and 39 CFR 3040.130 through 3040.135, and International Service Contract 6 to CP2020–195; Filing Title: USPS Request 39 CFR 3035.105; Public Representative: Competitive Product List and Notice of to Add International Priority Airmail, Christopher C. Mohr; Comments Due: Filing Materials Under Seal; Filing International Surface Air Lift, June 23, 2020. Acceptance Date: June 15, 2020; Filing Commercial ePacket, Priority Mail Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR Express International, Priority Mail 23. Docket No(s).: MC2020–176 and 3040.130 through 3040.135, and 39 CFR International & First-Class Package CP2020–200; Filing Title: USPS Request 3035.105; Public Representative: International Service with Reseller to Add International Priority Airmail, Christopher C. Mohr; Comments Due: Contract 1 to Competitive Product List Commercial ePacket, Priority Mail June 23, 2020. and Notice of Filing Materials Under Express International, Priority Mail 14. Docket No(s).: MC2020–168 and Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: June 15, International & First-Class Package CP2020–191; Filing Title: USPS Request 2020; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, International Service with Reseller to Add International Priority Airmail, 39 CFR 3040.130 through 3040.135, and Contract 3 to Competitive Product List Commercial ePacket, Priority Mail 39 CFR 3035.105; Public Representative: and Notice of Filing Materials Under Express International, Priority Mail Christopher C. Mohr; Comments Due: Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: June 15, International & First-Class Package June 23, 2020. 2020; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, International Service Contract 7 to 19. Docket No(s).: CP2020–196; Filing 39 CFR 3040.130 through 3040.135, and Competitive Product List and Notice of Title: Notice of United States Postal 39 CFR 3035.105; Public Representative: Filing Materials Under Seal; Filing Service of Filing a Functionally Gregory S. Stanton; Comments Due: Acceptance Date: June 15, 2020; Filing Equivalent Global Reseller Expedited June 23, 2020. Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR Package 2 Negotiated Service Agreement 3040.130 through 3040.135, and 39 CFR and Application for Non-Public 24. Docket No(s).: MC2020–177 and 3035.105; Public Representative: Treatment of Materials Filed Under CP2020–201; Filing Title: USPS Request Christopher C. Mohr; Comments Due: Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: June 15, to Add International Priority Airmail, June 23, 2020. 2020; Filing Authority: 39 CFR Commercial ePacket, Priority Mail 15. Docket No(s).: MC2020–169 and 3035.105; Public Representative: Curtis Express International, Priority Mail CP2020–192; Filing Title: USPS Request E. Kidd; Comments Due: June 23, 2020. International & First-Class Package to Add International Priority Airmail, 20. Docket No(s).: MC2020–173 and International Service with Reseller Commercial ePacket, Priority Mail CP2020–197; Filing Title: USPS Request Contract 4 to Competitive Product List Express International, Priority Mail to Add Priority Mail Express and Notice of Filing Materials Under International & First-Class Package International, Priority Mail Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: June 15, International Service with Reseller International, First-Class Package 2020; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, Contract 2 to Competitive Product List International Service & Commercial 39 CFR 3040.130 through 3040.135, and and Notice of Filing Materials Under ePacket Contract 6 to Competitive 39 CFR 3035.105; Public Representative: Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: June 15, Product List and Notice of Filing Gregory S. Stanton; Comments Due: 2020; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, Materials Under Seal; Filing Acceptance June 23, 2020. 39 CFR 3040.130 through 3040.135, and Date: June 15, 2020; Filing Authority: 39 25. Docket No(s).: MC2020–178 and 39 CFR 3035.105; Public Representative: U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR 3040.130 through CP2020–202; Filing Title: USPS Request Christopher C. Mohr; Comments Due: 3040.135, and 39 CFR 3035.105; Public to Add International Priority Airmail, June 23, 2020. Representative: Lawrence Fenster; 16. Docket No(s).: MC2020–170 and Comments Due: June 23, 2020. Commercial ePacket, Priority Mail CP2020–193; Filing Title: USPS Request 21. Docket No(s).: MC2020–174 and Express International, Priority Mail to Add Priority Mail Express CP2020–198; Filing Title: USPS Request International & First-Class Package International, Priority Mail to Add International Priority Airmail, International Service Contract 9 to International, First-Class Package Commercial ePacket, Priority Mail Competitive Product List and Notice of International Service & Commercial Express International, Priority Mail Filing Materials Under Seal; Filing ePacket Contract 5 to Competitive International & First-Class Package Acceptance Date: June 15, 2020; Filing Product List and Notice of Filing International Service with Reseller Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR Materials Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Contract 5 to Competitive Product List 3040.130 through 3040.135, and 39 CFR Date: June 15, 2020; Filing Authority: 39 and Notice of Filing Materials Under 3035.105; Public Representative: U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR 3040.130 through Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: June 15, Gregory S. Stanton; Comments Due: 3040.135, and 39 CFR 3035.105; Public 2020; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, June 23, 2020.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices 37479

This Notice will be published in the basis for the Postal Service’s The text of the proposed rule change Federal Register. determination that the market test is is also available on the Exchange’s covered by 39 U.S.C. 3641, and website (http://www.cboe.com/ Erica A. Barker, describing the nature and scope of the AboutCBOE/ Secretary. market test. Documents are available at CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at [FR Doc. 2020–13294 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] www.prc.gov, Docket No. MT2020–2. the Exchange’s Office of the Secretary, BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P and at the Commission’s Public Joshua J. Hofer, Reference Room. Attorney, Federal Compliance. POSTAL SERVICE [FR Doc. 2020–13356 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s BILLING CODE 7710–12–P Statement of the Purpose of, and Product Change—Priority Mail—Non- Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Published Rates Change In its filing with the Commission, the AGENCY: TM Postal Service . SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE Exchange included statements ACTION: Notice of filing a new Priority COMMISSION concerning the purpose of and basis for Mail—Non-Published Rates product. [Release No. 34–89075; File No. SR–CBOE– the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the SUMMARY: Postal Service notice of filing 2020–054] proposed rule change. The text of these a request with the Postal Regulatory statements may be examined at the Commission to establish a new Priority Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe places specified in Item IV below. The Mail—Non-Published Rates product, Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Exchange has prepared summaries, set named PMNPR–2. Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 5.4 To forth in sections A, B, and C below, of DATES: Date of required notice: June 22, Conform the Rule to Section 3.1 of the the most significant aspects of such 2020. Plan for the Purpose of Developing statements. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: and Implementing Procedures Elizabeth Reed, 202–268–3179. A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Designed To Facilitate the Listing and Statement of the Purpose of, and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Trading of Standardized Options and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule United States Postal Service hereby Add New Rule 5.4(d) Change gives notice that on June 11, 2020, it filed with the Postal Regulatory June 16, 2020. 1. Purpose Commission a USPS Request to Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the The purpose of this rule change is to Establish New Priority Mail—Non- Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 1 2 amend Rule 5.4 (Minimum Increments Published Rates Product (PMNPR–2) ‘‘Act’’), and Rule 19b–4 thereunder, for Bids and Offers) to align the rule and Notice of Filing Materials Under notice is hereby given that on June 11, with the recently approved amendment Seal. Documents are available at 2020, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the to the OLPP. www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2020–156 ‘‘Exchange’’ or ‘‘Cboe Options’’) filed and CP2020–170. with the Securities and Exchange Background Commission (the ‘‘Commission’’) the On January 23, 2007, the Commission Elizabeth Reed, proposed rule change as described in approved on a limited basis a Penny Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law. Items I and II, which Items have been Pilot in option classes in certain issues [FR Doc. 2020–13359 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] prepared by the Exchange. The (‘‘Penny Pilot’’). The Penny Pilot was BILLING CODE 7710–12–P Exchange filed the proposal as a ‘‘non- designed to determine whether controversial’’ proposed rule change investors would benefit from options pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of being quoted in penny increments, and POSTAL SERVICE the Act 3 and Rule 19b–4(f)(6) in which classes the benefits were most thereunder.4 The Commission is significant. The Penny Pilot was Market Test of Experimental Product: publishing this notice to solicit ‘‘Extended Mail Forwarding’’ expanded and extended numerous times comments on the proposed rule change over the last 13 years.5 In each instance, AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM. from interested persons. 5 ACTION: Notice of market test. See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 55154 Statement of the Terms of Substance of (January 23, 2007), 72 FR 4743 (February 1, 2007) SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives the Proposed Rule Change (SR–CBOE–2006–92); 56565 (September 27, 2007), notice of a market test of an 72 FR 56403 (October 3, 2007) (SR–CBOE–2007– experimental product in accordance Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ‘‘Exchange’’ 98); 60864 (October 22, 2009), 74 FR 55876 (October with statutory requirements. or ‘‘Cboe Options’’) proposes to amend 29, 2009) (SR–CBOE–2009–076); 63386 (November Rule 5.4 to conform the rule to Section 29, 2010), 75 FR 75713 (December 6, 2010) (SR– DATES: June 22, 2020. CBOE–2010–102); 65967 (December 15, 2011), 76 3.1 of the Plan for the Purpose of FR 79243 (December 21, 2011) (SR–CBOE–2011– FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kara Developing and Implementing C. Marcello, 202–268–4031. 118); 67322 (June 29, 2012), 77 FR 40120 (July 6, Procedures Designed to Facilitate the 2012) (SR–CBOE–2012–059); 68550 (December 31, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Listing and Trading of Standardized 2012), 78 FR 971 (January 7, 2013) (SR–CBOE– United States Postal Service hereby 2012–127); 69775 (June 17, 2013), 78 FR 37642 Options (the ‘‘OLPP’’) and add new Rule (June 21, 2013) (SR–CBOE–2013–061); 71103 gives notice pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 5.4(d). The text of the proposed rule (December 17, 2013), 78 FR 77526 (December 23, 3641(c)(1) that it plans to begin a market change is provided in Exhibit 5. 2013) (SR–CBOE–2013–124); 72277 (May 29, 2014), test of its ‘‘Extended Mail Forwarding’’ 79 FR 32347 (June 4, 2014) (SR–CBOE–2014–047); 73624 (November 18, 2014), 79 FR 69903 experimental product on August 1, 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). (November 24, 2014) (SR–CBOE–2014–086); 75287 2020. On June 8, 2020, the Postal 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. (June 24, 2015), 80 FR 37337 (June 30, 2015) (SR– Service filed with the Postal Regulatory 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). CBOE–2015–060); 78013 (June 8, 2016), 81 FR Commission a notice setting out the 4 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). Continued

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 37480 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices

these approvals relied upon the continue to trade pursuant to the OLPP The Penny Program would initially consideration of data periodically Program until they expire. apply to the 363 most actively traded provided by the Exchanges that To conform its Rules to the OLPP multiply listed option classes, based on analyzed how quoting options in penny Program, the Exchange proposes to National Cleared Volume at The increments affects spreads, liquidity, delete Interpretation and Policy .03 to Options Clearing Corporation (‘‘OCC’’) quote traffic, and volume. Today, the Rule 5.4 (the ‘‘Penny Pilot Rule’’) and in the six full calendar months ending Penny Pilot includes 363 option classes, replace it with new Rule 5.4(d) in the month of approval (i.e., which are among the most actively (Requirements for Penny Interval November 2019–April 2020) that traded, multiply listed option classes. Program), which is described below, currently quote in penny increments, or The Penny Pilot is scheduled to expire and to replace references to ‘‘Penny overlie securities priced below $200, or by its own terms on June 30, 2020.6 Pilot’’ in the Exchange rules with any index at an index level below $200. In light of the imminent expiration of ‘‘Penny Interval Program.’’ The Eligibility for inclusion in the Penny the Penny Pilot on June 30, 2020, the Exchange also proposes to delete the Program will be determined at the close Exchange, together with other superfluous operational language in of trading on the monthly Expiration participating exchanges, filed, on July Interpretation and Policy .02 to Rule 5.4 Friday of the second full month 18, 2019 a proposal to amend the regarding the a change to the minimum following April 1, 2020 (i.e., June 19, OLPP.7 On April 1, 2020 the increment as a stated policy, practice, or 2020). Commission approved the amendment interpretation within the meaning of the Once in the Penny Program, an option to the OLPP to make permanent the Act and the process for modifying class will remain included until it is no Pilot Program (the ‘‘OLPP Program’’).8 trading differential by rule filing longer among the 425 most actively The OLPP Program replaces the because such meaning and requirement traded option classes at the time the Penny Pilot by instituting a permanent remains the case today, as the Exchange annual review is conducted (described program that would permit quoting in must submit proposed rule changes— below), at which point it will be penny increments for certain option including for Rule 5.4—to the removed from the Penny Program. As classes. Under the terms of the OLPP 9 Commission. The Exchange notes, too, described in more detail below, the Program, designated option classes that this proposal is based on and removed class will be replaced by the would continue to be quoted in $0.01 substantially identical to a rule filing next most actively traded multiply and $0.05 increments according to the 10 recently submitted by NYSE Arca, Inc. listed option class overlying securities same parameters for the Penny Pilot. In priced below $200 per share, or any addition, the OLPP Program would: (i) Penny Interval Program index at an index level below $200, and Establish an annual review process to The Exchange proposes to codify the not yet in the Penny Program. Advanced add option classes to, or to remove OLPP Program in new paragraph (d) to notice regarding the option classes option classes from, the OLPP Program; Rule 5.4 (Requirements for Penny included, added, or removed from the (ii) to allow an option class to be added Interval Program) (the ‘‘Penny Penny Program will be provided to the to the OLPP Program if it is a newly Program’’), which will replace the Exchange’s Trading Permit Holders listed option class and it meets certain Penny Pilot Rule and permanently (‘‘TPHs’’) pursuant to Rule 1.5 12 and criteria; (iii) to allow an option class to permit the Exchange to quote certain be added to the OLPP Program if it is published by the Exchange on its option classes in minimum increments website. an option class that has seen a of one cents ($0.01) and five cents significant growth in activity; (iv) to ($0.05) (‘‘penny increments’’). The Annual Review provide that if a corporate action penny increments that currently apply involves one or more option classes in under the Penny Pilot will continue to The Penny Program would include an the OLPP Program, all adjusted and apply for option classes included in the annual review process that applies unadjusted series and classes emerging Penny Program. Specifically, (i) the objective criteria to determine option as a result of the corporate action will minimum quoting increment for all classes to be added to, or removed from, be included in the OLPP Program; and series in the QQQ, SPY, and IWM the Penny Program. Specifically, on an (v) to provide that any series in an would continue to be $0.01, regardless annual basis beginning in December option class participating in the OLPP of price; 11 (ii) all series of an option 2020 and occurring ever December Program that have been delisted, or are class included in the Penny Program thereafter, the Exchange will review and identified by OCC as ineligible for with a price of less than $3.00 would be rank all multiply listed option classes opening Customer transactions, will quoted in $0.01 increments; and (iii) all based on National Cleared Volume at series of an option class included in the OCC for the six full calendar months 38758 (June 14, 2016) (SR–CBOE–2016–048); 79442 Penny Program with a price of $3.00 or from June 1st through November 30th (December 1, 2016), 81 FR 88293 (December 7, higher would be quoted in $0.05 for determination of the most actively 2016) (SR–CBOE–2016–083); 82375 (December 21, traded option classes. Any option 2017), 82 FR 61615 (December 28, 2017) (SR– increments. CBOE–2017–078); 83567 (June 28, 2018), FR 83 classes not yet in the Penny Program 31592 (July 6, 2018) (SR–CBOE–2018–047); 84940 9 See current Interpretation and Policy .02 to Rule may be added to the Penny Program if (December 21, 2018), 83 FR 67759 (December 31, 5.4, which provides that ‘‘[w]hen the Exchange the class is among the 300 most actively 2018) (SR–CBOE–2018–076); 86148 (June 19, 2019), determines to change the minimum increment for traded multiply listed option classes 84 FR 29906 (June 25, 2019) (SR–CBOE–2019–028); a class, the Exchange will designate such change as and priced below $200 per share or any and 87739 (December 13, 2019), 84 FR 69801 a stated policy, practice, or interpretation with (December 19, 2019) (SR–CBOE–2019–119). respect to the administration of this Rule 5.4 within index at an index level below $200. 6 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87739 the meaning of subparagraph (3)(A) of subsection (December 13, 2019), 84 FR 69801 (December 19, 19(b) of the Act and will file a rule change for 12 Rule 1.5 provides that the Exchange announces 2019) (SR–CBOE–2019–119). effectiveness upon filing with the Commission.’’ to Trading Permit Holders all determinations it 7 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87681 10 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88943 makes pursuant to the Rules via: (1) Specifications, (December 9, 2019), 84 FR 68960 (December 17, (May 26, 2020), 85 FR 33255 (June 1, 2020) (SR– Notices, or Regulatory Circulars with appropriate 2019) (‘‘Notice’’). NYSEArca–2020–50). advanced notice, which are posted on the 8 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88532 11 As well as Mini-SPX Index Options (XSP) (as Exchange’s website, or as otherwise provided in the (April 1, 2020), 85 FR 19545 (April 7, 2020) (File long as SPDR options (SPY) participate in the Rules; (2) electronic message; or (3) other No. 4–443) (‘‘Approval Order’’). Penny Interval Program). See Rule 5.4(a). communication method as provided in the Rules.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices 37481

Following the annual review, option option class is among the 75 most add clarity, transparency and internal classes to be added to the Penny actively traded multiply listed option consistency to Exchange rules making Program would begin quoting in penny classes, as ranked by National Cleared them easier to navigate. increments (i.e., $0.01 if trading at less Volume at OCC, in the prior six full Implementation than $3; and $0.05 if trading at $3 and calendar months of trading and (ii) the above) on the first trading day of underlying security is priced below The Exchange proposes to implement January.13 In addition, following the $200 or the underlying index is at an the Penny Program on July 1, 2020, annual review, any option class in the index level below $200. Any option which is the first trading day of the Penny Program that falls outside of the class added under this provision will be third month following the Approval 425 most actively traded option classes added on the first trading day of the Order issued on April 1, 2020—i.e., July would be removed from the Penny second full month after it qualifies and 1, 2020. Program. After the annual review, will remain in the Penny Program for 2. Statutory Basis option classes that are removed from the the rest of the calendar year, after which Penny Program will be subject to the it will be subject to the annual review The Exchange believes the proposed minimum trading increments set forth process. rule change is consistent with the in Rule 5.4, effective on the first trading Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the day of April. Corporate Actions ‘‘Act’’) and the rules and regulations The Penny Program would also thereunder applicable to the Exchange Changes to the Composition of the specify a process to address option and, in particular, the requirements of Penny Program Outside of the Annual 15 classes in the Penny Program that Section 6(b) of the Act. Specifically, Review undergo a corporate action and is the Exchange believes the proposed rule Newly Listed Option Classes and designed to ensure continuous liquidity change is consistent with the Section Option Classes With Significant Growth in the affected option classes. 6(b)(5) 16 requirements that the rules of in Activity Specifically, if a corporate action an exchange be designed to prevent The Penny Program would specify a involves one or more option classes in fraudulent and manipulative acts and process and parameters for including the Penny Program, all adjusted and practices, to promote just and equitable option classes in the Program outside unadjusted series of an option class principles of trade, to foster cooperation the annual review process in two would continue to be included in the and coordination with persons engaged circumstances. These provisions are Penny Program.14 Furthermore, neither in regulating, clearing, settling, designed to provide objective criteria to the trading volume threshold, nor the processing information with respect to, add to the Penny Program new option initial price test would apply to option and facilitating transactions in classes in issues with the most classes added to the Penny Program as securities, to remove impediments to demonstrated trading interest from a result of the corporate action. Finally, and perfect the mechanism of a free and market participants and investors on an the newly added adjusted and open market and a national market expedited basis prior to the annual unadjusted series of the option class system, and, in general, to protect review, with the benefit that market would remain in the Penny Program for investors and the public interest. participants and investors will then be one full calendar year and then would Additionally, the Exchange believes the become subject to the annual review proposed rule change is consistent with able to trade these new option classes 17 based upon quotes expressed in finer process. the Section 6(b)(5) requirement that the rules of an exchange not be designed trading increments. Delisted or Ineligible Option Classes First, the Penny Program provides for to permit unfair discrimination between certain newly listed option classes to be Finally, the Penny Program would customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. added to the Penny Program outside of provide a mechanism to address option In particular, the proposed rule the annual review process, provided classes that have been delisted or those change, which conforms the Exchange that (i) the class is among the 300 most that are no longer eligible for listing. rules to the recently adopted OLPP actively traded, multiply listed option Specifically, any series in an option Program, allows the Exchange to classes, as ranked by National Cleared class participating in the Penny Program provide market participants with a Volume at OCC, in its first full calendar in which the underlying has been permanent Penny Program for quoting month of trading; and (ii) the underlying delisted, or is identified by OCC as options in penny increments, which security is priced below $200 or the ineligible for opening customer maximizes the benefit of quoting in a underlying index is at an index level transactions, would continue to quote finer quoting increment to investors below $200. Such newly listed option pursuant to the terms of the Penny while minimizing the burden that a classes added to the Penny Program Program until all options series have finer quoting increment places on quote pursuant to this process would remain expired. traffic. Accordingly, the Exchange believes in the Penny Program for one full Technical Changes that the proposal is consistent with the calendar year and then would be subject The Exchange proposes to replace Act because, in conforming the to the annual review process. Second, the Penny Program would reference to the Penny Pilot with Exchange rules to the OLPP Program, allow an option class to be added to the reference to the Penny Interval Program the Penny Program would employ Penny Program outside of the annual in Rule 5.4(a) and Interpretation and processes, based upon objective criteria, review process if it is an option class Policy .18 to Rule 4.5. The Exchange that would rebalance the composition of that meets certain specific criteria. believes these technical changes would the Penny Program, thereby helping to Specifically, new option classes may be ensure that the most actively traded 14 added to the Penny Program if: (i) The For example, if Company A acquires Company option classes are included in the Penny B and Company A is not in the Penny Program but Program, which helps facilitate the Company B is in the Penny Program, once the 13 See supra note 11. (providing that the merger is consummated and an options contract minimum quoting increment for all series in the adjustment is effective, then Company A would be 15 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). QQQ, SPY, and IWM would continue to be $0.01, added to the Penny Program and remain in the 16 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). regardless of price). Penny Program for one calendar year. 17 Id.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 37482 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices

maintenance of a fair and orderly to compete for order flow with other IV. Solicitation of Comments market. exchanges. Interested persons are invited to Technical Changes C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s submit written data, views, and The Exchange notes that the proposed Statement on Comments on the arguments concerning the foregoing, change to Rule 5.4(a) and Interpretation Proposed Rule Change Received From including whether the proposed rule and Policy .18 to Rule 4.5 to replace Members, Participants, or Others change is consistent with the Act. references to the Penny Pilot with The Exchange neither solicited nor Comments may be submitted by any of references to the Penny Interval Program received comments on the proposed the following methods: would provide clarity and transparency rule change. to the Exchange rules and would Electronic Comments promote just and equitable principles of III. Date of Effectiveness of the • trade and remove impediments to, and Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Use the Commission’s internet perfect the mechanism of, a free and Commission Action comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ open market and a national market rules/sro.shtml); or system. The proposed rule changes Because the foregoing proposed rule • Send an email to rule-comments@ would also provide internal consistency change does not: (i) Significantly affect sec.gov. Please include File Number SR– the protection of investors or the public within Exchange rules and operate to CBOE–2020–54 on the subject line. protect investors and the investing interest; (ii) impose any significant public by making the Exchange rules burden on competition; and (iii) become Paper Comments operative for 30 days after the date of easier to navigate and comprehend. • the filing, or such shorter time as the Send paper comments in triplicate B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Commission may designate, it has to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Statement on Burden on Competition become effective pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) Commission, 100 F Street NE, The Exchange does not believe that of the Act 19 and Rule 19b–4(f)(6) 20 Washington, DC 20549–1090. the proposed rule change will impose thereunder. The Exchange has proposed All submissions should refer to File to implement the Penny Program on any burden on competition that is not Number SR–CBOE–2020–54. This file July 1, 2020 and has asked the necessary or appropriate in furtherance number should be included on the Commission to waive the 30-day of the purposes of the Act. The subject line if email is used. To help the proposed Penny Program, which operative delay for this filing. The Commission process and review your modifies the exchange’s rules to align Commission believes that waiving the comments more efficiently, please use them with the Commission approved 30-day operative delay is consistent OLPP Program, is not designed to be a with the protection of investors and the only one method. The Commission will competitive filing nor does it impose an public interest because it will allow the post all comments on the Commission’s undue burden on intermarket Exchange to modify its rules to conform internet website (http://www.sec.gov/ competition as the Exchange anticipates to the OLPP Program and implement the rules/sro.shtml). that the options exchanges will adopt Penny Program on July 1, 2020, Copies of the submission, all substantially identical rules. Moreover, consistent with the Commission’s subsequent amendments, all written the Exchange believes that by approval of the OLPP Amendment. statements with respect to the proposed conforming Exchange rules to the OLPP Accordingly, the Commission rule change that are filed with the Program, the Exchange would promote designates the proposed rule change as Commission, and all written regulatory clarity and consistency, operative upon filing with the communications relating to the 21 thereby reducing burdens on the Commission. proposed rule change between the marketplace and facilitating investor At any time within 60 days of the Commission and any person, other than protection. To the extent that there is a filing of the proposed rule change, the those that may be withheld from the competitive burden on those option Commission summarily may public in accordance with the classes that do not qualify for the Penny temporarily suspend such rule change if provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be Program, the Exchange believes that it is it appears to the Commission that such appropriate because the proposal should available for website viewing and action is necessary or appropriate in the printing in the Commission’s Public benefit all market participants and public interest, for the protection of investors by maximizing the benefit of Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, investors, or otherwise in furtherance of Washington, DC 20549, on official a finer quoting increment in those the purposes of the Act. If the business days between the hours of option classes with the most trading Commission takes such action, the 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the interest while minimizing the burden of Commission shall institute proceedings greater quote traffic in option classes to determine whether the proposed rule filing also will be available for with less trading interest. The Exchange should be approved or disapproved. inspection and copying at the principal believes that adopting rules, which have office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change. been adopted by another options 19 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 18 exchange and, as the Exchange 20 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b– Persons submitting comments are anticipates, will likewise be adopted by 4(f)(6) requires a self-regulatory organization to give cautioned that we do not redact or edit all option exchanges that are the Commission written notice of its intent to file personal identifying information from participants in the OLPP, would allow the proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule comment submissions. You should for continued competition between change, or such shorter time as designated by the submit only information that you wish Exchange market participants trading Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this to make available publicly. All similar products as their counterparts requirement. submissions should refer to File on other exchanges, while at the same 21 For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this proposal, the Commission has Number SR–CBOE–2020–54 and should time allowing the Exchange to continue considered the proposed rule’s impact on be submitted on or before July 13, 2020. efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 18 See supra note 10. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices 37483

For the Commission, by the Division of be examined at the places specified in Subchapter 26R of the Rules 6 with Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated Item IV below. ICC has prepared respect to Index Swaptions and provide 22 authority. summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), further detail as to the manner in which J. Matthew DeLesDernier, and (C) below, of the most significant Index Swaptions may be exercised by Assistant Secretary. aspects of these statements. Swaption Buyers, the manner in which [FR Doc. 2020–13311 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] ICC will assign such exercises to (A) Clearing Agency’s Statement of the BILLING CODE 8011–01–P Swaption Sellers, and certain actions Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the that ICC may take in the event of Proposed Rule Change, Security-Based technical issues. Swap Submission, or Advance Notice SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE In paragraph 1 of the Exercise COMMISSION (a) Purpose Procedures, ICC proposes to set out key [Release No. 34–89072; File No. SR–ICC– ICC proposes to formalize the Exercise definitions used for the exercise of 2020–008] Procedures and to make a related Index Swaptions. Key defined terms change to the Rules in connection with would include the Exercise Period, Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE its proposed launch of the clearing of which would be the period on the Clear Credit LLC; Notice of Filing of credit default index swaptions (‘‘Index expiration date of an Index Swaption Proposed Rule Change, Security- Swaptions’’). ICC has previously filed during which the Swaption Buyer may Based Swap Submission, or Advance with the Commission changes to certain deliver an exercise notice to ICC to Notice Relating to the ICC Exercise other policies and procedures related to exercise all or part of such Index Procedures and ICC Clearing Rules the clearing of Index Swaptions on June Swaption. The document would define the circumstances that constitute the June 16, 2020. 28, 2019 4 and January 14, 2020 5 (the failure of the Exercise System (‘‘Exercise Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the ‘‘Swaption Rule Filings’’). As set out in System Failure’’) which is the electronic Securities Exchange Act of 1934,1 and the Swaption Rule Filings, ICC intends system established by ICC for exercise. Rule 19b–4,2 notice is hereby given that to adopt certain related policies and The Exercising Party would mean (i) on June 3, 2020, ICE Clear Credit LLC procedures in preparation for the launch with respect to an Index Swaption (‘‘ICC’’) filed with the Securities and of clearing of Index Swaptions, carried in the house account of a Exchange Commission (the including those set out in this filing, ‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule and does not intend to commence Participant as Swaption Buyer, such change, security-based swap clearing of Index Swaptions until all Participant, and (ii) with respect to an submission, or advance notice as such policies and procedures have been Index Swaption carried in the client described in Items I, II and III below, approved by the Commission or origin account of a Participant for a which Items have been prepared by ICC. otherwise become effective. As such, Non-Participant Party as Swaption The Commission is publishing this ICC proposes to formalize the Exercise Buyer, such Non-Participant Party. ICC proposes to describe the exercise notice to solicit comments on the Procedures and make the related and assignment process in paragraph 2 proposed rule change, security-based changes to the Rules effective following of the Exercise Procedures. In paragraph swap submission, or advance notice the approval of all such policies and 2.1, ICC states that exercise notices from interested persons. procedures and the completion of the would be delivered in accordance with ICC governance process surrounding the I. Clearing Agency’s Statement of the the ICC Rules and the Exercise Terms of Substance of the Proposed Index Swaptions product expansion. As discussed in the Swaption Rule Procedures and specifically references Rule Change, Security-Based Swap Filings, pursuant to an Index Swaption, Subchapter 26R of the Rules related to Submission, or Advance Notice one party (the ‘‘Swaption Buyer’’) has Index Swaptions. Paragraph 2.2 of the proposed The principal purpose of the the right (but not the obligation) to Exercise Procedures would address the proposed rule change is to formalize the cause the other party (the ‘‘Swaption procedures for exercise and assignment ICC Exercise Procedures in connection Seller’’) to enter into an index credit of Index Swaptions. The document sets with the clearing of credit default index default swap transaction at a pre- forth ICC’s process of netting all open swaptions. ICC also proposes a related determined strike price on a specified positions in such expiring Index update to the ICC Clearing Rules (the expiration date on specified terms. In 3 Swaption, which takes place on the ‘‘Rules’’). the case of Index Swaptions that would business day prior to the expiration date be cleared by ICC, the underlying index II. Clearing Agency’s Statement of the of an Index Swaption and applies to credit default swap would be limited to Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the house and client origin accounts. To certain CDX and iTraxx Europe index Proposed Rule Change, Security-Based exercise an Index Swaption, the credit default swaps that are accepted Swap Submission, or Advance Notice Exercising Party would deliver an for clearing by ICC, and which would be In its filing with the Commission, ICC exercise notice to ICC during the automatically cleared by ICC upon included statements concerning the Exercise Period specifying the notional exercise of the Index Swaption by the purpose of and basis for the proposed amount being exercised (‘‘Exercised Swaption Buyer in accordance with its rule change, security-based swap Notional Amount’’). ICC may also terms. submission, or advance notice and establish a Pre-Exercise Notification discussed any comments it received on I. Exercise Procedures Period during which an Exercising Party the proposed rule change, security- The Exercise Procedures are intended may submit, modify, and/or withdraw based swap submission, or advance to supplement the provisions of preliminary exercise notices. The notice. The text of these statements may submission of an exercise notice during 4 SEC Release No. 34–87297; File No. SR–ICC– the Exercise Period will be irrevocable 22 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 2019–007 (Oct. 15, 2019) (approval), 84 FR 56270 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). (Oct. 21, 2019). 6 Subchapter 26R of the Rules was proposed in 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 5 SEC Release No. 34–88047; File No. SR–ICC– the Swaption Rule Filings. SEC Release No. 34– 3 Capitalized terms used but not defined herein 2020–002 (Jan. 27, 2020) (notice), 85 FR 5756 (Jan. 87297; File No. SR–ICC–2019–007 (Oct. 15, 2019) have the meanings specified in the Rules. 31, 2020). (approval), 84 FR 56270 (Oct. 21, 2019).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 37484 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices

and binding on the Exercising Party submitted through the Exercise System that are designed to protect users in the and, once validated by ICC, will be pursuant to the Electronic Notice event of technical issues or technology accepted by ICC and binding on ICC and Process, unless otherwise determined by failures, including circumstances where the Exercising Party (and, in the case of ICC pursuant to paragraph 2.6. Namely, there is an Exercise System Failure and a Non-Participant Party, its Participant). in the event of an Exercise System Party Communication Failure. The If ICC rejects an exercise notice as not Failure affecting an Exercise Period, procedures allow firms to submit valid, as described in the Exercise paragraph 2.6 provides ICC with the preliminary exercise notices such that Procedures, it will inform the following options: (i) Cancel and the preliminary instructions can be used submitting party, who may resubmit a reschedule the Exercise Period, (ii) as the final exercise instructions in the corrected notice within the Exercise determine that automatic exercise will event of a communications failure Period. For informational purposes apply; and/or (iii) take such other action during the exercise window. The only, within the Exercise Period, ICC as ICC determines appropriate to permit proposed rule change also proposes a may estimate and provide the notional Exercising Parties to submit exercise related update to Rule 304(a) to clarify amount that it will assign to each open notices and to permit ICC to assign such that netting of applicable offsetting position in an Index Swaption of a notices. Paragraph 2.7 would address positions in Index Swaptions would be Swaption Seller. Moreover, if an the situation where an Exercising Party subject to any provisions in the Exercise Exercising Party did not submit an is affected by a significant Procedures. Accordingly, in ICC’s view, exercise notice but submitted a communications or information the proposed rule change will further preliminary exercise notice in respect of technology failure making it impossible ensure that ICC’s Rules and policies and such Index Swaption that was not or impractical to deliver all, or procedures clearly reflect the terms and withdrawn, the Exercising Party will be substantially all, of its exercise notices conditions applicable to Index deemed to have submitted an exercise in accordance with the Electronic Swaptions and is thus consistent with notice with the Exercised Notional Notice Process during the Exercise the prompt and accurate clearing and Amount specified under such Period (‘‘Party Communication settlement of the contracts cleared by preliminary notice. After the Exercise Failure’’). Paragraph 2.8 would address ICC, including Index Swaptions, the Period ends, ICC will determine final the situation where Index Swaptions safeguarding of securities and funds in assignments to open positions in Index will be automatically exercised on the the custody or control of ICC or for Swaptions of Swaption Sellers and expiration date due to an Exercise which it is responsible, and the notify Participants as described in the System Failure. protection of investors and the public Exercise Procedures. interest, within the meaning of Section The proposed Exercise Procedures II. Rule Amendments 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.10 would address limitations and ICC proposes to amend ICC Rule 304 The amendments would also satisfy clarifications regarding the exercise related to offsets to incorporate a relevant requirements of Rule 17Ad– process. Paragraph 2.3 sets out certain reference to the Exercise Procedures. 22.11 Rule 17Ad–22(e)(1) 12 requires limitations, including limitations that Specifically, ICC proposes a change to each covered clearing agency 13 to ICC may impose during the Exercise ICC Rule 304(a) to clarify that netting of establish, implement, maintain, and Period and limitations as to the applicable offsetting positions in Index enforce written policies and procedures responsibility for any failure to exercise Swaptions would be subject to any reasonably designed to provide for a an Index Swaption. Paragraph 2.4 provisions in the Exercise Procedures. well-founded, clear, transparent, and further clarifies the party that is entitled enforceable legal basis for each aspect of to exercise. A Participant is not entitled (b) Statutory Basis its activities in all relevant jurisdictions. to provide a preliminary exercise notice ICC believes that the proposed rule The Exercise Procedures are intended to or exercise notice on behalf of Non- change is consistent with the supplement the provisions of Participant Parties for which it carries requirements of Section 17A of the Act 7 Subchapter 26R of the Rules with Index Swaptions. A Non-Participant and the regulations thereunder respect to Index Swaptions and would Party will only be permitted to exercise applicable to it, including the applicable further ensure that ICC’s Rules clearly an Index Swaption in a portfolio standards under Rule 17Ad–22.8 In reflect the terms and conditions belonging to the Non-Participant Party. particular, Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the applicable to Index Swaptions. The Additionally, under paragraph 2.4, a Act 9 requires that the rule change be proposed rule change would support the Participant may make certain elections consistent with the prompt and accurate legal basis for the operation of the as a result of a default or termination clearance and settlement of securities exercise and assignment process, event with respect to a Non-Participant transactions and derivative agreements, including by defining key terms; Party for which it carries an Index contracts and transactions cleared by describing the validation and rejection Swaption, and is required to obtain the ICC, the safeguarding of securities and of exercise notices, including the party agreement of each Non-Participant Party funds in the custody or control of ICC that is entitled to submit such notices; for which it carries an open position in or for which it is responsible, and the and addressing situations where there Index Swaptions to the provisions of the protection of investors and the public are technical issues. As such, the Rules and Exercise Procedures interest. The proposed rule change proposed rule change would satisfy the applicable to Index Swaptions. would formalize the Exercise requirements of the Rule 17Ad– The proposed Exercise Procedures Procedures, which describe the exercise 22(e)(1).14 would describe the Exercise System and and assignment process and are provide the steps that ICC would follow intended to supplement the provisions 10 Id. in case of technical issues. Paragraph of Subchapter 26R of the Rules, to 11 17 CFR 240.17Ad–22. 2.5 explains the Electronic Notice support the clearing of Index Swaptions. 12 17 CFR 240.17Ad–22(e)(1). Process which is the process for the ICC sets out procedures in the document 13 ICC will be a covered clearing agency subject electronic delivery and assignment of to Rule 17ad–22(e) as of the effective date (July 13, 2020) as a result of the amended definition. 17 CFR exercise notices or preliminary exercise 7 15 U.S.C. 78q–1. 240.17Ad–22; Release No. 34–88616; File No. S7– notices through the Exercise System. 8 17 CFR 240.17Ad–22. 23–16 (April 9, 2020), 85 FR 28853 (May 14, 2020). Exercise notices would only be 9 15 U.S.C. 78q–1(b)(3)(F). 14 17 CFR 240.17Ad–22(e)(1).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices 37485

Rule 17Ad–22(e)(17) 15 requires, in assignment process. As discussed above, Accordingly, ICC does not believe the relevant part, each covered clearing the Exercise Procedures would provide amendments would impose any burden agency to establish, implement, further detail as to the manner in which on competition not necessary or maintain, and enforce written policies Index Swaptions may be exercised by appropriate in furtherance of the and procedures reasonably designed to Swaption Buyers and the manner in purpose of the Act. manage its operational risks by (i) which ICC will assign such exercises to identifying the plausible sources of Swaption Sellers. The document would (C) Clearing Agency’s Statement on operational risk, both internal and also specify the party entitled to Comments on the Proposed Rule external, and mitigating their impact exercise, stating that a Non-Participant Change, Security-Based Swap through the use of appropriate systems, Party will only be permitted to exercise Submission, or Advance Notice policies, procedures, and controls; and an Index Swaption in a portfolio Received From Members, Participants or (ii) ensuring that systems have a high belonging to the Non-Participant Party. Others degree of security, resiliency, The amendments to the Rules further Written comments relating to the operational reliability, and adequate, incorporate reference to the Exercise proposed rule change have not been scalable capacity. The proposed rule Procedures into Rule 304(a). solicited or received. ICC will notify the change would allow ICC to manage the Additionally, the proposed rule change Commission of any written comments operational risks associated with the would require a Participant to obtain the received by ICC. exercise and assignment process by agreement of each Non-Participant Party III. Date of Effectiveness of the establishing procedures for the exercise for which it carries an open position in Proposed Rule Change, Security-Based and assignment of Index Swaptions, Index Swaptions to the provisions of the Swap Submission, or Advance Notice which would allow ICC to identify Rules and Exercise Procedures and Timing for Commission Action plausible sources of operational risks in applicable to Index Swaptions, which clearing Index Swaptions and minimize are intended to ensure that participants Within 45 days of the date of their impact through appropriate have sufficient financial resources and publication of this notice in the Federal systems, policies, procedures, and robust operational capacity to meet Register or within such longer period controls. To reduce operational risk, the obligations arising from participation in up to 90 days (i) as the Commission may document includes procedures for the clearing agency. Thus, the proposed designate if it finds such longer period validating and rejecting exercise notices rule change would satisfy the to be appropriate and publishes its and procedures for exercise in the event requirements of Rule 17Ad–22(e)(18).18 reasons for so finding or (ii) as to which of technical issues or technology the self-regulatory organization (B) Clearing Agency’s Statement on failures, including an Exercise System consents, the Commission will: Burden on Competition Failure and a Party Communication (A) By order approve or disapprove Failure. Such procedures are designed ICC does not believe the proposed such proposed rule change, or to provide sound alternatives in the case rule change would have any impact, or (B) institute proceedings to determine of technical issues and help mitigate the impose any burden, on competition not whether the proposed rule change impact from technical issues to ensure necessary or appropriate in furtherance should be disapproved. of the purpose of the Act. The proposed that the system has a high degree of IV. Solicitation of Comments security, resiliency, operational rule change would support the clearing reliability, and adequate, scalable of Index Swaptions, including by Interested persons are invited to capacity. The proposed rule change is formalizing the Exercise Procedures and submit written data, views, and therefore reasonably designed to meet making a related Rule change necessary arguments concerning the foregoing, the requirements of Rule 17Ad– to support the clearing of Index including whether the proposed rule 22(e)(17).16 Swaptions. The proposed rule change change, security-based swap Rule 17Ad–22(e)(18) 17 requires each will apply uniformly across all market submission, or advance notice is covered clearing agency to establish, participants. ICC does not believe consistent with the Act. Comments may implement, maintain, and enforce acceptance of Index Swaptions for be submitted by any of the following written policies and procedures clearing would adversely affect the methods: trading markets for such contracts, and reasonably designed to establish Electronic Comments objective, risk-based, and publicly in fact acceptance of such contracts by disclosed criteria for participation, ICC would provide market participants • Use the Commission’s internet which permit fair and open access by with the additional flexibility to have comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ direct and, where relevant, indirect their Index Swaptions cleared. rules/sro.shtml); or • participants and other financial market Acceptance of Index Swaptions for Send an email to rule-comments@ utilities, require participants to have clearing will not, in ICC’s view, sec.gov. Please include File Number SR– sufficient financial resources and robust adversely affect clearing of any other ICC–2020–008 on the subject line. operational capacity to meet obligations currently cleared product. ICC does not Paper Comments believe the amendments would arising from participation in the clearing • agency, and monitor compliance with adversely affect the ability of Send paper comments in triplicate such participation requirements on an Participants, their customers or other to Secretary, Securities and Exchange ongoing basis. The publically available market participants to continue to clear Commission, 100 F Street NE, Rules and the Exercise Procedures, contracts, including CDS Contracts. ICC Washington, DC 20549. which would be publically available, also does not believe the enhancements All submissions should refer to File would establish objective, risk-based, would adversely affect the cost of Number SR–ICC–2020–008. This file and publicly disclosed criteria for clearing or otherwise limit market number should be included on the participation in ICC’s exercise and participants’ choices for selecting subject line if email is used. To help the clearing services in Index Swaptions, Commission process and review your 15 17 CFR 240.17Ad–22(e)(17)(i)–(ii). credit default swaps or other products. comments more efficiently, please use 16 Id. only one method. The Commission will 17 17 CFR 240.17Ad–22(e)(18). 18 Id. post all comments on the Commission’s

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 37486 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices

internet website (http://www.sec.gov/ Securities and Exchange Commission ‘‘QUO.’’ 5 The Exchange subsequently rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the (‘‘SEC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) the proposed filed a rule change to amend Options 3, submission, all subsequent rule change as described in Items I and Section 18, titled ‘‘Detection of Loss of amendments, all written statements II below, which Items have been Communication’’ which describes the with respect to the proposed rule prepared by the Exchange. The impact to NOM protocols in the event change, security-based swap Commission is publishing this notice to of a loss of a communication. The submission, or advance notice that are solicit comments on the proposed rule Exchange accounted for both the new filed with the Commission, and all change from interested persons. OTTO and renamed and modified QUO written communications relating to the I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s within this rule. Similarly, the Exchange proposed rule change, security-based Statement of the Terms of Substance of amended Options 3, Section 8, ‘‘Nasdaq swap submission, or advance notice the Proposed Rule Change Opening and Halt Cross’’ to account for between the Commission and any the new OTTO and renamed and person, other than those that may be The Exchange proposes to delay the modified QUO within this rule. Finally, withheld from the public in accordance protocol ‘‘Ouch to Trade Options’’ or the Exchange amended Options 3, with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will ‘‘OTTO’’ on The Nasdaq Options Market Section 23, ‘‘Data Feeds and Trade be available for website viewing and LLC (‘‘NOM’’). Information’’ to amend ‘‘OTTO DROP’’ printing in the Commission’s Public The text of the proposed rule change to ‘‘QUO DROP’’ and noted within Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, is available on the Exchange’s website at Options 3, Section 15(a)(1) related to Washington, DC 20549, on official http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at the Order Price Protection rule or ‘‘OPP’’ business days between the hours of principal office of the Exchange, and at that OPP shall not apply to orders 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such the Commission’s Public Reference entered through QUO.6 Room. filings will also be available for Both the Prior Rule Change and the inspection and copying at the principal II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Subsequent Rule Change indicated the office of ICE Clear Credit and on ICE Statement of the Purpose of, and aforementioned rule changes would be Clear Credit’s website at https:// Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule implemented for QUO and OTTO in Q4 www.theice.com/clear-credit/regulation. Change of 2018 with the date announced via an All comments received will be posted In its filing with the Commission, the Options Traders Alert. The Exchange without change. filed a rule change implementing QUO Persons submitting comments are Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for and delaying the introduction of the cautioned that we do not redact or edit OTTO functionality until Q3 2019 by personal identifying information from the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the announcing the date of implementation comment submissions. You should via an Options Traders Alert.7 The submit only information that you wish proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the Exchange further delayed the to make available publicly. All implementation of OTTO functionality submissions should refer to File places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set until Q3 2019 and then Q2 2020, Number SR–ICC–2020–008 and should respectively.8 At this time, the Exchange be submitted on or before July 13, 2020. forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such proposes to further delay the For the Commission, by the Division of statements. implementation of OTTO functionality Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated until Q2 2021. The Exchange will issue 19 authority. A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s an Options Trader Alert notifying J. Matthew DeLesDernier, Statement of the Purpose of, and Participants when this functionality will Assistant Secretary. Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule be available. [FR Doc. 2020–13308 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] Change BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 1. Purpose 5 QUO is an interface that allows NOM Market Makers to connect, send, and receive messages Nasdaq filed a rule change 3 which related to single-sided orders to and from the SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE adopted a new protocol ‘‘Ouch to Trade Exchange. Order Features include the following: (1) Options’’ or ‘‘OTTO’’ 4 and proposed to Options symbol directory messages (e.g., COMMISSION underlying); (2) system event messages (e.g., start of rename and modify the current OTTO trading hours messages and start of opening); (3) [Release No. 34–89077; File No. SR– protocol as ‘‘Quote Using Orders’’ or trading action messages (e.g., halts and resumes); (4) NASDAQ–2020–031] execution messages; (5) order messages; and (6) risk 3 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83888 protection triggers and cancel notifications. Orders Self-Regulatory Organizations; The (August 20, 2018), 83 FR 42954 (August 24, 2018) submitted by NOM Market Makers over this Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Notice of (SR–NASDAQ–2018–069) (‘‘Prior Rule Change’’). In interface are treated as quotes. See Options 3, Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of the Prior Rule Change the Exchange stated that it Section 7(d)(1)(D). 6 Proposed Rule Change To Delay the would issue an Options Trader Alert introducing See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84559 the new OTTO protocol in Q4 of 2018. The rule (November 9, 2019), 83 FR 57774 (November 16, Protocol ‘‘Ouch To Trade Options’’ or numbers were amended in 2019 when the Rulebook 2018) (SR–NASDAQ–2018–085) (‘‘Subsequent Rule ‘‘OTTO’’ was relocated. See Securities Exchange Act Release Change’’). No. 87778 (December 17, 2019), 84 FR 70590 7 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84723 June 16, 2020. (December 23, 2019) (SR–NASDAQ–2019–098). (December 4, 2018), 83 FR 63692 (December 11, Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the 4 As modified by the Prior Rule Change, OTTO is 2018) (SR–NASDAQ–2018–097). The Exchange Securities Exchange Act of 1934 an interface that allows Participants and their proposed to immediately implement QUO as of the effectiveness of SR–NASDAQ–2018–097 and delay 1 2 Sponsored Customers to connect, send, and receive (‘‘Act’’), and Rule 19b–4 thereunder, messages related to orders to and from the the implementation of OTTO by issuing an Options notice is hereby given that on June 11, Exchange. Features include the following: (1) Trader Alert announcing the implementation date 2020, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC Options symbol directory messages (e.g., in Q1 2019. The QUO implementation became (‘‘Nasdaq’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the underlying); (2) system event messages (e.g., start of effective upon filing on November 26, 2018. trading hours messages and start of opening); (3) 8 See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 85386 trading action messages (e.g., halts and resumes); (4) (March 21, 2019), 84 FR 11597 (March 27, 2019) 19 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). execution messages; (5) order messages; and (6) risk (SR–NASDAQ–2019–016); and 87160 (September 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). protection triggers and cancel notifications. See 30, 2019), 84 FR 53186 (October 4, 2019) (SR– 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. NOM Rules at Options 3, Section 7(d)(1)(C). NASDAQ–2019–078).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices 37487

Nasdaq is considering enhancing enhancement. Nasdaq proposes to delay temporarily suspend such rule change if OTTO features to provide members with the implementation of OTTO in order to it appears to the Commission that such other capabilities, which are currently receive additional feedback from market action is necessary or appropriate in the not offered with OTTO, in the area of participants regarding the protocol. public interest, for the protection of risk enhancements. Nasdaq would need Also, Nasdaq proposes this delay to investors, or otherwise in furtherance of time to file a proposal with the account for a change in its timeline to the purposes of the Act. If the Commission with respect to any deliver this product, as a result of the Commission takes such action, the enhancement. Nasdaq proposes to delay market events in 2020. Commission shall institute proceedings the implementation of OTTO in order to to determine whether the proposed rule C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s receive additional feedback from market change should be approved or Statement on Comments on the participants regarding the protocol. disapproved. Proposed Rule Change Received From Also, Nasdaq proposes this delay to Members, Participants, or Others IV. Solicitation of Comments account for a change in its timeline to deliver this product, as a result of the No written comments were either Interested persons are invited to market events in 2020 solicited or received. submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, III. Date of Effectiveness of the 2. Statutory Basis including whether the proposed rule Proposed Rule Change and Timing for change is consistent with the Act. The Exchange believes that its Commission Action proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) Comments may be submitted by any of of the Act,9 in general, and furthers the A proposed rule change filed under the following methods: 10 Rule 19b–4(f)(6) 11 normally does not objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, Electronic Comments in particular, in that it is designed to become operative prior to 30 days after • promote just and equitable principles of the date of the filing. However, Rule Use the Commission’s internet trade, to remove impediments to and 19b–4(f)(6)(iii) 12 permits the comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ Commission to designate a shorter time rules/sro.shtml); or perfect the mechanism of a free and • open market and a national market if such action is consistent with the Send an email to rule-comments@ system, and, in general to protect protection of investors and the public sec.gov. Please include File Number SR– investors and the public interest by interest. The Exchange has asked the NASDAQ–2020–031 on the subject line. delaying the OTTO functionality to Commission to waive the 30-day Paper Comments operative delay so that the proposal may allow the Exchange additional time to • become operative immediately upon Send paper comments in triplicate implement this functionality. to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Nasdaq is considering enhancing filing. The Exchange states that the Commission, 100 F Street NE, OTTO features to provide members with waiver will allow the Exchange to Washington, DC 20549–1090. other capabilities, which are currently immediately delay the implementation not offered with OTTO, in the area of of the OTTO functionality. The All submissions should refer to File risk enhancements. Nasdaq would need Exchange notes that it is considering Number SR–NASDAQ–2020–031. This time to file a proposal with the enhancing OTTO features to provide file number should be included on the Commission with respect to any members with other risk-enhancement subject line if email is used. To help the enhancement. Nasdaq proposes to delay capabilities, which are currently not Commission process and review your the implementation of OTTO in order to offered with OTTO, and that Nasdaq comments more efficiently, please use receive additional feedback from market would need time to file a proposal with only one method. The Commission will participants regarding the protocol. the Commission with respect to any post all comments on the Commission’s Also, Nasdaq proposes this delay to such enhancement. The Exchange internet website (http://www.sec.gov/ account for a change in its timeline to further notes that a delay in the rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the deliver this product, as a result of the implementation of OTTO would allow submission, all subsequent market events in 2020. the Exchange to receive additional amendments, all written statements feedback from market participants with respect to the proposed rule B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s regarding the protocol. Finally, Nasdaq change that are filed with the Statement on Burden on Competition notes this delay is needed to account for Commission, and all written The Exchange does not believe that a change in its timeline to deliver this communications relating to the the proposed rule change will impose product, as a result of the market events proposed rule change between the any burden on competition not in 2020. The Commission believes that Commission and any person, other than necessary or appropriate in furtherance waiver of the 30-day operative delay is those that may be withheld from the of the purposes of the Act. The consistent with the protection of public in accordance with the Exchange’s proposal to delay the investors and the public interest. provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be adoption of the OTTO functionality Accordingly, the Commission hereby available for website viewing and does not impose an undue burden on waives the operative delay and printing in the Commission’s Public competition as no Participant has access designates the proposed rule change as Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, to OTTO today on NOM. operative upon filing.13 Washington, DC 20549, on official Nasdaq is considering enhancing At any time within 60 days of the business days between the hours of OTTO features to provide members with filing of the proposed rule change, the 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the other capabilities, which are currently Commission summarily may filing also will be available for not offered with OTTO, in the area of inspection and copying at the principal risk enhancements. Nasdaq would need 11 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). office of the Exchange. All comments time to file a proposal with the 12 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). received will be posted without change. Commission with respect to any 13 For purposes only of waiving the 30-day Persons submitting comments are operative delay, the Commission has also considered the proposed rule’s impact on cautioned that we do not redact or edit 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See personal identifying information from 10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). comment submissions. You should

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 37488 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices

submit only information that you wish proposed rule change, or institute Linked Securities. The proposed rule to make available publicly. All proceedings to determine whether the change is available on the Exchange’s submissions should refer to File proposed rule change should be website at www.nyse.com, at the Number SR–NASDAQ–2020–031 and disapproved. The 45th day after principal office of the Exchange, and at should be submitted on or before July publication of the notice for this the Commission’s Public Reference 13, 2020. proposed rule change is June 21, 2020. Room. For the Commission, by the Division of The Commission is extending this 45- II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated day time period. Statement of the Purpose of, and 14 The Commission finds it appropriate authority. Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule to designate a longer period within J. Matthew DeLesDernier, Change Assistant Secretary. which to take action on the proposed In its filing with the Commission, the [FR Doc. 2020–13309 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change. self-regulatory organization included BILLING CODE 8011–01–P Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant statements concerning the purpose of, to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,6 and basis for, the proposed rule change SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE designates August 5, 2020 as the date by and discussed any comments it received COMMISSION which the Commission shall either on the proposed rule change. The text approve or disapprove, or institute of those statements may be examined at [Release No. 34–89076; File No. SR– proceedings to determine whether to the places specified in Item IV below. CboeBZX–2020–036] disapprove, the proposed rule change The Exchange has prepared summaries, (File No. SR–CboeBZX–2020–036). set forth in sections A, B, and C below, Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe of the most significant parts of such BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of For the Commission, by the Division of statements. Designation of a Longer Period for Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated Commission Action on a Proposed authority.7 A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Rule Change To Amend Rule 14.11, J. Matthew DeLesDernier, Statement of the Purpose of, and the Other Securities Assistant Secretary. Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule [FR Doc. 2020–13310 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] Change June 16, 2020. On April 29, 2020, Cboe BZX BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 1. Purpose Exchange, Inc. (‘‘Exchange’’ or ‘‘BZX’’) NYSE Arca Rule 5.2–E(j)(6) provides for Exchange listing and trading, filed with the Securities and Exchange SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE Commission (‘‘Commission’’), pursuant including listing pursuant to Rule 19b– COMMISSION 4 to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities 4(e) under the Act, of ‘‘Index-Linked 5 Exchange Act of 1934 (‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule [Release No. 34–89073; File No. SR– Securities.’’ 19b–4 thereunder,2 a proposed rule NYSEArca–2020–46] The Exchange proposes to amend change to amend continued listing NYSE Arca Rule 5.2–E(j)(6) to add Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE requirements applicable to certain Options-Linked Securities to the type of Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed exchange-traded products listed on the Index-Linked Securities permitted to list Rule Change To Amend NYSE Arca 6 Exchange by extending the period of and trade on the Exchange. Rule 5.2–E(j)(6) Relating to Options- Proposed Rule 5.2–E(j)(6)(vii) would time after which an exchange-traded Linked Securities provide that the payment at maturity product would need to have at least 50 with respect to Options-Linked beneficial holders or be subject to June 16, 2020. Securities would be based on the delisting proceedings under BZX Rule Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) 1 of the 14.12. The proposed rule change was performance of one or more U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the exchange-traded options on any one or published for comment in the Federal 2 3 ‘‘Act’’) and Rule 19b–4 thereunder, combination of the following: (a) Register on May 7, 2020.3 The notice is hereby given that, on June 10, Commission has received comment Investment Company Units; (b) 2020, NYSE Arca, Inc. (‘‘NYSE Arca’’ or Exchange-Traded Fund Shares; (c) letters on the proposed rule change.4 the ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the Section 19(b)(2) of the Act 5 provides Index-Linked Securities; (d) securities Securities and Exchange Commission defined in Section 2 of Rule 8–E; 7 (e) that within 45 days of the publication of (the ‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule notice of the filing of a proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and 4 Rule 19b–4(e) under the Act provides that the change, or within such longer period up III below, which Items have been listing and trading of a new derivative securities to 90 days as the Commission may prepared by the self-regulatory product by a self-regulatory organization (‘‘SRO’’) designate if it finds such longer period organization. The Commission is shall not be deemed a proposed rule change, to be appropriate and publishes its pursuant to section (c)(1) of Rule 19b–4, if the publishing. Commission has approved, pursuant to Section reasons for so finding, or as to which the 19(b) of the Act, the SRO’s trading rules, self-regulatory organization consents, I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s procedures, and listing standards for the product the Commission will either approve the Statement of the Terms of Substance of class and the SRO has a surveillance program for proposed rule change, disapprove the the Proposed Rule Change the product class. 5 Rule 5.2–E(j)(6) currently accommodates The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange listing of Equity Index-Linked Securities, 14 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). NYSE Arca Rule 5.2–E(j)(6) (‘‘Index- Commodity-Linked Securities, Currency-Linked 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). Linked Securities’’) to accommodate Securities, Fixed Income Index-Linked Securities, 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. Exchange listing and trading of Options- Futures-Linked Securities and Multifactor Index- 3 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88795 Linked Securities. (May 1, 2020), 85 FR 27254. 6 Index-Linked Securities are sometimes referred 6 4 Comments on the proposed rule change can be Id. to as ‘‘exchange-traded notes’’ or ‘‘ETNs.’’ 7 found on the Commission’s website at: https:// 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(31). 7 The following securities currently are included www.sec.gov/comments/sr-cboebzx-2020-036/ 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). in Section 2 of NYSE Arca Rule 8–E: Portfolio srcboebzx2020036.htm. 2 15 U.S.C. 78a. Depositary Receipts (Rule 8.100); Trust Issued 5 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 3 17 CFR 240.19b–4. Receipts (Rule 8.200); Commodity-Based Trust

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices 37489

the S&P 100 Index, the S&P 500 Index, (a) The value of the Options Reference Units; 11 (b) Exchange-Traded Fund the Nasdaq 100 Index, the Dow Jones Asset must be calculated and widely Shares; 12 (c) Index-Linked Securities; Industrial Average, the MSCI EAFE disseminated by one or more major (d) securities defined in Section 2 of Index, the MSCI Emerging Markets market data vendors on at least a 15- Rule 8–E; (e) the S&P 100 Index, the Index, the NYSE FANG Index or the second basis during the Core Trading S&P 500 Index, the Nasdaq 100 Index, Russell 2000 Index; or (f) a basket or Session (as defined in NYSE Arca Rule the Dow Jones Industrial Average, the index of any of the foregoing 7.34–E); and MSCI EAFE Index, the MSCI Emerging (collectively, ‘‘Options Reference (b) in the case of Options-Linked Markets Index, the NYSE FANG Index Asset’’).8 To the extent that the Options Securities that are periodically or the Russell 2000 Index (collectively, Reference Asset consists of options redeemable, the indicative value of the the ‘‘Indexes’’); or (f) a basket or index based on Investment Company Units, subject Options-Linked Securities must of any of the foregoing. Exchange-Traded Fund Shares, Index- be calculated and widely disseminated With respect to underlying Linked Securities, or securities defined by the Exchange or one or more major components of the Options Reference in Section 2 of Rule 8–E, such market data vendors on at least a 15- Asset, the Exchange notes that, to the Investment Company Units, Exchange- second basis during the Core Trading extent that Investment Company Units, Traded Fund Shares, Index-Linked Session. Exchange-Traded Fund Shares, Index- Securities, or securities defined in Proposed Section VII(2) would Linked Securities and securities defined Section 2 of Rule 8–E shall not seek to provide that an issue of Options-Linked in Section 2 of Rule 8–E are listed and provide investment results, before fees Securities must meet the following traded on the Exchange, such securities and expenses, that correspond to the continued listing criteria: 9 are subject to Exchange initial and inverse, a specific multiple, or a specific (a) The Exchange may halt trading in continued listing criteria under inverse multiple of the percentage the securities and will initiate delisting applicable Exchange rules as approved performance on a given day of a proceedings pursuant to Rule 5.5–E(m) by the Commission. In addition, the particular index or combination of if any of the initial listing criteria Commission has approved or issued a indexes. described above are not continuously notice of effectiveness to permit listing Proposed Rule 5.2–E(j)(6)(B)(VII) maintained; and on a national securities exchange of (Options-Linked Securities Listing (b) The Exchange may also halt securities based on certain Indexes.13 Standards) would set forth initial and trading in the securities and will initiate With respect underlying components of continued listing criteria applicable to delisting proceedings pursuant to Rule the Options Reference Asset, the Options-Linked Securities. Proposed 5.5–E(m) under any of the following Exchange notes that, to the extent that Section VII(1) would provide that an circumstances: securities comparable to Investment issue of Options-Linked Securities must (i) If the aggregate market value or the Company Units, Exchange-Traded Fund meet the initial listing standard set forth principal amount of the Options-Linked Shares, Index-Linked Securities and in either (a) or (b) below: Securities publicly held is less than securities defined in Section 2 of Rule (a) The Options Reference Asset to $400,000; 8–E are listed and traded on other which the security is linked shall have (ii) The value of the Options national securities exchanges, such been reviewed and approved for the Reference Asset is no longer calculated securities are subject to rules for initial trading of Options-Linked Securities or or available and a new Options options or other derivatives by the Reference Asset is substituted, unless 11 Investment Company Units are securities the new Options Reference Asset meets described in NYSE Arca Rule 5.2–E(j)(3) or Commission under Section 19(b)(2) of comparable rules of other national securities the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the requirements of this Rule 5.2–E(j)(6); exchanges. rules thereunder and the conditions set or 12 Exchange-Traded Fund Shares are securities forth in the Commission’s approval (iii) If such other event shall occur or described in NYSE Arca Rule 5.2–E(j)(8) or comparable rules of other national securities order, including with respect to condition exists which in the opinion of the Exchange makes further dealings on exchanges. comprehensive surveillance sharing 13 See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. agreements, continue to be satisfied. the Exchange inadvisable. 31591 (December 11, 1992), 57 FR 60253 (December (b) The pricing information for The Exchange also proposes to amend 18, 1992) (SR–Amex–92–18) (approving the listing Commentary .01(a) and (b) to Rule 5.2– and trading of Portfolio Depositary Receipts based components of the Options Reference on the S&P 500 Index); 39525 (January 8, 1998), 63 Asset must be derived from a market E(j)(6), which relate to specified requirements and obligations of an FR 2438 (January 15, 1998) (SR–Amex–97–29) which is an ISG member or affiliate or (approving the listing and trading of DIAMONDS with which the Exchange has a Equity Trading Permit (ETP) Holder Trust Units, Portfolio Depositary Receipts based on comprehensive surveillance sharing acting as a registered Market Maker, to the Dow Jones Industrial Average); 39011 include Options Linked Securities and (September 3, 1997), 62 FR 47840 (September 11, agreement. 1997) (SR–CBOE–97–26) (approving the listing and In addition, an issue of Options- options to the financial instruments trading of options on the Dow Jones Industrial 10 Linked Securities must meet the covered by Commentary .01. Average); 19907 (June 24, 1983), 48 FR 30814 (July following initial listing criteria: As noted above, proposed NYSE Arca 5, 1983) (SR–CBOE–83–08) (approving the listing Rule 5.2–E(j)(6)(vii) provides that the and trading of options on the S&P 500 Index on the Options Reference Asset for Options CBOE); 41119 (February 26, 1999), 64 FR 11510 Shares (Rule 8.201); Currency Trust Shares (Rule (March 9, 1999) (SR–Amex–98–34) (Order 8.202); Commodity Index Trust Shares (Rule 8.203); Linked Securities consists of one or Approving and Notice of Filing and Order Granting Commodity Futures Trust Shares (Rule 8.204); more U.S. exchange-traded options on Accelerated Approval of Amendment Nos. 3 and 4 Partnership Units (Rule 8.300); Paired Trust Shares any one or combination of the to the Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Listing (Rule 8.400); Trust Units (Rule 8.500); Managed following: (a) Investment Company and Trading of Shares of the Nasdaq–100 Trust); Fund Shares (Rule 8.600); Managed Trust Securities 87437 (October 31, 2019), 84 FR 59900 (November (Rule 8.700); and Managed Portfolio Shares (Rule 6, 2019) (SR–NYSEArca–2019–62) (Notice of Filing 8.900–E). 9 The continued listing criteria in proposed Rule of Amendment No. 1, and Order Granting 8 Current Rule 5.2–E(j)(6)(vi) applicable to 5.2–E(j)(6)(B)(VII)(2) are substantively identical to Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, Multifactor Index-Linked Securities would be continued listing criteria in Rule 5.2–E(j)(6) as Modified by Amendment No. 1, Relating to the amended to add Options Reference Asset as a applicable to other Index Linked Securities. Listing and Trading of Shares of the Innovator MSCI Multifactor Reference Asset. In addition, the new 10 The Exchange also proposes to make certain EAFE Power Buffer ETFs and Innovator MSCI term ‘‘Options-Linked Securities’’ would be added technical corrections to the existing rule text of Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETFs under NYSE to certain headings in Rule 5.2–E(j)(6). Commentary .01 to Rule 5.2–E(j)(6). Arca Rule 8.600–E).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 37490 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices

and continued listing criteria as (‘‘CTA’’) high speed line. Quotation and listed and traded on other national approved by the Commission for such last sale information for such securities securities exchanges, such securities are exchanges. With respect to options on also will be available from the exchange subject to rules for initial and continued the Indexes, options on all of the on which they are listed. Quotation and listing criteria as approved by the Indexes are currently traded on U.S. last sale information for options on Commission for such exchanges. In options exchanges. Investment Company Units, Exchange- addition, the Commission has approved Finally, all Options-Linked Securities Traded Fund Shares, Index-Linked or issued a notice of effectiveness to listed pursuant to NYSE Arca Rule 5.2– Securities, securities defined in Section permit listing on a national securities E(j)(6) would be included within the 2 of Rule 8–E and the Indexes will be exchange of securities based on certain definition of ‘‘security’’ or ‘‘securities’’ available via the Options Price Indexes.17 With respect to options on as such terms are used in the Exchange’s Reporting Authority and major market the Indexes, options on all of the rules and, as such, are subject to data vendors. Information regarding Indexes are currently traded on U.S. Exchange rules and procedures that values of the Indexes is available from options exchanges. All options included currently govern the trading of major market data vendors. in the Options Reference Asset will be securities on the Exchange. In addition The Exchange believes that the U.S. exchange-traded. to proposed NYSE Arca Rule 5.2–E proposed rule change will provide Under proposed NYSE Arca Rule 5.2– (j)(6)(vii) and proposed NYSE Arca Rule investors with the ability to better E(j)(6)(vii), to the extent that the Options 5.2–E(j)(6)(B)(VII), all other provisions diversify and hedge their portfolios Reference Asset consists of options of Rule 5.2–E(j)(6) will apply to using an exchange-listed security based on Investment Company Units, Options-Linked Securities as applicable. without having to trade directly in the Exchange-Traded Fund Shares, Index- The Exchange believes that the underlying options contracts, and will Linked Securities, or securities defined proposed standards would continue to facilitate the listing and trading of in Section 2 of Rule 8–E, such ensure transparency surrounding the additional Index-Linked Securities that Investment Company Units, Exchange- listing process for Index-Linked will enhance competition among market Traded Fund Shares, Index-Linked Securities. The Exchange also believes participants, to the benefit of investors Securities, or securities defined in that the standards for listing and trading and the marketplace. Section 2 of Rule 8–E shall not seek to Options-Linked Securities are provide investment results, before fees 2. Statutory Basis reasonably designed to promote a fair and expenses, that correspond to the and orderly market for such securities. The Exchange believes that the inverse, a specific multiple, or a specific The proposed addition of Options proposed rule change is consistent with inverse multiple of the percentage Reference Asset, as described above, Section 6(b) of the Act,15 in general, and performance on a given day of a would also work in conjunction with furthers the objectives of Sections particular index or combination of the initial and continued listing criteria 6(b)(5) of the Act,16 in particular, indexes. related to surveillance procedures and because it is designed to prevent Under proposed NYSE Arca Rule 5.2– trading guidelines for Index-Linked fraudulent and manipulative acts and E(j)(6)(B)(VII)(1), an issue of Options- Securities. practices, to promote just and equitable Linked Securities would be required to The Exchange believes that its principles of trade, to foster cooperation meet the initial listing standard in either surveillance procedures are adequate to and coordination with persons engaged (a) or (b) as follows: (a) The Options properly monitor the trading of Options- in regulating, clearing, settling, Reference Asset to which the security is Linked Securities in all trading sessions processing information with respect to, linked shall have been reviewed and and to deter and detect violations of and facilitating transactions in approved for the trading of Options- Exchange rules. The issuer of a series of securities, to remove impediments to, Linked Securities or options or other Options-Linked Securities will be and perfect the mechanisms of, a free derivatives by the Commission under required to comply with Rule 10A–3 and open market and a national market Section 19(b)(2) of the Securities under the Act 14 for the initial and system and, in general, to protect Exchange Act of 1934 and rules continued listing of Index-Linked investors and the public interest and thereunder and the conditions set forth Securities, as provided in NYSE Arca because it is not designed to permit in the Commission’s approval order, Rule 5.2–E(j)(6)(A)(f). The Exchange unfair discrimination between including with respect to notes that the proposed change is not customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. comprehensive surveillance sharing intended to amend any other With respect to underlying agreements, continue to be satisfied; or component or requirement of NYSE components of the Options Reference (b) The pricing information for Arca Rule 5.2–E(j)(6). With respect to Asset, the Exchange notes that components of the Options Reference options comprising the Options Investment Company Units, Exchange- Asset must be derived from a market Reference Asset, the pricing information Traded Fund Shares, Index-Linked which is an ISG member or affiliate or for components of the Options Securities and securities defined in with which the Exchange has a Reference Asset must be derived from a Section 2 of Rule 8–E are subject to comprehensive surveillance sharing market which is an ISG member or Exchange initial and continued listing agreement. affiliate or with which the Exchange has criteria under applicable Exchange rules In addition, an issue of Options- a comprehensive surveillance sharing as approved by the Commission. With Linked Securities must meet the agreement. respect underlying components of the following initial listing criteria in NYSE Quotation and last sale information Options Reference Asset, the Exchange Arca Rule 5.2–E(j)(6)(B)(VII): (a) The for Options-Linked Securities, notes that, to the extent that securities value of the Options Reference Asset Investment Company Units, Exchange- comparable to Investment Company must be calculated and widely Traded Fund Shares, Index-Linked Units, Exchange-Traded Fund Shares, disseminated by one or more major Securities, and securities defined in Index-Linked Securities and securities market data vendors on at least a 15- Section 2 of Rule 8–E are available via defined in Section 2 of Rule 8–E are second basis during the Core Trading the Consolidated Tape Association Session (as defined in NYSE Arca Rule 15 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 14 17 CFR 240.10A–3. 16 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 17 See note 13, supra.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices 37491

7.34–E); and (b) In the case of Options- underlying options contracts, and will Commission, 100 F Street NE, Linked Securities that are periodically facilitate the listing and trading of Washington, DC 20549–1090. redeemable, that the indicative value of additional Index-Linked Securities that All submissions should refer to File the subject Option-Linked Securities will enhance competition among market Number SR–NYSEArca–2020–46. This must be calculated and widely participants, to the benefit of investors file number should be included on the disseminated by the Exchange or one or and the marketplace. subject line if email is used. To help the more major market data vendors on at B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Commission process and review your least a 15-second basis during the Core Statement on Burden on Competition comments more efficiently, please use Trading Session. only one method. The Commission will Options-Linked Securities also will be In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of post all comments on the Commission’s 18 subject to the continued listing criteria the Act, the Exchange believes that the internet website (http://www.sec.gov/ in proposed Rule 5.2–E(j)(6)(B)(VII)(2) proposed rule change would not impose rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the as described above. Finally, all Options- any burden on competition that is not submission, all subsequent Linked Securities listed pursuant to necessary or appropriate in furtherance amendments, all written statements NYSE Arca Rule 5.2–E(j)(6) would be of the purposes of the Act. The with respect to the proposed rule included within the definition of proposed rule change will facilitate the change that are filed with the ‘‘security’’ or ‘‘securities’’ as such terms listing and trading of additional Index- Commission, and all written are used in the Exchange’s rules and, as Linked Securities that will enhance communications relating to the such, are subject to Exchange rules and competition among market participants, proposed rule change between the procedures that currently govern the to the benefit of investors and the Commission and any person, other than trading of securities on the Exchange. In marketplace. those that may be withheld from the addition to proposed NYSE Arca Rule C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s public in accordance with the 5.2–E(j)(6)(vii) and proposed Rule 5.2– Statement on Comments on the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be E(j)(6)(B)(VII), all other provisions of Proposed Rule Change Received From available for website viewing and Rule 5.2–E(j)(6) will apply to Options- Members, Participants, or Others printing in the Commission’s Public Linked Securities as applicable. Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, The Exchange also proposes to amend No written comments were solicited Washington, DC 20549 on official Commentary .01(a) and (b) to Rule 5.2– or received with respect to the proposed business days between the hours of E(j)(6), which relate to specified rule change. 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the requirements and obligations of an III. Date of Effectiveness of the filing also will be available for Equity Trading Permit (ETP) Holder Proposed Rule Change and Timing for inspection and copying at the principal acting as a registered Market Maker, to Commission Action office of the Exchange. All comments include Options Linked Securities and received will be posted without change. options to the financial instruments Within 45 days of the date of Persons submitting comments are covered by Commentary .01. publication of this notice in the Federal The Exchange also proposes to make Register or up to 90 days (i) as the cautioned that we do not redact or edit certain technical corrections to the Commission may designate if it finds personal identifying information from existing rule text of Commentary .01 to such longer period to be appropriate comment submissions. You should Rule 5.2–E(j)(6). and publishes its reasons for so finding submit only information that you wish The Exchange believes that the or (ii) as to which the self-regulatory to make available publicly. All proposed standards would continue to organization consents, the Commission submissions should refer to File ensure transparency surrounding the will: Number SR–NYSEArca–2020–46, and listing process for Index-Linked (A) By order approve or disapprove should be submitted on or before July Securities. The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change, or 13, 2020. that the standards for listing and trading (B) institute proceedings to determine For the Commission, by the Division of Options-Linked Securities are whether the proposed rule change Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated reasonably designed to promote a fair should be disapproved. authority.19 and orderly market for such securities. IV. Solicitation of Comments J. Matthew DeLesDernier, The proposed addition of Options Assistant Secretary. Interested persons are invited to Reference Asset, as described above, submit written data, views, and [FR Doc. 2020–13312 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] would also work in conjunction with arguments concerning the foregoing, BILLING CODE 8011–01–P the initial and continued listing criteria including whether the proposed rule related to surveillance procedures and change is consistent with the Act. trading guidelines for Index-Linked Comments may be submitted by any of DEPARTMENT OF STATE Securities. The Exchange believes that the following methods: its surveillance procedures are adequate [Public Notice 11140] Electronic Comments to properly monitor the trading of Modified Display Dates Due to the Options-Linked Securities in all trading • Use the Commission’s internet COVID–19 Pandemic, for Culturally sessions and to deter and detect comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ Significant Objects Imported for violations of Exchange rules. Trading in rules/sro.shtml); or Exhibition the securities may be halted under the • Send an email to rule-comments@ conditions specified in NYSE Arca Rule sec.gov. Please include File Number SR– SUMMARY: The Department understands 5.2–E(j)(6)(E). NYSEArca–2020–46 on the subject line. that, due to museum closures and other The Exchange believes that the effects of the COVID–19 pandemic, proposed rule change will provide Paper Comments many exhibition venues throughout the investors with the ability to better • Send paper comments in triplicate United States are modifying the dates of diversify and hedge their portfolios to Secretary, Securities and Exchange exhibitions for which they had already using an exchange listed security without having to trade directly in the 18 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8). 19 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 37492 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices

imported certain objects that I or authority covered by this delegation Ammon, in Bingham & Bonneville another Department official with may also be exercised by the Secretary, Counties, Idaho, 360 I.C.C. 91 (1979). To delegated authority under 22 U.S.C. the Deputy Secretary, the Under address whether this condition 2459 had determined, prior to Secretary for Management, and the adequately protects affected employees, importation, are of cultural significance Director of the Office of Foreign a petition for partial revocation under and whose temporary exhibition or Missions. 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) must be filed. display is in the national interest. I This delegation of authority will be Provided no formal expression of hereby confirm that if the national published in the Federal Register. intent to file an offer of financial 2 interest determination contained in a Dated May 26, 2020. assistance (OFA) has been received, the Federal Register Notice for such objects Brian J. Bulatao, exemption will be effective on July 22, noted the possibility of display at Under Secretary of State for Management, 2020, unless stayed pending ‘‘additional exhibitions or venues to be Department of State. reconsideration. Petitions to stay that do 3 determined’’ following the approximate [FR Doc. 2020–13361 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] not involve environmental issues, (i.e., ‘‘on or about’’) dates of exhibition formal expressions of intent to file an BILLING CODE 4710–43–P at the venue or venues stated in the OFA under 49 CFR 1152.27(c)(2), and Notice, the Department official’s interim trail use/rail banking requests intention was to make determinations under 49 CFR 1152.29 must be filed by SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD that would continue through a July 2, 2020.4 Petitions to reopen or reasonable period of temporary [Docket No. AB 55 (Sub-No. 801X)] requests for public use conditions under display—including at the originally 49 CFR 1152.28 must be filed by July 13, stated venue or venues—not necessarily CSX Transportation, Inc.— 2020, with the Surface Transportation limited to the dates of exhibition Abandonment Exemption—in Board, 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC referenced in the Notice. As such, the Greenbrier and Fayette Counties, W. 20423–0001. Department regards its determinations Va A copy of any petition filed with the of cultural significance and national CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT), has Board should be sent to CSXT’s interest made upon such objects prior to filed a verified notice of exemption representative, Louis E. Gitomer, Law their importation as remaining valid under 49 CFR part 1152 subpart F— Offices of Louis E. Gitomer, LLC, 600 through a reasonable but originally Exempt Abandonments to abandon an Baltimore Avenue, Suite 301, Towson, unforeseen extension of the objects’ approximately 6.39-mile rail line MD 21204. display due to the COVID–19 pandemic. between milepost CAF 20.61 and If the verified notice contains false or FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chi milepost CAF 27.0, near Rainelle in misleading information, the exemption D. Tran, Program Administrator, Office Greenbrier and Fayette Counties, W. Va. is void ab initio. CSXT has filed a combined of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of (the Line).1 The Line traverses U.S. environmental and historic report that State (telephone: 202–632–6471; email: Postal Service Zip Code 25962 and does addresses the potential effects, if any, of [email protected]). The mailing not include any stations. address is U.S. Department of State, CSXT has certified that: (1) No local the abandonment on the environment L/PD, SA–5, Suite 5H03, Washington, traffic has moved over the Line for at and historic resources. OEA will issue a DC 20522–0505. least two years; (2) any overhead traffic Draft Environmental Assessment (Draft can be rerouted over other lines; (3) no EA) by July 17, 2020. The Draft EA will Marie Therese Porter Royce, formal complaint filed by a user of rail be available to interested persons on the Assistant Secretary, Educational and Cultural Board’s website, by writing to OEA, or Affairs, Department of State. service on the Line (or by a state or local government entity acting on behalf of by calling OEA at (202) 245–0305. [FR Doc. 2020–13340 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] such user) regarding cessation of service Assistance for the hearing impaired is BILLING CODE 4710–05–P over the Line either is pending with the available through the Federal Relay Surface Transportation Board (Board) or Service at (800) 877–8339. Comments on environmental and historic DEPARTMENT OF STATE with any U.S. District Court or has been decided in favor of complainant within preservation matters must be filed [Delegation of Authority No. 484] the two-year period; and (4) the within 15 days after the Draft EA requirements at 49 CFR 1105.7 and becomes available to the public. Environmental, historic preservation, Authorities of the Director of the Office 1105.8 (notice of environmental and public use, or interim trail use/rail of Foreign Missions historic report), 49 CFR 1105.12 banking conditions will be imposed, By virtue of the authority of the (newspaper publication), and 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental Secretary of State pursuant to the laws 2 Persons interested in submitting an OFA must of the United States, and as delegated by agencies) have been met. first file a formal expression of intent to file an Department of State Delegation of Any employee of CSXT adversely offer, indicating the type of financial assistance they Authority No. 462, I hereby delegate to affected by the abandonment shall be wish to provide (i.e., subsidy or purchase) and the Principal Deputy Director of the protected under Oregon Short Line demonstrating that they are preliminarily Railroad—Abandonment Portion financially responsible. See 49 CFR 1152.27(c)(2)(i). Office of Foreign Missions, to the extent 3 The Board will grant a stay if an informed authorized by law, all functions and Goshen Branch Between Firth & decision on environmental issues (whether raised authorities of the Director of the Office by a party or by the Board’s Office of Environmental of Foreign Missions, as well as all 1 CSXT was granted authority in 2017 to abandon Analysis (OEA) in its independent investigation) two contiguous segments of track that together cannot be made before the exemption’s effective functions and authorities that have been encompass the Line. See CSX Transp., Inc.—Aban. date. See Exemption of Out-of-Serv. Rail Lines, 5 or may be delegated to such Director. Exemption—in Greenbrier & Fayette Ctys., W. Va., I.C.C.2d 377 (1989). Any request for a stay should The functions delegated herein may AB 55 (Sub No. 768X) (STB served Jan. 27, 2017) be filed as soon as possible so that the Board may be re-delegated, to the extent authorized and CSX Transp., Inc.—Aban. Exemption—in take appropriate action before the exemption’s Greenbrier Cty., W. Va., AB 55 (Sub-No. 776X) (STB effective date. by law. This delegation of authority served Dec. 20, 2017). Because its authority to 4 Filing fees for OFAs and trail use requests can does not revoke, supersede, or affect any abandon expired in both proceedings, CSXT is be found at 49 CFR 1002.2(f)(25) and (27), other delegation of authority. Any seeking renewed authority to abandon the Line. respectively.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices 37493

where appropriate, in a subsequent DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION minimized without reducing the quality decision. of the collected information. Federal Aviation Administration Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR OMB Control Number: 2120–XXXX. Title: Operational Waivers for Small 1152.29(e)(2), CSXT shall file a notice of [Docket No. FAA–2020–0379] Unmanned Aircraft Systems. consummation with the Board to signify Form Numbers: N/A (online portal). that it has exercised the authority Agency Information Collection Type of Review: New. granted and fully abandoned the Line. If Activities: Requests for Comments; Background: The Federal Register consummation has not been effected by Clearance of a New Approval of Notice with a 60-day comment period CSXT’s filing of a notice of Information Collection: Operational soliciting comments on the following consummation by June 22, 2021, and Waivers for Small Unmanned Aircraft collection of information was published there are no legal or regulatory barriers Systems on April 10, 2020 (85 FR 20333). The to consummation, the authority to FAA has seen increased operations of abandon will automatically expire. AGENCY: Federal Aviation small unmanned aircraft systems Administration (FAA), DOT. Board decisions and notices are (sUAS) flying under 14 CFR part 107. ACTION: available at www.stb.gov. Notice and request for Under 14 CFR 107.205, operators of comments. small UAS may seek waivers from Decided: June 16, 2020. certain operational rules. The FAA is SUMMARY: By the Board, Allison C. Davis, Director, In accordance with the updating and modernizing the process Office of Proceedings. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA for applying for such waivers using the invites public comments about our Aretha Laws-Byrum, DroneZone website. These intention to request the Office of improvements will facilitate the process Clearance Clerk. Management and Budget (OMB) [FR Doc. 2020–13299 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] of collecting and submitting the approval for a new information information required as part of a waiver BILLING CODE 4915–01–P collection. The Federal Register Notice application. The reporting burdens for with a 60-day comment period soliciting operational waiver applications are comments on the following collection of SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD currently covered by Information information was published on April 10, Collection Request (ICR) 2120–0768. As 2020. The FAA proposes collecting part of this effort, the FAA is creating a [Docket No. EP 290 (Sub-No. 5) (2020–3)] information about requests for waivers new ICR just for operational waiver from certain operational rules that apply applications. In order to process Quarterly Rail Cost Adjustment Factor to small unmanned aircraft systems operational waiver requests, the FAA (sUAS). The FAA will use the collected requires the operator’s name, the AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board. information to make determinations operator’s contact information, and ACTION: Approval of rail cost adjustment whether to authorize or deny the information related to the date, place, factor. requested operations of sUAS. The and time of the requested small UAS proposed information collection is operation. Additional information is necessary to issue such authorizations SUMMARY: The Board has approved the required related to the proposed waiver or denials consistent with the FAA’s third quarter 2020 Rail Cost Adjustment and any necessary mitigations. The FAA mandate to ensure safe and efficient use will use the requested information to Factor (RCAF) and cost index filed by of national airspace. the Association of American Railroads. determine if the proposed UAS DATES: Written comments should be The third quarter 2020 RCAF operation can be conducted safely. This submitted by July 22, 2020. (Unadjusted) is 0.989. The third quarter information is necessary for the FAA to 2020 RCAF (Adjusted) is 0.415. The ADDRESSES: Written comments and meet its statutory mandate of third quarter 2020 RCAF–5 is 0.392. recommendations for the proposed maintaining a safe and efficient national information collection should be sent airspace. See 49 U.S.C. 40103, 44701 DATES: Applicability Date: July 1, 2020. within 30 days of publication of this and 44708. notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ Respondents: sUAS Operators: 8,034 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: PRAMain. Find this particular per year. Pedro Ramirez at (202) 245–0333. information collection by selecting Frequency: On occasion. For requests Assistance for the hearing impaired is ‘‘Currently under 30-day Review—Open for operational waivers, a respondent available through the Federal Relay for Public Comments’’ or by using the will need to provide the information Service at (800) 877–8339. search function. once at the time of the request for the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: waiver. If granted, operational waivers Additional information is contained in Jeremy Grogan by email at: may be valid for up to four (4) years. the Board’s decision, which is available [email protected]; phone: (405) Estimated Average Burden per at www.stb.gov. 666–1187. Response: 30 minutes. The FAA estimates 1.3 responses per respondent. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By the Board, Board Member Begeman, Estimated Total Annual Burden: 0.65 Public Comments Invited: You are Fuchs, and Oberman. hours per respondent, for a total of asked to comment on any aspect of this Decided: June 16, 2020. 5,222 hours. information collection, including (a) Aretha Laws-Byrum, Whether the proposed collection of Issued in Washington, DC, on June 16, Clearance Clerk. information is necessary for FAA’s 2020. [FR Doc. 2020–13332 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] performance; (b) the accuracy of the Dwayne C. Morris, BILLING CODE 4915–01–P estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to Project Manager, Flight Standards Service, enhance the quality, utility and clarity General Aviation and Commercial Division. of the information collection; and (d) [FR Doc. 2020–13333 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] ways that the burden could be BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 37494 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION lane highway to a four-lane divided Issued on: June 16, 2020. expressway (FHWA Project No. Rodney Whitfield, Federal Highway Administration 0514000027). The actions by the Federal Director, Financial Services, Federal Highway agencies, and the laws under which Administration, California Division. Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions such actions were taken, are described [FR Doc. 2020–13396 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] on Proposed Highway in California in the Final Updated Environmental BILLING CODE 4910–RY–P AGENCY: Federal Highway Assessment (FEA) with Finding of No Administration (FHWA), Department of Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Transportation (DOT). project, approved on February 14, 2020 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ACTION: Notice of limitation on claims and in other documents in Caltrans’ Federal Highway Administration for judicial review of actions by the project records. The FEA, FONSI and other project records are available by California Department of Transportation Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions contacting Caltrans at the addresses (Caltrans). on Proposed Highway in California provided above. SUMMARY: The FHWA, on behalf of This notice applies to all Federal AGENCY: Federal Highway Caltrans, is issuing this notice to agency decisions as of the issuance date Administration (FHWA), Department of announce actions taken by Caltrans, that of this notice and all laws under which Transportation (DOT). are final. The actions relate to a such actions were taken, including but ACTION: Notice of limitation on claims proposed highway project, the State not limited to: for judicial review of actions by the Route 46 Corridor Improvement 1. Surface Transportation Project California Department of Transportation Project—Cholame Section Delivery Pilot Program (Pilot Program) (Caltrans). approximately 2 miles northwest of the [23 U.S.C. 327] town of Shandon in the County San 2. National Environmental Policy Act SUMMARY: The FHWA, on behalf of Luis Obispo, State of California. Those (NEPA) [42 U.S.C. 4321–4335] Caltrans, is issuing this notice to actions grant licenses, permits, and 3. Federal Endangered Species Act [16 announce actions taken by Caltrans that approvals for the project. U.S.C. 1531–1543] are final. The actions relate to a DATES: By this notice, the FHWA, on 4. Interagency Cooperation, proposed highway project, the State behalf of Caltrans, is advising the public Endangered Species Act of 1973 [50 Route 14/Avenue N Interchange of final agency actions subject to 23 CFR 402] Improvement Project (Post Miles R63.4 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). A claim seeking 5. Farmland Protection Policy Act to PM R63.9) in the City of Palmdale in judicial review of the Federal agency (FPPA) [7 U.S.C. 4201–4209] Los Angeles County, California. Those actions on the highway project will be 6. The National Historic Preservation actions grant licenses, permits, and barred unless the claim is filed on or Act (NHPA) of 1966 [16 U.S.C. 470(f) et approvals for the project. before November 19, 2020. If the Federal seq] DATES: By this notice, the FHWA, on law that authorizes judicial review of a 7. Energy Policy and Conservation Act behalf of Caltrans, is advising the public claim provides a time period of less of 1975 [42 U.S.C. 6201] of final agency actions subject to 23 than 150 days for filing such claim, then 8. Determining Conformity of Federal U.S.C. 139(l)(1). A claim seeking that shorter time period still applies. Actions to State or Federal judicial review of the Federal agency Implementation Plans [40 CFR 93] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For actions on the highway project will be 9. Guidelines for Specification of Caltrans, Jason Wilkinson, Branch Chief, barred unless the claim is filed on or Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Central Region Environmental, Caltrans before November 19, 2020. If the Federal Material [40 CFR 230] District 5, 50 Higuera Street, San Luis law that authorizes judicial review of a 10. Procedures for abatement of Obispo, California 93401. Office hours: claim provides a time period of less highway traffic noise and construction Monday–Friday, 9:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m. than 150 days for filing such claim, then noise [23 CFR 772] that shorter time period still applies. PDT. (805) 542–4663 or email 11. Farmland Protection Policy Act [7 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: [email protected]. For FHWA, CFR 658] For contact David Tedrick at 916.498.5024 12. Protection of Historic Properties Caltrans: Karl Price, Senior or email [email protected]. [36 CFR 800] Environmental Planner, Caltrans District SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Effective 13. Cumulative Impact [40 CFR 7, 100 South Main Street, Suite MS 16A, July 1, 2007, the FHWA assigned, and Section 1508.7] Los Angeles, California, 90012, (213) Caltrans assumed, environmental 14. Clean Air Act [42 U.S.C. 7401] 266–3822, or email karl.price@ responsibilities for this project pursuant 15. Protection of Wetlands Executive dot.ca.gov. For FHWA, contact David to 23 U.S.C. 327. Notice is hereby given Order 11990 Tedrick at 916.498–5024 or email that the Caltrans, have taken final 16. Clean Water Act [33 U.S.C. 1344] [email protected]. agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 17. Invasive Species Executive Order SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Effective 139(l)(1) by issuing licenses, permits, 13112 July 1, 2007, the FHWA assigned, and and approvals for the following highway 18. Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act the Caltrans assumed, environmental project in the State of California: The [16 U.S.C. 703–711] responsibilities for this project pursuant State Route 46 Corridor Improvement 19. The Bald and Golden Eagle to 23 U.S.C. 327. Notice is hereby given Project—Cholame Section on State Protection Act [16 U.S.C. 668] that the Caltrans has taken final agency Route 46 will begin at PM 49.7, (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1) by approximately 0.2 miles east of the Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning issuing licenses, permits, and approvals Shandon Roadside Rest Area and will and Construction. The regulations for the following highway project in the continue to post mile 54.7, implementing Executive Order 12372 State of California: The State Route 14/ approximately 0.5 miles west of the regarding intergovernmental consultation on Avenue N Interchange Improvement State Route 41/46 intersection. Caltrans Federal programs and activities apply to this Project to construct two roundabouts at proposes to continue the widening of program.) the Avenue N and SR–14 Interchange. It the State Route 46 Corridor from a two- Authority: 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). would also widen Avenue N between

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices 37495

17th Street West and 10th Street West DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION locate docket number ‘‘NHTSA–2019– to accommodate additional traffic lanes, 0013.’’ National Highway Traffic Safety a raised center median, sidewalks, and II. Equipment Involved bike lanes. The actions by the Federal Administration Approximately 415 BFGoodrich All- agencies, and the laws under which [Docket No. NHTSA–2019–0013; Notice 2] such actions were taken, are described Terrain T/A KO2 replacement tires, size in the Environmental Assessment/ Michelin North America, Inc., Grant of LT275/65R20, manufactured between September 2, 2018, and October 6, 2018, Finding of No Significant Impact (EA/ Petition for Decision of are potentially involved. FONSI) for the project, approved on Inconsequential Noncompliance III. Noncompliance October 31, 2019, and in other AGENCY: National Highway Traffic documents in the FHWA project Safety Administration (NHTSA), MNA explains that the records. The EA/FONSI and other Department of Transportation (DOT). noncompliance is that the subject tires project records are available by ACTION: Grant of petition. were marked with an incorrectly contacting Caltrans at the addresses sequenced Tire Identification Number provided above. The Caltrans EA/FONSI SUMMARY: Michelin North America, Inc. (TIN) and therefore, do not meet the can be viewed and downloaded from (MNA), has determined that certain requirements of paragraph S5.5.1(b) of the project website at https:// BFGoodrich All-Terrain T/A KO2 FMVSS No. 139. Specifically, the DOT www.cityofpalmdale.org/277/ replacement tires do not comply with symbol was incorrectly placed between Environmental-Documents. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard the first and second grouping of the TIN This notice applies to all Federal (FMVSS) No. 139, New Pneumatic when the symbol should be placed either in front of or below the TIN, thus, agency decisions as of the issuance date Radial Tires for Light Vehicles. MNA both the DOT symbol and the plant code of this notice and all laws under which filed a noncompliance report dated November 13, 2018, and subsequently were marked in the incorrect sequence. such actions were taken, including but petitioned NHTSA on December 10, not limited to: IV. Rule Requirements 2018, for a decision that the subject 1. National Environmental Policy Act noncompliance is inconsequential as it Paragraph S5.5.1 (b) of FMVSS No. (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4351) relates to motor vehicle safety. This 139 includes the requirements relevant to this petition. Each tire must be 2. Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401–7671 notice announces the grant of MNA’s labeled with the TIN on the intended (q)) petition. outboard sidewall of the tire, as required 3. Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: by 49 CFR part 574. Either the TIN or U.S.C. 703–712) Abraham Diaz, Office of Vehicle Safety a partial TIN should contain all Compliance, the National Highway 4. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of characters in the TIN, except for the Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 1964, as amended date code and, at the discretion of the telephone (202) 366–5310, facsimile manufacturer, any optional code, and 5. Historic and Cultural Resources: (202) 366–5930. must be labeled on the other sidewall of Section 106 of the National Historic SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: the tire. If the tire does not have an Preservation Act of 1966, as amended I. Overview intended outboard sidewall, the tire (16 U.S.C. 470(f) et seq.) must be labeled with the TIN required 6. Clean Water Act (Section 401) (33 MNA has determined that certain All- by 49 CFR part 574 on one sidewall and U.S.C. 1251–1377) Terrain TA KO2 tires do not comply with either the TIN, containing all with paragraph S5.5.1(b) of FMVSS No. characters in the TIN except for the date 7. Federal Endangered Species Act of 139, New Pneumatic Radial Tires for 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531–1543) code and at the discretion of the Light Vehicles (49 CFR 571.139). MNA manufacturer, any optional code, on the 8. Executive Order 11990—Protection filed a noncompliance report dated other sidewall. of Wetlands November 13, 2018, pursuant to 49 CFR V. Summary of Petition 9. Department of Transportation Act 573, Defect and Noncompliance of 1966, Section 4(f) (49 U.S.C. 303) Responsibility and Reports, and MNA described the subject subsequently petitioned NHTSA on noncompliance and stated its belief that 10. Noise Control Act of 1972 December 10, 2018, for an exemption the noncompliance is inconsequential 11. Executive Order 13112—Invasive from the notification and remedy as it relates to motor vehicle safety. Species requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 In support of its petition, MNA (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance on the basis that this noncompliance is submitted the following reasoning: Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning inconsequential as it relates to motor 1. Operational Safety and Construction. The regulations vehicle safety, pursuant to 40 U.S.C. 30118 and 49 U.S.C. 30120, Exemption a. The TIN marking noncompliance does implementing Executive Order 12372 not create any operational safety risk for the regarding intergovernmental consultation on for Inconsequential Defect or vehicle. The tires comply with applicable Federal programs and activities apply to this Noncompliance. FMVSSs and all other applicable regulations. program.) Notice of receipt of MNA’s petition b. The incorrect marking sequence of the was published, with a 30-day public DOT symbol and TIN plant code has no Authority: 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). comment period on July 3, 2019, in the bearing on tire performance. Issued on: June 16, 2020. Federal Register (84 FR 32010). No c. The subject tires are properly marked with all other markings required under Rodney Whitfield, Comments were received. To view the petition and all supporting documents FVMSS No. 139 such as S5.5(c) maximum Director, Financial Services, Federal Highway permissible inflation pressure and S5.5(d) Administration, California Division. log onto the Federal Docket maximum load rating. The necessary Management System (FDMS) website at [FR Doc. 2020–13399 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] information is available on the sidewall of https://www.regulations.gov/. Then the tire to ensure proper application and BILLING CODE 4910–RY–P follow the online search instructions to usage.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 37496 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices

d. The subject tires contain the DOT which these tires are mounted or the tires (Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: symbol on both sidewalls thus indicating themselves. delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and conformance to applicable FMVSS. Performance: NHTSA reviewed MNA’s 501.8) submission of certification data for the 2. Identification & Traceability subject tires. The subject tires appear to Otto G. Matheke III, a. All information required by 49 CFR comply with the FMVSS No. 139 Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. 574.5 for Tire Identification Number (plant performance requirements related to the [FR Doc. 2020–13297 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] code + size code + option code + date code) endurance requirement, high-speed BILLING CODE 4910–59–P is present on the sidewall of the tire. requirement, plunger energy test b. The marking discrepancy only exists on requirement, and bead unseat requirement. one sidewall of the tire. The opposing Therefore, on the basis that the tires meet the sidewall has the correct sequence of DOT + minimum performance requirements of DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION plant code + size code + option code. applicable FMVSS, reversing the order of the c. For identification and traceability symbol DOT and plant code does not pose a Pipeline and Hazardous Materials purposes the key information of plant code safety risk. Safety Administration Identification and Traceability: A complete and manufacturing date is present on the tire. [Docket No. PHMSA–2016–0136] d. In the event that dealer/owner TIN is present with the plant code, size code, notifications are required either the intended optional code, and date code on the sidewalls of the tires. One sidewall has an incorrect Pipeline Safety: Meeting of the Gas marking (DOT BF) or the actual marking (BF and Liquid Pipeline Safety Advisory DOT) would serve as an identifier of the tire. sequence while the correct sequence as stamped ‘‘DOT BF’’ is present and readily Committees 3. Proactive Measures available on the opposite sidewall of the full TIN. MNA has ensured, for identification and AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous a. The mismarking has been communicated Materials Safety Administration to BFGoodrich Customer Care representatives traceability purposes, the key information in order to effectively handle any inquiries (i.e. plant code and manufacturing date) is (PHMSA), Department of Transportation from dealers or owners regarding the subject present on the tire. The markings ‘‘DOT BF’’ (DOT). tires. and ‘‘BF DOT’’ serve as identifiers of the tire, ACTION: Notice of advisory committee making it traceable in the event a recall meetings. MNA concluded by expressing the should occur. MNA has notified its customer care representatives so they can properly belief that the subject noncompliance is SUMMARY: This notice announces public address inquiries raised by customers or inconsequential as it relates to motor teleconference meeting of the Technical vehicle safety, and that its petition to be dealers about this noncompliance. In addition, MNA has communicated to NHTSA Pipeline Safety Standards Committee, exempted from providing notification of that although erroneously marked ‘‘BF DOT’’ also known as the Gas Pipeline the noncompliance, as required by 49 instead of ‘‘DOT BF,’’ the tires will be able Advisory Committee (GPAC), and the U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the to be registered for traceability. Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline noncompliance, as required by 49 VII. NHTSA’s Decision Safety Standards Committee, also U.S.C. 30120, should be granted. known as the Liquid Pipeline Advisory In consideration of the foregoing, VI. NHTSA’s Analysis Committee (LPAC), to discuss the Valve NHTSA finds that MNA has met its Installation and Minimum Rupture NHTSA has evaluated the merits of burden of persuasion that the FMVSS Detection Standards notice of proposed the inconsequential noncompliance No. 139 noncompliance is rulemaking (NPRM). petition submitted by MNA and has inconsequential as it relates to motor DATES: PHMSA will hold public determined that this particular vehicle safety. Accordingly, MNA’s meetings on July 22–23, 2020. GPAC noncompliance is inconsequential to petition is hereby granted and MNA is will meet from 10:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. motor vehicle safety. Specifically, the exempted from the obligation of ET on Wednesday, July 22, 2020, while Agency considered the following when providing notification of, and a remedy LPAC will meet from 10:30 a.m. to 6:00 making its decision: for, the noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120. p.m. ET on Thursday, July 23, 2020. 1. Having the DOT code and TIN code Members of the public who want to markings in the incorrect sequence on one NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and attend are asked to register no later than sidewall does not pose a risk to safety on the July 15, 2020. PHMSA requests that subject tires. The DOT symbol is stamped 30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to within the TIN code and still readily file petitions for a determination of individuals who require disability available in case an end-user would be in inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to accommodations to notify Tewabe search of the DOT symbol as a sign of the exempt manufacturers only from the Asebe by July 15, 2020. certification of the subject tires. The symbol duties found in sections 30118 and ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held DOT is marked on the tire and accurately 30120, respectively, to notify owners, via teleconference. The agenda and any communicates the manufacturer’s purchasers, and dealers of a defect or additional information, including certification that the tire conforms to FMVSS information how to participate in the No 139. noncompliance and to remedy the 2. However, while correctly marked with defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this teleconference will be published on the the symbol DOT indicating certification of decision only applies to the subject tires meeting website at https:// the tire, the sidewalls of one side of the tires that MNA no longer controlled at the primis.phmsa.dot.gov/meetings/ were marked ‘‘BF DOT’’ instead of ‘‘DOT time it determined that the MtgHome.mtg?mtg=149. Presentations BF,’’ which is the correct sequence. NHTSA noncompliance existed. will be available on the meeting website evaluated whether the mislabeling of the However, the granting of this petition and on the E-Gov website, https:// subject tires poses a risk to safety considering does not relieve equipment distributors www.regulations.gov/, under docket the following areas: and dealers of the prohibitions on the number PHMSA–2016–0136 no later Operational safety: At this time, NHTSA sale, offer for sale, or introduction or than 30 days following the meetings. does not foresee a misunderstanding of the information conveyed due to the symbol delivery for introduction into interstate You may submit comments, identified DOT being out of sequence. Therefore, commerce of the noncompliant tires by Docket No. PHMSA–2016–0136, by NHTSA agrees with MNA that reversing the under their control after MNA notified any of the following methods: order of the symbol DOT and plant code does them that the subject noncompliance • E-Gov Web: https:// not pose a safety risk for the vehicles on existed. www.regulations.gov. This site allows

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices 37497

the public to enter comments on any that you actually treat as private, and times. These proposals address Federal Register notice issued by any that is relevant or responsive to this congressional mandates, incorporate agency. Follow the online instructions notice, it is important that you clearly recommendations from the National for submitting comments. designate the submitted comments as Transportation Safety Board, and are • Fax: 1 (202) 493–2251. CBI. Pursuant to 49 CFR 190.343, you • necessary to reduce the consequences of Mail: Docket Management Facility, may ask PHMSA to provide confidential large-volume, uncontrolled releases of U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 treatment to information you give to the natural gas and hazardous liquid New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building: agency by taking the following steps: (1) pipeline ruptures. Room W12–140, Washington, DC Mark each page of the original 20590–0001. document submission containing CBI as II. Background • Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of ‘‘Confidential;’’ (2) send PHMSA a copy Transportation, 1200 New Jersey of the original document with the CBI GPAC and LPAC are statutorily Avenue SE, West Building: Room W12– deleted along with the original, mandated advisory committees that 140, Washington, DC 20590–0001, unaltered document; and (3) explain provide PHMSA and the Secretary of between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. ET why the information you are submitting Transportation with recommendations Monday through Friday, except federal is CBI. Unless you are notified on proposed standards for the holidays. transportation of natural gas or • otherwise, PHMSA will treat such Instructions: Identify Docket No. marked submissions as confidential hazardous liquids by pipeline. These PHMSA–2016–0136 at the beginning of under the Freedom of Information Act committees were established in your comments. If you submit your and they will not be placed in the accordance with 49 U.S.C. 60115 and comments by mail, submit two copies. public docket of this notice. the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as Internet users may submit comments at Submissions containing CBI should be amended (5 U.S.C. App. 2), to review https://www.regulations.gov. If you sent to Tewabe Asebe, DOT, PHMSA, PHMSA’s regulatory initiatives and would like confirmation that PHMSA 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, PHP–30, received your comments, please include determine their technical feasibility, Washington, DC 20590–0001. Any a self-addressed stamped postcard that reasonableness, cost-effectiveness, and commentary PHMSA receives that is not is labeled ‘‘Comments on PHMSA– practicability. Each committee consists specifically designated as CBI will be 2016–0136.’’ The docket clerk will date of 15 members, with membership stamp the postcard prior to returning it placed in the public docket. evenly divided among Federal and state • Docket: For access to the docket or to you via the U.S. mail. governments, regulated industry, and • Note: All comments received will to read background documents or the general public. be posted without edits to https:// comments, go to https:// III. Public Participation www.regulations.gov, including any www.regulations.gov. Follow the online personal information provided. Please instructions for accessing the dockets. Alternatively, this information is These meetings will be open to the see the Privacy Act heading for more public. Members of the public who wish information. Anyone can use the site to available by visiting DOT at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building: Room to virtually attend must register on the search all comments by the name of the meeting website and include their submitting individual or, if the W12–140, Washington, DC 20590–0001, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. ET names and affiliations. PHMSA will comment was submitted on behalf of an provide members of the public with association, business, labor union, etc., Monday through Friday, except federal opportunities to make a statement the name of the signing individual. holidays. during the course of these meetings. Therefore, please review the complete FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: U.S. Department of Transportation Tewabe Asebe, Transportation Additionally, PHMSA will record the Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Specialist, Office of Pipeline Safety, by meetings and post a record to the public Register (65 FR 19477) or the Privacy phone at 202–366–5523 or by email at docket. PHMSA is committed to Notice at https://www.regulations.gov [email protected]. providing all participants with equal before submitting comments. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: access to these meetings. If you need • Privacy Act Statement: In disability accommodations, please accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT I. Meeting Agenda contact Tewabe Asebe by phone at (202) solicits comments from the public to GPAC and LPAC will meet in separate 366–5523 or by email at tewabe.asebe@ better inform its rulemaking process. sessions to discuss the Valve dot.gov. The DOT posts these comments without Installation and Minimum Rupture PHMSA is not always able to publish edit, including any personal information Detection Standards NPRM that PHMSA a notice in the Federal Register quickly the commenter provides, to https:// published in the Federal Register on enough to provide timely notice February 6, 2020, (85 FR 7162). GPAC www.regulations.gov, as described in regarding last-minute issues that impact and LPAC will review the NPRM and its the system of records notice (DOT/ALL– a previously announced advisory 14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at associated regulatory analysis. PHMSA committee meeting. Therefore, https://www.dot.gov/privacy. will post additional details on the • Confidential Business Information: meeting website in advance of the individuals should check the meeting Confidential Business Information (CBI) meetings. website or contact Tewabe Asebe is commercial or financial information PHMSA proposed to revise the regarding any possible changes. that is both customarily and actually Pipeline Safety Regulations applicable Issued in Washington, DC, on June 15, treated as private by its owner. Under to newly constructed and entirely 2020, under authority delegated in 49 CFR the Freedom of Information Act (5 replaced onshore natural gas 1.97. U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public transmission and hazardous liquid Alan K. Mayberry, disclosure. If your comments in pipelines to mitigate ruptures. Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety. response to this notice contain Additionally, PHMSA is revising the [FR Doc. 2020–13357 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] commercial or financial information regulations regarding rupture detection that is customarily treated as private, to shorten pipeline segment isolation BILLING CODE 4910–60–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 37498 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS collection of information on the enrollment of an eligible person in AFFAIRS respondents, including through the use any proprietary school where the trainee of automated collection techniques or is an official authorized to sign [OMB Control No. 2900–0657] the use of other forms of information certifications of enrollment. Item 2 of Agency Information Collection technology. VA Form 22–1919 collects the following Activity: Conflicting Interests Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3683; 38 CFR information for each certifying official, Certification for Proprietary Schools 21.4200(z); 38 CFR 21.4202(c); 38 CFR owner, or officer who receives VA 21.5200(c); 38 CFR 21.7122(e)(6); and 38 educational assistance based on an AGENCY: Veterans Benefits CFR 21.7622(f)(4)(iv). enrollment in that proprietary school: Administration, Department of Veterans Title: Conflicting Interests the name and title of these employees; Affairs. Certification for Proprietary Schools. VA file numbers; and dates of ACTION: Notice. OMB Control Number: 2900–0657. enrollment at the proprietary school. Type of Review: Extension of a (b) VA only collects this information SUMMARY: The Veterans Benefits currently approved collection. at the time one (or more) of these events Administration (VBA), Department of Abstract: Schools are required to occurs: Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an submit information necessary to opportunity for public comment on the (i) The initial approval of a program determine if their programs of training or course at a proprietary for-profit proposed collection of certain are approved for the payment of VA information by the agency. Under the school; educational assistance. This specified (ii) Any change of ownership of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of information is submitted either to VA or 1995, Federal agencies are required to school (either reported by the school or to the State Approving Agency (SAA) found upon review of a school’s records publish notice in the Federal Register having jurisdiction over that school. concerning each proposed collection of during VA’s ‘‘compliance survey’’); Certain schools are considered (iii) A change in proprietary status information, including each proposed ‘‘proprietary’’ schools. A proprietary extension of a currently approved (from non-proprietary to proprietary, or educational institution, as defined in 38 from non-profit to profit status). collection, and allow 60 days for public CFR 21.4200(z), is a private institution comment in response to the notice. When the SAA, or VA acting as the legally authorized to offer a program of SAA, visits the school in connection DATES: Written comments and education in the State where the recommendations on the proposed with the school’s request for approval of institution is physically located. Section its program(s), the representative has collection of information should be 3683 of title 38, U.S.C., and sections of received on or before August 21, 2020. either the school’s President or chief title 38 of the Code of Federal administrative official sign VA Form ADDRESSES: Submit written comments Regulations (CFR) establish conflict of 22–1919. VA’s Education Liaison on the collection of information through interest restrictions related to Federal Docket Management System Representative (ELR) will associate the proprietary schools. The VA Form 22– completed VA Form 22–1919 with the (FDMS) at www.Regulations.gov or to 1919 is the instrument VA has Nancy J. Kessinger, Veterans Benefits other documentation compiled for implemented to address these approval of the school’s program(s) and Administration (20M33), Department of restrictions. Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue will retain this information in the (a) VA Form 22–1919 is only used to approval folder. The approval folder is NW, Washington, DC 20420 or email to collect information on two issues: [email protected]. Please refer to retained until such time as the SAA or (i) Section 3683 of title 38, U.S.C., VA withdraws approval of all courses at ‘‘OMB Control No. 2900–0657’’ in any prohibits employees of VA and the SAA correspondence. During the comment the school. All information in the from owning any interest in an approval folder is then destroyed period, comments may be viewed online educational institution operated for- through FDMS. according to established record control profit. In addition, the law prohibits VA schedules. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: or SAA employees from receiving any (c) The following administrative and Danny S. Green at (202) 421–1354. wages, salary, dividends, profits, or gifts legal requirements affect proprietary SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: from private for-profit schools in which Under the schools as defined in 38 CFR 21.4200(z) an eligible person is pursuing a program PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must and necessitate the VA Form 22–1919 of education under an educational obtain approval from the Office of collection: Management and Budget (OMB) for each assistance program administered by VA. i. 38 U.S.C. 3683, Conflicting collection of information they conduct In addition, the law prohibits VA Interests. Impacts proprietary for-profit or sponsor. This request for comment is employees from receiving any services schools only. being made pursuant to Section from these schools. These provisions 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA. may be waived if VA determines that no ii. Regulations that reflect the With respect to the following detriment will result to the government, restrictions applicable to all proprietary collection of information, VBA invites or to Veterans or eligible persons schools: comments on: (1) Whether the proposed enrolled at that private for-profit school. A. 38 CFR 21.4202(c). Overcharges; collection of information is necessary Item 1 of VA Form 22–1919 collects the restrictions on enrollments. Restrictions; for the proper performance of VBA’s name and title of affected VA and SAA proprietary schools. functions, including whether the employees known by the President (or B. 38 CFR 21.5200(c). Schools. information will have practical utility; Chief Administrative Official) of the Overcharges; restrictions on (2) the accuracy of VBA’s estimate of the school, as well as a description of these enrollments. Restrictions; proprietary burden of the proposed collection of employees’ association with that school. schools. information; (3) ways to enhance the (ii) Sections 21.4202(c), 21.5200(c), C. 38 CFR 21.7122(e)(6). Courses quality, utility, and clarity of the 21.7122(e)(6), and 21.7622(f)(4)(iv) of precluded. Other courses. information to be collected; and (4) title 38 of the CFR prohibit the approval D. 38 CFR 21.7622(f)(4)(iv). Courses ways to minimize the burden of the of educational assistance from VA for precluded. Other courses.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Notices 37499

Affected Public: Institutions of Higher Frequency of Response: Occasionally. By direction of the Secretary. Learning. Estimated Number of Respondents: Danny S. Green, Estimated Annual Burden: 56 hours. 336. VA Clearance Officer, Office of Quality, Estimated Average Burden per Performance and Risk, Department of Respondent: 10 minutes. Veterans Affairs. [FR Doc. 2020–13371 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320–01–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:08 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 Vol. 85 Monday, No. 120 June 22, 2020

Part II

Department of Homeland Security

8 CFR Part 208 Removal of 30-Day Processing Provision for Asylum Applicant-Related Form I–765 Employment Authorization Applications; Final Rule

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:51 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\22JNR2.SGM 22JNR2 37502 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 1. DHS Rationale and Need for the Rule I. Executive Summary SECURITY D. Removal of 90-Day Filing Requirement 1. Necessity of Rule and DHS Rationale A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action 8 CFR Part 208 E. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements On September 9, 2019, DHS 1. Costs and Benefits (E.O. 12866 and published a notice of proposed [CIS No. 2617–18; DHS Docket No. USCIS– 13563) rulemaking in which it laid out its 2018–0001] a. Costs Associated With Hiring Additional intention to eliminate the regulation Immigration Officers RIN 1615–AC19 articulating a 30-day processing b. Population and Effect of Rule on timeframe for USCIS to adjudicate Processing Times Removal of 30-Day Processing initial Applications for Employment Provision for Asylum Applicant- c. Wage Bases for Labor Earnings d. Lost Wages and Benefits Authorization (Forms I–765 or EAD Related Form I–765 Employment e. Impact on Support Network applications) for asylum applicants. Authorization Applications f. Costs Related to Socioeconomic Factors This change was proposed to (1) ensure USCIS has sufficient time to receive, AGENCY: U.S. Citizenship and and Impacts screen, and process applications for an Immigration Services, DHS. g. Impacts to Companies and Employers h. Tax Impacts initial grant of employment ACTION: Final rule. i. Small Entity Impacts authorization based on a pending j. Benefits SUMMARY: This final rule removes a asylum application, and to also (2) 2. Other Statutory and Regulatory reduce opportunities for fraud and Department of Homeland Security Requirements (DHS) regulatory provision stating that protect the security-related processes F. Out of Scope undertaken for each EAD application.1 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 1. Comments on the Broader Asylum EAD Services (USCIS) has 30 days from the DHS also proposed to remove the NPRM provision requiring that the application date an asylum applicant files the initial 2. Other Out of Scope Comments Form I–765, Application for IV. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements for renewal must be received by USCIS Employment Authorization, (EAD A. Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory 90 days prior to the expiration of their application) to grant or deny that initial Planning and Review) and 13563 employment authorization. This change employment authorization application. (Improving Regulation and Regulatory was proposed to align existing This rule also removes the provision Review) regulatory text with DHS policies requiring that the application for 1. Summary implemented under the Retention of renewal must be received by USCIS 90 2. Background and Purpose of the Final EB–1, EB–2, and EB–3 Immigrant days prior to the expiration of the Rule Workers and Program Improvements 3. Population employment authorization. Affecting High-Skilled Nonimmigrant 4. Transfers, Costs, and Benefits of the Rule Workers final rule, 82 FR 82398, 82457 DATES: This final rule is effective August a. Transfers and Cost (2017 AC21 Rule), which became 21, 2020. b. Benefits effective January 17, 2017. DHS FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: c. Labor Market Overview provided its analysis and justifications d. Alternatives Daniel Kane, Branch Chief, Service and invited public comment. Following B. Regulatory Flexibility Act Center Operations, U.S. Citizenship and the review and analysis of public Immigration Services (USCIS), DHS, 20 C. Congressional Review Act D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 comments, DHS is adopting its Massachusetts NW, Washington, DC E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) proposed regulation in all material 20529–2140; telephone: 202–272–8377. F. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice respects,2 and incorporates by reference SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Reform) the reasoning, and data in the proposed rule, except to the extent indicated Table of Contents G. Paperwork Reduction Act H. Family Assessment I. Executive Summary I. Executive Order 13175 1 As noted in the proposed rule, prior to the A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action J. National Environmental Policy Act Rosario v. USCIS, 365 F. Supp. 3d 1156 (W.D. B. Legal Authority (NEPA) Wash. 2018), court order in fiscal year 2017, the C. Summary of the Final Rule Provisions K. National Technology Transfer and adjudication processing times for these employment D. Summary of Costs and Benefits Advancement Act authorization applications exceeded the regulatory E. Effective Date set timeframe of 30 days more than half the time. L. Executive Order 12630 In response to the Rosario v. USCIS litigation and F. Implementation M. Executive Order 13045: Protection of to comply with the court order, USCIS dedicated as II. Background and Discussion Children From Environmental Health many resources as practicable to these A. Elimination of 30-Day Processing Risks and Safety Risks adjudications, but continues to face a historic Timeframe N. Executive Order 13211: Actions asylum application backlog, which in turn increases B. Removal of the 90-Day Filing Concerning Regulations That the numbers of applicants eligible for pending Requirement asylum EADs. However, USCIS does not want to Significantly Affect Energy Supply, continue this reallocation of resources as a long- C. Corresponding U.S. Department of Distribution, or Use Justice (DOJ) Regulations term solution because it removes resources from O. Signature other competing work priorities in other product III. Response to Public Comments on the lines and adds delays to other time-sensitive Proposed Rule Table of Abbreviations adjudication timeframes, and thus is finalizing this A. General Feedback on the NPRM rule. 1. General Support for the NPRM BCU Background Check Unit 2 DHS has made one technical correction to the 2. General Opposition to the NPRM CFDO Center Fraud Detection Operations proposed rule. DHS had proposed to replace old B. DHS Statutory Authority and Legal CFR Code of Federal Regulations references to ‘‘the Service’’ in 8 CFR 208.7(a)(1) and Issues DHS Department of Homeland Security (c)(3) with references to USCIS. But in context, the 1. DHS Statutory Authority EAD Employment Authorization Document reference to ‘‘the Service’’ in 8 CFR 208.7(c)(3) is 2. Rosario v. USCIS Court Order HSA Homeland Security Act of 2002 best read to refer to functions currently performed INA Immigration and Nationality Act by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a 3. Other Comments on Statutory Authority different component of DHS. The final rule or Legal Issues NPR Notice of Proposed Rulemaking therefore replaces the latter reference to ‘‘the C. Removal of 30-Day Processing USCIS U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service’’ with a reference to ‘‘DHS’’ more broadly, Timeframe Services rather than just USCIS.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:51 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR2.SGM 22JNR2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 37503

below. DHS also provides more recent potential impacts of the rule, but the EAD applications,3 and the cost to the data below, where available. analysis relies on assumptions related to agency for adjudication is covered by a pre-COVID economy. While future fees paid by other benefit requesters. As B. Legal Authority economic conditions are currently too a primary goal, USCIS seeks to The authority of the Secretary of difficult to predict with any certainty, adequately vet applicants and Homeland Security (Secretary) for these DHS notes that a higher unemployment adjudicate applications as quickly and regulatory amendments is found in rate may result in lower costs of this efficiently as possible. However, this various sections of the Immigration and rule as replacing pending asylum final rule may delay the ability to work Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et applicant workers would most likely be for some initial applicants whose EAD seq., and the Homeland Security Act of easier to do. Consequently, as processing is delayed beyond the 30-day 2002 (HSA), Public Law 107–296, 116 unemployment is high, this rule is less regulatory timeframe. Stat. 2135, 6 U.S.C. 101 et seq. General likely to result in a loss of productivity The impacts of this rule are measured authority for issuing the final rule is on behalf of companies unable to against a baseline. While we have added found in section 103(a) of the INA, 8 replace forgone labor. some more recent data and information, U.S.C. 1103(a), which authorizes the pursuant to public comments, the costs Secretary to administer and enforce the DHS is removing the requirement to are benchmarked to FY 2017, consistent immigration and nationality laws and to adjudicate initial EAD applications for with the NPRM. This baseline reflects establish such regulations as he deems pending asylum applicants within 30 the best assessment of the way the necessary for carrying out such days. In FY 2017, prior to the Rosario world would look absent this action. For authority. See also 6 U.S.C. 271(a)(3)(A), v. USCIS court order, 365 F. Supp. 3d this rulemaking, USCIS assumes that in (b). Further authority for the regulatory 1156 (W.D. Wash. 2018), the the absence of this final rule the amendment in the final rule is found in adjudication processing times for initial baseline amount of time that USCIS section 208(d)(2) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. Form I–765 under the Pending Asylum would take to adjudicate would be 30 1158(d)(2), which states that an Applicant category exceeded the days. USCIS also assumes that after this applicant for asylum is not entitled to regulatory-set timeframe of 30 days final rule becomes effective, employment authorization, and may not more than half the time. However, adjudications will align with DHS be granted asylum application-based USCIS adjudicated approximately 78 processing times achieved in FY 2017 employment authorization prior to 180 percent of applications within 60 days. (before the Rosario v. USCIS court days after filing of the application for In response to the Rosario v. USCIS order). This is our best estimate of what asylum, but otherwise authorizes the litigation and to comply with the will occur after this rule becomes Secretary to prescribe by regulation the Rosario court order, USCIS has effective. USCIS believes the FY 2017 terms and conditions of employment dedicated as many resources as timeframes are sustainable and expects authorization for asylum applicants. practicable to these adjudications, but to meet these timeframes following the continues to face a historic asylum effective date of this rule. Therefore, C. Summary of the Final Rule Provisions application backlog, which in turn USCIS analyzed the impacts of this rule DHS considered the public comments increases the numbers of applicants by comparing the costs and benefits of received and this final rule adopts the eligible for pending asylum EADs. adjudicating initial EAD applications for regulatory text proposed in the Notice of However, USCIS finds this reallocation pending asylum applications within 30 Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) of resources unsustainable as a long- days compared to the actual time it took published in the Federal Register on term solution because it removes to adjudicate these EAD applications in September 9, 2019, in all material resources from competing work FY 2017. respects. See Removal of 30-Day priorities in other product lines and USCIS notes that in FY 2018, 80.3 Processing Provision for Asylum adds delays to other time-sensitive percent of applications were processed Applicant-Related Form I–765 adjudication timeframes. By eliminating within 30 days and 97.5 percent were Employment Authorization the 30-day adjudicative timeframe, processed within 60 days. In FY 2019, Applications, Proposed Rule, 84 FR USCIS is better able to prioritize status- the figures were 96.9 percent and 99.2 47148. granting workloads based on agency and percent, respectively. In the analysis of As a consequence, this final rule department priorities. USCIS has not impacts of this rule, USCIS assumed 100 makes the following major revisions to estimated the costs of hiring additional the application for employment 3 On April 29, 2019, President Trump directed officers and therefore has not estimated DHS to propose regulations that would set a fee for authorization for asylum seekers the costs that might be avoided if the an asylum application not to exceed the costs of program regulations: major revisions in this final rule are not adjudicating the application, as authorized by 1. Eliminates the 30-day adjudication section 208(d)(3) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1158(d)(3)) implemented. Hiring more officers and other applicable statutes, and would set a fee requirement for initial filings; and would not immediately and in all cases 2. eliminates the requirement that for an initial application for employment shorten adjudication timeframes authorization for the period an asylum claim is applications to renew employment because: (1) Additional time would be pending. See Presidential Memorandum for the authorization must be received by Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland required to recruit, onboard and train USCIS 90 days prior to the expiration of Security on Additional Measures to Enhance Border new employees; and, (2) for certain Security and Restore Integrity to Our Immigration the applicant’s employment applications, additional time is needed System (Apr. 29, 2019), available at https:// authorization. www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/ to fully vet applicants, regardless of presidential-memorandum-additional-measures- D. Summary of Costs and Benefits staffing levels. Further, simply hiring enhance-border-security-restore-integrity- DHS notes that the estimates from the more officers is not always feasible due immigration-system/ (last visited June 26, 2019). to budgetary constraints and the fact The implementation of the President’s directive NPRM regarding unemployment, would take place via a separate rulemaking (known number of asylum applicants per year, that USCIS conducts notice and as the fee rule, through which USCIS analyzes and USCIS processing are not currently comment rulemaking to raise fees and adjudicative and operational costs biannually and applicable as COVID–19 has had a increase revenue for such hiring actions. sets fees, see 84 FR 6228- (Nov. 14, 2019) (proposed There is currently no fee for asylum rule), but it is uncertain whether such a revised fee dramatic impact on all three. DHS offers structure would reduce the overall resource burden this analysis as a glimpse of the applications or the corresponding initial associated with the 30-day adjudication timeframe.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:51 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR2.SGM 22JNR2 37504 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

percent of adjudications happened replacement labor for the position the Accordingly, if the population of aliens within 30 days.4 However, because asylum applicant would have filled, this is less than estimated as a result of the actual adjudications in FYs 2018 and rule would have primarily distributional broader asylum EAD rule, the estimated 2019 within the 30-day timeframe are effects in the form of transfers from impacts of this rule could be overstated slightly less than the 100 percent asylum applicants to others already in because the population affected may be analyzed, USCIS has over-estimated the the labor market (or workers induced to lower than estimated in this rule. impacts of this rule with respect to this return to the labor market). USCIS In instances where a company cannot variable when less than 100 percent of acknowledges that there may be hire replacement labor for the position adjudications happen within 30 days. It additional opportunity costs to the asylum applicant would have filled, is noted that the reliance on the 100 employers such as additional search USCIS acknowledges that such delays percent rate slightly overstates the costs. costs. However, if companies cannot may result in tax losses to the The impacts of this rule include both find a reasonable substitute for the labor government. It is difficult to quantify potential distributional effects (which an asylum applicant would have income tax losses because individual are transfers) and costs.5 The potential provided, this rule would primarily be tax situations vary widely 8 but USCIS distributional impacts fall on the a cost to these companies through lost estimates the potential loss to other asylum applicants who may be delayed productivity and profits. employment tax programs, namely in entering the U.S. labor force. The USCIS uses the lost compensation to Medicare and social security which potential distributional impacts asylum applicants as a measure of the have a combined tax rate of 7.65 percent (transfers) would be in the form of lost overall impact of the rule—either as (6.2 percent and 1.45 percent, opportunity to receive compensation distributional impacts (transfers) or as a respectively).9 With both the employee (wages and benefits). A portion of this proxy for businesses’ cost for lost and employer not paying their lost compensation might be transferred productivity. It does not include respective portion of Medicare and from asylum applicants to others that additional costs to businesses for lost social security taxes, the total estimated are currently in the U.S. labor force, profits and opportunity costs or the tax loss for Medicare and social security possibly in the form of additional work distributional impacts for those in an is 15.3 percent.10 Lost wages ranging hours or overtime pay. A portion of the applicant’s support network. The lost from $255.88 million to $774.76 million impacts of this rule may also be borne compensation to asylum applicants would result in employment tax losses by companies that would have hired the could range from $255.88 million to to the government ranging from $39.15 asylum applicants had they been in the $774.76 million annually depending on million to $118.54 million.11 Again, labor market earlier but were unable to the wages the asylum applicant would depending on the circumstances of the find available workers. These have earned. The 10-year total employee, there could be additional companies would incur a cost, as they discounted lost compensation to asylum federal income tax losses not estimated may be losing the productivity and applicants at 3 percent could range from here. There may also be state and local potential profits the asylum applicant $2.183 billion to $6.609 billion and at 7 income tax losses that would vary may have provided had the asylum percent could range from $1.797 billion according to the jurisdiction. applicant been in the labor force to $5.442 billion (years 2020–2029). This rule will possibly result in earlier.6 USCIS recognizes that the impacts of reduced opportunity costs to the federal Companies may also incur this final rule could be overstated if the government. Since the Rosario court opportunity costs by having to choose provisions of a separate NPRM that DHS order compelled USCIS to comply with the next best alternative to immediately published in November 2019 (‘‘broader the 30-day provision in FY 2018, USCIS filling the job the asylum applicant asylum EAD NPRM’’) are finalized as has redistributed its adjudication would have filled. USCIS does not know proposed. See Asylum Application, resources to work up to full compliance. what this next best alternative may be Interview, and Employment By removing the 30-day timeframe, for those companies. As a result, USCIS Authorization for Applicants, Proposed these redistributed resources can be does not know the portion of overall Rule, 84 FR 62374 (Nov. 14, 2019). reallocated, potentially reducing delays impacts of this rule that are transfers or Specifically, the broader asylum EAD in processing of status-granting benefit costs. If companies can find NPRM would limit or delay eligibility requests, and avoiding costs associated for employment authorization for with hiring additional employees. USCIS has not estimated these avoided 4 The information regarding the processing of certain asylum applicants.7 these applications was provided by USCIS Office of Performance and Quality (OPQ). 7 In the broader asylum EAD NPRM, DHS enhance-border-security-restore-integrity- 5 Transfer payments are monetary payments from proposed to modify its current regulations immigration-system/ (last visited June 26, 2019). one group to another that do not affect total governing asylum applications, interviews, and 8 See More than 44 percent of workers pay no resources available to society. See OMB Circular A– eligibility for employment authorization based on a federal income tax (September 16, 2018) available 4 pages 14 and 38 for further discussion of transfer pending asylum application. That NPRM was at https://www.marketwatch.com/story/81-million- payments and distributional effects. Circular A–4 is intended to implement a Presidential directive americans-wont-pay-any-federal-income-taxes-this- available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/ related to employment authorization for asylum year-heres-why-2018-04-16. whitehouse.gov/files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf. applicants. On April 29, 2019, President Trump 9 The various employment taxes are discussed in 6 The analysis accounts for delayed entry into the directed DHS to propose regulations that would bar more detail at https://www.irs.gov/businesses/ labor force, and does not account for the potential aliens who have entered or attempted to enter the small-businesses-self-employed/understanding- circumstance under which this rule may completely United States unlawfully from receiving employment-taxes. See IRS Publication 15, Circular foreclose an alien’s entry into the labor force. Such employment authorization before any applicable E, Employer’s Tax Guide for specific information on a possible circumstance could occur if USCIS application for relief or protection from removal has employment tax rates. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs- _ ultimately denies an EAD application that was been granted, and to ensure immediate revocation pdf/p15 18.pdf. pending past 30 days due to this rule, solely of employment authorization for aliens who are 10 Calculation: (6.2 percent social security + 1.45 because the underlying asylum application had denied asylum or become subject to a final order percent Medicare) × 2 employee and employer been denied during the extended pendency of the of removal. See Presidential Memorandum for the losses = 15.3 percent total estimated tax loss to EAD application. In such a scenario, there would Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland government. be additional costs and transfer effects due to this Security on Additional Measures to Enhance Border 11 Calculations: Lower bound lost wages $255.88 rule. Such costs and transfer effects are not Security and Restore Integrity to Our Immigration million × 15.3 percent estimated tax rate = $39.15 accounted for below. Similarly, the rule does not System (Apr. 29, 2019), available at https:// million. estimate avoided turnover costs to the employer www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/ Upper bound lost wages $774.76 million × 15.3 associated with such a scenario. presidential-memorandum-additional-measures- percent estimated tax rate = $118.54 million.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:51 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR2.SGM 22JNR2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 37505

costs. Additionally, USCIS does not time to address national security and reduce confusion regarding EAD anticipate that removing the separate fraud concerns, and to maintain renewal requirements for pending 90-day EAD filing requirement would technological advances in document asylum applicants and ensure the result in any costs to the federal production and identity verification. regulatory text reflects current DHS government. Applicants would rely on up-to-date policy and regulations under DHS’s This rule will benefit USCIS by processing times, which provide final 2017 AC21 Rule.12 allowing it to operate under long-term, accurate expectations of adjudication Table 1 provides a detailed summary sustainable case processing times for times. initial EAD applications for pending The technical change removing the of the regulatory changes and the asylum applicants, to allow sufficient 90-day filing requirement is expected to expected impacts of this final rule. TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS AND IMPACTS

Expected benefits from Current provision Change to provision Expected costs and transfers from changed provision changed provision

USCIS has a 30-day initial EAD USCIS is eliminating the provi- Quantitative: This provision could delay the ability of some ini- Quantitative: Not estimated. adjudication timeframe for ap- sions for the 30-day adju- tial applicants to work. A portion of the impacts of the rule plicants who have pending dication timeframe and would be the lost compensation transferred from asylum ap- asylum applications. issuance of initial EADs for plicants to others currently in the workforce, possibly in the pending asylum applicants. form of additional work hours or overtime pay. A portion of the impacts of the rule would be lost productivity costs to companies that would have hired asylum applicants had they been in the labor market, but who were unable to find available workers. USCIS uses the lost compensation to asylum applicants as a measure of these distributional im- pacts (transfers) and as a proxy for businesses’ cost for lost productivity. The lost compensation due to processing delays could range from $255.88 million to $774.76 million annually. The total ten-year discounted lost compensation for years 2020–2029 averages $4.396 billion and $3.619 bil- lion at discount rates of 3 and 7 percent, respectively. USCIS does not know the portion of overall impacts of this rule that are transfers or costs. Lost wages ranging from $255.88 million to $774.76 million would result in employ- ment tax losses to the government ranging from $39.15 mil- lion to $118.54 million annually. Qualitative: In cases where companies cannot find reasonable Qualitative: DHS will be able to substitutes for the labor the asylum applicants would have operate under long-term sus- provided, affected companies would also lose profits from tainable case processing the lost productivity. In all cases, companies would incur op- times for initial EAD applica- portunity costs by having to choose the next best alternative tions for pending asylum ap- to immediately filling the job the pending asylum applicant plicants, to allow sufficient would have filled. There may be additional opportunity costs time to address national se- to employers such as search costs. There may also be addi- curity and fraud concerns, tional distributional impacts for those in an applicant’s sup- and to maintain technological port network beyond a minimum of 180 days—if applicants advances in document pro- are unable to work legally, they may need to rely on re- duction and identity sources from family members, friends, non-profits, or gov- verification without having to ernment entities for support. add any resources. DHS notes that the estimates from the NPRM regarding unem- This rule is expected to result ployment, number of asylum applicants per year, and USCIS in reduced opportunity costs processing are not currently applicable as COVID–19 has to the Federal Government. had a dramatic impact on all three. DHS offers this analysis By removing the 30-day as a glimpse of the potential impacts of the rule, but the timeframe, USCIS will be analysis relies on assumptions related to a pre-COVID econ- able to reallocate the re- omy. While future economic conditions are currently too dif- sources it redistributed to ficult to predict with any certainty, DHS notes that a higher comply with the 30-day provi- unemployment rate may result in lower costs of this rule as sion, potentially reducing replacing pending asylum applicant workers would most like- delays in processing of other ly be easier to do. Consequently, as unemployment is high, applications and avoiding this rule is less likely to result in a loss of productivity on be- costs associated with hiring half of companies unable to replace forgone labor. additional employees. Applicants can currently submit This rule removes the 90-day Quantitative: None ...... Quantitative: None. a renewal EAD application 90 submission requirement for Qualitative: None ...... Qualitative: Applicants— days before the expiration of renewal EAD applications. • Reduces confusion regard- their current EAD. ing EAD renewal require- ments. Some confusion may nonetheless remain if applicants consult out- dated versions of regula- tions or inapplicable DOJ regulations.

12 In the 2017 AC21 final rule, 81 FR 82398, asylum applicants. To benefit from the automatic continue to be authorized for employment based on USCIS amended 8 CFR 274a.13 to allow for the extension, an applicant falling within an eligible his or her status, even after the EAD expires, if the automatic extension of existing, valid EADs for up category (1) must properly file his or her renewal applicant is applying for renewal under a category to 180 days for renewal applicants falling within request for employment authorization before its that does not first require USCIS to adjudicate an certain EAD categories as described in the expiration date; (2) must request renewal based on underlying application, petition, or request. regulation and designated on the USCIS website. the same employment authorization category under See 8 CFR 274a.13(d). Among those categories is which the expiring EAD was granted; and (3) will

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:51 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR2.SGM 22JNR2 37506 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS AND IMPACTS—Continued

Expected benefits from Current provision Change to provision Expected costs and transfers from changed provision changed provision

DHS/USCIS— • The DHS regulations are being updated to match those of other EAD cat- egories.

As previously discussed, USCIS does currently in the labor force or induced would go unfilled there would be a loss not know the portion of overall impacts back into the labor force (we assume no of employment taxes to the federal of this rule that are transfers or costs, tax losses as a labor substitute was government. USCIS estimates $118.54 but estimates that the maximum found). Conversely, if companies are million as the maximum decrease in monetized impact of this rule from lost unable to find any reasonable labor employment tax transfers from compensation is $774.76 million substitutes for the positions the asylum companies and employees to the federal annually. If all companies are able to applicants would have filled, then government. The two scenarios easily find reasonable labor substitutes $774.76 million is the estimated described above represent the estimated for all of the positions the asylum maximum monetized cost of the rule endpoints for the range of monetized applicants would have filled, they will and $0 is the estimated minimum in impacts resulting from this rule and are bear little or no costs, so the maximum monetized transfers from asylum summarized in Table 2 below. of $774.76 million will be transferred applicants to other workers. In addition, from asylum applicants to workers under this scenario, because the jobs

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF RANGE OF MONETIZED ANNUAL IMPACTS

Scenario: No replacement Scenario: All asylum Primary labor found for asylum applicants replaced (half of the Category Description applicants with other workers highest high Low wage High wage Low wage High wage for each row)

Cost ...... Lost compensation used as proxy for $255.88 $774.76 $0.00 $0.00 $387.38 lost productivity to companies. Transfer ...... Compensation transferred from asy- 0.00 0.00 255.88 774.76 387.38 lum applicants to other workers. Transfer ...... Lost employment taxes paid to the 39.15 118.54 0.00 0.00 59.27 Federal Government.

As required by OMB Circular A–4, because the total monetized impact of employees to the federal government Table 3 presents the prepared A–4 the rule from lost compensation cannot when companies are unable to easily accounting statement showing the costs exceed $774.76 million and as find replacement workers. USCIS notes and transfers associated with this final described, USCIS is unable to apportion that there may be some un-monetized regulation. For the purposes of the A– the impacts between costs and transfers. costs such as additional opportunity 4 accounting statement below, USCIS Likewise, USCIS uses a mid-point for costs to employers that would not be uses the mid-point as the primary the reduction in employment tax captured in these monetized estimates. estimate for both costs and transfers transfers from companies and

TABLE 3—OMB A–4 ACCOUNTING STATEMENT [$ millions, 2017] [Period of analysis: 2020–2029]

Category Primary estimate Minimum Maximum Source citation (RIA, estimate estimate preamble, etc.)

Benefits: Monetized Benefits ...... (7%) N/A N/A N/A RIA. (3%) N/A N/A N/A RIA.

Annualized quantified, but un-monetized, ben- N/A N/A N/A RIA. efits.

Unquantified benefits ...... Applicants would benefit from reduced confusion over renewal re- RIA. quirements. DHS would be able to operate under sustainable case processing times for initial EAD applications for pending asylum applicants, to allow sufficient time to address national security and fraud concerns, and to maintain technological ad- vances in document production and identity verification

Costs:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:51 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR2.SGM 22JNR2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 37507

TABLE 3—OMB A–4 ACCOUNTING STATEMENT—Continued [$ millions, 2017] [Period of analysis: 2020–2029] Annualized monetized costs (discount rate in (7%) $387.38 $0 $774.76 RIA. parenthesis). (3%) $387.38 $0 $774.76 RIA.

Annualized quantified, but un-monetized, costs ...... N/A N/A N/A RIA.

Qualitative (unquantified) costs ...... In cases where companies cannot find reasonable substitutes for RIA. the labor the asylum applicants would have provided, affected companies would also lose profits from the lost productivity. In all cases, companies would incur opportunity costs by having to choose the next best alternative to immediately filling the job the pending asylum applicant would have filled. There may be addi- tional opportunity costs to employers such as additional search costs

Transfers: Annualized monetized transfers: ‘‘on budget’’ .. (7%) $0 $0 $0 RIA. (3%) $0 $0 $0

From whom to whom? ...... N/A N/A.

Annualized monetized transfers: Compensa- (7%) $387.38 $0 $774.76 RIA. tion. (3%) $387.38 $0 $774.76

From whom to whom? ...... From asylum applicants to workers in the U.S. labor force or in- RIA. duced into the U.S. labor force. Additional distributional impacts from asylum applicant to the asylum applicant’s support network that provides for the asylum applicant while awaiting an EAD

Annualized monetized transfers: Taxes ...... (7%) $59.27 $0 $118.54 RIA. (3%) $59.27 $0 $118.54

From whom to whom? ...... A reduction in employment taxes from companies and employees to the Federal Government. There could also be a transfer of federal, state, and local income tax revenue

Category Effects Source citation (RIA, preamble, etc.)

Effects on state, local, and/or tribal governments ... None; no significant impacts to national labor force or to the labor RIA. force of individual states is expected. Possible loss of tax revenue Effects on small businesses ...... None RFA. Effects on wages ...... None RIA. Effects on growth ...... None RIA.

E. Effective Date EAD applications prior to the effective initial employment authorization date of the rule will be grandfathered requests under the (c)(8) category was This final rule will be effective on into the 30-day adjudication timeframe. 30 days. The 30-day timeframe in 8 CFR August 21, 2020, 60 days from the date See 84 FR at 47153. DHS has 208.7(a)(1) was established more than of publication in the Federal Register. determined that this manner of 20 years ago,13 when the former DHS has determined that this 60-day implementation best balances Immigration and Naturalization Service period is reasonable as it does not operational considerations with fairness (INS) adjudicated EAD applications at impose new filing burdens on asylum to class members. local INS offices. The adjudication seekers requesting initial employment process and vetting requirements have II. Background and Discussion authorization and simplifies the changed substantially since that time. requirements for asylum seekers A. Elimination of 30-Day Processing EAD applications are now adjudicated requesting to renew employment Timeframe at USCIS service centers. As discussed authorization. in the proposed rule and in response to Processing of Applications for comments below, DHS believes that the F. Implementation Employment Authorization Documents 30-day timeframe is outdated, does not (EADs) The changes in this rule will apply to account for the current volume of adjudication of initial applications for Pursuant to 8 CFR 208.7, applications, and no longer reflects work authorization filed on or after the 274a.12(c)(8), and 274a.13(a)(2), effective date of the rule by those with pending asylum applicants may request 13 See Rules and Procedures for Adjudication of pending asylum applications and an EAD by filing an EAD application Applications for Asylum or Withholding of renewal applicants filing on or after the using Form I–765, Application for Deportation and for Employment Authorization, 59 FR 62284 (Dec. 5, 1994); Inspection and Expedited effective date. As noted in the preamble Employment Authorization. Under 8 Removal of Aliens; Detention and Removal of to the proposed rule, Rosario class CFR 208.7(a)(1) prior to this final rule, Aliens; Conduct of Removal Proceedings; Asylum members who have filed their initial USCIS’ adjudicatory timeframe for Procedures, 62 FR 10312, 10337 (Mar. 6, 1997).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:51 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR2.SGM 22JNR2 37508 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

current operational realities.14 2014, 84,236 in FY 2015, 115,888 in FY that were equipped with stand-alone Specifically, in the time since the 2016, 142,760 in FY 2017, 106,041 in machines for such purposes. While previous rule was enacted, asylum FY 2018, and 96,861 in FY 2019.17 decentralized card production resulted applications filed with USCIS have While receipts have dipped slightly in in immediate and customized reached historic levels, peaking most the last two fiscal years, prior to that adjudications for the public, the cards recently at 142,760 in FY 2017. This there was a 221.15 percent increase in produced did not contain state-of-the-art increase in application receipts, along annual affirmative asylum receipts over security features, and they were with the significant and longstanding the span of 5 years that directly susceptible to tampering and backlog at USCIS of affirmative asylum contributed to the increase in (c)(8) EAD counterfeiting. Such deficiencies applications (‘‘asylum backlog’’ or receipts. USCIS received 41,021 initial became increasingly apparent as the ‘‘affirmative asylum backlog’’), has EAD applications from aliens with United States faced new and increasing contributed to an increase in receipts of pending asylum applications in FY threats to national security and public initial EAD applications for pending 2013, 62,169 in FY 2014, 106,030 in FY safety. asylum applicants that has surpassed 2015, 169,970 in FY 2016, 261,782 in In response to these concerns, the available USCIS resources. By FY 2017, 262,965 in FY 2018, and former INS and DHS made considerable eliminating the 30-day provision, DHS 216,038 in FY 2019. USCIS also efforts to upgrade application seeks to maintain realistic case received 37,861 renewal EAD procedures and leverage technology in processing times for initial EAD applications from aliens with pending order to enhance integrity, security, and applications filed by pending asylum asylum applications in FY 2013, 47,103 efficiency in all aspects of the applicants, to address national security in FY 2014, 72,559 in FY 2015, 128,610 immigration process and by 2006, DHS and fraud concerns, and to maintain in FY 2016, 212,255 in FY 2017, 62,026 fully implemented these centralization technological advances in document in FY 2018 and 335,188 in FY 2019. In efforts.19 production and identity verification that FY 2019, USCIS received a total of In general, DHS now requires USCIS must fulfill as a part of its core 556,996 applications (which include applicants to file Applications for mission within DHS. This rulemaking initial and renewals of 551,226 plus Employment Authorization at a USCIS 20 does not change any requirements or 5,770 replacements, the latter of which Lockbox, which is a Post Office box eligibility for applying for or being are immaterial to this rule) for Form I– used to accelerate the processing of granted asylum or employment 765 from pending asylum applicants, applications by electronically capturing authorization. Rather, it reflects the with less than half as initial data and receiving and depositing 21 operational changes necessary due to applications (216,038 or 38.8 percent). fees. If DHS ultimately approves the increased employment authorization There were 335,188 renewal application, a card order is sent to a application volumes based on an applications (60.2 percent) in FY 2019. card production facility, where a underlying application for asylum. The increase in both initial and tamper-resistant card reflecting the renewal EAD applications coupled with specific employment authorized Growth of Receipts and Backlog the growth in the number of asylum category is produced and then mailed to The growth of asylum application cases filed in recent years has grossly the applicant. While the 30-day receipts by USCIS, along with the outpaced Service Center Operations timeframe may have made sense when growing asylum backlog, has resources, specifically because USCIS local offices processed applications and contributed to an increase in EAD has had to reallocate resources from produced the cards, DHS believes that applications from pending asylum other product lines to adjudicate these the intervening changes discussed above applicants that has surpassed available EAD applications.18 now mean that a 30-day timeframe is Service Center Operations resources. As not reflective of current processes. Changes in Intake and Document of February 2020, the affirmative asylum Production Fraud, Criminality, and National caseload stood at approximately 339,000 Security Considerations applications 15 and it had been growing Additionally, at the time the 30-day DHS has been unable to meet the 30- for several years. Credible fear screening timeframe was established, EADs, day processing timeframe in certain for aliens apprehended at or near the which were formerly known as Forms I– cases due to changes to the agency’s U.S. border, see 8 CFR 208.30, increased 688B, were produced by local offices vetting procedures and increased to over 94,000 in fiscal year (FY) 2016 from 36,000 in FY 2013. Affirmative 17 These numbers only address the affirmative asylum applications that fall under the jurisdiction 19 See USCIS Memorandum from Michael Aytes, asylum applications increased to over of USCIS’ Asylum Division. Defensive asylum Elimination of Form I–688B, Employment 100,000 in FY 2016 for the first time in applicants, who file their asylum applications with Authorization Card (Aug. 18, 2006). In January 20 years.16 The USCIS Asylum Division the Department of Justice’s Executive Office for 1997, the former INS began issuing new, more received 44,453 affirmative asylum Immigration Review (EOIR) are also eligible for secure EADs from a centralized location, and (c)(8) EADs. There is an ongoing backlog of pending assigned a new form number (I–766) to distinguish applications in FY 2013, 56,912 in FY defensive asylum cases at EOIR, which has it from the less secure, locally produced EADs approximately 650,000 cases pending. See (Forms I–688B). DHS stopped issuing Form I–688B 14 DHS continues to recognize the regulatory Memorandum from Jeff Sessions, Attorney General, EADs from local offices altogether in 2006. history for originally promulgating this provision, Renewing Our Commitment to the Timely and 20 Asylum applicants, however, make their initial and discusses this extensively in the comment Efficient Adjudication of Immigration Cases to request for employment authorization directly on responses. Serve the National Interest (Dec. 5, 2017). The the Application for Asylum and Withholding of 15 An affirmative asylum application filed by a defensive asylum backlog at EOIR also contributes Removal, Form I–589, and need not file a separate principal asylum applicant may include a to an increase in both initial and renewal (c)(8) EAD Application for Employment Authorization dependent spouse and children, who may also file applications. following a grant of asylum. If they are requesting their own EAD applications based on the pending 18 In response to the growing backlog and court- employment authorization based on their pending asylum application. An affirmative asylum ordered implementation of the 30-day adjudication asylum application, they must file a separate application is one that is filed with USCIS and not timeline in Rosario v. USCIS, Rosario v. USCIS, 365 request for employment authorization on Form I– in removal proceedings before the Executive Office F. Supp. 3d 1156 (W.D. Wash. 2018), Service Center 765. for Immigration Review (EOIR). Operations re-allocated available officer resources 21 USCIS website at https://www.uscis.gov/about- 16 The USCIS Refugee, Asylum, and International to meet the 30-day processing time for initial EAD us/directorates-and-program-offices/lockbox- Operations Parole System provided this data on applications, causing a strain across other Service intake/lockbox-intake-processing-tip-sheet (last March 15, 2018. Center Operations product lines. viewed March 2, 2020).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:51 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR2.SGM 22JNR2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 37509

background checks, which resulted from completed and a finding is made, the AC21 Rule automatically extends the the government’s response to September adjudicator uses the information employment authorization and EADs 11, 2001, terror attacks (‘‘9/11’’). provided from BCU and/or CFDO to falling within the designated categories Specifically, the Immigration and determine whether the alien is eligible as long as: (1) The alien filed the request Naturalization Service (INS), followed to receive the requested benefit. to renew his or her EAD before its by USCIS, made multiple changes to These security procedures expiration date; (2) the alien is enhance the coverage of security checks, implemented post 9/11 and well after requesting renewal based on the same detect applicants who pose risks to the establishment of the 30-day employment authorization category adjudication timeframe in 1994, national security and public safety, under which the expiring EAD was coupled with sudden increases in deter benefits fraud, and ensure that granted; and (3) the alien’s request for benefits are granted only to eligible applications, have extended adjudication and processing times for renewal is based on a class of aliens applicants, in response to 9/11. whose eligibility to apply for These changes included the creation applications with potential eligibility of the Application Support Centers to issues discovered during background employment authorization continues collect applicant fingerprints, checks beyond the current regulatory even after the EAD expires, and is based interagency systems checks for all 30-day timeframe. It would be contrary on an employment authorization applications and FBI name check to USCIS’ core missions and undermine category that does not first require screening, and the creation of USCIS’s the integrity of the cards issued if USCIS USCIS to adjudicate an underlying Office of Fraud Detection and National were to reduce or eliminate vetting application, petition, or request. Id. As Security (FDNS) to provide centralized procedures solely to meet a 30-day noted in the preamble to the 2017 AC21 support and policy guidance for security deadline established decades ago. Rule and this rule, and as currently checks and anti-fraud operations.22 In In sum, DHS is finalizing elimination reflected on the USCIS website, the August 2004, the Homeland Security of the 30-day processing provision at 8 automatic extension amendment applies Presidential Directive (HSPD) 11, CFR 208.7(a)(1) because of the increased to aliens who have properly filed Comprehensive Terrorist-Related volume of affirmative asylum applications for asylum. See id.; 8 CFR Screening Procedures,23 directed DHS applications and accompanying 274a.12(c)(8); 81 FR 82398 at 82455–56 to: Applications for Employment n.98.25 Authorization, over two decades of incorporate security features . . . that resist changes in intake and EAD document Because the 2017 AC21 Rule circumvention to the greatest extent possible production, and the need to effectively prevents gaps in work [and consider] information individuals must authorization for asylum applicants present, including, as appropriate, the type of appropriately vet applicants for fraud, biometric identifier[s] or other form of criminality, and national security with expiring employment identification or identifying information to be concerns. DHS believes that the 30-day authorization and EADs,26 DHS finds it presented, at particular screening timeframe did not provide sufficient unnecessary to continue to require that opportunities. flexibility for DHS to meet its core pending asylum applicants file for Since 9/11, USCIS implemented missions of enforcing and administering renewal of their employment changes in the collection of biographic our immigration laws and enhancing authorization 90 days before the EAD’s and biometric information for document security. scheduled expiration in order to prevent production related to immigration Case processing time information may gaps in employment authorization. In benefits, including the Application for be found at https://egov.uscis.gov/ order to receive the automatic Employment Authorization (Form I– processing-times/, and asylum extension, applications may be filed 765). USCIS must verify the identity of applicants can access the web page for before the employment authorization an alien applying for an EAD and realistic processing times as USCIS expires, though it is advisable to submit regularly updates this information. determine whether any criminal, the application earlier to make national security, or fraud concerns B. Removal of the 90-Day Filing allowance for the time it takes for exist and changes to biographic and Requirement applicants to receive a receipt biometric information improve USCIS’s DHS is removing 8 CFR 208.7(d), acknowledging USCIS’ acceptance of ability to carry out these functions. because 8 CFR 274a.13(d), as amended the renewal application, which can be Under the current national security and in 2017, serves the same policy purpose used as proof of the extension, and to fraud vetting guidelines, when an as 8 CFR 208.7(d), and is arguably at account for current Form I–765 adjudicator determines that a criminal, cross-purposes with that provision. processing times. As the 90-day filing national security and/or fraud concern Under the 2017 AC21 Rule, certain requirement is no longer necessary, DHS exists, the case is forwarded to the aliens eligible for employment Background Check Unit (BCU) or Center is finalizing removal of that regulatory authorization under designated Fraud Detection Office (CFDO) for provision. categories may have the validity of their additional vetting.24 Once vetting is employment authorization (if 25 See also USCIS, Automatic Employment 22 In 2010, FDNS was promoted to a Directorate applicable) and EADs extended for up to Authorization Document (EAD) Extension, https:// within USCIS’s organizational structure, which 180 days from the document’s www.uscis.gov/working-united-states/automatic- elevated its profile and brought operational expiration date if they file an employment-authorization-document-ead-extension improvements to its important work. See USCIS, application to renew their EAD before (last reviewed/updated Feb. 1, 2017). Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate, 26 As EAD applicants with pending asylum https://www.uscis.gov/about-us/directorates-and- the EAD’s expiration date. See 8 CFR applications are not authorized for employment, program-offices/fraud-detection-and-national- 274a.13(d)(1). Specifically, the 2017 security/fraud-detection-and-national-security- incident to status, these applicants need both their authorization and document to be extended. Thus, directorate. States immigration laws and regulations preclude 23 HSPD11, Comprehensive Terrorist-Related USCIS from granting immigration benefits to aliens wherever DHS discusses expiration, renewal, or Screening Procedures (Aug. 27, 2004), available at with certain criminal or administrative violations. extension of an employment authorization https://fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/hspd-11.html. See, e.g., 8 CFR 208.7(a)(1) (aggravated felony bar document for this population, it also means 24 USCIS conducts background checks on aliens to employment authorization for asylum expiration, renewal, or extension of employment applying for an immigration benefit because United applicants). authorization.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:51 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR2.SGM 22JNR2 37510 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

C. Corresponding U.S. Department of provide timely and accurate decisions DHS’s focus on requiring aliens to be Justice (DOJ) Regulations across the many other types of benefit self-sufficient. In particular, several This rule removes (1) the 30-day requests it receives. commenters indicated that this processing provision for initial Comments: Many commenters regulation is in tension with the employment authorization applications expressed support for the rule to assist ‘‘Inadmissibility on Public Change for those with pending asylum the agency’s thorough vetting processes Grounds’’ final rule, which was applications, and (2) the 90-day and protections against fraud and promulgated in August 2019. See 84 FR timeframe for receipt of an application national security concerns. Some 41292 (Aug. 14, 2019). Commenters to renew employment authorization. See commenters expressed concern that the expressed concern that the potential for 8 CFR 208(a)(1), and (d). These 30-day timeframe would force the a longer wait to receive employment agency to ‘‘cut corners’’ in vetting provisions can still be found in the authorization would prevent asylum processes. parallel regulations under the authority Response: DHS appreciates seekers from becoming self-sufficient as of the Department of Justice (DOJ), at 8 commenters’ general support for this quickly as possible and could cause CFR part 1208. Compare old 8 CFR rulemaking. In all adjudications, USCIS them to become a public charge. A 208.7(a)(1) and (d), with 8 CFR works to provide thorough vetting to commenter also cited 8 U.S.C. 1601, 1208.7(a)(1) and (d). advance U.S. interests, including providing a Congressional statement This rule revises only the DHS detecting and deterring immigration that ‘‘[s]elf-sufficiency has been a basic regulations at 8 CFR 208.7. fraud, and protecting against threats to principle of United States immigration Notwithstanding the language of the national security and public safety, law since this country’s earliest parallel DOJ regulations in 8 CFR while at the same time fairly immigration statutes.’’ 1208.7, as of the effective date of this administering lawful immigration. The final rule, the revised language of 8 CFR Response: USCIS disagrees with the existing timeframe and court order have premise of these comments. Asylum 208.7(a)(1) and removal of 8 CFR not resulted in the agency cutting 208.7(d) is binding on DHS and its seekers are not subject to public charge corners in conducting background in the adjudication of their asylum adjudications. DHS will not be bound checks; however, it has placed a serious by the 30-day provision of the DOJ applications. Likewise, the public strain on the agency’s resources to charge ground of inadmissibility is not regulations at 8 CFR 1208.7(a)(1). DOJ conduct these checks within 30 days. applicable to asylees seeking adjustment has no authority to adjudicate Vetting is triggered by individual benefit of status to lawful permanent residence. employment authorization applications. requests; in this case, the EAD DHS has been in consultation with DOJ application. Filing an application for Since this population is not subject to on this rulemaking, and DOJ may issue asylum triggers vetting as does applying inadmissibility based on being likely to conforming changes at a later date. for employment authorization. Review become a public charge, USCIS does not find this rule in tension with III. Response to Public Comments on of and resolution of derogatory rulemaking related to this ground of the Proposed Rule information relating to an applicant is conducted within the office handling inadmissibility. Additionally, the A. General Feedback on the NPRM that particular application. Asylum purpose of this rulemaking is to address In response to the proposed rule, DHS applications are processed in asylum the unsustainable burden due to rising received over 3,200 comments during offices, while employment authorization number of EAD applications and the the public comment period. DHS applications are processed in service resources required to maintain 30-day reviewed the public comments received centers. Vetting is conducted processing times. USCIS data supports in response to the proposed rule and throughout the adjudication process, the operational need for this rulemaking addresses relevant comments in the however vetting often is occurring in based on the significant increase in EAD preamble to this final rule, grouped by relation to the particular application applications in recent years as well as subject area. DHS does not address rather than in relation to the alien on an increased requirements for security comments seeking changes in U.S. laws, enterprise level. checks and vetting, which lengthen the regulations, or agency policies that are Comments: Several commenters time it takes to process each case. unrelated to the changes proposed in supported removing ‘‘bureaucratic’’ Increasing resources for this the NPRM. This final rule does not timelines. Commenters expressed that adjudication indefinitely to meet an resolve issues outside the scope of this such timelines are arbitrary and are outdated regulatory timeframe would rulemaking. detrimental to proper vetting of come at significant cost, potentially in applicants. 1. General Support for the NPRM fees and efficiencies for other benefit Response: USCIS agrees with requestors.27 Additionally, this Comments: Many commenters commenters that a self-imposed 30-day rulemaking brings the regulations provided general expressions of support timeframe is no longer an accurate relating to (c)(8) processing in line with for President Trump’s overall reflection of the agency’s ability to other EAD classifications, for which immigration policies and reforms. adjudicate these applications in a Response: DHS appreciates the sustainable manner. This rulemaking 27 On November 14, 2019, DHS proposed to set expression of support for the Executive will allow USCIS greater flexibility to a $490 fee for initial employment authorization Branch in the realm of immigration shift workloads based on service center applications for those with pending asylum policy; however, we note that the reason capacity and to continue to conduct applications. See U.S. Citizenship and Immigration for promulgating this rule is to address necessary vetting, while providing Services Fee Schedule and Changes to Certain Other Immigration Benefit Request Requirements, capacity, resources, and efficiencies accurate and timely adjudications 84 FR 62280 (Nov. 14, 2019). Although the fee rule across USCIS operations. The legacy without a disproportionate impact to the has yet to be finalized, DHS stated that it was regulation fails to account for processing adjudication of other benefit requests. proposing to charge the fee to keep fees lower for changes and increased filing volumes all fee-paying EAD applicants. As discussed in the 2. General Opposition to the NPRM NPRM preceding this final rule, the agency is and does not provide the agency the uncertain whether the fee would reduce the overall flexibility it needs to effectively manage Comments: A number of commenters resource burden associated with the 30-day this workload while continuing to noted that the proposed rule contradicts timeframe.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:51 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR2.SGM 22JNR2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 37511

processing timelines were previously Comments: Several commenters illegally discriminating against Central removed. indicated they think asylum seekers and South American migrants. Comments: Many commenters also should be able to work as soon as Response: This rulemaking applies indicated concern that this rulemaking possible. equally to all asylum seekers, and does would have a negative impact on Response: While USCIS acknowledges not discriminate against aliens based on applicants’ wellbeing in that delays in these commenters’ opinions, the earliest ethnicity or country of origin. The EAD application processing would lead date legally possible is at the 180-day demographics of asylum seekers, a to or exacerbate issues like mark, as Congress explicitly determined population that has yet to establish homelessness, food insecurity, mental that asylum applicants who are not eligibility for asylum, shift over time health problems, and lack of access to otherwise eligible for employment based on country conditions around the healthcare. authorization ‘‘shall not be granted such globe. This rulemaking addresses Response: USCIS strives to process all authorization prior to 180 days after the USCIS’ available resources and capacity benefits requests efficiently and this date of filing of the application for to process applications for asylum rulemaking does not make changes to asylum.’’ INA section 208(d)(2); 8 U.S.C. seekers of all ethnicities and eligibility requirements or the process 1158(d)(2). However, the operational nationalities and the processing changes by which asylum seekers obtain realities are not that simple. USCIS is provided by this rulemaking will employment authorization. Regardless charged with dutifully administering continue to be applied equitably. of the underlying basis for applying for lawful immigration benefits and the INA Comments: One commenter indicated employment authorization, all specifically charges the agency with the that they thought the proposed rule is applicants filing initially are subject to authority to implement the law, part of a structure intended to ignore some period of processing time that may including the discretion to grant work migrants and trap them in an illegal delay their ability to obtain employment authorization to those who have applied status. or other services. for asylum. USCIS endeavors to process Response: Aliens seeking asylum Comments: Several commenters benefit requests as quickly and must be physically present in the opposed the rule on the basis that EADs efficiently as resources allow and will United States pursuant to INA section are essential to the economic survival of continue to do so for applicants seeking 208(a)(1), but may or may not have vulnerable asylum seekers. an EAD based on a pending application entered lawfully or be maintaining for asylum. This rulemaking simply Response: This rulemaking does not lawful status. Further, an EAD does not removes an agency’s antiquated and prevent eligible asylum seekers from change an alien’s underlying status or self-imposed constraint to account for obtaining EADs, nor does it make likelihood of being eligible for asylee increased operational and filing volume substantive changes to eligibility or status, but simply provides evidence changes that have occurred over two adjudication requirements. It merely that an alien is temporarily authorized decades since the promulgation of the removes a self-imposed timeframe for to work in the United States, in this previous rule. USCIS to adjudicate such applications instance based on a pending application Comments: Commenters stated they for asylum. because that constraint is no longer believe this rulemaking to be operationally feasible. USCIS publicly Comments: Some commenters antithetical to American values. For suggested that the 30-day deadline is posts processing time information, so example, one commenter stated, ‘‘. . . that asylum seekers have information on needed to ensure government [the United States is] considered the accountability. how long the adjudicative process is ‘land of opportunity’ but yet we refuse taking and can plan accordingly. USCIS Response: USCIS acknowledges the to give people running for fear of importance of accountability and acknowledges that this rule may cause persecution the opportunity to try to some processing delays that may continuously seeks to improve and assimilate to our culture.’’ Another streamline work processes to improve increase the period during which stated, ‘‘. . . [l]et us not forget that we asylum seekers rely on individuals or efficiency and provide accurate and are a nation built on values that those timely adjudicative decisions. As with organizations for support. This who need help can always look to this any adjudication, USCIS posts rulemaking does not aim to create great nation for support and refuge.’’ processing times for these applications undue hardships, or to cause Response: USCIS disagrees with the unnecessary delays in processing so that applicants can understand what commenters’ premise. This rule focuses 28 applications. Regardless of the on USCIS’ operational capacity and the to expect. Applicants have avenues to underlying basis for applying for resources required to maintain the 30- address excessive delays through case employment authorization, all day processing timeline as receipts and status inquiries, expedite requests when applicants filing initially are subject to vetting requirements have increased circumstances warrant, and even some period of processing time that may drive this rulemaking. Continuously judicial redress through filing a delay their ability to obtain lawful increasing resources allocated to a mandamus action to compel a decision. employment or other services. USCIS particular adjudication type negatively Removing the 30-day timeframe does believes that its operational needs impacts production for other benefit not absolve USCIS of its responsibility outweigh concerns over potential minor request types. This rule does not reduce to adjudicate applications as quickly increases in processing times. or eliminate the opportunity for an and efficiently as possible but does Comments: Some commenters asylum seeker who has yet to establish reconcile changes in processing expressed concern that delays in work eligibility for asylum on the merits to requirements for vetting as well as authorization would prevent asylum apply for or receive an EAD. increasing application volume. seekers from obtaining valid state IDs. Comments: A couple of commenters Comments: Some commenters Response: Individual state indicated they thought this rulemaking asserted that USCIS is capable of governments determine the was discriminatory to communities of maintaining the 30-day adjudication documentary requirements for state- color, including Hispanic individuals. 28 See USCIS, Check Case Processing Times, issued identifications and therefore Another commenter stated the proposed https://egov.uscis.gov/processing-times/ (last view these requirements are outside USCIS’ rule would continue what that February 26, 2020). Select the form type and the purview. commenter claimed was a history of service center processing the applicable case.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:51 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR2.SGM 22JNR2 37512 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

timeline, as it has been doing so for Comments: Commenters stated that indicated that intention. Cf., e.g., years. Congress intended for asylum National Defense Authorization Act for Response: USCIS has achieved applicants to have work authorization as Fiscal Year 2020, Public Law 116–92, compliance with the Rosario v. USCIS soon as possible after the 180-day sec. 7611(d)(3)(B) (‘‘Liberian Refugee court order, 365 F. Supp. 3d 1156 (W.D. waiting period, as evidenced by the Immigration Fairness’’) (‘‘If an Wash. 2018), as 96.9 percent of asylum- inclusion of such waiting period in the application for adjustment of status related EADs were processed within 30 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). under subsection (b) is pending for a days for FY2019. USCIS has had to Others likewise commented that INA’s period exceeding 180 days and has not devote significant additional resources express waiting period cannot be been denied, the Secretary shall to achieving these rates, which in turn extended by DHS, citing INA section authorize employment for the adversely impacts other lines of 208(d)(5)(A)(iii), which provides that in applicable alien.’’). But Congress did not adjudications. The resources needed to the absence of exceptional even require DHS to offer employment sustain this rate as application volumes circumstances, final administrative authorization at all, let alone articulate and vetting requirements either increase adjudication of the asylum application, an adjudication timeframe. or fail to abate from historically high not including administrative appeal, 8 U.S.C. 1601 provides a levels will continue to force the agency shall be completed within 180 days after Congressional statement that ‘‘Self- to divert resources from other priorities the date such application is filed. The sufficiency has been a basic principle of at greater levels. This is not sustainable commenters stated that the 180-day United States immigration law since and unfair to other benefit requestors statutory waiting period for employment this country’s earliest immigration who also rely on timely adjudications authorization, taken together with the statute.’’ While USCIS agrees that self- from USCIS for other immigration 180-day statutory timeframe for asylum sufficiency is an important aim of status-granting benefit requests. adjudications, make clear that Congress immigration law and policy, USCIS must consider its workloads and the B. DHS Statutory Authority and Legal intended asylum seekers to obtain work operational impacts of outdated Issues authorization as expeditiously as possible; either before 180 days if USCIS regulatory timelines for adjudicating Some commenters provided input on adjudicated the asylum application in EADs for aliens who have not yet DHS’s statutory and legal authorities to that timeframe, or as soon as possible established eligibility for asylum. promulgate this regulation. after 180 days if the asylum application Comments: A commenter stated that 1. DHS Statutory Authority was still pending at that time. the INA authorized DHS to promulgate Another commenter stated, ‘‘[t]he the proposed rule. The commenter Comments: A commenter said the Proposed Rule sharply contradicts a further stated that there is no proposed rule contravenes Congress’ basic principle of United States fundamental right to seek safety and intention to protect migrants with well- immigration law since our nation’s protection in the United States. founded fears of persecution. Similarly, earliest immigration statutes were Response: USCIS concurs that it has others commented that the proposed passed: Self-sufficiency,’’ citing to 8 the authority granted by the statute to rule contravenes Congressional intent to U.S.C. 1601 to justify the requirement promulgate this rulemaking. This promote effective settlement and for expeditious processing of asylum rulemaking does not, however, impact conform with international law, as seekers’ EAD applications. an alien’s right to seek safety and evidenced in the Refugee Act of 1980’s Response: USCIS respectfully protection in the United States, nor does legislative history and its language disagrees with the commenters’ it impose changes to the process or similar to that of the UN Protocol on the statutory interpretation. INA section eligibility requirements associated with Status of Refugees of 1967. Another 208(d)(2) states, in pertinent part: ‘‘An seeking asylum. commenter agreed, stating that the 1967 applicant for asylum is not entitled Comments: Some commenters Protocol and U.S. law were in response [emphasis added] to employment disagreed with eliminating the 30-day to World War II and the Holocaust. authorization, but such authorization processing timeframe, stating that it is Response: This rulemaking does not may be provided under regulation by arbitrary and capricious. Commenters impede an alien’s opportunity to seek the [Secretary]. An applicant who is not stated that there was no rational asylum in the United States and does otherwise eligible for employment connection between the proposal and not contravene Congressional intent or authorization shall not be granted such the facts relied upon, that the agency explicit Congressional directives. authorization prior to 180 days relied on inappropriate factors, and Providing an asylum seeker with the [emphasis added] after the date of filing failed to consider alternatives. opportunity to apply for temporary the application for asylum.’’ The Specifically, they stated that the agency employment authorization while an statutory language plainly creates a did not disclose the 2018–2019 application for asylum is pending is a minimum requirement for the time an processing times, can adequately vet discretionary benefit, as provided by asylum application can be pending applicants during the 30 days, failed to Congress. See INA section 208(d)(2) before the discretionary authority to consider the impact to applicants not (‘‘An applicant for asylum is not grant employment authorization is receiving an EAD, and inappropriately entitled to employment authorization, permitted, but does not prohibit a longer considered reduced litigation as a factor. but such authorization may be provided wait time, whether by regulation, Commenters also stated that DHS did under regulation by the [Secretary of policy, or the time it takes to adjudicate not adequately consider alternatives. Homeland Security]’’). USCIS strives to such an application after a minimum of Specifically, commenters stated that provide timely and efficient 180 days has passed. The separate DHS did not explain why it cannot hire adjudications for all benefit requests, provision articulating a 180-day asylum additional staff, why it is abandoning including asylum and related benefits, adjudication timeframe does not change the timeframe altogether rather than but the significant increases in this conclusion. Had Congress wished to extending it (challenging DHS’s applications for asylum are overtaxing require the Secretary to authorize comparison to Retention of EB–1, EB–2, our resources to process ancillary employment for applicants after 180 and EB–3 Immigrant Workers and benefits within the 30-day regulatory days had elapsed since the asylum Program Improvements Affecting High- timeframe. application was filed, it could have Skilled Nonimmigrant Workers, 81 FR

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:51 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR2.SGM 22JNR2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 37513

82398 (Nov. 18, 2016) (‘‘AC21’’)), and clear why DHS rejected the option of adjudications will generally align with asserted that DHS ignored that before changing the 30-day asylum applicant DHS processing times achieved in FY Rosario v. USCIS, 92% of applicants EAD processing timeframe to 90 days. 2017 (before the Rosario v. USCIS court were adjudicated within 90 days. As DHS wrote in the proposed rule, order, 365 F. Supp. 3d 1156 (W.D. Response: DHS respectfully disagrees maintaining any adjudication timeframe Wash. 2018)). To the extent that with commenters that it has not for this EAD would unnecessarily legitimate reliance interests may exist in demonstrated a rational connection constrict adjudication workflows. this context, DHS adequately addressed between its proposal and the facts Ultimately, USCIS is unable to plan its such interests in DHS’s proposal to before the agency. DHS has updated the workload and staffing needs with the grandfather into the 30-day adjudication rule with more data for FY 2018–2019. level of certainty that a binding timeframe all Rosario class members In the proposed rule, DHS provided data timeframe may require, and has no way who filed their EAD applications prior regarding FY 2017 processing times, of predicting what national security and to the effective date of the final rule. described current processing times, fraud concerns may be or what DHS explicitly recognized its past explained its vetting procedures and procedures would be necessary in the regulatory history on this issue and how they have changed since September future. humanitarian concerns in the proposed 11, 2001, and showed that most DHS recognizes potential impacts to rule. DHS has tried to find ways to applications that required additional applicants of not receiving an EAD at reduce adjudication times for this vetting took more than 30 days to the earliest possible juncture, however, population, such as returning to the adjudicate. DHS also explained that this rule does not prohibit or otherwise processing of affirmative asylum other adjudications have been delayed limit an asylum applicant’s eligibility applications on a ‘‘last in, first out’’ as a consequence of diverting significant for an EAD or to apply for or receive (LIFO) basis. DHS has further resources from other benefit request asylum. USCIS expects that this rule considered humanitarian factors types in order to adjudicate (c)(8) will generally align adjudications with submitted by commenters, but as noted applications within the 30-day USCIS processing times achieved in FY in the proposed rule, the existing 30-day timeframe. 2017. A potentially small (such as a 30- timeframe has become untenable. DHS DHS considered alternatives, such as to 60-day) delay in adjudication time, as proposed and is finalizing a solution in hiring additional staff or extending the compared to current processing times, this rulemaking that is intended to timeframe to 90 days. DHS would allow the agency the flexibility in balance the agency’s core missions with acknowledged that it is working to resources to fully vet applicants through providing an avenue for asylum comply with the court order’s a sustainable approach for years to applicants to obtain employment processing times, but that such an come. authorization. DHS is committed to approach is unsustainable due to the Lastly, DHS did not wrongfully adjudicating these applications as extreme resource strain. Even if DHS consider reduced litigation as a factor, quickly as possible in a transparent and were able to hire staff to attempt to as it was important and transparent to sustainable manner. mitigate an increased timeframe from an note to the public that it anticipated an operational perspective, DHS would end to litigation over the 30-day 2. Rosario v. USCIS Court Order still need to recruit, vet, onboard, and adjudication timeframe, but that Some commenters provided input on train new adjudicators, and likely applicants could in some cases still the court order in Rosario v. USCIS, 365 extend the timeframe. Further, challenge the agency on ‘‘unreasonable F. Supp. 3d 1156 (W.D. Wash. 2018). extending the regulatory timeframe to delay’’ theories. Comments: A commenter stated that 60 or 90 days would not necessarily Comments: Commenters stated that the rule appears to be an attempt to result in a timeframe that is feasible in the proposed rule was an unsupported reverse Rosario v. USCIS, asserting that all cases. DHS explicitly stated that significant departure from past policy it is very doubtful that courts will before Rosario, it was adjudicating 92 and that it must analyze reliance favorably review an attempt to reverse percent of applications within 90 days, interests, citing FCC v. Fox Television the previous ruling through a regulatory and thus disagrees with the commenter Stations, 556 U.S. 502 (2009). process. Similarly, another commenter that DHS ignored that fact. DHS has Commenters also stated that the said the proposed rule is an attempt to seen a drastic increase in asylum agency’s prior rulemakings on the issue avoid the Rosario litigation and its applications in recent years, and this enacted the 30-day timeframe for compliance plan, analogizing the latter increase was not anticipated, and humanitarian reasons to mitigate to a contract. therefore could not have been hardships on asylum applicants, ‘‘to Response: The decision in Rosario v. considered when the former INS ensure that bona fide asylees are eligible USCIS was predicated on the existing promulgated the 30-day timeframe more to obtain employment authorization as regulatory scheme in which USCIS than 20 years ago. To promulgate quickly as possible (citing to Inspection created a 30-day processing timeframe. another timeframe could lead to similar and Expedited Removal of Aliens; Specifically, the Rosario court order results and delays should volumes Detention and Removal of Aliens; found that USCIS violated the existing increase further in the future. Conduct of Removal Proceedings; 30-day regulatory timeframe and DHS recognizes that AC21 related to Asylum Procedures, 62 FR 10312, enjoined USCIS ‘‘from further failing to employment-based applications that do 10317–18 (Mar. 6, 1997)). Commenters adhere to the 30-day deadline for not necessarily involve the same stated that this rulemaking does not adjudicating EAD applications, as set humanitarian considerations. However, acknowledge humanitarian factors. forth in 8 CFR 208.7(a)(1).’’ The court DHS also notes that though AC21 was Response: For reasons discussed order is contingent upon USCIS’ primarily focused on employment-based elsewhere in this final rule, as well as existing antiquated rule. As the 30-day immigration, it did provide for provided in the proposed rule, this timeframe was established by agency automatic extension of EADs for those rulemaking fully acknowledges the rulemaking, it can likewise be changed who have properly filed asylum agency’s past practice, and provided by agency rulemaking when the agency applications. See 8 CFR 274a.13(d)(1). justifications and data to support its acknowledges its prior policy, provides The purpose of the discussion change. USCIS predicts, and expects, reasons for the change, and promulgates referenced by the commenter is to make that with finalizing this rule, a new rule. As noted in this rulemaking

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:51 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR2.SGM 22JNR2 37514 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

and supported with available data, Rosario v. USCIS, 365 F. Supp. 3d 1156, is found in section 103(a) of the INA, 8 USCIS has determined that changing 1163 n.6 (W.D. Wash. 2018). The Court U.S.C. 1103(a), which authorizes the conditions, including increased vetting considered the human welfare concerns, Secretary to administer and enforce the requirements and rising application not security concerns, as part of its immigration and nationality laws and to volumes, render the former regulatory analysis of the TRAC v. FCC, 750 F.2d establish such regulations as he deems scheme nonviable. 70 (D.C. Cir. 1984), factors. See Rosario, necessary for carrying out such With respect to the claim that this 365 F. Supp. 3d at 1162. With respect authority. See also 6 U.S.C. 271(a)(3)(A), rulemaking attempts to avoid the to the claims regarding statutory (b). Further authority for the regulatory Rosario litigation and its compliance obligation, USCIS disagrees with the amendment in the final rule is found in plan, USCIS respectfully disagrees with commenter, as it is not departing from section 208(d)(2) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. this characterization of the purpose and any statutory obligation. INA section 1158(d)(2), which states an applicant for nature of this rulemaking. However, 208(d)(2) explicitly states that an asylum is not entitled to employment USCIS is in compliance with the court ‘‘applicant for asylum is not entitled to authorization, and may not be granted order in Rosario. employment authorization, but such asylum application-based employment Comments: Several commenters authorization may be provided under authorization prior to 180 days after stated that the Rosario decision regulation by the Attorney General.’’ filing of the application for asylum, but recognized that the balance of equities USCIS has not departed from the otherwise authorizes the Secretary to supported expedient adjudication of statute’s text. The statute also prescribes prescribe by regulation the terms and initial EAD applications so that asylum a minimum period the asylum conditions of employment authorization seekers may obtain employment application must be pending prior to for asylum applicants. authorization when waiting—often for eligibility for consideration of an International Law years—to have their asylum application for an EAD. The fact that the applications resolved. Commenters statute does not mandate employment Comments: A commenter stated that cited the 1994 proposed rule, in which authorization for this population the proposed rule is contrary to the 1967 INS concluded that it was appropriate to demonstrates that the agency could Protocol’s ‘‘fair and efficient’’ asylum adjudicate applications for employment comply with the statute’s obligations to standard. The commenter provided authorization within 30 days of receipt, protect human welfare by not providing citations to executive statements and regardless of the merits of the any avenue for employment case law in arguing that the 1967 underlying asylum claim.29 authorization to this population. The Protocol is an authority in U.S. refugee Response: The rule does not change agency has not elected to take that law. Another commenter stated that the the basis upon which USCIS may grant option, but rather has created a Universal Declaration of Human Rights employment authorization to an asylum regulatory mechanism to provide an (UDHR) and the United States’ seeker pursuant to INA section opportunity for employment commitment to it in the International 208(d)(2). It removes an outdated authorization. Within that context, Convention on Civil and Political timeframe for the reasons stated above. resource constraints and operational Rights, the Refugee Convention and In the vast majority of cases, this will needs have caused DHS to reconsider Protocol, and the Convention Against not result in additional years of delays the self-imposed regulatory timeframe. Torture create a fundamental right to in employment authorization. The DHS is simply seeking to align the asylum that would be weakened by the merits of the underlying asylum regulation with a feasible operational proposed rule. Another commenter said application are a separate adjudication reality. With respect to the fraud and the rule is a violation of the Universal and until a decision is reached on that national security concerns discussed in Declaration of Human Rights Article 14, application, the asylum seeker may be the proposed rule and in this final rule, Section 1. Another commenter also granted an EAD on the basis of the DHS reiterates that enhancing security cited the International Covenant on pending application. is a core goal of the agency. USCIS faces Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Comments: An organization limitations in identifying and tracking (ICESCR) as providing a right to work commented that the Rosario court and fraud, as explained in the GAO report that the proposed rule would U.S. Supreme Court precedent in discussed elsewhere in this preamble, contravene. This commenter also cited Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 yet the agency must ensure each Article 45 of the Organization of (2018), determined that ‘‘resource applicant is properly vetted and provide American States (OAS), Article XIV of constraints’’ and vague ‘‘practical its adjudicators with the requisite time the American Declaration on the Rights concerns’’ do not justify departing from to do so. and Duties of Man, and Article 6 of the statutory obligations to protect human Additional Protocol to the American welfare. Another commenter stated that 3. Other Comments on Statutory Convention on Human Rights in the the proposed rule fails to acknowledge Authority or Legal Issues Area of Economic, Social and Cultural this humanitarian factor in its analysis, Comments: One commenter Rights. Several commenters opposed the and an individual commenter said the questioned USCIS’ authority to set any proposed rule, stating it contravenes the proposal cites ‘‘vague’’ security deadlines concerning U.S. immigration intent of the UN Refugee Convention concerns, stating that the federal court policies. and the Refugee Act of 1980. Another in Rosario found such concerns to be Response: As noted in section B of the cited Articles 17 and 18 of the 1951 sufficiently low that it ordered USCIS to Executive Summary of this preamble, Refugee Convention as binding the comply with the 30-day processing the authority of the Secretary of United States to grant asylum-seekers deadline. Homeland Security (Secretary) for these the right to employment. The Response: USCIS seeks to clarify that regulatory amendments is found in commenter provided examples of other the Rosario court considered Pereira v. various sections of the Immigration and nations with more generous work Sessions in a footnote, finding that Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et authorization laws. ‘‘meritless considerations do not justify seq., and the Homeland Security Act of Response: As a threshold matter, this departing from the law’s clear text.’’ 2002 (HSA), Public Law 107–296, 116 rule does not abrogate the ability of Stat. 2135, 6 U.S.C. 101 et seq. General asylum applicants to seek or receive 29 See 59 FR 14779, 14780 (Mar. 30, 1994). authority for issuing the proposed rule employment authorization; rather, it

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:51 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR2.SGM 22JNR2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 37515

simply modifies the timeframes under has enacted a specific statute authorization to those with pending which applications for such authorizing the agency in the realm of asylum applications is statutorily authorization may be adjudicated. employment for asylum seekers. This authorized but not mandated, and this Although the United States is a party rule is within the Department’s statutory rulemaking is intended to ensure that to the 1967 Protocol, which incorporates authority. In any event, the rule does limited resources are allocated in a Articles 2 to 34 of the 1951 Refugee not bar an asylum applicant from manner which best allows the agency to Convention, the Protocol is not self- applying for or receiving work process not only asylum seekers’ initial executing. See, e.g., INS v. Stevic, 467 authorization or qualifying for asylum; applications for employment U.S. 407, 428 n.22 (1984); Khan v. rather, it aligns DHS’s processing of authorization timely, but also all other Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. such applications with agency resources benefit requests. 2009). The United States has and provides sufficient flexibility for implemented Article 34 of the 1951 DHS to meet its core missions of Comments: A commenter stated that Convention—which provides that party enforcing and administering our USCIS must provide a clear picture of states ‘‘shall as far as possible facilitate immigration laws and enhancing the impact of a proposal in its proposed the assimilation and naturalization of security. rule and that updating its analysis in the refugees’’—through the INA’s asylum final rule does not provide an adequate provision, section 208. See INS v. Other Legal Comments opportunity for public comment. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 441 Comments: A commenter stated that Response: USCIS would direct the (1987) (quotation marks omitted). As the the proposed rule presents a due commenter to the regulatory impact process issue in discriminating against Supreme Court has recognized, Article analysis in the proposed rule. USCIS asylum applicants by denying them 34 is ‘‘precatory’’ and ‘‘does not require monetized the impacts where possible, timely adjudications. Another [an] implementing authority actually to and discussed qualitatively those that grant asylum to all’’ persons determined commenter agreed, stating that could not be monetized. In addition, to be refugees. Id. Nor is the United removing the timeframe would data updates incorporated in this final States required to provide work effectively allow the government to authorization for asylum applicants, let deny asylum claims by ‘‘doing nothing’’, rule have not substantially changed the alone within a particular timeframe. because removing the timeframe would assessments of the proposed impacts. The INA provides that ‘‘[a]n applicant deprive applicants of an opportunity to See, e.g., 84 FR at 47149 (‘‘The impacts for asylum is not entitled to challenge agency delays. A commenter of this rule would include both employment authorization, but such stated that, by depriving asylum distributional effects (which are authorization may be provided under applicants the opportunity to receive transfers) and costs.[FN2] The regulation by the Attorney General.’’ 8 timely 30-day notice of whether or not distributional impacts would fall on the U.S.C. 1158(d)(2). The implementing they have received employment asylum applicants who would be regulations establish that, subject to authorization, this proposed rescinding delayed in entering the U.S. labor force. certain restrictions, an applicant for of the 30-day timeline violates The distributional impacts (transfers) asylum shall be eligible to request applicants’ Fifth Amendment rights not would be in the form of lost employment authorization. 8 CFR to be deprived of life, liberty, or compensation (wages and benefits). 208.7(a). While the regulations allow property without due process. USCIS does not know the portion of asylum applicants to request Response: USCIS disagrees with these overall impacts of this rule that are employment authorization, the Act comments that the rule violates due transfers or costs. If companies can find makes it clear that there is no process. This rulemaking does not replacement labor for the position the entitlement to it. Additionally, the Act discriminate against asylum seekers or asylum applicant would have filled, this itself does not impose a temporal abridge their rights, as they are still able rule would have primarily distributional limitation on the agency to complete to apply for and receive employment effects in the form of transfers from adjudications of asylum applicants’ authorization, but rather brings the asylum applicants to others already in application for employment regulatory scheme by which these the labor market (or workers induced to authorization. Eliminating the 30-day applications are processed in line with return to the labor market). However, if processing for other types of timeframe for adjudication of an asylum companies cannot find reasonable applications for employment applicant’s application for employment substitutes for the labor the asylum authorization. The rulemaking also does authorization is therefore consistent applicants would have provided, this not effectively lead to denials of the with the Act, which constitutes the U.S. rule would primarily be a cost to these implementation of the treaty underlying asylum claim because it companies through lost productivity obligations. See Weinberger v. Rossi, does not amend any of the eligibility and profits. USCIS also solicited 456 U.S. 25, 34 (1982) (noting the requirements or processes related to the additional data and feedback from general presumption that U.S. law asylum application. To the extent that it commenters. USCIS believes the conforms to U.S. international treaty does cause delays in an applicant obligations). receiving an EAD, DHS notes that it proposal itself and the 60-day comment To the extent that commenters expects to return to the processing period provided more than sufficient discussed other international treaties or timeframe in effect prior to Rosario, opportunity for comment. instruments that articulate certain which the agency believes is a C. Removal of 30-Day Processing principles relating to a right to work, manageable and realistic timeframe. Timeframe DHS acknowledges those treaties and Further, providing employment instruments but notes that they are 1. DHS Rationale and Need for the Rule either non-self-executing or non-binding not of its own force impose obligations as a matter or are treaties to which the United of international law’’); id. at 735 (‘‘[T]he United DHS received hundreds of States ratified the [International] Covenant [on Civil States is not a party.30 Here, Congress submissions on the need for the and Political Rights] on the express understanding proposed removal of the 30-day that it was not self-executing and so did not itself 30 See, e.g., Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. create obligations enforceable in the federal processing timeframe or DHS’ rationale 692, 734–35 (2004) (observing that the UDHR ‘‘does courts.’’). for the same.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:51 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR2.SGM 22JNR2 37516 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

Fraud and National Security USCIS is complying with the Rosario of stopping the 30-day adjudication Comments: Commenters asserted that court order, Rosario v. USCIS, 365 F. timeframe if it suspects fraud by security and fraud detection do not Supp. 3d 1156 (W.D. Wash. 2018), doing requesting additional proof from an conflict with the 30-day rule, and that so is causing a serious strain on agency applicant. Response: While it is true that the 30- USCIS can already take additional time resources. day adjudication timeframe may be to process EADs where there is Although USCIS has not published paused or restarted in certain instances, suspected fraud. One commenter stated reports regarding fraud by aliens seeking according to certain regulations,32 that there is no evidence that the 30-day an EAD based on a pending asylum pausing or restarting the adjudication timeframe resulted in increased grants application, it has internal procedures timeframe is not possible in all of fraudulent applications. to monitor and vet applications and instances to accommodate routine Response: DHS disagrees with petitions for fraud risks. The GAO background checks and fraud detection commenters that if DHS retains the 30- report focused on the merits of the activities and investigations. USCIS day timeframe it will be able to take underlying asylum application, and disagrees that it can or should stop the additional time to vet certain asylum instances where an alien who was adjudication timeframe in the manner applicants for the EAD, and that fraud granted asylum status was later found to proposed to accommodate typical detection does not conflict with the 30- have obtained that status by fraud. Additionally, the GAO findings stated adjudicative procedures rather than day timeframe. The regulatory removing the timeframe altogether, as timeframe and Rosario court order that USCIS has ‘‘limited capabilities to detect asylum fraud.... Identifying this rule does. restrict the agency’s ability to, in a Comments: A commenter stated that sustainable manner, fully and and implementing additional fraud detection tools could enable USCIS to DHS receives biometric information thoroughly vet applicants. Additionally, during the 150-day waiting period, in most cases where additional vetting detect fraud more effectively while using resources more efficiently.’’ 31 The during which it has ample time to was necessitated, the adjudication took conduct background checks. Another longer than 30 days. adjudication of applications for (c)(8) employment authorization is limited in commenter stated that, by proposing Adequately and thoroughly vetting this regulation, USCIS is ‘‘broadcasting’’ applicants improves USCIS’s ability to scope to the instant application, however, and does not render a that it has not done security checks on detect fraud and national security asylum seekers whose applications have concerns on individual cases as well as determination on frivolity or fraud for the underlying asylum application. The been pending for many months. A identify trends and compile statistical commenter stated that background data on cases involving fraud and/or GAO acknowledges the limitations USCIS faces in identifying and tracking checks can begin with an applicant’s national security concerns. arrival at the border, when their Comments: A commenter stated that fraud, and encouraged the agency to implement additional tools to detect biometrics are taken with the IDENT the majority of EAD applications are not system and could be compared against fraudulent and can be processed fraud. With this rulemaking, USCIS hopes to provide its adjudicators with FBI and Interpol databases. Similarly, quickly, as evidenced by compliance an individual commenter questioned with the Rosario litigation. The the requisite time to accommodate existing vetting requirements and to USCIS’ statement that a slower process commenter stated that this indicates will increase national security because that EAD adjudication processes need to maintain flexibility should trends change. applicants who are seeking work change, not the deadline itself. authorization due to pending asylum Similarly, an organization stated that Fraud is not a constant. It is ever- evolving and efforts to commit fraud applications already have supplied USCIS failed to provide evidence of biometric and biographical data, which fraud impacting the EAD process. An become increasingly sophisticated as methods for detecting fraud improve. should allow processing to go quickly. individual also stated that USCIS has Response: USCIS acknowledges that not conducted any investigation as to USCIS must be continuously vigilant in an effort to detect new and advanced biometric data is often collected prior to the extent of EAD fraud, but that a an asylum seeker applying for Government Accountability Office efforts to commit fraud. Additionally, agency rigor and dedication to employment authorization, including at (GAO) report stated that ‘‘only 374 a border encounter, as part of USCIS’ asylum statuses were terminated for uncovering fraud schemes serves as a deterrent. No amount of effort will adjudication of an asylum application, fraud between 2010–2014. In the same 33 detect all attempts to commit fraud, but and/or during removal proceedings. timeframe, well over 400,000 people When an alien submits an application or fleeing war, disaster, political upheaval USCIS must remain focused and diligent in order to deter fraudulent petition with an associated biometrics and imminent crisis were admitted to requirement (e.g., a pending asylum the United States to establish claims. USCIS relies on all available systems and documents to detect application), the data collected in themselves for a better life and relation to the asylum application is not opportunity.’’ An individual commenter attempts to commit fraud, which increases the time spent on each systematically linked to a subsequently stated that the reliance on ‘‘fraud’’ as the filed ancillary application for catch-all justification for every change adjudication. Maintaining appropriate vetting while processing historically that undermines the strength of this 32 See 8 CFR 103.2(b)(10)(ii) and 8 CFR country’s asylum program is ‘‘tiresome.’’ high numbers of applications makes the 208.7(a)(2). Response: USCIS agrees with current 30-day timeframe untenable 33 DHS plans to propose a rule to modify its commenters that the majority of (c)(8) without diverting significant resources biometrics procedures, establish consistent identity EAD applicants are found eligible for from other benefit request types. enrollment and verification policies, and align Comments: Several commenters USCIS’ biometrics collection with other employment authorization based on immigration operations. Office of Management and their pending asylum applications and stated that DHS already has the option Budget, Executive Office of the President, recognizes the adjudication of Collection and Use of Biometrics by USCIS (Fall 31 GAO, Asylum: Additional Actions Needed to 2019 Unified Agenda), https://www.reginfo.gov/ employment authorization applications Assess and Address Fraud Risks (Dec. 2015), public/do/ is not a flawless system. For reasons available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/680/ eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201910&RIN=1615- stated elsewhere in this rule, although 673941.pdf. AC14.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:51 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR2.SGM 22JNR2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 37517

employment authorization. Vetting is Response: USCIS is charged with petitions, and benefit requests triggered by individual benefit requests, administering and safeguarding the submitted to the agency. As indicated in in this case, the EAD application. Filing integrity of the lawful immigration response to a previous comment, vetting an application for an EAD triggers new benefits. While some background checks is triggered by individual benefit vetting in association with this are systematically initiated at intake, requests, in this case the EAD application. EAD officers are not safeguarding against fraud and national application. It is possible an asylum permitted to ‘‘refresh’’ or otherwise rely security concerns also relies on manual applicant became a potential threat to on vetting performed in association with processes in which officers analyze and national security or public safety after another application. Because USCIS’s assess the information available to them the filing of the asylum application or current vetting processes remain tied to in the record and electronic databases. that new information becomes available, the particular benefit request rather than Likewise, officers are able to assess but USCIS would not know until the individual, vetting is initiated for accurately whether a derogatory piece of initiating security checks when the the EAD application separate and apart information actually relates to the pending asylum EAD application is from the asylum application. The applicant, which allows applicants to received. The agency is attempting to proposed rule to eliminate the 30-day receive a decision far more quickly than move away from these ‘‘point in time’’ adjudication timeframe for initial (c)(8) if any point of concern was routed checks, but that is something we EADs is not an admission of failing to outside of typical processing for continue to work toward. These checks, conduct appropriate vetting in current additional scrutiny. Concerns involving during the adjudication process, allow adjudications, but rather is an fraud or national security are often for referral to the Background Check operational necessity as asylum claims identified in the course of adjudication, Unit (BCU) or Center Fraud Detection have reached historic levels in recent rather than quickly identified through Office (CFDO) for additional vetting years, and because of the resources an upfront review. where significant concerns are needed to adhere to the regulatory USCIS processes all EAD applications identified, as well as potential timeframe. Finally, USCIS notes that for asylum applicants as quickly as investigation by ICE, all of which take asylum seekers are not required to apply possible, including a careful review of time which does not pause the 30-day for an EAD and not all applicants will those applications for aliens who may regulatory timeframe. Further, in some do so, so there is no operational be flagged for additional scrutiny due to circumstances, the findings may render efficiency to ‘‘pre-adjudicate’’ a benefit national security concerns. However, the applicant subject to mandatory that may never be sought. such additional review requires time, detention or ineligible for the resources, and coordination with law USCIS did not propose a slower underlying asylum claim and/or the enforcement agencies. Such review process, but rather explained how its EAD. periods are not indefinite and are USCIS also does not agree that vetting procedures have changed since completed as expeditiously as possible. elimination of the 30-day timeframe and the 30-day timeframe was implemented Although there could be alternative any potential attendant processing more than 20 years ago, specifically to means to address additional vetting, delays will negatively impact security or safeguard national security in response such as alternative timelines, USCIS public safety by driving asylum seekers to the September 11, 2001, attacks. believes eliminating the timeframe to criminal activity. The articles relied USCIS is removing this timeframe to provides greater flexibility to the agency on by the commenter discuss studies provide its adjudicators a sustainable to balance its large workload efficiently. conducted that generally find socio- amount of time to complete these Comments: Some commenters stated economic status is strongly associated vetting procedures, as well as account that not adjudicating EAD applications with crime, specifically property crime. for the historic number of filings in will not reduce national security threats, USCIS recognizes that there may be a recent years. as asylum applicants are able to remain correlation between unemployment, Comments: Some commenters said physically present in the United States socio-economic status, and crime; fraud concerns are unfounded and regardless of the EAD decision. Others however, it does not concur that the should not cause delays, concluding provided citations to articles relating extent of the change (returning to the that if DHS has a concern about an unemployment and crime 34 to support adjudication timeframe pre-Rosario) alien, then it should quickly vet the assertions that the proposal could be would have such severe effects. Further, application, rather than delay it. Other counterproductive to public safety and an asylum seeker who chooses criminal commenters stated that USCIS’ national security, as asylum applicants would be behavior to obtain a source of income, security statements serve only to prompt compelled to find illegitimate sources of rather than waiting to receive the need for a speedier process to income because of USCIS’ refusal to employment authorization could be properly protect national security, provide them with EADs. denied asylum as a result of such rather than a proposal to delay the Response: USCIS disagrees that criminal activity, depending on its type process further. Some commenters vetting of employment authorization and severity. stated that this need for a speedier applications does not reduce national Comments: Some commenters stated process is further compounded by the security threats. As part of its mission that USCIS makes frequent reference to fact that the EAD applicants are asylum- as a screening and vetting agency, a rise in national security threats as a seekers who are already residing in the USCIS conducts national security and reason to spend more time and United States, and having unvetted public safety checks on all applications, resources on each decision but has people in the U.S. subjected to a reported that it has been able to decide potentially indefinite review period 34 The commenter cited to Karin Edmark, over 99 percent of EADs within the 30- seems contrary to the DHS’s stated Unemployment and Crime: Is There a Connection?, day timeframe for over the past year, 107, The Scandinavian Journal of Economics No. 2, interests. An individual commenter 353, 370 (Jun. 2005); Steven Raphael and Rudolf which proves the agency’s ability to concluded that any need for additional Winter-Ebmer, Identifying the Effect of adequately vet requests in a timely vetting prior to issuance of EADs could Unemployment on Crime, Vol. 44 The Journal of manner. Another commenter stated that be addressed by means other than Law & Economics No. 1, 259, 280 (Apr. 2001); USCIS’ national security justification is Mikko Aaltonen et al., Social determinants of crime simply eliminating the processing in a welfare state: Do they still matter?, Vol. 54 Acta unsubstantiated, especially because parameters for all applicants. Sociologica No. 2,161 (June 2011). USCIS explains that additional security

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:51 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR2.SGM 22JNR2 37518 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

and anti-fraud measures are already Response: USCIS has worked increase in initial EAD applications in built into the EAD adjudication process. diligently to comply with the Rosario v. the mid-1990s. FY 1993 had 90,883 Others stated that the agency had a USCIS decision. Though USCIS predicts initial EAD applications, which jumped decade to implement the post-9/11 that this rule would end future litigation to 176,041 in FY 1994 and remained security checks that it now claims make over the 30-day adjudication timeframe, high with 158,938 in FY 1995 and the 30-day timeframe impracticable. even applications that are not subject to 120,621 in FY 1996 before dropping Response: As noted, the agency has a set timeframe could, in some cases, be below 50,000 per year for several years. had to comply with the Rosario court the subject of litigation on USCIS notes that even at the peak in order, and as discussed elsewhere in ‘‘unreasonable delay’’ theories. USCIS 1994, the amount of applications this rule, continuing to adhere to the 30- notes that cost-savings resulting from received in 1994 is considerably lower day timeframe is not sustainable for reduced litigation and the cost from than the number of applications filed in USCIS and its adjudicators, and potential future litigation on recent years, which peaked at 262,965 resources have been moved from other ‘‘unreasonable delay’’ are not monetized in FY 2018. And regardless, DHS is not competing priorities in other product in the regulatory impact assessment bound to forever retain the 30-day lines. below. regulatory timeframe, even assuming USCIS acknowledges that certain Comments: A commenter stated that that the INS adopted that timeframe security checks are built into the EAD USCIS cannot simply rely on the with full knowledge of a growing adjudication process across benefit processing backlog to support its backlog. DHS retains the authority to types and this rule does not change proposal, as the backlog was even remove the timeframe, and it is doing so those processes, it simply reflects that greater when, in 1994, the Justice here for the reasons stated in this such procedures are resource intensive. Department decided to finalize the 30- preamble. Modernized vetting procedures are also day rule. A commenter cited the USCIS reviewed the 2019 not reflected in the current regulatory proposal’s statement that USCIS cannot Ombudsman Report and though it did timeframe because that timeframe was predict future security needs and not list intake requirements as a reason created more than 20 years ago. commented that no proposed rule can for increased EAD adjudication times, it Additionally, the level of fraud predict the future; however, USCIS did specifically state that ‘‘background sophistication and the threat faced the same uncertainty in 1994, vetting on applications, including the predicate petitions or applications upon immigration-related national security when it finalized the 30-day timeframe which EAD applications are based, also concerns pose today are more complex rule. Others commented that changes to intake and EAD document production contribute to EAD processing times.’’ than they were when the timeframe was The centralization of the agency’s created. Although the events of 9/11 that have been in place for more than 15 years cannot justify the proposed rule, intake and EAD document production, prompted a new and intensive focus on though implemented in 2006, had led to national security, especially in the since logic would dictate that centralization would make the process a need to remove the 30-day timeframe. immigration context, vetting does not Centralized, rather than local, intake remain static as USCIS continually more efficient. Another commenter cited the 2019 Ombudsman Report 35 as procedures provide efficiency in that assesses its methods and systems to USCIS is able to leverage contract staff failing to list intake requirements or improve its ability to detect and deter to conduct high-volume data entry and security and vetting as challenges to the those who would enter the United other associated intake tasks. However, timely adjudication of EAD States to do harm. Those who do have centralized intake, which occurs at ill intent continue to refine and improve applications. Response: USCIS acknowledges that offsite locations, also incurs delay and their methods and USCIS must do the costs associated with shipping physical backlogs ebb and flow and agrees with same. In all adjudications, USCIS works files to another location for commenters that, in some cases, an to provide thorough vetting and adjudication. To comply with the agency cannot predict future needs. eligibility determinations and advance Rosario court order, USCIS has been Changing backlogs can result from any U.S. interests in fairly administering forced to conduct application intake number of changed circumstances, lawful immigration while detecting and onsite at the adjudicating office to avoid including but not limited to, changes in deterring fraud and threats to national the delay caused by file shipment. This receipt volumes, legal requirements, security and public safety. process is less efficient and more costly court rulings, regulation and policy Comments: One commenter asked than Lockbox intake, but is necessary to changes, and changes to internal how long it takes to vet somebody from attain compliance with the Rosario another country without any paperwork processing. Because of the many court order. These changes in intake or medical records. variables which contribute to changing procedures, coupled with the increased Response: To the extent that the backlogs, USCIS is best able to process filings and modifications to vetting comment is relevant to this rulemaking, the great number of benefit requests procedures, explain why the 30-day USCIS notes that the length of the timely when it has flexibility to adjust timeframe is no longer feasible. vetting process varies, and this may workflows and staffing levels across Comments: A couple of commenters depend on the documents an alien form types. Hard processing timelines referenced DHS’s statement that it seeking asylum may have in their for one benefit type box the agency in expects to be able to meet FY 2017 possession or to which they have access. and, as in this case, require the adjudication timeframes, i.e., to USCIS uses a combination of systems, diversion of resources from other benefit adjudicate 78 percent of EAD biometrics, and documents to vet aliens types to maintain a processing time for applications within 60 days. The requesting benefits. one individual adjudication line. commenters stated that this contention With respect to the 1994 backlog, seems disingenuous considering that Resource Concerns and Efficiency USCIS recognizes that there was a sharp DHS does not propose a 60-day Comments: A commenter stated that timeframe. The commenters went on to 35 USCIS Ombudsman, Annual Report, 78, (Jul. the proposed rule would save costs by 2019), available at https://www.dhs.gov/sites/ state that DHS’s lack of commitment to eliminating the need to litigate and default/files/publications/cisomb/cisomb_2019- a specific timeframe coupled with comply with Rosario. annual-report-to-congress.pdf. current EAD backlogs does not support

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:51 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR2.SGM 22JNR2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 37519

DHS’s claim of being able to adjudicate demand, processing time constraints, maintain flexibility should trends 78 percent of EAD applications within resource availability, legislative and change.’’ 84 FR at 47161. 60 days. Another commenter referenced policy changes, and other Comments: Multiple commenters the 78 percent statistic and asked if this considerations. To comply with the stated that USCIS’ compliance with the would continue to occur if USCIS is not Rosario decision, USCIS increased Rosario court order demonstrates that a mandated to return them within 60 officer hours for adjudication of initial 30-day timeframe is practicable and that days. Another commenter stated that, (c)(8) applications, and centralized these USCIS could comply with the 30-day even now, with guidelines in place, the adjudications to minimize time lost to timeframe and retain vetting agency fails to meet the 30-day mandate file movement and allow for more procedures, contrary to the proposed in more than half of cases. accurate tracking of class members’ rule’s contention that USCIS would Response: USCIS would like to applications, which has placed a strain have to reduce or eliminate vetting to provide clarity to commenters regarding on the agency’s resources in a manner continue complying. Another the adjudication rates. USCIS stated that that is difficult to sustain. USCIS did commenter cited to the 2019 78 percent of initial applications were provide recent and actual processing Ombudsman Report and commented adjudicated within 60 days prior to the times in the proposed rule, and has that the EAD processing delays had Rosario court order, but since its supplemented this final rule with been increasing before the Rosario issuance, USCIS has been in compliance updated data. USCIS also explained in decision and were unrelated to any with the order. USCIS continues to face the proposed rule: (1) How its reallocation of resources. One a significant backlog but strives to adjudications have changed and commenter stated that ‘‘USCIS time provide timely adjudication across all resources have shifted since the 30-day frames posted publicly’’ show that Form form types, regardless of a regulatory provision was promulgated, (2) how it I–765 takes mere minutes to process. timeframe. As stated in the proposed prioritizes adjudications through The commenter stated that because it rule, DHS expects to return to the pre- LIFO 36, and (3) how changes in takes mere minutes to process such Rosario timeframe with finalizing this technology and security initiatives have applications, it is only reasonable to rule, but it will not codify another impacted the process. While USCIS retain the 30-day timeframe. regulatory timeframe at this time. While continues to work to improve efficiency Response: DHS recognizes that EAD USCIS cannot predict ebbs and flows in and modernize adjudicative processes, processing times had been increasing receipts, removing the 30-day timeframe the initial (c)(8) EAD applications prior to Rosario, but DHS asserted and without creating another regulatory continue to be filed on paper and continues to assert that its reallocation timeframe allows the agency to adjust processed using an older case of resources occurred due to the workflows and staffing resources to management system. Unfortunately, litigation and in order to comply with maintain timely processing for this and modernizing intake and adjudication the court order, and that such other benefit requests. systems is a lengthy and labor intensive reallocation of resources is not a long- Comments: A commenter stated that process and there is currently no term, sustainable solution because USCIS is unable to support either its expected timeframe in which USCIS USCIS has many competing priorities justifications or its impact analysis expects a more modernized process for and many time-sensitive adjudication without citation to recent and actual initial (c)(8) EAD applications. timeframes. Although USCIS is processing times. The commenter went currently in compliance with the With respect to the agency’s statement on to state that USCIS explains that the Rosario court order, it continues to on reduced application volume, USCIS court order has forced it to focus more reiterate that maintaining the 30-day disagrees with the commenter’s resources on adjudicating initial EADs timeframe is not sustainable. This understanding that it would have for asylum, but it does not explain how rulemaking is intended to ensure that proposed this rule regardless of the it allocated its resources before, which limited resources are allocated in a current resource burden. While the types of cases it prioritized, and which manner which best allows the agency to number of applications received has specific case types are suffering as a process not only asylum seekers’ initial dropped from peak levels in 2018, the result of the court order. Further, this applications for employment situation created by unforeseen and commenter said USCIS claims that the authorization timely, but also all other sustained spikes in application volumes current rule is outdated, and the current benefit requests, as maintaining the highlighted that such specific regulatory adjudication process is more complex, current 30-day processing time is timeframes can cause significant but fails to recognize other important already significantly diverting resources operational burdens when conditions that have changed since the from other adjudications and is circumstances outside USCIS’ control rule was adopted (more funding, staff, expected to continue to do so. Further, and ability to anticipate occur. USCIS and technology). Lastly, the commenter since the initial (c)(8) application does acknowledged that it could not predict cited to the statement in the proposed not currently require the applicant to how administrative measures and rule that, if USCIS could predict a pay a fee,37 other benefit requestors are reduction in total application volume, external factors, such as immigration court backlogs and changes in country bearing the cost of these adjudications such a reduction ‘‘would not, on its while resources are pulled away from own, serve as a sufficient basis to leave conditions, would affect total volumes. It then acknowledged that even if it the adjudication for which they paid a the 30-day adjudication timeline in fee. This rulemaking brings the place’’ to demonstrate that USCIS could predict such circumstances, it was proposing to remove the timeframe regulatory scheme by which these admits that it would have proposed this applications are processed in line with rule regardless of the additional ‘‘in light of the need to accommodate existing vetting requirements and to resource burden. The commenter states 37 DHS has proposed to set a $490 fee for initial that this removes resource burden as a employment authorization applications for those standalone justification for the proposed 36 USCIS did note in the proposed rule that it with pending asylum applications. See U.S. rule. anticipated updating its data regarding LIFO in the Citizenship and Immigration Services Fee Schedule final rule; however, the change to LIFO was and Changes to Certain Other Immigration Benefit Response: USCIS’s resource accompanied by a historic increase in filings, and Request Requirements, 84 FR 62280 (Nov. 14, allocations and prioritizations are fluid it has been difficult for USCIS to ascertain all of the 2019). DHS has not yet issued a final rule with and regularly adjusted based on impacts. respect to that proposal.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:51 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR2.SGM 22JNR2 37520 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

processing for other types applications strives to provide timely and efficient Comments: A commenter cited a past for employment authorization. adjudications for all benefit requests, rulemaking 39 to state that the 30-day DHS acknowledges that the time an including asylum and related benefits, deadline was initially implemented to officer spends on the actual but the significant increases in ensure that bona fide asylees were adjudication may take ‘‘mere minutes’’ applications for asylum in recent years eligible to obtain employment on applications without eligibility or are overtaxing agency resources to authorization as quickly as possible, not fraud concerns, but the time an officer process ancillary benefits within the 30- to ensure that USCIS and former INS spends on a particular application is not day regulatory framework. had sufficient time to process indicative of the totality of work that is applications. Comments: A commenter questioned involved in receiving, vetting, Response: DHS has reviewed adjudication, and document production. the benefit of the proposed rule, extensively the regulatory history of the The USCIS Case Processing Time reasoning that it would not reduce the promulgation of the employment website provides regularly updated and immigration backlog any more quickly authorization provisions for those with accurate total case processing time than the current timeframe and asking pending asylum applications. The information at https://egov.uscis.gov/ whether the purpose of the rule was to rulemaking preamble cited to by processing-times/. redirect resources to ICE. Similarly, a commenter, and referenced in DHS’s commenter questioned how the added proposed rule, discusses the Other Comments ‘‘flexibility’’ from the proposal would employment authorization provisions Comments: Several commenters help reduce immigration application that ‘‘ensure that applicants who appear stated that the true intent of the backlogs, faulting DHS for refusing to to an asylum officer to be eligible for proposal is to serve as deterrent for commit to reducing other wait times as asylum but have not yet received a grant asylum applicants seeking protections a result of eliminating the 30-day EAD of asylum are able to obtain in the United States. Other commenters timeframe. Another commenter stated employment authorization.’’ 62 FR made similar statements, citing the that removing the incentive for USCIS to 10317. The rulemaking then discusses Migrant Protection Protocols, and rules work quickly will result only in the lengthy process of identity and such as Asylum Eligibility and obligations being stripped and will not fingerprint checks, and states that given Procedural Modifications.38 Similarly, cause the agency to work more the statutory requirement that asylum another commenter said indefinitely effectively. not be granted until inadmissibility, blocking asylum seekers’ ability to Response: DHS did not assert that this deportability, or ineligibility are support themselves and their families is change would reduce immigration determined at INA section an abuse of discretion and an attempt to benefit request backlogs, but rather that 208(d)(5)(A)(i), an alien who would further deter people from seeking it was proposing this change, in otherwise appear to be eligible may asylum in the United States. significant part, because of the strain of have to wait a lengthy period of time Response: DHS acknowledges before being granted employment commenter concerns; however, this the growing backlog coupled with the steady stream of new filings. This authorization. Id. at 10317–18. The rulemaking is not intended as a agency believed such a result was deterrent and does not impede an rulemaking is not an effort to redirect resources to ICE. In order to maintain contrary to a main goal of the asylum alien’s opportunity to seek asylum in reforms promulgated in 1995: ‘‘to ensure the United States. Neither does this the current 30-day processing time, USCIS has taken a number of dramatic that bona fide asylees are eligible to rulemaking change the process by obtain employment authorization as measures to ensure compliance. This which an alien seeks asylum or any quickly as possible’’. Id. ‘‘Bona fide’’ includes centralizing the workload in eligibility criteria for obtaining asylee asylees are those who have been one service center to allow for close status. This rule solely affects a benefit deemed eligible by the agency but have monitoring and reporting practices, an asylum seeker may request while not yet received an approval. eliminating lost time accrued through their application for asylum has been USCIS is committed to adjudicating shipping physical files, and diverting pending for a period of at least 180 days. all employment authorization both support and officer resources to USCIS is simply removing a self- applications as quickly as practicable, ensure the timeline is met. With imposed agency processing timeline however, both internal processes and finalizing this rule, those diverted that is no longer operationally feasible, external factors have changed in the resources could return to the roles they without impacting the underlying basis intervening decades since the 30-day performed prior to Rosario. DHS has for the benefit request. rule was promulgated. Employment authorization for chosen not to commit to defined applicants with a pending asylum adjudication times across all of its 3. Alternate Suggestions for Regulatory application, however, is not a statutory employment-authorization processing in Amendments to 30-Day Timeframe entitlement, unlike employment order to provide flexibility for the Approximately 310 commenters authorization for asylees, who are agency to allocate its resources. As provided alternative suggestions for eligible for employment incident to noted in the proposed rule, codifying by regulatory amendments to 30-day status, as the statute explicitly states. regulation any new adjudication processing timeframe. Compare INA section 208(c)(1)(B) with timeframe for EADs would Alternative Proposals and Timeframes (d)(2) (‘‘An applicant for asylum is not unnecessarily constrict adjudication Rather Than Complete Removal entitled to employment workflows and the agency is unable to authorization[.]’’). USCIS has provided a plan its workload and staffing needs Comments: Some commenters said regulatory avenue for asylum applicants with the level of certainty that a binding DHS should have proposed an to seek employment authorization; thus, timeframe may require. Removing the alternative or extended adjudication the agency has not indefinitely blocked 30-day timeline will allow greater an applicant’s ability to support flexibility, including to share this 39 Department of Justice, Inspection and themselves and their families. USCIS workload among other service centers Expedited Removal of Aliens; Detention and and reallocate resources more evenly to Removal of Aliens; Conduct of Removal Proceedings; Asylum Procedures, 62 FR 10312–01 38 84 FR 33829 (July 16, 2019). meet demand. (Mar. 6, 1997).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:51 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR2.SGM 22JNR2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 37521

timeline, such as 45 or 60 days, or recognizes that removing the timeframe processing times 40 to provide condition the length of the adjudication may cause concern to applicants applicants with accurate information to timeframe on reportable metrics, rather regarding potential delays in plan for when to file applications and than a complete timeframe removal, in adjudication; however, USCIS expects their personal financial needs. order to provide predictability and relief to return to the adjudicatory timeframe Comments: Some commenters to asylum seekers. Some commenters before Rosario. While USCIS anticipates suggested that USCIS allow asylum- stated that removing a timeframe this change may lead to short processing seekers to submit their employment without providing an alternative delays, this change brings initial EAD authorization applications earlier (for suggests that USCIS anticipates these application processing in line with example, after 90 days or 120 days applications being significantly delayed. other similar applications and allows instead of 150 days), or concurrently Another commenter stated that the operational flexibility to shift workloads with their asylum applications, to allow absence of an adjudication deadline is and continue to vet and adjudicate USCIS more time to properly vet each likely to result in unnecessarily lengthy applications in the most timely fashion alien while reducing the risk of harm to adjudication periods for EAD practicable without detrimental impact each applicant and the economy. Some applications, which are relatively to other benefit request types. commenters stated that under INA simple to resolve and should not require section 208(d)(2), asylum seekers may more than 30 days. A few commenters Comments: A commenter drew not be granted an initial EAD until their stated that DHS has not sufficiently similarities to the AC21 rule repealing asylum applications have been pending justified why an alternative or longer former 8 CFR 274a.13(d), which for 180 days, but nothing prevents deadline would not be acceptable. guaranteed the adjudication of USCIS from accepting initial EAD Another commenter said amending a employment authorization applications applications concurrently with the filing rule to limit the burden on USCIS to for most immigrant and nonimmigrant of the asylum application. Commenters ensure the betterment of our country categories within 90 days, replacing it also stated that the number of EAD might be a good idea but doing so by with, what the commenter claimed was applications has dropped since 2017 removing the deadline without an inadequate automatic 180-day and will likely continue to do so. replacing it is not. extension. This commenter stated that Another commenter said concurrent Response: DHS considered imposing a the lack of any processing deadline on filings would reduce costs to legal 90-day timeframe rather than removing initial applications has caused services providers and asylum seekers, the timeframe entirely, and discussed significant disruption in the lives of by allowing both the Form I–589, this extensively in the proposed rule. those subject to the changed rule. The Application for Asylum and DHS appreciates commenters’ commenter opposed this change for Withholding of Removal, and the Form suggestions regarding alternative similar reasons, stating that, without a I–765, Application for Employment timeframes, and recognizes that setting clear processing deadline, asylum Authorization, to be finalized in a single another timeframe could provide more seekers and their families are faced with appointment. predictability to asylum seekers and uncertainty as to whether they will be Response: DHS appreciates would provide USCIS with more time to able to support themselves, and this commenters’ suggestions to permit adjudicate EAD applications. However, unpredictability will severely impact asylum applicants to file during the 150- USCIS determined not to incorporate a them and their communities. day waiting period. USCIS thinks, however, that allowing an applicant to new regulatory timeframe because Response: With respect to USCIS is unable to plan its workload file for and obtain an EAD earlier based commenter’s concerns regarding AC21, and staffing needs with the level of on a pending asylum claim creates an USCIS does not possess data or other certainty that a binding timeframe may incentive to file non-meritorious asylum evidence to address the commenter’s require, and has no way of predicting applications. Additionally, allowing subjective assertion that processing what national security and fraud asylum seekers to file earlier creates a times for other EAD categories have concerns may be or what procedures different operational burden. Because caused ‘‘significant disruption in the will be necessary in the future. It is the statutory scheme mandates that lives of those subject to [AC21].’’ In FY imprudent to impose hard processing employment authorization cannot be 2017, USCIS processed 94.2 percent of deadlines, because USCIS cannot granted until the asylum application has EAD classifications, excluding (c)(8), reliably predict future workload, been pending for a minimum of 180 processing, and other changes. Although within 180 days; in FY 2018 it was 83.4 days, not including delays requested or imposing a deadline reliant on percent, in FY 2019, 81.5 percent, and caused by the applicant, USCIS would reportable metrics may alleviate some of as of February 29, 2020, 84 percent need to implement new tracking and the concern of a hard deadline, the within 180 days. USCIS acknowledges records mechanisms to ensure commenter proposed no specific metrics the potential effect of this change on applications would not be adjudicated and creating additional tracking and asylum seekers and their social support too early. This would impede the predictive assessments from the agency networks, but must weigh that effect agency’s ability to nimbly move that have not yet been evaluated would against the impacts on other benefit workloads between centers and officers. be an imposition to the agency. Further, requestors and USCIS operational Allowing applicants to file earlier than USCIS did not propose this approach or realities given changed vetting the 150 day timeline currently in place relevant metrics and thus to finalize requirements and increased receipt would necessitate creation of a new such metrics in this final rule would be volume in recent years. By allowing the clock system to track how long asylum outside the scope of this rulemaking. agency flexibility to shift workloads and applications were pending prior to The processing of EAD applications is resources to accommodate external and approval, in order to avoid approving an not simple, and increases in asylum- internal changes in the application EAD when the asylum application had based filings in recent years, coupled landscape, USCIS believes this rule will with the changes to intake and vetting allow greater efficiency throughout EAD 40 Case processing time information may be found procedures, have placed a great strain application types. USCIS recognizes the at https://egov.uscis.gov/processing-times/, and potential uncertainty that may result asylum applicants can access the web page for on agency resources that lead to an realistic processing times as USCIS regularly increased processing time. DHS and routinely updates publicly available updates this information.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:51 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR2.SGM 22JNR2 37522 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

been pending less than 180 days. This elimination of an entire category of background investigations for selectees, would require tracking and potentially eligibility for fee waivers, it seems likely onboarding, and training and mentoring holding applications over a longer span that fee increases would not even be before new hires are able to adjudicate. of time, adding complexity, and would necessary to increase revenue. Throughout this time, backlogs build additionally complicate accounting for Similarly, another commenter proposed and resources continue to be diverted to applications subject to the prior rules hiring more USCIS staff as a solution, support programs with processing and those subject to this rule on or after even if that means including a fee timelines. its effective date. payment I–765 on asylum applications. While DHS recognizes that the The burden associated with statutory Several commenters took issue with suggested staffing solution may be more compliance would create new DHS’s rationale that hiring staff ‘‘would long-term, the agency does need an operational costs related to new and not immediately’’ shorten adjudication immediate solution, as resources additional tracking as well as bifurcated timeframes, stating that it is no excuse continue to be strained. While USCIS requirements related to cases pending for not considering that alternative, and strives to maintain the staffing necessary on or after the effective date of this rule that the concern should be whether to timely process all benefit request while not creating new efficiencies. doing so would address the issue long- types and continuously analyzes Asylum applications are adjudicated by term. Another commenter stated that the workload trends and production, simply Asylum Officers within the Refugee, temporary delay between hiring new hiring more people does not provide a Asylum, and International Operations employees and their ability to process short term fix and, even when new hires directorate, while applications for EADs applications does not require a are working at full competency, shifting are processed by Immigration Services permanent elimination of a fixed demands and priorities continuously Officers within the Service Center processing timeframe. present new challenges that are even Operations Directorate. Asylum Officers Response: DHS seeks to complete more difficult to adjust to with a receive intensive and specialized every request as soon as it possibly can processing timeline in place. As noted training to understand the nuances and while ensuring that benefits are in the proposed rule, hiring additional sensitivities involved in assessing provided only to those who are eligible. staff may not shorten adjudication eligibility for asylum. Immigration As stated in the proposed rule, DHS has timeframes in all cases because (1) Services Officers also receive determined that it should not be subject additional time would be required to specialized training, but they are to a procedural deadline codified in onboard and train new employees, and frequently trained to adjudicate many regulations to adjudicate a certain (2) for certain applications, additional different benefit request types and, as immigration benefit request in a very time is needed to fully vet an applicant, located in service centers, and do not short time. As the commenters note, regardless of staffing levels. have face to face interactions with USCIS is authorized by law to set fees Comments: A commenter said the rule benefit requestors. In short, the nature of at a level necessary to recover the full suggests that it would be too expensive and procedures for these adjudications costs of adjudication and naturalization to hire additional officers to keep up are very different. If USCIS allowed services. See INA section 286(m), 8 with timely processing and cites to ‘‘the concurrent filing, the applications U.S.C. 1356(m). As required by the historic asylum backlog,’’ but the would still need to be adjudicated Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 commenter stated the reasoning through completely different processes. (CFO Act), 31 U.S.C. 901–03, USCIS appeared to be pretextual since the Additionally, as the proposed rule did analyzes its costs every two years to proposed regulations only deal with not contemplate allowing earlier filing, determine if its fees are adequate to initial EADs filed by asylum seekers and it is outside the scope of this recover its full costs. If fee revenue is not EAD renewals for asylum seekers rulemaking. projected to be too high or low, USCIS whose cases are currently in the asylum DHS acknowledges that the volume of conducts rulemaking to adjust its office backlog. initial (c)(8) EAD applications has immigration benefit request fees to the Response: The USCIS Asylum dropped slightly as compared to 2017. amounts necessary to cover its operating Division received 44,453 affirmative However, as of FY 2019, this type of costs. See, e.g., 84 FR 62280 (Nov. 14, asylum applications in FY 2013, with application remains historically high, 2019). In November of 2019, DHS increases each year up to a peak of with FY 2018 receipts at 262,965 and published a proposed rule that proposes 142,760 in FY 2017. This more a than FY 2019 at 216,038; maintaining the 30- a new fee schedule, including a fee for three-fold increase in four years not day timeframe poses an unsustainable an initial EAD for asylum applicants. Id. only created backlogs in processing burden during periods of high at 62320. asylum applications, but also caused a application volumes, while allowing DHS stated in the proposed rule for steep increase in the number of both applicants to file earlier would create this rulemaking that providing the initial and renewal applications for additional administrative costs and resources to meet this regulatory employment authorization, with FY burdens. timeframe requires USCIS to use fees 2018 totals at 324,991 and FY 2019 paid by other benefit requestors. See 84 totals at 551,266.41 Both the initial USCIS Should Acquire More Resources FR at 47165. DHS believes USCIS workload and renewal workload are Instead of Removing the Timeframe requires the flexibility to devote its processed by officers with different Comments: Several commenters resources where they are needed to meet specialized training to provide a more stated that, rather than proposing this seasonal demands, filing surges, and streamlined and efficient adjudication rule, DHS could acquire more resources DHS priorities and not to meet an for operations at each service center as outdated regulatory deadline. Therefore, 41 EADs currently have a 2-year validity period well as at card production facilities (for DHS will remove the 30-day deadline and this can cause cyclical fluctuations in renewal rates. The renewal receipts for FY 2018 were example, by hiring more adjudication from the regulations. 62,026, which reflects the lower initial filings in FY staff). A commenter said fees for other Further, even if and when the funds 2016 (although receipt and adjudication dates forms could be increased to are available to hire additional staff and routinely cross fiscal years, so this may include a accommodate the cost of hiring officers, there is a significant lag time in portion of initial filings from 2015 and 2017). It is noted that replacement filings are excluded from additional adjudicators. However, the the course of posting job the figures, as they are not relevant to this commenter said, with the recent announcements, selecting candidates, rulemaking.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:51 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR2.SGM 22JNR2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 37523

process. Further, EAD renewal implements it to the extent practicable. option of temporary work permit that applications for asylum seekers are not The conclusions and recommendations can be cancelled if any red flags are subject to adjudication timelines, and referenced by commenters were the found during further screening of the also have an automatic extension clause Ombudsman’s recommendations for all individual applicant. to mitigate any lapse in employment EAD adjudications, and were not Response: USCIS disagrees with authorization for these aliens. The 30- specific to the asylum-based commenter’s suggestion, as the agency day rule and Rosario court order have applications and therefore not totally believes providing a temporary work created the necessity for a centralized relevant to a 30-day processing permit at the time of initial filing invites process to ensure compliance, which timeframe. Nevertheless, as discussed fraud and abuse. A benefit that would prevents USCIS from shifting workloads elsewhere in response to comments, be bestowed automatically simply upon among officers trained to adjudicate augmenting the staff dedicated to filing provides no opportunity for EAD applications, when it may be more asylum-based EAD applications would vetting and encourages frivolous filings efficient and offer a more timely not immediately and in all cases shorten to obtain even a short-term benefit. adjudicative process. This rulemaking adjudication timeframes, and would Frivolous filings, in turn, exacerbate aims to improve flexibility and increase the cost-burden on the agency. backlogs and cause greater delays in efficiency by taking away barriers to With respect to implementing an processing applications for those with using existing resources to the greatest education campaign, USCIS will update meritorious claims. effect. its public sources of information, such Comments: One commenter suggested Comments: A commenter stated that as the Policy Manual and website, increasing the validity of (c)(8) EADs the proposals that USCIS should hire provide updated information regarding from 2 years to 5. and train more adjudicators ignores the changes to expect relating to the Response: Though DHS recognizes Congress’ mandate that USCIS benefits promulgation of this rule, and continue that increasing the validity period of an processing costs must be funded to provide regular updates to processing EAD may reduce the burden to through user fees. The commenter stated times. With respect to establishing a adjudicate renewal EAD applications, that USCIS should not be compelled to uniform process to expedite the agency does not believe doing so arbitrarily adhere to a rigid and resubmissions filed due to service error, would alleviate the burden the agency disruptive processing deadline for USCIS has published guidance on its faces in adjudicating initial filings, ‘‘guaranteed’’ 30-day asylum EAD website 42 for obtaining a corrected EAD which was the main goal of this processing unless and until user- if there was a government error in the rulemaking. Additionally, renewals of provided fee revenue is available to issuance as well as guidance for EADs for aliens with a pending asylum fully fund the needed dedicated agency requesting expedited adjudication.43 applications are not subject to the 30- personnel and resources. USCIS is also working diligently to day adjudication deadline. Response: While USCIS fees are set develop the IT infrastructure and Comments: One commenter through rulemaking and hiring systems needed for eProcessing, and recommended creating a new document additional adjudicators would not acknowledges the benefits of for those granted asylum that clearly ignore a Congressional mandate, USCIS eProcessing, especially with regard to states that the asylee is authorized to appreciates the commenter’s efficiency and national security. This is work in the United States without understanding of the constraints a time and labor intensive endeavor, restrictions, which would eliminate the involved in resources and hiring. requiring the collaboration of entire (a)(5) product line (for those granted asylum and authorized to work Ombudsman Report developers and subject matter experts and others, as well as extensive testing incident to status) and free up Comments: Several commenters said and demos to ensure the new system adjudicators to work on (c)(8)s. USCIS failed to consider and features function properly. USCIS is Response: This rule pertains to recommendations from the 2019 USCIS working and will continue to work applicants for asylum, meaning those Ombudsman Report, which towards full eProcessing across all who have applied for asylum status but recommends that the agency take benefit request types,44 but there is have not yet had their asylum several steps to ensure timely currently no estimate available for when application adjudicated on the merits. If adjudication of EADs, including the application for an EAD will be an alien is granted asylum status, they augmenting staffing, implementing a available for eProcessing. are authorized to work incident to public education campaign to encourage status, meaning that he/she no longer applicants to file I–765 renewal Other Suggestions needs to apply for employment applications up to 180 days before the Comments: One commenter suggested authorization but receives such expiration of the current EAD, and providing each asylum applicant an authorization as an automatic benefit of establishing a uniform process to that status. See 8 CFR 274a.12(a)(5). identify and expedite processing of EAD 42 USCIS, Employment Authorization Document Accordingly, the process contemplated application resubmissions filed due to (last updated Apr. 5, 2018), https://www.uscis.gov/ by the commenter already exists and the service error. Another commenter stated greencard/employment-authorization-document. agency still faces resource constraints. 43 that the rule ignored the Ombudsman’s USCIS, How to Make an Expedite Request (last Comments: A commenter stated that, updated May 10, 2019), https://www.uscis.gov/ recommendation of incorporating the forms/forms-information/how-make-expedite- if DHS is not able to meet a 30-, 60-, or Form I–765 into the agency’s request. even 90-day deadline in all cases, it eProcessing procedures, which the 44 See Office of Management and Budget, could institute a tiered or alternative commenter indicated would expedite Executive Office of the President, Electronic system of deadlines for cases that Processing of Immigration Benefit Requests (Fall the review process and improve review 2019 Unified Agenda), https://www.reginfo.gov/ require additional security vetting. The for purposes of fraud and national public/do/ commenter said a stop-time mechanism security concerns. eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201910&RIN=1615- for cases that require additional vetting Response: USCIS carefully considers AC20; USCIS, USCIS Accelerates Transition to would be a feasible way to maintain a Digital Immigration Processing (May 22, 2019), the observations and recommendations https://www.uscis.gov/news/news-releases/uscis- fixed processing deadline without provided by the USCIS Ombudsman accelerates-transition-digital-immigration- sacrificing the agency’s flexibility. A and if it agrees with a recommendation, processing-0. commenter stated that USCIS does not

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:51 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR2.SGM 22JNR2 37524 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

explain why it did not consider the requirement would mitigate confusion Another commenter said USCIS’ failure simple option of adding a stop-clock for and reduce pressure on those that have to estimate these costs is ‘‘simply the small percentage of applications an EAD. Another commenter stated that irrational’’ and fails to satisfy the most referred to the Background Check Unit the three pre-conditions in the AC21 46 basic cost-benefit obligations the agency (BCU) and Service Center Fraud rule for automatic extension eligibility must meet under the APA. Detection Operation (CFDO), akin to the will adequately ensure that renewal An individual commenter said the stop-clock currently in place for applications are not automatically rule argues that ‘‘the cost of hiring and applications that require Requests for granted to applicants whose asylum training employees to adjudicate EADs Evidence (RFEs). Just as an RFE pauses applications since have been denied. would be passed onto asylum seekers, the 30-day processing timeframe until Response: USCIS appreciates these in the form of lost wages and higher additional documentation is received, a comments in support of removing the application fees. However, USCIS offers new stop clock for BCU and CFDO 90-day renewal requirement. no direct evidence of these transferred referrals could pause processing from Comments: A commenter supported costs. It merely points to an accounting the time of referral until additional the rule change but urged DHS to set a statement by the Office of Management information is received from BCU and/ timeframe for adjudicating renewals due and Budget for 2017 to predict possible or CFDO. to concerns about applicants not costs for 2020–2029.’’ Response: While it is true that the 30- receiving their EAD renewal cards by Response: USCIS included an day adjudication timeframe may be the time the automatic extension ends. extensive and plainly sufficient analysis paused and restarted in certain Response: USCIS respectfully of the proposed rule. USCIS instances, according to certain disagrees that there is a need to set an acknowledges that it does not conduct regulations,45 pausing and restarting the adjudicative timeframe for adjudicating a quantitative cost-benefit assessment of adjudication timeframe may not be renewals. USCIS believes the ability to the costs and benefits of hiring possible in all instances to apply for renewal earlier, coupled with additional USCIS officers to meet the accommodate routine background an automatic extension of 180 days 30-day timeframe. But this is because, at checks and fraud detection. The agency provides adequate time for adjudication bottom, USCIS is unable to plan its initially scans specifically for indicators and poses minimal risk that an workload and staffing needs with the of national security concerns and those applicant will experience a lapse in level of certainty that a binding concerns are vetted immediately employment authorization. In FY 2019, timeframe may require and has no way without respect to the 30-day the average processing time for EAD of predicting what national security and adjudication timeframe. The vetting classifications excluding the (c)(8) fraud concerns may be or what process, when a concern is identified, applications was 127 days and the procedures will be necessary in the can be lengthy and sometimes requires median processing time was 100 days. future. consultation with or referral to outside While USCIS acknowledges cases may In any case, the proposed rule did not agencies which cannot be completed occasionally pend longer than 180 days state that hiring and training additional within the 30-day timeline. Additional due to unusual facts or circumstances or employees would result in lost wages vetting also occurs during adjudication, applicant-caused delays, the 180-day for asylum seekers. With respect to which may warrant investigative action automatic extension has proven to avoid application fees, the proposed rule or require additional information but lapses in employment authorization for stated, among other things, that USCIS disagrees that it can or should the majority of applicants. In FY 2017, providing the resources to meet this stop the adjudication timeframe to 94.2 percent of applications were regulatory timeframe would require accommodate typical adjudicative adjudicated within 180 days, in FY USCIS to use a significant amount of procedures rather than removing the 2018, 83.4 percent, in FY 2019, 81.5 fees that are currently paid by other timeframe altogether, as this rule does. percent, and as of February 29, 2020, 84 benefit requestors. DHS does not Introducing additional pause and restart percent of non-(c)(8) applications were understand the remainder of the mechanisms for routine processing adjudicated within 180 days in FY 2020. comment regarding an accounting actions would also add a new statement by the Office of Management administrative burden for USCIS to E. Statutory and Regulatory and Budget for 2017. The accounting track the pending time of a broader Requirements statement in the proposed rule was swath of cases. 1. Costs and Benefits (E.O. 12866 and prepared by DHS and is amply 13563) supported by the surrounding text. D. Removal of 90-Day Filing DHS believes USCIS requires the Requirement k. Costs Associated With Hiring flexibility to devote its resources where Additional Immigration Officers 1. Necessity of Rule and DHS Rationale they are needed. Further, even if and Comments: Some commenters noted when the funds are available to hire Approximately 10 commenters that the economic analysis did not additional staff and officers (which mentioned DHS’s rationale for the 90- attempt to take into account the costs requires increases to USCIS’ operational day filing requirement. Comments: A couple of commenters and benefits of hiring additional USCIS budget and therefore possible increases agreed with the proposal to rescind the officers to meet the 30-day timeframe. to immigration benefit fees), there is a 90-day deadline for EAD renewals, One stated that until cost-benefit significant lag time in the course of stating that it is more efficient, more analysis of additional hiring is done, posting job announcements, selecting consistent with other regulations, and and more detailed security protections candidates, background investigations more fair to applicants to automatically are explained, this rule change should for selectees, onboarding, and training extend an EAD when the alien files a be viewed as arbitrary and capricious. and mentoring before new hires are able renewal application prior to the current to adjudicate. Throughout this time, document’s expiration. Another agreed 46 The preconditions are that the application is backlogs build and resources continue properly filed before the EAD’s expiration date, to be diverted to support programs with that eliminating the 90-day renewal based on the same category on their EAD and based on a class of aliens eligible to apply for an EAD processing timelines. While DHS 45 See 8 CFR 103.2(b)(10)(ii) and 8 CFR notwithstanding expiration of the EAD. 8 CFR recognizes that the staffing solution may 208.7(a)(2). 274a.13(d)(1). be more long-term, the agency does

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:51 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR2.SGM 22JNR2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 37525

need an immediate solution, as Comments: Multiple commenters 2015 to 2017 was solely a consequence resources continue to be strained. While questioned USCIS’ reliance on the of pending litigation. USCIS USCIS strives to maintain the staffing assumption that it would return to its consistently evaluates and shifts necessary to timely process all benefit adjudication rate from 2017, before the workloads and resources to meet request types and continuously analyzes Rosario court order. Commenters stated changing circumstances, such as workload trends and production, simply that it is unlikely and unrealistic to increased backlogs, and legislative and hiring more people does not provide a expect that USCIS would return to the policy changes. The changes in short term fix and, even when new hires pre-Rosario scenario without a timeline processing times from 2015 to 2017 are working at full competency, shifting to do so or staffing increases, and that were likely driven by a number of demands and priorities continuously in reality, delays and costs will be more factors. USCIS chose FY 2017 because it present new challenges that are even significant than estimated. An advocacy represents the latest year prior to the more difficult to adjust to with a group claimed that the pre-Rosario Rosario court order. While USCIS relies processing timeline in place. As noted baseline fails to account for ‘‘the historic on 2017 processing times, we in the proposed rule, hiring additional asylum application backlog’’ that has acknowledge that if the actual staff may not shorten adjudication increased over the past 5 years, which processing times are longer than timeframes in all cases because: (1) according to DHS is one of the reasons assumed, then the cost of the rule would Additional time would be required to cited for eliminating the 30-day be higher than estimated. Conversely, if onboard and train new employees; and deadline. processing times are shorter than (2) for certain applications, additional One commenter explained that the assumed, then the cost of the rule would time is needed to fully vet an applicant, improvement in processing times from be lower than estimated. regardless of staffing levels. 2015 to 2017 reflects the pending USCIS also believes that average litigation and therefore using the FY processing times for all EADs (with the l. Population and Effect of Rule on 2017 processing numbers are inaccurate. exception of those initial EADs filed by Processing Times This commenter said a more accurate asylum applicants) and average Comments: Commenters questioned baseline would be to look to the processing times for renewals of EADs USCIS’s choice to adopt the 2017 level numbers for initial I–765 processing based on pending asylum applications of I–765 applications as its forecast for from before the Rosario class action was would not be demonstrative because the future number of applications. filed, which show that in FY 2015, only there are about 50 EAD eligibility Commenters suggested that a trendline, 27.2 percent of initial filings were categories that USCIS processes, with a or a range of estimates would be better completed within 30 days, as compared wide range of descriptions and than using one year’s level as a default to 36.3 percent in FY 2016 and 52.4 variations in terms of applicant type. prediction. percent in FY 2017. For any number of reasons, the asylum Another commenter said DHS should category could diverge from a Response: In the NPRM, USCIS wrote provide the following data needed to generalized processing rate. that USCIS does not use a trend line to better judge the reasonableness of Comment: A commenter noted that forecast future projected initial I–765 estimated processing times under the the proposed rule fails to consider the applications because various factors rule: Average processing times for all significant impact on asylum applicants outside this rulemaking may result in EADs (with the exception of those in defensive proceedings as much of the either a decline or, conversely, a initial EADs filed by asylum applicants) analysis in the NPRM focuses on continued rise of applications received. and average processing times for affirmative asylum applicants only. As a See 84 FR at 47162. For example, USCIS renewals of EADs based on pending result, by excluding defensive asylum said that the number of initial I–765 asylum applications. EADs, the economic analysis fails to applications has some correlation with Response: Cost benefit analysis often capture the full impacts. The changes in applications for asylum and involves making estimates of future commenter stated that DHS must that the return to LIFO for processing outcomes (ex ante) based on the best provide further analysis germane to affirmative asylum applications may information available to the agency at EAD applications from defensive also impact initial I–765 applications. the time. USCIS believes FY 2017 asylum applicants. In addition, the While DHS agrees with the commenter provides a reasonable assessment of commenter claims that the removal of that using one year’s level as a default probable processing times under the the 30-day deadline will create prediction is not ideal, USCIS notes adoption of this rule and reflects additional backlogs in immigration again that many factors affect USCIS’s processing times that are sustainable courts and create investigatory burdens ability to predict the future number of and realistic, even though the future for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) initial I–765 applications. For example, processing times cannot be predicted and Department of Labor (DOL). Table 8 in this final rule shows that the with precision and could vary due to Response: The analysis presented in number of initial I–765 receipts grew any number of factors. the NPRM and updated in this final rule significantly from 2013 to 2017, held As of the drafting of this final rule, reflects data and information that approximately constant in 2018 and USCIS sees no reason why the FY 2017 includes receipts from both affirmative declined in 2019. In addition, if processing times are unrealistic and as and defensive pending asylum finalized, the broader asylum applicant such, should not be utilized as the applicants. See 84 FR at 47161. EAD rule may also affect the number of expected processing times after this rule Although Table 7—Total Annual Form future initial I–765 applications. This is finalized. This rule allows for I–589 Receipts Received from illustrates that assuming a trend or increases in processing times when Affirmative Asylum Applicants— range might not be as simple as the necessary to identify fraud and to addresses only affirmative cases, all commenter suggests. USCIS believes address other unforeseen requirements. parts of the analysis regarding I–765 that assuming a level of applications The rule takes into consideration the receipts include both affirmative and from a known year is a better approach asylum application processing times defensive applicants because USCIS than assuming an upward trendline, during the pre-Rosario baseline and we adjudicates all I–765 applications. especially considering the decline in respectfully disagree that the Hence, the impacts do take into 2019. improvement in processing times from consideration defensive asylum EADs.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:51 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR2.SGM 22JNR2 37526 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

As it relates to the concerns regarding assumptions regarding the lower and the commenter cited from the study. investigatory burdens, USCIS does not upper bounds on asylee wage rates However, USCIS acknowledges that a believe it is appropriate to assume (minimum wage and national wage, 31-day delay caused by the rule could causation between this rule and such respectively), stating that, based on the theoretically affect the stream of stated impacts. The fact that tax losses New Immigrant Survey data, they are applicants’ future earnings but believes may occur does not automatically map reliable. it is too speculative to estimate. to more IRS investigations, just as the Response: USCIS recognizes that the n. Lost Wages and Benefits possibility that the timing of some EADs wage bounds relied upon generate a may be impacted does not causally map wide range of potential lost Comments: Numerous commenters to increases in unauthorized work, wage compensation. However, data are not stated that asylum seekers would lose theft, and dangerous work practices. directly available on the earnings of wages and benefits as a result of delayed asylum seekers and, faced with entry into the U.S. labor force, which m. Wage Bases for Labor Earnings uncertainty, DHS made reasonable will cause an outsized, devastating Comments: Several commenters estimates of the bounds. amount of harm to this already- expressed concern with the wage In regard to the prevailing minimum vulnerable community. Many benchmarks USCIS utilized in its wage, USCIS frequently relies on such a commenters reasoned that a lack of analysis. One commenter claimed that lower wage for recent or new labor force income would lead to not being able to the wide range of potential lost entrants in its rulemakings. We agree afford food, housing, emergency compensation ($255.9 million to $774.8 with commenters who note that some services, and other benefits and million) was excessively wide and that states and localities have adopted their assistances. it is reasonable to assume that EAD own minimum wage. For this reason, Many commenters cautioned that the applicants will be paid the average wage USCIS chose to use an estimate of the rule change would cause significant in the economy, and implied that USCIS prevailing minimum wage, as opposed hardship to applicants and their did not take into account demographic to the base federal minimum wage, as a families, including destabilizing the and socioeconomic characteristics. lower bound estimate. In addition, financial and health situation of their A couple of commenters stated that USCIS applied a multiplier of 1.46 to children, spouses, parents, and other the rule’s lower-bound estimate of lost the $8.25 prevailing minimum wage to family members. One commenter cited earnings is an understatement because it adjust for benefits. Therefore, the reports indicating that a 6-month gap in assumes an $8.25 minimum wage. The analysis used a full compensation cost employment contributes to commenters stated that 28 States plus of $12.05 ($8.25 × 1.46) to estimate the ‘‘microeconomic scarring, or the damage the District of Columbia currently have lower bound impacts, not the $8.25 base a period of unemployment inflicts on minimum wages exceeding that $8.25 prevailing minimum wage. Again, this individuals or household’s [sic] future minimum. results in a lower bound wage that is economic health even after the spell of Another commenter stated that higher than the actual prevailing joblessness ends.’’ calculating lost compensation by minimum wage, although it is unlikely Response: USCIS notes that asylum multiplying a constant wage rate by the that all positions would provide such seekers statutorily cannot receive projected length of the delay fails to benefits. employment authorization prior to 180 account for the trajectory of future Regarding the upper bound wage, days after filing an asylum application, earnings. The commenter said data USCIS does not have demographic or but acknowledges that asylum shows that asylum seekers’ wage rates socioeconomic characteristics about applications that require additional do not remain constant while they work, asylum applicants and thus uses the processing time will delay applicants’ but rather rise the longer they have been national average wage as an upper entry into the U.S. labor force. USCIS in the work force. The commenter also bound estimate. USCIS agrees it is does not anticipate the adoption of the challenged DHS’s treatment of the possible for some of the workers rule to result in processing times that future earnings of pending asylum impacted to earn wages higher than the exceed the FY 2017 pre-Rosario applicants as unrelated to the length of upper bound estimate, the national processing times. This final rule allows delay before they have work average across all occupations, just as it for increases in processing times when authorization. The commenter cited a is plausible that some earn less than the necessary to reduce fraud and to address study by the Immigration Policy Lab at burdened prevailing minimum wage. other unforeseen requirements, and Stanford University that found a seven- The lower and upper bounds simply variations in processing could occur due month delay in work authorization for represent estimates of the range for this to unforeseen events and circumstances. German asylum-seekers dragged down population’s average wage. In the NPRM, USCIS estimated an their economic outcomes for a decade Regarding the rule’s effect on earnings average delay of 31 calendar days if after. over time, USCIS agrees that earnings processing times returned to those A couple of commenters challenged generally rise over time, and therefore achieved in FY 2017. As described in DHS’s assertion that EAD holders that the earnings of EAD holders could the NPRM, USCIS acknowledges the ‘‘would not have been in the labor force be larger at a point in the future. In the distributional impacts during this delay long and would thus not be expected to NPRM, USCIS estimates that this rule onto the applicant’s support network. earn relatively high wages.’’ The will delay applicants’ receipt of an EAD USCIS assumes the longer an asylum commenters cited the salaries of for an average of 31 calendar days, or 22 applicant’s EAD is delayed, the longer participants in the Upwardly Global working days, if processing times the applicant’s support network is program, specifying that asylum seekers returned to those achieved in FY 2017.47 providing assistance to the applicant. who have completed the program earn This is much less than the seven months an average of $54,875 annually, o. Impact on Support Network significantly higher than the national 47 Table 10 at 84 FR 47164. 119,088 applications Comments: Approximately 250 annual mean wage of $51,960, and completed after 30 days for a total of 3,651,326 lost commenters commented on the rule’s calendar days and 2,655,429 working days. several program alumni earned six- 3,651,326/119,088 = an average of 30.7 calendar impact on the support networks of figure salaries. However, another days delayed and 2,655,429/119,088 = an average asylum-seekers. Many commenters said commenter commended the of 22.3 working days delayed. the proposed ‘‘delayed’’ issuance of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:51 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR2.SGM 22JNR2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 37527

EADs would over-burden organizations relatives, non-profit providers, the rule would have difficulty obtaining that provide financial, housing, legal, or nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), important documents, including a other forms of assistance to asylum religious and community based driver’s license, state identification, and applicants. Multiple commenters affiliations, and charities. In addition, social security number. Others said contended that the rule would render there could be impacts to state and local obtaining a social security card is often asylum applicants unable to work and governments as well in terms of both essential to get into job training force them to become a public charge to their burden and taxes. programs, to enroll in college, and to welfare programs. These commenters In the NPRM DHS requested comment take many other steps towards stated that this rule is in direct contrast on data or sources that demonstrate the integration into a community. Some to the overall initiative of the amount or level of assistance provided commenters warned that not having a administration and will create a to asylum applicants who have pending U.S. government-issued identification financial burden for the United States. EAD applications. See 84 FR at 47165. document can further limit an As it relates specifically to the costs, One commenter specifically suggested applicant’s access to transportation, a commenter stated that the rule that the cost of the proposed rule to banking, education, heating and explicitly refuses to factor into its cost applicants’ support network is roughly electricity, many government facilities analysis ‘‘distributional impacts for equivalent to the prevailing wage. and school grounds, as well as hinder those in an applicant’s support USCIS agrees that the immediate the ability to get married. network.’’ Similarly, a commenter said indirect impact of this rule to an Multiple commenters warned that USCIS failed to fully consider the costs applicant’s support network is likely not asylum seekers who are not authorized of delayed EAD adjudication to an significantly more than the wages and to work and therefore lack sufficient asylum seeker’s family and makes the benefits the applicant would have funds as a result of this rule would have statement that its own workload earned without this rule. impeded access to competent legal priorities outweigh these financial services and counsel. Several p. Costs Related to Socioeconomic strains. Another commenter also stated commenters cited studies showing that Factors and Impacts that USCIS miscalculated the cost to immigrants who are represented by legal support networks, citing data on Comments: Numerous commenters counsel are much more likely to win community groups’ limited budgets and provided feedback concerning the their cases than those appearing in resources. impacts of the proposed rule involving immigration court without an attorney. Another commenter disagreed with loss of income to individuals linked to A few commenters reasoned that USCIS’ cost analysis and provided an groups in terms of various asylum applicants who do find pro bono alternative suggestion of measurement. socioeconomic factors. For example, or low cost representation, are unable, The commenter calculated that the cost multiple commenters warned that without work authorization, to pay for of providing for an individual is roughly asylum seekers who are not authorized other costs inherent in immigration equivalent to the prevailing wage, to work would have problems obtaining cases, including transportation to get to which would mean the actual cost of the healthcare and medical treatment. and from meetings with their attorney or proposed rule only to applicants’ Multiple commenters said that many even to court appearances. support networks would be at least asylum seekers will be without A number of submissions cautioned twice that calculated by USCIS. healthcare due to the lack of employer that the above impacts would especially Response: USCIS notes this rule does provided insurance and thus would be be serious for vulnerable groups, such as not directly regulate private support far more likely to skip the preventative children, and that the rule stands to networks or any state program. How the care that keeps them healthy which will increase vulnerability to labor abuse, states or private organizations allocate increase contagious diseases, decrease exploitation, human trafficking, and their resources is a choice by the state vaccinations, and overall negatively violence. In addition, some claimed that or organization and is not compelled by impact national public health. Another particular groups, including women, this rule. USCIS notes that asylum commenter said state-only Medicaid children, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, seekers statutorily cannot receive would likely be the only affordable transgender, queer (LGBTQ) and HIV- employment authorization prior to 180 health insurance option for asylum positive asylum seekers, would face days after filing an asylum application applicants who do not have an EAD; negative consequences. but acknowledges that asylum however, applicants will most likely not Response: USCIS endeavors to applications that require additional apply for Medicaid out of concern that process all benefits requests as quickly processing time may delay applicants’ receipt of any form of public assistance as possible and this rulemaking does not entrance into the U.S. labor force. This will harm their ability to adjust status change the eligibility requirements or final rule allows for increases in under the DHS Public Charge Rule. process by which asylum seekers obtain processing times when necessary to Several commenters said the rule employment authorization or asylum identify fraud and to address other would increase homelessness in status. This rulemaking does not aim to unforeseen requirements, and variations communities. One discussed research create undue hardships, including in processing could occur due to on the already limited housing available added stress or anxiety, on applicants unforeseen events and circumstances. In for asylum applicants that will be for employment authorization or to the NPRM, USCIS estimated an average negatively impacted by this rule, citing cause unnecessary delays in processing delay of 31 calendar days if processing sources. A few commenters, citing applications. Regardless of the times return to those achieved in FY research studies warned of the adverse underlying basis for applying for 2017. In the NPRM, USCIS short- and long-term consequences employment authorization, all acknowledged ‘‘the longer an asylum associated with homelessness, including applicants filing initially are subject to applicant’s EAD is delayed, the longer chronic physical and mental health, some period of processing time that may the applicant’s support network is behavioral problems, learning and delay their ability to obtain employment providing assistance to the applicant.’’ cognition, academic achievement, and or other services. See 84 FR at 47165. The impacted social lifelong adult problems. Individual state governments networks could include, but are not Numerous commenters asserted that determine the documentary limited to, family members and friends, asylum seekers without an EAD due to requirements for state-issued

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:51 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR2.SGM 22JNR2 37528 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

identifications. States may choose to rule and should more accurately become less competitive by shrinking rely on documents issued by USCIS, but quantify the impacts of hiring new the ability to recruit a diverse and these requirements are outside USCIS’ employees. skilled workforce. Another commenter purview. This rulemaking does not Response: USCIS agrees there is a cited research, saying that USCIS failed change the eligibility requirements or possibility a portion of the impacts of to consider that asylum seekers bring a process by which asylum seekers obtain this rule could be borne by companies variety of professional experience to employment authorization. USCIS that would have hired the asylum their work that cannot be replaced by a appreciates the concerns raised over applicants. USCIS has also reviewed the native workforce. impacts to particular groups. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data Another said the rule would make it Furthermore, USCIS does not question and other references cited by the more difficult for it to hire a diverse and the commenters’ claims that asylum commenters, and does not necessarily talented workforce to meet the needs of seeking in the U.S. tends to involve dispute the figures and statistics individuals with psychiatric disabilities groups of persons with particular referenced for 2019. USCIS also notes and require additional expenditures to socioeconomic characteristics and that, as of November 2019, BLS data recruit otherwise authorized employees. situations. However, USCIS is unable to also showed approximately 4.3 million Response: USCIS has reviewed the quantify the impacts to them as USCIS workers are considered to be ‘‘part time sources and figures presented in the does not differentiate between the for economic reasons,’’ such as slack comments, but does not see any particular groups in adjudicating the work or unfavorable business compelling reason to assert that this EAD applications. As we have conditions, inability to find full-time rule, which could affect the timing described, the rule only stands to work, or seasonal declines in demand.48 under which some EADs are obtained possibly impact the timing under which USCIS recognizes that when by aliens with a pending asylum some EADs could be approved. unemployment rates are low, providing application, would hamper companies EADs to pending asylum applicants from achieving a diverse and talented q. Impacts to Companies and Employers potentially fills an economic need. workforce. Comments: About 50 commenters However, even during those times Comments: Some commenters focused on the impacts presented in the USCIS must first be sufficiently assured described the spending power of NPRM in terms of the effects on of applicant eligibility and ensure all immigrants in each state and the businesses and companies. Multiple background and security checks are negative impact this rule would have on commenters asserted that this rule completed. private profits, citing research and would negatively impact United States Although the rule would possibly figures. Another, citing research, stated employers and corporations. impact the timing that some asylum that asylum workers specifically fill in Some commenters stated that, under applicants might experience in entering gaps that make businesses more the rule, companies that would the labor force, USCIS has no reason, as productive and stimulate industries otherwise employ asylum seekers will of the drafting of this final rule, to through entrepreneurship. Another either have insufficient access to labor anticipate that processing times will be commenter cited the NPRM’s figure that or bear the costs of finding alternative vastly different (on average) than those the rule will result in a loss of $775 labor. Several commenters said the jobs in FY 2017 and reiterates there should million annually, which will affect that asylum seekers fill will be not be a significant increase, barring business profits. extremely hard to replace due to their unforeseen variations and Response: USCIS recognizes the skills, and because many Americans circumstances. In the NPRM, USCIS research and literature concerning may not want to do their jobs. estimated an average delay of 31 immigrants being involved in Another commenter cited calendar days if processing times innovation and entrepreneurship. unemployment data and discussed a returned to those achieved in FY 2017. However, USCIS does not believe that labor shortage, arguing that employers The rule should allow sufficient time to this rule will reduce innovation and will be adversely affected by delaying address national security and fraud entrepreneurial activity, as it only asylum applicants’ lawful labor force concerns, and to maintain technological stands to possibly impact the timing participation. Also addressing a labor advances in document production and under which some asylum seekers are shortage, another commenter cited that identity verification without having to able to obtain an EAD. In the NPRM, there were seven million unfilled U.S. add any resources. USCIS estimated an average delay of 31 job openings in 2019 and the proposal The rule has taken into consideration calendar days if processing times return will block these from being filled. that a subset of asylum applicants’ to those achieved in FY 2017. Multiple commenters discussed the opportunity to participate in the labor USCIS acknowledges that if significant labor shortage this rule market could be delayed if their companies cannot find reasonable would create for industries such as application requires additional time to substitutes for the position the asylum health care, agriculture, manufacturing, process. The analysis has also applicant would have filled, this rule construction, and technology, citing acknowledged that for the companies will result in lost productivity and research. Another cited the percentage who are unable to substitute the labor profits to companies. of the state’s workforce made up of that would have been provided by the Comments: A commenter commented immigrants, remarking that immigrants asylum applicants, they could that the rule would force asylum are a key solution to the state’s potentially experience a reduction in applicants to work illegally, which in workforce challenges due to the retiring profit. turn could lower labor treatment for the baby boomer population. Comments: Some commenters said United States labor force. Citing several sources, a couple of the rule would force the companies to Response: The rule only stands to commenters described the significant possibly impact the timing in which an financial loss to businesses that would 48 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment asylum applicant can obtain an EAD, absorb the cost to find and replace Situation News Release—November 2019, Table A– where asylum applicants are only 8 Employed persons by class of worker and part- asylum seekers jobs. A few commenters time status, February 21, 2020. Available at https:// eligible to receive employment stated that USCIS does not adequately www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_ authorization after their asylum analyze the costs to employers in the 12062019.pdf. application has been pending 180 days.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:51 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR2.SGM 22JNR2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 37529

Moreover, we see no reason at present r. Tax Impacts at 47150. USCIS notes the tax rates of that there will be an increase in average Comments: Many commenters said the states vary widely, and many states 49 EAD processing times, beyond what was this rule would negatively affect tax impose no income tax at all. It is also occurring pre-Rosario, although some revenue, with many citing USCIS difficult to quantify income tax losses EADs may take longer than average to projected losses. Commenters, including because individual tax situations vary adjudicate. individuals, a few advocacy groups, and widely. The NPRM noted that more than Comment: Another commenter noted a professional association, raised 44 percent of Americans pay no federal that because DHS has said the rule concerns regarding the rule’s impact on income tax. See 47 FR at 47150. would have no effect on wages, it tax losses, stating that these losses will Although USCIS is unable to quantify implies that in the cases where negatively impact government programs potential lost income taxes, USCIS has businesses are able to find replacement and the economy. Multiple commenters, provided a quantified estimate of lost labor for the position the asylum including a federal elected official and employment taxes. We were able to applicant would have filled, they would a few advocacy groups, discussed the estimate potential lost employment be shifting workers from elsewhere in loss of tax dollars and its impact on taxes since there is a uniform national the labor force rather than inducing Medicare and social security. An rate (6.2 percent social security and 1.45 people to shift away from leisure. The advocacy group said this rule would percent Medicare for both the employee commenter said that means the rule is contribute to the depletion of streets, and employer, for a total of 15.3 percent expected to shrink real output and that schools, and healthier citizens through tax rate) for certain employment taxes. total lost wages therefore approximately tax dollar loss. See 84 FR at 47150. USCIS recognizes represent the total economic cost of the A commenter stated that, while that this quantified estimate is not rule, and not merely transfers. estimating the lost tax revenue based on representative of all potential tax losses Response: USCIS does not agree that the lost earnings estimate, the proposed by federal, state, and local governments under the scenario where businesses are rule notes, but does not try to quantify, and we made no claims this quantified able to find replacement workers, this the significant additional lost state estimate included all tax losses. We rule would shrink real output. It is income tax revenues. This commenter continue to acknowledge the potential plausible that a currently unemployed went on to say that rule does not for additional federal, state and local (or underemployed) worker could fill a mention that asylum seekers’ earnings government tax loss in the scenario job that would have been filled by an translate into lower spending on rent, where a company cannot transfer asylum seeker without an increase in food, and consumer goods, with the additional work onto current employees wages for that job. USCIS acknowledges corresponding lost profits and tax and cannot hire replacement labor for that in economic theory, wage rates and revenues that those expenditures would the position the asylum applicant would income are economic variables that generate. Similarly, another commenter have filled. individuals consider when choosing said that USCIS miscalculates tax losses s. Small Entity Impacts between leisure and labor, and that by only using employment taxes, while changes in wage rates can either it should be using federal, state, and Comments: A few commenters decrease or increase hours of work. This local income taxes. discussed the rule’s impact on small rule will have a short-term impact on Others said the rule does not account entities. Some said the proposed rule labor availability for a relatively small for the cost of losing tax revenue to local would negatively impact small population. The NPRM estimated that governments, which they expect to be businesses and make it difficult for this rule would delay per year significant. Multiple commenters, citing them to find workers. Another approximately 120,000 asylum studies, estimated the loss in tax commenter, citing research, said applicants’ entrance into the labor force revenue for different individual states as immigrants represent 25 percent of by, on average, 31 calendar days. See 84 a result of the proposed rule. Another entrepreneurs, arguing that this rule FR at 47164. As discussed later in this projected that their state would suffer an would disproportionality and negatively document in the ‘‘Labor Market estimated loss of $1.3 to 4 million affect small businesses. Another said Overview’’ section, the U.S. labor force dollars on top of lost federal tax dollars small town economic development is as of November 2019, is approximately if the proposed rule was implemented also hindered because family members 164 million workers. While DHS does and requested that USCIS withdraw the who host asylum seekers awaiting EADs not have information about the rule change. Another said the rule must expend material support during industries in which asylum applicants would force the applicants to work this time of limbo instead of starting or work, DHS notes that applicants are not ‘‘under the table,’’ thus negatively continuing small businesses. restricted to a certain industry and affecting the economy by violating tax, Response: This rule may result in lost therefore these short-term delays to the insurance, and employment laws. compensation for some initial relatively few number of workers are not Response: USCIS appreciates the applicants whose EAD processing is concentrated in a single location or concerns of commenters and the delayed beyond the 30-day regulatory industry. Given the short-term nature acknowledgement of the potential timeframe. However, the rule does not and relatively small number of laborers projected tax loss stated in the rule. directly regulate employers. In the disrupted, DHS maintains that the lost USCIS agrees with commenters that in NPRM USCIS stated that if companies wages to asylum applicants is a transfer circumstances in which a company cannot find reasonable substitutes for from asylum applicants to other workers cannot transfer additional work onto the labor the asylum applicants would when companies are able to find current employees and cannot hire have provided, this rule would reasonable labor substitutes for the replacement labor for the position the primarily be a cost to these companies position the asylum applicant would asylum applicant would have filled through lost productivity and profits. have filled. DHS acknowledges that there would be an impact to state and USCIS uses the lost compensation to there likely are, however, other local tax collection. The NPRM stated 49 ‘‘there may also be state and local See generally Turbotax, ‘States with the Highest unquantified costs under this scenario, and Lowest Taxes,’’ https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax- such as overtime pay or opportunity income tax losses that would vary tips/fun-facts/states-with-the-highest-and-lowest- costs. according to the jurisdiction.’’ See 84 FR taxes/L6HPAVqSF (last visited Feb. 24, 2020).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:51 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR2.SGM 22JNR2 37530 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

asylum applicants as a proxy for While we believe we have discussed the addition, contrary to the commenters’ businesses’ cost for lost productivity. benefits appropriately, it is not possible position, the alternatives analysis See 84 FR at 47156. to monetize them. provisions of that Act do not apply to DHS is unable to identify the next rules, such as this one, that do not 2. Other Statutory and Regulatory best alternative to hiring a pending contain a covered Federal mandate. See Requirements asylum applicant and is therefore 2 U.S.C. 1532(a), 1535(a). DHS unable to reliably estimate the potential Comments: Several commenters nonetheless included an alternatives indirect costs to small entities from this addressed the broad statutory and analysis in the regulatory analysis rule. This rule will directly regulate regulatory requirements. One portion of the proposed rule, see 84 FR pending asylum applicants, or commenter noted the lack of analysis at 47166 et seq., and this final rule, see individuals, applying for work under Executive Order 13771, infra. authorization. DHS cannot reliably ‘‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling estimate how many small entities may Regulatory Costs,’’ which states that any F. Out of Scope be indirectly impacted as a result of this regulation must result in a net cost of $0 1. Comments on the Broader Asylum rule, but DHS believes the number of or be paid for by eliminating other EAD NPRM small entities directly regulated by this regulations. Another commenter said Comments: Approximately 10 rule is zero. this rule violates Executive Order 13771 because it has estimated costs between submissions provided comments on the t. Benefits $295 and $893 million dollars to the US broader Asylum EAD proposed rule. See Comments: Approximately a dozen economy (plus additional tax revenue 84 FR 62374 (Nov. 14, 2019). A submissions provided comments on the loss and uncalculated costs), with no commenter said evaluation of the NPRM’s discussion of benefits. A few quantitative economic benefits government’s arguments is ‘‘essentially stated that the lack of quantitative estimated. The commenter said no impossible’’ in light of their apparent benefits does not support DHS’s offsetting regulations were identified inconsistency with the anticipated rationale for the rule. Some questioned nor were subsequent offsetting costs ‘‘Broader EAD NPRM’’ called for by a whether the qualitative benefits that estimated. 2019 presidential memorandum. The DHS presents were adequately weighed Multiple commenters said that this commenter said USCIS only briefly against the stated millions of dollars of rule does not contain an adequate notes that the rule’s impact could be revenue loss and lost wages. One analysis of federalism concerns or the overstated if, as directed by the commenter said the discussion of proposal’s fiscal impact. The President, the Broader EAD NPRM is benefits lacks details regarding how commenters stated that USCIS did not implemented. The commenter stated DHS would be able to achieve the rule’s analyze the harms to states’ programs that USCIS simultaneously argues that goals. Another stated that the financial and a substantial loss in revenue. the agency needs flexibility to handle costs to individuals, businesses, and the Further, the commenters stated that increases in EAD applications, which federal government in the form of lost USCIS did not provide analysis required would be false if, under the Broader taxes far outweigh the financial benefits under the Unfunded Mandates Reform EAD NPRM, most applicants became to USCIS. This commenter also said it Act that would require it to fully ineligible for EADs. The commenter is also ‘‘highly inappropriate’’ for USCIS consider reasonable alternatives to the concluded that USCIS must consider the to include the end of litigation as a rule. two issues—EAD eligibility and benefit. Response: This rule has been processing timelines—jointly to One commenter stated that USCIS designated a ‘‘significant regulatory determine accurately the costs and failed to quantify benefits correctly, action’’ that is economically significant impact of its future EAD regime. Since questioning why monetary benefits of regulatory under section 3(f)(1) of the proposed rule is predicated on a not having to hiring additional workers Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, situation that the agency intends to is not described or estimated. This the rule has been reviewed by the Office obviate by other policy changes, the commenter also questioned why there of Management and Budget. This rule is commenter said its stated reasoning is was no evidence provided to suggest a regulatory action under Executive irrational and fails to satisfy the APA. that removing adjudication standards Order 13771. DHS is not required by Response: The two rules are intended would speed up the adjudication law to include in this rulemaking to address different problems and are process. Another commenter stated that further discussion regarding Executive therefore the subject of separate the stated benefits of the rule are Order 13771, such as discussions proceedings. Although the broader achievable with a mere extension of the regarding offsets, but DHS intends to asylum rule has been proposed, it is not deadline and DHS has provided no continue to comply with the Executive yet final, and may not be finalized as evidence to the contrary. Order. proposed. USCIS recognizes that this Response: By eliminating the 30-day DHS did consider federalism concerns rule and the proposed broader asylum- provision, DHS stands to be able to and determined that the rule would not EAD rule could have some interaction, operate under long-term sustainable have a substantial direct effect on the and to the extent that there is case processing times for initial EAD states, on the relationship between the interaction or overlap, DHS will address applications for pending asylum Federal Government and the states, or such concerns if it finalizes the broader applicants, to allow sufficient time to on the distribution of power and rule. USCIS disagrees with the comment address national security and fraud responsibilities among the various claim based on a reduction of EADs concerns, and, to maintain technological levels of government, as it only removes under the broad rule because of advances in document production and an adjudicatory timeframe that is within increased ineligibility. USCIS would identity verification that USCIS must the purview and authority of USCIS and still receive many EAD filings, although fulfill as a part of its core mission does not directly affect states. it is possible that more applications may within DHS. Applicants would rely on With respect to the Unfunded not be approved due to the additional up-to-date processing times, which Mandates Reform Act, the proposed rule and/or modified eligibility criteria provide realistic expectations and and this final rule each explain DHS’s proposed. In reality, because of the predictability of adjudication times. position with respect to that Act. In added criteria under the broader

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:51 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR2.SGM 22JNR2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 37531

proposed rule, adjudication may 1. Summary comment rulemaking to raise fees and become more complex. DHS notes that the estimates from the increase revenue for such hiring actions. There is currently no fee for asylum 2. Other Out of Scope Comments NPRM regarding unemployment, number of asylum applicants per year, applications or the corresponding initial There were just over 600 comments and USCIS processing are not currently EAD applications, and the cost to the that we have reviewed and determined applicable as COVID–19 has had a agency for adjudication is covered by are out of scope regrading this rule. dramatic impact on all three. DHS offers fees paid by other benefit requesters. As These submissions can be bracketed this analysis as a glimpse of the a primary goal, USCIS seeks to generally as: (i) General requests for potential impacts of the rule, but the adequately vet applicants and reform to the immigration system (a few analysis relies on assumptions related to adjudicate applications as quickly and of the comments specifically referred to a pre-COVID economy. While future efficiently as possible. USCIS immigration law; USCIS notes that economic conditions are currently too acknowledges this rule may delay the statutory changes are outside of USCIS’ difficult to predict with any certainty, ability for some initial applicants whose authority. Other changes, such as DHS notes that a higher unemployment EAD processing is delayed beyond the specific regulatory changes not rate may result in lower costs of this 30-day regulatory timeframe to work. pertaining to the issues addressed by rule as replacing pending asylum The impacts of this rule are measured this rulemaking, would be outside the applicant workers would most likely be against a baseline. While we have added scope of this rulemaking); (ii) general easier to do. Consequently, as some more recent data and information, support for President Trump; (iii) unemployment is high, this rule is less pursuant to public comments, the costs opinions on building a wall on the likely to result in a loss of productivity are benchmarked to 2017, in keeping Southern border and securing American on behalf of companies unable to with the NPRM. This baseline reflects borders; (iv) opposition to illegal replace forgone labor. the best assessment of the way the immigration and all forms of This rule removes the timeline to world would look absent this action. In immigration; (v) support only for legal adjudicate initial EAD applications for the NPRM, USCIS assumed that in the immigration; and (vi) suggestions that pending asylum applicants within 30 absence of this rule the baseline amount days and is enacting the proposal the government enforce immigration of time that USCIS would take to without change. In FY 2017, prior to the laws. adjudicate all applications would be 30 Rosario v. USCIS court order, the days. USCIS also assumes that upon this IV. Statutory and Regulatory adjudication processing times for initial rule going into effect, adjudications will Requirements Form I–765 under the Pending Asylum align with USCIS processing times Applicant category exceeded the achieved in FY 2017 (before the Rosario A. Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory regulatory set timeframe of 30 days v. USCIS court order). This is our best Planning and Review) and 13563 more than half the time. However, estimate of what will occur when this (Improving Regulation and Regulatory USCIS adjudicated approximately 78 rule becomes effective. USCIS believes Review) percent of applications within 60 days. the FY 2017 timeframes are sustainable Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 In response to the Rosario v. USCIS and USCIS expects to meet these direct agencies to assess the costs and litigation and to comply with the court timeframes. Therefore, USCIS analyzed benefits of available regulatory order, USCIS continues to dedicate the impacts of this rule by comparing alternatives and, if a regulation is increased resources to adjudication of the costs and benefits of adjudicating necessary, to select regulatory pending asylum EAD applications. initial EAD applications for pending approaches that maximize net benefits USCIS has dedicated as many resources asylum applicants within 30 days (including potential economic, as practicable to these adjudications, but compared to the actual time it took to continues to face an asylum application environmental, public health and safety adjudicate these EAD applications in FY backlog, which in turn increases the effects, distributive impacts, and 2017. numbers of applicants eligible for equity). Executive Order 13563 USCIS notes that in FY 2018, 80.3 pending asylum EADs. However, this emphasizes the importance of percent of applications were processed reallocation of resources is not a long- quantifying both costs and benefits, of within 30 days and 97.5 percent were term sustainable solution because reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, processed within 60 days. In FY 2019, USCIS has many competing priorities and of promoting flexibility. Executive the figures were 96.9 percent and 99.2 and many time-sensitive adjudication Order 13771 (‘‘Reducing Regulation and percent, respectively. In the analysis of timeframes. Reallocating resources to Controlling Regulatory Costs’’) directs impacts of this rule, USCIS assumed 100 adjudicate asylum EAD applications agencies to reduce regulation and percent of adjudications happened with the current regulatory-imposed 50 control regulatory costs and provides within 30 days. However, because timeframe in the long-term is not actual adjudications in FYs 2018 and that ‘‘for every one new regulation sustainable due to work priorities in issued, at least two prior regulations be 2019 within the 30-day timeframe are other product lines. USCIS could hire slightly less than the 100 percent identified for elimination, and that the more officers, but that would not cost of planned regulations be prudently analyzed, USCIS has over-estimated the immediately and in all cases shorten impacts of this rule with respect to this managed and controlled through a adjudication timeframes because: (1) budgeting process.’’ variable when less than 100 percent of Additional time would be required to adjudications happen within 30 days. It This rule has been designated as a recruit, vet, onboard and train new is noted that the reliance on the 100 ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ that is employees; and, (2) for certain percent rate slightly overstates the costs. economically significant, under section applications, additional time is needed The impacts of this rule may include 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866. to fully vet an applicant, regardless of both distributional effects (which are Accordingly, the Office of Management staffing levels. Further, simply hiring and Budget (OMB) has reviewed this more officers is not always feasible due 50 The information regarding the processing of regulation. This final rule is considered to budgetary constraints and the fact these applications was provided by USCIS Office of an E.O. 13771 regulatory action. that USCIS conducts notice and Performance and Quality (OPQ).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:51 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR2.SGM 22JNR2 37532 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

transfers) and costs.51 The distributional distributional impacts (transfers) or as a million to $118.54 million annually.56 impacts fall on the asylum applicants proxy for businesses’ cost for lost Adding the lost compensation to the tax who would be delayed in entering the productivity. These quantified impacts losses provide total monetized estimates U.S. labor force. The distributional do not include additional costs to of this rule that range from $275.46 impacts (transfers) come in the form of businesses for lost profits and million to $834.03 million annually in lost compensation (wages and benefits). opportunity costs or the distributional instances where a company cannot hire A portion of this lost compensation impacts for those in an applicant’s replacement labor for the position the might be transferred from asylum support network. The lost compensation asylum applicant would have filled.57 applicants to others that are currently in to asylum applicants could range from Again, depending on the circumstances the U.S. labor force, possibly in the form $255.88 million to $774.76 million of the employee, there could be of additional work hours or overtime annually depending on the wages the additional federal income tax losses not pay. A portion of the impacts of this asylum applicant would have earned. estimated here. There may also be state rule may also be borne by companies The 10-year total discounted lost and local income tax losses that would that would have hired the asylum compensation to asylum applicants at 3 vary according to the jurisdiction. applicants had they been in the labor percent could range from $2.183 billion This rule will potentially result in market earlier but were unable to find to $6.609 billion and at 7 percent could reduced opportunity costs to the Federal available workers. These companies range from $1.797 billion to $5.442 Government. Since Rosario compelled may incur a cost, as they could lose billion (years 2020–2029). USCIS USCIS to comply with the 30-day productivity and potential profits the recognizes that the impacts of this rule provision in FY 2018, USCIS has asylum applicant would have provided could be overstated if the provisions in redistributed its adjudication resources had the asylum applicant been in the the broader asylum EAD NPRM are to work up to full compliance. With labor force earlier.52 Companies may finalized as proposed. Specifically, the removing the 30-day timeframe, USCIS also incur opportunity costs by having broader asylum EAD NPRM proposes to expects these redistributed resources to choose the next best alternative to limit or delay eligibility for employment could be reallocated, potentially immediately filling the job the asylum authorization for certain asylum reducing delays in processing of other applicant would have filled. USCIS does applicants. Accordingly, if the applications and avoiding costs not know what this next best alternative population of affected aliens is less than associated with hiring additional may be for those companies. As a result, estimated as a result of the broader employees. USCIS has not estimated USCIS does not know the portion of asylum EAD rule, the estimated impacts these avoided costs. Additionally, overall impacts of this rule that are of this rule could be overstated because USCIS does not anticipate that removing transfers or costs. If companies can find the population affected may be lower the separate 90-day EAD filing replacement labor for the position the than estimated in this rule. requirement would result in any costs to asylum applicant would have filled, this In instances where a company cannot the Federal Government. rule would have primarily distributional transfer additional work onto current This rule will benefit USCIS by effects in the form of transfers from employees and cannot hire replacement allowing it to operate under long-term asylum applicants to others already in labor for the position the asylum sustainable case processing times for the labor market (or workers induced to applicant would have filled, USCIS initial EAD applications for pending return to the labor market). USCIS acknowledges that delays may result in asylum applicants, to allow sufficient acknowledges that there may be tax losses to the government. It is time to address national security and additional opportunity costs to difficult to quantify income tax losses fraud concerns, and to maintain employers such as additional search because individual tax situations vary technological advances in document costs. However, if companies cannot widely 53 but USCIS estimates the production and identify verification. find reasonable substitutes for the labor potential loss to other employment tax Applicants will be able to rely on up- the asylum applicants would have programs, namely Medicare and social to-date processing times, which will provided, this rule would primarily be security which have a combined tax rate provide accurate expectations of a cost to these companies through lost of 7.65 percent (6.2 percent and 1.45 adjudication times. The technical productivity and profits. percent, respectively).54 With both the change to remove the 90-day filing USCIS uses the lost compensation to employee and employer not paying their requirement is anticipated to reduce asylum applicants as a measure of the respective portion of Medicare and confusion regarding EAD renewal overall impact of the rule—either as Social Security taxes, the total estimated requirements for pending asylum tax loss for Medicare and social security applicants and ensure the regulatory 51 Transfer payments are monetary payments is 15.3 percent.55 Lost wages ranging text reflects current DHS policy and from one group to another that do not affect total from $255.88 million to $774.76 million regulations under DHS’s final 2017 resources available to society. See OMB Circular A– AC21 Rule.58 4 pages 14 and 38 for further discussion of transfer would result in employment tax losses payments and distributional effects. Circular A–4 is to the government ranging from $39.15 available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/ 56 Calculations: Lower bound lost wages $255.88 × whitehouse.gov/files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf 53 See More than 44 percent of Americans pay no million 15.3 percent estimated tax rate = $39.15 × 52 The analysis accounts for delayed entry into federal income tax (September 16, 2018) available million. Upper bound lost wages $774.76 million the labor force and does not account for the at https://www.marketwatch.com/story/81-million- 15.3 percent estimated tax rate = $118.54 million. potential circumstance under which this rule may americans-wont-pay-any-federal-income-taxes-this- 57 Calculation: Lower bound lost wages $255.88 completely foreclose an alien’s entry into the labor year-heres-why-2018-04-16. million + lower bound tax losses $19.58 million = force. Such a possible circumstance could occur if 54 The various employment taxes are discussed in total lower bound cost $275.46 million. Upper USCIS ultimately denies an EAD application that more detail at https://www.irs.gov/businesses/ bound lost wages $774.76 million + upper bound was pending past 30 days due to this rule, solely small-businesses-self-employed/understanding- tax losses $59.27 million = total upper bound cost because the underlying asylum application had employment-taxes. See IRS Publication 15, Circular $834.03 million. been denied during the pendency of the EAD E, Employer’s Tax Guide for specific information on 58 In the 2017 AC21 final rule, 81 FR 82398, application. In such a scenario, there would be employment tax rates. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs- USCIS amended 8 CFR 274a.13 to allow for the additional costs and transfer effects due to this rule. pdf/p15_18.pdf. automatic extension of existing, valid EADs for up Such costs and transfer effects are not accounted for 55 Calculation: (6.2 percent social security + 1.45 to 180 days for renewal applicants falling within below. Similarly, the rule does not estimate avoided percent Medicare) × 2 employee and employer certain EAD categories as described in the turnover costs to the employer associated with such losses = 15.3 percent total estimated tax loss to regulation and designated on the USCIS website. a scenario. government. See 8 CFR 274a.13(d). Among those categories is

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:51 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR2.SGM 22JNR2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 37533

Table 4 provides a detailed summary of the regulatory changes and the expected impacts of this rule. TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS AND IMPACTS

Expected benefits from Current provision Change to provision Expected costs and transfers from changed provision changed provision

USCIS has a 30-day initial EAD USCIS is eliminating the provi- Quantitative: This provision could delay the ability of some ini- Quantitative: Not estimated. adjudication timeframe for ap- sions for the 30-day adju- tial applicants to work. A portion of the impacts of the rule plicants who have pending dication timeframe and would be the lost compensation transferred from asylum ap- asylum applications. issuance of initial EADs for plicants to others currently in the workforce, possibly in the pending asylum applicants. form of additional work hours or overtime pay. A portion of the impacts of the rule would be lost productivity costs to companies that would have hired asylum applicants had they been in the labor market, but who were unable to find available workers. USCIS uses the lost compensation to asylum applicants as a measure of these distributional im- pacts (transfers) and as a proxy for businesses’ cost for lost productivity. The lost compensation due to processing delays could range from $255.88 million to $774.76 million annually. The total ten-year discounted lost compensation for years 2020–2029 averages $4.396 billion and $3.619 bil- lion at discount rates of 3 and 7 percent, respectively. USCIS does not know the portion of overall impacts of this rule that are transfers or costs. Lost wages ranging from $255.88 million to $774.76 million would result in employ- ment tax losses to the government ranging from $39.15 mil- lion to $118.54 million annually. Qualitative: In cases where companies cannot find reasonable Qualitative: DHS would be able substitutes for the labor the asylum applicants would have to operate under long-term provided, affected companies would also lose profits from sustainable case processing the lost productivity. In all cases, companies would incur op- times for initial EAD applica- portunity costs by having to choose the next best alternative tions for pending asylum ap- to immediately filling the job the pending asylum applicant plicants, to allow sufficient would have filled. There may be additional opportunity costs time to address national se- to employers such as search costs. There may also be addi- curity and fraud concerns, tional distributional impacts for those in an applicant’s sup- and to maintain technological port network beyond a minimum of 180 days—if applicants advances in document pro- are unable to work legally, they may need to rely on re- duction and identity sources from family members, friends, non-profits, or gov- verification without having to ernment entities for support. add any resources. DHS notes that the estimates from the NPRM regarding unem- This rule would result in re- ployment, number of asylum applicants per year, and USCIS duced opportunity costs to processing are not currently applicable as COVID–19 has the Federal Government. had a dramatic impact on all three. DHS offers this analysis USCIS may also be able to as a glimpse of the potential impacts of the rule, but the reallocate the resources it re- analysis relies on assumptions related to a pre-COVID econ- distributed to comply with the omy. While future economic conditions are currently too dif- 30-day provision, potentially ficult to predict with any certainty, DHS notes that a higher reducing delays in proc- unemployment rate may result in lower costs of this rule as essing of other applications replacing pending asylum applicant workers would most like- and avoiding costs associ- ly be easier to do. Consequently, as unemployment is high, ated with hiring additional this rule is less likely to result in a loss of productivity on be- employees. half of companies unable to replace forgone labor. Applicants can currently submit USCIS is removing the 90-day Quantitative: None ...... Quantitative: None. a renewal EAD application 90 submission requirement for Qualitative: None ...... Qualitative: Applicants— days before the expiration of renewal EAD applications. • Reduces confusion re- their current EAD. garding EAD renewal re- quirements. Some con- fusion may nonetheless remain if applicants con- sult outdated versions of regulations or inappli- cable DOJ regulations. DHS/USCIS— • The regulations are being updated to match those of other EAD cat- egories.

As previously discussed, USCIS does monetized impact of this rule from lost for all of the positions the asylum not know the portion of overall impacts compensation is $774.76 million applicants would have filled, they will of this rule that are transfers or costs, annually. If all companies are able to bear little or no costs, so the maximum but estimates that the maximum easily find reasonable labor substitutes of $774.76 million will be transferred

asylum applicants. To benefit from the automatic expiration date, (2) request renewal based on the his or her status, even after the EAD expires, and extension, an applicant falling within an eligible same employment authorization category under is applying for renewal under a category that does category must (1) properly file his or her renewal which the expiring EAD was granted, and (3) will not first require USCIS to adjudicate an underlying request for employment authorization before its continue to be authorized for employment based on application, petition, or request.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:51 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR2.SGM 22JNR2 37534 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

from asylum applicants to workers maximum monetized cost of the rule employment tax transfers from currently in the labor force or induced and $0 is the estimated minimum in companies and employees to the back into the labor force (we assume no monetized transfers from asylum Federal Government. The two scenarios tax losses as a labor substitute was applicants to other workers. In addition, described above represent the estimated found). Conversely, if companies are under this scenario, because the jobs endpoints for the range of monetized unable to find any reasonable labor would go unfilled there would be a loss impacts resulting from this rule and are substitutes for the positions the asylum of employment taxes to the Federal summarized in Table 5 below. applicants would have filled, then Government. USCIS estimates $118.54 $774.76 million is the estimated million as the maximum decrease in

TABLE 5—SUMMARY OF RANGE OF MONETIZED IMPACTS

Scenario: No replacement Scenario: All asylum Primary labor found for asylum applicants replaced with (half of the Category Description applicants other workers highest high Low wage High wage Low wage High wage for each row)

Cost ...... Lost compensation used as proxy for $255.88 $774.76 $0.00 $0.00 $387.38 lost productivity to companies. Transfer ...... Compensation transferred from asy- 0.00 0.00 255.88 774.76 387.38 lum applicants to other workers. Transfer ...... Lost employment taxes paid to the 39.15 118.54 0.00 0.00 59.27 Federal Government.

As required by OMB Circular A–4, because the total monetized impact of employees to the Federal Government Table 6 presents the prepared A–4 the rule from lost compensation cannot when companies are unable to easily accounting statement showing the costs exceed $774.76 million and as find replacement workers. USCIS notes and transfers associated with this described, USCIS is unable to apportion that there may be some un-monetized regulation. For the purposes of the A– the impacts between costs and transfers. costs such as additional opportunity 4 accounting statement below, USCIS Likewise, USCIS uses a mid-point for costs to employers that would not be uses the mid-point as the primary the reduction in employment tax captured in these monetized estimates. estimate for both costs and transfers transfers from companies and

TABLE 6—OMB A–4–ACCOUNTING STATEMENT [$ millions, 2017] [Period of analysis: 2019–2028]

Category Primary estimate Minimum Maximum Source citation (RIA, estimate estimate preamble, etc.)

Benefits: Monetized Benefits ...... (7%) N/A N/A N/A RIA. (3%) N/A N/A N/A RIA. Annualized quantified, but un-monetized, ben- ...... 0 0 0 RIA. efits.

Unquantified benefits ...... Applicants would benefit from reduced confusion over renewal re- RIA. quirements. DHS would be able to operate under sustainable case processing times for initial EAD applications for pending asylum applicants, to allow sufficient time to address national security and fraud concerns, and to maintain technological ad- vances in document production and identity verification

Costs: Annualized monetized costs (discount rate in (7%) $387.38 $0 $774.76 RIA. parenthesis). (3%) $387.38 $0 $774.76 RIA.

Annualized quantified, but un-monetized, costs ...... N/A N/A N/A RIA.

Qualitative (unquantified) costs ...... In cases where companies cannot find reasonable substitutes for RIA. the labor the asylum applicants would have provided, affected companies would also lose profits from the lost productivity. In all cases, companies would incur opportunity costs by having to choose the next best alternative to immediately filling the job the pending asylum applicant would have filled. There may be addi- tional opportunity costs to employers such as additional search costs

Transfers: Annualized monetized transfers: ‘‘on budget’’ .. (7%) $0 $0 $0 RIA.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:51 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR2.SGM 22JNR2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 37535

TABLE 6—OMB A–4–ACCOUNTING STATEMENT—Continued [$ millions, 2017] [Period of analysis: 2019–2028] (3%) $0 $0 $0

From whom to whom? ...... N/A N/A.

Annualized monetized transfers: Compensa- (7%) $387.38 $0 $774.76 RIA. tion. (3%) $387.38 $0 $774.76

From whom to whom? ...... From asylum applicants to workers in the U.S. labor force or in- RIA. duced into the U.S. labor force. Additional distributional impacts from asylum applicant to the asylum applicant’s support network that provides for the asylum applicant while awaiting an EAD

Annualized monetized transfers: Taxes ...... (7%) $59.27 $0 $118.54 RIA. (3%) $59.27 $0 $118.54

From whom to whom? ...... A reduction in employment taxes from companies and employees to the Federal Government. There could also be a transfer of federal, state, and local income tax revenue

Category Effects Source citation (RIA, preamble, etc.)

Effects on state, local, and/or tribal governments ... None; no significant impacts to national labor force or to the labor RIA. force of individual states is expected. Possible loss of tax revenue Effects on small businesses ...... None RFA. Effects on wages ...... None RIA. Effects on growth ...... None RIA.

2. Background and Purpose of the Final Currently, DHS regulations at 8 CFR 30-day timeframe continues from the Rule 208.7(a)(1) provide that USCIS point at which it stopped. In some adjudicates a Form I–765 within 30 days instances, applications may require Aliens who are arriving or physically of receiving a properly filed application additional vetting by the Background present in the United States generally from a pending asylum applicant. Check Unit (BCU) and the Center Fraud may apply for asylum in the United Asylum applicants must wait 150 days Detection Operations (CFDO), for States irrespective of their immigration from the time of filing the asylum instance, to verify an applicant’s status. To establish eligibility for application before they can file a Form identity. The 30-day timeframe does not asylum, an applicant must demonstrate, I–765. USCIS cannot grant employment stop in these situations, though these among other things, that they have authorization until the applicant has cases may take longer than 30 days to suffered past persecution or have a well- accumulated a total of 180 days, not process. USCIS would make a decision founded fear of future persecution on including any delays caused or only after all eligibility and background account of race, religion, nationality, requested by the applicant, meaning the checks relating to the EAD application membership in a particular social group, applicant’s asylum case has been have been completed. or political opinion. Applicants, with pending for a total of 180 days. 8 CFR DHS considers the 30-day limited exceptions, are required to 208.7(a)(1)–(2). This is known as the adjudication timeframe to be outdated, apply for asylum within one year of 180-Day Asylum EAD clock.59 If USCIS as it no longer reflects current DHS their last arrival in the United States. approves the Form I–765, USCIS mails operational realities. In the 20-plus USCIS does not currently charge filing an EAD according to the mailing years since the timeframe was fees for certain humanitarian benefits, preferences indicated by the applicant. established, there has been a shift to including asylum applications and If USCIS denies the Form I–765, the centralized processing as well as applications concurrently filed with agency sends a written notice to the increased security measures, such as the asylum applications. Asylum applicants applicant explaining the basis for creation of tamper-resistant EAD cards. whose cases remain pending without a denial. These measures reduce opportunities decision for at least 150 days are eligible However, if USCIS requires additional for fraud but can require additional to apply for employment authorization, documentation from the applicant processing time, especially as filing unless any delays are caused by the before a decision can be made, USCIS volumes remain high. By eliminating applicant (such as a request to sends a request for evidence (RFE) and the 30-day provision, DHS will be able reschedule an interview). 8 CFR 208.7, the 30-day processing timeframe for to maintain accurate case processing 274a.12(c)(8), 274a.13(a)(2). Applicants processing a Form I–765 is paused until times for initial EAD applications for who are granted asylum (‘‘asylees’’) may additional documentation is received. pending asylum applicants since, prior work immediately. See INA section Once USCIS receives all requested to the Rosario v. USCIS court order, it 208(c)(1)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1158(c)(1)(B). An information in response to the RFE, the was not meeting the 30-day regulatory asylee may choose to obtain an EAD for timeframe most of the time (53 percent), convenience or identification purposes, 59 See The 180-Day Asylum EAD Clock Notice to address national security and fraud (May 9, 2017) https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/ but this documentation is not necessary files/USCIS/Humanitarian/ concerns for those applications that for an asylee to work. 8 CFR Refugees%20%26%20Asylum/Asylum/Asylum_ require additional vetting through RFEs 274a.12(a)(5). Clock_Joint_Notice_-_revised_05-10-2017.pdf. or referrals to BCU and/or CFDO, and to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:51 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR2.SGM 22JNR2 37536 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

maintain technological advances in These applicants may be eligible to category that does not first require document production and identity apply for an initial EAD under the (c)(8) USCIS to adjudicate an underlying verification that USCIS must fulfill as a category once the Asylum EAD Clock application, petition, or request. part of its core mission within DHS such reaches 150 days. 3. Population as the centralized production and In the end, however, USCIS cannot creation of tamper-resistant cards. predict with certainty how LIFO and In this section, we have updated filing The need for this final rule results in other administrative measures, as well volumes and some additional metrics to part from the resource burden as external factors such as immigration capture FY 2018 and 2019 data and associated with adjudicating, within the court backlogs and changes in country information. However, consistent with 30-day adjudication timeframe, a large conditions, will ultimately affect total the NPRM, the costs and analysis is still number of initial Forms I–765 under the application volumes and the attendant benchmarked to FY 2017 processing Pending Asylum Applicant category. resource burdens on USCIS. In addition, times (before the Rosario v. USCIS court The large number of applications results in light of the need to accommodate order). In FY 2019, USCIS received a from a range of factors, such as recent existing vetting requirements and to total of 96,861 affirmative filings of growth in USCIS’ asylum backlog, maintain flexibility should trends Form I–589 applications for asylum. which USCIS continues to address change, USCIS believes that even if it The number of total receipts for asylum through a number of different measures. could reliably project a reduction in applicants rose consistently from FY For example, in an effort to stem the total application volume, such 2013 to FY 2017, before declining in FY growth of the agency’s asylum backlog, reduction would not, on its own, serve 2018 and FY 2019 (Table 7). As the USCIS returned to processing as a sufficient basis to leave the 30-day number of asylum applicants increases, affirmative asylum applications on a adjudication timeframe in place. the backlog continues to grow,64 ‘‘last in, first out’’ (LIFO) basis. Starting Finally, once an EAD is approved resulting in a greater number of people January 29, 2018, USCIS began under the (c)(8) Pending Asylum who are eligible to apply for EADs while prioritizing the most recently filed Applicant category, it is currently valid they await adjudication of their asylum affirmative asylum applications when for two years and requires renewal to application. scheduling asylum interviews. The extend an applicant’s employment former INS first established this authorization if the underlying asylum TABLE 7—TOTAL ANNUAL AFFIRMATIVE interview scheduling approach as part application remains pending.62 FORM I–589 RECEIPTS RECEIVED of asylum reforms implemented in Currently, DHS regulations at 8 CFR FROM ASYLUM APPLICANTS 65 January 1995 and it remained in place 208.7(d) require that USCIS must until December 2014. USCIS has receive renewal applications at least 90 Fiscal year Total receipts returned to this approach in order to days prior to the employment deter aliens from using asylum backlogs authorization expiration.63 Removing 2013 ...... 44,453 solely as a means to obtain employment the 90-day requirement will bring 8 CFR 2014 ...... 56,912 2015 ...... 84,236 authorization by filing frivolous, 208.7(d) in line with 8 CFR 274a.13(d), 2016 ...... 115,888 fraudulent or otherwise non-meritorious as amended in 2017; such amendments 2017 ...... 142,760 asylum applications. Giving priority to automatically extend renewal 2018 ...... 106,041 recent filings allows USCIS to promptly applications for up to 180 days. 2019 ...... 96,861 adjudicate asylum applications.60 Additionally, under the 2017 AC21 Source: All USCIS Application and Petition Another possible effect of reinstating Rule, applicants eligible for Form Types, All Form Types Performance LIFO is that in the future, fewer employment authorization can have the Data (Fiscal Year 2013–2019, 4th Qtr), https:// affirmative asylum applications would validity of their EADs automatically www.uscis.gov/tools/reports-studies/immigra- remain pending before USCIS for 150 extended for up to 180 days from the tion-forms-data/data-set-all-uscis-application- and-petition-form-types. days. However, the majority of asylum document’s expiration date, if they (1) applications filed with USCIS have been file before its expiration date, (2) are This larger number of Form I–765 referred to the Department of Justice requesting renewal based on the same filings linked to asylum claims has Executive Office for Immigration employment authorization category strained resources and led to longer Review (EOIR) for consideration of the under which the expiring EAD was processing times for adjudication. Table asylum application by an immigration granted, and (3) will continue to be 8 shows the total, initial, and renewal judge. In FY 2017, 53 percent of asylum authorized for employment based on applications received for Form I–765 for filings processed by USCIS resulted in their status, even after the EAD expires asylum applicants for FY 2013 to FY a referral to an immigration judge.61 and are applying for renewal under a 2019. 66

60 USCIS now schedules asylum interviews based release_date_value_ of USCIS’ Asylum Division. Defensive asylum on three priority levels. First priority: Applications 1%5Bvalue%5D%5Byear%5D=&multiple=&items_ applications, filed with the Department of Justice’s _ scheduled for an interview, but the interview had per page=10. Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) are to be rescheduled at the applicant’s request or the 62 EADs issued prior to October 5, 2016 had a also eligible for (c)(8) EADs. There is an ongoing needs of USCIS. Second priority: Applications validity period of one year. See USCIS Increases backlog of pending defensive asylum cases at EOIR, pending 21 days or less. Third priority: All other Validity of Work Permits to Two Years for Asylum which has approximately 650,000 cases pending. pending affirmative asylum applications, which Applicants (Oct. 6, 2016), available at https:// will be scheduled for interviews starting with www.uscis.gov/news/alerts/uscis-increases-validity- See Memorandum from Jeff Sessions, Attorney newer filings and working back towards older work-permits-two-years-asylum-applicants. General, Renewing Our Commitment to the Timely filings. See Affirmative Asylum Interview 63 For renewal applications, a properly filed and Efficient Adjudication of Immigration Cases to Scheduling (Jan. 26, 2018), available at https:// application for pending asylum applicants is one Serve the National Interest (Dec. 5, 2017). The www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/ that is complete, signed, accompanied by all defensive asylum backlog at EOIR also contributes asylum/affirmative-asylum-interview-scheduling. necessary documentation and the current filing fee to an increase in both initial and renewal (c)(8) EAD 61 See Notes from Previous Engagements, Asylum of $410. applications. 64 Division Quarterly Stakeholder Meeting (Feb. 7, As of June 2018, the asylum backlog was still 66 Since LIFO was reinstated at the end of January increasing, but its growth rate has begun to May 2, Aug. 11, and Nov. 3, 2017), https:// 2018, there is not yet enough data currently www.uscis.gov/outreach/notes-previous- stabilize. available to determine the impact on asylum engagements?topic_id=9213&field_release_date_ 65 These numbers only address the affirmative value%5Bvalue%5D%5Bmonth%5D=&field_ asylum applications that fall under the jurisdiction applications or initial EAD applications.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:51 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR2.SGM 22JNR2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 37537

TABLE 8—TOTAL ANNUAL FORM I–765 RECEIPTS RECEIVED FROM PENDING ASYLUM APPLICANTS

Total initial Total renewal Fiscal year Total receipts * receipts receipts

2013 ...... 78,882 41,021 37,861 2014 ...... 109,272 62,169 47,103 2015 ...... 178,589 106,030 72,559 2016 ...... 298,580 169,970 128,610 2017 ...... 474,037 261,782 212,255 2018 ...... 324,991 262,965 62,026 2019 ...... 551,226 216,038 335,188 Source: File Tracking Data, USCIS, Office of Performance and Quality * Total receipts do not include replacement receipts. Note: This data includes receipts received from both affirmative and defensive pending asylum applicants.

In FY 2019, USCIS received a total of of that underlying asylum application 9 differentiates between initial 551,226 (non-replacement) applications would also rise. On the other hand, applications that USCIS adjudicated for Form I–765 from pending asylum initial EAD applications may decline. within the 30-day timeframe, and those applicants, with less than half as initial For instance, USCIS’ return to a LIFO that it did not. Specifically, Table 9A applications (216,038 or 39.2 percent). interview schedule to process presents the data for FY 2017, reflecting There were 335,188 renewal affirmative asylum applications, may the anticipated outcome of this rule, applications (60.8 percent) in FY 2019. help stem the growth of the agency’s while Table 9B presents information for For this analysis, USCIS does not use a asylum backlog, and may result in fewer 2019, which reflect current processing trend line to forecast future projected pending asylum applicants applying for times under the Rosario v. USCIS court applications because various factors an EAD. But USCIS cannot predict such order. The table also includes the initial outside of this rulemaking may result in an outcome with certainty at this time. applications that were adjudicated either a decline or, conversely, a Therefore, since DHS anticipates similar continued rise of applications received. outcomes to those achieved in FY 2017, within a 60-day timeframe, along with For example, while the number of initial USCIS anticipates receiving the corresponding initial applications applicants and renewals rose sharply approximately 474,037 Form I–765 that required additional vetting. This during the last five years, peaking in applications annually from pending additional vetting includes the issuance 2017, DHS assumes the increase in asylum applicants, with an estimated of RFEs and referrals for identity initial EAD applications has some 261,782 initial applications and 212,255 verification by the BCU and the CFDO, correlation with the high volumes of renewal applications. which can cause delays in processing. asylum applications in the same years. In order to analyze USCIS processing DHS notes that the 30-day timeframe As pending asylum applications times for Form I–765, USCIS obtained pauses for RFEs but does not pause for increased, the length of time it takes to data on completed initial applications, BCU or CFDO checks, nor any referrals adjudicate those applications increases, which included the length of time to to outside agencies that may be needed. and it is reasonable to assume that the complete adjudication and information Delays could also be caused by number of applicants who seek on investigative factors that may rescheduled fingerprinting. employment authorization on the basis prolong the adjudication process. Table

TABLE 9A—PERCENTAGE OF COMPLETIONS FOR INITIAL FORM I–765 FOR PENDING ASYLUM APPLICANTS IN FY 2017

No additional vetting required Additional vetting required (percent) (percent) Total Number of days the initial application was pending Approved Approved (percent) initial Denied initial initial Denied initial applications applications applications applications

0–30 ...... 42 2 3 0 47 31–60 ...... 22 2 6 1 31 Over 60 ...... 12 2 6 2 22

Total (Percent) ...... 76 5 16 3 100

TABLE 9B—PERCENTAGE OF COMPLETIONS FOR INITIAL FORM I–765 FOR PENDING ASYLUM APPLICANTS IN FY 2019

No additional vetting required Additional (percent) vetting required (percent) Total Number of days the initial application was pending Approved (percent) initial Denied initial Approved ini- Denied applications applications tial applica- initial tions applications

0–30 ...... 67 14 9 3 93 31–60 ...... 1 0 2 0 3

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:51 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR2.SGM 22JNR2 37538 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 9B—PERCENTAGE OF COMPLETIONS FOR INITIAL FORM I–765 FOR PENDING ASYLUM APPLICANTS IN FY 2019— Continued

No additional vetting required Additional (percent) vetting required (percent) Total Number of days the initial application was pending Approved (percent) initial Denied initial Approved ini- Denied applications applications tial applica- initial tions applications

Over 60 ...... 1 0 2 1 4

Total (Percent) ...... 69 14 13 5 100 Source: File tracking data, USCIS, Office of Performance and Quality. Note: Additional vetting includes the applications issued an RFE, referred to BCU/CFDO and both.

In FY 2019, USCIS adjudicated within By comparison, in FY 2017, the applications. For applications that the 30-day timeframe the majority (93 anticipated outcome of this rule, USCIS require additional vetting, most percent) 67 of all initial Form I–765 adjudicated within the 30-day applications took more than 30 days to applications received. USCIS approved timeframe just under half (47 percent) of adjudicate as well. ‘‘Additional vetting’’ within 30 days 67 percent 68 of the all initial Form I–765 applications cases include those where an RFE is initial applications received and denied received. USCIS approved within 30 issued, which pauses the regulatory 14 percent that did not require any days 45 percent 73 of the initial processing time. The findings in Table additional vetting. Of the 76 percent of applications received and denied 2 9A underscore that while additional approved applications, only 9 percent percent that did not require any vetting and other delays may contribute required additional vetting, while 67 additional vetting. Among the approved to increased processing times, it may percent did not. USCIS’ completion rate applications, only 3 percent of the total not be the only reason processing times within a 60-day timeframe increased to required additional vetting, while 42 have increased. It is likely that the 96 percent overall, with 79 percent 69 of percent did not. USCIS’ completion rate increasing number of initial EAD the 96 percent of applications approved within a 60-day timeframe increased to applications is due to historically-high and 17 percent 70 of the 96 percent of 78 percent overall, with 73 percent 74 of asylum receipt numbers in recent years, applications denied. Only 14 percent 71 applications approved and 5 percent 75 the asylum interview backlogs, and of the 96 percent of applications denied. Only 10 percent 76 of updated operations as outlined in the adjudicated within 60 days required applications adjudicated within 60 days background of this rule. additional vetting, while the majority of required additional vetting, while the With the removal of the 30-day applications did not (82 percent of the majority of approved applications did adjudication timeframe, DHS anticipates 96 percent of applications adjudicated not (68 percent of the total).77 similar outcomes to those achieved in within 60 days).72 In FY 2017, prior to the Rosario v. FY 2017. DHS’s primary goal is to USCIS court order, the majority of adequately vet applicants and 67 This figure is rounded from 92.8 percent. applications (53 percent) did not meet adjudicate cases as quickly and USCIS notes that earlier in the preamble, we efficiently as possible. conveyed that the FY 2019 processing rate for- the required 30-day adjudication under 30 days was 96.9 percent. The difference is timeframe. In fact, it took up to 60 days 4. Transfers, Costs, and Benefits of the due to the time deductions associated with requests for USCIS to adjudicate the majority of for evidence (RFE). The latter, lower figure excludes Rule RFE time deductions. A similar adjustment was a. Transfers and Costs made for the NPRM analysis benchmarked to FY Denied 0–30 days) + 0 (No Additional Vetting 2017, which is what we base the costs on. Percent Denied 31–60 days) = 82 percent. This final rule removes the 30-day 73 68 Calculation of 30-day Approved: 67 (No Calculation of 30-day Approved: 42 (No Additional Vetting Percent Approved 0–30 days) + adjudication timeframe in order to Additional Vetting Percent Approved 0—30 days) + better align with DHS processing times 9 (Additional Vetting Percent Approved 0—30 3 (Additional Vetting Percent Approved 0—30 days) = 76 percent. days) = 45 percent. achieved in FY 2017. USCIS recognizes 69 Calculation of 60-day Approved: 67 (No 74 Calculation of 60-day Approved: 42 (No that removing the 30-day regulatory Additional Vetting Percent Approved 0–30 days) + Additional Vetting Percent Approved 0–30 days) + timeframe could potentially result in 22 (No Additional Vetting Percent Approved 31–60 1 (No Additional Vetting Percent Approved 31–60 longer processing times for some days) + 9 (Additional Vetting Percent Approved 0– days) + 3 (Additional Vetting Percent Approved 0– 30 days) + 2 (Additional Vetting Percent Approved 30 days) + 6 (Additional Vetting Percent Approved applicants and in such situations, this 31–60 days) = 79 percent. 31–60 days) = 73 percent. could lead to potential delays in 70 Calculation of 60-day Denied: 14 (No 75 Calculation of 60-day Denied: 2 (No Additional employment authorization for some Additional Vetting Percent Denied 0–30 days) + 0 Vetting Percent Denied 0—30 days) + 2 (No initial EAD applicants. As described (No Additional Vetting Percent Denied 31–60 days) Additional Vetting Percent Denied 31–60 days) + 1 + 3 (Additional Vetting Percent Denied 0–30 days) (Additional Vetting Percent Denied 31ndash;60 above, these delays would have both + 0 (Additional Vetting Percent Denied 31–60 days) days) = 5 percent. distributional effects (which are = 17 percent. 76 Calculation of 60-day Additional Vetting: 3 transfers) and costs. Any delay beyond 71 Calculation of 60-day Additional Vetting: 9 (Additional Vetting Percent Approved 0–30 days) + the regulatory 30-day timeframe would (Additional Vetting Percent Approved 0–30 days) + 6 (Additional Vetting Percent Approved 31–60 2 (Additional Vetting Percent Approved 31–60 days) + 1 (Additional Vetting Percent Denied 31– prevent an EAD applicant, if his or her days) + 0 (Additional Vetting Percent Denied 31– 60 days) = 10 percent. application were approved, from 60 days) + 3 (Additional Vetting Percent Denied 0– 77 Calculation of 60-day No Additional Vetting: 42 earning wages and other benefits until 30 days) = 14 percent. (No Additional Vetting Percent Approved 0–30 authorization is obtained. A portion of 72 Calculation of 60-day No Additional Vetting: 67 days) + 22 (No Additional Vetting Percent this lost compensation would be a (No Additional Vetting Percent Approved 0–30 Approved 31–60 days) + 2 (No Additional Vetting days) + 1 (No Additional Vetting Percent Approved Percent Denied 0–30 days) + 2 (No Additional distributional impact and considered a 31–60 days) + 14 (No Additional Vetting Percent Vetting Percent Denied 31–60 days) = 68 percent. transfer from asylum applicants to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:51 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR2.SGM 22JNR2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 37539

others that are currently in the U.S. 119,088 approved applications 79 past bound and a national average wage rate labor force, possibly in the form of the regulatory set timeframe. of $24.98 82 to take into consideration additional work hours or overtime pay. USCIS recognizes that pending the variance in average wages across In cases where companies that would asylum EAD applicants do not currently states as an upper bound. USCIS’s lower have hired asylum applicants had they participate in the U.S. labor market, and upper bounds represent estimates of been in the labor market earlier are not and, as a result, are not represented in the range for this population’s average able to find available workers, the lost national average wage calculations. wage, understanding that it is possible compensation to asylum workers would Further, USCIS recognizes that pending that some workers may earn more than be considered a proxy for the cost of lost asylum applicants who obtain an EAD the average wage across all occupations, productivity to those companies. are not limited to certain types of and, that some may earn lower than the employment or occupations nor does However, USCIS does not know the prevailing minimum wage, such as USCIS track the type of employment portion of the overall impacts of this federal minimum wage. applicants obtain. Because the Form I– In order to estimate the fully loaded rule that are transfers or costs. One 765 for the (c)(8) category does not wage rates, to include benefits such as reason USCIS is unable to apportion include or legally require, at the initial paid leave, insurance, and retirement these impacts is because the industries or renewal stage, any data on using BLS data, USCIS calculated a in which asylum applicants will work employment, and, since it does not benefits-to-wage multiplier of 1.46 83 with their employment authorization is involve an associated labor condition and multiplied it by the prevailing unknown; companies’ responses to such application, DHS has no information on minimum hourly wage rate. The fully a situation will vary depending on the wages, occupations, industries, or loaded per hour wage rate for someone industry and location of the company businesses that may involve such earning the prevailing minimum wage (for example, truck drivers are limited to workers. rate is $12.05 84 and $36.47 85 for the number of overtime hours they can In some DHS rulemakings, the someone earning the average wage rate. work). Additional uncertainty in how estimates of distributional impacts and Multiplying these fully loaded hourly companies will respond exists because time-related opportunity costs are wage rates by 8 to reflect an assumed 8- while the official unemployment rate linked to the federal minimum wage for hour workday produces daily wage rates was low as of November 2019, there is new entrants to the labor force. This of $96.36 and $291.77,86 respectively. still evidence of some labor market reliance is grounded in the notion that USCIS also assumes that EAD holders slack.78 While USCIS is unable to most of the relevant EAD holders would would work 5 out of every 7 days, or an apportion these impacts between not have been in the labor force long, average of 21 days per month. transfers and costs, USCIS does use the and would thus not be expected to earn In the proposed rule, using FY 2017 lost compensation to asylum applicants, relatively high wages. In this data, USCIS estimated that the 119,088 as described below, as a measure of rulemaking, we rely on a slightly more approved EAD applicants experienced these total impacts. robust ‘‘prevailing’’ minimum wage of an estimated total 2,655,429 lost $8.25. As is reported by the Economic working days, and lost compensation In FY 2017, the processing times for Policy Institute (EPI, 2016), many states could range from $255.88 million to initial Form I–765 filings under the have their own minimum wage, and, $774.76 million.87 USCIS understands Pending Asylum Applicant category even within states, there are multiple that not all EAD recipients would work exceeded the regulatory set timeframe of tiers.80 Although the minimum wage in minimum or average wage 30 days more than half the time. could be considered a lower-end bound occupations, but provides these However, USCIS adjudicated on true earnings, the prevailing estimates as possible lower and upper approximately 78 percent of minimum wage is fully loaded, at bounds for approved applicants who applications within 60 days. In FY 2019, $12.05, which is 13.8 percent higher would engage in full-time employment. USCIS adjudicated approximately 96 than the federal minimum wage.81 DHS Table 10 shows the number of percent of applications within 60 days. also does not rule out the possibility applications completed in a period To estimate lost wages and other that some portion of the population longer than the 30-day regulatory benefits, USCIS used FY 2017 daily might earn wages at the average level for timeframe in FY 2017, the associated processing time data as compared to the all occupations. Therefore, for the number of lost working days, and an baseline, which assumes 100 percent of purpose of this analysis, USCIS uses estimate of the resulting lost applications are adjudicated within 30 both the prevailing minimum hourly compensation. The two categories over days. In FY 2017, USCIS adjudicated wage rate of $8.25 to estimate a lower 120 days show the declining number of

78 See Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment states that apply to size of business (revenue and 83 The benefits-to-wage multiplier is calculated by Situation News Release—November 2019, Table A– employment), occupations, working hours, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) as follows: 8 Employed persons by class of worker and part- other criteria. Some of these variations per state are ($36.32 Total Employee Compensation per hour)/ time status, February 21, 2020. Available at https:// described at: https://www.minimum-wage.org. ($24.91 Wages and Salaries per hour) = 1.458 (1.46 _ www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit 81 Calculations (1) for prevailing minimum wage: rounded). See U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Economic News Release, Table 1. 12062019.pdf. $8.25 hourly wage × benefits burden of 1.46 = 79 Employer costs per hour worked for employee In FY 2017, USCIS adjudicated 15,860 denied $12.05; for federal minimum wage: $7.25 hourly compensation and costs as a percent of total (c)(8) EAD applications past the regulatory set wage × benefits burden of 1.46 = $10.59 See timeframe. Since denied applicants would not compensation: Civilian workers, by major Minimum Wage, U.S. Department of Labor available obtain work authorization and would not lose occupational and industry group (April 2019), at https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/wages/ working days, this population is not impacted by available at https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ minimumwage; (2) (($12.05 wage¥$10.59 wage)/ _ this rule and are therefore not included in the archives/ecec 03192019.pdf. analysis for lost compensation. $10.59)) wage = .1378, which rounded and 84 Calculation: $8.25 × 1.46 = $12.05 per hour. multiplied by 100 = 13.8 percent. 85 80 See When it comes to the minimum wage, we Calculation: $24.98 × 1.46 = $36.47 per hour. cannot just ‘leave it to the states’ (November 10, 82 The wage update in April 2018 reflects the 86 Calculations: $12.05 per hour × 8 hours = 2016) available at: https://www.epi.org/publication/ 2017 average for all occupations nationally. The $96.36 per day; $36.47 per hour × 8 hours = $291.77 when-it-comes-to-the-minimum-wage-we-cannot- data are found at the BLS Occupational per day. just-leave-it-to-the-states-effective-state-minimum- Employment and Wage Estimates, United States, 87 Calculations: 2,655,429 lost working days * wages-today-and-projected-for-2020//. There are found at: https://www.bls.gov/oes/2018/may/oes_ ($96.36 per day) = $255.88 million; 2,655,429 lost multiple tiers of minimum wages across many nat.htm#00-0000. working days * ($291.77 per day) = $774.76 million.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:51 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR2.SGM 22JNR2 37540 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

applications that remain pending after completed in FY 2017, which was 810 200 days and the maximum number of calendar days. days it took to adjudicate an initial EAD

TABLE 10—SUMMARY OF CALCULATIONS FOR INITIAL FORM I–765 FOR PENDING ASYLUM APPLICANTS THAT TOOK LONGER THAN [FY 2017]

31–60 Days 61–90 Days 91–120 Days 121–200 Days 201–810 Days Total

FY 2017 Comple- tions ...... 71,556 31,356 11,734 4,048 394 119,088 Lost Calendar Days ...... 899,402 1,377,308 817,073 466,524 91,019 3,651,326 Lost Working Days 691,314 992,880 581,237 330,038 59,960 2,655,429 Lost Compensa- tion (lower bound) ...... $66,615,017 $95,673,917 $56,007,997 $31,802,462 $5,777,746 $255,877,138 Lost Compensa- tion (upper bound) ...... $201,702,197 $289,689,023 $169,585,427 $96,293,999 $17,494,313 $774,764,960 Source: USCIS analysis. Note: The prevailing minimum wage is used to calculate the lower bound while a national average wage is used to calculate the upper bound lost compensation.

If companies can find replacement competing priorities and many time- Specifically, the broader asylum EAD labor for the position the asylum sensitive adjudication timeframes. NPRM proposes to limit or delay applicant would have filled, this rule Reallocating resources in the long-term eligibility for employment authorization would have primarily distributional is not sustainable due to work priorities for certain asylum applicants. effects in the form of transfers from in other product lines. USCIS could hire Accordingly, if the population of aliens asylum applicants to others already in more officers, but that would not is less than estimated as a result of the the labor market (or workers induced to immediately and in all cases shorten broader asylum EAD rule, the estimated return to the labor market). USCIS adjudication timeframes because (1) impacts of this rule could be overstated acknowledges that there may be additional time would be required to because the population affected may be additional opportunity costs to onboard and train new employees and lower than estimated in this rule. employers such as additional search (2) for certain applications, additional In instances where a company cannot costs. However, if companies cannot time is needed to fully vet an applicant, hire replacement labor for the position find reasonable substitutes for the labor regardless of staffing levels. In addition, the asylum applicant would have filled, the asylum applicants would have there is currently no fee for asylum USCIS acknowledges that delays may provided, this rule would primarily be applications or the corresponding initial result in tax revenue losses to the a cost to these companies through lost EAD applications, and the cost of government. It is difficult to quantify productivity. adjudication is covered by fees paid by income tax losses because individual USCIS also recognizes that companies other benefit requesters. USCIS is tax situations vary widely 88 but USCIS would incur additional costs not uncertain of the actual cost impacts of estimates the potential loss to other captured in the estimates of lost hiring additional adjudicators to process employment tax programs, namely compensation above. In cases where these EAD applications at this time. If Medicare and Social Security which companies cannot find reasonable the backlog dissipates in the future, have a combined tax rate of 7.65 percent substitutes for the labor the asylum USCIS may seek to redistribute (6.2 percent and 1.45 percent applicants would have provided, adjudication resources. USCIS may also respectively).89 With both the employee affected companies would also lose redistribute adjudication resources for and employer not paying their profits from the lost productivity. In all other operational needs. respective portion of Medicare and cases, companies would incur This rule may result in a delay for Social Security taxes, the total estimated opportunity costs by having to choose some applicants to earn compensation if tax loss for Medicare and social security the next best alternative to immediately EAD processing is delayed beyond the is 15.3 percent.90 Lost wages ranging filling the job the pending asylum current 30-day regulatory timeframe. from $255.88 million to $774.76 million applicant would have filled. The lost compensation to asylum USCIS continues to resource the applicants could range from $255.88 88 See More than 44 percent of Americans pay no adjudication of pending asylum EAD million to $774.76 million annually, federal income tax (September 16, 2018) available at https://www.marketwatch.com/story/81-million- applications. In response to the Rosario depending on the wages the asylum americans-wont-pay-any-federal-income-taxes-this- v. USCIS litigation and to comply with applicant would have earned. The ten- year-heres-why-2018-04-16. the court order, USCIS has dedicated as year total discounted costs at 3 percent 89 The various employment taxes are discussed in many resources as practicable to these could range from $2.182 billion to more detail at https://www.irs.gov/businesses/ small-businesses-self-employed/understanding- adjudications but continues to face an $6,609 billion, and at 7 percent could employment-taxes. See IRS Publication 15, Circular increasing asylum application backlog, range from $1.797 billion to $5.442 E, Employer’s Tax Guide for specific information on which in turn increases the numbers of billion (years 2020–2029). USCIS employment tax rates. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs- applicants eligible for pending asylum recognizes that the anticipated impacts pdf/p15.pdf (last viewed December 9, 2019). 90 Calculation: (6.2 percent social security + 1.45 EADs. However, this reallocation of of this rule could be overstated if the percent Medicare) × 2 employee and employer resources is not a long-term sustainable provisions in the broader asylum EAD losses = 15.3 percent total estimated tax loss to solution because USCIS has many NPRM are finalized as proposed. government.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:51 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR2.SGM 22JNR2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 37541

would result in employment tax losses redistributed its adjudication resources applications annually from pending to the government ranging from $39.15 to work up to full compliance. When the asylum applicants with an estimated million to $118.54 million annually.91 30-day timeframe is removed, these 261,782 initial applications and 212,255 Again, depending on the circumstances redistributed resources may be renewal applications. Since this rule of the employee, there could be reallocated, potentially reducing delays will only affect initial applicants who additional federal income tax losses not in processing of other applications and experience potential delays in estimated here. There may also be state avoiding costs associated with hiring processing, USCIS estimates the affected and local income tax losses that would additional employees. USCIS has not population to be approximately 119,088 vary according to the jurisdiction. estimated these avoided costs. applications.92 The U.S. labor force In addition to taxes, USCIS also DHS also acknowledges the consists of a total of 164,404,000, considered the effects of this rule on distributional impacts associated with according to November 2019 data.93 USCIS resources. In response to the an applicant waiting for an EAD onto Therefore, the population affected by Rosario v. USCIS litigation and to the applicant’s support network. DHS this rule represents 0.07 percent of the comply with the court order, USCIS has assumes the longer an asylum U.S. labor force, suggesting that the dedicated as many resources as applicant’s EAD is delayed, the longer number of potential workers no longer practicable to adjudications of initial the applicant’s support network is expecting a 30-day processing EAD applications for pending asylum providing assistance to the applicant. timeframe make up a very small applicants, but continues to face a DHS cannot determine how much percentage of the U.S. labor market.94 historic asylum application backlog, monetary or other assistance is provided In any case, USCIS notes that this rule which in turn increases the numbers of to such applicants. does not introduce any newly eligible applicants eligible for pending asylum USCIS does not anticipate that workers into the labor force, or EADs. However, this reallocation of removing the separate 90-day EAD filing permanently prevent any eligible resources is not a long-term, sustainable requirement would result in any costs to workers from joining the labor force. solution because USCIS has many applicants or the Federal Government, This rule only amends the processing of competing priorities and many time- as it makes a procedural change that initial and renewal employment sensitive adjudication timeframes. benefits the applicant. authorizations for pending asylum applicants. The ability of pending Reallocating resources in the long-term b. Benefits is not sustainable due to work priorities asylum applicants to be eligible for in other product lines. Hiring more By eliminating the 30-day provision, requesting employment authorization in officers could bring improvements but DHS will be able to operate under long- certain circumstances is in existing that would not immediately shorten term sustainable case processing times regulations; this rulemaking is not adjudication timeframes because for initial EAD applications for pending seeking to alter which pending asylum additional time would be required to asylum applicants, to allow sufficient applicants are eligible to apply for onboard new employees and train them. time to address national security and employment authorization. Therefore, In addition, there is currently no fee for fraud concerns, and to maintain this rule will not change the asylum applications or the technological advances in document composition of the population of the corresponding initial EAD applications, production and identity verification that estimated 261,782 initial applicants and the cost of adjudication is covered USCIS must fulfill as a part of its core who may apply for employment by fees paid by other benefit requesters. mission within DHS. authorization or the number of workers USCIS is uncertain of the actual cost Applicants will rely on up-to-date entering the labor force; rather, this rule impacts of hiring additional processing times, which provide could delay 119,088 pending asylum adjudicators to process these EAD realistic expectations of adjudication applicants from entering the U.S. labor applications at this time. Finally, USCIS times. market by an average of approximately This rule would end future litigation 31 calendar days each, for a total of has found that certain applications 95 inherently cannot be processed in a over the 30-day adjudication timeframe, 3,651,326 days. such as the litigation referenced above. specific number of days due to vetting d. Alternatives procedures and background checks that Even applications that are not subject to a set timeframe, however, could in some (1) Alternative: 90-Day Regulatory simply require additional time (see Timeframe Table 10 where processing days in FY cases be the subject of litigation on 2017 reached a maximum 810 days). ‘‘unreasonable delay’’ theories. And DHS considered an alternative to Therefore, meeting the 30-day more important, as indicated above, as removing the 30-day regulatory timeframe does not solely depend on a primary goal, USCIS seeks to timeframe, to instead extend the hiring more adjudication officers adequately vet applicants and regulatory timeframe to 90 days. because for certain applications adjudicate applications as quickly and Currently, under the Rosario v. USCIS additional time is needed for efficiently as possible. court order, USCIS must comply with USCIS will benefit from the removal processing. Thus, USCIS is removing its existing regulation requiring a 30-day of the 90-day renewal requirement, the 30-day timeline rather than because regulations are being updated to 92 increasing the number of adjudication In FY 2017, USCIS adjudicated 119,088 match that of other EAD categories and approved applications past the regulatory set officers in the long-term. it would ensure that the regulatory text timeframe. This rule is expected to result in 93 reflects current DHS policy and Figures obtained from Bureau of Labor reduced opportunity costs to the Federal Statistics, Employment Situation News Release— regulations under DHS’s 2017 AC21 Government. Since Rosario compelled November 2019, Table A–8 Employed persons by Rule. class of worker and part-time status, February 21, USCIS to comply with the 30-day 2020. Available at https://www.bls.gov/ provision in FY 2018, USCIS has c. Labor Market Overview news.release/archives/empsit_12062019.pdf. As discussed in the population 94 Calculation: (119,088 approximate initial 91 Calculations: Lower bound lost wages $255.88 section of this analysis, USCIS applicants who could experience processing delays million × 15.3 percent employee tax rate = $39.15 per year/164,404,000 workers) *100 = 0.07 percent. million. Upper bound lost wages $774.76 million × anticipates receiving approximately 95 Calculation: 3,654,326 total days/119,088 15.3 percent employee tax rate = $118.54 million. 474,037 (non-replacement) Form I–765 applicants = 31 days (rounded).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:51 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR2.SGM 22JNR2 37542 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

timeframe and process all initial EAD under this alternative. For the 16,176 EAD applicants would have applications for asylum applicants approved applications that took more experienced an estimated total within 30 days. Under this alternative, than 90 days to process in FY 2017, 1,684,194 lost working days, and lost USCIS would instead process all future USCIS assumes the processing time compensation could have ranged from applications within 90 days. In FY 2017, under this alternative would be 90 days, $158.82 million to $480.89 million 98 prior to the Rosario v. USCIS court as this alternative would set the annually depending on the wages the order, USCIS was able to sustainably maximum processing time at 90 days. asylum applicant would have earned. In process approximately 47 percent of USCIS notes that while processing for FY 2017, USCIS adjudicated 16,176 applications within 30 days. USCIS, this group under the 90-day alternative approved applications in greater than 90 therefore, assumes 47 percent of would be longer than the current 30-day days. USCIS estimates that under this applicants would remain unaffected processing time under the Rosario v. alternative the 16,176 approved EAD under this 90-day alternative. USCIS USCIS court order, it would be shorter applicants would have experienced an assumes the remaining 53 percent of as compared to this rule, which removes estimated total 679,392 lost working applicants would have their processing any processing timeframe.96 days, and lost compensation could have time extended under this alternative. In Based on the analysis provided in the ranged from $65.47 million to $198.23 FY 2017 there were a total of 119,088 Transfers and Costs section, USCIS used million annually depending on the approved applications for which FY 2017 daily processing data to wages the asylum applicants would processing took more than 30 days. estimate lost wages, lost taxes, and other have earned. Table 11 shows the USCIS assumes approved applications benefits for this alternative proposal. In number of approved applications that were processed in 31–60 days, and FY 2017, USCIS adjudicated 102,912 completed in more than 30 days in FY 61–90 days in FY 2017 (71,556 and approved applications 97 between 31 2017, the associated number of lost 31,356 applicants, respectively) would and 90 days. USCIS estimates that under working days, and an estimate of the be processed in a similar amount of time this alternative the 102,912 approved resulting lost compensation.

TABLE 11—SUMMARY OF CALCULATIONS FOR INITIAL FORM I–765 FOR PENDING ASYLUM APPLICANTS IN FY 2017

Greater than 31–60 Days 61–90 Days 90 days Total

FY 2017 Completions ...... 71,556 31,356 16,176 119,088 Lost Calendar Days ...... 899,402 1,377,308 970,560 3,247,270 Lost Working Days ...... 691,314 992,880 679,392 2,377,451 Lost Compensation (lower bound) ...... $66,615,017 $95,673,917 $65,466,213 $227,755,147 Lost Compensation (upper bound) ...... $201,702,197 $289,689,023 $198,223,758 $689,614,978 Source: USCIS analysis. Note: The prevailing minimum wage is used to calculate the lower bound while a national average wage is used to calculate the upper bound lost compensation.

In addition to the lost wages, USCIS that the impacts of this alternative could in employment tax transfers from acknowledges that such processing be overstated if the provisions in the companies and employees to the delays may result in the loss in tax broader asylum EAD NPRM are Federal Government. Conversely, if all revenue to the government. As was done finalized as proposed. Specifically, the companies are able to easily find in the analysis in the Transfers and broader asylum EAD NPRM proposed to reasonable labor substitutes, they will Costs section, USCIS estimates the limit or delay eligibility for employment bear little or no costs, so $689.61 potential loss to Medicare and social authorization for certain asylum million will be transferred from asylum security. Lost wages ranging $227.76 applicants. applicants to workers currently in the million to $689.61 million would result As previously discussed, USCIS does labor force or induced back into the in employment tax revenue losses to the not know the portion of overall impacts labor force (we assume no tax losses as government ranging from $34.85 million of this rule that are transfers or costs, a labor substitute was found). to $105.51 million annually.99 Again, but estimates that the maximum depending on the circumstances of the monetized impact of this 90-day (2) Comparison of Alternatives employee, there could be additional alternative from lost compensation is Currently, the Rosario v. USCIS court federal income tax losses not estimated $689.61 million annually. Accordingly, decision, 365 F. Supp. 3d 1156 (W.D. here. There may also be state and local if companies are unable to find Wash. 2018), requires USCIS to process income tax losses that would vary reasonable labor substitutes for the asylum EAD applications in accord with according to the jurisdiction. The ten- position the asylum applicant would the current regulatory timeframe of 30 year total discounted lost compensation have filled then $689.61 million is the days. This rule removes any to asylum applicants at 3 percent could estimated maximum monetized cost of adjudication timeframe for processing range from $1.943 billion to $5.883 the rule and $0 is the estimated future asylum EAD applications. USCIS billion, and, at 7 percent could range minimum in monetized transfers. also considered an alternative under from $1.600 billion to $4.844 billion Additionally, under this scenario, there which USCIS would process all future (years 2020–2029). USCIS recognizes would be a reduction of $105.51 million applications within 90 days. In the table

96 In FY 2017, USCIS adjudicated 16,176 population is not be impacted by this rule and are 99 Calculations: Lower bound lost wages $227.76 approved and 5,202 denied (c)(8) EAD applications therefore not included in the analysis for lost million × 15.3 percent employee tax rate = $34.85 in over 90 days. compensation. million. Upper bound lost wages $689.61 million × 97 In FY 2017, USCIS adjudicated 10,658 denied 98 Calculations: 1,648,194 lost working days * 15.3 percent employee tax rate = $105.51 million. (c)(8) EAD applications between 31 and 90 days. ($96.36 per day) = $158.82 million; 1,648,194 lost Since denied applicants would not obtain work authorization and would not lose working days, this working days * ($291.77 per day) = $480.89 million.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:51 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR2.SGM 22JNR2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 37543

below, USCIS compares the lost primarily transfers from asylum transfers from employees to the working days and associated lost applicants to others already in the labor government. USCIS uses the lost compensation and taxes under the 90- market (or induced to return). If compensation to asylum applicants as a day alternative with the rule. As companies cannot find reasonable measure of the overall impact of the previously discussed, if companies can substitutes, the rule would primarily be rule—either as distribution impacts find replacement labor for the position a cost to these companies through lost (transfers) or as a proxy for businesses’ the asylum applicant would have filled, productivity and profits, and also result cost for lost productivity. the effects of this rule would be in a decrease in employment tax TABLE 12—COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES, USING FY 2017 ANNUAL DATA

Lost employment Lost employment Number of taxes when taxes when applicants Lost working Lost compensation Lost compensation replacement replacement impacted by days (lower bound) (upper bound) labor is not labor is not change found found (FY 2017) (lower bound) (upper bound)

Current 30-day Processing Time- frame (i.e., no action baseline) .. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 90-day Adjudication Timeframe Al- ternative ...... 119,088 2,377,451 $227,755,147 $689,614,978 $34,846,537 $105,511,092 No Adjudication Timeframe ...... 119,088 2,655,429 255,877,138 774,764,960 39,149,202 118,539,039 Source: USCIS analysis.

The distribution of existing B. Regulatory Flexibility Act emphasizes that the rule will not government resources would vary under regulate employers and only regulate The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 individuals. A final regulatory the baseline, the final rule, and the 90- (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended by flexibility analysis (FRFA) follows. day alternative. When Rosario the Small Business Regulatory compelled USCIS to comply with the Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, (1) A Statement of the Need for, and 30-day regulatory provision in FY 2018 Public Law 104–121 (March 29, 1996), Objectives of the Rule (the baseline), USCIS redistributed its requires federal agencies to consider the adjudication resources to work up to This rule removes the 30-day potential impact of regulations on small regulatory timeframe for the full compliance. When the 30-day entities during the development of their adjudication of initial EAD applications timeframe is removed all of these rules. The term ‘‘small entities’’ refers to by pending asylum applicants because it redistributed resources may be small businesses, not-for-profit is outdated, does not account for the reallocated back to the way they were organizations that are not dominant in recent volume of applications and no pre-Rosario (which USCIS assumes will their fields, and governmental longer reflects current operations. The look like FY 2017). Under the 90-day jurisdictions with populations of less rule also makes a technical change to alternative, some of the resources could than 50,000. This rule will continue to remove the 90-day filing requirement to be moved back, but not all of them provide employment authorization to reduce confusion regarding EAD because in FY 2017 USCIS was able to asylum applicants who voluntarily renewal requirements for pending adjudicate 92 percent of applicants in apply for such benefits. This rule only asylum applicants and ensure the 90 days. removes the 30-day adjudication regulatory text reflects current DHS timeframe and the corresponding 90-day DHS did not pursue the 90-day policy and regulations under DHS’s renewal requirement. For the purposes final 2017 AC21 Rule. alternative because although it would of the RFA, DHS estimates that provide USCIS with more time to approximately 119,088 aliens may be (2) A Statement of the Significant Issues adjudicate initial EAD applications from impacted by this rule annually. Raised by the Public Comments in pending asylum applicants and Individuals are not considered by the Response to the Initial Regulatory applicants with a new expected RFA to be a small entity. As previously Flexibility Analysis, a Statement of the timeframe, it would not provide USCIS explained, this rule may result in lost Assessment of the Agency of Such with the certainty and flexibility it compensation for some initial Issues, and a Statement of any Changes needs to fulfill its core mission. Further, applicants whose EAD processing is Made in the Rule as a Result of Such under DHS’s final 2017 AC21 Rule, delayed beyond the 30-day regulatory Comments USCIS removed the 90-day timeframe timeframe. However, the rule does not Several commenters made reference for all other EAD categories. directly regulate employers. to small entities. Maintaining any adjudication timeframe The RFA does not require agencies to Comments: A couple of commenters for this EAD would unnecessarily examine the impact of indirect costs to mentioned that refugees and asylees constrict adjudication workflows. small entities. Regardless, DHS is engage in entrepreneurial projects and Ultimately, USCIS is unable to plan its unable to identify the next best employment at a higher rate than U.S.- workload and staffing needs with the alternative to hiring a pending asylum born citizens, creating small businesses level of certainty that a binding applicant and is therefore unable to and thus jobs that drive growth in the timeframe may require and has no way reliably estimate the potential indirect US economy, and that the small of predicting what national security and costs to small entities from this rule. businesses and the jobs they create are fraud concerns may be or what Several public comments claimed that the engines of growth, innovation, and procedures would be necessary in the the rule would pose burdens to small stability. A couple commenters claimed future. DHS therefore declined to adopt entities, but no such comments claimed that lost wages to asylum-seekers would a 90-day regulatory timeframe. that the rule directly regulates or likely result in losses to small burdens small entities. USCIS businesses in asylum-seekers, and that

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:51 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR2.SGM 22JNR2 37544 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

the rule would have significant negative not require any additional professional delays in employment authorization, impact not only on asylum seekers, but skills. and would not be a consequence of an also on employers, small businesses, enforceable duty. As a result, such costs (6) A Description of the Steps the communities, and the economy as a would not be attributable to a mandate Agency Has Taken To Minimize the whole. Significant Economic Impact on Small under UMRA. See 2 U.S.C. 658(6), (7) USCIS Response: USCIS appreciates (defining a federal private sector the commenters’ input. As we have Entities Consistent With the Stated Objectives of Applicable Statutes, mandate as, inter alia, a regulation that explained in our earlier responses and imposes an enforceable duty upon the in the regulatory analysis, the rule might Including a Statement of the Factual, Policy, and Legal Reasons for Selecting private sector except for a duty arising impact the timing under which asylum from participation in a voluntary seekers are able to earn labor income, the Alternative Adopted in the Final Rule and Why Each One of the Other Federal program); 2 U.S.C. 1502(1). but it does not regulate employers. In Similarly, any costs or transfer effects the NPRM, USCIS acknowledged that if Significant Alternatives to the Rule Considered by the Agency Which Affect on state and local governments would companies cannot find reasonable not result from a mandate under UMRA. substitutes for the labor the asylum the Impact on Small Entities Was Rejected See 2 U.S.C. 658 (5), (6) (defining a applicants would have provided, these federal intergovernmental mandate as, companies would incur costs through DHS is not aware of any alternatives inter alia, a regulation that imposes an lost productivity and profits. No to the rule that accomplish the stated enforceable duty upon State, local, or commenters claimed that the rule objectives and that would minimize the tribal governments, except for a duty directly regulates or directly impacts economic impact of the rule on small arising from participation in a voluntary small entities. The rule is being adopted entities as this rule imposes no direct Federal program); 2 U.S.C 1502(1). without material change from the costs on small entities. E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) NPRM. C. Congressional Review Act This rule would not have substantial (3) The Response of the Agency to any The Office of Information and direct effects on the states, on the Comments Filed by the Chief Counsel Regulatory Affairs has determined that relationship between the Federal for Advocacy of the Small Business this is a major rule, as defined by 5 Government and the states, or on the Administration in Response to the U.S.C. 804. Accordingly, absent distribution of power and Proposed Rule, and a Detailed exceptional circumstances, this rule will responsibilities among the various Statement of any Change Made to the take effect 60 days after its publication. levels of government. Therefore, in Proposed Rule in the Final Rule as a On or before the date of publication, accordance with section 6 of Executive Result of the Comments DHS will submit to each House of Order 13132 (Federalism), it is Congress and the Comptroller General DHS did not receive comments on determined that this rule does not have the reports required by 5 U.S.C. 801. this rule from Chief Counsel for sufficient federalism implications to Advocacy of the Small Business D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of warrant the preparation of a federalism Administration. 1995 summary impact statement. (4) A Description of and an Estimate of The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act F. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice the Number of Small Entities to Which of 1995 (UMRA) requires each federal Reform) the Rule Will Apply or an Explanation agency to prepare a written statement This rule meets the applicable of Why No Such Estimate Is Available assessing the effects of any federal standards set forth in sections 3(a) and mandate in a proposed or final agency This rule directly regulates pending 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 (Civil rule that may result in a $100 million or asylum applicants, or individuals, Justice Reform). applying for work authorization. more expenditure (adjusted annually for However, DHS presents this FRFA as inflation) in any one year by state, local, G. Paperwork Reduction Act the rule may indirectly impact small and tribal governments, in the aggregate, Under the Paperwork Reduction Act entities who incur opportunity costs by or by the private sector. The value of 1995, Public Law 104–13, all agencies having to choose the next best equivalent of $100 million in 1995, are required to submit to OMB, for alternative to immediately filling the job adjusted for inflation to 2020 levels by review and approval, any reporting the Consumer Price Index Inflation the asylum applicant would have filled. 100 requirements inherent in a rule. See DHS cannot reliably estimate how many Calculator, is $172 million. Public Law 104–13, 109 Stat. 163 (May Some private sector entities may incur small entities may be indirectly 22, 1995). This rule does not impose any a cost, as they could be losing the impacted as a result of this rule, but reporting or recordkeeping requirements productivity and potential profits the DHS believes the number of small under the Paperwork Reduction Act. asylum applicant could have provided entities directly regulated by this rule is had the asylum applicant been in the H. Family Assessment zero. labor force earlier. Entities may also DHS has assessed this action in (5) A Description of the Projected incur opportunity costs by having to accordance with section 654 of the Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other choose the next best alternative to Treasury General Appropriations Act, Compliance Requirements of the Rule, immediately filling the job the asylum 1999, Public Law 105–277, Div. A. With Including an Estimate of the Classes of applicant would have filled. In such respect to the criteria specified in Small Entities Which Will Be Subject to instances, USCIS does not know if or to section 654(c)(1), DHS has determined the Requirement and the Type of what extent this would impact the that the rule may delay the ability for Professional Skills Necessary for private sector, but assesses that such some initial applicants to work, which Preparation of the Report or Record impacts would result indirectly from could decrease disposable income of This rule would not directly impose families, as the lost compensation to 100 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer any reporting, recordkeeping, or other Price Index Inflation Calculator, January 1995 to asylum applicants could range from compliance requirements on small January 2020, available at https://data.bls.gov/cgi- $255.88 million to $774.76 million entities. Additionally, this rule would bin/cpicalc.pl (last visited Feb. 26, 2020). annually depending on the wages the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:51 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR2.SGM 22JNR2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 37545

asylum applicant would have earned. adjudication provision for EAD would not create an environmental risk For the reasons stated elsewhere in this applications filed by asylum applicants, to health or risk to safety that might rule, however, DHS has determined that and (2) the provision requiring pending disproportionately affect children. the benefits of the action justify the asylum applicants to submit Form I–765 Therefore, DHS has not prepared a potential financial impact on the family. renewal applications 90 days before statement under this executive order. Further, the potential for lost their employment authorization expires. compensation does not account for the 8 CFR 208.7(a)(1), (d). N. Executive Order 13211: Actions fact that compliance with the 30-day This rule clearly falls within Concerning Regulations That timeframe is not sustainable in the long- categorical exclusions number A3(a) in Significantly Affect Energy Supply, term, as DHS has been unable to meet Inst. 023–01–001 Rev. 01, Appendix A, Distribution, or Use the 30-day processing timeframe in Table 1: ‘‘Promulgation of rules . . . Executive Order 13211 requires certain cases even with additional strictly of an administrative or agencies to consider the impact of rules adjudication resources. procedural nature’’ and A3(d) for rules that significantly impact the supply, that interpret or amend an existing I. Executive Order 13175 distribution, and use of energy. DHS has regulation without changing its reviewed this rule and determined that This rule does not have tribal environmental effect. Further, this rule this rule would not have a significant implications under Executive Order is not part of a larger action and adverse effect on the supply, 13175, Consultation and Coordination presents no extraordinary circumstances distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, with Indian Tribal Governments, creating the potential for significant this rule does not require a Statement of because it does not have a substantial environmental effects. Therefore, this Energy Effects under Executive Order direct effect on one or more Indian rule is categorically excluded from 13211. tribes, on the relationship between the further NEPA review. Federal Government and Indian tribes, O. Signature or on the distribution of power and K. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act The Acting Secretary of Homeland responsibilities between the Federal Security, Chad F. Wolf, having reviewed Government and Indian tribes. The National Technology Transfer and approved this document, is and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 J. National Environmental Policy Act delegating the authority to electronically U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use (NEPA) sign this document to Chad R. Mizelle, voluntary consensus standards in their DHS Directive (Dir) 023–01 Rev. 01 who is the Senior Official Performing regulatory activities unless the agency the Duties of the General Counsel for and Instruction (Inst) 023–01–001 Rev. provides Congress, through OMB, with 1 establish the policies and procedures DHS, for purposes of publication in the an explanation of why using these Federal Register. that DHS and its components use to standards would be inconsistent with comply with NEPA and the Council on applicable law or otherwise impractical. List of Subjects in 8 CFR Part 208 Environmental Quality (CEQ) Voluntary consensus standards are regulations for implementing NEPA, 40 Administrative practice and technical standards (e.g., specifications procedure, Aliens, Immigration, CFR parts 1500–1508. of materials, performance, design, or The CEQ regulations allow federal Reporting and recordkeeping operation; test methods; sampling requirements. agencies to establish, with CEQ review procedures; and related management and concurrence, categories of actions systems practices) that are developed or Accordingly, DHS amends part 208 of (‘‘categorical exclusions’’) which adopted by voluntary consensus chapter I of title 8 of the Code of Federal experience has shown do not standard bodies. This rule does not use Regulations as follows: individually or cumulatively have a technical standards. Therefore, we did significant effect on the human PART 208—PROCEDURES FOR not consider the use of voluntary ASYLUM AND WITHHOLDING OF environment and, therefore, do not consensus standards. require an Environmental Assessment REMOVAL (EA) or Environmental Impact L. Executive Order 12630 ■ 1. The authority citation for part 208 Statement (EIS). 40 CFR This rule would not cause the taking continues to read as follows: 1507.3(b)(1)(iii), 1508.4. Inst. 023–01– of private property or otherwise have 001 Rev. 01 establishes Categorical taking implications under Executive Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1158, Exclusions that DHS has found to have Order 12630, Governmental Actions and 1226, 1252, 1282; Title VII of Public Law no such effect. Inst. 023–01–001 Rev. 01 Interference with Constitutionally 110–229; 8 CFR part 2. Appendix A Table 1. Inst. 023–01–001 Protected Property Rights. § 208.7 [Amended] Rev. 01 requires the action to satisfy each of the following three conditions: M. Executive Order 13045: Protection of ■ 2. Amend § 208.7 by: (1) The entire action clearly fits within Children From Environmental Health ■ a. In paragraph (a)(1), removing the one or more of the categorical Risks and Safety Risks words ‘‘If the asylum application is not exclusions; (2) the action is not a piece Executive Order 13045 requires so denied, the Service shall have 30 of a larger action; and (3) no agencies to consider the impacts of days from the date of filing of the extraordinary circumstances exist that environmental health risk or safety risk request employment authorization to create the potential for a significant that may disproportionately affect grant or deny that application, except environmental effect. Dir. 023–01 Rev. children. DHS has reviewed this rule that no’’ and adding, in their place, the 01 section V.B (1)–(3). and determined that this rule is not a word ‘‘No’’ and removing the words This rule removes the following covered regulatory action under ‘‘the Service’’ wherever they appear and purely administrative provisions from Executive Order 13045. Although the adding, in their place, the word an existing regulation: (1) The 30-day rule is economically significant, it ‘‘USCIS’’;

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:51 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22JNR2.SGM 22JNR2 37546 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

■ b. In paragraph (c)(3), removing the ■ c. Removing paragraph (d). words ‘‘the Service’’ and adding, in its Chad R. Mizelle, place, the word ‘‘DHS’’; and Senior Official Performing the Duties of the General Counsel, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. [FR Doc. 2020–13391 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111–97–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:51 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\22JNR2.SGM 22JNR2 i

Reader Aids Federal Register Vol. 85, No. 120 Monday, June 22, 2020

CUSTOMER SERVICE AND INFORMATION CFR PARTS AFFECTED DURING JUNE

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. 2 CFR Proposed Rules: Presidential Documents 205...... 34651 Executive orders and proclamations 741–6000 910...... 32977 301...... 34537 The United States Government Manual 741–6000 3 CFR 966...... 35222 Other Services Proclamations: 8 CFR Electronic and on-line services (voice) 741–6020 9496 (amended by 208...... 37502 741–6050 Privacy Act Compilation Proc. 10049) ...... 35793 270...... 36469 10043...... 34353 274a...... 36469 10044...... 34941 ELECTRONIC RESEARCH 280...... 36469 10045...... 34943 Proposed Rules: 10046...... 34945 World Wide Web 208...... 36264 10047...... 34947 235...... 36264 Full text of the daily Federal Register, CFR and other publications 10048...... 34949 1003...... 36264 is located at: www.govinfo.gov. 10049...... 35793 1208...... 36264 10050...... 36467 Federal Register information and research tools, including Public 1235...... 36264 Inspection List and electronic text are located at: Executive Orders: www.federalregister.gov. 13925...... 34079 9 CFR 13926...... 34951 E-mail 13927...... 35165 Proposed Rules: 13928...... 36139 7...... 35812 FEDREGTOC (Daily Federal Register Table of Contents Electronic 13929...... 37325 310...... 33031 Mailing List) is an open e-mail service that provides subscribers 352...... 33034 with a digital form of the Federal Register Table of Contents. The Administrative Orders: digital form of the Federal Register Table of Contents includes Memorandums: 10 CFR HTML and PDF links to the full text of each document. Memorandum of April 14, 2020 ...... 35797 9...... 33527 To join or leave, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/ Memorandum of June 34...... 36307 USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your email address, then 2, 2020 ...... 34955 35...... 33527 follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your Memorandum of June 36...... 36307 subscription. 4, 2020 ...... 35171 39...... 36307 50...... 34087 PENS (Public Law Electronic Notification Service) is an e-mail Notices: 72...... 36307 service that notifies subscribers of recently enacted laws. Notice of June 11, 170...... 37250 To subscribe, go to http://listserv.gsa.gov/archives/publaws-l.html 2020 ...... 36137 Notice of June 17, 171...... 37250 and select Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow Proposed Rules: the instructions. 2020 ...... 37329 Presidential 9...... 33581 FEDREGTOC and PENS are mailing lists only. We cannot Determinations: 35...... 33581 respond to specific inquiries. No. 2020–06 of June 72...... 33582 Reference questions. Send questions and comments about the 5, 2020 ...... 36995 170...... 34370 Federal Register system to: [email protected] 429...... 35700 5 CFR 430 ...... 35382, 35700, 36512 The Federal Register staff cannot interpret specific documents or 2634...... 36715 431 ...... 33036, 34111, 34541, regulations. 2635...... 36715 35382, 35383, 35394, 36517 FEDERAL REGISTER PAGES AND DATE, JUNE 6 CFR 12 CFR 27...... 36469 3...... 32980 32977–33526...... 1 Proposed Rules: 6...... 32980 33527–34084...... 2 27...... 37393 7...... 33530, 35373 34085–34352...... 3 25...... 34734 34353–34492...... 4 7 CFR 30...... 32991 34493–34956...... 5 1...... 34085 160...... 33530 34957–35164...... 8 3...... 36670 195...... 34734 35165–35372...... 9 9...... 35799 208...... 32980, 32991 35373–35544...... 10 400...... 36670 217...... 32980 324...... 32980 35545–35796...... 11 761...... 36670 765...... 36670 364...... 32991 35797–36138...... 12 766...... 36670 741...... 32991 36139–36306...... 15 772...... 36670 Ch. X...... 37331 36307–36466...... 16 792...... 36670 1005...... 34870 36467–36714...... 17 985...... 35545 Proposed Rules: 36715–36994...... 18 1403...... 36670 745...... 34545 36995–37330...... 19 1951...... 36670 Ch. X...... 37394 37331–37546...... 22 1956...... 36670 1026...... 36938

VerDate Sep 11 2014 21:01 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4712 E:\FR\FM\22JNCU.LOC 22JNCU ii Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Reader Aids

13 CFR 22 CFR 36 CFR 136a...... 37414 120 ...... 33004, 33010, 35550, 42.34...... 36323 13...... 35181 433...... 37286 438...... 37286 36308, 36717, 36997 120...... 35376 Proposed Rules: 121...... 35550 122...... 35376 251...... 34378 447...... 37286 123...... 35376 456...... 37286 14 CFR 124...... 35376 37 CFR 43 CFR 29...... 34493 129...... 35376 1...... 36335 39 ...... 34088, 34090, 34597, 531...... 36150 201...... 37341 Proposed Rules: 34599, 35175, 35177, 35553, 202...... 37341 5000...... 34689 26 CFR 5400...... 34689 35555, 36143, 36145, 36312, Proposed Rules: 5410...... 34689 36318, 37000, 37333 1...... 35557 2...... 37040 5420...... 34689 71 ...... 33536, 34602, 34604, Proposed Rules: 7...... 37040 5430...... 34689 36320, 37003 1 ...... 34050, 35233, 35398, 201...... 34150, 37399 97...... 35800, 35803 35606, 35746, 35835 5440...... 34689 5450...... 34689 Proposed Rules: 53...... 35746 38 CFR 5460...... 34689 25...... 36351 9...... 35562 27 CFR 5470...... 34689 39 ...... 33043, 33046, 33583, 71...... 34522 5500...... 34689 34118, 34121, 34136, 34139, 9...... 34095 39 CFR 34141, 34371, 34375, 34655, 18...... 33539 44 CFR 34656, 34658, 34661, 34664, 19...... 33539 3030...... 35807 64...... 36507, 37019 35227, 35602, 35604, 35812, 24...... 33539 Proposed Rules: 35814, 35816, 36352, 36519, 25...... 33539 551...... 35404 67...... 34648 26...... 33539 36816, 37031 3050...... 37403 45 CFR 71 ...... 33587, 33589, 33590, 27...... 33539 34144, 34146, 34148, 34666, 28...... 33539 40 CFR 86...... 37160 35229, 35231, 35818, 36172, 30...... 33539 9...... 35191 92...... 37160 36174, 36355, 37033 70...... 33539 52 ...... 33021, 33023, 33571, 147...... 37160 155...... 37160 28 CFR 34106, 34108, 34357, 34524, 15 CFR 35198, 35377, 35809, 36154, 156...... 37160 4a...... 35374 85...... 37004 36161, 36342, 36343, 36504, 302...... 35201 744 ...... 34495, 34503, 36719 540...... 37335 36748 303...... 35201 305...... 35201 748...... 36483 29 CFR 63...... 34326 772...... 36719 70...... 33023 307...... 35201 774...... 34306, 36483 541...... 34609 81...... 35377 309...... 35201 778...... 34610 174...... 34646 1168...... 35566 16 CFR 1614...... 35558 180 ...... 34359, 36752, 36755, Proposed Rules: 1253...... 33015 4022...... 36153 37013 153...... 33595 4044...... 36153 228...... 35564 Proposed Rules: 47 CFR 317...... 34548 Proposed Rules: 271...... 33026 1614...... 33049 282...... 34361, 37347 0...... 34525 17 CFR 372...... 37354 1 ...... 33578, 36758, 37364 30 CFR 721...... 35191 2...... 33578 39...... 35805 550...... 34912 Proposed Rules: 11...... 35567 229...... 33290 51...... 35208 230...... 33290 31 CFR 52 ...... 33049, 33052, 34379, 34381, 34559, 34671, 34673, 54 ...... 33578, 34525, 36758, 232...... 33290 569...... 34510 37022 239...... 33290 34675, 34677, 34681, 34686, 35607, 35852, 36359, 36823, 73...... 35567, 36786 240...... 33020, 33290 32 CFR 74...... 35567 243...... 33290 37405, 37411 104...... 34518 80...... 34688 76...... 36798 249...... 33290 199...... 34101 270...... 33290 81...... 34381 Proposed Rules: Proposed Rules: 1...... 35405, 36522 274...... 33290 82...... 35874 507...... 35846 83...... 35612, 37057 2...... 35405 Proposed Rules: 180...... 33059 18...... 35405 1...... 36000 33 CFR 282...... 34395, 37413 54...... 35627, 36522 3...... 35820 27...... 36469 300...... 36368 64...... 35406 4...... 36000 100 ...... 33543, 33547, 34633, 721...... 36175 41...... 36000 34634, 37337, 37339 48 CFR 190...... 36000 117...... 33550 41 CFR 201...... 34527 18 CFR 165 ...... 33553, 33561, 33566, Proposed Rules: 206...... 34528 33568, 33570, 34104, 34519, 102–35...... 35236 208...... 34530 Ch. 1 ...... 36321 34520, 34639, 34641, 35806, 102–36...... 35236 210...... 34530 36328, 36492, 37011 19 CFR 102–37...... 35236 212...... 34530 207...... 34643 102–38...... 35236 215...... 34530, 34532 4...... 36469 326...... 34643 102–39...... 35236 218...... 34527 Proposed Rules: Proposed Rules: 102–40...... 35236 219...... 34528 24...... 34549, 34836 100...... 33592, 35404 225...... 34533 111...... 34549, 34836 165...... 34668, 37397 42 CFR 234...... 34530 360...... 37397 166...... 37034 417...... 33796 249...... 34535 422...... 33796 252...... 34535, 34536 21 CFR 34 CFR 423...... 33796 804...... 36348 112...... 34508 361...... 33021 438...... 37160 805...... 36348 573...... 33538 668...... 36494 440...... 37160 849...... 36348 1308...... 34607, 36148 Ch. III ...... 36329 460...... 37160 852...... 36348 Proposed Rules: Proposed Rules: Proposed Rules: Proposed Rules: 1308...... 36819 Ch. III ...... 34554 136...... 36182 2...... 34561

VerDate Sep 11 2014 21:01 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4712 E:\FR\FM\22JNCU.LOC 22JNCU Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Reader Aids iii

9...... 34561 825...... 35238 192...... 35240 36802 15...... 34561 572...... 33617 660 ...... 35210, 35594, 36803, 37027 19...... 34155, 34561 49 CFR 50 CFR 42...... 34155 679...... 35381, 36509 29...... 33494 17...... 35574 52...... 34155, 34561 Proposed Rules: 385...... 33396 216...... 35379 204...... 34569 395...... 33396 300 ...... 35379, 37023, 37376 17...... 33060, 35510 212...... 34569 1503...... 36469 622 ...... 36164, 36165, 36166 21...... 34578 239...... 34576 Proposed Rules: 635...... 37390 36...... 35628 252...... 34569, 34576 191...... 35240 648 ...... 33027, 33579, 35209, 218...... 33914

VerDate Sep 11 2014 21:01 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4712 E:\FR\FM\22JNCU.LOC 22JNCU iv Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Reader Aids

listserv.gsa.gov/cgi-bin/ wa.exe?SUBED1=PUBLAWS- LIST OF PUBLIC LAWS Public Laws Electronic L&A=1 Notification Service Note: No public bills which (PENS) Note: This service is strictly have become law were for email notification of new received by the Office of the laws. The text of laws is not Federal Register for inclusion PENS is a free email available through this service. in today’s List of Public notification service of newly PENS cannot respond to Laws. enacted public laws. To specific inquiries sent to this Last List June 19, 2020 subscribe, go to https:// address.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 21:01 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\22JNCU.LOC 22JNCU