Vol. 85 Monday, No. 212 2, 2020

Pages 69119–69464

OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL REGISTER

VerDate Sep 11 2014 23:32 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\02NOWS.LOC 02NOWS jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with FR_WS II Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 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 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 ( 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 23:32 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\02NOWS.LOC 02NOWS jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with FR_WS III

Contents Federal Register Vol. 85, No. 212

Monday, November 2, 2020

Agriculture Department Education Department See Forest Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection Submissions, and Approvals: RULES Education Stabilization Fund; Elementary and Secondary Home Mortgage Disclosure (Regulation C); Correction of Emergency Education Relief Fund Recipient Data Supplementary Information, 69119–69120 Collection Form, 69326 Education Stabilization Fund; Governor’s Emergency Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Education Relief Fund Recipient Data Collection NOTICES Form, 69325 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund Data Collection Submissions, and Approvals, 69333–69334 Form, 69324–69325 Employment and Training Administration Coast Guard NOTICES RULES Labor Surplus Area Classification, 69364–69365 Safety Zones: East River, New York, NY, 69172–69175 Engineers Corps PROPOSED RULES NOTICES Safety Zones: Requests for Nominations: Christiansted Harbor, St. Croix, USVI, 69301–69303 Inland Waterways Users Board, 69323–69324 Security Zones: San Juan, Puerto Rico, 69299–69301 Environmental Protection Agency RULES Commerce Department National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Electronic See Economic Development Administration Reporting Rule: See Foreign-Trade Zones Board Phase 2 Extension, 69189–69206 See International Trade Administration PROPOSED RULES See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Pesticides: See National Technical Information Service Proposal To Add Chitosan to the List of Active Ingredients Permitted in Exempted Minimum Risk Commodity Futures Trading Commission Pesticide Products, 69307–69311 NOTICES NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 69322 Prospective Purchaser Administrative Settlement Agreement and Covenant Not To Sue: Defense Acquisition Regulations System CERCLA; Lockwood Solvent Ground Water Plume NOTICES Superfund Site, Billings, MT, 69326–69327 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Submissions, and Approvals: RULES Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement, Procedural Regulations for Issuing Guidance, 69167–69172 69322 Federal Aviation Administration Defense Department RULES See Defense Acquisition Regulations System Airspace Designations and Reporting Points: See Engineers Corps Hartford, KY, 69148–69149 NOTICES Montezuma, GA, 69147–69148 Meetings: Airworthiness Directives: Defense Business Board, 69322–69323 Airbus Helicopters, 69126–69129, 69131–69134 Airbus SAS Airplanes, 69129–69131 Drug Enforcement Administration Dassault Aviation Airplanes, 69142–69147 RULES Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Airplanes, 69138–69142 Implementation of the Substance Use-Disorder Prevention Textron Aviation Inc. Airplanes, 69134–69138 That Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment for Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Patients and Communities Act: Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Dispensing and Administering Controlled Substances for Miscellaneous Amendments, 69149–69153 Medication-Assisted Treatment, 69153–69167 PROPOSED RULES PROPOSED RULES Airspace Designations and Reporting Points: Suspicious Orders of Controlled Substances, 69282–69299 McChord Field (Joint Base Lewis-McChord), WA, 69281– 69282 Economic Development Administration Newburyport, MA, 69279–69280 NOTICES Airworthiness Directives: Trade Adjustment Assistance; Determinations, 69312 Airbus Helicopters, 69267–69269

VerDate Sep<11>2014 23:56 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\02NOCN.SGM 02NOCN jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with CONTENTS IV Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Contents

ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Regional Airplanes, Forest Service 69272–69276 PROPOSED RULES Dassault Aviation Airplanes, 69269–69272 Assessing Fees for Excess and Unauthorized Grazing, De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited (Type Certificate 69303–69307 Previously Held by Bombardier, Inc.) Airplanes, 69276–69279 Health and Human Services Department Special Conditions: See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention AgustaWestland Philadelphia Corporation, Leonardo See National Institutes of Health S.p.A. Model A119 and AW119 MKII Helicopters; See Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Pressure Refueling and Fueling Provisions, 69265– Administration 69267 NOTICES Awards Unsolicited Proposal: Federal Communications Commission American Heart Association, Dallas, TX, 69334–69335 PROPOSED RULES Television Services: Homeland Security Department Mesa, AZ, 69311 See Coast Guard NOTICES See Federal Emergency Management Agency Invoice Filing Deadlines for TV Broadcaster Relocation See Transportation Security Administration Fund, 69328–69331 See U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Meetings: PROPOSED RULES Open Commission, 69327–69328 Modification of Registration Requirement for Petitioners Seeking To File Cap-Subject H–1B Petitions, 69236– Federal Emergency Management Agency 69265 NOTICES Adjustment of Countywide Per Capita Impact Indicator, Interior Department 69341 See Fish and Wildlife Service Adjustment of Minimum Project Worksheet Amount, 69340 See Land Management Bureau Adjustment of Statewide Per Capita Impact Indicator, 69341 See National Park Service Maximum Amount of Assistance Under the Individuals and Households Program, 69340–69341 International Trade Administration NOTICES Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, NOTICES or Reviews: Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications: Finished Carbon Steel Flanges From Spain, 69314–69316 Hearing, 69380–69381, 69384–69385 Large Diameter Welded Pipe From the Republic of Vision, 69378–69384 Turkey, 69313–69314

Federal Reserve System International Trade Commission NOTICES NOTICES Change in Bank Control: Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding etc.: Company, 69331 Certain Industrial Automation Systems and Components Thereof Including Control Systems, Controllers, Federal Trade Commission Visualization Hardware, Motion and Motor Control NOTICES Systems, Networking Equipment, Safety Devices, and Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Power Supplies, 69358–69359 Submissions, and Approvals, 69331–69333 Certain Pocket Lighters, 69357–69358 Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From China, Russia, and Fish and Wildlife Service Ukraine, 69362–69364 RULES Melamine From China, 69359–69362 National Wildlife Refuge System: Potassium Phosphate Salts From China, 69352–69354 Use of Electric Bicycles, 69223–69235 Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol From China, 69358 Welded Line Pipe From Korea and Turkey, 69354–69357 Foreign Assets Control Office NOTICES Justice Department Blocking or Unblocking of Persons and Properties, 69385– See Drug Enforcement Administration 69386 Labor Department Foreign-Trade Zones Board See Employment and Training Administration NOTICES Application for Reorganization under Alternative Site Land Management Bureau Framework; RULES Foreign-Trade Zone 139, Sierra Vista, AZ; Withdrawal, Increasing Recreational Opportunities Through the Use of 69313 Electric Bikes, 69206–69223 Proposed Production Activity: NOTICES Zinus USA Inc., Foreign-Trade Zone 26, Atlanta, GA, Meetings: 69312–69313 Arizona Resource Advisory Council, 69351

VerDate Sep<11>2014 23:56 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\02NOCN.SGM 02NOCN jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with CONTENTS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Contents V

Record of Decision: Securities and Exchange Commission Proposed Willow Master Development Plan Project, NOTICES Alaska, 69351–69352 Application: Investment Managers Series Trust II and AXS National Endowment for the Humanities Investments LLC, 69367–69370 NOTICES Charter Renewal: Meetings: Fixed Income Market Structure Advisory Committee, National Council on the Humanities, 69365–69366 69370–69371 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 69370, 69375–69376 National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: See National Endowment for the Humanities MIAX Emerald, LLC, 69371–69375

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Small Business Administration PROPOSED RULES RULES Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards: Use of Federal Surplus Property for Veteran-Owned Small Child Restraint Systems, 69388–69459 Businesses and Small Businesses in Disaster Areas and Puerto Rico, 69120–69126 National Institutes of Health NOTICES NOTICES Disaster Declaration: Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Texas, 69376 Submissions, and Approvals: Utah, 69376–69377 Office of Intramural Training and Education— Meetings: Application, Registration, and Alumni Systems Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards, Office of the Director, 69337–69338 69376 Meetings: National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, State Department 69338 NOTICES Request for Information: Charter Renewal: Strategic Plan for COVID–19 Research, 69335–69336 Overseas Security Advisory Council, 69378 Meetings: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Preparation for International Maritime Organization NOTICES Meeting, 69377 Application for Exempted Fishing Permits: Request for Statements of Interest, 69377–69378 Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; General Provisions for Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Domestic Fisheries, 69316–69318 Administration Draft Revised Management Plan for the Lake Superior National Estuarine Research Reserve, 69320–69321 NOTICES Certified Laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Meetings: Facilities: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 69319 List of Facilities Which Meet Minimum Standards To New England Fishery Management Council, 69319 Engage in Urine and Oral Fluid Drug Testing for North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 69316, Federal Agencies, 69339–69340 69319–69320 Transportation Department National Park Service See Federal Aviation Administration RULES See Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration General Provisions: See National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Electric Bicycles, 69175–69188 Transportation Security Administration National Technical Information Service NOTICES NOTICES Enforcement Actions Summary, 69341–69344 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Treasury Department Limited Access Death Master File Systems Safeguards See Foreign Assets Control Office Attestation Forms, 69321–69322 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Personnel Management Office NOTICES NOTICES Extension of the Designation of South Sudan for Temporary Meetings: Protected Status, 69344–69351 Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee, 69366

Postal Regulatory Commission Separate Parts In This Issue NOTICES Periodic Reporting, 69366–69367 Part II Transportation Department, National Highway Traffic Presidential Documents Safety Administration, 69388–69459 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS Sudan; Continuation of National Emergency (Notice of Part III 30, 2020), 69461–69464 Presidential Documents, 69461–69464

VerDate Sep<11>2014 23:56 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\02NOCN.SGM 02NOCN jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with CONTENTS VI Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Contents

To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/ Reader Aids accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice manage your subscription. of recently enacted public laws.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 23:56 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\02NOCN.SGM 02NOCN jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with CONTENTS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 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.

3 CFR Administrative Orders: Notices: Notice of , 2020 ...... 69463 8 CFR Proposed Rules: 214...... 69236 12 CFR 1003...... 69119 13 CFR 124...... 69120 125...... 69120 129...... 69120 14 CFR 39 (8 documents) ...... 69126, 69129, 69131, 69134, 69138, 69140, 69142, 69144 71 (2 documents) ...... 69147, 69148 97 (2 documents) ...... 69149, 69151 Proposed Rules: 27...... 69265 39 (4 documents) ...... 69267, 69269, 69272, 69276 71 (2 documents) ...... 69279, 69281 21 CFR 1301...... 69153 1306...... 69153 Proposed Rules: 1300...... 69282 1301...... 69282 29 CFR 1695...... 69167 33 CFR 165...... 69172 Proposed Rules: 165 (2 documents) ...... 69299, 69301 36 CFR 1...... 69175 4...... 69175 Proposed Rules: 222...... 69303 40 CFR 9...... 69189 122...... 69189 123...... 69189 127...... 69189 403...... 69189 503...... 69189 Proposed Rules: 152...... 69307 43 CFR 8340...... 69206 47 CFR Proposed Rules: 73...... 69311 49 CFR Proposed Rules: 571...... 69388 50 CFR 27...... 69223

VerDate Sep 11 2014 23:33 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4711 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\02NOLS.LOC 02NOLS jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with FR_LS 69119

Rules and Regulations Federal Register Vol. 85, No. 212

Monday, November 2, 2020

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER end lines of credit in Regulation C.1 The Information, part VII.E of the contains regulatory documents having general Section-by-Section Analysis in part V of Supplementary Information provides a applicability and legal effect, most of which the Supplementary Information to the more comprehensive discussion of the are keyed to and codified in the Code of HMDA Thresholds Final Rule contained Bureau’s costs estimates than part V.4 Federal Regulations, which is published under several clerical errors regarding the These changes to part V correct the 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510. estimated cost savings in annual clerical errors on pages 28374 and The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by ongoing costs from various possible 28383 to conform the cost estimates the Superintendent of Documents. closed-end coverage thresholds as provided on those pages to the Bureau’s compared to the then-current coverage analysis of the costs of the final rule threshold of 25 closed-end mortgage provided in part VII.E of the BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL loans.2 This document corrects those Supplementary Information, including PROTECTION errors. Specifically, in the first and the estimates provided in table 2 on second columns on page 28374 and in page 28392 and in the second and third 12 CFR Part 1003 the third column on page 28383 of columns on page 28396. volume 85 of the Federal Register: Correction [Docket No. CFPB–2019–0021] • The phrase ‘‘institutions that originate between 25 and 49 closed-end Accordingly, the Bureau makes the RIN 3170–AA76 mortgage loans would save following corrections to FR Doc. 2020– approximately $3.7 million per year in 08409 published on , 2020 (85 Home Mortgage Disclosure total annual ongoing costs, relative to FR 28364): (Regulation C); Correction of the current threshold of 25’’ should read 1. On page 28374, in the first column, Supplementary Information ‘‘institutions that originate between 25 in the 39th to 43rd lines, revise and 49 closed-end mortgage loans ‘‘institutions that originate between 25 AGENCY: Bureau of Consumer Financial would save approximately $2.0 million and 49 closed-end mortgage loans Protection. per year in total annual ongoing costs, would save approximately $3.7 million ACTION: Final rule; correction. relative to the current threshold of 25’’; per year in total annual ongoing costs, • The phrase ‘‘institutions that relative to the current threshold of 25’’ SUMMARY: On 16, 2020, the originate between 25 and 99 closed-end to read ‘‘institutions that originate Consumer Financial Protection Bureau mortgage loans will save approximately between 25 and 49 closed-end mortgage (Bureau) issued the ‘‘Home Mortgage $11.2 million per year, relative to the loans would save approximately $2.0 Disclosure (Regulation C)’’ final rule current threshold of 25’’ should read million per year in total annual ongoing (HMDA Thresholds Final Rule). The ‘‘institutions that originate between 25 costs, relative to the current threshold of Section-by-Section Analysis in the and 99 closed-end mortgage loans will 25’’; Supplementary Information to the save approximately $6.4 million per 2. On page 28374, in the first column, HMDA Thresholds Final Rule contained year, relative to the current threshold of in the 47th through 50th lines, and in several clerical errors regarding the 25’’; and the second column, in the 1st line, estimated cost savings in annual • The phrase ‘‘institutions would revise ‘‘institutions that originate ongoing costs from various possible save approximately $27.2 million and between 25 and 99 closed-end mortgage closed-end coverage thresholds as $45.4 million, respectively, relative to loans will save approximately $11.2 compared to the then-current coverage the current threshold of 25’’ should read million per year, relative to the current threshold of 25 closed-end mortgage ‘‘institutions would save more, relative threshold of 25’’ to read ‘‘institutions loans. This document corrects those to the current threshold of 25.’’ that originate between 25 and 99 closed- errors. The HMDA Thresholds Final Rule end mortgage loans will save includes the Bureau’s consideration of approximately $6.4 million per year, DATES: This correction is effective on the potential benefits, costs, and relative to the current threshold of 25’’; November 2, 2020. impacts of the final rule in the Dodd- 3. On page 28374, in the second FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frank Act section 1022(b) analysis in column, in the 3rd through 6th lines, Jaydee DiGiovanni, Counsel; or Amanda part VII of the Supplementary revise ‘‘institutions would save Quester or Alexandra Reimelt, Senior Information.3 As the Bureau explained approximately $27.2 million and $45.4 Counsels, Office of Regulations, at 202– in part V of the Supplementary million, respectively, relative to the 435–7700 or https:// current threshold of 25’’ to read reginquiries.consumerfinance.gov. If 1 Home Mortgage Disclosure (Regulation C), 85 FR ‘‘institutions would save more, relative you require this document in an 28364 (May 12, 2020). to the current threshold of 25’’; 2 alternative electronic format, please Effective 1, 2020, the coverage threshold for 4. On page 28383, in the third closed-end mortgage loans increased to 100. column, in the 2nd to 7th lines, revise contact [email protected]. 3 Specifically, section 1022(b)(2)(A) of the Dodd- ‘‘institutions that originate between 25 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Frank Act calls for the Bureau to consider the On April and 49 closed-end mortgage loans 16, 2020, the Bureau issued the ‘‘Home potential benefits and costs of a regulation to consumers and covered persons, including the would save approximately $3.7 million Mortgage Disclosure (Regulation C)’’ potential reduction of access by consumers to per year in total annual ongoing costs final rule (HMDA Thresholds Final consumer financial products or services; the impact relative to the current threshold of 25’’ Rule), which adjusts the permanent on depository institutions and credit unions with $10 billion or less in total assets as described in thresholds for reporting data about section 1026 of the Dodd-Frank Act; and the impact 4 E.g., 85 FR at 28371, 28374 n.68, 28381, 28383 closed-end mortgage loans and open- on consumers in rural areas. n.137, 28384 n.141.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 69120 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

to read ‘‘institutions that originate Acts provide that small businesses in Agencies for Surplus Property (SASPs) between 25 and 49 closed-end mortgage disaster areas, veteran-owned small already maintain a compliance and loans would save approximately $2.0 businesses, and small business concerns oversight role with regard the million per year in total annual ongoing located in Puerto Rico, respectively, distribution of surplus personal costs, relative to the current threshold of should be considered for surplus property. As such, veteran-owned small 25’’; personal property distributions. SBA, in business concerns that receive surplus 5. On page 28383, in the third coordination with GSA, is enacting personal property will generally follow column, in the 10th through 14th lines, certain procedures for determining the same guidelines and procedures as revise ‘‘institutions that originate which firms may participate in GSA’s other recipients through GSA’s between 25 and 99 closed-end mortgage existing surplus personal property Donation Program. loans will save approximately $11.2 program, and under what conditions. The language added in § 125.100(a) million per year, relative to the current DATES: This rule is effective 2, references the regulations that govern threshold of 25’’ to read ‘‘institutions 2020. the GSA Donation Program, and the requirements that concerns will need to that originate between 25 and 99 closed- FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: meet to use the Donation Program. end mortgage loans will save Donna Fudge, Office of Policy, Planning approximately $6.4 million per year, There were no comments on this and Liaison, 409 Third Street SW, paragraph and language is being relative to the current threshold of 25’’; Washington, DC 20416. and adopted as proposed. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 6. On page 28383, in the third SBA received three comments on the column, in the 17th through 20th lines, General Background proposed language for § 125.100(b)(1). revise ‘‘institutions would save For this section, SBA proposed language On 21, 2020, SBA issued a to incorporate the requirement that a approximately $27.2 million and $45.4 proposed rule to implement three new million, respectively, relative to the concern will need to be verified by the statutory programs regarding the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) as current threshold of 25’’ to read transfer of surplus personal property to ‘‘institutions would save more, relative a small business owned and controlled certain small businesses. 85 FR 3273. As by veterans in order to be eligible for the to the current threshold of 25.’’ noted in SBA’s proposed rule, GSA The Director of the Bureau, having Donation Program. One commenter operates the Federal Surplus Personal agreed with SBA’s proposed regulation. reviewed and approved this document Property Donation Program (Donation is delegating the authority to Two commenters requested that SBA Program) under the Federal Property remove the requirement regarding electronically sign this document to and Administrative Services Act of Laura Galban, a Bureau Federal Register verification by the VA. The commenters 1949, 63 Stat. 377, as amended, and requested that SBA drop this Liaison, for purposes of publication in other applicable laws. See 41 CFR part the Federal Register. requirement because they believed it 102–37. Currently, eligible state and creates an obstacle to participation that Dated: , 2020. local government agencies and could limit the number of small Laura Galban, nonprofit organizations can obtain businesses that use the Donation Federal Register Liaison, Bureau of Consumer personal property that the Federal Program. As noted in the proposed rule, Financial Protection. Government no longer needs through the requirement that participants be [FR Doc. 2020–22891 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] the Donation Program. More verified by the VA comes directly from BILLING CODE 4810–AM–P information is available on the GSA the Small Business Act and is a website at https://www.gsa.gov/buying- statutory requirement. The statutory selling/government-property-for-sale-or- language states that access to the SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION disposal/personal-property-for-reuse- Donation Program is available only to sale/for-state-agencies-and-public- ‘‘to small business concerns owned and 13 CFR Parts 124, 125, and 129 organizations/. controlled by veterans (as verified by SBA received 32 comments. Of those the Secretary of Veterans Affairs under RIN 3245–AH18 32 comments, 30 were supportive. SBA section 8127 of title 38, Use of Federal Surplus Property for received several unsupportive Code)’’. 15 U.S.C. 657b(g)(2). SBA does Veteran-Owned Small Businesses and comments that requested SBA not adopt not have the authority to disregard clear Small Businesses in Disaster Areas clear statutory requirements. SBA has statutory language when promulgating and Puerto Rico noted these comments and has provided regulations and program requirements, a more thorough response to each of and therefore, SBA will not be removing AGENCY: U.S. Small Business those comments below. this requirement. Administration. SBA is adding § 125.100(c) to provide The Veterans Small Business ACTION: Final rule. the requirements for the use of surplus Enhancement Act personal property received, and the SUMMARY: The U.S. Small Business The Veterans Small Business repercussions for misusing the surplus Administration (SBA) is amending its Enhancement Act, Public Law 115–416 personal property. The proposed regulations to expand access to the U.S. (, 2019), codified in the Small language references GSA and SASP General Services Administration’s Business Act at 15 U.S.C 657b(g), guidelines for use of surplus personal (GSA) Federal Surplus Personal provides that veteran-owned small property because, as mentioned above, Property Donation Program for certain businesses should have access to veteran-owned small businesses will be small business concerns in accordance surplus government personal property. treated similarly to other recipients with with the Recovery Improvements for SBA is adding a new subpart F, regard to the use, maintenance, and Small Entities After Disaster Act of 2015 containing § 125.100, to 13 CFR part 125 retention of surplus personal property. (RISE Act), the Veterans Small Business to implement these changes. SBA received one comment on the Enhancement Act, and the John S. SBA is adding this subpart to detail proposed language. This comment McCain National Defense Authorization the new statutory authority. As noted in requested that the final rule provide Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (NDAA). These SBA’s proposed rule, GSA and the State more specificity and detail regarding

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69121

appropriate use of received property. RISE After Disaster Act will align the 8(a) BD program SBA has reviewed the language of the Section 2105 of the RISE After participant title terms with the other proposed regulation. The proposed Disaster Act authorizes SBA to transfer programs SBA is implementing, and language made clear that the property technology or surplus personal property with the general practice of GSA and the needed to be used for normal business to small business concerns located in SASP, with regard to other donees. SBA purposes of the business acquiring the disaster areas. In order to implement the did not receive any comments on this property. The rule as proposed did not changes made by section 2105, SBA is change and adopts the rule as proposed. allow for the personal use of the amending § 124.405 and part 129 of its Amendments to Part 129 property or the transfer of the property regulations. to other businesses. In addition, the Via the final rule, ‘‘National Defense proposed language is similar to language Amendments to Part 124.405 Authorization Acts of 2016 and 2017, Recovery Improvements for Small currently used for SBA’s 8(a) Business SBA is amending § 124.405 to update Development (BD) program. 13 C.F.R Entities After Disaster Act of 2015, and the statutory reference contained in Other Small Business Government § 124.405(c). As such, SBA is not paragraph (a)(1). There were no making any changes and is adopting the Contracting’’, SBA added part 129, comments and SBA is adopting the Contracts For Small Businesses Located language as proposed. proposed language as is. This commenter also raised concerns In Disaster Areas, to its regulations. 84 SBA is also adding a new paragraph about the proposed language concerning FR 65647 (, 2019). To (b)(6) to provide that 8(a) BD program the return of surplus property. SBA has implement section 2105 of the RISE Participants are not eligible to receive consulted with GSA about this comment After Disaster Act, SBA is now creating surplus personal property under and believes that the proposed language two subparts for part 129: Subpart A, § 124.405 if they have received surplus is consistent with Federal Management titled, ‘‘Contracts For Small Businesses personal property under subpart A to Regulations on the issue. As such, SBA Located In Disaster Areas’’, and subpart part 129 as a small business concern does not believe that the proposed B, titled, ‘‘Surplus Personal Property for language puts potential recipients or located in a disaster area during the 2- Small Businesses Located in Disaster SASPs in a position substantially year period beginning on the date on Areas’’. The new subpart A will contain different than other potential donees. which the President declared the the existing regulations in part 129. The Given these factors, SBA has decided to applicable major disaster. SBA did not new subpart B will address how a small adopt the language as proposed. receive any comments on this change business concern located in a disaster SBA is adding § 125.100(d) to provide and adopts the rule as proposed. area can obtain surplus personal notice that there are costs associated In addition to the changes property and will contain two sections, with receiving the surplus personal necessitated by section 2105, SBA is §§ 129.200 and 129.201. There were no property. These costs will be calculated making several other changes to comments regarding moving the noted by the individual SASP pursuant to 41 § 124.405. SBA is changing the cross regulations to the new subpart B. SBA CFR part 102–37, Appendix B(e), and citation for the GSA and SASP is adding § 129.200, containing a the SASP’s State Plan of Operation. procedures in § 124.405(a)(1). SBA is definition for ‘‘covered period’’. This Veteran-owned small business concerns also changing the language in paragraph term is being incorporated into SBA will be treated similarly to other (a)(2) of this section to remove the term regulations as defined in the Small recipients. SBA did not receive any ‘‘donable’’ and in its place provide more Business Act at 15 U.S.C. comments on this provision and adopts descriptive language, because ‘‘donable’’ 636(j)(f)(13)(F)(ii)(I)(aa). SBA did not it as proposed. is not a defined term in GSA’s surplus receive any comments on this change SBA proposed to add § 125.100(e) to personal property regulations. SBA did and adopts the regulation as proposed. provide notice of the type of title that not receive any comments on these SBA is adding § 129.201 to implement veteran-owned small business concerns changes and adopts the rule as the program for transfer of surplus will receive. Firms will be receiving proposed. personal property. SBA received one conditional title, and full title will SBA is amending § 124.405(b)(3) to comment regarding the certification/ transfer when they have met all the add a reference to the nonprocurement verification of small firms. This requirements of GSA and the SASP. As debarment regulations contained in title commenter noted that 8(a) firms and noted earlier, this procedure will have 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations. veteran-owned firms are certified by veteran-owned small business concerns SBA did not receive any comments on Government agencies and there is a treated in a similar manner to other this change and adopts the rule as method for verifying firms. The question recipients of surplus personal property proposed. raised was how a SASP should verify through GSA’s Donation Program. SBA SBA is amending § 124.405(c)(1) to that a firm is small. In response to this received one comment on this specific provide clarity on how the program has comment, SBA is adding a requirement issue. The commenter asked whether been historically administered. The new in § 129.201(b)(2) that any firm seeking veteran-owned companies would have language more clearly articulates the to receive property though this program the same retention requirements as current policy and SBA believes it will is required to register in SAM.gov, or a other donees. As noted in the proposed lead to less confusion now that there are successor system, and officially certify rule, SBA intends that veteran-owned additional programs. SBA did not its status as a small business under the businesses be treated in the same receive any comments on this change size standard corresponding to its manner as other donees. SBA believes and adopts the rule as proposed. primary NAICS code. In addition, the current language will result in SBA is amending § 124.405(d)(1) to SASPs and GSA may rely on these veteran-owned businesses having update the cross references to GSA’s certifications. SBA also added similar similar retention requirements to other regulations. SBA did not receive any language to § 129.301(b) for consistency. donees, and addresses the commenter’s comments on this change and adopts SBA received two comments on concern about veteran-owned the rule as proposed. § 129.201(c), which requires that firms businesses potentially being treated SBA is amending § 124.405(f) to alter should only receive property in states differently. SBA is adopting the the method for transferring title. As the business are located. One language as proposed. noted in the proposed rule, this change commenter did not think limiting

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 69122 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

available surplus property to only to register in SAM.gov, and allowing for 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil businesses located in the state of the SASPs and GSA to rely on those Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, emergency was reasonable and did not certifications. SBA made the change in eliminate ambiguity, and reduce account for businesses that may want to response to a comment on another burden. This action does not have any move into the area after a disaster. The section referenced above. SBA is retroactive or preemptive effect. other commenter agreed with the rule as adopting the rest of the section without Executive Order 13132 written and thought it would be difficult any additional changes. for SASP to oversee and monitor A rule has implications for federalism Compliance With Executive Orders property transferred out of their state. under Executive Order 13132 12866, 13563, 12988, 13132, 13771, the SBA believes the intent of the statute (Federalism), if it has a substantial Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. was to assist businesses located in a direct effect on the States, on the Ch. 35), and the Regulatory Flexibility disaster area. Also, SBA believes that relationship between the national Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612) the suggested change by the commenter, government and the States, or on the while not being in line with the intent Executive Order 12866 distribution of power and responsibilities among the various of the statute, would also lead to more The Office of Management and Budget levels of government. This rule would burdens on small businesses and SASPs (OMB) has determined that this rule is implement new policies allowing more that would need to keep track and not a ‘‘significant’’ regulatory action for small businesses to participate in the report on equipment moving out of the purposes of Executive Order 12866. GSA Program administered by the state. As such, SBA adopts the rule as This is not a major rule under the SASPs. SBA has determined that this proposed. Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, rule is consistent with the fundamental et seq. John S. McCain National Defense federalism principles and preemption Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 Executive Order 13563 requirements described in Executive (NDAA) This executive order directs agencies Order 13132. We note that this rule Section 861 of the John S. McCain to, among other things: (a) Afford the would impose a reporting requirement National Defense Authorization Act for public a meaningful opportunity to specific to state agencies that participate Fiscal Year 2019 (NDAA), provides that comment through the internet on in the Program to provide Federal SBA may transfer technology or surplus proposed regulations, with a comment technology or surplus personal property personal property to a small business period that should generally consist of to small business concerns located in concern located in Puerto Rico if the not less than 60 days; (b) provide for an disaster areas and in Puerto Rico, as small business meets the requirements ‘‘open exchange’’ of information among well as those designated as veteran- for such a transfer, without regard to government officials, experts, owned small businesses. However, whether that small business is a stakeholders, and the public; and (c) given the potential for application and participant in the 8(a) BD program. 15 seek the views of those who are likely annual reporting burdens on the States U.S.C. 636(j)(13)(F)(iii); Public Law to be affected by the rulemaking, even and Territories, particularly Puerto Rico, 115–232 ( 13, 2018). SBA is before issuing a notice of proposed SBA solicited comments on the issue of adding a new subpart C, titled, ‘‘Surplus rulemaking. As far as practicable or whether this rule has implications for Personal Property for Small Businesses relevant, SBA considered these federalism. SBA did receive a comment Located in Puerto Rico’’, to part 129 to requirements in developing this rule. from a State Agency for Surplus incorporate these changes. The new First, to the extent possible, SBA Property and one from the National subpart will include two sections, utilized the most recent data available Association of State Agencies for §§ 129.300 and 301. in the Federal Procurement Data Surplus Property. Both comments raised SBA is adding two new definitions System—Next Generation, System for issues with details of the language of the via the new § 129.300. Specifically, SBA Award Management and Electronic regulations, but neither comment raised will incorporate the term ‘‘covered Subcontracting Reporting System. the issue of federalism. period’’ as defined at 15 U.S.C. Second, the proposed rule provided a Executive Order 13771 636(j)(13)(F)(iii)(I). SBA noted in the 60-day comment period and was posted proposed rule, and is reiterating here, on www.regulations.gov (Docket ID: This final rule is not expected to be that this definition for ‘‘covered period’’ SBA–2020–0002) to allow the public to subject to Executive Order 13771 is different than the definition used in comment meaningfully on its because the rule is a transfer rule. The the new § 129.200. The two terms are provisions. In addition, the rule was benefits to small businesses in disaster defined separately in the Small Business discussed with GSA, the VA and with areas, veteran-owned small businesses, Act, and therefore SBA is adopting the representatives of the National and small business concerns located in language from the Act, as is, for each Association of State Agencies for Puerto Rico produced by this rule are a program. SBA did not receive any Surplus Property. transfer of benefits from other entities comments on this definition and adopts Third, the final rule implements who may have received the surplus the regulation as proposed. The new statutory provisions and provides personal property in their place. § 129.300 also provides a definition for clarification requested by agencies and Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Ch. the term, ‘‘located in Puerto Rico’’. SBA stakeholders. In addition, the 35 did not receive any comments on this amendments made via this rule will definition and adopts the regulation as allow potential small business For the purposes of the Paperwork proposed. participants to participate in the GSA Reduction Act, SBA has determined that SBA is adding § 129.301 to implement Program in as similar a manner as other this rule will not impose new the program for transfer of surplus participants do without additional Government-wide reporting personal property for small business regulatory requirements. requirements on small business concerns located in Puerto Rico. SBA concerns. SBA and GSA have discussed did not receive any comments on this Executive Order 12988 the possible implication of the new section. However, SBA also made This action meets applicable regulations, and do not believe that any changes to § 129.301(b) requiring firms standards set forth in section 3(a) and new requirements are being added to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69123

GSA’s Surplus Property Donation impact all veteran-owned small participate in GSA’s Program under the Program in addition to the requirements businesses and small business concerns regulations. Further, as of November already in place for recipients of surplus in disaster areas and Puerto Rico, SBA 2019, SBA used data from the Federal personal property. GSA has specific does not believe the impact will be Procurement Data System to identify forms for its Surplus Property Donation significant. After discussions with GSA, approximately 3,400 small firms in Program, but these proposed SBA believes that the rule will have an Puerto Rico that are currently engaged amendments will require no changes to impact on a substantial number of in business with the Federal those forms. See Standard Form 123, entities, but that it will not have a Government. Finally, according to the Transfer Order—Surplus Personal significant economic impact. SBA 2012 Economic Census there are Property and Continuation Sheet, OMB reached this conclusion because the approximately 7.7 million small Control Number 3090–0014 (expires overall amount of donated personal businesses in the United States with , 2022). property will not change. The rule will employees. Under the regulations any However, this rule does have a be implementing statutory changes with small business located in a major reporting requirement specific to state regard to the mix of how that property disaster area may be eligible for the agencies that participate in the Program is distributed among the various eligible Donation Program. Under these to provide Federal technology or entities, but neither GSA or SBA believe regulations it is possible that any small surplus personal property to small that the overall impact on all relevant business in the United States could business concerns located in disaster parties will be significant given that the potentially be a participant, because a areas, designated as veteran-owned regulation is not changing the total major disaster could happen anywhere small businesses, or located in Puerto value of personal property distributed. and at any time. This is a variable that Rico. GSA already has a specific form to SBA did not receive any comments on cannot be known with certainty at this collect data from SASPs with regard to its analysis that there would not be time. Therefore, SBA is operating under the Surplus Property Donation Program. significant economic impact. the assumption that all small businesses See GSA Form 3040, State Agency The Federal Surplus Personal could be affected at some point in the Monthly Donation Report of Surplus Property Donation Program enables future. Personal Property, OMB Control certain nonfederal organizations to The provisions of this regulation are Number 3090–0112 (expires March 31, obtain personal property that the implementing three distinct and new 2022). Federal Government no longer needs. statutory provisions enacted by Concerning the verification of SASPs maintain the list of eligible Congress and detailed above. Therefore, veteran-owned small businesses, the VA organizations and these generally it is necessary for SBA to take some already has the authority to verify include: Public agencies, nonprofit action in order to implement the new qualified small business concerns. 38 educational and public health agencies, statutory requirements. SBA in CFR part 74. The VA is responsible for nonprofit and public programs for the conjunction with GSA has reviewed updating its public database of veteran- elderly, public airports, and educational possible alternatives to this proposed owned small businesses https:// agencies of special interest to the Armed regulation. One alternative discussed www.va.gov/osdbu/verification/. SASPs Services. More information on the list of was for SBA and GSA to enter into one will rely on the accurately updated eligible entities can be found at http:// or several memorandums of information to make decisions. www.nasasp.org/findmystate.html. In understanding with regard to additional Concerning the designation of a fiscal year 2018, GSA donated through potential program participants. As noted ‘‘disaster area,’’ the term is defined in this program personal property with above, participants in SBA’s 8(a) BD the RISE Act as area for which the original acquisition value of program are currently able to participate President has declared a major disaster $418,158,102. It should be noted that in GSA’s Program. Participation in the during the covered period; namely, the this reflects the value of the property GSA Program by 8(a) BD participants is 2-year period beginning on the date of when it was acquired, not when it was governed by both regulations issued by the declaration of the applicable major donated. SBA does not have accurate SBA and memorandums of disaster. data to reflect the value at time of understanding entered into by SBA, SBA invited public comments on the donation but does believe the value GSA, and the various SASPs. In proposed changes to the regulations would be significantly less than the implementing the new statutory requiring reporting from SASPs to the value at which the property was provisions SBA believes that following Federal Government. SBA received acquired. the previous example of the 8(a) BD general comments from SASPs As noted above this final rule will program is the best course of action and regarding the regulations and possible have an effect on a substantial number has therefore chosen to implement the burdens related to oversight, but not of entities. First, it will have an impact statutes by regulation. Going through specifically about the collection of data. on all the entities currently entitled to the formal regulation process allows receive surplus property. SBA does not SBA to craft the rules for the programs Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601– have a number for all those entities, but with direct input from the public, and 612 that number does include to have a place within SBA’s regulations According to the Regulatory approximately 4,400 participants in that interested parties may go to review Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601, SBA’s 8(a) BD program. In addition to the requirements of the various when an agency issues a rulemaking, it the entities already eligible for GSA’s programs. While SBA believes that the must prepare a regulatory flexibility Program, these regulations will also formal rule making process is the best analysis to address the impact of the have an impact on new entities that will alternative for implementation, SBA rule on small entities. However, Section be allowed to take part once these requested comments on the issue. SBA 605 of the RFA allows an agency to regulations go into effect. As of did not receive any comments on this certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an , 2019, the VA has a total of issue. analysis, if the rulemaking is not 13,853 verified service-disabled veteran- SBA is also aware that the statutes expected to have a significant economic owned small businesses and veteran- implementing these programs and other impact on a substantial number of small owned small businesses. Those programs for distribution of surplus entities. Although the rulemaking will businesses would be eligible to personal property do not use the same

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 69124 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

language. SBA does not think that this Authority: 15 U.S.C. 634(b)(6), 636(j), PART 125—GOVERNMENT regulation, or the various statutes 637(a), 637(d), 644 and Pub. L. 99–661, Pub. CONTRACTING PROGRAMS conflict with each other. SBA believes L. 100–656, sec. 1207, Pub. L. 101–37, Pub. that these regulations will help provide L. 101–574, section 8021, Pub. L. 108–87, ■ 3. The authority citation for part 125 and 42 U.S.C. 9815. clarity around any issues or differences is revised to read as follows: between the various statutes. That said, ■ 2. Amend § 124.405 by: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 632(p), (q), 634(b)(6), SBA requested comments from any ■ a. Revising the second sentence of 637, 644, 657b, 657(f), and 657r. impacted parties about whether the paragraph (a)(1); ■ 4. Add subpart F, consisting of ■ regulations as written conflict with b. Revising paragraphs (a)(2) and § 125.100, to read as follows: other statutes or regulations. SBA did (b)(3); not receive any comments on this issue. ■ c. Adding paragraph (b)(6); Subpart F—Surplus Personal Property There are no new compliance or other ■ d. Revising the paragraph (c) subject for Veteran-Owned Small Business costs imposed by the rule on small heading and paragraph (c)(1) Programs business concerns. The rule expands the introductory text; access to GSA’s Program to more small ■ e. Revising the paragraph (d) subject § 125.100 How does a small business business concerns under varying concern owned and controlled by veterans heading and paragraph (d)(1); and obtain Federal surplus personal property? circumstances, without significant costs. ■ f. Revising paragraph (f). The benefits to small businesses in (a) General. (1) Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. The revisions and addition read as 657b(g), eligible small business disaster areas, veteran-owned small follows: businesses, and small business concerns concerns owned and controlled by located in Puerto Rico produced by this § 124.405 How does a Participant obtain veterans may receive surplus Federal rule are a transfer of benefits from other Federal Government surplus property? Government property from State entities who may have received the (a) * * * Agencies for Surplus Property (SASPs). surplus personal property in their place. (1) * * * The procedures set forth in The procedures set forth in 41 CFR part The firms must adhere to certain 41 CFR part 102–37 and this section 102–37 and this section will be used to regulations regarding certification or will be used to transfer surplus personal transfer surplus personal property to status relevant to designation as a small property to eligible Participants. such concerns. (2) The surplus personal property business concern. (2) The surplus personal property which may be transferred to SASPs for For the reasons discussed, SBA which may be transferred to SASPs for further transfer to eligible small certifies that this rule would not have a further transfer to eligible Participants business concerns owned and significant economic impact on a includes all personal property which controlled by veterans includes all substantial number of small business has become available for donation surplus personal property which has concerns. pursuant to 41 CFR 102–37.30. become available for donation pursuant (b) * * * List of Subjects to 41 CFR 102–37.30. (3) Not be debarred, suspended, or (b) Eligibility to receive Federal 13 CFR Part 124 declared ineligible under Title 2 or Title surplus personal property. To be eligible Administrative practice and 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations; to receive Federal surplus personal procedure, Government procurement, * * * * * property, on the date of transfer a Government property, Hawaiian (6) Not have received property under concern must: Natives, Indians-business and finance, part 129, Subpart B of this chapter, (1) Be a small business concern Minority businesses, Reporting and during the applicable period described owned and controlled by veterans, that recordkeeping requirements, Small in that section. has been verified by the Secretary of businesses, Technical assistance. (c) Use of acquired surplus personal Veterans Affairs under section 8127 of property. (1) Eligible Participants may title 38, United States Code; 13 CFR Part 125 acquire Federal surplus personal (2) Not be debarred, suspended, or Government contracts, Government property from the SASP in the State(s) declared ineligible under title 2 or title procurement, Reporting and where the Participant is located and 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations; recordkeeping requirements, Small operates, provided the Participant and businesses, Technical assistance, represents in writing: (3) Be engaged or expect to be engaged Veterans. * * * * * in business activities making the item useful to it. 13 CFR Part 129 (d) Procedures for acquiring Federal Government surplus personal property. (c) Use of acquired surplus personal Administrative practice and (1) Participants may participate in the property. (1) Eligible concerns may procedure, Government contracts, GSA Federal Surplus Personal Property acquire Federal surplus personal Government procurement, Government Donation Program administered by the property from the SASP in the State(s) property, Reporting and recordkeeping SASPs. See generally 41 CFR part 102– where the concern is located and requirements, Small businesses. 37 and/or § 102–37.125 of that title. operates, provided the concern Accordingly, for the reasons stated in represents and agrees in writing: * * * * * (i) As to what the intended use of the the preamble, SBA amends 13 CFR parts (f) Title. Upon execution of the SASP 124, 125, and 129 as follows: surplus personal property is to be; distribution document, the Participant (ii) That it will use the surplus PART 124—8(a) BUSINESS has conditional title only to the surplus personal property to be acquired in the DEVELOPMENT/SMALL personal property during the applicable normal conduct of its business activities DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS STATUS period of restriction. Full title to the or be liable for the fair rental value from DETERMINATIONS surplus personal property will vest in the date of its receipt; the donee only after the donee has met (iii) That it will not sell or transfer the ■ 1. The authority citation for part 124 all of the requirements of this part. surplus personal property to be acquired continues to read as follows: * * * * * to any party other than the Federal

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69125

Government as required by GSA and Subpart A—Contracts for Small certification as small for purposes of SASP requirements and guidelines; Businesses Located in Disaster Areas this program; (iv) That, at its own expense, it will (3) Not be debarred, suspended, or ■ return the surplus personal property to 8. Designate § 129.100 and newly declared ineligible under Title 2 or Title a SASP if directed to do so by SBA, redesignated §§ 129.101, 129.102, 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations; including where the concern has not 129.103, and 129.104 as subpart A (4) Be engaged or expect to be engaged used the property as intended within under the heading set forth above. in business activities making the item one year of receipt; ■ 9. Add subparts B and C to read as useful to it; and follows: (5) Not have received a transfer of (v) That, should it breach its property under § 124.405 of this chapter agreement not to sell or transfer the Subpart B—Surplus Personal Property For during the covered period. The 2-year surplus personal property, it will be Small Businesses Located in Disaster period of the presidentially declared Areas liable to the Federal Government for the disaster does not affect eligibility for established fair market value or the sale Sec. additional technology transfers or price, whichever is greater, of the 129.200 What definitions are important in surplus personal property to a small property sold or transferred; and this subpart? 129.201 How does a small business concern business concern located in a disaster (vi) That it will give GSA and the located in a disaster area obtain Federal area for a subsequent presidentially SASP access to inspect the surplus surplus personal property? declared disaster occurring within the personal property and all records original 2-year period of a prior pertaining to it. Subpart C—Surplus Personal Property for presidentially declared disaster. Small Businesses Located in Puerto Rico (2) A concern receiving surplus (c) Use of acquired surplus personal 129.300 What definitions are important in property. (1) Eligible concerns may personal property pursuant to this this subpart? section assumes all liability associated acquire surplus Federal personal 129.301 How does a small business concern property from the SASP in the State(s) with or stemming from the use of the located in Puerto Rico obtain Federal property, and all costs associated with surplus personal property? where the concern is located and the use and maintenance of the operates, provided the concern property. Subpart B—Surplus Personal Property represents and agrees in writing: (i) As to what the intended use of the (d) Costs. Concerns acquiring surplus for Small Businesses Located in Disaster Areas surplus personal property is to be; personal property from a SASP may be (ii) That it will use the property to be required to pay a service fee to the SASP § 129.200 What definitions are important in acquired in the normal conduct of its in accordance with 41 CFR 102–37.280. this subpart? business activities or be liable for the In no instance will any SASP charge a Covered period means the 2-year fair rental value from the date of its concern more for any service than their period beginning on the date on which receipt; established fees charged to other the President declared the applicable (iii) That it will not sell or transfer the transferees. major disaster. 15 U.S.C. property to be acquired to any party (e) Title. Upon execution of the SASP 636(j)(f)(13)(F)(ii)(I)(aa). other than the Federal Government as distribution document, the firm required by GSA and SASP receiving the property has only § 129.201 How does a small business requirements and guidelines; conditional title to the property during concern located in a disaster area obtain (iv) That, at its own expense, it will Federal surplus personal property? the applicable period of restriction. Full return the property to a SASP if directed title to the property will vest in the (a) General. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. to do so by SBA, including where the donee only after the donee has met all 636(j)(13)(F)(ii) eligible small business concern has not used the property as of the requirements of this part and the concerns located in disaster areas may intended within one year of receipt; requirements of GSA and the SASP that receive surplus Federal Government (v) That, should it breach its it received the property from. property from State Agencies for agreement not to sell or transfer the Surplus Property (SASPs). The property, it will be liable to the Federal PART 129—CONTRACTS FOR SMALL procedures set forth in 41 CFR part 102– Government for the established fair BUSINESSES LOCATED IN DISASTER 37 and this section will be used to market value or the sale price, AREAS, AND SURPLUS PERSONAL transfer surplus personal property to whichever is greater, of the property PROPERTY FOR SMALL BUSINESSES eligible small business concerns. sold or transferred; and LOCATED IN DISASTER AREAS AND (1) The property which may be (vi) That it will give GSA and the PUERTO RICO transferred to SASPs for further transfer SASP access to inspect the property and to eligible small business concerns all records pertaining to it. ■ 5. The authority citation for part 129 includes all personal property which (2) A concern receiving surplus is revised to read as follows: has become available for donation personal property pursuant to this Authority: 15 U.S.C. 636(j)(13)(F)(ii), (iii), pursuant to 41 CFR 102–37.30. section assumes all liability associated 644(f). (b) Eligibility to receive Federal with or stemming from the use of the surplus personal property. To be eligible property. ■ 6. The heading for part 129 is revised to receive Federal surplus personal (d) Costs. Concerns acquiring surplus to read as set forth above. property, on the date of transfer a personal property from a SASP must concern must: pay a service fee to the SASP in §§ 129.200, 129.300, 129.400, and 129.500 (1) Be located in a disaster area; [Resdesignated as §§ 129.101, 129.102, accordance with 41 CFR 102–37.280. In 129.103, and 129.104] (2) Qualify as small under the size no instance will any SASP charge a standard corresponding to its primary concern more for any service than their ■ 7. Redesignate §§ 129.200, 129.300, NAICS code and certify its size in established fees charged to other 129.400, and 129.500, as 129.101, SAM.gov, or a successor system, prior to transferees. 129.102, 129.103, and 129.104, seeking access to surplus property. (e) Title. Upon execution of the SASP respectively. SASPs and GSA may rely on a concern’s distribution document, the firm

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 69126 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

receiving the surplus personal property (c) Use of acquired surplus personal DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION has only conditional title only to the property. (1) Eligible concerns may surplus personal property during the acquire surplus Federal personal Federal Aviation Administration applicable period of restriction. Full property from the Puerto Rico SASP, title to the property will vest in the provided the concern represents and 14 CFR Part 39 donee only after the donee has met all agrees in writing: [Docket No. FAA–2020–0585; Product of the requirements of this part and the (i) As to what the intended use of the Identifier 2019–SW–112–AD; Amendment requirements of GSA and the SASP that 39–21297; AD 2020–22–01] it received the property from. surplus personal property is to be; (ii) That it will use the property to be RIN 2120–AA64 Subpart C—Surplus Personal Property acquired in the normal conduct of its for Small Businesses Located in Airworthiness Directives; Airbus business activities or be liable for the Helicopters Puerto Rico fair rental value from the date of its AGENCY: § 129.300 What definitions are important in receipt; Federal Aviation this subpart? (iii) That it will not sell or transfer the Administration (FAA), DOT. Covered period means the period property to be acquired to any party ACTION: Final rule. other than the Federal Government as beginning on , 2018 and SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new ending on the date which the Oversight required by GSA and SASP airworthiness directive (AD) for all Board established under section 101 of requirements and guidelines; Airbus Helicopters Model AS332C, the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, (iv) That, at its own expense, it will AS332C1, AS332L, and AS332L1 and Economic Stability Act (48 U.S.C. return the property to the SASP if helicopters. This AD requires inspecting 2121) terminates. 15 U.S.C. directed to do so by SBA, including the affected parts and associated frame 636(j)(13)(F)(iii). where the concern has not used the bores for discrepancies, applicable Located in Puerto Rico means a property as intended within one year of corrective actions, and reporting certain concern with a physical location in receipt; information if necessary. This AD was Puerto Rico and organized under the prompted by reports of corrosion on (v) That, should it breach its laws of Puerto Rico. attachment screws and fittings fastening agreement not to sell or transfer the the main gearbox (MGB) suspension § 129.301 How does a small business property, it will be liable to the Federal concern located in a Puerto Rico obtain bars to the fuselage. The actions of this Government for the established fair Federal surplus personal property? AD are intended to address an unsafe market value or the sale price, condition on these products. (a) General. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. whichever is greater, of the property 636(j)(13)(F)(iii), eligible small business DATES: This AD is effective , sold or transferred; and concerns located in Puerto Rico may 2020. receive surplus Federal Government (vi) That it will give GSA and SASPs The Director of the Federal Register property from the Puerto Rico State access to inspect the property and all approved the incorporation by reference Agency for Surplus Property (SASP). records pertaining to it. of certain documents listed in this AD The procedures set forth in 41 CFR part (2) A concern receiving surplus as of December 7, 2020. 102–37 and this section will be used to personal property pursuant to this ADDRESSES: For service information transfer surplus personal property to section assumes all liability associated identified in this final rule, contact eligible small business concerns. The with or stemming from the use of the Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N Forum property which may be transferred to property. Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; the Puerto Rico SASP for further telephone 972–641–0000 or 800–232– (d) Costs. Concerns acquiring surplus transfer to eligible small business 0323; fax 972–641–3775; or at https:// concerns includes all personal property personal property from a SASP must www.airbus.com/helicopters/services/ which has become available for pay a service fee to the SASP in technical-support.html. You may view donation pursuant to 41 CFR 102–37.30. accordance with 41 CFR 102–37.280. In the referenced service information at the (b) Eligibility to receive Federal no instance will any SASP charge a FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, surplus personal property. To be eligible concern more for any service than their Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood to receive Federal surplus personal established fees charged to other Pkwy., Room 6N–321, Fort Worth, TX property, on the date of transfer a transferees. 76177. It is also available on the internet concern must: (f) Title. Upon execution of the SASP at https://www.regulations.gov by (1) Be located in Puerto Rico; distribution document, the firm searching for and locating Docket No. (2) Qualify as small under the size receiving the surplus personal property FAA–2020–0585. standard corresponding to its primary has only conditional title to the surplus Examining the AD Docket NAICS code and certify its size in personal property during the applicable SAM.gov, or a successor system, prior to period of restriction. Full title to the You may examine the AD docket on seeking access to surplus property. the internet at https:// surplus personal property will vest in SASPs and GSA may rely on concern’s www.regulations.gov by searching for the donee only after the donee has met certification as small for purposes of and locating Docket No. FAA–2020– all of the requirements of this part. this program; 0585; or in person at Docket Operations (3) Not be debarred, suspended, or Jovita Carranza, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday declared ineligible under Title 2 or Title Administrator. through Friday, except Federal holidays. 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations; [FR Doc. 2020–22539 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] The AD docket contains this AD, the and European Union Aviation Safety Agency (4) Be engaged or expect to be engaged BILLING CODE 8026–03–P (EASA) AD, any service information in business activities making the item that is incorporated by reference, any useful to it. comments received, and other

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69127

information. The street address for earliest inspection compliance time is screws that have sealing compound on Docket Operations is U.S. Department of within 100 flight hours after the them. These documents are distinct Transportation, Docket Operations, M– effective date of this AD. since they apply to different helicopter 30, West Building Ground Floor, Room For helicopters identified in Airbus models in different configurations. W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Helicopters ASB AS332–53.02.05, This service information is reasonably Washington, DC 20590. Revision 1, dated , 2020, the available because the interested parties FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: latest initial inspection compliance time have access to it through their normal Kathleen Arrigotti, Aerospace Engineer, is within 3,800 flight hours or 3 years course of business or by the means and 6 months, whichever occurs first, Large Aircraft Section, International identified in the ADDRESSES section. Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South since the last maintenance action at 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; Airbus Helicopters Marignane. For Other Related Service Information helicopters identified in Airbus telephone and fax 206–231–3218; email Airbus Helicopters has also issued [email protected]. Helicopters ASB AS332–53.02.07, Revision 0, dated , 2019, the ASB No. AS332–53.02.05, Revision 0, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: latest initial inspection compliance time dated , 2019, which specifies Discussion is within 3,800 flight hours since last procedures for inspecting the removal. attachment fittings and attachment The FAA issued a notice of proposed screws of the MGB suspension bars and rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR The FAA is issuing this AD to address corrosion on attachment fittings and their frame bores for discrepancies and part 39 by adding an AD that would corrective actions. apply to all Airbus Helicopters Model attachment screws for the MGB AS332C, AS332C1, AS332L, and suspension bars. This condition, if not Costs of Compliance AS332L1 helicopters. The NPRM addressed, could lead to structural published in the Federal Register on failure of the MGB attachment screws, The FAA estimates that this AD , 2020 (85 FR 43749). The NPRM resulting in detachment of MGB affects 12 helicopters of U.S. Registry. proposed to require accomplishing suspension bars from the fuselage and Labor rates are estimated at $85 per actions specified in the service subsequent loss of control of the work-hour. Based on these numbers, the information and sending certain helicopter. FAA estimates that operators may incur inspection results to the manufacturer. Comments the following costs in order to comply The NPRM was prompted by EASA with this AD. To comply with this AD, The FAA gave the public the the FAA estimates that it will take up AD No. 2019–0295, dated , opportunity to participate in developing 2019, issued by EASA, which is the to about 16 work-hours, for an estimated this final rule, but the FAA did not cost of $1,360 per helicopter and Technical Agent for the Member States receive any comments on the NPRM or of the European Union, to correct an $16,320 for the U.S. fleet. The FAA on the determination of the cost to the estimates that it will take about 1 hour unsafe condition for all Airbus public. Helicopters Model AS332C, AS332C1, per helicopter to comply with the on- AS332L, and AS332L1 helicopters. FAA’s Determination condition reporting requirement in this AD. EASA advises that there were reports of This product has been approved by corrosion on attachment screws and EASA and is approved for operation in Paperwork Reduction Act fittings fastening the rear MGB the United States. Pursuant to the FAA’s suspension bars, right and left hand bilateral agreement with the European A federal agency may not conduct or sides, to the fuselage, and the Union, EASA has notified the FAA of sponsor, and a person is not required to attachment screws and fitting fastening the unsafe condition described in its respond to, nor shall a person be subject the front MGB suspension bar to the AD. The FAA is issuing this AD after to a penalty for failure to comply with fuselage. Subsequent investigation evaluating all of the information a collection of information subject to the determined that during maintenance provided by EASA and determining the requirements of the Paperwork visits of an identified batch of unsafe condition exists and is likely to Reduction Act unless that collection of helicopters between 2012 exist or develop on other products of information displays a currently valid and April 2019, application of these same type design. OMB Control Number. The OMB compound sealant on MGB suspension Control Number for this information bar attachment screws may not have Related Service Information Under 1 collection is 2120–0056. Public been accomplished using the approved CFR Part 51 reporting for this collection of maintenance data. The EASA AD Airbus Helicopters has issued ASB information is estimated to be requires a one-time inspection of the No. AS332–53.02.05, Revision 1, dated approximately 1 hour per response, affected parts, and depending on March 2, 2020; and ASB No. AS332– including the time for reviewing findings, accomplishment of applicable 53.02.07, Revision 0, dated October 21, instructions, searching existing data corrective actions. The compliance 2019, which specify procedures for sources, gathering and maintaining the times vary depending on helicopter inspecting the attachment fittings and data needed, and completing and configuration. attachment screws of the MGB reviewing the collection of information. For helicopters identified in Airbus suspension bars and their frame bores All responses to this collection of Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) for discrepancies and corrective actions. information are mandatory. Send AS332–53.02.05, Revision 1, dated This inspection includes an inspection comments regarding this burden March 2, 2020, the earliest inspection of the attachment fittings and estimate or any other aspect of this compliance time is within 100 flight attachment screws of the MGB collection of information, including hours or 6 months after the effective suspension bars for corrosion and an suggestions for reducing this burden to: date of this AD, whichever occurs first. inspection of the attachment screws for Information Collection Clearance For helicopters identified in Airbus evidence of sealing compound. The Officer, Federal Aviation Helicopters ASB AS332–53.02.07, corrective actions include replacing or Administration, 10101 Hillwood Revision 0, dated October 21, 2019, the repairing corroded parts and replacing Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177–1524.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 69128 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

Authority for This Rulemaking 2020–22–01 Airbus Helicopters: (i) Corrective Action Amendment 39–21297; Docket No. Title 49 of the United States Code Except as required by paragraph (j)(4) of FAA–2020–0585; Product Identifier this AD: If, during the inspection required by specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 2019–SW–112–AD. rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, paragraph (h) of this AD, there is any (a) Effective Date discrepancy, before further flight, do the section 106, describes the authority of applicable corrective action (including the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes replacing or repairing corroded parts and Aviation Programs, describes in more effective December 7, 2020. replacing screws that have sealing compound on them), in accordance with the detail the scope of the Agency’s (b) Affected ADs authority. Accomplishment Instructions, Section 3.B.2, The FAA is issuing this rulemaking None. of Airbus Helicopters ASB AS332–53.02.05, under the authority described in Revision 1, dated March 2, 2020; or ASB (c) Applicability AS332–53.02.07, Revision 0, dated October Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section This AD applies to all Airbus Helicopters 21, 2019, as applicable. 44701: General requirements. Under Model AS332C, AS332C1, AS332L, and (j) Exceptions to Service Information that section, Congress charges the FAA AS332L1 helicopters, certificated in any Specifications with promoting safe flight of civil category. aircraft in air commerce by prescribing (1) Where Airbus Helicopters ASB AS332– regulations for practices, methods, and (d) Subject 53.02.05, Revision 1, dated March 2, 2020, procedures the Administrator finds Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) uses the phrase ‘‘Revision 0 of this ASB Code: 5340, Fuselage main, attach fittings. issued on April 18, 2019,’’ this AD requires necessary for safety in air commerce. using ‘‘the effective date of this AD.’’ This regulation is within the scope of (e) Reason (2) Where Airbus Helicopters ASB AS332– that authority because it addresses an This AD was prompted by reports of 53.02.07, Revision 0, dated October 21, 2019, unsafe condition that is likely to exist or corrosion on attachment screws and fittings uses the phrase ‘‘receipt of this ASB,’’ this develop on helicopters identified in this fastening the main gearbox (MGB) AD requires using ‘‘the effective date of this rulemaking action. suspension bars to the fuselage. The FAA is AD.’’ (3) Where Airbus Helicopters ASB AS332– issuing this AD to address corrosion on Regulatory Findings 53.02.05, Revision 1, dated March 2, 2020; attachment fittings and attachment screws for This AD will not have federalism and ASB AS332–53.02.07, Revision 0, dated the MGB suspension bars. This condition, if October 21, 2019, specify discarding parts, implications under Executive Order not addressed, could lead to structural failure you are not required to discard parts. 13132. This AD will not have a of the MGB attachment screws, resulting in (4) Where Airbus Helicopters ASB AS332– substantial direct effect on the States, on detachment of MGB suspension bars from the 53.02.05, Revision 1, dated March 2, 2020; the relationship between the national fuselage and subsequent loss of control of the and ASB AS332–53.02.07, Revision 0, dated government and the States, or on the helicopter. October 21, 2019, specify contacting Airbus distribution of power and (f) Compliance Helicopters for repair instructions: This AD responsibilities among the various requires repair using a method approved by You are responsible for performing each the Manager, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, levels of government. action required by this AD within the For the reasons discussed above, I FAA. The Manager’s approval letter must specified compliance time unless it has specifically refer to this AD. certify that this AD: already been accomplished prior to that time. (1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory (k) Reporting (g) Definitions action’’ under Executive Order 12866, If, during the inspection required by (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation Affected parts are attachment screws and paragraph (h) of this AD, there is any in Alaska, and fitting(s) fastening the parts identified in discrepancy, report the inspection results to (3) Will not have a significant paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this AD. Airbus Helicopters at the applicable time economic impact, positive or negative, (1) Rear MGB suspension bars, right and specified in paragraph (k)(1) or (2) of this AD. on a substantial number of small entities left sides, to the fuselage. The report should include the information under the criteria of the Regulatory (2) Front MGB suspension bar to the specified in Appendix 4.A. of Airbus fuselage. Helicopters ASB AS332–53.02.05, Revision Flexibility Act. 1, dated March 2, 2020; or ASB AS332– (h) Inspection List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 53.02.07, Revision 0, dated October 21, 2019, Except as specified in paragraphs (j)(1) as applicable. Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation through (3) of this AD: Within the applicable (1) If the inspection was done on or after safety, Incorporation by reference, compliance times identified in paragraph the effective date of this AD: Submit the Safety. (h)(1) or (2) of this AD, inspect each affected report within 30 days after the inspection. (2) If the inspection was done before the Adoption of the Amendment part and its frame bores for discrepancies, in accordance with the Accomplishment effective date of this AD: Submit the report Accordingly, under the authority Instructions, Section 3.B.2, of Airbus within 30 days after the effective date of this delegated to me by the Administrator, Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) AD. the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as AS332–53.02.05, Revision 1, dated March 2, (l) Credit for Previous Actions 2020; or Airbus Helicopters ASB AS332– follows: For helicopters identified in Airbus 53.02.07, Revision 0, dated October 21, 2019, Helicopters ASB AS332–53.02.05, Revision PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS as applicable. For the purposes of this 1, dated March 2, 2020: This paragraph DIRECTIVES inspection, a discrepancy may be indicated provides credit for actions required by by corrosion on the MGB attachment fitting paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, if those ■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 or by sealing compound on the attachment actions were performed before the effective continues to read as follows: screws. date of this AD using Airbus Helicopters ASB (1) Table 1 or 2, as applicable, of Section Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. AS332–53.02.05, Revision 0, dated April 18, 1.E.2, ‘‘Compliance in service,’’ of Airbus 2019. § 39.13 [Amended] Helicopters ASB AS332–53.02.05, Revision 1, dated March 2, 2020. (m) Paperwork Reduction Act Burden ■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding (2) Table 1 of Section 1.E.2, ‘‘Compliance Statement the following new airworthiness in service,’’ of Airbus Helicopters ASB A federal agency may not conduct or directive: AS332–53.02.07, dated October 21, 2019. sponsor, and a person is not required to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69129

respond to, nor shall a person be subject to (3) For service information identified in of a certain publication listed in this AD a penalty for failure to comply with a this AD, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N as of December 7, 2020. collection of information subject to the Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; ADDRESSES: For the EASA material requirements of the Paperwork Reduction telephone 972–641–0000 or 800–232–0323; Act unless that collection of information fax 972–641–3775; or at https:// incorporated by reference (IBR) in this displays a currently valid OMB Control www.airbus.com/helicopters/services/ AD, contact the EASA, Konrad- Number. The OMB Control Number for this technical-support.html. Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, information collection is 2120–0056. Public (4) You may view this service information Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; reporting for this collection of information is at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, email [email protected]; internet estimated to be approximately 1 hour per Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this response, including the time for reviewing Room 6N–321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this IBR material on the EASA website at instructions, searching existing data sources, https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may gathering and maintaining the data needed, material at the FAA, call 817–222–5110. (5) You may view this service information view this IBR material at the FAA, and completing and reviewing the collection Airworthiness Products Section, of information. All responses to this that is incorporated by reference at the collection of information are mandatory. National Archives and Records Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South Administration (NARA). For information on Send comments regarding this burden 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For the availability of this material at NARA, estimate or any other aspect of this collection information on the availability of this email [email protected], or go to: https:// of information, including suggestions for material at the FAA, call 206–231–3195. www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr- reducing this burden to: Information locations.html. It is also available in the AD docket on Collection Clearance Officer, Federal the internet at https:// Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood Issued on , 2020. www.regulations.gov by searching for Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177–1524. Lance T. Gant, and locating Docket No. FAA–2020– (n) Alternative Methods of Compliance Director, Compliance & Airworthiness 0583. (AMOCs) Division, Aircraft Certification Service. Examining the AD Docket (1) The Manager, Rotorcraft Standards [FR Doc. 2020–23976 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] Branch, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this BILLING CODE 4910–13–P You may examine the AD docket on AD. Send your proposal to: Manager, the internet at https:// Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 www.regulations.gov by searching for Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and locating Docket No. FAA–2020– telephone 817–222–5110; email 9-ASW-FTW- 0583; or in person at Docket Operations Federal Aviation Administration [email protected]. between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday (2) For operations conducted under a 14 through Friday, except Federal holidays. CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR Part 39 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, the FAA suggests The AD docket contains this final rule, that you notify your principal inspector, or [Docket No. FAA–2020–0583; Product any comments received, and other lacking a principal inspector, the manager of Identifier 2020–NM–071–AD; Amendment information. The address for Docket the local flight standards district office or 39–21291; AD 2020–21–18] Operations is U.S. Department of certificate holding district office, before RIN 2120–AA64 Transportation, Docket Operations, M– operating any aircraft complying with this 30, West Building Ground Floor, Room AD through an AMOC. Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, (o) Related Information Airplanes Washington, DC 20590. (1) The subject of this AD is addressed in AGENCY: Federal Aviation FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: European Union Aviation Safety Agency Administration (FAA), Department of Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, (EASA) AD No. 2019–0295, dated December Transportation (DOT). Large Aircraft Section, International 5, 2019. You may view the EASA AD on the Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South ACTION: Final rule. internet at https://www.regulations.gov in 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; Docket No. FAA–2020–0585. SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding telephone and fax 206–231–3229; email (2) For service information identified in Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2019–14– [email protected]. this AD, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; 09, which applied to all Airbus SAS SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Model A330–200 Freighter series telephone 972–641–0000 or 800–232–0323; Discussion fax 972–641–3775; or at https:// airplanes. AD 2019–14–09 required www.airbus.com/helicopters/services/ repetitive detailed inspections, The EASA, which is the Technical technical-support.html. You may view a copy including functional testing, of the Agent for the Member States of the of the service information at the FAA, Office oxygen crew and courier distribution European Union, has issued EASA AD of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, system (OCCDS) and replacement of 2020–0092, dated , 2020 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N–321, Fort affected part(s) if necessary. This AD (‘‘EASA AD 2020–0092’’) (also referred Worth, TX 76177. retains the requirements of AD 2019– to as the Mandatory Continuing (p) Material Incorporated by Reference 14–09 and requires replacement of all Airworthiness Information, or ‘‘the (1) The Director of the Federal Register affected parts with improved serviceable MCAI’’), to correct an unsafe condition approved the incorporation by reference of parts, which is terminating action for for certain Airbus SAS Model A330– the service information listed in this the repetitive inspections, as specified 223F and A330–243F airplanes. EASA paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR in a European Union Aviation Safety AD 2020–0092 superseded EASA AD part 51. Agency (EASA) AD, which will be 2019–0027, dated 4, 2019 (2) You must use this service information incorporated by reference. The FAA is (‘‘EASA AD 2019–0027’’) (which as applicable to do the actions required by issuing this AD to address the unsafe corresponds to FAA AD 2019–14–09, this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. condition on these products. (i) Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Amendment 39–19687 (84 FR 37957, Bulletin (ASB) AS332–53.02.05, Revision 1, DATES: This AD is effective December 7, , 2019) (‘‘AD 2019–14–09’’)). dated March 2, 2020. 2020. The FAA issued a notice of proposed (ii) Airbus Helicopters ASB AS332– The Director of the Federal Register rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 53.02.07, Revision 0, dated October 21, 2019. approved the incorporation by reference part 39 to supersede AD 2019–14–09.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 69130 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

AD 2019–14–09 applied to all Airbus procedure, could result in crew injury Related IBR Material Under 1 CFR Part SAS Model A330–200 Freighter series and reduced control of the airplane. See 51 airplanes. The NPRM published in the the MCAI for additional background Federal Register on , 2020 (85 FR information. EASA AD 2020–0092 describes 43503). The NPRM was prompted by procedures for repetitive detailed Comments reports of cracked flexible hoses of the inspections, including functional OCCDS on Model A330 freighter The FAA gave the public the testing, of the OCCDS, replacement of airplanes and the FAA’s determination opportunity to participate in developing affected part(s) if necessary, and that all affected parts must be replaced this final rule. The FAA received no modification of the airplane by with improved flexible oxygen hoses in comments on the NPRM or on the replacing all remaining affected parts order to address the unsafe condition. determination of the cost to the public. with improved serviceable parts. This The NPRM proposed to retain the Conclusion material is reasonably available because requirements of AD 2019–14–09 and the interested parties have access to it require replacement of all affected parts The FAA reviewed the relevant data through their normal course of business with improved serviceable parts, which and determined that air safety and the or by the means identified in the public interest require adopting this is terminating action for the repetitive ADDRESSES section. inspections, as specified in EASA AD final rule as proposed, except for minor 2020–0092. editorial changes. The FAA has Costs of Compliance The FAA is issuing this AD to address determined that these minor changes: cracked oxygen hoses. This condition, if • Are consistent with the intent that The FAA estimates that this AD not addressed, could lead to oxygen was proposed in the NPRM for affects 6 airplanes of U.S. registry. The leakage in the flexible hose of the addressing the unsafe condition; and FAA estimates the following costs to OCCDS, which, in combination with in- • Do not add any additional burden comply with this AD: flight depressurization, smoke in the upon the public than was already flight deck, or a smoke evacuation proposed in the NPRM.

ESTIMATED COSTS FOR REQUIRED ACTIONS

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

Retained actions from AD 14 work-hours × $85 per hour = $1,190 ...... $0 $1,190 ...... $7,140. 2019–14–09. New actions ...... Up to 26 work-hours × $85 per hour = Up to $2,210 ...... $9,800 Up to $12,010 Up to $72,060.

According to the manufacturer, some develop on products identified in this the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as or all of the costs of this AD may be rulemaking action. follows: covered under warranty, thereby Regulatory Findings reducing the cost impact on affected PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS individuals. The FAA does not control This AD will not have federalism DIRECTIVES warranty coverage for affected implications under Executive Order individuals. As a result, the FAA has 13132. This AD will not have a ■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 included all known costs in the cost substantial direct effect on the States, on continues to read as follows: estimate. the relationship between the national Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. government and the States, or on the Authority for This Rulemaking distribution of power and § 39.13 [Amended] responsibilities among the various Title 49 of the United States Code ■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by: levels of government. specifies the FAA’s authority to issue ■ a. Removing Airworthiness Directive For the reasons discussed above, I rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, (AD) 2019–14–09, Amendment 39– certify that this AD: section 106, describes the authority of 19687 (84 FR 37957, August 5, 2019), the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: (1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory and action’’ under Executive Order 12866, Aviation Programs, describes in more ■ b. Adding the following new AD: detail the scope of the Agency’s (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation 2020–21–18 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39– authority. in Alaska, and (3) Will not have a significant 21291; Docket No. FAA–2020–0583; The FAA is issuing this rulemaking economic impact, positive or negative, Product Identifier 2020–NM–071–AD. under the authority described in on a substantial number of small entities (a) Effective Date Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section under the criteria of the Regulatory This AD is effective December 7, 2020. 44701: General requirements. Under Flexibility Act. that section, Congress charges the FAA (b) Affected ADs with promoting safe flight of civil List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 This AD replaces AD 2019–14–09, aircraft in air commerce by prescribing Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation Amendment 39–19687 (84 FR 37957, August regulations for practices, methods, and safety, Incorporation by reference, 5, 2019) (‘‘AD 2019–14–09’’). procedures the Administrator finds Safety. (c) Applicability necessary for safety in air commerce. Adoption of the Amendment This AD applies to Airbus SAS Model This regulation is within the scope of A330–223F and –243F airplanes, certificated that authority because it addresses an Accordingly, under the authority in any category, as identified in European unsafe condition that is likely to exist or delegated to me by the Administrator, Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69131

2020–0092, dated April 24, 2020 (‘‘EASA AD 2020–0092 that contains RC procedures and DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 2020–0092’’). tests: Except as required by paragraph (i)(2) (d) Subject of this AD, RC procedures and tests must be Federal Aviation Administration done to comply with this AD; any procedures Air Transport Association (ATA) of or tests that are not identified as RC are America Code 35, Oxygen. 14 CFR Part 39 recommended. Those procedures and tests [Docket No. FAA–2020–0618; Product (e) Reason that are not identified as RC may be deviated Identifier 2019–SW–064–AD; Amendment from using accepted methods in accordance This AD was prompted by reports of 39–21288; AD 2020–21–15] cracked flexible hoses of the oxygen crew with the operator’s maintenance or and courier distribution system (OCCDS) on inspection program without obtaining RIN 2120–AA64 Model A330 freighter airplanes. The FAA is approval of an AMOC, provided the proposing this AD to address cracked oxygen procedures and tests identified as RC can be Airworthiness Directives; Airbus hoses. This condition, if not addressed, could done and the airplane can be put back in an Helicopters lead to oxygen leakage in the flexible hose of airworthy condition. Any substitutions or the OCCDS, which, in combination with in- AGENCY: Federal Aviation changes to procedures or tests identified as flight depressurization, smoke in the flight Administration (FAA), DOT. deck, or a smoke evacuation procedure, RC require approval of an AMOC. ACTION: Final rule. could result in crew injury and reduced (j) Related Information control of the airplane. For more information about this AD, SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new (f) Compliance contact Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace airworthiness directive (AD) for Airbus Comply with this AD within the Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, Helicopters Model AS–365N2, AS 365 compliance times specified, unless already International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 N3, EC 155B, EC155B1, and SA–365N1 done. South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; helicopters. This AD requires inspecting (g) Requirements telephone and fax 206–231–3229; email the tail rotor gearbox (TGB) housing recess, and depending on the inspection Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this [email protected]. results, performing more in-depth AD: Comply with all required actions and (k) Material Incorporated by Reference compliance times specified in, and in inspections and removing certain parts accordance with, EASA AD 2020–0092. (1) The Director of the Federal Register from service. This AD also prohibits approved the incorporation by reference installing a TGB unless it has passed (h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2020–0092 (IBR) of the service information listed in this certain inspections and has a new TGB (1) Where EASA AD 2020–0092 refers to its paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR control rod bearing installed. This AD effective date, this AD requires using the part 51. effective date of this AD. was prompted by the discovery of a (2) You must use this service information foreign object obstructing the oil duct of (2) Where EASA AD 2020–0092 refers to as applicable to do the actions required by , 2019 (the effective date of EASA a TGB control bearing. The actions of this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise. AD 2019–0027, dated , 2019), this this AD are intended to address an AD requires using , 2019 (the (3) The following service information was unsafe condition on these products. effective date of AD 2019–14–09). approved for IBR on December 7, 2020. DATES: This AD is effective December 7, (3) The ‘‘Remarks’’ section of EASA AD (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency 2020–0092 does not apply to this AD. (EASA) AD 2020–0092, dated April 24, 2020. 2020. (ii) [Reserved] The Director of the Federal Register (i) Other FAA AD Provisions (4) For EASA AD 2020–0092, contact the approved the incorporation by reference The following provisions also apply to this EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 of certain documents listed in this AD AD: Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 as of December 7, 2020. (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 000; email [email protected]; internet (AMOCs): The Manager, Large Aircraft ADDRESSES: For service information Section, International Validation Branch, www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this identified in this final rule, contact FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs EASA AD on the EASA website at https:// Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N. Forum for this AD, if requested using the procedures ad.easa.europa.eu. Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with (5) You may view this material at the FAA, telephone 972–641–0000 or 800–232– 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your Airworthiness Products Section, Operational 0323; fax 972–641–3775; or at https:// principal inspector or responsible Flight Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des www.airbus.com/helicopters/services/ Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending Moines, WA. For information on the technical-support.html. You may view information directly to the Large Aircraft availability of this material at the FAA, call Section, International Validation Branch, the referenced service information at the 206–231–3195. This material may be found FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, send it to the attention of the person in the AD docket on the internet at https:// identified in paragraph (j) of this AD. Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood www.regulations.gov by searching for and Information may be emailed to: 9-AVS-AIR- Pkwy., Room 6N–321, Fort Worth, TX locating Docket No. FAA–2020–0583. [email protected]. Before using any 76177. It is also available on the internet approved AMOC, notify your appropriate (6) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference at the National at https://www.regulations.gov by principal inspector, or lacking a principal searching for and locating Docket No. inspector, the manager of the responsible Archives and Records Administration Flight Standards Office. (NARA). For information on the availability FAA–2020–0618. (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any of this material at NARA, email fedreg.legal@ Examining the AD Docket requirement in this AD to obtain instructions nara.gov, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/ from a manufacturer, the instructions must federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. You may examine the AD docket on be accomplished using a method approved the internet at https:// by the Manager, Large Aircraft Section, Issued on , 2020. www.regulations.gov by searching for International Validation Branch, FAA; or Gaetano A. Sciortino, and locating Docket No. FAA–2020– EASA; or Airbus SAS’s EASA Design Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, 0618; or in person at Docket Operations Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by Compliance & Airworthiness Division, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday the DOA, the approval must include the Aircraft Certification Service. DOA-authorized signature. through Friday, except Federal holidays. (3) Required for Compliance (RC): For any [FR Doc. 2020–24099 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] The AD docket contains this AD, the service information referenced in EASA AD BILLING CODE 4910–13–P European Union Aviation Safety Agency

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 69132 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

(EASA) AD, any service information France, Aerospatiale, Sud Aviation) require marking or returning the TGB to that is incorporated by reference, any Model AS 365 N2, AS 365 N3, EC 155 Airbus Helicopters. comments received, and other B, EC 155 B1, and SA 365 N1 Related Service Information Under 1 helicopters. EASA advises of a foreign information. The street address for CFR Part 51 Docket Operations is U.S. Department of object that was found obstructing the oil Transportation, Docket Operations, M– duct of the TGB control bearing during The FAA reviewed one document that 30, West Building Ground Floor, Room a routine inspection, causing a lack of co-publishes four Airbus Helicopters W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, lubrication on the bearing. EASA states Emergency Alert Service Bulletin Washington, DC 20590. this condition, if not detected and (EASB) identification numbers: No. 65.00.09 for non FAA-type certificated FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rao corrected, could affect the correct military Model AS565MA, MB, MBe, Edupuganti, Aviation Safety Engineer, operation of the TGB and possibly result SA, SB, and UB helicopters; No. Regulations and Policy Section, in reduced control of the helicopter. 65.00.19 for Model AS365N1, N2, and Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, Accordingly, the EASA AD requires a N3 helicopters, and non FAA-type 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX one-time inspection of the TGB housing certificated military Model AS365F, Fi, 76177; telephone 817–222–5110; email recess and TGB oil duct housing, and K, and K2 helicopters; No. 65.06 for non [email protected]. depending on the findings, applicable FAA-type certificated military Model SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: investigative and corrective actions. The EASA AD also prohibits installation of SA366GA helicopters; and No. 65A008 Discussion a TGB unless it has passed the specified for Model EC155B and B1 helicopters, inspections. all Revision 0 and dated , 2019. The FAA issued a notice of proposed EASB Nos. 65.00.19 and 65A008 are rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR Comments incorporated by reference in this AD. part 39 by adding an AD that would The FAA gave the public the EASB Nos. 65.00.09 and 65.06 are not apply to Airbus Helicopters Model AS– incorporated by reference in this AD. 365N2, AS 365 N3, EC 155B, EC155B1, opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The following presents This service information specifies and SA–365N1 helicopters. The NPRM procedures, using an endoscope published in the Federal Register on the comment received on the NPRM and the FAA’s response to the comment. (borescope), to inspect the TGB housing 23, 2020 (85 FR 37591). The NPRM recess for oil retention and the two T proposed to require opening the TGB oil Request holes for visibility. If there is oil filter plug cover and removing the TGB A commenter asked who will be retention and the two T holes are not oil filter plug, and then borescope conducting the TGB inspections and visible, this service information inspecting for oil retention and visibility how often the inspections will take specifies removing the TGB control rod of the two T holes in the TGB housing place. A mechanic that meets the and inspecting for and removing any recess. If there is any oil retention and requirements of 14 CFR part 65 subpart foreign objects in the TGB oil duct, and the two T holes are not completely D must perform the TGB inspections, then repeating the TGB housing recess visible, the NPRM proposed to require which are required within 55 hours inspections. If there is oil retention and removing the TGB control rod and time-in-service or 5 months, whichever the two T holes are not visible after inspecting for and removing any foreign occurs first. these additional inspections, the service object in the TGB oil duct. The NPRM information specifies marking the TGB also proposed to require re-inspecting FAA’s Determination as not fit for helicopter installation and the TGB housing recess with all of the These helicopters have been approved returning the TGB to Airbus oil drained. If, during the re-inspection, by EASA and are approved for operation Helicopters. If there is no oil retention there is any oil retention and the two T in the United States. Pursuant to the and the two T holes are visible after holes are not completely visible, the FAA’s bilateral agreement with the these additional inspections, the service NPRM proposed to require replacing the European Union, EASA has notified the information specifies removing any TGB. If, during the re-inspection, there FAA of the unsafe condition described foreign objects in the TGB oil duct and is no oil retention and the two T holes in its AD. The FAA is issuing this AD inspecting for proper oil flow at the end are completely visible, the NPRM after evaluating all of the information of the BTP oil duct cover. If the oil does proposed to require inspecting for and provided by EASA and determining the not flow properly, this service removing any foreign object from the unsafe condition exists and is likely to information specifies marking the TGB TGB oil duct and inspecting the TGB oil exist or develop on other helicopters of as not fit for helicopter installation and duct for correct oil flow. If the oil does the same type designs and that air safety returning the TGB to Airbus not flow correctly, the NPRM proposed and the public interest require adopting Helicopters. If the oil flows properly, to require replacing the TGB. If the oil the AD requirements as proposed except the service information specifies flows correctly, the NPRM proposed to for updating the Costs of Compliance replacing the TGB control rod bearing require removing the TGB control rod section due to an increase in the number with a new bearing. bearing from service. The NPRM also of registered helicopters. These changes This service information also specifies proposed to prohibit the installation of are consistent with the intent that was procedures to close the filter plug cover a TGB unless it passes the proposed proposed in the NPRM for addressing with an airworthy O-ring, install the inspections. A non-installed TGB would the unsafe condition and do not add any filter plug, replace a TGB, and perform be inspected in a level position using additional burden upon the public than a ground run-up. Additionally, this shims. was already proposed in the NPRM. service information specifies procedures The NPRM was prompted by EASA to perform the inspections on a non- AD No. 2019–0165–E, dated , Differences Between this AD and the installed TGB. 2019, issued by EASA, which is the EASA AD This service information is reasonably Technical Agent for the Member States If required to remove a TGB, the available because the interested parties of the European Union, to correct an EASA AD requires marking and have access to it through their normal unsafe condition for Airbus Helicopters returning the TGB to Airbus course of business or by the means (formerly Eurocopter, Eurocopter Helicopters, whereas this AD does not identified in the ADDRESSES section.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69133

Costs of Compliance (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation Remove the TGB oil filter plug (plug) in Alaska, and identified as ‘‘h’’ in Detail ‘‘B’’ in Figure 1 The FAA estimates that this AD of EASB 65.00.19 or EASB 65A008, as affects 51 helicopters of U.S. Registry. (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, applicable to your model helicopter, by The FAA estimates that operators may removing the sealing compound at the base incur the following costs in order to on a substantial number of small entities of the plug (h), marking the base of the plug comply with this AD. Labor rates are under the criteria of the Regulatory (h) and the TGB housing (c), and removing estimated at $85 per work-hour. Flexibility Act. and cleaning the plug (h) and the exterior Inspecting the TGB housing recess List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 surface of the TGB housing (c) surrounding takes about 2 work-hours for an the plug (h) installation area. estimated cost of $170 per helicopter Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation (ii) Using an adjustable or fixed head borescope with a 6 mm or larger diameter and $8,670 for the U.S. fleet. safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. camera probe, inspect for operating oil (oil) Inspecting for and removing any retention and visibility of the two T holes in foreign objects takes a minimal amount Adoption of the Amendment the TGB oil housing recess (housing recess) of time for a nominal cost. (towards the rear of the helicopter) identified Removing any oil retention and re- Accordingly, under the authority as ‘‘g’’ in Section C–C in Figure 2 of EASB inspecting the TGB takes about 5 work- delegated to me by the Administrator, 65.00.19 or EASB 65A008, as applicable to hours for an estimated cost of $425 per the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as your model helicopter. helicopter. follows: (A) If there is any oil retention in the Inspecting for correct oil flow takes housing recess (g) and the two T holes are not PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS about 1 work-hour for an estimated cost completely visible as shown in photo 1, in DIRECTIVES the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph of $85 per helicopter. 3.B.2.b., of EASB 65.00.19 or EASB 65A008, Replacing the TGB control rod bearing ■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 as applicable to your model helicopter, takes about 8 work-hours and parts cost continues to read as follows: before further flight, remove the TGB control about $2,000 for an estimated rod and inspect for and remove any foreign replacement cost of $2,680 per bearing. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. objects in the TGB oil duct (oil duct) Replacing a TGB takes about 40 work- § 39.13 [Amended] identified as ‘‘k’’ in Detail ‘‘D’’ of Figure 2 of hours and parts cost about $48,600 EASB 65.00.19 or EASB 65A008, as (overhauled) for an estimated ■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding applicable to your model helicopter. replacement cost of $52,000 per TGB. the following new airworthiness (B) With all of the oil drained from the directive (AD): housing recess (g), inspect for oil retention Authority for This Rulemaking and visibility of the two T holes in the 2020–21–15 Airbus Helicopters: housing recess (g) as required by paragraph Title 49 of the United States Code Amendment 39–21288; Docket No. specifies the FAA’s authority to issue (e)(1)(ii) of this AD. FAA–2020–0618; Product Identifier (1) If there is any oil retention in the rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, 2019–SW–064–AD. housing recess (g) and the two T holes are not section 106, describes the authority of (a) Applicability completely visible, before further flight, the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: replace the TGB. This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Aviation Programs, describes in more (2) If there is no oil retention in the Model AS–365N2, AS 365 N3, EC 155B, housing recess (g) and the two T holes are detail the scope of the Agency’s EC155B1, and SA–365N1 helicopters, completely visible, before further flight: authority. certificated in any category. The FAA is issuing this rulemaking (i) Inspect for any foreign objects in the oil under the authority described in (b) Unsafe Condition duct identified as ‘‘k’’ in Section EE of Figure Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section This AD defines the unsafe condition as 3 of EASB 65.00.19 or EASB 65A008, as 44701: General requirements. Under obstruction of the oil duct of the tail rotor applicable to your model helicopter. If there is any foreign object, before further flight, that section, Congress charges the FAA gearbox (TGB) control bearing. This condition could result in a lack of lubrication remove each foreign object. with promoting safe flight of civil (ii) Inspect for oil flow at the end of the oil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing on the TGB control bearing, which could affect the correct operation of the TGB, and duct (k) BTP (q) cover by following the regulations for practices, methods, and subsequent reduced control of the helicopter. procedures in the second step through the procedures the Administrator finds sixth step, inclusive, of the Accomplishment necessary for safety in air commerce. (c) Effective Date Instructions, paragraph 3.B.3.b., of EASB This regulation is within the scope of This AD becomes effective December 7, 65.00.19 or EASB 65A008, as applicable to that authority because it addresses an 2020. your model helicopter. unsafe condition that is likely to exist or (iii) If the oil does not flow at the end of (d) Compliance the oil duct (k) BTP (q) cover, before further develop on helicopters identified in this You are responsible for performing each flight, replace the TGB. rulemaking action. action required by this AD within the (iv) If the oil flows at the end of the oil duct Regulatory Findings specified compliance time unless it has (k) BTP (q) cover, before further flight, already been accomplished prior to that time. remove from service the TGB control rod This AD will not have federalism bearing. implications under Executive Order (e) Required Actions (2) As of the effective date of this AD, do 13132. This AD will not have a (1) Within 55 hours time-in-service or 5 not install a TGB on any helicopter unless, substantial direct effect on the States, on months, whichever occurs first: (i) Open the with the non-installed TGB in a level the relationship between the national TGB oil filter plug cover (cover) identified as position using shims, the requirements of government and the States, or on the ‘‘b’’ in Detail ‘‘A’’ and Detail ‘‘B’’ in Figure paragraph (e)(1) of this AD have been distribution of power and 1 of Airbus Helicopters Emergency Alert accomplished. Unless already done, Service Bulletin (EASB) No. 65.00.19 or installation of a new TGB control rod bearing responsibilities among the various Airbus Helicopters EASB No. 65A008, both is also required. Accomplishment levels of government. Revision 0 and dated July 10, 2019 (EASB Instructions, paragraph 3.B.6., of EASB For the reasons discussed above, I 65.00.19 or EASB 65A008), as applicable to 65.00.19 and EASB 65A008, as applicable to certify that this AD: your model helicopter, by removing any your model helicopter, contain information (1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory lockwire, opening the cover (b), and pertaining to inspecting a non-installed TGB. action’’ under Executive Order 12866, removing the strainer (e) using a screwdriver. A TGB with a log card entry showing it has

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 69134 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

passed the requirements in the National Archives and Records searching for and locating Docket No. Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph Administration (NARA). For information on FAA–2020–0472. 3.B.6., of EASB 65.00.19 and EASB 65A008, the availability of this material at NARA, as applicable to your model helicopter, is email [email protected], or go to: https:// Examining the AD Docket acceptable for compliance with this www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr- You may examine the AD docket on paragraph. locations.html. the internet at https:// (f) Alternative Methods of Compliance Issued on , 2020. www.regulations.gov by searching for (AMOCs) Lance T. Gant, and locating Docket No. FAA–2020– (1) The Manager, Rotorcraft Standards Director, Compliance & Airworthiness 0472; or in person at Docket Operations Branch, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this Division, Aircraft Certification Service. between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday AD. Send your proposal to: Rao Edupuganti, [FR Doc. 2020–23977 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] through Friday, except Federal holidays. Aviation Safety Engineer, Regulations and BILLING CODE 4910–13–P The AD docket contains this final rule, Policy Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, the regulatory evaluation, any FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX comments received, and other 76177; telephone 817–222–5110; email 9- [email protected]. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION information. The address for Docket (2) For operations conducted under a 14 Operations is U.S. Department of CFR part 119 operating certificate or under Federal Aviation Administration Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, the FAA suggests 30, West Building Ground Floor, Room that you notify your principal inspector, or 14 CFR Part 39 W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, lacking a principal inspector, the manager of Washington, DC 20590. the local flight standards district office or [Docket No. FAA–2020–0472; Project Identifier 2018–CE–060–AD; Amendment FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tara certificate holding district office, before Shawn, Aerospace Engineer, Wichita operating any aircraft complying with this 39–21295; AD 2020–21–22] AD through an AMOC. ACO Branch, 1801 Airport Road, Room RIN 2120–AA64 100, Wichita, 67209; telephone: (g) Additional Information (316) 946–4141; fax: (316) 946–4107; Airworthiness Directives; Textron The subject of this AD is addressed in email: [email protected] or Wichita- Aviation Inc. Airplanes European Union Aviation Safety Agency [email protected]. (EASA) AD No. 2019–0165–E, dated July 12, AGENCY: Federal Aviation SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 2019. You may view the EASA AD on the Administration (FAA), DOT. internet at https://www.regulations.gov in Discussion ACTION: Final rule. Docket No. FAA–2020–0618. The FAA issued a notice of proposed (h) Subject SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) airworthiness directive (AD) for all part 39 by adding an AD that would Code: 62, Tail Rotor Gearbox. Textron Aviation Inc. (Textron) Models apply to all Textron Aviation Inc. (Textron) (type certificate previously (i) Material Incorporated by Reference 180, 180A, 180B, 180C, 180D, 180E, 180F, 180G, 180H, 180J, 180K, 182, held by Cessna Aircraft Company) (1) The Director of the Federal Register Models 180, 180A, 180B, 180C, 180D, approved the incorporation by reference of 182A, 182B, 182C, 182D, 185, 185A, 185B, 185C, 185D, 185E, A185E, and 180E, 180F, 180G, 180H, 180J, 180K, the service information listed in this 182, 182A, 182B, 182C, 182D, 185, paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR A185F airplanes. This AD was part 51. prompted by a report of cracks found in 185A, 185B, 185C, 185D, 185E, A185E, (2) You must use this service information the tailcone and horizontal stabilizer and A185F airplanes. The NPRM as applicable to do the actions required by attachment structure. This AD requires published in the Federal Register on this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. inspecting the tailcone and horizontal , 2020 (85 FR 28890). The NPRM (i) Airbus Helicopters Emergency Alert stabilizer for corrosion and cracks and was prompted by a report of cracks Service Bulletin (EASB) No. 65.00.19, repairing or replacing damaged parts as found in the tailcone and horizontal Revision 0, dated July 10, 2019. necessary. The FAA is issuing this AD stabilizer attachment structure on a (ii) Airbus Helicopters EASB No. 65A008, Textron Model 185 airplane. The FAA Revision 0, dated July 10, 2019. to address the unsafe condition on these products. discovered similar conditions on 29 Note 1 to paragraph (i)(2): Airbus additional Textron 180 and 185 series DATES: Helicopters EASB Nos. 65.00.19 and 65A008, This AD is effective December 7, airplanes and determined that the each Revision 0 and dated July 10, 2019, are 2020. combination of the attachment structure co-published as one document along with The Director of the Federal Register design and high loads during landing Airbus Helicopters EASB Nos. 65.00.09 and approved the incorporation by reference 65.06, each Revision 0 and dated July 10, contribute to the development of cracks of a certain publication listed in this AD in the tailcone and horizontal stabilizer 2019, which are not incorporated by as of December 7, 2020. reference in this AD. attachment structure. The NPRM ADDRESSES: (3) For service information identified in For service information proposed to require inspecting the this AD, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N. identified in this final rule, contact tailcone and horizontal stabilizer for Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; Textron Aviation Customer Service, corrosion, cracks, and loose or sheared telephone 972–641–0000 or 800–232–0323; P.O. Box 7706, Wichita, Kansas 67277, rivets and repairing or replacing fax 972–641–3775; or at https:// (316) 517–5800; customercare@ damaged parts as necessary. The FAA is www.airbus.com/helicopters/services/ txtav.com; internet: https://txtav.com. issuing this AD to prevent failure of the technical-support.html. You may view this service information horizontal stabilizer to tailcone (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products attachment, which could lead to tail at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901 Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., separation with consequent loss of Room 6N–321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. control of the airplane. For information on the availability of information on the availability of this Comments material at the FAA, call 817–222–5110. this material at the FAA, call (816) 329– (5) You may view this service information 4148. It is also available on the internet The FAA gave the public the that is incorporated by reference at the at https://www.regulations.gov by opportunity to participate in developing

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69135

this final rule. The following presents The FAA disagrees. The FAA combination of the attachment structure the comments received on the NPRM determined that a combination of the design and high landing loads. The high and the FAA’s response to each attachment structure design and the loads encountered during landing are comment. high design loads during landing not specifically the result of vibration. contribute to the development of cracks Data obtained during evaluation of the Support for the NPRM in the tailcone and horizontal stabilizer unsafe condition identified cracking on Two individual commenters attachment structure. The FAA aircraft with and without floats. supported the NPRM. evaluated the failures and determined The FAA did not make any changes that the appropriate corrective action to the proposed AD based on this Request To Clarify Why the AD Is was to replace the parts if corrosion or comment. Necessary cracks are detected during the The same individual commenter also Three individual commenters inspection. The FAA did not make any requested the proposed AD not apply to requested the FAA clarify why an AD is changes to the proposed AD based on lower time airplanes, such as those with necessary. The commenters stated the this comment. 3,000 hours or less. The commenter did proposed inspection is already Request Change to Applicability not provide justification for this request. performed at every annual inspection. The FAA disagrees. This AD was The Aircraft Owners and Pilots One of these commenters stated the proposed to address corrosion and Association (AOPA) requested the FAA current service bulletin is also sufficient cracks in the tailcone and horizontal clarify why the proposed AD applies to to address this issue, and unlike the seat stabilizer attachment structure. As Model 182-series airplanes, because the rail AD, which was necessary to remove corrosion may develop over time, airplanes found with cracking and subjective interpretation from the regardless of how many flight hours the corrosion damage were Textron Model inspection measurements, this issue is airplane accumulates, the commenter’s 180- and 185-series airplanes that have more objective. The FAA infers that the suggestion, if adopted, would not commenter is referring to AD 2011–10– a different landing gear configuration with higher loads during landing. Citing adequately address the unsafe 09, Amendment 39–16690 (76 FR condition. 27865, , 2011). the same or similar reasons, three individual commenters requested that The FAA did not make any changes The FAA disagrees. Although 14 CFR the proposed AD not apply to Model to the proposed AD based on this 43.15 and Appendix D to Part 43 do 182-series airplanes. comment. require that 100-hour and annual The FAA agrees to provide additional Request for Credit for Previous Actions inspections include an inspection of the information explaining why the tailcone and horizontal stabilizer proposed AD would apply to Model AOPA and two individual attachment structure, this AD requires 182-series airplanes. While the landing commenters requested the FAA revise an inspection directed towards specific stresses for the Model 182-series are not paragraph (h) of the AD to allow credit areas with a history of cracking. Data equal to that of the Model 180- and 185- for previous actions performed by using obtained during evaluation of this series, the FAA determined that the SEL–55–01 if the airplane was also unsafe condition indicated that the development of cracks in the tailcone inspected for loose or sheared rivets. current routine maintenance and and horizontal stabilizer attachment The commenters suggested there are no inspection procedures alone are not structure is a combination of landing significant differences between SEL–55– adequate to address it. Also, while an stresses and the attachment structure 01 and the proposed AD. AOPA also operator may incorporate into its design. Models 182 through 182D requested credit for actions performed maintenance program the inspections in airplanes have the same tailcone design during the prior annual inspection. the service bulletin referenced by the as Model 185-series airplanes. After the The FAA agrees that operators may commenters, not all operators are FAA issued an Airworthiness Concern take credit for previous compliance with required to do so. In order for these Sheet about this issue on , SEL–55–01; however, a change to the inspections to become mandatory, and 2017, requesting information on Model AD is unnecessary. Paragraph (f) of this to correct the unsafe conditions 180- and 185-series airplanes, Textron AD requires compliance unless already identified in the NPRM, the FAA must released Single Engine Mandatory done. Thus, the AD already allows issue an AD. The compliance times as Service Letter SEL–55–01, dated credit for the initial inspection specified proposed should allow the inspections December 7, 2017 (SEL–55–01), which in SEL–55–01 if completed before the to be completed during the annual/100 included Models 182 through 182D. effective date of the AD. Similarly, hour inspection, thereby minimizing the Inspection results from SEL–55–01 have operators may take credit for actions costs on operators. included multiple reports of cracking on performed during the prior annual The FAA did not make any changes Models 182 through 182D. inspection if those actions are identical to the proposed AD based on these The FAA did not make any changes to the procedures specified in SEL–55– comments. to the proposed AD based on these 01. The FAA did not make any changes Request To Address Cause of the comments. to the proposed AD based on these Cracking Another individual commenter requested the proposed AD require comments. An individual commenter requested inspections for Model 182-series Request To Delay Issuance of AD the AD address the cause of the cracking airplanes that have been converted to instead of changing the affected parts so tail wheel airplanes and not require An anonymous commenter requested that the cycle time between inspections inspections for Model 180- and 185- the FAA delay issuing the AD to allow could be increased. As examples, the series airplanes on floats, if the cause is more research into the problem and commenter stated that if the cause is vibration from landings. solutions. The commenter stated that vibration, then propeller balance should The FAA disagrees. The FAA has the AD is too invasive and that be required to correct the vibration; if determined that the development of removing and replacing the tail every the cause is corrosion, then corrosion cracks in the tailcone and horizontal 500 hours could be far more dangerous prevention should be required. stabilizer attachment structure is a to the airplane than the cracks.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 69136 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

The FAA disagrees. The AD does not The FAA is not aware of the or a request the FAA can act on. The require removing the tail in order to unavailability of replacement parts. To FAA did not make any changes to the complete the visual inspection. SEL– the extent operators may have difficulty proposed AD based on this comment. 55–01 provides instructions to gain obtaining replacement parts, the FAA Conclusion access to the inspection area without cannot base its AD action on whether removal of the tail. The FAA has spare parts are available or can be The FAA reviewed the relevant data, received feedback from operators that produced. While every effort is made to considered the comments received, and this inspection has been completed avoid grounding aircraft, the FAA must determined that air safety and the during annual maintenance. No delay in address the identified unsafe condition. public interest require adopting this the effective date of the AD is The FAA did not make any changes final rule as proposed. warranted. to the proposed AD based on this The FAA did not make any changes comment. Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51 to the proposed AD based on this Request Regarding Costs comment. One individual commenter requested The FAA reviewed Textron Aviation Comment Concerning Potential Causes the FAA require that Textron provide a Single Engine Mandatory Service Letter of Damage service kit that addresses the design SEL–55–01, dated December 7, 2017. flaw and assists with the costs The service information contains AOPA requested the FAA clarify procedures for inspecting the stabilizer whether all causes of potential damage mandated by the AD. The commenter stated that this AD focuses on a known hinge brackets, tailcone reinforcement have been scrutinized. AOPA suggested angles, corner reinforcements, stabilizer that other sources of damage to the vulnerable area in all tail wheeled Cessna aircraft, caused by a systemic hinge reinforcement channel, stabilizer tailcone and horizontal stabilizer area design flaw that is a major safety of hinge assemblies, stabilizer aft spar attachment structure, such as wear from flight condition. reinforcement, and the lower half of the ground personnel moving the aircraft by The FAA, as a federal agency, is stabilizer aft spar from station (STA) 16 the horizontal stabilizer, may have responsible for all directives, policies, on the left side of the stabilizer aft spar resulted in the cracking and corrosion and mandates issued under its to STA 16 on the right side for cracks discovered. authority. The FAA does not have the and corrosion. This service information The FAA agrees to provide additional authority to require a manufacturer to is reasonably available because the information. Damage to the tailcone and bear AD costs incurred in modifying or interested parties have access to it horizontal stabilizer could be a result of repairing privately-owned aircraft. The through their normal course of business ground personnel moving the aircraft by general obligation of the operator to or by the means identified in the the horizontal stabilizer. In addition, maintain its aircraft in an airworthy ADDRESSES section. high loads due to a number of potential condition is vital, but sometimes Differences Between This AD and the causes in combination with the expensive. If the manufacturer Service Information attachment structure design could result determines it will cover the cost of in damage to the tailcone and horizontal implementing a particular action, then The service information applies to stabilizer. However, even if the FAA the manufacturer does so voluntarily. airplanes with more than 3,000 total could identify the exact sources of high The FAA did not make any changes to hours time-in-service or 10 years in loads, it would not likely alter the the proposed AD based on this service, while this AD applies regardless actions required by the AD to correct the comment. of the airplane’s time-in-service. This identified unsafe condition. AD requires inspecting for and replacing The FAA did not make any changes Comment Regarding the Service loose or sheared rivets, which is not to the proposed AD based on this Information specified in the service information. comment. An individual commenter stated the proposed AD does not reference or Costs of Compliance Comment Concerning Parts coincide with Cessna Supplemental An anonymous commenter stated that Inspection Document 53–10–01, which The FAA estimates that this AD parts to repair are not available. The covers the tailcone inspection. affects 6,586 airplanes of U.S. registry. commenter did not provide supporting The commenter’s statement does not The FAA estimates the following data with this comment. include a suggestion specific to the AD costs to comply with this AD:

ESTIMATED COSTS

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

Inspection ...... 2 work-hours × $85 per hour = $170 ...... Not applicable ...... $170 $1,119,620

The FAA estimates the following that would be required based on the no way of determining the number of costs to do any necessary replacements results of the inspection. The FAA has aircraft that might need these actions:

ON-CONDITION COSTS

Cost per Action Labor cost Parts cost product

Replace left-hand (LH) stabilizer hinge bracket ...... 4 work-hours × $85 per workhour = $340 ...... $551 $891 Replace right-hand (RH) stabilizer hinge bracket ...... 4 work-hours × $85 per workhour = $340 ...... 530 870

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69137

ON-CONDITION COSTS—Continued

Cost per Action Labor cost Parts cost product

Replace LH tailcone reinforcement angle ...... 12 work-hours × $85 per workhour = $1,020 ...... 2,291 3,311 Replace RH tailcone reinforcement angle ...... 12 work-hours × $85 per workhour = $1,020 ...... 3,006 4,026 Replace LH corner reinforcement ...... 6 work-hours × $85 per workhour = $510 ...... 169 679 Replace RH corner reinforcement ...... 6 work-hours × $85 per workhour = $510 ...... 390 900 Replace LH stabilizer hinge reinforcement channel .... 6 work-hours × $85 per workhour = $510 ...... 99 609 Replace RH stabilizer hinge reinforcement channel .... 6 work-hours × $85 per workhour = $510 ...... 99 609 Replace LH stabilizer hinge assembly ...... 1 work-hours × $85 per workhour = $85 ...... 570 655 Replace RH stabilizer hinge assembly ...... 1 work-hours × $85 per workhour = $85 ...... 694 779 Replace LH stabilizer aft spar reinforcement ...... (*) ...... 825 825 Replace RH stabilizer aft spar reinforcement ...... (*) ...... 466 466 Replace stabilizer aft spar ...... 28* work-hours × $85 per workhour = $2,380 ...... 563 2,943 (* includes work-hour cost for replacing stabilizer aft spar reinforcement parts). Remove and replace horizontal and vertical stabilizers 8 work-hours × $85 per workhour = $680 ...... Not applicable 680 and rig flight controls.

Since corrosion may affect any or all the relationship between the national (c) Applicability of the parts subject to the inspection in government and the States, or on the This AD applies to Textron Aviation Inc. this AD differently and the severity of distribution of power and (type certificate previously held by Cessna the corrosion on each part would affect responsibilities among the various Aircraft Company) Models 180, 180A, 180B, the time necessary to correct the levels of government. 180C, 180D, 180E, 180F, 180G, 180H, 180J, condition, the FAA has no way to For the reasons discussed above, I 180K, 182, 182A, 182B, 182C, 182D, 185, 185A, 185B, 185C, 185D, 185E, A185E, and determine an overall cost per product certify that this AD: (1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory A185F airplanes, all serial numbers, for removing the corrosion. Similarly, certificated in any category. loose or sheared rivets may also affect action’’ under Executive Order 12866, any or all of the parts subject to the (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation (d) Subject inspection in this AD differently, and in Alaska, and Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/ the time necessary to correct the (3) Will not have a significant Air Transport Association (ATA) of America condition on each product would be economic impact, positive or negative, Code 53, Fuselage; 55, Stabilizers. different. Therefore, the FAA has no on a substantial number of small entities (e) Unsafe Condition way to determine an overall cost per under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This AD was prompted by a report of product for replacing loose or sheared cracks found in the tailcone and horizontal rivets. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 stabilizer attachment structure. The FAA is issuing this AD to detect and correct Authority for This Rulemaking Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation corrosion and cracks in the tailcone and safety, Incorporation by reference, Title 49 of the United States Code horizontal stabilizer attachment structure. Safety. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could specifies the FAA’s authority to issue result in failure of the horizontal stabilizer to rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Adoption of the Amendment tailcone attachment, which could lead to tail section 106, describes the authority of Accordingly, under the authority separation with consequent loss of control of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: delegated to me by the Administrator, the airplane. Aviation Programs, describes in more the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as (f) Compliance detail the scope of the Agency’s follows: authority. Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already The FAA is issuing this rulemaking PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS done. under the authority described in DIRECTIVES Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section (g) Inspect, Repair, and Replace 44701: General requirements. Under ■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 Within the next 100 hours time-in-service that section, Congress charges the FAA continues to read as follows: (TIS) after the effective date of this AD or with promoting safe flight of civil Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. within the next 12 months after the effective aircraft in air commerce by prescribing date of this AD, whichever occurs later, and regulations for practices, methods, and § 39.13 [Amended] thereafter every 500 hours TIS or 5 years, ■ whichever occurs first, visually inspect each procedures the Administrator finds 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding stabilizer hinge bracket, tailcone necessary for safety in air commerce. the following new airworthiness reinforcement angle, corner reinforcement, This regulation is within the scope of directive: stabilizer hinge reinforcement channel, that authority because it addresses an 2020–21–22 Textron Aviation Inc.: stabilizer hinge assembly, stabilizer aft spar unsafe condition that is likely to exist or Amendment 39–21295; Docket No. reinforcement, and the lower half of the develop on products identified in this FAA–2020–0472; Project Identifier stabilizer aft spar from station (STA) 16 on rulemaking action. 2018–CE–060–AD. the left side to STA 16 on the right side for corrosion and cracks; remove any corrosion; Regulatory Findings (a) Effective Date and replace any part with a crack by following the Accomplishment Instructions, This AD will not have federalism This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective December 7, 2020. paragraphs 9 through 11 and 13, of Textron implications under Executive Order Aviation Single Engine Mandatory Service 13132. This AD will not have a (b) Affected ADs Letter SEL–55–01, dated December 7, 2017. substantial direct effect on the States, on None. Also inspect for loose rivets and sheared

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 69138 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

rivets. If there is a loose or sheared rivet, of the local flight standards district office/ mandatory continuing airworthiness before further flight, replace the rivet. certificate holding district office. information (MCAI) originated by an (h) Credit for Previous Actions (j) Related Information aviation authority of another country to Actions accomplished before the effective For more information about this AD, identify and correct an unsafe condition date of this AD within the previous 5 years contact Tara Shawn, Aerospace Engineer, on an aviation product. The MCAI or 500 hours TIS, whichever was the most Wichita ACO Branch, 1801 Airport Road, describes the unsafe condition as recent, in accordance with the procedures Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone: seizing of a main landing gear (MLG) specified in the documents listed in (316) 946–4141; fax: (316) 946–4107; email: spring pack assembly. This AD requires paragraphs (h)(i) through (viii) of this AD as [email protected] or [email protected]. replacement of affected parts and applicable to your airplane are considered (k) Material Incorporated by Reference prohibits (re)installation of affected acceptable for compliance with the (1) The Director of the Federal Register parts. The FAA is issuing this AD to corresponding actions in paragraph (g) of this address the unsafe condition on these AD. The time between any inspection for approved the incorporation by reference which credit is allowed by this paragraph (IBR) of the service information listed in this products. and the next inspection accomplished in paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR DATES: This AD is effective December 7, accordance with paragraph (g) of this AD part 51. 2020. must not exceed 500 hours TIS or 5 years, (2) You must use this service information The Director of the Federal Register as applicable to do the actions required by whichever occurs first. approved the incorporation by reference (i) Cessna Aircraft Company Model 100 this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. (i) Textron Aviation Single Engine of a certain publication listed in this AD Series (1953–1962) Service Manual, as of December 7, 2020. Supplemental Inspection Number: 53–10–01, Mandatory Service Letter SEL–55–01, dated D138–1–13 Temporary Revision Number 8, December 7, 2017. ADDRESSES: For service information dated , 2015. (ii) [Reserved] identified in this final rule, contact (ii) Cessna Aircraft Company Model 100 (3) For Textron Aviation service Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., Customer Series (1963–1968) Service Manual, information identified in this AD, contact Technical Support (MCC), P.O. Box 992, Supplemental Inspection Number: 53–10–01, Textron Aviation Customer Service, P.O. Box CH–6371 Stans, Switzerland; telephone: 7706, Wichita, Kansas 67277, (316) 517– D637–1–13 Temporary Revision Number 10, +41 (0)41 619 67 74; fax: +41 (0)41 619 dated May 18, 2015; 5800; [email protected]; internet: https://txtav.com. 67 73; email: Techsupport@pilatus- (iii) Cessna Aircraft Company Model 180/ aircraft.com; internet: https:// 185 Series (1969–1980) Service Manual, (4) You may view this service information Supplemental Inspection Number: 53–10–01, at FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, www.pilatus-aircraft.com/en. You may D2000–9–13 Temporary Revision Number 9, Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, view this service information at the dated May 18, 2015. Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, (iv) Cessna Aircraft Company Model 180/ on the availability of this material at the Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, 185 Series (1981–1985) Service Manual, FAA, call (816) 329–4148. Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For Supplemental Inspection Number: 53–10–01, (5) You may view this service information information on the availability of this that is incorporated by reference at the D2067–1TR9 Temporary Revision Number 9, material at the FAA, call (816) 329– dated , 2016. National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on 4148. It is also available on the internet (v) Cessna Aircraft Company Model 100 at https://www.regulations.gov by Series (1953–1962) Service Manual, the availability of this material at NARA, Supplemental Inspection Number: 55–10–01, email: [email protected], or go to: searching for and locating Docket No. D138–1–13 Temporary Revision Number 7, https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ FAA–2020–0746. ibr-locations.html. dated , 2011. Examining the AD Docket (vi) Cessna Aircraft Company Model 100 Issued on October 8, 2020. You may examine the AD docket on Series (1963–1968) Service Manual, Lance T. Gant, Supplemental Inspection Number: 55–10–01, the internet at https:// Director, Compliance & Airworthiness D637–1–13 Temporary Revision Number 9, www.regulations.gov by searching for Division, Aircraft Certification Service. dated December 1, 2011. and locating Docket No. FAA–2020– (vii) Cessna Aircraft Company Model 180/ [FR Doc. 2020–24046 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] 0746; or in person at Docket Operations 185 Series (1969–1980) Service Manual, BILLING CODE 4910–13–P between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday Supplemental Inspection Number: 55–10–01, through Friday, except Federal holidays. D2000–9–13 Temporary Revision Number 7, dated December 1, 2011. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION The AD docket contains this final rule, (viii) Cessna Aircraft Company Model 180/ the MCAI, any comments received, and 185 Series (1981–1985) Service Manual, Federal Aviation Administration other information. The address for Supplemental Inspection Number: 55–10–01, Docket Operations is U.S. Department of D2067–1–13 Temporary Revision Number 7, 14 CFR Part 39 Transportation, Docket Operations, M– dated December 1, 2011. 30, West Building Ground Floor, Room [Docket No. FAA–2020–0746; Project (i) Alternative Methods of Compliance W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Identifier 2019–CE–012–AD; Amendment Washington, DC 20590. (AMOCs) 39–21301; AD 2020–22–05] (1) The Manager, Wichita ACO Branch, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs RIN 2120–AA64 Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, for this AD, if requested using the procedures FAA, General Aviation & Rotorcraft found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with Airworthiness Directives; Pilatus Section, International Validation 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your Aircraft Ltd. Airplanes Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas principal inspector or local Flight Standards AGENCY: Federal Aviation City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) District Office, as appropriate. If sending 329–4059; fax: (816) 329–4090; email: information directly to the manager of the Administration (FAA), DOT. certification office, send it to the attention of ACTION: Final rule. [email protected]. the person identified in paragraph (j) of this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new AD. Discussion (2) Before using any approved AMOC, airworthiness directive (AD) for Pilatus notify your appropriate principal inspector, Aircraft Ltd. Model PC–12/47E The FAA issued a notice of proposed or lacking a principal inspector, the manager airplanes. This AD was results from rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69139

part 39 by adding an AD that would Related Service Information Under 1 13132. This AD will not have a apply to certain serial-numbered Pilatus CFR Part 51 substantial direct effect on the States, on Aircraft Ltd. Model PC–12/47E The FAA reviewed Pilatus Aircraft the relationship between the national airplanes with an MLG spring pack Ltd. PC–12 Service Bulletin No. 32–027, government and the States, or on the assembly part number (P/N) dated , 2019. The service distribution of power and 532.34.12.101 installed. The NPRM information contains procedures for responsibilities among the various published in the Federal Register on inspecting the MLG spring pack levels of government. , 2020 (85 FR 47712). The assembly to determine the part number, For the reasons discussed above, I NPRM proposed to require removing removing and discarding any affected certify this AD: MLG spring pack assembly P/N spring pack assemblies, and installing (1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 532.34.12.101 from service and the improved design spring pack action’’ under Executive Order 12866, replacing it with MLG spring pack assemblies. This service information is (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation assembly P/N 532.34.12.120 and was reasonably available because the in Alaska, and based on MCAI originated by the interested parties have access to it (3) Will not have a significant European Union Aviation Safety Agency through their normal course of business economic impact, positive or negative, (EASA), which is the Technical Agent or by the means identified in the on a substantial number of small entities for the Member States of the European ADDRESSES section. under the criteria of the Regulatory Community. EASA issued AD No. Flexibility Act. Costs of Compliance 2019–0032, dated , 2019 List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 (referred to after this as ‘‘the MCAI’’), to The FAA estimates that this AD will correct the unsafe condition on these affect 29 products of U.S. registry. The Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation products. The MCAI states: FAA also estimates that it would take safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. An occurrence was reported of an about 3 work-hours per product to unlocked main landing gear (MLG) during comply with the replacement Adoption of the Amendment requirements of this AD. The average landing of a PC–12/47E, equipped with Accordingly, under the authority electro-mechanical landing gear. Subsequent labor rate is $85 per work-hour. investigation identified that the aeroplane Required parts would cost about $5,000 delegated to me by the Administrator, was equipped with an affected part [spring per product. the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as pack assemblies having P/N 532.34.12.101], Based on these figures, the FAA follows: which had completely seized. Serviceable estimates the cost of this AD on U.S. PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS parts [spring pack assemblies having P/N operators to be $152,395, or $5,255 per DIRECTIVES 532.34.12.120] have a special surface product. treatment on the inner and outer tube, which According to the manufacturer, some would have prevented the seizure. ■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 of the costs of this AD may be covered This condition, if not corrected, could lead continues to read as follows: to failure of an MLG spring pack assembly, under warranty, thereby reducing the Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. possibly resulting in inability to safely cost impact on affected individuals. The extend the MLG and consequent loss of FAA does not control warranty coverage § 39.13 [Amended] control of the aeroplane after landing. for affected individuals. As a result, the To address this potential unsafe condition, FAA has included all costs in this cost ■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding Pilatus issued the [service bulletin] SB to estimate. the following new airworthiness provide inspection and modification directive: instructions. Authority for This Rulemaking 2020–22–05 Pilatus Aircraft Ltd.: For the reason described above, this Title 49 of the United States Code Amendment 39–21301; Docket No. [EASA] AD requires replacement of affected specifies the FAA’s authority to issue FAA–2020–0746; Project Identifier parts with serviceable parts, and prohibits 2019–CE–012–AD. (re)installation of affected parts. rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of (a) Effective Date Forty-two airplanes were built that the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: may have this version of the spring pack This airworthiness directive (AD) is Aviation Programs, describes in more effective December 7, 2020. assembly installed. An improved spring detail the scope of the Agency’s pack assembly with a hard chrome authority. (b) Affected ADs plated inner tube was introduced in The FAA is issuing this rulemaking None. 2014. You may examine the MCAI on under the authority described in (c) Applicability the internet at https:// Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section www.regulations.gov by searching for 44701: General requirements. Under This AD applies to Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. and locating Docket No. FAA–2020– that section, Congress charges the FAA Model PC–12/47E airplanes, serial numbers 0746. 1300 and 1451 through 1944 (except serial with promoting safe flight of civil number 1720), certificated in any category, Comments aircraft in air commerce by prescribing with a main landing gear (MLG) spring pack regulations for practices, methods, and assembly part number (P/N) 532.34.12.101 The FAA gave the public the procedures the Administrator finds installed. opportunity to participate in developing necessary for safety in air commerce. (d) Subject this final rule. The FAA received no This regulation is within the scope of comments on the NPRM or on the that authority because it addresses an Air Transport Association of America determination of the cost to the public. unsafe condition that is likely to exist or (ATA) Code 32: Landing Gear. Conclusion develop on products identified in this (e) Reason rulemaking action. This AD was prompted by mandatory The FAA reviewed the relevant data Regulatory Findings continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) and determined that air safety and the originated by an aviation authority of another public interest require adopting this This AD will not have federalism country to identify and correct an unsafe final rule as proposed. implications under Executive Order condition on an aviation product. The MCAI

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 69140 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

describes the unsafe condition as seizing of Administration (NARA). For information on 4148. It is also available on the internet an MLG spring pack assembly. The FAA is the availability of this material at NARA, at https://www.regulations.gov by issuing this AD to prevent failure of the MLG email: [email protected], or go to: searching for and locating Docket No. spring pack assembly, which could result in https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ FAA–2020–0745. the inability to extend the MLG with ibr-locations.html. consequent loss of control of the airplane Issued on , 2020. Examining the AD Docket after landing. Lance T. Gant, You may examine the AD docket on (f) Actions and Compliance Director, Compliance & Airworthiness the internet at https:// (1) Within 2 months after the effective date Division, Aircraft Certification Service. www.regulations.gov by searching for of this AD, remove from service MLG spring [FR Doc. 2020–24048 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] pack assembly P/N 532.34.12.101 and install and locating Docket No. FAA–2020– MLG spring pack assembly P/N BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 0745; or in person at Docket Operations 532.34.12.120 by following the between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday Accomplishment Instructions-Part A- through Friday, except Federal holidays. Aircraft, section 3.B., in Pilatus PC–12 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION The AD docket contains this final rule, Service Bulletin No. 32–027, dated January 7, the MCAI, any comments received, and Federal Aviation Administration 2019. other information. The address for (2) As of the effective date of this AD, do Docket Operations is U.S. Department of not install an MLG spring pack assembly P/ 14 CFR Part 39 N 532.34.12.101 on any airplane. Transportation, Docket Operations, M– [Docket No. FAA–2020–0745; Project 30, West Building Ground Floor, Room (g) Alternative Methods of Compliance Identifier 2019–CE–030–AD; Amendment W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, (AMOCs) 39–21296; AD 2020–21–23] Washington, DC 20590. The Manager, International Validation RIN 2120–AA64 Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the Airworthiness Directives; Pilatus procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section, Aircraft Ltd. Airplanes information to Doug Rudolph, Aerospace International Validation Branch, 901 Engineer, FAA, General Aviation & Rotorcraft AGENCY: Federal Aviation Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Section, International Validation Branch, 901 Administration (FAA), DOT. Missouri 64106; phone: (816) 329–4059; Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri fax: (816) 329–4090; email: ACTION: Final rule. 64106; telephone: (816) 329–4059; fax: (816) [email protected]. 329–4090; email: [email protected]. Before using any approved AMOC, notify SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: your appropriate principal inspector (PI), or airworthiness directive (AD) for Pilatus lacking a PI, your local Flight Standards Aircraft Ltd. Models PC–12, PC–12/45, Discussion District Office. PC–12/47, and PC–12/47E airplanes. The FAA issued a notice of proposed This AD was prompted by mandatory (h) Related Information rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR continuing airworthiness information Refer to European Union Aviation Safety part 39 by adding an AD that would (MCAI) issued by the aviation authority (EASA) Agency AD No. 2019–0032, dated apply to Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Models of another country to identify and February 15, 2019, for more information. You PC–12, PC–12/45, PC–12/47, and PC– correct an unsafe condition on an may examine the EASA AD in the AD docket 12/47E airplanes with a certain on the internet at https:// aviation product. The MCAI describes horizontal stabilizer rear attachment www.regulations.gov by searching for and the unsafe condition as improperly bolt installed. The NPRM published in locating Docket No. FAA–2020–0746. manufactured horizontal stabilizer rear the Federal Register on August 6, 2020 attachment bolts. If not corrected, this (i) Material Incorporated by Reference (85 FR 47716). The NPRM proposed to could lead to fatigue failure of the bolts (1) The Director of the Federal Register require replacing the horizontal and loss of airplane control. The FAA is approved the incorporation by reference stabilizer rear attachment bolts and was issuing this AD to address the unsafe (IBR) of the service information listed in this prompted by MCAI originated by the paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR condition on these products. part 51. European Union Aviation Safety Agency DATES: This AD is effective December 7, (EASA), which is the Technical Agent (2) You must use this service information 2020. as applicable to do the actions required by for the Member States of the European this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register Community. EASA issued AD No. (i) Pilatus PC–12 Service Bulletin No. 32– approved the incorporation by reference 2019–0129, dated , 2019 (referred 027, dated January 7, 2019. of a certain publication listed in this AD to after this as ‘‘the MCAI’’), to correct (ii) [Reserved] as of December 7, 2020. the unsafe condition on these products. (3) For Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. service ADDRESSES: For service information The MCAI states: information identified in this AD, contact identified in this final rule, contact Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., Customer Technical On the final assembly line, horizontal Support (MCC), P.O. Box 992, CH–6371 Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., Customer stabilizer rear attachment bolts were detected Stans, Switzerland; telephone: +41 (0)41 619 Technical Support (MCC), P.O. Box 992, that had not received correct heat treatment. 67 74; fax: +41 (0)41 619 67 73; email: CH–6371 Stans, Switzerland; telephone: Subsequent investigation determined that [email protected]; internet: +41 (0)41 619 67 74; fax: +41 (0)41 619 certain parts, identified by FAUF, were https://www.pilatus-aircraft.com/en. 67 73; email: Techsupport@pilatus- improperly manufactured and consequently (4) You may view this service information aircraft.com; internet: https:// have reduced material properties. at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, www.pilatus-aircraft.com. You may This condition, if not corrected, could lead Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, view this service information at the to a fatigue failure of an affected part, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information possibly resulting in loss of control of the on the availability of this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, aeroplane. FAA, call (816) 329–4148. Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, To address this potential unsafe condition, (5) You may view this service information Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For Pilatus issued the [service bulletin] SB to that is incorporated by reference at the information on the availability of this provide inspection and replacement National Archives and Records material at the FAA, call (816) 329– instructions.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69141

For the reason described above, this unsafe condition that is likely to exist or (d) Subject [EASA] AD requires replacement of affected develop on products identified in this Air Transport Association of America parts, and prohibits (re)installation thereof. rulemaking action. (ATA) Code 55: Stabilizers. You may obtain further information Regulatory Findings (e) Reason by examining the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at https:// This AD was prompted by a report of This AD will not have federalism horizontal stabilizer rear attachment bolts www.regulations.gov by searching for implications under Executive Order that had not received correct heat treatment and locating Docket No. FAA–2020– 13132. This AD will not have a during the manufacturing process. The FAA 0745. substantial direct effect on the States, on is issuing this AD to prevent fatigue failure the relationship between the national of a bolt and subsequent loss of airplane Comments government and the States, or on the control. The FAA gave the public the distribution of power and (f) Actions and Compliance opportunity to participate in developing responsibilities among the various (1) Within 1,350 hours time-in-service after this final rule. The FAA has considered levels of government. the comment received. An individual the effective date of this AD or within 13 For the reasons discussed above, I months after the effective date of this AD, commenter supported the NPRM. certify this AD: whichever occurs first, replace each Conclusion (1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory horizontal stabilizer rear attachment bolt P/ action’’ under Executive Order 12866, N 555.10.12.139 marked with production The FAA reviewed the relevant data order number FAUF 10169753, FAUF and determined that air safety and the (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation 10171067, or FAUF 10171267 by following public interest require adopting this in Alaska, and the Accomplishment Instructions, section final rule as proposed. (3) Will not have a significant 3.B.(2) through (4) and figures 1 and 2, of economic impact, positive or negative, Pilatus PC–12 Service Bulletin No. 55–004, Related Service Information Under 1 on a substantial number of small entities dated , 2019, except you are not CFR Part 51 under the criteria of the Regulatory required to return parts to the manufacturer. (2) As of the effective date of this AD, do The FAA reviewed Pilatus Aircraft Flexibility Act. Ltd. PC–12 Service Bulletin No. 55–004, not install a horizontal stabilizer rear List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 attachment bolt P/N 555.10.12.139 marked dated March 29, 2019. The service with production order number FAUF information contains procedures for Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 10169753, FAUF 10171067, or FAUF checking the rear attachment bolts for safety, Incorporation by reference, 10171267 on any airplane. the horizontal stabilizer and replacing Safety. any defective bolts. This service (g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) information is reasonably available Adoption of the Amendment The Manager, International Validation because the interested parties have Accordingly, under the authority access to it through their normal course Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve delegated to me by the Administrator, AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the of business or by the means identified the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send in the ADDRESSES section. follows: information to ATTN: Doug Rudolph, Costs of Compliance Aerospace Engineer, FAA, General Aviation PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS & Rotorcraft Section, International Validation The FAA estimates that this AD will DIRECTIVES Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, affect 14 products of U.S. registry. The Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329–4059; average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. ■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 fax: (816) 329–4090; email: doug.rudolph@ The FAA estimates that the required continues to read as follows: faa.gov. Before using any approved AMOC, actions will take 1.5 work-hours and notify your appropriate principal inspector require parts costing $5,000, for a cost Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. (PI), or lacking a PI, your local Flight Standards District Office. of $5,127.50 per product and $71,785 § 39.13 [Amended] for the U.S. operator fleet. (h) Related Information ■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding Authority for This Rulemaking Refer to European Union Aviation Safety the following new airworthiness Agency (EASA) AD No. 2019–0129, dated Title 49 of the United States Code directive: June 6, 2019, for more information. You may specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 2020–21–23 Pilatus Aircraft Ltd.: examine the EASA AD in the AD docket on rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Amendment 39–21296; Docket No. the internet at https://www.regulations.gov section 106, describes the authority of FAA–2020–0745; Project Identifier by searching for and locating Docket No. the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: 2019–CE–030–AD. FAA–2020–0745. Aviation Programs, describes in more (a) Effective Date (i) Material Incorporated by Reference detail the scope of the Agency’s (1) The Director of the Federal Register authority. This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective December 7, 2020. approved the incorporation by reference The FAA is issuing this rulemaking (IBR) of the service information listed in this under the authority described in (b) Affected ADs paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section None. part 51. 44701: General requirements. Under (2) You must use this service information (c) Applicability that section, Congress charges the FAA as applicable to do the actions required by with promoting safe flight of civil This AD applies to Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. aircraft in air commerce by prescribing Models PC–12, PC–12/45, PC–12/47, and PC– (i) Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. PC–12 Service 12/47E airplanes, all serial numbers, Bulletin No. 55–004, dated March 29, 2019. regulations for practices, methods, and certificated in any category, with a horizontal (ii) [Reserved] procedures the Administrator finds stabilizer rear attachment bolt part number (3) For Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. service necessary for safety in air commerce. (P/N) 555.10.12.139 marked with production information identified in this AD, contact This regulation is within the scope of order number FAUF 10169753, FAUF Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., Customer Technical that authority because it addresses an 10171067, or FAUF 10171267 installed. Support (MCC), P.O. Box 992, CH–6371

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 69142 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

Stans, Switzerland; telephone: +41 (0)41 619 The Director of the Federal Register Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness 67 74; fax: +41 (0)41 619 67 73; email: approved the incorporation by reference Information, or ‘‘the MCAI’’), to correct [email protected]. of a certain publication listed in this AD an unsafe condition for certain Dassault (4) You may view this service information as of December 7, 2020. Aviation Model FALCON 900EX at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, The Director of the Federal Register Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, airplanes. EASA AD 2020–0116 Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information approved the incorporation by reference superseded EASA AD 2019–0133 on the availability of this material at the of a certain other publication listed in (which corresponds to FAA AD 2019– FAA, call (816) 329–4148. this AD as of , 2020 (84 FR 24–11, Amendment 39–19814 (84 FR (5) You may view this service information 69997, , 2019). 69997, December 20, 2019) (‘‘AD 2019– that is incorporated by reference at the ADDRESSES: For the EASA material 24–11’’)). National Archives and Records incorporated by reference (IBR) in this The FAA issued a notice of proposed Administration (NARA). For information on AD, contact the EASA, Konrad- rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR the availability of this material at NARA, Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, part 39 to supersede AD 2019–24–11. email: [email protected], or go to: AD 2019–24–11 applied to certain https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; ibr-locations.html. email [email protected]; internet Dassault Aviation Model FALCON www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this 900EX airplanes. The NPRM published Issued on October 9, 2020. IBR material on the EASA website at in the Federal Register on , Lance T. Gant, https://ad.easa.europa.eu. 2020 (85 FR 46563). The NPRM was Director, Compliance & Airworthiness For the Dassault service information prompted by a determination that new Division, Aircraft Certification Service. identified in this AD, contact Dassault or more restrictive airworthiness [FR Doc. 2020–24047 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro limitations are necessary. The NPRM BILLING CODE 4910–13–P Airport, P.O. Box 2000, South proposed to continue to require the Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201– maintenance or inspection program 440–6700; internet https:// revisions required by AD 2019–24–11, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION www.dassaultfalcon.com. and also proposed to require revising the existing maintenance or inspection Federal Aviation Administration You may view this IBR material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, program, as applicable, to incorporate additional new or more restrictive 14 CFR Part 39 Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For airworthiness limitations, as specified [Docket No. FAA–2020–0678; Product information on the availability of this in an EASA AD. Identifier 2020–NM–098–AD; Amendment material at the FAA, call 206–231–3195. The FAA is issuing this AD to address 39–21292; AD 2020–21–19] It is also available in the AD docket on reduced structural integrity of the the internet at https:// airplane. See the MCAI for additional RIN 2120–AA64 www.regulations.gov by searching for background information. Airworthiness Directives; Dassault and locating Docket No. FAA–2020– Comments 0678. Aviation Airplanes The FAA gave the public the Examining the AD Docket AGENCY: Federal Aviation opportunity to participate in developing Administration (FAA), Department of You may examine the AD docket on this final rule. The FAA received no Transportation (DOT). the internet at https:// comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public. ACTION: Final rule. www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA–2020– Conclusion SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding 0678; or in person at Docket Operations The FAA reviewed the relevant data Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2019–24– between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday and determined that air safety and the 11, which applied to certain Dassault through Friday, except Federal holidays. public interest require adopting this Aviation Model FALCON 900EX The AD docket contains this final rule, final rule as proposed, except for minor airplanes. AD 2019–24–11 required any comments received, and other editorial changes. The FAA has revising the existing maintenance or information. The address for Docket determined that these minor changes: inspection program, as applicable, to Operations is U.S. Department of • Are consistent with the intent that incorporate new or more restrictive Transportation, Docket Operations, M– was proposed in the NPRM for airworthiness limitations. This AD 30, West Building Ground Floor, Room addressing the unsafe condition; and W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, continues to require those maintenance • Do not add any additional burden Washington, DC 20590. or inspection program revisions, and upon the public than was already also requires revising the existing FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom proposed in the NPRM. maintenance or inspection program, as Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, Large applicable, to incorporate additional Aircraft Section, International Related IBR Material Under 1 CFR Part new or more restrictive airworthiness Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South 51 limitations; as specified in a European 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; EASA AD 2020–0116 describes new Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) telephone and fax: 206–231–3226; or more restrictive maintenance tasks AD, which is incorporated by reference. email: [email protected]. and airworthiness limitations. This AD was prompted by a SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This AD also requires Chapter 5–40, determination that new or more Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 16, restrictive airworthiness limitations are Discussion dated September 2018, of the Dassault necessary. The FAA is issuing this AD The EASA, which is the Technical FALCON 900EX Maintenance Manual, to address the unsafe condition on these Agent for the Member States of the which the Director of the Federal products. European Union, has issued EASA AD Register approved for incorporation by DATES: This AD is effective December 7, 2020–0116, dated , 2020 (‘‘EASA reference as of January 24, 2020 (84 FR 2020. AD 2020–0116’’) (also referred to as the 69997, December 20, 2019).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69143

This material is reasonably available For the reasons discussed above, I (f) Compliance because the interested parties have certify that this AD: Comply with this AD within the access to it through their normal course (1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory compliance times specified, unless already of business or by the means identified action’’ under Executive Order 12866, done. in the ADDRESSES section. (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation (g) Retained Maintenance or Inspection in Alaska, and Costs of Compliance Program Revision, with No Changes (3) Will not have a significant This paragraph restates the requirements of The FAA estimates that this AD economic impact, positive or negative, paragraph (i) of AD 2019–24–11, with no affects 72 airplanes of U.S. registry. The on a substantial number of small entities changes. Within 90 days after January 24, FAA estimates the following costs to under the criteria of the Regulatory 2020 (the effective date AD 2019–24–11), comply with this AD: Flexibility Act. revise the existing maintenance or inspection The FAA estimates the total cost per program, as applicable, to incorporate the List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 information specified in Chapter 5–40, operator for the retained actions from Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 16, AD 2019–24–11 to be $7,650 (90 work- Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation dated September 2018, of the Dassault hours × $85 per work-hour). safety, Incorporation by reference, FALCON 900EX Maintenance Manual. The The FAA has determined that revising Safety. initial compliance times for accomplishing the maintenance or inspection program Adoption of the Amendment the actions are at the times specified in takes an average of 90 work-hours per Chapter 5–40, Airworthiness Limitations, operator, although the FAA recognizes Accordingly, under the authority Revision 16, dated September 2018, or 90 days after January 24, 2020, whichever that this number may vary from operator delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as occurs later, except as provided by to operator. In the past, the FAA has paragraphs (g)(1) through (4) of this AD. estimated that this action takes 1 work- follows: Accomplishing the maintenance or hour per airplane. Since operators inspection program revision required by PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS incorporate maintenance or inspection paragraph (i) of this AD terminates the DIRECTIVES program changes for their affected requirements of this paragraph. fleet(s), the FAA has determined that a (1) The term ‘‘LDG’’ in the ‘‘First ■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 Inspection’’ column of any table in the per-operator estimate is more accurate continues to read as follows: service information means total airplane than a per-airplane estimate. Therefore, Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. landings. the FAA estimates the total cost per (2) The term ‘‘FH’’ in the ‘‘First Inspection’’ operator for the new actions to be § 39.13 [Amended] column of any table in the service $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work- information means total flight hours. ■ hour). 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by: (3) The term ‘‘FC’’ in the ‘‘First Inspection’’ ■ a. Removing Airworthiness Directive column of any table in the service Authority for This Rulemaking (AD) 2019–24–11, Amendment 39– information means total flight cycles. 19814 (84 FR 69997, December 20, (4) The term ‘‘M’’ in the ‘‘First Inspection’’ Title 49 of the United States Code column of any table in the service specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 2019), and ■ b. Adding the following new AD: information means months since the date of rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, issuance of the original airworthiness section 106, describes the authority of 2020–21–19 Dassault Aviation: certificate or the date of issuance of the the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Amendment 39–21292; Docket No. original export certificate of airworthiness. Aviation Programs, describes in more FAA–2020–0678; Product Identifier 2020–NM–098–AD. (h) Retained Restrictions on Alternative detail the scope of the Agency’s Actions and Intervals, with a New Exception authority. (a) Effective Date This paragraph restates the requirements of The FAA is issuing this rulemaking This AD is effective December 7, 2020. paragraph (j) of AD 2019–24–11, with a new under the authority described in exception. Except as required by paragraph (b) Affected ADs Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section (i) of this AD, after the maintenance or 44701: General requirements. Under (1) This AD replaces AD 2019–24–11, inspection program has been revised as that section, Congress charges the FAA Amendment 39–19814 (84 FR 69997, required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no with promoting safe flight of civil December 20, 2019) (‘‘AD 2019–24–11’’). alternative actions (e.g., inspections) or (2) This AD affects AD 2010–26–05, aircraft in air commerce by prescribing intervals may be used unless the actions or Amendment 39–16544 (75 FR 79952, intervals are approved as an alternative regulations for practices, methods, and , 2010) (‘‘AD 2010–26–05’’). method of compliance (AMOC) in procedures the Administrator finds accordance with the procedures specified in (c) Applicability necessary for safety in air commerce. paragraph (m)(1) of this AD. This regulation is within the scope of This AD applies to Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX airplanes, certificated (i) New Maintenance or Inspection Program that authority because it addresses an Revision unsafe condition that is likely to exist or in any category, as identified in European develop on products identified in this Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD Except as specified in paragraph (j) of this 2020–0116, dated May 20, 2020 (‘‘EASA AD AD: Comply with all required actions and rulemaking action. 2020–0116’’). compliance times specified in, and in Regulatory Findings accordance with, EASA AD 2020–0116. (d) Subject Accomplishing the maintenance or This AD will not have federalism Air Transport Association (ATA) of inspection program revision required by this implications under Executive Order America Code 05, Time Limits/Maintenance paragraph terminates the requirements of 13132. This AD will not have a Checks. paragraph (g) of this AD. substantial direct effect on the States, on (e) Reason (j) Exceptions to EASA AD 2020–0116 the relationship between the national This AD was prompted by a determination (1) The requirements specified in government and the States, or on the that new or more restrictive airworthiness paragraphs (1) and (2) of EASA AD 2020– distribution of power and limitations are necessary. The FAA is issuing 0116 do not apply to this AD. responsibilities among the various this AD to address reduced structural (2) Paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2020–0116 levels of government. integrity of the airplane. specifies revising ‘‘the approved AMP’’

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 69144 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

within 12 months after its effective date, but fax 206–231–3226; email tom.rodriguez@ DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION this AD requires revising the existing faa.gov. maintenance or inspection program, as Federal Aviation Administration applicable, to incorporate the ‘‘limitations, (o) Material Incorporated by Reference tasks and associated thresholds and (1) The Director of the Federal Register 14 CFR Part 39 intervals’’ specified in paragraph (3) of EASA approved the incorporation by reference AD 2020–0116 within 90 days after the (IBR) of the service information listed in this [Docket No. FAA–2020–0677; Product effective date of this AD. paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR Identifier 2020–NM–099–AD; Amendment (3) The initial compliance time for doing 39–21293; AD 2020–21–20] the tasks specified in paragraph (3) of EASA part 51. AD 2020–0116 is at the applicable (2) You must use this service information RIN 2120–AA64 ‘‘associated thresholds’’ specified in as applicable to do the actions required by paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2020–0116, or this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise. Airworthiness Directives; Dassault within 90 days after the effective date of this (3) The following service information was Aviation Airplanes AD, whichever occurs later. approved for IBR on December 7, 2020. AGENCY: Federal Aviation (4) The provisions specified in paragraphs (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency Administration (FAA), Department of (4) and (5) of EASA AD 2020–0116 do not (EASA) AD 2020–0116, dated May 20, 2020. apply to this AD. (ii) [Reserved] Transportation (DOT). (5) The ‘‘Remarks’’ section of EASA AD (4) The following service information was ACTION: Final rule. 2020–0116 does not apply to this AD. approved for IBR on January 24, 2020 (84 FR SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding (k) New Provisions for Alternative Actions 69997, December 20, 2019). Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2019–23– and Intervals (i) Chapter 5–40, Airworthiness 03, which applied to certain Dassault After the maintenance or inspection Limitations, Revision 16, dated September program has been revised as required by 2018, of the Dassault FALCON 900EX Aviation Model FALCON 900EX paragraph (i) of this AD, no alternative Maintenance Manual. airplanes. AD 2019–23–03 required actions (e.g., inspections) and intervals are (ii) [Reserved] revising the existing maintenance or allowed unless they are approved as (5) For EASA AD 2020–0116, contact the inspection program, as applicable, to specified in the provisions of the ‘‘Ref. EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 incorporate new or more restrictive Publications’’ section of EASA AD 2020– maintenance requirements and/or 0116. Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email [email protected]; internet airworthiness limitations. This AD (l) Terminating Actions for Certain Actions www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this continues to require those maintenance in AD 2010–26–05 EASA AD on the EASA website at https:// or inspection program revisions, and Accomplishing the actions required by ad.easa.europa.eu. also requires revising the existing paragraph (g) or (i) of this AD terminates the (6) For Dassault service information maintenance or inspection program, as requirements of paragraph (g)(1) of AD 2010– identified in this AD, contact Dassault Falcon applicable, to incorporate additional 26–05, for Dassault Aviation Model FALCON Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box new or more restrictive airworthiness 900EX airplanes, serial numbers 1 through 96 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; limitations; as specified in a European inclusive, and serial numbers 98 through 119 Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) inclusive. telephone 201–440–6700; internet https:// www.dassaultfalcon.com. AD, which is incorporated by reference. (m) Other FAA AD Provisions (7) You may view this material at the FAA, This AD was prompted by a The following provisions also apply to this Airworthiness Products Section, Operational determination that new or more AD: Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des restrictive airworthiness limitations are (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance Moines, WA. For information on the necessary. The FAA is issuing this AD (AMOCs): The Manager, Large Aircraft availability of this material at the FAA, call to address the unsafe condition on these Section, International Validation Branch, 206–231–3195. This material may be found products. FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs in the AD docket on the internet at https:// for this AD, if requested using the procedures DATES: This AD is effective December 7, found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with www.regulations.gov by searching for and 2020. 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your locating Docket No. FAA–2020–0678. The Director of the Federal Register principal inspector or local Flight Standards (8) You may view this material that is approved the incorporation by reference District Office, as appropriate. If sending incorporated by reference at the National of a certain publication listed in this AD information directly to the Large Aircraft Archives and Records Administration as of December 7, 2020. Section, International Validation Branch, (NARA). For information on the availability The Director of the Federal Register send it to the attention of the person of this material at NARA, email fedreg.legal@ identified in paragraph (n) of this AD. approved the incorporation by reference nara.gov, or go to: https://www.archives.gov/ of a certain other publication listed in Information may be emailed to: 9-AVS-AIR- federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. [email protected]. this AD as of , 2020 (84 FR (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any Issued on October 8, 2020. 67171, December 9, 2019). requirement in this AD to obtain instructions Gaetano A. Sciortino, ADDRESSES: For the EASA material from a manufacturer, the instructions must incorporated by reference (IBR) in this be accomplished using a method approved Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, by the Manager, Large Aircraft Section, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, AD, contact the EASA, Konrad- International Validation Branch, FAA; or Aircraft Certification Service. Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, EASA; or Dassault Aviation’s EASA Design [FR Doc. 2020–24098 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by BILLING CODE 4910–13–P email [email protected]; internet the DOA, the approval must include the www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this DOA-authorized signature. IBR material on the EASA website at (n) Related Information https://ad.easa.europa.eu. For more information about this AD, For the Dassault service information contact Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, identified in this AD, contact Dassault Large Aircraft Section, International Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th Airport, P.O. Box 2000, South St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201–

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69145

440–6700; internet https:// Dassault Aviation Model FALCON Related IBR Material Under 1 CFR Part www.dassaultfalcon.com. 900EX airplanes. The NPRM published 51 You may view this IBR material at the in the Federal Register on August 3, EASA AD 2020–0117 describes FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, 2020 (85 FR 46560). The NPRM was procedures for maintenance tasks and Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South prompted by a determination that new airworthiness limitations. 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For or more restrictive airworthiness This AD also requires Chapter 5–40, information on the availability of this limitations are necessary. The NPRM Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 11, material at the FAA, call 206–231–3195. proposed to continue to require the dated September 2018, of the Dassault It is also available in the AD docket on maintenance or inspection program Falcon 900EX EASy, Falcon 900LX, and the internet at https:// revisions required by AD 2019–23–03, Falcon 900DX Maintenance Manual, www.regulations.gov by searching for and also proposed to require revising which the Director of the Federal and locating Docket No. FAA–2020– the existing maintenance or inspection Register approved for incorporation by 0677. program, as applicable, to incorporate reference as of January 13, 2020 (84 FR Examining the AD Docket additional new or more restrictive 67171, December 9, 2019). airworthiness limitations, as specified This material is reasonably available You may examine the AD docket on in an EASA AD. because the interested parties have the internet at https:// access to it through their normal course www.regulations.gov by searching for The FAA is issuing this AD to of business or by the means identified and locating Docket No. FAA–2020– address, among other things, fatigue in the ADDRESSES section. 0677; or in person at Docket Operations cracking and damage in principal between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday structural elements; such fatigue Costs of Compliance cracking and damage could result in through Friday, except Federal holidays. The FAA estimates that this AD The AD docket contains this final rule, reduced structural integrity of the airplane. See the MCAI for additional affects 97 airplanes of U.S. registry. The any comments received, and other FAA estimates the following costs to background information. information. The address for Docket comply with this AD: Operations is U.S. Department of Comments The FAA estimates the total cost per Transportation, Docket Operations, M– operator for the retained actions from 30, West Building Ground Floor, Room The FAA gave the public the AD 2019–23–03 to be $7,650 (90 work- W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, opportunity to participate in developing hours × $85 per work-hour). Washington, DC 20590. this final rule. The FAA received no The FAA has determined that revising FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom comments on the NPRM or on the the maintenance or inspection program Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, Large determination of the cost to the public. takes an average of 90 work-hours per Aircraft Section, International operator, although the FAA recognizes Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South Explanation of Change to Paragraph (g) of This AD that this number may vary from operator 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; to operator. In the past, the FAA has telephone and fax: 206–231–3226; The FAA has revised paragraph (g) of estimated that this action takes 1 work- email: [email protected]. this AD to clarify that it applies only to hour per airplane. Since operators SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: airplanes with an original airworthiness incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected Discussion certificate or original export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before fleet(s), the FAA has determined that a The EASA, which is the Technical , 2018. This information per-operator estimate is more accurate Agent for the Member States of the was inadvertently left out of the than a per-airplane estimate. Therefore, European Union, has issued EASA AD proposed AD. Paragraph (g) of this AD the FAA estimates the total cost per 2020–0117, dated May 20, 2020 (‘‘EASA is a retained action from AD 2019–23– operator for the new actions to be × AD 2020–0117’’) (also referred to as the 03, and this clarification limits the $7,650 (90 work-hours $85 per work- Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness applicability of the retained action to hour). Information, or ‘‘the MCAI’’), to correct match that in AD 2019–23–03. an unsafe condition for certain Dassault Authority for This Rulemaking Aviation Model FALCON 900EX Conclusion Title 49 of the United States Code airplanes. EASA AD 2020–0117 specifies the FAA’s authority to issue superseded EASA AD 2019–0134 The FAA reviewed the relevant data rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, (which corresponds to FAA AD 2019– and determined that air safety and the section 106, describes the authority of 23–03, Amendment 39–19796 (84 FR public interest require adopting this the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: 67171, December 9, 2019) (‘‘AD 2019– final rule with the change described Aviation Programs, describes in more 23–03’’)). Airplanes with an original previously and minor editorial changes. detail the scope of the Agency’s airworthiness certificate or original The FAA has determined that these authority. export certificate of airworthiness minor changes: The FAA is issuing this rulemaking issued after , 2019 must • Are consistent with the intent that under the authority described in comply with the airworthiness was proposed in the NPRM for Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section limitations specified as part of the addressing the unsafe condition; and 44701: General requirements. Under approved type design and referenced on • that section, Congress charges the FAA the type certificate data sheet; this AD Do not add any additional burden with promoting safe flight of civil therefore does not include those upon the public than was already aircraft in air commerce by prescribing airplanes in the applicability. proposed in the NPRM. regulations for practices, methods, and The FAA issued a notice of proposed The FAA also determined that these procedures the Administrator finds rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR changes will not increase the economic necessary for safety in air commerce. part 39 to supersede AD 2019–23–03. burden on any operator or increase the This regulation is within the scope of AD 2019–23–03 applied to certain scope of this final rule. that authority because it addresses an

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 69146 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

unsafe condition that is likely to exist or certificated in any category, with an original (i) of this AD, after the existing maintenance develop on products identified in this airworthiness certificate or original export or inspection program has been revised as rulemaking action. certificate of airworthiness issued on or required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no before October 2, 2019. alternative actions (e.g., inspections) or Regulatory Findings intervals may be used unless the actions and (d) Subject intervals are approved as an AMOC in This AD will not have federalism Air Transport Association (ATA) of accordance with the procedures specified in implications under Executive Order America Code 05, Time Limits/Maintenance paragraph (m)(1) of this AD. 13132. This AD will not have a Checks. substantial direct effect on the States, on (i) New Maintenance or Inspection Program (e) Reason the relationship between the national Revision government and the States, or on the This AD was prompted by a determination Except as specified in paragraph (j) of this distribution of power and that new or more restrictive airworthiness AD: Comply with all required actions and limitations are necessary. The FAA is issuing compliance times specified in, and in responsibilities among the various this AD to address, among other things, accordance with, European Union Aviation levels of government. fatigue cracking and damage in principal Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2020–0117, dated For the reasons discussed above, I structural elements; such fatigue cracking May 20, 2020 (‘‘EASA AD 2020–0117’’). certify that this AD: and damage could result in reduced Accomplishing the maintenance or (1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory structural integrity of the airplane. inspection program revision required by this paragraph terminates the requirements of action’’ under Executive Order 12866, (f) Compliance (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation paragraph (g) of this AD. Comply with this AD within the in Alaska, and (j) Exceptions to EASA AD 2020–0117 (3) Will not have a significant compliance times specified, unless already done. (1) The requirements specified in economic impact, positive or negative, paragraphs (1) and (2) of EASA AD 2020– (g) Retained Maintenance or Inspection on a substantial number of small entities 0117 do not apply to this AD. Program Revision, With No Changes under the criteria of the Regulatory (2) Paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2020–0117 Flexibility Act. This paragraph restates the requirements of specifies revising ‘‘the approved AMP’’ paragraph (i) of AD 2019–23–03, with no within 12 months after its effective date, but List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 changes. For airplanes with an original this AD requires revising the existing Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation airworthiness certificate or original export maintenance or inspection program, as safety, Incorporation by reference, certificate of airworthiness issued on or applicable, to incorporate the ‘‘limitations, before September 1, 2018: Within 90 days Safety. tasks and associated thresholds and after January 13, 2020 (the effective date of intervals’’ specified in paragraph (3) of EASA Adoption of the Amendment AD 2019–23–03), revise the existing AD 2020–0117 within 90 days after the maintenance or inspection program, as effective date of this AD. Accordingly, under the authority applicable, to incorporate the information (3) The initial compliance time for doing delegated to me by the Administrator, specified in Chapter 5–40, Airworthiness the tasks specified in paragraph (3) of EASA the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as Limitations, Revision 11, dated September AD 2020–0117 is at the applicable follows: 2018, of the Dassault Falcon 900EX EASy, ‘‘associated thresholds’’ specified in Falcon 900LX, and Falcon 900DX paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2020–0117, or PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS Maintenance Manual. The initial compliance within 90 days after the effective date of this DIRECTIVES times for accomplishing the actions are at the AD, whichever occurs later. times specified in Chapter 5–40, (4) The provisions specified in paragraphs ■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 11, (4) and (5) of EASA AD 2020–0117 do not continues to read as follows: dated September 2018, of the Dassault Falcon apply to this AD. 900EX EASy, Falcon 900LX, and Falcon (5) The ‘‘Remarks’’ section of EASA AD Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. 900DX Maintenance Manual, or 90 days after 2020–0117 does not apply to this AD. the effective date of this AD, whichever § 39.13 [Amended] occurs later, except as provided by (k) New Provisions for Alternative Actions ■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by: paragraphs (g)(1) through (4) of this AD. and Intervals ■ a. Removing Airworthiness Directive Accomplishing the maintenance or After the maintenance or inspection (AD) 2019–23–03, Amendment 39– inspection program revision required by program has been revised as required by 19796 (84 FR 67171, December 9, 2019), paragraph (i) of this AD terminates the paragraph (i) of this AD, no alternative requirements of this paragraph. actions (e.g., inspections) and intervals are and (1) The term ‘‘LDG’’ in the ‘‘First ■ allowed unless they are approved as b. Adding the following new AD: Inspection’’ column of any table in the specified in the provisions of the ‘‘Ref. 2020–21–20 Dassault Aviation: service information means total airplane Publications’’ section of EASA AD 2020– Amendment 39–21293; Docket No. landings. 0117. FAA–2020–0677; Product Identifier (2) The term ‘‘FH’’ in the ‘‘First Inspection’’ (l) Terminating Actions for Certain Actions 2020–NM–099–AD. column of any table in the service information means total flight hours. in AD 2010–26–05 (a) Effective Date (3) The term ‘‘FC’’ in the ‘‘First Inspection’’ Accomplishing the actions required by This AD is effective December 7, 2020. column of any table in the service paragraph (g) or (i) of this AD terminates the information means total flight cycles. requirements of paragraph (g)(1) of AD 2010– (b) Affected ADs (4) The term ‘‘M’’ in the ‘‘First Inspection’’ 26–05, for Dassault Aviation Model FALCON (1) This AD replaces AD 2019–23–03, column of any table in the service 900EX airplanes, 900EX airplanes, S/N 97 Amendment 39–19796 (84 FR 67171, information means months since the date of and S/Ns 120 and higher. December 9, 2019) (‘‘AD 2019–23–03’’). issuance of the original airworthiness (m) Other FAA AD Provisions (2) This AD affects AD 2010–26–05, certificate or the date of issuance of the Amendment 39–16544 (75 FR 79952, original export certificate of airworthiness. The following provisions also apply to this December 21, 2010) (‘‘AD 2010–26–05’’). AD: (h) Retained Restrictions on Alternative (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (c) Applicability Actions and Intervals, With a New Exception (AMOCs): The Manager, Large Aircraft This AD applies to Dassault Aviation This paragraph restates the requirements of Section, International Validation Branch, Model FALCON 900EX airplanes, serial paragraph (j) of AD 2019–23–03, with a new FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs number (S/N) 97 and S/Ns 120 and higher, exception. Except as required by paragraph for this AD, if requested using the procedures

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69147

found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with Archives and Records Administration FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your (NARA). For information on the availability Fornito, Operations Support Group, principal inspector or local Flight Standards of this material at NARA, email fedreg.legal@ Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation District Office, as appropriate. If sending nara.gov, or go to: https://www.archives.gov/ Administration, 1701 Columbia Ave., information directly to the Large Aircraft federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. Section, International Validation Branch, College Park, GA 30337; Telephone Issued on October 8, 2020. send it to the attention of the person (404) 305–6364. identified in paragraph (n) of this AD. Gaetano A. Sciortino, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Information may be emailed to: 9-AVS-AIR- Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, [email protected]. Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Authority for This Rulemaking (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any Aircraft Certification Service. The FAA’s authority to issue rules requirement in this AD to obtain instructions [FR Doc. 2020–24156 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] regarding aviation safety is found in from a manufacturer, the instructions must Title 49 of the United States Code. be accomplished using a method approved BILLING CODE 4910–13–P by the Manager, Large Aircraft Section, Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the International Validation Branch, FAA; or authority of the FAA Administrator. EASA; or Dassault Aviation’s EASA Design DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by describes in more detail the scope of the the DOA, the approval must include the Federal Aviation Administration agency’s authority. This rulemaking is DOA-authorized signature. promulgated under the authority 14 CFR Part 71 (n) Related Information described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that For more information about this AD, [Docket No. FAA–2020–0763; Airspace contact Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, Docket No. 20–ASO–22] section, the FAA is charged with Large Aircraft Section, International prescribing regulations to assign the use RIN 2120–AA66 Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and Amendment of Class E Airspace; fax 206–231–3226; email tom.rodriguez@ airspace. This regulation is within the Montezuma, GA faa.gov. scope of that authority as it amends (o) Material Incorporated by Reference AGENCY: Federal Aviation Class E airspace at Dr. CP Savage Sr. (1) The Director of the Federal Register Administration (FAA), DOT. Airport, Montezuma, GA, to support IFR approved the incorporation by reference ACTION: Final rule. operations in the area. (IBR) of the service information listed in this History paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR SUMMARY: This action amends Class E part 51. airspace extending upward from 700 The FAA published a notice of prosed (2) You must use this service information feet above the surface in Montezuma, rulemaking in the Federal Register (85 as applicable to do the actions required by GA, due to the decommissioning of the FR 53309, , 2020) for Docket this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise. Montezuma non-directional beacon No. FAA–2020–0763 to amend Class E (3) The following service information was (NDB) and cancellation of the associated airspace extending upward from 700 approved for IBR on December 7, 2020. feet above the surface at Dr. CP Savage (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency approach at Dr. CP Savage Sr. Airport. (EASA) AD 2020–0117, dated May 20, 2020. This action also updates the geographic Sr. Airport, Montezuma, GA, by (ii) [Reserved] coordinates of the airport. Controlled eliminating the Montezuma NDB and (4) The following service information was airspace is necessary for the safety and the associated extension, and increasing approved for IBR on January 13, 2020 (84 FR management of instrument flight rules the radius of the airport from 6.3 miles 67171, December 9, 2019). (IFR) operations in the area. to 6.9 miles. In addition, the FAA (i) Chapter 5–40, Airworthiness proposed to update the geographic DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, December Limitations, Revision 11, dated September coordinates of the airport to coincide 2018, of the Dassault Falcon 900EX EASy, 31, 2020. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by with the FAA’s aeronautical database. Falcon 900LX, and Falcon 900DX Interested parties were invited to Maintenance Manual. reference action under Title 1 Code of participate in this rulemaking effort by (ii) [Reserved] Federal Regulations part 51, subject to submitting written comments on the (5) For EASA AD 2020–0117, contact the the annual revision of FAA Order proposal to the FAA. No comments EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 7400.11 and publication of conforming Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 pertaining to the proposal were amendments. 000; email [email protected]; internet received. www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11E, Class E airspace designations are EASA AD on the EASA website at https:// Airspace Designations and Reporting published in Paragraph 6005, of FAA ad.easa.europa.eu. Points, and subsequent amendments can Order 7400.11E, dated , 2020, (6) For Dassault service information be viewed online at https:// and effective , 2020, which identified in this AD, contact Dassault Falcon www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; For further information, you can contact 71.1. The Class E airspace designations telephone 201–440–6700; internet https:// the Airspace Policy Group, Federal listed in this document will be www.dassaultfalcon.com. Aviation Administration, 800 published subsequently in the Order. (7) You may view this material at the FAA, Independence Avenue SW, Washington, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational DC 20591; Telephone: (202) 267–8783. Availability and Summary of Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des The Order is also available for Documents for Incorporation by Moines, WA. For information on the inspection at the National Archives and Reference availability of this material at the FAA, call Records Administration (NARA). For This document amends FAA Order 206–231–3195. This material may be found in the AD docket on the internet at https:// information on the availability of FAA 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and www.regulations.gov by searching for and Order 7400.11E at NARA, email Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, locating Docket No. FAA–2020–0677. [email protected] or go to https:// and effective September 15, 2020. FAA (8) You may view this material that is www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ Order 7400.11E is publicly available as incorporated by reference at the National ibr-locations.html. listed in the ADDRESSES section of this

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 69148 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

document. FAA Order 7400.11E lists Adoption of the Amendment Minimum Operational Network (MON) Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, In consideration of the foregoing, the Program. The geographic coordinates of air traffic routes, and reporting points. Federal Aviation Administration the airport are also being updated to amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows: coincide with the FAA’s aeronautical The Rule database. This amendment to Title 14 Code of PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, December Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR 31, 2020. The Director of the Federal amends Class E airspace extending TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND Register approves this incorporation by upward from 700 feet above the surface REPORTING POINTS reference action under Title 1 Code of at Dr. CP Savage Sr. Airport, Federal Regulations part 51, subject to ■ 1. The authority citation for part 71 the annual revision of FAA Order Montezuma, GA, by eliminating the continues to read as follows: Montezuma NDB and the associated 7400.11 and publication of conforming extension, and increasing the radius of Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, amendments. 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11E, the airport from 6.3 miles to 6.9 miles. 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389. In addition, the FAA updates the Airspace Designations and Reporting geographic coordinates of the airport to § 71.1 [Amended] Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https:// coincide with the FAA’s aeronautical ■ 2.The incorporation by reference in 14 www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. database. These changes are necessary CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11E, For further information, you can contact for continued safety and management of Airspace Designations and Reporting the Airspace Policy Group, Federal IFR operations in the area. Points, dated July 21, 2020, effective Aviation Administration, 800 FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace September 15, 2020, is amended as Independence Avenue SW, Washington, Designations and Reporting Points, is follows: DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267–8783. published yearly and effective on Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas The Order is also available for September 15. Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More inspection at the National Archives and Above the Surface of the Earth. Records Administration (NARA). For Regulatory Notices and Analyses * * * * * information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11E at NARA, email The FAA has determined that this ASO GA E5 Montezuma, GA [Amended] regulation only involves an established [email protected] or go to https:// Dr. CP Savage Sr. Airport, GA www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ body of technical regulations for which (Lat. 32°18′11″ N, long. 84°00′27″ W) frequent and routine amendments are ibr-locations.html. That airspace extending upward from 700 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: necessary to keep them operationally feet or more above the surface within a 6.9- current. It therefore: (1) Is not a mile radius of Dr. CP Savage Sr. Airport. Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under Issued in College Park, Georgia, on October Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a Group, Central Service Center, 10101 27, 2020. Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT Andreese C. Davis, Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 76177; telephone (817) 222–5711. Manager, Airspace & Procedures Team South, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FR 11034; , 1979); and (3) Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic does not warrant preparation of a Organization. Authority for This Rulemaking regulatory evaluation as the anticipated [FR Doc. 2020–24179 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] The FAA’s authority to issue rules impact is so minimal. Since this is a BILLING CODE 4910–13–P regarding aviation safety is found in routine matter that only affects air traffic Title 49 of the United States Code. procedures an air navigation, it is Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the certified that this rule, when DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION authority of the FAA Administrator. promulgated, does not have a significant Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, Federal Aviation Administration economic impact on a substantial describes in more detail the scope of the number of small entities under the agency’s authority. This rulemaking is 14 CFR Part 71 criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. promulgated under the authority Environmental Review [Docket No. FAA–2020–0730; Airspace described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Docket No. 20–ASO–20] Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with The FAA has determined that this RIN 2120–AA66 action qualifies for categorical exclusion prescribing regulations to assign the use under the National Environmental Amendment of the Class E Airspace; of airspace necessary to ensure the Policy Act in accordance with FAA Hartford, KY safety of aircraft and the efficient use of Order 1050.1F, ‘‘Environmental airspace. This regulation is within the AGENCY: Impacts: Policies and Procedures,’’ Federal Aviation scope of that authority as it amends the paragraph 5–6.5a. This airspace action Administration (FAA), DOT. Class E airspace extending upward from is not expected to cause any potentially ACTION: Final rule. 700 feet above the surface at Ohio significant environmental impacts, and County Airport, Hartford, KY, to SUMMARY: This action amends the Class no extraordinary circumstances exist support instrument flight rule E airspace extending upward from 700 operations at this airport. that warrant preparation of an feet above the surface at Ohio County environmental assessment. Airport, Hartford, KY. This action is the History Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 result of an airspace review caused by The FAA published a notice of the decommissioning of the Central City proposed rulemaking in the Federal Airspace, Incorporation by reference, VHF omnidirectional range (VOR) Register (85 FR 49610; , 2020) Navigation (air). navigation aid as part of the VOR for Docket No. FAA–2020–0730 to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69149

amend the Class E airspace extending impact is so minimal. Since this is a DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION upward from 700 feet above the surface routine matter that only affects air traffic at Ohio County Airport, Hartford, KY. procedures and air navigation, it is Federal Aviation Administration Interested parties were invited to certified that this rule, when participate in this rulemaking effort by promulgated, does not have a significant 14 CFR Part 97 submitting written comments on the economic impact on a substantial proposal to the FAA. No comments number of small entities under the [Docket No. 31337 Amdt. No. 3927] were received. criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Standard Instrument Approach Class E airspace designations are Environmental Review Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums published in paragraph 6005 of FAA and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Order 7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, The FAA has determined that this Miscellaneous Amendments and effective September 15, 2020, which action qualifies for categorical exclusion is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR under the National Environmental AGENCY: Federal Aviation 71.1. The Class E airspace designations Policy Act in accordance with FAA Administration (FAA), DOT. listed in this document will be Order 1050.1F, ‘‘Environmental ACTION: Final rule. published subsequently in the Order. Impacts: Policies and Procedures,’’ SUMMARY: This rule establishes, amends, Availability and Summary of paragraph 5–6.5.a. This airspace action suspends, or removes Standard Documents for Incorporation by is not expected to cause any potentially Instrument Approach Procedures Reference significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff This document amends FAA Order that warrant preparation of an Minimums and Obstacle Departure 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and environmental assessment. Procedures (ODPs) for operations at Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, certain airports. These regulatory and effective September 15, 2020. FAA Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 actions are needed because of the Order 7400.11E is publicly available as Airspace, Incorporation by reference, adoption of new or revised criteria, or listed in the ADDRESSES section of this Navigation (air). because of changes occurring in the document. FAA Order 7400.11E lists National Airspace System, such as the Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, Adoption of the Amendment commissioning of new navigational air traffic service routes, and reporting In consideration of the foregoing, the facilities, adding new obstacles, or points. Federal Aviation Administration changing air traffic requirements. These The Rule amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows: changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable This amendment to Title 14 Code of PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, airspace and to promote safe flight Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR operations under instrument flight rules amends the Class E airspace extending TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND at the affected airports. upward from 700 feet above the surface REPORTING POINTS DATES: to within a 6.5-mile radius (increased This rule is effective November 2, 2020. The compliance date for each from a 6.4-mile radius) of Ohio County ■ 1. The authority citation for part 71 SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, Airport, Hartford, KY; and updates the continues to read as follows: geographic coordinates of the airport to and ODP is specified in the amendatory Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, coincide with the FAA’s aeronautical provisions. 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, The incorporation by reference of database. 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389. This action is the result of an airspace certain publications listed in the review caused by the decommissioning § 71.1 [Amended] regulations is approved by the Director of the Central City VOR, which of the Federal Register as of November ■ 2. The incorporation by reference in 2, 2020. provided navigation information for the 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11E, instrument procedures at this airport, as ADDRESSES: Availability of matters Airspace Designations and Reporting incorporated by reference in the part of the VOR MON Program. Points, dated July 21, 2020, and FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace amendment is as follows: effective September 15, 2020, is Designations and Reporting Points, is amended as follows: For Examination published yearly and effective on September 15. Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas 1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Docket Ops–M30, 1200 New Jersey Regulatory Notices and Analyses Above the Surface of the Earth Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, The FAA has determined that this * * * * * Washington, DC, 20590–0001. regulation only involves an established 2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization ASO KY E5 Hartford, KY [Amended] body of technical regulations for which Service Area in which the affected Ohio County Airport frequent and routine amendments are ° ′ ″ ° ′ ″ airport is located; necessary to keep them operationally (Lat. 37 27 31 N, long. 86 50 59 W) 3. The office of Aeronautical current, is non-controversial and That airspace extending upward from 700 Navigation Products, 6500 South unlikely to result in adverse or negative feet or more above the surface within a 6.5- MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK mile radius of Ohio County Airport. comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a 73169 or, ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on , 4. The National Archives and Records Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a 2020. Administration (NARA). For ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT Martin A. Skinner, information on the availability of this Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, material at NARA, email fedreg.legal@ FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) ATO Central Service Center. nara.gov or go to: https:// does not warrant preparation of a [FR Doc. 2020–23954 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ regulatory evaluation as the anticipated BILLING CODE 4910–13–P ibr-locations.html.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 69150 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

Availability The material incorporated by List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97 reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and Air Traffic Control, Airports, ODPs are available online free of charge. Minimums and/or ODPS as identified in Incorporation by reference, Navigation Visit the National Flight Data Center at the amendatory language for part 97 of (air). this final rule. nfdc.faa.gov to register. Additionally, Issued in Washington, DC, on , individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums The Rule 2020. and ODP copies may be obtained from Wade Terrell, the FAA Air Traffic Organization This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is Aviation Safety Manager, Flight Procedures Service Area in which the affected effective upon publication of each & Airspace Group Flight Technologies and airport is located. separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and Procedures Division. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: ODP as amended in the transmittal. Adoption of the Amendment Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedures Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have Accordingly, pursuant to the and Airspace Group, Flight authority delegated to me, Title 14, been issued previously by the FAA in a Technologies and Procedures Division, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Flight Standards Service, Federal CFR part 97) is amended by Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency Aviation Administration. Mailing establishing, amending, suspending, or Address: FAA Mike Monroney action of immediate flight safety relating removing Standard Instrument Aeronautical Center, Flight Procedures directly to published aeronautical Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff and Airspace Group, 6500 South charts. Minimums and Obstacle Departure MacArthur Blvd., Registry Bldg. 29, The circumstances that created the Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the Room 104, Oklahoma City, OK 73169. need for some SIAP and Takeoff dates specified, as follows: Telephone: (405) 954–4164. Minimums and ODP amendments may SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule require making them effective in less PART 97—STANDARD INSTRUMENT amends 14 CFR part 97 by establishing, than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs APPROACH PROCEDURES amending, suspending, or removes and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an ■ SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or 1. The authority citation for part 97 effective date at least 30 days after continues to read as follows: ODPS. The complete regulatory publication is provided. description of each SIAP and its Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, for an identified airport is listed on FAA Minimums and ODPs contained in this 44701, 44719, 44721–44722. form documents which are incorporated amendment are based on the criteria ■ 2. Part 97 is amended to read as by reference in this amendment under 5 contained in the U.S. Standard for follows: Terminal Instrument Procedures U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 Effective 3 December 2020 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and forms are FAA Forms 8260–3, 8260–4, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the Paso Robles, CA, Paso Robles Muni, VOR RWY 19, Amdt 5 8260–5, 8260–15A, and 8260–15B, TERPS criteria were applied to the Fernandina Beach, FL, KFHB, RNAV (GPS) when required by an entry on 8260– conditions existing or anticipated at the RWY 22, Amdt 1E 15A. affected airports. Because of the close Keokuk, IA, KEOK, NDB RWY 26, Amdt 1B, The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff and immediate relationship between CANCELLED Minimums and ODPs, their complex these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and Shreveport, LA, Shreveport Downtown, nature, and the need for a special format ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find RNAV (GPS) RWY 14, Amdt 1B Shreveport, LA, Shreveport Downtown, make publication in the Federal that notice and public procedure under RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Orig–A Register expensive and impractical. 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and Columbia, SC, Jim Hamilton L B Owens, Further, airmen do not use the contrary to the public interest and, RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Amdt 1A regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), Dallas, TX, Dallas Executive, ILS OR LOC Minimums or ODPs, but instead refer to good cause exists for making some RWY 31, Amdt 9A their graphic depiction on charts SIAPs effective in less than 30 days. Dallas, TX, Dallas Executive, RNAV (GPS) printed by publishers of aeronautical RWY 17, Orig–B The FAA has determined that this materials. Thus, the advantages of Dallas, TX, Dallas Executive, RNAV (GPS) regulation only involves an established RWY 31, Amdt 1B incorporation by reference are realized body of technical regulations for which Dallas, TX, Dallas Executive, RNAV (GPS) and publication of the complete frequent and routine amendments are RWY 35, Orig–B description of each SIAP, Takeoff Dallas, TX, Dallas Executive, VOR RWY 17, Minimums and ODP listed on FAA form necessary to keep them operationally Amdt 1B documents is unnecessary. This current. It, therefore—(1) is not a Hebbronville, TX, Jim Hogg County, NDB amendment provides the affected CFR ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under RWY 13, Amdt 4, CANCELLED sections and specifies the types of Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a Farmville, VA, KFVX, NDB RWY 3, Amdt 6A, CANCELLED SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT with their applicable effective dates. Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 Effective 31 December 2020 This amendment also identifies the FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) King Cove, AK, King Cove, COLD BAY TWO, airport and its location, the procedure, does not warrant preparation of a Graphic DP and the amendment number. regulatory evaluation as the anticipated King Cove, AK, King Cove, RNAV (GPS)–A, impact is so minimal. For the same Orig–C Availability and Summary of Material reason, the FAA certifies that this King Cove, AK, King Cove, Takeoff Incorporated by Reference amendment will not have a significant Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1 King Salmon, AK, King Salmon, Takeoff The material incorporated by economic impact on a substantial Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2 reference is publicly available as listed number of small entities under the Koyuk, AK, Koyuk Alfred Adams, NDB RWY in the ADDRESSES section. criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 1, Amdt 1C, CANCELLED

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69151

Koyuk, AK, Koyuk Alfred Adams, RNAV Watertown, SD, KATY, LOC BC RWY 17, operations under instrument flight rules (GPS) RWY 1, Amdt 1 Amdt 11A at the affected airports. Sleetmute, AK, Sleetmute, RNAV (GPS) RWY Watertown, SD, KATY, VOR OR TACAN DATES: 33, Orig RWY 17, Amdt 17B This rule is effective November Sleetmute, AK, Sleetmute, SPARREVOHN Denton, TX, Denton Enterprise, ILS OR LOC 2, 2020. The compliance date for each ONE, Graphic DP RWY 18, Amdt 9B, CANCELLED SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, Sleetmute, AK, Sleetmute, Takeoff Denton, TX, Denton Enterprise, ILS OR LOC and ODP is specified in the amendatory Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig RWY 18L, Orig provisions. Springdale, AR, Springdale Muni, VOR/DME Denton, TX, Denton Enterprise, NDB RWY The incorporation by reference of RWY 36, Amdt 9D, CANCELLED 18, Amdt 7B, CANCELLED certain publications listed in the Gooding, ID, Gooding Muni, Takeoff Denton, TX, Denton Enterprise, RNAV (GPS) regulations is approved by the Director RWY 18, ORIG–B, CANCELLED Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1 of the Federal Register as of November Bardstown, KY, Samuels Field, VOR RWY 3, Denton, TX, Denton Enterprise, RNAV (GPS) Amdt 1, CANCELLED RWY 18L, ORIG 2, 2020. Campbellsville, KY, Taylor County, VOR/ Denton, TX, Denton Enterprise, RNAV (GPS) ADDRESSES: Availability of matter DME–A, Amdt 7, CANCELLED RWY 18R, ORIG incorporated by reference in the Marion, KY, Marion-Crittenden Co James C Denton, TX, Denton Enterprise, RNAV (GPS) amendment is as follows: Johnson Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and RWY 36, Amdt 2C, CANCELLED Obstacle DP, Amdt 1A Denton, TX, Denton Enterprise, RNAV (GPS) For Examination Pittsfield, ME, Pittsfield Muni, NDB RWY 36, RWY 36L, ORIG Denton, TX, KDTO, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36R, 1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Amdt 4E, CANCELLED Docket Ops–M30, 1200 New Jersey Flint, MI, KFNT, RADAR–1, Amdt 8A, ORIG CANCELLED Sherman, TX, KSWI, RNAV (GPS) RWY 16, Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Port Huron, MI, KPHN, RNAV (GPS) RWY 4, Orig–B Washington, DC 20590–0001; Amdt 1A Sherman/Denison, TX, North Texas Rgnl/ 2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Port Huron, MI, KPHN, RNAV (GPS) RWY Perrin Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35R, Orig– Service Area in which the affected 22, Amdt 1A C airport is located; South St Paul, MN, South St Paul Muni- Cedar City, UT, Cedar City Rgnl, ILS OR LOC 3. The office of Aeronautical Richard E Fleming Fld, NDB–B, Amdt 4A, RWY 20, Amdt 5 Navigation Products, 6500 South Cedar City, UT, Cedar City Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) CANCELLED MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK St Paul, MN, St Paul Downtown Holman Fld, RWY 2, Orig Cedar City, UT, Cedar City Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) 73169 or, NDB RWY 31, Amdt 9, CANCELLED 4. The National Archives and Records St Paul, MN, Lake Elmo, NDB RWY 4, Amdt RWY 20, Amdt 2 5A, CANCELLED Cedar City, UT, Cedar City Rgnl, VOR RWY Administration (NARA). For Clinton, MO, Clinton Rgnl, NDB RWY 4, 20, Amdt 8 information on the availability of this Amdt 8A, CANCELLED Petersburg, WV, W99, COPTER RNAV (GPS) material at NARA, email fedreg.legal@ Clinton, MO, Clinton Rgnl, NDB RWY 22, X RWY 31, Orig–A nara.gov or go to: https:// Amdt 9A, CANCELLED [FR Doc. 2020–23957 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ Gulfport, MS, KGPT, ILS Z OR LOC Z RWY BILLING CODE 4910–13–P ibr-locations.html. 14, ILS Z RWY 14 (SA CAT II), Amdt 15A Gulfport, MS, KGPT, VOR Z OR TACAN Z Availability RWY 14, Amdt 4A DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and Twin Bridges, MT, Ruby Valley Field, ODPs are available online free of charge. BRIDGES TWO, Graphic DP Federal Aviation Administration Twin Bridges, MT, Ruby Valley Field, Visit the National Flight Data Center online at nfdc.faa.gov to register. DILLON TWO, Graphic DP 14 CFR Part 97 Twin Bridges, MT, KRVF, RNAV (GPS) RWY Additionally, individual SIAP and 17, Orig–C [Docket No. 31338; Amdt. No. 3928] Takeoff Minimums and ODP copies may Twin Bridges, MT, KRVF, RNAV (GPS) RWY be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic 35, Orig–C Standard Instrument Approach Organization Service Area in which the Twin Bridges, MT, Ruby Valley Field, Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums affected airport is located. Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig- and Obstacle Departure Procedures; FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A Miscellaneous Amendments New Town, ND, 05D, RNAV (GPS) RWY 12, Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedures Orig AGENCY: Federal Aviation and Airspace Group, Flight New Town, ND, 05D, RNAV (GPS) RWY 30, Administration (FAA), DOT. Technologies and Procedures Division, Orig Flight Standards Service, Federal ACTION: Final rule. Norfolk, NE, Norfolk Rgnl/Karl Stefan Aviation Administration. Mailing Memorial Fld, VOR RWY 14, Amdt 8A SUMMARY: This rule amends, suspends, Address: FAA Mike Monroney Norfolk, NE, Norfolk Rgnl/Karl Stefan or removes Standard Instrument Aeronautical Center, Flight Procedures Memorial Fld, VOR RWY 32, Amdt 8A Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and and Airspace Group, 6500 South Wellsville, NY, Wellsville Muni—Tarantine MacArthur Blvd., Registry Bldg. 29, Fld, RNAV (GPS) RWY 10, Amdt 1A associated Takeoff Minimums and Wellsville, NY, Wellsville Muni—Tarantine Obstacle Departure Procedures for Room 104, Oklahoma City, OK 73169. Fld, RNAV (GPS) RWY 28, Amdt 1B operations at certain airports. These Telephone: (405) 954–4164. Wellsville, NY, Wellsville Muni—Tarantine regulatory actions are needed because of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule Fld, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, the adoption of new or revised criteria, amends 14 CFR part 97 by amending the Amdt 2A or because of changes occurring in the referenced SIAPs. The complete Newark, OH, KVTA, LOC RWY 9, Orig–B National Airspace System, such as the regulatory description of each SIAP is Newark, OH, KVTA, VOR–A, Amdt 13B commissioning of new navigational listed on the appropriate FAA Form Durant, OK, Durant Rgnl—Eaker Field, VOR RWY 35, Amdt 1, CANCELLED facilities, adding new obstacles, or 8260, as modified by the National Flight Butler, PA, KBTP, ILS OR LOC RWY 8, Amdt changing air traffic requirements. These Data Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice 10 changes are designed to provide for the to Airmen (P–NOTAM), and is Punxsutawney, PA, Punxsutawney Muni, safe and efficient use of the navigable incorporated by reference under 5 VOR/DME–A, Amdt 1B, CANCELLED airspace and to promote safe flight U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 69152 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

CFR 97.20. The large number of SIAPs, permanent NOTAM, and contained in under the criteria of the Regulatory their complex nature, and the need for this amendment are based on the Flexibility Act. a special format make their verbatim criteria contained in the U.S. Standard List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97 publication in the Federal Register for Terminal Instrument Procedures expensive and impractical. Further, (TERPS). In developing these changes to Air Traffic Control, Airports, airmen do not use the regulatory text of SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and Incorporation by reference, Navigation the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied (Air). depiction on charts printed by only to specific conditions existing at Issued in Washington, DC, on October 16, publishers of aeronautical materials. the affected airports. All SIAP 2020. Thus, the advantages of incorporation amendments in this rule have been Wade Terrell, by reference are realized and previously issued by the FAA in a FDC publication of the complete description NOTAM as an emergency action of Aviation Safety Manager, Flight Procedures & Airspace Group Flight Technologies and of each SIAP contained on FAA form immediate flight safety relating directly Procedures Division. documents is unnecessary. This to published aeronautical charts. amendment provides the affected CFR The circumstances that created the Adoption of the Amendment need for these SIAP and Takeoff sections, and specifies the SIAPs and Accordingly, pursuant to the Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less authority delegated to me, Title 14, applicable effective dates. This Code of Federal regulations, Part 97, (14 amendment also identifies the airport than 30 days. Because of the close and immediate CFR part 97), is amended by amending and its location, the procedure and the Standard Instrument Approach amendment number. relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and Procedures and Takeoff Minimums and Availability and Summary of Material safety in air commerce, I find that notice ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the Incorporated by Reference and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. dates specified, as follows: 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to The material incorporated by PART 97—STANDARD INSTRUMENT the public interest and, where reference is publicly available as listed APPROACH PROCEDURES in the ADDRESSES section. applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good The material incorporated by cause exists for making these SIAPs ■ 1. The authority citation for part 97 reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff effective in less than 30 days. continues to read as follows: Minimums and ODPs as identified in The FAA has determined that this the amendatory language for part 97 of regulation only involves an established Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, this final rule. body of technical regulations for which 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, frequent and routine amendments are 44701, 44719, 44721–44722. The Rule necessary to keep them operationally ■ 2. Part 97 is amended to read as This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is current. It, therefore—(1) is not a follows: effective upon publication of each ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under By amending: § 97.23 VOR, VOR/ separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums Executive Order 12866;(2) is not a DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME and ODP as amended in the transmittal. ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT regulatory or TACAN; § 97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, For safety and timeliness of change Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; considerations, this amendment February 26, 1979); and (3) does not § 97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; § 97.29 ILS, incorporates only specific changes warrant preparation of a regulatory ILS/DME, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV; contained for each SIAP and Takeoff evaluation as the anticipated impact is § 97.31RADAR SIAPs; § 97.33 RNAV Minimums and ODP as modified by so minimal. For the same reason, the SIAPs; and § 97.35 COPTER SIAPs, FDC permanent NOTAMs. FAA certifies that this amendment will The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums not have a significant economic impact Identified as follows: and ODPs, as modified by FDC on a substantial number of small entities * * * Effective Upon Publication

AIRAC date State City Airport FDC No. FDC date Subject

3-Dec-20 ..... RI Providence ...... Theodore Francis Green State ...... 0/1063 10/2/20 RNAV (GPS) RWY 16, Orig-F. 3-Dec-20 ..... KS Smith Center .... Smith Center Muni ...... 0/1520 10/6/20 RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 1. 3-Dec-20 ..... KS Smith Center .... Smith Center Muni ...... 0/1521 10/6/20 RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 1. 3-Dec-20 ..... KS Smith Center .... Smith Center Muni ...... 0/1534 10/6/20 VOR–A, Amdt 3. 3-Dec-20 ..... KS Smith Center .... Smith Center Muni ...... 0/1537 10/6/20 RNAV (GPS) RWY 14, Orig-B. 3-Dec-20 ..... KS Smith Center .... Smith Center Muni ...... 0/1538 10/6/20 RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Orig-B. 3-Dec-20 ..... AZ Clifton/Morenci .. Greenlee County ...... 0/7354 9/22/20 RNAV (GPS)-A, Orig-A. 3-Dec-20 ..... OH Wadsworth ...... Wadsworth Muni ...... 0/7985 10/6/20 RNAV (GPS) RWY 2, Amdt 2. 3-Dec-20 ..... OH Wadsworth ...... Wadsworth Muni ...... 0/7987 10/6/20 RNAV (GPS) RWY 20, Amdt 2. 3-Dec-20 ..... MN Mankato ...... Mankato Rgnl ...... 0/8592 10/7/20 ILS OR LOC RWY 33, Amdt 1A. 3-Dec-20 ..... MN Mankato ...... Mankato Rgnl ...... 0/8593 10/7/20 COPTER ILS OR LOC RWY 33, Orig-C. 3-Dec-20 ..... CA Riverside ...... Riverside Muni ...... 0/8632 9/22/20 RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Orig.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69153

AIRAC date State City Airport FDC No. FDC date Subject

3-Dec-20 ..... CA Riverside ...... Riverside Muni ...... 0/8633 9/22/20 VOR RWY 9, Amdt 1B. 3-Dec-20 ..... CA Riverside ...... Riverside Muni ...... 0/8634 9/22/20 VOR–A, Orig-A.

[FR Doc. 2020–23958 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] all correspondence, including any Information Act applies to all comments BILLING CODE 4910–13–P attachments. received. If you want to submit personal • Electronic comments: The Drug identifying information (such as your Enforcement Administration encourages name, address, etc.) as part of your DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE that all comments be submitted comment, but do not want it to be made electronically through the Federal publicly available, you must include the Drug Enforcement Administration eRulemaking Portal, which provides the phrase ‘‘PERSONAL IDENTIFYING ability to type short comments directly INFORMATION’’ in the first paragraph 21 CFR Parts 1301 and 1306 into the comment field on the web page of your comment. You must also place or attach a file for lengthier comments. all of the personal identifying [Docket No. DEA–499] Please go to http://www.regulations.gov information you do not want made RIN 1117–AB55 and follow the online instructions at publicly available in the first paragraph that site for submitting comments. Upon of your comment and identify what Implementation of the Substance Use- completion of your submission, you will information you want redacted. Disorder Prevention That Promotes receive a Comment Tracking Number for If you want to submit confidential Opioid Recovery and Treatment for your comment. Please be aware that business information as part of your Patients and Communities Act of 2018: submitted comments are not comment, but do not want it to be made Dispensing and Administering instantaneously available for public publicly available, you must include the Controlled Substances for Medication- view on http://www.regulations.gov. If phrase ‘‘CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS Assisted Treatment you have received a Comment Tracking INFORMATION’’ in the first paragraph Number, your comment has been of your comment. You must also AGENCY: Drug Enforcement successfully submitted, and there is no prominently identify the confidential Administration, Department of Justice. need to resubmit the same comment. business information to be redacted ACTION: Interim final rule with request Commenters should be aware that the within the comment. for comments. electronic Federal Docket Management Comments containing personal System will not accept comments after identifying information and confidential SUMMARY: The ‘‘Substance Use-Disorder 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the last day business information identified as Prevention that Promotes Opioid of the comment period. directed above will generally be made Recovery and Treatment for Patients • Paper comments: Paper comments publicly available in redacted form. If a and Communities Act of 2018 (the that duplicate the electronic submission comment has so much confidential SUPPORT Act),’’ which became law on are not necessary and are discouraged. business information or personal , 2018, amended the Should you wish to mail a paper identifying information that it cannot be Controlled Substances Act to expand comment in lieu of an electronic effectively redacted, all or part of that the conditions a practitioner must meet comment, it should be sent via regular comment may not be made publicly to provide medication-assisted or express mail to: Drug Enforcement available. Comments posted to http:// treatment and expand the options Administration, Attn: DEA Federal www.regulations.gov may include any available for a physician to be Register Representative/DPW, Diversion personal identifying information (such considered a qualifying physician. The Control Division; Mailing Address: 8701 as name, address, and phone number) SUPPORT Act removed the time period Morrissette Drive, Springfield, VA included in the text of your electronic for a nurse practitioner or physician 22152. submission that is not identified as assistant to be considered a qualifying FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: directed above as confidential. other practitioner, and revised the Scott A. Brinks, Regulatory Drafting and An electronic copy of this interim definition of a qualifying practitioner. Policy Support Section (DPW) Diversion final rule is available at http:// The SUPPORT Act also allows a Control Division, Drug Enforcement www.regulations.gov under FDMS pharmacy to deliver prescribed Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Docket ID: DEA–499 (RIN 1117–AB55/ controlled substances to a practitioner’s Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia Docket Number DEA–499) for ease of registered location for the purpose of 22152; Telephone: (571) 362–3261. reference. maintenance or detoxification treatment to be administered under certain SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Legal Authority conditions by a practitioner. The Drug Posting of Public Comments Pertinent Provisions of the SUPPORT Enforcement Administration amends its Please note that all comments Act regulations to make them consistent received are considered part of the On October 24, 2018, the President with the SUPPORT Act and implement public record. They will, unless signed the SUPPORT Act into law as its requirements. reasonable cause is given, be made Public Law 115–271. Sections 3201 and DATES: This interim final rule is available by the Drug Enforcement 3202 of the SUPPORT Act amended effective on October 30, 2020. Electronic Administration (DEA) for public certain provisions of 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(2), comments must be submitted, and inspection online at http:// which is the subsection of the written comments must be postmarked, www.regulations.gov. Such information Controlled Substances Act (CSA) that on or before , 2021. includes personal identifying sets forth the conditions under which a ADDRESSES: To ensure proper handling information (such as your name, practitioner may, without being of comments, please reference ‘‘RIN address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by separately registered under subsection 1117–AB55 Docket No. DEA–499’’ on the commenter. The Freedom of 823(g)(1), dispense a narcotic drug in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 69154 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

schedule III, IV, or V for the purpose of low patient capacity.5 The provisions of medications 8 in a qualified practice maintenance treatment 1 or the SUPPORT Act being implemented setting.9 detoxification treatment.2 Section 3204 into DEA regulation by this interim final Section 3201(a) also allows a of the SUPPORT Act amended the CSA rule directly address this bottleneck in practitioner to treat more patients, by adding section 309A (21 U.S.C. available providers, and provider increasing the applicable number to 275 829a), which sets forth the conditions capacity by increasing the total number patients if a practitioner meets the under which a pharmacy may deliver a of providers eligible to prescribe requirements set forth in 42 CFR 8.610– controlled substance to an buprenorphine to OUD patients. 8.655. DEA added this additional administering practitioner. All of the applicable number to its regulations in Additional Flexibility Regarding the changes to the CSA, from these sections a January 2018 final rule,10 to reflect Patient Limit for Purposes of 21 U.S.C. of the SUPPORT Act, will be fully new limits set by HHS in a July 2016 823(g)(2) described below. final rule.11 Under this rule, DEA is Section 3201(a) of the SUPPORT Act updating the regulations to reflect the Background amended the CSA, 21 U.S.C. new description in section 3201(a). Opioid Abuse and Treatment Need 823(g)(2)(B)(iii)(II), to provide flexibility DEA is implementing these changes to to practitioners regarding the number of Opioid abuse and addiction in the the CSA by revising DEA regulations in patients they may treat, without being United States continues to impact 21 CFR 1301.28(b)(1)(iii)(B)–(C). separately registered as a narcotic disparate communities and populations. treatment program, by adding more Elimination of Time Limit for Certain According to the report ‘‘Key Substance opportunities to increase the applicable Qualifying Practitioners and Expanding Use and Mental Health Indicators in the number of patients that may be treated the Definition of Qualifying Other United States: Results from the 2018 to 100. In general, the applicable Practitioner National Survey on Drug Use and number of patients that may be treated The CSA mandates that a practitioner Health’’ released by the Substance at one time is 30. Prior to the SUPPORT who dispenses narcotic drugs for Abuse and Mental Health Services Act, the CSA set the applicable number maintenance treatment or detoxification Administration (SAMHSA), an of patients a practitioner may treat at treatment must be a qualifying estimated 2 million people (0.7 percent 100 only when a practitioner submitted practitioner. 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(2)(B)(i). of the population) aged 12 or older had a second notification to the Secretary of Prior to the SUPPORT Act, the CSA an opioid use disorder (OUD) in 2018.3 HHS for the need and intent of the defined a qualifying practitioner, under The share of the population estimated to practitioner to treat up to 100 patients, 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(2)(G)(iii), as a have had an OUD in 2015, 2016, and no sooner than one year after the date qualifying physician 12 and also 2017 was 0.9 percent, 0.8 percent, and on which the initial notification was temporarily (until , 2021) as a 0.8 percent, respectively. Among people submitted. ‘‘qualifying other practitioner,’’ which aged 12 or older with an OUD in 2018, After promulgation of the SUPPORT included a nurse practitioner or about 400,000 received treatment at a Act, a practitioner may treat up to 100 physician assistant who meets certain specialty facility in the past year, or 19.7 patients under two additional qualifications set forth in 21 U.S.C. percent of all those with an OUD. The circumstances: (1) If the practitioner 823(g)(2)(G)(iv). Sections 3201(b) percentage of those with an OUD that 6 holds additional credentialing, or (2) if through (d) of the SUPPORT Act received treatment at a specialty facility a practitioner provides medication- updated the CSA to by permanently in 2015, 2016, and 2017 was estimated 7 assisted treatment using covered allowing a nurse practitioner or a to be 21.7 percent, 21.1 percent, and physician assistant to be considered a 28.6 percent, respectively. amending the CSA to establish ‘‘waiver authority According to the Department of ‘‘qualifying other practitioner,’’ and for physicians who dispense or prescribe certain temporarily (until October 1, 2023) Health and Human Services (HHS) narcotic drugs for maintenance treatment or Office of Inspector General (OIG) report detoxification treatment’’ (Pub. L. 106–310, title expanding the definition of a XXXV; 114 Stat. 1222). Prior to DATA, the CSA and titled ‘‘Geographic Disparities Affect ‘‘qualifying practitioner’’ to also include DEA regulations required practitioners who wanted a clinical nurse specialist, certified Access to Buprenorphine Services for to conduct maintenance or detoxification treatment Opioid Use Disorder’’ published in using narcotic controlled drugs to be registered as registered nurse anesthetist, or a a Narcotic Treatment Program (NTP) in addition to certified nurse midwife who meets January, 2020, 40 percent of U.S. the practitioner’s personal registration. Hence, the counties have no ‘‘DATA-waived’’ certain qualifications set forth in 21 term ‘‘DATA-waived’’ is used to describe individual U.S.C. 823(g)(2)(G)(iv), allowing more providers,4 and another 24 percent have practitioners (physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, clinical nurse specialists, flexibility. Those qualifications for certified registered nurse anesthetists, and certified 1 21 U.S.C. 802(29) defines maintenance clinical nurse specialists, certified nurse midwives) who, having received an registered nurses, or certified nurse treatment as the dispensing, for a period in excess identification number from DEA, are exempt from of twenty-one days, of a narcotic drug in the separate registration for dispensing or prescribing midwives, pertaining to training, treatment of an individual for dependence upon schedule III, IV, or V narcotic controlled drugs experience, and supervision, are the heroin or other morphine-like drugs. approved by the Food and Drug Administration 2 21 U.S.C. 802(30) defines detoxification specifically for use in maintenance or detoxification with behavioral health services to provide an treatment as the dispensing, for a period not in treatment per 21 CFR 1301.28. individualized approach to the treatment of excess of one hundred and eighty days, of a narcotic 5 Office of Inspector General, HHS, 2020. substance use disorder, including opioid use drug in decreasing doses to an individual in order Geographic Disparities Affect Access To to alleviate adverse physiological or psychological disorder. Buprenorphine Services For Opioid Use Disorder. 8 effects incident to withdrawal from the continuous U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. ‘‘Covered medications’’ are ‘‘the drugs or combinations of drugs that are covered under 21 or sustained use of a narcotic drug and as a method 6 ‘‘Additional credentialing’’ is defined as ‘‘board U.S.C. 823(g)(2)(C).’’ 42 CFR 8.2. of bringing the individual to a narcotic drug-free certification in addiction medicine or addiction 9 state within such period. psychiatry by the American Board of Addiction A ‘‘qualified practice setting’’ is described in 42 3 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Medicine, the American Board of Medical CFR 8.615. SAMHSA. Key Substance Use and Mental Health Specialties, or the American Osteopathic 10 83 FR 3071, , 2018. Indicators in the United States: Results from the Association or certification by the American Board 11 81 FR 44712, , 2016. 2018 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. of Addiction Medicine, or the American Society of 12 The CSA defines a ‘‘qualifying physician’’ as a 2019. Addiction Medicine.’’ 42 CFR 8.2. physician who is licensed under State law and who 4 On , 2000, Congress passed the Drug 7 42 CFR 8.2 defines medication-assisted meets one or more of certain listed conditions. 21 Addiction Treatment Act of 2000 (DATA), treatment as the use of medication in combination U.S.C. 823(g)(2)(G)(ii).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69155

same as those that previously only substance (that meets the requirements DEA finds there is good cause within applied to nurse practitioners or issued by the Attorney General under the meaning of the APA to issue these physician assistants. title 21 of the U.S.C.) to the prescribing amendments as an interim final rule and DEA is implementing these changes to practitioner’s or administering to delay comment procedures to the the CSA by revising DEA regulations in practitioner’s registered location for the post-publication period, because these 21 CFR 1301.28(b)(1)(i). purpose of maintenance or amendments merely conform the New Option To Allow a Physician To detoxification treatment to be implementing regulations with recent Become a Qualifying Physician administered to a patient under specific amendments to the CSA that have conditions. Prior to this new section already taken effect. DEA has no Section 3202(a) of the SUPPORT Act 829a, pharmacies were only allowed to discretion with respect to these amended 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(2)(G)(ii) by deliver controlled substances to the amendments. This rule merely adding a new option for a physician to ultimate user or research subject. be considered a ‘‘qualifying physician.’’ Under section 829a, a pharmacy is incorporates the statutory amendments Prior to the SUPPORT Act, a physician allowed to dispense prescribed narcotic into DEA’s regulations, and publishing could become a qualifying physician drugs in schedule III, IV, or V, or a notice of proposed rulemaking or through seven different options. The combinations of such drugs, to a soliciting public comment prior to additional option allows a physician to practitioner for the purpose of publication is unnecessary. See 5 U.S.C. be considered a qualifying physician if maintenance or detoxification treatment 553(b)(B) (relating to notice and they graduated in good standing from an under 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(2) and certain comment procedures). ‘‘[W]hen accredited school of allopathic medicine conditions. Specifically, the regulations merely restate the statute or osteopathic medicine in the United prescription must be issued by a they implement, notice-and-comment States within the five-year period qualifying practitioner and the procedures are unnecessary.’’ Gray immediately preceding the date that the prescription issued cannot be used to Panthers Advocacy Committee v. physician submitted a written supply any practitioner with a stock of Sullivan, 936 F.2d 1284, 1291 (D.C. Cir. notification to the Secretary of HHS of controlled substances for the purpose of 1991); see also United States v. Cain, their intent to dispense narcotic drugs general dispensing to patients. In 583 F.3d 408, 420 (6th Cir. 2009) for maintenance or detoxification addition, the practitioner must meet the (contrasting legislative rules, which treatment, and successfully completed a following conditions: require notice-and-comment 1. The practitioner must administer comprehensive allopathic or osteopathic procedures, ‘‘with regulations that the controlled substance to the patient medicine curriculum or accredited merely restate or interpret statutory medical residency. This curriculum or named on the prescription: obligations,’’ which do not); Komjathy v. residency must have included at least a. By implantation or injection; Nat. Trans. Safety Bd., 832 F.2d 1294, eight hours of training on treating and b. within 14 days after the date of managing opioid-dependent patients, receipt of the controlled substance by 1296 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (when a rule ‘‘does and, at a minimum, included training the practitioner. no more than repeat, virtually verbatim, described in 21 U.S.C. 2. The practitioner and pharmacy are the statutory grant of authority’’ notice- 823(g)(2)(G)(IV)(aa)–(gg), and any other authorized to conduct these activities in and-comment procedures are not training the Secretary of HHS the State in which such activities take required). place. determines should be included in the In addition, because the statutory 3. The prescribing practitioner and curriculum, including training on pain administering practitioner of the changes at issue have already been in management, and the assessment and controlled substance maintain complete effect since October 24, 2018, DEA finds appropriate use of opioid and non- and accurate records of all controlled good cause exists to make this rule opioid alternatives. The SUPPORT Act substances delivered, received, effective immediately upon publication. added this training requirement to the administered, and disposed including See 5 U.S.C. 553(d). Therefore, DEA is CSA at 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(G)(ii)(VIII), the persons to whom controlled issuing these amendments as an interim however, there is no corresponding substances were delivered and such final rule, effective October 30, 2020. regulation in the Code of Federal other information that the Attorney DEA is publishing this rule as an Regulations that DEA needs to revise General may require by regulations. interim final rule and is establishing a and update because the definition of docket to receive public comment on ‘‘qualifying physician’’ is only referred Regulatory Analysis this rule. To the extent required by law, to in the regulations. See 21 CFR Administrative Procedure Act DEA will consider and respond to any 1301.28 (b)(1)(i). An agency may find good cause to relevant comments received. Dispensing Controlled Substances for exempt a rule from certain provisions of As explained above, DEA is obligated Maintenance or Detoxification the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to issue this interim final rule to revise Treatment (5 U.S.C. 553), including those requiring its regulations so that they are Section 3204(a) of the SUPPORT Act the publication of a prior notice of consistent with the provisions of the amended the CSA by adding section proposed rulemaking and the pre- CSA that were amended by the promulgation opportunity for public 309A (21 U.S.C. 829a), which sets forth SUPPORT Act. In issuing this interim comment, if such actions are the conditions in which a pharmacy final rule, DEA has not gone beyond the determined to be unnecessary, may deliver a controlled substance to an statutory text enacted by Congress. administering practitioner. Specifically, impracticable, or contrary to the public interest. Thus, DEA would have to issue this the new section 829a allows a pharmacy interim final rule regardless of the to deliver, notwithstanding the outcome of the agency’s regulatory definition of dispense (21 U.S.C. subject by, or pursuant to the lawful order of, a practitioner including the prescribing and analysis. Nonetheless, DEA conducted 802(10)),13 a prescribed controlled administering of a controlled substance and the this analysis as discussed below. packaging, labeling, or compounding necessary to 13 The term dispense means to deliver a prepare the substance for such delivery 21 U.S.C. controlled substance to an ultimate user or research 802(10).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 69156 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory permitted by law, be offset by the dispense narcotic drugs for maintenance Planning and Review), 13563 elimination of existing costs associated and detoxification treatment, and from (Improving Regulation and Regulatory with at least two prior regulations. granting qualified clinical nurse Review), and 13771 (Reducing Guidance from OMB, issued on , specialists (CNS), certified registered Regulation and Controlling Regulatory 2017, explains that the above nurse anesthetists (CRNA), and certified Costs) requirements only apply to each new nurse midwives (CNM) the same This interim final rule was developed ‘‘significant regulatory action that . . . dispensing privileges as NPs and PAs in accordance with the principles of imposes costs.’’ for a five year period ending on October DEA estimates that this interim final Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 and 1, 2023. These benefits are significant rule will expand the number of DATA- 13563. E.O. 12866 directs agencies to and are quantified in the following waived treatment providers, qualifying assess all costs and benefits of available analysis and discussion. DEA it as an ‘‘enabling rule’’ according to anticipates the expansion of the regulatory alternatives and, if regulation E.O. 13771 guidance from OMB issued categories of practitioners will lead to is necessary, to select regulatory on April 5, 2017. Therefore, DEA an increase in the number of treatment approaches that maximize net benefits expects that this interim final rule will providers, and to an increase in the (including potential economic, be classified as an E.O. 13771 number of patients (who did not have environmental, public health, and safety deregulatory action by OMB. access to treatment prior to this rule) effects; distributive impacts; and treated, resulting in a reduction in the equity). E.O. 13563 is supplemental to A. Need for the Rule economic burden of opioid abuse. DEA and reaffirms the principles, structures, On October 24, 2018, the SUPPORT also expects benefits by allowing and definitions governing regulatory Act became law. With this interim final maintenance or detoxification treatment review as established in E.O. 12866. rule, DEA is amending its regulations providers to treat up to 100 patients, E.O. 12866 classifies a ‘‘significant governing providers of medication- expanding the options available for a regulatory action,’’ requiring review by assisted treatment (MAT) to incorporate physician to be considered a qualifying the Office of Management and Budget statutory changes made to the CSA by physician, and allowing a pharmacy to (OMB), as any regulatory action that is the SUPPORT Act. deliver prescribed controlled substances likely to result in a rule that may: (1) B. Alternative Approaches to a practitioner’s registered location for Have an annual effect on the economy the purpose of maintenance or of $100 million or more or adversely This interim final rule amends DEA detoxification treatment. These benefits affect in a material way the economy, a regulations only to the extent necessary will be discussed qualitatively in the sector of the economy, productivity, to be consistent with current Federal following analysis. competition, jobs, the environment, law as modified by the SUPPORT Act. Costs of the interim final rule are public health or safety, or State, local, Because DEA is obligated to implement associated with the treatment cost of or tribal governments or communities; these provisions of the SUPPORT Act, opioid addicted patients and the cost to (2) create a serious inconsistency or DEA has no discretion not to amend its practitioners of obtaining authority to otherwise interfere with an action taken regulations as is being done in this dispense a narcotic drug in schedule III, or planned by another agency; (3) interim final rule. Indeed, the new IV, or V for the purpose of maintenance materially alter the budgetary impact of provisions issued under this interim or detoxification treatment. The costs of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan final rule are already in effect by virtue obtaining dispensing authority and programs or the rights and obligations of of the SUPPORT Act, and this interim treating patients are required to generate recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel final rule simply updates DEA the benefits of the rule, and thus, are legal or policy issues arising out of legal regulations to reflect these new included in this analysis. Although the mandates, the President’s priorities, or provisions; thus, no alternative new treatment providers in the the principles set forth in the E.O. approaches are possible. expanded category and qualifying other The economic, interagency, practitioners will also need to comply C. Analysis of Benefits and Costs budgetary, legal, and policy with treatment-specific recordkeeping implications of this interim final rule This analysis is limited to the requirements, the cost of compliance is have been examined and it has been provisions of the interim final rule included in the estimated cost of determined to be an economically implementing into regulation the treatment as explained in the section significant regulatory action under E.O. following statutory changes of the ‘‘Other Potential Costs.’’ DEA also 12866 with a net annualized benefit of SUPPORT Act: Revising the definition estimates that there will be a cost $543 million over five years, and of a qualifying practitioner, permanently savings resulting from patients being therefore, has been submitted to OMB allowing a nurse practitioner (NP) or able to access buprenorphine treatment for review. physician assistant (PA) to be through treatment providers that are not E.O. 13771, titled ‘‘Reducing considered a qualifying other physicians. Finally, there is potential for Regulation and Controlling Regulatory practitioner, expanding the options added risk of diversion from more Costs,’’ was issued on , 2017, available for a physician to be practitioners having the authority to and published in the Federal Register considered a qualifying physician, and dispense narcotic drugs in schedule III, on , 2017. 82 FR 9339. allowing a pharmacy to deliver IV, or V for the purpose of maintenance Section 2(a) of E.O. 13771 requires an prescribed controlled substances to a or detoxification treatment. This risk is agency, unless prohibited by law, to practitioner’s registered location for the discussed in the section ‘‘Risk of identify at least two existing regulations purpose of maintenance or Diversion.’’ to be repealed when the agency publicly detoxification treatment. proposes for notice and comment or Benefits of the interim final rule, in Increase in the Number of Data-Waived otherwise promulgates a new regulation. the form of economic burden reductions Providers Eligible To Treat 100 Patients In furtherance of this requirement, and other cost savings (health care costs, Section 3201(a) of the SUPPORT Act section 2(c) of E.O. 13771 requires that criminal justice costs, and lost amended the CSA, specifically 21 U.S.C. the new incremental costs associated productivity costs), are expected from 823(g)(2)(B)(iii)(II), to allow for with new regulations, to the extent permanently allowing NPs or PAs to additional circumstances in which

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69157

DATA-waived providers may treat up to have advanced training in addiction 30, 2018),19 as the temporary nature of 100 patients for maintenance and medicine or not. the exception and uncertainty of the detoxification treatment, instead of the Second, for qualifying practitioners long-term status of this group’s default 30 patient limit. Prior to the that do take on up to 30 patients in their eligibility would disincentivize their SUPPORT Act, providers were required first year of practicing, it is not likely investment in becoming DATA-waived to wait one year before notifying that they are able to build their patient in years three through five. This SAMHSA of their desire to increase base to an amount greater than 30 before temporary exception for NPs and PAs their DATA-waived patient limit to 100. they would have previously been was made permanent by the SUPPORT Now, DATA-waived practitioners may eligible to apply for the 100-patient Act at the beginning of their third year immediately treat up to 100 patients if DATA-waiver. DEA assumes that the of eligibility, thus incentivizing this the practitioner holds additional growth in patients under treatment for group’s long-term investment in credentialing in addiction medicine, or any qualifying practitioner advances obtaining DATA-waivers. provides MAT using covered quickly in the beginning, but slows and Absent the permanent eligibility medications, in a qualified practice eventually levels off as their practice granted to NPs and PAs by the setting. This provision only affected matures. A recent academic study SUPPORT Act, the DATA-waivers of all qualifying practitioners that became supports this, finding that practitioners ‘‘Qualifying Practitioners’’ would expire immediately eligible in the first year possessing DATA-waivers to treat up to on October 1, 2021, roughly three years after the SUPPORT Act became law, and 100 patients (therefore having been after the SUPPORT Act became law, and the following analysis is limited to this DATA-waived for at least one full year) the end of year three of this analysis. group of practitioners. do not approach this limit, and instead For the purposes of this analysis, year DEA assumes that there are some have an average monthly patient census one corresponds to , 2018, qualifying practitioners that, within the of 42.9.17 Thus, DEA believes it is through , 2019; year two first year of obtaining a DATA-waiver, reasonable to assume that if a high- corresponds to , 2019, through quickly reach the 30 patient limit. These capacity practitioner reached the 30 , 2020; year three to high-capacity MAT providers were most patient limit within the first year of the , 2020, through October 31, likely to benefit from the additional SUPPORT Act becoming law, it is not 2021; year four to November 1, 2021, flexibility provided by the SUPPORT likely that practitioner was able to through October 31, 2022; and year five Act by beginning to treat up to 100 expand their number of patients under to November 1, 2022, through October 1, patients immediately rather than treatment to more than 30 before they 2023.20 According to DEA registration waiting a full year. DEA does not have would have been previously eligible for data, as of April, 2020, mid-way through a good basis to estimate the number of a 100-patient waiver prior to this year two, there are 18,373 DATA- qualifying practitioners who took provision of the SUPPORT Act. waived NPs and PAs.21 Because DEA advantage of this flexibility within the Since DEA does not have a good basis does not have a good basis to forecast first year of the SUPPORT Act becoming for estimating the number of how many more NPs and PAs might law; however, it is believed to be practitioners that qualified, nor how become DATA-waived through the minimal for two reasons. First, in many more patients these high-capacity conclusion of year five of this analysis, general, DEA believes it is unlikely that practitioners treated in their first year of DEA conservatively assumes that the many practitioners develop a capacity to becoming DATA-waived after the number of DATA-waived NPs and PAs treat more than 30 MAT patients within SUPPORT Act became law, DEA is will remain constant at the current level their first 12 months of obtaining a unable to quantify the benefit of this of 18,373 through October 1, 2023. DATA-waiver. There are many factors enabling provision. that influence how many patients a 19 DEA’s analysis of the benefits and costs of this DATA-waived practitioner’s treats, Permanently Allowing Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants 2018 final rule used the following date ranges to including, but not limited to patient correspond with years one through five of demand for treatment; insufficient time, To Practice as ‘‘Qualifying temporary DATA-waived eligibility for NPs and 14 Practitioners’’ PAs: Year one corresponds to 7/22/2016–9/30/2017; staff, and office space; Medicaid and year two corresponds to 10/1/2017–9/30/2018; year 15 insurance reimbursement rates; and a The SUPPORT Act makes permanent three to 10/1/2018–9/30/2019; year four to 10/1/ regulatory environment perceived to be the five-year temporary exception for 2019–9/30/2020; and year five to 10/1/2020–9/30/ overly burdensome.16 The vast majority NPs and PAs to become DATA-waived 2021. The SUPPORT Act was signed into law on October 24, 2018, shortly after the beginning of year of newly-DATA-waived providers are and practice as ‘‘Qualifying three. likely to be conservative in the first year Practitioners,’’ originally authorized by 20 DEA chose to limit the analysis period of this of delivering MAT as they consider the Comprehensive Addiction and interim final rule to five years due to the evolving these factors and navigate a changing Recovery Act (CARA) of 2016. The nature of the opioid epidemic and the long-term regulatory environment, whether they temporary authorization was uncertainty of the laws and rules being implemented to combat it. incorporated into DEA regulations 21 DEA’s internal registration database currently 14 Andrilla CHA, Coulthard C, and Larson EH. through promulgation of a 2018 final does not distinguish between DATA-waived CNS, ‘‘Barriers Rural Physicians Face Prescribing rule.18 DEA’s analysis of the benefits CRNAs, or CNMs and DATA-waived NPs and PAs. Buprenorphine for Opioid Use Disorder.’’ The and costs of this 2018 final rule In order to avoid double counting, DEA must adjust Annals of Family Medicine 15, no. 4 (2017): 359– the number of DATA-waived mid-level NPs and 62. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2099. concluded that all qualified NPs and PAs as of April, 2020 (19,409) downward by the 15 Stein BD, Gordon AJ, Dick AW, Burns RM, PAs that would become DATA-waived estimated increase in DATA-waived CNS/CRNA/ Pacula RL, Farmer CM, Leslie DL, and Sorbero M. would do so in the first two years of CNMs to date. As detailed in the following section, ‘‘Supply of Buprenorphine Waivered Physicians: eligibility (, 2016 to September DEA estimates that 691 CNS/CRNA/CNMs become The Influence of State Policies.’’ Journal of DATA-waived in each of the first two years of this Substance Abuse Treatment 48, no. 1 (2015): 104– analysis. Because, at the time of this writing, year 11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2014.07.010. 17 Thomas CP, Doyle E, Kreiner PW, Jones CM, two is roughly 50 percent complete, DEA estimates 16 Haffajee RL, Bohnert ASB, and Lagisetty PA. Dubenitz J, Horan A, and Stein BD. ‘‘Prescribing that 1,037 (691 + (691/2) = 1,037) CNS/CRNA/ ‘‘Policy Pathways to Address Provider Workforce Patterns of Buprenorphine Waivered Physicians.’’ CNMs have obtained a DATA-waiver thus far. Barriers to Buprenorphine Treatment.’’ American Drug and Alcohol Dependence 181 (2017): 213–18. Subtracting 1,037 from 19,409 results in an Journal of Preventive Medicine 54, no. 6 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2017.10.002. estimated 18,373 NPs and PAs that are currently https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2017.12.022. 18 83 FR 3071 (January 23, 2018). DATA-waived.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 69158 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

Because even in the absence of the only the estimated number of DATA- DATA-waiver eligibility for NPs and SUPPORT Act, NPs and PAs would be waived NPs and PAs in year four and PAs provided by CARA and the eligible for a DATA-waiver due to the year five are relevant to this analysis. SUPPORT Act, respectively. temporary authorization provided by The following table illustrates how each CARA through , 2021, year of this analysis corresponds to the

DATA-waiver eligibility provided by CARA DATA-waiver eligibility provided by SUPPORT Act Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

Total Number of DATA-waived NPs and PAs ...... 18,373 18,373

Therefore, DEA estimates that 18,373 the SUPPORT Act became law are registered NPs and PAs are DATA- NPs and PAs would lose their DATA- currently being categorized as ‘‘Mid- waived. DEA estimates that 69,128 22 waiver eligibility and their ability to Level Practitioner—DATA-waived CNS/CRNA/CNMs are eligible to provide MAT to patients in year four Nurse Practitioner’’ (MLP–DW NP) or prescribe controlled substances in the and year five of this analysis if not for ‘‘Mid-Level Practitioner—DATA-waived United States. Four percent of 69,128 is the SUPPORT Act. Physician Assistant’’ (MLP–DW PA). 2,765. Therefore, DEA estimates that Because of this, it is not possible to 2,765 CNS/CRNA/CNMs will become Expanding the Definition of ‘‘Qualifying determine how many CNS/CRNA/CNMs DATA-waived during the temporary Other Practitioner’’ have already obtained DATA-waived eligibility period. This interim final rule also status in their first year of eligibility. DEA also assumes that all DATA- implements the SUPPORT Act However, DEA believes this number to waived CNS/CRNA/CNMs will be provision that allows CNS, CRNAs, or be low since CNS/CRNA/CNM certified in year one through four 23 as CNMs to apply for DATA-waived status eligibility is new, and many businesses the burden of obtaining DATA-waived and practice as ‘‘Qualifying Other and individuals are still weighing the status outweighs the incentives as the Practitioners’’ for a temporary period personal benefits and costs of becoming expiration of the temporary provision ending October 1, 2023. The DATA- or employing a DATA-waived CNS/ nears. Smoothing the estimated 2,765 waived eligibility of CNS/CRNA/CNMs CRNA/CNM. DATA-waived CNS/CRNA/CNMs over is new, and as a result, DEA does not For the purposes of this analysis, DEA four years results in an estimated yearly have a strong basis to estimate the conservatively assumes the ratio of increase of 691 (rounded). Thus, DEA number of CNS/CRNA/CNMs that DATA-waived CNS/CRNA/CNMs to all estimates 691 CNS/CRNA/CNMs have would request DATA-waived status. CNS/CRNA/CNMs authorized to become DATA-waived in year one of Because DEA’s internal registration prescribe controlled substances will be this analysis which will increase to database currently does not distinguish equal to the ratio of DATA-waived NPs 1,382 in year two, and this calculation between DATA-waived CNS/CRNA/ and PAs to all DEA registered NPs and progresses linearly until a grand total of CNMs and DATA-waived NPs and PAs, PAs. Based on DEA records, as of 2,765 is reached in year four, and it is likely that any CNS/CRNA/CNMs August 15, 2019, the end of year one of remains steady for year five. The table that have become DATA-waived since this analysis, four percent of DEA- below summarizes this calculation.

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

Group 1: CNS/CRNA/CNMs obtaining DATA-waived sta- tus in year 1 ...... 691 691 691 691 691 Group 2: CNS/CRNA/CNMs obtaining DATA-waived sta- tus in year 2 ...... 691 691 691 691 Group 3: CNS/CRNA/CNMs obtaining DATA-waived sta- tus in year 3 ...... 691 691 691 Group 4: CNS/CRNA/CNMs obtaining DATA-waived sta- tus in year 4 ...... 691 691

Total Number of DATA-waived CNS/CRNA/CNMs ...... 691 1,382 2,073 2,765 2,765

22 Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) state-level Therefore, DEA chose to use a U.S. employment prescribing authority. This results in a total of employment data of 41,800 CRNAs and 6,500 CNMs estimate of 72,000 CNS provided by the National 69,128 CNS/CRNA/CNMs with prescribing (https://www.bls.gov/ooh/healthcare/nurse- Association of Clinical Nurse Specialists (https:// authority in the U.S. anesthetists-nurse-midwives-and-nurse- explorehealthcareers.org/career/nursing/clinical- 23 DEA considered an estimate of the growth of practitioners.htm#tab-6) were used to calculate the nurse-specialist/) and assumed that the percentage total U.S. employment for this group. However, BLS of CNS employment distributed per state matches CNS/CRNA/CNMs that ceased at the end of year does not differentiate between all Registered Nurses the distribution of RN employment by state. DEA two, however, it is likely that CNS/CRNA/CNMs (RNs) and the more specialized CNS, which are then excluded employment data from states that do will expect this temporary exception to become considered Advanced Practice Registered Nurses not allow CNS/CRNA/CNMs to prescribe controlled permanent just as the exception for NPs and PAs (APRN) because of their education, training, and substances, resulting in 40,298 CNS with has, encouraging growth of this category until year duties, because there is no separate Standard prescribing authority, 23,920 CRNAs with four. Occupational Classification (SOC) code for CNS. prescribing authority and 4,910 CNMs with

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69159

New Option for a Physician To Become pharmacy. The SUPPORT Act has now of one patient for another while at the a Qualifying Physician made this exception permanent by patient limit; demands on CNS/CRNA/ This enabling provision of the interim allowing pharmacies to deliver CNMs to treat patients for conditions final rule provides another option for a prescribed narcotic drugs in schedule other than maintenance and physician to become qualified to apply III, IV, or V, or combinations of such detoxification; private insurance and 28 for a DATA waiver. While DEA does not drugs, to a practitioner for the purpose Medicaid coverage limitations; travel have a good basis to quantify the impact of maintenance and detoxification to be difficulties for patients located in rural 29 of this change, this provision is administered by a practitioner through areas; and etc. A recent study regarding the expected to increase the number of new injection or implantation to patients. prescribing patterns of MAT providers qualifying physicians, and thus, Because this provision of the interim found that practitioners with 30-patient increase the number of full-time final rule is simply codifying previous 24 DEA practice and the current law, DEA DATA-waivers treated an average of equivalent (FTE) patients treated. 30 This new option essentially shifts the expects this provision of the interim 13.6 patients per month. For the eight-hour training requirement for a final rule to result in no costs or purposes of this analysis, and consistent physician to become DATA-waived benefits. with this research, DEA assumes CNS/ CRNA/CNMs will slowly build to from post-residency Continuing Medical Increase in the Number of Patients treating 13.5 average FTE patients over Education (CME) to medical school or Receiving Treatment five years. Therefore, this analysis residency for physicians that complete a assumes each DATA-waived CNS/ medical school curriculum or residency As discussed above, the expansion of CRNA/CNM, upon becoming DATA- that includes at least eight hours of DATA-waived providers to include waived, will treat 7.5, 9, 10.5, 12, and training on treating and managing CNS/CRNA/CNMs on a temporary basis, 13.5 FTE patients in years 1, 2, 3, 4, and opioid-dependent patients. While this and NPs and PAs on a permanent basis, 5, respectively. option streamlines the training for is expected to result in more opioid- addicted patients treated. Any increase Applying the assumed average FTE physicians that complete medical patients for each group of DATA-waived school or residency featuring in the number of patients receiving treatment as a result of this interim final CNS/CRNA/CNM in the year they curriculum that meets the training obtained DATA-waived status, DEA standard; it does not eliminate the eight- rule will depend not only on an increase in the number of providers offering estimated the number of FTE patients hour training requirement. DEA does expected to be treated for each year. The not have a good basis to estimate the services, but also on the number of patients currently unable to obtain average FTE patients treated of 7.5, 9, number of medical school curriculums 10.5, 12, and 13.5 in years 1, 2, 3, 4, and that currently meet this eight-hour treatment due to a lack of providers. There is a well-documented treatment 5, respectively, were applied to Group 1 training requirement but assumes it to (the group of 691 CNS/CRNA/CNMs be low, but likely to increase in the gap in the United States between prescription opioid abusers or people that obtained DATA-waived status in future. Therefore, DEA is unable to year one) to estimate the number of quantify the expected cost savings of dependent on opioids and MAT 25 26 patients treated by this group in each of this provision. providers. Therefore, DEA assumes that there is sufficient demand for the five years. The average FTE patients Allowing Pharmacies To Deliver treatment services that will be met with treated of 7.5, 9, 10.5, and 12, in years Controlled Substances to a Practitioner’s the expanded patient capacity created 2, 3, 4, and 5 were applied to Group 2 Registered Location by the SUPPORT Act. (the group of 691 CNS/CRNA/CNMs that obtain DATA-waived status in year Prior to this enabling provision of the The number of FTE patients treated by each newly DATA-waived CNS/ two) to estimate the number of patients SUPPORT Act, pharmacies were only treated by this group in each of the four CRNA/CNM is expected to be low in the allowed to deliver controlled substances remaining years. Similar calculations first year and steadily increase as their to the ultimate user or research subject. were performed for Groups 3 (the group practices mature. While the patient limit However, for patients prescribed of 691 CNS/CRNA/CNMs that obtain for DATA-waived CNS/CRNA/CNM is extended-release injectable or DATA-waived status in year three) and set at 30 patients,27 the actual number implantable MAT drugs, DEA provided 4.31 Adding the number of FTE patients of patients treated on a FTE basis is an exception to this restriction and treated by the four groups, DEA expected to be lower for a variety of allowed the delivery of medication estimates a total of 5,183; 11,402; directly from the pharmacy to the reasons, including delays in patient referrals; patients discontinuing practitioner in order for the patient to 28 Rinaldo SG and Rinaldo DW. Availability have their monthly (injectable) or semi- treatment without notifying the Without Accessibility? State Medicaid Coverage annual (implantable) dosage practitioner; the difference in duration and Authorization Requirements for Opioid administered directly in the providers’ of treatments among patients and Dependence Medications. 2013. http:// www.asam.org/docs/default-source/advocacy/ office without first requiring a trip to the inability to perfectly time the replacing aaam_implications-for-opioid-addiction-treatment_ final. 24 ‘‘Full-time-equivalent’’ patient is a notional 25 Jones et al., ‘‘National and State Treatment 29 Sigmon SC. Access to treatment for opioid value equivalent to a patient under treatment for the Need and Capacity for Opioid Agonist Medication- dependence in rural America: Challenges and full year. For example, if two patients were under Assisted Treatment’’ American Journal of Public future directions. JAMA Psychiatry. 2014;71(4): treatment for 6 months, they would total 1 full- Health 105, no. 8 (2015):e55–63. 359–360. https://doi.org/10.1001/ time-equivalent patient. The equivalent full-time 26 Office of Inspector General, HHS, 2020. jamapsychiatry.2013.4450. patient concept has been previously used by DEA Geographic Disparities Affect Access To 30 Thomas, et al., ‘‘’’Prescribing Patterns of and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Buprenorphine Services For Opioid Use Disorder. Buprenorphine Waivered Physicians’’,’’ Drug and Services Administration (SAMHSA) in its estimate U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Alcohol Dependence, 181, Supplement C (2017): of patient increases. Implementation of the 27 The ‘‘patient limit’’ is the ‘‘total number of such 213–218. Provision of the Comprehensive Addiction and patients of the practitioner at any one time . . .’’ 31 DEA assumes that all DATA-waived CNS/ Recovery Act of 2016 Relating to the Dispensing of 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(2)(B)(iii)(I). The Secretary of HHS CRNA/CNMs will be certified in years one through Narcotic Drugs for Opioid Use Disorder, 83 FR 3071 may by regulation change the patient limit, but for four as the burden of obtaining DATA-waived status (January 23, 2018), and Medication Assisted the purposes of this analysis, DEA conservatively outweighs the incentives as the expiration of the Treatment for Opioid Use Disorders, 81 FR 66191 assumes that the patient limit of 30 will apply for temporary provision nears. Therefore, there is no (July 8, 2016). CNS/CRNA/CNMs over the analysis period. ‘‘Group 5’’.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 69160 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

18,657; 26,949; and 31,095 FTE patients respectively. The table below are treated in years 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, summarizes this analysis.

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

Group 1: CNS/CRNA/CNMs obtaining DATA-waived sta- tus in year 1 ...... 691 691 691 691 691 Average full-time-equivalent patients treated per CNS/ CRNA/CNMs per year for Group 1 ...... 7.5 9 10.5 12 13.5

Patients treated by Group 1 ...... 5,183 6,219 7,256 8,292 9,329

Group 2: CNS/CRNA/CNMs obtaining DATA-waived sta- tus in year 2 ...... 691 691 691 691 Average full-time-equivalent patients treated per CNS/ CRNA/CNMs per year for Group 2 ...... 7.5 9 10.5 12

Patients treated by Group 2 ...... 5,183 6,219 7,256 8,292

Group 3: CNS/CRNA/CNMs obtaining DATA-waived sta- tus in year 3 ...... 691 691 691 Average full-time-equivalent patients treated per CNS/ CRNA/CNMs per year for Group 3 ...... 7.5 9 10.5

Patients treated by Group 3 ...... 5,183 6,219 7,256

Group 4: CNS/CRNA/CNMs obtaining DATA-waived sta- tus in year 4 ...... 691 691 Average full-time-equivalent patients treated per CNS/ CRNA/CNMs per year for Group 4 ...... 7.5 9

Patients treated by Group 4 ...... 5,183 6,219

Total Number of CNS/CRNA/CNMs obtaining DATA- waived status...... 691 1,382 2,073 2,765 2,765

Total Full-time-equivalent patients treated ...... 5,183 11,402 18,657 26,949 31,095

DEA used similar assumptions and and five are relevant because even in the on average, 13.5 FTE patients in years calculation methods to determine how absence of the SUPPORT Act, NPs and four and five. Multiplying 18,373 by many FTE patients will be treated by PAs would be eligible for a DATA- 13.5 results in an estimated 248,036 FTE NPs and PAs that remain DATA-waived waiver through September 30, 2021 (the patients treated in years four and five in years four and five of this analysis end of year three of this analysis) due due to the SUPPORT Act. The table due to the SUPPORT Act providing to the temporary authorization provided below summarizes this analysis. permanent DATA-waiver eligibility. by CARA. DEA assumes that the 18,373 Only FTE patients treated in years four DATA-waived NPs and PAs will treat,

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

Total Number of NP and PA remaining DATA-waived ...... 18,373 18,373 Average full-time-equivalent patients treated per NP and PA per year ...... 13.5 13.5

Total Full-time-equivalent patients treated ...... 248,036 248,036

Economic Burden of Prescription productivity costs represented U.S. economic burden is based on the Opioid Abuse approximately 53 percent of the total 1.935 million opioid abuse patients The total U.S. economic burden economic burden, healthcare (including reported by SAMHSA’s National Survey (healthcare costs, criminal justice costs, substance abuse treatment costs) on Drug Use and Health as meeting the and lost productivity costs) of represented approximately 37 percent of Diagnostic and American Psychiatric prescription opioid abuse in 2013 was the total economic burden, and criminal Association’s Statistical Manual of estimated to be $78.5 billion.32 Lost justice costs represented approximately Mental Disorders (DSM–IV) criteria for 10 percent of the total economic abuse or dependence. Adjusting for 32 Florence CS, Zhou C, Luo F & Xu L, The burden.33 This study estimated $78.5 substance abuse treatment costs Economic Burden of Prescription Opioid Overdose, billion ($85.2 billion in 2018) 34 in total included in the economic burden Abuse, and Dependence in the United States, 2013, 54 Med Care 901 (2016). DEA’s 2017 National Drug calculation (because the baseline level Threat Assessment (NDTA) also references this 33 Id. of substance abuse treatment cost is not estimate for total economic burden of prescription drug abuse. No estimate of the economic burden of 34 Adjusted to 2018 dollars using the GDP deflator prescription opioid abuse is given in the most published by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis on 8/15/2019). All figures given below are 2018 recent NDTA for 2018. (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDPDEF, accessed dollars unless otherwise indicated.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69161

expected to decrease with more [r]esults showed that approximately 49 and 8.6 percent from above) in treating treatment), DEA estimates the total percent of participants reduced abuse and addiction, which would economic burden to be $75.7 billion prescription painkiller abuse during result in economic burden reductions.40 ($82.14 billion USD in 2018).35 Dividing extended (at least 12-week) Suboxone Several other studies have also shown this total economic burden by the treatment. This success rate dropped to that office-based buprenorphine number of patients, DEA estimates the 8.6 percent once Suboxone was treatment has 50–60 percent retention annual economic burden of prescription discontinued.36 Reductions in rates at 6-months.41 prescription painkiller abuse were seen opioid abuse is $42,000 per person Applying the $42,000 economic (USD in 2018). regardless of whether or not the patient reported suffering chronic pain, and burden reduction and a success rate of Economic Burden Reduction participants who received intensive 29 percent to the estimated 5,183, addiction counseling did not show 11,402, 18,657, 274,985, and 279,131 Successful treatment of opioid abuse better outcomes when compared to total FTE patients treated in years 1, 2, or dependence is expected to generate those who did not receive this 3, 4, and 5, by all practitioners (NPs, economic burden reductions. On additional counseling.37 38 PAs, CRNAs, CNS, and CNMs) , 2011, the National DEA estimates a patient (or FTE) respectively, the estimated total Institutes of Health (NIH) announced successfully undergoing treatment will economic burden reduction is $63 the results of a large scale study on generate an economic burden reduction million, $139 million, $227million, treatment of prescription opioid of $42,000 annually.39 Based on the $3,349 million, and $3,400 million in addiction. According to the figures above, DEA estimates a success years 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively. The announcement, rate of 29 percent (average of 49 percent table below summarizes this analysis.

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

Full-time-equivalent patients treated ...... 5,183 11,402 18,657 274,985 279,131 Economic burden reduction per patient ($MM) ...... 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042 Treatment success rate ...... 29% 29% 29% 29% 29%

Total economic burden reduction ($MM) ...... 63 139 227 3,349 3,400 Figures are rounded.

Cost of Treatment patient discontinue or tremendously social and family life, as well as decrease the use of other opioids. cravings and other drug and alcohol use. As stated previously, this interim Stabilization usually takes about one to At this point, a patient should be seen final rule does not directly impact the two months. The patient is seen at least at less frequent intervals, but at least cost of treatment, however, the weekly, with the goal of finding the once a month.42 treatment is required to generate these minimum dose necessary to treat the The National Institute on Drug Abuse economic burden reductions, and thus, symptoms of opioid addiction. During estimates buprenorphine for a stable included in this analysis. Research the first two phases, it is recommended patient provided in a certified opioid shows that the treatment period that a patient receives daily dosing. The treatment program, including encompasses three phases: Induction, final stage is the maintenance phase, medication and twice-weekly visits stabilization, and maintenance. The which is also the longest, as it could be costs $115 per week or $5,980 per induction phase usually lasts about one a lifetime process. During this phase, it year.43 SAMHSA, in their final rule on week, with the goal of helping the is important to monitor and address MAT for opioid use disorders, estimated

35 The Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) Assisted Treatment for Addiction to Pain Relievers under treatment, DEA believes a success rate of 29 reported that it estimates in 2015, the economic cost Yields ‘‘Cause for Optimism.’’ National Institute on percent for the overall patient population is a of opioid crisis was $504 billion (‘‘The Drug Abuse website. https://www.drugabuse.gov/ reasonable estimate. The success rate is applied to Underestimated Cost of the Opioid Crisis,’’ CEA, news-events/nida-notes/2015/11/long-term-follow- FTE patients (meaning patients under active November, 2017). Among several differences in up-medication-assisted-treatment-addiction-to- treatment) in the following paragraph to estimate analysis methods, the CEA’s estimate is based on pain-relievers-yields-cause-optimism. , economic burden reduction, 2015. Accessed August 15, 2019. all opioids (prescription and illegal), while Florence 41 Advancing Access to Addiction Medications: 39 DEA notes that the methodology presented here et al. reported cost of $78.5B is based only on Implications for Opioid Addiction Treatment. THE for calculating the benefits of treatment differs from prescription opioids. To limit the scope of this AMERICAN SOCIETY OF ADDICTION MEDICINE analysis to the economic burden of prescription the methodology employed by HHS in the final rule (June 2013). https://www.asam.org/docs/default- opioid abuse and to be consistent with DEA’s 2017 Medication Assisted Treatment for Opioid Use source/advocacy/aaam_implications-for-opioid- National Drug Threat Assessment, this analysis uses Disorders, published at 81 FR 44711, on July 8, addiction-treatment_final.pdf?sfvrsn=cee262c2_25. the Florence et al. estimated 2013 economic burden 2016. HHS calculated the value of Quality Adjusted 42 of $78.5B (or $82.14B after backing out baseline Life Years gained from treatment and applied this McNicholas, M.D., Ph.D., Clinical Guidelines substance abuse treatment cost and adjusting for value to their estimated number of additional for the Use of Buprenorphine in the Treatment of patients in treatment per year. HHS calculates the USD 2018). Opioid Addiction, Substance Abuse and Mental average annual benefit per new patient in treatment 36 Health Services Administration, https:// This success rate was measured two months to be $51,000 while assuming a 43.3 percent after treatment terminated. store.samhsa.gov/shin/content/SMA05-4003/ treatment completion rate for a 6-month treatment SMA05-4003.pdf. 37 Painkiller Abuse Treated by Sustained course. For individuals that do not complete 43 Buprenorphine/Naloxone, National Institutes of treatment, it is assumed that half of the annual How Much Does Opioid Treatment Cost?, Health (November 8, 2011), https://www.nih.gov/ benefits are realized. National Institute on Drug Abuse, https:// news-events/news-releases/painkiller-abuse-treated- 40 NIH’s report describes that 49 percent and 8.6 www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/ sustained-buprenorphine/naloxone. percent ‘‘reduced’’ abuse, not ‘‘eliminated,’’ medications-to-treat-opioid-addiction/how-much- 38 At an 18-month follow up study, it was found suggesting the potential of reducing the $42,000 in does-opioid-treatment-cost (last updated June that many patients currently or recently re-engaged economic burden, not eliminating the costs. DEA 2018). The base year was not provided for the cost in opioid agonist therapy, and the abstinence rate does not have a basis on which to quantify this figure, and thus is assumed to be in (or not was found to have rebounded to 51.2 percent. reduction. However, considering that there are materially different from) 2018 USD based on the NIDA. Long-Term Follow-Up of Medication- patients that are successfully treated and no longer date of the report.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 69162 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

the cost for buprenorphine and insurance coverage and could not afford will be available through private additional medical services, including to pay for treatment.46 The costs of care, insurance, public assistance, private behavioral health and psychosocial lack of insurance coverage, and shortage funds, or any combination thereof, to services, is $4,349 per patient per year of treatment options deter some patients generate the economic burden ($4,852 USD in 2018).44 Based on the from seeking treatment. DEA also reductions discussed above. average of these estimates, DEA estimates the opportunity cost of After applying the total treatment cost estimates the cost of buprenorphine treatment for the FTE patient to be treatment is $5,416 per year per FTE $2,113 per year. This includes $302.48 of $7,529 per year to the estimated patient (USD in 2018). Public funds in transportation costs and $1,810.34 of 5,183; 11,402; 18,657; 274,985; and currently account for 90 percent of forgone wages (37 visits/year multiplied 279,131 FTE patients treated in years 1, substance abuse treatments in the by loaded hourly wage of $24.46 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively, the United States.45 A 2015 National Survey multiplied by 2 hours of patient time/ estimated total cost of treatment is $39 on Drug Use and Health study found visit).47 Therefore, the estimated million, $86 million, $140 million, that among individuals who sought, but combined total cost of treatment is $2,070 million, and $2,102 million in did not receive treatment, 30 percent $7,529 per year per FTE patient. DEA years 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively. The reported that they did not have assumes the funding of treatment cost table below summarizes this analysis.

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

. Full-time-equivalent patients treated ...... 5,183 11,402 18,657 274,985 279,131 Annual cost of treatment per patient ($MM) ...... 0.0075 0.0075 0.0075 0.0075 0.0075

Cost of treatment ($MM) ...... 39 86 140 2,070 2,102 Figures are rounded.

Treatment Cost Savings status in year four, and DATA-waived doctor’s office on a monthly basis. DEA estimates that there will be cost physicians are the only providers of Taking the midpoint of these cost savings from being able to dispense MAT in years four and five. estimates, DEA estimates that the buprenorphine through NPs and PAs on The treatment cost of $7,529 per FTE annual cost for buprenorphine treatment a permanent basis, and through CNS, patient estimated in the previous office visits to be $2,800.52 Seventeen CRNAs, and CNMs on a temporary section includes $2,113 in opportunity percent savings on $2,800 equates to a basis. Medicare reimburses NPs, PAs, cost, which accounts for transportation savings of $476 for a total treatment cost ¥ and CNS at 85 percent of the rates for costs and forgone wages. The remaining of $7,053 ($7,529 $476) per year. physicians under the Medicare treatment cost of $5,416 includes the After applying the reduced total Physician Fee Schedule (MPFS), while cost of medication and physician visits. treatment cost of $7,053 per year to the CRNAs and CNMs are reimbursed at 80 Because physicians set their own rates, estimated 5,183, 11,402, 18,657, percent of the amount a physician is there is no standard price of an office 274,985, and 279,131 FTE patients paid under the MPFS.48 While not all visit for buprenorphine treatment, so treated in years 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, treatment is funded by Medicare, public comprehensive data are not available. respectively, the estimated total cost of funds currently account for 90 percent However, according to an article treatment is $37 million, $81 million, of substance abuse treatments in the published on $132 million, $1,952 million, and United States.49 Based on the MPFS www.suboxonedirectory.com, the initial $1,982 million in years 1, 2, 3, 4, and reimbursement rates, DEA estimates that evaluation appointment can range from 5, respectively. These figures represent MAT provided by NPs, PAs, CNS, $200–$300 per hour, while the a treatment cost savings of $2 million, CRNAs, and CNMs costs 17 percent 50 induction appointment can range from $5 million, $8 million, $118 million, less than treatment provided by $200–$400 per hour.51 After this, follow and $120 million in years 1, 2, 3, 4, and physicians, resulting in a cost savings up appointments can cost $125–$250 5, respectively, or a total treatment cost relative to the full cost of treatment in per visit. DEA assumes that after the savings of $253 million over five years. the baseline regulatory environment in evaluation and induction visits, a The table below summarizes this which NPs and PAs lose DATA-waived buprenorphine patient will visit their analysis.

44 81 FR 44712, 44732 (July 8, 2016). Employment and Wage Estimates, United States, Anesthesiologist Assistants, and Physician 45 Note 30. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, https:// Assistants,’’ October 2016. https://www.cms.gov/ 46 https://addiction.surgeongeneral.gov/chapter- www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#00-0000 (last Outreach-and-Education/Medicare-Learning- 4-treatment.pdf. The 10 percent figure is for all visited August 16, 2019). Average benefits for Network-MLN/MLNProducts/Downloads/Medicare- diagnosed with substance use disorder, not specific employees in private industry is 29.9 percent of Information-for-APRNs-AAs-PAs-Booklet-ICN- to prescription opioids. Figures specific to total compensation. Employer Costs for Employee 901623.pdf. prescription opioid substance use disorder is not Compensation—, 2019, BUREAU OF 49 Florence CS, Zhou C, Luo F & Xu L, The available. LABOR STATISTICS, https://www.bls.gov/ Economic Burden of Prescription Opioid Overdose, 47 For purpose of this analysis, the estimated news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf (last visited August 16, Abuse, and Dependence in the United States, 2013, typical number of visits for a 6-month period 2019). Adjusting for employer-paid legally required 54 Med Care 901 (2016). ¥ 50 patient and multiplied by two to reflect the 37 FTE benefits, benefits are 22.2 percent (29.9 percent (15 percent + 15 percent + 15 percent + 20 visits. The transportation cost of $302.48 is based 7.7 percent). The 22.2 percent of total compensation percent + 20 percent)/5 = 17 percent. on 2018 IRS mileage reimbursement rate of $0.545 equates to 31.67 percent (22.2 percent/70.1 percent) 51 ‘‘How Much Does Suboxone Cost?’’ The per mile times an assumed 30 miles round-trip load on wages and salaries. $18.58 × (1 + 0.3167) Suboxone Directory. Accessed , 2020. times 37 visits. The loaded hourly wage of $24.46 = $24.46. https://www.suboxone-directory.com/suboxone- is based on the median hourly wages for 48 Department of Health and Human Services, treatment/how-much-does-suboxone-cost/. Occupation Code 00–0000 All Occupations Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 52 Evaluation ($250) + induction ($300) + 12 ($18.58). May 2018 National Occupational ‘‘Advanced Practice Registered Nurses, monthly visits ($187.50 * 12) = $2,800.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69163

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total

Baseline Cost of treatment ($MM) ...... 39 86 140 2,070 2,102

Full-time-equivalent patients treated ...... 5,183 11,402 18,657 274,985 279,131 Reduced annual cost of treatment per patient ($MM) ...... 0.0071 0.0071 0.0071 0.0071 0.0071

Reduced cost of treatment ($MM) ...... 37 81 132 1,952 1,982 Treatment Cost Savings from Baseline ($MM) (2) (5) (8) (118) (120) (253) Figures are rounded.

Cost of Obtaining DATA-Waived Status To obtain DATA-waived status, the In addition to 24 hours of training, CRNA, CNS, or CNM first needs to meet DEA estimates an additional three hours For the purposes of this analysis, DEA SAMHSA’s requirements and obtain of administrative tasks, such as signing conservatively includes the cost of approval from SAMHSA. In addition to up for training, receiving training obtaining DATA-waived status as a cost being licensed under State law to certificates, applying for waivers with of this interim final rule. Similar to the prescribe schedule III, IV, or V SAMHSA, etc. Using a loaded median treatment cost, this cost is not a direct medications for the treatment of pain hourly wage for CRNAs, CNS, and result of the rule, but necessary to and registered with DEA, the CNMs of $78.52,53 the 27 hours of generate the economic burden prospective DATA-waived CRNA, CNS, training and administrative tasks equate reductions. DEA considers only CRNAs, or CNM must obtain 24 hours of to $2,119.93 per person. SAMHSA instruction in subject areas by training CNS, and CNMs to be relevant to this provides its courses free of charge. providers specified in CARA. Generally, portion of the analysis since the Rounding the $2,119.93 to $2,100 per estimated 18,373 NPs and PAs that once verified by SAMHSA, DEA is notified that a particular CRNA, CNS, or CRNA, CNS, or CNM and applying it to retain the DATA-waived eligibility as a the 691 applicants in years 1, 2, 3, 4, result of the SUPPORT Act would have CNM meets all of the criteria. Then, upon successful completion of routine and 5, respectively, DEA estimates the incurred the cost of obtaining their total cost of obtaining DATA-waived DATA-waiver due to the temporary due diligence, DEA will issue a modified registration, which indicates status is $1 million, $1 million, $1 eligibility granted by CARA. Therefore, ‘‘DATA-waived’’ status. There is no million, $1 million, and $0 in years 1, NPs and PAs are excluded from this additional fee to DEA for the registration 2, 3, 4, and 5 respectively. The table portion of this analysis. modification. below summarizes this analysis.

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

Number of DATA-waived CRNAs, CNS, or CNMs ...... 691 691 691 691 Cost of obtaining DATA-waived status per NP/PA ($MM) .. 0.0021 0.0021 0.0021 0.0021

Total cost of obtaining DATA-waived status ($MM) ..... 1 1 1 1 0

Other Potential Costs Risk of Diversion worsened by the expansion in the number and types of dispensers. DEA also examined the cost of The SUPPORT Act expands the compliance. Newly DATA-waived NPs, number of DATA-waived practitioners Since office based opioid treatment PAs, CRNAs, CNS, and CNMs would be able to treat up to 100 patients, the with buprenorphine was introduced by required to comply with various number of DATA-waived NPs and PAs, the FDA in 2004, buprenorphine treatment-related record keeping and the categories of practitioners, to (Subutex) and buprenorphine combined requirements, imposing additional include CRNAs, CNS, and CNMs, who with naloxone (Suboxone) have become costs. However, a portion of the patient may dispense FDA approved narcotic widely available in the United States. visitation fee can be directly attributed drugs in schedule III, IV, or V for the With this availability has come to compliance costs. Therefore, these purpose of opioid maintenance or increased reports of misuse and costs have been included in the cost of detoxification treatment. DEA diversion of buprenorphine. Studies treatment; and therefore, recordkeeping understands that there is potential for have shown that buprenorphine is compliance cost is excluded from this the abuse of these drugs, which could be primarily diverted from prescriptions analysis.

53 The average of the median hourly wages for since they are all considered Advanced Practice total compensation. Employer Costs for Employee Occupation Code, 29–1151 Nurse Anesthetists Registered Nurses (APRN) because of their Compensation—June 18, 2019, BUREAU OF ($80.75), 29–1161 Certified Nurse Midwives education, training, and duties. However, BLS does LABOR STATISTICS, https://www.bls.gov/ ($49.89), and 29–1141 Registered Nurses ($34.48) is not differentiate between all Registered Nurses news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf (last visited August 16, $55.04. May 2018 National Occupational (RNs) and the more specialized CNS because there 2019). The 29.9 percent of total compensation Employment and Wage Estimates, United States, is no separate Standard Occupational Classification Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://www.bls.gov/oes/ (SOC) code for CNS. Thus, wage data for Registered equates to 42.7 percent (29.9 percent/70.1 percent) × current/oes_nat.htm (last visited August 15, 2019). Nurses are used in their place. Average benefits for load on wages and salaries. $55.04 (1 + 0.427) = DEA chose to average these occupational codes employees in private industry is 29.9 percent of $78.52.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 69164 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

written for the treatment of addiction.54 buprenorphine and buprenorphine Section and field office representatives However, the primary reason for combined with naloxone are schedule conduct similar registration-related due prescription buprenorphine (Subutex) III narcotics with a potential for diligence and process registration and buprenorphine combined with diversion and abuse, academic literature modifications as part of their routine naloxone (Suboxone) diversion is the seems to indicate that the diversion is operations. As of August 2019, DEA has failure to access legitimate addiction not motivated by addiction to absorbed any extra work in processing treatment.55 This finding suggests that buprenorphine, but rather as a method over 5,600 registration modifications increasing, not limiting, buprenorphine to treat opioid addiction problems.62 related to this interim final rule with treatment may be an effective response Additionally, since NPs, PAs, CRNAs, preexisting resources, without an to the diversion of buprenorphine.56 CNS, and CNMs seeking to obtain the increase in cost to DEA. Likewise, DEA The diversion of buprenorphine for authority to dispense under the anticipates it will continue to absorb self-treatment is also supported by SUPPORT Act already have the any additional work in processing the studies of abuse rates of buprenorphine authority to dispense controlled registration modifications for the (Subutex) and buprenorphine combined substances, and the SUPPORT Act only duration of the analysis period. with naloxone (Suboxone). A study of allows them to treat a specific group of Summary of Benefits and Costs abuse of buprenorphine and patients with specific ailments, and will buprenorphine combined with naloxone often be done in collaboration with or As described above, DEA estimates by opioid-dependent research subjects under the supervision of a qualified the total benefit (in the form of showed a strong preference for physician, DEA believes any added risk economic burden reduction and other buprenorphine (which does not include as a result of this rule would not be cost savings) is $63 million, $139 naloxone in the formula).57 This significant. million, $227 million, $3,349 million, preference is notable because the and $3,400 million in years 1, 2, 3, 4, Cost to DEA naloxone blocks the agonist effect of the and 5, respectively; the total cost of buprenorphine, and therefore users of As part of its core function, DEA’s treatment is $39 million, $86 million, buprenorphine with naloxone are less Diversion Control Division manages $140 million, $2,070 million, and likely to experience euphoria from the over 1.9 million DEA registrations $2,102 million in years 1, 2, 3, 4, and drug.58 The low endorsement 59 of the (processing new and renewal 5, respectively; the total treatment cost use of buprenorphine with naloxone registration applications, processing savings is $2 million, $5 million, $8 and the low prescription rate of registration modification requests, million, $118 million, and $120 million buprenorphine (without naloxone) in issuing certificates of registration, in years 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively; the United States indicates that the issuing renewal notifications, and the total cost of obtaining DATA- potential for abuse of these drugs is conducting due diligence, maintaining waived status is $1 million, $1 million, relatively low.60 Another study of and operating supporting information $1 million, $1 million, and $0 in years untreated injection drug users found systems, etc.). DEA does not anticipate 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively; resulting that three out of four respondents said it will incur any additional costs as a in a net benefit of $25 million, $57 their intended use of buprenorphine or result of conducting due diligence and million, $94 million, $1,396 million, buprenorphine combined with naloxone processing 19,659 registration and $1,418 million in years 1, 2, 3, 4, was to self-medicate for addiction and/ modifications for DATA-waived status and 5, respectively. The table below or to treat withdrawal.61 While over five years. DEA’s Registration summarizes the benefits and costs.

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

Total benefit ($MM) ...... 63 139 227 3,349 3,400

Cost of treatment ($MM) ...... 39 86 140 2,070 2,102 Treatment cost savings ($MM) ...... (2) (5) (8) (118) (120) Cost of obtaining DATA-waived status ($MM) ...... 1 1 1 1 ......

Total cost ($MM) ...... 38 82 133 1,953 1,982

Annual net benefit ($MM) ...... 25 57 94 1,396 1,418 Figures are rounded.

DEA recognizes that accurately uncertainties in predicting these figures primary estimate. These results are calculating the benefits of this rule rests over time. Therefore, DEA varied its detailed in the following table. The primarily on the number of FTE patients estimated number of FTE patients impact of varying additional inputs are in treatment. While DEA considers its treated per provider plus and minus 10 summarized in the sensitivity analysis primary estimates presented above to be percent in order to capture the likely section below. reasonable, there are also inherent range of benefits surrounding the

54 Lofwall MR and Havens JR, Inability to access wp-content/uploads/2014/02/PCSS- 61 Diversion and Abuse of Buprenorphine: A Brief buprenorphine treatment as a risk factor for using MATGuidanceAdherence-diversion-bup.Martin.pdf. Assessment of Emerging Indicators, JBS diverted buprenorphine, Drug Alcohol Dependence, 58 Id. International, Inc., Maxwell, Jane C. November 30, Dec. 1, 2012. 59 ‘‘Low endorsement’’ means that the Suboxone 2006. 55 Id. is not as highly sought after because the naloxone 62 Cicero, Theodore J., Matthew S. Ellis, and 56 Id. in the formula acts as an antagonist to the Howard D. Chilcoat. ‘‘Understanding the Use of 57 Martin, Judith, Providers’ Clinical Support buprenorphine, meaning patients cannot experience Diverted Buprenorphine.’’ Drug and Alcohol System for Medication Assisted Treatment the euphoria from the drug. Dependence 193 (2018): 117–23. https://doi.org/ Guidance, , 2014. https://pcssnow.org/ 60 Id. 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2018.09.007.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69165

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

Total benefit ($MM) ...... 57–69 125–153 205–250 3,014–3,684 3,060–3,740

Cost of treatment ($MM) ...... 35–43 77–94 126–155 1,863–2,277 1,891–2,312 Treatment cost savings ($MM) ...... (2)–(3) (4)–(5) (7)–(9) (106)–(129) (107)–(132) Cost of obtaining DATA-waived status ($MM) ...... 1 1 1 1 ......

Total cost ($MM) ...... 34–41 74–90 120–147 1,758–2,149 1,784–2,180

Annual net benefit ($MM) ...... 23–28 51–63 85–103 1,256–1,535 1,276–1,560

At a 3 percent discount rate, the benefits is $5,345 million, the present million at 7 percent discount rate over present value of benefits is $6,308 value of costs is $3,119 million and the five years. The table below summarizes million, the present value of costs is NPV is $2,226 million.63 The net the present value and annualized $3,681 million and the net present value benefits in years one to five equate to an benefit calculations. (NPV) is $2,627 million. At a 7 percent annualized net benefit of $574 million discount rate, the present value of at 3 percent discount rate and $543

3% 7%

Present value of benefits ($MM) ...... 6,308 5,345 Present value of costs ($MM) ...... 3,681 3,119

Net present value ($MM) ...... 2,627 2,226 Annualized net benefit—5 years ($MM) ...... 574 543 Figures are rounded.

Consistent with OMB’s Guidance for status. The cost savings directly summary of the present value of net E.O. 13771,64 DEA assessed the costs attributable to this rule are the reduction costs attributable to this interim final and cost savings directly attributable to in costs that result from NPs, PAs, CNS, rule, with the annualized net cost figure this rule. The costs directly attributable CRNAs, and CNMs providing MAT adjusted to 2016 dollars. to this rule are the cost to CNS/CRNA/ rather than physicians. Both are CNMs of obtaining DATA-waived discussed in detail above. Below is a

3% 7%

Present value of costs ($MM) ...... 4 3 Present value of cost savings ($MM) ...... (219) (185)

Net present value ($MM) ...... (215) (182) Annualized net costs—5 years ($MM) ...... (44) (42)

The annualized net cost savings from • Economic burden reduction per 23 percent to 24 percent change in the this rulemaking will be $44 million at patient. NPV. The NPV was the least sensitive to a 3 percent discount rate and $42 • Treatment success rate. the change in cost of obtaining DATA- • million at a 7 percent discount rate over Annual cost of treatment per waived status. A 10 percent change the next five years. patient. resulted in minimal change in the NPV. • Cost of obtaining DATA-waived Sensitivity Analysis The remaining variables were status. moderately sensitive. A 10 percent Sensitivity analysis was conducted by The five-year net benefit and the change in the annual cost of treatment associated NPV are sensitive to the adjusting the variables up and down by 10 percent and recording the change in resulted in a 14 percent change in the assumptions and estimates for variables NPV, while a 10 percent change in the that were factored into the calculation. the NPV. The NPV was most sensitive number of FTE patients treated per The variables are: to the change in the number of DATA- • Number of DATA-waived NPs, PAs, waived practitioners, the economic provider resulted in a 10 percent change CRNAs, CNS, and CNMs. burden reduction per patient, and the in the NPV, respectively. • Number of FTE patients treated per treatment success rate. A 10 percent The table below summarizes the NP/PA. change in these variables resulted in a sensitivity analysis.

63 See Office of Mgmt. & Budget, Exec. Office of 64 Office of Mgmt. & Budget, Exec. Office of the ‘‘Reducing Regulation And Controlling Regulatory the President, OMB Circular A–4, Regulatory President, OMB Memorandum M–17–21, Costs’’ 10 (2017). Analysis (2003). Implementing Executive Order 13771, Titled

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 69166 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

NPV ($MM), 3% discount rate NPV ($ MM), 7% discount rate Variables 10% less Base 10% more 10% less Base 10% more

Number of DATA-waived NPs, PAs, CRNAs, CNS, and CNMs ...... 2,024 2,627 3,221 1,714 2,226 2,729 Percent of Base ...... 77% N/A 123% 77% N/A 123%

Number of Full-time-equivalent patients treated Practi- tioner ...... 2,365 2,627 2,890 2,003 2,226 2,448 Percent of Base ...... 90% N/A 110% 90% N/A 110%

Economic burden reduction per patient ...... 1,997 2,627 3,258 1,692 2,226 2,760 Percent of Base ...... 76% N/A 124% 76% N/A 124%

Treatment success rate...... 1,997 2,627 3,258 1,692 2,226 2,760 Percent of Base ...... 76% N/A 124% 76% N/A 124%

Annual cost of treatment per patient ...... 2,995 2,627 2,259 2,537 2,226 1,914 Percent of Base ...... 114% N/A 86% 114% N/A 86%

Annual cost of obtaining DATA-waived status ...... 2,627 2,627 2,623 2,226 2,226 2,223 Percent of Base ...... 100% N/A 100% 100% N/A 100%

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 21 CFR Part 1306 Reform This interim final rule will not result Drug traffic control, Prescription This interim final rule meets the in the expenditure by state, local, and drugs. applicable standards set forth in tribal governments, in the aggregate, or For the reasons set out above, this sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or DEA interim final rule amends 21 CFR Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform to more (adjusted for inflation) in any one parts 1301 and 1306 as follows: eliminate ambiguity, minimize year, and will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. PART 1301—REGISTRATION OF litigation, establish clear legal MANUFACTURERS, DISTRIBUTORS, standards, and reduce burden. Therefore, no actions were deemed under the provisions of the Unfunded AND DISPENSERS OF CONTROLLED Executive Order 13132, Federalism Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. SUBSTANCES 1532. This rulemaking does not have ■ 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR federalism implications warranting the Congressional Review Act part 1301 continues to read as follows: application of Executive Order 13132. This rule is a major rule as defined by Authority: 21 U.S.C. 821, 822, 823, 824, The interim final rule does not have 831, 871(b), 875, 877, 886a, 951, 952, 956, the Congressional Review Act. 5 U.S.C. 957, 958, 965 unless otherwise noted. substantial direct effects on the States, 804. This rule will result in an annual on the relationship between the effect on the economy of $100 million ■ 2. In § 1301.28: National Government and the States, or or more as a result of economic burden ■ a. Revise the first sentence in the distribution of power and reductions. However, it will not cause a paragraph (b)(1)(i); ■ responsibilities among the various major increase in costs or prices; or b. Revise (b)(1)(iii)(B); and ■ levels of government. significant adverse effects on c. Remove paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(C). The revisions read as follows: Executive Order 13175, Consultation competition, employment, investment, and Coordination With Indian Tribal productivity, innovation, or on the § 1301.28 Exemption from separate Governments ability of the United States-based registration for practitioners dispensing or companies to compete with foreign prescribing Schedule III, IV, or V narcotic This interim final rule does not have based companies in domestic and controlled drugs approved by the Food and substantial direct effects on the States, export markets. DEA has submitted a Drug Administration specifically for use in maintenance or detoxification treatment. on the relationship between the copy of this interim final rule to both National Government and the States, or Houses of Congress and to the * * * * * the distribution of power and Comptroller General. (b)(1) * * * (i) The individual practitioner is responsibilities between the Federal Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 registered under § 1301.13 as an Government and Indian tribes. This action does not impose a new individual practitioner and is a Regulatory Flexibility Act nor modify an existing collection of ‘‘qualifying physician’’ as defined in information requirement under the section 303(g)(2)(G)(ii) of the Act (21 The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 44 U.S.C. 823(g)(2)(G)(ii)); a ‘‘qualifying (5 U.S.C. 601–612) applies to rules that U.S.C. 3501–3521. other practitioner’’ as defined in section are subject to notice and comment 303(g)(2)(G)(iv) of the Act (21 U.S.C. under section 553(b) of the APA. As List of Subjects 823(g)(2)(G)(iv)) who is a nurse explained above, DEA determined that 21 CFR Part 1301 practitioner or physician assistant; or there was good cause to exempt this during the period beginning on October interim final rule from notice and Administrative practice and 1, 2018 and ending on October 1, 2023, comment. Consequently, the RFA does procedure, Drug traffic control, Security a ‘‘qualifying other practitioner’’ as not apply to this interim final rule. measures. defined in section 303(g)(2)(G)(iv) of the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69167

Act (21 U.S.C. 823(g)(2)(G)(iv)) who is that meets the requirements under ACTION: Final rule. clinical nurse specialist, certified § 1306.04 for the purpose of registered nurse anesthetist, or certified administering the controlled substance SUMMARY: The Equal Employment nurse midwife. * * * by the practitioner if: Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) is issuing a final rule to * * * * * (1) The controlled substance is establish procedural regulations for (iii) * * * delivered by the pharmacy to the issuing guidance. These rules make (B) The applicable number is— prescribing practitioner or the guidance documents readily available to (1) 100 if not sooner than 1 year after practitioner administering the the public, ensure that guidance will be the date on which the practitioner controlled substance, as applicable, at treated as non-binding, require a notice submitted the initial notification, the the location, listed on the practitioner’s and public comment period for practitioner submits a second certificate of registration; significant guidance, and establish a notification to the Secretary of Health (2) The controlled substance is to be public petition process for the issuance, and Human Services of the need and administered for the purpose of amendment, or repeal of guidance. intent of the practitioner to treat up to maintenance or detoxification treatment 100 patients; under section 303(g)(2)(G)(iii) of the Act DATES: Effective date: , 2020. (2) 100 if the practitioner holds (21 U.S.C. 823(g)(2)(G)(iii)); and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: additional credentialing, as defined in (i) The practitioner who issued the Robert Carter, Special Assistant, Office 42 CFR 8.2; prescription is a qualifying practitioner of Legal Counsel, (202) 663–4692 or (3) 100 if the practitioner provides as defined in section 303(g) of the Act [email protected]. medication-assisted treatment using (21 U.S.C. 823(g)); and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The covered medications (as such terms are (ii) The controlled substance is to be Administrative Procedure Act (APA), defined in 42 CFR 8.615) in a qualified administered by injection or section 553 of title 5, United States practice setting (as described in 42 CFR implantation; Code, generally requires Federal 8.615); and (3) The pharmacy and the practitioner agencies engaged in administrative (4) 275 if the practitioner meets the are authorized to conduct such activities rulemaking to give public notice of requirements specified in 42 CFR 8.610 specified in this paragraph (f) under the proposed regulations, provide interested through 8.655. law of the State in which such activities parties an opportunity to comment, take place; consider and respond to significant * * * * * (4) The prescription is not issued to comments, and publish final regulations supply any practitioner with a stock of PART 1306—PRESCRIPTIONS in the Federal Register. controlled substances for the purpose of On October 9, 2019, President Donald ■ general dispensing to patients; 3. The authority citation for 21 CFR J. Trump issued Executive Order (E.O.) (5) The controlled substance is to be part 1306 is revised to read as follows: 13891, ‘‘Executive Order on Promoting administered only to the patient named Authority: 21 U.S.C. 821, 823, 829, 829a, the Rule of Law Through Improved on the prescription not later than 14 831, 871(b) unless otherwise noted. Agency Guidance Documents.’’ It days after the date of receipt of the directed most Federal departments, ■ 4. In § 1306.04, add paragraph (d) to controlled substance by the practitioner; agencies, and commissions to adopt read as follows: and policies to ensure that ‘‘Americans are (6) Notwithstanding any exceptions § 1306.04 Purpose of issue of prescription. subject only to those binding rules under section 307 of the Act (21 U.S.C. imposed through duly enacted statutes * * * * * 827), the prescribing practitioner, and or through regulations lawfully (d) A prescription may be issued by the practitioner administering the promulgated under them’’ and that a qualifying practitioner, as defined in controlled substance, as applicable, those subject to such rules shall have section 303(g)(2)G)(iii) of the Act (21 shall maintain complete and accurate ‘‘fair notice of their obligations.’’ E.O. U.S.C. 823(g)(2)(G)(iii), in accordance records of all controlled substances 13891, 84 FR 55235 (October 9, 2019). with § 1306.05 for a Schedule III, IV, or delivered, received, administered, or E.O. 13891 asserts that some agencies V controlled substance for the purpose otherwise disposed of, under this have used guidance in the place of of maintenance or detoxification paragraph (f), including the persons to regulations to avoid the APA’s statutory treatment for the purposes of whom the controlled substances were safeguards. To address these concerns, administration in accordance with delivered and such other information as the Executive order requires agencies to section 309A of the Act (21 U.S.C. 829a) may be required under this chapter. and § 1306.07(f). Such prescription adopt regulations that make guidance issued by a qualifying practitioner shall Timothy J. Shea, documents more readily available to the not be used to supply any practitioner Acting Administrator. public, better ensure that guidance will with a stock of controlled substances for [FR Doc. 2020–23813 Filed 10–29–20; 4:15 pm] be treated as non-binding, require a the purpose of general dispensing to BILLING CODE 4410–09–P notice and public comment period for patients. significant guidance, and establish a ■ 5. In § 1306.07, add a reserved public petition process for the issuance, paragraph (e) and paragraph (f) to read EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY amendment, or repeal of guidance. as follows: COMMISSION Independent of E.O. 13891, the Commission believes that this final rule § 1306.07 Administering or dispensing of 29 CFR Part 1695 will provide clearer procedures for narcotic drugs issuance of its guidance documents and * * * * * RIN 3046–AB18 ensure an opportunity for the public to (f) Notwithstanding the definition of Procedural Regulations for Issuing comment on proposed significant dispense under section 102(10) of the Guidance guidance. Such steps will improve the Act (21 U.S.C 802(10)), a pharmacy may guidance the Commission issues. deliver a controlled substance to a AGENCY: Equal Employment Guidance documents are a critical practitioner, pursuant to a prescription Opportunity Commission. component of the Commission’s

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 69168 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

outreach and education efforts, as they preparing this final rule. They are Comment Period inform the public of the Commission’s discussed in further detail below. All three letters criticized the current interpretations of the law on Comments Supporting the NPRM Commission’s decision to issue the specific topics and promote voluntary NPRM with a 30-day comment period compliance. So, establishing permanent The American Road & Transportation during the Covid–19 pandemic. They procedures through its regulations on Builders Association (‘‘ARTBA’’) contended that the decision did not how the Commission will issue supported the mandatory disclaimer provide sufficient time for comment and guidance will be beneficial to the language of proposed § 1695.2(c)(7)(i) as ‘‘casts a shadow on the integrity of the Commission and its stakeholders. a means to ensure that the comment process.’’ This final rule creates a new part, 29 Commission’s guidance is considered CFR part 1695, to address the non-binding. It noted that guidance has Guidance Disclaimer requirements of Executive Order 13891 become a new de facto regulation of its The three letters objected to the and the Office of Management and own, creating additional mandates on mandatory disclaimer language of Budget’s explanation in Memorandum the entities it covers, while evading the proposed § 1695.2(c)(7)(i), alleging that M–20–02. The requirements of this public comment process. it was broader than that required by regulation apply to EEOC guidance ARTBA further supported the creation Executive Order 13891. They further documents as defined herein; they do of a web-based index of guidance contended that while guidance is not apply to or otherwise replace the pursuant to proposed § 1695.8. It intended to provide clarity on the law, requirements of the APA and associated affirmed that making guidance the disclaimer creates the impression Executive orders for regulations or rules. documents more accessible would help that it cannot be relied upon to provide The definitions, requirements, and smaller businesses stay aware of their such clarity. They fear, therefore, that procedures for issuing guidance adopted employment responsibilities and this language could confuse both in §§ 1695.1 through 1695.6 of the rule comply with EEOC objectives. workers and employers about their are modeled on sections 2 and 4 of The Center for Workplace Compliance rights and obligations, and create Executive Order 13891. The adoption of (‘‘CWC’’) also supported the notice and uncertainty about the Commission’s a public petition process for the public comment provisions of proposed authority. issuance, amendment, or repeal of § 1695.6, noting that the Commission The three letters also noted that guidance in § 1695.7 of the rulemaking has not always solicited public guidance is entitled to deference by is mandated by section 4(a) of Executive comments for guidance. It further courts pursuant to the standard in Order 13891. The requirement in supported the petition provisions of Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 § 1695.8 of posting of all existing proposed § 1695.7, affirming that the (1944), and that the Supreme Court has guidance on the Commission website in Commission would be less likely to held that EEOC guidance reflects ‘‘a a single, searchable, indexed database retain outdated or incorrect guidance if body of experience and informed (launched on , 2020) is the public had an opportunity to judgment to which courts and litigants consistent with section 3(a) of the petition for a rescission or revision of may properly resort for guidance.’’ Fed. Executive order. The prohibition in guidance. It noted that the Exp. Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389, § 1695.9 against the agency citing to Commission’s 1997 Policy Statement on 399 (2008) (quoting Bragdon v. Abbott, rescinded guidance, except for historical Mandatory Binding Arbitration of 524 U.S. 624, 642 (1998)). They further purposes, reflects the requirements of Employment Discrimination Disputes as alleged that courts can distinguish section (3)(b) of Executive Order 13891, a Condition of Employment was between guidance and rulemaking, and the disclaimer of judicial or inconsistent with more than 20 citing the U.S Supreme Court’s decision enforceable rights in regulation Supreme Court decisions and rejected in Azar v. Allina Health Servs., 139 S. § 1695.10 reflects section 7 of the by every U.S. Court of Appeals, but not Ct. 1804, 1811 (2019), which struck Executive order. rescinded until December 2019. down an interpretive rule that created a The Commission published a Notice The CWC recommended substantive legal standard. of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the improvements to the indexing and Federal Register (85 FR 30667) on May search capabilities of the guidance web Petitions 20, 2020 for a 30-day notice and portal. For example, it noted that The three letters alleged a lack of comment period, which ended on June searching for the topic ‘‘ADA’’ would transparency in the petition process 19, 2020. not retrieve all documents related to the established by proposed § 1695.7, which Comments Generally Americans with Disabilities Act because allows ‘‘any interested person’’ to many are classified using the topic petition the Commission to issue, The Commission received nine ‘‘disability.’’ Issues regarding the amend, or repeal a guidance document. comments on the NPRM during the 30- methodology of the database’s search They noted that the process does not day comment period. These were function do not need to be addressed in require the Commission to publish the submitted through Regulations.gov, the the final rule and this comment was petition contents or identity of the Federal government’s electronic docket referred to the Commission’s Office of petitioner. The Leadership Conference system, under EEOC–2020–0004. No Communications and Legislative asked that the Commission make comments were faxed or mailed to the Affairs, which controls the website. petitions publicly available through the Executive Secretariat. EEOC guidance portal and in hard copy Comments Opposing the NPRM Of the nine comments, two at EEOC headquarters. organizations supported the proposed Comments opposing the NPRM were The three letters also objected to the rule and three opposed it. Four received from The Leadership regulation’s silence regarding the individuals submitted comments that Conference, National Women’s Law process for considering and resolving were non-responsive and require no Center, and a joint letter from the Texas petitions, as well as the absence of a additional discussion. RioGrande Legal Aid and Disability decision-making standard. They also The Commission has reviewed and Rights Texas. Comments shared by all objected to the provision in proposed considered each of the comments in three letters are addressed together. § 1695.7(d) that allowed a petition to be

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69169

denied without a response if it were to find that the guidance has the ‘‘power assess the costs and benefits of an ‘‘self-explanatory.’’ to persuade.’’ Skidmore, 323 U.S. at 139. intended regulation (recognizing that these can be difficult to quantify) and Emergency Exception Petition adopt a regulation only when the The Texas RioGrande Legal Aid and The petition language of proposed benefits justify its costs. Disability Rights Texas objected to the § 1695.7 is modeled after the The final rule is focused solely on the emergency provisions of proposed Commission’s regulations for the Commission’s internal procedures for §§ 1695.2(d) and 1695.4(c), which waive issuance, amendment, or repeal of rules issuing guidance and imposes no direct certain time and/or procedural contained in 29 CFR 1601.35 and costs on any third parties. The rule does requirements during an emergency. 1601.36. These provisions were first not prevent the Commission from They contended that the NPRM established on October 14, 1977 and issuing guidance and will ensure that provides no information as to what amended twice, on , 1989 and the guidance the Commission does circumstances might properly be , 2009. As the final rule issue: Clearly states its legal effect, considered emergencies, how that states, handling these petitions will when necessary has been subject to determination would be made, or what follow the agency’s usual procedures, public input, can be found by the checks limit the Chair’s power to which have existed for more than four public, and is overall legally and declare an emergency. decades. economically sound. All of these are Executive Order Compliance Regarding petitions denied without benefits to both employers and requiring a response, the Commission employees, as well as the public at The National Women’s Law Center does occasionally receive comments large. comment questioned whether the NPRM that are irrelevant and unfit for a The Texas RioGrande Legal Aid & adequately conformed to the provisions response. Indeed, four of the nine Disability Rights Texas alleged that the of Executive Order 12866, which comments received for the NPRM were Commission failed to acknowledge how requires agencies to assess the potential not responsive to the issues raised in it. the NPRM would affect the costs/benefits of a proposed rule and Substantive petitions will be defined requirements of Executive Orders adopt an approach that produces the broadly and considered on their merits. 12866, 13536, 13609, 13771, and 13777, least total burden and most benefit to The Commission will not specify in since they subject significant guidance society. It contended that the the rule that all petitions it receives will documents to review by OIRA and Commission failed to adequately assess be published. Doing so would infringe require a 30-day notice and comment both the costs and benefits of the on the Commission’s internal period. Given that OIRA review and proposed rule. deliberations and deliberative process public comment procedures already The Texas RioGrande Legal Aid & and be inconsistent with the exist for Commission regulations, the Disability Rights Texas noted that while Commission’s approach to handling the NPRM referenced Executive Orders addition of a relatively few significant petitions for rulemaking under guidance documents to the existing 12866, 13536, 13609, 13771, and 13777, §§ 1601.35 and 1601.36. it failed to acknowledge how those system will not be overly burdensome. mandates would be affected by Emergency Exception Determination subjecting significant guidance Commenters’ objections regarding the After considering all responsive documents to review by the Office of narrow emergency exception of comments, the Commission has Information and Regulatory Affairs proposed § 1695.4(c) are misplaced. determined that this final rule will (OIRA) and a 30-day notice and Proposed § 1695.4(c) merely allows the adopt the language as proposed in the comment period. Chair to bypass OIRA’s review of a NPRM without change, except for a non- The EEOC’s Response to the Comments ‘‘significant guidance’’ determination substantive change in § 1695.1(a) and and allow guidance to be issued on an including that the Chair must also Comment Period emergency basis. The determination inform other Commissioners in The Commission believes that the 30- would, however, be reviewed later. § 1695.4(c).1 The final rule adopts the day comment period provided sufficient In similar manner, the emergency requirements of E.O. 13891 and OMB time for the public to comment on the exception of proposed § 1695.2(d) only M–20–02 into the Commission’s proposed rule. The NPRM was a waives the five-day review period for processes and will further E.O. 13891’s straightforward codification of E.O. Commissioners to review a document important goal of improving the 13891 into regulatory text. The public that ‘‘is not setting forth a new or Commission’s guidance documents. As was able to submit comments through changed legal position, is reiterating noted above, independent of E.O. 13891, multiple avenues (electronically, mail, already established Commission the Commission believes that the and fax). As noted above, five policies, or is otherwise simply procedures described in this final rule substantive comment were received, providing technical assistance on the are good policy that will improve its containing extensive legal citations and laws the Commission enforces without guidance documents. As discussed as many as 10 pages and 12 footnotes, announcing any new policy or legal above, the comments have not provided which indicates that the comment position.’’ Commission procedures period was sufficient for the public to already allow the Chair to approve such 1 In § 1695.1(a) the Commission is making a provide detailed substantive comments. guidance without a Commission vote. stylistic change to the proposed language by adding ‘‘and’’ prior to ‘‘advisories.’’ Section 1695.4(c) Guidance Disclaimer Executive Order Compliance discusses when the Chair can avoid the normal review procedures outlined in this rule due to The disclaimer language in the NRPM The National Women’s Law Center emergencies, statutory deadlines, or court orders. is taken nearly verbatim from OMB’s challenged whether the Commission As originally proposed, § 1695.4(c) only stated that implementing memorandum M–20–02. assessed both the costs and benefits of the Chair had to inform OIRA, but in the final rule, The disclaimer informs the public the proposed rule. In response, the the Commission is adding that all Commissioners must also be notified to ensure that all regarding the legal effect of the Commission affirms that it complied Commissioners are fully aware that the Commission Commission’s guidance documents and with section 1(b)(6) of Executive Order will not be going through normal review does not interfere with a court’s ability 12866, which requires each agency to procedures.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 69170 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

compelling reasons to adjust what the significantly or uniquely affect small § 1695.0 Applicability. Commission initially proposed. governments.2 It is strictly internal, and This part prescribes general Therefore, other than a minor stylistic does not impose mandates on any entity procedures that apply to guidance change in § 1695.1(a) and adding that outside the Commission. Indeed, the documents of the Equal Employment the Chair must inform Commissioners rule’s advance notice and comment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or as well in § 1695.4(c), the Commission requirements give small governments a Commission) under all statutes enforced adopts as a final rule the language greater opportunity to voice their by the Commission. proposed in the NPRM. concerns and have them addressed § 1695.1 Definitions. Regulatory Procedures before documents are finalized. In consequence, it is not anticipated to (a) Guidance document means any Executive Order 12866 significantly or uniquely affect small statement of Commission policy or This rule will govern the internal government. In consequence, no actions interpretation concerning a statute, practices of the Commission. It will not were deemed necessary under the regulation, or technical matter within its have an annual effect on the economy provisions of the Unfunded Mandates jurisdiction that is intended to have of $100 million or more, or adversely Reform Act of 1995. general applicability and future effect, but which is not intended to be binding affect in a material way the economy, a Congressional Review Act sector of the economy, productivity, in its own right and is not otherwise competition, jobs, the environment, While this action concerns agency required by statute to satisfy the public health or safety, or State, local, procedure, it does not substantially rulemaking procedures specified in 5 or tribal governments or communities. affect the rights or obligations of non- U.S.C. 553 or 5 U.S.C. 556. The term is This rule also will not create a serious agency parties and, accordingly, is not not confined to formal written inconsistency or otherwise interfere a ‘‘rule’’ as that term is used by the documents, and may include letters, with an action taken or planned by Congressional Review Act (Subtitle E of memoranda, circulars, bulletins, and another agency, nor will it materially the Small Business Regulatory advisories that set forth for the first time alter the budgetary impact of Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 a new regulatory policy. It may also entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan (SBREFA)). The Commission will include equivalent video, audio, and programs or the rights and obligations of continue to follow the reporting web-based formats. The definition does recipients thereof. Furthermore, it will requirement of 5 U.S.C. 801. not apply to: not raise novel legal or policy issues List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1695 (1) Rules promulgated pursuant to arising out of legal mandates, the notice and comment requirements President’s priorities, or the principles Administrative practice and under 5 U.S.C. 553 or similar statutory set forth in Executive Order 12866. In procedure, Equal employment provisions. consequence, this rule is not a opportunity. (2) Rules exempt from rulemaking ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ within For the Commission. requirements under 5 U.S.C. 553(a); the meaning of section 3 of Executive Janet Dhillon, (3) Rules of Commission organization, Order 12866. Chair. procedure, or practice; Paperwork Reduction Act ■ For the reasons set forth in the (4) Decisions of Commission preamble, the Equal Employment adjudications under 5 U.S.C. 554 or This rule contains no new Opportunity Commission amends 29 similar statutory provisions; information collection requirements (5) Internal executive branch legal subject to review by the Office of CFR chapter XIV by adding part 1695 to read as follows: advice or legal advisory opinions Management and Budget under the addressed to executive branch officials; Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. PART 1695—GUIDANCE (6) Commission statements of specific chapter 35). PROCEDURES applicability, including advisory or Regulatory Flexibility Act legal opinions directed to particular Sec. parties about circumstance-specific The Commission certifies under 5 1695.0 Applicability. U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have 1695.1 Definitions. questions, notices regarding particular a significant economic impact on a 1695.2 Guidance requirements. locations or facilities, and substantial number of small entities 1695.3 Good faith cost estimates. correspondence with individual persons because it primarily affects internal 1695.4 Significance determination. or entities; Commission procedure. To the extent 1695.5 Significant guidance requirements. (7) Legal briefs, other court filings, or 1695.6 Notice and public comment. positions taken in litigation or that this rule does affect small entities, 1695.7 Petitions. it provides free access to all EEOC enforcement actions; 1695.8 Public access to current guidance (8) Commission statements that do not guidance documents. Further, allowing documents. small employers advance notice of 1695.9 Rescinded guidance. set forth a policy on a statutory, significant guidance, and an 1695.10 No judicial review or enforceable regulatory, or technical issue or an opportunity to comment on proposed rights. interpretation of a statute or regulation, including speeches and individual significant guidance, gives small Authority: 5 U.S.C. 553, 42 U.S.C. 2000e– employers a greater opportunity to have 12, 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq., 29 U.S.C. 628, 42 presentations, PowerPoint slides, their concerns heard and addressed U.S.C. 12116, 42 U.S.C. 2000ff–10; E.O. editorials, media interviews, press before documents are finalized. 13891, 84 FR 55235; OMB Memorandum M– materials, or congressional testimony 20–02. that do not set forth for the first time a Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 new regulatory policy; This rule will not result in the 2 The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (9) Guidance pertaining to military or expenditure by State, local, or tribal adopts the term ‘‘small governments’’ from 5 U.S.C. foreign affairs functions; 601(5): ‘‘governments of cities, counties, towns, (10) Grant solicitations and awards; governments, in the aggregate, or by the townships, villages, school districts, or special private sector, of $100 million or more districts, with a population of less than fifty (11) Contract solicitations and awards; in any one year, and it will not thousand.’’ or

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69171

(12) Purely internal Commission (4) A short summary of the subject Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 policies or guidance directed solely to matter covered in the guidance et seq.). EEOC employees or contractors or to document at the top of the document. § 1695.4 Significance determination. other Federal agencies that are not (5) A statement noting whether the anticipated to have substantial future guidance is intended to revise or replace (a) Prior to issuance, the Commission effect on the behavior of regulated any previously issued guidance and, if shall provide OIRA with an opportunity parties outside of the government; for so, sufficient information to identify the to review a guidance document to example, Volume I of the Commission’s previously issued guidance; and determine if it meets the definition of Compliance Manual, which is only for (6) Citations to applicable statutes and ‘‘significant guidance document.’’ internal use. regulations; (b) If the guidance document is (b) Significant guidance document. (1) (7)(i) A clear and prominent statement determined not to be significant, the Significant guidance document means a of the following: ‘‘The contents of this Commission shall proceed with guidance document that will be document do not have the force and issuance of the guidance without going disseminated to regulated entities or the effect of law and are not meant to bind through the procedures described in general public and that may reasonably the public in any way. This document § 1695.5. be anticipated: is intended only to provide clarity to the (c) In emergency situations, or when (i) To lead to an annual effect on the public regarding existing requirements required by statutory deadline or court economy of $100 million or more or under the law or Commission policies.’’ order to act more quickly than normal review procedures allow, the Chair shall adversely affect in a material way the (ii) When binding guidance is notify OIRA and all Commissioners as U.S. economy, a sector of the U.S. authorized by law or is incorporated soon as possible and, to the extent economy, productivity, competition, into contract, the language in paragraph practicable, comply with the jobs, the environment, public health or (c)(7)(i) of this section may be modified requirements of this part at the earliest safety, or State, local, or tribal to reflect either of those facts. opportunity. governments or communities; (d) If the guidance document sets (ii) To create serious inconsistency or forth the Commission’s position on a § 1695.5 Significant guidance otherwise interfere with an action taken legal principle for the first time or requirements. or planned by another Federal agency; changes the Commission’s legal position (a) Each proposed significant (iii) To alter materially the budgetary on any issue, the Commission must guidance document shall be: impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, approve the guidance document by (1) Approved by the Commission or loan programs or the rights and majority vote. Any significant guidance before issuance and assigned a Z–RIN obligations of recipients thereof; or or guidance that is otherwise subject to through the Regulatory Management (iv) To raise novel legal or policy notice and comment procedures must be System (RMS), or a successor data issues arising out of legal mandates, the approved by a Commission vote. Any management system. President’s priorities, or the principles guidance document that requires a vote (2) Comply with the applicable set forth in E.O. 12866, as further of the Commission to be approved shall requirements for regulations, including amended. be circulated to the Commissioners, significant regulatory actions, in E.O. (2) It does not include any other and, if approved, shall be signed by the 12866, E.O. 13563, E.O. 13609, E.O. category of guidance documents Chair on behalf of the Commission. If 13771, and E.O. 13777. exempted in writing by OMB’s Office of the document is not setting forth a new (3) Submitted to OMB for coordinated Information and Regulatory Affairs or changed legal position, is reiterating review. Proposed guidance documents (OIRA). already established Commission that are otherwise important to the policies, or is otherwise simply § 1695.2 Guidance requirements. Commission’s interests may also be providing technical assistance on the submitted for review. (a) Each guidance document shall laws the Commission enforces without (4) Reviewed by OIRA under E.O. comply with all relevant statutes and announcing any new policy or legal 12866 before issuance. regulations. position, it shall be circulated to the (b) The Chair may determine that it is (b) It shall be written in plain and Commission for informational purposes appropriate to coordinate with OMB in understandable English and avoid using for a period of not less than five days, the review of guidance documents that mandatory language, such as ‘‘shall,’’ unless emergency circumstances do not are otherwise of importance to the ‘‘must,’’ ‘‘required,’’ or ‘‘requirement,’’ allow, and shall only require approval, Commission’s interests. unless the language describes an but not signature, by the Chair. established statutory or regulatory § 1695.6 Notice and public comment. requirement or is addressed to EEOC § 1695.3 Good faith cost estimates. (a) Each proposed significant staff and will not foreclose the (a) A good faith effort shall be made, guidance document shall have a period Commission’s consideration of positions to the extent practicable, to estimate the of notice and public comment of at least advanced by affected private parties; likely economic cost impact of the 30 days, unless the Commission, in (c) It shall identify or include: guidance document to determine consultation with OIRA, finds good (1) The term ‘‘guidance’’ or its whether the document might be cause that such notice and public functional equivalent and that the significant. It may, however, be difficult comment are impracticable, Commission is issuing the document; to predict with precision the economic unnecessary, or contrary to the public (2) A unique identifier that provides impact of voluntary guidance. interest, and incorporates such finding information on whether the document (b) When determining the likely and a brief statement of reasons therefor was subject to a vote (CV) or not economic cost impact, the same level of into the guidance document. (NVTA), the year of issuance, and analysis should be given as that (b) Notice shall be published in the unique number of its issuance and, if required for a major determination Federal Register announcing that a draft applicable, a Z–RIN; under the Congressional Review Act (5 of the proposed guidance document is (3) The activity or entities to which U.S.C. 801 et seq.) and the economic publicly available on the Federal e- the guidance applies; impact on small entities under the regulation website, and the proposed

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 69172 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

significant guidance document also (b) All current guidance documents navigable waters of the east channel of shall be posted on the Commission shall made available through a single the East River between the Roosevelt website. ‘‘guidance portal’’ on the Commission Island Bridge (mile 6.4) and Gibbs Point (c) The Commission shall prepare and website, together with a single, approximately 800 yards northeast of post a public response to major searchable, indexed database available the bridge. The safety zone is needed to concerns raised in the comments, as to the public; protect personnel, vessels, and the appropriate, either before or when the (c) The guidance portal shall include marine environment from potential significant guidance document is a statement that guidance documents hazards created by the installation of finalized and issued. lack the force and effect of law, except one TriFrame with three attached (d) When appropriate, the Chair may as authorized by law or as incorporated underwater turbines, associated cabling determine that a guidance document into a contract; and 4 to 6 Private Aids to Navigation. that is not otherwise required to go (d) The Commission shall maintain When enforced, entry of vessels or through notice and public comment and advertise on its website a means for persons into this zone is prohibited shall also be subject to a period of the public to comment electronically on unless specifically authorized by the public comment following the any guidance documents that are subject Captain of the Port New York. document’s approval by the to the notice and comment procedures DATES: This rule is effective without Commission before the document described in § 1695.6 and to submit actual notice from November 2, 2020 becomes effective. requests electronically for issuance, through 11:59 p.m., , 2020. (e) Unless otherwise determined in reconsideration, modification, or For the purposes of enforcement, actual writing by the Chair, upon issuing a rescission of guidance documents in notice will be used from 7 a.m., October significant guidance document, a report accordance with § 1695.7; and 22, 2020 through November 2, 2020. shall be submitted to Congress and GAO (e) Designate an office to receive and ADDRESSES: in accordance with the procedures To view documents address complaints from the public that mentioned in this preamble as being described in 5 U.S.C. 801 (the the Commission is not following the ‘‘Congressional Review Act’’). available in the docket, go to https:// relevant requirements for issuing www.regulations.gov, type USCG–2020– § 1695.7 Petitions. guidance or is improperly treating a 0600 in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click (a) Any interested person may guidance document as a binding ‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on Open Docket petition the Commission, in writing, for requirement. Folder on the line associated with this the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a § 1695.9 Rescinded guidance. rule. guidance. Such petition shall state the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If The Commission shall not cite, use, or guidance, regulation, or rule, together you have questions on this rule, call or rely on guidance documents that are with a statement of grounds in support email Mr. Jeff Yunker, Sector New York rescinded, except to establish historical of such petition. Waterways Management Division; U. S. facts. (b) Petitions may be filed with the Coast Guard; telephone 718–354–4195, EEOC, Office of Executive Secretariat, § 1695.10 No judicial review or enforceable email [email protected]. either electronically at the EEOC rights. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: guidance portal, http://www.eeoc.gov/ This part is intended to improve the I. Table of Abbreviations guidance, or in hard copy to U.S. Equal internal management of the Employment Opportunity Commission, Commission. As such, it is for the use CFR Code of Federal Regulations Executive Secretariat, 131 M Street NE, of EEOC personnel only and is not DHS Department of Homeland Security Washington, DC 20507. FR Federal Register intended to, and does not, create any (c) Upon the filing of such petition, NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking right or benefit, substantive or the Commission shall consider the same PATON Private Aids to Navigation and may thereupon either grant or deny procedural, enforceable at law or in RITE Roosevelt Island Tidal Energy Project the petition in whole or in part, conduct equity by any party against the United § Section U.S.C. United States Code an appropriate proceeding thereon, or States, its agencies or other entities, its make other disposition of the petition. officers or employees, or any other II. Background Information and (d) The Commission should respond person. Regulatory History [FR Doc. 2020–22542 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] to all petitions in a timely manner, but The Coast Guard is issuing this no later than 90 days after receipt of the BILLING CODE 6570–01–P temporary rule without prior notice and petition, as to how it intends to proceed. opportunity to comment pursuant to Should the petition be denied in whole authority under section 4(a) of the or in part, prompt notice shall be given DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 of the denial, accompanied by a simple SECURITY U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision statement of the grounds unless the authorizes an agency to issue a rule denial be self-explanatory. Coast Guard without prior notice and opportunity to (e) The issuance, amendment, or comment when the agency for good repeal of a guidance in response to a 33 CFR Part 165 petition shall be considered by the cause finds that those procedures are Commission pursuant to its regular [Docket Number USCG–2020–0600] ‘‘impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary procedures. to the public interest.’’ Under 5 U.S.C. RIN 1625–AA00 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that § 1695.8 Public access to current guidance Safety Zone; East River, New York, NY good cause exists for not publishing a documents. notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (a) All current guidance documents AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. with respect to this rule because the shall be published with a unique ACTION: Temporary final rule. contractor did not provide enough identifier including, at a minimum, the notice that three barges, three tugs and document’s title, date of issuance or SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is three work vessels will be conducting revision, and its Z–RIN (if applicable). establishing a temporary safety zone for heavy lift operations and installing 4 to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69173

6 Private Aids to Navigation (PATON) days after publication in the Federal the Roosevelt Island Bridge (mile 6.4) in the east channel of the East River, Register. Delaying the effective date of and Gibbs Point. This rule is needed to north of the Roosevelt Island Bridge this rule would be impracticable protect personnel, vessels, and the while installing one TriFrame with because immediate action is needed to marine environment in the navigable three underwater turbines for the RITE respond to the potential safety hazards waters within the safety zone while nine Project. The USACE is issuing a permit associated with multiple construction tugs, barges and work vessels are for this installation and immediate vessels operating within a confined area installing one TriFrame with three action is needed to respond to the of the East River. underwater turbines and 4–6 PATON potential safety hazards associated with III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule marking the RITE Project area. heavy lift operations. It is impracticable The Coast Guard is issuing this rule IV. Discussion of the Rule to publish an NPRM because we must under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 establish this safety zone by , (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The This rule establishes a safety zone 2020. The Coast Guard is publishing Captain of the Port New York (COTP) from October 22 through December 31, this rule to be effective through has determined that potential hazards 2020. The safety zone will cover all December 31, 2020 in case the project is associated with installation of the RITE navigable waters of the East River east delayed due to unforeseen Project TriFrame with three turbines of Roosevelt Island between the circumstances. and associated PATON marking this Roosevelt Island Bridge (mile 6.4) and Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast installation on October 22, 2020, will be Gibbs Point being used by vessels and Guard finds that good cause exists for a safety concern for anyone in the East personnel to install Phase 1 of the RITE making this rule effective less than 30 River, east of Roosevelt Island, between Project.

We anticipate enforcing the safety 2020 in case the project is delayed due approaches that maximize net benefits. zone during the heavy lift operations for to unforeseen circumstances. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a installation of the RITE Project TriFrame V. Regulatory Analyses with three turbines scheduled from budgeting process. This rule has not approximately 7 a.m. until 11 p.m. on We developed this rule after been designated a ‘‘significant October 22, 2020. The duration of the considering numerous statutes and regulatory action,’’ under Executive zone is intended to protect personnel, Executive orders related to rulemaking. Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has vessels, and the marine environment in Below we summarize our analyses not been reviewed by the Office of these constrained navigable waters based on a number of these statutes and Management and Budget (OMB), and while the project and PATON marking Executive orders, and we discuss First pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt Amendment rights of protestors. the project area are being installed. from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. When enforced no vessel or person will A. Regulatory Planning and Review This regulatory action determination be permitted to enter the safety zone Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 is based on the size, location, duration, without obtaining permission from the direct agencies to assess the costs and and time-of-year of the safety zone. COTP or a designated representative. benefits of available regulatory Vessel traffic will be able to safely The Coast Guard is publishing this rule alternatives and, if regulation is transit around this safety zone which to be effective through December 31, necessary, to select regulatory would impact a small designated area of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES ER02NO20.003 69174 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

the East River for approximately 16 D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Consideration supporting this hours during the Fall when vessel traffic Governments determination is available in the docket. is normally low. Moreover, the Coast A rule has implications for federalism For instructions on locating the docket, Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to under Executive Order 13132, see the ADDRESSES section of this Mariners via VHF–FM marine channel Federalism, if it has a substantial direct preamble. 16 about the zone, publish the zone in effect on the States, on the relationship the Local Notice to Mariners, and the G. Protest Activities between the National Government and rule would allow vessels to seek The Coast Guard respects the First the States, or on the distribution of permission to enter the zone. Amendment rights of protesters. power and responsibilities among the Protesters are asked to call or email the B. Impact on Small Entities various levels of government. We have person listed in the FOR FURTHER analyzed this rule under that Order and The Regulatory Flexibility Act of INFORMATION CONTACT section to 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, have determined that it is consistent coordinate protest activities so that your requires Federal agencies to consider with the fundamental federalism message can be received without the potential impact of regulations on principles and preemption requirements jeopardizing the safety or security of small entities during rulemaking. The described in Executive Order 13132. people, places or vessels. term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises small Also, this rule does not have tribal businesses, not-for-profit organizations implications under Executive Order List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 that are independently owned and 13175, Consultation and Coordination Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation operated and are not dominant in their with Indian Tribal Governments, (water), Reporting and record keeping fields, and governmental jurisdictions because it does not have a substantial requirements, Security measures, with populations of less than 50,000. direct effect on one or more Indian Waterways. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. tribes, on the relationship between the For the reasons discussed in the 605(b) that this rule will not have a Federal Government and Indian tribes, preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 significant economic impact on a or on the distribution of power and CFR part 165 as follows: substantial number of small entities. responsibilities between the Federal While some owners or operators of Government and Indian tribes. PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION vessels intending to transit the safety E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act ■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 rule will not have a significant of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires continues to read as follows: economic impact on any vessel owner Federal agencies to assess the effects of Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR or operator. their discretionary regulatory actions. In 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Under section 213(a) of the Small particular, the Act addresses actions Department of Homeland Security Delegation Business Regulatory Enforcement that may result in the expenditure by a No. 0170.1. Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), State, local, or tribal government, in the ■ 2. Add § 165.T01–0600 to read as we want to assist small entities in aggregate, or by the private sector of follows: understanding this rule. If the rule $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or would affect your small business, more in any one year. Though this rule § 165.T01–0600 Safety Zone; East River, organization, or governmental will not result in such an expenditure, New York, NY. jurisdiction and you have questions we do discuss the effects of this rule (a) Location. The following area is a concerning its provisions or options for elsewhere in this preamble. safety zone: All waters of the East River, compliance, please call or email the F. Environment from surface to bottom, east of Roosevelt person listed in the FOR FURTHER Island, upstream of the Roosevelt Island INFORMATION CONTACT section. We have analyzed this rule under Bridge (mile 6.4) and downstream of a Small businesses may send comments Department of Homeland Security line connecting the following points: on the actions of Federal employees Directive 023–01, Rev. 1, associated Gibbs Point at (pa) 40°46′05.12″ N, who enforce, or otherwise determine implementing instructions, and 073°56′21.74″ W to Roosevelt Island at compliance with, Federal regulations to Environmental Planning COMDTINST (pa) 40°46′09.25″ N, 073°56′29.60″ W. the Small Business and Agriculture 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast These coordinates are based on NAD 83. Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman Guard in complying with the National (b) Definitions. As used in this and the Regional Small Business Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 section, designated representative Regulatory Fairness Boards. The U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have means a Coast Guard Patrol Ombudsman evaluates these actions determined that this action is one of a Commander, including a Coast Guard annually and rates each agency’s category of actions that do not coxswain, petty officer, or other officer responsiveness to small business. If you individually or cumulatively have a operating a Coast Guard vessel and a wish to comment on actions by significant effect on the human Federal, State, and local officer employees of the Coast Guard, call 1– environment. This rule involves a safety designated by or assisting the Captain of 888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). The zone lasting only 16 hours that will the Port New York (COTP) in the Coast Guard will not retaliate against prohibit entry between the Roosevelt enforcement of the safety zone. small entities that question or complain Island Bridge (mile 6.4) and Gibbs Point (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general about this rule or any policy or action being used by vessels, machinery and safety zone regulations in subpart C of of the Coast Guard. personnel to install Phase 1 of the RITE this part, you may not enter the safety Project and 4–6 PATON marking the zone described in paragraph (a) of this C. Collection of Information project area. It is categorically excluded section unless authorized by the COTP This rule will not call for a new from further review under paragraph or the COTP’s designated representative. collection of information under the L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS (2) To seek permission to enter, Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 Instruction Manual 023–01–001–01, contact the COTP or the COTP’s U.S.C. 3501–3520). Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental representative by VHF-Channel 16 or at

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69175

718–354–4353. Those in the safety zone From leisurely rides to challenging National Lakeshore (36 CFR 7.80), New must comply with all lawful orders or alpine climbs, bicycles offer spectacular River Gorge National River (36 CFR directions given to them by the COTP or opportunities to experience the 7.89), Chattahoochee River National the COTP’s designated representative. resources of the National Park System. Recreation Area (36 CFR 7.90), Bryce (d) Enforcement period[s]. This National Park Service (NPS) Canyon National Park (36 CFR 7.94), section is effective from October 22 regulations at 36 CFR 4.30 govern the Pea Ridge National Military Park (36 through December 31, 2020 but will use of bicycles on NPS-administered CFR 7.95), and Golden Gate National only be enforced when Roosevelt Island lands. These regulations identify where Recreation Area (36 CFR 7.97). Tidal Energy Project heavy lift bicycles are allowed, manage how Introduction of Electric Bicycles operations are in progress. bicycles may be used, and allow superintendents to restrict bicycle use While bicycling has been a decades- Dated: , 2020. when necessary. Bicycles are allowed long tradition in many park areas, the Jason P. Tama, on park roads and parking areas open to appearance of electric bicycles, or e- Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the public motor vehicles. Bicycles are also bikes, is a relatively new phenomenon. Port New York. allowed on administrative roads that are An e-bike is a bicycle with a small [FR Doc. 2020–24020 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] closed to motor vehicle use by the electric motor that provides power to BILLING CODE 9110–04–P public but open to motor vehicle use by help move the bicycle. As they have the NPS for administrative purposes, become more popular both on and off but only after the superintendent NPS-managed lands, the NPS has DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR determines that such bicycle use is recognized the need to address this consistent with protection of the park emerging form of recreation so that it National Park Service area’s natural, scenic and aesthetic can exercise clear management values, safety considerations and authority over e-bikes and provide 36 CFR Parts 1 and 4 management objectives, and will not clarity to visitors and stakeholders such [NPS–WASO–REGS; 30756; GPO Deposit disturb wildlife or park resources. The as visitor service providers. Account 4311H2] use of bicycles on trails is subject to a Similar to traditional bicycles, the thorough approval and review process. NPS believes that, with proper RIN 1024–AE61 When bicycle use is proposed for a new management, the use of e-bikes may be or existing trail, the NPS must complete an appropriate activity in many park General Provisions; Electric Bicycles a planning process that evaluates areas. E-bikes advance the NPS’s AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. bicycle use on the specific trail, ‘‘Healthy Parks Healthy People’’ goals to including impacts to trail surface and ACTION: Final rule. promote national parks as a health soil conditions, maintenance costs, resource.1 Specifically, e-bikes can SUMMARY: The National Park Service safety considerations, potential user increase bicycle access to and within promulgates regulations governing the conflicts, and methods to protect parks. E-bikes make bicycle travel easier use of electric bicycles, or e-bikes, resources and mitigate impacts. For both and more efficient because they allow within the National Park System. This new and existing trails, the NPS must bicyclists to travel farther with less rule defines the term ‘‘electric bicycle’’ complete NEPA analysis that concludes effort. E-bikes can expand the option of and establishes rules for how they may that bicycle use on the trail will have no bicycling to more people by providing a be used. This rule implements Secretary significant impacts. The superintendent new option for those who want to ride of the Interior Order 3376, ‘‘Increasing must prepare and the regional director a bicycle but might not otherwise do so Recreational Opportunities through the must approve the same written because of physical fitness, age, or use of Electric Bikes,’’ on lands determination that is required for convenience, especially at high altitude administered by the National Park allowing bicycles on administrative or in hilly or strenuous terrain. Also, Service. roads. Each of these documents must be when used as an alternative to gasoline- made available for public review and or diesel-powered modes of DATES: This rule is effective on comment. For new trails outside of transportation, e-bikes can reduce December 2, 2020. developed areas, the NPS must publish greenhouse gas emissions and fossil fuel ADDRESSES: The comments received on a special regulation designating the trail consumption, improve air quality, and the proposed rule and an economic for bicycle use, which is subject to a support active modes of transportation analysis are available on separate public comment period. for park staff and visitors. Similar to www.regulations.gov in Docket ID: NPS– Adherence to the procedures in these traditional bicycles, e-bikes can 2020–0001. regulations helps ensure that bicycles decrease traffic congestion, reduce the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jay are allowed only in locations where, in demand for vehicle parking spaces, and Calhoun, Regulations Program Manager, the judgment of the NPS, their use is increase the number and visibility of National Park Service; (202) 513–7112; appropriate and will not cause cyclists on the road. [email protected]. unacceptable impacts. The NPS has completed the process required by these Policy Direction for Managing E-Bikes SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: regulations in many NPS units, Secretary’s Order 3376 Background including the following that have special regulations designating trails for On , 2019, Secretary of the Use and Management of Bicycles bicycle use: Rocky Mountain National Interior Bernhardt signed Secretary’s Bicycling is a popular recreational Park (36 CFR 7.7), Saguaro National Order 3376, ‘‘Increasing Recreational activity in many units of the National Park (36 CFR 7.11), Cuyahoga Valley Opportunities through the use of Park System. Cyclists of all skill levels National Park (36 CFR 7.17), Hot and ages enjoy riding on roads and Springs National Park (36 CFR 7.18), 1 For more information about how the NPS promotes the health and well-being of park visitors designated bicycle trails for scenery, Grand Teton National Park (36 CFR through the Healthy Parks Healthy People exercise, and adventure. Visitors bicycle 7.22), Mammoth Cave National Park (36 movement, visit https://www.nps.gov/subjects/ alone, with friends, or with family. CFR 7.36), Sleeping Bear Dunes healthandsafety/health-benefits-of-parks.htm.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 69176 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

Electric Bikes.’’ The purpose of this the motor. Instead, the Memorandum, alcohol or drugs). The Memorandum Order is to increase recreational consistent with the Secretary’s Order applies these provisions in the same opportunities for all Americans, and many states that have promulgated manner to e-bikes. Paragraph (g) also especially those with physical regulations for e-bikes, refers to a three- states that, unless specifically addressed limitations, and to encourage the class system that limits the maximum by NPS regulations, the use of a bicycle enjoyment of lands and waters managed assisted speed of an e-bike: is governed by state law, which is by the Department of the Interior. The • Class 1 electric bicycle means an adopted and made part of section 4.30. Order emphasizes the potential for e- electric bicycle equipped with a motor The Memorandum requires bikes to reduce the physical demands of that provides assistance only when the superintendents to adopt state law in operating a bicycle and therefore rider is pedaling, and that ceases to the same manner for e-bikes. State laws expand access to recreational provide assistance when the bicycle concerning the definition, safety opportunities, particularly for those reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour. operation, and licensing of e-bikes vary • with limitations stemming from age, Class 2 electric bicycle means an from state to state. A growing number of illness, disability or fitness, and in more electric bicycle equipped with a motor states use the three-class system to challenging environments, such as high that may be used exclusively to propel differentiate between the models and altitudes or hilly terrain. E-bikes have the bicycle, and that is not capable of top assisted speeds of e-bikes. an electric motor yet are operable in a providing assistance when the bicycle Paragraph (h) of section 4.30 prohibits similar manner to traditional bicycles reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour. possessing a bicycle in wilderness and • Class 3 electric bicycle means an and in many cases appear contains safety regulations for the use of electric bicycle equipped with a motor indistinguishable from them. For these bicycles. Specifically, paragraphs (h)(3)– that provides assistance only when the reasons, the Order acknowledges there (5) establish rules relating to operation rider is pedaling, and that ceases to is regulatory uncertainty regarding during periods of low visibility, abreast provide assistance when the bicycle whether e-bikes should be managed of another bicycle, and with an open reaches the speed of 28 miles per hour. similar to other types of bicycles, or, container of alcohol. The Memorandum alternatively, considered motor Consistent with the Order, the Memorandum announces a policy that applies these provisions in the same vehicles. The Order states that this manner to e-bikes. regulatory uncertainty has led to e-bikes are allowed where traditional The Memorandum directs the inconsistent management of e-bikes bicycles are allowed and that e-bikes are superintendents of any NPS unit with e- across the Department and, in some not allowed where traditional bicycles bikes present to implement the actions cases, served to decrease access to are prohibited. The Memorandum refers required by the policy using their Federally owned lands by users of e- to regulations for bicycles in paragraphs regulatory authority in 36 CFR 1.5(a)(2). bikes. In order to address these (f), (g), and (h) of 36 CFR 4.30 that relate This authority allows superintendents concerns, the Order directs the NPS and to closures and other use restrictions, to designate areas for a specific use or other Department of the Interior other requirements, and prohibited acts. activity, or impose conditions or agencies to define e-bikes separately The Memorandum requires that these restrictions on a use or activity. As of from motor vehicles and to allow them provisions also govern the use of e-bikes the date of this rule, more than 380 where other types of bicycles are so that the use of e-bikes and bicycles allowed. are generally regulated in the same units of the National Park System have manner. implemented the e-bike policy under NPS Policy Memorandum 19–01 Paragraph (f) of section 4.30 allows the authority in 36 CFR 1.5(a)(2) and On , 2019, the Deputy superintendents to limit or restrict or have published notice of this action in Director of the NPS, Exercising the impose conditions on bicycle use or the park-specific compilation of Authority of the Director, issued Policy close any park road, trail, or portion management actions required by 36 CFR Memorandum 19–01, Electric Bicycles. thereof to bicycle use after taking into 1.7(b), referred to as the This policy satisfies a requirement in consideration public health and safety, superintendent’s compendium. This the Secretary’s Order that all natural and cultural resource protection, means that for each of these NPS units, Department of the Interior agencies and other management activities and e-bikes are already allowed subject to adopt policy and provide appropriate objectives. The Memorandum the rules governing them that are set out public guidance regarding the use of e- authorizes superintendents to limit or in the compendium and no further bikes on public lands that conforms to restrict or impose conditions on e-bike action would be needed to reauthorize the policy direction set forth in the use for the same reasons, provided the continued use of e-bikes under this Order. public is notified through one or more regulation. The Memorandum defines an e-bike methods listed in 36 CFR 1.7. When Final Rule as ‘‘a two- or three-wheeled cycle with using this authority, the Memorandum fully operable pedals and an electric advises superintendents to understand As explained above, Secretary’s Order motor of less than 750 watts that state and local rules addressing e-bikes 3376 directs the NPS to revise 36 CFR provides propulsion assistance.’’ This so that the use of e-bikes within a park 1.4 and any associated regulations to be definition is consistent with the area is not restricted more than in consistent with the Order. The Bureau definition of ‘‘low speed electric adjacent jurisdictions, to the extent of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Fish bicycle’’ in the Consumer Product possible. and Wildlife Service (FWS), and Bureau Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2085) and the Paragraph (g) of section 4.30 states of Reclamation (Reclamation) are also definition of ‘‘electric bicycle’’ in the that bicycle use is subject to certain NPS revising their regulations for laws governing the Federal Aid regulations that apply to motor vehicles. consistency with S.O. 3376. Highway Program (23 U.S.C. 217(j)(2), Specifically, bicycle use is subject to Specifically, the Order directs the NPS, except that the definition in the regulations in sections 4.12 (Traffic BLM, FWS, and Reclamation to add a Memorandum does not include control devices), 4.13 (Obstructing definition for e-bikes consistent with 15 requirements from those statutes that an traffic), 4.20 (Right of way), 4.21 (Speed U.S.C. 2085, and expressly exempt all e- e-bike may not exceed 100 pounds or limits), 4.22 (Unsafe operation), 4.23 bikes as defined in the Order from the reach 20 mph when powered solely by (Operating under the influence of definition of motor vehicles.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69177

This rule accomplishes these explained in more detail above and www.regulations.gov. The comment directives as related to the NPS, and include rules of operation and adoption period closed on , 2020. The NPS once effective, will supersede and of state law to the extent not addressed received more than 17,000 comments on replace Policy Memorandum 19–01. The by NPS regulations. The rule also gives the proposed rule from individuals and rule amends 36 CFR 1.4 to add a new superintendents the authority to limit or 71 organizations. A summary of the definition of ‘‘electric bicycle’’ that is restrict e-bike use after taking into pertinent issues raised in the comments the same as the definition used in the consideration public health and safety, and NPS responses are provided below. Policy Memorandum, with one minor natural and cultural resource protection, After considering public comments and difference. The definition in the and other management activities and after additional review, the NPS made Memorandum refers to the definition of objectives. If warranted by these criteria, several minor changes in the final rule ‘‘electric bicycle’’ in the Consumer superintendents may use this authority which are explained in the responses to Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2085), to manage e-bikes, or particular classes comments below. which limits the power of the motor to of e-bikes, differently than traditional 1. Comment: One commenter raised less than 750 watts. Many bicycles in particular locations. For concerns about the use of shared e-bikes manufacturers sell e-bikes with motors example, a superintendent could within park areas, in particular the having exactly 750 watts. In order to determine that a trail open to traditional impacts from riders leaving e-bikes in avoid the unintended consequence of bicycles should not be open to e-bikes, undesirable locations when the rental excluding many devices from the or should be open to class 1 e-bikes expires. regulatory definition of an e-bike due to only. Every restriction or closure that NPS Response: Many e-bike rental a one-watt difference in power, the limits the use of e-bikes must be companies encourage customers to end definition of e-bikes in this rule supported by a written record their trips responsibly; establish includes devices of not more than 750 explaining the basis for such action. The acceptable parking locations within watts. record will explain why e-bikes are service areas; require that e-bikes be The rule explicitly excludes e-bikes managed differently than traditional parked in accordance with applicable from the definition of ‘‘motor vehicle’’ bicycles if that is the effect of the laws and regulations; define prohibited found at 36 CFR 1.4. This clarifies that, restriction or closure. All such acts—including locking the e-bike to except as stated in section 4.30(g), e- restrictions and closures should be trees or other structures, as well as bikes are not subject to the regulations listed in the superintendent’s blocking pathways, sidewalks, or ramps; in 36 CFR part 4 that apply to the use compendium (or written compilation) of and assess penalties for parking e-bikes of motor vehicles. The NPS does not discretionary actions referred to in 36 outside of service areas and in violation need to change the existing definition of CFR 1.7(b). of the rental agreement. The NPS ‘‘bicycle’’ to distinguish them from e- Except for administrative actions expects that these rental agreements and bikes because the definition of bicycle taken by the NPS in limited penalties will largely deter riders from includes only those devices that are circumstances, the Wilderness Act leaving e-bikes within park units in ‘‘solely human powered.’’ E-bikes are prohibits mechanical transport in undesirable locations when the rental excluded from this definition because wilderness areas designated by expires. The NPS will also work with they have an electric motor that helps Congress. 16 U.S.C. 1133(c). local jurisdictions to ensure e-bikes are power the device. Accordingly, paragraph (h)(2) of section managed appropriately. Consistent with the Secretary’s Order 4.30 prohibits possessing a bicycle, a In circumstances where a rental and the Policy Memorandum, this rule form of mechanical transport, in a company is engaging in business within states that e-bikes may be allowed on wilderness area established by Federal an NPS unit, written authorization from roads, parking areas, administrative statute. For the same reason, the rule the NPS is required under 36 CFR 5.3. roads and trails that are open to prohibits the possession of e-bikes in The NPS will work with companies who traditional bicycles. The rule also states designated wilderness areas, even seek written authorization to conduct that superintendents will designate the though this prohibition already exists these businesses to develop terms and areas open to e-bikes and notify the under the Wilderness Act. conditions in the permit, contract, or public pursuant to 36 CFR 1.7. E-bikes Except on park roads and other other written authorization that mitigate are not allowed in other locations. E- locations where the use of motor against this potential harm. bikes are allowed on administrative vehicles by the public is allowed, the 2. Comment: One commenter asked roads and trails where bicycles are rule prohibits an operator from the NPS to require superintendents that allowed without the need to undertake exclusively using the electric motor to decide to allow e-bikes in park areas to the procedural steps in paragraphs (b)– move an e-bike without pedaling for an develop a plan that educates riders (e) of section 4.30 that were required extended period of time. This restriction about where e-bikes are allowed and when traditional bicycles were first is consistent with the Policy proper trail etiquette to minimize allowed in those locations. If a Memorandum and intended to allow the impacts to other users of the trail. superintendent proposes to designate an public to use e-bikes for transportation NPS Response: This rule gives administrative road or trail for e-bike and recreation in a similar manner to superintendents the discretion to use where traditional bicycles are not traditional bicycles. It only affects the establish any safety measures deemed yet allowed, then the superintendent use of Class 2 e-bikes, which have a necessary to ensure that e-bikes are used would need to follow the procedural motor that may be used exclusively to in a manner that maintains a safe and steps required by paragraphs (b)–(e) in propel the e-bike. enjoyable experience for all visitors. order to designate those locations for Superintendents are encouraged to go bicycle and e-bike use. Summary of Public Comments beyond what is stated in the rule and Although bicycles and e-bikes will be The NPS published a proposed rule in conduct community outreach and defined differently, the rule applies the Federal Register on , 2020 education campaigns to ensure that the certain regulations that govern the use (85 FR 19711). The NPS accepted proper riding behaviors are adhered to of bicycles to the use of e-bikes in the comments on the rule through the mail, for the benefit of all NPS visitors. Before same manner as the Policy by hand delivery, and through the visiting an NPS unit, visitors are Memorandum. These regulations are Federal eRulemaking Portal at encouraged to check the park website to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 69178 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

find out what areas of the park are shares this goal of a consistent under a separate federal law, then the accessible, what activities are available, management framework within the superintendent would not have the and which facilities are open. Upon National Park System. Outside of authority to designate e-bikes for use on arrival, visitors can obtain additional Alaska, NPS regulations allow the use of that trail in a manner that conflicts with information at the Visitor Center or a bicycles on roads and trails only. 36 the other applicable federal law. There Ranger Station. Signage is often used at CFR 4.30. Dispersed, overland use is not could be circumstances where common access points, such as allowed. In order to manage e-bikes in superintendents must choose between trailheads, road crossings, and junctions a similar manner to traditional bicycles, using federal funds for trail construction with other types of trails as a means of the rule allows e-bikes only on roads and limiting that trail to traditional communicating with park visitors. NPS and trails otherwise open to bicycle use bicycles or finding an alternative websites, park brochures, and signage and designated by the superintendent. funding source and allowing e-bikes on present a variety of information to Although the special allowance in the trail. The NPS believes that visitors, including educational materials Alaska for traditional bicycles is not superintendents are in the best position that provide guidance on trail etiquette limited to roads and trails, the NPS to make these judgements and this rule to mitigate the potential for user conflict declines to extend this special provides them with the discretion to do and to help establish user norms. allowance for e-bikes in Alaska. The so. Typical information resources identify NPS has no data on the level of bicycle 5. Comment: One commenter the kind of use allowed, provide route use on more than 20 million acres in questioned the NPS’s authority under names, trail direction and appropriate Alaska that are off-trail and not in the NPS Organic Act (54 U.S.C. 100101) practices for yielding to others, and will designated wilderness. The lack of data to create a management framework for e- be similarly utilized to educate visitors would make it very difficult to bikes that allows superintendents to about e-bike rules and etiquette. anticipate the impacts of allowing e- make decisions about e-bike use that— 3. Comment: One commenter raised bikes in those same, vast locations— in certain cases—could allow e-bikes in an issue specific to the use of e-bikes in impacts that could include concerns more places and with more associated National Park System units in Alaska. about public safety associated with impacts than are allowed by the state This commenter requested that the NPS remote, cross-country travel, protection where the park is located. This allow the use of e-bikes where of resources in sensitive biomes such as commenter stated that allowing the traditional bicycles are currently tundra, and management objectives superintendent to create rules that are allowed in Alaska, which are generally such as preserving wilderness character different than what is allowed by the allowed throughout NPS units in in eligible wilderness. state would create public confusion and Alaska—including off-trail and in 4. Comment: Several commenters an expectation that all three classes of wilderness—under the Alaska National questioned how the NPS’s definition of e-bikes are allowed within the National Interest Lands Conservation Act ‘‘electric bicycle’’ in the rule would Park System. (ANILCA). This commenter stated that affect how e-bikes are treated under NPS Response: The framework in this treating e-bikes differently than other laws that do not adopt the same rule gives superintendents the traditional bicycles in Alaska would definition or management framework for discretion to determine the appropriate create public confusion from an e-bikes established by the NPS in this level of e-bike use in park areas, with inconsistent management framework rule. For example, one commenter the important limitation that e-bikes and reduce opportunities for public referred to the definition of ‘‘electric may only be allowed on roads and trails access and recreation. bicycle’’ in the laws governing the where traditional bicycles are allowed. NPS Response: ANILCA authorizes Federal Aid Highway Program. 23 All management decisions made by a the use of nonmotorized surface U.S.C. 217(j)(2). The commenter states superintendent, including a decision transportation methods for traditional that this definition is different than the under this rule to allow the use of e- activities and for travel to and from NPS definition in the rule and has bikes, are subject to NPS Management villages and homesites within National implications for the types of uses that Policies that prohibit the superintendent Park System units in Alaska. 16 U.S.C. are allowed on pedestrian and bicycle from allowing a visitor use activity that 3170(a). This allowance for special trails funded by the Federal Highway would cause unacceptable impacts or access applies in Alaska Administration under the Recreational impairment of park resources under the notwithstanding any other law and does Trails Program. One commenter NPS Organic Act. This is true no matter not limit nonmotorized transportation to suggested that the use of e-bikes could what decision states make about the use designated roads or trails. The adversely affect the ability of the NPS or of e-bikes in areas under their Department of the Interior has user groups to obtain funds for trails jurisdiction. The NPS does not agree interpreted this statutory allowance to that come with restrictions on that a decision by a superintendent to include the use of traditional bicycles; motorized use. allow e-bikes in more places and with however, e-bikes do not fall under this NPS Response: The NPS’s definition more associated impacts than a state allowance because they have an electric of ‘‘electric bicycles’’ applies to would allow is per se a violation of the motor and therefore are not management of electric bicycles within impairment mandate in the NPS ‘‘nonmotorized.’’ the National Park System under the Organic Act. One of the purposes of this Notwithstanding the statutory framework established by this rule. It rule is to create a consistent allowance for traditional bicycles in does not modify or affect other federal management framework for the use of e- Alaska, the NPS is not in favor of laws and regulations in circumstances bikes across the National Park System, creating different rules for e-bikes in where they apply to the use of electric in part because all NPS units are subject Alaska than it does for e-bikes bicycles within the National Park to the same management standard everywhere else within the National System. Using the general scenario articulated in the NPS Organic Act. Park System. The stated purpose of presented by the commenter, if a trail Adequate public notice and community Secretary of the Interior Order 3376 is within the National Park System is outreach will mitigate the potential for to simplify and unify the regulations of constructed or maintained with federal confusion in situations where the rules e-bikes on lands managed by the highway funds in a manner that restricts of e-bikes in park areas are different Department of the Interior. The NPS the use of e-bikes as that term is defined than the rules in adjacent or nearby state

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69179

lands. In order to reduce the potential motorized devices on public lands controversial at the time and identifies that this will create a perception that all without following the requirements set other types of ‘‘motorized vehicles’’ that three classes of e-bikes are allowed in forth in the E.O. were typically understood to be all park areas, the NPS has revised the NPS Response: Executive Order 11644 included within the definition— regulatory text in 36 CFR 4.30(i)(1) to was issued by President Nixon in 1972 ‘‘motorcycles of various sorts clarify that, in some cases, only certain and amended by President Carter in (minibikes, dirt bikes, enduros, classes may be allowed. 1977 through Executive Order 11989. motocross bikes, etc.), four-wheel drive 6. Comment: Some commenters stated The Executive Order establishes policies vehicles such as Jeeps, Land Rovers, or that allowing e-bikes on trails is subject and procedures that federal agencies pickups, snowmobiles, dune buggies, to NPS regulations governing the use of must follow to manage the use of ‘‘off- and all-terrain vehicles.’’ Just as in the off-road motor vehicles (ORVs) in 36 road vehicles’’ on public lands. The Executive Order, e-bikes are not on this CFR 4.10 which states that ORV routes stated purpose of the Executive Order is list. Neither the Executive Order nor the and areas must be designated by special to protect the resources of the public CEQ report suggests that President regulation and only in national lands, promote safety of all users of the Nixon or President Carter intended for recreation areas, national seashores, lands, and minimize conflicts among the Executive Order to apply to small, national lakeshores and national those users. The Executive Order quiet, light vehicles powered by a small preserves. One commenter objected to applies to the use of ‘‘off road vehicles,’’ electric motor, such as e-bikes as the NPS excluding e-bikes from the which are defined as motorized vehicles defined in this regulation. This supports definition of ‘‘motor vehicle’’ because e- designed for or capable of cross-country an interpretation of the Executive Order bikes are inherently motorized. Another travel on or immediately over land, that the term ‘‘off-road vehicles’’ should commenter stated that e-bikes should be water, sand, snow, ice, marsh, not be understood to include e-bikes as regulated as motor vehicles by the NPS swampland, or other natural terrain, defined in this rule. because of a recent ruling by the U.S. with certain exceptions that are not In addition to this evidence that the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) relevant to this discussion. Although e- Executive Order was not intended to that e-bikes are to be grouped with low- bikes are ‘‘motorized’’ in the literal apply to e-bikes, the NPS believes that powered (less than 1kW) electric sense because they have a small electric it is appropriate to exclude e-bikes from motorcycles for purposes of excluding motor, the NPS does not believe that the requirements of the Executive Order them from a 25% tariff imposed by the they were intended to be regulated as because e-bikes do not cause the kinds Trump Administration on products ‘‘off-road vehicles’’ under the Executive of impacts that the Executive Order was imported from China. Order, to the extent they were even intended to mitigate. For example, e- NPS Response: This rule revises 36 considered for inclusion. bikes have an electric motor which at CFR 1.4 to make clear that e-bikes are The first sentence of the Executive most emits a low steady whine when not regulated as ‘‘motor vehicles’’ under Order identifies the types of vehicles engaged, rather than an internal NPS regulations, including the that were of concern in 1972— combustion engine capable of regulations in 36 CFR 4.10 that govern ‘‘motorcycles, minibikes, trial bikes, generating much louder noise. the use of ORVs. As a result, the use of snowmobiles, dune-buggies, all-terrain Therefore, e-bikes are not likely to cause e-bikes is not subject to the restrictions vehicles, and others.’’ Although this list the sort of sound-related impacts that that apply to the designation of ORV is not exhaustive, the devices that were would result in harm to wildlife routes and areas in 36 CFR 4.10. The named in almost all cases used internal behavioral patterns or create conflicts fact that e-bikes have a small electric combustion engines for power, rather with visitors seeking a natural and quiet motors does not compel the NPS to than an electric motor, and none relied experience, factors that the Executive define or regulate them in the same on the rider pedaling the vehicle to Order requires the agencies to consider manner as motor vehicles that in the provide most of the power to the when permitting off-road vehicles. vast majority of cases are larger, heavier, vehicle. For these reasons, e-bikes are Although the NPS acknowledges that and powered by internal combustion inherently different than the types of the effects of noise on wildlife differ engines that output much more than 1 ‘‘off-road vehicles’’ listed under the across taxonomic groups and that hp. The NPS is free to exclude e-bikes Executive Order. reactions to sound are different for every from the regulatory definition of ‘‘motor Further, e-bikes were not identified visitor, the use of e-bikes as defined in vehicles’’ and manage them separately anywhere in the Executive Order and this rule is not expected to degrade the as it has previously done with for good reason. Although e-bike quietude in an unacceptable manner snowmobiles. The fact that a majority of prototypes were developed as far back above and beyond the use of traditional states have adopted regulatory schemes as the 19th century, the technological bicycles. During the NPS’s review of the for e-bikes that are separate from advances needed to popularize them, current literature, the NPS did not find regulations applying to motor vehicles such as torque motors and power any studies measuring the decibels supports the NPS making the same controls, were not developed until the generated from e-bike motors or distinction in its regulations. Rulings mid-1990s. In 1979, after the Executive components. Nevertheless, because the from the CPB about the imposition of Order was amended by President Carter, noise produced by an e-bike comes from tariffs on foreign products imported into the Council for Environmental Quality either the sound of the tire on the road the United States are not relevant to (CEQ) issued a report entitled ‘‘Off-Road or trail, or the electric motor when it is how the NPS manages visitor use Vehicles on Public Land.’’ The report engaged, the sound levels that comes activities in park areas, including the discusses the requirements of the from traditional and electric bikes are use of e-bikes. Executive Order in great detail and reasonably similar. Also, unlike all the 7. Comment: Several commenters evaluates efforts undertaken by federal vehicles listed in the Executive Order, e- questioned whether the NPS has the land management agencies to comply bikes do not emit exhaust that could authority to create an exception to with its requirements. E-bikes are not impact air quality and the health of Executive Order 11644 (Use of off-road mentioned anywhere in the report. The nearby users. vehicles on the public lands) by preface of the report acknowledges that Also, a review of available models promulgating this rule, which the inclusion of snowmobiles in the shows that e-bikes are generally much authorizes superintendents to allow definition of ‘‘off-road vehicle’’ was lighter than even the lightest off-road

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 69180 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

vehicle listed in the Executive Order, NPS Response: The Act cited by the recreation that are compatible with a which limits their potential damage to commenter is codified at 54 U.S.C. quiet and natural environment. natural resources in the form of soil 100502(3) and requires that general NPS Response: The NPS agrees that compaction and erosion. A typical e- management plans for each unit of the park resources must be protected and bike model weighs about 45–50 pounds, National Park System include user conflicts should be avoided where which is only slightly heavier than a ‘‘identification of and implementation e-bikes are allowed. However, this rule typical traditional bicycle at 30–35 commitments for visitor carrying does not mandate the use of e-bikes in pounds. In comparison, minibikes, capacities for all areas of the System any park area. This rule establishes a which are the lightest off-road vehicle unit.’’ NPS Management Policies define general framework that can be used by listed in the Executive Order, weigh an ‘‘carrying capacity’’ as the ‘‘use that can superintendents to allow e-bikes on average of 115–130 pounds. Typical be accommodated while sustaining the designated roads and trails where trial bikes weigh about 145 pounds and desired resource and visitor experience traditional bicycles are already allowed. motorcycles typically weigh 300–400 conditions in the park.’’ Setting and Existing NPS regulations require a pounds. A recent study conducted by staying within carrying capacities can robust evaluation of the potential the International Mountain Biking be a useful tool for superintendents to impacts that traditional bicycles would Association measured relative levels of help ensure that park uses do not cause have on designated trails before they soil displacement and erosion resulting unacceptable impacts to park resources can be allowed. See 36 CFR 4.30(d) and from traditional, non-motorized and values. (e). The addition of e-bikes on roads or mountain bikes, e-bikes, and gasoline- This rule does not require any of these trails is subject to the powered dirt bikes and found that soil superintendents to allow e-bikes in the discretion of the superintendent who is displacement and tread disturbance park areas they manage, it simply required by policy to consider the from e-bikes and traditional, non- authorizes them to do so on roads and impacts that a new park use such as e- motorized mountain bikes were not trails where traditional bicycles are also bikes would have on park resources and significantly different, and both were allowed. The NPS operates under the visitor experience. NPS Management much less than those associated with assumption that any decision made by Policies clearly state that in using gasoline-powered dirt bikes. Although a park superintendent will comply with discretionary authority, superintendents this study focused on the impacts from applicable laws and policies and be will allow only uses that are appropriate Class 1 e-bikes, the impacts from Class consistent with applicable general to the purpose for which the park was established and can be sustained 2 and 3 e-bikes would not be management plans. The NPS expects without causing unacceptable impacts. substantially different, especially given that park superintendents will evaluate Superintendents may not allow e-bikes the prohibition on using the throttle to whether the addition of e-bikes would if doing so would impair a park’s power a Class 2 e-bike without pedaling affect visitor carrying capacities for an extended period of time and resources, values, or purposes. identified in general management plans Existing studies about the relative applicable speed limits on trails. or other planning documents, together Additionally, this rule authorizes e-bike impact between traditional bicycles and with all other factors that would inform e-bikes demonstrate that impacts from e- use only on roads and trails designated whether the use of e-bikes is appropriate by the superintendent and does not bikes are similar to impacts from or not. authorize cross-country use of e-bikes traditional bicycles notwithstanding which thus mitigates the impacts that 9. Comment: Many commenters raised some disparities associated with visitor the Executive Order was intended to concerns about the potential impacts e- safety that the NPS believes can be address regarding direct over-land bikes would have on park resources and mitigated if necessary by the travel. the visitor experience. Several superintendent at the park level. For Finally, distinguishing e-bikes from commenters stated that e-bikes would example, one study, Comparison of other motor vehicles is consistent with cause greater cumulative impacts to the environmental impacts from MTB-Class the fact that e-bikes are not considered natural environment than are caused by 1 eMTB, and motorcycles: soil to be motor vehicles under 49 U.S.C. traditional bicycles due to their ability displacement and erosion on bike- 30102, are not subject to regulation by to travel longer distances with more gear optimized trails in a Western Oregon National Highway Traffic Safety into more remote and undisturbed areas. Forest, IMBA Trail Solutions (2016), Administration, and are regulated Commenters cited the potential for found that impacts from Class 1 eMTBs similar to non-motorized bicycles by the disturbing wildlife, grooving and were similar to traditional mountain U.S. Consumer Product Safety erosion of ground surfaces, degradation bicycles, while motorcycles led to much Commission (CPSC). For these reasons, of sensitive plant habitats, and negative greater soil displacement and erosion. the NPS does not believe that Executive impacts on geological features and The study found that an emerging body Order 11644 was intended to or should cultural and archeological sites. Other of research suggests that when it comes be applied to e-bikes. commenters stated that e-bikes would to impacts to soils, water quality, and 8. Comment: One commenter stated create safety risks for certain riders who vegetation, the primary issue is not the that the rule fails to consider whether could travel into more remote areas and type of user, but the way the trail is the addition of e-bikes to park areas will through more challenging terrain than designed and constructed. Therefore, affect visitor carrying capacities that are would be possible with traditional the NPS does not expect the addition of required to be established for each NPS bicycles. Safety concerns were also e-bikes to cause significant additional unit under the National Parks and raised about the speed of e-bikes, in erosion on trails or degradation of plant Recreation Act of 1978 and must be particular on single-track, winding trails habitats. considered by the superintendent when with limited sight lines, and the Additionally, a review of available evaluating new recreational uses of park increased potential for accidents and literature by Boulder County, Colorado areas under NPS Management Policies, conflicts with other trail users, such as concluded that all forms of recreation specifically sections 8.2 (Visitor Use), hikers and horseback riders. According may have some negative impacts to 8.2.1 (Visitor Carrying Capacity); and to some commenters, adding e-bikes to wildlife habitat and behavior, but there 8.2.2.1 (Management of Recreational shared trails would cause overcrowding is little research to suggest that e-bikes Use). and marginalize other forms of have greater negative impacts on trails

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69181

or wildlife than regular bikes and NPS Response: The CPSC is presence; and (5) engaging in and mountain bikes. See Boulder County E- responsible for evaluating and making incurring liability from search and bike Pilot Study Results and Policy recommendations about electrical safety rescue activities caused by visitors Recommendation, 2019. Another study standards for consumer products traveling beyond their ability level into of the impacts of motorized and manufactured and sold in the United more remote and challenging terrain. nonmotorized recreation on elk in States. E-bike manufacturers are NPS Response: The NPS Eastern Oregon, USFS. Seeking ground required to comply with mandatory acknowledges that there will be costs less traveled: Elk responses to recreation standards set by the CPCS. The NPS associated with the management of e- (2009), found that all recreation uses defers to the expertise held by the CPSC bikes within the National Park System, impacted ungulate behavior, but that for setting safety standards associated including those cited by the ATV use was most disruptive to elk with the electrical systems used in e- commenters. To help avoid situations compared to mountain biking, hiking, bikes and for this reason declines to where superintendents do not have the and horseback riding. NPS does not require the UL 2849 standard for e-bikes resources to properly manage e-bikes, expect e-bike use to have a significantly used in park areas. If the use of e-bikes this rule does not mandate the use of e- larger impact to wildlife behavior in park areas results in unforeseen bikes anywhere in the National Park compared to traditional bicycles. safety issues or threats to natural System. It gives superintendents to Regarding visitor safety and user resources, the rule allows discretion to allow them where they are conflicts, as stated above, e-bikes will superintendents to restrict or stop the appropriate. NPS Management Policies only be authorized on roads and trails use of e-bikes until such risks can be Section 8.1.2 requires superintendents where traditional bicycles are already properly addressed. This is consistent to consider total costs to the NPS when allowed. These trails have undergone with NPS Management Policies Section evaluating whether a proposed park use rigorous analysis to ensure that hikers 8.1.2 which requires superintendents to is appropriate. In the event that and bicyclists can safely share the trail further manage, constrain or accidents or injuries occur as a result of without causing visitor conflicts. The discontinue park uses that cause or in conjunction with e-bike use, addition of e-bikes would not unanticipated and unacceptable impacts liability, if any, would be determined in significantly alter this analysis. First, all revealed through monitoring. accordance with applicable laws, which cyclists must follow applicable speed 11. Comment: Several commenters may include the Federal Tort Claims limits for trails which negates many of stated that the introduction of e-bikes Act. the concerns about e-bikes’ faster speed will require the NPS to undergo a 13. Comment: Several commenters capabilities. In addition, the terrain and substantial revision of existing sign questioned whether aspects of the rule slope of some trails provides a natural standards to clearly identify where e- would be difficult to enforce, in limitation to the speed at which a bikes are allowed, and further which particular the prohibition on using the cyclist can reasonably move. Further, classes are allowed. One commenter throttle to move the e-bike without although some studies showed average recommended that the NPS maintain a pedaling that applies only to Class 2 e- riding speeds on electric mountain bikes trail sign standard with allowable use bikes. Commenters also questioned are slightly faster than conventional demarcations to depict traditional whether NPS law enforcement officers mountain bikes, other studies found bicycles and e-bikes independently. would be able to differentiate between that, perhaps counterintuitively, average NPS Response: The NPS agrees that e-bikes and traditional bicycles, and e-bike speeds were less than average the successful introduction of e-bikes classes of e-bikes in circumstances conventional bike speeds which may into park areas depends upon clear and where a superintendent has prohibited reflect the slightly older demographics consistent communication to the public certain classes of e-bikes in particular of e-bike riders, and that differences in about where e-bikes are allowed, and locations. Commenters emphasized that speed between e-bikes and bicycles are further which classes are allowed. The these enforcement challenges would be most pronounced on the uphill segment NPS is working with the other land exacerbated by potential violations of a trip. (Hall et. al. 2019; Langford, management agencies within the occurring at high speeds and in remote Cherry et al. 2017). Department of the Interior to establish locations. The rule also makes clear that standard signs for e-bikes. E-bikes will NPS Response: The NPS superintendents have the authority to have symbols that are distinct from acknowledges that the aspects of the modify, restrict, or discontinue e-bike those used to depict traditional bicycles. rule cited by the commenters may pose use if it creates concerns about public The goal of this effort is to create a certain enforcement challenges. health and safety or the protection of consistent visual framework indicating However, those challenges are not natural or cultural resources. For these where e-bikes are allowed on public unique. They regularly arise in the reasons, the NPS does not believe that lands managed by the Department of the context of enforcing laws that govern e-bikes will cause unacceptable impacts Interior. recreational use of park areas. For in parks. 12. Comment: Several commenters example, regulations governing use of 10. Comment: One commenter raised questioned whether the NPS has the off-road vehicles at 36 CFR 4.10 prohibit a concern about the safety of the financial resources to properly manage operation of an off-road vehicle in a electrical systems used in e-bikes, in the use of e-bikes under this rule given manner that causes unreasonable particular the risk that e-bike batteries the preexisting backlog of deferred damage to the surface of a park road or could malfunction, combust, and spark maintenance projects in the National route. Determining when a violation of wildfires. This commenter Park System. Commenters cited costs this regulation occurs can be fact- recommended that the NPS require that associated with: (1) Installing and specific, requiring the exercise of e-bikes be certified to the UL 2849 maintaining signage to identify where e- specialized judgment on the part of law electric system safety standard in order bikes are allowed; (2) improving trail enforcement officers. Similarly, to help ensure the safety of e-bikes and infrastructure to accommodate e-bikes determining whether a violation of the reduce the likelihood of a catastrophic (e.g., trail widening, lane marking, prohibition on extended use of throttle wildfire resulting from the use of an e- parking facilities); (3) repairing trail power without pedaling occurs will bike that does not have a properly damage from the use from e-bikes; (4) involve the exercise of specialized skill, managed electrical system. ensuring an adequate law enforcement training, and judgment by law

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 69182 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

enforcement officers. Based on its only power may be appropriate and sufficient to prevent technological experience enforcing other regulations useful in limited duration. This could advancements from allowing devices that condition how the public recreates be the case in particular for park visitors that qualify as e-bikes to behave like on public lands, the NPS believes that who use e-bikes as to access and enjoy motorcycles or other motor vehicles in law enforcement officers have the park areas in a manner that would not a manner that represents a significant expertise necessary to properly exercise be possible with traditional bicycles. In departure from the types of devices that their discretion to enforce the limited duration, the throttle could be fall within the NPS definition of an limitations on how Class 2 e-bikes may used without pedaling to get started, for ‘‘electric bicycle’’ today. be used in a reasonable manner that a quick burst of power to climb a hill, 17. Comment: Several commenters ensures protection of public health, or to move safely through an asked the NPS to limit the discretion safety, and resources and users of the intersection. In order to more precisely given to superintendents in this rule to public lands. The NPS has also tailor this restriction on the use of Class determine where e-bikes may be used, modified the regulatory text to make 2 e-bikes, the NPS has revised the final and which classes may be used, within clear that using the throttle on a Class rule to only prohibit the use of throttle- the NPS units they administer. Here are 2 e-bike without pedaling is only only power for an extended period of some of the ways these commenters prohibited if it is done for an extended time. This change will allow riders of proposed to categorically manage the period of time. This will help law Class 2 e-bikes to benefit from throttle- use of e-bikes: enforcement officials focus only on the only power for limited durations while • Prohibit the use of Class 2 and 3 e- more egregious cases of users using the ensuring that e-bike use, where allowed, bikes on non-motorized trails where throttle to move Class 2 e-bikes without will continue to be used in a manner traditional bicycles are allowed. pedaling. that is consistent with traditional, non- • Allow Class 1 e-bikes on With respect to differentiating among motorized bicycles. Due to this change administrative roads and improved traditional bicycles and e-bikes, and in the final rule, the NPS declines to surface trails, but not single-track trails. among classes of e-bikes, the NPS notes adopt the proposal to require riders of • Allow Class 2 e-bikes only on that 28 states require e-bikes to have a Class 2 e-bikes to disable the throttle- administrative roads. label that displays the class, top assisted only function. • Allow Class 3 e-bikes only in speed, and power outlet of the electric 15. Comment: One commenter locations open to public motor vehicle motor. Some e-bikes can be suggested that the NPS revise the traffic. differentiated from traditional bicycles definition of ‘‘electric bicycles’’ to • Prohibit Class 2 and 3 e-bikes on by simple observation. In other cases, include a requirement that the device natural surface trails. the NPS expects that its law have a seat or saddle for the rider so that • Prohibit the use of three-wheeled e- enforcement officers will use their e-bikes are distinguished from other cycles with a combined tire tread width specialized skill, training, and judgment types of electric mobility devices that wider than 15 inches on trails where to enforce this requirement even if the are designed to be stood upon, such as traditional bicycles are allowed. e-bike is not labeled through e-scooters. • Prohibit e-bikes on any trails that observation of riding behaviors, NPS Response: The NPS believes that do not already allow motorized use, questioning, or other means of the requirement in the definition that e- which would eliminate all trails from investigation. Identifying violations of bikes have ‘‘fully operable pedals’’ is consideration except for ORV and NPS regulations that occur at speed is sufficient to distinguish e-bikes from snowmobile routes. not a novel challenge for NPS law other mobility devices with electric • Prohibit e-bikes on trails with enforcement officers. These individuals motors. groomed snow that are also used by are tasked on a daily basis with 16. Comment: One commenter over-snow vehicles. enforcing speed limits and equipment questioned the effectiveness of • Allow e-bikes only on paved trails. and operational requirements for the use requirement in the definition of • Prohibit Class 2 e-bikes on all of motor vehicles and vessels used ‘‘electric bicycle’’ that the electric motor improved surface and shared use trails within remote park areas. See, for produce no more than 750 watts of open to traditional bicycles due to their example, 36 CFR parts 3 and 4. power. This commenter noted that e- throttle-only capabilities. 14. Comment: Several commenters bike manufacturers are offering multi- • Allow Class 1 e-bikes anywhere suggested changes to the requirement in speed transmissions that increase the traditional bicycles are allowed without the proposed rule that except where use efficiency of the motor, which means any requirement that those locations be of motor vehicles by the public is that the speed of e-bikes is less a designated by the superintendent. allowed, using the electric motor to function of the size of the motor than NPS Response: The varied and move an e-bike without pedaling is the number of gears and gear ratios. diverse approaches suggested by the prohibited. One commenter NPS Response: The NPS appreciates commenters demonstrates how difficult recommended that the NPS remove this that the technology used in e-bikes is it would be to establish categorical rules requirement in order to allow riders to likely to continue to evolve at a rapid for where e-bikes may be used in park take advantage of the throttle-only pace, and that the electric motors and areas at the national level. The capabilities of Class 2 e-bikes on e-bike batteries will become more efficient framework in this rule establishes lanes and paths where such use is over time. The advancements in sensible sideboards for the use of e- appropriate. Another commenter noted transmission described by the bikes by: (1) Adopting a commonly used that Class 2 e-bikes often have a commenter may increase the state-adopted definition of ‘‘electric function that allows the rider to disable acceleration rate of e-bikes but cannot bicycle’’ that limits motor size and top the throttle-only capability and that the increase the top assisted speed beyond assisted speed; (2) restricting e-bikes to rule should require that this be disabled 20 mph (for Class 1 and 2 e-bikes) or 28 roads and trails where traditional as a better regulatory alternative to mph (for Class 3 e-bikes) without bicycles are allowed; and (3) ensuring prevent throttle-only use. transforming the device into a motor that e-bikes are used like traditional NPS Response: The NPS vehicle for purposes of NPS regulations. bicycles by prohibiting the extended use acknowledges that there may be The NPS believes that the limitations on of Class 2 e-bikes with throttle-only situations where the use of the throttle- top assisted speed and power output are power. Further restricting the discretion

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69183

of superintendents to determine on paved and unpaved trails. The NPS e-bike use that make referencing whether e-bikes should be allowed does not think this is necessary because regulations elsewhere in part 4 could prevent visitors from using e- the reference to ‘‘trails’’ in the rule unnecessary. For example, paragraph bikes to access and enjoy park areas without any qualifier means either type (i)(6) of this rule adopts and applies without any opportunity to evaluate of trail. non-conflicting state law to the use of e- whether such use is appropriate. For 18. Comment: One commenter bikes which makes applying section 4.2 example, categorically prohibiting e- questioned whether the prohibition in (State law applicable) or paragraphs bikes on trails that are not ORV or the rule of possessing an electric bicycle 4.30(g)(2) and (h)(6) unnecessary. snowmobile routes runs counter to in a wilderness area established by Another example is paragraph (i)(4) of evidence identified in previous Federal statute would prevent the this rule which prohibits possessing an responses to comments suggesting that transport of e-bikes mounted on motor electric bicycle in a wilderness area. impacts from e-bikes are more like vehicles through wilderness areas. This makes applying paragraph impacts from traditional bicycles than Another commenter stated that the NPS 4.30(h)(2) to the use of e-bikes motor vehicles. should allow e-bikes in wilderness unnecessary. Superintendents are most familiar because they are quieter and otherwise 21. Comment: One commenter with the natural and cultural resources, have less impacts that horses. addressed the topic of adopting non- operating budgets, and visitor use NPS Response: The use of motor conflicting state law. This commenter patterns in a park area, and therefore are vehicles is prohibited in wilderness recommended that the NPS adopt non- in the best position to determine areas designated under the Wilderness conflicting state law in order to avoid whether e-bikes, or specific classes of e- Act, whether or not they are confusing the public by a situation bikes, should be allowed on roads or transporting e-bikes. 16 U.S.C. 1133(c). where the NPS would allow more trails where traditional bicycles are The Wilderness Act also prohibits other liberal (i.e., less restrictive) use of e- allowed. The rule provides forms of mechanical transport, a term bikes in park areas than would superintendents with the flexibility to that includes e-bikes, leaving the NPS otherwise be allowed by the state. This parse and delineate the exact type of e- with no authority to allow e-bikes in commenter also suggested a minor edit bike use, if any, that is most appropriate wilderness areas designated under the to paragraph (i)(6) that would refer to in a park area. Taking just some of the Act. 16 U.S.C. 1133(c). the regulations in 36 CFR chapter I as examples raised by the commenters, if 19. Comment: One commenter stated controlling over state law, instead of the the top assisted speed of Class 3 e-bikes that e-bikes should only be allowed if current reference to the regulations in would cause unacceptable safety their use will not impede or result in the section 4.30. This would ensure that the concerns on a particular trail, the elimination of access for traditional NPS definitions of ‘‘electric bicycle’’ superintendent can prohibit Class 3 e- bicycles. and ‘‘motor vehicle’’, which appear in bikes on that trail. If a single-track trail NPS Response: This rule authorizes 36 CFR 1, control in the event of is too narrow to accommodate the width superintendents to allow e-bikes only conflicting state definitions. of three-wheeled e-bikes without on roads and trails where traditional NPS Response: Paragraph (i)(6) of the causing unacceptable impacts to natural bicycles are allowed. Superintendents rule adopts non-conflicting state law resources, the superintendent can may not designate a road or trail for e- and applies it to the use of e-bikes in prohibit those types of e-bikes on that bike use and then subsequently prohibit park areas. This means that to the extent trail. If allowing e-bikes on groomed the use of traditional bicycles in that the superintendent has designated trails used by snowmobiles would location. locations for e-bike use that conflict create unacceptable safety concerns or 20. Comment: One commenter asked with what the state allows, the user conflicts, the superintendent can the NPS to clarify why certain superintendent’s designations would prohibit that use. If allowing Class 2 e- regulations in 36 CFR part 4 that apply control. Regardless of which authority bikes on a single-track trail would cause to traditional bicycles do not apply to e- (NPS or state) is more liberal about the unacceptable user conflicts or safety bikes under the rule. In particular, the use of e-bikes, the NPS rule will control issues due to their throttle-only commenter asked the NPS to explain in park areas. In an opposite example to capabilities (even when used only for why 36 CFR 4.30(h)(1) does not apply the one raised by the commenter, if the short durations), then the to e-bikes. state allows e-bikes on unpaved trails, superintendent could allow Class 2 e- NPS Response: 36 CFR 4.30(h)(1) but the superintendent has not bikes only on administrative roads that prohibits riding a traditional bicycle off designated unpaved trails in the park for are sufficiently wide to accommodate park roads and parking areas, except on e-bike use, then e-bikes would not be that type of traffic. administrative roads and trails that have allowed on unpaved trails in the park. In response to a suggestion from one been authorized for bicycle use. This Visitor use of park areas should not be commenter, the NPS has clarified in the rule contains its own provisions about determined by the state. That is why final rule that the superintendent may where e-bikes may be used. Applying where state law is adopted elsewhere in decide to allow only specific classes of paragraph 4.30(h)(1) to the use of e- NPS regulations, it applies only to the e-bikes in certain locations. This was bikes would suggest that e-bikes are extent there is no conflict with NPS always the intent of the rule and is part allowed everywhere traditional bicycles regulations. The NPS declines to adopt of the reason why the NPS used a are allowed. This would not be accurate a regulatory framework where it would definition of ‘‘electric bicycle’’ that under this rule, which requires defer entirely to the state on matters of distinguishes between classes. The NPS superintendents to take an visitor use, even if that deference would agrees with this commenter that the administrative action to designate roads only occur if visitor use is more type of power activation and top and trails where traditional bicycles are restricted by the state. This would be an assisted speed that distinguish the three allowed for e-bike use, before e-bikes are abdication of the NPS’s legal classes necessitate a more granular level allowed in those locations. Similar responsibility to manage visitor use and of decision making and allowances explanations exist for why other enjoyment of the National Park System. based on individual classes. Another provisions in part 4 apply to traditional The NPS appreciates the suggestion commenter requested that the NPS state bicycles but not to e-bikes—namely, that by the commenter to refer to ‘‘this in the rule that e-bikes may be allowed this rule contains its own provisions for chapter’’ in paragraph (i)(6) for the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 69184 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

reasons stated by the commenter and seniors to use all classes of e-bikes on context of the park and were designed has made this change in the final rule. roads and trails open to traditional prior to modern design guidelines and 22. Comment: One commenter bicycles. standards. If trail widening is not suggested that the rule should allow e- NPS Response: The NPS appreciates possible or is not an immediate bikes anywhere traditional bicycles are that the propulsion assistance offered by solution, there are other options allowed unless the superintendent e-bikes can provide particular benefits superintendents can implement to help closes a location to the use of e-bikes. to park visitors with physical alleviate potential trail conflicts, NPS Response: The ‘‘open unless limitations, including seniors. The NPS crowding, or resource and visitor closed’’ regulatory framework suggested expects that superintendents will impacts. In 2018, the NPS published an by the commenter would allow e-bikes consider all potential benefits and costs Active Transportation Guidebook to on roads and trails across the National when they evaluate whether to allow e- support walking and bicycling in park Park System without any opportunity bikes in a park area under this rule. It areas. This Guidebook provides for superintendents to evaluate whether would not be prudent, however, to references to national design standards they are an appropriate use of park require superintendents to allow seniors and guidelines for multi-use trail areas. This would place a substantial to use all classes of e-bikes in all widths, which is consistent with the burden on superintendents to close locations open to traditional bicycles, guidelines cited by the commenter. The roads and trails to the use of e-bikes in without any opportunity to first Active Transportation Guidebook also order to stop unacceptable impacts to evaluate whether that would cause states that superintendents should resources and visitor experience that unacceptable impacts, visitor conflicts, assess routes, on a trail-by-trail basis, to would begin to occur immediately upon or safety concerns—for both the senior determine whether e-bikes are the effective date of this rule. It would riders and other park visitors. appropriate by considering speed and also require the NPS on a national level 25. Comment: Several commenters safety, trail width and use-volume for to try and evaluate the potential impacts suggested that the NPS establish annual accommodation of additional users, trail from e-bike use across the National Park registration, licensing, and insurance surface, and soil conditions. The NPS System under applicable policy and law requirements for the use of e-bikes in appreciates the documents cited by the prior to the rule becoming effective. park areas. commenter and will include them in a With more than 400 units making up the NPS Response: The NPS believes that working inventory of resources that National Park System, each containing rules about registration, licensing, and superintendents can use to evaluate the unique and dynamic administrative insurance should be determined by the appropriateness of e-bikes on particular capabilities, values, resources, and states, which are more experienced and trails. At this time, the NPS does not visitor use patterns, a programmatic equipped to implement such have the resources available to evaluation of these impacts would be requirements. Creating a separate set of undertake a systematic inventory and impracticable. The NPS prefers the federal requirements would be overly evaluation of all trails across the ‘‘closed unless open’’ approach in this burdensome and create potential National Park System. The NPS believes rule that requires superintendents to confusion with the visiting public. The a more prudent approach is to allow take an affirmative action by designating rule allows the NPS to enforce whatever superintendents to make those a road or trail for e-bike use before they requirements are established by the state suitability determinations on a trail-by- are allowed. This approach will allow under paragraph (i)(6) which adopts trail basis at the park level when the superintendents to evaluate whether a non-conflicting state law and applies it need arises. location is appropriate for e-bike use in to the use of e-bikes in park areas. 27. Comment: One commenter asked accordance with the policy guidance 26. Comment: One commenter the NPS to address whether e-bikes can discussed above and the legal suggested the NPS undertake a or should be given a special requirements (e.g. National systematic inventory and evaluation of accommodation as an ‘‘other power- Environmental Policy Act) discussed all existing bicycle trail assets within driven mobility device’’ (OPDMD) below. the National Park System to ensure they under U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) 23. Comment: One commenter asked are designed to safely accommodate the regulations implementing the why the rule does not prohibit devices use of e-bikes. The commenter refers the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. with electric motors that output more NPS to the American Association of In particular, the commenter asked the than 750 watts of power. State Highway Transportation Officials NPS to address a scenario where a rider NPS Response: A device with an (AASHTO) Guide for the Development provides credible assurance that an e- electric motor that outputs more than of Bicycle Facilities and the American bike is used because of a disability, 750 watts of power will not qualify as Trails Shared Use Path Design which is the standard established by an e-bike under the definition of guidelines, both of which recommend DOJ Guidance on ‘‘Wheelchairs, ‘‘electric bicycle’’ in this rule. As a that the paved tread on shared use paths Mobility Aids, and Other Power-Driven result, the superintendent will lack to should be at least 10 ft wide, with a Mobility Devices’’ for whether a authority to allow those types of devices graded shoulder at least 2 ft wide on particular type of OPDMD can be on roads and trails open to traditional either side of the path. On shared use accommodated. bicycles under this rule. Such devices paths with heavy volumes of users, the NPS Response: This rule does not will fall under the definition of ‘‘motor commenter states that tread width address whether persons with vehicle’’ and be regulated as such. As a should be between 12 ft to 14 ft and disabilities may use e-bikes as a result, it would not be appropriate to that, in all cases, shared use paths reasonable accommodation on NPS ban them as the commenter suggests. should not exceed a grade of 5%. facilities, including paths, trails, and This analysis is true of any device that NPS Response: The NPS agrees that roadways. Determining if a person with fails to meet the criteria in the definition superintendents should carefully a disability can use an e-bike as an of ‘‘electric bicycle’’—including devices consider the context and characteristics OPDMD requires the same analysis as with a top assisted speed greater than 28 of existing bicycle trails that are being any other OPDMD. Credible assurance is mph or without operable pedals. considered for e-bike use. Many NPS not the only factor used in this analysis. 24. Comment: One commenter multiuse trails are significant to the The DOJ guidance cited by the suggested that the rule should allow historical, cultural, or environmental commenter requires a series of factors to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69185

be considered. These factors include, instance notice-and-comment and least burdensome tools for but are not limited to, the type and rulemaking or the specific planning achieving regulatory ends. The speed of the device, the facility’s processes and environmental executive order directs agencies to volume of pedestrian traffic, the compliance measures that may have consider regulatory approaches that facility’s design and operational been required when traditional bicycles reduce burdens and maintain flexibility characteristics, whether safe operation were allowed in the first place. and freedom of choice for the public of the device is feasible, and whether Superintendents are required by NEPA where these approaches are relevant, the use of the device creates a to evaluate the impacts of any decision feasible, and consistent with regulatory substantial risk of serious harm to the to allow e-bikes and the pathway of objectives. Executive Order 13563 immediate environment or natural or compliance will be tailored to the emphasizes further that regulations cultural resources. Park superintendents circumstances of each decision. must be based on the best available or their designees with assistance from Superintendents are encouraged to science and that the rulemaking process the NPS Accessibility Program will engage with the public prior to allowing must allow for public participation and make these determinations on a case-by- e-bikes so that they can better an open exchange of ideas. The NPS has case basis. The NPS Accessibility understand potential impacts to developed this rule in a manner Program can be reached via email at resources and visitors, support for, and consistent with these requirements. [email protected]. controversy associated with, allowing e- Reducing Regulation and Controlling 28. Comment: Several commenters bikes. Regulatory Costs (Executive Order suggested changes to the process for The use of e-bikes is not the type of 13771). designating bicycle trails for e-bike use. visitor use that would justify the One commenter recommended the NPS regulatory and administrative burdens Enabling regulations are considered require notice-and-comment rulemaking associated with a permit requirement. deregulatory under guidance prior to allowing e-bikes outside of As long as the superintendent has implementing E.O. 13771 (M–17–21). developed areas in order to ensure there determined that a location is This rule addresses regulatory is a full opportunity for public appropriate for e-bike use, visitors will uncertainty regarding the use of electric participation and review of such be free to use e-bikes in that location bicycles in the National Park System by decisions. Another commenter subject to the prescriptions in this rule. clearly stating that they may be used suggested that e-bikes be allowed on 29. Commenter: One commenter where traditional bicycles are allowed non-motorized bicycle trails only after stated that decisions to close a location when designated by the superintendent. the NPS undergoes the same planning or otherwise restrict the use of e-bikes Regulatory Flexibility Act and decision-making process that was under the superintendent’s required by NPS regulations before discretionary authority in paragraph This rule will not have a significant allowing traditional bicycles on those (i)(7) of the rule should be subject to economic effect on a substantial number trails. Another commenter suggested compliance with NEPA and the rule of small entities under the Regulatory that e-bikes be allowed only for those should state that as an affirmative Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). who need motorized assistance and then requirement. This certification is based on only by permit. NPS Response: The NPS requires that information contained in the economic NPS Response: NPS regulations superintendents act in accordance with analyses found in the report entitled promulgated in 1987 required the NPS applicable law and policy. This is true ‘‘Draft Cost-Benefit and Regulatory to issue a special regulation, specific to in every case whether or not this Flexibility Threshold Analyses: the individual NPS unit, if bicycles requirement is stated explicitly. If a Proposed Regulations Addressing the were to be used outside of developed decision to close or otherwise restrict Designation of Electric Bicycle Use in areas. The NPS adopted this special the use of e-bikes warrants a compliance Units of the National Park System’’. The regulation requirement to ensure measure be taken under NEPA or under report is available on maximum public input on decisions to any other applicable law or policy, the www.regulations.gov in Docket ID: NPS– allow traditional bicycles outside of superintendent must take that measure. 2020–0001. developed areas. In 2012, the NPS This does not need to be affirmatively revised the process for allowing bicycles Small Business Regulatory Enforcement to focus on park planning and stated in the rule for it to be required. Fairness Act environmental compliance under the Compliance With Other Laws, This rule is not a major rule under 5 National Environmental Policy Act Executive Orders and Department U.S.C. 804(2). This rule: (NEPA), rather than the special Policy (a) Does not have an annual effect on rulemaking process. See 77 FR 39927. Regulatory Planning and Review the economy of $100 million or more. NPS regulations still require notice-and- (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563) (b) Will not cause a major increase in comment rulemaking to allow bicycles costs or prices for consumers, on new trails outside of developed Executive Order 12866 provides that individual industries, Federal, State, or areas. As discussed above, the thorough the Office of Information and Regulatory local government agencies, or process in today’s bicycle regulations at Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of geographic regions. 36 CFR 4.30 ensure that traditional Management and Budget will review all (c) Does not have significant adverse bicycles are allowed in park areas only significant rules. The OIRA has effects on competition, employment, where the impacts of such use have determined that the final rule is not a investment, productivity, innovation, or been thoroughly considered. Based on significant regulatory action as defined the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to the available studies, the NPS believes by Executive Order 12866. compete with foreign-based enterprises. that incremental impacts from e-bike Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the use in a particular location would not be principles of E.O. 12866 while calling Unfunded Mandates Reform Act substantially different than already for improvements in the nation’s This rule does not impose an occurring impacts from traditional regulatory system to promote unfunded mandate on State, local, or bicycles. For this reason, the NPS does predictability, to reduce uncertainty, tribal governments or the private sector not find it necessary to require in every and to use the best, most innovative, of more than $100 million per year. The

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 69186 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

rule does not have a significant or Management and Budget under the themselves to meaningful analysis and unique effect on State, local or tribal Paperwork Reduction Act is not the environmental effects of allowing e- governments or the private sector. It required. The NPS may not conduct or bikes in specific parks will be or have addresses public use of national park sponsor and you are not required to already been subject to NEPA analysis lands, and imposes no requirements on respond to a collection of information on a park-by-park basis. Each park unit other agencies or governments. A unless it displays a currently valid OMB has its own enabling legislation, unique statement containing the information control number. resources that must be protected, and required by the Unfunded Mandates specific circumstances related to visitor National Environmental Policy Act of Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not use, trails, and bicycles use that must be 1969 required. considered prior to determining Categorical Exclusion Applies whether e-bike use should be allowed. Takings (Executive Order 12630) This rule does not constitute a major Also, the regulation allows park This rule does not effect a taking of superintendents to designate the Federal action significantly affecting the private property or otherwise have specific roads and trails that e-bikes quality of the human environment. A takings implications under Executive may be allowed on, and authorizes them detailed statement under NEPA is not Order 12630. A takings implication to set restrictions on the classes, speed, required because the rule is covered by assessment is not required. and other aspects of e-bikes use where a categorical exclusion. The NPS has they are authorized. Given the wide Federalism (Executive Order 13132) determined the rule is categorically variety of resources, terrains, and visitor excluded under 43 CFR 46.210(i) which Under the criteria in section 1 of use patterns in parks across the country, applies to ‘‘policies, directives, Executive Order 13132, the rule does as well as the broad discretion to regulations, and guidelines: That are of not have sufficient federalism determine the scope of e-bike use at the implications to warrant the preparation an administrative, financial, legal, park level, conducting NEPA analysis at of a federalism summary impact technical, or procedural nature; or the National Park System level would be statement. This rule only affects the use whose environmental effects are too too speculative and imprecise to make of electric bicycles on federally- broad, speculative, or conjectural to definitive statements about the level of administered lands. It has no outside lend themselves to meaningful analysis impacts. For this reason, an evaluation effects on other areas. A federalism and will later be subject to the NEPA of environmental impacts under NEPA summary impact statement is not process, either collectively or case-by- would therefore be ineffective at the required. case.’’ System level. This regulation meets both prongs of Many units of the National Park Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order this categorical exclusion. First, the rule System already allow the use of e-bikes 12988) is administrative, legal, and procedural where traditional bicycles are allowed This rule complies with the in nature because it simply clarifies and under the direction of the Policy requirements of Executive Order 12988. codifies in regulation that Memorandum. The Policy This rule: superintendents have the authority to Memorandum required those units to (a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) allow e-bikes in their units but does not evaluate the environmental impacts of requiring that all regulations be itself take any action or require allowing e-bikes under NEPA. Because reviewed to eliminate errors and superintendents to take any action in traditional bicycles were already an ambiguity and be written to minimize their park units. Further, the regulation established presence in areas where e- litigation; and simply clarifies and resolves existing bikes were recently allowed, traditional (b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) ambiguity regarding superintendents’ bicycles were part of the baseline of requiring that all regulations be written discretion to allow e-bikes in parks, existing conditions from which the in clear language and contain clear legal rather than explicitly transitioning e- environmental impacts of e-bikes were standards. bikes from a stricter management regime measured. Therefore, the impacts to a more relaxed one. Prior to this potentially caused by the Consultation With Indian Tribes regulation, NPS regulations were implementation of the Policy (Executive Order 13175 and unclear as to how e-bikes were regulated Memorandum were limited only to Department Policy) as neither the regulatory definition of those impacts from e-bikes that differ The Department of the Interior strives ‘‘motor vehicles’’ nor ‘‘bicycles’’ from the existing impacts of traditional to strengthen its government-to- explicitly included e-bikes. Due in part bicycles. As a result, for most units a government relationship with Indian to this ambiguity, most park categorical exclusion has applied. Tribes through a commitment to compendiums did not specifically In some units of the National Park consultation with Indian tribes and address e-bikes until the NPS recently System, the superintendent may have recognition of their right to self- determined in Policy Memorandum 19– not yet opened bicycle trails to e-bikes, governance and tribal sovereignty. The 01 that e-bikes should be treated in a or may have closed a location to the use NPS has evaluated this rule under the similar manner to traditional bicycles. of e-bikes or otherwise restricted their criteria in Executive Order 13175 and This regulation simply resolves this use. In these units, any future decision under the Department’s tribal ambiguity in the NPS’s regulations and to allow e-bikes in a new location or consultation policy and have codifies the decision made in the policy manner will be subject to an evaluation determined that tribal consultation is memorandum but does not change the of the environmental impacts of that not required because the rule will have regulatory treatment of e-bikes from one decision at that time. This will also be no substantial direct effect on federally established management regime to true for locations where, in the future, recognized Indian tribes. another in a way that would result in an traditional bicycles and e-bikes are expanded range of potential introduced for the first time. If a Paperwork Reduction Act environmental impacts. superintendent proposes to designate an This rule does not contain Second, this regulation’s administrative road or trail for e-bike information collection requirements, environmental effects are too broad, use where traditional bicycles are not and a submission to the Office of speculative, or conjectural to lend yet allowed, the superintendent will

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69187

need to follow the same procedural own enabling legislation, unique potentially significant environmental steps in order to designate those resources that must be protected, and effects or involve unique or unknown locations for bicycle and e-bike use. In specific circumstances related to visitor environmental risks. Commenters also both circumstances described above, the use, trails, and bicycles use that must be stated that the rule will establish a environmental effects of this rule are too considered prior to determining precedent for future action or represent broad to be analyzed at the National whether e-bike use should be allowed. a decision in principle about future Park System level and environmental This would make a comprehensive actions with potentially significant analysis under NEPA is best conducted NEPA analysis too broad, speculative, or environmental effects; and have a direct at the park level. conjectural to lend itself to a meaningful relationship to other actions with The NPS has also determined that the analysis, rendering such an analysis individually insignificant but rule does not involve any of the ineffective. Addressing potential cumulatively significant environmental extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 environmental and social impacts are effects. CFR 46.215 that would require further most meaningful at the park level. With regard to controversy, 43 CFR analysis under NEPA. Superintendents will consider the 46.215(c) pertains to whether the environmental effects are highly Response to NEPA Comments suitability of e-bike use on specific roads and trails through subsequent controversial. As stated in the Several commenters asserted that the analysis consistent with the Department of the Interior NEPA NPS has failed to conduct a proper requirements of NEPA and other regulations, ‘‘[c]ontroversial refers to analysis of the foreseeable impacts of applicable laws (e.g., Endangered circumstances where a substantial this rule and that the preparation of an Species Act, Clean Water Act, National dispute exists as to the environmental environmental assessment or Historic Preservation Act) and policies. consequences of the proposed action environmental impact statement is The regulatory framework established and does not refer to the existence of required. The NPS disagrees with this by this rule will allow superintendents opposition to a proposed action, the interpretation of NEPA and believes the to develop site-specific design features effect of which is relatively categorical exclusion cited above is and mitigation strategies to reduce or undisputed.’’ 43 CFR 46.30. While e- appropriate for this rule. Further, some negate potential adverse impacts, as bikes are still relatively new, there are commenters have requested that the needed. a growing number of studies NPS conduct a programmatic NEPA Some commenters disagreed that investigating e-bike use. The NPS’s review. CEQ has stated that agencies none of the extraordinary circumstances review of the current research shows have discretion to determine whether a listed under 43 CFR 46.215 apply to this that there does not appear to be any programmatic approach is appropriate. rule. These commenters stated that this substantial disagreement or differing In this case, for reasons discussed rule will have significant impacts on (1) assumptions among scientists that affect below, and in light of the fact that the public health and safety; (2) natural and the interpretation of evidence in this categorical exclusion cited above cultural resources; (3) properties eligible emerging body of literature. Overall, e- requires a case-by-case NEPA review at for listing on the National Register of bikes are more like traditional bicycles the park level before e-bike use could be Historic Places; and (4) species and than motor vehicles, and generally authorized at any specific park unit, the designated critical habitat for species cause the same types and levels of NPS does not believe a programmatic listed, or proposed to be listed, under impacts as traditional bikes. approach is appropriate. the Endangered Species Act (ESA). As Furthermore, the rule would not result The framework established by this stated above, this rule is not self- in unresolved conflicts concerning rule provides superintendents with an executing in the sense that it does not alternative uses of available resources. opportunity to evaluate the effects of e- mandate the use of e-bikes anywhere in While the rule clarifies that e-bikes bike use at the park level, where more the National Park System. For this should be treated in a similar manner to detailed information about potential reason, the rule itself would not result traditional bicycles, it does not effects is available, prior to allowing in any physical impacts to park authorize any consumptive or exclusive such use. Superintendents who decide resources let alone significant impacts use of park resources. It merely allows to allow e-bikes in a park area must base on any of the items identified in 43 CFR a new type of use on bicycle trails that that decision on reasonably obtainable 46.215. Decisions to allow e-bikes in is substantively similar to bicycles but scientific, technical, and economic data, park areas will be subject to the NEPA does not prohibit or restrict any other and other information. Research and process at the park level just like all user group. data on impacts and compatibility of e- other decisions that could have an effect This rule would not have highly bikes is still being developed. Available on the human environment. Applying uncertain, and potentially significant research, some of which was the NEPA process at a park-specific environmental effects, or involve unique highlighted by commenters, indicates level will allow the NPS to evaluate or unknown environmental risks. First, that certain classes of e-bikes have detailed information on the potential as stated above, the rule itself does not similar impacts to trails and other trail effects of e-bike use in a particular park, authorize nor mandate e-bike use at any users as traditional bicycles. When e- consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife park unit and therefore without bikes are considered at the park level, Service regarding impacts to endangered additional action at the park level, no user conflicts, resource impacts, and species, and develop site-specific impacts would occur. In addition, as other issues specific to each park unit project design features and mitigation stated above, a review of available could influence a superintendent’s strategies, if needed. information indicates the impacts of e- decision to allow them or not. In addition to the extraordinary bikes are generally similar to impacts This rule does not require that e-bikes circumstances in 43 CFR 46.215 that are from bicycle use and there is no be allowed anywhere in the National tied to impacts, commenters also stated information indicating that the Park System. As noted above, units of that this rule will have highly additional impacts from e-bikes may be the National Park System vary controversial environmental effects or significant. This is reinforced by the fact significantly in terms of the criteria that involve unresolved conflicts concerning that most NPS units that have allowed would influence the decision to allow e- alternative uses of available resources; e-bikes and have completed a site- bikes. Further, each park unit has its and have highly uncertain and specific NEPA review have applied a

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 69188 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

categorical exclusion. While the use of List of Subjects Authority: 54 U.S.C. 100101, 100751, e-bikes is relatively new, the available 320102. 36 CFR Part 1 literature demonstrates a consensus ■ regarding what potential impacts may National parks, Penalties, Reporting 4. Amend § 4.30 by adding paragraph be, and there is nothing to indicate that and recordkeeping requirements, Signs (i) to read as follows: the impacts of e-bike use would be and symbols. § 4.30 Bicycles highly uncertain. 36 CFR Part 4 * * * * * This rule does not establish a National parks, Traffic regulations. (i) Electric bicycles. (1) The use of an precedent for future action or represent In consideration of the foregoing, the electric bicycle may be allowed on park a decision in principle about future National Park Service amends 36 CFR roads, parking areas, and administrative actions with potentially significant parts 1 and 4 as set forth below: roads and trails that are otherwise open environmental effects. The to bicycles. The Superintendent will extraordinary circumstance listed at 43 PART 1—GENERAL PROVISIONS designate the areas open to electric CFR 46.215(e) requires both a precedent bicycles, or specific classes of electric or decision in principle for future action ■ 1. The authority citation for part 1 bicycles, and notify the public pursuant and for the precedent or decision in continues to read as follows: to 36 CFR 1.7. principle to have potentially significant Authority: 54 U.S.C. 100101, 100751, environmental effects. Neither criteria 320102. (2) The use of an electric bicycle is prohibited in locations not designated apply. This rule does not establish a ■ 2. In § 1.4 amend paragraph (a) by precedent for future action nor make by the Superintendent under paragraph adding, in alphabetical order, the (i)(1) of this section. any decisions about future actions. As definition for ‘‘Electric bicycle’’ and discussed above, it is not self-executing revising the definition for ‘‘Motor (3) Except where use of motor in the sense that it does not mandate the vehicle’’ to read as follows: vehicles by the public is allowed, using use of e-bikes anywhere in the National the electric motor exclusively to move Park System; it merely authorizes § 1.4 What terms do I need to know? an electric bicycle for an extended superintendents to allow them where (a) * * * period of time without pedaling is traditional bicycles are allowed. The * * * * * prohibited. Superintendent at each park unit will Electric bicycle means a two- or three- (4) Possessing an electric bicycle in a have the discretion to allow e-bike use— wheeled cycle with fully operable wilderness area established by Federal or not—on a case-by-case basis. The pedals and an electric motor of not more statute is prohibited. discussion above addresses why this than 750 watts that meets the (5) A person operating or possessing rule would be not result in any requirements of one of the following an electric bicycle is subject to the significant impacts. three classes: following sections of this part that apply The NPS also disagrees with the (1) ‘‘Class 1 electric bicycle’’ shall mean an electric bicycle equipped with to bicycles: §§ 4.12, 4.13, 4.20, 4.21, comment that the rule would have a 4.22, 4.23, and 4.30(h)(3)–(5). direct relationship to other actions with a motor that provides assistance only individually insignificant but when the rider is pedaling, and that (6) Except as specified in this chapter, cumulatively significant environmental ceases to provide assistance when the the use of an electric bicycle is governed effects. Impacts to resources and visitors bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles by State law, which is adopted and would not occur on a national scale; per hour. made a part of this section. Any act in rather, impacts would be experienced (2) ‘‘Class 2 electric bicycle’’ shall violation of State law adopted by this by visitors at each park unit at the time mean an electric bicycle equipped with paragraph is prohibited. of their visit and resources affected a motor that may be used exclusively to (7) Superintendents may limit or would be at the park level, not at a propel the bicycle, and that is not restrict or impose conditions on electric national scale. Therefore, there would capable of providing assistance when bicycle use, or may close any park road, not be any meaningful ‘‘cumulative the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 parking area, administrative road, trail, impacts’’ at a national scale, that are miles per hour. or portion thereof to such electric greater than the sum of the individual (3) ‘‘Class 3 electric bicycle’’ shall bicycle use, or terminate such park-level impacts. Furthermore, as mean an electric bicycle equipped with condition, closure, limit or restriction discussed above, due to the specific a motor that provides assistance only after: circumstances at each park unit, the when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the (i) Taking into consideration public NPS does not believe a programmatic health and safety, natural and cultural NEPA review is warranted. bicycle reaches the speed of 28 miles per hour. resource protection, and other management activities and objectives; Effects on the Energy Supply (Executive * * * * * Order 13211) Motor vehicle means every vehicle and that is self-propelled and every vehicle (ii) Notifying the public through one This rule is not a significant energy or more methods listed in 36 CFR 1.7, action under the definition in Executive that is propelled by electric power, but not operated on rails or water, except an including in the superintendent’s Order 13211. A Statement of Energy compendium (or written compilation) of Effects in not required. electric bicycle, a snowmobile, and a motorized wheelchair. discretionary actions referred to in 36 References * * * * * CFR 1.7(b). George Wallace, A complete list of all resources PART 4—VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC reviewed and considered during the SAFETY Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and development of this rulemaking is Parks. available at http://www.regulations.gov ■ 3. The authority citation for part 4 [FR Doc. 2020–22129 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] at Docket No. NPS–2020–0001. continues to read as follows: BILLING CODE 4312–52–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69189

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DATES: The final rule is effective on DC 20460; telephone number: 202–566– AGENCY January 4, 2021. In accordance with 40 1014; or email: [email protected] CFR part 23, this regulation shall be (preferred). Also see the following 40 CFR Parts 9, 122, 123, 127, 403, and considered issued for purposes of website for additional information 503 judicial review at 1 p.m. Eastern time on regarding the rulemaking: https:// [EPA–HQ–OECA–2019–0408; FRL–10015– , 2020. The start dates for www.epa.gov/compliance/npdes- 08–OECA] electronic reporting are provided in 40 ereporting. CFR 127.16. RIN 2020–AA52 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ADDRESSES: EPA has established a NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule— docket for this action under Docket ID How is this document organized? Phase 2 Extension No. EPA–HQ–OECA–2019–0408. All documents in the docket are listed on The outline of this document follows AGENCY: Environmental Protection the www.regulations.gov website. the following format: Agency (EPA). Although listed in the index, some I. General Information ACTION: Final rule. information is not publicly available, II. Background e.g., confidential business information III. Postponement of Phase 2 Compliance SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection or other information whose disclosure is Deadlines Agency (EPA) is publishing this final IV. Alternative Phase 2 Compliance rule to postpone the compliance restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, Deadlines deadlines for implementation of Phase 2 V. Clarifying Edits for More Efficient of the National Pollutant Discharge is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy Implementation and 2019 NPDES Elimination System (NPDES) Electronic Updates Rule Changes form. Out of an abundance of caution Reporting Rule (‘‘NPDES eRule’’). The VI. Assistance To States to Implement Phase for members of the public and our staff, NPDES eRule requires EPA and states to 2 modernize Clean Water Act (CWA) the EPA Docket Center and Reading VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews reporting. This final rule also provides Room was closed to public visitors on states with additional flexibility to March 31, 2020, to reduce the risk of I. General Information transmitting COVID–19. Our Docket request additional time as needed. A. Does this action apply to me? Further, this final rule promulgates Center staff will continue to provide clarifying changes to the NPDES eRule remote customer service via email, Entities potentially affected by this and eliminates some duplicative or phone, and webform. For further action include all NPDES-permitted outdated reporting requirements. Taken information on EPA Docket Center facilities, whether covered by an together, these changes are designed to services and the current status, please individual permit or general permit, save the NPDES authorized programs visit us online at https://www.epa.gov/ industrial users located in cities without considerable resources, make reporting dockets. The telephone number for the approved local pretreatment programs, easier for NPDES-regulated entities, Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744. facilities subject to EPA’s biosolids streamline permit renewals, ensure full FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For regulations, and governmental entities exchange of NPDES program data additional information, please contact that have received NPDES program between states and EPA, enhance public Mr. Carey A. Johnston, Office of authorization or are implementing transparency, improve environmental Compliance (mail code 2222A), portions of the NPDES program in a decision-making, and protect human Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 cooperative agreement with EPA. These health and the environment. Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, entities include:

Category Examples of regulated entities

Facilities seeking coverage under Publicly-owned treatment works (POTW) facilities, treatment works treating domestic sewage (TWTDS), an individual NPDES permits, municipalities, counties, stormwater management districts, state-operated facilities, Federally-operated general permit, or subject to a facilities, industrial facilities, construction sites, and concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). NPDES inspection. Industrial users located in cities Industrial facilities discharging to POTWs and for which the designated pretreatment Control Authority is without approved local EPA or the authorized state, tribe, or territory rather than an approved local pretreatment program. pretreatment programs. POTWs and other facilities subject Class I sludge management facilities (as defined in 40 CFR 503.9(c)), POTWs with a design flow rate to EPA’s biosolids regulations. equal to or greater than one million gallons per day, and POTWs that serve 10,000 people or more. State and territorial governments ... States and territories that have received NPDES program authorization from EPA, that are implementing portions of the NPDES program in a cooperative agreement with EPA, or that operate NPDES-permitted facilities. Tribal governments ...... Tribes that have received NPDES program authorization from EPA, that are implementing portions of the NPDES program in a cooperative agreement with EPA, or that operate NPDES-permitted facilities. Federal government ...... Federal facilities with a NPDES permit and EPA Regional Offices acting for those states, tribes, and terri- tories that do not have NPDES program authorization or that do not have program authorization for a particular NPDES subprogram (e.g., biosolids or pretreatment).

This table is not intended to be an questions regarding the applicability of B. What action is the agency taking? exhaustive list, but rather provides some this final action to a particular entity, EPA published the National Pollutant examples of the types of entities consult the person listed in the FOR Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) potentially regulated by this action. FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Electronic Reporting Rule (‘‘NPDES Other types of entities not listed in this eRule’’) on October 22, 2015. The 2015 table may also be regulated. If you have rule required EPA and states to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 69190 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

modernize Clean Water Act (CWA) this rule under the authority of CWA 127) and not to individually permitted reporting for municipalities, industries section 304(i), which authorizes EPA to facilities. and other facilities. The rule divided establish minimum procedural and II. Background implementation into two ‘‘Phases.’’ The other elements of state programs under deadline for Phase 1 implementation section 402, including reporting EPA published the NPDES eRule on passed on December 21, 2016. The requirements and procedures to make 22 October 2015. The 2015 rule required deadline for Phase 2 was initially information available to the public. In EPA and states to modernize Clean scheduled for December 21, 2020. Some addition, EPA is promulgating this rule Water Act (CWA) reporting for state authorized NPDES programs under section 308 of the CWA. Section municipalities, industries and other provided feedback to EPA on how to 308 of the CWA authorizes EPA to facilities. The rule replaced most paper- improve Phase 2 implementation of the require access to information necessary based NPDES reporting requirements NPDES eRule and, in particular, have to carry out the objectives of the Act, with electronic reporting. The rule recommended changes to the schedule including sections 301, 305, 306, 307, converted the following paper reports to for Phase 2 implementation to allow 311, 402, 404, 405, and 504. Section 402 electronic: (1) Discharge Monitoring both EPA and states sufficient time to of the CWA establishes the NPDES Reports (DMRs); (2) general permit develop and implement the information permit program for the control of the reports (e.g., Notices of Intent to technology solutions necessary for discharge of pollutants into the nation’s discharge in compliance with a general electronic reporting of the Phase 2 data waters. Specifically, CWA sections permit); and (3) other specified program (see DCN 0001 to 0009). EPA published 402(b) and (c) require each authorized reports. The NPDES eRule included a a proposed rule to solicit comment on state, tribe, or territory to ensure that phased implementation schedule (40 postponing the compliance deadlines permits meet certain substantive CFR 127.26). Most states and permittees for Phase 2 implementation as well as requirements, and provide EPA have successfully implemented Phase 1 other changes to the NPDES eRule to information from point sources, of the NPDES eRule, which includes allow for a smoother transition from industrial users, and authorized electronic submission of DMRs and the paper to electronic reporting for the programs in order to ensure proper Federal Biosolids Annual Report where NPDES program (see February 28, 2020; oversight. Finally, EPA is promulgating EPA is the Regulatory Authority. The NPDES eRule requires EPA to 85 FR 11909). EPA received comments this rule under the authority of section calculate electronic reporting from seven states, one state association, 501, which authorizes EPA to prescribe participation rates for each authorized and one anonymous commenter. The such regulations as are necessary to NPDES program six months after the final rule addresses these comments and carry out provisions of the Act. postpones the compliance deadlines for deadline for conversion from paper to Phase 2 implementation of the NPDES D. What are the incremental costs and electronic submissions and annually eRule. This final rule also provides benefits of this action? thereafter [see 40 CFR 127.26(j)]. The compliance deadlines for Phase 1 of the states with additional flexibility to EPA identified only minimal request additional time as needed. NPDES eRule were 21 December 2016 incremental costs of this final rule as the and included NPDES Data Groups No. 3 Further, this final rule promulgates overall impact of these changes allow clarifying changes to the NPDES eRule (Discharge Monitoring Reports or states to more efficiently implement the ‘‘DMRs’’) and No. 4 [Sewage Sludge/ and eliminates some duplicative or NPDES eRule. EPA is postponing the outdated reporting requirements. Biosolids Annual Program Reports, compliance deadlines for Phase 2 where EPA implements the biosolids C. What is the agency’s authority for implementation by five years and program (40 CFR part 503)]. EPA’s first taking this action? providing states with additional three assessments have shown Pursuant to the Clean Water Act flexibility to request an extension if considerable progress in Phase 1 (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., EPA more time is necessary but with no implementation (see DCN 0012—0014), promulgated the NPDES eRule, which extension allowed beyond December 21, although more work needs to be done to added a new part to title 40 (40 CFR part 2028 (see Section IV of this preamble). achieve the full benefits of Phase 1. 127) and made changes to existing This rule also finalizes changes to the Current tracking of Phase 1 NPDES regulations. The EPA NPDES eRule that clarify existing implementation is available through the promulgated the NPDES eRule under requirements and eliminate some ‘‘NPDES eRule Readiness Dashboard.’’ authority of the CWA sections 101(f), duplicative or outdated reporting See: https://echo.epa.gov/trends/npdes- 304(i), 308, 402, and 501. EPA is using requirements. For example, this rule erule-dashboard-public. EPA recognizes the same authority to finalize changes to eliminates three data elements from the that there are a number of states who the NPDES eRule. EPA notes that the minimum set of NPDES program data have not fully implemented Phase 1. Congressional Declaration of Goals and (Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127): Given that EPA is today postponing the Policy of the CWA specifies in section Reportable Noncompliance Tracking, Phase 2 deadlines, EPA is committed to 101(f) that ‘‘It is the national policy that Reportable Noncompliance Tracking focusing additional attention to ensure to the maximum extent possible the Start Date, and Applicable Categorical that it is receiving all Phase 1 data. procedures utilized for implementing Standards. These changes will reduce There are a number of mechanisms that this chapter shall encourage the drastic the costs to authorized NPDES programs EPA can use to ensure it receives all minimization of paperwork and in collecting, managing, and sharing Phase 1 data. EPA has been working interagency decision procedures, and these data. EPA also anticipates that the with states, providing in-kind technical the best use of available manpower and clarifications contained in this final rule assistance and Exchange Network grant funds, so as to prevent needless will help states avoid unnecessary funding (see https://www.epa.gov/ duplication and unnecessary delays at implementation costs. For example, the exchangenetwork/exchange-network- all levels of government.’’ final rule makes clear that the electronic grant-program). In addition, EPA could Harnessing information technology reporting requirement for Notices of use the initial recipient procedure to that is now a common part of daily life Termination (NOTs) applies only to expedite the conversion to electronic is an important step toward reaching the general permit covered facilities (see reporting for DMRs (see 40 CFR 127.27). goals of the CWA. EPA is promulgating Table 1 to Appendix A, 40 CFR part The initial recipient procedure allows

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69191

EPA to direct NPDES permittees to use proposal from seven states, one state funding available to States for NPDES EPA’s electronic reporting tools for one association, and one anonymous eRule implementation. ACWA also or more NPDES data groups if the commenter. The final rule addresses expressed appreciation for the authorized NPDES program cannot fully these comments and postpones the continuing opportunities to participate meet the requirements to be an initial compliance deadlines for Phase 2 on workgroups associated with NPDES recipient. implementation period of the NPDES eRule implementation. Electronic submission of all other eRule. This final rule also provides ACWA and state commenters reports and notices covered by the states with additional flexibility to recommended that EPA extend the NPDES eRule are part of Phase 2 request additional time as needed. Phase 2 compliance deadlines for Phase implementation. See Table 1 to 40 CFR Further, this final rule promulgates 2 implementation by five years instead 127.16. The online ‘‘NPDES eRule Phase clarifying changes to the NPDES eRule of the proposed three years. ACWA 2 Implementation Dashboard’’ provides and eliminates some duplicative or noted that it does not believe that three an inventory of all general permits and outdated reporting requirements. years will be adequate time to complete program reports covered by the NPDES Finally, in a separate rulemaking, EPA all the necessary work, especially with eRule. See: https://edap.epa.gov/public/ has finalized updates to the minimum the current COVID–19 crisis extensions/eRule_Phase2/eRule_ set of NPDES program data (Appendix undermining the efficiency of some of Phase2.html. This dashboard also A to 40 CFR part 127) for the municipal this work over the next six to twelve provides an updated view of EPA’s separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) months. Iowa noted that the progress in gathering information and sector. See , 2020; 85 FR 20873. postponement of the compliance deploying NPDES electronic reporting These changes to the NPDES eRule deadline will allow states and tribes to tools for Phase 2 general permits and correct obsolete citations and previous explore more cost-effective options for program reports (see DCN 0015). inconsistencies with the newly electronic reporting. ACWA also EPA and states are now focusing on modified MS4 Phase II regulations. See suggested an alternative proposal that implementing Phase 2 of the NPDES , 2016; 81 FR 89320. These would set the Phase 2 compliance eRule and continuing their work on updates do not change the burden deadline to be three years after EPA implementing Phase 1. EPA and states associated with complying with the completes the necessary upgrades to its are now gathering information and NPDES eRule but, rather, these changes national NPDES data system to enable deploying NPDES electronic reporting assist permitting authorities and MS4 receipt of Phase 2 data. tools for Phase 2 reports. EPA and states permittees in implementing NPDES The final rule provides EPA and states are collaborating and sharing electronic reporting. with five additional years to implement information through multiple Phase 2. This timeframe responds to workgroups. EPA used these III. Postponement of Phase 2 state comments for more time and workgroups to provide states with more Compliance Deadlines addresses concerns about the potential information on Phase 2 implementation. A. Phase 2 Implementation Deadline delays due to the COVID–19 pandemic See: https://www.epa.gov/compliance/ response. In addition, extending the data-entry-guidance-and-technical- This final rule postpones the Phase 2 compliance deadline by two papers. The EPA-state General Permit compliance deadlines for Phase 2 additional years will provide EPA and and Program Report Technical implementation of the NPDES eRule authorized NPDES programs with Workgroup meets monthly and focuses from December 21, 2020, to December additional time to complete the on the EPA Regional and state general 21, 2025 (see Table 1 to 40 CFR 127.16). development of electronic tools. permits and program reports that will EPA received comments from seven Maintaining a fixed date rather than use EPA’s NPDES Electronic Reporting authorized NPDES programs and one tying the deadline to completion of Tool (NeT) for Phase 2 data. The EPA- state association on how to improve certain electronic reporting solutions state NPDES Noncompliance Report Phase 2 implementation of the NPDES can help prioritize resources and focus (NNCR) workgroup is discussing how to eRule (see Document Nos: EPA–HQ– attention on the tasks necessary for the identify, categorize, sort, and display OECA–2019–0408–0022 through 0029; conversion to electronic reporting. violations on the NNCR. This available at https:// In addition to postponing the Phase 2 workgroup is discussing how best to www.regulations.gov). compliance deadlines to December 21, implement the new NNCR regulations The comments were generally 2025, EPA is adding a reference to the in 40 CFR 123.45. supportive of the proposed rule and alternative Phase 2 compliance EPA received letters from authorized requested more time for Phase 2 deadlines provisions at 40 CFR NPDES programs on how to improve implementation than the three-year 127.24(e) or (f). This is discussed in Phase 2 implementation of the NPDES extension in the proposed rule. The more detail below. Other than the eRule. The letters recommended Association of Clean Water changes to the Phase 2 compliance changes to the schedule for Phase 2 Administrators (ACWA) and other states deadlines and the addition of the implementation to allow both EPA and requested that, ‘‘EPA should invest the reference to the alternative Phase 2 states sufficient time to develop and necessary resources to complete the compliance deadlines provisions, EPA implement the information technology ICIS–NPDES updates and to meet all is not making any other changes to the solutions necessary for electronic NeT/NetDMR commitment obligations requirements in these sections. reporting of the Phase 2 data (see DCN to allow states and EPA to meet the new 0001 to 0009). deadlines . . . States are also very B. Deadline for Public Release of NNCR In response to the feedback from the interested in engaging with EPA to EPA proposed to delay the public states in the letters and oral identify and prioritize important areas release date of the NNCR by one year, communications, EPA proposed for updating/enhancing ICIS–NPDES.’’ to December 21, 2022. EPA noted in the changes to the NPDES eRule to allow for ACWA and other states noted their preamble to the proposed rule that this a smoother transition from paper to appreciation for EPA’s financial support date will allow EPA and states to use electronic reporting for the NPDES through the Exchange Network Grant the new NNCR as EPA is making program (see February 28, 2020; 85 FR Program. They also requested that EPA decisions on its next round of National 11909). EPA received comments on the make additional dedicated grant Compliance Initiatives. See: https://

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 69192 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

www.epa.gov/enforcement/national- that might impact human health or the deadline(s) in Table 1 to 40 CFR 127.16 compliance-initiatives. EPA further environment. or a previously EPA approved explained that it would only be able to alternative compliance deadline; and IV. Alternative Phase 2 Compliance provide Phase 1 data in the NNCR • Provide a rationale for the delay Deadlines initially and would need to modify the and enough details (e.g., tasks, NNCR as Phase 2 data becomes In addition to postponing the Phase 2 milestones, roles and responsibilities, available. compliance deadlines, EPA is adding necessary resources) to clearly describe ACWA on behalf of several states two regulatory provisions that create how the program will successfully recommended that public release of the additional flexibility for Phase 2 implement electronic reporting for the NNCR (both Phase 1 and Phase 2) be compliance. These two new provisions general permit, program report, and delayed until known data quality issues respond to the requests from ACWA and related data elements covered by the are resolved. from authorized NPDES programs for request. In response, EPA has added more time to develop and implement EPA will review each alternative regulatory language that explicitly the information technology solutions Phase 2 compliance deadline request to creates separate deadlines for the public necessary for electronic reporting of the determine if it provides enough detail to release of the NNCR using Phase 1 data Phase 2 data. accurately assess if the state has a (December 2022) and Phase 2 data (one The first regulatory provision [40 CFR reasonable plan to deploy electronic year after the draft report is made 127.24(e)] allows authorized NPDES reporting by the requested alternative available to states but no later than programs to request additional time Phase 2 compliance deadline. EPA will December 2026). The NNCR public beyond December 21, 2025 to return alternative Phase 2 compliance release dates for Phase 2 data would be implement Phase 2 of the NPDES eRule. deadline requests with insufficient phased in over time to give states at Under this provision, an authorized detail back to the Director within 30 least one year to review and provide NPDES program must send a request to days of receipt and provide comments on draft versions of the EPA for review and approval. This recommendations. EPA intends to NNCR that incorporates Phase 2 data request must identify the facilities, approve or deny each complete before EPA releases a new version to the general permits, program reports, or alternative Phase 2 compliance deadline public. EPA will provide states with an data elements for which the authorized request within 120 days of receipt of a informal notice whenever a new draft NPDES program needs additional time sufficiently detailed request. EPA will version of the NNCR using Phase 2 data beyond December 21, 2025. For provide notice to the authorized NPDES is ready for their review and comment. example, a state may seek approval from program of EPA’s approval or denial. This will help EPA and states identify EPA to postpone implementation of The authorized NPDES program may re- and fix data quality and data sharing electronic reporting for a NPDES general apply if the initial request is denied by issues. The deadline for issuance of the permit until an agreed-upon time after EPA. version of the NNCR that incorporates December 21, 2025, but no later than EPA may elect to deny an alternative all Phase 2 data will be December 2026, December 21, 2028. EPA estimates that Phase 2 compliance deadline request i.e., one year after revised deadline for no authorized state will need more time and then continue to follow the implementation of Phase 2 (similar to than that fixed date, which is thirteen procedure in the existing rule for the approach in the 2015 NPDES eRule). years after the effective date of the 2015 determining the initial recipient of Phase 1 data are already provided to NPDES eRule. This waiver might be electronic NPDES information (see 40 the public through ECHO, so even if helpful if a state has a permit or CFR 127.27). EPA must become the data quality issues exist, the public program report that is a lower priority initial recipient of electronic NPDES already has access to Phase 1 data, for electronic reporting (e.g., a general information from NPDES-regulated which includes noncompliance data. permit that provides coverage for 10 or facilities if the state, tribe, or territory EPA does not think it is necessary to fewer NPDES-regulated entities) and for does not consistently maintain delay public release of the NNCR for which electronic reporting tool electronic data transfers in compliance Phase 1 beyond December 2022. As development is delayed. with the NPDES eRule [see 40 CFR previously noted, EPA and states have While states may make multiple 127.27(d)(2)]. EPA will update its made significant progress in requests for compliance deadline website with each alternative Phase 2 implementing Phase 1 and EPA has held extensions beyond December 21, 2025, compliance deadline request and the frequent meetings with states on how to EPA will not grant extensions beyond corresponding Agency approval or develop the NNCR and improve data December 21, 2028. Under today’s rule, denial notice. EPA will provide updated sharing between EPA and authorized each alternative Phase 2 compliance information at: https://www.epa.gov/ NPDES programs. EPA will continue to deadline request must: compliance/npdes-ereporting. EPA will help states improve their compliance • Be submitted to EPA by the also update its website and online with the data sharing requirements in Director, as defined in 40 CFR 122.2; ‘‘NPDES eRule Phase 2 Implementation the NPDES eRule for Phase 1 data. In • Identify each general permit, Dashboard’’ to clearly identify the particular, EPA has provided technical program report, and related data approved alternative Phase 2 support to authorized states to resolve elements covered by the request and the compliance deadlines for each facility, data sharing problems and has corresponding alternative compliance general permit report, program report, developed a series of online dashboards deadline(s); and related data elements by authorized to identify missing or inaccurate Phase • Identify each facility covered by the NPDES program. 1 data and track improvements in Phase request and the corresponding The second regulatory provision [40 1 data sharing. The benefit of this alternative compliance deadline(s) CFR 127.24(f)] authorizes EPA to, on its approach will be to give EPA, states, (Note: This only applies if the request own initiative, allow for additional time and the public a complete inventory of covers some but not all facilities for one or more authorized NPDES facilities with violations based on the covered by the relevant general permit programs (states and EPA Regions) to most currently available set of NPDES or program report requirement); implement NPDES electronic reporting program data. This will help EPA and • Be submitted at least 120 days prior beyond December 21, 2025. Under this states identify noncompliance issues to the then-applicable compliance provision, EPA may establish an

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69193

alternative Phase 2 compliance deadline than that fixed date, which is thirteen majority of the states.’’ EPA thanks for electronic reporting and data sharing years after the effective date of the 2015 ACWA for the comment and its offer of for one or more facilities, general permit NPDES eRule. This approach will help help in implementing NPDES electronic reports, program reports, and related focus EPA and state efforts on NPDES reporting. data elements (see Table 2 to Appendix electronic reporting and help expedite An anonymous commenter noted that, A to 40 CFR part 127). Use of this the benefits of electronic reporting to ‘‘The proposed rule asks for both the provision may be necessary if EPA has NPDES-regulated entities. SIC code and NAICS code to be not yet deployed the required electronic Finally, the Iowa Department of submitted. Requiring both seems like an reporting tool (when EPA is responsible Natural Resources (Iowa DNR) undue burden on the regulated for building the tool) or if EPA has not commented that the language of the community, given the regulatory yet deployed the protocols and systems proposed 40 CFR 127.24(f) could be benefit. Since SIC codes are outdated, for authorized NPDES programs to share read to authorize EPA to delay only NAICS codes should be required one or more data elements with EPA electronic reporting and establish an and SIC codes should be optional.’’ EPA (when the state is responsible for implementation schedule for a state notes that the comment on the building the tool or generating the data). without that state’s consent. Iowa collection of SIC code data as an ‘‘undue Under the provision, EPA may set an recommended in a meeting with EPA burden on the regulated community’’ is alternative Phase 2 compliance deadline that EPA modify the language to make outside the scope of this rulemaking as for up to three years but not beyond clear that EPA cannot dictate to states the data sharing requirements in this December 21, 2028. EPA will update its how electronic reporting will be final rule are imposed on the authorized website and online ‘‘NPDES eRule implemented if the state is meeting the NPDES programs and not on the Phase 2 Implementation Dashboard’’ to implementation schedule in the rule regulated community. EPA established clearly identify the alternative Phase 2 (see Table 1, 40 CFR 127.16, and 40 CFR the data sharing requirements on the compliance deadlines for each facility, 127.23). See DCN 0027. In response, regulated community in the 2019 general permit report, program report, EPA clarifies that this new provision NPDES Applications and Program and related data elements by authorized does not alter the approach taken in the Updates Final Rule (see 12 February NPDES program. 2015 NPDES eRule that gives states the 2019; 84 FR 3324). Authorized NPDES Separately, EPA will provide notice to option to build and deploy one or more programs must update their NPDES the one or more authorized NPDES electronic reporting tools. EPA does not permit applications to collect four-digit programs covered by each alternative dictate to states how electronic Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Phase 2 compliance deadline through an reporting will be implemented if the codes and the six-digit NAICS codes email or letter. This EPA notice will state is meeting its obligations under the (see 84 FR 3327). detail how EPA will implement rule (e.g., implementation schedule, EPA used the NPDES Electronic electronic reporting (when EPA is data collection and sharing Reporting Rule—Phase 2 Extension responsible for deploying one or more requirements) and complying with proposed rule to solicit comment on electronic reporting tools) or how EPA EPA’s Cross-media Electronic Reporting updates to the minimum set of NPDES will receive data from authorized Rule (40 CFR part 3). EPA modified the data that authorized NPDES program NPDES programs (when the state is language in 40 CFR 127.24(f) to make must share with EPA (see 28 February responsible for deploying one or more clear that this provision does not make 2020; 85 FR 11923). EPA proposed that electronic reporting tools). This section any changes to the initial recipient states share these data for both of the rule does not change the process designation process, which is individual and general permit covered for designating the initial recipient of documented at 40 CFR 127.27. facilities. This would ensure that there electronic NPDES information from is consistent and complete reporting V. Clarifying Edits for More Efficient NPDES-regulated facilities (see 40 CFR nationwide of industrial classification Implementation and 2019 NPDES 127.27). This additional flexibility will data, which are useful for regulatory Updates Rule Changes also allow more time for EPA and decisions and program oversight. EPA authorized NPDES programs to resolve EPA solicited comment on several proposed to require states to share these any issues related to the sharing of clarifying edits to the 2015 NPDES NAICS code data with EPA when they Phase 2 data. eRule (see February 28, 2020; 85 FR approve NPDES permit coverage as this ACWA and most states requested that 11913). These proposed changes are will help lower the implementation EPA remove the prohibition against intended to clarify and streamline costs to states. Additionally, EPA does further extensions beyond the fixed 3- NPDES eRule implementation. EPA not see the continued sharing of these year date. States cited the uncertainties received two comments on these SIC code data with EPA as undue ahead with the COVID–19 pandemic changes. burden on states. EPA did not receive response, as well as concerns that there ACWA noted its support for the any negative comments regarding the could be further slippage in EPA’s ‘‘minor refinements to the NPDES burden of these revised data sharing schedule for updating the ICIS–NPDES eReporting Rule to reflect lessons requirements on authorized NPDES data system and developing data learned over the last five years, to programs. collection tools under EPA’s NPDES streamline NPDES eRule Additionally, for reason set forth in electronic reporting Tool (‘‘NeT’’), implementation, and to clarify several the proposed rule and in this preamble whether related to the pandemic or for Appendix A data elements/descriptions, to the final rule, EPA is amending the other reasons. which include a number of suggestions NPDES eRule to incorporate clarifying The final rule retains the proposed provided directly by states.’’ ACWA also changes. The changes adopted in the option for a fixed date that is three years stated that it, ‘‘does not currently have final rule: beyond the revised Phase 2 Compliance any further specific recommendations • Correct the title for 40 CFR 123.45 Deadlines. This means that EPA can for these provisions/sections but expects • Provide greater clarity and specificity approve extensions up to, but not individual states may provide such. for the NNCR Category I beyond, December 21, 2028. As Where appropriate, ACWA can help noncompliance definitions previously noted, EPA estimates that no EPA identify whether such • Correct Appendix A deficiency authorized state will need more time recommendations are supported by a descriptions

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 69194 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

• Correct data element name, criteria currently work as lower VII. Statutory and Executive Order description, and reference for thresholds for triggering Category I Reviews Biosolids or Sewage Sludge—Land noncompliance and represent the A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Application or Surface Disposal Agency’s long-standing interpretation Planning and Review and Executive Deficiencies and implementation of these criteria Order 13563: Improving Regulation and • Correct the title of the ‘‘Sewer (see Enforcement Management System: Regulatory Review Overflow/Bypass Event Report’’ National Pollutant Discharge • This action is not a significant Delete the following two data Elimination System (Clean Water Act), regulatory action and was therefore not elements: Reportable Chapter VII, DCN 0028). Noncompliance Tracking and submitted to the Office of Management Reportable Noncompliance VI. Assistance to States To Implement and Budget (OMB) for review. Tracking Start Date Phase 2 B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing • Provide greater clarity for the EPA will continue to provide Regulations and Controlling Regulatory ‘‘Facility Concentrated Aquatic Costs Animal Production (CAAP) Status’’ technical assistance and support to data element name and description authorized NPDES programs during the This action is not an Executive Order • Provide greater clarity on the ‘Permit transition to electronic reporting. This 13771 regulatory action because this Component’ data element with includes building electronic reporting action is not significant under Executive respect to unpermitted facilities tools for authorized NPDES programs Order 12866. • Provide greater clarity on the Notice that elect to use these tools and to C. Paperwork Reduction Act of Termination (NOT) electronic support the development of new data The information collection activities reporting requirements transfer protocols. EPA will also provide in this rule have been submitted for • Provide greater clarity on the states with the data sharing protocols for approval to the Office of Management ‘‘Applicable Effluent Limitations Phase 2 data prior to December 21, and Budget (OMB) under the PRA. The Guidelines’’ data element and 2025. EPA will give states enough Information Collection Request (ICR) delete the duplicative data element, guidance and training ahead of this document that the EPA prepared has ‘‘Applicable Categorical Standards’’ deadline so that states have an orderly been assigned EPA ICR number 2617.02. • Provide greater clarity on the means to share these data with EPA. You can find a copy of the ICR in the ‘‘Receiving Waterbody Name for Authorized NPDES programs can docket for this rule, and it is briefly Permitted Feature’’ data element request EPA’s assistance for electronic summarized here. The information name and description reporting by submitting a request to collection requirements are not • Require NAICS Code Data to match [email protected]. enforceable until OMB approves them. the 2019 NPDES Applications and EPA offers authorized programs EPA has primary responsibility for Program Updates Final Rule ensuring the CWA’s NPDES program is • financial assistance through the Add Variance Data Elements to effectively and consistently Exchange Network Grant Program. This Appendix A to match the 2019 implemented nationwide, thus ensuring program provides funding to states, NPDES Applications and Program that public health and environmental Updates Final Rule territories, and federally recognized • protection goals of the CWA are met. Make two editorial changes to the Indian tribes to support the EPA is taking this action pursuant to NNCR language as noted below development of the National CWA sections 101(f), 304(i), 308, 402, Specifically, Arkansas provided Environmental Information Exchange and 501. The accurate, complete, and suggestions in comments on the Network. The primary outcome timely information collected under this proposed rule to clarify the expected from Exchange Network ICR will help EPA and states more noncompliance reporting language at assistance agreements is improved efficiently implement the 2015 NPDES Appendix A, 40 CFR 123.45 (see EPA– access to, and exchange of, high-quality eRule. The improved information HQ–OECA–2019–0408–0027). These environmental data from public and sharing would increase transparency comments noted that the criteria for private sector sources. More information and accountability and help EPA and monthly average permit limit violations on this program is available at: https:// authorized NPDES programs collaborate for determining Category I www.epa.gov/exchangenetwork/ and measure progress in implementing noncompliance should be clarified as exchange-network-grant-program. the 2015 NPDES eRule. This lower thresholds. These comments information collection would provide suggested the following clarifying EPA will continue to work with authorized NPDES programs to EPA with more timely, consistent, and changes to Appendix A, 40 CFR 123.45 accurate inventory of all general permits implement NPDES electronic reporting. (underlined text below are the suggested and program reports, the number of This includes the use of workgroups to additions). facilities that must electronically submit • Violations of monthly average help authorized NPDES programs share reports, and the online location of state permit effluent limits which exceed or data with EPA and to provide electronic reporting tools [see 40 CFR equal the product of the Technical recommendations on how EPA should 123.43(d)]. Review Criteria (TRC) times the permit build the NNCR. Authorized NPDES Receiving current high-level data on effluent limit and occur in any two or programs can contact the person listed general permits and program reports is more months in a six-month period. in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION critical to EPA’s ability to oversee and • Violations of monthly average CONTACT section to learn how to join manage authorized NPDES programs. permit effluent limits which are these workgroups. Authorizing the burden under this ICR exceeded in any four or more months in will allow EPA to provide timely a six-month period. assistance to authorized NPDES EPA incorporated these changes into programs as they implement the NPDES Appendix A, 40 CFR 123.45, as they eRule. The general permits and program provide greater clarity on how these reports inventory will help promote

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69195

efficiencies in NPDES eRule associated with this postponement are J. National Technology Transfer and implementation as states will be able to expected to be minimal for each Advancement Act (NTTAA) use this information to identify other regulatory entity. states that have already developed This rulemaking does not involve electronic reporting tools and may be E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act technical standards. (UMRA) able to provide helpful information or K. Executive Order 12898: Federal advice. This action does not contain an Actions To Address Environmental Respondents/affected entities: This unfunded mandate of $100 million or Justice in Minority Populations and ICR covers the 47 states and one U.S. more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. Low-Income Populations Territory authorized to implement the 1531–1538, and does not significantly or NPDES program. The EPA believes that this action does Respondent’s obligation to respond: uniquely affect small governments. The not have disproportionately high and Mandatory (40 CFR 123.43(d) and changes in this action help streamline adverse human health or environmental 127.24(e)). the implementation of the NPDES eRule effects on minority populations, low- Estimated number of respondents: 48. and provide states with more flexibility. income populations and/or indigenous Frequency of response: EPA estimates EPA estimates that the additional time peoples, as specified in Executive Order that twelve authorized NPDES programs and flexibility afforded by the changes 12898 (59 FR 7629, , 1994). will provide updated information on will help lower the implementation The changes in this action only cover general permits and program reports costs. states, tribes, and territories that have and the related electronic reporting F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism NPDES program authorization. tools each month. Additionally, all 48 L. Congressional Review Act (CRA) authorized NPDES programs will This action does not have federalism conduct an annual review and update of implications. It will not have substantial This action is subject to the CRA, and EPA’s inventory. Finally, EPA estimates direct effects on the states, on the the EPA will submit a rule report to that approximately 15 authorized relationship between the national each House of the Congress and to the NPDES programs will prepare and government and the states, or on the Comptroller General of the United submit an alternative Phase 2 distribution of power and States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ compliance deadline request during the responsibilities among the various as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). three-year period covered by the ICR. levels of government. Total estimated burden: 416 hours List of Subjects (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 40 CFR Part 9 1320.3(b). and Coordination With Indian Tribal Total estimated cost: $25,418 (per Governments Environmental protection, Reporting year), includes $0 annualized capital or and recordkeeping requirements. operation & maintenance costs. This action does not have tribal An agency may not conduct or implications as specified in Executive 40 CFR Part 122 sponsor, and a person is not required to Order 13175. This action does not affect Environmental protection, respond to, a collection of information small entities as the changes in this Administrative practice and procedure, unless it displays a currently valid OMB action only cover states, tribes, and Confidential business information, control number. The OMB control territories that have NPDES program Hazardous substances, Reporting and numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 authorization. Currently there are no recordkeeping requirements, Water CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. In tribal governments that are authorized pollution control. addition, the EPA is amending the table for the NPDES program. Thus, Executive in 40 CFR part 9 to list the regulatory Order 13175 does not apply to this 40 CFR Part 123 citations for the information collection action. Environmental protection, activities contained in this final rule. H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Administrative practice and procedure, D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) Children From Environmental Health Confidential business information, I certify that this action will not have Risks and Safety Risks Hazardous substances, Indians-lands, a significant economic impact on a Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, This action is not subject to Executive substantial number of small entities Reporting and recordkeeping Order 13045 because it is not under the RFA. This action will not requirements, Water pollution control. economically significant as defined in impose any requirements on small 40 CFR Part 127 entities. This action does not affect Executive Order 12866, and because the small entities as the changes in this EPA does not believe the environmental Environmental protection, action only directly covers states, tribes, health or safety risks addressed by this Administrative practice and procedure, and territories that have NPDES action present a disproportionate risk to Automatic data processing, Electronic program authorization. The RFA defines children. The changes in this action data processing, Hazardous substances, ‘‘small governmental jurisdiction’’ as only cover states, tribes, and territories Intergovernmental relations, Reporting the government of a city, county, town, that have NPDES program authorization. and recordkeeping requirements, township, village, school district, or I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Sewage disposal, Waste treatment and special district with a population of less Concerning Regulations That disposal, Water pollution control. than 50,000 (5 U.S.C. 601(5)). For the Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 40 CFR Part 403 purposes of the RFA, States and tribal Distribution or Use governments are not considered small Environmental protection, governments. The final rule indirectly This action is not subject to Executive Confidential business information, affects NPDES permittees as it Order 13211, because it is not a Reporting and recordkeeping postpones the compliance dates for significant regulatory action under requirements, Waste treatment and Phase 2 implementation. Any costs Executive Order 12866. disposal, Water pollution control.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 69196 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

40 CFR Part 503 (b) * * * use or disposal practice), under the Environmental protection, Reporting (15) * * * terms of the general permit unless the and recordkeeping requirements, (i) * * * general permit, in accordance with Sewage disposal. (C) As of December 21, 2025 or an paragraph (b)(2)(v), contains a provision EPA-approved alternative date (see 40 that a notice of intent is not required or Andrew Wheeler, CFR 127.24(e) or (f)), all certifications the Director notifies a discharger (or Administrator. submitted in compliance with treatment works treating domestic For the reasons set forth in the paragraphs (b)(15)(i)(A) and (B) of this sewage) that it is covered by a general preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR parts 9, section must be submitted electronically permit in accordance with paragraph 122, 123, 127, 403, and 503 as follows: by the owner or operator to the Director (b)(2)(vi). A complete and timely, notice or initial recipient, as defined in 40 CFR of intent (NOI), to be covered in PART 9—OMB APPROVALS UNDER 127.2(b), in compliance with this accordance with general permit THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT section and 40 CFR part 3 (including, in requirements, fulfills the requirements all cases, subpart D to part 3), § 122.22, for permit applications for purposes of ■ 1. The authority citation for part 9 and 40 CFR part 127. 40 CFR part 127 §§ 122.6, 122.21, and 122.26. As of continues to read as follows: is not intended to undo existing December 21, 2025 or an EPA-approved Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136–136y; requirements for electronic reporting. alternative date (see 40 CFR 127.24(e) or 15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2601–2671; Prior to this date, and independent of 40 (f)), all notices of intent submitted in 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33 CFR part 127, owners or operators may compliance with this section must be U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318, be required to report electronically if submitted electronically by the 1321, 1326, 1330, 1342, 1344, 1345 (d) and discharger (or treatment works treating (e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, specified by a particular permit or if 1971–1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, required to do so by state law. domestic sewage) to the Director or 242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g, 300g–1, 300g–2, * * * * * initial recipient, as defined in 40 CFR 300g–3, 300g–4, 300g–5, 300g–6, 300j–1, (g) * * * 127.2(b), in compliance with this 300j–2, 300j–3, 300j–4, 300j–9, 1857 et seq., (1) * * * section and 40 CFR part 3 (including, in 6901–6992k, 7401–7671q, 7542, 9601–9657, (iii) Submit the signed certification to all cases, subpart D to part 3), § 122.22, 11023, 11048. the NPDES permitting authority once and 40 CFR part 127. 40 CFR part 127 ■ 2. In § 9.1, add an entry for ‘‘127.24’’ every five years. As of December 21, is not intended to undo existing in numerical order under the 2025 or an EPA-approved alternative requirements for electronic reporting. undesignated center heading ‘‘NPDES date (see 40 CFR 127.24(e) or (f)), all Prior to this date, and independent of 40 Electronic Reporting’’ to read as follows: certifications submitted in compliance CFR part 127, discharger (or treatment with this section must be submitted works treating domestic sewage) may be § 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork required to report electronically if electronically by the owner or operator Reduction Act. specified by a particular permit or if to the Director or initial recipient, as * * * * * required to do so by state law. defined in 40 CFR 127.2(b), in * * * * * 40 CFR citation OMB control No. compliance with this section and 40 CFR part 3 (including, in all cases, ■ 6. In § 122.34, revise paragraph (d)(3) subpart D to part 3), § 122.22, and 40 introductory text to read as follows: ***** CFR part 127. 40 CFR part 127 is not § 122.34 Permit requirements for regulated intended to undo existing requirements small MS4 permits. for electronic reporting. Prior to this NPDES Electronic Reporting * * * * * date, and independent of 40 CFR part (d) * * * 127, owners or operators may be (3) Reporting. Unless the permittee is ***** required to report electronically if relying on another entity to satisfy its specified by a particular permit or if NPDES permit obligations under 127.24 2020–0037 required to do so by state law. § 122.35(a), the permittee must submit ***** * * * * * annual reports to the NPDES permitting ■ 5. In § 122.28, revise paragraph authority for its first permit term. For (b)(2)(i) to read as follows: subsequent permit terms, the permittee * * * * * must submit reports in year two and § 122.28 General permits (applicable to four unless the NPDES permitting PART 122—EPA ADMINISTERED State NPDES programs, see § 123.25). authority requires more frequent PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE NATIONAL * * * * * reports. As of December 21, 2025 or an POLLUTANT DISCHARGE (b) * * * EPA-approved alternative date (see 40 ELIMINATION SYSTEM (2) * * * CFR 127.24(e) or (f)), all reports (i) Except as provided in paragraphs submitted in compliance with this ■ 3. The authority citation for part 122 (b)(2)(v) and (vi) of this section, section must be submitted electronically continues to read as follows: dischargers (or treatment works treating by the owner, operator, or the duly Authority: The Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. domestic sewage) seeking coverage authorized representative of the small 1251 et seq. under a general permit shall submit to MS4 to the NPDES permitting authority ■ 4. In § 122.26, revise paragraphs the Director a notice of intent to be or initial recipient, as defined in 40 CFR (b)(15)(i)(C) and (g)(1)(iii) to read as covered by the general permit. A 127.2(b), in compliance with this follows: discharger (or treatment works treating section and 40 CFR part 3 (including, in domestic sewage) who fails to submit a all cases, subpart D to part 3), § 122.22, § 122.26 Storm water discharges notice of intent in accordance with the and 40 CFR part 127. 40 CFR part 127 (applicable to State NPDES programs, see terms of the permit is not authorized to is not intended to undo existing § 123.25). discharge, (or in the case of sludge requirements for electronic reporting. * * * * * disposal permit, to engage in a sludge Prior to this date, and independent of 40

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69197

CFR part 127, the owner, operator, or electronically submit reports related to (including, in all cases, subpart D to part the duly authorized representative of combined sewer overflows, sanitary 3), § 122.22, and 40 CFR part 127. 40 the small MS4 may be required to report sewer overflows, or bypass events under CFR part 127 is not intended to undo electronically if specified by a particular this section by a particular permit or if existing requirements for electronic permit or if required to do so by state required to do so by state law. The reporting. Prior to this date, and law. The report must include: Director may also require permittees to independent of 40 CFR part 127, * * * * * electronically submit reports not related permittees may be required to report ■ 7. In § 122.41, revise paragraphs to combined sewer overflows, sanitary electronically if specified by a particular (l)(6)(i), (l)(7), and (m)(3)(i) and (ii) to sewer overflows, or bypass events under permit or if required to do so by state read as follows: this section. law. * * * * * (ii) Unanticipated bypass. The § 122.41 Conditions applicable to all (7) Other noncompliance. The permittee shall submit notice of an permits (applicable to State programs, see unanticipated bypass as required in § 123.25). permittee shall report all instances of noncompliance not reported under paragraph (l)(6) of this section (24-hour * * * * * paragraphs (l)(4), (5), and (6) of this notice). As of December 21, 2025 or an (l) * * * section, at the time monitoring reports EPA-approved alternative date (see 40 (6) * * * are submitted. The reports shall contain CFR 127.24(e) or (f)), all notices (i) The permittee shall report any submitted in compliance with this noncompliance which may endanger the information listed in paragraph (l)(6). For noncompliance events related section must be submitted electronically health or the environment. Any by the permittee to the Director or initial information shall be provided orally to combined sewer overflows, sanitary sewer overflows, or bypass events, these recipient, as defined in 40 CFR 127.2(b), within 24 hours from the time the in compliance with this section and 40 permittee becomes aware of the reports shall contain the information described in paragraph (l)(6) and the CFR part 3 (including, in all cases, circumstances. A report shall also be subpart D to part 3), § 122.22, and 40 applicable required data in appendix A provided within 5 days of the time the CFR part 127. 40 CFR part 127 is not to 40 CFR part 127. As of December 21, permittee becomes aware of the intended to undo existing requirements 2025 or an EPA-approved alternative circumstances. The report shall contain for electronic reporting. Prior to this date (see 40 CFR 127.24(e) or (f)), all a description of the noncompliance and date, and independent of 40 CFR part reports related to combined sewer its cause; the period of noncompliance, 127, permittees may be required to overflows, sanitary sewer overflows, or including exact dates and times), and if report electronically if specified by a bypass events submitted in compliance the noncompliance has not been particular permit or if required to do so with this section must be submitted corrected, the anticipated time it is by state law. expected to continue; and steps taken or electronically by the permittee to the Director or initial recipient, as defined * * * * * planned to reduce, eliminate, and ■ prevent reoccurrence of the in 40 CFR 127.2(b), in compliance with 8. In § 122.42, revise paragraphs (c) noncompliance. For noncompliance this section and 40 CFR part 3 and (e)(4) introductory text to read as events related to combined sewer (including, in all cases, subpart D to part follows: overflows, sanitary sewer overflows, or 3), § 122.22, and 40 CFR part 127. 40 § 122.42 Additional conditions applicable bypass events, these reports must CFR part 127 is not intended to undo to specified categories of NPDES permits include the data described above (with existing requirements for electronic (applicable to State NPDES programs, see the exception of time of discovery) as reporting. Prior to this date, and § 123.25). well as the type of event (combined independent of 40 CFR part 127, * * * * * sewer overflows, sanitary sewer permittees may be required to (c) Municipal separate storm sewer overflows, or bypass events), type of electronically submit reports related to systems. The operator of a large or sewer overflow structure (e.g., manhole, combined sewer overflows, sanitary medium municipal separate storm combine sewer overflow outfall), sewer overflows, or bypass events under sewer system or a municipal separate discharge volumes untreated by the this section by a particular permit or if storm sewer that has been designated by treatment works treating domestic required to do so by state law. The the Director under § 122.26(a)(1)(v) must sewage, types of human health and Director may also require permittees to submit an annual report by the environmental impacts of the sewer electronically submit reports not related anniversary of the date of the issuance overflow event, and whether the to combined sewer overflows, sanitary of the permit for such system. As of noncompliance was related to wet sewer overflows, or bypass events under December 21, 2025 or an EPA-approved weather. As of December 21, 2025 or an this section. alternative date (see 40 CFR 127.24(e) or EPA-approved alternative date (see 40 * * * * * (f)), all reports submitted in compliance CFR 127.24(e) or (f)), all reports related (m) * * * with this section must be submitted to combined sewer overflows, sanitary (3) * * * electronically by the owner, operator, or sewer overflows, or bypass events (i) Anticipated bypass. If the the duly authorized representative of submitted in compliance with this permittee knows in advance of the need the MS4 to the Director or initial section must be submitted electronically for a bypass, it shall submit prior notice, recipient, as defined in 40 CFR 127.2(b), by the permittee to the Director or initial if possible, at least ten days before the in compliance with this section and 40 recipient, as defined in 40 CFR 127.2(b), date of the bypass. As of December 21, CFR part 3 (including, in all cases, in compliance with this section and 40 2025 or an EPA-approved alternative subpart D to part 3), § 122.22, and 40 CFR part 3 (including, in all cases, date (see 40 CFR 127.24(e) or (f)), all CFR part 127. 40 CFR part 127 is not subpart D to part 3), § 122.22, and 40 notices submitted in compliance with intended to undo existing requirements CFR part 127. 40 CFR part 127 is not this section must be submitted for electronic reporting. Prior to this intended to undo existing requirements electronically by the permittee to the date, and independent of 40 CFR part for electronic reporting. Prior to this Director or initial recipient, as defined 127, the owner, operator, or the duly date, and independent of 40 CFR part in 40 CFR 127.2(b), in compliance with authorized representative of the MS4 127, permittees may be required to this section and 40 CFR part 3 may be required to report electronically

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 69198 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

if specified by a particular permit or if Authority: Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 Appendix A to § 123.45—Criteria for required to do so by state law. The et seq. Category I Permit Effluent Limit report shall include: Violations ■ 11. In § 123.45, revise the section * * * * * heading, the introductory text, This appendix describes the criteria for (e) * * * paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (iv), and reporting Category I violations of NPDES (4) Annual reporting requirements for appendix A to § 123.45 to read as permit effluent limits in the NPDES CAFOs. The permittee must submit an follows: noncompliance report (NNCR) as specified annual report to the Director. As of under paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of this section. Any violation of a NPDES permit is a December 21, 2025 or an EPA-approved § 123.45 Noncompliance and program reporting. violation of the Clean Water Act (CWA) for alternative date (see 40 CFR 127.24(e) or which the permittee is liable. As specified in (f)), all annual reports submitted in As of December 21, 2022, EPA must paragraph (a)(2) of this section, there are two compliance with this section must be prepare and publish online public categories of noncompliance, and the table submitted electronically by the (quarterly and annual) reports using below indicates the thresholds for violations permittee to the Director or initial data from Discharge Monitoring Reports in Category I. An agency’s decision as to recipient, as defined in 40 CFR 127.2(b), [40 CFR 122.41(l)(4)], Biosolids Annual what enforcement action, if any, should be in compliance with this section and 40 Program Reports [40 CFR part 503] taken in such cases, shall be based on an CFR part 3 (including, in all cases, analysis of facts, legal requirements, policy, (when the Regional Administrator is the and guidance. subpart D to part 3), § 122.22, and 40 Director), and information that is CFR part 127. 40 CFR part 127 is not required to be submitted by the State Violations of Permit Effluent Limits intended to undo existing requirements Director (see Appendix A, 40 CFR part The categorization of permit effluent limit for electronic reporting. Prior to this 127). As of December 21, 2026, EPA violations depends upon the magnitude and/ date, and independent of 40 CFR part must prepare and publish online public or frequency of the violation. Effluent 127, the permittee may be required to (quarterly and annual) reports using violations shall be evaluated on a parameter- report electronically if specified by a information that is required to be by-parameter and outfall-by-outfall basis. The particular permit or if required to do so criteria for Category I permit effluent limit submitted by NPDES-regulated facilities violations apply to all Group I and Group II by state law. The annual report must and the State Director (see Appendix A, pollutants and are as follows: include: 40 CFR part 127). EPA will provide a. Criteria for Category I Violations of * * * * * authorized NPDES programs with at Monthly Average Permit Effluent Limits— ■ 9. In § 122.64, revise paragraph (c) to least one year to review and provide Magnitude and Frequency comments on draft versions of the read as follows: Violations of monthly average permit NNCR prior to their public release. effluent limits which exceed or equal the § 122.64 Termination of permits (a) * * * product of the Technical Review Criteria (applicable to State programs, see § 123.25). (2) * * * (TRC) times the permit effluent limit and * * * * * occur in any two or more months in a six- (c) Permittees that wish to terminate (i) Enforcement order violations. month period. The TRCs for the two groups their permit must submit a Notice of These include violations of any of pollutants are as follows: Termination (NOT) to their permitting requirement or condition in • Group I Pollutants (TRC) = 1.4 authority. If requesting expedited permit administrative or judicial enforcement • Group II Pollutants (TRC) = 1.2 termination procedures, a permittee orders, other than compliance The following is a listing of the Group I must certify in the NOT that it is not construction violations and reporting and Group II pollutants. violations. subject to any pending State or Federal Group I Pollutants enforcement actions including citizen (ii) Compliance construction suits brought under State or Federal violations. These include failure to start Oxygen Demand law. As of December 21, 2025 or an construction, complete construction, or • Biochemical Oxygen Demand • Chemical Oxygen Demand EPA-approved alternative date (see 40 achieve final compliance within 90 days • CFR 127.24(e) or (f)), all NOTs after the date established in a permit, Total Oxygen Demands • Total Organic Carbon submitted by general permit covered administrative or judicial order, or • Other facilities in compliance with this regulation. section must be submitted electronically (iii) Permit effluent limit violations. Solids by the permittee to the Director or initial These include violations of permit • Total Suspended Solids (Residues) recipient, as defined in 40 CFR 127.2(b), • Total Dissolved Solids (Residues) effluent limits that exceed the ‘‘Criteria • in compliance with this section and 40 for Category I Permit Effluent Limit Other CFR part 3 (including, in all cases, Violations’’ in appendix A to § 123.45. Nutrients subpart D), § 122.22, and 40 CFR part (iv) Reporting violations. These • Inorganic Phosphorus Compounds 127. 40 CFR part 127 is not intended to include failure to submit a required • Inorganic Nitrogen Compounds undo existing requirements for • report within 30 days after the date Other electronic reporting. Prior to this date, established in a permit, administrative and independent of 40 CFR part 127, the Detergents and Oils or judicial order, or regulation. These permittee may be required to report • MBAS reports only include final compliance • electronically if specified by a particular NTA schedule progress reports, Discharge • permit or if required to do so by State Oil and Grease Monitoring Reports (see 40 CFR • Other detergents or algicides law. 122.41(l)(4)(i)), and program reports (see Minerals PART 123—STATE PROGRAM 40 CFR 127.2(f)). In addition, these • violations also include any failure to Calcium REQUIREMENTS • Chloride comply with the reporting requirements • Fluoride ■ 10. The authority citation for part 123 at 40 CFR 122.41(l)(6). • Magnesium continues to read as follows: * * * * * • Sodium

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:40 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69199

• Potassium Inorganic PART 127—NPDES ELECTRONIC • Sulfur • • Cyanide REPORTING Sulfate • • Total Alkalinity Total Residual Chlorine • ■ Total Hardness Organics 12. The authority citation for part 127 • Other Minerals continues to read as follows: • All organics are Group II except those Metals specifically listed under Group I. Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. • Aluminum • b. Criteria for Category I Violations of ■ 13. In § 127.16, revise the table in Cobalt Monthly Average Permit Effluent Limits— • Iron paragraph (a) to read as follows: Chronic • Vanadium Violations of monthly average permit § 127.16 Implementation of electronic Group II Pollutants effluent limits which are exceeded in any reporting requirements for NPDES permittees, facilities, and entities subject to Metals (all forms) four or more months in a six-month period. this part [see § 127.1(a)]. • Other metals not specifically listed under Group I (a) * * *

TABLE 1 TO § 127.16(a)—COMPLIANCE DEADLINES FOR ELECTRONIC SUBMISSIONS OF NPDES INFORMATION

NPDES information Compliance deadlines for electronic submissions 1

General Permit Reports [Notices of Intent to discharge (NOIs); Notices of Termination (NOTs); No Expo- December 21, 2025. sure Certifications (NOEs); Low Erosivity Waivers (LEWs) and other Waivers] [40 CFR 122.26(b)(15), 122.28, and 122.64]. Discharge Monitoring Reports [40 CFR 122.41(l)(4)] ...... December 21, 2016. Biosolids Annual Program Reports [40 CFR part 503] ...... December 21, 2016 (when the Re- gional Administrator is the Direc- tor). 2 December 21, 2025 (when the state, tribe or territory is the au- thorized NPDES program). 2 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) Annual Program Reports [40 CFR 122.42(e)(4)] ...... December 21, 2025. Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Program Reports [40 CFR 122.34(d)(3) and 122.42(c)] ..... December 21, 2025. POTW Pretreatment Program Annual Reports [40 CFR 403.12(i)] ...... December 21, 2025. Significant Industrial User Compliance Reports in Municipalities Without Approved Pretreatment Programs December 21, 2025. [40 CFR 403.12(e) and (h)]. Sewer Overflow/Bypass Event Reports [40 CFR 122.41(l)(4), (6), (7), and 122.41(m)(3)] ...... December 21, 2025. CWA 316(b) Annual Reports [40 CFR part 125 subparts I, J, and N] ...... December 21, 2025. 1 EPA may approve an alternative compliance deadline for general permit reports and program reports in accordance with § 127.24(e) and (f). 2 Note: Director is defined in 40 CFR 122.2.

* * * * * § 127.24 Responsibilities regarding review elements covered by the request and the of waiver requests from NPDES permittees, corresponding alternative compliance ■ 14. In § 127.21, revise paragraph (b) to facilities, and entities subject to this part deadline(s); read as follows: [see § 127.1(a)] and alternative compliance deadlines. (iii) Identify each facility covered by § 127.21 Data to be reported electronically the request and the corresponding * * * * * alternative compliance deadline(s) to EPA by states, tribes, and territories. (e) A state, tribe, or territory that is (Note: This only applies if the request * * * * * designated by EPA as the initial covers some but not all facilities subject recipient (see §§ 127.2(b) and 127.27) for (b) States, tribes, and territories that to the general permit or program report a NPDES data group [as defined in have received authorization from EPA to requirement); implement the NPDES program must § 127.2(c)] may submit a request to EPA to establish an alternative compliance (iv) Be submitted at least 120 days electronically transfer these data, listed prior to the applicable compliance in § 127.21(a), to EPA within 40 days of deadline for electronic reporting of one or more general permit reports, program deadline in Table 1 to 40 CFR 127.16 or the completed activity or within 40 days reports, and related data elements (see an alternative compliance deadline of the receipt of a report from a NPDES Table 2 to appendix A). A State may previously approved by EPA; and permittee, facility, or entity subject to request to establish an alternative (v) Provide a rationale for the delay this part (see § 127.1(a)). EPA may set an compliance deadline for up to three and enough details (e.g., tasks, alternative compliance deadline for data years beyond the currently applicable milestones, roles and responsibilities, sharing for one or more facilities, date but not beyond December 21, 2028. necessary resources) to clearly describe general permit reports, program reports, It is the duty of the authorized NPDES how the program will successfully and related data elements (see 40 CFR program to apply for a new alternative implement electronic reporting for 127.24) provided this alternative compliance deadline. general permit, program report, and compliance date does not extend (1) The alternative compliance related data elements covered by the beyond December 21, 2028. deadline request shall: request. (i) Be submitted to EPA by the (2) EPA will review each alternative ■ 15. In § 127.24, revise the section Director, as defined in 40 CFR 122.2; compliance deadline request to see if it heading and add paragraphs (e) and (f) (ii) Identify each general permit, provides enough detail to accurately to read as follows: program report, and related data assess if the state has a reasonable plan

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 69200 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

to deploy electronic reporting by the alternative compliance deadlines for ■ viii. Remove the center heading requested alternative compliance each facility, general permit report, ‘‘CWA section 316(a) Thermal Variance deadline. EPA will return alternative program report, and related data Information on NPDES Permit compliance deadline requests with elements by authorized NPDES Application or Notice of Intent’’ and insufficient detail back to the Director program. This paragraph does not add in its place ‘‘NPDES Variance within 30 days of receipt and provide change the process for designating the Information’’; recommendations. EPA intends to initial recipient of electronic NPDES ■ ix. Under the newly revised center information from NPDES-regulated approve or deny each complete heading ‘‘NPDES Variance facilities. See § 127.27. alternative compliance deadline request Information’’, remove the entry within 120 days of receipt. EPA will ■ 16. In appendix A to part 127: ■ ‘‘Thermal Variance Request Type’’ and provide notice to the authorized NPDES a. In table 1, revise the entry for ‘‘9’’; add in its place ‘‘Variance Type’’ and and program of EPA’s approval or denial. remove the entry ‘‘Thermal Variance The authorized NPDES program may re- ■ b. In table 2: ■ i. Under the center heading ‘‘Basic Granted Date’’ and add in its place apply if the initial request is denied by ‘‘Variance Action Date’’; EPA. Permit Information’’, revise the entries (3) EPA will update its website after ‘‘Permit Component’’, ‘‘Applicable ■ x. Under the newly revised center it approves a request to clearly identify Effluent Limitations Guidelines’’, heading ‘‘NPDES Variance the approved alternative compliance ‘‘NAICS Code’’, and ‘‘NAICS Code Information’’, add entries for ‘‘Variance deadlines for each facility, general Primary Indicator’’; Request Version’’, ‘‘Variance Status’’, ■ permit report, program report, and ii. Under the center heading ‘‘Basic and ‘‘Variance Submission Date’’ after related data elements by authorized Permit Information’’, remove the entries the entry for ‘‘Variance Type’’; for ‘‘Reportable Noncompliance NPDES program. EPA will also post ■ xi. Under the center heading Tracking’’ and ‘‘Reportable each alternative compliance deadline ‘‘Compliance Monitoring Activity request and the corresponding Agency Noncompliance Tracking Start Date’’; ■ iii. Under the center heading Information (Program Data Generated approval or denial notice after each ‘‘Permitted Feature Information’’, from Authorized NPDES Programs and determination. EPA will provide remove the entry for ‘‘Receiving EPA)’’, revise the entries for updated information on its website. Waterbody Name for Permitted Feature’’ ‘‘Deficiencies Identified Through the (f) EPA may, as it deems appropriate, and add in its place ‘‘Waterbody Name Biosolids/Sewage Sludge Compliance establish an alternative compliance for Permitted Feature’’; Monitoring’’, ‘‘Deficiencies Identified deadline for electronic reporting and ■ iv. Remove the center heading Through the MS4 Compliance data sharing for one or more facilities, ‘‘Animal Feeding Operation Information Monitoring’’, ‘‘Deficiencies Identified general permit reports, program reports, on NPDES Permit Application or Notice Through the Pretreatment Compliance and related data elements (see Table 2 of Intent’’ and add in its place ‘‘Animal Monitoring’’, and ‘‘Deficiencies to appendix A) in one or more Feeding Operation Information’’; Identified Through the Sewer Overflow/ authorized NPDES programs. EPA may ■ v. Under the newly revised center Bypass Compliance Monitoring’’; and establish an alternative compliance heading ‘‘Animal Feeding Operation ■ deadline up to three years beyond the xii. Under the center heading Information’’, remove the entry for ‘‘Compliance Monitoring Activity currently applicable date, but in no ‘‘Facility CAAP Designation’’ and add in event beyond December 21, 2028. Information (Data Elements Specific to its place ‘‘Facility CAAP Status’’; Sewage Sludge/Biosolids Annual Separately, EPA will provide notice to ■ vi. Under the center heading Program Reports)’’, remove the entry each authorized NPDES program ‘‘Pretreatment Information on NPDES ‘‘Biosolids or Sewage Sludge—Land covered by each alternative compliance Permit Application or Notice of Intent Application or Surface Disposal deadline. This notice will detail how (this includes permit application data Deficiencies’’ and add in its place EPA will implement electronic required for all new and existing ‘‘Biosolids or Sewage Sludge- reporting (when EPA is responsible for POTWs (40 CFR 122.21(j)(6))’’, remove Violations’’. deploying one or more electronic the entry for ‘‘Applicable Categorical reporting tools) or how it will receive Standards’’; The revisions and additions read as data from authorized NPDES programs ■ vii. Under the center heading follows: (when the authorized NPDES program is ‘‘Cooling Water Intake Information on Appendix A to Part 127—Minimum Set responsible for deploying one or more NPDES Permit Application or Notice of of NPDES Data electronic reporting tools). EPA will Intent’’, revise the entry for ‘‘Source update its website to clearly identify the Water for Cooling Purposes’’; * * * * *

TABLE 1—DATA SOURCES AND REGULATORY CITATIONS 1

NPDES data NPDES data group Program area Data provider Minimum frequency 3 group No.2

******* 9 ...... Sewer Overflow/Bypass Sewer Over- NPDES Permittee .. Within 5 days of the time the permittee be- Event Reports [40 CFR flows and comes aware of the sewer overflow event 122.41(l)(4), (6), (7), and Bypass (health or environment endangerment); 122.41(m)(3)]. Events. Monitoring report frequency specific in per- mit (all other sewer overflow and bypass events); At least 10-days before the date of the anticipated bypass; and Within 5-days of the time the permittee becomes aware of the unanticipated bypass.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69201

TABLE 1—DATA SOURCES AND REGULATORY CITATIONS 1—Continued

NPDES data NPDES data group Program area Data provider Minimum frequency 3 group No.2

******* 1 Entities regulated by a NPDES permit will comply with all reporting requirements in their respective NPDES permit. 2 Use the ‘‘NPDES Data Group Number’’ in this table and the ‘‘NPDES Data Group Number’’ column in Table 2 of this appendix to identify the source of the required data entry. EPA notes that electronic systems may use additional data to facilitate electronic reporting as well as manage- ment and reporting of electronic data. For example, NPDES permittees may be required to enter their NPDES permit number (‘‘NPDES ID’’— NPDES Data Group 1 and 2) into the applicable electronic reporting system in order to identify their permit and submit a Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR—NPDES Data Group 3). Additionally, NPDES regulated entities may be required to enter and submit data to update or correct er- roneous data. For example, NPDES permittees may be required to enter new data regarding the Facility Individual First Name and Last Name (NPDES Data Group 1 and 2) with their DMR submission when there is a facility personnel change. 3 The applicable reporting frequency is specified in the NPDES permit or control mechanism, which may be more frequent than the minimum frequency specified in this table.

TABLE 2—REQUIRED NPDES PROGRAM DATA

NPDES data Data name Data description CWA, regulatory (40 CFR), or other citation group No. (see Table 1)

*******

Basic Permit Information

******* Permit Component ...... This will identify one or more applicable NPDES sub- 122.2, 122.21, 122.21(j)(6), 122.21(q), 122.28(b)(2)(ii), 1, 2. programs (e.g., pretreatment, CAFO, CSO, POTW, 123.26, 123.41(a), 123.43(d), 403.10, and 501.19. biosolids/sewage sludge, stormwater) for the permit record. This field is only required when the permit in- cludes one or more NPDES subprograms. This data element is also required for unpermitted facilities when the authorized NPDES programs is required to share facility, inspection, violation, or enforcement ac- tion data regarding these facilities with EPA’s national NPDES data system.

******* Applicable Effluent Limita- This data element will identify the one or more applica- 122.21, 122.21(j)(6), 122.21(q), 122.44, 122.44(j), 1, 2, and 7. tions Guidelines. ble effluent limitations guidelines and new source per- 122.28(b)(2)(ii), 403.10(e), 403.10(f), 403.12(i). formance standards for the facility by the cor- responding 40 CFR part number (e.g., part 414—Or- ganic chemicals, plastics, and synthetic fibers point source category, part 433—Metal Finishing point source category). For Categorical Industrial Users (CIUs) this data element will track the one or more applicable categorical standards even when the CIU is subject to one or more local limits that are more stringent than the applicable categorical standards. This data element will also identify if there are no ap- plicable effluent limitations guidelines, new source performance standards, or categorical standards for the facility (including Significant Industrial Users (SIUs)). This data element can be updated by the Control Authority for SIUs and CIUs through submis- sion of the Pretreatment Program Reports [40 CFR 403.12(i)]. Additionally, the authorized NPDES pro- gram can automate the creation of these data through submission of the Notices of Intent to dis- charge (NOI) [40 CFR 122.28(b)(2)(ii)].

******* NAICS Code ...... The one or more six-digit North American Industry Clas- 40 CFR 122.21(f)(3), 122.28(b)(2)(ii), EPA SIC/NAICS 1, 2, and 7. sification System (NAICS) codes/descriptions that Data Standard, Standard No. EX000022.2, 6 January represents the economic activity of the facility. This 2006, Office of Management and Budget, Executive field is required to be shared with the U.S. EPA when Office of the President, Final Decision on North authorized NPDES programs approve NPDES permit American Industry Classification System (62 FR coverage after , 2021 (i.e., two years after 17288), 403.10(f). the effective date of the 2019 NPDES Applications and Program Updates Rule). See , 2019; 84 FR 3324.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 69202 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 2—REQUIRED NPDES PROGRAM DATA—Continued

NPDES data Data name Data description CWA, regulatory (40 CFR), or other citation group No. (see Table 1)

NAICS Code Primary Indi- This data element will identify the primary economic ac- 40 CFR 122.21(f)(3), 122.28(b)(2)(ii), EPA SIC/NAICS 1, 2, and 7. cator. tivity, NAICS code, of the facility. This data element is Data Standard, Standard No. EX000022.2, 6 January required for electronic data transfer between state 2006, Office of Management and Budget, Executive and EPA systems. This field is required to be shared Office of the President, Final Decision on North with the U.S. EPA when authorized NPDES programs American Industry Classification System (62 FR approve NPDES permit coverage after June 12, 2021 17288), 403.10(f). (i.e., two years after the effective date of the 2019 NPDES Applications and Program Updates Rule). See February 12, 2019; 84 FR 3324.

*******

Permitted Feature Information

******* Waterbody Name for Per- The name of the waterbody that is or will likely receive 122.21, 122.21(f)(9), 122.28(b)(2)(ii) ...... 1,2. mitted Feature. the discharge from each permitted feature. If the per- mitted feature is a cooling water intake structure, this data element is the name of the source water. Au- thorized NPDES programs can also use this data ele- ment to identify the name of the source water for other intake structures that are permitted features.

*******

Animal Feeding Operation Information

Facility CAAP Status ...... The unique code/description to indicate whether the fa- 122.21(i)(2), 122.24, 122.25, 122.28(b)(2)(ii) ...... 1,2. cility includes Concentrated Aquatic Animal Produc- tion (CAAP) and the CAAP identification method [e.g., ‘‘Yes (Based on Facility Production Data)’’, ‘‘Yes (Authorized NPDES Program Designation)’’]. This field also applies when an authorized NPDES program has conducted an on-site inspection of an aquatic animal production facility and determined that the facility should not be regulated under the NPDES permit program [e.g., ‘‘No (Authorized NPDES Pro- gram Determination)’’]. This data element only ap- plies to aquatic animal production facilities. This data element can be automatically generated from produc- tion data that is provided by aquatic animal produc- tion facilities.

*******

Cooling Water Intake Information on NPDES Permit Application or Notice of Intent

******* Source Water for Cooling The unique code/description that describes the one or 122.21(f)(9), 122.21(r), 122.28(b)(2)(ii), 125.86, 125.95, 1, 2. Purposes. more source water for cooling purpose for each cool- 125.136, 401.14 and CWA section 316(b). ing water intake structure [e.g., 1 = Ocean, 2 = Estu- ary, 3 = Great Lake, 4 = Fresh River, 5 = Lake/Res- ervoir, 6 = contract or arrangement with an inde- pendent supplier (or multiple suppliers)]. Each cooling water intake structure will have its own ‘‘Permitted Feature ID’’

*******

NPDES Variance Information

Variance Type...... The unique code(s)/description(s) that describes the 122.21(f)(10), 122.21(j)(1)(ix), 122.28(b)(2)(ii), 123.41, 1. type for each variance request submitted by the subpart H of 125 and CWA section 316(a). NPDES-regulated entity [e.g., fundamentally different factors (CWA Section 301(n)), non-conventional pol- lutants (CWA Section 301(c) and (g)), water quality related effluent limitations (CWA Section 302(b)(2)), thermal discharges (CWA Section 316(a)), discharges to marine waters (CWA Section 301(h))]. This field is required to be shared with the U.S. EPA when au- thorized NPDES programs approve NPDES permit coverage after June 12, 2021 (i.e., two years after the effective date of the 2019 NPDES Applications and Program Updates Rule). See February 12, 2019; 84 FR 3324.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69203

TABLE 2—REQUIRED NPDES PROGRAM DATA—Continued

NPDES data Data name Data description CWA, regulatory (40 CFR), or other citation group No. (see Table 1)

Variance Request Version ... The unique code(s)/description(s) that describe whether 122.21(f)(10), 122.21(j)(1)(ix), 122.28(b)(2)(ii), 123.41, 1. each variance request from the NPDES-regulated en- subpart H of 125 and CWA section 316(a). tity is a new request, renewal, or a continuance for variances that do not expire. This field is required to be shared with the U.S. EPA when authorized NPDES programs approve NPDES permit coverage after June 12, 2021 (i.e., two years after the effective date of the 2019 NPDES Applications and Program Updates Rule). See February 12, 2019; 84 FR 3324. Variance Status...... The unique code(s)/description(s) that describes the 122.21(f)(10), 122.21(j)(1)(ix), 122.28(b)(2)(ii), 123.41, 1. status for each the variance request submitted by the subpart H of 125 and CWA section 316(a). NPDES-regulated entity (e.g., pending, approved, de- nied, withdrawn by NPDES-regulated entity, termi- nated). This field is required to be shared with the U.S. EPA when authorized NPDES programs ap- prove NPDES permit coverage after June 12, 2021 (i.e., two years after the effective date of the 2019 NPDES Applications and Program Updates Rule). See February 12, 2019; 84 FR 3324. Variance Submission Date .. This is the date for each variance request submitted by 122.21(f)(10), 122.21(j)(1)(ix), 122.28(b)(2)(ii), 123.41, 1. the NPDES-regulated entity to the NPDES permitting subpart H of 125 and CWA section 316(a). authority. The date must be provided in YYYY–MM– DD format where YYYY is the year, MM is the month, and DD is the day. This field is required to be shared with the U.S. EPA when authorized NPDES programs approve NPDES permit coverage after June 12, 2021 (i.e., two years after the effective date of the 2019 NPDES Applications and Program Updates Rule). See February 12, 2019; 84 FR 3324. Variance Action Date ...... This is the date for each variance request when the 122.21(f)(10), 122.21(j)(1)(ix), 122.28(b)(2)(ii), 123.41, 1. NPDES permitting authority approves (grants, re- subpart H of 125 and CWA section 316(a). news), denies, or terminates a variance request as well as the date when the NPDES-regulated entity withdraws the variance request. For variances that do not expire, this is the original action date. The date must be provided in YYYY–MM–DD format where YYYY is the year, MM is the month, and DD is the day. This field is required to be shared with the U.S. EPA when authorized NPDES programs approve NPDES permit coverage after June 12, 2021 (i.e., two years after the effective date of the 2019 NPDES Applications and Program Updates Rule). See Feb- ruary 12, 2019; 84 FR 3324.

*******

Compliance Monitoring Activity Information (Program Data Generated from Authorized NPDES Programs and EPA)

Deficiencies Identified This is the unique code/description that that identifies 123.26, 123.41(a), and CWA section 308 ...... 1. Through the Biosolids/ each deficiency in the facility’s biosolids and sewage Sewage Sludge Compli- sludge program (40 CFR part 503) for each compli- ance Monitoring. ance monitoring activity (e.g., inspections, audits) by the regulatory authority. This data element includes unique codes to identify when the facility failed to comply with any applicable permit requirements or enforcement actions. Deficiencies Identified This is the unique code/description that that identifies 123.26, 123.41(a), and CWA section 308 ...... 1. Through the MS4 Compli- each deficiency in the MS4’s program to control ance Monitoring. stormwater pollution for each compliance monitoring activity (e.g., inspections, audits) by the regulatory authority. This data element includes unique codes to identify when the MS4 failed to comply with any ap- plicable permit requirements or enforcement actions. Deficiencies Identified This is the unique code/description that that identifies 123.26, 123.41(a), 403.10, and CWA section 308 ...... 1. Through the Pretreatment each deficiency in the POTW’s authorized Compliance Monitoring. pretreatment program for each pretreatment compli- ance monitoring activity (e.g., inspections, audits) by the regulatory authority. These unique codes include: (1) Failure to enforce against pass through and/or in- terference; (2) failure to submit required reports within 30 days; (3) failure to meet compliance schedule milestones within 90 days; (4) failure to issue/reissue control mechanisms to 90% of SIUs within 6 months; (5) failure to inspect or sample 80% of SIUs within the past 12 months; and (6) failure to enforce stand- ards and reporting requirements.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 69204 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 2—REQUIRED NPDES PROGRAM DATA—Continued

NPDES data Data name Data description CWA, regulatory (40 CFR), or other citation group No. (see Table 1)

Deficiencies Identified This is the unique code/description that that identifies 122.41(h), 122.41(l)(6) and (7), 122.43, 123.26, 1. Through the Sewer Over- each deficiency in the POTW’s control of combined 123.41(a), and CWA sections 308 and 402(q)(1). flow/Bypass Compliance sewer overflows, sanitary sewer overflows, or bypass Monitoring. events for each compliance monitoring activity (e.g., inspections, audits) by the regulatory authority. This data element includes unique codes to identify when a POTW has failed to provide 24-hour notification to the NPDES permitting authority or failed to submit the Sewer Overflow/Bypass Event Report within the re- quired 5-day period. This data element also includes unique codes to identify when the POTW failed to comply with any applicable long-term CSO control plan, permit requirements, or enforcement actions.

*******

Compliance Monitoring Activity Information (Data Elements Specific to Sewage Sludge/Biosolids Annual Program Reports)

******* Biosolids or Sewage This data element is applicable to facilities that use land 503.18, 503.28, 503.48 ...... 4. Sludge—Violations. application, active surface disposal site (e.g., monofills, surface impoundments, lagoons, waste piles, dedicated disposal sites, and dedicated bene- ficial use sites), and/or incineration. This data ele- ment uses one or more unique codes/descriptions to identify all violations. This includes violations of addi- tional or more stringent requirements (40 CFR 503.5), sampling and analysis requirements (40 CFR 503.8), land application requirements (40 CFR 503, Subpart B), surface disposal requirements (40 CFR 503, Sub- part C), pathogen and vector attraction reduction re- quirements (40 CFR 503, Subpart D), and inciner- ation requirements (40 CFR 503, Subpart E).

******* Notes: (1) The NPDES program authority may pre-populate these data elements and other data elements (e.g., Federal Registry System ID) in the NPDES electronic re- porting systems in order to create efficiencies and standardization. For example, the NPDES program authority may configure their electronic reporting system to automatically generate NPDES IDs for control mechanisms for new facilities reported on a Pretreatment Program Report [40 CFR 403.12(i)]. Additionally, the NPDES program authority may decide whether to allow NPDES regulated entities to override these pre-populated data. (2) The data elements in this table conform to the EPA’s policy regarding the application requirements for renewal or reissuance of NPDES permits for discharges from Phase I municipal separate storm sewer systems (published in the FEDERAL REGISTER on August 6, 1996). (3) The data elements in this table are also supported by the Office Management and Budget approved permit applications and forms for the NPDES program. (4) These data will allow EPA and the NPDES program authority to link facilities, compliance monitoring activities, compliance determinations, and enforcement ac- tions. For example, these data will provide several ways to make the following linkages: linking violations to enforcement actions and final orders; linking single event violations and compliance monitoring activities; linking program reports to DMRs; linking program reports to compliance monitoring activities; and linking enforcement activities and compliance monitoring activities.

PART 403—GENERAL the months of June and December, the Control Authority and in PRETREATMENT REGULATIONS FOR unless required more frequently in the consideration of such factors as local EXISTING AND NEW SOURCES OF Pretreatment Standard or by the Control high or low flow rates, holidays, budget POLLUTION Authority or the Approval Authority, a cycles, etc., the Control Authority may report indicating the nature and modify the months during which the ■ 17. The authority citation for part 403 concentration of pollutants in the above reports are to be submitted. For continues to read as follows: effluent which are limited by such Industrial Users for which EPA or the Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. categorical Pretreatment Standards. In authorized state, tribe, or territory is the addition, this report shall include a Control Authority, as of December 21, ■ 18. In § 403.12, revise paragraphs record of measured or estimated average 2025 or an EPA-approved alternative (e)(1), (h), and (i) to read as follows: and maximum daily flows for the date (see 40 CFR 127.24(e) or (f)), all § 403.12 Reporting requirements for reporting period for the Discharge reports submitted in compliance with POTW’s and industrial users. reported in paragraph (b)(4) of this this section must be submitted * * * * * section except that the Control electronically by the industrial user to (e) * * * Authority may require more detailed the Control Authority or initial (1) Any Industrial User subject to a reporting of flows. In cases where the recipient, as defined in 40 CFR 127.2(b), categorical Pretreatment Standard Pretreatment Standard requires in compliance with this section and 40 (except a Non-Significant Categorical compliance with a Best Management CFR part 3 (including, in all cases, User as defined in § 403.3(v)(2)), after Practice (or pollution prevention subpart D to part 3), 40 CFR 122.22, and the compliance date of such alternative), the User shall submit 40 CFR part 127. 40 CFR part 127 is not Pretreatment Standard, or, in the case of documentation required by the Control intended to undo existing requirements a New Source, after commencement of Authority or the Pretreatment Standard for electronic reporting. Prior to this the discharge into the POTW, shall necessary to determine the compliance date, and independent of 40 CFR part submit to the Control Authority during status of the User. At the discretion of 127, the Industrial Users for which EPA

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69205

or the authorized state, tribe, or territory in the local program. The report December 21, 2025, or an EPA-approved is the Control Authority may be required by this section shall be alternative date (see 40 CFR 127.24(e) or required to report electronically if submitted no later than one year after (f)), all reports submitted in compliance specified by a particular control approval of the POTW’s Pretreatment with this section must be submitted mechanism or if required to do so by Program, and at least annually electronically in compliance with this state law. thereafter, and must include, at a section and 40 CFR part 3 (including, in * * * * * minimum, the applicable required data all cases, subpart D to 40 CFR part 3), (h) Reporting requirements for in appendix A to 40 CFR part 127. The 40 CFR 122.22, and 40 CFR part 127. 40 Industrial Users not subject to report required by this section must also CFR part 127 is not intended to undo categorical Pretreatment Standards. The include a summary of changes to the existing requirements for electronic Control Authority must require POTW’s pretreatment program that have reporting. Prior to the compliance appropriate reporting from those not been previously reported to the deadlines for electronic reporting (see Industrial Users with Discharges that are Approval Authority and any other Table 1 in 40 CFR 127.16), the Director not subject to categorical Pretreatment relevant information requested by the may also require operators to Standards. Significant Non-categorical Approval Authority. As of December 21, electronically submit annual reports Industrial Users must submit to the 2025 or an EPA-approved alternative under this section if required to do so Control Authority at least once every six date (see 40 CFR 127.24(e) or (f)), all by State law. months (on dates specified by the annual reports submitted in compliance (a) The information in § 503.17(a), Control Authority) a description of the with this section must be submitted except the information in nature, concentration, and flow of the electronically by the POTW § 503.17(a)(3)(ii), (a)(4)(ii) and in pollutants required to be reported by the Pretreatment Program to the Approval (a)(5)(ii), for the appropriate Control Authority. In cases where a Authority or initial recipient, as defined requirements on of each local limit requires compliance with a in 40 CFR 127.2(b), in compliance with year. this section and 40 CFR part 3 Best Management Practice or pollution (b) The information in prevention alternative, the User must (including, in all cases, subpart D to 40 CFR part 3), 40 CFR 122.22, and 40 CFR § 503.17(a)(5)(ii)(A) through (G) on submit documentation required by the February 19th of each year when 90 Control Authority to determine the part 127. 40 CFR part 127 is not intended to undo existing requirements percent or more of any of the compliance status of the User. These cumulative pollutant loading rates in reports must be based on sampling and for electronic reporting. Prior to this date, and independent of 40 CFR part Table 2 of § 503.13 is reached at a land analysis performed in the period application site. covered by the report, and in 127, the Approval Authority may also ■ accordance with the techniques require POTW Pretreatment Programs to 21. Revise § 503.28 to read as follows: electronically submit annual reports described in 40 CFR part 136 of this § 503.28 Reporting. chapter and amendments thereto. This under this section if specified by a sampling and analysis may be particular permit or if required to do so Class I sludge management facilities, performed by the Control Authority in by state law. POTWs (as defined in 40 CFR 501.2) lieu of the significant non-categorical * * * * * with a design flow rate equal to or Industrial User. For Industrial Users for greater than one million gallons per day, PART 503—STANDARDS FOR THE which EPA or the authorized state, tribe, and POTWs that serve 10,000 people or USE OR DISPOSAL OF SEWAGE or territory is the Control Authority, as more shall submit a report on February SLUDGE of December 21, 2025 or an EPA- 19 of each year. As of December 21, approved alternative date (see 40 CFR 2016, all reports submitted in ■ 19. The authority citation for part 503 compliance with this section must be 127.24(e) or (f)), all reports submitted in continues to read as follows: compliance with this section must be submitted electronically by the operator submitted electronically by the Authority: Sections 405 (d) and (e) of the to EPA when the Regional Clean Water Act, as amended by Pub. L. 95– Administrator is the Director in industrial user to the Control Authority 217, sec. 54(d), 91 Stat. 1591 (33 U.S.C. 1345 or initial recipient, as defined in 40 CFR compliance with this section and 40 (d) and (e)); and Pub. L. 100–4, title IV, sec. CFR part 3 (including, in all cases, 127.2(b), in compliance with this 406 (a), (b), 101 Stat., 71, 72 (33 U.S.C. 1251 section and 40 CFR part 3 (including, in et seq.). subpart D to 40 CFR part 3), 40 CFR 122.22, and 40 CFR part 127. Otherwise, all cases, subpart D to part 3), 40 CFR ■ 20. Revise § 503.18 to read as follows: 122.22, and 40 CFR part 127. 40 CFR as of December 21, 2025, or an EPA- part 127 is not intended to undo § 503.18 Reporting. approved alternative date (see 40 CFR existing requirements for electronic Class I sludge management facilities, 127.24(e) or (f)), all reports submitted in reporting. Prior to this date, and POTWs (as defined in § 501.2 of this compliance with this section must be independent of 40 CFR part 127, the chapter) with a design flow rate equal to submitted electronically in compliance Industrial Users for which EPA or the or greater than one million gallons per with this section and 40 CFR part 3 authorized state, tribe, or territory is the day, and POTWs that serve 10,000 (including, in all cases, subpart D to 40 Control Authority may be required to people or more shall submit a report on CFR part 3), 40 CFR 122.22, and 40 CFR report electronically if specified by a February 19 of each year. As of part 127. 40 CFR part 127 is not particular control mechanism or if December 21, 2016, all reports intended to undo existing requirements required to do so by state law. submitted in compliance with this for electronic reporting. Prior to the (i) Annual POTW reports. POTWs section must be submitted electronically compliance deadlines for electronic with approved Pretreatment Programs by the operator to EPA when the reporting (see Table 1 in 40 CFR shall provide the Approval Authority Regional Administrator is the Director 127.16), the Director may also require with a report that briefly describes the in compliance with this section and 40 operators to electronically submit POTW’s program activities, including CFR part 3 (including, in all cases, annual reports under this section if activities of all participating agencies, if subpart D to part 3), 40 CFR 122.22, and required to do so by state law. more than one jurisdiction is involved 40 CFR part 127. Otherwise, as of ■ 22. Revise § 503.48 to read as follows:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 69206 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

§ 503.48 Reporting. especially those with physical (SO) 3376 to address regulatory Class I sludge management facilities, limitations, and could encourage uncertainty regarding how agencies POTWs (as defined in § 501.2 of this additional enjoyment of lands and within the Department of the Interior chapter) with a design flow rate equal to waters managed by the BLM. (DOI) manage e-bikes. Specifically, SO or greater than one million gallons per DATES: This final rule is effective on 3376 sets forth the general policy of the day, and POTWs that serve a population December 2, 2020. DOI that e-bikes should be allowed of 10,000 people or greater shall submit FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: where non-motorized types of bicycles a report on February 19 of each year. As Britta Nelson, National Conservation are allowed and not allowed where non- of December 21, 2016, all reports Lands and Community Partnerships, motorized types of bicycles are submitted in compliance with this 303–236–0539. Persons who use a prohibited. SO 3376 directs the BLM to section must be submitted electronically telecommunications device for the deaf revise its ORV regulations at 43 CFR by the operator to EPA when the (TDD) may call the Federal Relay 8340.0–5 to be consistent with SO 3376. Regional Administrator is the Director Service (FRS) at 1–800–877–8339, 24 The Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Fish in compliance with this section and 40 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a and Wildlife Service, and National Park CFR part 3 (including, in all cases, message or question with the previously Service are also revising their subpart D to 40 CFR part 3), 40 CFR mentioned point of contact. You will regulations for consistency with SO 122.22, and 40 CFR part 127. Otherwise, receive a reply during normal business 3376. as of December 21, 2025, or an EPA- hours. II. Discussion of the Final Rule and approved alternative date (see 40 CFR SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments on the Proposed Rule 127.24(e) or (f)), all reports submitted in compliance with this section must be I. Background The BLM published a proposed rule submitted electronically in compliance II. Discussion of the Final Rule and on , 2020 (85 FR 20229), Comments on the Proposed Rule with this section and 40 CFR part 3 III. Procedural Matters soliciting public comments for 60 days. (including, in all cases, subpart D to part During the comment period, the BLM 3), 40 CFR 122.22, and 40 CFR part 127. I. Background received almost 24,000 submissions 40 CFR part 127 is not intended to undo The Federal Land Policy and from members of the public, including existing requirements for electronic Management Act (FLPMA) directs the senior citizens, avid cyclists, hikers, reporting. Prior to the compliance BLM to manage public lands for equestrians and equestrian associations, deadlines for electronic reporting (see multiple use and sustained yield (unless and cycling organizations and Table 1 in 40 CFR 127.16), the Director otherwise provided by law) and to manufacturers, as well as state and local may also require operators to provide for outdoor recreation (43 governments. Each public comment was electronically submit annual reports U.S.C. 1702). Many visitors ride bicycles considered in the development of the under this section if required to do so on BLM-managed public lands. final rule. Many comments were by state law. Improvements in bicycle technology supportive of the proposed rule, with [FR Doc. 2020–21446 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] have made bicycling an option for more some expressing support for increased BILLING CODE 6560–50–P people and have made public lands opportunities for people to ride e-bikes more accessible to cyclists. One bicycle on public lands and for e-bikes to be design modification growing in treated similarly to traditional, non- DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR popularity is the addition of a small motorized bikes by land managers. The electric motor that provides power BLM also received comments that were Bureau of Land Management assistance to the rider and reduces the critical of the proposed rule. Some of physical exertion required. Electric these comments expressed concern over 43 CFR Part 8340 bicycles (also known as e-bikes) are potential user conflicts or resource available in an ever-expanding range of damage that may result from allowing e- [LLWO430000.L12200000.XM0000.20x 24 bikes on roads and trails that are 1A] design types (urban commuter, full suspension mountain, fat-tire, gear currently closed to ORVs. Meanwhile, RIN 1004–AE72 hauler bikes, etc.) and electric assist some comments expressed a desire for capabilities (limited by speed, wattage, consistency in the management of e- Increasing Recreational Opportunities output algorithms, etc.). E-bikes are bikes across different agencies. Through the Use of Electric Bikes commonly used in different capacities, In the proposed rule, the BLM AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, such as transportation and recreation. requested information from the public Interior. By reducing the physical demand on the potential social and physical ACTION: Final rule. associated with bicycling, e-bikes impacts of e-bike use on public lands. expand recreational opportunities for Studies and reports were provided in SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land the public, including for people with conjunction with many of the comments Management (BLM) is amending its off- limitations stemming from age, illness, and cover a variety of topics, such as road vehicle (ORV) regulations to add a disability, or fitness, and in more safety, hazards, health benefits, user definition for electric bikes (e-bikes) challenging environments, such as high conflict, attitudes and perceptions, elk and, where certain criteria are met and altitudes or mountainous terrain. The behavior, soil displacement, speed an authorized officer expressly presence of a small electric motor on e- comparisons, impacts to grizzly bears, determines through a formal decision bikes, however, has created uncertainty snowmobiles, impacts to wildlife, that e-bikes should be treated the same about whether e-bikes should be treated impacts of roads, strategic planning, as non-motorized bicycles, expressly in the same manner as other types of crash likelihood, and battery exempt those e-bikes from the definition non-motorized bicycles or as ORVs flammability. While some studies and of ORV. The regulatory change subject to the BLM’s regulations at 43 reports address e-bikes specifically, effectuated by this rule has the potential CFR part 8340. others do not. Many studies extrapolate to facilitate increased recreational On August 29, 2019, the Secretary of their findings to e-bike use, opportunities for all Americans, the Interior issued Secretary’s Order management, and effects. The BLM

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69207

considered these studies and reports to address the expanding and wholly users in a manner and scope similar to while developing the final rule. unregulated use of ORVs on public traditional, non-motorized bicycles. Comments received that are similar in lands, much of which involved cross- Allowing e-bikes on roads and trails that nature have been categorized by subject country travel that did not occur on are already open to non-motorized bike and, in some instances, have been identified roads and trails and was use will therefore not result in the types combined with related comments. harming historical and archaeological of resource impacts and user conflicts sites, among other resources. Such use Discussion of Comments by Topic that E.O. 11644 was designed to was also putting ORV users at risk, address. For example, the ORVs Need for a Rule particularly due to the existence of referenced in E.O. 11644 and the 1979 Comment: Some commenters stated uncovered abandoned mine shafts on CEQ report are powered by internal the rule would be inconsistent with the public lands. By comparison, the Class combustion engines that generate loud direction in Executive Order (E.O.) 1, 2, and 3 e-bike use that could be noises (i.e., anywhere from 90–110 11644, ‘‘Use of Off-Road Vehicles on the allowed under this rule would be decibels, depending on the type of limited to roads and trails that Public Lands.’’ These commenters assert vehicle), which are capable of carrying traditional, non-motorized bicycles can that the rule’s exclusion of e-bikes from over long distances. The noise already use. Therefore, users will not the ORV requirements of this E.O. is associated with e-bikes includes the likely expose resources or themselves to arbitrary and capricious. sound of their tires rolling over a road the type of harm that E.O. 11644 was Response: E.O. 11644 was issued by or trail and, at most, a low, steady intended to mitigate. President Nixon in 1972 and amended whine that may be emitted when the Second, the Class 1, 2, and 3 e-bikes electric motor is engaged. While the by President Carter in 1977 (E.O. that are the subject of this rule differ effects of noise on wildlife differ across 11989). It establishes policies and significantly in their engineering from taxonomic groups and reactions to procedures for managing the use of the types of ORVs that are identified in sound are different for every visitor, the ORVs to protect the resources of the E.O. 11644 and that the Executive impacts on quietude, wildlife behavioral public lands, promote safety of all users Branch sought to regulate in 1972. patterns, and other recreational uses of the lands, and minimize conflicts These vehicles include the caused by e-bikes are expected to be among those users. The E.O. defines ‘‘motorcycles, mini-bikes, trial bikes, similar to those caused by traditional, ORVs as any motorized vehicle snowmobiles, dune-buggies, [and] all- non-motorized bicycles and designed for or capable of cross-country terrain vehicles,’’ which are expressly travel on or immediately over land, referenced in E.O. 11644. They also substantially less than those resulting water, sand, snow, ice, marsh, include ‘‘motorcycles of various sorts from typical motor vehicle use or even swampland, or other natural terrain. (minibikes, dirt bikes, enduros, the vehicles listed in the E.O. Also, Certain vehicles that would otherwise motocross bikes, etc.), four-wheel drive unlike those latter vehicles, e-bikes do fall within this broad definition are vehicles such as Jeeps, Land Rovers, or not emit exhaust that could impact air expressly excluded, including, but not pickups, snowmobiles, dune buggies, quality and the health of nearby users. limited to, any registered motorboat; any and all-terrain vehicles’’ mentioned in a Finally, a review of available models fire, military, emergency, or law 1979 report by the Council on shows that Class 1, 2, and 3 e-bikes are enforcement vehicle when used for Environmental Quality (CEQ) that generally much lighter than even the emergency purposes; and any vehicle discusses the requirements of E.O. lightest ORV listed in the E.O. A typical whose use is expressly authorized by 11644 in great detail and evaluates e-bike weighs approximately 45–50 the respective agency head under a efforts undertaken by federal land pounds, which is only slightly heavier permit, lease, license, or contract. Under management agencies to comply with than a typical traditional, non- the E.O., the administrative designation them. Although E.O. 11644 and the CEQ motorized bicycle’s weight of 30–35 of the specific areas and trails on which report did not attempt to list every type pounds. In comparison, minibikes, the use of ORVs may be permitted must of vehicle that may fall within the which are the lightest ORV listed in E.O. be based on specific criteria designed to definition of ORV, the marked 11644, weigh an average of 115–130 protect resources, promote user safety, differences in the overall design and pounds, typical trial bikes can weigh and minimize conflicts among the function between the identified vehicles 145 pounds, and motorcycles can weigh various uses of public lands. and Class 1, 2, and 3 e-bikes is telling. approximately 300–400 pounds. The E-bikes are not referenced in E.O. The clearly-identified ORVs have significantly lower weight of e-bikes, 11644, which is not surprising given internal combustion engines and do not combined with the lower levels of that the technological advances needed have pedals or other design features that torque that they are capable of to popularize them, such as torque allow for human propulsion. To be generating, and the lower speeds that motors and power controls, were not treated similar to a non-motorized they are capable of reaching, limit their developed until the mid-1990s. While bicycle under this rule, however, an e- potential to cause soil compaction and the e-bikes addressed in this rule have bike must have operable pedals, be erosion. This was demonstrated by a a small electric motor and are capable capable of relying on human power, and recent study conducted by the of cross-country travel over land, there only derive some assistance from a International Mountain Bicycling are multiple reasons why it is small, electric motor. Moreover, the Association. That study, which reasonable to provide authorized ORVs that the E.O. clearly applies to are measured relative levels of soil officers with discretion to manage Class uniformly larger, louder, and, due to displacement and erosion resulting from 1, 2, and 3 e-bikes in the same manner their more powerful engines, capable of traditional, non-motorized mountain as non-motorized bicycles and unlike achieving greater speeds than Class 1, 2, bikes, e-bikes, and gasoline-powered ORVs, where appropriate. and 3 e-bikes. dirt bikes, found that soil displacement First, providing authorized officers Third, as a result of the and tread disturbance from e-bikes and with discretion to manage e-bikes aforementioned engineering differences, traditional, non-motorized mountain similar to non-motorized bicycles in e-bikes, unlike the larger, more powerful bikes were not significantly different, certain instances does not undercut the vehicles referenced in E.O. 11644 tend and both were much less than those E.O.’s intent. E.O. 11644 was designed to affect resources and other public land associated with gas-powered dirt bikes.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 69208 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

Although the study focused on the and provides authorized officers the future site-specific decision-making impacts from Class 1 e-bikes, it is likely discretion to treat them accordingly. processes. that the impacts would be similar for Under existing regulations, e-bikes are Comment: Some commenters stated Class 2 e-bikes. Both classes provide managed as ORVs and can be allowed, that the BLM failed to provide a motorized assistance up to 20 miles per based on site-specific considerations, on reasoned explanation for the proposed hour and, under this rule, Class 2 e- roads and trails that are located in areas changes in defining e-bikes as non- bikes may not be ridden in throttle-only designated as ‘‘Open’’ or ‘‘Limited’’ to motorized. Several commenters actuation for extended periods of time. ORV use in applicable land use plans. suggested that the BLM continue to Class 3 e-bikes, which aside from E-bikes are not currently allowed in manage e-bikes as ORVs. providing motorized assistance up to 28 areas that land use plans have closed to Response: As previously noted, miles per hour, are generally similar in ORV use, some of which contain roads allowing authorized officers to exclude design, engineering, size, and weight to and trails available to traditional, non- e-bikes from the definition of ORV in Class 1 e-bikes. motorized bicycles. Because this rule certain situations will help the BLM Fourth, managing Class 1, 2, and 3 e- provides authorized officers with account for the fact that, in both their bikes similarly to traditional, non- discretion to issue a decision that engineering and impacts, e-bikes are motorized bicycles and distinguishing excludes Class 1, 2, and 3 e-bikes from more like traditional, non-motorized them from other motor vehicles is the definition of ORVs at 43 CFR bicycles than other motorized vehicles. consistent with how other federal 8340.0–5(a), the final rule could The rule change will also help align agencies regulate e-bikes. Defined by facilitate e-bike use on roads and trails how agencies across the DOI regulate e- Congress in the Consumer Product in areas that are closed to ORV use and bikes and make the BLM’s regulation of Safety Act (Pub. L. 107–319, Dec. 4, help the BLM achieve its goal of e-bikes more consistent with that of 2002; codified at 15 U.S.C. 2085) as low- providing greater access to public lands, other non-DOI federal agencies, such as speed electric bicycles, e-bikes are not particularly to people with limitations. the National Highway Traffic Safety considered to be motor vehicles under Comment: Several commenters Administration and the Consumer 49 U.S.C. 30102; therefore, they are not suggested that the BLM should abandon Product Safety Commission. Finally, subject to regulation by the National the rulemaking and that the DOI should because the rule will provide authorized Highway Traffic Safety Administration. fund additional studies to consider the officers with the authority to allow e- Instead, e-bikes are regulated similarly impacts of e-bikes on public lands. bikes on roads and trails that are located to non-motorized bicycles and Response: The BLM considered the within ‘‘OHV Closed’’ areas under considered consumer products studies and reports received in response applicable land use plans, the rule will regulated by the Consumer Product to the BLM’s request for information on help fulfill the DOI’s policy of Safety Commission. the proposed rule and determined that increasing recreational opportunities for Comment: Some commenters stated the current body of literature supports all Americans, especially those with that the rule is unnecessary because the its decision to empower authorized physical limitations. BLM manages sufficient motorized trails officers to allow e-bikes on non- Comment: Some commenters stated for e-bikes. motorized roads and trails. The current that the rule does not reconcile a Response: The BLM currently literature indicates that e-bikes do not discrepancy with the BLM’s Travel and manages, and will continue to manage, tend to be more dangerous than Transportation Management Manual. motorized trails for e-bikes, among other traditional, non-motorized bicycles and Response: After publication of this uses. The popularity of e-bikes, that e-bikes and non-motorized bicycles final rule, the BLM may determine it is however, is increasing significantly. have similar impacts on public health necessary to update agency policy, Market research from the NPD Group’s and safety. Where e-bike accidents do including manuals, handbooks, and bicycle industry statistics from 2018 occur, they tend to involve a single e- other guidance materials, for shows that e-bikes are currently the bike during mounting and dismounting consistency with the new rule. fastest growing bicycle type in the and are less likely to involve other road User Conflicts market with e-bike sales totaling $77.1 users. The current body of literature also million in 2017, up 91% from 2016, indicates that e-bikes displace soil and Comment: Several commenters with sales of e-bikes growing more than contribute to erosion in ways that are expressed concern about potential eight-fold since 2014. Considering e- similar to traditional, non-motorized conflicts between e-bikes and other bikes’ growing popularity, the BLM bicycles. Moreover, a 2019 review users of public lands. These concerns needs additional administrative tools to conducted by Boulder County, included potential safety issues from regulate them appropriately. This rule Colorado, found little in the literature to user interactions and speed differences will provide authorized officers with suggest that e-bikes are more likely to between e-bike users and equestrians or greater flexibility to manage e-bikes in impact wildlife differently than hikers. These commenters suggested the future and enable BLM’s traditional, non-motorized bicycles. that increased e-bike use would cause management of e-bikes to be more In sum, the current body of literature certain users to avoid using trails where consistent with the approach of adjacent is sufficient for the BLM to conclude these conflicts could occur and could land managers and other DOI agencies. that the differences in impacts between change the visitation patterns of existing Comment: Some commenters stated e-bikes and non-motorized bicycles will, trail users. Some commenters stated the that the BLM does not need a at most, likely be minor. The BLM rule may lead to ‘‘technological rulemaking to designate trail access for recognizes, however, that e-bikes are an displacement,’’ whereby recreational e-bikes, where appropriate. emerging technology and acknowledges users with new and more advanced Response: This final rule provides that the body of literature on e-bikes forms of transportation degrade the additional specificity regarding how the will increase over time. Authorized experience of and displace traditional BLM may allow the use of e-bikes, or officers will have the opportunity to users. classes of e-bikes, on non-motorized consider new scientific and other Response: The BLM will consider roads and trails; clarifies that, under relevant information when determining potential conflicts with other users certain conditions, e-bikes are to be whether to authorize e-bikes on non- when considering whether Class 1, 2, or treated similarly to traditional bicycles; motorized roads and trails through 3 e-bikes should be allowed on specific

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69209

roads and trails through future planning impacts on public safety. The BLM coordination with the other DOI or implementation-level decision- prepared an Economic and Threshold agencies promulgating e-bike rules. making processes. While the existing Analysis for the proposed rule, which Although not all the studies and reports body of literature demonstrates that e- concluded that the rule itself would not specifically addressed e-bike use, many bikes tend to be ridden in a manner adversely affect, in a substantial way, of them contained useful information similar to traditional, non-motorized the economy, a sector of the economy, that the BLM considered when drafting bicycles and are generally compatible productivity, competition, jobs, the this final rule. For example, they with existing recreational uses of BLM- environment, public health or safety, or demonstrated that the public tends to managed roads and trails that are state, local, or tribal governments or ride e-bikes and traditional, non- already open to traditional bicycle use, communities. The Economic and motorized bicycles at similar speeds. In the agency recognizes that there may be Threshold Analysis and proposed rule one survey of bikes on county trails, the situations where that is not the case. discussed the potential for an increase average e-bike speed was less (13.8 The BLM also recognizes that new in conflicts among trail users following miles per hour (mph)) than the average technologies can, in some situations, site-specific implementation of the rule, conventional bike speed (14.5 mph). result in the displacement of other, less as well as an increase in the risk of Other studies found that on-road, e-bike technologically advanced recreational injury or need for rescue. The existing riders (13.3 kilometers per hour (kph)) uses. The BLM will consider potential body of literature concerning the achieved higher speeds than regular conflicts between e-bikes and other impacts of e-bikes suggests, however, bicyclists (10.4 kph), but shared use recreational uses on individual roads that the potential for conflicts and an path (greenway) speeds of e-bike riders and trails through future National increase in the risk of injury is likely to (11.0 kph) were lower than regular Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) be low. Studies from Europe that focus bicyclists (12.6 kph), and that average processes before any new e-bike use is on commuter use found that e-bike use riding speed on an e-mountain bike was authorized. results in accidents and hospital approximately 4 mph faster than speeds Comment: Commenters stated that the admissions at a similar rate to on a conventional mountain bike. BLM needs to analyze the potential conventional, non-motorized bicycle Another study, which found that e- liability that could result from e-bike use. Another study found that the road bike users are equally likely to be accidents and injuries before finalizing situations in which crashes occur do not admitted to hospitals as traditional bike a rule. differ between e-bikes and traditional users if they need treatment at an Response: The BLM will consider bikes and that crashes with e-bikes are emergency department after a bicycle potential user conflicts and other public about equally severe as crashes with crash, demonstrated that e-bikes and health and safety concerns in traditional bikes. Still another study traditional, non-motorized bicycles have accordance with applicable law as part showed riders of e-bike and traditional, similar impacts on public health. Other of a site-specific analysis. In the event non-motorized bicycles exhibit similar studies demonstrated that all forms of that accidents or injuries were to occur safety behavior. Given differences in recreation may have negative impacts as a result of or in conjunction with e- current use across sites, potential e-bike on wildlife behavior and habitat and bike use, liability, if any, would be use, and visitor preferences, it is not that elk tend to avoid areas where determined in accordance with feasible to estimate the net effect of e- humans recreate, resulting in habitat applicable laws, which may include the bike use across all BLM road and trails compression. Many of these studies, Federal Tort Claims Act. at this time. Therefore, based on the however, did not address e-bikes Comment: Some commenters existing literature, the BLM concludes specifically, and none of them expressed a concern that the rule would that e-bike use will likely have minimal conclusively demonstrated that e-bikes result in existing motorized trail impacts on public safety. have more adverse impacts on wildlife opportunities being lost if those trails Comment: Some commenters than non-motorized bicycles. are reclassified for the exclusive use of suggested that the economic Authorized officers will account for bikes or e-bikes. consequences of the displacement of the information in these studies, as well Response: The final rule will allow traditional trail users must be addressed as any relevant future studies, when the BLM more flexibility to increase e- in the final rule. considering whether to authorize the bike opportunities on existing non- Response: The rule is not self- use of e-bikes on non-motorized roads motorized trails without reclassifying executing, so no users will be displaced and trails. These studies will be existing ORV trails. Under this rule, as a result of the rule. Potential conflicts particularly useful at the site-specific Class 1, 2, and 3 e-bikes may be between users will be evaluated in a level, where more detailed information excluded from the definition of ORV site-specific analysis. on potential effects will be available and and thereby allowed on certain non- authorized officers can consider specific National Environmental Policy Act motorized roads or trails where they user incompatibility, resource impacts, (NEPA) Analysis were previously prohibited. The rule and other issues. would not affect the use of e-bikes or Comment: Commenters stated that the Comment: Some commenters asserted other motorized vehicles on the use of rule disregards research demonstrating that the rule cannot be categorically roads and trails where ORV use is adverse impacts from e-bikes and has excluded under 43 CFR 46.210(i) currently allowed. not analyzed e-bike compatibility. because it is not ‘‘of an administrative, Response: The body of research on financial, legal, technical, or procedural Economic and Threshold Analysis impacts and compatibility of e-bike use nature.’’ Comment: Several commenters is still developing. For that reason, as Response: This rule is administrative disagreed with conclusions in the discussed earlier, the BLM’s proposed and procedural in nature and satisfies Economic and Threshold Analysis that rule requested information from the the first prong of the categorical the rule would not impact public safety. public on the potential social and exclusion at 43 CFR 46.210(i). The rule Response: This rule is not self- physical impacts of e-bike use on public is not self-executing and does not executing—it does not authorize any lands. The BLM received many studies authorize the use of any e-bikes use in new e-bike use on BLM-managed roads and reports in response to its request, areas where e-bikes are currently not and trails—and does not have any direct which it reviewed and considered in allowed. The rule merely establishes a

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 69210 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

definition of e-bikes and creates a procedures in this rule is uncertain. wildlife at the site-specific level will process for authorized officers to Moreover, the environmental allow the BLM to better evaluate the consider when determining whether to consequences from any such future potential effects of e-bike use on specific authorize e-bike use on public lands. implementation would be evaluated in populations of animals; consult with the That process describes how authorized future NEPA documents but at this time appropriate federal, state, and local officers will consider whether to allow are too broad, speculative, and resources agencies regarding potential for e-bike use on roads and trails. The conjectural to evaluate meaningfully. As resource impacts; and develop site- rule preserves authorized officers’ discussed previously in this rule, the specific design features and/or discretion to either approve or deny the body of literature concerning the mitigation strategies. It would be use of e-bikes on roads and trails and to impacts of e-bike use is still developing. shortsighted for a rule of this nature to impose limitations or restrictions on While the existing literature prescribe disturbance thresholds, even authorized e-bike use to minimize demonstrates that the general impacts making them mandatory, as that would impacts on resources and conflicts with associated with e-bikes are very similar preclude the use of future science and other recreational uses. Additionally, to those from traditional, non-motorized information or require further revisions the rule maintains the public’s ability to bicycles, the actual impacts that may to the regulations in order to incorporate participate in any such BLM decision- result from allowing e-bikes on roads new science and information. making process. When considering and trails on which non-motorized Comment: Some commenters state whether to allow Class 1, 2, and 3 e- bicycles are allowed will depend that future implementation actions bikes on non-motorized roads and trails, primarily on the site-specific conditions allowing Class 1, 2, and 3 e-bikes on the BLM must comply with NEPA and of the roads and trails on which e-bike roads and trails are connected actions other laws providing for public use is contemplated. These conditions under NEPA that are inextricably participation. Before deciding to vary significantly across BLM-managed intertwined with the proposed rule and authorize e-bike use, the BLM will lands and, as a result, given existing must be fully analyzed now. Similarly, consider comments it receives from literature, are currently too speculative other commenters state that the BLM Federal, state, county, and local to lend themselves to meaningful has improperly segmented these agencies, Tribes, local landowners, and analysis at a Bureau-wide scale. For connected actions to rely on the other interested members of the public. example, some roads and trails may be categorical exclusion at 43 CFR. Under BLM policy, application of the on sagebrush steppe or high plateaus, 46.210(i). minimization criteria identified in E.O. while others are in Eastern hardwood Response: Future implementation 11644 and incorporated into 43 CFR forests and on the Pacific coast. Some actions allowing or disallowing e-bikes 8342.1 involves limiting the degree or roads and trails may be in areas that are on roads and trails that are open to magnitude of the action, as those terms commonly visited by backpackers, bird traditional, non-motorized bicycles are are defined in the CEQ’s NEPA watchers, and other recreational users not connected actions that are regulations. Although this rule would seeking solitude, while others may be inextricably intertwined with the rule not require the BLM to apply the located in areas commonly utilized by and must undergo NEPA analysis in minimization criteria to authorize e-bike equestrians, rock climbers, or hunters. conjunction with this rulemaking. use on non-motorized roads and trails, Additionally, some roads and trails may Future decision-making is facilitated by the BLM’s legal obligation to consider be in areas near urban centers that see the rule, but it is not required or the degree or magnitude of impacts significant visitation, while others are in automatically triggered by it. Instead, associated with e-bike use through the remote areas that see very few visitors. authorized officers will determine NEPA process will nonetheless facilitate As a result of these differences, local whether to initiate proposals to allow the minimization of impacts on conditions will ultimately dictate what Class 1, 2, and 3 e-bikes on currently resources and users. The rule, because impacts can be expected from e-bike use non-motorized roads and trails on an it is administrative and procedural in on certain roads and trails. Therefore, individualized basis. Authorized nature and would not result in any on- the BLM will not be able to analyze officers will also determine whether to the-ground changes or other meaningfully those impacts through the allow or disallow e-bikes on those roads environmental effects, satisfies the first NEPA processes until it can account for and trails on an individualized basis, as prong of the categorical exclusion at 43 that site-specificity through future land the rule does not mandate any specific CFR 46.210(i). use planning or implementation-level outcomes. Additionally, future Comment: Some commenters proposals. As a result, the BLM’s proposals to allow or disallow e-bikes requested an environmental assessment reliance on the second prong of the are not connected actions because the or environmental impact statement to categorical exclusion at 43 CFR BLM could authorize e-bike use on analyze the environmental 46.210(i) is appropriate. roads and trails on which traditional, consequences of the rulemaking to help Comment: Some commenters non-motorized bicycles are allowed in inform future decisions about whether requested the preparation of supporting the absence of this rule. As some to authorize e-bike use. These analyses to determine thresholds for commenters pointed out, the BLM could commenters stated that the rule cannot wildlife disturbance from e-bikes on allow Class 1, 2, and 3 e-bikes on roads be categorically excluded under 43 CFR BLM land, including information and trails that are currently non- 46.210(i) because the environmental regarding the extent to which affected motorized under its current regulations effects are not ‘‘too broad, speculative, trails overlap with designated critical and travel management policies and or conjectural to lend themselves to habitat. without excluding them from the meaningful analysis.’’ Response: The BLM will consider the definition of ORV. Indeed, as these same Response: This rule also satisfies the impacts of Class 1, 2, and 3 e-bikes on commenters additionally noted, some second prong of the categorical wildlife through the NEPA process that BLM field offices are currently exclusion at 43 CFR 46.210(i). Unlike accompanies future site-specific considering opening single-track some rules, this rule is not suited to the proposals to authorize e-bike use on mountain biking trails to e-bikes preparation of a NEPA analysis from roads and trails on which traditional, through their current travel management which future site-specific analyses can non-motorized bicycles are currently plans. Finally, future implementation tier. The future implementation of the allowed. Considering impacts on actions are not connected actions

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69211

because they are not interdependent or characteristics identified in 43 CFR studies show that e-bikes and dependent on a larger action for their 46.215(b). This rule will not result in traditional, non-motorized bicycles justification. Site-specific decision- any on-the-ground changes. travel at relatively similar speeds, pose making can proceed under the rule in Specifically, it will not authorize the similar health and public safety risks, the absence of, and completely use of Class 1, 2, or 3 e-bikes on any impact wildlife similarly, and displace independent from, other site-specific roads or trails upon which they are soil and contribute to erosion in ways proposals to allow e-bike use on BLM- currently prohibited. Any future that are similar to each other and managed lands. changes would require future NEPA significantly different than a gas- processes that will consider the impacts powered dirt bike. In sum, the studies Extraordinary Circumstances that e-bikes may have on natural are consistent in their discussion of Comment: Some commenters stated resources and unique geographic impacts associated with e-bikes and do that extraordinary circumstances under characteristics. If e-bike use is proposed not demonstrate significant scientific 43 CFR 46.215 apply to this rulemaking, in an area identified in 43 CFR disagreement about this rule or how e- prohibiting the BLM from relying on the 46.215(b), such as a national monument, bikes, generally, may impact the categorical exclusion at 43 CFR then the potential significance of environment. 46.210(i). Commenters cited the impacts would be a factor in (d) Highly uncertain and potentially following extraordinary circumstances determining the appropriate level of significant environmental effects or under 43 CFR 46.215. NEPA analysis at that time. involve unique and unknown (a) Significant impacts on public (c) Highly controversial environmental risk. health or safety. environmental effects or unresolved • Comment: Commenters stated that • Comment: Commenters stated that conflicts concerning alternative uses of the extent of environmental impacts is they provided documentation of available resources. uncertain, given that e-bikes are growing significant safety impacts of e-bikes • Comment: Commenters stated that in popularity as an emerging within their comment, including e-bike use on public lands is becoming recreational use with data collection citations to numerous supporting highly controversial and involves and studies warranted. Commenters studies. unresolved conflicts concerning stated that the BLM does not consider • Response: Because this rule will not alternative uses of available resources, the uncertain and potential impacts of e- result in any on-the-ground changes or with generally no effort to study the bike use, defers this analysis, and authorize any new e-bike use on BLM impacts of e-bike use. Commenters directs pre-determined outcomes. lands, it will not have any direct stated that there is conflicting data Commenters stated that the categorical impacts on public health and safety. about the significance of impacts of e- exclusion should not apply because of Additionally, relevant literature bikes in comparison with motorized unique risks presented by e-bikes (e.g., demonstrates that the rule should not vehicles and traditional mountain bikes, backcountry use, safety, and user have significant indirect impacts on creating disputes regarding the effects of conflicts due to the speed of an e-bike). public health or safety as a result of conflicts from e-bike use on non- • Response: This rule does not future site-specific decisions allowing e- motorized trails. Some commenters change any on-the-ground e-bike bikes on roads and trails upon which stated that e-bike use is highly allowances, and the environmental non-motorized bicycles are allowed. For controversial, with numerous major effects associated with it are not highly example, studies show that, although e- stakeholders and interest groups taking uncertain. To the extent that the rule bikes enable riders to travel longer ‘‘pro’’ and ‘‘con’’ sides, fitting the will have any environmental effects, distances and carry more cargo with definition of ‘‘highly controversial.’’ they will result from future site-specific them, they are generally ridden at • Response: 43 CFR 46.215(c) decisions, which are left to the speeds similar to non-motorized pertains to whether the environmental discretion of the authorized officer and bicycles. In fact, a survey conducted by effects of a proposed action are highly will be supported by additional NEPA Boulder County, Colorado, found that, controversial (i.e., there is significant processes. Moreover, the environmental on average, e-bikes were ridden more scientific disagreement about whether a effects associated with e-bikes generally slowly than non-motorized bicycles on specific action will impact the are not highly uncertain. While there is county trails. Other studies found that e- environment, and how). There is not always some uncertainty when making bike and non-motorized bicycle riders significant scientific disagreement about predictions about how human activities behave similarly, violate applicable how or whether this rule will impact the will impact the natural world, the rules similarly, have similar accident environment. Because this rule merely existing literature demonstrates that e- rates, and are admitted to hospitals after creates a process for allowing Class 1, 2, bike impacts are similar to those of a crash at similar rates. While the and 3 e-bike use in the future and does traditional, non-motorized bicycles. relevant body of literature on e-bikes not directly authorize their use on any Allowing e-bikes on roads and trails that continues to develop, existing research roads or trails upon which they are are already open to non-motorized allows the BLM to predict that the currently prohibited, it will have no bicycles will therefore not have effects of this rule on public health and impact on the environment. There also significant impacts on the environment. safety will be insignificant. is not a significant scientific Studies discussing impacts on wildlife (b) Significant impacts on natural disagreement about how e-bikes are instructive in this regard. They show resources and unique geographic generally impact the environment. that, while all forms of recreation may characteristics. While the body of literature concerning negatively impact wildlife habitat, • Comment: Commenters stated that the environmental impacts of e-bikes is motorized all-terrain vehicles tend to the rule will have significant impacts on still developing, the studies that were have greater adverse impacts on wildlife recreation, national monuments, and submitted by the public during the compared to traditional, non-motorized other vulnerable categories identified in public comment period demonstrate bicycles, and there is little in the peer- 43 CFR 46.215(b). that the impacts associated with e-bikes reviewed literature to suggest that e- • Response: The rule will not have are similar to the well-understood bikes have greater negative impacts than significant impacts on the natural impacts associated with traditional, traditional, non-motorized bicycles. resources and unique geographic non-motorized bicycles. Notably, the Similarly, a study performed by the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 69212 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

International Mountain Bicycling appropriate on individual roads and potential impacts on historic properties Association found that soil trails. Therefore, it reinforces that in determining the appropriate level of displacement and tread disturbance authorized officers have authority to, NEPA analysis for the proposed action. from e-bikes and traditional, non- and should, consider the potential Even in that situation, however, impacts motorized mountain bikes were not impacts associated with e-bikes before on historic properties are unlikely to be significantly different; in fact, both were authorizing their site-specific use and it significant. That is because the rule will much less than those associated with emphasizes that the rule does not direct only allow e-bike use on non-motorized gas-powered dirt bikes. In light of this any specific substantive changes or roads and trails that are already open to existing body of literature, and the establish a precedent for purposes of 43 traditional, non-motorized bicycles, absence of any studies clearly showing CFR 46.215(e). and, as discussed throughout this rule, that e-bikes impact the environment in (f) Direct relationship to other actions the impacts associated with e-bikes are a manner that differs significantly from with individually insignificant but similar to those associated with non-motorized bicycles, the BLM has cumulatively significant environmental traditional, non-motorized bicycles. reasonably concluded that the impacts effects. (h) Significant impacts on species associated with this rule are not highly • Comment: Commenters stated that listed, or proposed to be listed, on the uncertain. To the extent that the existing cumulative impacts of all BLM units list of endangered or threatened species body of literature on the impacts of e- approving e-bikes will be significant or significant impacts on designated bikes continues to develop, authorized when considered nationwide. critical habitat. officers will consider new, relevant • Response: The rule will not have a • Comment: Commenters stated that studies when analyzing future site- direct relationship to other actions with the BLM has not complied with Section specific proposals. individually insignificant but 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (e) Establish a precedent for future cumulatively significant environmental and that the rule will have significant action or represent a decision in effects. The rule, and future impacts on endangered or threatened principle about future actions with implementation actions that will occur species. potentially significant environmental in accordance with it, are not connected • Response: For the same reasons it effects. actions and their impacts do not have to will not have significant impacts on • Comment: Commenters stated that be analyzed in tandem. The rule will properties listed, or eligible for listing, the rule establishes a precedent for not automatically trigger future on the National Register of Historic future actions with potentially proposals to authorize e-bikes on roads Places, the rule will not have significant significant environmental effects, and trails that are open to traditional, impacts on species listed, or proposed creates a presumption that e-bikes are non-motorized bicycles. Whether such to be listed, as endangered or threatened allowed on non-motorized trails, and decisions will occur will be determined species, or on designated critical habitat largely predetermines the outcome of by authorized officers on an for these species. As noted previously, relevant land management planning or individualized basis. At the same time, the rule does not allow e-bike use on implementation-level decisions. the rule does not mandate any specific any roads or trails on which it is Commenters stated that the rule outcomes. It provides authorized currently prohibited. Any new e-bike encourages BLM offices to make officers with discretion to determine allowances will be the result of future decisions without addressing the whether e-bike use is appropriate on site-specific decision-making processes potentially significant environmental individual roads and trails and does not that will comply with the Endangered effects. Commenters stated that the rule require or suggest that authorized Species Act, as applicable. Additionally, fails to consider its precedential officers consider how determinations because any future allowances will be importance and the associated are being made in other field offices. To limited to roads and trails on which commercialization of BLM-administered the contrary, in light of limited agency traditional, non-motorized bicycles are lands, opening the floodgates for resources and highly variable allowed, the BLM anticipates that any numerous similar technological geography, the BLM designed the rule to impacts stemming from new e-bike use impacts. allow site-specific decision-making to will be insignificant. • Response: The rule does not proceed in the absence of, and (i) Violate a federal law, or a state, establish a precedent or represent a completely independent from, other local, or tribal law or requirement decision in principle about how site-specific proposals to allow e-bike imposed for the protection of the authorized officers should treat e-bikes use on BLM-managed lands. environment. in the future. As discussed later in (g) Significant impacts on properties • Comment: Commenters stated that greater detail, the BLM recognizes how listed, or eligible for listing, on the allowing e-bikes on non-motorized trails language in the proposed rule, which National Register of Historic Places. threatens to violate laws designed to provided that authorized officers • Comment: Commenters stated that protect resources on public lands and ‘‘should generally allow’’ e-bikes on many BLM units contain current or that allowing e-bikes on non-motorized roads and trails upon which potentially listed historic places, and trails without designating those trails for mechanized, non-motorized use is some were established specifically to motorized use is contrary to federal law allowed, could be understood to create protect such places, so in light of their and longstanding travel management a presumption in favor of e-bike use that special national importance, the rule for regulations and policies. Commenters would bias future BLM decision- system-wide approval is improper. stated that the rule also threatens to making. In response, the BLM has • Response: The rule does not change violate various state and local laws revised the final rule to state that current authorized uses. Therefore, the governing e-bike use on trails and that authorized officers ‘‘may allow’’ e-bikes rule itself will not have significant state, local, and Forest Service on roads and trails open to non- impacts on properties listed, or eligible definitions and requirements for e-bikes motorized bicycles. This change is for listing, on the National Register of differ and conflict from BLM proposals. intended to clarify that authorized Historic Places. If the BLM does propose Commenters stated that this creates the officers have full discretion to to allow Class 1, 2, or 3 e-bikes on non- potential for significant jurisdictional determine whether e-bike use, or the use motorized roads and trails, the challenges and violations of such of only certain classes of e-bikes, is authorized officer will consider the differing standards imposed for the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69213

protection of the environment. respond to the proposed rule. Public determine where e-bike use should be Commenters stated that these meetings are not required for informal allowed. Through planning or extraordinary circumstances require the rulemaking under the Administrative implementation-level decision-making BLM to conduct additional analysis for Procedure Act. The BLM will provide processes, authorized officers will the rule. the public with opportunities to determine whether certain types of • Response: This final rule does not respond to future, site-specific roads and trails are appropriate for e- violate a federal law or requirement implementation of the rule in bike use. imposed for the protection of the accordance with NEPA and other Comment: Some commenters environment. As discussed previously, applicable laws. suggested that, instead of excluding e- although the e-bikes addressed in this bikes from the definition of ORVs, the rule have a small electric motor, their E-Bike Definition BLM should add a category of ‘‘low- engineering and impacts and their Comment: Some commenters stated powered vehicles’’ to the regulations for similarities to non-motorized bicycles that the e-bike classification system and management separately from bicycles or and differences from other motorized its associated speed limits are not ORVs. vehicles result in this rule being supported by evidence. Response: The intent of this rule is to consistent with the overall design and Response: The definition of e-bike expand recreational access to public intent of E.O. 11644. Allowing included in this the rule, which relies lands through the use of e-bikes, treat e- authorized officers to exclude e-bikes on a ‘‘3-class system’’ originally created bikes similarly to traditional bikes, as from the E.O.’s definition of ORV also by the bicycling industry, establishes a appropriate, and to establish makes the BLM’s management of e-bikes consistent definition for use across all consistency in the DOI regarding how e- more consistent with that of other DOI agencies. To date, at least 28 states bikes are managed. Other ‘‘low- federal agencies, including the have adopted the 3-class system into powered’’ vehicles, such as scooters and Consumer Product Safety Commission. their regulations for e-bikes. The BLM skateboards, are not similar to, and Additionally, the rule does not violate a incorporated the 3-class system into its provide a different experience than, state, local, or tribal law or requirement definition of e-bike to achieve greater traditional, non-motorized bicycles, and imposed for the protection of the consistency with how other are not addressed in this rule. environment. The rule provides jurisdictions and entities are regulating Comment: Some commenters authorized officers with the discretion e-bikes. requested that the rule be revised to to consider applicable state, local, or Comment: Some commenters asserted state that all bicycle trails and routes tribal laws and requirements when that the rule limits the discretion of the would be open to e-bikes. determining whether to allow e-bikes on authorized officer to make Response: Rather than promulgating a roads and trails that are open to individualized decisions on e-bike use rule that opens all mechanized, non- traditional, non-motorized bicycles. and that e-bike use should be managed motorized trails and roads to e-bike use, Authorized officers will account for separately from traditional bike use. the BLM believes that authorized these laws and requirements when Response: The BLM has revised officers should have the discretion and deciding whether e-bike use is paragraph 8342.2(d) to provide that flexibility to determine where e-bikes appropriate on specific roads and trails. authorized officers ‘‘may allow’’ e-bikes will be allowed through subsequent on roads and trails upon which decision-making. Authorized officers Public Comment Process mechanized, non-motorized use is are most familiar with an area’s natural Comment: Some commenters stated allowed. This change is intended to and cultural resources, operating that the length of the public review clarify that the rule does not mandate budget, visitor use patterns, and period was not sufficient and that a any specific outcomes and to alleviate enforcement capabilities. They are public meeting should be scheduled. any concern that the rule limits the therefore in the best position to Some commenters stated that the discretion of authorized officers about determine where e-bike use is most pandemic has created obstacles to whether and where to allow e-bike use appropriate. While the BLM believes public participation and that on BLM-managed public lands. The that there are many situations in which rulemaking should be postponed. Some authorized officer will consider site- e-bike use would be appropriate on commenters asserted that the BLM was specific conditions, including roads and trails upon which failing to comply with its requirements environmental impacts and potential mechanized, non-motorized use is under FLPMA for public involvement. user conflicts, before deciding to allow permitted, there are certain instances The commenters state that FLPMA or disallow e-bike use on specific roads where that may not be the case, such as requires that the BLM give ‘‘the public and trails. where legislation or a presidential adequate notice and an opportunity to Comment: Commenters suggested that proclamation prohibits motorized use of comment upon the formulation of the BLM limit e-bike use to trails that a trail. standards and criteria for, and to are very wide or paved and to not Comment: Some commenters participate in, the preparation and permit their use on steep, single-track suggested that only Class 1 e-bikes execution of plans and programs for, trails. Other commenters suggested that should be excluded from the definition and the management of, the public the BLM specifically allow e-bikes on of ORV. Several commenters suggested lands.’’ motorized paths and non-motorized that the BLM should continue to define Response: In accordance with the paths with improved surfaces. Class 2 and Class 3 e-bikes as ORVs. Administrative Procedure Act and Response: Each trail, area, field office, Some commenters pointed out that the applicable policy, the BLM provided a district office, etc., presents a unique set different classes of e-bikes may have 60-day public comment period that of circumstances that may make e-bike different impacts on the public lands began on Friday, April 10, 2020, and use appropriate in certain situations and and suggest that only Class 1 e-bikes ended on Tuesday, , 2020. During not in others. The inherent variability in should be allowed on unpaved surfaces. that time, the BLM received almost BLM-managed lands is better accounted Response: While the definition of e- 24,000 public comments, which for by a rule that establishes a bikes includes Class 1, 2, and 3 e-bikes, suggests that the 60-day public review framework for future decision-making the BLM recognizes that there are period was adequate for the public to and relies on local expertise to differences among the classes that may

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 69214 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

result in certain classes of e-bikes being should be allowed. Authorized officers Comment: Some commenters inappropriate on individual roads and will make these site-specific decisions expressed concern that definitions for trails. The BLM has drafted the rule in consideration of potential resource Class 1, 2, and 3 e-bikes will need to be with these differences in mind. Under impacts and user conflicts and in revisited and updated to reflect future the rule, Class 2 e-bikes being ridden in accordance with NEPA and other technologies. throttle-only actuation for extended applicable laws. Response: The BLM acknowledges periods of time cannot be excluded from Comment: Several commenters that future changes in technology may the definition of ORV and, therefore, suggested that the BLM include specific result in some e-bikes not being eligible must remain on roads and trails that are factors in the regulations that the for exclusion from the definition of ORV available for ORV use. This should authorized officer must consider before at 43 CFR 8340.0–5 if they do not fit reduce the potential physical damage allowing e-bikes on a particular route or into the definition established by this that may result from throttle-only trail. Some commenters suggested rule. actuation and help ensure that the adding a requirement for the authorized Comment: Some commenters impacts associated with Class 2 e-bikes officer to minimize environmental suggested that the rule should require are similar to those associated with impacts and user conflicts. any e-bike on BLM-managed lands to be Class 1 e-bikes, which also stop Response: This rule provides certified by an accredited, independent providing motorized assistance to riders authorized officers with discretion to third-party certification body that at 20 miles per hour. The BLM has also determine, through a planning or examines electrical and safety hazards. revised the language in 43 CFR implementation-level decision, whether Response: The BLM believes that 8342.2(d) rule to clarify that authorized Class 1, 2, and 3 e-bikes should be existing federal regulations are officers may distinguish between the allowed on roads and trails on which sufficient to address potential safety classes of e-bikes where necessary to mechanized, non-motorized uses are hazards related to e-bike design and address potential resource and user allowed. In making this decision, manufacturing. E-bikes that fall within impacts. Pursuant to this change, authorized officers will consider the definition of low-speed electric authorized officers may consider potential impacts to resources, conflicts bicycle at 15 U.S.C. 2085 are considered potential resource conflicts and other with other users, and other relevant consumer products that are subject to relevant factors and determine that only factors. The specific factors, however, product safety regulations promulgated Class 1 e-bikes should be allowed on a will vary greatly based on the site- by the Consumer Product Safety particular road or trail. specific conditions at issue, and some Commission, and e-bikes that do not fall Comment: Some commenters factors may not be applicable in each within the definition of low-speed suggested that three-wheeled e-bikes are circumstance. The BLM, therefore, electric bicycle must comply with incompatible with single-track trails and prefers to allow authorized officers to National Highway Traffic Safety require an appropriate width corridor. determine the appropriate factors to Administration vehicle standards. To Response: Under paragraph 8342.2(d) consider when deciding whether to the extent that the operation of e-bikes of the final rule (Designation allow e-bikes on particular roads or on public lands may affect health and Procedures), the authorized officer may trails. The BLM may include a safety, the BLM will consider those determine whether e-bike use in discussion of possible factors to potential impacts at the site-specific general, or the use of particular classes consider in future guidance issued to level when considering a planning or of e-bikes, would be appropriate on implement these regulations. implementation-level proposal. certain roads or trails. The authorized Comment: Some commenters officer may also determine whether the Other E-Bike Management requested that the BLM address hunting, use of three-wheeled e-bikes is Comment: Some commenters game retrieval, and cross-country travel appropriate based on site-specific requested an addition to the rule text to in the final rule. circumstances, such as trail width and manage other e-bikes that are not Class Response: Under the final rule, only potential user conflicts. 1, 2, or 3 as motorized vehicles. Class 1, 2, and 3 e-bikes that are being Response: The final rule addresses ridden on roads and trails upon which Authorized Officer’s Discretion only Class 1, 2, and 3 e-bikes. The BLM mechanized, non-motorized use is Comment: Some commenters will continue to manage all other types allowed will be eligible for exclusion expressed concern that the rule does not of e-bikes as ORVs. E-bikes that do not from the definition of ORV at 43 CFR allow the authorized officer to make meet the qualifications of Class 1, 2, or 8340.0–5(a). E-bikes being ridden cross individualized decisions and 3 bikes will not be eligible for exclusion country will not be eligible for restrictions within the classes and from the definition of ORV at 43 CFR exclusion from the definition of ORV. between e-bikes and traditional bikes. 8340.0–5 and must remain on roads and Such use is allowed only in areas The commenters requested a change in trails open to ORV use. designated as ‘‘OHV Open’’ under the rule text to allow authorized officers Comment: Some commenters applicable land use plans. E-bikes may to impose specific limitations on e-bike requested an addition to the rule text be utilized in hunting and game use or to close any road, trail, or portion that an eligible e-bike must be equipped retrieval to the extent that their use thereof to e-bike use. with a seat or saddle for the rider. conforms to the governing land use plan Response: The rule was always Response: The BLM does not believe and is consistent with applicable road intended to provide authorized officers it is necessary to require an e-bike to be and trail allowances. with discretion to allow either e-bikes, equipped with a seat or saddle. Some e- or certain classes of e-bikes, on bikes that otherwise meet the definition Conflict With State and Local particular roads or trails. In response to of e-bike—such as trial bikes—may not Government comments received, however, the BLM have a seat, and the current definition, Comment: Some commenters stated revised the final rule to include specific including the requirement that an e-bike that the rule would conflict with state regulatory text in 43 CFR 8342.2(d)(1) to have fully operational pedals, is and local jurisdictions that exclude e- make clear that authorized officers may sufficient to exclude other types of bikes from non-motorized trails. Some distinguish between ‘‘certain classes’’ of electric vehicles, such as scooters or commenters stated that the rule would e-bikes when determining where e-bikes skateboards. conflict with state-based user fee

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69215

programs that define e-bikes as e-bikes, unless otherwise restricted. Response: This rule does not amend motorized. That approach, however, would not or alter any existing land use plans, Response: The final rule does not account for the variability in BLM- easements, or authorizations. Any conflict with state and local rules that managed lands or the resource concerns decisions to allow e-bike use under this exclude e-bikes from non-motorized and potential user conflicts that are final rule will be made through the land trails. First, the rule only applies to often specific to individual roads and use planning or implementation-level BLM-managed roads and trails. Second, trails and could lead to e-bike use in processes at the local level. The BLM as noted previously, the rule does not places where it is not appropriate. The recognizes that some uses of public authorize any new e-bike use on non- BLM, therefore, concluded that lands may impact other uses. motorized roads and trails. Instead, the determinations about where Class 1, 2, Authorized officers will consider rule provides authorized officers with and 3 e-bike use is appropriate should conservation easements and other types discretion to determine whether certain be made by authorized officers at the of commitments made for use of lands non-motorized roads and trails are site-specific level. Their knowledge of when determining which non-motorized appropriate for Class 1, 2, and 3 e-bike and access to local information will roads and trails are appropriate for e- use through planning or help minimize the potential impacts bike use. implementation-level decision-making associated with allowing e-bikes on Comment: Some commenters asked processes. In making those non-motorized roads and trails. the BLM to identify how the rulemaking determinations, authorized officers may Comment: Some comments asserted and future implementation of the rule consider many factors, including how e- that the rule is inconsistent with the will comply with Section 7 of the bikes are regulated in adjacent direction of SO 3376. Endangered Species Act. jurisdictions. The BLM will coordinate Response: This rule is consistent with Response: The rule is administrative with other federal, state, local, and tribal the general direction in SO 3376 that the and procedural in nature. It creates a entities to address potential conflicts BLM treat e-bikes similarly to process by which authorized officers may allow Class 1, 2, and 3 e-bikes on with other requirements or jurisdictions traditional, non-motorized bicycles; roads and trails that are available to when making site-specific decisions to however, SO 3376 is a policy document traditional, non-motorized bicycle use. allow or disallow e-bikes. that was not ‘‘intended to, and d[id] not The rule does not change any current e- create any right or benefit, substantive Trail Funding bike allowances on public lands. It will, or procedural, enforceable at law or Comment: Some commenters stated therefore, have no impact on listed equity by a party against the United that e-bikes would be incompatible on species or designated critical habitat. States.’’ While SO 3376 directs the BLM non-motorized trail networks that were Any future changes will be made by to exclude all e-bikes from the constructed with grant funding from the authorized officers through site-specific definition of ORV, the BLM, in Recreational Trails Program and other land use planning or implementation- coordination with DOI, ultimately Federal funding sources. Some level decision-making processes that decided that it would be more commenters stated that e-bike use might will comply with applicable law, appropriate for authorized officers to impact future trail funding from federal including NEPA and the Endangered analyze site-specific factors and programs such as the Land and Water Species Act. As part of those future determine where Class 1, 2, and 3 e-bike Conservation Fund. decision-making processes, the BLM Response: Class 1, 2, or 3 e-bike use use is appropriate on an individual will engage in consultation under may be inappropriate on certain roads basis. Because of potential resource Section 7 of the Endangered Species and trails that were constructed or are impacts, user conflicts, and other Act, as necessary. maintained using funding sources relevant considerations, Class 1, 2, or 3 Comment: Some commenters stated which may prohibit or be inconsistent e-bike use may not be appropriate on that the BLM must update or conduct a with motorized use, such as the certain public lands where traditional, wilderness characteristics inventory in Recreational Trails Program and other non-motorized bicycles are allowed. response to the proposed rule. Some Federal funding sources authorized by Comment: Commenters indicated that commenters further stated that the BLM Title 23, Chapter 2 of the United States the rule would facilitate access to public should not allow e-bike use on lands Code. The BLM has designed the rule to lands for those with disabilities. Many with wilderness characteristics. provide authorized officers with the commenters described their reliance on Response: BLM policy provides that ability to consider whether e-bike use is e-bikes and cited health conditions that the agency will consider whether to consistent with potential funding prevent them from using traditional update or conduct a wilderness sources when determining which roads bikes. A number of commenters characteristics inventory for the first and trails to allow e-bike use. described their specific need for three- time when, among other situations, the Authorized officers will take these and wheeled e-bikes, explaining that these BLM is undertaking a land use planning other types of site-specific bikes are necessary to provide balance process, has new information considerations into account when for bike users who have a disability and concerning resource conditions, or a making future planning or want to access public lands. project that may impact wilderness implementation-level decisions Response: This rule is intended to characteristics is undergoing NEPA concerning e-bike use. facilitate increased recreational analysis. This rule, which does not opportunities for all Americans, authorize any new e-bike use on BLM- Compliance With Laws, Policies, and including those with physical managed public lands, will not impact Plans limitations, and to encourage the wilderness characteristics. As a result, Comment: Some commenters asserted enjoyment of lands and waters managed the BLM has not updated or conducted that the BLM failed to consider by the BLM. a wilderness characteristics inventory in alternatives to the proposed rule. Comment: Some commenters stated response to the rule. The BLM, however, Response: The BLM considered less that the rule must adhere to all existing may update or conduct a wilderness restrictive alternatives in promulgating state and federal conservation characteristics inventory, where this rule, including an approach that easements and resource management applicable, in conjunction with future would have opened all public lands to plans. land use planning or implementation-

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 69216 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

level decision-making processes that separate e-bike regulatory framework for and user conflicts as part of the NEPA consider authorizing Class 1, 2, or 3 e- Alaska. Instead, authorized officers will process that would support future site- bike use on non-motorized roads and determine if Class 1, 2, and 3 e-bike use specific decisions. trails. is appropriate on non-motorized roads Implementation Comment: Some commenters stated and trails in CSUs on a site-specific that e-bikes must be prohibited on basis in accordance with NEPA and Comment: Some commenters stated national scenic or historic trails and in other applicable laws. Authorized that the rule may present enforcement designated wilderness. Some officers will consider traditional uses challenges. For example, commenters commenters stated that e-bikes on trails and travel to and from villages and stated that e-bike use will facilitate connecting to national scenic or historic homesites in making those illegal trail access by unauthorized trails are likely to degrade the trail determinations. vehicles and that the BLM will not be experience and pose safety concerns to Comment: Some commenters able to enforce the requirement that the hikers and equestrians using nationally expressed concern that the e-bike rule throttle on Class 2 e-bikes not be used designated trails. Some commenters may remove future opportunities for exclusively to propel the e-bike for stated that the BLM proposed rule is in coordination between the BLM and extended periods of time. direct conflict with Section 7(c) of the entities that have a partnership or Response: The BLM acknowledges National Trails System Act, which agreement with the BLM such as a that implementation of this rule poses states: The use of motorized vehicles by memorandum of understanding. Some certain enforcement challenges; the general public along any national commenters expressed concern that the however, those challenges are not scenic trail shall be prohibited and rule is not supported under the BLM’s unique. They regularly arise in the nothing in this Act shall be construed as National Recreation Strategy, which context of enforcing laws that govern authorizing the use of motorized would undermine existing agreements recreational use of public lands. For vehicles ....’’’ created under the vision of the strategy. example, the regulations governing use Response: The rule, which does not Response: The rule will not affect the of ORVs at 43 CFR 8341.1 prohibit the allow any new or additional Class 1, 2, ability of the BLM to work with partners operation of ORVs in violation of state or 3 e-bike use on BLM-managed public and stakeholders to achieve mutual laws and regulations relating to use, lands, will not allow e-bike use in objectives. Although BLM guidance and standards, registration, operation, and designated wilderness or other areas strategies may be updated to provide inspection of ORVs and without a valid where traditional, non-motorized direction for e-bike regulation state operator’s license or learner’s bicycle use is not allowed. The implementation, the BLM concludes permit. Those same regulations also authorized officer will determine, on a that this rule is consistent and prohibit operation of an ORV in a site-specific basis and through the compatible with the National Recreation reckless, careless, or negligent manner, NEPA process, if Class 1, 2, and 3 e-bike Strategy, which calls for the BLM to while under the influence of alcohol, use is appropriate on roads and trails increase and improve collaboration with narcotics, or dangerous drugs, and in a upon which traditional, non-motorized community networks of service manner that causes, or is likely to cause, bicycles are allowed. In making this providers, help communities produce significant, undue damage to or determination, authorized officers, who greater well-being and socioeconomic disturbance of resources and other uses are presumed to act in accordance with health, and deliver outstanding of the public lands. Determining when applicable laws, will consider whether recreation experiences to visitors while a violation of these regulations occurs any statutory or regulatory provisions sustaining the distinctive character of can be fact-specific, requiring the either prohibit or otherwise make e-bike public lands recreation settings. exercise of specialized judgment on the use inappropriate on certain roads and Comment: Several commenters part of law enforcement officers. trails. expressed concern that excluding e- Similarly, determining that the public is Comment: One commenter stated that bikes from the definition of ORV at 43 complying with aspects of this rule, the rule does not recognize that non- CFR 8340.0–5(a) would eliminate the such as the requirement that, to be motorized bicycles are a form of surface requirement for the BLM to comply with excluded from the definition of ORV, a transportation use allowed in certain environmental protections in the Class 2 e-bike cannot be ridden for an Conservation System Units (CSUs) agency’s ORV regulations and apply the extended period of time using just its designated by the 1980 Alaska National designation criteria at 43 CFR 8342.1 throttle, will involve the exercise of Interest Lands Conservation Act when deciding where e-bike use is specialized skill, training, and judgment (ANILCA). This commenter further appropriate. by law enforcement officers. Based on stated that the rule should recognize the Response: For the reasons provided their experience enforcing other statutory allowance in Section 1110(a) previously, the BLM has determined regulations that condition how the of ANILCA and allow e-bikes in these that, where certain criteria are met, public recreates on public lands, BLM same CSUs. authorized officers may determine that law enforcement officers have the Response: The BLM recognizes that it is appropriate to exclude Class 1, 2, expertise necessary to properly exercise ANILCA and its implementing and 3 e-bikes from the definition of ORV their discretion to enforce the regulations authorize the use of non- at 43 CFR 8340.0–5(a). In such requirements of this rule in a reasonable motorized surface transportation, situations, the BLM may allow e-bikes manner that ensures protection of including non-motorized bicycles, in to use roads and trails upon which public health, safety, and resources and CSUs unless such use is prohibited or traditional, non-motorized bicycles are users of the public lands. Moreover, the otherwise restricted in accordance with allowed without formally applying the agency believes that enforcement the procedures set forth in 43 CFR designation criteria at 43 CFR 8342.1. challenges posed by this requirement 36.11(h). That rule does not apply to e- The agency, however, would still are warranted given the requirement’s bikes, which have small electric motors provide the public with opportunities to potential benefits to affected public land and therefore do not qualify as non- participate in agency decision-making resources and users. In particular, the motorized surface transportation. At this processes in accordance with NEPA and requirement prohibiting throttle use on time, the BLM does not intend or have other applicable laws, and the BLM Class 2 e-bikes for extended periods of the information necessary to create a would still consider resource impacts time will allow riders to benefit from

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69217

the throttle function for limited consistent visual framework indicating that e-bikes travel faster than non- durations, such as when first starting where e-bikes are allowed on public motorized bicycles in some situations, out on an incline, while ensuring that lands managed by DOI. and slower than non-motorized bicycles Class 2 e-bikes will generally be ridden, Comment: Some commenters in others, the literature generally and will therefore impact natural requested a timeline for future NEPA indicates that the two are often ridden resources, in a manner similar to Class analyses to be conducted by field at similar speeds, and that average 1 e-bikes. offices. riding speed is determined largely by Comment: Some commenters stated Response: Under the final rule, the cultural norms, law enforcement, and that e-bikes can easily be modified to authorized officer may allow Class 1, 2, physical infrastructure. The literature exceed horsepower and speed or 3 e-bikes to use non-motorized roads also indicates that all forms of restrictions. and trails through a site-specific land recreation may adversely impact Response: E-bikes can be modified; use planning or implementation-level wildlife habitat, both motorized and however, if an e-bike is modified in decision. The specific timing of future nonmotorized recreation can result in such a manner that it does not qualify site-specific decisions and supporting habitat compression, and all-terrain as a Class 1, 2, or 3 e-bike, it will not NEPA processes will depend on a vehicle use has greater adverse impacts be eligible for exclusion from the number of variables, such as budget, on ungulate behavior than biking, definition of ORV and will continue to resources, agency priorities, and officer hiking, and horseback riding. There is be regulated in accordance with the discretion. little research to suggest, however, that BLM’s ORV regulations at 43 CFR part Comment: Some commenters stated e-bikes have greater impacts on wildlife 8340. that authorized officers would than non-motorized bicycles. Finally, Comment: Some commenters suggest implement the rule inconsistently, the literature indicates that impacts that the BLM should require users of e- which would result in public confusion. from Class 1 e-bikes and traditional, bikes who tamper with or modify an e- Response: The rule provides non-motorized mountain bikes were not bike, changing the speed capability, to authorized officers flexibility to significantly different, while replace the manufacturer’s classification determine where e-bike use is motorcycles led to much greater soil label. appropriate on a case-by-case basis. The displacement and erosion. In fact, an Response: The BLM does not require BLM may issue subsequent guidance to emerging body of research suggests that any sort of label on e-bikes and will not help achieve consistent implementation the degree to which recreational uses impose a requirement to remove or of the rule across the agency. impact soils, water quality, and modify the label if the e-bike is Comment: Commenters stated that e- vegetation depends more on trail design modified. If an e-bike is modified after bike access on non-motorized trails and construction than the specific types purchase, the e-bike may not qualify as would exacerbate erosion, disturb of activities. In sum, the literature a Class 1, 2, or 3 e-bike and would wildlife habitat through trail-widening indicates that the additional e-bike use therefore be managed as an ORV in and destruction of vegetation adjacent to that authorized officers may allow accordance with the regulations at 43 trails, impact wildlife through under the rule is unlikely to have CFR part 8340. disturbance and collisions, create a significant adverse impacts on public Comment: Some commenters safety risk to equestrians and land resources or users and that the requested clarification on the pedestrians (potential collisions, impacts that may occur are likely to be appropriate next steps for startling horses), and that speed limits similar to those already being caused by implementation. should be imposed on trails. non-motorized bicycle use. Response: The specific steps that the Commenters also stated that facilitating With that said, the impacts associated BLM will take to implement this rule backcountry access to less-experienced with e-bike use will largely depend on are beyond the scope of this rulemaking e-bike users may create unsafe site specificity, including the geography, process. After publication of this final conditions for these users, would wildlife, habitat, and uses associated rule, the BLM may determine that it is contribute to overcrowding of trails and with individual roads and trails. The necessary to update agency policy, parking areas, and generate noise that BLM has designed this rule to account including manuals, handbooks, and would disturb wildlife and other for that variability. Rather than other guidance materials, to comply recreationists. Conversely, other attempting to apply blanket allowances with the new rule. commenters stated that e bikes are very or prohibitions on e-bike use, the rule Comment: Some commenters stated quiet, which creates an added safety risk provides authorized officers with the that the introduction of e-bikes will to wildlife, equestrians, and pedestrians. discretion to determine, based on local require a revision of existing sign Response: The BLM reviewed a knowledge and in accordance with standards to clearly identify where e- substantial number of studies and NEPA and other applicable laws, on bikes are allowed, and further, which reports, including those submitted by which specific roads and trails e-bike classes are allowed. One commenter the public, to better understand how use may be appropriate. In making these recommended that the BLM maintain a site-specific implementation of the rule determinations, authorized officers will trail sign standard with allowable use may impact public land resources and consider impacts to public land demarcations to depict traditional users. That literature indicates that resources and other recreational uses, as bicycles and e-bikes independently. many people hold misconceptions about appropriate. Response: The BLM agrees that the what constitutes an e-bike, and that successful introduction of e-bikes onto these misconceptions foster fears and Discussion of the Final Rule public lands depends on clear and concerns about trail conflicts and access Existing BLM regulations do not consistent communication to the public that typically abate as people gain explicitly address the use of e-bikes on about where e-bikes are allowed and, greater familiarity with e-bikes. The public lands. Under the BLM’s current further, which classes are allowed. The literature indicates that riders of e-bikes Travel and Transportation Management BLM is working with the other land and non-motorized bicycles exhibit Manual (MS–1626), however, e-bikes management agencies within DOI to similar safety behavior and have similar are managed as ORVs, as defined at 43 establish standard signs for e-bikes. The wrong-way, stop sign, and traffic signal CFR 8340.0–5(a), and are allowed only goal of this effort is to create a compliance. While there is evidence in those areas and on those roads or

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 69218 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

trails that are designated as ‘‘ORV trails on BLM-administered public the same as non-motorized bicycles on Open’’ or ‘‘ORV Limited’’. Additionally, lands. The final rule will have no effect such roads and trails. e-bikes currently must be operated in on the use of e-bikes and other Notably, Class 2 e-bikes are capable of accordance with the regulations motorized vehicles on such roads and propulsion without pedaling. Under the governing ORVs at 43 CFR 8341.1. trails; e-bikes, which the BLM currently final rule, Class 2 e-bikes operated in Under the final rule, authorized manages as ORVs, and other motorized throttle-only actuation (i.e., relying only officers may allow, through subsequent vehicles could continue to use roads on the throttle without pedal assistance) decision-making, Class 1, 2, and/or 3 e- and trails upon which ORV use is for an extended period of time are not bikes whose motor is not being used currently allowed. The final rule, eligible to be excluded from the exclusively to propel the e-bike for an however, by providing authorized definition of ORV at 43 CFR 8340.0–5(a) extended period of time on roads and officers discretion to allow Class 1, 2, and will continue to be regulated as trails upon which mechanized, non- and 3 e-bike use on roads and trails ORVs. motorized use is allowed. These upon which mechanized, non- The BLM received several comments authorizations must be included in a motorized bicycle use is allowed, has questioning the wisdom and land-use planning or implementation- the potential to facilitate an increase in enforceability of the requirement in the level decision. Such decisions must be recreational opportunities for all proposed rule that e-bikes must never be made in accordance with applicable Americans, especially those with used in a manner where the motor is legal requirements, including NEPA. physical limitations, and encourage the exclusively propelling the bicycle in Under the final rule, where an enjoyment of the DOI-managed lands order to be excluded from the definition authorized officer determines that Class and waters. of ORV. These commenters pointed out 1, 2, and 3 e-bikes should be allowed on The BLM intends for the final rule to that regular bicycles are often ridden for roads and trails upon which facilitate an increase in e-bike ridership periods of time without pedaling, for mechanized, non-motorized use is on public lands. The BLM recognizes example when a rider is coasting allowed, such e-bikes would be that the appeal of many BLM-managed downhill. Other commenters suggested excluded from the definition of ORV at roads and trails to cyclists is the that the BLM remove the clause stating 43 CFR 8340.0–5(a) and would not be opportunity to experience a challenging that the bike’s ‘‘motorized features are subject to the regulatory requirements in road or trail that may have inherently being used to assist human propulsion,’’ 43 CFR part 8340. E-bikes excluded limited ridership. Under the final rule, while other comments suggested from the definition of ORV at 43 CFR the use of an e-bike could cause removing ‘‘that are not being used in a 8340.0–5(a) would be afforded all the increased ridership on these roads or manner where the motor is being used rights and privileges, and be subject to trails. To address site-specific issues, exclusively to propel the e-bike.’’ In all of the duties, of a non-motorized the BLM will consider the response to these comments, the BLM bicycle. Under the final rule, authorized environmental impacts from the use of revised this paragraph to specify that an officers may not allow e-bikes on roads e-bikes through a subsequent analysis. e-bike is eligible to be excluded from the and trails upon which mechanized, non- E-bike use must conform to governing definition of ORV so long as the rider motorized bicycles are prohibited. land use plans, including conditions of is not relying exclusively on the motor A primary objective of the BLM’s use that may be specific to an area. to propel the bike ‘‘for an extended travel and transportation management is period of time.’’ The intent of this rule to establish a long-term, sustainable, § 8340.0–5 Definitions is to ensure e-bikes are used in a manner multimodal travel network and The rule adds a new definition for e- consistent with traditional, non- transportation system that addresses the bikes and defines three classifications of motorized bicycles. The revised text need for public, authorized, and e-bikes (see new paragraph (j) of this helps accomplish this goal by making administrative access to and across section). The rule also excludes Class 1, clear that, like the rider of a traditional BLM-managed lands and related waters. 2, and 3 e-bikes from the definition of bicycle, an e-bike rider does not have to Travel management planning occurs as ORV, pursuant to a subsequent decision pedal continuously for the e-bike to be part of regional or site-specific land use by an authorized officer, where specific excluded from the definition of ORV. and implementation decisions. Such criteria are met (see new paragraph Relying exclusively on a Class 2 e-bike’s decisions typically involve public (a)(5) of this section). throttle for an extended period of time, participation and must comply with Paragraph (a) of this section defines however, is inconsistent with the use of NEPA. Travel management is an an ORV as ‘‘any motorized vehicle a non-motorized bike, and e-bikes ongoing and dynamic process through capable of, or designed for, travel on or ridden in such a manner will be which roads and trails for different immediately over land, water, or other considered ORVs under the BLM’s modes of travel can be added and/or natural terrain . . .’’ and includes 5 regulations. The BLM will coordinate subtracted from the available travel exceptions. The rule moves existing with its partners during implementation system at any time through the paragraph (a)(5) of this section to (a)(6) of this rule to improve education and appropriate planning and NEPA and adds a new (a)(5) that addresses e- awareness of this requirement. processes. These changes may be bikes. Under paragraph (a)(5) of this Some commenters recommended that necessary based on access needs, section, a Class 1, 2, or 3 e-bike would the BLM revise paragraph (a)(5) to resource objectives, and impacts to be excluded from the definition of ORV additionally specify that an e-bike is natural resources or the human if: (1) The e-bike is being used on roads eligible for exclusion from the definition environment. Any such decisions are and trails where mechanized, non- of ORV only where it ‘‘is not being used made through an amendment to the motorized use is allowed; (2) the e-bike on any designated National Scenic Trail, existing land use plan, or through is not being used in a manner where the except on segments where motorized implementation level actions for a travel motor is being used exclusively to ORV use is authorized.’’ The suggested management plan. propel the e-bike for an extended period addition is unnecessary. Authorized Under current land use plans and of time; and (3) an authorized officer has officers will determine, on a site- travel management plans, the use of expressly determined, as part of a land- specific basis and through the NEPA ORVs (and, therefore, e-bikes) is use planning or implementation-level process, if Class 1, 2, and 3 e-bike use allowed on the majority of roads and decision, that e-bikes should be treated is appropriate on roads and trails upon

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69219

which traditional, non-motorized use may not be appropriate on all roads e-bike to be equipped with a seat or bicycles are allowed. In making that and trails on which non-motorized, saddle for the rider. As stated determination, authorized officers will traditional bicycles are allowed, and previously, the BLM is not adding a consider whether any applicable therefore has concluded that authorized requirement that an e-bike be equipped statutory or regulatory provisions, such officers should determine where e-bike with a seat or saddle because some as the National Trails System Act, either use is appropriate on a site-specific bicycles, such as trial bikes, may not prohibit or otherwise make e-bike use basis. have a seat, and the BLM does not think inappropriate on certain roads and New paragraph (j) of this section it is necessary to categorically prohibit trails. includes the definition for electric those types of e-bikes on non-motorized Another commenter suggested adding bicycles, or e-bikes. E-bikes may have 2 roads and trails. By requiring e-bikes to language to paragraph (a)(5)(iii) or 3 wheels and must have fully have operable pedals, the definition specifying that e-bikes excluded from operable pedals. The electric motor for ensures that other low-powered electric the definition of ORV and allowed to an e-bike may not exceed 750 watts (one vehicles, such as scooters and use non-motorized roads and trails ‘‘are horsepower). E-bikes must fall into one skateboards, will not fall within the independent of’’ non-motorized of three classes, as described in scope of this rule. bicycles.’’ This addition is unnecessary. paragraphs (j)(1) through (3) of this One commenter suggested changing The rule draws a clear distinction section. the portion of the current Class 2 e-bike between e-bikes and non-motorized Paragraph (j)(1) describes Class 1 e- definition stating ‘‘. . . and is not bicycles, and an authorized officers bikes, which are equipped with a motor capable of providing assistance when determination that e-bikes, or certain that only provides assistance when the the bicycle . . .’’ to ‘‘. . . and is not classes of e-bikes, may use certain non- rider is pedaling and ceases to provide capable of such propulsion when the motorized roads or trails will not limit assistance when the speed of the bicycle bicycle . . .’’. The BLM did not make the BLM’s ability to continue to manage reaches 20 miles per hour. this change as there is no substantive e-bikes separately from non-motorized Paragraph (j)(2) of this section difference between the language and bicycles, where necessary. describes Class 2 e-bikes, which have a changing the Class 2 definition in the A commenter suggested adding motor that, in addition to pedal manner suggested by the commenter language to paragraph (a)(5) specifying assistance, can propel the bicycle would create inconsistencies with the that e-bikes that are excluded from the without pedaling. This propulsion and Class 1 and 3 definitions. definition of ORV would be operated pedal assistance ceases to provide One commenter suggested adding to and managed under the designation assistance when the speed of the bicycle paragraph (j) that ‘‘no Class 1 e-bike procedures of 43 CFR 8342.2. The BLM reaches 20 miles per hour. allowed to be operated on a non- Paragraph (j)(3) of this section has not incorporated this suggestion motorized road or trail on BLM public describes Class 3 e-bikes, which have a into the final rule. The designation lands shall be modified to exceed the 20 motor that only provides assistance procedures at 43 CFR 8342.2 are specific mph limit and no Class 3 e-bike allowed when the rider is pedaling and ceases to to the operation and management of to be operated on a non-motorized road provide assistance when the speed of ORVs and apply to actions, such as the or trail on BLM public lands shall be the bicycle reaches 28 miles per hour. creation of area designations in land use modified to exceed the 28 mph limit.’’ plans, which would be inapplicable to The definition of e-bike in paragraph (j), including the three classes of e-bikes The suggested addition is unnecessary. the management of e-bikes that are If a modified e-bike falls outside the excluded from the definition of ORV. included in that definition, is consistent definition of the three classes described Although the BLM has not incorporated with the other DOI agencies that are also in this rule, it will be managed as an this suggestion into the final rule, the revising their regulations to address e- ORV and will be prohibited on non- agency can still apply certain aspects of bike use. Having the same definition as motorized roads and trails. section 8342.2 into the management of other DOI agencies will facilitate Some commenters suggested adding e-bikes, where appropriate. For consistent implementation of e-bike language to paragraph (j) specifying that example, NEPA and other laws regulations across public lands ‘‘Devices with electric motors of 750 providing for public participation can administered by the DOI and aid watts (1 hp) or more of power and not provide interested user groups, Federal, coordination with other local, State, and included as Class 1, Class 2 or Class 3 State, county and local agencies, local Federal agencies. in the classification system above, or landowners, and other parties One commenter suggested that used in a manner prohibited by the opportunities to participate in future language be added to the definition of decision-making processes concerning e-bike in paragraph (j) stating’’ ‘‘[E]- regulations should be managed as motor where e-bike use is appropriate. bikes shall be allowed where other types vehicles under 43 CFR Part 8340.’’ The Similarly, the BLM will retain the of bicycles are allowed; and prohibited BLM has not made this change, as it is ability to identify non-motorized road where other types of bicycles are not clear based on the current text of the and trails that are available for e-bike allowed. They are not considered ORVs rule that e-bikes that do not fall within use, as appropriate. for the purposes of this Chapter.’’ The the definition of e-bike in paragraph (j) Finally, one commenter suggested the BLM did not adopt this change, as it and do not satisfy the criteria in deletion of paragraph (a)(5)(iii), and would result in a self-executing rule that paragraph (a)(5) remain ORVs and will another commenter suggested deleting fails to acknowledge that Class 1, 2, and be regulated as such. paragraph (a)(a), (ii), and (iii). The BLM 3 e-bike use may not be appropriate on Subpart 8342—Designation of Areas and did not accept either of these all roads and trails on which non- Trails suggestions. Adopting them would motorized, traditional bicycles are § 8342.2 Designation Procedures make the rule self-executing and result allowed. Under the final rule, in Class 1, 2, and 3 e-bikes that satisfy authorized officers will determine The rule adds a new paragraph (d) to the criteria at (a)(5)(i) and (ii) being whether to allow e-bikes on certain 43 CFR 8342.2 that addresses how the automatically excluded from the roads and trails on a site-specific basis. BLM will issue decisions to authorize definition of ORV. The BLM, however, Some commenters requested that the the use of e-bikes on public lands. It recognizes that Class 1, 2, and 3 e-bike BLM revise paragraph (j) to require an provides authorized officers with

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 69220 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

discretion to determine whether Class 1, intention of facilitating greater e-bike authorized officers may impose 2, and 3 e-bikes (or only certain classes access on public lands. limitations and restrictions on e-bike of e-bikes) are appropriate on roads or Some commenters suggested that that use—such as limiting certain roads and trails upon which mechanized, non- the BLM add two new provisions to this trails to only certain classes of e-bikes, motorized use is allowed. Under new section. First, that e-bikes may be ridden or limiting e-bike use to certain times of paragraph (d), e-bikes being used on on streets, highways, or roads that are the year—to minimize impacts on roads and trails where mechanized, open to motorized vehicles, including public land resources and user conflicts. non-motorized use is allowed pursuant the shoulder or bicycle lane, and Authorized officers also have discretion to a decision by an authorized officer second, that authorized officers should to make future adjustments to those will be given the same rights and generally allow, as part of a land-use limitations and restrictions, either by privileges of a traditional, non- planning or implementation-level amending previous decisions motorized bicycle and will be subject to decision, e-bikes to be ridden on non- concerning e-bikes or imposing closures all of the duties of a traditional, non- motorized bicycle paths with improved or restrictions pursuant to applicable motorized bicycle. While the BLM surfaces, such as concrete, asphalt, or authority. intends for this rule to facilitate crushed stone. The BLM has adopted A commenter suggested that this increased accessibility to public lands, neither suggestion. The BLM has section should direct authorized officers e-bikes will not be given special access declined to adopt the first suggestion to designate all public roads and trails beyond what traditional, non-motorized because under the rule, e-bikes—both as either open, limited, or closed to bicycles are allowed. For example, e- those excluded from the definition of Class 1, 2, and 3 e-bikes to address what bikes will not be allowed on roads or ORV, and those that are not—can it perceived as a ‘‘predecisional trails or in areas where traditional, non- generally ride on BLM-managed streets, undertone’’ caused by the direction in motorized bicycle travel is prohibited, highways, or roads that are open to the proposed rule that authorized such as in designated wilderness. ORVs. There may be situations, officers ‘‘should generally allow’’ e- As originally proposed, this paragraph however, where bicycle use is bikes on roads and trails open to non- stated that authorized officers ‘‘should inappropriate or potentially unsafe on motorized bicycles. The BLM has generally allow’’ e-bike on roads and certain roads that are open to ORVs. It declined to adopt this suggestion. As trails on which traditional, non- is therefore important that authorized discussed above, the BLM has revised motorized bicycles are allowed. Some officers retain discretion to prohibit this section to clarify that authorized commenters suggested that ‘‘generally’’ both e-bike and traditional, non- officers ‘‘may allow’’ e-bikes on roads should be deleted and the rule should motorized bicycle use on certain roads and trails open to traditional, non- be revised to state that the BLM ‘‘should open to ORVs, where appropriate. The motorized bicycles, where appropriate, allow’’ e-bikes on roads and trails open BLM has declined to adopt the second in accordance with NEPA and other to non-motorized bicycles. By suggestion for similar reasons. Rather applicable laws. comparison, other commenters than suggesting that Class 1, 2, and 3 e- Another commenter suggested that expressed concern that the proposed bikes should generally be allowed on the BLM add criteria that the authorized text directed field managers to permit e- paths with improved surfaces, the BLM officer should consider when bikes on non-motorized trails and believes that authorized officer need full determining if Class 1, 2, and 3 e-bike created a rebuttable presumption that discretion to determine where e-bike use would be appropriate on non- would bias future NEPA processes. In use is appropriate on a site-specific motorized roads or trails, including: (1) response to these comments, the BLM basis. The speed and characteristics of the has revised this paragraph to provide The BLM received several comments different classes of e-bikes; (2) the likely that authorized officers ‘‘may’’ allow e- expressing concern or confusion about effect of riding e-bikes or a particular bikes on certain roads and trails and whether authorized officers could allow class of e-bike on cultural or natural removed the statement ‘‘unless the only certain classes of e-bikes on a road resources; and (3) other road and trail authorized officer determines that e-bike or trail. To clarify that authorized users. The commenter also suggested use would be inappropriate on such officers do have discretion to make this updating this section to provide that e- roads or trails,’’ which described when distinction, the BLM has revised bike users shall be afforded all the rights the authorized officer would not allow paragraph 8342.2(d) to provide that the and privileges and be subject to ‘‘only’’ e-bike use. While the BLM wants to authorized officer may approve the use rather than ‘‘all of’’ the duties of users encourage the use of e-bikes on public of ‘‘e-bikes, or certain classes of e- of non-motorized bicycles. The BLM has lands, the agency feels strongly that bikes,’’ on a particular road or trail. not adopted these suggestions. There are field personnel are in the best position One commenter suggested that the many considerations that authorized to determine where and when e-bike us BLM add text to this section stating that officers may take into account when is appropriate. The BLM has therefore authorized officers may impose specific determining where e-bike use is sought to clarify that authorized officers restrictions and limitations on e-bike appropriate, including the items will make unbiased, site-specific use, or may close any road, trail, or suggested by the commenter. It is decisions that account for potential portion thereof to e-bike use to address neither possible nor necessary to resource impacts and user conflicts. public health and safety concerns, account for all these considerations in Such decisions will comply with NEPA natural resource protection, and other the rule, which provides authorized and other relevant statutory or management activities and objectives. officers with wide discretion to consider regulatory requirements, and outcomes While the BLM agrees that flexibility in any and all criteria that may be will not be predetermined. the management of e-bikes is important, appropriate to individual site-specific One commenter suggested that the revising the text in accordance with this decisions. As discussed previously, the BLM replace the term ‘‘mechanical’’ suggestion is unnecessary. The rule BLM may develop subsequent guidance with ‘‘motorized’’ in paragraph (d). This provides authorized officer with to support implementation of the rule. change was not accepted, as it would discretion to allow or disallow e-bike Finally, a commenter suggested that limit the rule’s application to use on roads and trails that are open to the BLM add additional language to traditional, non-motorized bicycles and traditional, non-motorized bicycles. In paragraph (d) prohibiting Class 2 and 3 be inconsistent with the BLM’s making those determinations, e-bikes on trails limited to mechanized,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69221

non-motorized use. The comment also 1, 2, and 3 e-bikes on roads and trails Regulatory Flexibility Act suggested prohibiting any three-wheeled upon which mechanized, non- This rule will not have a significant e-bike with a combined tire tread width motorized use is allowed, where economic effect on a substantial number of 15 inches or more on single track appropriate. Where certain criteria are of small entities under the Regulatory trails limited to mechanized, non- met, the rule excludes Class 1, 2, and 3 Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et motorized use. The commenter e-bikes from the definition of ORV at 43 seq.). This certification is based on indicated that these changes are CFR 8340.0–5(a). information contained in the Economic necessary to limit user conflicts and This rule is not self-executing. The and Threshold analysis prepared for this minimize damage to soil and vegetation. rule, in and of itself, does not change rule. Therefore, a final Regulatory The BLM disagrees. The rule provides existing allowances for e-bike usage on Flexibility Analysis is not required, and authorized officers with sufficient a Small Entity Compliance Guide is not discretion to utilize local knowledge to BLM-administered public lands. It neither allows e-bikes on roads and required. This analysis has been posted determine whether e-bikes, or only in the docket for the rule on the Federal certain types or classes of e-bikes, are trails that are currently closed to ORVs but open to mechanized, non-motorized eRulemaking Portal: https:// appropriate on individual roads and www.regulations.gov. In the Searchbox, trails that are limited to mechanized, bicycle use, nor affects the use of e-bikes and other motorized vehicles on roads enter ‘‘RIN 1004–AE72’’, click the non-motorized use. In light of this ‘‘Search’’ button, open the Docket discretion, it is unnecessary to and trails where ORV use is currently allowed. While the BLM intends for this Folder, and look under Supporting categorically prohibit certain classes Documents. and types of e-bikes on certain types of rule to facilitate increased accessibility roads and trails through this rule. to public lands, e-bikes will not be given Small Business Regulatory Enforcement special access beyond what traditional, Fairness Act (SBREFA) III. Procedural Matters non-motorized bicycles are allowed. This rule is not a major rule under 5 Regulatory Planning and Review The BLM reviewed the requirements U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563) of the rule and determined that it does Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. Executive Order 12866 provides that not adversely affect in a material way This rule: the Office of Information and Regulatory the economy, a sector of the economy, (a) Does not have an annual effect on Affairs in the Office of Management and productivity, competition, jobs, the the economy of $100 million or more. Budget will review all significant rules. environment, public health or safety, or The rule will not have a direct and The Office of Information and State, local, or tribal governments or quantifiable economic impact but is Regulatory Affairs has determined that communities. For more detailed intended to increase recreational the rule is not a significant regulatory information, see the Economic and opportunities on public lands. action as defined by Executive Order Threshold analysis prepared for this (b) Will not cause a major increase in 12866. rule. This analysis has been posted in costs or prices for consumers, Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the the docket for the rule on the Federal individual industries, Federal, State, or principles of E.O. 12866 while calling eRulemaking Portal: https:// local government agencies, or for improvements in the nation’s www.regulations.gov. In the Searchbox, geographic regions. This rule adds a regulatory system to promote enter ‘‘RIN 1004–AE72’’, click the definition for e-bikes, indicates that the predictability, to reduce uncertainty, ‘‘Search’’ button, open the Docket BLM should consider how they are and to use the best, most innovative, Folder, and look under Supporting managed on public lands in future land- and least burdensome tools for Documents. use planning and implementation-level achieving regulatory ends. The decisions, and excludes e-bikes from the executive order directs agencies to Reducing Regulation and Controlling definition of ORV when certain criteria consider regulatory approaches that Regulatory Costs (E.O. 13771) are met. reduce burdens and maintain flexibility (c) Does not have significant adverse and freedom of choice for the public The BLM has complied with E.O. effects on competition, employment, where these approaches are relevant, 13771 and the Office of Management investment, productivity, innovation, or feasible, and consistent with regulatory and Budget implementation guidance the ability of US-based enterprises to objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes for that order.1 The rule is not a compete with foreign-based enterprises. further that regulations must be based significant regulation action as defined The BLM expects this rule to facilitate on the best available science and that by E.O. 12866 or a significant guidance additional recreational opportunities on the rulemaking process must allow for document. Therefore, the rule is not an public lands, which would be beneficial public participation and an open ‘‘E.O. 13771 regulatory action,’’ as to local economies on impacted public exchange of ideas. We have developed defined by Office of Management and lands. this rule in a manner consistent with Budget guidance. As such, the rule is Unfunded Mandates Reform Act these requirements. not subject to the requirements of E.O. The rule addresses how the BLM will 13771. This rule does not impose an allow visitors to operate e-bikes on unfunded mandate on State, local, or public lands and directs the BLM to 1 Executive Office of the President, Office of tribal governments, or the private sector specifically address e-bike usage in Management and Budget, Executive Order 13771, of more than $100 million per year. The future land-use planning or January 30, 2017. 82 FR 9339. Available at https:// rule does not have a significant or www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-02-03/pdf/2017- implementation-level decisions. The 02451.pdf. unique effect on State, local, or tribal rule amends 43 CFR 8340.0–5 to define See also, OMB Memorandum ‘‘Regulatory Policy governments or the private sector. The Class 1, 2, and 3 of e-bikes. The rule Officers at Executive Departments and Agencies BLM will coordinate with impacted provides authorized officers the Managing and Executive Directors of Certain entities, as necessary and appropriate, Agencies and Commissions,’’ April 5, 2017. discretion to allow, through subsequent Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/ when it makes land use planning decision-making in a land use planning whitehouse.gov/files/omb/memoranda/2017/M-17- decisions regarding the use of e-bikes on or implementation-level decision, Class 21-OMB.pdf. public lands in a particular area. A

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 69222 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

statement containing the information change existing allowances for e-bike currently allowed. The rule will (i) add required by the Unfunded Mandates usage on BLM-administered public a new definition for e-bikes; (ii) direct Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not lands. The rulemaking does not commit the BLM to specifically address e-bike required. the agency to undertake any specific usage in future land-use planning or action, and the authorized officers retain implementation-level decisions; and Takings (E.O. 12630) the discretion to authorize e-bike use (iii) set forth specific criteria for when This rule does not affect a taking of where appropriate. Tribal consultation e-bikes may be excluded from the private property or otherwise have will occur as required on a project- definition of ORV at 43 CFR 8340.0– taking implications under E.O. 12630. specific basis as potential e-bike 5(a). Before the public could use e-bikes This rule will only impact public lands opportunities are considered by the on any roads or trails that are not and how they are managed by the BLM BLM in the future. currently open to ORV use, an regarding the use of e-bikes. A takings Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. authorized officer of the BLM must implication assessment is not required. 3501 et seq.) issue a land-use planning or Federalism (E.O. 13132) implementation-level decision allowing This rule does not contain for such use. That decision must comply Under the criteria in section 1 of E.O. information collection requirements, with applicable law, including NEPA. 13132, this rule does not have sufficient and a submission to the Office of As such, the final rule is administrative federalism implications to warrant the Management and Budget under the and procedural in nature. Moreover, the preparation of a federalism summary Paperwork Reduction Act is not environmental effects associated with impact statement. This rule will not required. future land-use planning or have substantial direct effects on the National Environmental Policy Act implementation-level decisions that do States, on the relationship between the allow increased e-bike use are too national government and the States, or The BLM does not believe that this rule constitutes a major Federal action speculative or conjectural at this time to on the distribution of power and lend themselves to meaningful analysis. responsibilities among the various significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed Any environmental effects associated levels of government. The BLM will with future decisions will be subject to coordinate with State and local statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 the NEPA process on a case-by-case governments, as appropriate, when basis. The BLM has also determined that making future planning and (NEPA) is not required because the rule, as proposed, is categorically excluded the rule does not involve any of the implementation level decisions under extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 this rule regarding the use of e-bikes on from further analysis or documentation under NEPA in accordance with 43 CFR CFR 46.215 that require further analysis public lands. A federalism summary under NEPA. impact statement is not required. 46.210(i), which applies to: Policies, directives, regulations, and Effects on the Energy Supply (E.O. Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988) guidelines that are of an administrative, 13211) This rule complies with the financial, legal, technical, or procedural requirements of E.O. 12988. nature; or whose environmental effects This rule is not a significant energy Specifically, this rule: are too broad, speculative, or conjectural action under the definition in E.O. (a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) to lend themselves to meaningful 13211. This rule will not directly impact requiring that all regulations be analysis and will later be subject to the any allowed uses on public lands, as it reviewed to eliminate errors and NEPA process, either collectively or only generally directs the BLM to ambiguity and be written to minimize case-by-case basis. consider allowing their use on existing litigation; and The BLM received several comments trails and roads and in those areas (b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) asserting that the agency cannot rely on where traditional bicycles are allowed. requiring that all regulations be written the categorical exclusion at 43 CFR A Statement of Energy Effects is not in clear language and contain clear legal 46.210(i) to comply with NEPA because required. standards. the rule is not ‘‘of an administrative, Author financial, legal, technical, or procedural Consultation With Indian Tribes (E.O. nature,’’ and because its environmental The principal author(s) of this rule are 13175 and Departmental Policy) effects are not ‘‘too broad, speculative, Evan Glenn and David Jeppesen, The DOI strives to strengthen its or conjectural to lend themselves to Recreation and Visitor Services government-to-government relationship meaningful analysis.’’ Commenters also Division; Rebecca Moore, Branch of with Indian tribes through a stated that extraordinary circumstances Decision Support; Scott Whitesides and commitment to consultation with Indian under 43 CFR 46.215 are applicable to Sandra McGinnis, Branch of Planning tribes and recognition of their right to this rulemaking, thereby requiring and NEPA; Britta Nelson, National self-governance and tribal sovereignty. additional analysis. Commenters state Conservation Lands Division; Charles We have evaluated this rule under the that the categorical exclusion should not Yudson, Division of Regulatory Affairs; Department’s consultation policy and apply because of unique risks presented assisted by the Office of the Solicitor. under the criteria in E.O. 13175 and by e-bikes. David L. Bernhardt, have determined that it has no As previously discussed, this rule substantial direct effects on federally does not change the existing allowances Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior. recognized Indian tribes and that for e-bike usage on public lands and List of Subjects in 43 CFR Part 8340 consultation under the Department’s will have no direct environmental tribal consultation policy is not effects. It will neither allow e-bikes on Public lands, Recreation and required. This rulemaking is an roads and trails that are currently closed recreation areas, Traffic regulations. administrative change that directs the to ORVs but open to mechanized, non- For the reasons set out in the BLM to address e-bike use in future motorized bicycle use, nor affect the use discussion of the rule, the Bureau of land-use planning or implementation- of e-bikes and other motorized vehicles Land Management proposes to amend level decisions. The rule does not on roads and trails where ORV use is 43 CFR part 8340 as follows:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69223

PART 8340—OFF-ROAD VEHICLES the operating regulations and vehicle mechanized, non-motorized use is standards set forth in subparts 8341 and allowed; and ■ 1. The authority citation for part 8340 8342 of this title. (2) If the authorized officer allows e- continues to read as follows: (g) Limited area means an area bikes in accordance with this paragraph Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1201, 43 U.S.C. 315a, restricted at certain times, in certain (d), an e-bike user shall be afforded all 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., 16 U.S.C. 1281c, 16 areas, and/or to certain vehicular use. the rights and privileges, and be subject U.S.C. 670 et seq., 16 U.S.C. 460l–6a, 16 These restrictions may be of any type, to all of the duties, of a user of a non- U.S.C. 1241 et seq., and 43 U.S.C. 1701 et but can generally be accommodated motorized bicycle. seq. within the following type of categories: [FR Doc. 2020–22239 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] Numbers of vehicles; types of vehicles; BILLING CODE 4310–84–P Subpart 8340—General time or season of vehicle use; permitted ■ 2. Revise § 8340.0–5 to read as or licensed use only; use on existing follows: roads and trails; use on designated roads DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR and trails; and other restrictions. § 8340.0–5 Definitions. (h) Closed area means an area where Fish and Wildlife Service As used in this part: off-road vehicle use is prohibited. Use of (a) Off-road vehicle means any off-road vehicles in closed areas may be 50 CFR Part 27 motorized vehicle capable of, or allowed for certain reasons; however, such use shall be made only with the [Docket No. FWS–HQ–NWRS–2019–0109; designed for, travel on or immediately FXRS12630900000–201–FF09R81000] over land, water, or other natural approval of the authorized officer. terrain, excluding: (i) Spark arrester is any device which RIN 1018–BE68 (1) Any nonamphibious registered traps or destroys 80 percent or more of National Wildlife Refuge System; Use motorboat; the exhaust particles to which it is of Electric Bicycles (2) Any military, fire, emergency, or subjected. (j) Electric bicycle (also known as an law enforcement vehicle while being AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, e-bike) means a two- or three-wheeled used for emergency purposes; Interior. cycle with fully operable pedals and an (3) Any vehicle whose use is ACTION: Final rule. expressly authorized by the authorized electric motor of not more than 750 officer, or otherwise officially approved; watts (1 h.p.) that meets the SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and (4) Vehicles in official use; requirements of one of the following Wildlife Service, issue regulations (5) E-bikes, as defined in paragraph (j) three classes: pertaining to the use of electric bicycles of this section: (1) Class 1 electric bicycle shall mean (otherwise known as ‘‘e-bikes’’). These (i) While being used on roads and an electric bicycle equipped with a regulations have the potential to trails upon which mechanized, non- motor that provides assistance only facilitate increased recreational motorized use is allowed; when the rider is pedaling, and that opportunities for all Americans, (ii) That are being used in a manner ceases to provide assistance when the especially for people with physical where the motor is not exclusively bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles limitations. This rule will provide propelling the e-bike for an extended per hour. guidance and controls for the use of e- period of time; and (2) Class 2 electric bicycle shall mean bikes in the National Wildlife Refuge (iii) Where the authorized officer has an electric bicycle equipped with a System. expressly determined, as part of a land- motor that may be used exclusively to DATES: This rule is effective December 2, use planning or implementation-level propel the bicycle, and that is not 2020. decision, that e-bikes should be treated capable of providing assistance when the same as non-motorized bicycles; and the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 ADDRESSES: The comments received on (6) Any combat or combat support miles per hour. the proposed rule and the economic and vehicle when used in times of national (3) Class 3 electric bicycle shall mean threshold analysis prepared to inform defense emergencies. an electric bicycle equipped with a the rule are available at the Federal e- (b) Public lands means any lands the motor that provides assistance only rulemaking portal: http:// surface of which is administered by the when the rider is pedaling, and that www.regulations.gov in Docket No. Bureau of Land Management. ceases to provide assistance when the FWS–HQ–NWRS–2019–0109. (c) Bureau means the Bureau of Land bicycle reaches the speed of 28 miles FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Management. per hour. Maggie O’Connell, National Wildlife Refuge System—Branch Chief for Visitor (d) Official use means use by an Subpart 8342—Designation of Areas Services, 703–358–1883, maggie_ employee, agent, or designated and Trails representative of the Federal [email protected]. Government or one of its contractors, in ■ 3. Amend § 8342.2 by adding Persons who use a the course of his employment, agency, paragraph (d) to read as follows: telecommunications device for the deaf or representation. (TDD) may call the Federal Relay (e) Planning system means the § 8342.2 Designation procedures. Service (FRS) at 1–800–877–8330, 24 approach provided in Bureau * * * * * hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a regulations, directives and manuals to (d) E-bikes. (1) Authorized officers message or question with the above formulate multiple use plans for the may allow, as part of a land-use individual. You will receive a reply public lands. This approach provides planning or implementation-level during normal business hours. for public participation within the decision, e-bikes, or certain classes of e- SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: system. bikes, whose motorized features are not (f) Open area means an area where all being used exclusively to propel the e- Background types of vehicle use is permitted at all bike for an extended period of time on The National Wildlife Refuge System times, anywhere in the area subject to roads and trails upon which Administration Act of 1966, as amended

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 69224 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

by the National Wildlife Refuge System determining appropriate use and comments, submitted by unique Improvement Act of 1997 compatibility, which each refuge individuals but including very similar (Administration Act) (16 U.S.C. 668dd– manager must follow when making or identical content. Commenters 668ee), governs the administration and refuge-specific decisions for allowing a expressing general support for the public use of national wildlife refuges, proposed public use, such as e-biking. proposed rule most frequently cited the and the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 See 603 FW 2. This process must be following reasons: (16 U.S.C. 460k–460k–4) governs the followed even if other similar uses are • E-bike use on NWRS lands will administration and public use of already allowed. allow people to access lands and national wildlife refuges and national This Rulemaking Action participate in bicycling when they fish hatcheries. otherwise could not due to age or National wildlife refuges are FWS published a proposed rule on physical limitations. considered closed to the public until , 2020 (85 FR 19418), pertaining • The proposed rule will enable e- and unless the Secretary of the Interior to the use of low-speed e-bikes on bike users more access to roads and (Secretary), acting through the U.S. Fish NWRS lands in accordance with trails, nature, and the outdoors. and Wildlife Service, opens the area for Secretary’s Order 3376, which directed • E-bike use can improve health use. 50 CFR 25.21. The Secretary may Department of the Interior (DOI) bureaus through exercise and physical exertion. open refuge areas to any use, including to propose regulations allowing e-bikes • E-bikes cause no more damage to where other types of bicycles are public recreation, upon a determination trails than traditional bicycles. allowed, consistent with other laws and that the use is compatible with the • The use of e-bikes reduces pollution regulations. The proposed rule put purposes of the refuge and the National compared to the use of other vehicles, forward new regulations to be added to Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) and e-bikes are not noisy. 50 CFR part 27, which pertains to mission. 16 U.S.C. 668dd(d). The While some commenters stated mission of the NWRS is: ‘‘To administer prohibited acts on refuge lands. The general support for or opposition to the a national network of lands and waters current regulations in § 27.31 generally rule in whole or in part, the majority of for the conservation, management, and prohibit use of any motorized or other commenters included at least one, and where appropriate, restoration of the vehicles, including those used on air, often multiple, unique and specific fish, wildlife, and plant resources and water, ice, or snow, on national wildlife remarks about the proposed rule. In their habitats within the United States refuges except on designated routes of other words, a single commenter often for the benefit of present and future travel, as indicated by the appropriate provided more than one reason that generations of Americans.’’ 16 U.S.C. traffic control signs or signals and in supported or opposed the proposed 668dd(a)(2). Administration of the designated areas posted or delineated on rule. Many of the comments we received NWRS must also be in accordance with maps by the refuge manager. all applicable laws, and consistent with The proposed rule specified that the referenced a general topic, and we have the principles of sound fish and wildlife operator of an e-bike may use the small grouped similar comments together in management and administration. electric motor (not more than 1 some instances, particularly if the The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service horsepower) only to assist pedal response is the same for each of the (FWS) administers the NWRS via propulsion. In other words, the comments. For example, we received regulations contained in title 50 of the proposed rule indicated that the motor multiple comments that suggested only Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). may not be used to propel an e-bike certain classes of e-bikes should be These regulations, found at 50 CFR, without the rider also pedaling. allowed on nonmotorized trails. Some chapter I, subchapter C, serve to protect However, based on comments received commenters stated that only Class 1 e- the natural and cultural resources of on the proposed rule, FWS has modified bikes should be allowed, while Class 2 refuges, and to protect visitors and the final rule language to specify that e- and Class 3 e-bikes should be property within those lands, by bike operators may not propel an e-bike prohibited. Other commenters requested governing public use of the NWRS. using the motor exclusively for different combinations of e-bike classes National wildlife refuges offer many extended periods of time. See the be allowed or prohibited on national outdoor recreation activities such as proposed rule (85 FR 19418, April 7, wildlife refuges. We grouped these wildlife observation, fishing, and 2020) for further information on the class-related comments together. We hunting, and nearly 200 national purpose and provisions of the proposed also grouped other related comments, wildlife refuges allow bicycling on regulations. such as those addressing enforcement or designated roads and trails. FWS Promulgation of this rule supersedes visitor safety issues when our response regulations generally prohibit visitors FWS Director’s Order 222, which was for each would be the same. Summaries from using motorized vehicles on established to implement Secretary’s of the pertinent issues raised in the refuges other than on designated routes Order 3376. comments and FWS responses are of travel. See 50 CFR 27.31(a). provided below: Traditional bicycles are allowed on Comments Received Comment (1): We received comments some designated routes of travel and The proposed rule opened a public from several individuals and parking areas open to public motor comment period, which ended June 8, organizations that were dissatisfied with vehicles. On refuges where the refuge 2020. We accepted comments on the some aspect of the public review manager has determined that such use proposed rule through the mail, by hand process associated with this rulemaking. is an appropriate and compatible use, delivery, and through the Federal Specifically, commenters stated that the bicycles are also allowed on certain eRulemaking Portal at length of the public review period was roads, access trails, and other trails that www.regulations.gov. By the close of the not sufficient due to the coronavirus are closed to public motor vehicle use comment period, we received just over pandemic, that the pandemic created but that may be open to motor vehicle 16,000 comments from thousands of obstacles to public participation, and use by the FWS for administrative individuals and approximately 62 that it prevented public meetings. Some purposes. organizations. commenters stated that due to the FWS policy set forth in the FWS Most (approximately 97%) of the pandemic, the rulemaking should be Manual outlines a robust process for comments we received were form postponed.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69225

Our Response: The comment period Comment (3): We received several Administration Act that refuge began on Tuesday, April 7, 2020, and comments stating that the FWS does not managers comply with when ended on Monday, June 8, 2020, for a need rulemaking to allow e-bike use at considering appropriate and compatible total open period of 62 days, which is national wildlife refuges because refuge uses on individual refuges. 2 days longer than the standard managers can allow e-bikes under According to FWS policy (603 FW timeframe for proposed rules issued by existing regulations. 1.11), refuge managers base the finding the Department of the Interior. The 60- Our Response: Although refuge of appropriateness on the following 10 day public comment period is the managers can allow e-bikes under criteria: opportunity for participation in the existing regulations, Secretary’s Order • We have jurisdiction over the use. rulemaking process. During this time 3376 was issued to clarify, simplify, and • The use is legal. • period, the public was invited to submit unify regulation of e-bikes on Federal The use is consistent with comments via mail or hand delivery or lands managed by DOI, and it directed Executive Orders and Department and the FWS to develop the proposed rule. Service policies. via the Federal eRulemaking portal • (http://www.regulations.gov/). We Prior to this final rule, e-bikes were not The use is consistent with public defined and e-bike use was not safety. received more than 16,000 comments • during the public comment period. The described in any FWS regulations. The The use is consistent with refuge large number of comments received rule defines the type and classes of e- goals and objectives in an approved suggests that the 60-day public review bikes that a refuge manager may allow management plan. • The use has not been rejected period was sufficient for providing and provides a consistent management previously, unless circumstance or public comment. Therefore, the FWS framework for the use of e-bikes in the conditions have changed or it was not met the Administrative Procedure Act NWRS. This rule does not authorize e- bike use; rather, such authorization considered in a refuge planning process. (APA; 5 U.S.C. 553) requirement for • would be based on subsequent The use is manageable within notice and comment. Public meetings available budget and staff. are not required for informal evaluation and determination at the site- • specific level. It provides the public The use will be manageable in the rulemakings under the APA. Moreover, future within existing resources. the public will have more opportunities with information about e-biking • regulations and provides guidance to The use contributes to the public’s to comment because refuge managers understanding and appreciation of the must provide an opportunity for public refuge managers to manage e-bike use at refuges. refuge’s natural or cultural resources or review and comment during the is beneficial to the refuge’s natural and compatibility determination process. Comment (4): We received comments about the ability of individual refuge cultural resources. See 603 FW 2.11(I), 2.12(9). • managers to make decisions on e-bike The use can be accommodated Comment (2): We received comments use at a specific national wildlife refuge. without impairing existing wildlife- stating the proposed rule violates the Some commenters stated that refuge dependent recreation uses. National Wildlife Refuge System managers should be able to determine if If the refuge manager finds e-bike use Improvement Act of 1997 by interfering e-bike use is a compatible use on a to be appropriate under the criteria with other priority uses and prevents refuge. Other commenters stated that above, the refuge manager must then the FWS from managing for refuge managers should not have the determine whether e-bike use is conservation over all other competing authority to determine if e-bikes are ‘‘compatible’’ with the established uses in the NWRS. compatible, and that this decision purpose(s) of the refuge and the mission Our Response: This rule does not should be made for all refuges at a of the NWRS, as required by the mandate the use of e-bikes at any national level. One commenter stated Administration Act. Each refuge is national wildlife refuge. The rule that the FWS should conduct a general established with unique refuge defines permitted types of e-bikes and compatibility analysis first. Some purposes, and, as such, the establishes a general framework that can commenters requested that the rule text Administration Act requires each refuge be used by a refuge manager to allow e- should be rewritten to include a to evaluate compatibility on a refuge- bikes on designated roads and trails uniform set of guidelines, parameters, specific level. A compatible use is ‘‘[a] where traditional bicycles are already and criteria for refuge managers to use proposed or existing wildlife-dependent allowed. The National Wildlife Refuge when determining if and how e-bike use recreational use or any other use of a System Improvement Act of 1997 states is allowed. national wildlife refuge that, based on that ‘‘the Secretary shall not initiate or Our Response: Established laws, sound professional judgment, will not permit a new use of a refuge or expand, regulations, and policies enable the materially interfere with or detract from renew, or extend an existing use of a FWS and the refuge manager to the fulfillment of the National Wildlife refuge, unless the Secretary has determine if a public use is allowed on Refuge System mission or the purposes determined that the use is a compatible a site-specific basis, as summarized of the national wildlife refuge.’’ 603 FW use and that the use is not inconsistent below. The Administration Act 2.6(B). The refuge manager must issue a with public safety.’’ In determining if e- stipulates that certain wildlife- compatibility determination, which is biking is appropriate and compatible, dependent and other recreational uses, ‘‘a written determination signed and the refuge managers use their sound such as traditional bicycle and e-bike dated by the refuge manager and professional judgment to consider use, if found to be appropriate and Regional Chief signifying that a wildlife and habitat impacts, health and compatible, are legitimate public uses of proposed or existing use of a national safety, potential conflicting uses, and a refuge. FWS policy outlines a robust wildlife refuge is a compatible use or is available resources to manage the use. process for determining appropriate use not a compatible use.’’ 603 FW 2.6(A). The National Wildlife Refuge System and compatibility, which each refuge The compatibility determination Improvement Act of 1997 provides manager must follow when making process includes a requirement for guidelines for how managers may or refuge-specific decisions for a public public notification and comment on the may not implement new uses on use such as e-biking. The FWS has proposed use. 603 FW 2.11(I), 2.12(9). refuges, and this rule does not violate adopted policies and regulations The refuge manager is required to the Act. implementing the requirements of the consider the anticipated impacts that a

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 69226 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

new use such as e-bikes would have on refuge was established, among other deals with use of vehicles on national public safety, refuge resources, other considerations. 16 U.S.C. 668dd(d). wildlife refuges. The FWS does not uses, and other users. See the complete Refuge managers are responsible for define motor vehicles or off-road policy for determining compatibility of determining whether e-bike use is a vehicles in 50 CFR 25.12, and the proposed and existing uses of national compatible use for each refuge on a regulation is more appropriate in 50 wildlife refuges for more information. case-by-case basis. When completing CFR 27.31. The Alaska National Interest 603 FW 2. compatibility determinations, refuge Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), In addition, opening a refuge to managers use ‘‘sound professional Public Law 96–487, 94 Stat. 23–71, specific public uses requires compliance judgment’’ to determine if a use will authorizes the use of nonmotorized with the National Environmental Policy materially interfere with or detract from surface transportation methods for Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). the fulfillment of the NWRS mission or traditional activities and for travel to Depending on the site and type of use, the purpose(s) of the refuge. ‘‘Sound and from villages and home sites within additional documentation may be professional judgment’’ is defined as: the NWRS in Alaska. 16 U.S.C. 3170(a). required, such as an evaluation under ‘‘A finding, determination, or decision This allowance for special access section 7 of the Endangered Species Act that is consistent with principles of applies in Alaska notwithstanding any (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) or section 106 sound fish and wildlife management other law and does not limit of the National Historic Preservation Act and administration, available science nonmotorized transportation to (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). There are more and resources, and adherence to the designated roads or trails. The than 565 national wildlife refuges, and requirements of the National Wildlife Department of the Interior has the established purposes, habitats, Refuge System Administration Act of interpreted this statutory allowance to public uses, and many other conditions 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd–668ee), and include the use of traditional bicycles. at individual national wildlife refuges other applicable laws. Included in this E-bikes do not fall under this allowance can differ greatly. Local refuge managers finding, determination, or decision is a because they have an electric motor and may limit, restrict, or impose conditions refuge manager’s field experience and therefore are not ‘‘nonmotorized.’’ on e-bike use where necessary to knowledge of the particular refuge’s Notwithstanding the statutory manage visitor-use conflicts and ensure resources.’’ 603 FW 2.6(U). If the refuge allowance for traditional bicycles in visitor safety and resource protection. manager determines e-bike use to be an Alaska, FWS is not willing to create Compatibility determinations are not appropriate and compatible use, e- different rules for e-bikes in Alaska than final, as they require periodic biking will be managed using principles it does for e-bikes everywhere else reevaluation. Except for uses of sound fish and wildlife management. within the NWRS. The stated purpose of specifically authorized for a period For example, wildlife disturbance that is Secretary’s Order 3376 is to simplify longer than 10 years (such as rights-of- very limited in scope or duration may and unify the regulations of e-bikes on way), we will reevaluate compatibility not result in interference with fulfilling lands managed by the Department of the determinations for all existing uses the NWRS mission or refuge purposes. Interior. The FWS shares this goal of a other than wildlife-dependent However, even unintentional minor consistent management framework recreational uses when conditions harassment or disturbance during within the NWRS. Outside of Alaska, under which the use is permitted critical biological times, in critical these regulations allow the use of change significantly, or if there is locations, or repeated over time may bicycles on designated roads and trails significant new information regarding exceed the compatibility threshold (603 only. Dispersed, overland use is not the effects of the use, or at least every FW 2.11(B)). If a refuge manager allowed. In order to manage e-bikes in 10 years, whichever is earlier. 603 FW determines that e-bike use is not a similar manner to traditional bicycles, 2.11(H)(2). Moreover, a refuge manager compatible on a particular refuge or in the rule allows e-bikes only on roads may always reevaluate the compatibility a part of a refuge, then the refuge and trails otherwise open to bicycle use of a use at any time. See 50 CFR manager shall prohibit the use of e-bikes and designated by the refuge manager. 25.21(g). When we reevaluate a use for on that refuge/in that area. Therefore, Although the special allowance in compatibility, we will take a fresh look this rule is consistent with the NWRS Alaska for traditional bicycles is not at the use and prepare a new mission. limited to roads and trails, the FWS compatibility determination following Comment (6): One commenter declines to extend this special the procedure outlined in 50 CFR 26.41 requested that the rule should clarify e- allowance for e-bikes in Alaska. and 603 FW 2. bike use on national wildlife refuges in Comment (7): Some commenters Comment (5): Several commenters Alaska and change the rule text to align stated they opposed the rule because stated the rule is inconsistent with the with the directives in Secretary’s Order there are already sufficient e-biking NWRS mission and the principles of 3376. The commenter stated that the opportunities at national wildlife sound fish and wildlife management. FWS should delete 50 CFR 27.31(m) as refuges and on DOI lands on roads or Some commenters stated that the rule written in the proposed rule and add trails open to motorized vehicle users. does not appear to be compatible with language in 50 CFR 25.12 to define e- One commenter stated that the proposed the purposes of many national wildlife bikes and exempt them from the rule should require refuge managers to refuges. definitions of off-road and motorized determine if e-bikes are compatible on Our Response: This rule does not vehicles. In addition, the commenter roads and trails that already allow e- mandate the use of e-bikes in the stated that the proposed rule failed to bikes and if they are compatible on new NWRS, and the rule itself is not adequately describe how the National roads and trails. inconsistent with the Refuge System Wildlife Refuge System Administration Our Response: As stated in Secretary’s mission and principles of sound fish Act affects the management of e-bikes in Order 3376, the purpose of this and wildlife management. The Alaska and does not acknowledge that rulemaking is to facilitate increased Administration Act authorizes the bicycle use in Alaska is managed access to federally owned lands by e- Secretary of the Interior to allow the use according to 43 CFR 36.11. bike riders and ensure consistency of refuges for any use, including public Our Response: The FWS decided to among Department of the Interior lands. recreation, if such use is compatible add the definition of e-bikes to 50 CFR The final rule directs refuge managers, with the major purposes for which the 27.31 because that section specifically if they find e-bike use is an appropriate

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69227

and compatible use, to provide e-bike determinations on a refuge-specific certain nonmotorized trail where other operators (using the permitted classes in analysis of reasonably anticipated types of bicycles are allowed, this rule the manner described) with the same impacts of a particular use on refuge and the Administration Act permit the rights, privileges, and responsibilities as resources. If a refuge manager manager to limit or restrict where all or nonmotorized bicycle operators on determines that one class of e-bike may certain e-bike classes may be allowed on roads and trails. cause unacceptable impacts to natural a site-specific basis. FWS policy outlines a robust process resources or the visitor experience, they Comment (11): Some commenters for determining appropriate use and may not allow that class on certain stated that the rule or preamble should compatibility that refuge managers roads or trails. Furthermore, FWS policy clarify whether a refuge manager needs follow when making refuge-specific in 603 FW 2 requires that we must to determine if e-bike use is compatible decisions for a public use such as e- manage conflicting uses among users of on roads or trails where motor vehicles biking. E-biking will be a new use on the refuge and analyze the costs for are allowed. In addition, some designated routes of travel and administering and managing a public commenters stated that the rule should nonmotorized roads and trails. use. This requires a site-specific clarify what the rights and duties are for Therefore, refuge managers must evaluation, and NWRS-wide restrictions e-bike users on roads or trails where determine if e-bike use is an appropriate based on e-bike class or other factors is motor vehicles are allowed. and compatible use on refuges on a not possible. While the final rule Our Response: This rule does not case-by-case basis, regardless of whether provides definitions of a low-speed e- mandate the use of e-bikes in any other types of bicycles or motor vehicles bike and includes three different national wildlife refuge or FWS- are allowed. classes, this rule enables the refuge managed area. The rule stipulates that a Comment (8): We received comments manager to determine whether all or refuge manager must determine if e- opposing the proposed rule because of certain e-bike classes will be allowed or biking is compatible on roads or trails. potential impacts to threatened and prohibited on all or certain roads or FWS policy (603 FW 2) also states that endangered species. One commenter trails where other types of bicycles are the refuge manager will not initiate or stated that the rule violates the allowed. For example, if the refuge permit a new use or expand, renew, or Endangered Species Act (ESA). manager determines that public safety extend an existing use of a national Our Response: The rule is impacts of one or more e-bike classes is wildlife refuge unless the refuge administrative and procedural in nature. unacceptable, this rule and the manager has determined that the use is The rule itself will have no impact on Administration Act allow the manager a compatible use. This includes areas threatened or endangered species. to limit or restrict certain classes on a where motor vehicles or other types of Opening a refuge to specific public uses site-specific basis. bicycles are already allowed. The FWS requires compliance with NEPA. Comment (10): Many commenters has clarified this issue in the Depending on the site and type of use, requested that the FWS should limit or SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of additional documentation may be restrict where e-bikes may be used on a this final rule. required, such as an evaluation under national wildlife refuge. Many The rights, privileges, and duties of e- section 7 of the ESA or section 106 of commenters stated that e-bikes should bike users are described in the rule and the National Historic Preservation Act. be allowed only where motor vehicles in 50 CFR, chapter I, subchapter C. Future implementation will be subject are allowed. Some commenters stated Paragraph (m) in the rule stipulates that to the NEPA process on a case-by-case that e-bikes should be allowed wherever if e-biking is allowed on certain roads basis in conjunction with the traditional bicycles are allowed. Some and trails, ‘‘any person using an e-bike compatibility-determination process. A commenters stated that some trails were where the motor is not used exclusively use cannot be found appropriate and not appropriate for e-bike use due to to propel the rider for an extended compatible if it is not legal, which design or topography issues. period of time, shall be afforded all the includes consideration of the ESA. Our Response: The rule has been rights and privileges, and be subject to Applying the appropriate use and established to facilitate increased public all of the duties, of the operators of compatibility determination processes access on national wildlife refuges and nonmotorized bicycles on roads and in conjunction with the NEPA process clarify e-bike use for visitors. Allowing trails.’’ In addition to paragraph (m), e- at a site-specific level will allow the e-bikes on nonmotorized, natural bike and other bicycle users will be refuge manager to evaluate detailed surface, nonpaved, multiuse, or other subject to the policy and provisions information on the potential impacts of types of roads or trails is subject to the regarding vehicles found in 50 CFR e-bike use to wildlife, including discretion of the refuge manager, who is 27.31. threatened or endangered species, for a required to consider the anticipated Comment (12): Some commenters particular national wildlife refuge. impacts that a new use such as e-bikes stated that the FWS should manage e- Comment (9): We received comments would have on refuge resources and bikes separately from traditional requesting the FWS to limit or restrict visitor experience. For the same reasons bicycles. Some commenters stated that e-bike use in the NWRS based on e-bike mentioned in our response to Comment we should distinguish e-bikes from class type. Some commenters stated that (9), it is not appropriate for the FWS to electric mountain bicycles and manage only certain e-bike classes should be categorically limit or restrict where e- them independently. allowed on roads and trails where bikes are allowed on specific national Our Response: One purpose of this traditional bicycles are allowed. wildlife refuges or generally in the rule is to create a consistent Our Response: It is not appropriate for NWRS. While the final rule provides the management framework for the use of e- the FWS to categorically limit or restrict same rights, privileges, and duties to a bikes in the NWRS. This rule allows the certain e-bike classes throughout the person operating an e-bike as the refuge manager to determine how best to NWRS for several reasons. For example, operator of a nonmotorized bicycle on manage public uses on a case-by-case refuge purpose(s) vary widely between roads and trails, the refuge manager can basis while following established individual units in the NWRS, which determine if and where e-bike use will regulations and policy, as detailed in we must take into account when be allowed. If the refuge manager our response to Comment (4). When determining if a proposed use is determines that e-bike use will determining compatibility and how to compatible. We must base compatibility significantly impact public safety on a best manage e-bike use, the refuge

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 69228 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

manager may consider e-biking as an Comment (14): Some commenters Comment (16): We received individual use, a specific use program, requested that we should clarify, comments that the number of wheels on or part of a group of related uses. change, or eliminate proposed rule text an e-bike should determine if an e-bike However, whenever practicable, the requiring users to pedal while using the is permitted on certain trails. One refuge manager should concurrently motor to propel an e-bike, because that commenter stated that the vehicle axle- consider related uses or uses that are requirement would be impractical and width should determine trail access and likely to have similar effects and difficult to enforce. if the vehicle has less than three wheels, associated facilities, structures, and Our Response: The FWS agrees that it should qualify for single-track access. improvements, in order to facilitate the language in the proposed rule Another commenter recommended analysis of cumulative effects and to preamble (‘‘that the motor may not be establishing a threshold of 15 inches as provide opportunity for effective public used to propel an e-bike without the the bike’s effective combined tread review and comment. rider also pedaling’’) is impractical and width to prevent wide three-wheeled e- Whether a refuge manager considers does not align with the proposed rule bike users to access single-track trails. e-biking and traditional bicycling as language in paragraph (m) (‘‘any person Some commenters stated that trail width individual uses, a specific use program, using the motorized features of an e-bike should determine which type of e-bike or in conjunction with a group of related as an assist to human propulsion’’). We use is allowed. uses, the compatibility process enables agree there are times during typical use Our Response: The rule and the the refuge manager to determine the when an e-bike operator may not be Administration Act require that refuge allowance of e-bike use on a site- pedaling, and the FWS has changed the managers evaluate and determine a specific basis. E-bike use will be language in the final rule accordingly. proposed use, such as e-biking, at a site- determined to be a compatible use if it The language in paragraph (m) of the specific level. For example, if a single- does not materially interfere with or final rule states that ‘‘any person using track bicycle trail is too narrow to detract from the fulfillment of the an e-bike in a manner where the motor accommodate the width of three- NWRS mission and/or the purposes of is not used exclusively to propel the wheeled e-bikes without causing the refuge. Otherwise, e-bike use will be rider for an extended period of time unacceptable erosion or other impacts to determined to be not compatible. 603 shall be afforded all the rights and natural resources, the refuge manager FW 2.12(10). Through this process, the privileges, and be subject to all of the must prohibit those types of e-bikes on refuge manager can determine duties, of the operators of nonmotorized that trail. It is not appropriate for the specifically if and how e-bike use will bicycles on roads and trails.’’ While the FWS to categorically allow or prohibit be allowed. new language applies to all e-bike users the types or classes of e-bikes, or the Comment (13): Some commenters and clarifies that riders can alternately types of roads or trails, for e-bike use in expressed concern that refuge managers pedal and coast without pedaling during the NWRS because there are more than could apply the proposed rule operation, this change affects Class 2 e- 565 national wildlife refuges, and the inconsistently, which will lead to public bike operators in particular because established purposes, habitats, public confusion in the NWRS or across the Class 2 e-bikes have a throttle in uses, topography, infrastructure, and landscape. Some commenters stated that addition to pedals, which makes it many other conditions at individual the rule text should include parameters easier for Class 2 e-bike operators to use national wildlife refuges can differ for e-bike use at national wildlife the motor exclusively for extended greatly. This rule and the refuges that refuge managers can use to periods of time. Administration Act allow local refuge make their decisions. FWS law enforcement officers will managers to limit, restrict, or impose Our Response: This rule establishes a use observation, situational analysis, conditions on e-bike use where definition for e-bikes and creates a and professional judgment to determine necessary to manage visitor-use management framework with if a violation of the regulations related conflicts and ensure visitor safety and parameters for the use of e-bikes in the to the ‘‘use of an e-bike for an extended resource protection. NWRS. There are more than 565 period of time using the motor Comment (17): Many commenters national wildlife refuges, and the exclusively’’ occurs. The change to the stated concern about future high-speed established purposes, habitats, public final rule enables law enforcement e-bike use on national wildlife refuges, use, and many other conditions at officers to enforce the limitations on or concern about how the FWS will individual national wildlife refuges can how Class 2 e-bikes may be used in a manage or enforce the rule regarding differ greatly. This rule and the reasonable manner that ensures future technologies, design standards, Administration Act allow local refuge protection of public health, safety, features, and capabilities for Class 1, managers to limit, restrict, or impose resources, and uses of the public lands. Class 2, and Class 3, and other types or conditions on e-bike use where Comment (15): We received classes of e-bikes. necessary to manage visitor-use comments requesting an addition to the Our Response: The FWS conflicts and ensure visitor safety and rule text requiring that e-bikes be acknowledges that advances in resource protection. While the FWS equipped with a seat or saddle to technology and future e-bike agrees that this process and subsequent separate them from other types of specifications may result in some e-bike allowance of e-bike use on a case-by- electric mobility devices. models, types, classes, or other case basis may be confusing for visitors, Our Response: The definition specifications falling outside the refuge managers must perform these provided in the rule, including the definition of e-bikes established in the rigorous evaluations in order to make requirement for fully operable pedals, final rule. As one commenter noted, e- appropriate public-use decisions at the motor type, motor power specifications, bike technology is in the early stages of sites they manage. We encourage the and permitted number of wheels, is development. The FWS is unable to public to access the official website sufficient to allow use of e-bikes and predict the performance capabilities for before visiting a particular national does not apply to other electric mobility e-bikes in the future and appreciates wildlife refuge to determine if and how devices and other electric vehicles such that the technology used in e-bikes is e-bike or other public uses are allowed, as scooters or skateboards. No changes likely to continue to evolve at a rapid and to call the refuge for specific were made to the definitions of e-bikes pace. However, the FWS concludes that information not covered on the website. as the result of this comment. the definition of e-bikes and three

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69229

classes in the final rule, in combination Policy (610 FW 1) already prohibit including existing State and Federal with a refuge manager’s ability to public use of motor vehicles, motorized conservation easements and other determine if e-bikes are compatible, are equipment, and mechanical transport in existing legal agreements. While sufficient to manage national wildlife wilderness areas designated by easements do not usually include public refuges appropriately in the future. Congress. When a refuge manager makes use, refuge managers will have to take Comment (18): Some commenters a compatibility determination, he/she easements with public use, if any, into stated that the economic consequences must consider applicable laws, account when planning and making of the displacement of traditional trail including those related to designated compatibility determinations. Under the users must be addressed in the final wilderness areas. Therefore, bicycles Administration Act and FWS policy rule. Some commenters stated that the and e-bikes are already prohibited in all (602 FW 3), the NWRS manages national proposed rule lacks a ‘‘risk and needs designated wilderness areas on national wildlife refuges according to an assessment’’ and that lack must be wildlife refuges, and a refuge manager approved Comprehensive Conservation addressed in the final rule. cannot deem e-bike use as an Plan (CCP), which describes the desired Our Response: The FWS prepared an appropriate use in designated future conditions of the refuge and economic and threshold analysis for the wilderness areas. provides long-range guidance and proposed rule, which concluded that Comment (20): Several commenters management direction to achieve refuge the rule itself would not adversely questioned how the FWS’s definition of purposes, including management affect, in a material way, the economy, ‘‘electric bicycle’’ in the rule would guidance and direction on public uses. a sector of the economy, productivity, affect how e-bikes are treated under Any changes to public use on refuges competition, jobs, the environment, other laws that do not adopt the same need to be consistent with the refuge’s public health or safety, or State, local, definition or management framework. CCP. or Tribal governments or communities. One comment stated that the final rule Comment (22): We received a However, the economic and threshold text should state that e-bikes are not comment stating that the rule should analysis and proposed rule discussed allowed on National Scenic Trails that require that e-bikes operated within the the potential for an increase in conflicts exist within units of the NWRS per the NWRS be certified by an accredited, between trail users following site- provisions of the National Trails System independent third-party certification specific implementation of the rule, as Act. One comment stated that e-bikes body that examines electrical systems to well as an increase in the risk of injury should be prohibited on the achieve electrical and fire safety or need for rescue. Since we know Appalachian Trail where other bicycles certification. Several commenters stated current traditional bicycling comprises are prohibited. One comment stated that that e-bike batteries could overheat, only two percent of the average annual FWS should prohibit e-bikes on trails burn, and cause fire danger. recreational visits, we estimate that funded by the Recreational Trails Our Response: The U.S. Consumer increasing opportunities for e-bikes Program, which are for nonmotorized Products Safety Commission (CPSC) is would most likely correspond with a use only. responsible for evaluating and making small percentage of visits and a similar Our Response: The FWS’s definition recommendations about electrical safety small percentage of displacement for of ‘‘electric bicycles’’ applies to standards for consumer products traditional trail users. Given differences management of electric bicycles within manufactured and sold in the United in current use across sites, potential e- the NWRS under the framework States. E-bike manufacturers are bike use, and visitor preferences, it is established by this rule. It does not required to comply with mandatory not feasible to estimate the net effect of modify or affect other Federal laws and standards set by the CPSC. Product e-bike use on other trail users across all regulations in circumstances where they certification and safety requirements are FWS roads and trails at this time. This apply to the use of electric bicycles not established or mandated by the rule and the Administration Act allow within the NWRS. For example, if a trail FWS. A refuge manager may make a local refuge managers to limit, restrict, within the NWRS is constructed or determination at any time to manage an or impose conditions on e-bike use maintained using funding sources existing public use with regard to public where necessary to manage visitor-use which may prohibit or be inconsistent safety, resource protection, and visitor conflicts and ensure visitor safety and with e-bike use, such as the Recreational protections. resource protection. This will allow the Trails Program and other Federal Comment (23): Some commenters FWS to evaluate the effects of e-bike use funding sources authorized by Title 23, stated that the FWS must maintain a at a site-specific level, where more Chapter 2 of the United States Code, sign standard and post areas, trails, and detailed information on potential effects then the refuge manager would not have roads open to e-bikes with signs that is available. the authority to designate e-bikes for use clearly indicate allowed uses and types Comment (19): We received on that trail in a manner that conflicts or classes of e-bikes. comments stating that e-bikes are with the other, applicable Federal law. Our Response: The FWS will work motorized vehicles and should not be Similarly, the FWS and refuge managers with the other land-management allowed in, or adjacent to, designated will manage the National Scenic Trails, agencies within the Department of the wilderness areas in the NWRS. Some including the Appalachian National Interior to design and post signs, to the commenters stated that the rule text Scenic Trail, that exist within the extent possible. The goal of this effort is should include that e-bikes are NWRS in accordance with the National to create a consistent approach for signs prohibited in designated wilderness Trails System Act. when possible indicating where e-bikes areas. Comment (21): Several commenters are allowed on national wildlife refuges Our Response: As with traditional stated that the FWS must adhere to all and other public lands managed by the bicycles, e-bikes are not allowed in existing State and Federal conservation Department of the Interior. As with all designated wilderness areas and may easements and resource-management existing and new public uses allowed not be appropriate for back-country plans when determining if e-bike use on a national wildlife refuge, refuge trails. We do not agree to change the should be allowed. managers have the discretion to rule text as the Wilderness Act (16 Our Response: E-biking establish any safety, communication, U.S.C. 1133(c)) and National Wildlife implementation will be consistent with outreach, and education measures Refuge System Wilderness Stewardship governing laws and regulations, deemed necessary to ensure that e-bikes

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 69230 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

are used in a manner that maintains a Comment (25): Some commenters through which refuge managers could safe and enjoyable experience for all stated the rule disregards research allow e-bikes must comply with NEPA visitors. demonstrating adverse impacts from e- and other laws providing for public Comment (24): Some commenters bikes and has not analyzed e-bike participation, the public will continue stated that the FWS has not sufficiently compatibility. to have an opportunity to provide input. analyzed the economic implications of Our Response: This rule does not Moreover, because the rule provides the rule. Other commenters stated that mandate e-bike use throughout the refuge managers with complete the FWS does not have the financial NWRS. This rule and the discretion to determine whether e- resources or employees to adequately Administration Act give refuge bikes—or only certain classes of e- manage e-bike use. Commenters stated managers the discretion to allow e- bikes—are appropriate on a specific that the proposed rule and e-bike use on biking if it is found to be an appropriate road or trail, it preserves the FWS’s nonmotorized trails would result in and compatible use. The FWS will ability to minimize the impacts that e- increased operations costs associated consider the suitability of e-bike use on bikes could have on resources or other with: Trail maintenance; trail specific roads and trails through users of the public lands. The rule, monitoring and repairs; cultural subsequent analysis consistent with the because it is administrative and resources damage; additional search- requirements of NEPA and other procedural in nature and would not and-rescue operations; sign acquisition applicable laws. Potential impacts for a result in any on-the-ground changes or and installation; personal injury and proposed use are evaluated on a case- other environmental effects, therefore liability claims; law-enforcement efforts; by-case basis and not as part of this satisfies the first prong of the categorical fish, wildlife, and plant management rulemaking process. exclusion at 43 CFR 46.210(i). and administration; and other Refuge managers base compatibility Comment (27): Some commenters management and monitoring activities. determinations on a refuge-specific requested an environmental analysis, Our Response: As with many public analysis of reasonably anticipated environmental impact statement (EIS), uses in the NWRS, there are financial impacts of e-biking on refuge resources. or programmatic EIS to analyze the and staffing costs to operate public-use The refuge manager should base the rulemaking and e-bike impacts. These programs. This rule does not mandate analysis on readily available commenters stated that the rule cannot the use of e-bikes anywhere in the information, including local experience be categorically excluded under 43 CFR NWRS. To help avoid situations where and understanding of the refuge and 46.210(i) because the environmental refuge managers do not have the other information provided by the State, effects are not ‘‘too broad, speculative, resources to properly manage e-bikes, Tribes, proponent(s) or opponent(s) of e- or conjectural to lend themselves to this rule and the Administration Act biking, or through the compatibility- meaningful analysis.’’ give refuge managers the discretion to determination public review and allow e-bike use where it is an comment period. 603 FW 2.11(E). The Our Response: This rule is appropriate and compatible use (see our FWS received the studies and reports administrative and procedural in nature response to Comment (4)). When that were submitted as part of the and satisfies the second prong of the determining if a new or existing public comments on the proposed rule. All categorical exclusion at 43 CFR use is compatible, FWS regulations relevant studies and reports will be 46.210(i). There are more than 565 require refuge managers to evaluate considered by the refuge manager in the national wildlife refuges, and the reasonably anticipated impacts of a compatibility-determination process. established purposes, wildlife and particular use on refuge resources, and Comment (26): Some commenters plants, habitats, public uses, number of if ‘‘adequate resources (including asserted that the rule cannot be visitors, and many other conditions at financial, personnel, facilities, and other categorically excluded under 43 CFR individual national wildlife refuges can infrastructure) exist or can be provided 46.210(i) because it is not ‘‘of an differ greatly, making nationwide NEPA by the FWS or a partner to properly administrative, financial, legal, analysis for the rule infeasible. This rule develop, operate, and maintain the use technical, or procedural nature.’’ and the Administration Act give refuge in a way that will not materially Our Response: This rule is managers the discretion to allow e-bike interfere with or detract from fulfillment administrative and procedural in nature use where it is an appropriate and of the refuge purpose(s) and the NWRS and satisfies the first prong of the compatible use. We will address mission.’’ 603 FW 2.12(A)(7). This categorical exclusion at 43 CFR potential environmental impacts and process enables the refuge manager to 46.210(i). The rule is not self-executing social issues at the site-specific level. determine the allowance of e-bike use and does not authorize the use of any e- The FWS will consider the suitability of on a site-specific basis—the refuge bikes. The rule merely establishes a e-bike use on specific roads and trails manager may determine that it is a definition of e-bikes and creates a through subsequent analysis consistent compatible use, or that it is not a process for refuge managers to consider with the requirements of NEPA and compatible use. The refuge manager whether to authorize e-bike use on other applicable laws. The should not allow e-bikes if there would public lands. Under that process, refuge environmental effects will vary from be insufficient funds or personnel to managers will evaluate whether to allow refuge to refuge, and, as such, are too properly manage this use. The refuge for e-bike use on roads and trails, in broad, speculative, or conjectural at this manager will consider potential user consideration of specific criteria. The stage to lend themselves to meaningful conflicts and other public health and rule maintains the public’s ability to analysis. The FWS concludes that site- safety concerns in accordance with participate in any such FWS decision- specific NEPA analysis is required in NEPA and other applicable laws as part making process while preserving refuge order to obtain meaningful analysis of a site-specific analysis. Liability, if managers’ discretion to approve or deny regarding environmental effects. any, in the event that accidents or e-bike use on roads and trails—and to Comment (28): Some commenters injuries were to occur as a result of or impose limitations or restrictions on stated that the FWS must analyze the in conjunction with e-bike use would be authorized e-bike use to minimize impacts the rule would have on the determined in accordance with impacts on resources and conflicts with landscape, natural resources, and other applicable laws, which may include the other recreational uses. Because the visitors. One commenter stated that the Federal Tort Claims Act. future decision-making processes FWS must analyze such impacts before

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69231

opening up all nonmotorized trails to determination and appropriate NEPA substantial, and varied viewpoints in motors. analysis specific to the particular refuge. support of or in opposition to the rule Our Response: This rule does not Potential impacts are not ripe for fit the definition of highly controversial mandate the use of e-bikes at any analysis until or unless the use of e- in 43 CFR 46.215(c). national wildlife refuge. The rule is bikes is proposed on one of the more Our Response: The language in 43 administrative and procedural in nature than 565 national wildlife refuges where CFR 46.215(c) pertains to whether the and the rule itself will have no impacts the specific context is known and the environmental effects are highly on safety, the visitor experience, or intensity of impacts can be evaluated. controversial (i.e., there is significant refuge natural and cultural resources. The FWS has also determined that the scientific disagreement about whether a The rule defines permitted types of e- rule does not involve any of the specific action will impact the bikes and establishes a general extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 environment, and how), as opposed to framework that can be used by a refuge CFR 46.215 that would require further whether a general topic, such as e-bike manager to allow e-bikes on designated analysis under NEPA, as outlined use on public lands, is controversial. roads and trails. E-bike implementation individually below. Commenters cited Paragraph (c) does not apply to this rule decisions for each national wildlife the following extraordinary because the rule does not have any refuge must be based on local circumstances under 43 CFR 46.215: direct impacts but may apply to future conditions, potential impacts, resource (a) Significant impacts on public site-specific determinations a refuge data, and relevant studies. The rule and health and safety. manager may make when determining if the Administration Act enable the Comment (29)(a): Commenters state e-bike use is compatible on roads or refuge manager to determine if e-biking that they provide documentation of trails. is an appropriate and compatible use on significant safety impacts of e-bikes (d) Highly uncertain and potentially a site-specific basis, and the rule does within their comment, including significant environmental effects or not mandate opening all nonmotorized citations to numerous supporting involve unique and unknown trails to motors. studies. environmental risk. Applying the NEPA process at a site- Our Response: The FWS Comment (29)(d): Commenters state specific level allows the FWS to acknowledges there are potential safety that the categorical exclusion should not evaluate the potential effects of e-bike concerns with e-bike use or any apply due to unique risks that e-bikes use for a particular national wildlife proposed use. The refuge manager will present, as a result of fast speeds and as refuge and to consult with the analyze public health and safety the first and only motorized use in back- appropriate Federal, State, and local impacts on a site-specific basis as country areas. resources agencies regarding potential required when determining Our Response: The rule does not resource impacts. For example, compatibility for e-bike use. Potential determine where e-bikes will be used. regarding potential wildlife impacts, it safety issues regarding e-bike use on The potential impacts of e-bike use are would be shortsighted for a rule of this specific roads and trails will be dependent on where such use is nature to prescribe disturbance considered by the refuge manager when proposed. Any environmental effects thresholds for wildlife at all national making the determination as to whether associated with future decisions will be wildlife refuges, as local conditions vary e-bikes will be allowed on those trails. subject to the NEPA process, and significantly at the more than 565 units In analyzing the potential impacts of e- potential impacts will be analyzed at the in the NWRS throughout the country. biking, refuge managers will use and refuge-specific level. In response to Analyzing e-bike use on a case-by-case cite available sources of information speed concerns for e-bike use, a refuge basis allows for site and specific species from available research and studies. manager may ‘‘describe any stipulations information concerning disturbance Therefore, public health and safety will (terms or conditions) necessary to thresholds to be incorporated into that not be affected by the rule. ensure compatibility.’’ 603 FW 2.11. decision process. Furthermore, as (b) Significant impacts on natural Stipulations may include limiting speed mentioned in our response to Comment resources and unique geographic or locations so that the use could be (4), the refuge manager can reevaluate characteristics, refuge and recreation safely conducted. the compatibility of a use at any time if lands, migratory birds, and other (e) Establish a precedent for future conditions change or new information resources. action or represent a decision in becomes available. Comment (29)(b): Commenters state principle about future actions with Comment (29): One commenter stated that the rule will have significant potentially significant environmental that impacts must be analyzed in the impacts on national wildlife refuge effects. rulemaking process and the rule cannot resources cited in 43 CFR 46.215(b). Comment (29)(e): Commenters stated be categorically excluded under 43 CFR Our Response: The rule does not that the rule establishes a precedent for 46.210(i). Some commenters stated that change current allowed refuge uses and future actions and opens the floodgates extraordinary circumstances under 43 therefore has no significant impacts to for numerous similar technological CFR 46.215 are applicable to this vulnerable categories identified in 43 impacts. rulemaking, making it ineligible for a CFR 46.215(b). If e-bike use is proposed Our Response: The rule is necessary categorical exclusion. in one of these vulnerable categories on in order to allow effective management Our Response: As noted in the NEPA a national wildlife refuge, then the of this evolving technology and address section in the preamble to this rule, we significance of impacts would be a the rapidly expanding use of e-bikes on determined that this rule falls under the factor in determining the level of NEPA public land. As discussed in our class of actions listed in 43 CFR analysis required for the proposed use. response to Comment (15), the FWS 46.210(i). A refuge manager will (c) Highly controversial concludes that the definition provided determine if e-biking is a compatible use environmental effects or unresolved in the rule, including the requirement before allowing it on a national wildlife conflicts concerning alternative uses of for fully operable pedals, motor type, refuge. This determination must be available resources. motor power specifications, and made on a case-by-case basis. E-bike use Comment (29)(c): Commenters stated permitted number of wheels, is on a refuge will not be allowed, per the that the comments submitted by key sufficient to allow use of e-bikes and rule, without a compatible-use stakeholders who expressed passionate, does not apply to similar technological

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 69232 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

impacts, other electric mobility devices, managers the discretion to allow e-bike motor. Some e-bikes can be and other electric vehicles or uses such use if and where it is an appropriate and differentiated from traditional bicycles as scooters or skateboards. compatible use (see our response to by simple observation. In other cases, (f) Direct relationship to other actions Comment (4)). Secretary’s Order 3376 the FWS expects that its law with individually insignificant but and the rule do not require refuge enforcement officers will involve the cumulatively significant environmental managers to always allow e-bike use. use of their specialized skills, training, effects. Since the NEPA determinations must be and judgment to enforce this Comment (29)(f): Commenters state made at a site-specific level, the requirement, even if the e-bike is not that cumulative impacts of hundreds of invocation of the categorical exclusion labeled, through observation of riding units approving e-bikes will be is contemporaneous with the decision- behaviors, questioning, or other means significant when considered making, not post hoc. of investigation. FWS law enforcement nationwide. Comment (31): Many commenters officers are tasked on a daily basis with Our Response: The categorical expressed concern about enforcement of enforcing speed limits and equipment exclusion for the rule change makes no the rule or potential actions and impacts and operational requirements for the use assertion as to the level of NEPA that could occur if e-bike users are of motor vehicles used within the analysis required for any proposed use allowed where traditional bicycles are NWRS. area for e-bikes. A proposed use area for allowed, especially on nonmotorized Comment (32): We received many e-bikes is independent of any other trails. Some commenters stated that the comments opposing the proposed rule proposed use area. The level of NEPA rule may facilitate illegal trail creation due to concerns about the potential analysis required would be determined or trail access by e-bike users or other impacts e-bikes would have on natural by the nature of the proposed action. vehicle users, and that such illegal use resources, safety, and the visitor (g) Significant impacts on properties would be difficult to enforce. Some experience. Several commenters stated listed, or eligible for listing, on the commenters stated that e-bikes could be that e-bikes would cause greater National Register of Historic Places. modified to exceed allowable cumulative impacts to the natural Comment (29)(g): Commenters stated horsepower and speed limits, which environment than are caused by that many FWS units contain current or would be difficult to detect and enforce. traditional bicycles due to their ability potentially listed historic places and Commenters also stated that it would be to travel longer distances into more some were established specifically to difficult to distinguish some e-bikes remote areas. Many commenters noted protect such places, so in light of their from traditional bicycles, or between the potential for disturbing wildlife, special national importance, the rule for classes of e-bikes defined in the final plants, and their habitats, watersheds, system-wide approval is improper. rule. Commenters emphasized that these ecosystems, grooving and erosion of Our Response: The rule does not enforcement challenges would be ground surfaces, degradation of change current uses; therefore, the rule exacerbated by potential violations sensitive plant habitats, and negative change does not impact historic occurring at high speeds and in remote impacts on geological features and properties. If e-bike use is proposed on locations. cultural and archeological sites. Other roads or trails, then potential impacts on Our Response: The FWS commenters stated that e-bikes would historic properties would be a factor in acknowledges that implementation of create safety risks if riders travel farther, determining the level of NEPA analysis the rule may pose certain enforcement into more remote areas, and through required for the proposed use. challenges. However, those challenges more challenging terrain than would be (h) Significant impacts on species are not unique. They regularly arise in possible with traditional bicycles. Safety listed, or proposed to be listed, on the the context of enforcing laws that concerns were also raised about the List of Endangered or Threatened govern recreational use of public lands. speed of e-bikes, in particular on narrow Species, or have significant impacts on With their experience enforcing other and winding trails with limited sight designated critical habitat. regulations that condition how the lines, and the increased potential for Comment (29)(h): The proposed rule public recreates on public lands, law accidents and conflicts with other trail violates the Endangered Species Act. enforcement officers have the expertise users, such as hikers and horseback Our Response: The rule is necessary to properly exercise their riders. According to some commenters, administrative and procedural in nature. discretion to enforce the rule that adding e-bikes to shared trails would The rule itself will have no impact on ensures protection of public health, cause overcrowding and marginalize threatened or endangered species. We safety, and resources and users of the other forms of recreation. address this comment specifically in our public lands. Moreover, the enforcement Our Response: This rule does not response to Comment (8). challenges posed by this requirement mandate the use of e-bikes in the Comment (30): Commenters stated are warranted given the requirement’s NWRS. The rule is administrative and that a categorical exclusion cannot be potential benefits to affected public land procedural in nature and the rule itself applied to justify post-hoc decision- resources and users. For example, will have no impacts on safety, the making since Secretary’s Order 3376 determining when a potential violation visitor experience, or national wildlife directed that ‘‘e-bikes shall be allowed of the requirement that Class 2 e-bikes refuge natural and cultural resources. where other types of bicycles are be used in a manner where the motor is This rule establishes a general allowed.’’ The commenters stated that to not used exclusively to propel the rider framework that can be used by refuge apply a categorical exclusion to justify for an extended period of time will managers if they allow e-bikes on post-hoc decision-making is arbitrary involve the use of specialized skill, certain roads and trails where and capricious and directs training, and judgment by law traditional bicycles are already allowed. predetermined outcomes. enforcement officers. With respect to As discussed in the response to Our Response: The rule does not differentiating among traditional Comment (4) above, the allowance of e- mandate that e-bike use is allowed in bicycles and e-bikes, and among classes bikes on roads or trails is subject to the the NWRS, and the FWS is not applying of e-bikes, the FWS notes that most discretion of the refuge manager who a categorical exclusion to allow States require e-bikes to have a label must complete a rigorous compatibility- predetermined outcomes. The rule and that displays the class, top assisted determination process to consider the the Administration Act give refuge speed, and power outlet of the electric impacts that e-bike use would have,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69233

including impacts on refuge resources than an electric motor, and none rely on average of 115–130 pounds, typical trial and visitor experience. Refuge managers the rider pedaling the vehicle to provide bikes can weigh 145 pounds, and will allow only uses that they determine most of the power to the vehicle as this motorcycles can weigh approximately to be appropriate and compatible to the rule requires. Moreover, the off- road 300–400 pounds. The significantly purpose for which the refuge was vehicles to which the Executive Order lower weight of e-bikes, combined with established and can be sustained was clearly intended to apply are the lower levels of torque that they are without causing unacceptable impacts uniformly larger, louder, and capable of capable of generating and lower speeds to public safety, natural and cultural achieving greater speeds than Class 1, 2, that they can reach, limits their resources, and other public uses. These and 3 e-bikes. For these reasons, e-bikes potential to damage soil through required evaluations and determinations are inherently different than the types of compaction and erosion. Finally, are not modified or changed by this ‘‘off-road vehicles’’ listed under the managing Class 1, 2, and 3 e-bikes rule. Executive Order. There is no indication similarly to traditional, nonmotorized E-bike implementation decisions for in any materials contemporaneous to its bicycles and distinguishing them from each national wildlife refuge must be issuance that suggest that Executive other motor vehicles is consistent with based on local conditions, potential Order 11644 was intended to apply to how other Federal agencies regulate e- impacts, resource data, and relevant e-bikes. That is not surprising, given bikes. Defined by Congress in the studies. Applying the NEPA process at that the technological advances needed Consumer Product Safety Act (Pub. L. a site-specific level will allow the FWS to popularize them, such as torque 107–319, Dec. 4, 2002; codified at 15 to evaluate the potential effects of e-bike motors and power controls, were not U.S.C. 2085) as low-speed electric use for a particular national wildlife developed until the mid-1990s. bicycles, e-bikes are not considered to refuge and to consult with the As a result of those engineering be motor vehicles under 49 U.S.C. appropriate Federal, State, and local differences, e-bikes tend to have impacts 30102 and, therefore, are not subject to resource agencies regarding potential that are like traditional, nonmotorized regulation by the National Highway resource impacts. E-biking or any bicycles and unlike those that result Traffic Safety Administration. Instead, proposed use could impact visitors and from the larger, more powerful off-road e-bikes are regulated similar to resources in similar or different ways at vehicles that Executive Order 11644 was nonmotorized bicycles and considered the more than 565 units in the NWRS. intended to mitigate. These differences consumer products regulated by the Analyzing and describing the will inherently limit the resource Consumer Product Safety Commission. reasonably anticipated impacts of e-bike impacts and user conflicts that the use on a case-by-case basis is an minimization criteria in Executive Changes From the Proposed Rule important factor that we consider when Order 11644 was designed to address. We received comments that asked us allowing or not allowing a refuge use. For example, the off-road vehicles to clarify or eliminate the requirement Comment (33): One commenter stated referenced in Executive Order 11644 are in the proposed rule that a person must that the rule would be inconsistent with powered by internal combustion be using the motorized features of an e- the direction in Executive Order 11644, engines that generate loud noises (i.e., bike as an assist to human propulsion. ‘‘Use of Off-Road Vehicles on the Public anywhere from 90–110 decibels, Many commenters stated that this Lands,’’ (amended by Executive Order depending on the type of vehicle) that requirement was impractical and 11989), noting that there is no exception can carry over long distances. By unenforceable. In response, we are for low-power vehicles. comparison, the noise associated with e- revising the proposed rule as follows: Our Response: Executive Order 11644 bikes includes the sound of their tires (m) If the refuge manager determines was issued by President Nixon in 1972 rolling over a road or trail and, at most, that electric bicycle (also known as e- and amended by President Carter in a low steady whine that may be emitted bike) use is a compatible use on roads 1977 through Executive Order 11989. It when the electric motor is engaged. or trails, any person using an e-bike in establishes policies and procedures for While the effects of noise on wildlife a manner where the motor is not used managing the use of ‘‘off-road vehicles’’ differ across taxonomic groups and exclusively to propel the rider for an to protect the resources of the public reactions to sound are different for every extended period of time, shall be lands, promote safety of all users of the visitor, the impacts on quietude, afforded all the rights and privileges, lands, and minimize conflicts among wildlife behavioral patterns, and other and be subject to all of the duties, of the those users. The Executive Order recreational uses caused by e-bikes are operators of nonmotorized bicycles on defines ‘‘off-road vehicles’’ as any expected to be similar to those caused roads and trails. motorized vehicle designed for or by traditional, nonmotorized bicycles We agree there are times during a ride capable of cross-country travel on or and substantially less than those when an e-bike user may not be immediately over land, water, sand, resulting from typical off-road vehicle pedaling, just as there are times when a snow, ice, marsh, swampland, or other use. Also, unlike all the vehicles listed traditional bicycle user may not be natural terrain. The FWS concludes that in the Executive Order, e-bikes do not pedaling. We agree that the proposed e-bikes should not be regulated as ‘‘off- emit exhaust that could impact air rule language could cause difficulty for road vehicles’’ under the Executive quality and the health of nearby users. a person to operate an e-bike in a similar Order for the reasons discussed below. A review of available models shows manner to traditional bicycles, and that The Class 1, 2, and 3 e-bikes that are that Class 1, 2, and 3 e-bikes are the proposed rule would be difficult to the subject of this rule differ generally much lighter than even the enforce. significantly in their engineering from lightest off-road vehicle listed in the The FWS changed the language in the the types of motorized vehicles that are Executive Order. A typical e-bike final rule in paragraph (m) to better expressly referenced in Executive Order weighs approximately 45–50 pounds, reflect its intent that e-bike motors, via 11644. Almost all of the off-road which is only slightly heavier than a throttle-only operation, may be used for vehicles listed in the Executive Order: typical traditional, nonmotorized limited durations, but should not be ‘‘motorcycles, minibikes, trial bikes, bicycle’s weight of 30–35 pounds. In used to propel the rider for extended snowmobiles, dune-buggies, [and] all- comparison, minibikes, which are the periods of time. The new language terrain vehicles’’ use internal lightest off-road vehicle listed in clarifies for users and law enforcement combustion engines for power rather Executive Order 11644, weigh an officers that e-bikes can be operated in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 69234 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

a similar manner as traditional bicycles. Regulatory Flexibility Act uncertain. However, we estimate that Law enforcement officers will use Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act increasing opportunities for e-bikes observation, situational analysis, and (as amended by the Small Business would correspond with less than 2 professional judgment to determine if a Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act percent of the average recreational visits potential violation of the regulation [SBREFA] of 1996) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), due to the small percentage of current occurs. whenever a Federal agency is required bicycling visits. to publish a notice of rulemaking for Small businesses within the retail Compliance With Laws, Executive trade industry (such as hotels, gas Orders, and Department Policy any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public stations, sporting equipment stores, and Regulatory Planning and Review comment a regulatory flexibility similar businesses) may be affected by (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563) analysis that describes the effect of the some increased or decreased station visitation due to this rule. A large Executive Order 12866 provides that rule on small entities (i.e., small percentage of these retail trade the Office of Information and Regulatory businesses, small organizations, and establishments in the local communities Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of small government jurisdictions). near national wildlife refuges and Management and Budget (OMB) will However, no regulatory flexibility national fish hatcheries qualify as small review all significant rules. The OIRA analysis is required if the head of an businesses. We expect that the has determined that this rule is not a agency certifies that the rule will not incremental recreational changes will be significant regulatory action as defined have a significant economic impact on scattered, and so we do not expect that by Executive Order 12866. a substantial number of small entities. Executive Order (E.O.) 13563 Thus, for a regulatory flexibility analysis the rule would have a significant reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 to be required, impacts must exceed a economic effect on a substantial number while calling for improvements in the threshold for ‘‘significant impact’’ and a of small entities in any region or nation’s regulatory system to promote threshold for a ‘‘substantial number of nationally. Therefore, we certify that this rule predictability, to reduce uncertainty, small entities.’’ See 5 U.S.C. 605(b). will not have a significant economic and to use the best, most innovative, SBREFA amended the Regulatory effect on a substantial number of small and least burdensome tools for Flexibility Act to require Federal entities as defined under the Regulatory achieving regulatory ends. The agencies to provide a statement of the Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). A Executive Order directs agencies to factual basis for certifying that a rule regulatory flexibility analysis is not consider regulatory approaches that will not have a significant economic required. Accordingly, a small entity reduce burdens and maintain flexibility impact on a substantial number of small compliance guide is not required. and freedom of choice for the public entities. where these approaches are relevant, The rule is administrative in nature Small Business Regulatory Enforcement feasible, and consistent with regulatory and will not, in and of itself, result in Fairness Act (SBREFA) objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes any foreseeable impacts because this This rule is not a major rule under 5 further that regulations must be based rule only establishes a general U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business on the best available science and that framework that can be used by refuge Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. the rulemaking process must allow for managers if they allow e-bikes on This rule: public participation and an open certain roads and trails where a. Will not have an annual effect on exchange of ideas. We have developed traditional bicycles are already allowed. the economy of $100 million or more. this rule in a manner consistent with However, for transparency, we discuss b. Will not cause a major increase in these requirements. current traditional bicycle use on costs or prices for consumers, refuges and potential changes in Executive Order 13771—Reducing individual industries, Federal, State, or recreation use if refuge managers local government agencies, or Regulation and Controlling Regulatory determine that e-bikes are appropriate Costs geographic regions. and compatible to the purpose for c. Will not have significant adverse This rule is an Executive Order (E.O.) which the refuge was established. effects on competition, employment, 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017) In 2019, there were approximately 1.4 investment, productivity, innovation, or deregulatory action. This rule addresses million bicycle visits on 197 refuges the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to regulatory uncertainty regarding the use (34.6 percent of all refuges). Of these compete with foreign-based enterprises. of e-bikes in the NWRS by defining e- 197 refuges, 136 refuges had fewer than bikes and clarifying that any person 1,000 bicycle visits. These visits Unfunded Mandates Reform Act using an e-bike shall be afforded all of comprised approximately 2 percent This rule will not impose an the rights and privileges, and be subject (=2.34%) of total recreational visits for unfunded mandate on State, local, or to all of the duties, of the operators of the Refuge System. Under this rule, Tribal governments or the private sector nonmotorized bicycles on roads and recreational activities on refuges could of more than $100 million per year. The trails, when such use is deemed be expanded by allowing e-bikes where rule will not have a significant or appropriate and compatible. determined appropriate and compatible unique effect on State, local, or Tribal This rule is not self-executing. The by the refuge manager. As a result, governments or the private sector. A rule, in and of itself, does not change recreational visitation at these refuges statement containing the information existing allowances for e-bike usage on may change. The extent of any increase required by the Unfunded Mandates national wildlife refuges. It neither would likely be dependent upon factors Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not allows e-bikes on roads and trails that such as whether current bicyclists required. are currently closed to off-road vehicles change from using traditional bicycles but open to mechanized, nonmotorized to e-bikes, whether walking/hiking Takings (Executive Order 12630) bicycle use, nor affects the use of e-bikes visits change to e-bike visits, or whether In accordance with Executive Order and other motorized vehicles on roads other recreational visitors decrease 12630, this rule does not have and trails where off-road vehicle use is visits due to increased conflicts. The significant takings implications. This currently allowed. impact of these potential factors is rule would affect only visitors at

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69235

national wildlife refuges, which are not categorical exclusion. We have Regulation Promulgation private property. determined that this rule falls under the In consideration of the foregoing, we class of actions covered by the following Federalism (Executive Order 13132) hereby amend part 27, subchapter C of Department of the Interior categorical chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Under the criteria in section 1 of exclusion: ‘‘Policies, directives, Regulations as follows: Executive Order 13132, this rule does regulations, and guidelines: that are of not have sufficient federalism an administrative, financial, legal, PART 27—PROHIBITED ACTS implications to warrant the preparation technical, or procedural nature; or of a federalism summary impact whose environmental effects are too ■ 1. The authority citation for part 27 statement. This rule will not have broad, speculative, or conjectural to continues to read as follows: substantial direct effects on the States, lend themselves to meaningful analysis Authority: 5 U.S.C. 685, 752, 690d; 16 on the relationship between the national and will later be subject to the NEPA U.S.C. 460k, 460l–6d, 664, 668dd, 685, 690d, government and the States, or on the process, either collectively or case-by- 715i, 715s, 725; 43 U.S.C. 315a. distribution of power and case.’’ 43 CFR 46.210(i)). responsibilities among the various Subpart C—Disturbing Violations: With levels of government. The FWS will Under the rule, a refuge manager must Vehicles coordinate with State and local first make a determination that e-bike governments, as appropriate, when use is a compatible use before allowing ■ 2. Amend § 27.31 by redesignating making future planning and e-bike use on a national wildlife refuge. paragraph (m) as paragraph (n) and implementation level decisions under This determination must be made on a adding a new paragraph (m) to read as this rule regarding the use of e-bikes on case-by-case basis. E-bike use on a follows: public lands. A federalism summary refuge will not be allowed under the § 27.31 General provisions regarding impact statement is not required. rule without a compatible-use determination and appropriate NEPA vehicles. Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order compliance specific to the action with * * * * * 12988) respect to a particular refuge. Potential (m) If the refuge manager determines In accordance with E.O. 12988, the impacts are not ripe for analysis until or that electric bicycle (also known as e- Department of the Interior has unless the use of e-bikes is proposed on bike) use is a compatible use on roads determined that this rule will not a specific national wildlife refuge where or trails, any person using an e-bike unduly burden the judicial system and the context is known and the intensity where the motor is not used exclusively that it meets the requirements of of impacts can be evaluated. The FWS to propel the rider for an extended sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. has also determined that the rule does period of time shall be afforded all of Specifically, this rule: not involve any of the extraordinary the rights and privileges, and be subject (a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215 to all of the duties, of the operators of requiring that all regulations be that would require further analysis nonmotorized bicycles on roads and reviewed to eliminate errors and under NEPA. trails. An e-bike is a two- or three- ambiguity and be written to minimize wheeled electric bicycle with fully litigation; and Government-to-Government operable pedals and an electric motor of (b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) Relationship With Tribes not more than 750 watts (1 h.p.) that meets the requirements of one of the requiring that all regulations be written We have evaluated this rule under the following three classes: in clear language and contain clear legal Department’s consultation policy and (1) Class 1 e-bike shall mean an standards. under the criteria in Executive Order electric bicycle equipped with a motor Paperwork Reduction Act 13175 and have determined that it has that provides assistance only when the no substantial direct effects on federally This rule does not contain rider is pedaling, and that ceases to recognized Indian Tribes and that information collection requirements, provide assistance when the bicycle consultation under the Department’s and a submission to OMB under the reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 Tribal consultation policy is not (2) Class 2 e-bike shall mean an U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) is not required. We required. This rulemaking is an electric bicycle equipped with a motor may not conduct or sponsor and you are administrative change that directs the that may be used exclusively to propel not required to respond to a collection FWS to address e-bike use in future the bicycle, and that is not capable of of information unless it displays a compatibility determinations. The rule providing assistance when the bicycle currently valid OMB control number. does not change existing allowances for reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour. e-bike use on FWS-administered public (3) Class 3 e-bike shall mean an National Environmental Policy Act lands. The rulemaking does not commit electric bicycle equipped with a motor We are required under the National the agency to undertake any specific that provides assistance only when the Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 action, and the FWS retains the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) to assess the impact discretion to authorize e-bike use where provide assistance when the bicycle of any Federal action significantly appropriate. We are committed to reaches the speed of 28 miles per hour. consulting with federally recognized affecting the quality of the human * * * * * environment, health, and safety. This Indian Tribes when appropriate on a rule does not constitute a major Federal site-specific basis as potential e-bike use George Wallace, action significantly affecting the quality is considered by the FWS. Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and of the human environment. A detailed List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 27 Parks. statement under NEPA is not required [FR Doc. 2020–22107 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] because the rule is covered by a Wildlife refuges. BILLING CODE 4333–15–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00117 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 69236

Proposed Rules Federal Register Vol. 85, No. 212

Monday, November 2, 2020

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER maximize H–1B cap allocations, so that Individuals with hearing or speech contains notices to the public of the proposed they more likely would go to the best impairments may access the telephone issuance of rules and regulations. The and brightest workers. numbers above via TTY by calling the purpose of these notices is to give interested DATES: Written comments must be toll-free Federal Information Relay persons an opportunity to participate in the Service at 1–877–889–5627 (TTY/TDD). rule making prior to the adoption of the final submitted on this proposed rule on or rules. before December 2, 2020. Comments on SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: the collection of information (see Paperwork Reduction Act section) must I. Table of Contents DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND be received on or before January 4, 2021. II. Public Participation SECURITY Comments on both the proposed rule III. Background and the collection of information A. Purpose and Summary of the Regulatory 8 CFR Part 214 received on or before December 2, 2020 Action will be considered by DHS and USCIS. B. Legal Authority [CIS No. 2674–20; DHS Docket No. USCIS– C. The H–1B Visa Program’s Numerical 2020–0019] Only comments on the collection of Cap and Exemptions information received between December D. Current Selection Process RIN 1615–AC61 3, 2020 and January 4, 2021 will be E. Wage Requirement considered by DHS and USCIS. F. Proposed Rule Modification of Registration Comments received after December 2, IV. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements Requirement for Petitioners Seeking 2020 on the proposed rule other than A. Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory To File Cap-Subject H–1B Petitions those specific to the collection of Planning and Review), Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and AGENCY: U.S. Citizenship and information will not be considered by DHS and USCIS. Regulatory Review), and Executive Order Immigration Services, Department of 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Homeland Security. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments Controlling Regulatory Costs) ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. on the entirety of this proposed rule 1. Summary of Economic Effects package, identified by DHS Docket No. 2. Background and Purpose of the SUMMARY: The Department of Homeland USCIS–2020–0019, through the Federal Proposed Rule Security (DHS or the Department) eRulemaking Portal: http:// 3. Historic Population proposes to amend its regulations www.regulations.gov. Follow the 4. Cost-Benefit Analysis governing the process by which U.S. website instructions for submitting i. Costs and Cost Savings of Regulatory Citizenship and Immigration Services comments. Comments submitted in a Changes to Petitioners manner other than the one listed above, a. Methodology Based on Historic FYs (USCIS) selects H–1B registrations for 2019–2020 filing of H–1B cap-subject petitions (or including emails or letters sent to DHS b. FY 2021 Data H–1B petitions for any year in which or USCIS officials, will not be c. Unquantified Costs & Benefits the registration requirement will be considered comments on the proposed d. Costs of Filing Form I–129H1 Petitions suspended), by generally first selecting rule and may not receive a response e. Costs of Submitting Registrations as registrations based on the highest from DHS. Please note that DHS and Modified by This Proposed Rule Occupational Employment Statistics USCIS cannot accept any comments that f. Familiarization Cost (OES) prevailing wage level that the are hand delivered or couriered. In ii. Total Estimated Costs of Regulatory proffered wage equals or exceeds for the addition, USCIS cannot accept Changes comments contained on any form of iii. Costs to the Federal Government relevant Standard Occupational 5. Regulatory Alternatives Classification (SOC) code and area(s) of digital media storage devices, such as B. Regulatory Flexibility Act intended employment. This proposed CDs/DVDs and USB drives. Due to 1. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis rule would not affect the order of COVID–19, USCIS is also not accepting i. A Description of the Reasons Why the selection as between the regular cap and mailed comments at this time. If you Action by the Agency Is Being Considered the advanced degree exemption. The cannot submit your comment by using ii. A Statement of the Objectives of, and wage level ranking would occur first for http://www.regulations.gov, please Legal Basis for, the Proposed Rule the regular cap selection and then for contact Samantha Deshommes, Chief, iii. A Description and, Where Feasible, an the advanced degree exemption. Rote Regulatory Coordination Division, Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Which the Proposed Changes Would Apply ordering of petitions leads to impossible iv. A Description of the Projected results because petitions are submitted Citizenship and Immigration Services, Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other simultaneously. A random lottery Department of Homeland Security, by Compliance Requirements of the Proposed system is reasonable, but inconsiderate telephone at (202) 658–9621 for Rule, Including an Estimate of the Classes of of Congress’s statutory purposes for the alternate instructions. Small Entities That Will Be Subject to the H–1B program and its administration. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requirement and the Types of Professional Instead, a registration system that Charles L. Nimick, Chief, Business and Skills faithfully implements the INA while Foreign Workers Division, Office of v. An Identification of All Relevant Federal prioritizing registrations based on wage Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship Rules, to the Extent Practical, That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the level within each cap would increase and Immigration Services, Department Proposed Rule the average and median wage levels of of Homeland Security, 20 Massachusetts vi. Description of Any Significant H–1B beneficiaries who would be Ave. NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC Alternatives to the Proposed Rule That selected for further processing under the 20529–2120. Telephone Number (202) Accomplish the Stated Objectives of H–1B allocations. Moreover, it would 658–9621 (not a toll-free call). Applicable Statutes and That Minimize Any

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69237

Significant Economic Impact of the Proposed Notice available at http:// rank and select the registrations Rule on Small Entities www.regulations.gov. received generally on the basis of the C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Docket: For access to the docket and highest OES wage level that the D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) to read background documents or proffered wage would equal or exceed E. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice comments received, go to http:// for the relevant SOC code and in the Reform) www.regulations.gov, referencing DHS F. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation area of intended employment, beginning and Coordination With Indian Tribal Docket No. USCIS–2020–0019. You may with OES wage level IV and proceeding Governments) also sign up for email alerts on the in descending order with OES wage G. National Environmental Policy Act online docket to be notified when levels III, II, and I. The proffered wage H. Paperwork Reduction Act comments are posted or a final rule is is the wage that the employer intends to 1. USCIS H–1B Registration Tool published. pay the beneficiary. As explained in 2. USCIS Form I–129 III. Background greater detail below, this ranking I. Signature process would not alter the prevailing II. Public Participation A. Purpose and Summary of the wage level associated with a given Regulatory Action position for U.S. Department of Labor DHS invites all interested parties to On April 18, 2017, the President (DOL) purposes, which is informed by participate in this rulemaking by issued an Executive order that a comparison of the requirements for the submitting written data, views, instructed DHS to ‘‘propose new rules proffered position to the normal comments, and arguments on all aspects and issue new guidance, to supersede or requirements for the occupational of this proposed rule. DHS also invites revise previous rules and guidance if classification. comments that relate to the economic, appropriate, to protect the interests of Prioritizing wage levels in the environmental, or federalism effects that United States workers in the registration selection process might result from this proposed rule. administration of our immigration incentivizes employers to offer higher Comments must be submitted in system.’’ 1 E.O. 13788 specifically wages, or to petition for positions English, or an English translation must mentioned the H–1B program and requiring higher skills and higher- be provided. Comments that will directed DHS and other agencies to skilled aliens that are commensurate provide the most assistance to DHS in ‘‘suggest reforms to help ensure that H– with higher wage levels, to increase the implementing these changes will: 1B visas are awarded to the most-skilled likelihood of selection for an eventual Reference a specific portion of the or highest-paid petition beneficiaries.’’ 2 petition. Similarly, it disincentivizes proposed rule; explain the reason for On , 2020, the President issued abuse of the H–1B program to fill lower- any recommended change; and include a Proclamation, Suspension of Entry of paid, lower-skilled positions, which is a data, information, or authority that Immigrants and Nonimmigrants Who significant problem under the present 5 supports such a recommended change. Present a Risk to the United States selection system. With limited Comments submitted in a manner other Labor Market During the Economic exceptions, H–1B petitioners are not than those listed in the ADDRESSES Recovery Following the 2019 Novel required to demonstrate a labor shortage section, including emails or letters sent Coronavirus Outbreak (Proclamation).3 as a prerequisite for obtaining H–1B to DHS or USCIS officials, will not be Section 5 of the Proclamation directs the workers. considered comments on the proposed Secretary of Homeland Security to, ‘‘as The number of H–1B cap-subject rule. Please note that DHS and USCIS soon as practicable, and consistent with petitions, including those filed for the cannot accept any comments that are applicable law, consider promulgating advanced degree exemption, has hand delivered or couriered. In regulations or take other appropriate frequently exceeded the annual H–1B addition, USCIS cannot accept mailed action regarding the efficient allocation numerical allocations. For at least the comments contained on any form of of visas pursuant to section 214(g)(3) of last decade, USCIS has received more digital media storage devices, such as the INA (8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(3)) and H–1B petitions than the annual H–1B CDs/DVDs and USB drives. ensuring that the presence in the United numerical allocation in those respective years. Since the FY2014 cap season Instructions: If you submit a States of H–1B nonimmigrants does not disadvantage United States workers.’’ 4 (April 2013), USCIS has received more comment, you must include the agency H–1B petitions (or registrations) in the name (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration DHS proposes to amend its regulations governing the selection of first five days of filing (or the initial Services) and the DHS Docket No. registration period) than the annual H– USCIS–2020–0019 for this proposed registrations submitted by prospective petitioners eventually seeking to file H– rule. Regardless of the method used for 5 1B cap-subject petitions (or the selection See U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. submitting comments or material, all Citizenship and Immigration. Services, Office of submissions will be posted, without of petitions, if the registration process Policy and Strategy, Policy Research Division, I–129 were suspended), which includes Petition for H–1B Nonimmigrant Worker (Cap change, to the Federal eRulemaking Subject) Wage Levels for H–1B Petitions filed in Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, petitions subject to the regular cap and those asserting eligibility for the FY2018, Database Queried: Aug. 17, 2020, Report and will include any personal Created: Aug. 17, 2020, Systems: C3 via SASPME, information you provide. Therefore, advanced degree exemption, to allow for DOL OFLC Performance DATA H1B for 2018, 2019 submitting this information makes it ranking and selection based on wage (showing that, for petitions with identifiable levels. When applicable, USCIS would certified labor condition applications, 161,432 of public. You may wish to consider the 189,963 (or approximately 85%) H–1B petitions limiting the amount of personal for which wage levels were reported were for level 1 See Executive Order 13788, Buy American and information that you provide in any I and II wages); I–129 Petition for H–1B Hire American, 82 FR 18837, sec. 5 (Apr. 18, 2017). Nonimmigrant Worker (Cap Subject) Wage Levels voluntary public comment submission 2 See id. at sec. 5(b). for H–1B Petitions filed in FY2019, Database you make to DHS. DHS may withhold 3 See Proclamation 10052 of June 22, 2020, Queried: Aug. 17, 2020, Report Created: Aug. 17, information provided in comments from Suspension of Entry of Immigrants and 2020, Systems: C3 via SASPME, DOL OFLC public viewing that it determines may Nonimmigrants Who Present a Risk to the United Performance DATA H1B for 2018, 2019 (showing States Labor Market During the Economic Recovery that, for petitions with identifiable certified labor impact the privacy of an individual or Following the 2019 Novel Coronavirus Outbreak, 85 condition applications, 87,589 of the 103,067 (or is offensive. For additional information, FR 38263 (, 2020). approximately 85%) H–1B petitions for which wage please read the Privacy and Security 4 See id. levels were reported were for level I and II wages).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 69238 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

1B numerical allocations. But the INA This contradicts the dominant sections of the Immigration and states that ‘‘aliens who are subject to the legislative purpose of the statute Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et numerical limitations . . . shall be because the intent of the H–1B program seq., and the Homeland Security Act of issued visas (or otherwise provided is to help U.S. employers fill labor 2002 (HSA), Public Law 107–296, 116 nonimmigrant status) in the order in shortages in positions requiring highly Stat. 2135, 6 U.S.C. 101 et seq. General which petitions are filed for such visas skilled or highly educated workers.12 authority for issuing this proposed rule or status.’’ 6 A rote interpretation of this So, by changing the selection process, is found in INA section 103(a), 8 U.S.C. provision is impossible.7 ‘‘365 days in a for these years of excess demand, from 1103(a), which authorizes the Secretary year and 85,000 available visas’’ means a random lottery selection to a wage- to administer and enforce the many submissions are received on the level-based selection process, DHS immigration and nationality laws, as same day.8 For example, under the prior would implement the statute more well as HSA section 102, 6 U.S.C. 112, petition selection process (which faithfully to its dominant legislative which vests all of the functions of DHS remains in effect in any year in which purpose, increasing the chance of in the Secretary and authorizes the registration is suspended), USCIS selection for registrations or petitions Secretary to issue regulations. See also received hundreds of thousands of full seeking to employ beneficiaries at wages 6 U.S.C. 202(4) (charging the Secretary H–1B petitions in the mail on the same that would equal or exceed the level IV with ‘‘[e]stablishing and administering day and had no legitimate way to or level III prevailing wage for the rules . . . governing the granting of determine which petition was ‘‘filed’’ applicable occupational classification. A visas or other forms of permission . . . first. Therefore, DHS promulgated a wage-level-based selection also is to enter the United States to individuals regulation describing a random consistent with the administration’s who are not a citizen or an alien registration selection process before any goal of improving policies such that H– lawfully admitted for permanent petitions are filed.9 A passive 1B classification is more likely to be residence in the United States’’). Further interpretation of the statutory awarded to petitioners seeking to authority for these regulatory requirement is similarly impossible to employ higher-skilled and higher-paid amendments is found in: 13 • apply under the current electronic beneficiaries. INA section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), which registration system because it would B. Legal Authority result in hundreds of thousands of classifies as nonimmigrants aliens registrants uploading registration The Secretary of Homeland Security’s coming temporarily to the United States information online at the exact same authority for these regulatory to perform services in a specialty amendments is found in various moment, at best leaving computer speed occupation or as a fashion model with as the determinant as to who registered distinguished merit and ability; Labor Statistics median wages); Daniel Costa and • first. INA section 214(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. Ron Hira, Economic Policy Institute, H–1B Visas 1184(a)(1), which authorizes the The current random lottery selection and Prevailing Wage Level (, 2020), https:// Secretary to prescribe by regulation the process is reasonable, but not optimal. www.epi.org/publication/h-1b-visas-and-prevailing- terms and conditions of the admission It has caused results that contradict the wage-levels/ (explaining that ‘‘three-fifths of all H– 1B jobs were certified at the two lowest prevailing of nonimmigrants; purpose of the statute. However, ‘‘[i]t is wages in 2019...., and, ‘‘[i]n fiscal year (FY) 2019, • INA section 214(c), 8 U.S.C. a cardinal canon of statutory a total of 60% of H–1B positions certified by 1184(c), which, among other things, construction that statutes should be Department of Labor (DOL) had been assigned wage levels [I and II]: 14% were at H–1B Level 1 (the 17th authorizes the Secretary to prescribe interpreted harmoniously with their percentile) and 46% per at H–1B Level 2 (34th 10 how an importing employer may dominant legislative purpose.’’ Yet, percentile)’’). Data concerning FY 2018 and 2019 petition for an H nonimmigrant worker, under the current registration system petition filings pre-dates the publication of DOL, and the information that an importing the majority of H–1B cap-subject ETA, Strengthening Wage Protections for the Temporary and Permanent Employment of Certain employer must provide in the petition; petitions have been filed for positions Aliens in the United States, 85 FR 63872 (Oct. 8, and certified at the two lowest wage levels: 2020). • INA section 214(g), 8 U.S.C. level I or level II prevailing wages.11 12 See H.R. Rep. 101–723(I) (1990), as reprinted in 1184(g), which, among other things, 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6710, 6721 (stating ‘‘The U.S. prescribes the H–1B numerical 6 See INA section 214(g)(3). labor market is now faced with two problems that immigration policy can help to correct. The first is limitations, various exceptions to those 7 See Registration Requirement for Petitioners the need of American business for highly skilled, Seeking To File H–1B Petitions on Behalf of Cap- limitations, and criteria concerning the specially trained personnel to fill increasingly Subject Aliens, 84 FR 888, 896 (Jan. 31, 2019). order of processing H–1B petitions. sophisticated jobs for which domestic personnel 8 See Walker Macy LLC v. United States cannot be found and the need for other workers to Further, under HSA section 101, 6 Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 243 F. Supp. 3d meet specific labor shortages’’). U.S.C. 111(b)(1)(F), a primary mission of 1156, 1170 (D. Or. 2017). 13 See Kirk Doran et al., University of Notre Dame, DHS is to ‘‘ensure that the overall 9 See Registration Final Rule, supra note 7. The Effects of High-Skilled Immigration Policy on economic security of the United States 10 See Spilker v. Shayne Labs., Inc., 520 F.2d 523, Firms: Evidence from Visa Lotteries (Feb. 2016), is not diminished by efforts, activities, 525 (9th Cir. 1975) (citing F.T.C. v. Fred Meyer, Inc., https://gspp.berkeley.edu/assets/uploads/research/ 390 U.S. 341, 349 (1968) (‘‘[W]e cannot, in the pdf/h1b.pdf (noting that ‘‘additional H–1Bs lead to and programs aimed at securing the absence of an unmistakable directive, construe the lower average employee earnings and higher firm homeland.’’ Act in a manner which runs counter to the broad profits’’ and the authors’ ‘‘results are more Finally, as explained above, goals which Congress intended it to effectuate.’’)). supportive of the narrative about the effects of H– ‘‘Congress left to the discretion of USCIS 11 See U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 1Bs on firms in which H–1Bs crowd out alternative how to handle simultaneous U.S. Citizenship and Immigration. Services, Office workers, are paid less than the alternative workers 14 of Policy and Strategy, Policy Research Division, H– whom they crowd out, and thus increase the firm’s submissions.’’ Accordingly, ‘‘USCIS 1B Wage Level by Top 25 Metro, Database Queried: profits despite no measurable effect on has discretion to decide how best to July 10, 2020, Report Created: , 2020, innovation’’); John Bound et al., National Bureau of order those petitions’’ in furtherance of Systems: C3 via SASPME, DOL OFLC Performance Economic Research, Understanding the Economic Congress’ legislative purpose.15 DATA H1B for 2018, 2019, Bureau of Labor Impact of the H–1B Program on the U.S., Working Statistics: Occupational Employment Statistics for Paper 23153 (Feb. 2017), http://www.nber.org/ 2018, 2019 (establishing that, for the top 25 papers/w23153 (‘‘In the absence of immigration, 14 See Walker Macy v. USCIS, 243 F.Supp.3d at metropolitan service areas for which H–1B wages for US computer scientists would have been 1176 (finding that USCIS’ rule establishing the beneficiaries were sought in FYs 2018 and 2019, all 2.6% to 5.1% higher and employment in computer random-selection process was a reasonable level I wages, 84% of level II wages, and 76% of science for US workers would have been 6.1% to interpretation of the INA). ‘‘No Wage Level’’ wages fell below the Bureau of 10.8% higher in 2001.’’). 15 Id.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69239

C. The H–1B Visa Program’s Numerical address legitimate countervailing levels within the visa classification or Cap and Exemptions concerns of the adverse impact foreign otherwise earning the highest wages in The H–1B visa program allows U.S. workers could have on U.S. workers, an occupational classification and area employers to temporarily hire foreign Congress put in place a number of of intended employment, which workers to perform services in a measures intended to protect U.S. correlates with higher skill levels. Put specialty occupation, services related to workers, including the annual simply, because demand for H–1B visas a Department of Defense (DoD) numerical cap. Congress was concerned has exceeded the annual supply for 21 cooperative research and development that a surplus of foreign labor could more than a decade, DHS prefers that project or coproduction project, or depress wages for all workers in the cap-subject H–1B visas go to services of distinguished merit and long run and recognized the cap as a beneficiaries earning the highest wages ability in the field of fashion modeling. means of ‘‘continuous monitoring of all relative to their SOC codes and area(s) 18 See INA 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. admissions.’’ of intended employment. DHS believes 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b); Public Law 101– The demand for H–1B workers subject that salary generally is a reasonable 649, section 222(a)(2), 104 Stat. 4978 to the annual numerical cap has proxy for skill level.22 In every fiscal (Nov. 29, 1990); 8 CFR 214.2(h). A exceeded the cap every year for more year since FY 2011, the number of H– specialty occupation is defined as an than a decade. This high demand 1B cap-subject petitions, including occupation that requires the (1) created a rush of simultaneous those filed for the advanced degree theoretical and practical application of submissions at the beginning of the H– exemption, has exceeded the annual H– a body of highly specialized knowledge 1B petition period, preventing a 1B numerical allocations.23 By engaging and (2) attainment of a bachelor’s or straightforward application of the in a wage-level-based prioritization of higher degree in the specific specialty statutory provision that these H–1B cap registrations, DHS is better ensuring that (or its equivalent) as a minimum numbers be awarded on a first-come, new H–1B visas will go to the highest qualification for entry into the first served basis, i.e., ‘‘in the order in skilled or highest paid beneficiaries. occupation in the United States. See which the petitions are filed,’’ as Facilitating the admission of higher- INA 214(i)(l), 8 U.S.C. 1184(i)(l). described above. ‘‘It is not difficult to skilled workers ‘‘would benefit the Congress has established limits on the envision a scenario where many more economy and increase the United States’ number of foreign workers who may be petitions arrive on the final receipt date competitive edge in attracting the ‘best granted initial H–1B nonimmigrant than are needed to fill the statutory cap, and the brightest’ in the global labor visas or status each fiscal year (FY) and processing them ‘in order’ . . . may market,’’ consistent with the goals of the 19 (commonly known as the ‘‘cap’’). See also be random and arbitrary.’’ To that H–1B program.24 INA section 214(g), 8 U.S.C. 1184(g). end, DHS has implemented regulations DHS data shows a correlation between The total number of foreign workers over the years that provide for a random higher salaries and higher wage levels.25 who may be granted initial H–1B selection from all filings or registrations As a position’s required skill level nonimmigrant status during any FY that occur within a certain timeframe. increases relative to the occupation, so, currently may not exceed 65,000. See However, while the random selection INA section 214(g), 8 U.S.C. 1184(g). of petitions or registrations is 21 Total Number of H–1B Cap-Subject Petitions Certain petitions are exempt from the reasonable, DHS believes it is neither Submitted FYs 2016–2020, USCIS Service Center Operations (SCOPS), June 2019. Total Number of 65,000 numerical limitation. See INA the optimal, nor the exclusive, method of selecting petitions or registrations Selected Petitions data, USCIS Office of section 214(g)(5) and (7), 8 U.S.C. Performance and Qualify (OPQ), Performance 1184(g)(5) and (7). The annual toward the numerical allocations when Analysis and External Reporting (PAER), July 2020. exemption from the 65,000 cap for H– more registrations or petitions, as 22 See U.S. Department of Labor, Employment 1B workers for those who have earned applicable, are submitted than projected and Training Administration, Strengthening Wage Protections for the Temporary and Permanent a qualifying U.S. master’s or higher as needed to reach the numerical allocations. Pure randomization does Employment of Certain Aliens in the United States, degree may not exceed 20,000 foreign 85 FR 63872, 63874 (Oct. 8, 2020) (it is a ‘‘largely not serve the ends of the H–1B program workers. See INA section 214(g)(5)(C), 8 self-evident proposition that workers in or Congressional intent. Further, as one U.S.C. 1184(g)(5)(C). occupations that require sophisticated skills and training receive higher wages based on those Congressional intent behind creating court has importantly held, ‘‘Congress left to the discretion of USCIS how to skills.’’). the H–1B program was, in part, to help 23 handle simultaneous submissions’’ and Total Number of H–1B Cap-Subject Petitions U.S. employers fill labor shortages in Submitted FYs 2016–2020, USCIS Service Center ‘‘USCIS has discretion to decide how Operations (SCOPS), June 2019. Total Number of positions requiring highly skilled or 20 16 best to order those petitions.’’ In Selected Petitions data, USCIS Office of highly educated workers. A key goal Performance and Qualify (OPQ), Performance of the program at its inception was to recognition of this clear discretion, DHS has it within its authority to further Analysis and External Reporting (PAER), July 2020. help U.S. employers obtain the 24 revise and refine how it believes USCIS See Muzaffar Chrishti and Stephen Yale-Loehr, temporary employees they need to meet Migration Policy Institute, The Immigration Act of can best order H–1B petitions or their business needs to remain 1990: Unfinished Business a Quarter-Century Later registrations. Therefore, DHS believes it (July 2016), https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/ competitive in the global economy.17 To is necessary and consistent with the default/files/publications/1990-Act_2016_ intent of the H–1B statutory scheme to FINAL.pdf (‘‘Sponsors of [the Immigration Act of 16 See H.R. Rep. 101–723(I), supra note 12 at 1990 which created the H–1B program as it exists 6721. utilize the numerical cap in a way that today] believed that facilitating the admission of 17 See Bipartisan Policy Council, Immigration in incentivizes a U.S. employer’s higher-skilled immigrants would benefit the Two Acts, Nov. 2015, at 7, https:// recruitment of beneficiaries for economy and increase the United States’ bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/ positions requiring the highest skill competitive edge in attracting the ‘best and the BPC-Immigration-Legislation-Brief.pdf, citing H.R. brightest’ in the global labor market.’’). Rep. 101–723(I) supra note 12 at 6721 (‘‘At the time 25 For example, in Computer and Mathematical [1990], members of Congress were also concerned overall strategy that promotes the creation of the Occupations, the 2019 national median salary for about U.S. competitiveness in the global economy type of workforce needed in an increasingly global Level I was $78,000; for Level II was $90,000; for and sought to use legal immigration as a tool in a economy.’ ’’). Level III was $115,000; and for Level IV was larger economic plan, stating that ‘it is unlikely that 18 See H.R. Conf. Rep. 101–955, at 126 (1990), as $136,000. Department of Homeland Security, enough U.S. workers will be trained quickly enough reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6784, 6790–91. USCIS, Office of Performance and Quality, SAS to meet legitimate employment needs, and 19 See Walker Macy, 243 F.Supp.3d at 1174. PME C3 Consolidated, VIBE, DOL OFLC TLC immigration can and should be incorporated into an 20 Id. at 1176. Disclosure Data queried 9/2020 TRK 6446.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 69240 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

too, may the wage level, and existing widespread use of the H–1B registration for the beneficiary named in necessarily, the corresponding program to fill lower paid or lower- the petition.30 prevailing wage.26 In most cases where skilled positions, for which there may In the event that an insufficient the proffered wage equals or exceeds the be available and qualified U.S. number of registrations are received prevailing wage, a prevailing wage rate workers.28 during the annual initial registration reflecting a higher wage level is a period to meet the number projected as D. Current Selection Process reasonable proxy for the higher level of needed to reach the numerical skill required for the position, based on DHS implemented the current H–1B limitation, USCIS would select all of the the way prevailing wage determinations registration process after determining registrations properly submitted during are made. DHS recognizes, however, that it could introduce a cost-saving, the initial registration period and notify that some employers may choose to innovative solution to facilitate the all of the registrants that they may offer a higher proffered wage to a certain selection of H–1B cap-subject petitions proceed with the filing of an H–1B cap- beneficiary, beyond the required toward the annual numerical subject petition based on their selected prevailing wage, to be more competitive allocations. Under the current registration(s). USCIS would keep the in the H–1B selection process. In that regulation, all petitioners seeking to file registration period open beyond the situation, while the proffered wage may an H–1B cap-subject petition must first initial registration period, allowing for not necessarily reflect the skill level electronically submit a registration for the submission of additional required for the position in the strict each beneficiary on whose behalf they registrations, until it determined that it sense of DOL’s prevailing wage seek to file an H–1B cap-subject had received a sufficient number of determination, the proffered wage still petition, unless USCIS suspends the registrations to reach the applicable is a reasonable reflection of the value registration requirement. A prospective numerical limitations. the employer has placed on that specific petitioner whose registration is selected The current selection process also beneficiary. DHS believes that an is eligible to file an H–1B cap-subject allows for selection based solely on the employer who offers a higher wage than petition for the selected registration submission of petitions in any year in required by the prevailing wage level during the associated filing period. which the registration process is does so because that higher wage is a USCIS monitors the number of H–1B suspended due to technical or other clear reflection of the beneficiary’s value registrations it receives during the issues. That process also allows for to the employer, which, even if not announced registration period and, at random selection in any year in which related to the position’s skill level per the conclusion of that period, if more the number of petitions received on the se, reflects the unique qualities the registrations are submitted than final receipt date exceeds the number beneficiary possesses. Accordingly, the projected as needed to reach the projected to meet the applicable changes made by this proposed rule numerical allocations, randomly selects numerical limitation. would better ensure that the H–1B cap from among properly submitted E. Wage Requirement prioritizes relatively higher-skilled, registrations the number of registrations An H–1B petitioner must file with the higher-valued, or higher-paid foreign projected as needed to reach the H–1B Department of Labor (DOL) a Labor workers rather than continuing to allow numerical allocations. Under this Condition Application for limited cap numbers to be allocated to random H–1B registration selection Nonimmigrant Workers (LCA) attesting, workers in lower-skilled or lower-paid process, USCIS first selects registrations among other things, that it will pay the positions.27 Ultimately, prioritizing in submitted on behalf of all beneficiaries, beneficiary a wage that is the higher of the above-described manner including those eligible for the the actual wage level that it pays to all incentivizes employers to offer higher advanced degree exemption. USCIS other individuals with similar wages or higher skilled positions to H– then selects from the remaining experience and qualifications for the 1B workers and disincentivizes the registrations a sufficient number specific employment in question or the projected as needed to reach the 26 prevailing wage level for the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and advanced degree exemption. Training Administration, Prevailing Wage occupational classification in the area of Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagricultural A prospective petitioner whose intended employment, and that it will Immigration Programs (Revised Nov. 2009), registration is selected is notified of the provide working conditions for the available at https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ selection and instructed that the beneficiary that will not adversely affect ETA/oflc/pdfs/NPWHC_Guidance_Revised_11_ petitioner is eligible to file an H–1B cap- 2009.pdf (noting that a wage level increase may be the working conditions of workers warranted if a position’s requirements indicate subject petition for the beneficiary similarly employed. See INA section skills that are beyond those of an entry level named in the selected registration 212(n)(1)(A)(i)–(ii), 8 U.S.C. worker). within a filing period that is at least 90 27 See Costa and Hira, supra note 11 (pointing to 1182(n)(1)(A)(i)–(ii), 20 CFR 655.700 days in duration and begins no earlier through 655.760. DOL regulations state data that ‘‘all H–1B employers, but especially the than 6 months ahead of the actual date largest employers, use the H–1B program either to that the wage requirement includes the hire relatively lower-wage workers (relative to the of need (commonly referred to as the employer’s obligation to offer benefits wages paid to other workers in their occupation) employment start date).29 See 8 CFR who possess ordinary skills or to hire skilled and eligibility for benefits provided as 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(D)(2). When registration compensation for services to the H–1B workers and pay them less than the true market is required, a petitioner seeking to file value’’); Norman Matloff, Barron’s, ‘‘Where are the nonimmigrant on the same basis, and in ‘Best and Brightest?’ ’’ (June 8, 2013) https:// an H–1B cap-subject petition is not accordance with the same criteria, as the www.barrons.com/articles/SB50001424052748 eligible to file the petition unless the employer offers to similarly employed 703578204578523472393388746 (‘‘The data show petition is based on a valid, selected that most of the foreign tech workers are ordinary folks doing ordinary work.’’); Norman Matloff, 30 During the initial filing period, if USCIS does Center for Immigration Studies, H–1Bs: Still Not the 28 See id. not receive a sufficient number of petitions Best and the Brightest (May 12, 2008), https:// 29 If the petition is based on a registration that projected as needed to reach the numerical cis.org/Report/H1Bs-Still-Not-Best-and-Brightest was submitted during the initial registration period, allocations, USCIS will select additional (presenting ‘‘data analysis showing that the vast then the beneficiary’s employment start date on the registrations, or reopen the registration process, as majority of the foreign workers—including those at petition must be October 1 of the associated FY, applicable, to receive the number of petitions most major tech firms—are people of just ordinary consistent with the registration, regardless of when projected as needed to reach the numerical talent, doing ordinary work.’’). the petition is filed. See 8 CFR 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)(4). allocations. See 8 CFR 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)(7).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69241

U.S. workers. See 20 CFR 655.731(c)(3). the occupational requirements, that is, than OES) or an independent DOL regulations additionally provide the tasks, knowledge, skills, and specific authoritative source, USCIS would rank that the employer must afford working vocational preparation (education, the registration in the same category as conditions to the H–1B beneficiary on training, and experience) generally OES wage level I.36 During an annual the same basis and in accordance with required for acceptable performance in initial registration period of at least 14 the same criteria as it affords to its U.S. that occupation.33 DOL classifies the days, if fewer registrations than workers who are similarly employed, four prevailing wage levels as ‘‘entry[,]’’ necessary to reach the regular cap were and without adverse effect upon the ‘‘qualified[,]’’ ‘‘experienced[,]’’ and submitted, USCIS would select all working conditions of such U.S. ‘‘fully competent[,]’’ respectively, registrations properly submitted during workers. See 20 CFR 655.732(a). relative to the occupation.34 the annual initial registration period, The LCA, certified by DOL, requires Each registration submitted by a regardless of wage level, and would that the petitioner specify, among other prospective petitioner must be based on continue to accept registrations until information: The SOC code, the wage a legitimate job offer and must list the USCIS were to determine a final that an employer will pay the prevailing wage level that the proffered registration date based on the nonimmigrant worker, the prevailing wage equals or exceeds for the relevant submission of a sufficient number of wage rate for the job opportunity, and SOC code and area(s) of intended registrations to reach the regular cap. If the source of the prevailing wage rate, employment. It is important to note that more registrations were submitted on including the applicable prevailing an LCA is not a requirement for the final registration date than necessary wage level for the job opportunity if the registration. Each prospective petitioner to reach the regular cap, USCIS would OES survey is the source of the must attest, when submitting a rank and select registrations from among prevailing wage rate. If there is an registration, that the registration is those submitted on the final registration applicable collective bargaining based on a legitimate job offer and that date generally based on the highest agreement (CBA) that was negotiated at they intend to file an H–1B petition on corresponding OES wage level that the arms-length between a union and the behalf of the beneficiary named in the proffered wage equals or exceeds for the employer that contains a wage rate registration if the registration is relevant SOC code and in the area of applicable to the occupation, then the selected. Therefore, DHS expects each intended employment. CBA must be used to determine the prospective petitioner to know and be Thereafter, USCIS would complete prevailing wage for a petitioner’s job able to provide the relevant wage level the same ranking and selection process opportunity. 20 CFR 655.731(a)(2). In when submitting a registration, to meet the advanced-degree exemption. the absence of an applicable CBA, the regardless of whether they have a If a sufficient number of registrations petitioner generally has the option of certified LCA at that time. determining the prevailing wage by one were submitted during the annual initial of three avenues: (1) Obtaining a F. Proposed Rule registration period to reach the Prevailing Wage Determination (PWD) DHS proposes to amend the way advanced-degree exemption, USCIS 31 issued by DOL; (2) obtaining the registrations for H–1B cap-subject would rank and select registrations for prevailing wage from an independent petitions (or petitions, if the registration beneficiaries who are eligible for the authoritative source that satisfies the process is suspended), including those advanced-degree exemption generally requirements set forth in 20 CFR eligible for the advanced degree on the basis of the highest OES wage 655.731(b)(3)(iii)(B); or (3) obtaining the exemption, are selected. level that the proffered wage equals or prevailing wage from another legitimate Specifically, DHS proposes that, if exceeds for the relevant SOC code and source of wage information that satisfies more registrations were received during in the area of intended employment, the requirements set forth in 20 CFR the annual initial registration period (or beginning with OES wage level IV and 655.731(b)(3)(iii)(C). 20 CFR petition filing period, if applicable) than proceeding in descending order with 655.731(a)(2)(ii)(A)–(C). An employer necessary to reach the applicable OES wage levels III, II, and I. During the may also elect to rely on a wage numerical allocation, USCIS would rank annual initial registration period, if determination issued pursuant to the and select the registrations (or petitions, fewer registrations than necessary to provisions of the Davis Bacon Act if the registration process were reach the advanced-degree exemption (DBA), 40 U.S.C. 276a et seq., or the suspended) received generally on the were submitted, USCIS would select all McNamara O’Hara Service Contract Act basis of the highest OES wage level that registrations properly submitted during (SCA), 41 U.S.C. 351 et seq., if the proffered wage were to equal or the annual initial registration period, applicable. 20 CFR 655.731(b)(3)(i). exceed for the relevant SOC code and in regardless of wage level, and would When using the OES survey to the area of intended employment, continue to accept registrations until it determine the prevailing wage for a beginning with OES wage level IV and were to determine a final registration particular job opportunity, the first step proceeding in descending order with date based on the submission of a is to select the most relevant OES wage levels III, II, and I.35 If the sufficient number of registrations to occupational classification by proffered wage were to fall below an reach the advanced-degree exemption. If examining the employer’s job OES wage level I, because the proffered more registrations were submitted on opportunity and comparing it to the wage were based on a prevailing wage the final registration date than are tasks, knowledge, and work activities from another legitimate source (other needed to reach the advanced-degree generally associated with relevant exemption, USCIS would rank and occupations to ensure that the most 33 See id. select registrations from among those relevant occupational code has been 34 See id. submitted on the final registration date selected.32 Then, the relevant prevailing 35 During the initial filing period, if USCIS were generally based on the highest wage level is selected by comparing the to receive an insufficient number of petitions corresponding OES wage level that the requirements for the job opportunity to projected as needed to reach the numerical proffered wage equals or exceeds for the allocations, USCIS would select additional registrations, or reopen the registration process, as 31 U.S. Department of Labor Policy Guidance, applicable, to receive the number of petitions 36 If the proffered wage were expressed as a range, supra note 26. projected as needed to reach the numerical USCIS would make the comparison using the 32 See id. allocations. See 8 CFR 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)(7). lowest wage in the range.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 69242 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

relevant SOC code and in the area of website, and through the Foreign Labor approval. USCIS also would deny a intended employment. Certification Data Center.39 DHS expects subsequent new or amended petition If USCIS were to receive and rank each registrant would be able to identify filed by the petitioner, or a related more registrations at a particular wage the appropriate SOC code for the entity, on behalf of the same beneficiary level than the projected number needed proffered position because all for a lower wage level if USCIS were to to meet the applicable numerical petitioners are required to identify the determine that the filing of the new or allocation, USCIS would randomly appropriate SOC code for the proffered amended petition was part of the select from all registrations within that position on the LCA, even when there petitioner’s attempt to unfairly increase particular wage level a sufficient is no applicable wage level on the LCA. the odds of selection during the number of registrations needed to reach Using the SOC code and the above- registration (or petition, if applicable) the applicable numerical limitation. mentioned DOL guidance, all registrants selection process. In addition to the information would be able to determine the Currently, 8 CFR 214.2(h)(8)(v) required on the current electronic appropriate OES wage level for contains a severability clause explaining registration form (and on the H–1B purposes of completing the registration, that the requirement to submit a petition) and for purposes of this regardless of whether they were to registration for an H–1B cap-subject selection process and to establish the specify an OES wage level or utilize the petition and the selection process based ranking order, a registrant (or a OES program as the prevailing wage on properly submitted registrations petitioner if registration is suspended) source on an LCA. under paragraphs (h)(8)(iii) of this would be required to provide the DHS requests comments on, including section are intended to be severable highest OES wage level that the potential alternatives to, the proposed from paragraph (h)(8)(iv) of this section. proffered wage equals or exceeds for the ranking and selection of registrations DHS proposes to move the content of relevant SOC code in the area of based on the OES prevailing wage level the severability clause, without intended employment.37 The proffered that corresponds to the requirements of substantive change, to a new paragraph wage is the wage that the employer the proffered position in situations at 8 CFR 214.2(h)(24)(i). intends to pay the beneficiary. The SOC where there is no current OES This proposed rule would not affect code and area of intended employment prevailing wage information. More the order of selection between the would be indicated on the LCA filed generally, DHS requests comments and regular cap and the advanced degree with the petition. For registrants relying seeks alternatives for selecting from exemption. If more registrations (or on a prevailing wage that is not based among all H–1B registrations or petitions, if registration were on the OES survey, if the proffered wage petitions, such as ranking and selecting suspended) were submitted during the were less than the corresponding level all registrations or petitions according to annual initial registration or cap-filing I OES wage, the registrant would select the actual OES prevailing wage level period than needed to reach the annual the ‘‘Wage Level I and below’’ box on that the position would be rated at numerical allocations, the wage level the registration form. If the H–1B rather than the wage level that the ranking would occur first for the regular beneficiary would work in multiple proffered wage equals or exceeds. cap selection and then for the advanced locations, or in multiple positions if the Another alternative for which DHS degree exemption. See 8 CFR registrant is an agent, USCIS would rank seeks public comment is a process 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)(6) (establishing the and select the registration based on the where all registrations or petitions, order in which beneficiaries of the lowest corresponding OES wage level while still randomly selected, would be advanced degree exemption are selected that the proffered wage will equal or weighted according to their OES relative to beneficiaries of the regular exceed. Therefore, the registrant would prevailing wage level, such that, for cap). be required to specify on the registration example, a level IV position would have This proposed rule is consistent with the lowest corresponding OES wage four times greater chance of selection and permissible under DHS’s general level that the proffered wage would than a level I position, a level III statutory authority provided in INA equal or exceed. position would have three times greater sections 103(a), 214(a) and (c), 8 U.S.C. DHS recognizes that some chance of selection than a level I 1103(a), 1184(a) and (c), and HSA occupations do not have current OES position, and a level II position would section 102, 6 U.S.C. 112. Congress prevailing wage information available have two times greater chance of expressly authorized DHS to determine on DOL’s Online Wage Library (OWL).38 selection than a level I position. eligibility for H–1B classification upon In the limited instance where there is no As is currently required, the registrant petition by the importing employer, and current OES prevailing wage would be required to attest to the to determine the form and information information for the proffered position, veracity of the contents of the required to establish eligibility. See INA the registrant would follow DOL registration and petition. If USCIS were section 214(c)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1184(c)(1). guidance on prevailing wage to determine that the statement of facts ‘‘Moreover, INA section 214(g)(3) does determinations to determine which OES contained on the registration not provide that petitions must be wage level to select on the registration. submission was inaccurate, fraudulent, processed in the order ‘received,’ DOL has provided guidance on its materially misrepresents any fact, or ‘submitted,’ or ‘delivered.’ Instead, they was not true and correct, USCIS would must be processed in the order ‘filed.’ 37 While the OES wage level assessment would be reject or deny the petition or, if What it means to ‘file’ a petition and based on the SOC code, area of intended approved, would revoke the petition how to handle simultaneously received employment, and proffered wage, the registrant petitions are ambiguous and were not would not need to supply the SOC code, area of 39 See U.S. Department of Labor Policy Guidance, dictated by Congress in the INA.’’ 40 intended employment, and proffered wage at the supra note 26. In general, this guidance requires an Rather, these implementation details are registration stage. increase to a wage level whenever the employer’s 38 The Foreign Labor Certification Data Center, a job offer has a requirement for education, entrusted for DHS to administer. So component of the U.S. Department of Labor Office experience (including special skills and other while the statute provides annual of Foreign Labor Certification, is the location of the requirements), or supervisory duties greater than limitations on the number of aliens who Online Wage Library for prevailing wage what is normally required for the occupation. This determinations. U.S. Department of Labor, Foreign guidance also contains a worksheet (Appendix C) may be issued initial H–1B visas or Labor Certification Data Center, Online Wage that registrants may use in determining the Library (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). appropriate OES wage level. 40 See Walker Macy, 243 F.Supp.3d at 1175.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69243

otherwise provided H–1B nonimmigrant number of petitions needed to reach the levels.45 Specifically, data reflects that, status, the statute does not specify how numerical allocations.43 during FYs 2018 and 2019, 59.43 petitions must be selected and counted DHS created the registration percent of H–1B petitions received were 46 toward the numerical allocations when requirement, based on its general filed for level II and I wages. USCIS receives more petitions on the statutory authority and its discretion to Conversely, the data shows that only first day than are projected as needed to determine how best to handle 28.53 percent of H–1B petitions reach the H–1B numerical allocations. received in FYs 2018 and 2019 were simultaneous submissions in excess of 47 Consequently, ‘‘Congress left to the the numerical allocations, to effectively filed for level IV and III wages. As registrations now would be selected in discretion of USCIS how to handle and efficiently administer the H–1B cap descending order from level IV to level simultaneous submissions’’ and ‘‘USCIS selection process. As provided in the H– I and below, as indicated by the highest has discretion to decide how best to 1B Registration Final Rule, unless 41 wage level that the proffered wage order those petitions.’’ In recognition suspended by USCIS, registration is an of this clear discretion, DHS bears the equals or exceeds for the relevant SOC antecedent procedural step that must be code and in the area of intended statutory responsibility to continuously completed by prospective petitioners evaluate how it could best order H–1B employment, the selection of before they are eligible to file an H–1B registrations with proffered wages that petitions. As noted above, the current cap-subject petition. As with the filing scheme of pure randomization of correspond to higher wage levels is of petitions, and as explained above, a expected to incentivize higher wages, selectees does not optimally serve first-come, first-served basis for Congress’ purpose for the H–1B reduce the adverse effect on similarly submitting electronic registrations is employed U.S. workers, and prevent program. Therefore, DHS proposes this unreasonable and practically rule to revise the process to better align further stagnation of wages for U.S. impossible. DHS, therefore, information technology (IT) workers with the purpose of the H–1B program implemented a random selection 48 and Congressional intent, taking into generally. DHS further believes that process as that was considered a prioritizing according to wage level account the pervasive oversubscription reasonable and operationally efficient would better meet the directive of the of demand for registrations and way to select registrations when more Buy American and Hire American petitions. registrations were submitted than Executive order to ‘‘help ensure that H– DHS acknowledges that INA section projected as needed to reach the 1B visas are awarded to the most-skilled 214(g)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(3), states that numerical allocations. or highest-paid petition aliens subject to the H–1B numerical While the random selection of beneficiaries.’’ 49 limitation in INA section 214(g)(1), 8 petitions or registrations is reasonable, it Beyond negatively impacting U.S. U.S.C. 1184(g)(1), shall be issued H–1B is neither the optimal nor the exclusive workers’ wages, in some circumstances, visas or otherwise provided H–1B method of selecting petitions or U.S. employers are replacing qualified nonimmigrant status ‘‘in the order in registrations toward the numerical and skilled U.S. workers with relatively which petitions are filed for such visas allocations when more registrations or lower-skilled H–1B workers. U.S. or status.’’ Of course, this statutory petitions, as applicable, are submitted companies such as The Walt Disney provision, and more specifically the than projected as needed to reach the Company, Hewlett-Packard, University term ‘‘filed’’ as used in INA 214(g)(3), 8 numerical allocations. U.S.C. 1184(g)(3), is ambiguous.42 As 45 See supra notes 5 and 13. See also U.S. discussed in the preamble to the In that vein, prioritization and Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration. Services, Office of Policy and Registration Requirement for Petitioners selection based on wage levels ‘‘is a reasonable and rational interpretation of Strategy, Policy Research Division, H–1B Petitions Seeking to File H–1B Petitions on Behalf for Nonimmigrant Worker (I–129) DOL H–1B Cases of Cap-Subject Aliens Final Rule (H–1B USCIS’s obligations under the INA to broken down by Fiscal Year and Wage Level As of Registration Final Rule), an resolve the issues of processing H–1B , 2020, Database Queried: Aug. 17, 2020, 44 Report Created: Aug. 17, 2020, Systems: DOL OFLC indiscriminate application of this petitions’’ in years of excess demand. The changes proposed by this rule Performance DATA H1B for 2015, 2017 (showing statutory language would lead to absurd that, for FYs 2015 and 2017, respectively, 79% and or arbitrary results; the longstanding would aid petitioners by maintaining 64% of certified LCAs were for level I and II wages). approach has been to project the the effective and efficient 46 See U.S. Department of Homeland Security, administration of the cap selection U.S. Citizenship and Immigration. Services, Office process while providing prospective of Policy and Strategy, Policy Research Division, 41 Id. at 1176. H1B Petitions for Non Immigrant Worker (I–129) 42 Id. at 1167–68 (finding that USCIS’s rule petitioners the ability to potentially Summarized by IT (SOC code 15) and Other by establishing the random-selection process was a improve their chance of selection by Wage Level As of August 28, 2020, Database reasonable interpretation of the INA that was agreeing to pay H–1B beneficiaries Queried: Aug. 28, 2020, Report Created: Aug. 28, entitled at least to Skidmore deference because higher wages that equal or exceed 2020, Systems: C3 via SASPME, DOL OFLC what it means to ‘‘file’’ a petition is ambiguous and Performance DATA H1B for 2018, 2019 (reflecting undefined under the INA and that Congress left to higher prevailing wage levels. Further, total received H–1B petitions categorized by wage the discretion of USCIS how to handle while nothing in the proposed rule levels as follows: 13.2% for level I, 46.23% for level simultaneous submissions. Specifically, the court would prohibit an employer from II, 17.85% for level III, 10.68% for level IV, and a said: ‘‘Additionally, because § 1184(g)(3) was offering from offering a wage combined 12.03% for N/A and blank wage levels). passed by Congress in 1990 when there was not 47 See id. widespread public use of electronic submissions, it commensurate with a lower wage level 48 Hal Salzman, Daniel Kuehn, and B. Lindsay is logical that Congress anticipated H–1B petitions with a reduced chance of selection, Lowell, Economic Policy Institute, Guestworkers in would be submitted either by U.S. mail or other these proposed changes would the High-Skill U.S. Labor Market: An analysis of carriers. Thus, it was reasonable to anticipate incentivize petitioners to offer higher supply, employment, and wage trends, (Apr. 24, multiple petitions would arrive on the same day. It 2013), at 27, https://files.epi.org/2013/bp359- is therefore a reasonable interpretation of ‘filed’ to wages to H–1B workers or petition for guestworkers-high-skill-labor-market-analysis.pdf. include some further administrative step beyond positions requiring higher skills and (‘‘In other words, the data suggest that current U.S. mere receipt at a USCIS office to ‘order’ multiple higher-skilled aliens that are immigration policies that facilitate large flows of petitions that arrived in such a manner on the same commensurate with higher wage guestworkers appear to provide firms with access to day.’’) (emphasis added). The availability of labor that will be in plentiful supply at wages that electronic submission of H–1B registrations has not are too low to induce a significantly increased alleviated this issue as multiple registrations can 43 See 84 FR 888, 896. supply from the domestic workforce.’’). still be submitted simultaneously. 44 Id. at 1175. 49 See Executive Order 13788, supra note 1.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 69244 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

of California San Francisco, Southern petitions or registrations that they have prevailing wage level than the projected California Edison, Qualcomm, and Toys submitted would be selected and number needed to meet the numerical ‘‘R’’ Us have reportedly laid off their accepted for processing in years of limitation, USCIS would randomly qualified U.S. workers and replaced excess demand. While some petitioners select from all registrations (or petitions, them with H–1B workers provided by might prefer to continue to rely on a if applicable) within that particular H-1B dependent outsourcing random selection process, DHS believes prevailing wage level a sufficient companies.50 As one longtime IT worker that the importance of prioritizing number of registrations necessary to said, ‘‘They are bringing in people with selection generally based on the highest reach the H–1B numerical limitation. a couple of years’ experience to replace prevailing wage level that a proffered DHS believes that the interests of those us and then we have to train them.’’ 51 wage equals or exceeds outweighs any relying on the current random selection The change in the selection process is reliance interests of petitioners in a process do not outweigh the need to expected to help militate against this random H–1B cap selection process. A establish a selection process that is kind of practice by reducing the influx random selection process may seem fair efficient and effective, but also fair to of cap-subject H–1B workers for lower- to petitioners seeking to obtain H–1B U.S. workers, H–1B workers, and paid positions. classification for relatively lower-paid petitioners. DHS acknowledges that the preamble H–1B workers, as the chance for to the H–1B Registration Final Rule selection of an H–1B worker who will IV. Statutory and Regulatory states that prioritization of registration be paid an entry level wage is the same Requirements selection on factors other than degree as the chance of selection for an H–1B A. Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory level, such as salary, would require worker who will be paid at the highest Planning and Review), Executive Order statutory changes.52 However, DHS did wage level for the occupational 13563 (Improving Regulation and not provide further analysis regarding classification, but this system is neither Regulatory Review), and Executive that conclusion. Upon further review optimally consistent with the statute Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and and consideration of the issue initially passed by Congress nor fair to U.S. Controlling Regulatory Costs) raised in comments to the H–1B workers whose wages may be adversely Registration Proposed Rule (83 FR impacted by an influx of relatively Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 and 62406, , 2018), DHS lower-paid H–1B workers. Similarly, it 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs, concludes that the statute is silent as to is not fair to U.S. employers that are benefits, and transfers of available how USCIS must select H–1B petitions, seeking to petition for foreign workers at alternatives, and if regulation is or registrations, to be filed toward the higher OES prevailing wage levels and necessary, to select regulatory numerical allocations in years of excess are not selected due to the random approaches that maximize net benefits demand. DHS, therefore, is relying on lottery process. Further, it is not fair to (including potential economic, its general statutory authority to an employer who has petitioned for a environmental, public health and safety implement the statute and proposes to foreign worker at the top of the effects, distributive impacts, and revise the regulations to design a prevailing wage level for many years equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the selection system that realistically, and has never obtained a visa, while importance of quantifying both costs effectively, efficiently, and more another employer who petitioned for an and benefits, of reducing costs, of faithfully administers the cap selection entry-level worker for the first time and, harmonizing rules, and of promoting process. See INA section 103(a), 214(a) due to randomness or luck, obtained a flexibility. 53 and (c)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1103(a), 1184(a) and visa. Selecting registrations (or This proposed rule is an (c)(1). petitions, if registration were ‘‘economically significant regulatory DHS understands that some suspended) generally based on the action’’ under section 3(f)(1) of petitioners have adjusted their highest prevailing wage level that a Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, recruitment and filing practices to file a proffered wage equals or exceeds would the Office of Management and Budget give petitioners greater ability to control high number of petitions or (OMB) has reviewed this regulation. registrations, for varied beneficiaries, the chance of selection in years of based on a concern that only a random excess demand for H–1B visa numbers 1. Summary of Economic Effects selection of the H–1B cap-subject by agreeing to pay the H–1B beneficiary a higher wage, further protecting the DHS is proposing to amend its 50 See Sarah Pierce and Julia Gelatt, Migration economic interests of U.S. workers. regulations governing the selection of Policy Institute, Evolution of the H–1B: Latest While DHS proposes to move away registrants eligible to file H–1B cap- Trends in a Program on the Brink of Reform (Mar. from a random selection process in subject petitions, which includes 2018), at 24, https://www.migrationpolicy.org/ order to better align with the intent of petitions subject to the regular cap and research/evolution-h-1b-latest-trends-program- brink-reform; Ron Hira and Bharath Gopalaswamy, Congress to protect the interests of U.S. those asserting eligibility for the Atlantic Council, Reforming US’ High-Skilled workers, H–1B workers, and petitioners, advanced degree exemption, to allow for Guestworker Program (2019), available at https:// DHS nonetheless proposes to preserve ranking based on OES wage levels www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/ an aspect of random selection within corresponding to their SOC codes. report/reforming-us-high-skilled- immigrationprogram/; Patrick Thibodeau, Southern the applicable prevailing wage level—as USCIS would rank and select the California Edison IT Workers ‘‘Beyond Furious’’ discussed elsewhere in this rule. registrations received (or petitions in Over H–1B Replacements, Computerworld, Feb. 4, Namely, if USCIS were to receive and any year in which the registration 2015, available at https://www.computerworld.com/ rank more registrations (or petitions in process is suspended) generally on the article/2879083/southern-california-edison-it- workers-beyond-furious-over-h-1b- any year in which the registration basis of the highest OES wage level that replacements.html. process is suspended) at a particular the proffered wage were to equal or 51 Thibodeau, supra note 50. exceed for the relevant SOC code and in 52 See Registration Final Rule, supra note 7. 53 See Walker Macy, 243 F.Supp.3d at 1170. the area of intended employment.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69245

USCIS would begin with OES wage petitioners would be affected by and significant.’’ DHS estimates the net costs level IV and proceed in descending would respond to the increased that would result from this proposed order with OES wage levels III, II, and probability of selection of petitioners rule compared to the baseline of the H– I. DHS proposes to amend the relevant proffering the highest wages for a given 1B visa program. For the 10-year sections of DHS regulations to reflect occupation and area of employment. implementation period of the rule, DHS these changes. Because of the uncertainty and estimates the annualized costs to the The described change in selection is difficulty of quantifying the aggregate public would be $15,970,315 expected to result in a different costs that each employer may incur as annualized at 3-percent, and allocation of H–1B visas favoring a result of the provisions of the $16,091,293 annualized at 7-percent. petitioners that proffer relatively higher proposed rule discussed in the sections Table 1 provides a more detailed wages. In the analysis that follows, DHS that follow, OMB has designated the summary of the proposed rule presents its best estimate for how H–1B proposed rule as ‘‘economically provisions and their impacts. TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED RULE

Provision Description of changes to provision Estimated costs of provisions Estimated benefits of provisions

Currently USCIS randomly selects H– USCIS proposes to rank and select H– Quantitative: Petitioners— Quantitative: Petitioners— 1B registrations or cap-subject peti- 1B registrations (or H–1B petitions if • $3,457,401 costs annually for • None. tions, as applicable. USCIS proposes the registration requirement were petitioners completing and filing DHS/USCIS— to change the selection process to suspended) generally based on the Form I–129H1 petitions with an • None. prioritize selection of registrations or highest OES wage level that the additional time burden of 15 Qualitative: U.S. Workers— cap-subject petitions, as applicable, proffered wage were to equal or ex- minutes. • A possible increase in employ- based on corresponding OES wage ceed for the relevant SOC code and • $11,797,520 costs annually for ment opportunities for lower- level.. area(s) of intended employment. This prospective petitioners submit- skilled unemployed or under- DHS regulations currently address H– proposed rule would add instructions ting electronic registrations with employed U.S. workers seeking 1B cap allocation in various contexts:. and a question to the registration an additional time burden of 20 employment in positions other- 1. Fewer registrations than needed form to select the appropriate wage minutes. wise offered to H–1B cap-sub- to meet the H–1B regular cap. level. This proposed rule also would DHS/USCIS— ject beneficiaries at wage levels 2. Sufficient registrations to meet add instructions and questions to the • None. corresponding to lower wage po- the H–1B regular cap during the H–1B petition seeking the same Qualitative: Petitioners— sitions. initial registration period. wage level information and other in- • Petitioners may incur costs to H–1B Workers— 3. Fewer registrations than needed formation concerning the proffered seek out and train other work- • A possible increase in produc- to meet the H–1B advanced de- position to assess the prevailing ers, or to induce workers with tivity, measured in increased H– gree exemption numerical limita- wage level. This proposed rule would similar qualifications to consider 1B wages, resulting from the re- tion. not affect the order of selection as changing industry or occupation. allocation of a fixed number of 4. Sufficient registrations to meet between the regular cap and the ad- • Petitioners that would have hired visas from positions classified as the H–1B advanced degree ex- vanced degree exemption. relatively low-paid H–1B work- lower-level work to employers emption numerical limitation dur- If USCIS were to receive and rank ers, but were unable to do so able to pay the highest wages ing the initial registration period. more registrations at a particular because of non-selection (and for the most highly skilled work- 5. Increase to the number of reg- wage level than the projected num- ineligibility to file petitions), may ers. istrations projected to meet the ber needed to meet the numerical incur reduced labor productivity • A possible increase in wages for H–1B regular cap or advanced limitation, USCIS would randomly se- and revenue. positions offered to H–1B cap- degree exemption allocations in lect from all registrations within that • Petitioners may incur costs from subject beneficiaries for the a FY. particular wage level a sufficient offering beneficiaries higher same work to improve the pro- 6. H–1B cap-subject petition filing number of registrations needed to wages for the same work to spective petitioner’s chance of following registration—(1) Filing reach the numerical limitation. achieve greater chances of se- selection. procedures. USCIS would be authorized to deny a lection. Petitioners— 7. Petition-based cap-subject selec- subsequent new or amended petition DHS/USCIS— • Level I and level II beneficiaries tions in event of suspended reg- filed by the petitioner, or a related • None. may see increased wages. Com- istration process. entity, on behalf of the same bene- panies who have historically 8. Denial of petition ...... ficiary for a lower wage level if paid level I wages may be 9. Revocation of approval of peti- USCIS were to determine that the incentivized to offer their H–1B tion. new or amended petition was filed to employees higher wages, so reduce the wage level listed on the that they could have a greater original petition to unfairly increase chance of selection at a level II the odds of selection during the reg- or higher. istration selection process. • Employers who offer H–1B In any year in which USCIS were to workers wages that corresponds suspend the H–1B registration proc- with level III or level IV OES ess for cap-subject petitions, USCIS wages may have higher chances would, instead, allow for the submis- of selection. sion of H–1B cap-subject petitions. DHS/USCIS— After USCIS were to receive a suffi- • Submitting additional wage level cient number of petitions to meet the information on both an electronic H–1B regular cap and were to com- registration and on Form I– plete the selection process of peti- 129H1 would allow USCIS to tions for the H–1B regular cap fol- maintain the integrity of the H– lowing the same method of ranking 1B cap selection and adjudica- and selection based on cor- tion processes. responding OES wage level, USCIS • Registrations or petitions, as ap- would determine whether there was plicable, would be more likely to a sufficient number of remaining peti- be selected under the numerical tions to meet the H–1B advanced allocations for the highest paid, degree exemption numerical limita- and presumably highest skilled tion. or highest-valued, beneficiaries. Familiarization Cost ...... Familiarization costs comprise the op- Quantitative: Petitioners— Quantitative: Petitioners— portunity cost of the time spent read- • One-time cost of $6,285,527 in • None. ing and understanding the details of FY2022. DHS/USCIS— a rule to fully comply with the new DHS/USCIS— • None. regulation(s). • None. Qualitative: Petitioners— Qualitative: Petitioners— • None. • None. DHS/USCIS— DHS/USCIS— • None. • None.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 69246 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

In addition to the impacts accounting statement as required by summarized here, Table 2 presents the OMB Circular A–4.54 TABLE 2—OMB A–4 ACCOUNTING STATEMENT [$, 2019 for FY 2022–FY 2032]

Category Primary estimate Minimum estimate Maximum estimate Source citation

Benefits Annualized Monetized Benefits N/A N/A N/A over 10 years (discount rate in parenthesis). N/A N/A N/A Annualized quantified, but un- 0 0 0 monetized, benefits. Unquantified Benefits ...... This proposed rule would benefit petitioners agreeing to pay H–1B workers a proffered wage cor- RIA. responding to OES wage level III or IV, by increasing their chance of selection in the H–1B cap selection process. These proposed changes align with the Administration’s goals of improving policies such that the H–1B classification would more likely be awarded to the highest paid or highest skilled beneficiaries. This proposed rule may provide increased opportunities for lower-skilled U.S. workers in the labor market to compete for work as there would be fewer H–1B workers paid at the lower wage lev- els to compete with U.S. workers.55 Further, assuming demand outpaces the 85,000 visas currently available for annual allocation, DHS believes that the potential reallocation of visas to favor those petitioners able to offer the highest wages to recruit the most highly skilled workers would result in increased marginal pro- ductivity of all H–1B workers. This proposed rule may provide increased wages for positions offered to H–1B cap-subject bene- ficiaries. Costs Annualized monetized costs (3 percent) $15,970,315 N/A N/A RIA. over 10 years (discount rate in parenthesis). (7 percent) $16,091,293 N/A N/A Annualized quantified, but un- N/A monetized, costs. Qualitative (unquantified) costs This proposed rule is expected to reduce the number of petitions for lower wage H–1B workers. RIA. This may result in increased recruitment or training costs for petitioners that seek new pools of talent. Additionally, petitioners’ labor costs or training costs for substitute workers may increase. DHS also acknowledges that some petitioners might be impacted in terms of the employment, productivity loss, search and hire cost per employer of $4,398, and profits resulting from labor turnover. In cases where companies cannot find reasonable substitutions for the labor the H–1B beneficiary would have provided, affected petitioners would also lose profits from the lost pro- ductivity. In such cases, employers would incur opportunity costs by having to choose the next best alternative to immediately filling the job the prospective H–1B worker would have filled. There may be additional opportunity costs to employers such as search costs and training. Such possible disruptions to companies would depend on the interaction of a number of complex variables that are constantly in flux, including national, state, and local labor market conditions, economic and business factors, the type of occupations and skills involved, and the substitut- ability between H–1B workers and U.S. workers. Petitioners that would have hired relatively lower-paid H–1B workers, but were unable to do so be- cause of non-selection (and ineligibility to file a petition), may incur reduced labor productivity and revenue. Transfers Annualized monetized trans- N/A N/A N/A fers: ‘‘on budget’’. From whom to whom? ...... Annualized monetized trans- N/A N/A N/A fers: ‘‘off-budget’’. From whom to whom? ...... N/A N/A N/A Miscellaneous analyses/ Effects Source citation category Effects on state, local, and/or N/A RFA. tribal governments. Effects on small businesses .... N/A RFA. Effects on wages ...... N/A None. Effects on growth ...... N/A None

54 White House, Office of Management and https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/ files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf (last visited Aug. 11, Budget, Circular A–4 (Sept. 17, 2003), available at 2020).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69247

2. Background and Purpose of the numerical allocations.57 Under this wage, the registrant would select the Proposed Rule random H–1B registration selection ‘‘Wage Level I and below’’ box on the 63 The H–1B visa program allows U.S. process, USCIS first selects registrations registration form. If USCIS were to employers to temporarily hire foreign submitted on behalf of all beneficiaries, receive and rank more registrations at a workers to perform services in a including those eligible for the particular wage level than the projected specialty occupation, services related to advanced degree exemption. USCIS number needed to meet the applicable a Department of Defense (DOD) then selects from the remaining numerical allocation, USCIS would cooperative research and development registrations a sufficient number randomly select from all registrations project or coproduction project, or projected as needed to reach the within that wage level a sufficient services of distinguished merit and advanced degree exemption. A number of registrations needed to reach 64 ability in the field of fashion modeling. prospective petitioner whose the applicable numerical limitation. registration is selected is notified of the See INA section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 3. Historic Population U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b); Public Law selection and instructed that the The historic population consists of 101–649, section 222(a)(2), 104 Stat. petitioner is eligible to file an H–1B cap- petitioners who file on behalf of H–1B 4978 (Nov. 29, 1990); 8 CFR 214.2(h). A subject petition for the beneficiary cap-subject beneficiaries (in other specialty occupation is defined as an named in the selected registration words, beneficiaries who are subject to occupation that requires the (1) within a filing period that is at least 90 the annual numerical limitation, theoretical and practical application of days in duration and begins no earlier including those eligible for the a body of highly specialized knowledge than 6 months ahead of the actual date advanced degree exemption). DHS uses and (2) attainment of a bachelor’s or of need (commonly referred to as the 58 the 5-year average of H–1B cap-subject higher degree in the specific specialty employment start date). When petitions received for FYs 2016 to 2020 (or its equivalent) as a minimum registration is required, a petitioner (211,797) as the historic estimate of H– qualification for entry into the seeking to file an H–1B cap-subject 1B cap-subject petitions that were occupation in the United States. See petition is not eligible to file the petition submitted annually.65 Prior to INA section 214(i)(1), 8 U.S.C. unless the petition is based on a valid, publication of U.S. Citizenship and 1184(i)(1). selected registration for the beneficiary The number of aliens who may be named in the petition.59 Immigration Services Fee Schedule and issued initial H–1B visas or otherwise Prior to filing an H–1B petition, the Changes to Certain Other Immigration employer is required to obtain a Benefit Request Requirements (Fee provided initial H–1B nonimmigrant 66 status during any FY has been capped certified Labor Condition Application Schedule Final Rule), H–1B at various levels by Congress over time, (LCA) from the Department of Labor petitioners submit Form I–129 with with the current numerical limit (DOL).60 The LCA form collects applicable supplements for H–1B generally being 65,000 per FY. See INA information about the employer and the 63 section 214(g)(1)(A); 8 U.S.C. occupation for the H–1B worker(s). The Id. LCA requires certain attestations from 64 See 8 CFR 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)(5)–(6). 1184(g)(1)(A). Congress has also 65 In FY 2018, 198,460 H–1B petitions were provided for various exemptions from the employer, including, among others, submitted in the first five days that cap-subject the annual numerical allocations, that the employer will pay the H–1B petitions could be submitted, a 16 percent decline including an exemption for 20,000 worker(s) at least the required wage.61 in H–1B cap-subject petitions from FY 2017. aliens who have earned a master’s or This proposed rule amends DHS Though the receipt of H–1B cap-subject petitions fell in FY 2018, the petitions received still far higher degree from a U.S. institution of regulations concerning the selection of exceeded the numerical limitations, continuing a higher education. See INA section registrations submitted by or on behalf trend of excess demand since FY 2011. For H–1B 214(g)(5) and (7); 8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(5) of prospective petitioners seeking to file filing petitions data prior to FY 2014, see U.S. and (7). H–1B cap-subject petitions (or the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Reports and Studies, Under the current regulation, all selection of petitions, if the registration https://www.uscis.gov/tools/reports-studies/reports- petitioners seeking to file an H–1B cap- process is suspended), which includes and-studies (last visited Sept. 2, 2020). subject petition must first electronically petitions subject to the regular cap and 66 DHS estimates the costs and benefits of this submit a registration for each those asserting eligibility for the proposed rule using the newly published U.S. beneficiary on whose behalf they seek to advanced degree exemption, to allow for Citizenship and Immigration Services Fee Schedule and Changes to Certain Other Immigration Benefit file an H–1B cap-subject petition, unless ranking and selection based on OES Request Requirements, final rule (Fee Schedule USCIS suspends the registration wage levels. When applicable, USCIS Final Rule), and associated form changes, as the requirement.56 USCIS monitors the would rank and select the registrations baseline. 85 FR 46788 (Aug. 3, 2020). The Fee number of H–1B registrations submitted received generally on the basis of the Schedule Final Rule was scheduled to go into effect on October 2, 2020. On , 2020, the during the announced registration highest OES wage level that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of period of at least 14 days and, at the proffered wage were to equal or exceed California issued a nationwide injunction, which conclusion of that period, if more for the relevant SOC code and in the prevents DHS from implementing the Fee Schedule registrations are submitted than area(s) of intended employment, Final Rule. See, Immigrant Legal Resource Center v. Wolf, No. 4:20–cv–5883 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 29, projected as needed to reach the beginning with OES wage level IV and 2020). In addition, on October 8, 2020, DHS was numerical allocations, randomly selects proceeding in descending order with also preliminarily enjoined from implementing and from among properly submitted OES wage levels III, II, and I.62 For enforcing the Fee Schedule Final Rule by the U.S. registrations the number of registrations registrants relying on a private wage District Court for the District of Columbia, projected as needed to reach the H–1B including by adopting any form changes associated survey, if the proffered wage were less with the rule. See, Northwest Immigrant Rights than the corresponding level I OES Project v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Servs., 55 DHS acknowledges, however, that some 1:19–cv–03283–RDM (D.D.C. Oct. 8, 2020). DHS employers may increase the wages of existing H– 57 See id. at § 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)(5)–(6). intends to vigorously defend these lawsuits and is 1B workers without changing job requirements or not changing the baseline for this proposed rule as 58 See 8 CFR 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(D)(2). requiring higher levels of education, skills, training, a result of the litigation. Should DHS not prevail in 59 and experience. In those cases, there may not be See id. at § 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)(1). the Fee Schedule Final Rule litigation, this anticipated vacancies at wage levels I and II for U.S. 60 See 8 CFR 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B). proposed rule may reflect overstated transfers, workers to fill. 61 See 20 CFR 655.731 through 655.735. costs, and opportunity costs associated with the 56 See 8 CFR 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A). 62 See new 8 CFR 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)(1)(i). filing of the Form I–129.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 69248 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

petitions. Through the Fee Schedule supplements as relevant data collection the Form I–129 and H–1B supplements Final Rule, DHS created a new Form I– fields have been incorporated into Form is the same as the number of petitioners 129H1 for H–1B petitioners.67 Form I– I–129H1. DHS assumes that the number who would complete the new Form I– 129H1 does not include separate of petitioners who previously filled out 129H1.

TABLE 3H–1B CAP-SUBJECT PETITIONS SUBMITTED TO USCIS FOR FY 2016—FY 2020

Total number of Total number of Number of Fiscal year H–1B cap-subject H–1B petitions petitions filed with petitions submitted selected Form G–28

2016 ...... 232,973 97,711 72,292 2017 ...... 236,444 95,818 68,743 2018 ...... 198,460 95,923 78,900 2019 ...... 190,098 110,376 93,495 2020 ...... 201,011 109,283 92,396

Total ...... 1,058,986 509,111 405,826 5-year average ...... 211,797 101,822 81,165 Source: Total Number of H–1B Cap-Subject Petitions Submitted FYs 2016–2020, USCIS Service Center Operations (SCOPS), June 2019. Total Number of Selected Petitions data, USCIS Office of Performance and Qualify (OPQ), Performance Analysis and External Reporting (PAER), July 2020.

Table 3 also shows historical Form G– that USCIS first selects registrations multiplier using the most recent DOL, 28 filings by attorneys or accredited submitted on behalf of all beneficiaries, BLS report detailing average representatives accompanying selected including those eligible for the compensation for all civilian workers in H–1B cap-subject petitions. DHS notes advanced degree exemption. USCIS major occupational groups and that these forms are not mutually then selects from the remaining industries. DHS estimates the benefits- exclusive. Based on the 5-year average, registrations a sufficient number to-wage multiplier is 1.46.71 For DHS estimates 79.7 percent 68 of projected as needed to reach the purposes of this proposed rule, DHS selected petitions will be filed with a advanced degree exemption. The calculates the average total rate of Form G–28. Table 3 does not include registration requirement was first compensation as $47.57 per hour for an data for FY 2021 as the registration implemented for the FY 2021 H–1B cap. HR specialist, where the average hourly requirement was first implemented for During the initial registration period for wage is $32.58 per hour worked and the FY 2021 H–1B cap selection process, the FY 2021 H–1B cap selection process, average benefits are $14.99 per hour.72 and petition submission remains DHS received 274,273 registrations. Additionally, DHS calculates the ongoing as of the publication of this 4. Cost-Benefit Analysis average total rate of compensation as proposed rule. $102.00 per hour for an in-house The H–1B selection process changed Through these proposed changes, lawyer, where the average hourly wage significantly after the publication of the petitioners would incur costs associated is $69.86 per hour worked and average H–1B Registration Final Rule.69 That with additional time burden in benefits are $32.14 per hour.73 rule established a mandatory electronic completing the registration process and, Moreover, DHS recognizes that a firm registration requirement that requires if selected for filing, the petition may choose, but is not required, to petitioners seeking to file cap-subject H– process. In this analysis, DHS estimates 1B petitions, including those eligible for the opportunity cost of time for these outsource the preparation and the advanced degree exemption, to first occupations using average hourly wage submission of registrations and filing of 74 electronically register with USCIS rates of $32.58 for HR specialists and H–1B petitions to outsourced lawyers. during a designated registration period. $69.86 for lawyers.70 However, average Therefore, DHS calculates the average That rule also reversed the order by hourly wage rates do not account for total rate of compensation as $174.65, which USCIS counts H–1B registrations worker benefits such as paid leave, which is the average hourly U.S. wage (or petitions, for any year in which the insurance, and retirement. DHS rate for lawyers multiplied by 2.5 to registration requirement is suspended) accounts for worker benefits when approximate an hourly billing rate for toward the number projected to meet estimating the opportunity cost of time an outsourced lawyer.75 the H–1B numerical allocations, such by calculating a benefits-to-wage

67 See Fee Schedule Final Rule, supra note 66. (December 2019), Table 1. Employer Costs for 75 Calculation of weighted mean hourly wage for 68 Calculation: 81,165 Forms G–28/101,822 Form Employee Compensation by ownership (Dec. 2019), outside counsel: $174.65 average hourly total rate I–129 petitions = 79.7 percent. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_ of compensation for outsourced lawyer = $69.86 69 See Registration Final Rule, supra note 7. 03192020.pdf (last visited Sept. 2, 2020). average hourly wage rate for lawyer (in-house) × 2.5 70 See U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor 72 Calculation of the weighted mean hourly wage conversion multiplier. DHS uses a conversion × Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics, for HR specialists: $32.58 per hour 1.46 = multiplier of 2.5 to estimate the average hourly $47.5668 = $47.57 (rounded) per hour. May 2019 National Occupational Employment and wage rate for outsourced lawyer based on the 73 Calculation of weighted mean hourly wage for Wage Estimates-National, SOC 13–1071—Human hourly wage rate for an in-house lawyer. DHS has Resources Specialist and SOC 23–1011—Lawyers, in-house lawyers: $102.00 average hourly total rate used this conversion multiplier in various previous https://www.bls.gov/oes/2019/may/oes_nat.htm of compensation for in-house lawyer = $69.86 (last visited Sept. 2, 2020). average hourly wage rate for lawyer (in-house) × rulemakings. The DHS analysis in Exercise of Time- 71 The benefits-to-wage multiplier is calculated as 1.46 benefits-to-wage multiplier. Limited Authority to Increase the Fiscal Year 2018 follows: ($37.10 Total Employee Compensation per 74 DHS uses the terms ‘‘in-house lawyer’’ and Numerical Limitation for the H–2B Temporary hour) ÷ ($25.47 Wages and Salaries per hour) = ‘‘outsourced lawyer’’ to differentiate between the Nonagricultural Worker Program, 83 FR 24905 (May 1.457 = 1.46 (rounded). See U.S. Department of types of lawyers that may file Form I–129H1 on 31, 2018), used a multiplier of 2.5 to convert in- Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Economic News behalf of an employer petitioning for an H–1B house attorney wages to the cost of outsourced Release, Employer Cost for Employee Compensation beneficiary. attorney wages.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69249

Table 4 summarizes the compensation all petitioners seeking to file an H–1B selected toward the advanced degree rates used in this analysis. cap-subject petition must first exemption, and all remaining petitions electronically submit a registration for had an equal chance of being selected TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED each beneficiary on whose behalf they toward the regular cap. In FY 2019, WAGES FOR FORM I–129H1 FILERS seek to file an H–1B cap-subject USCIS first selected petitions toward the BY TYPE OF FILER petition, unless the registration number of petitions projected as needed requirement is suspended. If the to reach advanced degree exemption. If Hourly registration is selected, the petitioner is the petition was not selected under the compensation eligible to file an H–1B cap-subject advanced degree exemption, those cases rate petition for the beneficiary named in the were then added back to the pool and selected registration during the Human Resources (HR) had a second chance for selection under Specialist ...... $47.57 associated filing period. The registration requirement was suspended for the FY the regular cap. In FY 2020, the In-house lawyer ...... 102.00 selection order was reversed, such that Outsourced lawyer ...... 174.65 2020 H–1B cap and first implemented for the FY 2021 H–1B cap. The initial USCIS first selected petitions toward the Source: USCIS analysis. H–1B registration period for the FY number projected as needed to reach the i. Costs and Cost Savings of Regulatory 2021 H–1B cap was , 2020, regular cap from among all petitions Changes to Petitioners through , 2020. A total of received. USCIS then selected toward 274,273 registrations were submitted the number of petitions projected as a. Methodology Based on Historic FYs during the initial registration period, of needed to reach the advanced degree 2019–2020 which 123,244 77 registrations were for exemption from among those petitions This proposed rule primarily would beneficiaries eligible for the advanced eligible for the advanced degree change the manner in which USCIS degree exemption and 145,950 were for exemption, but that were not selected selects H–1B registrations (or H–1B beneficiaries under the regular cap.78 under the regular cap. petitions for any year in which the Prior to implementing the registration Table 5 shows the number of petitions registration requirement were requirement, USCIS administered the suspended), by first selecting H–1B cap by projecting the number of submitted and selected in FYs 2019 and registrations generally based on the petitions needed to reach the numerical 2020. It also displays the approximated highest OES wage level that the allocations. H–1B cap-subject petitions 2-year averages of the petitions that proffered wage were to equal or exceed were randomly selected when the were submitted and selected for the H– for the relevant SOC code and area(s) of number of petitions received on the 1B regular cap or advanced degree intended employment. In April 2019, final receipt date exceeded the number exemption. On average, DHS selected 56 DHS added a registration requirement projected as needed to reach the percent 79 of the H–1B cap-subject for petitioners seeking to file H–1B numerical allocations. All petitions petitions submitted, with 82,900 toward petitions on behalf of cap-subject eligible for the advanced degree the regular cap and 26,930 toward the aliens.76 Under the current regulation, exemption had an equal chance of being advanced degree exemption.

TABLE 5—H–1B CAP-SUBJECT PETITIONS SUBMITTED TO USCIS, FOR FY 2019—FY 2020.

Total number of Fiscal year H–1B cap-subject Total petitions Regular cap Advanced degree petitions submitted selected exemption

2019 ...... 190,098 110,376 82,956 27,420 2020 ...... 201,011 109,283 82,843 26,440

Total ...... 391,109 219,659 165,799 53,860 2-Year Average ...... 195,555 109,830 82,900 26,930 Source: USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Policy Research Division (PRD), Claims 3. July 21, 2020 & USCIS Analysis.

DHS does not have data on the OES the petitions that were selected for FYs FY 2019 data compared to the FY 2020 wage levels for selected petitions prior 2019 and 2020, categorized by OES data. Since DOL’s Standard to FY 2019.80 While there are some wage level. The main difference Occupational Classification (SOC) 82 challenges to using OES wage data as a between the FY 2019 and FY 2020 data structure was modified in 2018, some timeseries, DHS uses the wage data to sets is that there are more petitions petitions were categorized as N/A in FY provide some insight.81 Table 6 shows classified as not applicable (N/A) in the 2019. In 2019, DOL started to use a

76 See Registration Final Rule, supra note 7. year average of Total Number of H–1B Cap-Subject areas, across industry and by industry, it is less 77 The total number of registrations for the Petitions Filed in FYs 2019–2020 = 56%. useful for comparisons of two or more points in advanced degree exemption and the regular cap do 80 USCIS created the tool to link USCIS H–1B data time. Challenges in using OES data as a time series not equal the total 274,273 submitted registrations to the DOL data for FY 2019. include changes in the occupational, industrial, and because the remaining 5,043 submitted registrations 81 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor geographical classification systems, changes in the were invalid (e.g., as prohibited duplicate Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics, way data are collected, changes in the survey registrations). Frequently Asked Questions, https://www.bls.gov/ reference period, and changes in mean wage 78 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. oes/oes_ques.htm (last visited Sept. 2, 2020) (Can estimation methodology, as well as permanent Citizenship and Immigration Services, Office of OES data be used to compare changes in features of the methodology). Policy and Strategy, Policy Research Division employment or wages over time? Although the OES 82 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor (PRD), Claims 3, Aug. 31, 2020, USCIS Analysis. survey methodology is designed to create detailed Statistics, Standard Occupational Classification 79 Calculation: 109,830 2-year average of Petitions cross-sectional employment and wage estimates for https://www.bls.gov/soc/2018/home.htm (last Randomly Selected in FYs 2019–2020/195,555 2- the U.S., States, metropolitan and nonmetropolitan visited Oct. 27, 2020).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 69250 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

hybrid OES 83 occupational structure for the proffered position because all regardless of whether they were to classifying the petitions for FY 2020. petitioners are required to identify the specify an OES wage level or utilize the Another data limitation was that some appropriate SOC code for the proffered OES program as the prevailing wage of the FY 2020 data was incomplete position on the LCA, even when there source on an LCA. While there are with missing fields, and could not be is no applicable wage level on the LCA. limitations to the data used, DHS classified into the specific wage levels; Using the SOC code and the above- believes that the estimates are helpful to therefore, the petitions were categorized mentioned DOL guidance, all registrants see the current wage levels and estimate as N/A. DHS expects each registrant that would be able to determine the the future populations in each wage is classified as N/A would be able to appropriate OES wage level for level. identify the appropriate SOC code for purposes of completing the registration,

TABLE 6—SELECTED PETITIONS BY WAGE LEVEL FY 2019–FY 2020

Level I Level II Level III Level IV N/A Total

Advanced Degree Exemption: FY 2019...... 7,363 13,895 2,016 553 3,593 27,420 FY 2020...... 7,453 14,467 2,311 694 1,515 26,440

Total ...... 14,816 28,362 4,327 1,247 5,108 53,860 2-Year Average...... 7,408 14,181 2,164 623 2,554 26,930 Regular Cap: FY 2019 ...... 18,557 42,621 8,447 3,540 9,791 82,956 FY 2020 ...... 19,232 46,439 8,796 3,677 4,699 82,843

Total ...... 37,789 89,060 17,243 7,217 14,490 165,799 2-Year Average...... 18,895 44,530 8,622 3,608 7,245 82,900 Source: USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Policy Research Division (PRD), Claims 3. July 21, 2020 & USCIS Analysis.

DHS only has OES wage level data on entering data into DHS databases. Due approximated average of H–1B cap- the petitions that were selected toward to data limitations, DHS estimated the subject petitions that were selected, the numerical allocations and does not wage level break down for the 44 separated by OES wage level, and have the wage level break down for the percent of petitions that were not percentages of accepted petitions by 85,725 84 (44 percent) of petitions that selected because wage levels vary each wage category. The wage category were not selected since those petitions significantly between occupations and with the most petitions as estimated is were returned to petitioners without localities. Table 7 shows the 2-year OES wage level II.

TABLE 7—CURRENT ESTIMATED NUMBER OF SELECTED PETITIONS BY WAGE LEVEL AND CAP TYPE FY 2019–FY 2020

Regular cap Advanced degree exemption Level Selected % of total Selected % of total

Level I & N/A ...... 26,140 31.50 9,962 36.99 Level II ...... 44,530 53.70 14,181 52.66 Level III ...... 8,622 10.40 2,164 8.04 Level IV ...... 3,608 4.40 623 2.31

Total ...... 82,900 100 26,930 100 Source: USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Policy Research Division (PRD), Claims 3. July 21, 2020 & USCIS Analysis.

b. FY 2021 Data 85 beneficiary on whose behalf they seek to submitted on behalf of all beneficiaries, file an H–1B cap-subject petition, unless including those eligible for the The population affected by this USCIS suspends the registration advanced degree exemption.88 USCIS proposed rule consists of prospective requirement.86 A prospective petitioner then randomly selects from the petitioners seeking to file H–1B cap- whose registration is selected is eligible remaining registrations a sufficient subject petitions, including those to file an H–1B cap-subject petition for number projected as needed to reach the eligible for the advanced degree the beneficiary named in the selected advanced degree exemption.89 Prior to exemption. DHS regulations require all registration during the associated filing the implementation of the H–1B petitioners seeking to file H–1B cap- period.87 Under the current H–1B registration requirement for the FY 2021 subject petitions to first electronically registration selection process, USCIS H–1B cap selection process, petitioners submit a registration for each first randomly selects registrations submitted an annual average of 211,797

83 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor 84 Calculation: 195,555 2-year average of Total 85 FY 2021 data pertains to the registrations Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics, Number of H–1B Cap-Subject Petitions received in received during FY 2020 for the FY 2021 H–1B cap Implementing the 2018 SOC in the OES program— FYs 2019–2020 ¥109,830 2-year average of season. May 2019 and May 2020 Hybrid Occupations, Petitions Randomly Selected in FYs 2019–2020 = 86 See 8 CFR 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A). https://www.bls.gov/oes/soc_2018.htm (last visited 85,725. 87 See id. at § 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(D). Sept. 2, 2020). 88 See id. at § 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)(5). 89 See id. at § 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)(6).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69251

cap-subject H–1B petitions over FYs For the FY 2021 H–1B cap selection registrations were selected in August 2016 through 2020. The number of process, initially 106,100 registrations 2020 for a total of 124,415 selected registrations submitted for the FY 2021 were selected to submit a petition. registrations for FY 2021. While the H–1B cap selection process, however, Prospective petitioners with selected current number of registrations selected was 274,273. Because the number of registrations only were eligible to file toward the FY 2021 numerical registrations submitted for the FY 2021 H–1B petitions based on the selected allocations is 124,415, DHS estimates H–1B cap selection process was registrations during a 90-day filing certain costs for this proposed rule significantly higher than the number of window. USCIS did not receive enough using the number of registrations petitions submitted in prior years, DHS Form I–129 petitions during the initial initially selected (106,100) as the best will use the total number of registrations filing period to meet the number of estimate of the number of petitions submitted for the FY 2021 H–1B cap petitions projected as needed to reach needed to reach the numerical selection process as the population to the H–1B numerical allocations, so the allocations. estimate certain costs for this proposed selection process was run again in rule.90 August 2020. An additional 18,315

TABLE 8—H–1B CAP-SUBJECT REGISTRATIONS SUBMITTED, FOR FY 2021

Total number Round 1 number Round 2 number Total number Number of of H–1B of H–1B of H–1B of H–1B registrations Fiscal year registrations registrations registrations registrations submitted with submitted selected selected selected * Form G–28 **

2021 ...... 274,273 106,100 18,315 124,415 N/A

Total ...... 274,273 106,100 18,315 124,415 N/A Source: USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Policy Research Division (PRD), Claims 3. , 2020 USCIS Analysis. * Note: USCIS administered the selection process twice because an insufficient number of petitions were filed following initial registration se- lection to reach the number of petitions projected as needed to reach the numerical allocations. USCIS has not finished receiving H–1B cap-sub- ject petitions for FY 2021. Additional registrations may be selected if the number of petitions filed after the second round of registration selection does not reach the number projected as needed to reach the numerical allocations. ** Note: Data is still unavailable for FY 2021. USCIS used FYs 2019–2020 from Table 3 to estimate the percentage of submitted G–28s below.

Table 3 shows historical Form G–28 the estimate of registrations that will be of H–1B petitions typically would be filings by attorneys or accredited received annually. completed and filed by a lawyer or other representatives accompanying selected Additionally, DHS assumes that accredited representative (hereafter H–1B cap-subject petitions. DHS notes petitioners may use human resources lawyer). DHS assumes the remaining 20 that these forms are not mutually (HR) specialists (or entities that provide percent of H–1B petitions would be exclusive. Based on the historical 5-year equivalent services) (hereafter HR completed and filed by HR specialists. average from earlier in this analysis, specialist) or use lawyers or accredited DHS estimates 79.7 percent 91 of representatives 93 to complete and file Petitioners who use lawyers to selected registrations will include Form H–1B petitions. A lawyer or accredited complete and file H–1B petitions may G–28. DHS applies those percentages to representative appearing before DHS either use an in-house lawyer or hire an the number of total registrations and must file Form G–28 to establish their outsourced lawyer. Of the total number estimates 219,418 92 Form G–28 were eligibility and authorization to represent of H–1B petitions filed in FY 2021, DHS submitted with total registrations a client (applicant, petitioner, requestor, estimates that 26 percent were filed by received. DHS uses the total beneficiary or derivative, or respondent) in-house lawyers while the remaining registrations received for the FY 2021 in an immigration matter before DHS. 54 percent were filed by outsourced H–1B cap selection process (274,273) as DHS estimates that about 80 percent 94 lawyers.95

90 DHS uses FY 2021 H–1B cap selection data as or other accredited representative (hereafter private law firms, the remaining 32.3 percent the population to estimate certain costs for this lawyer). practice in private businesses (54 percent + 25.7 proposed rule because FY 2021 is the first year that 95 DHS uses data from the longitudinal study percent = 79.7 percent, 67.7 percent = 54/79.7*100, registration was required. As explained above, DHS conducted in 2003 and 2007 on legal career and 32.2 percent = 25.7/79.7*100). Because 79.7 percent added the registration requirement on , placement of lawyers, which found that 18.6, 55, of the H–1B petitions are filed by lawyers or 2019, but the registration requirement was and 26.2 percent of lawyers practice law at accredited representatives, DHS multiplies 79.7 suspended for the FY 2020 H–1B cap. government (federal and local) institutions, private percent by 32.3 and 67.7 percent to estimate the 91 Calculation: 81,165 Forms G–28/101,822 Form law firms, and private businesses (as inside proportion of petitions filed by in-house lawyers I–129 petitions = 79.7 percent = 80 percent counsel), respectively. See Dinovitzer et al, After (working in private businesses) and outsourced (rounded) the JD II: Second Results from a National Study of lawyer (working in private law firms), respectively. 92 Calculation: 274,273* 79.7 percent = 219,418 Legal Careers (2009), The American Bar Foundation 26 (rounded) percent of petitions filed by in- Form G–28. and the National Association for Law Placemen 93 8 CFR 292.1(a)(4) (defining an accredited house lawyers = 80 percent of petitions filed by (NALP) Foundation for Law Career Research and × representative as ‘‘a person representing an Education, Table 3.1, p. 27, https:// lawyers or accredited representatives 32.3 percent organization described in § 292.2 of this chapter www.law.du.edu/documents/directory/ of lawyers work in private businesses. who has been accredited by the Board’’). publications/sterling/AJD2.pdf. Among those 54 (rounded) percent of petitions filed by 94 Calculation: 81,165 petitions filed with Form working in private law firms and private businesses outsourced lawyer = 80 percent of petitions filed by G–28/101,822 average petitions selected = 79.7 (54 and 26 percent, respectively), DHS estimates lawyers or accredited representatives × 67.7 percent percent petitions completed and filed by a lawyer that, while 67.7 percent of lawyers practice law in of lawyers work in private law firms.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 69252 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 9—SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED AVERAGE NUMBER OF PETITIONS/REGISTRATIONS SUBMITTED ANNUALLY BY TYPE OF FILER

Number of petitions/ Number of petitions/ Number of petitions/ Estimated average registrations registrations registrations Affected population population affected submitted by submitted by submitted by HR specialists in-house lawyers outsourced lawyers

A B = A × 20% C = A × 26% D = A × 54%

Estimated number of H–1B registrations sub- mitted annually ...... 274,273 54,855 71,311 148,107 Estimated number of H–1B registrations se- lected to file H–1B cap petitions annually ... 106,100 21,220 27,586 57,294 Source: USCIS analysis.

Based on the total estimated number to employ beneficiaries at level IV or cap-subject beneficiaries at wage levels of affected populations shown in Table level III wages. DHS believes this corresponding to lower wage positions. 9, DHS further estimates the number of incentive for petitioners to offer wages Employers which were to offer H–1B entities that would be affected by each that maximize their probability of workers wages that correspond with requirement of this proposed rule to selection is necessary to address the risk level IV or level III OES wages would estimate the costs arising from the that greater numbers of U.S. employers have higher chances of selection. regulatory changes in the cost-benefit could rely on the program to access For the FY 2021 H–1B cap selection analysis section. Additionally, DHS uses relatively lower-cost labor, precluding process, USCIS initially selected the same proportion of HR specialists, other employers from benefitting from 106,100 (39 percent) 96 of H–1B in-house lawyers, and outsourced the H–1B program’s intended purpose of lawyers (20, 26, and 54 percent, registrations submitted toward the providing high-skilled nonimmigrant numerical allocations; of those 80,600 respectively) to estimate the population labor to supplement domestic labor. The that would be affected by the various were selected toward the number proposed rule could result in higher requirements of this proposed rule. projected as needed to reach the regular proffered wages or a reduction in the cap, and 25,500 were selected toward c. Unquantified Costs & Benefits downward pressure on wages in the number projected as needed to reach Given that the demand for H–1B cap- industries and occupations with the advanced degree exemption. The subject visas, including those filed for concentrations of relatively lower-paid total number of H–1B registrations the advanced degree exemption, has H–1B workers. Additionally, this submitted was 274,237, however 5,043 frequently exceeded the annual H–1B proposed rule may lead to an increase were invalid. Of the 269,194 valid numerical allocations, this proposed in employment opportunities for registrations, 145,950 were submitted rule would increase the chance of unemployed or underemployed U.S. toward the regular cap and 123,244 selection for registrations (or petitions, workers seeking employment in were eligible for selection under the if registration were suspended) seeking positions otherwise offered to H–1B advanced degree exemption.

TABLE 10—H–1B CAP-SUBJECT REGISTRATIONS SUBMITTED FOR FY 2021

Total number of Advanced Fiscal year valid H–1B Regular degree registrations cap exemption submitted

2021 ...... 269,194 145,950 123,244

Total ...... 269,194 145,950 123,244 Source: USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Policy Research Division (PRD), Claims 3. August 31, 2020 & USCIS & Analysis. *Note: The total number of registrations in this table does not equal 274,273 because 5,043 of the registrations were invalid.

DHS estimated the wage level 2021 because the petition filing process separated by OES wage level, and distribution for FY 2021 based on the is ongoing. Table 11 displays the percentages of selected petitions by each average distribution observed in FYs historic 2-year (FY 2019 and FY 2020) wage category. 2019 and 2020. As of September 2020, approximated average of H–1B cap- the wage level data is unavailable for FY subject petitions that were selected,

96 Calculation: 106,100 Registrations Randomly Selected/274,273 Total Number of H–1B Cap- Subject registrations Filed in 2020 = 39%.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69253

TABLE 11—HISTORIC NUMBER OF SELECTED PETITIONS BY WAGE LEVEL AND CAP TYPE

Regular cap Advanced degree exemption Level Selected % of total Selected % of total

Level I & Below ...... 26,140 31.50 9,962 36.99 Level II ...... 44,530 53.70 14,181 52.66 Level III ...... 8,622 10.40 2,164 8.04 Level IV ...... 3,608 4.40 623 2.31

Total ...... 82,900 100 26,930 100 Source: USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Policy Research Division (PRD), Claims 3. July 21, 2020 & USCIS Analysis. *Note: Totals are based on 2-year averages of petitions randomly selected in FYs 2019–2020, Table 11 is replicated from Table 7.

DHS assumes that FY 2021 wage level petitions by level from Table 11 to registrations would have been distribution of registrations would equal estimate the breakdown of registrations categorized as wage level IV under the the wage level distribution observed in by wage level. For example, DHS regular cap. FYs 2019 through 2020 data. DHS multiplied 145,950 by 4.4 percent to multiplied the percentage of selected estimate that a total of 6,422

TABLE 12—CURRENT ESTIMATED NUMBER OF REGISTRATIONS BY WAGE LEVEL AND CAP TYPE

Regular cap Advanced degree exemption Level Estimated % of Estimated % of registrations registrations registrations registrations

Level I & Below ...... 45,974 31.50 45,588 36.99 Level II ...... 78,375 53.70 64,900 52.66 Level III ...... 15,179 10.40 9,909 8.04 Level IV ...... 6,422 4.40 2,847 2.31

Total ...... 145,950 100 123,244 100 Source: USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Policy Research Division (PRD), Claims 3. August 31, 2020 & USCIS Analysis. * Note: Totals are based on 2021 data.

This proposed rule would change the indicates that all registrations with a be selected. DHS estimates that none of H–1B cap selection process. USCIS now proffered wage that corresponds to OES the registrations with a proffered wage would rank and select the registrations wage level IV or level III would be that corresponds to OES wage level I or received (or petitions, as applicable) selected and 58,999, or 75 percent, of below would be selected. generally on the basis of the highest the registrations with a proffered wage DHS is using the approximated 2-year OES wage level that the proffered wage that corresponds to OES wage level II average from above to illustrate the were to equal or exceed for the relevant would be selected toward the regular SOC code and in the area of intended cap projections. None of the expected distribution of future selected employment, beginning with OES wage registrations with a proffered wage that registration percentages by level IV and proceeding in descending corresponds to OES wage level I or corresponding wage level. However, order with OES wage levels III, II, and below would be selected toward the DHS is unable to quantify the actual I. As a result of the approximated 2-year regular cap projections. For the outcome because DHS cannot predict average from above, DHS displays the advanced degree exemption, DHS the actual number of registrations that projected selection percentages for estimates all registrations with a would be received at each wage level registrations under the regular cap and proffered wage that corresponds to OES because employers may change the advanced degree exemption in Table 13. wage levels IV and III would be selected number of registrations they choose to With the revised selection method based and 12,744, or 20 percent, of the submit and the wages they offer in on corresponding OES wage level and registrations with a proffered wage that response to the changes proposed in this ranking, the approximated average corresponds to OES wage level II would rule.

TABLE 13—NEW ESTIMATED NUMBER OF SELECTED REGISTRATIONS BY WAGE LEVEL AND CAP TYPE

Regular cap Advanced degree exemption Level Total Selected Total Selected registrations registrations % Selected registrations registrations % Selected

Level I & Below .... 45,974 0 0 45,588 0 0 Level II ...... 78,375 58,999 75 64,900 12,744 20 Level III ...... 15,179 15,179 100 9,909 9,909 100 Level IV ...... 6,422 6,422 100 2,847 2,847 100

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 69254 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 13—NEW ESTIMATED NUMBER OF SELECTED REGISTRATIONS BY WAGE LEVEL AND CAP TYPE—Continued

Regular cap Advanced degree exemption Level Total Selected Total Selected registrations registrations % Selected registrations registrations % Selected

Total ...... 145,950 80,600 ...... 123,244 25,500 ...... Source: USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Policy Research Division (PRD), Claims 3. August 31, 2020 & USCIS Analysis. *Note: Totals are based on FY 2021 data.

This proposed rule may primarily receive a higher rate of pay that they of this economic analysis. If petitioners affect prospective petitioners seeking to otherwise would have in the absence of cannot find suitable replacements for file H–1B cap-subject petitions with a this rule. However, DHS is not able to the labor H–1B cap-subject beneficiaries proffered wage that corresponds to OES estimate the magnitude of such benefits. would have provided if selected and wage level I and level II.97 As Table 13 DHS acknowledges the change in the ultimately granted H–1B status, this shows, this proposed rule is expected to selection procedure resulting from this proposed rule would primarily be a cost result in a reduced likelihood that proposed rule would create to these petitioners through lost registrations for level II would be distributional effects and costs. DHS is productivity and profits. selected, as well as the likelihood that unable to quantify the extent or DHS also acknowledges that some registrations for level I and below wages determine the probability of H–1B petitioners might be impacted in terms would not be selected. A prospective petitioner behavioral changes. of the employment, productivity loss, petitioner, however, could choose to Therefore, DHS does not know the search and hire costs, and profits increase the proffered wage so that it portion of overall impacts of this rule resulting from labor turnover. In cases corresponds to a higher wage level. that would be benefits or costs. where companies cannot find Another possible effect is that As a result of this proposed rule, costs reasonable substitutes for the labor the employers would not fill vacant would be borne by prospective H–1B beneficiaries would have positions that would have been filled by petitioners that would have hired lower provided, affected petitioners also H–1B workers. These employers may be wage level H–1B cap-subject would lose profits from the lost unable to find qualified U.S. workers, or beneficiaries, but were unable to do so productivity. In such cases, employers may leave those positions vacant because of a reduced chance of selection would incur opportunity costs by because they cannot justify raising the in the H–1B selection process. Such having to choose the next best wage to stand greater chances of employers may also incur additional alternative to immediately fill the job selection in the H–1B cap selection costs to find available replacement the prospective H–1B worker would process. That, in turn, could result in workers. DHS estimates costs incurred have filled. There may be additional fewer registrations and H–1B cap- associated with loss of productivity opportunity of costs to employers such subject petitions with a proffered wage from not being able to hire H–1B as search costs and training. that corresponds to OES wage level II workers, or the need to search for and Such possible disruptions to and below. hire U.S. workers to replace the H–1B companies would depend on the DHS acknowledges that this proposed workers. Although DHS does not have interaction of a number of complex rule might result in more registrations data to estimate the costs resulting from variables that are constantly in flux, (or petitions, if registration is productivity loss for these employers, including national, state, and local labor suspended) with a proffered wage that DHS provides an estimate of the search market conditions, economic and would correspond to level IV and level and hiring costs for the replacement business factors, the type of occupations III OES wages for H–1B cap-subject workers. Accordingly, based on the and skills involved, and the beneficiaries. DHS believes a benefit of result of the study conducted by the substitutability between H–1B workers this proposed rule may be that some Society for Human Resource and U.S. workers. These costs to petitioners may choose to increase Management (SHRM) in 2016, DHS petitioners are expected to be offset by proffered wages for H–1B cap-subject assumes that an entity whose H–1B increased productivity and reduced beneficiaries, so that the petitioner may petition was denied would incur an costs to find available workers for have a greater chance of selection. This average cost of $4,398 per worker (in petitioners of higher wage level H–1B change would in turn benefit H–1B 2019 dollars) 98 to search for and hire a beneficiaries. beneficiaries who ultimately would U.S. worker in place of an H–1B DHS uses the compensation to H–1B nonimmigrant worker during the period employees as a measure of the overall 97 DOL uses wage levels to determine the prevailing wage based on the level of education, 98 Society for Human Resource Management impact of the provisions. While DHS experience (including special skills and other (SHRM), 2016 Human Capital Benchmarking would expect wages paid to H–1B requirements), or supervisory duties required for a Report, at 16, https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/ beneficiaries to be higher if the rule is position; however, USCIS would use wage levels to trends-and-forecasting/research-and-surveys/ finalized as proposed, DHS is unable to rank and select registrations (or petitions, as Documents/2016-Human-Capital-Report.pdf (last applicable) based on the rate of pay for the wage visited Oct. 21, 2020). The study was based on data quantify the benefit of increased level that the proffered wage were to equal or collected from 2,048 randomly selected human compensation because not all of the exceed. More information about DOL wage level resource professionals who participated in the 2016 wage increases would correspond with determinations can be found supra notes 26 and 38. SHRM Human Capital Benchmarking Survey. The productivity increases. This proposed DHS acknowledges that varying wage levels hiring cost is reported as $4,129 per worker in 2016 correspond to varying skill levels. In analyzing the dollars and converted to 2019 dollars in this rule may indirectly benefit prospective economic effects of this proposed rule, DHS analysis. The hiring cost includes third-party petitioners submitting registrations with recognizes that prospective petitioners may offer agency fees, advertising agency fees, job fairs, a proffered wage that corresponds to wages exceeding the wage levels associated with online job board fees, employee referrals, travel OES wage Level I and II registrations. the skills required for given positions to increase costs of applicants and staff, relocation costs, their chances of selection under the ranked recruiter pay and benefits, and talent acquisition The indirect benefit would be present selection process. system costs. during the COVID–19 pandemic and the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69255

ensuing economic recovery if the or amended petition is part of the Form I–129H1 would be 4.25 hours per prospective petitioners were able to find petitioner’s attempt to unfairly decrease petition, to account for the additional replacement workers accepting a lower the proffered wage to an amount that time petitioners would spend reviewing wage and factoring in the replacement would be equivalent to a lower wage instructions, gathering the required cost of $4,398 per worker in the United level, after listing a higher wage level on documentation and information, States. Similarly, prospective petitioners the registration (or petition, if completing the petition, preparing that would be submitting registrations registration is suspended) to increase statements, attaching necessary with a proffered wage that would the odds of selection. DHS is unable to documentation, and submitting the correspond to OES wage level I and II quantify the cost of these proposed petition. DHS estimates the time burden and that substitute toward unemployed changes to petitioners. DHS seeks public would increase by a total of 15 minutes or underemployed individuals in the comments on any anticipated costs and (0.25 hours) per petition for completing U.S. labor force would create an data relevant for estimation of the a Form I–129H1 petition.100 additional indirect benefit from this impacts of the changes proposed by this To estimate the additional cost of rule. This would benefit those in the rule. filing Form I–129H1, DHS applies the U.S. labor force if petitioners were to additional estimated time burden to d. Costs of Filing Form I–129H1 decide to select a U.S. worker rather complete and file Form 1–129H1 (0.25 Petitions than a prevailing wage level I or II H– hours) to the respective total population 1B worker. DHS notes that, although the DHS is proposing to amend Form I– and compensation rate of who may file, pandemic is widespread, the severity of 129H1, which must be filed by including an HR specialist, in-house its impacts varies by locality and petitioners on behalf of H–1B lawyer, or outsourced lawyer. As shown industry, and there may be structural beneficiaries, to align with the in Table 14, DHS estimates, the total impediments to the national and local regulatory changes DHS would make in additional annual opportunity cost of labor market. Accordingly, DHS cannot this proposed rule. The changes to Form time to petitioners completing and filing quantify with confidence, the net I–129H1 would result in an increased Form I–129H1 petitions would be benefit of the redistribution of H–1B cap time burden to complete and submit the approximately $3,457,401. DHS requests selections detailed in this analysis. form. public comments on the estimate of DHS also proposes to change the Absent the changes implemented additional time petitioners will spend filing procedures to allow USCIS to through this proposed rule, the current reviewing instructions, gathering the deny or revoke approval of a subsequent estimated time burden to complete and required documentation and new or amended petition filed by the file Form I–129H1 is 4.0 hours per information, completing the petition, petitioner, or a related entity, on behalf petition.99 As a result of the changes in preparing statements, attaching of the same beneficiary, if USCIS were this proposed rule, DHS estimates the necessary documentation, and to determine that the filing of the new total time burden to complete and file submitting the petition.

TABLE 14—ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITY COSTS OF TIME TO PETITIONERS FOR FILING FORM I–129H1 PETITIONS FROM AN INCREASE IN TIME BURDEN

Additional time Total affected burden to complete Compensation Cost items population Form I–129H1 rate Total cost (hours)

A B C D = A × B × C

Opportunity cost of time to complete Form I– 129H1 for H–1B petitions by: HR specialist ...... 21,220 0.25 $47.57 $252,359 In-house lawyer ...... 27,586 0.25 102.00 703,443 Outsourced lawyer ...... 57,294 0.25 174.65 2,501,599

Total ...... 106,100 ...... 3,457,401 Source: USCIS analysis.

e. Costs of Submitting Registrations as Registration Tool. In addition to the wage level that the proffered wage Modified by This Proposed Rule information required on the current would equal or exceed for the relevant registration tool, a registrant would be SOC code in the area of intended DHS is proposing to amend the required to provide the highest OES employment, if such data is available. required information on the H–1B

99 DHS estimates the costs and benefits of this Rule by the U.S. District Court for the District of Rule litigation and be able to implement the form rule using the newly published Fee Schedule Final Columbia, including by adopting any form changes changes associated with that rule, DHS will comply Rule, and related form changes, as the baseline. See associated with the rule. See, Northwest Immigrant with the Paperwork Reduction Act and seek supra note 66. The Fee Schedule Final Rule was Rights Project v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration approval of the information collection changes scheduled to go into effect on October 2, 2020. On Servs., 1:19–cv–03283–RDM (D.D.C. Oct. 8, 2020). associated with this rule, based on the version of September 29, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the While DHS intends to vigorously defend these Northern District of California issued a nationwide lawsuits and is not changing the economic baseline the Form I–129 that is in effect at that time. injunction, which prevents DHS from implementing for this rule as a result of the litigation, it is using 100 0.25 hours additional time to complete and the Fee Schedule Final Rule. See, Immigrant Legal the currently approved Form I–129, and not the file Form I–129H1 = (4.25 hours to complete and Resource Center v. Wolf, No. 4:20–cv–5883 (N.D. form version associated with the enjoined Fee file the new Form I–129H1)¥(4 hours to complete Cal. Sept. 29, 2020). In addition, on October 8, Schedule Final Rule for the purpose of seeking and file the current Form I–129 and its 2020, DHS was also preliminarily enjoined from OMB approval of form changes associated with this supplements). implementing and enforcing the Fee Schedule Final rule. Should DHS prevail in the Fee Schedule Final

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 69256 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

The proffered wage is the wage that the which OES wage level to select on the To estimate the additional cost of employer intends to pay the beneficiary. registration and USCIS would rank and submitting a registration, DHS applies The SOC code and area of intended select based on the highest OES wage the additional estimated time burden to employment would be indicated on the level. The proposed change to this complete and submit the registration LCA filed with the petition. For registration requirement would impose (0.33 hours) to the respective total registrants relying on a private wage increased opportunity costs of time to population and total rate of survey, if the proffered wage were less registrants, by adding additional compensation of who may file, than the corresponding level I OES information to their registration. including HR specialists, in-house wage, the registrant would select the The current estimated time burden to lawyers, or outsourced lawyers. As ‘‘Wage Level I and below’’ box on the shown in Table 15, DHS estimates the registration tool. If the registration complete and file an electronic total additional annual opportunity cost indicates that the H–1B beneficiary registration is 30 minutes (0.5 hours) per would work in multiple locations, or in registration.101 DHS estimates the total of time to the prospective petitioners of multiple positions if the prospective time burden to complete and file a completing and submitting registrations petitioner is an agent, USCIS would registration, if this rule is finalized as would be approximately $11,797,520. rank and select the registration based on proposed, would be 50 minutes (0.83 DHS requests public comments on the the lowest corresponding OES wage hours) per registration, which amounts estimate of additional time petitioners level that the proffered wage would to an additional time burden of 20 will spend reviewing instructions, equal or exceed. In the limited instance minutes (0.33 hours) per registration. gathering the required documentation where there is no current OES The additional time burden accounts for and information, completing the prevailing wage information for the the additional time a registrant would petition, preparing statements, attaching proffered position, the registrant would spend reviewing instructions, necessary documentation, and follow DOL guidance on prevailing completing the registration, and submitting a registration. wage determinations to determine submitting the registration.

TABLE 15—ADDITIONAL COST OF SUBMITTING REGISTRATIONS

Additional time Total affected burden to submit Compensation Cost items population registrations rate Total cost (hours)

A B C D = A × B × C

Opportunity cost of time to complete registra- tions by: HR specialist ...... 54,855 0.33 $47.57 $861,119 In-house lawyer ...... 71,311 0.33 102.00 2,400,328 Outsourced lawyer ...... 148,107 0.33 174.65 8,536,073

Total ...... 274,273 ...... 11,797,520 Source: USCIS analysis.

While the expectation is that the be rejected. For FY 2021, DHS selected the expectation is that registration will registration process will be run on an 124,415 registrations to generate the be run on an annual basis and because annual basis, USCIS may suspend the 106,100 petitions projected to meet the the estimated additional costs resulting H–1B registration requirement, in its numerical allocations. Therefore, DHS from this proposed rule would be less discretion, if it determines that the estimates that the additional cost to if registration were suspended, DHS is registration process is inoperable for any petitioners for preparing and submitting not separately estimating the costs for reason. The selection process also H–1B cap-subject petitions, if this rule years when registration would be allows for selection based solely on the is finalized as proposed, would be suspended and is instead relying on the submission of petitions in any year in higher in the event registration were additional costs created by this which the registration process is suspended because more petitions proposed rule when registration would suspended due to technical or other would be prepared and submitted in be required to estimate total costs of this issues. In years when registration is this scenario. However, if registration proposed rule to petitioners seeking to suspended, DHS estimates, based on the were suspended there would be no costs file H–1B cap-subject petitions. 5-year average of H–1B cap-subject associated with registration so the petitions received for FYs 2016 to 2020, overall additional cost of this proposed f. Familiarization Cost that 211,797 H–1B cap-subject petitions rule to petitioners would be less (stated Familiarization costs comprise the would be submitted annually. In the another way, the estimated added cost opportunity cost of the time spent event registration is suspended and for submitting approximately 212,000 reading and understanding the details of 211,797 H–1B cap-subject petitions are petitions if registration were suspended a rule in order to fully comply with the submitted, DHS estimates that 106,100 would be less than the added costs new regulation(s). To the extent that an petitions would be selected for based on approximately 274,000 individual or entity directly regulated adjudication to meet the numerical registrations and 106,000 petitions for by the rule incurs familiarization costs, allocations and 105,697 petitions would those with selected registrations). Since those familiarization costs are a direct

101 Agency Information Collection Activities; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection: H–1B Registration Tool, 84 FR 54159 (Oct. 9, 2019).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69257

cost of the rule. The entities directly that the petitioners require assuming one person at each entity regulated by this rule are the employers approximately two hours to familiarize familiarizes his or herself with the rule, who file H–1B petitions. Using FY 2020 themselves with the rule. Using the DHS estimates a one-time total internal data on actual filings of Form average total rate of compensation of HR familiarization cost of $6,285,527 in I–129 H–1B petitions, DHS identified specialists, In-house lawyer, and FY2022. 24,111 102 unique entities. DHS assumes Outsourced lawyer from Table 4 and

TABLE 16—FAMILIARIZATION COSTS TO THE PETITIONERS

Additional time Total affected burden to Compensation Cost items population familiarize rate Total cost (hours)

A B C D = A × B × C

Opportunity cost of time to familiarize the rule by: HR specialist ...... 4,822 2 $47.57 $458,765 In-house lawyer ...... 6,269 2 102.00 1,278,876 Outsourced lawyer ...... 13,020 2 174.65 4,547,886

Total ...... 24,111 ...... 6,285,527 Source: USCIS analysis.

implementation period if the regulatory rule to petitioners would be $21,540,448 ii. Total Estimated Costs of Regulatory changes in the proposed rule are in FY 2022 and $15,254,921 in FY Changes finalized as proposed. Table 17 details 2023–2032. In this section, DHS presents the total the total annual costs of the proposed annual costs annualized over a 10-year TABLE 17—SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED ANNUAL COSTS TO PETITIONERS IN THE PROPOSED RULE

Total estimated Costs annual cost

Petitioners’ additional opportunity cost of time in filing Form I–129H1 petitions ...... $3,457,401 Petitioners’ additional opportunity cost of time in submitting information on the registration ...... 11,797,520 Familiarization Cost (Year 1 only FY 2022) ...... 6,285,527

Total Annual Costs (undiscounted) = FY 2022 ...... 21,540,448 Total Annual Cost (undiscounted) = FY 2023–FY 2032 ...... 15,254,921

Table 18 shows costs over the 10-year undiscounted, $136,230,024 discounted the rule to be $15,970,315 annualized at implementation period of this proposed at 3-percent, and $113,018,506 3-percent, $16,091,293 annualized at 7- rule. DHS estimates the 10-year total net discounted at 7-percent. Over the 10- percent. cost of the rule to petitioners to be year implementation period of the rule, approximately $158,834,737 DHS estimates the annualized costs of

TABLE 18—TOTAL COSTS OF THIS PROPOSED RULE

Total estimated costs $21,540,448 (year 1); $15,254,921 (year 2–10) Year Discounted at Discounted at 3-percent 7-percent

1 ...... $20,913,056 $20,131,260 2 ...... 14,379,226 13,324,239 3 ...... 13,960,414 12,452,560 4 ...... 13,553,800 11,637,906 5 ...... 13,159,029 10,876,548 6 ...... 12,775,756 10,164,998 7 ...... 12,403,647 9,499,998 8 ...... 12,042,376 8,878,503 9 ...... 11,691,627 8,297,666 10 ...... 11,351,094 7,754,828

Total ...... 136,230,024 113,018,506 Annualized ...... 15,970,315 16,091,293

102 Source: USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Policy Research Division (PRD), Claims 3. , 2020 & USCIS Analysis.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 69258 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

E.O. 13771 directs agencies to corresponds to the requirements of the DHS does not believe that the changes reduced regulation and control proffered position in situations where in this proposed rule would have a regulatory costs. This proposed rule is there is no current OES prevailing wage significant economic impact on a expected to be an E.O. 13771 regulatory information. More generally, DHS substantial number of small entities that action. DHS estimates the total cost of requests comments and seeks would file Form I–129H1 for H–1B this rule would be $10,515,740 alternatives for selecting from among all petitions. annualized using a 7-percent discount H–1B registrations or petitions to ensure 1. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis rate over a perpetual time horizon, in that H–1B visas are given to workers 2016 dollars, and discounted back to who will provide the highest valued use i. A Description of the Reasons Why the 2016. to the U.S. economy, such as ranking Action by the Agency Is Being Considered iii. Costs to the Federal Government and selecting all registrations or petitions according to the actual OES DHS is proposing to amend its DHS proposes to revise the process prevailing wage level that the position regulations governing H–1B specialty and system by which H–1B registrations would be rated at rather than the wage occupation workers. The purpose of the or petitions, as applicable, would be level that the proffered wage equals or selected toward the annual numerical proposed changes is to better ensure exceeds. that H–1B classification is more likely to allocations. This proposed rule would Another alternative for which DHS require updates to USCIS information be awarded to petitioners seeking to seeks public comment is a process employ higher-skilled and higher-paid technology (IT) systems and additional where all registrations or petitions, time spent by USCIS on H–1B beneficiaries. DHS believes these while still randomly selected, would be registrations or petitions. changes would disincentivize use of the weighted according to their OES The INA provides for the collection of H–1B program to fill relatively lower- fees at a level that will ensure recovery prevailing wage level, such that, for paid, lower-skilled positions. of the full costs of providing example, a level IV position would have four times greater chance of selection ii. A Statement of the Objectives of, and adjudication and naturalization services Legal Basis for, the Proposed Rule by DHS, including administrative costs than a level I position, a level III and services provided without charge to position would have three times greater DHS’s objectives and legal authority certain applicants and petitioners.103 chance of selection than a level I for this proposed rule are discussed DHS notes USCIS establishes its fees by position, and a level II position would earlier in the preamble. have two times greater chance of assigning costs to an adjudication based iii. A Description and, Where Feasible, selection than a level I position. on its relative adjudication burden and an Estimate of the Number of Small use of USCIS resources. Fees are B. Regulatory Flexibility Act Entities to Which the Proposed Changes established at an amount that is Would Apply necessary to recover these assigned The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 For this analysis, DHS conducted a costs such as salaries and benefits of (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended by sample analysis of historical Form I–129 clerical staff, officers, and managers, the Small Business Regulatory H–1B petitions to estimate the number plus an amount to recover unassigned Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, of small entities impacted by this overhead (such as facility rent, IT Public Law 104–121 (March 29, 1996), proposed rule. DHS utilized a equipment and systems, or other requires Federal agencies to consider subscription-based online database of expenses) and immigration services the potential impact of regulations on U.S. entities, ReferenceUSA, as well as provided without charge. Consequently, small entities during the development of three other open-access, free databases since USCIS immigration fees are based their rules. ‘‘Small entities’’ are small of public and private entities, Manta, on resource expenditures related to the businesses, not-for-profit organizations Cortera, and Guidestar to determine the benefit in question, USCIS uses the fee that are not dominant in their fields, North American Industry Classification associated with an information and governmental jurisdictions with System (NAICS) code,104 revenue, and collection as a reasonable measure of populations of less than 50,000. An employee count for each entity in the the collection’s costs to USCIS. DHS ‘‘individual’’ is not considered a small sample. To determine whether an entity notes the time necessary for USCIS to entity and costs to an individual from a is small for purposes of RFA, DHS first review the information submitted with rule are not considered for RFA classified the entity by its NAICS code the forms relevant to this proposed rule purposes. In addition, the courts have and then used SBA size standards includes the time to adjudicate the held that the RFA requires an agency to guidelines 105 to classify the revenue or benefit request. These costs are captured perform an initial regulatory flexibility in the fees collected for the benefit analysis (IRFA) of small entity impacts 104 U.S. Census Bureau, North American Industry request from petitioners. only when a rule directly regulates small entities. Consequently, any Classification System, http://www.census.gov/eos/ 5. Regulatory Alternatives www/naics/ (last visited Oct. 21, 2020). indirect impacts from a rule to a small 105 DHS utilized a subscription-based online DHS considered various regulatory entity are not considered as costs for database of U.S. entities, ReferenceUSA, as well as alternatives to a number of the RFA purposes. three other open-access, free databases of public and private entities, Manta, Cortera, and Guidestar, provisions of the proposed rule. Although individuals, rather than to determine the North American Industry Recognizing that a rote or small entities, submit the majority of Classification System (NAICS) code, revenue, and indiscriminate interpretation of the immigration and naturalization benefit employee count for each entity. Guidelines statute would create an absurd or applications and petitions, this suggested by the SBA Office of Advocacy indicate that the impact of a rule could be significant if the impossible result, DHS requests proposed rule would affect entities that cost of the regulation exceeds 5 percent of the labor comments on, including potential file and pay fees for H–1B immigration costs of the entities in the sector. Office of alternatives to, the proposed ranking benefit requests. The USCIS forms that Advocacy, Small Business Administration, ‘‘A and selection of registrations based on are subject to an RFA analysis for this Guide for Government Agencies, How to Comply proposed rule are Form I–129H1, with the Regulatory Flexibility Act’’, at 19, https:// the OES prevailing wage level that www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/advocacy/How-to- Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker and Comply-with-the-RFA-WEB.pdf (last visited Oct. 21, 103 See INA section 286(m), 8 U.S.C. 1356(m). the Registration H–1B Tool. 2020).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69259

employee count threshold for each population of entities using the standard to be small entities. As a result, in order entity. Based on the NAICS codes, some statistical formula at a 5 percent margin to prevent underestimating the number entities were classified as small based of error. DHS then created a sample size of small entities this rule would affect, on their annual revenue, and some by greater than the minimum necessary to DHS conservatively considers all the their numbers of employees. Once as increase the likelihood that our matches non-matched and missing entities as many entities as possible were matched, would meet or exceed the minimum small entities for the purpose of this those that had relevant data were required sample. analysis. Therefore, DHS conservatively compared to the size standards provided DHS randomly selected a sample of classifies 379 of 473 entities as small 473 entities from the population of by the SBA to determine whether they entities, including combined non- were small or not. Those that could not 24,111 entities that filed Form I–129 for matches (67), and small entity matches be matched or compared were assumed H–1B petitions in FY 2020. Of the 473 (312). Thus, DHS estimates that 80.1% to be small under the presumption that entities, 406 entities returned a non-small entities would have been successful match of a filing entity in the (379 of 473) of the entities filing Form identified by one of the databases at ReferenceUSA, Manta, Cortera, and I–129 H–1B petitions are small entities. some point in their existence. Guidestar databases; 67 entities did not In this analysis DHS assumes that the Using FY 2020 internal data on actual return a match. Using these databases’ distribution of firm size for our sample filings of Form I–129 H–1B petitions, revenue or employee count and their is the same as the entire population of DHS identified 24,111 106 unique assigned North American Industry Form I–129H1. Thus, DHS estimates the entities. DHS devised a methodology to Classification System (NAICS) code, number of small entities to be 80.1% of conduct the small entity analysis based DHS determined 312 of the 406 matches the population of 24,111 entities that on a representative, random sample of to be small entities, 94 to be non-small filed Form I–129 under the H–1B the potentially impacted population. entities. Based on previous experience classification, as summarized in Table DHS first determined the minimum conducting regulatory flexibility 18 below. The annual numeric estimate sample size necessary to achieve a 95 analyses, DHS assumes filing entities of the small entities impacted by this percent confidence level confidence without database matches or missing proposed rule is 19,319 entities.107 interval estimation for the impacted revenue/employee count data are likely

TABLE 18—NUMBER OF SMALL ENTITIES FOR FORM I–129 FOR H–1B, FY 2020

Proportion of Population Number of small population entities (percent)

24,111 ...... 19,319 80.1

Following the distributional significantly affected by the proposed v. An Identification of All Relevant assumptions above, DHS uses the set of rule. Federal Rules, to the Extent Practical, 312 small entities with matched revenue Based on this analysis, DHS does not That May Duplicate, Overlap, or data to estimate the economic impact of believe that the proposed changes in Conflict With the Proposed Rule the proposed rule on each small entity. this proposed rule would have a DHS is unaware of any duplicative, The economic impact, in percent, for significant economic impact on a overlapping, or conflicting Federal each small entity is the sum of the substantial number of small entities that rules, but invites any comment and impacts of the proposed changes information regarding any such rules. divided by the entity’s sales revenue.108 file I–129H1. DHS constructed the distribution of iv. A Description of the Projected vi. Description of Any Significant economic impact of the proposed rule Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Alternatives to the Proposed Rule That Accomplish the Stated Objectives of based on the sample of 312 small Compliance Requirements of the Applicable Statutes and That Minimize entities. Across all 312 small entities, Proposed Rule, Including an Estimate of the proposed increase in cost to a small Any Significant Economic Impact of the the Classes of Small Entities That Will Proposed Rule on Small Entities entity would range from 0.00000026 Be Subject to the Requirement and the percent to 2.5 percent of that entity’s FY Types of Professional Skills DHS requests comments on, including 2020 revenue. Of the 312 small entities, potential alternatives to, the proposed 0 percent (0 small entities) would As stated above in the preamble, the ranking and selection of registrations experience a cost increase that is greater proposed rule would impose additional based on the OES prevailing wage level than 5 percent of revenues. reporting, recordkeeping, or other that corresponds to the requirements of Extrapolating to the population of compliance requirements on entities the proffered position in situations 19,319 small entities and assuming an that could be small entities. where there is no current OES economic impact significance threshold prevailing wage information. In the RFA of 5 percent of annual revenues, DHS context, DHS seeks comments on estimates no small entities would be alternatives that would accomplish the

106 Source: USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Number of petitions for entity i) × 100. The cost of cost of submitting information on the registration Policy Research Division (PRD), Claims 3. Aug. 18, one petition for entity i ($75.60) is estimated by and is calculated by dividing total cost by the 2020, & USCIS Analysis. adding the two cost components per petition of the number of baseline petitions ($43.01 = $11,797,520/ proposed rule ($75.60 = $32.59 + $43.01). The first 107 The annual numeric estimate of the small 274,273) from Table 15. The number of petitions for component ($32.59) is the weighted average entity i is taken from USCIS internal data on actual entities (19,319) = Population (24,111) * Percentage additional cost of filing a petition, and is calculated of small entities (80.1%). by dividing total cost by the number of petitions filings of I–129 H–1B petition. The entity’s sales 108 The economic impact, in percent, for each ($32.59 = $3,457,401/106,100) from Table 14. The revenue is taken from ReferenceUSA, Manta, small entity i = (Cost of one petition for entity i × second component ($43.01) is the weighted average Cortera, and Guidestar databases.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 69260 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

objectives of this proposed rule without subject to a 60-day delay in the rule significant effect on the human unduly burdening small entities. DHS becoming effective. If this proposed rule environment and, therefore, do not also welcomes any public comments or is finalized, DHS will send it to require an Environmental Assessment data on the number of small entities that Congress and to the Comptroller General (EA) or Environmental Impact would be petitioning for an H–1B under the Congressional Review Act, 5 Statement (EIS). 40 CFR 1507.3(b)(2)(ii), employee and any direct impacts on U.S.C. 801 et seq. 1508.4. Categorical exclusions those small entities. established by DHS are set forth in D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) Appendix A of the Instruction Manual. C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act This proposed rule would not have Under DHS NEPA implementing The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act substantial direct effects on the states, procedures, for an action to be of 1995 (UMRA) is intended, among on the relationship between the national categorically excluded, it must satisfy other things, to curb the practice of government and the states, or on the each of the following three conditions: imposing unfunded federal mandates on distribution of power and (1) The entire action clearly fits within State, local, and tribal governments. responsibilities among the various one or more of the categorical Title II of the UMRA requires each levels of government. Therefore, in exclusions; (2) the action is not a piece federal agency to prepare a written accordance with section 6 of Executive of a larger action; and (3) no statement assessing the effects of any Order 13132, DHS determined that this extraordinary circumstances exist that federal mandate in a proposed or final proposed rule does not have sufficient create the potential for a significant agency rule that may result in a $100 federalism implications to warrant the environmental effect. Instruction million or more expenditure (adjusted preparation of a federalism summary Manual section V.B(2)(a)–(c). annually for inflation) in any one year impact statement. As discussed in more detail by State, local, and tribal governments, throughout this proposed rule, DHS is in the aggregate, or by the private sector. E. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice proposing to amend regulations Based on the Consumer Price Index for Reform) governing the selection of registrations All Urban Consumers (CPI–U), the value This proposed rule meets the or petitions, as applicable, toward the equivalent of $100 million in 1995 applicable standards set forth in annual H–1B numerical allocations. adjusted for inflation to 2019 levels is sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive This proposed rule establishes that, if approximately $168 million.109 Order 12988. more registrations were to be received Given the uncertainties discussed F. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation during the annual initial registration previously, DHS acknowledges the period (or petition filing period, if possibility that this proposed rule could and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments) applicable) than necessary to reach the result in private sector expenditures applicable numerical allocation, USCIS exceeding $100 million, adjusted for This proposed rule does not have would rank and select the registrations inflation to $168 million in 2019 ‘‘tribal implications’’ because it does not (or petitions, if the registration process dollars, in any 1 year. While DHS has have substantial direct effects on one or were suspended) received on the basis explored opportunities to minimize more Indian tribes, on the relationship of the highest OES wage levels that the these potential costs as directed by Title between the Federal Government and proffered wages were to equal or exceed II of the Act, the agency invites input Indian tribes, or on the distribution of for the relevant SOC code and in the from the public on reducing these power and responsibilities between the area of intended employment, beginning potential costs in the final rule. Federal Government and Indian tribes. with OES wage level IV and proceeding Congressional Review Act Accordingly, E.O. 13175, Consultation in descending order with OES wage and Coordination with Indian Tribal For reasons described in the Summary levels III, II, and I. If a proffered wage Governments, requires no further were to fall below an OES wage level I, of Economic Effects, this proposed rule agency action or analysis. is a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. because the proffered wage were based 804, also known as the ‘‘Congressional G. National Environmental Policy Act on a prevailing wage from another Review Act,’’ as enacted in section 251 legitimate source (other than OES) or an DHS analyzes actions to determine independent authoritative source, of the Small Business Regulatory whether the National Environmental Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, USCIS would rank the registration in Policy Act, Public Law 91–190, 42 the same category as OES wage level Public Law 104–121, 110 Stat. 847, 868 U.S.C. 4321 through 4347 (NEPA), I.110 et seq., and thus a final rule resulting applies to them and, if so, what degree from this proposed rule would not be Generally, DHS believes NEPA does of analysis is required. DHS Directive not apply to a rule intended to change 023–01 Rev. 01 (Directive) and a discrete aspect of a visa program 109 See U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Instruction Manual 023–01–001–01 Rev. Statistics, Historical Consumer Price Index for All because any attempt to analyze its Urban Consumers (CPI–U): U.S. city average, all 01, Implementation of the National potential impacts would be largely items, by month, https://www.bls.gov/cpi/tables/ Environmental Policy Act (Instruction speculative, if not completely so. This supplemental-files/historical-cpi-u-202003.pdf (last Manual) establish the policies and rule does not propose to alter the visited Sept. 2, 2020). procedures that DHS and its Calculation of inflation: 1) Calculate the average statutory limitations on the numbers of monthly CPI–U for the reference year (1995) and the components use to comply with NEPA nonimmigrants who: May be issued current year (2019); 2) Subtract reference year CPI– and the Council on Environmental initial H–1B visas or granted initial H– U from current year CPI–U; 3) Divide the difference Quality (CEQ) regulations for 1B nonimmigrant status, will of the reference year CPI–U and current year CPI– implementing NEPA, 40 CFR parts U by the reference year CPI–U; 4) Multiply by 100 consequently be admitted into the = [(Average monthly CPI–U for 2019—Average 1500–1508. United States as H–1B nonimmigrants, The CEQ regulations allow federal monthly CPI–U for 1995)/(Average monthly CPI–U will be allowed to change their status to for 1995)] * 100 = [(255.657—152.383)/152.383] * agencies to establish, with CEQ review H–1B, or will extend their stay in H–1B 100 = (103.274/152.383) *100 = 0.6777 * 100 = and concurrence, categories of actions 67.77 percent = 68 percent (rounded). (‘‘categorical exclusions’’) that Calculation of inflation-adjusted value: $100 110 If the proffered wage is expressed as a range, million in 1995 dollars * 1.68 = $168 million in experience has shown do not USCIS would make the comparison using the 2019 dollars. individually or cumulatively have a lowest wage in the range.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69261

status. DHS cannot reasonably estimate information collection should address 2. USCIS Form I–129 111 whether the wage level-based ranking one or more of the following four points: Under the PRA all agencies are approach to select H–1B registrations (or (1) Evaluate whether the collection of required to submit to OMB, for review petitions in any year in which the information is necessary for the proper and approval, any reporting registration requirement were performance of the functions of the requirements inherent in a rule. DHS suspended) that DHS proposes would agency, including whether the and USCIS invite comments on the affect how many petitions would be information will have practical utility; impact to the collection of information. filed for workers to be employed in (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the In accordance with the PRA, the specialty occupations or whether the information collection notice is regulatory amendments herein would agency’s estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the published in the Federal Register to result in an overall change in the obtain comments regarding the number of H–1B petitions that would validity of the methodology and assumptions used; proposed edits to the information ultimately be approved, and the number collection instrument. of H–1B workers who would be (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and Comments are encouraged and will be employed in the United States in any clarity of the information to be accepted until January 4, 2021. All FY. DHS has no reason to believe that collected; and submissions received must include the these proposed amendments to H–1B (4) Minimize the burden of the agency name and OMB Control Number regulations would change the collection of information on those who 1615–0009 in the body of the environmental effect, if any, of the are to respond, including through the submission. Comments on this existing regulations. Therefore, DHS has use of appropriate automated, information collection should address determined that even if NEPA were to electronic, mechanical, or other one or more of the following four points: apply to this action, this proposed rule technological collection techniques or (1) Evaluate whether the collection of clearly fits within categorical exclusion other forms of information technology, information is necessary for the proper A3(d) in the Instruction Manual, which e.g.., permitting electronic submission performance of the functions of the provides an exclusion for of responses. agency, including whether the ‘‘promulgation of rules . . . that amend information will have practical utility; an existing regulation without changing Overview of Information Collection (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the its environmental effect.’’ This proposed (1) Type of Information Collection: agency’s estimate of the burden of the rule would maintain the current human Revision of a Currently Approved collection of information, including the environment by proposing Collection. validity of the methodology and improvements to the H–1B program that assumptions used; would take effect during the economic (2) Title of the Form/Collection: H–1B (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and crisis caused by COVID–19 in a way that Registration Tool. clarity of the information to be would more effectively prevent an (3) Agency form number, if any, and collected; and adverse impact from the employment of the applicable component of the DHS (4) Minimize the burden of the H–1B workers on the wages and sponsoring the collection: OMB–64; collection of information on those who working conditions of U.S. workers who USCIS. are to respond, including through the would be similarly employed. This (4) Affected public who will be asked use of appropriate automated, proposed rule is not a part of a larger or required to respond, as well as a brief electronic, mechanical, or other action and presents no extraordinary abstract: Primary: Business or other for- technological collection techniques or circumstances creating the potential for profit. USCIS will use the data collected significant environmental effects. through the H–1B Registration Tool to 111 As indicated elsewhere in this rule, DHS estimates the costs and benefits of this proposed Therefore, this action is categorically select a sufficient number of rule using the newly published Fee Schedule Final excluded and no further NEPA analysis registrations projected as needed to Rule, and related form changes, as the baseline. See is required. meet the applicable H–1B cap supra note 66. The Fee Schedule Final Rule was allocations and to notify registrants scheduled to go into effect on October 2, 2020. On H. Paperwork Reduction Act September 29, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the whether their registrations were Northern District of California issued a nationwide 1. USCIS H–1B Registration Tool selected. injunction, which prevents DHS from implementing (5) An estimate of the total number of the Fee Schedule Final Rule. See, Immigrant Legal Under the Paperwork Reduction Act Resource Center v. Wolf, No. 4:20–cv–5883 (N.D. of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13, all respondents and the amount of time Cal. Sept. 29, 2020). In addition, on October 8, estimated for an average respondent to 2020, DHS was also preliminarily enjoined from agencies are required to submit to OMB, implementing and enforcing the Fee Schedule Final for review and approval, any reporting respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information Rule by the U.S. District Court for the District of requirements inherent in a rule. DHS Columbia, including by adopting any form changes and USCIS invite comments on the collection H–1B Registration Tool is associated with the rule. See, Northwest Immigrant impact to the collection of information. 275,000 and the estimated hour burden Rights Project v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration per response is 0.833 hours. Servs., 1:19–cv–03283–RDM (D.D.C. Oct. 8, 2020). In accordance with the PRA, the While DHS intends to vigorously defend these information collection notice is (6) An estimate of the total public lawsuits and is not changing the economic baseline published in the Federal Register to burden (in hours) associated with the for this proposed rule as a result of the litigation, collection: The total estimated annual it is using the currently approved Form I–129, and obtain comments regarding the not the form version associated with the enjoined proposed edits to the information hour burden associated with this Fee Schedule Final Rule for the purpose of seeking collection instrument. collection of information is 229,075 OMB approval of form changes associated with this hours. proposed rule. Should DHS prevail in the Fee Comments are encouraged and will be Schedule Final Rule litigation and be able to accepted for January 4, 2021. All (7) An estimate of the total public implement the form changes associated with that submissions received must include the burden (in cost) associated with the rule, DHS will comply with the Paperwork agency name and OMB Control Number collection: The estimated total annual Reduction Act and seek approval of the information cost burden associated with this collection changes associated with this proposed 1615–0144 in the body of the rule, based on the version of the Form I–129 that submission. Comments on this collection of information is $0. is in effect at that time.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 69262 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

other forms of information technology, information collection H–1B and H–1B1 Association with the Federated States of for example, permitting electronic Data Collection and Filing Fee Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall submission of responses. Exemption Supplement is 96,291 and Islands, and with the Government of Palau, the estimated hour burden per response 48 U.S.C. 1901 note and 1931 note, Overview of Information Collection respectively; 48 U.S.C. 1806; 8 CFR part 2; is 1 hour; the estimated total number of Pub. L. 115–218. (1) Type of Information Collection: respondents for the information Revision of a Currently Approved collection L Classification Supplement ■ 2. Section 214.2 is amended by: Collection. to Form I–129 is 37,831 and the ■ a. Revising the first sentence of (2) Title of the Form/Collection: estimated hour burden per response is paragraph (h)(8)(iii)(A)(1); Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker. 1.34 hours; the estimated total number ■ b. Adding paragraph (h)(8)(iii)(A)(1)(i) (3) Agency form number, if any, and of respondents for the information and reserved paragraph the applicable component of the DHS collection O and P Classifications (h)(8)(iii)(A)(1)(ii); sponsoring the collection: I–129; USCIS. Supplement to Form I–129 is 22,710 ■ c. In paragraph (h)(8)(iii)(A)(5)(i), (4) Affected public who will be asked and the estimated hour burden per revising the last two sentences and or required to respond, as well as a brief response is 1 hour; the estimated total adding a sentence at the end; abstract: Primary: Business or other for- number of respondents for the ■ d. In paragraph (h)(8)(iii)(A)(5)(ii), profit. USCIS uses the data collected on information collection Q–1 revising the last two sentences and this form to determine eligibility for the Classification Supplement to Form I– adding a sentence at the end; requested nonimmigrant petition and/or ■ e. In paragraph (h)(8)(iii)(A)(6)(i), requests to extend or change 129 is 155 and the estimated hour burden per response is 0.34 hours; the revising the last two sentences and nonimmigrant status. An employer (or adding a sentence at the end; agent, where applicable) uses this form estimated total number of respondents for the information collection R–1 ■ f. In paragraph (h)(8)(iii)(A)(6)(ii), to petition USCIS for an alien to revising the last two sentences and temporarily enter as a nonimmigrant. Classification Supplement to Form I– 129 is 6,635 and the estimated hour adding a sentence at the end; An employer (or agent, where ■ g. Revising paragraphs (h)(8)(iii)(A)(7) applicable) also uses this form to burden per response is 2.34 hours. (6) An estimate of the total public and (h)(8)(iii)(D)(1); request an extension of stay or change ■ h. In paragraph (h)(8)(iv)(B)(1), of status on behalf of the alien worker. burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual revising the last three sentences and The form serves the purpose of adding three sentences at the end; standardizing requests for hour burden associated with this collection of information is 1,293,873 ■ i. Revising paragraph (h)(8)(iv)(B)(2); nonimmigrant workers and ensuring ■ j. Removing and reserving paragraph that basic information required for hours. (7) An estimate of the total public (h)(8)(v); assessing eligibility is provided by the ■ k. In paragraph (h)(10)(ii), revising the petitioner while requesting that burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual second sentence and adding five beneficiaries be classified under certain sentences immediately following the nonimmigrant employment categories. It cost burden associated with this collection of information is $70,681,290. second sentence; also assists USCIS in compiling ■ l. Revising paragraph (h)(11)(iii)(A)(2); information required by Congress I. Signature ■ m. Redesignating paragraphs annually to assess effectiveness and The Acting Secretary of Homeland (h)(11)(iii)(A)(3) through (5) as utilization of certain nonimmigrant Security, Chad F. Wolf, having reviewed (h)(11)(iii)(A)(4) through (6); and classifications. and approved this document, is ■ n. Adding a new paragraph USCIS also uses the data to determine delegating the authority to electronically (h)(11)(iii)(A)(3) and paragraph continued eligibility. For example, the sign this document to Chad R. Mizelle, (h)(24)(i). data collected is used in compliance who is the Senior Official Performing The revisions and additions read as reviews and other inspections to ensure the Duties of the General Counsel for follows: that all program requirements are being DHS, for purposes of publication in the met. § 214.2 Special requirements for (5) An estimate of the total number of Federal Register. admission, extension, and maintenance of respondents and the amount of time List of Subjects in 8 CFR Part 214 status. estimated for an average respondent to Administrative practice and * * * * * respond: I–129 is 294,751 and the procedure, Aliens, Cultural exchange (h) * * * estimated hour burden per response is programs, Employment, Foreign (8) * * * 3.09 hours; the estimated total number officials, Health professions, Reporting (iii) * * * of respondents for the information (A) and recordkeeping requirements, collection E–1/E–2 Classification (1) * * * Except as provided in Students. Supplement to Form I–129 is 4,760 and paragraph (h)(8)(iv) of this section, the estimated hour burden per response Accordingly, DHS proposes to amend before a petitioner is eligible to file an is 0.67 hours; the estimated total part 214 of chapter I of title 8 of the H–1B cap-subject petition for a number of respondents for the Code of Federal Regulations as follows: beneficiary who may be counted under information collection Trade Agreement PART 214—NONIMMIGRANT CLASSES section 214(g)(1)(A) of the Act (‘‘H–1B Supplement to Form I–129 is 3,057 and regular cap’’) or eligible for exemption the estimated hour burden per response ■ 1. The authority citation for part 214 under section 214(g)(5)(C) of the Act is 0.67 hours; the estimated total continues to read as follows: (‘‘H–1B advanced degree exemption’’), number of respondents for the the prospective petitioner or its attorney Authority: 6 U.S.C. 202, 236; 8 U.S.C. information collection H Classification 1101, 1102, 1103, 1182, 1184, 1186a, 1187, or accredited representative must Supplement to Form I–129 is 96,291 1221, 1281, 1282, 1301–1305 and 1372; sec. register to file a petition on behalf of an and the estimated hour burden per 643, Pub. L. 104–208, 110 Stat. 3009–708; alien beneficiary electronically through response is 2 hours; the estimated total Pub. L. 106–386, 114 Stat. 1477–1480; the USCIS website (www.uscis.gov). number of respondents for the section 141 of the Compacts of Free ***

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69263

(i) Ranking by wage levels. USCIS will basis of the highest OES wage level that in descending order with OES wage rank and select registrations as set forth the proffered wage equals or exceeds for levels III, II, and I. Where there is no in paragraphs (h)(8)(iii)(A)(5) and (6) of the relevant SOC code and area of current OES prevailing wage this section. For purposes of the ranking intended employment, beginning with information for the proffered position, and selection process, USCIS will use OES wage level IV and proceeding in USCIS will rank and select petitions the highest corresponding Occupational descending order with OES wage levels based on the appropriate wage level that Employment Statistics (OES) wage level III, II, and I. Where there is no current corresponds to the requirements of the that the proffered wage will equal or OES prevailing wage information for the proffered position. If USCIS receives exceed for the relevant Standard proffered position, USCIS will rank and and ranks more registrations at a Occupational Classification (SOC) code select petitions based on the appropriate particular wage level than the projected and area(s) of intended employment. If wage level that corresponds to the number needed to meet the numerical the proffered wage is lower than the requirements of the proffered position. limitation, USCIS will randomly select OES wage level I, because it is based on If USCIS receives and ranks more from all registrations within that a prevailing wage from another registrations at a particular wage level particular wage level a sufficient legitimate source (other than OES) or an than the projected number needed to number of registrations necessary to independent authoritative source, meet the numerical limitation, USCIS reach the H–1B advanced degree USCIS will rank the registration in the will randomly select from all exemption. same category as OES wage level I. If the registrations within that particular wage (7) Increase to the number of H–1B beneficiary will work in multiple level a sufficient number of registrations registrations projected to meet the H–1B locations, or in multiple positions if the needed to reach the numerical regular cap or advanced degree registrant is an agent, USCIS will rank limitation. exemption allocations in a fiscal year. and select the registration based on the (6) *** Unselected registrations will remain on lowest corresponding OES wage level (i) * * * If on the final registration reserve for the applicable fiscal year. If that the proffered wage will equal or date, USCIS has received more USCIS determines that it needs to select exceed. Where there is no current OES registrations than necessary to meet the additional registrations to receive the prevailing wage information for the H–1B advanced degree exemption number of petitions projected to meet proffered position, USCIS will rank and limitation under Section 214(g)(5)(C) of the numerical limitations, USCIS will select the registration based on the OES the Act, USCIS will rank and select, select from among the registrations that wage level that corresponds to the from among the registrations properly are on reserve a sufficient number to requirements of the proffered position. submitted on the final registration date meet the H–1B regular cap or advanced (ii) [Reserved] that may be counted against the degree exemption numerical limitation, advanced degree exemption, the number as applicable. If all of the registrations * * * * * of registrations necessary to reach the on reserve are selected and there are (5) *** H–1B advanced degree exemption on still fewer registrations than needed to (i) * * * If USCIS has received more the basis of the highest OES wage level reach the H–1B regular cap or advanced registrations on the final registration that the proffered wage equals or degree exemption numerical limitation, date than necessary to meet the H–1B exceeds for the relevant SOC code and as applicable, USCIS may reopen the regular cap under Section 214(g)(1)(A) in the area of intended employment, applicable registration period until of the Act, USCIS will rank and select beginning with OES wage level IV and USCIS determines that it has received a from among all registrations properly proceeding in descending order with sufficient number of registrations submitted on the final registration date OES wage levels III, II, and I. Where projected to meet the H–1B regular cap on the basis of the highest OES wage there is no current OES prevailing wage level that the proffered wage equals or information for the proffered position, or advanced degree exemption exceeds for the relevant SOC code and USCIS will rank and select petitions numerical limitation. USCIS will area of intended employment, beginning based on the appropriate wage level that monitor the number of registrations with OES wage level IV and proceeding corresponds to the requirements of the received and will notify the public of in descending order with OES wage proffered position. If USCIS receives the date that USCIS has received the levels III, II, and I. Where there is no and ranks more registrations at a necessary number of registrations (the current OES prevailing wage particular wage level than the projected new ‘‘final registration date’’). The day information for the proffered position, number needed to meet the numerical the public is notified will not control USCIS will rank and select petitions limitation, USCIS will randomly select the applicable final registration date. based on the appropriate wage level that from all registrations within that When selecting additional registrations corresponds to the requirements of the particular wage level a sufficient under this paragraph, USCIS will rank proffered position. If USCIS receives number of registrations necessary to and select properly submitted and ranks more registrations at a reach the H–1B advanced degree registrations in accordance with particular wage level than the projected exemption. paragraphs (h)(8)(iii)(A)(1), (5), and (6) number needed to meet the numerical (ii) * * * USCIS will rank and select, of this section. If the registration period limitation, USCIS will randomly select from among the remaining registrations will be re-opened, USCIS will announce from all registrations within that properly submitted during the initial the start of the re-opened registration particular wage level a sufficient registration period that may be counted period on the USCIS website at number of registrations needed to reach against the advanced degree exemption www.uscis.gov. the numerical limitation. numerical limitation, the number of * * * * * (ii) * * * If USCIS has received more registrations necessary to reach the H– (D) * * * than a sufficient number of registrations 1B advanced degree exemption on the (1) Filing procedures. In addition to to meet the H–1B regular cap under basis of the highest OES wage level that any other applicable requirements, a Section 214(g)(1)(A) of the Act, USCIS the proffered wage equals or exceeds for petitioner may file an H–1B petition for will rank and select from among all the relevant SOC code and in the area a beneficiary that may be counted under registrations properly submitted during of intended employment, beginning section 214(g)(1)(A) or eligible for the initial registration period on the with OES wage level IV and proceeding exemption under section 214(g)(5)(C) of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 69264 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

the Act only if the petition is based on than necessary to meet the numerical one of the first five business days that a valid registration submitted by the limitation for the H–1B regular cap, filings can be made), USCIS will select petitioner, or its designated USCIS will rank and select the petitions from among all the petitions properly representative, on behalf of the received on the basis of the highest submitted during the first five business beneficiary that was selected beforehand Occupational Employment Statistics days the number of petitions deemed by USCIS. The petition must be filed (OES) wage level that the proffered wage necessary to meet the H–1B advanced within the filing period indicated in the equals or exceeds for the relevant degree exemption numerical limitation. selection notice. A petitioner may not Standard Occupational Classification If USCIS has received more petitions substitute the beneficiary named in the (SOC) code in the area of intended than necessary to meet the numerical original registration or transfer the employment, beginning with OES wage limitation for the H–1B advanced degree registration to another petitioner. level IV and proceeding in descending exemption, USCIS will rank and select (i) If a petitioner files an H–1B cap- order with OES wage levels III, II, and the petitions received on the basis of the subject petition based on a registration I. Where there is no current OES highest Occupational Employment that was not selected beforehand by prevailing wage information for the Statistics (OES) wage level that the USCIS, based on a registration for a proffered position, USCIS will rank and proffered wage equals or exceeds for the different beneficiary than the select petitions based on the appropriate relevant Standard Occupational beneficiary named in the petition, or wage level that corresponds to the Classification (SOC) code in the area of based on a registration considered by requirements of the proffered position. intended employment, beginning with USCIS to be invalid, the H–1B cap- If the wage falls below an OES wage OES wage level IV and proceeding with subject petition will be rejected or level I, USCIS will rank the petition in OES wage levels III, II, and I. Where denied. USCIS will consider a the same category as OES wage level I. there is no current OES prevailing wage registration to be invalid if the USCIS will rank the petition in the same information for the proffered position, registration fee associated with the manner even if, instead of obtaining an USCIS will rank and select petitions registration is declined, rejected, or OES prevailing wage, a petitioner elects based on the appropriate wage level that canceled after submission as the to obtain a prevailing wage using corresponds to the requirements of the registration fee is non-refundable and another legitimate source (other than proffered position. If the proffered wage due at the time the registration is OES) or an independent authoritative is below an OES wage level I, USCIS submitted. source. If USCIS receives and ranks will rank the petition in the same (ii) If USCIS determines that the more petitions at a particular wage level category as OES wage level I. USCIS statement of facts contained on the than the projected number needed to will rank the petition in the same registration form is inaccurate, meet the numerical limitation, USCIS manner even if, instead of obtaining an fraudulent, misrepresents any material will randomly select from among all OES prevailing wage, a petitioner elects fact, or is not true and correct, USCIS eligible petitions within that particular to obtain a prevailing wage using may reject or deny the petition or, if wage level a sufficient number of another legitimate source (other than approved, may revoke the approval of a petitions needed to reach the numerical OES) or an independent authoritative petition that was filed based on that limitation. source. If USCIS receives and ranks registration. (2) Advanced degree exemption more petitions at a particular wage level (iii) USCIS also may deny or revoke selection in event of suspended than necessary to meet the numerical approval of a subsequent new or registration process. After USCIS has limitation for the H–1B advanced degree amended petition filed by the petitioner, received a sufficient number of petitions exemption, USCIS will randomly select or a related entity, on behalf of the same to meet the H–1B regular cap and, as from among all eligible petitions within beneficiary, if USCIS determines that applicable, completed the selection that particular wage level a sufficient the filing of the new or amended process of petitions for the H–1B regular number of petitions needed to reach the petition is part of the petitioner’s cap, USCIS will determine whether numerical limitation. attempt to unfairly decrease the there is a sufficient number of * * * * * proffered wage to an amount that would remaining petitions to meet the H–1B (10) * * * be equivalent to a lower wage level, advanced degree exemption numerical (ii) * * * The petition may be denied after listing a higher wage level on the limitation. When calculating the if it is determined that the statements on registration to increase the odds of number of petitions needed to meet the the registration or petition were selection. USCIS will not deny or revoke H–1B advanced degree exemption inaccurate. The petition will be denied approval of such an amended or new numerical limitation USCIS will take if it is determined that the statements on petition solely on the basis of a different into account historical data related to the registration or petition were proffered wage if that wage does not approvals, denials, revocations, and fraudulent or misrepresented a material correspond to a lower OES wage level other relevant factors. USCIS will fact. A petition also may be denied if it than the wage level on which the monitor the number of petitions is not based on a valid registration registration selection was based. received and will announce on its submitted by the petitioner (or its * * * * * website the date that it receives the designated representative), or a (iv) * * * number of petitions projected as needed successor in interest, for the beneficiary (B) * * * to meet the H–1B advanced degree named in the petition. A valid (1) * * * If the final receipt date is any exemption numerical limitation (the registration must represent a legitimate of the first five business days on which ‘‘final receipt date’’). The date the job offer. USCIS also may deny a petitions subject to the H–1B regular cap announcement is posted will not control subsequent new or amended petition may be received, USCIS will select from the final receipt date. If the final receipt filed by the petitioner, or a related among all the petitions properly date is any of the first five business days entity, on behalf of the same beneficiary, submitted during the first five business on which petitions subject to the H–1B if USCIS determines that the filing of days the number of petitions deemed advanced degree exemption may be the new or amended petition is part of necessary to meet the H–1B regular cap. received (in other words, if the the petitioner’s attempt to unfairly If USCIS has received more petitions numerical limitation is reached on any increase the odds of selection during the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69265

registration or petition selection petitioners in the United States under Room W12–140 of the West Building process, as applicable, such as by this section, as consistent with law. Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey reducing the proffered wage to an * * * * * Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 amount that would be equivalent to a a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through lower wage level than that indicated on Chad R. Mizelle, Friday, except Federal holidays. the original petition. USCIS will not Senior Official Performing the Duties of the • Fax: Fax comments to Docket General Counsel, U.S. Department of Operations at 202–493–2251. deny such an amended or new petition Homeland Security. solely on the basis of a different Privacy: Except for Confidential [FR Doc. 2020–24259 Filed 10–29–20; 12:15 pm] proffered wage if that wage does not Business Information (CBI) as described BILLING CODE 9111–97–P correspond to a lower OES wage level in the following paragraph, and other than the wage level on which the information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments registration or petition selection, as DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION applicable, was based. * * * it receives, without change, to http:// regulations.gov, including any personal (11) * * * Federal Aviation Administration information the commenter provides. (iii) * * * Using the search function of the docket 14 CFR Part 27 (A) * * * website, anyone can find and read the [Docket No. FAA–2020–1011; Notice No. 27– electronic form of all comments (2) The statement of facts contained in 051–SC] received into any FAA docket, the petition; the registration, if including the name of the individual applicable; or on the temporary labor Special Conditions: AgustaWestland sending the comment (or signing the certification or labor condition Philadelphia Corporation, Leonardo comment for an association, business, application; was not true and correct, S.p.A. Model A119 and AW119 MKII labor union, etc.). DOT’s complete inaccurate, fraudulent, or Helicopters; Pressure Refueling and Privacy Act Statement can be found in misrepresented a material fact; or Fueling Provisions the Federal Register published on April (3) The petitioner, or a related entity, AGENCY: Federal Aviation 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477–19478). filed a new or amended petition on Administration (FAA), DOT. Confidential Business Information: behalf of the same beneficiary, if USCIS ACTION: Notice of proposed special CBI is commercial or financial determines that the filing of the new or conditions. information that is both customarily and amended petition is part of the actually treated as private by its owner. petitioner’s attempt to unfairly increase SUMMARY: This action proposes special Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt the odds of selection during the conditions for the Leonardo S.p.A. (Leonardo) Model A119 and AW119 from public disclosure. If your registration or petition selection MKII helicopters. These helicopters as comments responsive to these special process, as applicable, such as by modified by AgustaWestland conditions contain commercial or reducing the proffered wage to an Philadelphia Corporation (AWPC) will financial information that is customarily amount that would be equivalent to a have a novel or unusual design feature treated as private, that you actually treat lower wage level than that indicated on when compared to the state of as private, and that is relevant or the registration, or the original petition technology envisioned in the responsive to these special conditions, it if the registration process was airworthiness standards for helicopters. is important that you clearly designate suspended. USCIS will not revoke This design feature is the optional the submitted comments as CBI. approval of such an amended or new closed circuit refueling receiver (CCRR). Please mark each page of your petition solely on the basis of a different The applicable airworthiness submission containing CBI as proffered wage if that wage does not regulations do not contain adequate or ‘‘PROPIN.’’ The FAA will treat such correspond to a lower OES wage level appropriate safety standards for this marked submissions as confidential than the wage level on which the design feature. These proposed special under the FOIA, and they will not be registration or petition selection, as conditions contain the additional safety placed in the public docket of these applicable, was based; or standards that the Administrator special conditions. Submissions * * * * * considers necessary to establish a level containing CBI should be sent to Rao of safety equivalent to that established Edupuganti, Regulations and Policy (24) * * * by the existing airworthiness standards. Section, AIR–681, Rotorcraft Standards (i) The requirement to submit a DATES: Send comments on or before Branch, Policy and Innovation Division, registration for an H–1B cap-subject December 2, 2020. Aircraft Certification Service, 10101 petition and the selection process based ADDRESSES: Send comments identified Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, Texas on properly submitted registrations by Docket No. FAA–2020–1011 using 76177; telephone (817) 222–4389; under paragraph (h)(8)(iii) of this any of the following methods: facsimile (817) 222–5961. Any section are intended to be severable • Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to commentary that the FAA receives from paragraph (h)(8)(iv) of this section. http://www.regulations.gov/ and follow which is not specifically designated as In the event paragraph (h)(8)(iii) is not the online instructions for sending your CBI will be placed in the public docket implemented, or in the event that comments electronically. for this rulemaking. paragraph (h)(8)(iv) is not implemented, • Mail: Send comments to Docket Docket: Background documents or DHS intends that either of those Operations, M–30, U.S. Department of comments received may be read at provisions be implemented as an Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. independent rule, without prejudice to Avenue SE, Room W12–140, West Follow the online instructions for Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC accessing the docket or go to Docket 20590–0001. Operations in Room W12–140 of the • Hand Delivery or Courier: Take West Building Ground Floor at 1200 comments to Docket Operations in New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:01 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 69266 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday effect on the date of application for the inches outboard of the fuselage profile through Friday, except Federal holidays. change. The regulations incorporated by due to packaging constraints. The FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rao reference in the type certificate are mechanical components and functional Edupuganti, Regulations and Policy commonly referred to as the ‘‘original aspects of the Model A119 and AW119 Section, AIR–681, Rotorcraft Standards type certification basis.’’ The MKII CCRR installations are unchanged Branch, Policy and Innovation Division, certification basis also includes certain from the previously certified AW139 Aircraft Certification Service, 10101 special conditions, exemptions, or later installation. Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, Texas amended sections of the applicable part The part 27 airworthiness regulations 76177; telephone (817) 222–4389; that are not relevant to these proposed in the type certification basis do not facsimile (817) 222–5961. special conditions. contain appropriate safety standards for SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: If the Administrator finds that the this design feature. However, part 29 applicable airworthiness regulations do regulations contain appropriate Comments Invited not contain adequate or appropriate airworthiness standards; therefore, these The FAA invites interested people to safety standards for the Leonardo Model special conditions are necessary. They take part in this rulemaking by sending A119 and AW119 MKII helicopters are derived from 14 CFR 29.979, written comments, data, or views. The because of a novel or unusual design ‘‘Pressure refueling and fueling most helpful comments reference a feature, special conditions are provisions below fuel level.’’ specific portion of the special prescribed under the provisions of Section 29.979, amendment 29–12, conditions, explain the reason for any § 21.16. effective , 1977, includes recommended change, and include Special conditions are initially standards for pressure refueling and supporting data. applicable to the model for which they fueling provisions below fuel level on The FAA will consider all comments are issued. Should the applicant apply transport category helicopters. This received by the closing date for for a supplemental type certificate to regulation is intended to prevent comments. The FAA may change these modify any other model included on the hazards to ground crew, flight crew, and special conditions based on the same type certificate to incorporate the occupants by reducing the probability of comments received. same novel or unusual design feature, exposure to hazardous quantities of fuel these special conditions would also due to spillage. This regulation also Background apply to the other model under § 21.101. ensures the pressure refueling/defueling On January 30, 2020, AWPC applied The FAA issues special conditions, as system is designed to prevent overfilling for a supplemental type certificate to defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance the fuel tank and to withstand an install an optional CCRR in the with § 11.38, and they become part of ultimate load overpressure event Leonardo Model A119 and AW119 MKII the type certification basis under without failure. helicopters. The general configuration § 21.101. Section 29.979(a) requires that each and the principles of construction of fueling connection below the fuel level these helicopters will not be changed by Novel or Unusual Design Feature in each tank have means to prevent the the proposed modifications. These The Leonardo Model A119 and escape of hazardous quantities of fuel helicopters are 14 CFR part 27 normal AW119 MKII helicopters will from that tank in case of malfunction of category helicopters powered by incorporate the following novel or the fuel entry valve. The only refueling turboshaft engines, with a 7-passenger unusual design feature: An optional connection on the Leonardo Model maximum capacity and minimum crew CCRR system that allows for pressure A119 and AW119 MKII helicopters is of one pilot and a maximum weight of refueling. located above the fuel level of the single 5,997 lb (2,720 kg) and 6,283 lb (2,850 Discussion main upper, two main lower, and kg), respectively. The total useable fuel optional two auxiliary fuel tanks. As the capacity of the Leonardo Model A119 AWPC proposes to install an optional proposed modification by AWPC does and AW119 MKII helicopters is 157.0 CCRR system that includes provisions not move the existing refueling U.S. gallons distributed within the fuel for pressure refueling during ground connection below the fuel line of any tanks. Both helicopter models are operations with the engine running and fuel tank, these special conditions do powered by one Pratt & Whitney Canada the rotors turning. The design proposed not include a requirement derived from Inc. PT6B–37A turboshaft engine. by AWPC allows for both closed-circuit 14 CFR 29.979(a). Part 27 does not contain requirements pressure and normal gravity refueling Section 29.979(b) requires that for pressure refueling for normal and fueling. In this design, the ground systems intended for pressure refueling category helicopters. 14 CFR 29.979, crew will be able to perform closed- and fueling have a means in addition to amendment 29–12, provides these circuit pressure refueling by pulling the the normal means for limiting the tank requirements for transport category receiver into place using the provided content to prevent damage to the tank in helicopters. Accordingly, these special lanyard tool after the fuel filler cap is case of failure of the normal means. conditions are based on § 29.979 to opened. When gravity fueling is desired, Section 29.979(c) requires that the provide requirements for the inclusion a latch is depressed using the same helicopter pressure fueling system (not of the optional CCRR on the Leonardo lanyard tool. Depressing the latch fuel tanks and fuel tank vents) Model A119 and AW119 MKII causes the receiver to swing open to withstand an ultimate load that is 2.0 helicopters. accommodate any nozzle up to three times the load arising from the inches in diameter. The CCRR system is maximum pressure, including surge, Type Certification Basis currently certified on the Leonardo likely to occur during fueling. The Under the provisions of 14 CFR Model AW139 transport category maximum surge pressure must be 21.101, AWPC must show that the helicopter. Relative to the Model established with any combination of Leonardo Model A119 and AW119 MKII AW139 installation, the proposed tank valves being either intentionally or helicopters, as changed, continue to Model A119 and AW119 MKII inadvertently closed. meet the applicable provisions of the installations will be clocked 25 degrees Section 29.979(d) requires that the regulations listed in Type Certificate No. counter-clockwise, and the receptacle helicopter defueling system (not H7EU or the applicable regulations in flange will be offset approximately two including fuel tanks and fuel tank vents)

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69267

withstand an ultimate load that is 2.0 vents) must withstand an ultimate load • Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail times the load arising from the that is 2.0 times the load arising from address above between 9 a.m. and 5 maximum permissible defueling maximum pressure, including surge, p.m., Monday through Friday, except pressure (positive or negative) at the that is likely to occur during fueling. Federal holidays. helicopter’s fueling connection. As the The maximum surge pressure must be For material incorporated by reference design proposed by AWPC does not established with any combination of (IBR) in this AD, contact the EASA, include a defueling capability, these tank valves being either intentionally or Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 special conditions do not include a inadvertently closed. Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 requirement derived from 14 CFR Issued in Fort Worth, Texas on , 89990 1000; email [email protected]; 29.979(d). 2020. internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may These proposed special conditions Jorge Castillo, find this IBR material on the EASA contain the additional safety standards website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. Manager, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, AIR– that the Administrator considers 680, Policy & Innovation Division, Aircraft You may view this IBR material at the necessary to establish a level of safety Certification Service. FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, equivalent to that established by the [FR Doc. 2020–24175 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood existing airworthiness standards. Pkwy., Room 6N–321, Fort Worth, TX BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 76177. For information on the Applicability availability of this material at the FAA, As discussed above, these proposed DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION call 817–222–5110. It is also available in special conditions are applicable to the AD docket on the internet at https:// Leonardo Model A119 and AW119 MKII Federal Aviation Administration www.regulations.gov by searching for helicopters. Should AWPC apply at a and locating Docket No. FAA–2020– later date for a supplemental type 14 CFR Part 39 0974. certificate to modify any other model included on Type Certificate No. H7EU [Docket No. FAA–2020–0974; Project Examining the AD Docket to incorporate the same novel or Identifier MCAI–2020–00273–R] You may examine the AD docket on unusual design feature, these special the internet at https:// conditions would apply to that model as RIN 2120–AA64 www.regulations.gov by searching for well. Airworthiness Directives; Airbus and locating Docket No. FAA–2020– 0974; or in person at Docket Operations Conclusion Helicopters between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday This action affects only one novel or AGENCY: Federal Aviation through Friday, except Federal holidays. unusual design feature on the Leonardo Administration (FAA), DOT. The AD docket contains this NPRM, any Model A119 and AW119 MKII ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking comments received, and other helicopters. It is not a rule of general (NPRM). information. The street address for applicability and affects only the Docket Operations is listed above. applicant who applied to the FAA for SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a Comments will be available in the AD approval of this feature on these new airworthiness directive (AD) for all docket shortly after receipt. helicopters. Airbus Helicopters Model EC 155B and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hal List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 29 EC155B1 helicopters. This proposed AD Jensen, Aerospace Engineer, Operational was prompted by a report that non- Safety Branch, FAA, 470 L’Enfant Plaza Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting destructive tests of the main gearbox SW, Washington, DC 20024; telephone and recordkeeping requirements. (MGB) housing may have been 202–267–9167; email hal.jensen@ Authority Citation evaluated incorrectly during faa.gov. production. This proposed AD would The authority citation for these SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: require replacing affected MGBs with special conditions is as follows: serviceable MGBs, as specified in a Comments Invited Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, European Union Aviation Safety Agency 44701, 44702, 44704. The FAA invites you to participate in (EASA) AD, which will be incorporated this rulemaking by submitting written The Proposed Special Conditions by reference. The FAA is proposing this comments, data, or views about this AD to address the unsafe condition on proposal. The most helpful comments Accordingly, the Federal Aviation these products. Administration proposes the following reference a specific portion of the special conditions as part of the type DATES: The FAA must receive comments proposal, explain the reason for any certification basis for Leonardo S.p.A. on this proposed AD by , recommended change, and include Model A119 and AW119 MKII 2020. supporting data. To ensure the docket helicopters, as modified by ADDRESSES: You may send comments, does not contain duplicate comments, AgustaWestland Philadelphia using the procedures found in 14 CFR commenters should submit only one Corporation. 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following copy of the comments. Send your The pressure refueling system must be methods: comments to an address listed under the designed and installed as follows: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. (a) For systems intended for pressure https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the FAA–2020–0974; Project Identifier refueling, a means in addition to the instructions for submitting comments. MCAI–2020–00273–R’’ at the beginning normal means for limiting the tank • Fax: 202–493–2251. of your comments. content must be installed to prevent • Mail: U.S. Department of Except for Confidential Business damage to the fuel tank in case of failure Transportation, Docket Operations, M– Information (CBI) as described in the of the normal means. 30, West Building Ground Floor, Room following paragraph, and other (b) The helicopter pressure fueling W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, information as described in 14 CFR system (not fuel tanks and fuel tank Washington, DC 20590. 11.35, the FAA will post all comments

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 69268 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

received, without change, as well as a This proposed AD was prompted by Airbus and EASA to develop a process report summarizing each substantive a report that non-destructive tests of the to use certain EASA ADs as the primary public contact with FAA personnel MGB housing may have been evaluated source of information for compliance concerning this proposed rulemaking. incorrectly during production. The FAA with requirements for corresponding Before acting on this proposal, the FAA is proposing this AD to address failure FAA ADs. The FAA has since will consider all comments received by of the affected MGB housing, possibly coordinated with other manufacturers the closing date for comments. The FAA resulting in reduced control of the and civil aviation authorities (CAAs) to will consider comments filed after the helicopter. See the MCAI for additional use this process. As a result, EASA AD comment period has closed if it is background information. 2020–0043 will be incorporated by possible to do so without incurring reference in the FAA final rule. This expense or delay. The FAA may change Related Service Information Under 1 proposed AD would, therefore, require this NPRM because of those comments. CFR Part 51 EASA AD 2020–0043 describes compliance with EASA AD 2020–0043 Confidential Business Information procedures for replacing affected MGBs in its entirety, through that CBI is commercial or financial with serviceable MGBs. incorporation, except for any differences information that is both customarily and This material is reasonably available identified as exceptions in the actually treated as private by its owner. because the interested parties have regulatory text of this proposed AD. Under the Freedom of Information Act access to it through their normal course Using common terms that are the same (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt of business or by the means identified as the heading of a particular section in from public disclosure. If your in the ADDRESSES section. the EASA AD does not mean that comments responsive to this NPRM operators need comply only with that contain commercial or financial FAA’s Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD section. For example, where the AD information that is customarily treated requirement refers to ‘‘all required as private, that you actually treat as This product has been approved by actions and compliance times,’’ private, and that is relevant or the aviation authority of another compliance with this AD requirement is responsive to this NPRM, it is important country, and is approved for operation not limited to the section titled that you clearly designate the submitted in the United States. Pursuant to the ‘‘Required Action(s) and Compliance comments as CBI. Please mark each bilateral agreement with the State of Time(s)’’ in the EASA AD. Service page of your submission containing CBI Design Authority, the FAA has been information specified in EASA AD as ‘‘PROPIN.’’ The FAA will treat such notified of the unsafe condition marked submissions as confidential described in the MCAI referenced 2020–0043 that is required for under the FOIA, and they will not be above. The FAA is proposing this AD compliance with EASA AD 2020–0043 placed in the public docket of this because the FAA evaluated all the will be available on the internet at NPRM. Submissions containing CBI relevant information and determined https://www.regulations.gov by should be sent to Hal Jensen, Aerospace the unsafe condition described searching for and locating Docket No. Engineer, Operational Safety Branch, previously is likely to exist or develop FAA–2020–0974 after the FAA final FAA, 470 L’Enfant Plaza SW, in other products of the same type rule is published. Washington, DC 20024; telephone 202– design. Differences Between This Proposed AD 267–9167; email [email protected]. Any commentary that the FAA receives Proposed AD Requirements and the MCAI that is not specifically designated as CBI This proposed AD would require EASA AD 2020–0043 specifies to do will be placed in the public docket for accomplishing the actions specified in the replacement ‘‘within 10 flight hours this rulemaking. EASA AD 2020–0043, described or 75 days, whichever occurs first.’’ The previously, as incorporated by Discussion compliance time for this proposed AD is reference, except for any differences within 10 hours time-in-service. The EASA, which is the Technical identified as exceptions in the Agent for the Member States of the regulatory text of this AD and except as Costs of Compliance European Union, has issued EASA AD discussed under ‘‘Differences Between 2020–0043, dated March 2, 2020 (EASA this Proposed AD and the MCAI.’’ The FAA estimates that this proposed AD 2020–0043) (also referred to as the AD affects 18 helicopters of U.S. Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Explanation of Required Compliance registry. The FAA estimates the Information, or the MCAI), to correct an Information following costs to comply with this unsafe condition for all Airbus In the FAA’s ongoing efforts to proposed AD: Helicopters Model EC 155 B and EC 155 improve the efficiency of the AD B1 helicopters. process, the FAA initially worked with

ESTIMATED COSTS FOR REQUIRED ACTIONS

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

40 work-hours × $85 per hour = $3,400 ...... $141,137 $144,537 $2,601,666

Authority for This Rulemaking the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: The FAA is issuing this rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code Aviation Programs, describes in more under the authority described in specifies the FAA’s authority to issue detail the scope of the Agency’s Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, authority. 44701: General requirements. Under section 106, describes the authority of that section, Congress charges the FAA

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69269

with promoting safe flight of civil (d) Subject Issued on October 26, 2020. aircraft in air commerce by prescribing Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Lance T. Gant, regulations for practices, methods, and Code 6320, Main Rotor Gearbox. Director, Compliance & Airworthiness procedures the Administrator finds (e) Reason Division, Aircraft Certification Service. necessary for safety in air commerce. This AD was prompted by a report that [FR Doc. 2020–24103 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] This regulation is within the scope of non-destructive tests of the main gearbox BILLING CODE 4910–13–P that authority because it addresses an (MGB) housing may have been evaluated unsafe condition that is likely to exist or incorrectly during production. The FAA is develop on products identified in this issuing this AD to address failure of the DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION rulemaking action. affected MGB housing, possibly resulting in reduced control of the helicopter. Federal Aviation Administration Regulatory Findings (f) Compliance The FAA determined that this 14 CFR Part 39 proposed AD would not have federalism Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already [Docket No. FAA–2020–0977; Project implications under Executive Order done. Identifier MCAI–2020–01106–T] 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the (g) Requirements RIN 2120–AA64 States, on the relationship between the Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this national Government and the States, or AD: Comply with all required actions and Airworthiness Directives; Dassault on the distribution of power and compliance times specified in, and in Aviation Airplanes responsibilities among the various accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2020–0043, dated AGENCY: Federal Aviation levels of government. March 2, 2020 (EASA AD 2020–0043). Administration (FAA), DOT. For the reasons discussed above, I ACTION: (h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2020–0043 Notice of proposed rulemaking certify this proposed regulation: (NPRM). (1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory (1) Where EASA AD 2020–0043 refers to its action’’ under Executive Order 12866, effective date, this AD requires using the SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation effective date of this AD. supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) in Alaska, and (2) Where EASA AD 2020–0043 specifies 2019–03–27, which applies to all (3) Will not have a significant to do the replacement ‘‘within 10 flight hours or 75 days, whichever occurs first after the Dassault Aviation Model Falcon 10 economic impact, positive or negative, airplanes. AD 2019–03–27 requires on a substantial number of small entities effective date of this AD,’’ for this AD, the compliance time for the replacement is repetitive detailed inspections of certain under the criteria of the Regulatory within 10 hours time-in-service after the wing anti-ice outboard flexible hoses, Flexibility Act. effective date of this AD. and replacement of certain wing anti-ice List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 (3) Although the service information outboard flexible hoses. Since the FAA referenced in EASA AD 2020–0043 specifies Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation issued AD 2019–03–27, an improved to return certain parts, this AD does not wing anti-ice flexible hose has been safety, Incorporation by reference, include that requirement. Safety. (4) The ‘‘Remarks’’ section of EASA AD developed. This proposed AD would 2020–0043 does not apply to this AD. continue to require the actions in AD The Proposed Amendment 2019–03–27, and would add a new life (i) Alternative Methods of Compliance limit for the improved wing anti-ice Accordingly, under the authority (AMOCs): delegated to me by the Administrator, flexible hose, as specified in a European The Manager, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send AD, which will be incorporated by 39 as follows: your proposal to: Manager, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood reference. The FAA is proposing this PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone AD to address the unsafe condition on DIRECTIVES 817–222–5110; email 9-ASW-FTW-AMOC- these products. [email protected]. DATES: The FAA must receive comments ■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 (j) Related Information on this proposed AD by December 17, continues to read as follows: 2020. (1) For EASA AD 2020–0043, contact the Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 ADDRESSES: You may send comments, § 39.13 [Amended] Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 89990 using the procedures found in 14 CFR ■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding 6017; email [email protected]; internet 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this methods: the following new airworthiness EASA AD on the EASA website at https:// • directive (AD): Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the Airbus Helicopters: Docket No. FAA–2020– material at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood instructions for submitting comments. 0974; Project Identifier MCAI–2020– • Fax: 202–493–2251. 00273–R. Pkwy., Room 6N–321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this • Mail: U.S. Department of (a) Comments Due Date material at the FAA, call 817–222–5110. This Transportation, Docket Operations, M– The FAA must receive comments by material may be found in the AD docket on 30, West Building Ground Floor, Room December 17, 2020. the internet at https://www.regulations.gov W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, by searching for and locating Docket No. (b) Affected ADs Washington, DC 20590. FAA–2020–0974. • Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail None. (2) For more information about this AD, contact Hal Jensen, Aerospace Engineer, address above between 9 a.m. and 5 (c) Applicability Operational Safety Branch, FAA, 470 p.m., Monday through Friday, except This AD applies to all Airbus Helicopters L’Enfant Plaza SW, Washington, DC 20024; Federal holidays. Model EC 155B and EC155B1 helicopters, telephone 202–267–9167; email hal.jensen@ For the material identified in this certificated in any category. faa.gov. proposed AD that will be incorporated

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 69270 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

by reference (IBR), contact the EASA, public contact with FAA personnel determined that the improved wing Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 concerning this proposed rulemaking. anti-ice flexible hose may be installed Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 8999 Before acting on this proposal, the FAA on airplanes and that a life limit for the 000; email: [email protected]; will consider all comments received by improved wing anti-ice flexible hose internet: www.easa.europa.eu. You may the closing date for comments. The FAA must be implemented. find this IBR material on the EASA will consider comments filed after the The EASA, which is the Technical website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. comment period has closed if it is Agent for the Member States of the You may view this IBR material at the possible to do so without incurring European Union, has issued EASA AD FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, expense or delay. The FAA may change 2020–0127, dated , 2020 (‘‘EASA Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South this NPRM because of those comments. AD 2020–0127’’) (also referred to as the 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For Confidential Business Information Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness information on the availability of this CBI is commercial or financial Information, or ‘‘the MCAI’’), to correct material at the FAA, call 206–231–3195. an unsafe condition for all Dassault It is also available in the AD docket on information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Aviation Model Falcon 10 airplanes. the internet at https:// EASA AD 2020–0127 supersedes EASA www.regulations.gov by searching for Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt AD 2019–0040–E, dated , and locating Docket No. FAA–2020– 2019 (which corresponds to AD 2019– 0977. from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM 03–27). Examining the AD Docket contain commercial or financial This proposed AD was prompted by You may examine the AD docket on information that is customarily treated a report indicating that certain wing the internet at https:// as private, that you actually treat as anti-ice outboard flexible hoses were www.regulations.gov by searching for private, and that is relevant or found damaged, likely resulting from and locating Docket No. FAA–2020– responsive to this NPRM, it is important the installation process, and the 0977; or in person at Docket Operations that you clearly designate the submitted development of an improved wing anti- between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday comments as CBI. Please mark each ice flexible hose. The FAA is proposing through Friday, except Federal holidays. page of your submission containing CBI this AD to address damaged wing anti- The AD docket contains this NPRM, any as ‘‘PROPIN.’’ The FAA will treat such ice outboard flexible hoses, which could comments received, and other marked submissions as confidential lead to a loss of performance of the wing information. The street address for under the FOIA, and they will not be anti-ice protection system that is not Docket Operations is listed above. placed in the public docket of this annunciated to the pilot, and could Comments will be available in the AD NPRM. Submissions containing CBI result in reduced control of the airplane. docket shortly after receipt. should be sent to Tom Rodriguez, See the MCAI for additional background Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft information. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Section, International Validation Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, Large Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Explanation of Retained Requirements Aircraft Section, International Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206– Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South Although this proposed AD does not 231–3226; email: tom.rodriguez@ 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; explicitly restate the requirements of AD faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA phone and fax: 206–231–3226; email: 2019–03–27, this proposed AD would receives which is not specifically [email protected]. retain all of the requirements of AD designated as CBI will be placed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 2019–03–27. Those requirements are public docket for this rulemaking. referenced in EASA AD 2020–0127, Comments Invited Discussion which, in turn, is referenced in paragraph (g) of this proposed AD. The FAA invites you to participate in The FAA issued AD 2019–03–27, this rulemaking by submitting written Amendment 39–19579 (84 FR 7801, Related Service Information Under 1 comments, data, or views about this , 2019) (‘‘AD 2019–03–27’’), CFR Part 51 proposal. The most helpful comments which applies to all Dassault Aviation reference a specific portion of the Model Falcon 10 airplanes. AD 2019– EASA AD 2020–0127 describes proposal, explain the reason for any 03–27 requires repetitive detailed procedures for repetitive detailed recommended change, and include inspections of certain wing anti-ice inspections of certain wing anti-ice supporting data. To ensure the docket outboard flexible hoses, and outboard flexible hoses, replacement of does not contain duplicate comments, replacement of certain wing anti-ice certain wing anti-ice outboard flexible commenters should send only one copy outboard flexible hoses. The FAA issued hoses, a new life limit for certain wing of written comments, or if comments are AD 2019–03–27 to address damaged anti-ice outboard flexible hoses, and filed electronically, commenters should wing anti-ice outboard flexible hoses, optional terminating actions for the submit only one time. Send your which could lead to a loss of repetitive inspections (replacement of comments to an address listed under the performance of the wing anti-ice all damaged affected wing anti-ice ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. protection system that is not outboard flexible hoses or FAA–2020–0977; Project Identifier annunciated to the pilot, and could accomplishing and passing an MCAI–2020–01106–T’’ at the beginning result in reduced control of the airplane. inspection on an affected wing anti-ice of your comments. outboard flexible hose after it has Except for Confidential Business Actions Since AD 2019–03–27 Was accumulated 100 flight cycles since Information (CBI) as described in the Issued installation on an airplane). This following paragraph, and other Since the FAA issued AD 2019–03– material is reasonably available because information as described in 14 CFR 27, an improved wing anti-ice flexible the interested parties have access to it 11.35, the FAA will post all comments hose has been developed which has the through their normal course of business received, without change, as well as a same life limit as other wing anti-ice or by the means identified in the report summarizing each substantive outboard flexible hoses. The FAA has ADDRESSES section.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69271

FAA’s Determination and Requirements identified as exceptions in the as the heading of a particular section in of This Proposed AD regulatory text of this AD. the EASA AD does not mean that operators need comply only with that This product has been approved by Explanation of Required Compliance Information section. For example, where the AD the aviation authority of another requirement refers to ‘‘all required country, and is approved for operation In the FAA’s ongoing efforts to actions and compliance times,’’ in the United States. Pursuant to the improve the efficiency of the AD compliance with this AD requirement is FAA’s bilateral agreement with the State process, the FAA initially worked with not limited to the section titled of Design Authority, the FAA has been Airbus and EASA to develop a process ‘‘Required Action(s) and Compliance notified of the unsafe condition to use certain EASA ADs as the primary Time(s)’’ in the EASA AD. Service source of information for compliance described in the MCAI referenced information specified in EASA AD with requirements for corresponding above. The FAA is proposing this AD 2020–0127 that is required for FAA ADs. The FAA has since because the FAA evaluated all pertinent compliance with EASA AD 2020–0127 coordinated with other manufacturers information and determined an unsafe will be available on the internet at condition exists and is likely to exist or and civil aviation authorities (CAAs) to use this process. As a result, EASA AD https://www.regulations.gov by develop on other products of the same 2020–0127 will be incorporated by searching for and locating Docket No. type design. reference in the FAA final rule. This FAA–2020–0977 after the FAA final rule is published. Proposed AD Requirements proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2020–0127 Costs of Compliance This proposed AD would require in its entirety, through that accomplishing the actions specified in incorporation, except for any differences The FAA estimates that this proposed EASA AD 2020–0127 described identified as exceptions in the AD affects 54 airplanes of U.S. registry. previously, as incorporated by regulatory text of this proposed AD. The FAA estimates the following costs reference, except for any differences Using common terms that are the same to comply with this proposed AD:

ESTIMATED COSTS FOR REQUIRED ACTIONS

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

Retained actions from AD 2019-03-27 ...... 9 work-hours × $85 per hour = $765 ...... $0 $765 $41,310 New proposed actions ...... 9 work-hours × $85 per hour = $765 ...... 316 1,081 58,374

The FAA estimates the following based on the results of any required might need these on-condition costs to do any necessary on-condition actions. The FAA has no way of replacements: replacements that would be required determining the number of aircraft that

ESTIMATED COSTS OF ON-CONDITION ACTIONS

Cost per Labor cost Parts cost product

9 work-hours × $85 per hour = $765 ...... $316 $1,081

Authority for This Rulemaking develop on products identified in this under the criteria of the Regulatory rulemaking action. Flexibility Act. Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA’s authority to issue Regulatory Findings List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, The FAA determined that this Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation section 106, describes the authority of proposed AD would not have federalism safety, Incorporation by reference, the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: implications under Executive Order Safety. Aviation Programs, describes in more 13132. This proposed AD would not detail the scope of the Agency’s have a substantial direct effect on the The Proposed Amendment authority. States, on the relationship between the Accordingly, under the authority The FAA is issuing this rulemaking national Government and the States, or delegated to me by the Administrator, under the authority described in on the distribution of power and the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section responsibilities among the various 39 as follows: 44701: General requirements. Under levels of government. that section, Congress charges the FAA For the reasons discussed above, I PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS with promoting safe flight of civil certify this proposed regulation: DIRECTIVES aircraft in air commerce by prescribing (1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory regulations for practices, methods, and action’’ under Executive Order 12866, ■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 procedures the Administrator finds (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation continues to read as follows: necessary for safety in air commerce. in Alaska, and Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. This regulation is within the scope of (3) Will not have a significant that authority because it addresses an economic impact, positive or negative, § 39.13 [Amended] unsafe condition that is likely to exist or on a substantial number of small entities ■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 69272 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

■ a. Removing Airworthiness Directive to submit certain information to the DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (AD) 2019–03–27, Amendment 39– manufacturer, this AD does not include that 19579 (84 FR 7801, March 5, 2019), and requirement. Federal Aviation Administration ■ b. Adding the following new AD: (j) Other FAA AD Provisions Dassault Aviation: Docket No. FAA–2020– The following provisions also apply to this 14 CFR Part 39 0977; Project Identifier MCAI–2020– AD: 01106–T. (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance [Docket No. FAA–2020–0972; Project (AMOCs): The Manager, Large Aircraft Identifier MCAI–2020–01091–T] (a) Comments Due Date Section, International Validation Branch, The FAA must receive comments by FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs December 17, 2020. for this AD, if requested using the procedures RIN 2120–AA64 found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with (b) Affected AD 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your Airworthiness Directives; ATR—GIE This AD replaces AD 2019–03–27, principal inspector or local Flight Standards Avions de Transport Re´gional Amendment 39–19579 (84 FR 7801, March 5, District Office, as appropriate. If sending Airplanes 2019) (‘‘AD 2019–03–27’’). information directly to the Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, (c) Applicability AGENCY: Federal Aviation send it to the attention of the person Administration (FAA), DOT. This AD applies to all Dassault Aviation identified in paragraph (k)(2) of this AD. Model Falcon 10 airplanes, certificated in Information may be emailed to: 9-AVS-AIR- ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking any category. [email protected]. (NPRM). (d) Subject (i) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to Air Transport Association (ATA) of or lacking a principal inspector, the manager supersede Airworthiness Directives America Code 30, Ice and rain protection. of the local flight standards district office/ (AD) 2000–23–26, AD 2018–14–11, and (e) Reason certificate holding district office. AD 2019–13–04, which apply to ATR— (ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD ´ This AD was prompted by a report 2019–03–27 are approved as AMOCs for the GIE Avions de Transport Regional indicating that certain wing anti-ice outboard corresponding provisions of EASA AD 2020– Model ATR72 airplanes. AD 2019–13– flexible hoses were found damaged, likely 0127 that are required by paragraph (g) of this 04 requires revising the existing resulting from the installation process, and AD. maintenance or inspection program, as the development of an improved wing anti- (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any applicable, to incorporate new or more ice flexible hose. The FAA is issuing this AD requirement in this AD to obtain instructions restrictive maintenance instructions and to address damaged wing anti-ice outboard from a manufacturer, the instructions must airworthiness limitations. Since the flexible hoses, which could lead to a loss of be accomplished using a method approved FAA issued AD 2019–13–04, the FAA performance of the wing anti-ice protection by the Manager, Large Aircraft Section, system that is not annunciated to the pilot, International Validation Branch, FAA; or has determined that new or more and could result in reduced control of the EASA; or Dassault Aviation’s EASA Design restrictive airworthiness limitations are airplane. Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by necessary. This proposed AD would the DOA, the approval must include the require revising the existing (f) Compliance DOA-authorized signature. maintenance or inspection program, as Comply with this AD within the (k) Related Information applicable, to incorporate new or more compliance times specified, unless already restrictive airworthiness limitations, as done. (1) For information about EASA AD 2020– 0127, contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer- specified in a European Union Aviation (g) Requirements Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which will Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this 221 8999 000; email: [email protected]; be incorporated by reference. The FAA AD: Comply with all required actions and internet: www.easa.europa.eu. You may find is proposing this AD to address the compliance times specified in, and in this EASA AD on the EASA website at unsafe condition on these products. accordance with, European Union Aviation https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2020–0127, dated material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products DATES: The FAA must receive comments June 4, 2020 (‘‘EASA AD 2020–0127’’). Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 on this proposed AD by December 17, South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For 2020. (h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2020–0127 information on the availability of this ADDRESSES: You may send comments, (1) Where EASA AD 2020–0127 refers to material at the FAA, call 206–231–3195. This , 2019 (the effective date of EASA material may be found in the AD docket on using the procedures found in 14 CFR AD 2019–0040–E, dated February 21, 2019), the internet at https://www.regulations.gov 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following this AD requires using , 2019 (the by searching for and locating Docket No. methods: effective date of AD 2019–03–27). FAA–2020–0977. • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to (2) Where EASA AD 2020–0127 refers to its (2) For more information about this AD, https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the effective date, this AD requires using the contact Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International instructions for submitting comments. effective date of this AD. • (3) The ‘‘Remarks’’ section of EASA AD Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th Fax: 202–493–2251. 2020–0127 does not apply to this AD. St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: • Mail: U.S. Department of (4) Where EASA AD 2020–0127 refers to 206–231–3226; email: tom.rodriguez@ Transportation, Docket Operations, M– paragraph (4) of EASA AD 2017–0108 for faa.gov. 30, West Building Ground Floor, Room applicable life limits, for this AD refer to Issued on October 26, 2020. W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, FAA AD 2016–19–07, Amendment 39–18656 Lance T. Gant, Washington, DC 20590. (81 FR 63688, , 2016). Director, Compliance & Airworthiness • Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail (i) No Reporting Requirement Division, Aircraft Certification Service. address above between 9 a.m. and 5 Although the service information [FR Doc. 2020–24042 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] p.m., Monday through Friday, except referenced in EASA AD 2020–0127 specifies BILLING CODE 4910–13–P Federal holidays.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69273

For the EASA material identified in all comments received by the closing , 2009) (‘‘AD 2008–04–19 this proposed AD that will be date and may amend the proposal R1’’), and AD 2018–14–11 Amendment incorporated by reference (IBR), contact because of those comments. Except for 39–19331 (83 FR 34031, , 2018) the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, Confidential Business Information (CBI) (‘‘AD 2018–14–11’’);. AD 2008–04–19 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 as described in the following paragraph, R1 was superseded by AD 2020–09–16, 221 8999 000; email and other information as described in 14 Amendment 39–19912 (85 FR 29596, [email protected]; internet CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all May 18, 2020). This proposed AD would www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this comments we receive, without change, therefore supersede AD 2000–23–26, AD IBR material on the EASA website at to https://www.regulations.gov, 2018–14–11, and AD 2019–13–04. https://ad.easa.europa.eu. including any personal information you Actions Since AD 2019–13–04 Was For the ATR service information provide. The agency will also post a Issued identified in this proposed AD, contact report summarizing each substantive ATR—GIE Avions de Transport verbal contact we receive about this Since the FAA issued AD 2019–13– Re´gional, 1 Alle´e Pierre Nadot, 31712 proposed AD. 04, the FAA has determined that new or more restrictive airworthiness Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 Confidential Business Information (0) 5 62 21 62 21; fax +33 (0) 5 62 21 limitations are necessary. 67 18; email continued.airworthiness@ CBI is commercial or financial The EASA, which is the Technical atr-aircraft.com; internet https:// information that is both customarily and Agent for the Member States of the www.atr-aircraft.com. actually treated as private by its owner. European Union, has issued EASA AD You may view this IBR material at the Under the Freedom of Information Act 2020–0173, dated August 5, 2020 FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt (‘‘EASA AD 2020–0173’’) (also referred Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South from public disclosure. If your to as the Mandatory Continuing 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For comments responsive to this NPRM Airworthiness Information, or ‘‘the information on the availability of this contain commercial or financial MCAI’’), to correct an unsafe condition material at the FAA, call 206–231–3195. information that is customarily treated for all ATR—GIE Avions de Transport It is also available in the AD docket on as private, that you actually treat as Re´gional Model ATR72 airplanes. the internet at https:// private, and that is relevant or Airplanes with an original www.regulations.gov by searching for responsive to this NPRM, it is important airworthiness certificate or original and locating Docket No. FAA–2020– that you clearly designate the submitted export certificate of airworthiness 0972. comments as CBI. Please mark each issued after , 2019 must page of your submission containing CBI comply with the airworthiness Examining the AD Docket as ‘‘PROPIN.’’ The FAA will treat such limitations specified as part of the You may examine the AD docket on marked submissions as confidential approved type design and referenced on the internet at https:// under the FOIA, and they will not be the type certificate data sheet; this AD www.regulations.gov by searching for placed in the public docket of this therefore does not include those and locating Docket No. FAA–2020– NPRM. Submissions containing CBI airplanes in the applicability. 0972; or in person at Docket Operations should be sent to Shahram This proposed AD was prompted by between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, a determination that new or more through Friday, except Federal holidays. Large Aircraft Section, International restrictive airworthiness limitations are The AD docket contains this NPRM, any Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South necessary. The FAA is proposing this comments received, and other 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198. Any AD to address fatigue cracking and information. The street address for commentary that the FAA receives damage in principal structural elements, Docket Operations is listed above. which is not specifically designated as which could result in reduced structural Comments will be available in the AD CBI will be placed in the public docket integrity of the airplane. See the MCAI docket shortly after receipt. for this rulemaking. for additional background information. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Discussion Related IBR Material Under 1 CFR Part Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace The FAA issued AD 2019–13–04, 51 Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, Amendment 39–19677 (84 FR 35028, EASA AD 2020–0173 describes new International Validation Branch, FAA, July 22, 2019) (‘‘AD 2019–13–04’’), for or more restrictive airworthiness 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA certain ATR—GIE Avions de Transport limitations for airplane structures and 98198; telephone and fax 206–231– Re´gional Model ATR72 airplanes. AD safe life limits. 3220; email shahram.daneshmandi@ 2019–13–04 requires revising the This AD would also require ATR faa.gov. existing maintenance or inspection ATR72 Time Limits Document, Revision SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: program, as applicable, to incorporate 16, dated January 30, 2018, which the new or more restrictive maintenance Comments Invited Director of the Federal Register instructions and airworthiness approved for incorporation by reference The FAA invites you to send any limitations. The FAA issued AD 2019– as of , 2019 (84 FR 35028, July written relevant data, views, or 13–04 to address fatigue cracking and 22, 2019). arguments about this proposal. Send damage in principal structural elements, This material is reasonably available your comments to an address listed which could result in reduced structural because the interested parties have under ADDRESSES. Include ‘‘Docket No. integrity of the airplane. AD 2019–13– access to it through their normal course FAA–2020–0972; Project Identifier 04 specifies that accomplishing the of business or by the means identified MCAI 2020–01091–T’’ at the beginning revision required by paragraph (g) of in the ADDRESSES section. of your comments. The most helpful that AD terminates all requirements of comments reference a specific portion of AD 2000–23–26, Amendment 39–11999 FAA’s Determination and Requirements the proposal, explain the reason for any (65 FR 70775, , 2000) (‘‘AD of This Proposed AD recommended change, and include 2000–23–26’’), AD 2008–04–19 R1, This product has been approved by supporting data. The FAA will consider Amendment 39–16069 (74 FR 56713, the aviation authority of another

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 69274 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

country, and is approved for operation section. For example, where the AD AD 2019–13–04 to be $7,650 (90 work- in the United States. Pursuant to the requirement refers to ‘‘all required hours × $85 per work-hour). FAA’s bilateral agreement with the State actions and compliance times,’’ The FAA has determined that revising of Design Authority, the FAA has been compliance with this AD requirement is the existing maintenance or inspection notified of the unsafe condition not limited to the section titled program takes an average of 90 work- described in the MCAI and service ‘‘Required Action(s) and Compliance hours per operator, although the agency information referenced above. The FAA Time(s)’’ in the EASA AD. recognizes that this number may vary is proposing this AD because the FAA Service information specified in from operator to operator. In the past, has evaluated all pertinent information EASA AD 2020–0173 that is required for the agency has estimated that this action and determined an unsafe condition compliance with EASA AD 2020–0173 takes 1 work-hour per airplane. Since exists and is likely to exist or develop will be available on the internet at operators incorporate maintenance or on other products of the same type https://www.regulations.gov by inspection program changes for their design. searching for and locating Docket No. affected fleet(s), the FAA has Proposed AD Requirements FAA–2020–0972 after the FAA final determined that a per-operator estimate rule is published. is more accurate than a per-airplane This proposed AD would retain the estimate. Airworthiness Limitation ADs Using requirements of AD 2019–13–04. This The FAA estimates the total cost per the New Process proposed AD would also require operator for the new proposed actions to revising the existing maintenance or The FAA’s process of incorporating be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per inspection program, as applicable, to by reference MCAI ADs as the primary work-hour). incorporate new or more restrictive source of information for compliance airworthiness limitations, which are with corresponding FAA ADs has been Authority for This Rulemaking specified in EASA AD 2020–0173 limited to certain MCAI ADs (primarily Title 49 of the United States Code described previously, as incorporated by those with service bulletins as the specifies the FAA’s authority to issue reference. Any differences with EASA primary source of information for rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, AD 2020–0173 are identified as accomplishing the actions required by section 106, describes the authority of exceptions in the regulatory text of this the FAA AD). However, the FAA is now the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: AD. This proposed AD would require expanding the process to include MCAI Aviation Programs, describes in more revisions to certain operator ADs that require a change to detail the scope of the Agency’s maintenance documents to include new airworthiness limitation documents, authority. actions (e.g., inspections). Compliance such as airworthiness limitation The FAA is issuing this rulemaking with these actions is required by 14 CFR sections. under the authority described in 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been For these ADs that incorporate by Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section previously modified, altered, or repaired reference an MCAI AD that changes 44701: General requirements. Under in the areas addressed by this proposed airworthiness limitations, the FAA that section, Congress charges the FAA AD, the operator may not be able to requirements are unchanged. Operators with promoting safe flight of civil accomplish the actions described in the must revise the existing maintenance or aircraft in air commerce by prescribing revisions. In this situation, to comply inspection program, as applicable, to regulations for practices, methods, and with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator incorporate the information specified in procedures the Administrator finds must request approval for an alternative the new airworthiness limitation necessary for safety in air commerce. method of compliance according to document. The airworthiness This regulation is within the scope of paragraph (n)(1) of this proposed AD. limitations must be followed according that authority because it addresses an to 14 CFR 91.403(c) and 91.409(e). unsafe condition that is likely to exist or Explanation of Required Compliance The previous format of the develop on products identified in this Information airworthiness limitation ADs included a rulemaking action. In the FAA’s ongoing efforts to paragraph that specified that no Regulatory Findings improve the efficiency of the AD alternative actions (e.g., inspections) or process, the FAA initially worked with intervals may be used unless the actions The FAA determined that this Airbus and EASA to develop a process or intervals are approved as an proposed AD would not have federalism to use certain EASA ADs as the primary alternative method of compliance implications under Executive Order source of information for compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the 13132. This proposed AD would not with requirements for corresponding procedures specified in the AMOCs have a substantial direct effect on the FAA ADs. The FAA has since paragraph under ‘‘Other FAA States, on the relationship between the coordinated with other manufacturers Provisions.’’ This new format includes a national Government and the States, or and civil aviation authorities (CAAs) to ‘‘New Provisions for Alternative on the distribution of power and use this process. As a result, EASA AD Actions, and Intervals’’ paragraph that responsibilities among the various 2020–0173 will be incorporated by does not specifically refer to AMOCs, levels of government. reference in the FAA final rule. This but operators may still request an For the reasons discussed above, I proposed AD would, therefore, require AMOC to use an alternative action or certify this proposed regulation: compliance with EASA AD 2020–0173 interval. (1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory in its entirety, through that action’’ under Executive Order 12866, Costs of Compliance incorporation, except for any differences (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation identified as exceptions in the The FAA estimates that this proposed in Alaska, and regulatory text of this proposed AD. AD affects 23 airplanes of U.S. registry. (3) Will not have a significant Using common terms that are the same The FAA estimates the following costs economic impact, positive or negative, as the heading of a particular section in to comply with this proposed AD: on a substantial number of small entities the EASA AD does not mean that The FAA estimates the total cost per under the criteria of the Regulatory operators need comply only with that operator for the retained actions from Flexibility Act.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69275

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 (b) Affected ADs changes. For airplanes with an original (1) This AD replaces AD 2000–23–26, airworthiness certificate or original export Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation Amendment 39–11999 (65 FR 70775, certificate of airworthiness issued on or safety, Incorporation by reference, November 28, 2000) (‘‘AD 2000–23–26’’). before January 30, 2018: Within 90 days after Safety. (2) This AD replaces AD 2018–14–11, August 26, 2019 (the effective date of AD Amendment 39–19331 (83 FR 34031, July 19, The Proposed Amendment 2019–13–04), revise the existing maintenance 2018) (‘‘AD 2018–14–11’’). or inspection program, as applicable, to (3) This AD replaces AD 2019–13–04, incorporate the information specified in ATR Accordingly, under the authority Amendment 39–19677 (84 FR 35028, July 22, delegated to me by the Administrator, 2019) (‘‘AD 2019–13–04’’). ATR72 Time Limits Document, Revision 16, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part dated January 30, 2018. The initial (c) Applicability 39 as follows: compliance time for doing the tasks is at the This AD applies to ATR—GIE Avions de time specified in ATR ATR72 Time Limits PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS Transport Re´gional Model ATR72 airplanes, Document, Revision 16, dated January 30, DIRECTIVES certificated in any category, with an original 2018, or within 90 days after August 26, airworthiness certificate or original export 2019, whichever occurs later, except as certificate of airworthiness issued on or provided by paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD. ■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 before December 12, 2019. continues to read as follows: (d) Subject (h) Retained Initial Compliance Times for Certain Tasks, With No Changes Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/Maintenance This paragraph restates the requirements of § 39.13 [Amended] Checks. paragraph (h) of AD 2019–13–04, with no ■ changes. For airplanes with an original 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by: (e) Reason airworthiness certificate or original export ■ a. Removing Airworthiness Directive This AD was prompted by a determination certificate of airworthiness issued on or (AD) 2000–23–26, Amendment 39– that new or more restrictive airworthiness before January 30, 2018: For accomplishing limitations are necessary. The FAA is issuing 11999 (65 FR 70775, November 28, airworthiness limitations (AWL) and 2000); AD 2018–14–11, Amendment 39– this AD to address fatigue cracking and damage in principal structural elements, certification maintenance requirement 19331 (83 FR 34031, July 19, 2018); and (CMR)/maintenance significant item (MSI) AD 2019–13–04, Amendment 39–19677 which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. tasks identified in figure 1 to paragraph (h) (84 FR 35028, July 22, 2019), and of this AD, the initial compliance time is at (f) Compliance ■ b. Adding the following new AD: the applicable time specified in the Comply with this AD within the airworthiness limitations section (ALS) of the ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Re´gional: compliance times specified, unless already ATR ATR72 Time Limits Document, Docket No. FAA–2020–0972; Project done. Identifier MCAI–2020–01091–T. Revision 16, dated January 30, 2018, or at the (g) Retained Maintenance or Inspection applicable compliance time in figure 1 to (a) Comments Due Date Program Revision, With No Changes paragraph (h) of this AD, whichever occurs The FAA must receive comments by This paragraph restates the requirements of later. December 17, 2020. paragraph (g) of AD 2019–13–04, with no

(i) Retained Initial Compliance Time: One- changes. For airplanes with an original specified in ATR ATR72 Time Limits Time Initial Threshold, With No Changes airworthiness certificate or original export Document, Revision 16, dated January 30, certificate of airworthiness issued on or This paragraph restates the requirements of 2018, is allowed as specified in figure 2 to before January 30, 2018: For CMR task paragraph (i) of this AD. paragraph (i) of AD 2019–13–04, with no 220000–5, a one-time initial threshold, as

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS EP02NO20.000 69276 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

(j) Retained Restrictions on Alternative (6) The provisions specified in paragraphs (2) For the ATR service information Actions and Intervals With a New Exception (5) and (6) of EASA AD 2020–0173 do not identified in this AD contact ATR—GIE This paragraph restates the requirements of apply to this AD. Avions de Transport Re´gional, 1 Alle´e Pierre paragraph (j) of AD 2019–13–04, with a new (7) The ‘‘Remarks’’ section of EASA AD Nadot, 31712 Blagnac Cedex, France; exception. Except as required by paragraph 2020–0173 does not apply to this AD. telephone +33 (0) 5 62 21 62 21; fax +33 (0) (k) of this AD, after the existing maintenance 5 62 21 67 18; email (m) New Provisions for Alternative Actions [email protected]; or inspection program has been revised as and Intervals required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no internet https://www.atr-aircraft.com. alternative actions (e.g., inspections) and After the maintenance or inspection (3) You may view this material at the FAA, intervals may be used unless the actions and program has been revised as required by Airworthiness Products Section, Operational intervals are approved as an alternative paragraph (k) of this AD, no alternative Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des method of compliance (AMOC) in actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals, are Moines, WA. For information on the accordance with the procedures specified in allowed unless they are approved as availability of this material at the FAA, call paragraph (n)(1) of this AD. specified in the provisions of the ‘‘Ref. 206–231–3195. This material may be found Publications’’ section of EASA AD 2020– in the AD docket on the internet at https:// (k) New Maintenance or Inspection Program 0173. www.regulations.gov by searching for and Revision (n) Other FAA AD Provisions locating Docket No. FAA–2020–0972. Except as specified in paragraph (l) of this (4) For more information about this AD, AD: Comply with all required actions and The following provisions also apply to this contact Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace compliance times specified in, and in AD: Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, accordance with, European Union Aviation (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2020–0173, dated (AMOCs): The Manager, Large Aircraft South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; August 5, 2020 (‘‘EASA AD 2020–0173’’). Section, International Validation Branch, telephone and fax 206–231–3220; email Accomplishing the maintenance or FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs [email protected]. inspection program revision required by this for this AD, if requested using the procedures Issued on , 2020. paragraph terminates the requirements of found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with paragraph (g) of this AD. 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your Lance T. Gant, principal inspector or local Flight Standards Director, Compliance & Airworthiness (l) Exceptions to EASA AD 2020–0173 District Office, as appropriate. If sending Division, Aircraft Certification Service. (1) Where EASA AD 2020–0173 refers to its information directly to the Large Aircraft [FR Doc. 2020–23933 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] effective date, this AD requires using the Section, International Validation Branch, effective date of this AD. send it to the attention of the person BILLING CODE 4910–13–P (2) The requirements specified in identified in paragraph (o)(4) of this AD. paragraphs (1) and (3) of EASA AD 2020– Information may be emailed to: 9-AVS-AIR- 0173 do not apply to this AD. [email protected]. Before using any DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (3) Paragraph (4) of EASA AD 2020–0173 approved AMOC, notify your appropriate specifies revising ‘‘the approved AMP’’ principal inspector, or lacking a principal Federal Aviation Administration within 12 months after its effective date, but inspector, the manager of the local flight this AD requires revising the existing standards district office/certificate holding 14 CFR Part 39 maintenance or inspection program, as district office. [Docket No. FAA–2020–0975; Product applicable, to incorporate the ‘‘limitations, (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any Identifier 2020–NM–061–AD] tasks and associated thresholds and requirement in this AD to obtain instructions intervals’’ specified in paragraph (4) of EASA from a manufacturer, the instructions must RIN 2120–AA64 AD 2020–0173 within 90 days after the be accomplished using a method approved effective date of this AD. by the Manager, Large Aircraft Section, Airworthiness Directives; De Havilland (4) Except as provided by paragraph (2) of International Validation Branch, FAA; or Aircraft of Canada Limited (Type EASA AD 2020–0173, the initial compliance EASA; or ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Certificate Previously Held by time for doing the tasks specified in Re´gional’s EASA Design Organization Bombardier, Inc.) Airplanes paragraph (4) of EASA AD 2020–0173 is at Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the applicable ‘‘associated thresholds’’ the approval must include the DOA- AGENCY: Federal Aviation specified in paragraph (4) of EASA AD 2020– authorized signature. Administration (FAA), DOT. 0173, or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later. (o) Related Information ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (5) Where table 1 of EASA AD 2020–0173 (1) For EASA AD 2020–0173, contact the (NPRM). specifies a compliance time of ‘‘without EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 SUMMARY exceeding the previous threshold and Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 : The FAA proposes to adopt a interval as specified in TLD Revision 16’’ for 000; email [email protected]; internet new airworthiness directive (AD) for this AD use ‘‘without exceeding the www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this certain De Havilland Aircraft of Canada compliance times specified in paragraph (g) EASA AD on the EASA website at https:// Limited Model DHC–8–400, –401, and of this AD.’’ ad.easa.europa.eu. –402 airplanes. This proposed AD was

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS EP02NO20.001 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69277

prompted by a report of main landing Services Section, FAA, New York ACO Discussion gear (MLG) retractions after striking an Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite Transport Canada Civil Aviation obstacle or severe wheel imbalance after 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone (TCCA), which is the aviation authority a tire failure. This proposed AD would 516–228–7323; fax 516–794–5531; email for Canada, has issued Canadian AD require inspections for correct height of [email protected]. CF–2016–31R1, dated , 2017 the lock link over-center stop pin and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: (referred to after this as the Mandatory for correct gaps of the left-hand and Comments Invited Continuing Airworthiness Information, right-hand MLG downlock proximity or ‘‘the MCAI’’), to correct an unsafe The FAA invites you to send any sensors, replacement of the shim if condition for certain De Havilland written relevant data, views, or necessary, and corrective actions, and Aircraft of Canada Limited Model DHC– arguments about this proposal. Send installation of a new improved 8–400, –401, and –402 airplanes. You your comments to an address listed proximity sensor electronic unit (PSEU) may examine the MCAI in the AD under the ADDRESSES section. Include with software changes. The FAA is docket on the internet at https:// proposing this AD to address the unsafe ‘‘Docket No. FAA–2020–0975; Product Identifier 2020–NM–061–AD’’ at the www.regulations.gov by searching for condition on these products. and locating Docket No. FAA–2020– DATES: The FAA must receive comments beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific 0975. on this proposed AD by December 17, This proposed AD was prompted by 2020. portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, a report of MLG retractions after striking ADDRESSES: You may send comments, and include supporting data. The FAA an obstacle or severe wheel imbalance using the procedures found in 14 CFR will consider all comments received by after a tire failure. The FAA is proposing 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following the closing date and may amend the this AD to address loss of MLG methods: downlock signal caused by the • proposal because of those comments. Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to Except for Confidential Business vibrations from those events, which https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the Information (CBI) as described in the leads to de-energizing the MLG solenoid instructions for submitting comments. following paragraph, and other sequence valve (SSV) and subsequent • Fax: 202–493–2251. removal of hydraulic pressure from the • information as described in 14 CFR Mail: U.S. Department of 11.35, the FAA will post all comments MLG downlock actuator. Loss of the Transportation, Docket Operations, M– received, without change, to https:// hydraulic pressure in the downlock 30, West Building Ground Floor, Room www.regulations.gov, including any actuator, combined with the vibrations, W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, personal information you provide. The can cause the stabilizer brace to unlock Washington, DC 20590. and the MLG to subsequently retract. • agency will also post a report Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail summarizing each substantive verbal See the MCAI for additional background address above between 9 a.m. and 5 contact received about this proposed information. p.m., Monday through Friday, except AD. Federal holidays. Related Service Information Under 1 For service information identified in Confidential Business Information CFR Part 51 this NPRM, contact De Havilland CBI is commercial or financial De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Aircraft of Canada Limited, Q-Series information that is both customarily and Limited has issued Bombardier Service Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt actually treated as private by its owner. Bulletin 84–32–140, Revision B, dated Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Under the Freedom of Information Act January 30, 2018. This service Canada; telephone 416–375–4000; fax (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt information describes set-up procedures 416–375–4539; email thd@ from public disclosure. If your for proper configuration of the MLG dehavilland.com; internet https:// comments responsive to this NPRM prior to performing subsequent dehavilland.com. You may view this contain commercial or financial procedures for inspections for correct service information at the FAA, information that is customarily treated height of the lock link over-center stop Airworthiness Products Section, as private, that you actually treat as pin and for correct gaps of the left-hand Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South private, and that is relevant or and right-hand MLG downlock 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For responsive to this NPRM, it is important proximity sensors, and replacement of information on the availability of this that you clearly designate the submitted the shim. material at the FAA, call 206–231–3195. comments as CBI. Please mark each De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Examining the AD Docket page of your submission containing CBI Limited has also issued Bombardier as ‘‘PROPIN.’’ The FAA will treat such Service Bulletin 84–32–143, Revision B, You may examine the AD docket on marked submissions as confidential dated November 16, 2016, which the internet at https:// under the FOIA, and they will not be describes procedures for installation of www.regulations.gov by searching for placed in the public docket of this a new, improved PSEU, PSEU 30145– and locating Docket No. FAA–2020– NPRM. Submissions containing CBI 0601, with software changes. 0975; or in person at Docket Operations should be sent to Darren Gassetto, De Havilland Aircraft of Canada between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday Aerospace Engineer, Mechanical Limited has also issued Bombardier through Friday, except Federal holidays. Systems and Administrative Services Service Bulletin 84–32–149, dated The AD docket contains this NPRM, any Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, November 16, 2016, which describes comments received, and other 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, procedures for installation of a new, information. The street address for Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516– improved PSEU, PSEU 30145–0602, Docket Operations is listed above. 228–7323; fax 516–794–5531; email 9- with software changes. Comments will be available in the AD [email protected]. Any These documents are distinct since docket shortly after receipt. commentary that the FAA receives they apply to different airplane FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: which is not specifically designated as configurations. This service information Darren Gassetto, Aerospace Engineer, CBI will be placed in the public docket is reasonably available because the Mechanical Systems and Administrative for this rulemaking. interested parties have access to it

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 69278 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

through their normal course of business notified of the unsafe condition Proposed Requirements of This NPRM or by the means identified in the described in the MCAI and service This proposed AD would require ADDRESSES section. information referenced above. The FAA accomplishing the actions specified in is proposing this AD because the FAA FAA’s Determination the service information described evaluated all the relevant information previously. This product has been approved by and determined the unsafe condition the aviation authority of another described previously is likely to exist or Costs of Compliance country, and is approved for operation develop on other products of the same The FAA estimates that this proposed in the United States. Pursuant to the type design. AD affects 57 airplanes of U.S. registry. FAA’s bilateral agreement with the State The FAA estimates the following costs of Design Authority, the FAA has been to comply with this proposed AD:

ESTIMATED COSTS FOR REQUIRED ACTIONS

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

Up to 12 work-hours × $85 per hour = Up to $1,020 ...... Up to $4,750 ...... Up to $5,770 ...... Up to $328,890.

The FAA estimates the following the results of any required actions. The number of aircraft that might need these costs to do any necessary on-condition FAA has no way of determining the on-condition actions: actions that would be required based on

ESTIMATED COSTS OF ON-CONDITION ACTIONS

Cost per Labor cost Parts cost product

1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 ...... $374 $459

Authority for This Rulemaking For the reasons discussed above, I 2020–0975; Product Identifier 2020– certify this proposed regulation: NM–061–AD. Title 49 of the United States Code (1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory (a) Comments Due Date specifies the FAA’s authority to issue action’’ under Executive Order 12866, rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, The FAA must receive comments by (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation section 106, describes the authority of December 17, 2020. in Alaska, and the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: (3) Will not have a significant (b) Affected ADs Aviation Programs, describes in more economic impact, positive or negative, None. detail the scope of the Agency’s on a substantial number of small entities authority. (c) Applicability under the criteria of the Regulatory This AD applies to De Havilland Aircraft The FAA is issuing this rulemaking Flexibility Act. under the authority described in of Canada Limited (type certificate List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 previously held by Bombardier, Inc.) Model Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section DHC–8–400, –401, and –402 airplanes, 44701: General requirements. Under Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation certificated in any category, having serial that section, Congress charges the FAA safety, Incorporation by reference, number 4001, and 4003 through 4534 with promoting safe flight of civil Safety. inclusive. aircraft in air commerce by prescribing (d) Subject regulations for practices, methods, and The Proposed Amendment procedures the Administrator finds Air Transport Association (ATA) of Accordingly, under the authority America Code 32, Landing Gear. necessary for safety in air commerce. delegated to me by the Administrator, This regulation is within the scope of the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part (e) Reason that authority because it addresses an 39 as follows: This AD was prompted by a report of main unsafe condition that is likely to exist or landing gear (MLG) retractions after striking develop on products identified in this PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS an obstacle or severe wheel imbalance after rulemaking action. DIRECTIVES a tire failure. The FAA is issuing this AD to address loss of MLG downlock signal caused Regulatory Findings ■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 by the vibrations from those events, which leads to de-energizing the MLG solenoid The FAA determined that this continues to read as follows: sequence valve and subsequent removal of proposed AD would not have federalism Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. hydraulic pressure from the MLG downlock implications under Executive Order actuator. Loss of the hydraulic pressure in 13132. This proposed AD would not § 39.13 [Amended] the downlock actuator, combined with the have a substantial direct effect on the ■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding vibrations, can cause the stabilizer brace to States, on the relationship between the the following new airworthiness unlock and the MLG to subsequently retract. national Government and the States, or directive (AD): (f) Compliance on the distribution of power and De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Comply with this AD within the responsibilities among the various (Type Certificate Previously Held by compliance times specified, unless already levels of government. Bombardier, Inc.): Docket No. FAA– done.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69279

(g) Downlock Sensor Rigging and Reduced (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any Newburyport, MA, as Plum Island Lock Link Over-Center requirement in this AD to obtain instructions Airport no longer has instrument Within 9 months after the effective date of from a manufacturer, the instructions must approaches, and controlled airspace is this AD: Verify both the height of the lock be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO Branch, no longer required. This action would link over-center stop pin and the gap of the enhance the safety and management of left-hand and right-hand MLG downlock FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or De Havilland Aircraft of Canada controlled airspace within the national proximity sensors, and perform corrective airspace system. actions as required, in accordance with Limited’s TCCA Design Approval paragraphs 3.A. and 3.B. of the Organization (DAO). If approved by the DAO, DATES: Comments must be received on the approval must include the DAO- Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier or before December 17, 2020. authorized signature. Service Bulletin 84–32–140, Revision B, ADDRESSES: Send comments on this rule dated January 30, 2018. Do all applicable (l) Related Information to: U.S. Department of Transportation, corrective actions before further flight. (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey (h) Installation of Proximity Sensor Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Avenue SE, West Building Ground Electronic Unit (PSEU) 30145–0601 AD CF–2016–31R1, dated March 24, 2017, Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC for related information. This MCAI may be 20590–0001; Telephone: (800) 647– Within 18 months after the effective date found in the AD docket on the internet at of this AD, install PSEU 30145–0601 in https://www.regulations.gov by searching for 5527, or (202) 366–9826. You must accordance with paragraphs 3.A. and 3.B. of and locating Docket No. FAA–2020–0975. identify the Docket No. FAA–2020– the Accomplishment Instructions of (2) For more information about this AD, 0924; Airspace Docket No. 20–ANE–1, Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–32–143, contact Darren Gassetto, Aerospace Engineer, at the beginning of your comments. You Revision B, dated November 16, 2016. Mechanical Systems and Administrative may also submit comments through the (i) Installation of PSEU 30145–0602 Services Section, FAA, New York ACO internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Installing PSEU 30145–0602 in accordance FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516–228– Designations and Reporting Points, and with paragraphs 3.A. and 3.B. of the 7323; fax 516–794–5531; email 9-avs-nyaco- Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier subsequent amendments can be viewed [email protected]. _ Service Bulletin 84–32–149, dated November (3) For information about AMOCs, contact online at https://www.faa.gov/air 16, 2016, also accomplishes the requirements ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing traffic/publications/. For further of paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD. Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO information, you can contact the (j) Credit for Previous Actions Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516–228– Administration, 800 Independence (1) This paragraph provides credit for 7300; fax 516–794–5531. actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, Avenue SW, Washington, DC, 20591; (4) For service information identified in Telephone: 202–267–8783. The Order is if those actions were performed before the this AD, contact De Havilland Aircraft of effective date of this AD using the service Canada Limited, Q-Series Technical Help also available for inspection at the information as specified in paragraphs Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, National Archives and Records (j)(1)(i) and (ii) of this AD. Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416– Administration (NARA). For (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–32–140, 375–4000; fax 416–375–4539; email thd@ information on the availability of FAA dated August 5, 2016. dehavilland.com; internet https:// Order 7400.11E at NARA, email (ii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–32– dehavilland.com. You may view this service [email protected] or go to https:// 140, Revision A, dated June 12, 2017. information at the FAA, Airworthiness www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ (2) This paragraph provides credit for Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, actions required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For ibr-locations.html. this AD, if PSEU 30145–0601 was installed information on the availability of this FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John before the effective date of this AD using the material at the FAA, call 206–231–3195. Fornito, Operations Support Group, service information as specified in Issued on October 26, 2020. Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation paragraphs (j)(2)(i) and (ii) of this AD. Lance T. Gant, Administration, 1701 Columbia Ave., (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–32–143, College Park, GA 30337; telephone (404) Director, Compliance & Airworthiness dated , 2016. 305–6364. (ii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–32– Division, Aircraft Certification Service. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 143, Revision A, dated August 5, 2016. [FR Doc. 2020–24040 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] : (k) Other FAA AD Provisions BILLING CODE 4910–13–P Authority for This Rulemaking The following provisions also apply to this The FAA’s authority to issue rules AD: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION regarding aviation safety is found in (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance Title 49 of the United States Code. (AMOCs): The Manager, New York ACO Federal Aviation Administration Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve authority of the FAA Administrator. AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In 14 CFR Part 71 accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your describes in more detail the scope of the [Docket No. FAA–2020–0924; Airspace agency’s authority. This proposed request to your principal inspector or local Docket No. 20–ANE–1] Flight Standards District Office, as rulemaking is promulgated under the appropriate. If sending information directly RIN 2120–AA66 authority described in Subtitle VII, part to the manager of the certification office, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Proposed Revocation of Class E section, the FAA is charged with Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New Airspace; Newburyport, MA prescribing regulations to assign the use York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, AGENCY: Federal Aviation of airspace necessary to ensure the Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone safety of aircraft and the efficient use of 516–228–7300; fax 516–794–5531. Before Administration (FAA), DOT. using any approved AMOC, notify your ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking airspace. This regulation is within the appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a (NPRM). scope of that authority as it would principal inspector, the manager of the local remove Class E airspace extending flight standards district office/certificate SUMMARY: This action proposes to upward from 700 feet above the surface holding district office. remove Class E airspace at at Plum Island Airport, Newburyport,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 69280 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

MA, due to the cancellation of all phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February instrument flight rules approaches into 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, 26, 1979), and (3) does not warrant the airport. except federal holidays. An informal preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation docket may also be examined between as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Comments Invited 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday Since this is a routine matter that will Interested persons are invited to through Friday, except federal holidays only affect air traffic procedures and air comment on this proposed rule by at the office of the Eastern Service navigation, it is certified that this submitting such written data, views, or Center, Federal Aviation proposed rule, when promulgated, will arguments, as they may desire. Administration, Room 350, 1701 not have a significant economic impact Comments that provide the factual basis Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia on a substantial number of small entities supporting the views and suggestions 30337. under the criteria of the Regulatory presented are particularly helpful in Flexibility Act. developing reasoned regulatory Availability and Summary of decisions on the proposal. Comments Documents for Incorporation by Environmental Review Reference are specifically invited on the overall This proposal would be subject to an regulatory, aeronautical, economic, This document proposes to amend environmental analysis in accordance environmental, and energy-related FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace with FAA Order 1050.1F, aspects of the proposal. Designations and Reporting Points, ‘‘Environmental Impacts: Policies and Communications should identify both dated July 21, 2020, and effective Procedures’’ prior to any FAA final docket numbers (Docket No. FAA– September 15, 2020. FAA Order regulatory action. 2020–0924 and Airspace Docket No. 20– 7400.11E is publicly available as listed ANE–1) and be submitted in triplicate to in the ADDRESSES section of this Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 the DOT Docket Operations (see document. FAA Order 7400.11E lists Airspace, Incorporation by reference, ADDRESSES section for address and Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, Navigation (air). phone number). You may also submit air traffic service routes, and reporting comments through the internet at http:// points. The Proposed Amendment www.regulations.gov. The Proposal In consideration of the foregoing, the Persons wishing the FAA to Federal Aviation Administration acknowledge receipt of their comments The FAA proposes an amendment to proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as on this action must submit with those Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations follows: comments a self-addressed stamped (14 CFR) part 71 to remove Class E postcard on which the following airspace extending upward from 700 PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, statement is made: ‘‘Comments to FAA feet above the surface at Plum Island B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR Docket No. FAA–2020–0924; Airspace Airport, Newburyport, MA, as the TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND Docket No. 20–ANE–1.’’ The postcard airport no longer has instrument REPORTING POINTS will be date/time stamped and returned approaches. Therefore, the airspace is to the commenter. no longer necessary. This action would ■ 1. The authority citation for part 71 All communications received before enhance the safety and management of continues to read as follows: the specified closing date for comments controlled airspace within the national Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, airspace system. will be considered before taking action 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, on the proposed rule. The proposal Class E airspace designations are 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389. contained in this notice may be changed published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA in light of the comments received. All Order 7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, § 71.1 [Amended] comments submitted will be available and effective September 15, 2020, which ■ 2. The incorporation by reference in for examination in the public docket is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation both before and after the comment 71.1. Administration Order 7400.11E, closing date. A report summarizing each The Class E airspace designation Airspace Designations and Reporting substantive public contact with FAA listed in this document will be Points, dated July 21, 2020, effective personnel concerned with this published subsequently in the Order. September 15, 2020, is amended as rulemaking will be filed in the docket. FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace follows: Designations and Reporting Points, is Availability of NPRMs published yearly and effective on Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas An electronic copy of this document September 15. Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More may be downloaded from and Above the Surface of the Earth. comments submitted through http:// Regulatory Notices and Analyses * * * * * www.regulations.gov. Recently The FAA has determined that this ANE MA E5 Newburyport, MA [Removed] published rulemaking documents can proposed regulation only involves an also be accessed through the FAA’s web established body of technical Issued in College Park, Georgia, on October page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/ regulations for which frequent and 27, 2020. publications/airspace_amendments/. routine amendments are necessary to Matthew N. Cathcart, You may review the public docket keep them operationally current. It, Manager, Airspace & Procedures Team North, containing the proposal, any comments therefore, (1) is not a ‘‘significant Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic received, and any final disposition in regulatory action’’ under Executive Organization. person in the Dockets Office (see the Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significant [FR Doc. 2020–24055 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] ADDRESSES section for address and rule’’ under DOT Regulatory Policies BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:01 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69281

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Operations Support Group, 2200 S Recently published rulemaking 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; documents can also be accessed through Federal Aviation Administration telephone (206) 231–2245. the FAA’s web page at https:// SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/ 14 CFR Part 71 airspace_amendments/. Authority for This Rulemaking You may review the public docket [Docket No. FAA–2020–0896; Airspace Docket No. 20–ANM–17] The FAA’s authority to issue rules containing the proposal, any comments regarding aviation safety is found in received, and any final disposition in RIN 2120–AA66 Title 49 of the United States Code. person in the Dockets Office (see the Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the ADDRESSES section for the address and Proposed Modification of Class D authority of the FAA Administrator. phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and Airspace; McChord Field (Joint Base Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, Lewis-McChord), WA describes in more detail the scope of the except federal holidays. An informal AGENCY: Federal Aviation agency’s authority. This rulemaking is docket may also be examined during Administration (FAA), DOT. promulgated under the authority normal business hours at the Northwest ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Mountain Regional Office of the Federal (NPRM). Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that Aviation Administration, Air Traffic section, the FAA is charged with Organization, Western Service Center, SUMMARY: This action proposes to prescribing regulations to assign the use Operations Support Group, 2200 S modify the Class D airspace at McChord of airspace necessary to ensure the 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198. safety of aircraft and the efficient use of Field (Joint Base Lewis-McChord), Availability and Summary of airspace. This regulation is within the Tacoma, WA. After a review of the Documents for Incorporation by scope of that authority as it would airspace, the FAA found it necessary to Reference amend the existing airspace for the modify the Class D airspace to support safety and management of Instrument IFR operations at McChord Field (Joint This document proposes to amend Flight Rules (IFR) operations at this Base Lewis-McChord), Tacoma, WA. FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, airport. This proposal would also Comments Invited remove a reference to the McChord dated July 21, 2020, and effective VORTAC from the legal description, Interested parties are invited to September 15, 2020. FAA Order update the airport name and city, and participate in this proposed rulemaking 7400.11E is publicly available as listed amend the geographical coordinates for by submitting such written data, views, in the ADDRESSES section of this the airport to match the FAA’s database. or arguments, as they may desire. document. FAA Order 7400.11E lists Comments that provide the factual basis Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, DATES: Comments must be received on supporting the views and suggestions or before December 17, 2020. air traffic service routes, and reporting presented are particularly helpful in points. ADDRESSES: Send comments on this developing reasoned regulatory proposal to the U.S. Department of decisions on the proposal. Comments The Proposal Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 are specifically invited on the overall The FAA is proposing an amendment New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building regulatory, aeronautical, economic, to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Ground Floor, Room W12–140, environmental, and energy-related (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying the Washington, DC 20590; telephone: 1– aspects of the proposal. lateral dimensions of the Class D 800–647–5527, or (202) 366–9826. You Communications should identify both airspace. The FAA initiated a review of must identify FAA Docket No. FAA– docket numbers and be submitted in the assigned airspace and drafted the 2020–0896; Airspace Docket No. 20– triplicate to the address listed above. subsequent proposal for modification ANM–17, at the beginning of your Persons wishing the FAA to due to three actions. The FAA comments. You may also submit acknowledge receipt of their comments decommissioned the McChord VORTAC comments through the internet at on this notice must submit with those because the U.S. Air Force was no https://www.regulations.gov. comments a self-addressed, stamped longer going to maintain the NAVAID. FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace postcard on which the following As a result of the decommissioning, the Designations and Reporting Points, and statement is made: ‘‘Comments to FAA was required to redefine airspace subsequent amendments can be viewed that use the VORTAC as a reference and _ Docket No. FAA–2020–0896; Airspace online at https://www.faa.gov/air Docket No. 20–ANM–17’’. The postcard remove the references from the traffic/publications/. For further will be date/time stamped and returned associated airspace descriptions. The information, you can contact the to the commenter. U.S. Air Force requested elimination of Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation All communications received before previously excluded airspace. In Administration, 800 Independence the specified closing date for comments response, the FAA completed an Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; will be considered before taking action airspace review to evaluate that request telephone: (202) 267–8783. The Order is on the proposed rule. The proposal and the Class D airspace had not been also available for inspection at the contained in this notice may be changed examined in the previous two years as National Archives and Records in light of the comments received. A required by FAA Orders. Administration (NARA). For report summarizing each substantive The exclusion of Class D airspace that information on the availability of FAA public contact with FAA personnel is southeast of the airport would be Order 7400.11E at NARA, email: concerned with this rulemaking will be eliminated to facilitate transition of [email protected], or go to https:// filed in the docket. aircraft through the area. A portion of www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ the airspace overlying Lakewood, WA ibr-locations.html. Availability of NPRMs would also be eliminated, as it is no FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: An electronic copy of this document longer needed. Richard Roberts, Federal Aviation may be downloaded through the In addition, the Legal Descriptions Administration, Western Service Center, internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Heading would be corrected to identify

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 69282 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

the proper city and state, the name of PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, (PDDA) and to clarify the procedures a the airport and the geographical B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR registrant must follow for orders coordinates for McChord Field (Joint TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND received under suspicious Base Lewis McChord) to match the REPORTING POINTS circumstances (ORUSCs). Upon receipt FAA’s National Airspace System of an ORUSC, registrants authorized to ■ Resource (NASR) database. 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR distribute controlled substances would part 71 continues to read as follows: Class D and Class E airspace have a choice of proceeding under one of two options (the ‘‘two option designations are published in paragraph Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, framework’’). In addition, these 5000 of FAA Order 7400.11E, dated July 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389. registrants would be required to submit 21, 2020, and effective September 15, all suspicious order reports to a DEA § 71.1 [Amended] 2020, which is incorporated by centralized database, and keep records ■ reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class 2. The incorporation by reference in pertaining to suspicious orders and E airspace designations listed in this 14 CFR part 71.1 of FAA Order ORUSCs. document will be published 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and DATES: subsequently in the Order. Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, Electronic comments must be submitted, and written comments must FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace and effective September 15, 2020, is amended as follows: be postmarked, on or before January 4, Designations and Reporting Points, is 2021. Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace. published yearly and effective on ADDRESSES: To ensure proper handling September 15. * * * * * of comments, please reference ‘‘RIN Regulatory Notices and Analyses ANM WA D Tacoma, WA [AMEND] 1117–AB47/Docket No. DEA–437’’ on McChord Field (Joint Base Lewis-McChord), all correspondence, including any The FAA has determined that this WA attachments. regulation only involves an established (Lat. 47°08′17″ N, long. 122°28′35″ W) Electronic comments: The DEA body of technical regulations for which That airspace extending upward from the encourages that all comments be frequent and routine amendments are surface to and including 2,800 feet MSL submitted electronically through the necessary to keep them operationally within a 5.4-mile radius of the McChord Federal eRulemaking Portal, which current, is non-controversial and Field (Joint Base Lewis-McChord), beginning provides the ability to type short ° unlikely to result in adverse or negative at the point the 315 bearing intersects the comments directly into the comment 5.4 mile radius clockwise to the point where comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ° field on the web page or attach a file for the 162 bearing intersects the 5.4 mile radius lengthier comments. Please go to http:// ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under thence south to lat. 47°02′10″ N, long. Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a 122°26′13″ W, thence west to lat. 47°02′19″ www.regulations.gov and follow the ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT N, long. 122°31′28″ W, thence north to lat. online instructions at that site for Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 47°04′17″ N, long. 122°31′26″ W, thence submitting comments. Upon submission ° ′ ″ FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) northwest to lat. 47 08 47 N, long. of your comment, you will receive a 122°35′09″ W, thence east to lat. 47°08′35 N, does not warrant preparation of a Comment Tracking Number. Please be long. 122°03′03 W, thence north to the point aware that submitted comments are not regulatory evaluation as the anticipated of beginning. instantaneously available for public impact is so minimal. Since this is a Issued in Seattle, Washington, on October view on http://www.regulations.gov. If routine matter that will only affect air 27, 2020. you have received a Comment Tracking traffic procedures and air navigation, it Byron Chew, Number, your comment has been is certified that this rule, when Acting Group Manager, Operations Support successfully submitted and there is no promulgated, would not have a Group, Western Service Center. need to resubmit the same comment. significant economic impact on a [FR Doc. 2020–24154 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] Commenters should be aware that the substantial number of small entities BILLING CODE 4910–13–P electronic Federal Docket Management under the criteria of the Regulatory System will not accept comments after Flexibility Act. 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the last day Environmental Review DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE of the comment period. Paper comments: Paper comments This proposal will be subject to an Drug Enforcement Administration that duplicate the electronic submission environmental analysis in accordance are not necessary and are discouraged. with FAA Order 1050.1F, 21 CFR Parts 1300 and 1301 Should you wish to mail a paper ‘‘Environmental Impacts: Policies and [Docket No. DEA–437] comment in lieu of an electronic Procedures’’ prior to any FAA final comment, it should be sent via regular RIN 1117–AB47 regulatory action. or express mail to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: DEA Federal List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 Suspicious Orders of Controlled Register Representative/DPW, 8701 Substances Morrissette Drive, Springfield, VA Airspace, Incorporation by reference, AGENCY: 22152. Navigation (air). Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) The Proposed Amendment ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. Comments: All comments concerning collections of information under the Accordingly, pursuant to the SUMMARY: The Drug Enforcement PRA must be submitted to the Office of authority delegated to me, the Federal Administration (DEA) is proposing to Information and Regulatory Affairs, Aviation Administration proposes to revise its regulations relating to Office of Management and Budget amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows: suspicious orders of controlled (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for substances, in order to implement the Department of Justice (DOJ), Preventing Drug Diversion Act of 2018 Washington, DC 20503. Please state that

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:01 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69283

your comment refers to ‘‘RIN 1117– of proposed rulemaking) are available in receiving the order, it is a suspicious AB47/Docket No. DEA–437.’’ their entirety under the tab ‘‘Supporting order. The registrant must then FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Documents’’ of the public docket for promptly file a suspicious order report Scott A. Brinks, Diversion Control this action at http:// through the DEA centralized database, Division, Drug Enforcement www.regulations.gov under FDMS decline to distribute pursuant to the Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Docket ID: DEA: (RIN 1117–AB47/ suspicious order, and maintain a record Morrissette Drive, Springfield, VA Docket Number DEA–437) for easy of its due diligence.5 All suspicious 22152, Telephone: (571) 362–3261. reference. order reports must be made to the DEA SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Executive Summary centralized database and contain certain required information,6 and all records of Posting of Public Comments A. Summary of the Rule suspicious orders and ORUSCs must be Please note that all comments The DEA is revising its regulations prepared and maintained in accordance received are considered part of the relating to suspicious orders of with DEA regulations, and must contain public record. They will, unless controlled substances in order to certain required information.7 reasonable cause is given, be made implement the Preventing Drug Related to this two-option framework, available by the DEA for public Diversion Act of 2018 (PDDA) and, and as discussed in more detail below,8 inspection online at http:// through the adoption of the two-option the DEA is also defining four terms in www.regulations.gov. Such information framework, to clarify the procedures a its regulations: ‘‘due diligence’’, includes personal identifying registrant must follow for orders ‘‘order’’, ‘‘order received under information (such as your name, received under suspicious suspicious circumstances’’, and address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by circumstances (ORUSCs). Upon receipt ‘‘suspicious order.’’ 9 the commenter. The Freedom of of an ORUSC, registrants authorized to B. Summary of the Impact of the Rule Information Act applies to all comments distribute controlled substances 1 will received. If you want to submit personal have a choice (under the two-option The DEA has analyzed the impact of identifying information (such as your framework) to either: (1) Immediately the rule under Executive Order 12866 (E.O.),10 E.O. 13771,11 and the name, address, etc.) as part of your file a suspicious order report through 12 comment, but do not want it to be made the DEA centralized database, decline to Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The publicly available, you must include the distribute pursuant to the suspicious Office of Information and Regulatory phrase ‘‘PERSONAL IDENTIFYING order, and maintain a record of the Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of INFORMATION’’ in the first paragraph suspicious order and any due diligence Management and Budget has of your comment. You must also place related to the suspicious order,2 or (2) determined that this rulemaking is a the personal identifying information before distributing pursuant to the significant regulatory action within the you do not want to be made publicly order, conduct due diligence to meaning of E.O. 12866. The DEA has available in the first paragraph of your investigate each suspicious therefore submitted this rule for review comment and identify what information circumstance surrounding the ORUSC, by OMB. In addition, the DEA has you want redacted. and maintain a record of its due determined that this rule has a total cost If you want to submit confidential diligence regarding the ORUSC.3 savings of $2,931,000 and is therefore business information as part of your Under the second option, if, through expected to be an E.O. 13771 comment, but do not want it to be made its due diligence, the registrant is able deregulatory action. Finally, the DEA is publicly available, you must include the to dispel each suspicious circumstance certifying that this rule will not have a phrase ‘‘CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS surrounding the ORUSC within seven significant economic impact on a INFORMATION’’ in the first paragraph calendar days after receipt of the order, substantial number of small entities of your comment. You must also it is not a suspicious order. After that within the meaning of the RFA. The prominently identify confidential determination is made, the registrant DEA’s analysis and conclusions business information to be redacted may thereafter distribute pursuant to the regarding E.O. 12866, E.O. 13771, and order. The order need not be reported to the RFA are discussed in further detail, within the comment. 13 Comments containing personal the DEA as a suspicious order, but the below. identifying information and confidential registrant must maintain a record of its II. Suspicious Orders and the Opioid business information identified as due diligence.4 However, if the Epidemic registrant is unable, through its due directed above will generally be made Identifying and reporting suspicious diligence, to dispel each suspicious publicly available in redacted form. If a orders of controlled substances (and circumstance surrounding the ORUSC comment has so much personal refusing to distribute based on such identifying information or confidential within seven calendar days after business information that it cannot be 5 Proposed new 21 CFR 1301.78(a)(2)(ii). 1 See Section IV.E titled ‘‘Scope of the Rule,’’ effectively redacted, all or part of that 6 Proposed new 21 CFR 1301.78(b). below. comment may not be made publicly 7 Proposed new 21 CFR 1301.78(c). 2 Proposed new 21 CFR 1301.78(a)(1). Although 8 available. Comments posted to http:// the registrant may not be conducting due diligence See Section V.B.3 titled ‘‘Procedures for www.regulations.gov may include any to dispel each suspicious circumstance under the Identifying and Reporting Suspicious Orders of personal identifying information (such first option, it could conduct due diligence related Controlled Substances,’’ below. 9 as name, address, and phone number) or to its initial determination to decline the order. See Proposed new 21 CFR 1300.01(b). proposed new 21 CFR 1300.01(b)’s definition of 10 E.O. 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ confidential business information ‘‘due diligence’’ which includes ‘‘examination of September 30, 1993, published in the Federal included in the text of your electronic each suspicious circumstance surrounding an order, Register at 58 FR 51735 on , 1993. submission that is not identified as and examination of all facts and circumstances that 11 E.O. 13771, ‘‘Reducing Regulation and directed above as confidential. may be relevant indicators of diversion in Controlling Regulatory Costs,’’ January 30, 2017, determining whether a person (or a person published in the Federal Register at 82 FR 9339 on For easy reference, an electronic copy submitting an order) is engaged in, or is likely to February 3, 2017. of this document and supplemental engage in, the diversion of controlled substances.’’ 12 5 U.S.C. 601–612. information (including the complete 3 Proposed new 21 CFR 1301.78(a)(2). 13 See Part VI titled ‘‘Impact of Regulatory Economic Impact Analysis to this notice 4 Proposed new 21 CFR 1301.78(a)(2)(i). Changes and Regulatory Analysis,’’ below.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 69284 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

orders), has always been, and remains, requirement).21 The purpose of Reports were often filed with DEA Field the responsibility of the DEA identifying and reporting suspicious Division Offices, with no fixed format, registrant.14 This responsibility is of orders to DEA is to provide DEA and often without a stated reason as to critical importance because diversion investigators in the field with why the order was considered methods are constantly evolving, and information regarding potential illegal suspicious. because registrants are best situated to activity in an expeditious manner. Other registrants filed suspicious know their customers. As the DEA has However, at various times, and in order reports, but then distributed previously stated, cutting off the various places and manners, some controlled substances pursuant to the controlled substance supply sources of registrants have failed to fulfill their order anyway—failing to conduct due ‘‘drug pushers operating under the obligations regarding the identification diligence prior to distributing controlled patina of legitimate authority’’ is not and reporting of suspicious orders. For substances by, for example, keeping something the DEA can do entirely by example, some registrants failed to sparse or inadequate records and due itself—rather, the DEA ‘‘must rely on design or operate any system to identify diligence files, or by merely verifying suspicious orders. Other registrants registrants to fulfill their obligation that their customer was a DEA designed a system, but in doing so under the [Controlled Substances Act registrant. relied solely on rigid formulas that may (CSA)] to ensure that they do not supply As a consequence of failing to fulfill not identify suspicious orders.22 Still controlled substances to entities which their obligations regarding the other registrants failed to properly act as drug pushers.’’ 15 identification and reporting of operate a system, by, for example, suspicious orders, some registrants were Five closely related legal obligations failing to implement their internal required to pay large fines and enter 16 contained in the CSA and DEA policies regarding due diligence in the into Memorandums of Agreement regulations relate to the identification identification and reporting of (MOAs) with DEA requiring, among and reporting of suspicious orders: The suspicious orders. other things, that they report suspicious obligation to maintain effective controls Some registrants failed to file timely orders electronically and centrally to against diversion,17 to conduct due and specific suspicious order reports, DEA Headquarters.26 diligence,18 to design and operate a opting instead to file no reports, or rely In sum, this was unsuccessful in system to identify suspicious orders for on the submission of Automation of detecting and preventing diversion. the registrant,19 to report suspicious Reports and Consolidated Information Suspicious orders ultimately rose to 23 orders (the reporting requirement),20 Systems (ARCOS) reports as a national significance through various and to refuse to distribute controlled purported substitute for submitting cases. For example, one investigation 24 substances that are likely to be diverted suspicious order reports. Other revealed that between 2007 and 2012, into illegitimate channels (the shipping registrants filed end-of-month wholesale distributors shipped 780 ‘‘excessive purchase’’ reports (that were million hydrocodone and oxycodone 14 ‘‘DEA registrant’’ in this context refers reported after the order had already pills to West Virginia, and 1,728 West generally to the responsibility of all registrants, and been filled), submitted a list of largest Virginians fatally overdosed on these not specifically to any particular group. purchasers, or reported customers with two substances.27 And in 2013, the 15 Southwood Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Revocation whom the registrant had terminated a of Registration, published in the Federal Register at nation’s largest drug store chain entered 72 FR 36487, 36504 on , 2007. business relationship. Some registrants into the largest settlement in DEA 16 The DEA implements and enforces Titles II and interpreted the definition of suspicious history, agreeing to pay $80 million in III of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention order found in DEA regulations to civil fines for, among other things, and Control Act of 1970 (Pub. L. 91–513), as extend no further than orders deemed amended. Titles II and III are known as the allegations that it failed to report suspicious based on the size, pattern, or suspicious orders.28 ‘‘Controlled Substances Act’’ and the ‘‘Controlled 25 Substances Import and Export Act,’’ respectively, frequency of the order or orders. and are collectively referred to as the ‘‘Controlled unusual frequency’’). For purposes of this Substances Act’’ or ‘‘CSA’’ for purposes of this 21 See Section IV.D, titled ‘‘The Due Diligence document, orders of unusual size, orders deviating document. The CSA is codified at 21 U.S.C. 801– Requirement,’’ below. substantially from a normal pattern, and orders of 971. The DEA publishes implementing regulations 22 Examples of terms used to describe information unusual frequency will be referred to as ‘‘size, for these statutes in Title 21 of the Code of Federal system formulas in the context of suspicious orders pattern, and frequency orders.’’ As discussed below Regulations (CFR), chapter II. include ‘‘algorithm,’’ ‘‘blocked,’’ ‘‘flagged,’’ ‘‘held,’’ in Section III.C titled ‘‘Legal Authority for the Rule: 17 See 21 U.S.C. 823(b)(1) and (e)(1) (requiring the ‘‘order of interest,’’ ‘‘pended,’’ or ‘‘threshold.’’ Other Provisions of the PDDA,’’ the PDDA provided Attorney General to consider ‘‘maintenance of 23 The CSA requires manufacturers and that the term suspicious order ‘‘may include, but is effective controls against diversion’’ in determining distributors to report their controlled substance no limited to’’ size, pattern, and frequency orders. whether to register an applicant to distribute transactions to the DEA on a quarterly basis, and 26 Registrants were already under a legal controlled substances) and 21 CFR 1301.71(a) (‘‘[a]ll the DEA implements this requirement through obligation to report suspicious orders. The MOAs applicants and registrants shall provide effective ARCOS. ARCOS and the ARCOS Distributor Tool required that the reports be filed electronically and controls and procedures to guard against theft and are discussed in further detail in Sections IV.B and centrally. Since the deployment of the ARCOS diversion of controlled substances’’). IV.C, below. distributor tool and the on-line reporting system, 18 See Section IV.D titled ‘‘The Due Diligence 24 The ARCOS reporting requirement and the the number of suspicious order reports has Requirement,’’ below. suspicious orders serve two different purposes. increased. 19 Current DEA regulations require that ‘‘[t]he While ARCOS provides the DEA with information 27 See ‘‘Drug firms poured 780M painkillers into registrant shall design and operate a system to regarding trends in the diversion of controlled WV amid rise of overdoses,’’ Eric Eyre Staff Writer, disclose to the registrant suspicious orders of substances, the reports need not be submitted until Charleston Gazette-Mail, December 17, 2016. controlled substances.’’ 21 CFR 1301.74(b). fifteen days after the end of the reporting period. https://www.wvgazettemail.com/news/cops_and_ Similarly, the PDDA required that the system be In contrast, a suspicious order must be reported courts/drug-firms-poured-m-painkillers-into-wv- designed and operated to ‘‘identify’’ suspicious when discovered by the registrant. The suspicious amid-rise-of/article_99026dad-8ed5-5075-90fa- orders for the registrant. For purposes of this orders reporting requirement exists to provide adb906a36214.html. The relevance of West Virginia document, the PDDA phrase ‘‘identify for’’ will be investigators in the field with information regarding to suspicious orders has been generally recognized used in place of the phrase ‘‘disclose to.’’ potential illegal activity in an expeditious manner. and accepted, including by congressional 20 See 21 CFR 1301.74(b), and Sections III.B See, e.g., Southwood Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; committees, as it illustrated the nature of the (titled ‘‘Legal Authority for the Rule: Centralized Revocation of Registration, published in the Federal relationship and interaction between distributors Reporting Under the PDDA’’), III.C (titled ‘‘Legal Register at 72 FR 36487, 36501 on July 3, 2007. and their customer pharmacies with respect to Authority for the Rule: Other Provisions of the 25 21 CFR 1301.74(b) (suspicious orders ‘‘include controlled substances. PDDA’’), and IV.A (titled ‘‘History of Relevant DEA orders of unusual size, orders deviating 28 See DEA Press Release, ‘‘Walgreens Agrees to Regulations’’), below. substantially from a normal pattern, and orders of Pay a Record Settlement of $80 Million for Civil

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69285

Over the years, DEA has taken steps III. Legal Authority for the Rule [notification] requirement . . . .’’ 36 to address suspicious orders based on With these provisions, the PDDA A. Legal Authority for the Rule: The its own initiative, based on registrant CSA and Rulemaking Authority replaced DEA Field Division Office requests that DEA further clarify their reporting (reflected in current DEA obligations under the law and provide The CSA and its implementing regulations at 21 CFR 1301.74(b)) with registrants with the ability to see the regulations are designed to prevent, centralized reporting to DEA distributions a particular customer has detect, and eliminate the diversion of Headquarters. received from other distributors, and controlled substances into the illicit C. Legal Authority for the Rule: Other based on the PDDA. DEA has provided market while ensuring an adequate Provisions of the PDDA guidance, training, and individualized supply is available for the legitimate medical, scientific, research, and meetings for the regulated industry,29 industrial needs of the United States. In addition to centralized reporting of and has utilized the various Controlled substances have the potential suspicious orders, the PDDA required enforcement tools available to it under each registrant to design and operate a 30 for abuse and dependence and are the CSA. DEA has also proactively controlled to protect the public health system to identify suspicious orders for leveraged the data that is available to it and safety. Through the enactment of the registrant,37 and to ensure that the through ARCOS, and has developed a the CSA, Congress has established a system complies with applicable tool through ARCOS to assist closed system of distribution by making Federal and State privacy laws. The distributors in making their suspicious it unlawful to handle any controlled PDDA also provided that the term order assessments (the ‘‘ARCOS substance except in a manner suspicious order ‘‘may include, but is 31 distributor tool’’). In addition, DEA authorized by the CSA. In order to not limited to’’ 38 size, pattern, and has taken appropriate criminal, civil, maintain this closed system of frequency orders. and administrative action against distribution, the CSA imposes distributors, pharmacies, and other By its codification of the phrase ‘‘may registration requirements on handlers of include, but is not limited to,’’ the practitioners. By proposing this controlled substances. PDDA clarified that an order for regulation to implement the PDDA and The CSA also grants the Attorney controlled substances can be deemed clarify the procedures a registrant must General authority to promulgate and follow in identifying and reporting enforce any rules, regulations, and suspicious for reasons other than size, suspicious orders (and refusing to procedures which he may deem pattern, or frequency (including reasons distribute based on such orders), DEA is necessary and appropriate for the related to the characteristics of the 39 taking the next step to address efficient executions of his functions customer submitting the order). suspicious orders and combat the opioid under the CSA.32 The Attorney General Therefore, systems to identify epidemic. delegated these authorities to the suspicious orders should be designed Administrator of the DEA, who in turn and operated in light of the ultimate Penalties Under the Controlled Substances Act,’’ redelegated many of these authorities to goal of the suspicious order inquiry: to , 2013. https://www.dea.gov/press-releases/ the Deputy Administrator of the DEA provide DEA investigators in the field 2013/06/11/walgreens-agrees-pay-record- and the Assistant Administrator of the with information regarding potential settlement-80-million-civil-penalties-under. DEA Office of Diversion Control.33 illegal activity in an expeditious 29 For example, through its Distributor Initiative, manner. To this end, DEA is proposing the DEA educated registrants on identification and B. Legal Authority for the Rule: reporting of suspicious orders and on maintaining to amend its regulations to provide that Centralized Reporting Under the PDDA effective controls against diversion. As part of the registrants should design privacy-law- Initiative, the DEA polled ARCOS data and met On October 24, 2018, President 40 with individual distributors to highlight various compliant systems not only to indicia of suspicious orders for their consideration. Trump signed into law the ‘‘Substance identify size, pattern, and frequency In addition, the DEA held industry conferences and Use-Disorder Prevention that Promotes orders, but also to identify suspicious sent guidance letters to industry regarding Opioid Recovery and Treatment for orders based on facts and circumstances suspicious orders. Patients and Communities Act’’ that may be relevant indicators of 30 The CSA provides that it shall be unlawful for (SUPPORT Act).34 The PDDA was any person . . . to refuse or negligently fail to diversion in determining whether a contained within the SUPPORT Act.35 make, keep, or furnish any record, report, person (or a person submitting an order) notification, declaration, order or order form, The PDDA required DEA to establish a statement, invoice, or information required under centralized database for collecting 36 this subchapter or subchapter II of this chapter . . . reports of suspicious orders not later SUPPORT Act, Section 3292. The registrant’s .’’ 21 U.S.C. 842(a)(5). The CSA also provides that notification requirement is codified at 21 U.S.C. a violation of this section carries a civil penalty than one year from the date of the 832(a)(3). The DEA’s requirement to establish a which shall not exceed $10,000, but that ‘‘[i]f a PDDA’s enactment. Upon discovering a centralized database is codified at 21 U.S.C. 832(b). violation of this section is prosecuted by an suspicious order or series of orders, the 37 As noted above, the PDDA provisions are information or indictment which alleges that the PDDA required registrants to notify the similar to current DEA regulations with respect to violation was committed knowingly and the trier of DEA Administrator and Special Agent the system to identify suspicious orders for the fact specifically finds that the violation was so registrant. in Charge of the Division Office of the committed, such person shall . . . be sentenced to 38 SUPPORT Act, Section 3292, codified at 21 imprisonment of not more than one year or a fine DEA for the area in which the registrant U.S.C. 802(57). The PDDA’s ‘‘may include, but is under Title 18, or both. 21 U.S.C. 842(c)(1)(B) and is located or conducts business, but not limited to’’ clause is an addition to existing law, 842(c)(2)(A).In addition to the loss of registration which currently provides that ‘‘[s]uspicious orders through administrative actions such as Orders to provided that ‘‘[i]f a registrant reports a include orders of unusual size, orders deviating Show Cause and Immediate Suspension Orders, the suspicious order to the DEA centralized DEA uses a wide array of diversion enforcement substantially from a normal pattern, and orders of database . . . the registrant shall be unusual frequency.’’ 21 CFR 1301.74(b). tools to ensure its registrants are in compliance considered to have complied with the with the CSA. These include civil penalties and 39 See Section IV.D. titled ‘‘The Due Diligence criminal charges. See, e.g., https://www.justice.gov/ Requirement,’’ below. usao-sdny/pr/manhattan-us-attorney-and-dea- 32 21 U.S.C. 871. 40 The PDDA, Section 3292, as codified at 21 announce-charges-against-rochester-drug-co- 33 28 CFR 0.100 through 0.104. U.S.C. 832(a)(2), provides that ‘‘[e]ach registrant operative-and. 34 Public Law 115–271. shall . . . ensure that the system designed and 31 See Section IV.C titled ‘‘ARCOS Distributor 35 The PDDA is comprised of Sections 3291 and operated . . . by the registrant complies with Tool,’’ below. 3292 of the SUPPORT Act. applicable Federal and State privacy laws . . . .‘‘

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 69286 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

is engaged in, or is likely to engage in, is an automated, comprehensive drug D. The Due Diligence Requirement the diversion of controlled substances.41 reporting system which monitors the 1. Due Diligence and Southwood flow of controlled substances from their IV. Background Discussion 52 point of manufacture through In Southwood, the registrant failed A. History of Applicable DEA commercial distribution channels to repeatedly to comply with the effective Regulations point of sale or distribution at the controls requirement, the system requirement, and the reporting Since the CSA became law in 1970, dispensing level through the use of requirement.53 In Southwood, DEA all DEA registrants who distribute acquisition/distribution transaction noted that Respondent’s due diligence controlled substances have had a duty reports. measures, which initially involved to maintain effective controls against Included in the list of controlled nothing more than verifying license and diversion of controlled substances into substance transactions tracked by registration, were wholly deficient.54 other than legitimate medical, scientific, ARCOS are the following: All schedule DEA stated that: and industrial channels.42 In addition, the first regulations implementing the I and II materials (manufacturers and ‘‘even after being advised by agency CSA in 1971 contained provisions distributors), schedule III narcotic and officials that its internet pharmacy customers regarding suspicious orders of gamma-hydroxybutyric acid (GHB) were likely engaged in illegal activity, Respondent failed miserably to conduct controlled substances.43 These materials (manufacturers and distributors), and selected schedule III adequate due diligence. Notwithstanding the provisions, as currently codified in DEA breadth of information provided during the regulations, require that registrants and IV psychotropic drugs conference call, Respondent did not stop design and operate a system to disclose (manufacturers only).48 ARCOS selling to any of its internet pharmacy to the registrant suspicious orders of accumulates these transactions which customers while it investigated the controlled substances, i.e., orders of are then summarized into reports which legitimacy of their business activities.’’ 55 unusual size, orders deviating give investigators in Federal and State In addition, the DEA concluded that: substantially from a normal pattern, and government agencies information that ‘‘Respondent repeatedly violated federal 44 regulations by failing to report suspicious orders of unusual frequency. It also can then be used to identify the orders . . . Respondent’s experience in requires the registrant to ‘‘inform the diversion of controlled substances into distributing controlled substances is Field Division Office of the illicit channels of distribution. DEA characterized by recurring distributions of Administration in his area of suspicious regulations require that ARCOS extraordinary quantities of controlled orders when discovered by the acquisition/distribution reports be filed substances to entities which then likely registrant.’’ 45 diverted the drugs by filling prescriptions every quarter, not later than the 15th which were unlawful. Moreover, B. History of ARCOS day of the month succeeding the quarter Respondent’s due diligence measures were 49 In addition to the suspicious order for which it is submitted. wholly inadequate to protect against the provisions, the CSA and DEA diversion of the drugs. Respondent’s failure C. ARCOS Distributor Tool to maintain effective controls against regulations also require manufacturers diversion and its experience in distributing and distributors to report their Prior to the SUPPORT Act, the DEA controlled substances thus support the controlled substance transactions to developed an ARCOS tool that allowed conclusion that its continued registration DEA.46 DEA implements this registrants to obtain a count of the would be ‘inconsistent with the public requirement through ARCOS.47 ARCOS number of registrants who had sold a interest.’ ’’ 56 particular controlled substance to a In reaching these conclusions, DEA noted: 41 Proposed amended 1301.74(b)(1). See also ‘‘In short, the direct and foreseeable prospective customer in the last six consequence of the manner in which Section V.B. titled ‘‘Discussion of Regulatory 50 Changes,’’ below. months. On February 26, 2019, as part Respondent conducted its due diligence 42 21 U.S.C. 823(b)(1) and (e)(1) (requiring the of its implementation of the SUPPORT program was the likely diversion of millions Attorney General to consider ‘‘maintenance of Act, the DEA announced the launch of of dosage units of hydrocodone. Indeed, it is effective controls against diversion’’ in determining an enhanced tool to help more than especially appalling that notwithstanding the whether to register an applicant to distribute information Respondent received from both controlled substances); 21 CFR 1301.71(a) (‘‘[a]ll 1,500 registered drug manufacturers and this agency and the pharmacies, it did not applicants and registrants shall provide effective distributors in the U.S. more effectively immediately stop distributing hydrocodone controls and procedures to guard against theft and identify potential illicit drug 57 diversion of controlled substances’’). to any of the pharmacies.’’ diversion.51 The enhancement allows 43 Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, DOJ, 2. Due Diligence and DEA I and II ‘‘Regulations Implementing the Comprehensive DEA-registered manufacturers and Drug Abuse Prevention Control Act of 1970,’’ distributors to view and download the In 2006 and 2007, DEA sent letters to published in the Federal Register at 36 FR 7775, DEA registrants outlining their legal 7785 on April 24, 1971. number of distributors and the amount 44 21 CFR 1301.74(b). (anonymized data in both grams and 52 Southwood Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Revocation 45 21 CFR 1301.74(b). As discussed above in dosage units) each distributor sold to a of Registration, published in the Federal Register at Section III.B titled ‘‘Legal Authority for the Rule: prospective customer in the last 72 FR 36487 on July 3, 2007. Centralized Reporting Under the PDDA,’’ the PDDA 53 replaced DEA Field Division Office reporting with available six months of data. Southwood Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Revocation centralized reporting to DEA Headquarters. of Registration, published in the Federal Register at 72 FR 36487, 36498 on July 3, 2007. 46 21 U.S.C. 827(d) (‘‘Every manufacturer 54 registered under section 823 of this title shall . . . Southwood Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Revocation make periodic reports to the [DEA] of every sale, of Registration, published in the Federal Register at delivery or other disposal by him of any controlled 72 FR 36487, 36498 on July 3, 2007. substance, and each distributor shall make such 48 21 CFR 1304.33(c). 55 Southwood Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Revocation report with respect to narcotic controlled 49 21 CFR 1304.33(b). of Registration, published in the Federal Register at substances, identifying by the registration number 72 FR 36487, 36500 on July 3, 2007. 50 https://www.dea.gov/press-releases/2018/02/ assigned under this subchapter the person or 56 Southwood Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Revocation establishment (unless exempt from registration 14/dea-creates-new-resource-help-distributors- of Registration, published in the Federal Register at under section 822(d) of this title) to whom such avoid-oversupplying-opioids. 72 FR 36487, 36501–36502 on July 3, 2007. sale, delivery, or other disposal was made.’’). 51 https://www.dea.gov/press-releases/2019/02/ 57 Southwood Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Revocation 47 The DEA ARCOS regulations are found at 21 26/dea-announces-enhanced-tool-registered-drug- of Registration, published in the Federal Register at CFR 1304.33. manufacturers-and. 72 FR 36487, 36500 on July 3, 2007.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69287

obligations to report suspicious orders substances were being diverted.68 investigation must dispel all red flags and conduct due diligence.58 These Registrants that routinely report indicative that a customer is engaged in letters emphasized that, as a condition suspicious orders, yet fill these orders diversion to render the order non-suspicious of maintaining their registration, all without first determining that order is and exempt it from the requirement that the legitimate handlers of controlled not being diverted, may be failing to distributor ‘inform’ the Agency about the order. Put another way, if even after substances must take reasonable steps to maintain effective controls against investigating the order, there is any ensure that their registration is not being diversion; and failure to maintain remaining basis to suspect that a customer is utilized as a source of diversion.59 If the effective controls against diversion is engaged in diversion, the order must be closed system is to function properly, inconsistent with the public interest as deemed suspicious and the Agency must be registrants must be vigilant in deciding that term is used in the CSA and may informed.’’ 74 whether a prospective customer can be result in the revocation of the trusted to deliver controlled substances registrant’s DEA Certificate of On appeal in Masters, the United only for lawful purposes.60 The Registration.69 States Court of Appeals for the District requirement to report suspicious orders of Columbia Circuit (the Masters Court) 3. Due Diligence and Masters is in addition to, and not in lieu of, the stated: general requirement to maintain The Masters case,70 which involved ‘‘[o]nce a distributor has reported a effective controls against diversion.61 due diligence within the context of a suspicious order, it must make one of two Thus, in addition to reporting all two-part system that the registrant failed choices: decline to ship the order, or conduct suspicious orders, a distributor has a to properly operate, illustrates how the some ‘due diligence’ and—if it is able to statutory responsibility to exercise due due diligence requirement is relevant to determine that the order is not likely to be both the reporting and shipping diverted into illegitimate channels—ship the diligence to avoid filling suspicious order . . . .’’ 75 orders that might be diverted into other requirement. In Masters, the registrant than legitimate medical, scientific, and created a system consisting of a The Masters Court also added: 62 industrial channels. Failure to computer program and a compliance ‘‘it is not necessary for a distributor of exercise such due diligence could, as protocol. The computer program was controlled substances to investigate circumstances warrant, provide a designed to identify and hold any order suspicious orders if it reports them to DEA statutory basis for revocation or that met or exceeded the criteria for and declines to fill them. But if a distributor suspension of a distributor’s suspicious orders set out in DEA chooses to shoulder the burden of dispelling registration.63 In a similar vein, given regulations. Once an order was held, the suspicion in the hopes of shipping any it the requirement that a registrant registrant’s staff would implement the finds to be non-suspicious, and the maintain effective controls against compliance protocol, which required an distributor uses something like the investigation of the order to determine [Suspicious Order Monitoring Program] diversion, a distributor may not simply Protocol to guide its efforts, then the rely on the fact that the person placing whether it was legitimate. After this distributor must actually undertake the the suspicious order is a DEA registrant investigation, the staff could deem the investigation.’’ 76 and turn a blind eye to the suspicious order non-suspicious and ship it, or circumstances.64 To maintain effective treat the order as suspicious, report it to Finally, the Masters Court rooted due controls against diversion, the registrant the DEA, and decline to fill the order.71 diligence in the reporting requirement, should exercise due care in confirming However, despite having designed its as something that a registrant would the legitimacy of all orders prior to system to require additional due perform as part of its duty to report filling.65 diligence into ‘‘held’’ orders,72 the suspicious orders: In addition, registrants’ responsibility registrant failed to actually conduct the ‘‘In Masters’ view, the Administrator does not end merely with the filing of additional due diligence. amended two notice-and-comment rules in a suspicious order report.66 Registrants In the Masters Decision and Order, adjudicating this case: [the regulation must conduct an independent analysis the DEA stated that ‘‘upon investigating defining suspicious orders and the regulation of suspicious orders prior to completing an order, a distributor may determine defining effective controls against the a sale to determine whether the that an order is not suspicious . . . .’’ 73 diversion of controlled substances]. We need controlled substances are likely to be The DEA further explained: not opine on DEA’s statutory authority to use 67 an adjudication to modify a rule enacted diverted from legitimate channels. ‘‘[W]hile . . . a distributor’s investigation through notice and comment because the Reporting an order as suspicious will of the order (coupled with its previous due Administrator neither created not imposed not absolve the registrant of diligence efforts) may properly lead it to any new duties. He relied on the existing responsibility if the registrant knew, or conclude that the order is not suspicious, the Reporting Requirement.’’ 77 should have known, that the controlled 68 DEA II, pg. 1. V. Need for Regulatory Changes and 69 58 Letters from Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy DEA II, pg. 2. Discussion of Regulatory Changes 70 The Masters case is comprised of a decision by Assistant Administrator, DEA Office of Diversion A. Need for Regulatory Changes Control to DEA Registrants, , 2006 the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Decision and a DEA Decision (‘‘DEA I’’) and December 20, 2007 (‘‘DEA II’’). A change to existing DEA regulations Whereas DEA I discussed the responsibility to and Order. See Masters Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. exercise due diligence to avoid filling suspicious DEA, 861 F.3d 206 (D.C. Cir. 2017) and Masters regarding suspicious orders is necessary orders that might be diverted, DEA II reiterated the Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Decision and Order, in order to implement the provisions of responsibility to inform the DEA of suspicious published in the Federal Register at 80 FR 55418 the PDDA, and to clarify registrant orders. on September 15, 2015. 59 DEA I, pg. 1. 71 Masters Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. DEA, 861 F.3d 74 Masters Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Decision and 60 DEA I, pg. 1. 206, 213–214 (D.C. Cir. 2017). 72 Order, published in the Federal Register at 80 FR 61 DEA I, pg. 2. In Masters, the registrant’s system provided that held orders ‘‘be subject to additional due 55418, 55478 on September 15, 2015. 62 DEA I, pg. 2. diligence.’’ Masters Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Decision 75 Masters Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. DEA, 861 F.3d 63 DEA I, pg. 2. and Order, published in the Federal Register at 80 206, 212–213 (D.C. Cir. 2017). 64 DEA I, pg. 2. FR 55418, 55427 on September 15, 2015. 76 Masters Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. DEA, 861 F.3d 65 DEA I, pg. 2. 73 Masters Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Decision and 206, 222 (D.C. Cir. 2017). 66 DEA II, pg. 1. Order, published in the Federal Register at 80 FR 77 Masters Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. DEA, 861 F.3d 67 DEA II, pg. 1. 55418, 55420 on September 15, 2015. 206, 220 (D.C. Cir. 2017).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 69288 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

obligations under the CSA in light of the practices. The proposed definition of centralized database and maintain a issues discussed above.78 ‘‘order received under suspicious record of its due diligence.90 circumstances’’ is intended to capture All suspicious order reports must be B. Discussion of Regulatory Changes any circumstances that might be made to the DEA centralized database 1. Implementation of the PDDA indicative of diversion, including but and contain certain required 91 The DEA’s implementation of the not limited to orders ‘‘blocked,’’ information, and all records of PDDA will involve amending existing ‘‘flagged,’’ ‘‘held,’’ or ‘‘pended’’ by a suspicious orders and ORUSCs must be DEA regulations in two sections (21 CFR system designed and operated by a prepared and maintained in accordance registrant to identify suspicious orders. with DEA regulations, and must contain 1300.01 and 21 CFR 1301.74), and 92 adding a new section to DEA regulations In addition, DEA is proposing to amend certain required information. at 21 CFR 1301.78.79 Specifically, the its regulations to clarify that the system Regarding recordkeeping, the proposed DEA will implement the PDDA by: (1) to identify suspicious orders shall be rule would require more than just a Establishing a DEA centralized database designed and operated by the registrant ‘‘check-the-box’’ type of documentation. for collecting reports of suspicious to identify suspicious orders based on For example, new proposed § 1301.78(d) orders; (2) amending DEA regulations to facts and circumstances that may be requires that the record include ‘‘how require that all reports of suspicious relevant indicators of diversion in the registrant handled such orders,’’ orders be submitted through the DEA determining whether a person (or a ‘‘[w]hat information and circumstances centralized database; 80 (3) incorporating person submitting an order) is engaged rendered the order actually or the PDDA’s definition of ‘‘suspicious in, or is likely to engage in, the potentially suspicious,’’ [w]hat steps, if 86 order’’ into DEA regulations; 81 and (4) diversion of controlled substances. any, the registrant took to investigate the order,’’ and ‘‘[i]f the registrant incorporating the PDDA’s requirement 3. Procedures for Identifying and that registrants design and operate investigated the order, what information Reporting Suspicious Orders of it obtained during its investigation, and privacy-law-compliant suspicious order Controlled Substances system into DEA regulations.82 where the registrant concludes that each Building on the due diligence suspicious circumstance has been 2. Clarification of Registrant Procedures requirement discussed in Southwood dispelled, the specific basis for each Regarding Suspicious Orders and the two-part system discussed in such conclusion . . . .’’ In addition to implementing the Masters, DEA is amending its Upon notification from DEA that a PDDA, DEA is proposing to amend its regulations to provide that, upon receipt suspicious order report or reports regulations to provide registrants with of an ORUSC, registrants shall proceed contain inaccurate or incomplete additional clarity regarding the under the following two-option information, the registrant shall have procedures that must be followed upon framework: Either (1) immediately file a seven calendar days to correct the 93 receiving an order under suspicious suspicious order report through the DEA inaccurate or incomplete information. circumstances by: (1) Clarifying the centralized database, decline to DEA believes that seven calendar days scope of the rule (as discussed below); 83 distribute pursuant to the suspicious to conduct due diligence is consistent (2) adding definitions of ‘‘order,’’ ‘‘order order, and maintain a record of the with the Masters and Southwood received under suspicious suspicious order and any due diligence decisions, and with the PDDA’s circumstances,’’ and ‘‘due diligence’’ to related to the suspicious order,87 or (2) mandate that a registrant notify DEA 94 DEA regulations; 84 and (3) amending before distributing pursuant to the ‘‘upon discovering’’ a suspicious DEA regulations to include procedures order, conduct due diligence to order. The seven calendar day for identifying and reporting suspicious investigate each suspicious timeframe strikes an appropriate orders of controlled substances 85 circumstance surrounding the ORUSC, balance between giving registrants consistent with the due diligence and maintain a record of its due sufficient time to act and also allowing requirement articulated in the Masters diligence regarding the ORUSC.88 DEA to promptly investigate potential and Southwood decisions. The diversion, while also recognizing that If, through its due diligence, the discovering a suspicious order proposed definition of ‘‘order’’ is registrant is able to dispel each intended to reflect existing business sometimes involves a process of suspicious circumstance surrounding dispelling suspicious circumstances, the ORUSC within seven calendar days and that any ORUSC that cannot be 78 See Section II titled ‘‘Suspicious Orders and the after receipt of the order, it is not a Opioid Epidemic,’’ above. dispelled within seven days is a suspicious order; after that 79 The existing regulations to be amended at 21 suspicious order (assuming that the CFR 1300.01 are titled ‘‘Definitions relating to determination is made, the registrant system to identify suspicious orders for controlled substances’’ and at 21 CFR 1301.74 are may then distribute pursuant to the the registrant is properly designed and titled ‘‘Other security controls for non-practitioners; order, and the order need not be narcotic treatment programs and compounders for operated). narcotic treatment programs.’’ In addition to reported to DEA as a suspicious order, amending the text of 21 CFR 1301.74, the DEA is but the registrant must maintain a 4. Scope of the Rule amending the title of 21 CFR 1301.74 to clarify that record of its due diligence.89 However, Because the requirements related to it applies to ‘‘non-practitioners and practitioners for if the registrant is unable, through its orders received under suspicious circumstances.’’ suspicious orders are based on the CSA 95 The new regulations at 21 CFR 1301.78 are titled due diligence, to dispel each suspicious definition of ‘‘distribute,’’ this ‘‘Procedures for identifying and reporting circumstance surrounding the ORUSC suspicious orders of controlled substances.’’ within seven calendar days after 90 Proposed new 21 CFR 1301.78(a)(2)(ii). 80 Proposed new 21 CFR 1301.78(a)(1) and receiving the order, it is a suspicious 91 Proposed new 21 CFR 1301.78(b). (a)(2)(ii). order. The registrant must file a 92 Proposed new 21 CFR 1301.78(c). 81 Proposed amended 21 CFR 1300.01(b). suspicious order report through the DEA 93 Proposed new 21 CFR 1301.78(b). 82 Proposed amended 21 CFR 1301.74(b). 94 Sec. 3292. 83 Proposed amended title to 21 CFR 1301.74 and 95 See 21 U.S.C. 802(11) (‘‘[t]he term ‘distribute’ 86 proposed amended 21 CFR 1301.74(b). Proposed amended 21 CFR 1301.74(b). means to deliver (other than by administering or 84 Proposed amended 21 CFR 1300.01(b). 87 Proposed new 21 CFR 1301.78(a)(1). dispensing) a controlled substance’’), 21 U.S.C. 85 Proposed amended 21 CFR 1301.74(b) and 88 Proposed new 21 CFR 1301.78(a)(2). 823(b)(1) and (e)(1) (requiring the Attorney General proposed new 21 CFR 1301.78. 89 Proposed new 21 CFR 1301.78(a)(2)(i). to consider ‘‘maintenance of effective controls

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69289

proposed rule applies to registrants controlled substances in bulk form to definitions governing regulatory review authorized to distribute controlled other NTPs. These registrants are as established in E.O. 12866. substances either directly (under the authorized to distribute controlled Under E.O. 12866, significant registrant’s business activity), indirectly substances after receiving an order from regulatory actions require review by (as a coincident activity to the business another DEA registrant. OMB. Significant regulatory actions can activity), under the five percent rule, or However, the rule does not apply to be either economically significant or as a treatment program compounding reverse distributors, who are authorized non-economically significant. An narcotics for treatment programs and by their registration to acquire economically significant regulatory other locations.96 The five percent rule controlled substances for the purpose of action is any regulatory action that is permits a practitioner dispenser, under return or destruction 100 after receiving likely to result in a rule that may have certain circumstances, to distribute an order from another DEA registrant. In an annual effect on the economy of $100 controlled substances to another addition, because the CSA distinguishes million or more, or adversely affect in practitioner without having to obtain a the terms ‘‘dispense’’ and ‘‘administer’’ a material way the economy, a sector of separate DEA registration as a from the term ‘‘distribute,’’ 101 the rule the economy, productivity, competition, distributor a practitioner who is does not apply to controlled substances jobs, environment, public health or registered to dispense a controlled dispensed or administered within the safety, or State, local, or tribal 103 substance may distribute (without being normal course of professional practice governments or communities. A non- registered to distribute) a quantity of of a practitioner, to include economically significant regulatory such substance to another practitioner prescriptions filled by a pharmacy. action is any regulatory action that is for the purpose of general dispensing by Therefore, pursuant to the five percent likely to result in a rule that may create the practitioner to patients, provided rule, a pharmacy will have to report a serious inconsistency or otherwise inter alia that the total number of dosage suspicious orders for distributions of interfere with an action taken or units of all controlled substances controlled substances, but would not, planned by another agency, may distributed by the practitioner during for example, have to report as a materially alter the budgetary impact of each calendar year does not exceed 5 suspicious order, suspicious requests by entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan percent of the total number of dosage a patient to have a controlled substance programs or the rights and obligations of units of all controlled substances prescription filled.102 recipients thereof, or may raise novel distributed and dispensed by the legal or policy issues arising out of legal practitioner during the same calendar VI. Impact of Regulatory Changes and mandates, the President’s priorities, or year.97 Regulatory Analysis the principles set forth in E.O 12866.104 Therefore, this proposed rule applies E.O. 13771 requires an agency, unless A. Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory not only to persons who are registered prohibited by law, to identify at least Planning and Review), 13563 with DEA under the business activity of two existing regulations to be repealed (Improving Regulation and Regulatory distributor, but also to manufacturers when the agency publicly proposes for Review), and 13771 (Reducing and importers (who are permitted to notice and comment or otherwise Regulation and Controlling Regulatory distribute controlled substances as a promulgates a new regulation.105 In Costs) coincident activity to their manufacturer furtherance of this requirement, E.O. or importer registration),98 1. Introduction 13771 requires that the new incremental practitioners,99 (who are permitted to costs associated with new regulations, distribute controlled substances E.O. 12866 directs agencies to assess to the extent permitted by law, be offset pursuant to the five percent rule all costs and benefits of available by the elimination of existing costs without obtaining a separate registration regulatory alternatives, and, when associated with at least two prior as a distributor), and Narcotic Treatment regulation is necessary, to select regulations.106 According to OMB Programs (NTPs) distributing in regulatory approaches that maximize guidance implementing E.O. 13771, the net benefits (including potential requirements of E.O. 13771 only apply against diversion’’ in determining whether to economic, public health and safety, and to each new E.O. 12866 ‘‘significant register an applicant to distribute controlled environmental advantages, as well as regulatory action . . . that has been substances) and 21 CFR 1301.74(a) (‘‘[b]efore distributive impacts and equity). E.O. distributing a controlled substance’’ a registrant finalized and that imposes total costs 13563 is supplemental to and reaffirms 107 shall make a good faith inquiry to determine that greater than zero.’’ Furthermore, an their customer is registered to possess the the principles, structures, and action that has been finalized and has controlled substance) (emphasis added). total costs less than zero is an 96 See 21 CFR 1304.25(a)(7) (requiring persons 100 See 21 CFR 1300.01(b) (defining ‘‘Reverse ‘‘Executive Order 13771 deregulatory registered or authorized to compound narcotic distribute’’ and ‘‘Reverse distributor’’). action.’’ 108 drugs for off-site use in a narcotic treatment 101 See 21 U.S.C. 802(2) (defining ‘‘administer’’), program to maintain records of the quantity 21 U.S.C. 802(10) (defining ‘‘dispense’’), and 21 DEA has analyzed the economic distributed in bulk form to other programs) U.S.C. 802(11) (defining ‘‘distribute’’). Compare 21 impact of each provision of this rule (emphasis added). U.S.C. 802(11) (defining distribute as ‘‘to deliver [a and, for the reasons discussed in detail 97 21 CFR 1307.11(a)(1)(iv). controlled substance] (other than by administering 98 21 CFR 1301.13(e)(1)(i) and (viii). or dispensing) . . . .’’) with 21 U.S.C. 802(10) 103 Executive Order 12866, Sec. 3(f)(1). 99 21 U.S.C. 802(21) (‘‘[t]he term ‘practitioner’ (defining dispense as ‘‘to deliver a controlled 104 Executive Order 12866, Sec. 3(f)(2)–(4). means a physician, dentist, veterinarian, scientific substance to an ultimate user or research subject by, 105 investigator, pharmacy, hospital, or other person or pursuant to the lawful order of, a practitioner, Executive Order 13771, Sec. 2(a). licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted, by the including the prescribing and administering of a 106 Executive Order 13771, Sec. 2(c). United States or the jurisdiction in which he controlled substance . . . .’’). 107 Executive Office of the President, Office of practices or does research, to distribute, dispense, 102 Although, in this example, the pharmacy Management and Budget, M–17–21, April 5, 2017. conduct research with respect to, administer, or use would not have a duty to report a suspicious order, https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/ in teaching or chemical analysis, a controlled this scenario would nevertheless be relevant to the files/omb/memoranda/2017/M-17-21-OMB.pdf, pg. substance in the course of professional practice or pharmacist’s ‘‘corresponding responsibility.’’ See 21 3. research’’). As discussed below, the specific CFR 1306.04(a) (‘‘[t]he responsibility for the proper 108 Executive Office of the President, Office of practitioners affected by this rule are pharmacies, prescribing and dispensing of controlled substances Management and Budget, M–17–21, April 5, 2017. hospital/clinics teaching institutions, practitioners, is upon the prescribing practitioner, but a https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/ mid-level practitioners (MLPs), MLP-ambulance corresponding responsibility rests with the files/omb/memoranda/2017/M-17-21-OMB.pdf, pg. service, researchers, and analytical labs. pharmacist who fills the prescription’’). 4.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 69290 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

below, estimates this rule will have a not expand or contract the current c. Procedures for Identifying and cost savings of approximately $2.9 understanding of what are suspicious Reporting Suspicious Orders of million. Additionally, DEA does not orders. Controlled Substances anticipate that this rulemaking will have The definition of ‘‘order’’ clarifies and The two-option framework for an annual effect on the economy of $100 codifies the meaning in the context of identifying suspicious orders is a million or more or adversely affect in a suspicious orders. The DEA believes codification of existing practices, and material way the economy, a sector of that this is consistent with the current therefore, there is no added cost the economy, productivity, competition, understanding of the term order and associated with the proposed suspicious jobs, the environment, public health or anticipates this definition will not cause order determination process. Masters safety, or State, local, or tribal a change in the number of suspicious and Southwood interpreted the governments or communities. OIRA has orders or change in registrant business suspicious order provisions by determined that this rulemaking is a activities. Therefore, DEA believes articulating that, upon receiving a significant regulatory action within the defining order in DEA regulations will suspicious order, a registrant has a duty meaning of E.O. 12866. DEA has, have no economic impact on affected to conduct due diligence before therefore, submitted this rule for review registrants. distributing pursuant to the order. DEA by OMB. The rule also includes definitions of Because this rule is estimated to have believes nearly all affected registrants ‘‘order received under suspicious explicitly or implicitly utilize the two- total costs less than zero, it is expected circumstances’’ and ‘‘due diligence.’’ to be an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action. option framework. All suspicious order These definitions are intended to reports must be made to the DEA 2. Four Key Areas of Change provide clarity in describing the centralized database and contain certain There are four key areas of regulatory procedures for identifying and reporting required information, and all records of change in this rule: (1) Definitions of suspicious orders. DEA does not suspicious orders and ORUSCs must be new terms, (2) explicit inclusion of anticipate an increase or decrease in the prepared and maintained in accordance registrants, other than reverse number of suspicious orders reported as with DEA regulations, and must contain distributors, who are authorized to a direct result of the new definitions. certain required information. Moreover, distribute, (3) procedures for identifying Therefore, DEA estimates this definition DEA estimates there is time and cost and reporting suspicious orders, and (4) will have no economic impact. savings resulting from using the ARCOS reporting and recordkeeping b. Explicit Inclusion of Registrants, Distributor Tool while conducting due requirements. Other Than Reverse Distributors, Who diligence. With the exception of reverse Are Authorized To Distribute Between 2014 and 2018, there were distributors, this rule affects all an average of 338,840 suspicious order registrants who are authorized to The rule amends DEA regulations to reports per year. This figure includes an distribute controlled substances: clarify that, in addition to entities that estimated average of 308,540 suspicious Distributors, manufacturers, importers, hold registration as distributors, the orders per year reported to the central pharmacies, hospital/clinics teaching requirement to design and operate a database and an estimated average of institutions, practitioners, mid-level system to identify suspicious orders of 30,300 orders per year reported to field practitioners (MLPs), MLP-Ambulance controlled substances for the registrant offices.109 While the two-option Service, Researchers, Analytical Labs, that complies with applicable Federal framework has been in practice for a and NTPs. As of , 2019, there and State privacy laws shall also apply long time, DEA believes the reporting of were 1,731 registrations authorizing the to practitioners when such distributions suspicious orders versus reporting of distribution of controlled substances, are made pursuant to the five percent ORUSCs has the potential to be more either directly (under the registrant’s rule. consistent. DEA believes, under current business activity) (873 distributor), or This is a clarification of currently regulations, registrants make suspicious indirectly as a coincident activity to the existing requirements. As all registrants order reports for all ORUSCs, regardless business activity (586 manufacturer and are required to maintain effective of whether due diligence was conducted 272 importer). Additionally, based on a controls against diversion of controlled and suspicions were dispelled. sampling of DEA Forms 222 received at substances, the DEA believes all Under the proposed rule, the DEA DEA Field Division Offices pursuant to practitioners who distribute pursuant to estimates all reported average of 338,840 21 CFR 1305.13(d), DEA estimates that the provisions of the five percent rule suspicious orders per year are ORUSCs. there are approximately 15,974 already understand the requirement to Based on general understanding of practitioners and NTPs who distribute ‘‘design and operate a system’’ also registrant operations and informal controlled substances under the five applies to them as well. A ‘‘system’’ in anecdotal discussions with registrants, percent rule or as a treatment program this context is a combination of people, DEA assumes for the purposes of this compounding narcotics for treatment process, and tools (such as an analysis that of the 338,840 suspicious programs and other locations. information system). Some registrants may rely more on information systems 109 A suspicious orders central database has been a. Definition of Terms while other may rely more on manual in operation since prior to 2014 to allow certain registrants to report electronically pursuant to an The rule will incorporate the PDDA’s processes. Regardless of whether the MOA. The number of suspicious order reports definition of ‘‘suspicious order’’ into system is automated or manual, DEA steadily decreased from 447,140 in 2014 to 102,434 DEA regulations. Furthermore, to believes the pharmacies and other in 2018 due to the decrease in number of registrants provide clarity, the rule also adds practitioners who distribute pursuant to under an MOA. Despite this decrease, the DEA uses the five percent rule currently an average (rather than projecting a trend) of definitions of three additional terms: 338,840 because the decrease is a result of fewer ‘‘order,’’ ‘‘order received under understand and operate such a system. registrants reporting, not decreasing number of suspicious circumstances,’’ and ‘‘due Therefore, this proposed explicit reported suspicious orders. Since the DEA does not diligence.’’ The PDDA definition of inclusion of pharmacies and other have much data beyond what was reported to the practitioners in 21 CFR 1301.74(b) is central database, it decided to use the data as-is. ‘‘suspicious order’’ parallels the long- The average number of suspicious orders reported standing definition of ‘‘suspicious estimated to result in no cost to affected to the field is based on a poll of field offices orders’’ in DEA regulations, and does registrants. conducted in 2017.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69291

orders that would be classified as conducted.112 DEA welcomes any reported within the seven calendar day ORUSC under the proposed rule, 10 comments related to this estimate. period. Therefore, DEA estimates any cost associated with the seven calendar percent (33,884) would fall under d. Reporting and Recordkeeping day time requirement is minimal. option 1, immediately deemed Requirements suspicious and reported as ‘‘suspicious Second, reporting to the DEA orders.’’ Accordingly, the registrant The rule contains new requirements centralized database is estimated to would conduct due diligence on the that specify the reporting method, time impose no additional burden. Based on remaining 90 percent (304,956), with limit for reporting, recordkeeping, and DEA’s registration data, nearly 99 the suspicion dispelled and order filled contents of the record. The rule percent of applications for registration for 80 percent (271,072), and suspicion requires, regardless of whether the or renewal of registration in the suspicious order determination resulted not dispelled and order rejected for the previous 12 months (May 2018 to April from option 1 or option 2, a suspicious remaining 10 percent (33,884). In 2019) were made online. Furthermore, order report be submitted no later than summary, DEA assumes that 20 percent although the email address is an seven calendar days after the order was optional data field, nearly all of ORUCSs would be reported as received. The rule also requires suspicious orders and rejected, while registrations have an email address on suspicious order reports be made to the record. Based on these facts and the the suspicion would be dispelled and DEA centralized database. The report order filled for 80 percent. DEA believes high rate of internet use in the general must include: 114 many orders previously (and currently) U.S. population, it is reasonable to (1) The DEA registration number of estimate virtually all affected registrants reported as ‘‘suspicious orders’’ to the the registrant placing the order for central database were eventually filled have information systems capable of controlled substances; completing, submitting, and retaining after conducting due diligence and (2) The date the order was received; dispelling suspicion. (3) The DEA registration number of electronic suspicious order reports at the registrant reporting the suspicious minimal additional cost. DEA DEA estimates many registrants will acknowledges that is possible for an use the ARCOS Distributor Tool in order; (4) The National Drug Code number, affected registrant not to have conducting due diligence. Estimated unit, dosage strength, and quantity of broadband internet access, especially in time savings is zero for those registrants the controlled substances ordered; rural areas. DEA welcomes any who do not use the tool and (5) The order form number for comments regarding cost of obtaining approximately 30 minutes for those schedule I and schedule II controlled broadband access or the cost of registrants using the tool to conduct due substances; complying with the proposed diligence. DEA does not have a strong (6) The unique transaction regulations without onsite broadband basis to estimate the number of identification number for the suspicious internet access. No special software or registrants who use the ARCOS order; and equipment will be required to access Distributor Tool for conducting due (7) What information and and make reports to the DEA centralized diligence, but conservatively estimates circumstances rendered the order database. Also, the DEA centralized the use of the tool will save registrants, actually suspicious. database interface is very similar to on average, 10 minutes each time due The seven calendar day reporting ARCOS which a majority of diligence is conducted. Therefore, DEA timeframe and the reporting of specific manufacturers and distributors already estimates using the ARCOS Distributor information to the DEA centralized use. Thus, a manufacturer or distributor Tool will save a total of 50,826 hours database provide standardization and familiar with ARCOS would require per year 110 while conducting due consistency for reporting suspicious minimal learning when initially using diligence. Based on a loaded hourly rate orders. First, the seven calendar day the DEA centralized database. of $52.46 for a ‘‘compliance officer,’’ 111 time limit on reporting suspicious Additionally, the proposed content of DEA estimates the cost savings (negative orders is estimated to impose minimal suspicious order reports is a cost) from using the ARCOS Distributor additional cost. DEA believes the codification of content expected of Tool while conducting due diligence is requirement to report suspicious orders current suspicious order reports or approximately $2,666,000 (50,826 × within seven calendar days of receiving content subsequently requested by DEA $52.46, rounded). As indicated above, the order is a reasonable balance if not provided in a suspicious order DEA does not have a strong basis to between registrant operational demands, report. Furthermore, DEA estimates, for estimate the number of times due and prompt action that can lead to the estimated 30,300 suspicious order diligence is conducted and how much investigative leads. The current reports currently reported to the field time the ARCOS Distributor Tool saves requirement is to report suspicious offices, there will be an average time per each time due diligence is orders ‘‘when discovered’’ by the savings of ten minutes per report. The registrant.’’ 113 DEA believes the vast centralized database programmatically 110 304,956 × 10 × (1/60) = 50,826. majority of suspicious orders are already requires the required information in a 111 The DEA utilizes the wage rate for suspicious order report. Currently, ‘‘Compliance Officer’’ (SOC 13–1041, 2018 112 In addition to cost savings resulting from the when a suspicious order report is Standard Occupational Classification, https:// use of the ARCOS Distributor Tool in conducting received in the field office, it often lacks www.bls.gov/soc/2018/major_groups.htm), in the due diligence of an ORUSC, DEA anticipates there ‘‘Merchant Wholesalers, Nondurable Goods (4242 will be a cost savings to registrants from using the needed information. In such instances, and 4246 only)’’ industry. The mean hourly wage ARCOS Distributor Tool during a manufacturer or the reporting registrant is highly likely for that position and industry according to the May distributor’s ‘‘on-boarding’’ process for accepting a to receive a call-back or an on-site 2018 National Occupational Employment and Wage new customer. While the ARCOS Distributor Tool interview from the field office, requiring Estimates United States (https://www.bls.gov/oes/ is expected to save manufacturers and distributors current/oes_nat.htm) is $36.76. Based on the BLS time and cost associated with due diligence more of the registrant’s time to respond report, ‘‘Employer Costs for Employee conducted during the evaluation of a prospective Compensation—March 2019,’’ (ECEC) (https:// customer, each registrant is expected to have its 114 An estimated 81% of households in U.S. www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf) an own proprietary process for the evaluation and DEA households had a broadband internet subscription additional 42.7% load (for ‘‘private industry’’) is does not have a strong basis to quantify the cost in 2016. Camille Ryan, U.S. Census Bureau, added to the wage rate to account for benefits. savings. Computer and Internet Use in the United States: $36.76 × 1.427 = $52.46. 113 21 CFR 1301.74(b). 2016, Issued August 2018.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 69292 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

to DEA’s inquiries. Additionally, the savings of $2,931,000. The two-option Reform to eliminate ambiguity, reduction in the number of ORUSC framework for identifying suspicious minimize litigation, establish clear legal reported as suspicious order is expected orders is a codification of current standards, and reduce burden. to contribute to this decrease.115 practices, and DEA believes nearly all C. Executive Order 13132 Therefore, DEA estimates reporting to affected registrants explicitly or the centralized database will save a total implicitly utilize the two-option This rule does not have federalism of 5,050 hours per year.116 Based on a framework. DEA estimates there will be implications warranting the application loaded hourly rate of $52.46 for a a cost savings of $2,666,000 from the of E.O. 13132. The rule does not have ‘‘compliance officer,’’ 117 DEA estimates implementation of the ARCOS substantial direct effects on the States, the cost savings (negative cost) from Distributor Tool, which saves time on the relationship between the using the centralized database is when conducting due diligence. National Government and the States, or approximately $265,000 (5,050 × $52.46, Additionally, reporting suspicious the distribution of power and rounded). DEA does not have a strong orders to the DEA centralized database, responsibilities among the various basis to estimate the time savings per a which saves time when reporting levels of government. suspicious order report currently suspicious orders, is estimated to save D. Executive Order 13175 received in the field. DEA welcome any of $265,000. All DEA registrants are comments related to this estimate. believed to have access to the use of an This rule does not have substantial Additionally, the rule requires internet-connected computer at no direct effects on the States, on the registrants to maintain a record of every additional cost. Based on DEA’s relationship between the National suspicious order and every ORUSC, and registration data, nearly 99 percent of Government and the States, or the how the registrant handled such applications for registration or renewal distribution of power and orders.118 The record must be prepared of registration in the previous 12 responsibilities between the Federal no later than seven calendar days after months (May 2018 to April 2019) were Government and Indian tribes. the suspicious order or ORUSC was made online. Although the email E. Regulatory Flexibility Act received and must include the following address is an optional data field, 119 information: virtually all registrations have an email In accordance with the RFA, the (1) What information and address on record. No special software DEA evaluated the impact of this rule circumstances rendered the order or equipment will be required to access on small entities. DEA’s evaluation of actually or potentially suspicious; and make reports to the DEA centralized economic impact by size category (2) What steps, if any, the registrant database. Finally, the DEA believes indicates that the rule will not, if took to conduct due diligence; registrants already create and maintain promulgated, have a significant (3) If the registrant conducted due all records documenting each economic impact on a substantial diligence, what information it obtained suspicious order and ORUSC in the number of these small entities. during its investigation, and where the form of notations made in their internal The RFA requires agencies to analyze registrant concludes that each order management systems. options for regulatory relief of small suspicious circumstance has been entities unless it can certify that the rule dispelled, the specific basis for each 4. Summary of Benefits will not have a significant impact on a such conclusion; and DEA believes there are numerous non- substantial number of small entities. For (4) Whether or not the registrant quantifiable benefits associated with purposes of the RFA, small entities distributed controlled substances this rule. First, adding the definition of include small businesses, nonprofit pursuant to the order. ‘‘suspicious order’’ aligns DEA’s organizations, and small governmental DEA believes registrants already regulations with the PDDA, and adding jurisdictions. DEA has analyzed the maintain all records documenting each other terms provides clarity and economic impact of each provision of suspicious order and ORUSC. DEA enhances understanding of required this rule and estimates the rule will believes these records, in form of procedures when an ORUSC is received. have minimal economic impact on notations made in their internal order Second, the rule’s suspicious order affected persons, including small management systems, are maintained determination process would formalize entities. for at least two years as part of their current business practices and create The PDDA definition of suspicious ordinary business operations, even if the consistency across all registrants and order parallels the long-standing registrants are able to dispel the DEA Field Division Offices. Third, definition of suspicious order in DEA suspicious circumstances. DEA reporting suspicious orders to the DEA regulations, and does not expand or estimates the number of ORUSC will not centralized database would standardize contract the current understanding of increase as a result of the rule and reporting procedures, content of the what is a suspicious order. The remain at current levels. DEA estimates reports, and how the reports are definition of ‘‘order’’ clarifies and any additional costs associated with the handled within the DEA. Suspicious codifies the meaning of the word in the recordkeeping requirements are orders are being reported centrally to context of suspicious orders. DEA minimal. DEA by some registrants, and the ease believes that this is not a departure from the current understanding of the term 3. Summary of Costs and efficiency of this electronic submission has been embraced by these order, and anticipates this definition DEA has analyzed the economic registrants. Finally, the DEA centralized will not cause a change in the number impact of each provision of this rule and database would allow DEA to efficiently of suspicious orders or change in estimates there will be a total cost collect the data in a single database, and registrant business activities. The to generate macro-level reports and definitions of ‘‘order received under 115 Similar to the discussion above, a total of 20% investigative leads. suspicious circumstances’’ and ‘‘due of ORUSCs are suspicious orders that require diligence’’ codify current understanding reporting to the DEA. The remaining 80% of B. Executive Order 12988 ORUSCs are estimated to have suspicion dispelled. of the term and provide clarity in 116 30,300 × 10 × (1/60) = 50,826. This rule meets the applicable describing the procedures for 117 See Footnote 78, above. standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 118 Proposed new 21 CFR 1301.78(c). 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice 119 5 U.S.C. 601–612.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69293

identifying and reporting suspicious As previously detailed,120 DEA be a time savings of ten minutes per orders. Therefore, DEA believes the estimates due diligence will be report. The centralized database number of ORUSCs that are conducted on 90 percent (304,956) of all programmatically requires the required investigated, and the number of ORUSCs. DEA believes all registrants information in a suspicious order report. suspicious orders that are reported will will use the ARCOS Distributor Tool in Currently, when a suspicious order remain consistent with current levels, conducting due diligence and the use of report is received in the field office, it and will not increase as result of this the tool will save registrants 10 minutes often lacks needed information. In such rule. each time due diligence is conducted. instances, the reporting registrant is Therefore, DEA estimates using the highly likely to receive a call-back or an The requirement to design and ARCOS Distributor Tool will save a total on-site interview from the field office, operate a system to identify suspicious of 50,826 hours per year while requiring more of registrant’s time to orders of controlled substances is not conducting due diligence. Based on a respond to DEA’s inquiries. new, but is a clarification of existing loaded hourly rate of $52.46 for a Additionally, the reduction in the requirements for distributors, ‘‘compliance officer’’ 121 DEA estimates number of ORUSC reported as manufacturers, importers, practitioners, the cost savings from using the ARCOS suspicious order is expected to and NTPs. All registrants are required to Distributor Tool while conducting due contribute to this decrease. Therefore, maintain effective controls, and to diligence is approximately $2,666,000. DEA estimates reporting to the design and operate the system. The rule requires, regardless of centralized database will save a total of Regardless of whether the system whether the suspicious order 5,050 hours per year. Based on a loaded (understood as a combination of people, determination resulted from option 1 or hourly rate of $52.46 for a ‘‘compliance process, and tools) is automated or option 2, a suspicious order report be officer,’’ 122 DEA estimates the cost manual, DEA believes that distributors, submitted no later than seven calendar savings (negative cost) from using the manufacturers, importers, practitioners, days after the order was received. The centralized database is approximately and NTPs currently understand and report must be made to the DEA $265,000. centralized database with certain Finally, the registrant must maintain operate such a system. Therefore, the required information. DEA believes the a record of each suspicious order and system requirement is estimated to requirement to report suspicious orders ORUSC, and how the registrant handled result in no cost to affected registrants. within seven calendar days of receiving the order, for two years. The record This two-option framework for the order is a reasonable balance must be prepared no later than seven identifying suspicious orders is a between registrant operational demands, calendar days after the suspicious order codification of current practices. and DEA’s need for prompt action that or ORUSC was received and must Masters and Southwood interpreted the can lead to investigative leads. DEA include the following information: suspicious order provisions by believes the vast majority of suspicious (1) What information and articulating that, upon receiving a orders are already reported within the circumstances rendered the order suspicious order, a registrant has a duty seven calendar day period. Therefore, actually or potentially suspicious; to conduct due diligence before DEA estimates any cost associated with (2) What steps, if any, the registrant distributing pursuant to the order. DEA the seven calendar day time took to conduct due diligence; (3) If the registrant conducted due believes nearly all affected registrants requirement is minimal. Additionally, diligence, what information it obtained explicitly or implicitly utilize the two- reporting to the DEA centralized database is estimated to impose no during its investigation, and where the option framework. All suspicious order registrant concludes that each reports must be made to the DEA additional burden. All DEA registrants are believed to have access to the use of suspicious circumstance has been centralized database and contain certain dispelled, the specific basis for each required information, and all records of an internet-connected computer at no additional cost. Based on DEA’s such conclusion; and suspicious orders and ORUSCs must be registration data, nearly 99 percent of (4) Whether or not the registrant prepared and maintained in accordance applications for registration or renewal distributed controlled substances with DEA regulations, and must contain of registration in the previous 12 pursuant to the order. certain required information. DEA months (May 2018 to April 2019) were DEA believes the registrants already believes the two-option framework is a made online. Although the email maintain all records documenting each codification of existing business address is an optional data field, suspicious order and ORUSC. DEA practices, and therefore, the number of virtually all registrations have an email believes these records, in the form of ORUSCs and the number of suspicious address on record. No special software notations made in their internal order orders reported will remain consistent or equipment will be required to access management systems, are already with current levels. As discussed and make reports to the DEA centralized maintained for at least two years as part earlier, Masters and Southwood database. Based on these facts it is of their ordinary business operations, interpreted the suspicious order reasonable to estimate virtually all even if the registrant is able to dispel the provisions by articulating that, upon affected registrants have information suspicious circumstances. DEA receiving a suspicious order, a registrant systems capable of completing, estimates any additional costs associated with the recordkeeping has a duty to conduct due diligence submitting, and retaining electronic suspicious order reports at no additional requirements are minimal. before distributing pursuant to the In conclusion, the rule includes cost. Furthermore, as detailed in section order. DEA believes nearly all affected clarification and codification of IV.1.b.iv, DEA estimates, for the registrants explicitly or implicitly generally understood terms, codification estimated 30,300 suspicious order utilize the two-option framework. of existing practices, and reports reported to the field, there will Moreover, DEA estimates there is time standardization of information and cost savings resulting from using submitted to the DEA (in terms of both the ARCOS Distributor Tool while 120 See Section VI.A.2.c. titled ‘‘Procedures for Identifying and Reporting Suspicious Orders of method and content of submissions). conducting due diligence. Controlled Substances,’’ above. 121 See Footnote 78, above. 122 Ibid.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 69294 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

Furthermore, DEA estimates a cost affected registrations by business substances at multiple locations or savings of $2,666,000 from the use of activity. engages in multiple types of DEA the ARCOS Distributor Tool and registered activities. However, RFA $265,000 from the use of the centralized TABLE 1—NUMBER OF DEA REG- requirements and Small Business database for the reporting of suspicious ISTRATIONS AFFECTED BY BUSINESS Administration (SBA) size standards are orders. Therefore, DEA estimates a total ACTIVITY applicable to entities and businesses. cost savings of $2,931,000. DEA does not, in the general course of Business activity Number of business, collect or otherwise maintain 1. Affected Registrations registrations information regarding associated or parent organizations holding multiple With the exception of reverse Distributor ...... 873 Manufacturer ...... 586 registrations. Therefore, DEA needs distributors, this rule affects all persons some way of correlating and applying who are authorized to distribute Importer ...... 272 Pharmacy ...... 11,009 the parameters of the RFA and controlled substances: Distributors, Hospital/Clinic ...... 2,557 corresponding SBA size standards to manufacturers, importers, practitioners, Teaching Institution ...... 6 DEA registrations (i.e., develop a and NTPs. As of May 6, 2019, there Practitioner ...... 1,150 relationship between the number of were 1,731 registrations authorized to MLP ...... 14 registrations/establishments and the distribute as distributors, MLP-Ambulance Service ...... 37 number of entities). manufacturers, and importers: 873 Researcher ...... 45 Analytical Lab ...... 32 DEA estimated the number of entities distributor, 586 manufacturer, and 272 Narcotic Treatment Program represented by the number of DEA importer. Additionally, based on (NTP) ...... 1,124 registrations by first determining which sampling of DEA Forms 222 received at North American Industry Classification DEA Field Division Offices pursuant to Total ...... 17,705 System (NAICS) classification codes 21 CFR 1305.13(d), DEA estimates there Source: DEA, May 2019. most closely represent each of the are approximately 15,974 practitioner affected business activities, and then and NTP registrations engaged in 2. Number of Entities researching economic data for those distribution. Therefore, DEA estimates It is common for DEA registrants to codes. The business activities and their 17,705 total registrations are affected by hold more than one registration, such as corresponding representative NAICS this rule. Table 1 details the number of where a registrant handles controlled codes are listed in table 2 below.

TABLE 2—BUSINESS ACTIVITIES AND REPRESENTATIVE NAICS CODES

NAICS Business activity code NAICS code-description

Distributor ...... 424210 Drugs and Druggists’ Sundries Merchant Wholesalers. Manufacturer ...... 325412 Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing. Importer ...... 424210 Drugs and Druggists’ Sundries Merchant Wholesalers. Pharmacy ...... 446110 Pharmacies and Drug Stores. Hospital/Clinic ...... 622110 General Medical and Surgical Hospitals. Teaching Institution ...... 611310 Colleges, Universities and Professional Schools. Practitioner ...... 621111 Offices of Physicians (except Mental Health Specialists). MLP ...... 621111 Offices of Physicians (except Mental Health Specialists). MLP-Ambulance Service ...... 621910 Ambulance Services. Researcher ...... 541712 Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Biotechnology). Analytical Lab ...... 541380 Testing Laboratories. NTP ...... 621420 Outpatient Mental Health and Substance Abuse Centers.

The U.S. Census Bureau’s Statistics of employer firm size in the SUSB were noted and the firm-to- U.S. Businesses (SUSB) is an annual program. SUSB employer data contain establishment ratio was calculated for series that provides national and the number of firms, number of each related NAICS code. For the subnational data on the distribution of establishments, employment, and purposes of this analysis, the term economic data by enterprise size and annual payroll for employment size of ‘‘firm’’ as defined in the SUSB is used industry. Additionally, the SBA Office firm categories by location and industry. interchangeably with ‘‘entity’’ as of Advocacy partially funds the U.S. From the SUSB data, the number of defined in the RFA. See table 3 Census Bureau to produce data on firms and the number of establishments below.123

123 Two different data sources were used to of employees, the data set from SUSB is used—2015 determination is by annual receipts, the data set develop Table 3. Data table directly from SUSB SUSB Annual Datasets by Establishment Industry, from the advocacy is used—SBA Office of contained detailed firm size by number of table: ‘‘U.S. & states, NAICS, detailed employment Advocacy, Firm Size Data, U.S. static data, https:// employees, while the data table from the Advocacy sizes (U.S., 6-digit and states, NAICS sectors), www.sba.gov/advocacy/firm-size-data. (Accessed contained detailed firm size by annual receipts. https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/2015/econ/ July 3, 2019.) Therefore, for NAICS codes 325412, 424210, and susb/2015-susb.html.’’ (Accessed July 3, 2019). For 541712, which size determination is by the number the remaining NAICS codes, which size

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69295

TABLE 3—FIRM-TO-ESTABLISHMENT RATIO FOR EACH NAICS CODE

Firm-to- NAICS code NAICS code-description Firms Establishments establishment ratio

325412 ...... Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing ...... 988 1,290 0.7659 424210 ...... Drugs and Druggists’ Sundries Merchant Wholesalers ...... 6,812 10,129 0.6725 446110 ...... Pharmacies and Drug Stores ...... 18,852 43,343 0.4349 622110 ...... General Medical and Surgical Hospitals ...... 2,904 5,281 0.5499 611310 ...... Colleges, Universities and Professional Schools ...... 2,282 4,329 0.5271 621111 ...... Offices of Physicians (except Mental Health Specialists) ...... 174,901 210,721 0.8300 621910 ...... Ambulance Services ...... 3,390 5,051 0.6712 541712 ...... Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life 9,634 13,411 0.7184 Sciences (except Biotechnology). 541380 ...... Testing Laboratories ...... 5,191 6,599 0.7866 621420 ...... Outpatient Mental Health and Substance Abuse Centers ...... 4,987 9,685 0.5149

The calculated firm-to-establishment registrations for an estimated 449 total, the 17,705 affected registrations/ ratios were applied to the corresponding entities, and the firm-to-establishment establishments represent 9,043 entities. business activities to estimate the ratio of 0.6725 was applied to the Table 4 below summarizes the number number of entities. For example, the affected 1,145 distributor and importer of entities for each business activity. firm-to-establishment ratio of 0.7659 is registrations for an estimated 770 applied to the affected 586 manufacturer distributor and importer entities. In

TABLE 4—NUMBER OF ENTITIES BY BUSINESS ACTIVITY

Affected Firm-to- Business activity NAICS registration/ establishment Affected code establishments ratio firms

Manufacturer ...... 325412 586 0.7659 449 Distributor, Importer ...... 424210 1,145 0.6725 770 Pharmacy ...... 446110 11,009 0.4349 4,788 Hospital/Clinic ...... 622110 2,557 0.5499 1,406 Teaching Institution ...... 611310 6 0.5271 3 Practitioner, MLP ...... 621111 1,164 0.8300 966 MLP-Ambulance Service ...... 621910 37 0.6712 25 Researcher ...... 541712 45 0.7184 32 Analytical Lab ...... 541380 32 0.7866 25 NTP ...... 621420 1,124 0.5149 579

Total ...... 17,705 ...... 9,043

3. Number of Small Entities below the SBA size standard, all of the the total number of firms to estimate the firms in the SUSB data size range were ‘‘percent small firms of total’’ (i.e., the SUSB data includes the number of considered ‘‘small.’’ If only part of the percent of total firms that are small firms at various size ranges. To estimate size range for the firms in the SUSB data firms) for all firms in the related NAICS the number of affected entities that are was below the SBA size standard, only code. The percent small firms of total small entities, DEA compared the firm the proportional number of firms in the firms were applied to the estimated size ranges with SBA size standards for SUSB data size range was considered number of entities for each business each of the representative NAICS codes ‘‘small.’’ activity to estimate the number of from Table 2. The SBA size standard is The number of firms below the SBA affected entities that are small entities. the firm size based on the number of size standard for each NAICS code was DEA estimates that 7,940 (87.8 percent) employees or annual receipts depending added to determine the total number of of the total 9,043 affected entities are on industry.124 If the entire size range small firms for that NAICS code. The small entities. The analysis is for the firms in the SUSB data was number of small firms was divided by summarized in Table 5 below.

TABLE 5—NUMBER OF ENTITIES AND SMALL ENTITIES BY BUSINESS ACTIVITY

Affected Firm-to- Affected Business activity registration/ establishment Affected % Small small establishments ratio firms entities entities

Distributor, Importer ...... 1,145 0.6725 770 96.2 741 Manufacturer ...... 586 0.7659 449 93.2 419 Pharmacy ...... 11,009 0.4349 4,788 98.0 4,694 Hospital/Clinic ...... 2,557 0.5499 1,406 39.8 560

124 ‘‘U.S. Small Business Administration Table of American Industry Classification System Codes,’’ October 1, 2017. https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/ Small Business Size Standards Matched to North files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 69296 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 5—NUMBER OF ENTITIES AND SMALL ENTITIES BY BUSINESS ACTIVITY—Continued

Affected Firm-to- Affected Business activity registration/ establishment Affected % Small small establishments ratio firms entities entities

Teaching Institution ...... 6 0.5271 3 58.8 2 Practitioner, MLP ...... 1,164 0.8300 966 97.2 939 MLP-Ambulance Service ...... 37 0.6712 25 94.7 24 Researcher ...... 45 0.7184 32 94.4 30 Analytical Lab ...... 32 0.7866 25 94.1 24 NTP ...... 1,124 0.5149 579 87.6 507

Total ...... 17,705 ...... 9,043 ...... 7,940 Percent small entity of total entities ...... 87.8%

4. Impact on Small Entities small entities as small entities are NAICS code ‘424210-Drugs and To comply with the RFA, DEA expected to have lower volume of Druggists’ Sundries Merchant conducted a preliminary analysis to distribution and fewer times due Wholesalers’ the smallest size category determine whether, if promulgated, this diligence is conducted or suspicious is firm size with annual receipts ‘‘less rule will have a significant economic order is reported to the centralized than $100,000.’’ There are 585 firms in impact on a substantial number of small database. this size category with an estimated entities. As described above, DEA The average cost savings of $324 per combined total of $31,248,000 for an estimates this rule will result in a total entity per year was compared to the average annual receipt of $53,415 per cost savings of $2,931,000, or an average average annual receipt for the smallest firm.125 The $324 in annual cost savings of $324 per entity ($2,931,000/9,043), of small businesses in the NAICS codes per firm is 0.61 percent of $53,415. The including small entities. Average cost that represent the affected entities results for each of the NAICS codes are savings of $324 is a high estimate for (described in Table 2). For example, for listed in Table 6.

TABLE 6—COST SAVINGS AS PERCENT OF ANNUAL RECEIPTS BY NAICS CODES

Average Cost savings NAICS NAICS code- Firm size in Estimated receipt per Average cost as percent code description receipts Firms receipts firm savings of annual ($) ($) ($) ($) receipts

325412 Pharmaceutical Prepara- tion Manufacturing ...... * 100,000–499,000 91 35,834,000 393,780 324 0.08 424210 Drugs and Druggists’ Sundries Merchant Wholesalers ...... <100,000 585 31,248,000 53,415 324 0.61 446110 Pharmacies and Drug Stores ...... <100,000 751 36,066,000 48,024 324 0.67 622110 General Medical and Surgical Hospitals ...... * 100,000–499,000 14 3,812,000 272,286 324 0.12 611310 Colleges, Universities and Professional Schools ...... <100,000 163 7,510,000 46,074 324 0.70 621111 Offices of Physicians (except Mental Health Specialists) ...... <100,000 15,275 771,280,000 50,493 324 0.64 621910 Ambulance Services...... <100,000 373 16,468,000 44,150 324 0.73 541712 Research and Develop- ment in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Bio- technology) ...... <100,000 1,457 71,428,000 49,024 324 0.66 541380 Testing Laboratories...... <100,000 738 35,527,000 48,140 324 0.67 621420 Outpatient Mental Health and Substance Abuse Centers ...... <100,000 800 41,204,000 51,505 324 0.63 * ‘‘Estimated Receipts’’ not available for the smallest size range of ‘‘<100,000; therefore, used next size range of ‘‘100,000–499,000’’ for comparison.

DEA generally considers impacts that impact’’ on an entity. As indicated in Accordingly, DEA estimates that this are greater than three percent of annual Table 6 above, the cost savings is far rule will not, if promulgated, have a revenue to be a ‘‘significant economic below the three percent threshold.

125 SBA Office of Advocacy, Firm Size Data, U.S. static data, https://www.sba.gov/advocacy/firm- size-data. (Accessed July 3, 2019.)

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69297

significant economic impact on a • The DEA registration number of the ORUSC was received, must include how substantial number of small entities. registrant reporting the suspicious the registrant handled such orders, and order; must include the following information: F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of • The National Drug Code number, • What information and 1995 unit, dosage strength, and quantity of circumstances rendered the order This rule will not result in the the controlled substances ordered; actually or potentially suspicious; expenditure by State, local and tribal • The order form number for • What steps, if any, the registrant governments, in the aggregate, or by the schedule I and schedule II controlled took to investigate the order; private sector, of $100,000,000 or more substances; • If the registrant investigated the (adjusted for inflation) in any one year, • The unique transaction order, what information it obtained and will not significantly or uniquely identification number for the suspicious during its investigation, and where the affect small governments. Therefore, no order; and registrant concludes that each actions were deemed necessary under • What information and suspicious circumstance has been the provisions of the Unfunded circumstances rendered the order dispelled, the specific basis for each Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. actually suspicious.130 such conclusion; and 1532. Currently, DEA is not able to • Whether or not the registrant accurately estimate the number of distributed controlled substances G. Paperwork Reduction Act suspicious orders being reported pursuant to the order.133 Under the PRA,126 the DEA is not because there is no central database Currently, DEA is not able to authorized to impose a penalty on tracking all of these orders. For the accurately estimate the number of persons for violating information purpose of this analysis and fulfilling suspicious orders or ORUSCs. For the collection requirements which do not this new information collection purpose of this analysis and fulfilling display a current OMB control number, requirement, DEA initially estimates the this new information collection if one is required. Copies of existing following number of respondents, requirement, DEA initially estimates the information collections approved by responses, and burden. Burden following number of respondents, OMB may be obtained at http:// estimates will be updated with actual responses, and burden. Burden www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. figures on next information collection estimates will be updated with actual renewal request. DEA estimates there figures on next information collection 1. Collections of Information Associated will be an average of 338,840 ORUSCs, renewal request. DEA estimates there With the Rule of which approximately 20 percent are will be an average of 338,840 ORUSCs, Title: Reporting and Recordkeeping reported as suspicious orders. The of which approximately 20 percent are Requirements Related to Suspicious suspicious order reports are made as reported as suspicious orders and the Orders. they occur, with no set frequency, and remaining 80 percent are ORUSCs that OMB Control Number: 1117–New. have an estimated burden of 20 minutes require keeping of the abovementioned Form Number: N/A. per response. The ‘number of records. The recordkeeping is Pursuant to the PRA, the DEA is respondents’ is estimated based on the conducted as the events occur, with no seeking approval from OMB for a new number of unique DEA numbers set frequency, and have an estimated information collection related to reporting to the centralized database; burden of 15 minute per response. The suspicious orders. The collection would DEA does not have an estimate of the ‘number of respondents’ is estimated include two distinct components: The number of respondents reporting to the based on the number of unique DEA reporting of suspicious orders, and field offices. DEA estimates the numbers reporting to the centralized recordkeeping related to suspicious following number of respondents and database; DEA does not have an orders and ORUSCs. The rule applies to burden associated with this collection of estimate of the number of respondents all registrants that distribute controlled information: reporting to the field offices. DEA substances, including manufacturers, Number of respondents: 100. estimates the following number of distributors, importers, and pharmacies Frequency of response: 677.78 per respondents and burden associated with (and other practitioners in certain year (calculated). this collection of information: cases). The rule would amend two Number of responses: 67,768 average Number of respondents: 100. existing sections of DEA regulations,127 per year. Frequency of response: 2,710.72 per and would create a new section of DEA Burden per response: 0.33 hour (20 year (calculated). regulations 128 to include provisions minutes). Number of responses: 271,072 average relating to suspicious orders. Total annual hour burden: 22,589 per year. hours. Burden per response: 0.25 hour (15 a. Reporting of Suspicious Orders minutes). b. Recordkeeping for Suspicious Orders Registrants must file suspicious order Total annual hour burden: 67,768 and ORUSCs reports through the DEA centralized hours. database.129 Each suspicious order Registrants must keep records for 131 2. Request for Comments Regarding the report must contain the following suspicious orders and ORUSCs. Proposed Information Collections information: These records must be kept by the • The DEA registration number of the registrant and be available, for at least Written comments and suggestions registrant placing the order for 2 years from the date of the record, for from the public and affected entities controlled substances; inspection and copying by authorized concerning the proposed collections of • The date the order was received; employees of DEA.132 Each record must information are encouraged. Under the be prepared no later than seven calendar PRA, DEA is required to provide a notice regarding the proposed 126 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. days after the suspicious order or 127 Proposed amended 21 CFR 1300.01 and collections of information in the Federal proposed amended 21 CFR 1301.74. 130 Proposed new 21 CFR 1301.78(b). Register with the notice of proposed 128 Proposed new 21 CFR 1301.78. 131 Proposed new 21 CFR 1301.78(c). 129 Proposed new § 1301.78(b). 132 21 CFR 1304.04(a). 133 Proposed new 21 CFR 1301.78(c).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 69298 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

rulemaking and solicit public and orders (coupled with other Federal and State privacy laws. The comment.134 The PRA requires DEA to appropriate investigations, including system shall be designed and operated solicit comment on the following issues: previous investigations into persons and to identify orders of unusual size, orders • Whether the proposed collection of orders) that includes, but is not limited deviating substantially from a normal information is necessary for the proper to, verification that a person (or a person pattern, and orders of unusual performance of the functions of DEA, submitting an order) holds the frequency. In addition, the system shall including whether the information shall appropriate DEA registration, be designed and operated to identify have practical utility. verification that a person (or a person suspicious orders based on facts and • The accuracy of DEA’s estimate of submitting an order) holds all licenses circumstances that may be relevant the burden of the proposed collection of required by the state(s) in which a indicators of diversion in determining information, including the validity of person (or a person submitting an order) whether a person (or a person the methodology and assumptions used. conducts business with respect to submitting an order) is engaged in, or is • Recommendations to enhance the controlled substances, examination of likely to engage in, the diversion of quality, utility, and clarity of the each suspicious circumstance controlled substances. information to be collected. (2) Registrants in receipt of an order • surrounding an order, and examination Recommendations to minimize the of all facts and circumstances that may received under suspicious burden of the collection of information be relevant indicators of diversion in circumstances shall follow the on those who are to respond, including determining whether a person (or a procedures set forth in § 1301.78(a). through the use of automated collection person submitting an order) is engaged (3) In addition to entities that are techniques or other forms of information in, or is likely to engage in, the registered as distributors, the technology. diversion of controlled substances. requirements in this paragraph (b) shall Please send written comments to the also apply to registrants authorized to Office of Information and Regulatory * * * * * Order means any communication by a distribute controlled substances. Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer person to a registrant proposing or However, controlled substances for DOJ, Washington, DC 20503. Please requesting a distribution of a controlled dispensed or administered within the state that your comments refer to RIN substance, regardless of how it is normal course of professional practice 1117–AB47/Docket No. DEA–437. All labeled by the person or the registrant, of a practitioner, to include comments must be submitted to OMB and regardless of whether a distribution prescriptions filled by a pharmacy, and on or before January 4, 2021. The final is made by the registrant, except that orders placed by registrants to DEA rule will respond to any OMB or public simple price/availability inquiries, registered reverse distributors comments on the information collection standing alone, do not constitute an requesting the return or destruction of requirements contained in this proposal. order. controlled substances, are not List of Subjects Order received under suspicious distributions subject to the provisions of circumstances means an order this part. 21 CFR Part 1300 potentially meeting the definition of * * * * * Chemicals, Drug traffic control. suspicious order. ■ 5. Add § 1301.78 to read as follows: 21 CFR Part 1301Administrative * * * * * § 1301.78 Procedures for identifying and practice and procedure, Drug traffic Suspicious order includes, but is not reporting suspicious orders of controlled control, Exports, Imports, Security limited to, an order of unusual size, an substances. measures. order deviating substantially from a (a) Upon receipt of an order received normal pattern, or an order of unusual Administrative practice and under suspicious circumstances, the frequency. procedure, Drug traffic control, Exports, registrant shall proceed under one of the Imports, Security measures. * * * * * following two options: For the reasons set forth above, the (1) The registrant shall decline to PART 1301—REGISTRATION OF distribute pursuant to the suspicious DEA proposes to amend 21 CFR parts MANUFACTURERS, DISTRIBUTORS, 1300 and 1301 as follows: order, immediately file a suspicious AND DISPENSERS OF CONTROLLED order report through the DEA SUBSTANCES PART 1300—DEFINITIONS centralized database (which includes ■ 3. The authority citation for part 1301 the information described in paragraph ■ 1. The authority citation for part 1300 is revised to read as follows: (b) of this section), and maintain a is revised to read as follows: record of the suspicious order and any Authority: 21 U.S.C. 821, 822, 823, 824, due diligence related to the suspicious Authority: 21 U.S.C. 802, 821, 822, 823, 831, 832, 871(b), 875, 877, 886a, 951, 952, 829, 832, 871(b), 951, 958(f). 953, 956, 957, 958, 965. order (which includes at least the information described in paragraph (c) ■ 2. In § 1300.01, amend paragraph (b) ■ 4. In § 1301.74, revise the section by adding definitions of ‘‘Due of this section); or heading and paragraph (b) to read as (2) The registrant, before distributing diligence,’’ ‘‘Order,’’ ‘‘Order received follows: pursuant to the order received under under suspicious circumstances,’’ and suspicious circumstances, shall conduct ‘‘Suspicious order’’ in alphabetical § 1301.74 Other security controls for non- due diligence to investigate each order to read as follows: practitioners; non-practitioners and practitioners for orders received under suspicious circumstance surrounding § 1300.01 Definitions relating to controlled suspicious circumstances; narcotic the order. substances. treatment programs and compounders for (i) If, through its due diligence, the * * * * * narcotic treatment programs. registrant is able to dispel each (b) * * * * * * * * suspicious circumstance surrounding Due diligence means a reasonable and (b)(1) Each registrant shall design and the order received under suspicious documented investigation into persons operate a system to identify suspicious circumstances within seven calendar orders of controlled substances for the days after receiving the order, it is not 134 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). registrant that complies with applicable a suspicious order; the registrant may

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69299

then distribute pursuant to the order, (2) What steps, if any, the registrant FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If and the order need not be reported to took to conduct due diligence; you have questions about this proposed the DEA as a suspicious order, but the (3) If the registrant conducted due rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant registrant must maintain a record of its diligence, what information it obtained Natallia Lopez, Sector San Juan due diligence which includes at least during its investigation, and where the Prevention Department, Waterways the information described in paragraph registrant concludes that each Management Division, U.S. Coast (c) of this section. suspicious circumstance has been Guard; telephone 787–729–2380, email (ii) If the registrant, through its due dispelled, the specific basis for each [email protected]. diligence, is unable to dispel each such conclusion; and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: suspicious circumstance surrounding (4) Whether or not the registrant the order received under suspicious distributed controlled substances I. Table of Abbreviations circumstances within seven calendar pursuant to the order. CFR Code of Federal Regulations days after receiving the order, it is a COTP Captain of the Port Timothy J. Shea, suspicious order; the registrant shall file DHS Department of Homeland Security a suspicious order report through the Acting Administrator. FR Federal Register DEA centralized database, which [FR Doc. 2020–21302 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking includes the information described in BILLING CODE 4410–09–P § Section paragraph (b) of this section, decline to U.S.C. United States Code distribute pursuant to the suspicious II. Background, Purpose, and Legal order, and maintain a record of its due DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND Basis diligence which includes at least the SECURITY The existing regulation in 33 CFR information described in paragraph (c) 165.758 contains a moving security zone of this section. Coast Guard of 50-yards around all cruise ships (b)(1) Registrants shall report entering, departing, moored or anchored suspicious orders to the DEA 33 CFR Part 165 in the Port of San Juan, Puerto Rico. On centralized database. The report, [Docket Number USCG–2020–0445] , 2020, the Coast Guard received identifying each suspicious order, must a request from Coast Guard Station San include the following information: RIN 1625–AA87 (i) The DEA registration number of the Juan to adjust the security zone to 200- Security Zone; San Juan, Puerto Rico registrant placing the order for yards to provide an adequate reaction zone for maritime security threats and controlled substances; AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. hazards and to match similar security (ii) The date the order was received; ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. (iii) The DEA registration number of zones in other ports. The purpose of this rulemaking is to the registrant reporting the suspicious SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing order; to revise an existing moving security ensure the safety and security of cruise (iv) The National Drug Code number, zone for the Port of San Juan, San Juan, ships in the Port of San Juan while they unit, dosage strength, and quantity of Puerto Rico. The proposed revision are entering, departing, moored, and the controlled substances ordered; would expand the existing moving anchored in port. The Coast Guard is (v) The order form number for security zone to a 200-yard radius proposing this rulemaking under schedule I and schedule II controlled around all cruise ships entering, authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. substances; departing, or anchored in the Port of III. Discussion of Proposed Rule (vi) The unique transaction San Juan. While the cruise ships are The proposed rule wouldrevise the identification number for the suspicious moored at the Port of San Juan, the existing moving security zone in order; and security zone would remain at a 50-yard § 165.758 to a 200-yard radius around (vii) What information and radius around the cruise ships. This all cruise ships entering, departing, or circumstances rendered the order action would continue to prohibit anchored in the Port of San Juan, San actually suspicious. persons and vessels from entering, (2) Upon notification from the DEA Juan, Puerto Rico. Increasing the anchoring, mooring or transiting in the that a suspicious order report or reports security zone from 50-yards to 200- security zone, unless authorized by the contain inaccurate or incomplete yards while the cruise ships are in Coast Guard Captain of the Port of San information, the registrant shall have transit or anchored would provide law Juan or a designated representative. This seven calendar days to correct the enforcement assets with more sufficient action is necessary to better meet the inaccurate or incomplete information. time to react in case of potential terrorist safety and security needs of the Port of (c) Registrants shall maintain a record acts, sabotage, or other subversive acts, San Juan. We invite your comments on of every suspicious order and every accidents, or hazards of a similar nature. this proposed rulemaking. order received under suspicious While the cruise ships are moored, the circumstances for at least two years DATES: Comments and related material security zone would remain at a 50-yard from the date of such record in must be received by the Coast Guard on radius around the cruise ships. No accordance with 21 CFR 1304.04(a), and or before December 2, 2020. vessel or person would be permitted to how the registrant handled such orders. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments enter the security zone without The record must be prepared no later identified by docket number USCG– obtaining permission from the COTP or than seven calendar days after the 2020–0445 using the Federal a designated representative. The suspicious order or order received eRulemaking Portal at https:// regulatory text we are proposing appears under suspicious circumstances was www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public at the end of this document. received and must include the following Participation and Request for IV. Regulatory Analyses information: Comments’’ portion of the (1) What information and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for We developed this proposed rule after circumstances rendered the order further instructions on submitting considering numerous statutes and actually or potentially suspicious; comments. Executive orders related to rulemaking.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:01 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 69300 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

Below we summarize our analyses significant economic impact on it, aggregate, or by the private sector of based on a number of these statutes and please submit a comment (see $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or Executive orders, and we discuss First ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it more in any one year. Though this Amendment rights of protestors. qualifies and how and to what degree proposed rule would not result in such this rule would economically affect it. an expenditure, we do discuss the A. Regulatory Planning and Review Under section 213(a) of the Small effects of this rule elsewhere in this Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 Business Regulatory Enforcement preamble. direct agencies to assess the costs and Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), F. Environment benefits of available regulatory we want to assist small entities in alternatives and, if regulation is understanding this proposed rule. If the We have analyzed this proposed rule necessary, to select regulatory rule would affect your small business, under Department of Homeland approaches that maximize net benefits. organization, or governmental Security Directive 023–01, Rev. 1, Executive Order 13771 directs agencies jurisdiction and you have questions associated implementing instructions, to control regulatory costs through a concerning its provisions or options for and Environmental Planning budgeting process. This NPRM has not compliance, please call or email the COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which been designated a ‘‘significant person listed in the FOR FURTHER guide the Coast Guard in complying regulatory action,’’ under Executive INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast with the National Environmental Policy Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM Guard will not retaliate against small Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and has not been reviewed by the Office of entities that question or complain about have made a preliminary determination Management and Budget (OMB), and this proposed rule or any policy or that this action is one of a category of pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt action of the Coast Guard. actions that do not individually or from the requirements of Executive cumulatively have a significant effect on Order 13771. C. Collection of Information the human environment. This proposed This regulatory action determination This proposed rule would not call for rule involves a security zone that would is based on the size, available a new collection of information under establish a 200-yard radius around all exceptions to the enforcement of the the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 cruise ships entering, departing, moored security zone, and notice to mariners. (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). or anchored in the Port of San Juan, San The regulated area will impact small Juan, Puerto Rico. While cruise ships designated areas of navigable channels D. Federalism and Indian Tribal are moored, the security zone would within San Juan Harbor, San Juan, Governments remain at a 50-yard radius around the Puerto Rico. The rule will allow vessels A rule has implications for federalism cruise ships. Normally such actions are to seek permission to enter, transit under Executive Order 13132 categorically excluded from further through, anchor in, or remain within the (Federalism), if it has a substantial review under paragraph L60(a) in Table safety zone. Additionally, notifications direct effect on the States, on the 3–1 of U.S. Coast Guard Environmental to the marine community will be made relationship between the National Planning Implementing Procedures. A through Local Notice to Mariners, Government and the States, or on the preliminary Record of Environmental Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF– distribution of power and Consideration supporting this FM marine channel 16, and on-scene responsibilities among the various determination will be available in the representatives. The notifications will levels of government. We have analyzed docket where indicated under allow the public to plan operations this proposed rule under that Order and ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or around the affected areas. have determined that it is consistent information that may lead to the with the fundamental federalism B. Impact on Small Entities discovery of a significant environmental principles and preemption requirements impact from this proposed rule. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of described in Executive Order 13132. 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, Also, this proposed rule does not have G. Protest Activities requires Federal agencies to consider tribal implications under Executive The Coast Guard respects the First the potential impact of regulations on Order 13175 (Consultation and Amendment rights of protesters. small entities during rulemaking. The Coordination with Indian Tribal Protesters are asked to call or email the term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises small Governments) because it would not person listed in the FOR FURTHER businesses, not-for-profit organizations have a substantial direct effect on one or INFORMATION CONTACT section to that are independently owned and more Indian tribes, on the relationship coordinate protest activities so that your operated and are not dominant in their between the Federal Government and message can be received without fields, and governmental jurisdictions Indian tribes, or on the distribution of jeopardizing the safety or security of with populations of less than 50,000. power and responsibilities between the people, places, or vessels. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. Federal Government and Indian tribes. V. Public Participation and Request for 605(b) that this proposed rule would not If you believe this proposed rule has Comments have a significant economic impact on implications for federalism or Indian a substantial number of small entities. tribes, please call or email the person We view public participation as While some owners or operators of listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION essential to effective rulemaking, and vessels intending to transit the safety CONTACT section. will consider all comments and material zone may be small entities, for the received during the comment period. reasons stated in section IV.A above, E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Your comment can help shape the this proposed rule would not have a The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act outcome of this rulemaking. If you significant economic impact on any of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires submit a comment, please include the vessel owner or operator. Federal agencies to assess the effects of docket number for this rulemaking, If you think that your business, their discretionary regulatory actions. In indicate the specific section of this organization, or governmental particular, the Act addresses actions document to which each comment jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity that may result in the expenditure by a applies, and provide a reason for each and that this rule would have a State, local, or tribal government, in the suggestion or recommendation.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69301

We encourage you to submit (b) Regulations. (1) No person or DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND comments through the Federal vessel may enter, transit or remain in SECURITY eRulemaking Portal at https:// the security zone unless authorized by www.regulations.gov. If your material the Captain of the Port (COTP), San Coast Guard cannot be submitted using https:// Juan, Puerto Rico, or a designated Coast www.regulations.gov, call or email the Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty 33 CFR Part 165 person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION officer. Those operating in the security [Docket Number USCG–2020–0307] CONTACT section of this document for zone with the COTP’s authorization RIN 1625–AA00 alternate instructions. must comply with all lawful orders or We accept anonymous comments. All directions given to them by the COTP or Safety Zones; Christiansted Harbor, St. comments received will be posted his designated representative. Croix, USVI without change to https:// www.regulations.gov and will include (2) Persons desiring to transit the area AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. of the safety zones may contact the any personal information you have ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. provided. For more about privacy and COTP San Juan or his designated submissions in response to this representative to seek permission to SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing document, see DHS’s eRulemaking transit the area. If permission is granted, to establish permanent safety zones for System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, all persons and vessels must comply certain waters of the Christiansted , 2020). with the instructions of the COTP or his Harbor, St. Croix, United States Virgin Documents mentioned in this NPRM designated representative. Islands when liquefied gas carriers are as being available in the docket, and all (3) Vessels encountering emergencies, in transit to, moored, or aredeparting from the Virgin Island Water and Power public comments, will be in our online which require transit through the Authority (WAPA) dock. This action is docket at https://www.regulations.gov moving security zone, should contact necessary to provide for the safety of life and can be viewed by following that the Coast Guard patrol craft or Duty website’s instructions. Additionally, if on these navigable waters near the Officer on VHF Channel 16. In the event WAPA dock. This proposed rulemaking you go to the online docket and sign up of an emergency, the Coast Guard patrol for email alerts, you will be notified would prohibit persons and vessels craft may authorize a vessel to transit when comments are posted or a final from being in the safety zones unless through the security zone with a Coast rule is published. authorized by the Captain of the Port Guard designated escort. San Juan or a designated representative. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 (4) The Captain of the Port and the We invite your comments on this Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation Duty Officer at Sector San Juan, Puerto proposed rulemaking. (water), Reporting and recordkeeping Rico, can be contacted at telephone DATES: Comments and related material requirements, Security measures, number 787–289–2041. The Coast must be received by the Coast Guard on Waterways. Guard Patrol Commander enforcing the or before December 2, 2020. For the reasons discussed in the safety zone can be contacted on VHF– ADDRESSES: You may submit comments preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing FM channels 16 and 22A. identified by docket number USCG– to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: (5) Coast Guard Sector San Juan will, 2020–0307 using the Federal when necessary and practicable, notify eRulemaking Portal at https:// PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS the maritime community of periods during which the security zones will be Participation and Request for ■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 in effect by providing advance notice of Comments’’ portion of the continues to read as follows: scheduled arrivals and departure of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for cruise ships via a Marine Broadcast further instructions on submitting Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR comments. 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Notice to Mariners. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Department of Homeland Security Delegation (6) All persons and vessels must If No. 0170.1. comply with the instructions of on- you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant ■ 2. Revise § 165.758 to read as follows: scene patrol personnel. On-scene patrol Natallia Lopez, Sector San Juan personnel include commissioned, § 165.758 Security Zone; San Juan, Puerto Prevention Department, Waterways warrant, or petty officers of the U.S. Rico. Management Division, U.S. Coast Coast Guard. Coast Guard Auxiliary and (a) Regulated area. A moving and Guard; telephone 787–729–2380, email local or state officials may be present to fixed security zone is established in the [email protected]. inform vessel operators of the following area: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: (1) The waters within a 200-yard requirements of this section, and other radius around all cruise ships entering, applicable laws. I. Table of Abbreviations departing, or anchored in the Port of (c) Definition. As used in this section, CFR Code of Federal Regulations San Juan, Puerto Rico beginning one cruise ship means a passenger vessel COTP Captain of the Port mile north of the Bahia de San Juan greater than 100 feet in length that is DHS Department of Homeland Security Lighted Buoy #3, in approximate authorized to carry more than 150 FR Federal Register ° ′ ″ ° ′ ″ LG Liquefied Gas position 18 28 17.8 N, 066 07 36.4 W passengers for hire, except for a ferry. NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking and continuing until the vessel passes Dated: October 23, 2020. § Section this buoy on its departure from the port. U.S.C. United States Code All coordinates are North American Gregory H. Magee, Datum 1983. Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the II. Background, Purpose, and Legal (2) The waters within a 50-yard radius Port San Juan. Basis around all cruise ships moored in the [FR Doc. 2020–23884 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] On , 2020, Small Boat Station Port of San Juan, Puerto Rico. BILLING CODE 9110–04–P San Juan recommended Sector San Juan

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 69302 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

establish permanent safety zones in to control regulatory costs through a Guard will not retaliate against small Christiansted Harbor, St. Croix, United budgeting process. This NPRM has not entities that question or complain about States Virgin Islands (USVI) because been designated a ‘‘significant this proposed rule or any policy or they routinely perform escorts of regulatory action,’’ under Executive action of the Coast Guard. liquefied gas (LG) carriers. The Captain Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM C. Collection of Information of the Port San Juan (COTP) has has not been reviewed by the Office of determined that potential hazards Management and Budget (OMB), and This proposed rule would not call for associated with the transit and cargo pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt a new collection of information under operation of LG carriers would be a from the requirements of Executive the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 safety concern for anyone within a one Order 13771. (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). This regulatory action determination half mile of LG carriers during transit D. Federalism and Indian Tribal is based on: 1) vessels may request and 50-yards while LG carriers while Governments moored at the Virgin Island Water and permission from the COTP to enter, Power Authority (WAPA) dock. transit through, anchor in, or remain A rule has implications for federalism The purpose of this rulemaking is to within the safety zones; 2) the impacts under Executive Order 13132 ensure the safety of vessels and the on routine navigation are expected to be (Federalism), if it has a substantial navigable waters during the escort and minimal; and 3) notifications to the direct effect on the States, on the cargo operation of LG carriers. The marine community will be made relationship between the National Coast Guard is proposing this through Local Notice to Mariners, Government and the States, or on the rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF– distribution of power and 70034. FM marine channel 16, and on-scene responsibilities among the various representatives. The notifications will levels of government. We have analyzed III. Discussion of Proposed Rule allow the public to plan operations this proposed rule under that Order and The COTP is proposing to establish around the affected areas. have determined that it is consistent permanent moving safety zones in with the fundamental federalism B. Impact on Small Entities Christiansted Harbor, St. Croix, USVI principles and preemption requirements where Coast Guard assets routinely The Regulatory Flexibility Act of described in Executive Order 13132. perform escorts of LG carriers. This 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, Also, this proposed rule does not have proposed rule would establish a moving requires Federal agencies to consider tribal implications under Executive safety zone of one-half mile around any the potential impact of regulations on Order 13175 (Consultation and transiting LG carrier, beginning at small entities during rulemaking. The Coordination with Indian Tribal Christiansted Harbor Lighted Buoy #1 term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises small Governments) because it would not and ending when the LG Carrier moors businesses, not-for-profit organizations have a substantial direct effect on one or at the WAPA dock. Once moored there that are independently owned and more Indian tribes, on the relationship will be a 50-yard radius safety zone operated and are not dominant in their between the Federal Government and around the LG carrier. Additionally, a fields, and governmental jurisdictions Indian tribes, or on the distribution of moving safety zone would be with populations of less than 50,000. power and responsibilities between the established on the waters around LG The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. Federal Government and Indian tribes. carriers departing Christiansted Harbor 605(b) that this proposed rule would not If you believe this proposed rule has in an area one half mile around each have a significant economic impact on implications for federalism or Indian vessel beginning at the Virgin Island a substantial number of small entities. tribes, please call or email the person Water and Power Authority (WAPA) While some owners or operators of listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION dock when the vessel gets underway, vessels intending to transit the safety CONTACT section. and continuing until the stern passes zone may be small entities, for the E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act the Christiansted Harbor Lighted Buoy reasons stated in section IV.A above, #1. No vessel or person would be this proposed rule would not have a The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act permitted to enter the safety zones significant economic impact on any of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires without obtaining permission from the vessel owner or operator. Federal agencies to assess the effects of COTP or a designated representative. If you think that your business, their discretionary regulatory actions. In The regulatory text we are proposing organization, or governmental particular, the Act addresses actions appears at the end of this document. jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity that may result in the expenditure by a and that this rule would have a State, local, or tribal government, in the IV. Regulatory Analyses significant economic impact on it, aggregate, or by the private sector of We developed this proposed rule after please submit a comment (see $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or considering numerous statutes and ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it more in any one year. Though this Executive orders related to rulemaking. qualifies and how and to what degree proposed rule would not result in such Below we summarize our analyses this rule would economically affect it. an expenditure, we do discuss the based on a number of these statutes and Under section 213(a) of the Small effects of this rule elsewhere in this Executive orders, and we discuss First Business Regulatory Enforcement preamble. Amendment rights of protestors. Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), we want to assist small entities in F. Environment A. Regulatory Planning and Review understanding this proposed rule. If the We have analyzed this proposed rule Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 rule would affect your small business, under Department of Homeland direct agencies to assess the costs and organization, or governmental Security Directive 023–01, Rev. 1, benefits of available regulatory jurisdiction and you have questions associated implementing instructions, alternatives and, if regulation is concerning its provisions or options for and Environmental Planning necessary, to select regulatory compliance, please call or email the COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which approaches that maximize net benefits. person listed in the FOR FURTHER guide the Coast Guard in complying Executive Order 13771 directs agencies INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast with the National Environmental Policy

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69303

Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, in approximate position 17°45′48″ N, have made a preliminary determination March 11, 2020). 064°41′48″ W. that this action is one of a category of Documents mentioned in this NPRM All coordinates are North American actions that do not individually or as being available in the docket, and all Datum 1983. cumulatively have a significant effect on public comments, will be in our online (b) Regulations. the human environment. This proposed docket at https://www.regulations.gov (1) No person or vessel may enter, rule involves This proposed rule and can be viewed by following that transit or remain in the safety zone involves a safety zone covering the website’s instructions. Additionally, if unless authorized by the Captain of the transit and mooring of liquefied gas you go to the online docket and sign up Port, San Juan, Puerto Rico, or a carriers that would prohibit entry for email alerts, you will be notified designated Coast Guard commissioned, within one half mile. Normally such when comments are posted or a final warrant, or petty officer. Those in safety actions are categorically excluded from rule is published. zones must comply with all lawful further review under paragraph L60(a) We do not plan to hold public orders or directions given to them by the of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS meetings on this rulemaking due to COTP or the designated Coast Guard Instruction Manual 023–01–001–01, Novel Coronavirus (COVID–19) commissioned, warrant, or petty officer. (2) Vessels encountering emergencies, Rev. 1. A preliminary Record of concerns. Environmental Consideration which require transit through the safety supporting this determination is List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 zones, should contact the Coast Guard available in the docket. For instructions Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation patrol craft or Duty Officer on VHF on locating the docket, see the (water), Reporting and recordkeeping Channel 16. In the event of an emergency, the Coast Guard patrol craft ADDRESSES section of this preamble. We requirements, Security measures, seek any comments or information that Waterways. may authorize a vessel to transit through the safety zones with a Coast Guard may lead to the discovery of a For the reasons discussed in the significant environmental impact from designated escort. preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing (3) The Captain of the Port and the this proposed rule. to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: Duty Officer at Sector San Juan, Puerto G. Protest Activities Rico, can be contacted at telephone PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION number 787–289–2041. The Coast The Coast Guard respects the First AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS Guard Patrol Commander enforcing the Amendment rights of protesters. safety zones can be contacted on VHF– Protesters are asked to call or email the ■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 FM channels 16 and 22A. FOR FURTHER continues to read as follows: person listed in the (4) Coast Guard Sector San Juan will INFORMATION CONTACT section to Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR notify the marine community of periods coordinate protest activities so that your 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; during which these safety zones will be message can be received without Department of Homeland Security Delegation in effect by providing notice to mariners No. 0170.1. jeopardizing the safety or security of in accordance with 33 CFR 165.7. people, places, or vessels. ■ 2. Add § 165.789 to read as follows: (5) All persons and vessels must V. Public Participation and Request for comply with the instructions of on- § 165.789 Safety Zone; Christiansted scene patrol personnel. On-scene patrol Comments Harbor, St. Croix, USVI. personnel include commissioned, We view public participation as (a) Regulated area. warrant, or petty officers of the U.S. essential to effective rulemaking, and (1) A moving safety zone is Coast Guard. Coast Guard Auxiliary and will consider all comments and material established on the the waters around local or state officials may be present to received during the comment period. liquefied gas carriers entering inform vessel operators of the Your comment can help shape the Christiansted Harbor in an area one half requirements of this section, and other outcome of this rulemaking. If you mile around each vessel, beginning one applicable laws. submit a comment, please include the mile north of the Christiansted Harbor Dated: October 23, 2020. docket number for this rulemaking, Lighted Buoy #1, in approximate indicate the specific section of this position 17°46′48″ N, 064°41′48″ W, and Gregory H. Magee, document to which each comment continuing until the vessel is moored at Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the applies, and provide a reason for each the Virgin Island Water and Power Port San Juan. suggestion or recommendation. Authority (WAPA) dock in approximate [FR Doc. 2020–23886 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] We encourage you to submit position 17°45′06″ N, 064°42′50″ W. BILLING CODE 9110–04–P comments through the Federal (2) The waters around liquefied gas eRulemaking Portal at https:// carriers in a 50-yard radius around each www.regulations.gov. If your material vessel when moored at the Virgin Island DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE cannot be submitted using https:// Water and Power Authority (WAPA) Forest Service www.regulations.gov, call or email the dock. person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION (3) A moving safety zone is 36 CFR Part 222 CONTACT section of this document for established on the waters around alternate instructions. liquefied gas carriers departing RIN 0596–AD45 We accept anonymous comments. All Christiansted Harbor in an area one half comments received will be posted mile around each vessel beginning at Assessing Fees for Excess and without change to https:// the Virgin Island Water and Power Unauthorized Grazing www.regulations.gov and will include Authority (WAPA) dock in approximate AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ° ′ ″ ° ′ ″ any personal information you have position 17 45 06 N, 064 42 50 W ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. provided. For more about privacy and when the vessel gets underway, and submissions in response to this continuing until the stern passes the SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of document, see DHS’s eRulemaking Christiansted Harbor Lighted Buoy #1, Agriculture, Forest Service (Agency), is

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:01 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 69304 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

proposing to amend its existing Act of 1897, which named grazing as an enforcement staff., such as issuance of a regulations to provide for nonmonetary early use of lands administered by the Notice of Non-Compliance and/or a Bill settlement when excess or unauthorized Forest Service. The Forest Service for Collection. grazing is determined to be non-willful, managed grazing under its general The proposed rule provides the a standard consistent with practices of authorities until 1950, when Congress flexibility to resolve incidents the Bureau of Land Management, as enacted the Granger-Thye Act, informally without charging recommended by the July 2016 specifically authorizing the Secretary of unauthorized grazing penalties, while Government Accountability Office Agriculture to issue grazing permits on retaining the option for monetary relief (GAO) in its report to the Committee on NFS lands and other lands administered for willful excess or unauthorized Natural Resources, House of by the U.S Department of Agriculture. grazing. Informal resolution involves the Representatives, Unauthorized Grazing, The Forest Service permits the permittee or non-permittee removing Actions Needed to Improve Tracking occupancy and use of NFS lands by the livestock following a phone call and Deterrence Efforts (GAO–16–559). domestic livestock through Term from or face-to-face conversation with DATES: To be ensured consideration, Grazing Permits pursuant to 36 CFR the authorized officer. The incident comments must be received in writing 222.3. The regulations at 36 CFR should be noted in the files as non- on or before December 2, 2020. 222.50(a) require the Agency to charge willful, and the settlement would be fees ‘‘for all grazing or livestock use of ADDRESSES: You may send comments considered nonmonetary as no Bill for using one of the following methods: National Forest System lands, or other Collection would be issued. 1. Submit comments electronically by lands under Forest Service control.’’ Informal resolution, such as a phone Congress asked the Government following the instructions at the Federal call or face-to-face conversation, is an Accountability Office (GAO) to examine eRulemaking portal at http:// effective way to resolve non-willful what is known about the frequency and www.regulations.gov. unauthorized grazing. Amending the 2. Mail: U. S. Forest Service, Director, extent of unauthorized grazing on Agency’s grazing regulations to provide Forest Management, Range Management federal lands, and its effects, as well as for the informal resolution and and Vegetation Ecology, 201 14th Street review the Bureau of Land nonmonetary settlement of infractions SW, Suite 3SE, Washington, DC 20250– Management’s (BLM) and Forest allows the Agency to achieve the 1124. Service’s efforts to detect, deter, and objective of effectively and efficiently resolve unauthorized grazing. Excess 3. Hand Delivery/Courier: U. S. Forest resolving such incidents, and it use is when livestock stray outside of Service, Director, Forest Management, effectively addresses one of GAO’s their permitted area and graze in an Range Management and Vegetation recommendations. Ecology, 201 14th Street SW, Suite 3SE, unauthorized area or a permittee Washington, DC 20250–1124. intentionally overstays the permitted Discussion of Proposed Regulatory All comments, including all content, grazing period. Unauthorized use is Revisions when livestock, owned or controlled by will be placed in the record and will be Section 36 CFR 222.50 of the current a non-permittee, graze on National available for public inspection and grazing regulations describes the general Forest System lands. In July 2016, GAO copying. Therefore, the Agency procedures for charging grazing fees for issued a Report to the Committee on recommends that commenters remove all livestock grazing or livestock use of Natural Resources, House of personal information such as Social National Forest System lands. Representatives, Unauthorized Grazing, Security Numbers, personal addresses, Specifically, section 222.50(h) describes Actions Needed to Improve Tracking telephone numbers, and email addresses the unauthorized use rate and how it included in their comments as such and Deterrence Efforts (GAO–16–559). The Report recommended that the applies to: excess number of livestock information may become easily Forest Service amend its regulations on grazing by permittees; livestock grazed available to the public. outside the permitted grazing season; or Also, please note that, due to security range management (36 CFR part 222) to provide an option for nonmonetary livestock grazed under an unvalidated concerns, postal mail delivery in permit. Washington, DC may be delayed. settlement when unauthorized or excess grazing is non-willful, in addition to the The Forest Service proposes to amend Therefore, the Agency encourages the 36 CFR 222 subpart C, to allow the public to submit comments option of following its existing regulations at 36 CFR 222.50(a) and (h). authorized officer to approve electronically. The GAO report also recommended that nonmonetary settlement for excess or FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: the Forest Service record all incidents of unauthorized grazing use when the use Myra Black, Program Manager, Forest unauthorized grazing, including those is non-willful. The authorized officer Management, Range Management and resolved informally. The Agency will may approve non-monetary settlement Vegetation Ecology, 202–650–7365, develop direction for implementing the for excess or unauthorized grazing use [email protected]. Individuals who latter recommendation in the Forest only when certain conditions set forth use telecommunication devices for the Service Manual and Handbook for in the regulation are met. deaf may call the Federal Relay Service Rangeland Management at a later date. The proposed language is consistent at 800–877–8339 between 8:00 a.m. and with the language used by BLM to 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Need for Proposed Rule describe non-willful grazing use. In Monday through Friday. The GAO found that the frequency order to ensure that the proposed SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: and extent of unauthorized grazing on language is clear, the Forest Service NFS lands is largely unknown because, proposes to add the definition of non- Background according to Agency officials, the permittee and non-willful to the The Forest Service is responsible for Agency handles most incidents definitions section found at 36 CFR managing National Forest System (NFS) informally (e.g., with a telephone call) 222.1(b). In addition, the definitions lands that provide forage for domestic and does not document them. The section is restated to remove numbering, livestock grazing. The Forest Service’s incidents that were recorded involved consistent with the Federal Register authority to regulate livestock grazing formal action taken by the Agency Document Drafting Handbook (August comes from the Organic Administration rangeland management program or law 2018 Edition, Revision 1.1 dated August

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69305

9, 2019; National Archives and Records expected as a result of implementation entities; and would not affect their cash Administration). of the proposed rules or directives. flow, liquidity, or ability to remain in The proposed language removes Congressional Review Act the market. Additionally, it reduces the reference to the fee being adjusted by administrative burden on livestock the same indexes used to adjust the Pursuant to the Congressional Review operators by allowing for informal regular fee since the first sentence Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), OIRA has nonmonetary resolution of a situation already describes that the rate is designated this proposed rule as not a that would typically require an determined by establishing a base value. major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). administrative process to resolve. In addition, the current rule language National Environmental Policy Act Therefore, the Forest Service has refers to an unvalidated permit, which determined that this proposed rule describes a new permit’s status prior to The proposed rule would allow an authorized officer to determine that a would not have a significant economic being validated. Validation occurs by nonmonetary settlement is appropriate impact on a substantial number of small stocking the allotment for the first time when excess or unauthorized livestock entities pursuant to the Regulatory with at least ninety percent of the use was non-willful on behalf of the Flexibility Act. permitted livestock during the first permittee or non-permittee and add season of grazing use under the new Federalism clarity to what the agency means by the permit. The proposed language removes term non-willful. Agency regulations at the reference to an unvalidated permit The Agency has considered the 36 CFR 220.6(d)(2) (73 FR 43093) and replaces it with the four most proposed rule under the requirements of exclude from documentation in an common situations in which the Forest E.O. 13132, Federalism. The Agency has environmental assessment or determined that the proposed rule Service encounters excess or environmental impact statement, as well unauthorized use. Those examples of conforms with the federalism principles as in a decision memo, rules, set out in this executive order; would excess and unauthorized use include regulations, or policies to establish but are not limited to: excess number of not impose any compliance costs on the Service-wide administrative procedures, states; and would not have substantial livestock grazed; livestock grazed program processes, or instructions. The direct effects on the states, on the outside the permitted grazing season; revisions to § 222.50(h) and § 222.1(b) relationship between the Federal livestock grazed in areas not authorized address the penalty for non-willful government and the states, or on the under a grazing permit and bill for actions taken on National Forest System distribution of power and collection; or livestock grazed without a land and provide a definition for a term permit. used in the revised language. The responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, the Regulatory Certifications proposed language removes reference to an unvalidated permit and replaces it Agency has concluded that the Executive Order 12866 with the four most common situations proposed rule does not have Federalism Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 provides that the Forest Service considers excess implications. that the Office of Information and or unauthorized use, which is not Consultation With Tribal Governments Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office intended to be an exclusive list. As the of Management and Budget will review regulation is limited to determination of In accordance with Executive Order all significant rules. OIRA has waiver of excess or unauthorized use 13175, the Agency is conducting Tribal determined that this proposed rule is fees (nonmonetary settlement), no consultation for the proposed rule. To not significant. ground disturbing activities are ensure tribal perspectives are heard and implicated by these revisions. Thus, the fully considered during rulemaking, the Executive Order 13771 Agency has concluded that the Agency contacted all federally This proposed rule has been reviewed proposed rule falls within this category recognized Indian tribes and Alaska in accordance with E.O. 13771 on of actions and that no extraordinary Native corporations in accordance with reducing regulation and controlling circumstances exist which would E.O. 13175, (Consultation and regulatory costs and has been require preparation of an environmental Coordination with Indian Tribal designated as an ‘‘other action’’ for assessment or environmental impact Governments); USDA Departmental purposes of the E.O. statement. Regulation 1350–02 (Tribal Civil Rights Impact Analysis Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis Consultation, Coordination and Collaboration); and Forest Service A Civil Rights Impact Analysis (CRIA) The Agency has considered the Handbook 1509.13, Chapter 10 was conducted in accordance with impacts of the proposed rule on small (Consultation with Indian Tribes and USDA Departmental Regulation (DR) entities consistent with the Alaska Native Corporations). The 4300–4, to determine if implementation requirements of the Regulatory Agency initiated formal consultation on of the proposed rules (and Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) as the rulemaking by contacting the Indian accompanying rangeland management amended by the Small Business tribes and Alaska Native Corporations directives) would have disproportionate Regulatory Flexibility Enforcement by mail. effects or adverse impacts on employees Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), and or program beneficiaries, because of Executive Orders 13272 (Proper No Takings Implications membership in protected groups Consideration of Small Entities in identified in USDA DR 4300–4 and DR Agency Rulemaking). This proposed The Agency has analyzed the 5600–002, particularly women, ethnic rule would not have any direct effect on proposed rule in accordance with the and racial minorities, and people with small entities as defined by the principles and criteria in E.O. 12630, disabilities. The proposed rules and Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Governmental Actions and Interference directives have been analyzed to ensure proposed rule would not impose with Constitutionally Protected Property compliance with USDA’s DR 4300–4, recordkeeping requirements on small Rights. The Agency has determined that and it is determined that no adverse entities; would not affect their the proposed rule would not pose the impacts on protected groups are competitive position in relation to large risk of a taking of private property.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 69306 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

Energy Effects amend part 222, subparts A and C, of Lands within the National Forest in The Agency has reviewed the Title 36 of the Code of Federal the 16 contiguous western States means proposed rule under E.O. 13211, Regulations as follows: lands designated as National Forest within the boundaries of Arizona, Actions Concerning Regulations That PART 222—RANGE MANAGEMENT Significantly Affect Energy Supply, California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Distribution, or Use. The Agency has Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Subpart A—Grazing and Livestock Use , , Oklahoma, determined that the proposed rule on the National Forest System would not constitute a significant Oregon, , Utah, energy action as defined in E.O. 13211. ■ 1. The authority citation for part 222, Washington, and Wyoming (National subpart A, continues to read as follows: Grasslands are excluded). Civil Justice Reform Livestock means animals of any kind Authority: 92 Stat. 1803, as amended (43 The Forest Service has analyzed the kept or raised for use or pleasure. U.S.C. 1901), 85 Stat. 649, as amended (16 Livestock use permit means a permit proposed rule in accordance with the U.S.C. 1331–1340); sec. 1, 30 Stat. 35, as principles and criteria in E.O. 12988, amended (18 U.S.C. 551); sec. 32, 50 Stat. issued for not to exceed one year where Civil Justice Reform. The Agency has 522, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1011). the primary use is for other than grazing livestock. not identified any State or local laws or ■ 2. In § 222.1(b), revise paragraph (b) to Modify means to revise the terms and regulations that conflict with this to read as follows: regulation or that would impede full conditions of an issued permit. implementation of this rule. § 222.1 Authority and definitions. National Forest System lands means Nevertheless, if such conflicts were to * * * * * the National Forests, National be identified, the proposed rule, if (b) Definitions. Grasslands, Land Utilization Projects, implemented, will preempt the State or Allotment means a designated area of and other Federal lands for which the local laws or regulations that are found land available for livestock grazing. Forest Service has administrative to be in conflict. However, in that case Allotment management plan means a jurisdiction. of a conflict, (1) no retroactive effect document that specifies the program of Non-permittee means a person who will be given to this final rule; and (2) action designated to reach a given set of owns or controls livestock and does not USDA will not require the use of objectives. It is prepared in consultation have a grazing permit to graze livestock administrative proceedings before with the permittee(s) involved and: on National Forest System lands. parties could file suit in court (i) Prescribes the manner in and Non-willful means an action which is challenging its provisions. extent to which livestock operations inadvertent or accidental, and not due to gross negligence. Unfunded Mandates will be conducted in order to meet the multiple-use, sustained yield, economic, On-and-off grazing permits means Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded and other needs and objectives as permits with specific provisions on Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. determined for the lands, involved; and range only part of which is National 1531–1538), signed into law on March (ii) Describes the type, location, Forest System lands or other lands 22, 1995, the Agency has assessed the ownership, and general specifications under Forest Service control. effects of the proposed rule on state, for the range improvements in place or On-the-ground expenditure means local, and Tribal governments and the to be installed and maintained on the payment of direct project costs of private sector. The proposed rule would lands to meet the livestock grazing and implementing an improvement or not compel the expenditure of $100 other objectives of land management; development, such as survey and million or more by any state, local, or and design, equipment, labor and material Tribal government or anyone in the (iii) Contains such other provisions (or contract) costs, and on-the-ground private sector. Therefore, a statement relating to livestock grazing and other supervision. under section 202 of the Act is not objectives as may be prescribed by the Other lands under Forest Service required. Chief, Forest Service, consistent with control means non-Federal public and applicable law. private lands over which the Forest Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Service has been given control through Public Base property means land and improvements owned and used by the lease, agreement, waiver, or otherwise. The proposed rule does not contain permittee for a farm or ranch operation Permittee means any person who has any recordkeeping or reporting and specifically designated by him to been issued a grazing permit. requirements or other information qualify for a term grazing permit. Permitted livestock means livestock collection requirements as defined in 5 Cancel means action taken to authorized by a written permit. CFR part 1320 that are not already permanently invalidate a term grazing Person means any individual, required by law or not already approved permit in whole or in part. partnership, corporation, association, for use. Accordingly, the review Grazing permit means any document organization, or other private entity, but provisions of the Paperwork Reduction authorizing livestock to use National does not include Government Agencies. Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and Forest System or other lands under Private land grazing permits means its implementing regulations at 5 CFR Forest Service control for the purpose of permits issued to persons who control part 1320 do not apply. livestock production including: grazing lands adjacent to National List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 222 (i) Temporary grazing permits for Forest System lands and who waive grazing livestock temporarily and exclusive grazing use of these lands to Grazing and Livestock Use on the without priority for reissuance. the United States for the full period the National Forest System, Mediation of (ii) Term permits for up to 10 years permit is to be issued. Term Grazing Permit Disputes, Grazing with priority for renewal at the end of Range betterment means Fees, Management of Wild Free- the term. rehabilitation, protection and Roaming Horses and Burros. Land subject to commercial livestock improvement of National Forest System For the reasons discussed in the grazing means National Forest System lands to arrest range deterioration and preamble, the Forest Service proposes to lands within established allotments. improve forage conditions, fish and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69307

wildlife habitat, watershed protection, forage in excess of authorized use and whether to add chitosan to the list of and livestock production. is separate from any penalties that may allowable inert ingredients. Range betterment fund means the be assessed for a violation of a DATES: Comments must be received on fund established by title IV, section prohibition issued under 36 CFR part or before January 4, 2021. 401(b)(1), of the Federal Land Policy 261 or from an administrative permit ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, and Management Act of 1976. This action. This rate will apply, but not be identified by the docket identification consists of 50 percent of all monies limited to the following circumstances: (ID) number EPA–HQ–OPP–2019–0701, received by the United States as fees for Excess number of livestock grazed; through the Federal eRulemaking Portal grazing livestock on the National Forests livestock grazed outside the permitted at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow in the 16 contiguous western States. grazing season; livestock grazed in areas the online instructions for submitting Range Improvement means any not authorized under a grazing permit comments. Do not submit electronically activity or program designed to improve and a bill for collection; or livestock any information you consider to be production of forage and includes grazed without a permit. The authorized Confidential Business Information (CBI) facilities or treatments constructed or officer may approve nonmonetary or other information whose disclosure is installed for the purpose of improving settlement for excess or unauthorized restricted by statute. the range resource or the management of grazing use only when all of the Additional instructions on livestock and includes the following following conditions are satisfied: commenting or visiting the docket, types: (1) The excess or unauthorized use along with more information about (i) Non-structural which are practices was non-willful on behalf of the dockets generally, is available at http:// and treatments undertaken to improve permittee or non-permittee; www.epa.gov/dockets. range not involving construction of (2) The forage consumed by the excess Please note that due to the public improvements. or unauthorized use is not significant; health emergency the EPA Docket (ii) Structural which are (3) National Forest System lands have Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room improvements requiring construction or not been damaged significantly by the was closed to public visitors on March installation undertaken to improve the excess or unauthorized use; and 31, 2020. Our EPA/DC staff will range or to facilitate management or to (4) Nonmonetary settlement is in the continue to provide customer service control distribution and movement of interest of the United States. via email, phone, and webform. For livestock. * * * * * (A) Permanent means range further information on EPA/DC services, docket contact information and the improvements installed or constructed Angela Coleman, current status of the EPA/DC and and become a part of the land such as: Acting Associate Chief, USDA Forest Service. Dams, ponds, pipelines, wells, fences, Reading Room, please visit https:// [FR Doc. 2020–24164 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] www.epa.gov/dockets. trails, seeding, etc. BILLING CODE 3411–15–P (B) Temporary means short-lived or FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: portable improvements that can be Anne Overstreet, Deputy Director, removed such as: Troughs, pumps and Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide electric fences, including improvements AGENCY at authorized places of habitation such Programs, Environmental Protection as line camps. 40 CFR Part 152 Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suspend means temporary Washington, DC 20460–0001; main withholding of a term grazing permit [EPA–HQ–OPP–2019–0701; FRL–10009–24] telephone number: (703) 305–7090; privilege, in whole or in part. RIN 2070–AK56 email address: BPPDFRNotices@ Term period means the period for epa.gov. which term permits are issued, the Pesticides; Proposal To Add Chitosan SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: maximum of which is 10 years. to the List of Active Ingredients Transportation livestock means Permitted in Exempted Minimum Risk I. Executive Summary livestock used as pack and saddle stock Pesticide Products A. Does this action apply to me? for travel on the National Forest System. * * * * * AGENCY: Environmental Protection You may be potentially affected by Agency (EPA). this action if you manufacture, Subpart C—Grazing Fees ACTION: Proposed rule. distribute, sell, or use minimum risk pesticide products. Minimum risk ■ 3 The authority citation for part 222, SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection pesticide products are exempt from subpart C, continues to read as follows: Agency (EPA) is proposing to add the registration and other FIFRA Authority: 16 U.S.C. 551; 31 U.S.C. 9701; substance commonly referred to as requirements and are described in 40 43 U.S.C. 1751, 1752, 1901; E.O. 12548 (51 chitosan (also known by its chemical CFR 152.25(f). The following list of FR 5985). name: poly-D-glucosamine) (CAS Reg. North American Industrial ■ 4. In § 222.50, revise paragraph (h) to No. 9012–76–4) to the list of active Classification System (NAICS) codes is read as follows: ingredients allowed in minimum risk not intended to be exhaustive, but rather pesticide products exempt from provides a guide to help readers § 222.50 General Procedures registration and other requirements of determine whether this document * * * * * the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and applies to them. Potentially affected (h) The excess and unauthorized Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Tidal Vision entities may include: grazing use rate will be determined by Products, LLC submitted a petition to • Pesticide and other agricultural establishing a base value without giving EPA requesting that chitosan be added chemical manufacturers (NAICS codes consideration for those contributions to both the lists of active and inert 325320 and 325311), as well as other normally made by the permittee under ingredients allowed in exempted manufacturers in similar industries such terms of the grazing permit. This rate is minimum risk pesticide products. At as animal feed (NAICS code 311119), charged for unauthorized forage or this time, EPA is deferring a decision on cosmetics (NAICS code 325620), and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:01 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 69308 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

soap and detergents (NAICS code E. What are the estimated incremental for reductions in fees that are available 325611). impacts of the proposal? to a small business. (Ref.1) • Manufacturers who may also be For EPA, this action may reduce the EPA has evaluated the potential Agency’s level-of-effort that would distributors of these products, including incremental impacts of this proposed otherwise be spent on registering farm supplies merchant wholesalers exemption in the document entitled pesticide products with little risk. (NAICS code 424910), drug and ‘‘Cost Analysis of the Proposed However, PRIA fees are meant to druggists merchant wholesalers (NAICS Modification to the Minimum Risk support the Agency’s work, so this code 424210. Pesticide Listing Program. Prepared by action has negligible impact on overall • Retailers of minimum risk pesticide Biological and Economic Analysis resources. The impact on State products (some of who may also be Division, Office of Pesticide Programs’’ regulatory costs is uncertain, as States manufacturers), including nursery, (Ref. 1), which is available in the docket have wide variability in how they garden center, and farm supply stores and is briefly summarized here. regulate conventional pesticide (NAICS code 444220); outdoor power Without this exemption, the products versus minimum risk pesticide equipment stores (NAICS code 444210); petitioner would be required to register products; this Federal action, however, and supermarkets (NAICS code 445110). the chitosan product(s) as a pesticide is unlikely to significantly change how • Users of minimum risk pesticide under FIFRA. This could entail States register chitosan-containing products, including the public in generating supporting data, incurring pesticide products. general, exterminating and pest control submission costs, and paying In the absence of an exemption, services (NAICS code 561710), registration fees. In addition, the manufacturers may forego development and production of chitosan-based landscaping services (NAICS code petitioner could incur annual products. Thus, the exemption may 561730), sports and recreation maintenance fees on the registrations. ultimately benefit consumers who may institutions (NAICS code 611620), and EPA estimates the cost savings of listing see more of these products available at child daycare services (NAICS code chitosan as an active ingredient that can lower costs. An analysis of the cost and 624410). Many of these entities also be used in minimum risk pesticide savings of adding chitosan to the list of manufacture minimum risk pesticide products under 40 CFR 152.25(f) to be active ingredients that can be used in products. between $53,000 and $116,000 initially and about $3,400 per year thereafter for minimum risk pesticide products under B. What action is the Agency taking? each pesticide product registered 40 CFR 152.25(f) can be found in the containing chitosan as explained in the docket for this action. EPA is proposing to add the substance following paragraph. commonly referred to as chitosan (also F. What should I consider as I prepare known by its chemical name poly-D- EPA has previously estimated the my comments for EPA? glucosamine) (CAS Reg. No. 9012–76–4) costs of guideline studies (Ref. 2) and 1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this to the list of active ingredients allowed registration fees (Ref. 3) are available on information to EPA through in minimum risk pesticide products EPA’s website. EPA estimates the cost of regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark exempt from registration and other submitting an application for a product the part or all of the information that requirements of the Federal Insecticide, registration to be about $1,300 (Ref. 4). you claim to be CBI. For CBI Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act For a new product, data generation costs information in a disk or CD–ROM that (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. could be as much as $109,000 and fees you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the would be $5,363; including submission disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then C. What is EPA’s authority for taking costs, the petitioner could avoid identify electronically within the disk or this action? registration costs of nearly $116,000. For CD–ROM the specific information that products that are substantially similar to This action is issued under the is claimed as CBI. In addition to one existing registered products, data complete version of the comment that authority of FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq., generation costs could be around particularly FIFRA sections 3 and 25. includes information claimed as CBI, a $51,000 with fees of $1,342; including copy of the comment that does not D. Why is EPA taking this action? submission costs, the petitioner could contain the information claimed as CBI avoid registration costs of about must be submitted for inclusion in the EPA may exempt from the $53,000. (Ref. 1). Tidal Vision Products, public docket. Information so marked requirements of FIFRA any pesticide LLC, indicated in its petition that it will not be disclosed except in that is ‘‘. . . of a character which is plans to register six chitosan pesticide accordance with procedures set forth in unnecessary to be subject to [FIFRA]’’ products. Assuming the six products 40 CFR part 2. (FIFRA section 25(b). Pursuant to this meet all the criteria for exemption 2. Tips for preparing your comments. authority, EPA has exempted from the (exempt products must only contain When preparing and submitting your pesticide registration and requirements substance listed in 40 CFR 152.25(f), list comments, see the commenting tips at of FIFRA certain pesticide products if all ingredients on the label, and may not http://www.epa.gov/dockets/ they are composed of specified make any claims to control public comments.html. ingredients (recognized active and inert health pests), EPA estimates the total substances which are listed in the savings to be between $318,000 and II. Background regulations (40 CFR part 152)) and $696,000 initially and about $20,000 per As authorized by FIFRA section 25(b), labeled according to EPA’s regulations year thereafter in maintenance fees. EPA has exempted from the requirement in 40 CFR 152.25(f). EPA created the There may be additional savings if of registration certain pesticide products exemption for minimum risk pesticides production establishments and if they are composed of specified to eliminate the need for the Agency to production levels do not have to be ingredients (recognized active and inert expend significant resources to regulate registered or reported under FIFRA substances which are listed in the products that were deemed to be of section 7. The magnitude of savings regulations) and labeled according to minimum risk to human health and the depends, in part, on whether Tidal EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR 152.25(f). environment. Vision, LLC., would normally be eligible EPA created the exemption for

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69309

minimum risk pesticides to eliminate products containing chitosan as an adding Chitosan to the Minimum Risk the need for the Agency to expend active ingredient. The conclusions are Pesticide Active Ingredient List; Re: significant resources to regulate documented in EPA’s , 2019, Petition to list the material Chitosan products that were deemed to be of scientific review memorandum, entitled CAS# 9012–76–4 on the U.S. EPA minimum risk to human health and the ‘‘Science review in support of the FIFRA Minimum Risk Pesticide List 40 environment. addition of Chitosan (Poly-D- CFR 152.25(f). , 2019. Chitosan is a naturally occurring Glucosamine) to the list of minimum 7. EPA. Science review in support of substance that is produced in nature risk pesticides (MRPs) contained in 40 the addition of Chitosan (Poly-D- and is found in the cell walls of many CFR 152.25(f),’’ (Ref. 7), the Chitin and Glucosamine) to the list of minimum fungi. Chitin and its derivative chitosan Chitosan Summary Document risk pesticides (MRPs) contained in 40 also occur naturally in the shells of all Registration Review: Initial Docket CFR 152.25(f). August 23, 2019. crustaceans (e.g., crab, shrimp, and September 2007, (Ref. 8), the Chitin and 8. EPA. Chitin and Chitosan Summary lobster) and in the exoskeletons of most Chitosan Final Registration Review Document Registration Review: Initial insects. Microorganisms in nature Decision Case 6063. , 2008, Docket September 2007. Submitted to produce enzymes that break down (Ref. 9) and in the Chitin and Chitosan Docket EPA–HQ–EPA–2006–0566. chitosan, resulting in sugars that are Final Work Plan Registration Review— 9. EPA. Chitin and Chitosan Final metabolized as a carbon and nitrogen Case 6063, January 2008, (Ref. 10). Registration Review Decision Case 6063. Signed December 11, 2008. Submitted to source. IV. References On , 2018, EPA received a Docket EPA–HQ–EPA–2007–0566. petition from Tidal Vision Products, The following is a listing of the 10. EPA. Chitin and Chitosan Final LLC, requesting that the substance documents that are specifically Work Plan Registration Review—Case commonly known as chitosan (also referenced in this document. The docket 6063. January 2008. Submitted to known by its chemical name poly-D- includes these documents and other Docket EPA–HQ–EPA–2007–0566. information considered by EPA, glucosamine) (CAS Reg. No. 9012–76–4) V. FIFRA Review Requirements be added to the list of active ingredients including documents that are referenced allowed in exempted minimum risk within the documents that are included In accordance with FIFRA section pesticide products under 40 CFR in the docket, even if the referenced 25(a), EPA submitted a draft of this 152.25(f)(1). (Ref. 5). Subsequently, on document is not physically located in proposed rule to the United States April 4, 2019, EPA received an the docket. For assistance in locating Department of Agriculture (USDA) and amendment to Tidal Vision Products, these other documents, please consult the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel LLC’s petition, requesting that chitosan the person listed under FOR FURTHER (SAP) for review. A draft of the also be added to the list of inert INFORMATION CONTACT. proposed rule was also submitted to the ingredients allowed in exempted 1. EPA. ‘‘Cost Analysis of the appropriate Congressional Committees. minimum risk pesticide products under Proposed Modification to the Minimum USDA responded without comments. 40 CFR 152.25(f)(2). (Ref. 6) Risk Pesticide Listing Program.’’ The FIFRA SAP waived review of this This proposed rule addresses the 2018 Prepared by Biological and Economic proposed rule, concluding that the petition and EPA is currently deferring Analysis Division, Office of Pesticide proposed rule does not contain a decision on the 2019 petition Programs, EPA. July 2020. scientific issues that warrant scientific regarding whether to add chitosan to the 2. EPA. ‘‘Cost Estimates of Studies review by the Panel. list of allowable inert ingredients. Required for Pesticide Registration.’’ 2018. Accessed on September 30, 2019 VI. Statutory and Executive Order III. Proposal To Add Chitosan To the at https://www.epa.gov/pesticide- Reviews Minimum Risk Active Ingredient List registration/cost-estimates-studies- Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be A. EPA’s Decision on Tidal Vision required-pesticide-registration. 3. EPA. ‘‘PRIA Fee Category Table— found at https://www.epa.gov/laws- Products, LLC’s 2018 Petition Biopesticides Division—New Products: regulations/laws-and-executive-orders. EPA finds that Tidal Vision Products Table 13’’. 2019b. Accessed on October A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory LLC’s 2018 petition to add chitosan to 4, 2019 at https://www.epa.gov/pria- Planning and Review; and Executive the list of active ingredients in 40 CFR fees/pria-fee-category-table- Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 152.25(f)(1) has merit. Therefore, the biopesticides-division-new-products. Agency is granting the 2018 petition and 4. EPA. ‘‘Application for New and Regulatory Review proposing this rulemaking to add Amended Pesticide Registration: This action is not a significant chitosan to the list of active ingredients Supporting Statement for An regulatory action and was therefore not allowed in exempted minimum risk Information Collection Request (ICR).’’ submitted to the Office of Management pesticide products in 40 CFR 2015. Accessed on October 16, 2019 at and Budget (OMB) for review under 152.25(f)(1). EPA has determined that https://www.federalregister.gov/ Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, there is sufficient scientific evidence to documents/2016/07/01/2016-15737/ October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, support a conclusion of minimum risk agency-information-collection-activities- January 21, 2011). for chitosan. information-collection-request- B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing submitted-to-omb-for-review. B. EPA’s Scientific Review Supporting 5. 2018 Petition. Tidal Vision Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Its Decision Products, LLC. Petition to list the Costs Based on all the information available material Chitosan CAS# 9012–76–4 on This action is expected to be an to the Agency, there are low risk the U.S. EPA FIFRA Minimum Risk List Executive Order 13771 deregulatory concerns for human health or the 40 CFR 152.25(f). October 10, 2018. action (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017). environment if chitosan is intended for 6. 2019 Petition (Amendment). Tidal Details on the estimated cost savings of use as a minimum risk pesticide. This Vision Products, LLC amendment to add this proposed rule can be found in conclusion is supported by information Chitosan to the Minimum Risk Pesticide EPA’s cost analysis (Ref. 1), which are in EPA’s reviews of registered pesticide Inert Ingredient List at the same time as briefly summarized in Unit I.E.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 69310 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act I. Executive Order 13211: Actions (UMRA) Concerning Regulations That This action does not impose any new Significantly Affect Energy Supply, information collection requirements that This action does not contain an Distribution, or Use require additional review or approval by unfunded mandate of $100 million or OMB under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. This action is not subject to Executive seq. The information collection 1531–1538, and does not significantly or Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, , activities required under the proposed uniquely affect small governments. This 2001), because it is not a significant exemption are covered by the existing action imposes no enforceable duty on regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Information Collection Request (ICR), any state, local, or tribal governments or entitled ‘‘Labeling Requirements for the private sector Accordingly, this J. National Technology Transfer and Certain Minimum Risk Pesticides under action is not subject to the requirements Advancement Act (NTTAA) of UMRA. FIFRA Section 25(b)’’ (OMB Control No. NTTAA section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 2070–0187; EPA ICR No. 2475.03). The F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism note, does not apply to this proposed existing ICR estimates the burden of rule because it does not involve displaying mandatory active and inert This action does not have federalism technical standards. ingredient and producer information on implications. It will not have substantial the labels of minimum risk pesticide direct effects on the states, on the K. Executive Order 12898: Federal products. To maintain exemption status, relationship between the national Actions To Address Environmental an exempt pesticide product must government and the states, or on the Justice in Minority Populations and display the following information on its distribution of power and Low-Income Populations label; the label display name and the responsibilities among the various The EPA believes that this action is percentage (by weight) of all active levels of government (Executive Order not subject to Executive Order 12898 (59 ingredients, the label display name of 13132 (64 FR 43255, , 1999). FR 7629, February 16, 1994), because it all inert ingredients, and the name of does not establish an environmental the producer or the company for whom G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation health or safety standard. This rule the product was produced, along with and Coordination With Indian Tribal proposes to add the substance the producer/company’s contact Governments commonly referred to as chitosan the information. Labels provide important This action does not have Tribal list of active ingredients allowed in regulatory information for the Federal, implications, as specified in Executive minimum risk pesticide products. State, and Tribal authorities that Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, , List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 152 regulate or enforce minimum risk 2000). This action will not have any pesticide products. effect on tribal governments, on the Environmental protection, relationship between the Federal Administrative practice and procedure, D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) Agricultural commodities, Pesticides government and the Indian tribes, or the and pests, Reporting, and recordkeeping I certify that this action will not have distribution of power and requirements. a significant economic impact on a responsibilities between the Federal substantial number of small entities government and Indian tribes. Andrew Wheeler, under the RFA. In making this Currently, there are no known instances Administrator. determination, the impact of concern is where a Tribal government is the Therefore, for the reasons stated in the any significant adverse economic producer of a minimum risk pesticide preamble, it is proposed that 40 CFR impact on small entities. An agency may product exempt from regulation. Thus, chapter I be amended as follows: certify that a rule will not have a Executive Order 13175 does not apply significant economic impact on a to this action. Part 152—[Amended] substantial number of small entities if H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of the rule relieves regulatory burden, has ■ 1. The authority citation for part 152 Children From Environmental Health no net burden or otherwise has a continues to read as follows: positive economic effect on the small Risks and Safety Risks Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136–136y; Subpart U is entities subject to the rule. EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 also issued under 31 U.S.C. 9701. This proposal to add a substance to (62 FR 19885, , 1997) as ■ 2. In section 152.25 amend the table the list of active ingredients allowed in applying only to those regulatory in paragraph (f)(1) by adding in exempted minimum risk pesticide actions that concern environmental alphabetical order the entry for products reduces existing regulatory health or safety risks that the EPA has ‘‘Chitosan, Poly-D-glucosamine (CAS burden and will not have a significant reason to believe may No. 9012–76–4)’’ to the table to read as economic impact on a substantial disproportionately affect children, per follows: number of small entities. The cost the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory savings are summarized in Unit I.E. We action’’ in section 2–202 of the § 152.25 Exemptions for pesticides of a have therefore concluded that this Executive Order. This action is not character not requiring FIFRA regulation. action will relieve/have no net subject to Executive Order 13045 * * * * * regulatory burden for all directly because it does not concern an (f) * * * regulated small entities. environmental health risk or safety risk. (1) * * *

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69311

TABLE 1 OF PARAGRAPH (f)(1)

Label display name Chemical name Specifications CAS No.

******* Chitosan ...... Poly-D-glucosamine ...... 9012–76–4

*******

* * * * * from other local stations. Multimedia 2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. [FR Doc. 2020–22646 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] believes that waiver of the channel 3506(c)(4). Provisions of the Regulatory BILLING CODE 6560–50–P substitution freeze would serve the Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601– public interest. 612, do not apply to this proceeding. DATES: Comments must be filed on or Members of the public should note FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS before , 2020 and reply that all ex parte contacts are prohibited COMMISSION comments on or before , from the time a Notice of Proposed 2020. Rulemaking is issued to the time the 47 CFR Part 73 ADDRESSES: Federal Communications matter is no longer subject to [MB Docket No. 20–331; RM–11863; DA 20– Commission, Office of the Secretary, 45 Commission consideration or court 1192; FRS 17152] L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554. In review, see 47 CFR 1.1208. There are, addition to filing comments with the however, exceptions to this prohibition, Television Broadcasting Services which can be found in Section 1.1204(a) Mesa, Arizona FCC, interested parties should serve counsel for petitioner as follows: of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR AGENCY: Federal Communications Michael Beder, Esq., Associate General 1.1204(a). Commission. Counsel, TEGNA, Inc., 8350 Broad See Sections 1.415 and 1.420 of the ACTION: Proposed rule. Street, Suite 2000, Tysons, Virginia Commission’s rules for information 22102. regarding the proper filing procedures SUMMARY: The Commission has before it for comments, 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420. a petition for rulemaking filed by FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Multimedia Holdings Corporation Joyce Bernstein, Media Bureau, at (202) List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 418–1647; or Joyce Bernstein, Media (Multimedia), licensee of KNPX, Television. channel 12, Mesa, Arizona, requesting Bureau, at [email protected]. the substitution of channel 18 for SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a Federal Communications Commission. channel 12 at Mesa in the DTV Table of synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of Thomas Horan, Allotments. The Commission instituted Proposed Rulemaking, MB Docket No. Chief of Staff, Media Bureau. a freeze on the acceptance of rulemaking 20–331; RM–11863; DA 20–1192, Proposed Rule petitions by full power television adopted October 13, 2020, and released stations requesting channel October 13, 2020. The full text of this For the reasons discussed in the substitutions in May 2011, and document is available for download at preamble, the Federal Communications Multimedia asks that the Commission https://www.fcc.gov/edocs. To request Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR waive the freeze to permit KPNX to materials in accessible formats (braille, part 73 as follows: change from a VHF to a UHF channel large print, computer diskettes, or audio to better serve its over-the-air viewers. recordings), please send an email to PART 73—Radio Broadcast Service Multimedia states that the Commission [email protected] or call the Consumer & has recognized that VHF channels have Government Affairs Bureau at (202) ■ 1. The authority citation for part 73 certain propagation characteristics 418–0530 (VOICE), (202) 418–0432 continues to read as follows: which may cause reception issues for (TTY). Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 301, 303, some viewers. While Multimedia This document does not contain 307, 309, 310, 334, 336, 339. acknowledges that VHF reception issues information collection requirements are not universal, it states that since the subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act § 73.622 [Amended] 2009 digital transition, when it began of 1995, Public Law 104–13. In addition, ■ 2. Amend § 73.622(i), the Post- operating exclusively on digital channel therefore, it does not contain any Transition Table of DTV Allotments 12, KPNX has received a steady stream proposed information collection burden under Arizona, by removing channel 12 of complaints from viewers unable to ‘‘for small business concerns with fewer and adding channel 18 at Mesa. receive the station’s over-the-air signal, than 25 employees,’’ pursuant to the [FR Doc. 2020–23309 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] despite being able to receive signals Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:01 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 69312

Notices Federal Register Vol. 85, No. 212

Monday, November 2, 2020

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER ACTION: Notice and opportunity for contains documents other than rules or public comment. proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings and investigations, SUMMARY: committee meetings, agency decisions and The Economic Development rulings, delegations of authority, filing of Administration (EDA) has received petitions and applications and agency petitions for certification of eligibility to statements of organization and functions are apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance examples of documents appearing in this from the firms listed below. section. Accordingly, EDA has initiated investigations to determine whether increased imports into the United States DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE of articles like or directly competitive Economic Development Administration with those produced by each of the firms contributed importantly to the Notice of Petitions by Firms for total or partial separation of the firms’ Determination of Eligibility To Apply workers, or threat thereof, and to a for Trade Adjustment Assistance decrease in sales or production of each petitioning firm. AGENCY: Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Commerce.

LIST OF PETITIONS RECEIVED BY EDA FOR CERTIFICATION OF ELIGIBILITY TO APPLY FOR TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE [10/9/2020 through 10/26/2020]

Date accepted Firm name Firm address for Product(s) investigation

Magna Products Corporation ...... 777 Mount Read Boulevard, Rochester, 10/15/2020 The firm manufactures electric motors NY 14606. and parts thereof. Newspace, Inc ...... 1960 Innerbelt Business Center Drive, 10/16/2020 The firm manufactures wooden cabinetry St. Louis, MO 63114. and wooden furniture. Alpha Precision, Inc ...... 9750 Route 126, Yorkville, IL 60560 ...... 10/22/2020 The firm manufactures glass wafers. SunDance Graphics, LLC, d/b/a 9564 Delegates Drive, Orlando, FL 10/23/2020 The firm manufactures printed canvas SunDance Marketing Solutions. 32837. wall coverings.

Any party having a substantial these petitions are submitted is 11.313, requirements of the regulations of the interest in these proceedings may Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms. FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on October 22, 2020. request a public hearing on the matter. Bryan Borlik, A written request for a hearing must be The Zinus facility is located within Director. submitted to the Trade Adjustment Subzone 26T. The facility will be used [FR Doc. 2020–24165 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] Assistance Division, Room 71030, for the production of home furnishing Economic Development Administration, BILLING CODE 3510–WH–P products, including beds and furniture. U.S. Department of Commerce, Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ activity would be limited to the specific Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE foreign-status materials and components (10) calendar days following publication and specific finished products described of this notice. These petitions are Foreign-Trade Zones Board in the submitted notification (as received pursuant to section 251 of the described below) and subsequently [B–63–2020] Trade Act of 1974, as amended. authorized by the FTZ Board. Please follow the requirements set Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 26—Atlanta, Production under FTZ procedures forth in EDA’s regulations at 13 CFR Georgia; Notification of Proposed could exempt Zinus from customs duty 315.9 for procedures to request a public Production Activity; Zinus USA Inc. payments on the foreign-status hearing. The Catalog of Federal (Foam Bedding), McDonough, Georgia components used in export production. Domestic Assistance official number On its domestic sales, for the foreign- and title for the program under which Zinus USA Inc. (Zinus) submitted a status materials/components noted notification of proposed production below, Zinus would be able to choose activity to the FTZ Board for its facility the duty rates during customs entry in McDonough, Georgia. The procedures that apply to foam beds, notification conforming to the foam pillows and foam cushions (duty

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:55 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices 69313

rate ranges from 3.0% to 6.0%). Zinus framework. The application was the petitioners), in accordance with would be able to avoid duty on foreign- docketed on , 2020 (85 FR section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, status components which become scrap/ 23506, , 2020; 85 FR 26924, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR waste. Customs duties also could May 6, 2020). The withdrawal was 351.213(b), to conduct an administrative possibly be deferred or reduced on requested by the applicant because of review of this CVD order for 16 foreign-status production equipment. changed circumstances. The case has companies.2 The components and materials been closed without prejudice. On July 10, 2020, Commerce published in the Federal Register a sourced from abroad include: polyol; Dated: October 27, 2020. notice of initiation with respect to these polyether polyol; polyester polyol; Andrew McGilvray, methylene diphenyl diisocyanate; companies.3 On , 2020, the Executive Secretary. toluene diisocyanate; urea; catalyst; petitioners timely withdrew their surfactant containing silicone [FR Doc. 2020–24205 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] request for an administrative review for polyalkyleneoxide copolymer and BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P all 16 companies.4 polyether polyol; surfactant containing Rescission of Review polyalkyleneoxide modified DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE polysiloxane and polyalkylene glycol; Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an chlorinated paraffin; corn starch; International Trade Administration styrene-butadiene; antibacterial agent; administrative review, in whole or in charcoal; contact adhesive; and, green [C–489–834] part, if the parties that requested a tea extract (duty rate ranges from duty- review withdraw the request within 90 Large Diameter Welded Pipe From the free to 6.5%). The request indicates that days of the date of publication of notice Republic of Turkey: Rescission of certain materials/components are of initiation of the requested review. As 2018–2019 Countervailing Duty noted above, the petitioners withdrew subject to duties under Section 301 of Administrative Review their request for review by the 90-day the Trade Act of 1974 (Section 301), deadline, and no other party requested depending on the country of origin. The AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, an administrative review of this order. applicable Section 301 decisions require International Trade Administration, Therefore, we are rescinding the subject merchandise to be admitted to Department of Commerce. administrative review of the CVD order FTZs in privileged foreign status (19 SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce on welded structural pipe from Turkey CFR 146.41). (Commerce) is rescinding the covering the POR in its entirety. Public comment is invited from administrative review of the interested parties. Submissions shall be countervailing duty (CVD) order on Assessment addressed to the Board’s Executive large diameter welded carbon and alloy Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs Secretary and sent to: [email protected]. The steel structural pipe (welded structural and Border Protection (CBP) to assess closing period for their receipt is pipe) from the Republic of Turkey countervailing duties on all appropriate , 2020. (Turkey) for the period of review (POR) entries. Because Commerce is A copy of the notification will be , 2018, through December 31, rescinding this administrative review in available for public inspection in the 2019. its entirety, the entries to which this ‘‘Reading Room’’ section of the Board’s administrative review pertained shall be DATES: website, which is accessible via Applicable November 2, 2020. assessed at rates equal to the cash www.trade.gov/ftz. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ajay deposit of estimated countervailing For further information, contact Menon, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, duties required at the time of entry, or Juanita Chen at [email protected] Enforcement and Compliance, withdrawal from warehouse, for or 202–482–1378. International Trade Administration, consumption, in accordance with 19 Dated: October 27, 2020. U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, Andrew McGilvray, to issue appropriate assessment DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1993. Executive Secretary. instructions directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of this [FR Doc. 2020–24204 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] Background notice in the Federal Register. BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P On May 1, 2020, Commerce published in the Federal Register a notice of Notification Regarding Administrative opportunity to request an administrative Protective Orders DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE review of the CVD order on welded This notice serves as the only Foreign-Trade Zones Board structural pipe from Turkey for the reminder to parties subject to POR.1 On , 2020, Commerce administrative protective order (APO) of [B–22–2020] received a timely request from their responsibility concerning the American Cast Iron Pipe Company; Berg return or destruction of proprietary Foreign-Trade Zone 139—Sierra Vista, Steel Pipe Corp.; Berg Spiral Pipe Corp.; information disclosed under APO in Arizona; Withdrawal of Application for Dura-Bond Industries; Stupp accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Reorganization (Expansion of Service Corporation; and Welspun Global Trade Timely written notification of the Area) Under Alternative Site LLC; individually and as members of Framework the American Line Pipe Producers 2 See Petitioners’ Letter, ‘‘Large Diameter Welded Pipe from Turkey: Request for Administrative Notice is hereby given of the Association; Greens Bayou Pipe Mill, LP; JS W Steel (USA) Inc.; Skyline Steel; Review,’’ dated June 1, 2020. withdrawal of the application submitted 3 See Initiation of Antidumping and by the Arizona Regional Economic and Trinity Products LLC (collectively, Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 85 FR Development Foundation, grantee of 41540 (July 10, 2020). 1 See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, 4 See Petitioners’ Letter, ‘‘Large Diameter Welded FTZ 139, requesting authority to Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity Pipe from the Republic of Turkey: Withdrawal of reorganize the zone to expand its service to Request Administrative Review, 85 FR 25394 Request for Administrative Review,’’ dated October area under the alternative site (May 1, 2020). 7, 2020.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:55 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES 69314 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices

return/destruction of APO materials or requests for administrative review, we preliminary results of this conversion to judicial protective order is initiated an administrative review of administrative review is now October hereby requested. Failure to comply eight companies: (1) ULMA Forja, 19, 2020. with the regulations and terms of an S.Coop; (2) Grupo Cunado; (3) Tubacero, Scope of the Order APO is a sanctionable violation. S.L.; (4) Ateaciones De Metales Sinterizados S.A.; (5) Transglory S.A.; The scope of the Order covers Notification to Interested Parties (6) Central Y Almacenes; (7) Friedrich finished carbon steel flanges. Finished This notice is issued and published in Geldbach Gmbh; and (8) Farina Group carbon steel flanges are currently accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and Spain.3 On , 2019, we classified under subheadings 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR selected ULMA as the sole mandatory 7307.91.5010 and 7307.91.5050 of the 351.213(d)(4). respondent in this review.4 For a Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the Dated: October 27, 2020. complete description of the events that United States (HTSUS). They may also be entered under HTSUS subheadings James Maeder, followed the initiation of this 7307.91.5030 and 7307.91.5070. The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping administrative review, see the 5 HTSUS subheadings are provided for and Countervailing Duty Operations. Preliminary Decision Memorandum. convenience and customs purposes; the [FR Doc. 2020–24178 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file written description of the scope is BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P electronically via Enforcement and dispositive. A full description of the Compliance’s AD and Countervailing scope of the Order is contained in the DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Duty Centralized Electronic Service Preliminary Decision Memorandum. System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available Methodology International Trade Administration to registered users at https:// access.trade.gov, and to all parties in the Commerce conducted this review in [A–469–815] Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of accordance with section 751 of the the main Commerce building. In Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Finished Carbon Steel Flanges From Export price is calculated in accordance Spain: Preliminary Results of addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can with section 772 of the Act. Normal Antidumping Duty Administrative value is calculated in accordance with Review; 2018–2019 be accessed directly on the internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The section 773 of the Act. For a full AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, signed and the electronic versions of the description of the methodology International Trade Administration, Preliminary Decision Memorandum are underlying these preliminary results, Department of Commerce. identical in content. A list of topics see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce included in the Preliminary Decision (Commerce) preliminarily determines Memorandum is included as the Preliminary Results of Administrative that producers or exporters of finished appendix to this notice. Review carbon steel flanges (flanges) from Spain On April 24, 2020, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative reviews We preliminarily determine that the subject to this review made sales of 6 following weighted-average dumping subject merchandise at less than normal by 50 days. On July 21, 2020, Commerce tolled all deadlines in margins exist for the period June 1, value during the period of review (POR) 2018, through , 2019: June 1, 2018 through May 31, 2019. We administrative reviews by an additional 60 days.7 On February 21, 2020, and invite interested parties to comment on Weighted- , 2020, we extended the deadline these preliminary results. average for the preliminary results, by a total of Exporter/manufacturer dumping DATES: Applicable November 2, 2020. 120 days.8 The deadline for the margin FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (percent) Marc Castillo or Mark Flessner, AD/CVD 3 See Initiation of Antidumping and ULMA Forja, S.Coop ...... 1.03 Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 84 FR Ateaciones De Metales Compliance, International Trade 36572 (, 2019); see also Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Sinterizados S.A ...... 1.03 Administration, Department of Administrative Reviews, 84 FR 47242 (September 9, Central Y Almacenes ...... 1.03 Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 2019), which corrected the spelling of one Farina Group Spain ...... 1.03 NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: company’s name. Friedrich Geldbach Gmbh ...... 1.03 (202) 482–0519 or (202) 482–6312, 4 See Memorandum, ‘‘Identification of Mandatory Grupo Cunado ...... 1.03 respectively. Respondent for the 2018–2019 Administrative Transglory S.A ...... 1.03 Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Finished Tubacero, S.L ...... 1.03 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Carbon Steel Flanges from Spain,’’ dated November 19, 2019. Background 5 See Memorandum, ‘‘Finished Carbon Steel Non-Individually Examined Companies Flanges from Spain: Decision Memorandum for On , 2017, we published in the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty For the rate for non-selected Federal Register an antidumping duty Administrative Review; 2018–2019,’’ dated respondents in an administrative (AD) order on flanges from Spain.1 On concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this review, generally, Commerce looks to , 2019, we published a notice of notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum). section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which opportunity to request an administrative 6 See Memorandum, ‘‘Tolling of Deadlines for provides instructions for calculating the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 2 review of the Order. Based on timely Administrative Reviews in Response to Operational all-others rate in a market economy Adjustments Due to COVID–19,’’ dated April 24, investigation. Under section 1 See Finished Carbon Steel Flanges from Spain: 2020. Antidumping Duty Order, 82 FR 27229 (June 14, 7 See Memorandum, ‘‘Tolling of Deadlines for Administrative Review, 2018–2019,’’ dated 2017) (Order). Antidumping and Countervailing Duty February 21, 2020; see also Memorandum, 2 See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Administrative Reviews,’’ dated July 21, 2020. ‘‘Finished Carbon Steel Flanges from Spain: Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 8 See Memorandum, ‘‘Finished Carbon Steel Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of to Request Administrative Review, 84 FR 25521 Flanges from Spain: Extension of Time Limit for Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 2018– (June 3, 2019). Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 2019,’’ dated July 6, 2020.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:55 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices 69315

735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the all-others Unless otherwise extended, 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate is normally ‘‘an amount equal to the Commerce intends to issue the final rate for the companies under review, weighted average of the estimated results of this administrative review, will be the rate established in the final weighted-average dumping margins which will include the results of its results of the review (except, if the rate established for exporters and producers analysis of issues raised in any briefs, is zero or de minimis, no cash deposit individually investigated, excluding any within 120 days of publication of these will be required); (2) for merchandise zero or de minimis margins, and any preliminary results of review, pursuant exported by producers or exporters not { margins determined entirely on the to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. covered in this review but covered in a } basis of facts available .’’ We Assessment Rate prior segment of the proceeding, the preliminarily calculated a margin for cash deposit rate will continue to be the ULMA that was not zero, de minimis, or Upon issuing the final results, Commerce will determine, and U.S. company-specific rate published for the based on facts available. Accordingly, most recent period; (3) if the exporter is we have preliminarily applied the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) not a firm covered in this review, a prior margin calculated for ULMA to the non- shall assess, antidumping duties on all review, or the original investigation but individually examined respondents. appropriate entries covered by this review.14 If the respondent’s weighted- the producer is, then the cash deposit Disclosure and Public Comment average dumping margin is above de rate will be the rate established for the minimis (i.e., 0.50 percent) in the final most recent period for the producer of We intend to disclose the calculations results of this review, we intend to the merchandise; (4) the cash deposit performed for these preliminary results calculate an importer-specific rate for all other producers or exporters to the parties within five days after assessment rate on the basis of the ratio will continue to be 18.81 percent,17 the public announcement of the preliminary of the total amount of antidumping results in accordance with 19 CFR all-others rate established in the less- duties calculated for the importer’s than-fair-value investigation. 351.224(b). Interested parties may examined sales and the total entered submit case briefs no later than 30 days value of the sales in accordance with 19 These cash deposit requirements, after the date of publication of these CFR 351.212(b)(1).15 If the respondent’s when imposed, shall remain in effect 9 preliminary results of review. Rebuttal weighted-average dumping margin is until further notice. briefs may be filed no later than seven zero or de minimis in the final results, Notification to Importers days after case briefs are due and may we will instruct CBP not to assess duties respond only to arguments raised in the on any of its entries in accordance with This notice serves as a preliminary 10 case briefs. Parties who submit case the Final Modification for Reviews.16 reminder to importers of their briefs or rebuttal briefs in this The final results of this administrative responsibility under 19 CFR proceeding are encouraged to submit review shall be the basis for the 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate with each argument: (1) A statement of assessment of antidumping duties on regarding the reimbursement of the issue, (2) a brief summary of the entries of merchandise under review antidumping duties prior to liquidation argument, and (3) a table of and for future deposits of estimated authorities.11 Note that Commerce has of the relevant entries during this POR. duties, where applicable. Failure to comply with this requirement temporarily modified certain of its For entries of subject merchandise could result in Commerce’s requirements for serving documents during the POR produced by ULMA for presumption that reimbursement of containing business proprietary which it did not know its merchandise information, until further notice.12 was destined for the United States, we antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), will instruct CBP to liquidate antidumping duties. interested parties who wish to request a unreviewed entries at the all-others rate hearing must submit a written request to if there is no rate for the intermediate Administrative Protective Orders the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement company(ies) involved in the and Compliance, filed electronically via transaction. This notice also serves as a reminder ACCESS. An electronically filed We intend to issue liquidation to parties subject to administrative document must be received successfully instructions to CBP 15 days after protective order (APO) of their in its entirety by Commerce’s electronic publication of the final results of this responsibility concerning the records system, ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. review. disposition of proprietary information Eastern Time within 30 days after the Cash Deposit Requirements disclosed under APO in accordance date of publication of this notice.13 The following deposit requirements with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely Requests should contain: (1) The party’s for estimated antidumping duties will written notification of the return or name, address and telephone number; be effective upon publication of the destruction of APO materials or (2) the number of participants; and (3) notice of final results of this review for conversion to judicial protective order is a list of issues to be discussed. Issues all shipments of flanges from Spain hereby requested. Failure to comply raised in the hearing will be limited to entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, with the regulations and the terms of an those raised in the respective case for consumption on or after the date of APO is a sanctionable violation. briefs. publication as provided by section Notification to Interested Parties 9 See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). 14 See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). 10 Commerce is issuing and publishing See 19 CFR 351.309(d); see also Temporary 15 In these preliminary results, Commerce applied Rule Modifying AD/CVD Service Requirements Due the assessment rate calculation method adopted in these results in accordance with to COVID–19; Extension of Effective Period, 85 FR Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act 41363 (July 10, 2020). Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4). 11 See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2). Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Duty 12 See Temporary Rule Modifying AD/CVD Proceedings; Final Modification, 77 FR 8101 Service Requirements Due to COVID–19; Extension (, 2012) (Final Modification for of Effective Period, 85 FR 41363 (July 10, 2020). Reviews). 13 See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 16 Id., 77 FR at 8102. 17 See the Order, 82 FR 27229.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:55 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES 69316 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices

Dated: October 16, 2020. Stock Assessment and Fishery test the effect of different codend mesh Jeffrey I. Kessler, Evaluation (SAFE) reports, and combinations on the catch of pollock Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and recommend final groundfish harvest and Gulf of Maine haddock while on Compliance. and prohibited species specifications for trips targeting Acadian redfish. 2021/22. The Plan Teams will also Regulations under the Magnuson- Appendix review the Economic Report and the Stevens Fishery Conservation and List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Ecosystem Status Report and Management Act require publication of Decision Memorandum assessments. The agenda is subject to this notification to provide interested I. Summary change, and the latest version will be parties the opportunity to comment on II. Background posted at https://meetings.npfmc.org/ applications for proposed exempted III. Scope of the Order Meeting/Details/1724. prior to the fishing permits. IV. Discussion of the Methodology meeting, along with meeting materials. DATES: Comments must be received on V. Recommendation or before November 17, 2020. Connection Information [FR Doc. 2020–24049 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] ADDRESSES: You may submit written BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P You can attend the meeting online comments by either of the following using a computer, tablet, or smart methods: phone; or by phone only. Connection • Email: [email protected]. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE information will be posted online at: Include in the subject line ‘‘GMRI https://meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/ MREM EFP Amendment.’’ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Details/1724. • Mail: Michael Pentony, Regional Administration Administrator, NMFS, Greater Atlantic Public Comment [RTID 0648–XA608] Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Public comment letters should be Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. North Pacific Fishery Management submitted electronically to https:// Mark the outside of the envelope ‘‘GMRI Council; Public Meetings meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/Details/ MREM EFP Amendment.’’ 1724. Copies of the supplemental AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries information report (SIR) developed in Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. support of this project may be obtained Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Dated: , 2020. by contacting Claire Fitz-Gerald, Fishery Commerce. Tracey L. Thompson, Policy Analyst at the Greater Atlantic ACTION: Notice of public meetings. Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Regional Fisheries Office, 978–281– Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. SUMMARY: The North Pacific Fishery 9255. [FR Doc. 2020–24212 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] Management Council (Council) FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Groundfish Plan Teams will meet via BILLING CODE 3510–22–P Mark Grant, Fishery Policy Analyst, webconference. 978–281–9145. DATES: The meetings will be held on DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August Monday, November 16, 2020 through 1, 2020, NMFS granted an Exempted Friday, , 2020, from 8 a.m. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Fishing Permit (EFP) to the Gulf of to 4 p.m., Alaska Time. Administration Maine Research Institute to continue developing a maximized retention ADDRESSES: The meeting will be a [RTID 0648–XA257] webconference. Join online through the electronic monitoring (MREM) model link at https://meetings.npfmc.org/ Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; and an accompanying dockside Meeting/Details/1724. General Provisions for Domestic monitoring (DSM) program to monitor Council address: North Pacific Fisheries; Application for Exempted high-volume bottom-trawl vessels in the Fishery Management Council, 1007 W Fishing Permits groundfish fleet. For more information 3rd Ave., Anchorage, AK 99501–2252; on the details of the EFP see the notice telephone: (907) 271–2809. Instructions AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries published , 2020 (85 FR 19931). for attending the meeting are given Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and The Gulf of Maine Research Institute, in under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), conjunction with the Northeast Sector below. Commerce. Service Network and a commercial fishing business, has submitted an FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara ACTION: Notice; request for comments. application to amend the EFP. The Cleaver or Steve MacLean, Council staff; SUMMARY: The Assistant Regional amended EFP would allow one vessel phone: (907) 271–2809 and email: Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, participating in the MREM program an [email protected] or Greater Atlantic Region, NMFS, has additional exemption from the [email protected]. For technical made a preliminary determination that minimum mesh size requirements for support please contact our an application submitted by the Gulf of the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank administrative staff; email: Maine Research Institute to amend an regulated mesh areas codified at 50 CFR [email protected]. existing Exempted Fishing Permit 648.80(a)(3)(i) and (a)(4)(i) to use cod SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: contains all of the required information ends with either square or diamond Agenda and warrants further consideration. The mesh as small as 4.5 inches (11.4 cm). amended Exempted Fishing Permit The exemption would be used to Monday, November 16, 2020 to Friday, would provide one vessel participating conduct exploratory fishing to increase November 20, 2020 in an electronic monitoring program the catch of pollock and Gulf of Maine The Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands with an exemption to conduct haddock while on trips targeting (BSAI) and Gulf of Alaska (GOA) Plan exploratory fishing using cod ends with Acadian redfish. This EFP would be Teams will compile and review the smaller mesh than otherwise permitted. effective for the 2020 and 2021 fishing annual BSAI and GOA Groundfish The Exempted Fishing Permit would years, through , 2022. Because

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:55 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices 69317

using alternative codend configurations improve size selectivity and increase geographic area (see Figure 1 and Table to target haddock and pollock on trips catch of target species, while avoiding 1) encompassing deep-water portions of targeting Acadian redfish is outside of groundfish species of concern. The the Gulf of Maine and the northern the scope of the project as currently requested amendment to the EFP would portion of Georges Bank. approved, we are taking public allow a single high-volume trawler to The applicants requested to operate in comment on the revision request. test additional codend mesh this geographic area (where the redfish Because vessels are fully monitored, configurations to increase catch of participating vessels are granted pollock and Gulf of Maine haddock, two exemption was permitted in fishing exemptions to incentivize participation healthy stocks that are underutilized, years 2015–2019) to test the feasibility in the project and increase fishing while targeting Acadian redfish. of using alternative codend opportunities for healthy stocks. The Accordingly, the participating vessel configurations to increase the catch of current MREM EFP allows vessels to use would be exempt from the geographic legal size pollock and Gulf of Maine the codend configuration used in the area, gear configuration requirements, haddock while on trips targeting Canadian haddock fishery (5.1-inch and bycatch thresholds associated with Acadian redfish. Unlike trips under the (13.0-cm) square mesh codend with a the redfish exemption. The vessel current redfish exemption, which is haddock separator device or Ruhle would have cameras recording on 100 authorized in a different geographic area trawl) on Georges Bank and/or the percent of groundfish trips and all catch during fishing year 2020, the intent of codend configuration tested in the would be counted against the this EFP amendment is to conduct REDNET project (4.5-inch (11.4-cm) appropriate sector allocations. exploratory fishing and any promising diamond mesh codend). The latter mesh The participating vessel could use the codend configurations could then be size is restricted to the Redfish alternative codend configurations to further evaluated in a rigorous Exemption Area and all standard sector increase the catch of pollock and Gulf experiment for possible future exemption requirements still apply. of Maine haddock while targeting management consideration. These exemptions are intended to Acadian redfish in an expanded

The area is bounded on the east by the TABLE 1—AREA COORDINATES— TABLE 1—AREA COORDINATES— U.S.-Canada Maritime Boundary, and Continued Continued bounded on the north, west, and south by the coordinates in Table 1, connected Point N lat. W long. Point N lat. W long. by straight lines in the order listed. D ...... 43°52.25′ 68°30.00′ J ...... 42°00.00′ 1 67°00.63′ E ...... 43°40.25′ 69°00.00′ TABLE 1—AREA COORDINATES 1 ° ′ ° ′ ° ′ The intersection of 42 00 N latitude and F ...... 43 28.25 69 30.00 the U.S.-Canada Maritime Boundary, approxi- Point N lat. W long. G ...... 43°00.00′ 69°30.00′ mate longitude in parentheses. H ...... 43°00.00′ 70°00.00′ A ...... 44°27.25′ 67°02.75′ I ...... 42°00.00′ 70°00.00′ Due to concerns about Gulf of Maine B ...... 44°16.25′ 67°30.00′ cod bycatch, the mesh size exemption C ...... 44°04.50′ 68°00.00′ would not be used in 30-minute square

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:55 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES EN02NO20.002 69318 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices

131 during the months of February and healthy stocks. Other gear studies in this encountered with schools of redfish March. The area is bounded on the east, region have demonstrated that square around the steep ledges in the Gulf of north, west, and south by the mesh selects for larger individuals of Maine. According to the application, the coordinates in Table 2, connected by roundfish species than diamond mesh rocky bottom in this area is straight lines in the order listed. of the same size. By experimentally incompatible with the separator and fishing with different combinations of Ruhle trawls. Further, the application TABLE 2—SEASONAL CLOSURE codend mesh the applicants hope to asserts that 4.5-inch (11.4-cm) diamond COORDINATES determine if any combination effectively mesh is effective at retaining redfish, increases catch of the underharvested but allows legal-sized haddock to Point N lat. W long. healthy stocks without negatively escape. Mesh selectivity information ° ′ ° ′ affecting other stocks. Any promising shows that the 50-percent retention rate G ...... 43 00.00 69 30.00 combinations could be further evaluated for haddock of the minimum size (16 H ...... 43°00.00′ 70°00.00′ K ...... 42°30.00′ 70°00.00′ through a subsequent rigorous scientific inches; 40.6 cm) in square mesh is L ...... 42°30.00′ 69°30.00′ study. approximately 4.5 inches (11.4 cm). G ...... 43°00.00′ 69°30.00′ In addition to the standard redfish This EFP amendment would both: sector exemption, vessels fishing under Expand the MREM program to refine While fishing in the MREM program, the MREM EFP are permitted to use a and test on-board handling the participating vessel’s groundfish 5.1-inch (13-cm) square mesh codend in requirements, dockside monitoring trips will be conducted under the EM tandem with a haddock separator device protocols, and video review for high requirements of the parent MREM EFP, or Ruhle trawl (similar to the volume vessels; and conduct but will have catch data evaluated configuration used in Canada) on exploratory fishing to test the potential separately from other trips taken under Georges Bank, or a 4.5-inch (11.4-cm) for alternative gear configurations to the MREM program or the sector redfish diamond mesh codend (based on the provide additional opportunities to exemption. The REDNET program REDNET project) when fishing under target healthy stocks. demonstrated it was possible to harvest the redfish exemption. The 5.1-inch (13- The applicants anticipate that during redfish using a 4.5-inch (11.4-cm) cm) square mesh exemption is intended fishing year 2020 the participating diamond mesh codend without to increase the catch of haddock, while vessel will conduct approximately 25– substantial catch of undersized redfish the 4.5-inch (11.4-cm) diamond mesh 30 multiday trips in the requested area. or other commercially important exemption is intended to increase the Typical trips would be 7 to 10 days in groundfish species. Pollock was the efficiency of reddfish catch. duration with 5 to 8 days of fishing on main bycatch species in that study and Similar to redfish, pollock and Gulf of each trip. The estimated catch provided the intent of this EFP is to increase the Maine haddock are healthy stocks that in the application, based on previous catch of pollock and Gulf of Maine have been underharvested in recent performance of the subject vessel, is in haddock because they are underutilized years. These two stocks are sometimes Table 3.

TABLE 3—CATCH COMPOSITION ESTIMATES

Estimated annual catch in live lb Species (kg) Legal-sized catch Sub-legal size catch

Acadian Redfish ...... 1,250,000 (2,750,000) 14,265 (31,383) American Plaice ...... 2,000 (4,400) 5,370 (11,814) Atlantic Cod ...... 8,036 (11,679) 744 (1,637) Gulf of Maine Cod ...... 893 (1,965) 176 (387) Georges Bank West Cod ...... 7,143 (15,715) 568 (1,250) Georges Bank East Cod ...... 0 (0) 0 (0) Atlantic Halibut ...... 150 (330) 250 (550) Atlantic Wolffish ...... 0 (0) 36 (79) Haddock ...... 750,000 (1,650,000) 3,742 (8,232) Ocean Pout ...... 0 (0) 1 (2) Pollock ...... 500,000 (1,100,000) 1,541 (3,390) White Hake ...... 8,929 (19,643) 0 (0) Witch Flounder ...... 3,571 (7,856) 674 (1,483) Windowpane Flounder ...... 0 (0) 0 (0) Winter Flounder ...... 1,500 (3,300) 0 (0) Yellowtail Flounder ...... 100 (220) 0 (0)

If approved, the applicant may fishing activity conducted outside the Dated: October 27, 2020. request minor modifications and scope of the exempted fishing activity Jennifer M. Wallace, extensions to the EFP throughout the would be prohibited. Acting Director, Office of Sustainable year. EFP modifications and extensions Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. may be granted without further notice if [FR Doc. 2020–24206 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] they are deemed essential to facilitate BILLING CODE 3510–22–P completion of the proposed research and have minimal impacts that do not change the scope or impact of the initially approved EFP request. Any

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:55 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices 69319

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues National Oceanic and Atmospheric National Oceanic and Atmospheric specifically listed in this notice and any Administration Administration issues arising after publication of this [RTID 0648–XA610] notice that require emergency action [RTID 0648–XA607] under section 305(c) of the Magnuson- New England Fishery Management Stevens Act, provided the public has Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting been notified of the Council’s intent to Council (MAFMC); Public Meetings take final action to address the AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries emergency. The public also should be AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and aware that the meeting will be recorded. Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. of the recording is available upon Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meeting. request. ACTION: Notice; public meetings. SUMMARY: The New England Fishery Special Accommodations Management Council (Council) is This meeting is physically accessible SUMMARY: The Mid-Atlantic Fishery scheduling a joint public meeting of its to people with disabilities. Requests for Management Council (Council) will Whiting Joint Committee and Advisory sign language interpretation or other hold two online workshops for a project Panel via webinar to consider actions auxiliary aids should be directed to using video recordings to examine affecting New England fisheries in the Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at recreational fishing effort originating exclusive economic zone (EEZ). (978) 465–0492, at least 5 days prior to from Ocean City, MD. Recommendations from this group will the meeting date. be brought to the full Council for formal DATES: The meetings will be held on consideration and action, if appropriate. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Tuesday November 17, 2020 and DATES: This webinar will be held on Dated: October 28, 2020. Tuesday December 1, 2020, both from Monday, November 16, 2020 at 9.30 Tracey L. Thompson, 5:30 p.m. to 8 p.m. For agenda details, a.m. Webinar registration URL Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. information: https:// Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/ [FR Doc. 2020–24220 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] via online webinar, with connection 7403653215518712077. BILLING CODE 3510–22–P information available via the Council’s ADDRESSES: Council address: New website at www.mafmc.org. England Fishery Management Council, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, Management Council, 800 N State MA 01950. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Administration telephone: (302) 674–2331 or on their Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, website at www.mafmc.org. New England Fishery Management [RTID 0648–XA609] Council; telephone: (978) 465–0492. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: North Pacific Fishery Management Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Council; Public Meetings Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Agenda Management Council, telephone: (302) The Whiting Committee and Advisory AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 526–5255. Panel will receive a preliminary Annual Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Monitoring Report and management Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commerce. purpose of the meetings is to develop recommendations from the Whiting ACTION: methods for using video to examine the Plan Development Team, including a Notice of public meetings. summary of the management track recreational fishing effort in ocean SUMMARY: assessment results, catch limit A series of Economic Data waters that departs from Ocean City, Reporting (EDR) Stakeholder MD. recommendations, fishery performance for fishing year 2019, updated economic Discussions will be held on November Special Accommodations summary data, 2017–19 bycatch 16, 2020, November 17, 2020, November estimates, and other items. They will 23, 2020, and , 2020. The meetings are physically also receive a preliminary report on the DATES: The meetings will be held via accessible to people with disabilities. SSC recommendations for 2021–23 webconferences on Monday, November Requests for sign language specifications. The Committee and 16, 2020, Tuesday, November 17, 2020, interpretation or other auxiliary aid Advisory Panel will provide advice for Monday, , 2020, and should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, the annual monitoring report and Tuesday, November 24, 2020, from 9 (302) 526–5251, at least 5 days prior to develop management recommendations a.m. to 11 a.m., Alaska Time. any meeting date. for the 2021–23 specifications package ADDRESSES: The meeting will be a Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. to be considered at the December 2020 webconference. Join online through the link at https://meetings.npfmc.org/ Dated: October 28, 2020. Council Meeting and approved at the January 2021 Council meetings. Other Meeting/Details/1765. Tracey L. Thompson, business will be discussed if necessary. Council address: North Pacific Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Although non-emergency issues not Fishery Management Council, 1007 W Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. contained on the agenda may come 3rd Ave., Anchorage, AK 99501–2252; [FR Doc. 2020–24215 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] before this Council for discussion, those telephone: (907) 271–2809. Instructions BILLING CODE 3510–22–P issues may not be the subject of formal for attending the meeting are given

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:55 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES 69320 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices

under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE [email protected], phone at below. 240–533–0819, or mail at: 1305 East- National Oceanic and Atmospheric West Highway, N/ORM, 10th Floor, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Administration Silver Spring, MD 20910. Sarah Marrinan, Council staff; phone; (907) 271–2809 and email: Draft Revised Management Plan for the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant [email protected]. For technical Lake Superior National Estuarine to 15 CFR 921.33(c), a state must revise support please contact our Research Reserve the management plan for the research administrative staff; email: AGENCY: Office for Coastal Management, reserve at least every five years. If [email protected]. National Ocean Service, National approved by NOAA, the Lake Superior National Estuarine Research Reserve’s SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of revised plan will replace the plan Agenda Commerce. previously approved in 2010. ACTION: Monday, November 16, 2020— Request for comments on draft The draft revised management plan revised management plan. Amendment 80 EDR outlines the reserve’s: Strategic goals and objectives; administrative structure; SUMMARY: The National Oceanic and Tuesday, November 17, 2020—Bering programs for conducting research and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is Sea Aleutian Islands Crab monitoring, education, and training; Rationalization EDR soliciting comments from the public regarding a proposed revision of the resource protection, restoration, and Monday, November 23, 2020— management plan for the Lake Superior manipulation plans; public access and Amendment 91 Chinook Salmon EDR National Estuarine Research Reserve. A visitor use plans; consideration for management plan: Provides a future land acquisition; and facility Tuesday, November 24, 2020—Gulf of development to support reserve Alaska Trawl EDR framework for the direction and timing of a reserve’s programs; allows reserve operations. In particular, this draft A series of EDR-specific stakeholder managers to assess a reserve’s success in revised management plan focuses on meetings will cover questions related to meeting its goals and to identify any changes to facilities through acquiring the relative burden of the data necessary changes in direction; and is permanent housing for visiting students collections and concepts for improving used to guide programmatic evaluations and researchers; growing the sectors by their usability. The agenda for each of the reserve. Plan revisions are structurally supporting additional staff; meeting will introduce questions and required of each reserve in the National advancing geographic information provide opportunities for comment on Estuarine Research Reserve System at systems (GIS) and data management proposed smaller and larger revisions least every five years. This revised plan priorities; and developing a formal is intended to replace the plan approved specific to each EDR.The agenda is advisory board and strategic in 2010. subject to change, and the latest version relationships with the private sector in DATES: will be posted at https:// Comments must be received at the region. the appropriate address (see ADDRESSES) meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/Details/ Since 2010, the reserve has acquired on or before December 2, 2020. 1765 prior to the meeting, along with permanent facilities for the reserve’s ADDRESSES: meeting materials. The draft revised operations; hired core sector leads and management plan can be downloaded or support staff; opened a public Connection Information viewed at: https:// interpretive center and classroom; and lakesuperiorreserve.org/management- expanded formal partnerships in You can attend the meeting online plan/. The document is also available by research and education across the using a computer, tablet, or smart sending a written request to the point of region. The revised management plan, phone; or by phone only. Connection contact identified below (see FOR once approved, would serve as the information will be posted online at: FURTHER INFORMATION). https://meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/ You may submit comments by any of guiding document for the 16,697-acre Details/1765. the following methods: research reserve for the next five years. Electronic Submission: Submit all NOAA’s Office for Coastal Public Comment electronic public comments by email to Management analyzes the Public comment letters will be [email protected]. environmental impacts of the proposed Mail: Submit written comments to accepted and should be submitted approval of this draft revised Elizabeth Mountz, Office for Coastal electronically to https:// management plan in accordance with Management, 1305 East-West Highway, section 102(2)(C) of the National meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/Details/ N/ORM, 10th Floor, Silver Spring, MD Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as 1765. 20910. Comments submitted by any amended, 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C), and the Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. other method or after the comment Council on Environmental Quality Dated: October 28, 2020. period may not be considered. All comments are part of the public record Regulations for Implementing the Tracey L. Thompson, and may be publicly accessible. Any Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 CFR Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable personal identifying information (e.g., 1500–1508). The public is invited to Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. name, address) submitted voluntarily by comment on the draft revised [FR Doc. 2020–24214 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] the sender may also be accessible. management plan. NOAA will take BILLING CODE 3510–22–P NOAA will accept anonymous these comments into consideration in comments. deciding whether to approve the draft revised management plan in whole or in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Mountz of NOAA’s Office for part. Coastal Management, by email at

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:55 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices 69321

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.; 15 CFR access to the Limited Access Death or local government AG or IG to attest 921.33. Master File. on behalf of a state or local government Keelin S. Kuipers, Average Hours per Response: 3 hours. department or agency Person or Burden Hours: 840. Deputy Director, Office for Coastal Certified Person. The AG or IG Systems Needs and Uses: NTIS issued a final Safeguards Attestation Form requires Management, National Ocean Service, rule (15 CFR part 1110) establishing a National Oceanic and Atmospheric the state or local government AG or IG program through which persons may Administration. to attest that a Person seeking become eligible to obtain access to [FR Doc. 2020–24190 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] Death Master File (DMF) information certification or a Certified Person BILLING CODE 3510–NK–P about an individual within three years seeking renewal of certification has of that individual’s death. The final rule information security systems, facilities and procedures in place to protect the DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE was promulgated under Section 203 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, security of the Limited Access DMF, as National Technical Information Service Public Law 113–67 (Act). The Act required under Section 1110.102(a)(2) of prohibits the Secretary of Commerce the final rule. The AG or IG Systems Agency Information Collection (Secretary) from disclosing DMF Safeguards Attestation Form collects Activities; Submission to the Office of information during the three-year period information based on an assessment by Management and Budget (OMB) for following an individual’s death (Limited the state or local government AG or IG Review and Approval; Extension of Access DMF), unless the person conducted within three years prior to Currently Approved Information requesting the information has been the date of the Person or Certified Collection; Comment Request; Limited certified to access the Limited Access Person’s submission of a completed Access Death Master File Systems DMF pursuant to certain criteria in a certification statement under Section Safeguards Attestation Forms program that the Secretary establishes. 1110.101(a) of the final rule. This The Secretary delegated the authority to collection includes specific The Department of Commerce will carry out Section 203 to the Director of submit the following information requirements of the final rule, which the NTIS. state or local government AG or IG must collection request to the Office of To accommodate the requirements of Management and Budget (OMB) for the final rule, NTIS is using both the certify are satisfied, and the provision of review and clearance in accordance ACAB Systems Safeguards Attestation specific information by the state or local with the Paperwork Reduction Act of Form and the AG or IG Systems government AG or IG, such as the date 1995, on or after the date of publication Safeguards Attestation Form. The ACAB of the assessment. of this notice. We invite the general Systems Safeguards Attestation Form Affected Public: Accredited public and other Federal agencies to requires an ‘‘Accredited Conformity Conformity Assessment Bodies and state comment on proposed, and continuing Assessment Body’’ (ACAB), as defined or local government Auditors General or information collections, which helps us in the final rule, to attest that a Person Inspectors General attesting that a assess the impact of our information seeking certification or a Certified Person seeking certification or a collection requirements and minimize Person seeking renewal of certification Certified Person seeking renewal of the public’s reporting burden. Public has information security systems, certification under the final rule for the comments were previously requested facilities and procedures in place to ‘‘Certification Program for Access to the via the Federal Register on June 29, protect the security of the Limited Death Master File’’ has information 2020 during a 60-day comment period. Access DMF, as required under Section security systems, facilities and This notice allows for an additional 30 1110.102(a)(2) of the final rule. The days for public comments. ACAB Systems Safeguards Attestation procedures in place to protect the Agency: National Technical Form collects information based on an security of the Limited Access DMF, as Information Service (NTIS), Commerce. assessment by the ACAB conducted required by the final rule. Title: NTIS Limited Access Death within three years prior to the date of Frequency: Every three (3) years. Master Files (LADMF) Systems the Person or Certified Person’s Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary. Safeguards Attestation Forms. submission of a completed certification (A) Limited Access Death Master File statement under Section 1110.101(a) of Legal Authority: Section 203 of the (LADMF) Accredited Conformity the final rule. This collection includes Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, Public Assessment Body Systems Safeguards specific requirements of the final rule, Law 113–67. Attestation Form’’ (ACAB Systems which the ACAB must certify are This information collection request Safeguards Attestation Form) satisfied, and the provision of specific may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow (B) Limited Access Death Master File information by the ACAB, such as the the instructions to view Department of (LADMF) State or Local Government date of the assessment and the auditing Commerce collections currently under Auditor General (AG) or Inspector standard(s) used for the assessment. review by OMB. General (IG) Systems Safeguards Section 1110.501(a)(2) of the final rule Written comments and Attestation Form’’ (AG or IG Systems provides that a state or local government Safeguards Attestation Form) office of AG or IG and a Person or recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent OMB Control Number: 0692–0016. Certified Person that is a department or Form Number(s): NTIS FM100A and agency of the same state or local within 30 days of publication of this NTIS FM100B. government, respectively, are not notice on the following website Type of Request: Extension of a considered to be owned by a common www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. currently approved information ‘‘parent’’ entity under Section Find this particular information collection. 1110.501(a)(1)(ii) for the purpose of collection by selecting ‘‘Currently under Number of Respondents: NTIS determining independence, and 30-day Review—Open for Public expects to receive approximately 280 attestation by the AG or IG is possible. Comments’’ or by using the search applications and renewals for The AG or IG Systems Safeguards function and entering either the title of certification every three (3) years for Attestation Form is for the use of a state

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:55 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES 69322 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices

the collection or the OMB control the burden of the proposed information United Kingdom that require the use of number 0692–0016. collection; ways to enhance the quality, fuels (gasoline or diesel) and lubricants utility, and clarity of the information to in taxis or vehicles other than passenger Sheleen Dumas, be collected; and ways to minimize the vehicles. The clause requires the Department PRA Clearance Officer, Office of burden of the information collection on contractor to provide the contracting the Chief Information Officer, Commerce officer with evidence that the contractor Department. respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or has initiated an attempt to obtain relief [FR Doc. 2020–24177 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] other forms of information technology. from customs duty on fuels and BILLING CODE 3510–13–P The Office of Management and Budget lubricants, as permitted by an agreement (OMB) has approved this information between the United States and the collection requirement for use through United Kingdom. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING , 2021. DoD proposes that Jennifer D. Johnson, COMMISSION OMB extend its approval for three Regulatory Control Officer, Defense additional years. Sunshine Act Meetings Acquisition Regulations System. DATES: DoD will consider all comments [FR Doc. 2020–24149 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS received by January 4, 2021. BILLING CODE 5001–06–P ANNOUNCEMENT: 85 FR 68566, October ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 29, 2020. identified by OMB Control Number PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF 0704–0390, using any of the following DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE THE MEETING: 9:30 a.m. EST, Monday, methods: November 2, 2020. Æ Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// Office of the Secretary www.regulations.gov. Follow the CHANGES IN THE MEETING: The time of the Defense Business Board; Notice of meeting has changed. This meeting will instructions for submitting comments. Æ Federal Advisory Committee Meeting now start at 10:00 a.m. EST. Email: [email protected]. Include OMB Control Number 0704–0390 in the AGENCY: Chief Management Officer, CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: subject line of the message. Department of Defense (DoD). Christopher Kirkpatrick, 202–418–5964. Æ Mail: Defense Acquisition ACTION: Notice of Federal Advisory Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b. Regulations System, Attn: Ms. Amy Committee meeting. Dated: , 2020. Williams, OUSD(A&S)DPC/DARS, Christopher Kirkpatrick, Room 3B938, 3060 Defense Pentagon, SUMMARY: The DoD is publishing this Secretary of the Commission. Washington, DC 20301–3060. notice to announce that the following Comments received generally will be Federal Advisory Committee meeting of [FR Doc. 2020–24315 Filed 10–29–20; 11:15 am] posted without change to http:// the Defense Business Board will take BILLING CODE 6351–01–P www.regulations.gov, including any place. DATES: Open to the public personal information provided. Tuesday, , 2020 from 3:00 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: to 5:30 p.m. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Ms. Amy Williams, (571) 372–6106. ADDRESSES: Due to the current guidance Defense Acquisition Regulations SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: on combating the Coronavirus, the System Title and OMB Number: Defense meeting will be conducted virtually or Federal Acquisition Regulation by teleconference only. To participate in [Docket Number DARS–2020–0037; OMB the meeting, see the Meeting Control Number 0704–0390] Supplement (DFARS) Part 229, Taxes, and related clause at DFARS 252.229– Accessibility section for instructions. Information Collection Requirement; 7010; OMB Control Number 0704–0390. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Defense Federal Acquisition Type of Request: Revision and Jennifer Hill, 703–614–1834 (Voice), Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Part extension. (Facsimile), [email protected] 229, Taxes, and Related Clause at Affected Public: Businesses or other (Email). Mailing address is Defense DFARS 252.229–7010 for-profit and not-for-profit institutions. Business Board, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Respondent’s Obligation: Required to Room 5B1088A, Washington, DC AGENCY: Defense Acquisition obtain or retain benefits. 20301–1155. Website: http:// Regulations System, Department of Number of Respondents: 12. dbb.defense.gov/. The most up-to-date Defense (DoD). Responses per Respondent: 2.33, changes to the meeting agenda can be ACTION: Notice and request for approximately. found on the website. comments regarding a proposed revision Annual Responses: 28. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Due to and extension of an approved Average Burden per Response: 4 circumstances beyond the control of the information collection requirement. hours. Department of Defense and the Annual Burden Hours: 112. Designated Federal Officer for the SUMMARY: In compliance with the Reporting Frequency: On occasion. Defense Business Board, the Defense Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, DoD Needs and Uses: DoD uses this Business Board was unable to provide announces the proposed revision and information to determine if DoD public notification required by 41 CFR extension of a public information contractors in the United Kingdom have 102–3.150(a) concerning its November collection requirement and seeks public attempted to obtain relief from customs 10, 2020 meeting. Accordingly, the comment on the provisions thereof. DoD duty on vehicle fuels in accordance Advisory Committee Management invites comments on: Whether the with contract requirements. The clause Officer for the Department of Defense, proposed collection of information is at DFARS 252.229–7010, Relief from pursuant to 41 CFR 102–3.150(b), necessary for the proper performance of Customs Duty on Fuel (United waives the 15-calendar day notification the functions of DoD, including whether Kingdom), is prescribed at DFARS requirement. the information will have practical 229.402–70(j) for use in solicitations This meeting is being held under the utility; the accuracy of the estimate of issued and contracts awarded in the provisions of the Federal Advisory

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:41 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices 69323

Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 to the agenda set forth in this notice DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the must be received by the Designated Government in the Sunshine Act of Federal Officer at least seven (7) Department of the Army, Corps of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and business days prior to the meeting to be Engineers 41 CFR 102–3.140 and 102–3.150. considered by the Board. The Purpose of the Meeting: The mission Inland Waterways Users Board; Designated Federal Officer will review Request for Nominations of the Board is to examine and advise all timely submitted written comments the Secretary of Defense on overall DoD or statements with the Board Chair, and AGENCY: Department of the Army, U.S. management and governance. The Board ensure the comments are provided to all Army Corps of Engineers, DOD. provides independent advice reflecting members of the Board before the ACTION: Notice of request for an outside private sector perspective on nominations. proven and effective best business meeting. Written comments or statements received after this date may practices that can be applied to DoD. SUMMARY: The Department of the Army Agenda: The Board will receive not be provided to the Board until its is publishing this notice to request presentations for deliberation, comment, next meeting. Pursuant to 41 CFR 102– nominations to serve as representatives and vote on two task group studies: 3.140d, the Board is not obligated to on the Inland Waterways Users Board, ‘‘Audit/Performance Data Usage in allow any member of the public to speak sponsored by the U.S. Army Corps of Private Industry,’’ chaired by Dr. or otherwise address the Board during Engineers. Section 302 of Public Law Christopher Gopal, and ‘‘Defense the meeting. Members of the public will 99–662 established the Inland Logistics Agency/Defense Information be permitted to make verbal comments Waterways Users Board. The Board is an Systems Agency Charter Review,’’ during the meeting only at the time and independent Federal advisory chaired by VADM David Venlet, USN in the manner described below. If a committee. The Secretary of the Army (Ret). The final agenda will be available member of the public is interested in appoints its 11 (eleven) representative prior to the meeting on the Board’s making a verbal comment at the open organizations. This notice is to solicit website at: https://dbb.defense.gov/ meeting, that individual must submit a nominations for five (5) appointments Meetings/Meeting-November-2020/. request, with a brief statement of the for terms that will begin by May 28, Meeting Accessibility: Pursuant to subject matter to be addressed by the 2021. For additional information about Federal Advisory Committee Act and 41 comment, at least three (3) business the Board, please visit the committee’s CFR 102–3.140, this meeting is open to website at http:// the public. Persons desiring to days in advance to the Designated Federal Officer, via electronic mail, the www.iwr.usace.army.mil/Missions/ participate in the meeting are required Navigation/Inland-Waterways-Users- preferred mode of submission, at the to register. Attendance will be by virtual Board/. addresses listed in the FOR FURTHER or teleconference only. To attend the ADDRESSES: Institute for Water meeting submit your name, affiliation/ INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Designated Federal Officer will log each Resources, U.S. Army Corps of organization, telephone number, and Engineers, ATTN: Mr. Mark R. Pointon, request, in the order received, and in email contact information to the Board Designated Federal Officer (DFO) for the consultation with the Board Chair at osd.pentagon.odam.mbx.defense- Inland Waterways Users Board, CEIWR– [email protected]. Requests to determine whether the subject matter of GN, 7701 Telegraph Road, Casey attend the meeting must be received not each comment is relevant to the Board’s Building, Alexandria, Virginia 22315– later than 4:00 p.m. Eastern Standard mission and/or the topics to be 3868; by telephone at 703–428–6438; Time, on Friday, October 30, 2020. addressed in the public meeting. and by email at Mark.Pointon@ Upon receipt of this information, a link Members of the public who have usace.army.mil. will be sent to the email address requested to make a comment and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: provided which will allow virtual/ whose comments have been deemed Alternatively, contact Mr. Steven D. teleconference attendance to the event. relevant under the process described (The DBB will be unable to provide Riley, the Alternate Designated Federal above will be invited to speak in the Officer (ADFO), in writing at the technical assistance to any user order in which the Designated Federal experiencing technical difficulties Institute for Water Resources, U.S. Army Officer received their requests. The during the meeting.) Corps of Engineers, ATTN: CEIWR–GW, Written Statements: Pursuant to 41 Board Chair may allot a specific amount 7701 Telegraph Road, Casey Building, CFR 102–3.105(j) and 102–3.140 and of time for comments. Please note that Alexandria, VA 22315–3868; by section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory all submitted comments and statements telephone at 703–659–3097; and by Committee Act, the public or interested will be treated as public documents and email at [email protected]. organizations may submit written will be made available for public SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The comments or statements to the Board in inspection, including, but not limited selection, service, and appointment of response to the stated agenda of the to, being posted on the Board’s website. representative organizations to the open meeting or in regard to the Board’s Dated: October 27, 2020. Board are covered by provisions of mission in general. Written comments Aaron T. Siegel, Section 302 of Public Law 99–662. The or statements should be submitted to substance of those provisions is as Ms. Jennifer Hill, the Designated Federal Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison follows: Officer, via electronic mail, the Officer, Department of Defense. a. Selection. Representative preferred mode of submission, at the [FR Doc. 2020–24192 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] organizations are to be selected from the address listed in the FOR FURTHER BILLING CODE 5001–06–P spectrum of commercial carriers and INFORMATION CONTACT section. Each page shippers using the inland and of the comment or statement must intracoastal waterways, to represent include the author’s name, title or geographical regions, and to be affiliation, address, and daytime phone representative of waterborne commerce number. Written comments or as determined by commodity ton-miles statements being submitted in response and tonnage statistics.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:55 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES 69324 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices

b. Service. The Board is required to aggregated into six commodity DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION meet at least semi-annually to develop categories based on ‘‘inland’’ ton-miles [Docket No.: ED–2020–SCC–0122] and make recommendations to the shown in Waterborne Commerce of the Secretary of the Army on waterways United States. These categories are (1) Agency Information Collection construction and major rehabilitation Farm and Food Products; (2) Coal and Activities; Submission to the Office of priorities and spending levels for Coke; (3) Petroleum, Crude and Management and Budget for Review commercial navigation improvements, Products; (4) Minerals, Ores, and and Approval; Comment Request; and report its recommendations Primary Metals and Mineral Products; Higher Education Emergency Relief annually to the Secretary and Congress. (5) Chemicals and Allied Products; and Fund (HEERF) Data Collection Form c. Appointment. The operation of the (6) All Other. A consideration in the Board and appointment of selection of representative organizations AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary representative organizations are subject to the Board will be that the Education, Department of Education to the Federal Advisory Committee Act commodities carried or shipped by (ED). of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as those firms will be reasonably ACTION: Notice. amended) and departmental representative of the above commodity implementing regulations. categories. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Representative organizations serve d. Nomination. Reflecting preceding Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is without compensation but their selection criteria, the current proposing a new collection. expenses due to Board activities are representation by the five (5) DATES: Interested persons are invited to reimbursable. The considerations organizations whose terms expire submit comments on or before specified in Section 302 for the includes Regions 1, 3 and 4, December 2, 2020. selection of representative organizations representation of two carriers, two ADDRESSES: Written comments and to the Board, and certain terms used shippers and one of both, and recommendations for proposed therein, have been interpreted, commodity representation of Coal and information collection requests should supplemented, or otherwise clarified as Coke; Petroleum, Crude and Products; be sent within 30 days of publication of follows: Chemicals and Allied Products; and this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/ (1) Carriers and Shippers. The law Other. do/PRAMain. Find this particular uses the terms ‘‘primary users and Individuals, firms or associations may information collection request by shippers.’’ Primary users have been nominate representative organizations selecting ‘‘Department of Education’’ interpreted to mean the providers of to serve on the Board. Nominations will: under ‘‘Currently Under Review,’’ then transportation services on inland (1) Include the commercial operations check ‘‘Only Show ICR for Public waterways such as barge or towboat of the carrier and/or shipper Comment’’ checkbox. operators. Shippers have been representative organization being FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For interpreted to mean the purchasers of nominated. This commercial operations specific questions related to collection such services for the movement of information will show the actual or activities, please contact Karen Epps, commodities they own or control. estimated ton-miles of each commodity Representative companies are appointed 202–453–6337. carried or shipped on the inland SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The to the Board, and they must be either a waterways system in the most recent carrier or shipper or both. For that Department of Education (ED), in year (or years), using the waterway accordance with the Paperwork purpose a trade or regional association regions and commodity categories is neither a shipper nor primary user. Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. previously listed. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general (2) Geographical Representation. The (2) State the region(s) to be law specifies ‘‘various’’ regions. For the public and Federal agencies with an represented. opportunity to comment on proposed, purposes of the Board, the waterways (3) State whether the nominated revised, and continuing collections of subjected to fuel taxes and described in representative organization is a carrier, information. This helps the Department Public Law 95–502, as amended, have shipper or both. assess the impact of its information been aggregated into six regions. They (4) Provide the name of an individual collection requirements and minimize are (1) the Upper Mississippi River and to be the principle person representing the public’s reporting burden. It also its tributaries above the mouth of the the organization and information helps the public understand the Ohio; (2) the Lower Mississippi River pertaining to their personal Department’s information collection and its tributaries below the mouth of qualifications, to include a current requirements and provide the requested the Ohio and above Baton Rouge; (3) the biography or resume. Ohio River and its tributaries; (4) the Previous nominations received in data in the desired format. ED is Gulf Intracoastal Waterway in Louisiana response to notices published in the soliciting comments on the proposed and Texas; (5) the Gulf Intracoastal Federal Register in prior years will not information collection request (ICR) that Waterway east of New Orleans and be retained for consideration. Re- is described below. The Department of associated fuel-taxed waterways nomination of representative Education is especially interested in including the Tennessee-Tombigbee, organizations is required. public comment addressing the plus the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway e. Deadline for Nominations. All following issues: (1) Is this collection below Norfolk; and (6) the Columbia- nominations must be received at the necessary to the proper functions of the Snake Rivers System and Upper address shown above no later than Department; (2) will this information be Willamette. The intent is that each December 1, 2020. processed and used in a timely manner; region shall be represented by at least (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; one representative organization, with Thomas P. Smith, (4) how might the Department enhance that representation determined by the Chief, Operations and Regulatory Division, the quality, utility, and clarity of the regional concentration of the firm’s Directorate of Civil Works, U.S. Army Corp information to be collected; and (5) how traffic on the waterways. of Engineers. might the Department minimize the (3) Commodity Representation. [FR Doc. 2020–24197 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] burden of this collection on the Waterway commerce has been BILLING CODE 3720–58–P respondents, including through the use

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:55 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices 69325

of information technology. Please note DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION burden of this collection on the that written comments received in respondents, including through the use [Docket No.: ED–2020–SCC–0123] response to this notice will be of information technology. Please note considered public records. Agency Information Collection that written comments received in Title of Collection: Higher Education Activities; Submission to the Office of response to this notice will be Emergency Relief Fund (HEERF) Data Management and Budget for Review considered public records. Collection Form. and Approval; Comment Request; Title of Collection: Education Education Stabilization Fund— OMB Control Number: 1840–NEW. Stabilization Fund—Governor’s Governor’s Emergency Education Emergency Education Relief Fund Type of Review: A new information Relief Fund (GEER) Recipient Data (GEER) Recipient Data Collection Form. collection. Collection Form OMB Control Number: 1810–NEW. Respondents/Affected Public: State, AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Local, and Tribal Governments; Private Type of Review: A new information Secondary Education, Department of collection. Sector. Education (ED). Total Estimated Number of Annual ACTION: Notice. Respondents/Affected Public: State, Responses: 5,170. Local, and Tribal Governments; Private SUMMARY: In accordance with the Sector. Total Estimated Number of Annual Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is Burden Hours: 31,020. Total Estimated Number of Annual proposing a new information collection. Responses: 3,326. Abstract: This information collection DATES: Interested persons are invited to supports the annual collection of data submit comments on or before Total Estimated Number of Annual pertaining to the uses of funds under the December 2, 2020. Burden Hours: 13,568. Higher Education Emergency Education ADDRESSES: Written comments and Abstract: This information collection Relief Fund (HEER Fund). Section recommendations for proposed supports the annual collection of data 18004(a) of the CARES Act, Public Law information collection requests should pertaining to the uses of funds under the 116–136 (, 2020), authorized be sent within 30 days of publication of Governor’s Emergency Education Relief the Secretary of Education to allocate this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/ Fund (GEER Fund). The Department formula grant funds to participating do/PRAMain. Find this particular awards GEER grants to Governors institutions of higher education (IHEs). information collection request by (states) and analogous grants to Outlying Section 18004(c) of the CARES Act selecting ‘‘Department of Education’’ Areas for the purpose of providing local allows IHEs to use up to one-half of the under ‘‘Currently Under Review,’’ then educational agencies (LEAs), total funds received to cover any costs check ‘‘Only Show ICR for Public institutions of higher education (IHEs), associated with the significant changes Comment’’ checkbox. and other education related entities to the delivery of instruction due to the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For with emergency assistance as a result of coronavirus (with specific exceptions). specific questions related to collection the coronavirus pandemic. The This information collection request activities, please contact Gloria Tanner, Department has awarded these grants— includes the reporting requirements in 202–453–5596. to States (governor’s offices) based on a order to comply with the requirements SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The formula stipulated in the legislation. (1) of the CARES Act and obtain Department of Education (ED), in 60% on the basis of the State’s relative information on how the funds were accordance with the Paperwork population of individuals aged 5 used. The information will be reviewed Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. through 24. (2) 40% on the basis of the by U.S. Department of Education 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general State’s relative number of children (Department) employees to ensure that public and Federal agencies with an counted under section 1124(c) of the HEER funds are used in accordance opportunity to comment on proposed, Elementary and Secondary Education revised, and continuing collections of with section 18004 of the CARES Act, Act of 1965 (ESEA). The grants are information. This helps the Department and will be shared with the public to awarded to Outlying Areas based on the assess the impact of its information promote transparency regarding the same formula. The information will be collection requirements and minimize allocation and uses of funds. the public’s reporting burden. It also reviewed by Department employees to Dated: October 27, 2020. helps the public understand the ensure that GEER funds are used in accordance with Sec. 18002(c) of the Kate Mullan, Department’s information collection requirements and provide the requested CARES Act, and will be shared with the PRA Coordinator, Strategic Collections and public to promote transparency Clearance, Governance and Strategy Division, data in the desired format. ED is Office of Chief Data Officer, Office of soliciting comments on the proposed regarding the allocation and uses of Planning, Evaluation and Policy information collection request (ICR) that funds. Development. is described below. The Department of Dated: October 27, 2020. [FR Doc. 2020–24170 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] Education is especially interested in Kate Mullan, BILLING CODE 4000–01–P public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection PRA Coordinator, Strategic Collections and Clearance, Governance and Strategy Division, necessary to the proper functions of the Office of Chief Data Officer, Office of Department; (2) will this information be Planning, Evaluation and Policy processed and used in a timely manner; Development. (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; [FR Doc. 2020–24173 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the BILLING CODE 4000–01–P information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:55 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES 69326 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION burden of this collection on the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION respondents, including through the use AGENCY [Docket No.: ED–2020–SCC–0124] of information technology. Please note Agency Information Collection that written comments received in [EPA–R07–SFUND–2020–0540 FRL–10016– Activities; Submission to the Office of response to this notice will be 20–Region 8] Management and Budget for Review considered public records. CERCLA Prospective Purchaser and Approval; Comment Request; Title of Collection: Education Education Stabilization Fund- Administrative Settlement Agreement Stabilization Fund-Elementary and and Covenant Not To Sue, Lockwood Elementary and Secondary Emergency Secondary Emergency Education Relief Education Relief Fund (ESSER) Solvent Ground Water Plume Fund (ESSER) Recipient Data Collection Superfund Site, Billings, Montana Recipient Data Collection Form Form. AGENCY: Office of Elementary and OMB Control Number: 1810–NEW. AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Secondary Education, Department of Type of Review: A new information Education (ED). ACTION: Notice; request for public collection. ACTION: Notice. comment. Respondents/Affected Public: State, SUMMARY: In accordance with the Local, and Tribal Governments. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is Total Estimated Number of Annual requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, proposing a new information collection. Responses: 14,656. DATES: Interested persons are invited to Compensation, and Liability Act of submit comments on or before Total Estimated Number of Annual 1980, as amended (‘‘CERLCA’’) notice is December 2, 2020. Burden Hours: 73,560. hereby given by the U.S. Environmental ADDRESSES: Written comments and Abstract: This information collection Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, of a recommendations for proposed supports the annual collection of data proposed prospective purchaser information collection requests should pertaining to the uses of funds under the administrative settlement agreement, be sent within 30 days of publication of Elementary and Secondary School embodied in an Administrative this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/ Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER Fund). Settlement Agreement and Covenant do/PRAMain. Find this particular The Department ESSER awards grants to Not to Sue (‘‘Settlement Agreement’’) information collection request by State educational agencies (SEAs) (and with the State of Montana (the ‘‘State’’), selecting ‘‘Department of Education’’ analogous grants to Outlying Areas) for MAC LTT, LLC (‘‘MAC’’), which is purchasing the Property, and MAC LTT under ‘‘Currently Under Review,’’ then the purpose of providing local Manufacturing, Inc., a related entity to check ‘‘Only Show ICR for Public educational agencies (LEAs), including Comment’’ checkbox. MAC, which, although not purchasing charter schools that are LEAs, with the Property, has leased the Property FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For emergency relief funds to address the since 2013 and will continue to lease specific questions related to collection impact that Novel Coronavirus Disease and operate the Property after MAC activities, please contact Gloria Tanner, 2019 (COVID–19) has had, and purchases the Property (‘‘Lessee,’’ and 202–453–5596. continues to have, on elementary and with MAC collectively, ‘‘Purchaser’’). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The secondary schools across the nation. This Settlement Agreement pertains to a Department of Education (ED), in LEAs must provide equitable services to portion of the approximately 580-acre accordance with the Paperwork students and teachers in non-public area known as the Lockwood Solvent Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. schools as required under the Ground Water Plume Superfund Site 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic (‘‘Site’’) located at 1430 U.S. Highway public and Federal agencies with an Security Act (CARES Act). The 87 East, Billings, Montana (‘‘The opportunity to comment on proposed, information will be reviewed by Property’’). revised, and continuing collections of Department employees to ensure that information. This helps the Department DATES: Comments must be submitted on ESSER funds are used in accordance assess the impact of its information or before December 2, 2020. with Sec. 18003(d) of the CARES Act collection requirements and minimize ADDRESSES: The proposed Settlement the public’s reporting burden. It also and will be shared with the public to Agreement and additional background helps the public understand the promote transparency regarding the information relating to the agreement Department’s information collection allocation and uses of funds. will be available for public inspection at requirements and provide the requested Dated: October 27, 2020. the EPA Superfund Record Center, 1595 data in the desired format. ED is Kate Mullan, Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado, by soliciting comments on the proposed PRA Coordinator, Strategic Collections and appointment. Comments and requests information collection request (ICR) that Clearance, Governance and Strategy Division, for a copy of the proposed agreement is described below. The Department of Office of Chief Data Officer, Office of should be addressed to Julie Nicholson, Education is especially interested in Planning, Evaluation and Policy Enforcement Specialist, Superfund and public comment addressing the Development. Emergency Management Division, following issues: (1) Is this collection [FR Doc. 2020–24174 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] Environmental Protection Agency- necessary to the proper functions of the Region 8, Mail Code 8SEM–PAC, 1595 BILLING CODE 4000–01–P Department; (2) will this information be Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado processed and used in a timely manner; 80202, (303) 312–6343 and should (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; reference the Lockwood Solvent Ground (4) how might the Department enhance Water Plume Site. the quality, utility, and clarity of the You may also send comments, information to be collected; and (5) how identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– might the Department minimize the SFUND–2020–0540 to http://

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:55 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices 69327

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online Region 8, of a proposed prospective following the date of publication of this instructions for submitting comments. purchaser settlement agreement, document, the EPA will receive written FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: embodied in an Administrative comments relating to the settlement. Mark Chalfant, Senior Assistant Settlement Agreement and Covenant The EPA will consider all comments Regional Counsel, Office of Regional Not to Sue, with the State of Montana, received and may modify or withdraws Counsel, Environmental Protection MAC LTT, LLC, which is purchasing the its consent to the Settlement Agreement Agency, Region 8, Mail Code 8ORC– Property, and MAC LTT Manufacturing, if comments received disclose facts or LEC, 1595 Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado Inc., a related entity to MAC, which, considerations that indicate that the 80202, (303) 312–6177, chalfant.mark@ although not purchasing the Property, proposed settlement is inappropriate, epa.gov. has leased the Property since 2013 and improper, or inadequate. The EPA’s SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Written will continue to lease and operate the response to any comments received will Comments: Submit your comments, Property after MAC purchases the be available for public inspection at identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– Property. This Settlement Agreement EPA Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, SFUND–2020–0540 at http:// pertains to a portion of the Denver, Colorado 80202. approximately 580-acre area known as www.regulations.gov. Once submitted, Betsy Smidinger, comments cannot be edited or removed the Lockwood Solvent Ground Water Plume Superfund Site located at 1430 Division Director, Superfund and Emergency from Regulations.gov. The EPA may Management Division, Region 8. publish any comment received to its U.S. Highway 87 East, Billings, public docket. Do not submit Montana. Neither of the MAC-related [FR Doc. 2020–24163 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] electronically any information you business entities is responsible for the BILLING CODE 6560–50–P consider to be Confidential Business original contamination at the Site. Information (CBI) or other information Under the proposed Settlement Agreement, both MAC LTT, LLC and whose disclosure is restricted by statute. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS MAC LTT Manufacturing, Inc. would be If CBI exists, please contact Mr. Bruce COMMISSION Morrison. Multimedia submissions required to comply with standard CERCLA bona fide prospective (audio, video, etc.) must be [FRS 17192] accompanied by a written comment. purchaser continuing obligations, The written comment is considered the including access, appropriate care, and Open Commission Meeting, Tuesday official comment and should include non-interference with the CERCLA October 27, 2020 discussion of all points you wish to remedy. The proposed Settlement make. The EPA will generally not Agreement provides for the payment of October 20, 2020. consider comments or comment certain response costs incurred by the The Federal Communications contents located outside of the primary EPA and the State of Montana at or in Commission will hold an Open Meeting submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or connection with the Site. The proposed on the subjects listed below on Tuesday, other file sharing system). For Settlement Agreement includes a October 27, 2020, which is scheduled to additional submission methods, the full covenant by the United States and the commence at 10:30 a.m. Due to the EPA public comment policy, State of Montana not to sue or take current COVID–19 pandemic and information about CBI or multimedia administrative action against MAC LTT, related agency telework and submissions, and general guidance on LLC and MAC LTT Manufacturing, Inc., headquarters access policies, this making effective comments, please visit pursuant to sections 106 and 107(a) of meeting will be in a wholly electronic https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ CERCLA for Existing Contamination, as format and will be open to the public on commenting-epa-dockets. that term is defined in the proposed the internet via live feed from the FCC’s Notice is hereby given by the U.S. Settlement Agreement, and for payment web page at www.fcc.gov/live and on the Environmental Protection Agency, of response costs. For thirty (30) days FCC’s YouTube channel.

Item No. Bureau Subject

1 ...... WIRELINE COMPETITION ...... TITLE: Restoring Internet Freedom (WC Docket No. 17–108); Bridging the Digital Di- vide for Low-Income Consumers (WC Docket No. 17–287); Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization (WC Docket No. 11–42). SUMMARY: The Commission will consider an Order on Remand that would respond to the remand from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and conclude that the Restoring Internet Freedom Order promotes public safety, facilitates broadband infrastructure deployment, and allows the Commission to continue to provide Lifeline support for broadband Internet access service. 2 ...... WIRELINE COMPETITION ...... TITLE: Establishing a 5G Fund for Rural America (GN Docket No. 20–32). SUMMARY: The Commission will consider a Report and Order that would establish a $9 billion 5G Fund for Rural America to ensure that all Americans have access to the next generation of wireless connectivity. 3 ...... OFFICE F ENGINEERING AND TECH- TITLE: Increasing Unlicensed Wireless Opportunities in TV White Spaces (ET Dock- NOLOGY. et No. 20–36). SUMMARY: The Commission will consider a Report and Order that would increase opportunities for unlicensed white space devices to operate on broadcast tele- vision channels 2–35 and expand wireless broadband connectivity in rural and un- derserved areas. 4 ...... WIRELESS TELE-COMMUNICATIONS ... TITLE: Streamlining State and Local Approval of Certain Wireless Structure Modi- fications (WT Docket No. 19–250; RM–11849). SUMMARY: The Commission will consider a Report and Order that would further accelerate the deployment of 5G by providing that modifications to existing towers involving limited ground excavation or deployment would be subject to streamlined state and local review pursuant to section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act of 2012.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:41 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES 69328 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices

Item No. Bureau Subject

5 ...... MEDIA ...... TITLE: All-Digital AM Broadcasting (MB Docket No. 19–311); Revitalization of the AM Radio Service (MB Docket No. 13–249). SUMMARY: The Commission will consider a Report and Order that would authorize AM stations to transition to an all-digital signal on a voluntary basis and would also adopt technical specifications for such stations. 6 ...... MEDIA ...... TITLE: Video Description: Implementation of the Twenty-First Century Communica- tions and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (MB Docket No. 11–43). SUMMARY: The Commission will consider a Report and Order that would expand audio description requirements to 40 additional television markets over the next four years in order to increase the amount of video programming that is acces- sible to blind and visually impaired Americans. 7 ...... WIRELINE COMPETITION ...... TITLE: Modernizing Unbundling and Resale Requirements in an Era of Next-Gen- eration Networks and Services (WC Docket No. 19–308). SUMMARY: The Commission will consider a Report and Order that would mod- ernize the Commission’s unbundling and resale regulations, eliminating require- ments where they stifle broadband deployment and the transition to next-genera- tion networks, but preserving them where they are still necessary to promote ro- bust intermodal competition. 8 ...... ENFORCEMENT ...... TITLE: Enforcement Bureau Action. SUMMARY: The Commission will consider an enforcement action.

The meeting will be webcast with all remaining invoices and other FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For open captioning at: www.fcc.gov/live. documentation on FCC Form 2100, additional information or questions Open captioning will be provided as Schedule 399 (Reimbursement Form) for about the reimbursement process, please well as a text only version on the FCC reimbursement from the TV Broadcaster call the Reimbursement Help Line at website. Other reasonable Relocation Fund (Reimbursement Fund (202) 418–2009, or email Reimburse@ accommodations for people with or Fund). Eligible entities assigned fcc.gov. disabilities are available upon request. repack transition completion dates in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: At the In your request, include a description of the first half of the 39-month post- close of the incentive auction and the accommodation you will need and auction transition period must submit beginning of the post-auction transition a way we can contact you if we need all remaining invoices for incurred period on , 2017, there were 987 more information. Last minute requests expenses by October 8, 2021. The full power and Class A stations will be accepted but may be impossible deadline for eligible entities assigned reassigned (repacked) to new channels. to fill. Send an email to: [email protected] completion dates in the second half of The Commission established a 39- or call the Consumer & Governmental the transition period is , 2022. month period running until , Affairs Bureau at 202–418–0530. The deadline for all other participants 2020, for repacked television stations to Additional information concerning in the reimbursement program is transition off of their pre-auction this meeting may be obtained from the , 2022. These deadlines are channels. The Commission determined Office of Media Relations, (202) 418– established to help ensure that all that a phased construction schedule 0500. Audio/Video coverage of the eligible invoices are processed and that would facilitate efficient use of the meeting will be broadcast live with entities are able to complete the Fund resources necessary to complete the open captioning over the internet from close-out procedures prior to July 3, transition and adopted the Transition the FCC Live web page at www.fcc.gov/ 2023, when any unobligated amounts in Scheduling Plan (Plan) that assigned live. the Fund will be rescinded and each repacked station to one of 10 Federal Communications Commission. deposited into the U.S. Treasury. phases. Each phase had a designated Marlene Dortch, Entities are encouraged to initiate close completion date by which stations Secretary. out procedures as early as possible and assigned to that phase were required to vacate their pre-auction channels. The [FR Doc. 2020–24151 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] we emphasize that they need not wait for their assigned final invoice filing completion date for Phase 1 was BILLING CODE 6712–01–P November 8, 2018, and the subsequent deadline to do so. phases had subsequent completions FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS DATES: Invoices due for entities assigned dates through the Phase 10 completion COMMISION completion dates in the first half of the date on July 3, 2020. All 987 repacked repack period: October 8, 2021. Invoices stations have now vacated their pre- [MB Docket 16–306; GN Docket 12–268; DA due for entities assigned completion auction channels. As of October 6, 2020, 20–1171; FRS 17184] dates in the second half of the repack over 92% of the repacked stations are period: March 22, 2022. Invoices due for operating on their final facilities. The Invoice Filing Deadlines for TV all other participants in the remaining 76 stations have been granted Broadcaster Relocation Fund reimbursement program: September 5, special temporary authority and revised AGENCY: Federal Communications 2020. construction permit deadlines to Commission. continue pursuing completion of their ADDRESSES: ACTION: Notice. Reimbursement Information final facilities. We are optimistic that website: https://www.fcc.gov/about-fcc/ these remaining stations will be able to SUMMARY: In this document, the fcc-initiatives/incentive-auctions/ meet their revised deadlines and we Incentive Auction Task Force and reimbursement. Follow directions under will continue to monitor and work with Media Bureau (Bureau) announce filing Procedures tab to submit invoices for them to ensure the continued success of deadlines for eligible entities to submit reimbursement. the post-incentive auction transition.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:55 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices 69329

In addition to repacked stations, amount of money available in the verified estimated amounts; allocated certain low power TV and TV translator Reimbursement Fund for certain amounts; amounts requested for stations (LPTV/translators) were categories of entities. To ensure that reimbursement; and amounts disbursed displaced by the rebanding and reimbursement funds are allocated fairly by the Commission. If we discover any repacking process. Over 2,000 such and consistently, and to have sufficient overpayments during this procedure, we stations were granted construction flexibility to make equitable allocation notify the entity that it must return the permits in a Special Displacement decisions that maximize the funds excess amount to the Commission. Once Window to construct new facilities. available for reimbursement, funds have the financial reconciliation statement Some of the LPTV/translator stations been allocated in tranches and has been reviewed by the station and were displaced and completed supplemented via additional any necessary changes made, it must file construction of displacement facilities allocations. To date, full power, Class A, an executed version of the financial early in the transition period. Others are and FM stations and MVPDs have reconciliation statement with the Fund still working toward meeting their received allocations of 92.5 percent of Administrator, after which we will issue construction permit deadlines. FM radio each entity’s verified estimates and an interim close-out letter. To date, 8 spectrum was not subject to repacking, LPTV/translator stations have received entities have completed interim close but some FM stations whose antennas allocations of 85 percent of each entity’s out procedures. are collocated on or near a tower verified estimates. After all or nearly all entities eligible supporting a repacked television station As participating entities incur for reimbursement from the Fund have antenna incurred costs due to expenses, they submit invoices and entered the close-out process—or at an construction of repacked television other supporting documentation earlier time when the Media Bureau can facilities. Multichannel video reflecting those expenses, again using reasonably extrapolate that the total programming distributors (MVPDs) also the Reimbursement Form. The available funding will be sufficient to incurred costs to continue to carry the Commission and Fund Administrator meet the total cost of the program—we signal of repacked stations. Some FM review the submissions for may make a final allocation to stations and MVPDs have already reasonableness and eligibility and, if reimburse the entity for the total amount incurred costs and a limited number approved, forward them to Treasury for of remaining incurred expenses. At that may incur additional costs as repacked payment. Consistent with our time, each entity will enter the final stations complete transition to final experience in managing the Fund to close-out procedures and receive a final facilities. date, we expect that the number of close-out letter. That final close-out Congress provided $2.75 billion for reimbursement requests will continue to letter will serve as the official notice of the Reimbursement Fund in the increase over the life of the Fund. We account close-out, include a summary of Spectrum Act and Reimbursement rely on drawdown amounts and any financial changes that occurred Expansion Act (REA) to reimburse submitted estimates, including during the interim closing period, and certain costs associated with the post- revisions, to make allocation decisions, remind entities of their ongoing incentive auction transition and for the and we continue to encourage eligible document retention requirements. Commission to undertake education entities to promptly submit invoices for Pursuant to the REA, any unobligated efforts for over-the-air television reimbursement of incurred costs and to amounts in the Fund as of July 3, 2023, viewers. The reimbursement program revise their cost estimates, if applicable, will be rescinded from the Fund and for full power and Class A TV stations based on more refined quotations from deposited into the Treasury and and MVPDs began in 2017 and, vendors and other real-time dedicated for the sole purpose of deficit pursuant to the REA, was expanded in information. As of September 29, 2020, reduction. 2019 to include FM stations and LPTV/ the total of all verified estimates in the Filing Deadlines for Remaining translator stations. To date, participants Reimbursement Fund was over $2.177 Invoices in the Reimbursement Fund include 872 billion, the total allocation was over LPTV/translator stations and 89 FM $2.016 billion, over $1.323 billion had The Commission authorized the stations in addition to 957 repacked full been forwarded to Treasury for Media Bureau to set deadlines for final power and Class A stations. The payment, and over $78 million in submission to the Reimbursement Fund. procedures used to disburse monies invoices were at various stages of the Consistent with the Commission’s from the Fund enable us to timely review process. decision to use a phased approach for process reimbursement requests and On , 2019, we announced the Transition Scheduling Plan, we will assure that only eligible expenses are procedures for entities to close out their also utilize a phased approach to set paid and that available funds are spread books and accounts in the deadlines for filing all remaining appropriately across all eligible entities. Reimbursement Fund. These procedures reimbursement submissions. This All entities participating in the are necessary to bring each entity’s approach recognizes our experience to reimbursement program were required participation in the Reimbursement date that repacked stations with phase to file estimates using the Fund to a close and to help us prevent assignments earlier in the transition Reimbursement Form. The estimates waste, fraud and abuse associated with period are more likely to have were then reviewed and adjusted for the disbursement of federal funds. completed their transition to final eligibility and reasonableness by Because entities are allocated a pro rata facilities than those with more recent Commission staff, who were assisted by portion of their total verified estimates, phase deadlines and are therefore more a Fund Administrator experienced in close out is a two-step process likely to have completed all television broadcast engineering and consisting of an interim and final close- construction and incurred all costs federal funds management. Thereafter, out procedure. When an entity has associated with the transition. A phased each entity received an initial allocation submitted all of its invoices and approach will also sequence our from the Fund based on a percentage of supporting documentation, it must use processing work so that the Fund the entity’s verified estimates. The total the Reimbursement Form to notify the Administrator and Commission staff are allocation amount was calculated based Media Bureau. The Fund Administrator not overwhelmed with a deluge of in part on the total amount of estimated then provides the entity with a financial filings at the program’s end, which repacking expenses, as well as the reconciliation statement that details could not only jeopardize the timely

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:55 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES 69330 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices

completion of the program but also 10 due to circumstances beyond their all entities in the program to initiate prevent entities from receiving full control, must submit all remaining interim close out procedures as soon as reimbursement for their expenses. We invoices and supporting documentation they have incurred and submitted also recognize that program participants using the Reimbursement Form, and invoices for all reimbursable costs. require human capital to complete the initiate interim close-out procedures, no Because all repacked stations have close-out process, and we believe the later than March 22, 2022. With five vacated their pre-auction channel but phased approach will lessen the exceptions, all of which transitioned by only eight have completed interim resourcing burden to station groups and September 30, 2020, all 444 repacked close-out procedures, we believe that other participants who must manage stations in this group had satisfied the many entities are unnecessarily multiple entities in the reimbursement requirement to transition by July 13, delaying making final submissions to program. We are also aware that MVPDs 2020. As of October 6, 2020, all but 47 the program and initiating interim close- and FM stations may incur costs toward such stations were operating on their out procedures. We note that payments the end of repacked stations’ final facilities. up to the total amount of each entity’s construction projects. Similarly, we Deadline for Final Submissions from allocation are available upon processing recognize that because LPTV/translator All Other Entities: September 5, 2022. of documents reflecting reasonably stations do not have transition deadlines All MVPDs, FM stations, and LPTV/ incurred costs. Furthermore, we will not in the Transition Scheduling Plan, and translator stations participating in the be able to make a final allocation up to some may not yet have received notice reimbursement program must submit all the full amount of verified estimates from wireless licensees announcing that remaining invoices and supporting until all or virtually all invoices for they intend to commence operations on documentation using the incurred costs are submitted or at such the LPTV/translator station’s pre- Reimbursement Form, and initiate time as we can reasonably extrapolate auction channel, they may incur interim close-out procedures, no later that the total available funding will be expenses toward the end of the program. than September 5, 2022. This group sufficient to meet the total cost of the Because some stations have not yet includes 1,140 entities. program. completed all necessary construction or In light of the fact that the first Audits, Data Validations, and incurred all costs for all reimbursable deadline for final submissions is Disbursement Validations work, we are setting all deadlines well October 8, 2021—over a year after the in advance. We believe providing this July 13, 2020, statutory end of the The Commission has determined lengthy advance notice will permit all transition period and more than a year ‘‘that audits, data validations, and site entities more than enough time to finish from this announcement of the visits are essential tools in preventing any remaining work, submit their final deadline—we do not anticipate a need waste, fraud, and abuse, and that use of invoices, and complete the to grant extensions of the assigned these measures will maximize the reimbursement close-out process. The submission deadlines. In this regard, we amount of money available for staggered deadlines therefore balance note that expenses are reimbursable reimbursement.’’ The Commission also the burden on stations that have when costs are incurred and therefore specifically contemplated that a third- remaining work to complete with the can be submitted while final party audit firm acting on behalf of the need to have all documentation construction is underway. However, in Commission ‘‘may conduct audits of reflecting incurred costs on file in a the unlikely event that an entity faces entities receiving disbursements from timely manner that permits the Fund circumstances beyond its control, we the Reimbursement Fund, and these Administrator and Commission staff to will consider a limited extension by audits may occur both during and fully process all reimbursement requests means of shifting an entity with the first following the three-year Reimbursement and complete the interim and final close or second deadline assignment to the Period.’’ The Commission also provided out procedures prior to the July 3, 2023, second or third deadline assignment. An notice that any ‘‘[e]ntities receiving deadline set by Congress, at which time entity requesting such a shift will have money from the Reimbursement Fund unobligated funds must be rescinded to to provide evidence that circumstances must make available all relevant Treasury. requiring the extension were outside of documentation upon request from the Deadline for Final Submissions from its control, such as local zoning or a Commission or its contractor.’’ Phases 1–5 Repacked Stations: October force majeure event occurring proximate The Commission also noted that the 8, 2021. All repacked stations assigned to the final submission deadline. Note Media Bureau or a third-party auditor to Phases 1 through 5, and repacked that we will not consider the availability will continue to validate expenses after stations that were granted permission to of reimbursement for specific purchases the reimbursement period ends and, transition prior to the Phase 1 testing a mitigating factor in evaluating ‘‘where appropriate, recover any money period, must submit all remaining extension requests. Furthermore, we that should be returned, consistent with invoices and supporting documentation advise entities that we will not be able the Commission’s obligation to recover using the Reimbursement Form, and to grant extensions that do not provide improper payments.’’ We stress that initiate interim close-out procedures, no the staff with sufficient processing time entities eligible for reimbursement may later than October 8, 2021. All 510 to complete close-out procedures for all be selected for audits, data validations, repacked stations in this group had stations. Thus, an entity’s failure to and site visits before or after a station already satisfied the requirement to complete construction in a timely has taken all steps necessary to vacate their pre-auction channel prior to manner and to make final submissions complete its construction project, or , 2019. As of October 6, by the assigned deadlines could during the interim close-out period, or 2020, all but 27 of such stations were preclude that entity from receiving full thereafter. operating on their final facilities. reimbursement because unobligated We have performed, and intend to Deadline for Final Submissions from amounts in the Fund must be rescinded continue to perform, disbursement Phases 6–10 Repacked Stations: March to Treasury by July 3, 2023. validations in order to confirm that 22, 2022. All repacked stations assigned We stress that entities need not wait entities receiving reimbursement to Phases 6 through 10, and repacked until their assigned final invoice filing funding for third party services have in stations that were granted permission to deadline to enter the interim close out fact disbursed monies received from the transition shortly after the end of Phase process. Indeed, we strongly encourage Fund in a manner consistent with

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:55 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices 69331

representations made to the 1. Songer Farms, Inc., David A. Group, a group acting in concert to Commission in the Reimbursement Songer, both of Veedersburg, Indiana; acquire voting shares of The Peoples Form. Evidence of valid disbursements together with Jahn S. Songer, Beverly D. Bankshares Ltd. and thereby indirectly may consist of copies of cancelled Songer and minor children, all of acquire The Peoples Bank, both in Pratt, checks, financial institution statements Veedersburg, Indiana; Tracy Songer Kansas. In addition, The Linda M. detailing the disbursement, wire or Wright, Columbus, Indiana, Barbara L. Loomis Revocable Trust, Linda M. electronic fund transfer confirmations, Songer, Rotonda West, Florida; Suzanne Loomis, as trustee, The Joseph F. credit card statements, or other relevant N. Kunkle and Aaron H. Kunkle, both of Loomis Revocable Trust, Joseph F. third-party banking information that Indianapolis, Indiana; and Marci S. Loomis and Linda M. Loomis, co- affirmatively demonstrates the proper Roark, Navarre, Florida; to join Stephen trustees, all of Iuka, Kansas, The John payment of funds to third-party A. Songer, Veedersburg, Indiana, and Porter Loomis Revocable Trust, J. Porter vendors. Not every station may be form the Songer Family Control Group, Loomis and Anne Marie Sadowski selected for additional disbursement a group acting in concert to retain 25 Loomis, as co-trustees, all of Pratt, data validations, but all Fund percent or more of the voting shares of Kansas, to become members of the participants are reminded that they Veedersburg Bank Corporation, and Loomis Family Group, a group acting in must retain documents for a period thereby indirectly retain 25 percent or concert to retain voting shares and ending 10 years after the date they more of the voting shares of CentreBank, acquire additional voting shares of receive their final payments from the both of Veedersburg, Indiana. Peoples Bankshares Ltd. and thereby Reimbursement Fund. 2. The Theodore G. Saltzman Jr. Bank indirectly retain voting shares and Federal Communications Commission. Trust, Theodore Saltzman as trustee, acquire additional voting shares of the both of Dakota Dunes, South Dakota; to Thomas Horan, Peoples Bank. Finally, Anne Marie replace the Saltzman Family Control Sadowski Loomis Trust, Anne Marie Chief of Staff, Media Bureau. group and become members of a group [FR Doc. 2020–24191 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] Sadowski Loomis and John Porter acting in concert to retain 25 percent or Loomis, as co-trustees, to become BILLING CODE 6712–01–P more of the voting shares of Pioneer members of the Loomis Family Group Development Company and indirectly and retain voting shares of Peoples retain 25 percent or more of the voting FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Bankshares Ltd. and thereby indirectly shares of Pioneer Bank, both of Sergeant retain voting shares of the Peoples Bank. Bluff, Iowa. In addition, The Sundae M. Change in Bank Control Notices; Haggerty Irrevocable Bank Trust, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Shennen S.C. Saltzman, as trustee, The System, October 28, 2020. Bank Holding Company Shennen S.C. Saltzman Bank Trust, Michele Taylor Fennell, The notificants listed below have Shennen Saltzman, as trustee, all of Deputy Associate Secretary of the Board. applied under the Change in Bank Dakota Dunes, South Dakota; The [FR Doc. 2020–24183 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] Shennen S.C. Saltzman Irrevocable Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and BILLING CODE P § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 Bank Trust, Sundae Haggerty, as trustee, CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank and The Sundae M. Haggerty Bank or bank holding company. The factors Trust, Sundae Haggerty, as trustee, all of that are considered in acting on the South Sioux City, Nebraska; to replace FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION applications are set forth in paragraph 7 the Saltzman Family Control group and of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)). become members of a group acting in Agency Information Collection The public portions of the concert to acquire 25 percent or more of Activities; Proposed Collection; applications listed below, as well as the voting shares of Pioneer Comment Request; Extension other related filings required by the Development Company and indirectly Board, if any, are available for acquire 25 percent or more of the voting AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. immediate inspection at the Federal shares of Pioneer Bank. Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at B. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas ACTION: Notice. the offices of the Board of Governors. City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice This information may also be obtained President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas SUMMARY: In accordance with the on an expedited basis, upon request, by City, Missouri 64198–0001: Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 contacting the appropriate Federal 1. The 2017 Porter Loomis Legacy (PRA), the Federal Trade Commission Reserve Bank and from the Board’s Trust, John Porter Loomis, as trustee (FTC or Commission) is seeking public Freedom of Information Office at and both as members of the Loomis comment on its proposal to extend for https://www.federalreserve.gov/foia/ Family Group, both of Pratt, Kansas, an additional three years the Office of request.htm. Interested persons may The Adele Krey Loomis Revocable Trust, Management and Budget (OMB) express their views in writing on the Anne Marie Sadowski Loomis, both of clearance for information collection standards enumerated in paragraph 7 of Pratt, Kansas, and Adele Krey Loomis, requirements in its Trade Regulation the Act. as co-trustees, Stamford, Connecticut, Rule entitled Power Output Claims for Comments regarding each of these The KLW Stock Trust, Linda M. Loomis, Amplifiers Utilized in Home applications must be received at the both of Iuka, Kansas, and Katherine L. Entertainment Products (Amplifier Rule Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of Work, as co-trustees, La Canada or Rule), (OMB Control Number 3084– the Board of Governors, Ann E. Flintridge, California, The Margaret P. 0105). That clearance expires on January Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Hellmuth Stock Trust, Linda M. Loomis, 31, 2021. both of Iuka, Kansas and Margaret P. Street and Constitution Avenue NW, DATES: Comments must be received on Hellmuth, as co-trustees, Glencoe, Washington, DC 20551–0001, not later or before January 4, 2021. than November 17, 2020. Illinois, and The Victoria K. Thompson A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago Stock Trust, Iuka, Kansas, Linda M. ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file a (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice Loomis and Victoria K. Thompson, as comment online or on paper by President) 230 South LaSalle Street, co-trustees, Santa Cruz, California; to following the instructions in the Chicago, Illinois 60690–1414: become members of the Loomis Family Request for Comments part of the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:41 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES 69332 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section Amplifier Rule Burden Statement burden hours for testing and below. Write ‘‘Amplifier Rule; PRA Estimated annual hours of burden: disclosures. Comment: FTC File No. P072108’’ on 450 hours (300 testing hours; 150 Estimated annual labor cost burden: $26,130. your comment, and file your comment disclosure hours). Generally, electronics engineers online at https://www.regulations.gov by The Rule’s provisions require affected perform the testing of amplifiers and following the instructions on the web- entities to test the power output of receivers. Staff estimates a labor cost of based form. If you prefer to file your amplifiers in accordance with a $15,897 for such testing (300 hours for comment on paper, mail your comment specified FTC protocol. The testing × $52.99 mean hourly wages). to the following address: Federal Trade Commission staff estimates that Staff assumes advertising or promotions Commission, Office of the Secretary, approximately 300 new amplifiers and managers prepare the disclosures 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite receivers come on the market each year. CC–5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC contained in product brochures and High fidelity manufacturers routinely manufacturer specification sheet and 20580, or deliver your comment to the conduct performance tests on these new following address: Federal Trade estimates a labor cost of $10,233 (150 products prior to sale. Because hours for disclosures × $68.22 mean Commission, Office of the Secretary, manufacturers conduct such tests, the Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW, hourly wages). Accordingly, staff Rule imposes no additional costs except estimates the total labor costs associated 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex J), to the extent that the FTC protocol is Washington, DC 20024. with the Rule to be approximately more time-consuming than alternative $26,130 per year ($15,897 for testing + FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jock testing procedures. In this regard, a $10,233 for disclosures).1 K. Chung, Attorney, Division of warm-up period that the Rule requires The Rule imposes no capital or other Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer before measurements are taken may add non-labor costs because its requirements Protection, Federal Trade Commission, approximately one hour to the time are incidental to testing and advertising Mail Code CC–9528, 600 Pennsylvania testing would otherwise entail. Thus, done in the ordinary course of business. Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20580, (202) staff estimates that the Rule imposes 326–2984. approximately 300 hours (1 hour × 300 Request for Comments SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: new products) of added testing burden Pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of annually. the PRA, the FTC invites comments on: Title: Amplifier Rule, 16 CFR part In addition, the Rule requires (1) Whether the proposed collection of 432. disclosures if a manufacturer makes a information is necessary for the proper OMB Control Number: 3084–0105. power output claim for a covered performance of the functions of the Type of Review: Extension of a product in an advertisement, agency, including whether the currently approved collection. specification sheet, or product brochure. information will have practical utility; Estimated Annual Hours of Burden: This requirement does not impose any (2) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate 450 hours (300 testing-related hours; additional costs on manufacturers of the burden of the proposed collection 150 disclosure-related hours). because, absent the Rule, media of information, including the validity of Likely Respondents and Estimated advertisements, as well as manufacturer the methodology and assumptions used; Burden: specification sheets and product (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, (a) Testing—High fidelity brochures, would contain a power and clarity of the information to be manufacturers—300 new products/year specification obtained using an collected; and (4) ways to minimize the × 1 hour each = 300 hours; and alternative to the Rule-required testing burden of maintaining records and (b) Disclosures—High fidelity protocol. The Rule, however, also providing disclosures to consumers. All manufacturers—[(300 new products/ requires disclosure of harmonic comments must be received on or before year × 1 specification sheet) + (300 new distortion, power bandwidth, and January 4, 2021. You can file a comment online or on products/year × 1 brochure)] × 15 impedance ratings in manufacturer paper. For the FTC to consider your minutes per specification sheet or specification sheets and product comment, we must receive it on or brochure = 150 hours. brochures that might not otherwise be included. before January 4, 2021. Write ‘‘Amplifier Frequency of Response: Periodic. Staff assumes that manufacturers Rule; PRA Comment: FTC File No. Estimated Annual Labor Cost: $26,130 produce one specification sheet and one P072108’’ on your comment. Your per year ($15,897 for testing + $10,233 brochure each year for each new comment—including your name and for disclosures). amplifier and receiver. The burden of your state—will be placed on the public Abstract: The Amplifier Rule assists disclosing the harmonic distortion, record of this proceeding, including the consumers by standardizing the bandwidth, and impedance information https://www.regulations.gov website. measurement and disclosure of power on the specification sheets and Due to the public health emergency in output and other performance brochures is limited to the time needed response to the COVID–19 outbreak and characteristics of amplifiers in stereos to draft and review the language the agency’s heightened security and other home entertainment pertaining to the aforementioned screening, postal mail addressed to the equipment. The Rule also specifies the specifications. Staff estimates the time Commission will be subject to delay. We test conditions necessary to make the involved for this task to be a maximum encourage you to submit your comments disclosures that the Rule requires. of fifteen minutes (or 0.25 hours) for online through the https:// As required by section 3506(c)(2)(A) each new specification sheet or www.regulations.gov website. of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), the brochure for a total of 150 hours If you prefer to file your comment on FTC is providing this opportunity for (derived from [(300 new products × 1 paper, write ‘‘Amplifier Rule; PRA public comment before requesting that specification sheet) + (300 new products OMB extend the existing clearance for × 1 brochure)] × 0.25 hours for each 1 The wage rates for electronics engineers and advertising and promotions managers are based on the information collection requirements specification sheet or brochure). The recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics contained in the Commission’s total annual burden imposed by the Occupational Employment Statistics Survey at Amplifier Rule. Rule, therefore, is approximately 450 https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ocwage.htm.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:55 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices 69333

Comment: FTC File No. P072108’’ on treatment under FTC Rule 4.9(c), and Clifton Road NE, MS–D74, Atlanta, your comment and on the envelope, and the General Counsel grants that request. Georgia 30329. mail your comment to the following The FTC Act and other laws that the Instructions: All submissions received address: Federal Trade Commission, Commission administers permit the must include the agency name and Office of the Secretary, 600 collection of public comments to Docket Number. CDC will post, without Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC– consider and use in this proceeding, as change, all relevant comments to 5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20580; appropriate. The Commission will Regulations.gov. or deliver your comment to the consider all timely and responsive Please note: Submit all comments following address: Federal Trade public comments that it receives on or through the Federal eRulemaking portal Commission, Office of the Secretary, before January 4, 2021. For information (regulations.gov) or by U.S. mail to the Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW, on the Commission’s privacy policy, address listed above. 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex J), including routine uses permitted by the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To Washington, DC 20024. If possible, Privacy Act, see https://www.ftc.gov/ request more information on the submit your paper comment to the site-information/privacy-policy. Commission by courier or overnight proposed project or to obtain a copy of service. Josephine Liu, the information collection plan and Because your comment will become Assistant General Counsel for Legal Counsel. instruments, contact Jeffrey M. Zirger, publicly available at https:// [FR Doc. 2020–24094 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] Information Collection Review Office, www.regulations.gov, you are solely BILLING CODE 6750–01–P Centers for Disease Control and responsible for making sure that your Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS– comment does not include any sensitive D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: or confidential information. In DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 404–639–7118; Email: [email protected]. particular, your comment should not HUMAN SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the include any sensitive personal Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) information, such as your or anyone Centers for Disease Control and (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), Federal agencies else’s Social Security number; date of Prevention must obtain approval from the Office of birth; driver’s license number or other [60-Day–21–0696; Docket No. CDC–2020– Management and Budget (OMB) for each state identification number, or foreign 0111] collection of information they conduct country equivalent; passport number; or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also financial account number; or credit or Proposed Data Collection Submitted requires Federal agencies to provide a debit card number. You are also solely for Public Comment and 60-day notice in the Federal Register responsible for making sure that your Recommendations concerning each proposed collection of comment does not include any sensitive information, including each new AGENCY: health information, such as medical Centers for Disease Control and proposed collection, each proposed records or other individually Prevention (CDC), Department of Health extension of existing collection of identifiable health information. In and Human Services (HHS). information, and each reinstatement of addition, your comment should not ACTION: Notice with comment period. previously approved information include any ‘‘trade secret or any SUMMARY: The Centers for Disease collection before submitting the commercial or financial information Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of collection to the OMB for approval. To which .... is privileged or its continuing effort to reduce public comply with this requirement, we are confidential’’ —as provided by Section burden and maximize the utility of publishing this notice of a proposed 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and data collection as described below. FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2) government information, invites the general public and other Federal The OMB is particularly interested in —including in particular competitively comments that will help: sensitive information such as costs, agencies the opportunity to comment on a proposed and/or continuing 1. Evaluate whether the proposed sales statistics, inventories, formulas, collection of information is necessary patterns, devices, manufacturing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. for the proper performance of the processes, or customer names. functions of the agency, including Comments containing material for This notice invites comment on a whether the information will have which confidential treatment is proposed information collection project practical utility; requested must be filed in paper form, titled National HIV Prevention Program must be clearly labeled ‘‘Confidential,’’ Monitoring and Evaluation (NHM&E). 2. Evaluate the accuracy of the and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). NHM&E collects standardized HIV agency’s estimate of the burden of the In particular, the written request for prevention program evaluation data proposed collection of information, confidential treatment that accompanies from health departments and including the validity of the the comment must include the factual community-based organizations (CBOs) methodology and assumptions used; and legal basis for the request, and must who receive federal funds for HIV 3. Enhance the quality, utility, and identify the specific portions of the prevention activities. clarity of the information to be comment to be withheld from the public DATES: CDC must receive written collected; and record. See FTC Rule 4.9(c). Your comments on or before January 4, 2021. 4. Minimize the burden of the comment will be kept confidential only ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, collection of information on those who if the General Counsel grants your identified by Docket No. CDC–2020– are to respond, including through the request in accordance with the law and 0111 by any of the following methods: use of appropriate automated, the public interest. Once your comment • Federal eRulemaking Portal: electronic, mechanical, or other has been posted publicly at Regulations.gov. Follow the instructions technological collection techniques or www.regulations.gov, we cannot redact for submitting comments. other forms of information technology, or remove your comment unless you • Mail: Jeffrey M. Zirger, Information e.g., permitting electronic submissions submit a confidentiality request that Collection Review Office, Centers for of responses. meets the requirements for such Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 5. Assess information collection costs.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:55 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES 69334 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices

Proposed Project This revision includes changes to the are providing services, what resources National HIV Prevention Program data variables to adjust to the different are allocated to those services, to whom Monitoring and Evaluation (NHM&E) monitoring and evaluation needs of new services are being provided, and how (OMB Control No. 0920–0696, Exp. 10/ funding announcements without a these efforts have contributed to a 31/2021)—Revision—National Center substantial change in burden. reduction in HIV transmission; (2) for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and The evaluation and reporting process improve ease of reporting to better meet TB Prevention (NCHHSTP), Centers for is necessary to ensure that CDC receives these data needs; and (3) be accountable Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). standardized, accurate, thorough to stakeholders by informing them of evaluation data from both health HIV prevention activities and use of Background and Brief Description department and CBO grantees. For these funds in HIV prevention nationwide. CDC seeks to request a three-year reasons, CDC developed standardized CDC HIV prevention program grantees Office of Management and Budget NHM&E variables through extensive will collect, enter or upload, and report (OMB) approval to revise the previously consultation with representatives from agency-identifying information, budget approved project and continue the health departments, CBOs, and national data, intervention information, and collection of standardized HIV partners (e.g., The National Alliance of client demographics and behavioral risk prevention program evaluation data State and Territorial AIDS Directors and characteristics with an estimate of from health departments and Urban Coalition of HIV/AIDS 204,498 burden hours, representing no community-based organizations (CBOs) Prevention Services). change from the previously approved, who receive federal funds for HIV CDC requires CBOs and health 204,498 burden hours. Data collection prevention activities. Health department departments who receive federal funds will include searching existing data grantees have the options to key-enter or for HIV prevention to report sources, gathering and maintaining data, upload data to a CDC-provided web- nonidentifying, client-level and document compilation, review of data, based software application aggregate level, standardized evaluation and data entry or upload into the web- (EvaluationWeb®). CBO grantees may data to: (1) Accurately determine the based system. There are no additional only key-enter data to the CDC-provided extent to which HIV prevention efforts costs to respondents other than their web-based software application. are carried out, what types of agencies time.

ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED BURDEN HOURS

Average Number of Number of burden per Total burden Type of respondents Form name respondents responses per response (in hours) respondent (in hours)

Health Departments ...... Health Department Reporting ...... 66 2 1,426.5 188,298 Community-based Organizations ...... Community-based Organization Re- 150 2 54 16,200 porting.

Total ...... 204,498

Jeffrey M. Zirger, Heart Association, Dallas, Texas. The pressure technology) to increase the Lead, Information Collection Review Office, proposal submitted was not solicited number of adult patients with Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of Science, either formally or informally by any controlled hypertension and reduce the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. federal government official. The award potential risk of COVID-related health [FR Doc. 2020–24231 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] is comprised of two cooperative outcomes. The two cooperative BILLING CODE 4163–18–P agreements administered by OMH in agreements will support a single collaboration with HRSA. national project that is expected to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul identify promising approaches/best DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Rodriguez at [email protected] or practices that combine new blood HUMAN SERVICES by telephone at 240–453–8208. pressure measurement technology, lifestyle/behavioral modifications and Awards Unsolicited Proposal; Catalog SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: locally targeted media campaigns to of Federal Domestic Assistance Recipient: American Heart address uncontrolled, including (CFDA) Number: 93.137 and 93.129 Association, Dallas, Texas. Purpose of the Award: The Office of undiagnosed, high blood pressure in AGENCY: Office of Minority Health Minority Health (OMH) will award a racial and ethnic minority, American (OMH) and Office of the Assistant cooperative agreement to AHA to Indian/Alaska Native and other Secretary for Health, Department of improve COVID-related health outcomes vulnerable populations, given the Health and Human Services. for highly impacted racial and ethnic association of hypertension with worse COVID–19 health outcomes. ACTION: Notice of award of an minorities by addressing hypertension unsolicited request for funding to be as a key risk factor. In addition, OMH The project is expected to support awarded as a single project through two will award a cooperative agreement to training and technical assistance to cooperative agreement awards to the AHA, on behalf of the Health Resources support HRSA-funded health centers’ American Heart Association (AHA), and Services Administration (HRSA), to implementation of evidence-based Dallas, Texas. provide technical assistance to HRSA- interventions that combine remote funded health centers to increase blood pressure monitoring technology to SUMMARY: OMH announces the award of provider and clinician engagement in reduce disparities in uncontrolled and a single-source award in response to an implementing evidence-based practices undiagnosed high blood pressure among unsolicited proposal from the American (e.g., advanced self-measured blood medically underserved communities

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:55 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices 69335

and populations, with a focus on racial initiative will build partnerships and access to public health education, and ethnic minorities. This award will develop relationships within a national outreach, engagement and treatment provide training and technical scope to support work with HRSA- services tailored to improve COVID–19 assistance to approximately 350 HRSA- funded health centers to: outcomes by addressing hypertension as funded health centers serving • Improve health outcomes for racial a key risk factor for racial and ethnic approximately one million patients with and ethnic minority, American Indian/ minority and American Indian/Alaska the greatest opportunities to improve Alaska Native and other vulnerable Native populations. Delays in the award blood pressure control. Through a populations with hypertension, could contribute to higher rates of separate funding opportunity, HRSA including individuals with undiagnosed ‘‘excess deaths’’ as defined by the CDC anticipates providing funding to these hypertension and pregnant and among the populations of focus for the 350 health centers to support their postpartum women; HTN Initiative (https://www.cdc.gov/ participation in the National • Increase the use of advanced self- nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_ Hypertension Control Initiative (HTN measured blood pressure technology; deaths.htm). • Increase awareness of health Initiative). Legislative Authority: Funding for OMH’s Amount of Awards: Approximately programs and community services for cooperative agreement award is authorized $32M ($17.5M OMH, $14.5M HRSA) for the target population; and • under 42 U.S.C. 300u–6, (Section 1707 of the a project period of up to 3 years. The Increase patient and provider Public Health Service Act). Funding for possible project total, including education and training. HRSA’s cooperative agreement award, which approximately $60M from HRSA to OMH performed an objective review also will be administered by OMH under an health centers, is approximately $92M of the unsolicited proposal from the interagency agreement, is authorized under ($17.5M OMH and $74.5M HRSA) and American Heart Association with Section 330(l) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254b(l)). is subject to availability of funding and subject matter assistance from HRSA’s satisfactory performance. Bureau of Primary Health Care and Dated: October 27, 2020. Project Period: November 17, 2020– external and internal proposal Felicia Collins, November 16, 2023. assessments. Based on this review, RADM, Deputy Assistant Secretary for This three-year HTN Initiative aligns OMH determined that the proposal has Minority Health. with: (1) HHS’ Strategic Plan goal to merit. OMH funding will support the [FR Doc. 2020–24150 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] protect the health of Americans where Community Outreach and Integration, BILLING CODE P they live, learn, work, and play (https:// Patient and Public Education, and www.hhs.gov/about/strategic-plan/ Evaluation components of the project. overview/index.html#overview); (2) the HRSA funding will support the DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HHS Action Plan to Reduce Racial and Healthcare Organizations and HUMAN SERVICES Ethnic Health Disparities goal of Healthcare Provider Training, and the advancing the health, safety and well- Patient and Public Education National Institutes of Health being of the American People (https:// components of the project. www.minorityhealth.hhs.gov/npa/files/ As the nation’s largest voluntary Request for Information (RFI): Inviting Plans/HHS/HHS_Plan_complete.pdf); health organization and author of the Comments and Suggestions on the (3) the U.S. Surgeon General’s Call to national guidelines for cardiovascular NIH-Wide Strategic Plan for COVID–19 Action on Hypertension Control risk factor prevention, AHA is uniquely Research (https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2020/ positioned to implement this national AGENCY: National Institutes of Health, 10/07/surgeon-general-releases-call-to- initiative to address the acute need to HHS. action-on-hypertension-control.html); improve COVID-related health outcomes ACTION: Notice. (4) OMH’s overarching goal of for highly impacted racial and ethnic supporting the sustainability and minorities by addressing hypertension SUMMARY: This Request for Information dissemination of health equity as a key risk factor. Reducing this (RFI) is intended to gather broad public promoting policies, programs and preventable and most prominent threat input on the National Institutes of practices and OMH’s identification of to our nation’s health through clinical Health (NIH)-Wide Strategic Plan for hypertension as a clinical focus area guideline and evidence-based COVID–19 Research. Because of the (https://www.minorityhealth.hhs.gov/ intervention is a top organizational urgency and evolving nature of the omh/browse.aspx?lvl=1&lvlid=1); and priority for AHA, particularly among pandemic, NIH intends this plan to be (5) HRSA’s strategic goal to achieve underserved communities of color that a living document, which will be health equity and enhance population experience higher prevalence of this continually updated to reflect new health (https://www.hrsa.gov/about/ critical risk factor for the leading causes challenges presented by COVID–19. To strategic-plan/index.html) and HRSA’s of death and chronic diseases, including ensure that it remains in step with annual collection of data on health COVID–19. public needs, this RFI invites center patients with controlled This award is being made non- stakeholders throughout the scientific hypertension (Uniform Data System competitively because there is no research, advocacy, and clinical practice (UDS) Health Outcomes and Disparities current, pending, or planned funding communities, as well as the general Table, https://bphc.hrsa.gov/sites/ opportunity announcement under public to comment on the NIH-Wide default/files/bphc/datareporting/pdf/ which this proposal could compete. Strategic Plan for COVID–19 Research. 2020UDSTables.pdf). As the Administration continues its Organizations are strongly encouraged The primary purpose of the HTN response to the COVID–19 pandemic, to submit a single response that reflects Initiative is to establish a nationwide addressing the related health disparities the views of their organization and their approach for improving health among racial and ethnic minority and membership as a whole. outcomes related to COVID–19 by American Indian/Alaska Native DATES: This RFI is open for public addressing hypertension as a key risk populations is an urgent challenge for comment for a period of five weeks. factor for racial and ethnic minorities, HHS. Not awarding the HTN Initiative Comments must be received by 11:59:59 American Indians/Alaska Natives and as a single source award will delay p.m. (ET) on December 7, 2020 to ensure other vulnerable populations. This HHS’ capacity to expand health center consideration.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:55 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES 69336 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices

ADDRESSES: All comments must be assays • Significant research gaps or barriers submitted electronically on the • Priority 3: Advance the Treatment of not identified in the existing framework submission website, available at: COVID–19 above; Æ Objective 3.1: Identify and develop https://rfi.grants.nih.gov/ • Resources required or lacking or new or repurposed treatments for ?s=5f91a3efdb70000018003362. existing leverageable resources (e.g., SARS–CoV–2 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Æ Objective 3.2: Evaluate new, existing partnerships, collaborations, or Please direct all inquiries to: Beth repurposed, or existing treatments infrastructure) that could advance the Walsh, [email protected], and treatment strategies for COVID– strategic priorities; 301–496–4000. 19 • Emerging scientific advances or SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Urgent Æ Objective 3.3: Investigate strategies techniques in basic, diagnostic, public health measures are needed to for access to and implementation of therapeutic, or vaccine research that control the spread of the novel COVID–19 treatments may accelerate the research priorities coronavirus (SARS–CoV–2) and the • Priority 4: Improve Prevention of detailed in the framework above; and disease it causes, coronavirus disease SARS–CoV–2 Infection • 2019, or COVID–19. Scientific research Æ Objective 4.1: Develop novel Additional ideas for bold, to improve basic understanding of vaccines for the prevention of innovative research initiatives, SARS–CoV–2 and COVID–19, and to COVID–19 processes, or data-driven approaches develop the necessary tools and Æ Objective 4.2: Develop and study that could advance the response to approaches to better prevent, diagnose, other methods to prevent SARS– COVID–19. and treat this disease is of paramount CoV–2 transmission NIH encourages organizations (e.g., Æ importance. The NIH-Wide Strategic Objective 4.3: Develop effective patient advocacy groups, professional Plan for COVID–19 Research (available implementation models for organizations) to submit a single at: https://www.nih.gov/research- preventive measures response reflective of the views of the training/medical-research-initiatives/ • Priority 5: Prevent and Redress Poor organization or membership as a whole. nih-wide-strategic-plan-covid-19- COVID–19 Outcomes in Health research), released on July 13, 2020, Disparity and Vulnerable Responses to this RFI are voluntary provides a framework for achieving this Populations and may be submitted anonymously. goal. It describes how NIH is rapidly Æ Objective 5.1: Understand and Please do not include any personally mobilizing diverse stakeholders, address COVID–19 as it relates to identifiable information or any including the biomedical research health disparities and COVID–19— information that you do not wish to community, industry, and philanthropic vulnerable populations in the make public. Proprietary, classified, organizations, through new programs United States confidential, or sensitive information and existing resources, to lead a swift, Æ Objective 5.2: Understand and should not be included in your coordinated research response to this address COVID–19 maternal health response. The Government will use the global pandemic. and pregnancy outcomes information submitted in response to Æ The plan outlines how NIH is Objective 5.3: Understand and this RFI at its discretion. The implementing five Priorities, guided by address age-specific factors in Government reserves the right to use three Crosscutting Strategies: COVID–19 Æ any submitted information on public Objective 5.4: Address global health websites, in reports, in summaries of the Priorities research needs from COVID–19 state of the science, in any possible • Priority 1: Improve Fundamental Crosscutting Strategies Knowledge of SARS–CoV–2 and resultant solicitation(s), grant(s), or COVID–19 • Partnering to promote collaborative cooperative agreement(s), or in the Æ Objective 1.1: Advance science development of future funding fundamental research for SARS– Æ Leverage existing NIH-funded opportunity announcements. This RFI is CoV–2 and COVID–19 global research networks and for informational and planning purposes Æ Objective 1.2: Support research to private sector, public, and non- only and is not a solicitation for develop preclinical models of profit relationships applications or an obligation on the part SARS–CoV–2 infection and Æ Coordinate with Federal partners of the Government to provide support COVID–19 Æ Establish new public-private for any ideas identified in response to Æ Objective 1.3: Advance the partnerships it. Please note that the Government will understanding of SARS–CoV–2 • Supporting the research workforce not pay for the preparation of any transmission and COVID–19 and infrastructure information submitted or for use of that Æ dynamics at the population level Conduct research to elucidate how information. Æ Objective 1.4: Understand COVID– COVID–19 impacts the scientific We look forward to your input and 19 disease progression, recovery, workforce Æ hope that you will share this RFI and psychosocial and behavioral Provide research resources Æ opportunity with your colleagues. health consequences Leverage intramural infrastructure • Priority 2: Advance Detection and to support extramural researchers Dated: October 27, 2020. Æ Diagnosis of COVID–19 Conduct virtual peer review Lawrence A. Tabak, Æ Objective 2.1: Support research to processes • Investing in data science Principal Deputy Director, National Institutes develop and validate new Æ of Health. diagnostic technologies Create new data science resources Æ and analytical tools [FR Doc. 2020–24202 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] Objective 2.2: Retool existing Æ diagnostics for detection of SARS- Develop shared metrics and BILLING CODE 4140–01–P CoV–2 terminologies Æ Objective 2.3: Support research to NIH seeks comments on any or all of, develop and validate serological but not limited to, the following topics:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:55 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices 69337

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND non-toll-free number 240–476–3619 or initiatives to recruit pre-college through HUMAN SERVICES Email your request, including your pre-doctoral educational level address to: [email protected]. individuals into the National Institutes National Institutes of Health Formal requests for additional plans and of Health Intramural Research Program instruments must be requested in (NIH–IRP) to facilitate their Proposed Collection; 60-Day Comment writing. development into future biomedical Request; NIH Office of Intramural scientists. The proposed information Training & Education—Application, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section collection is necessary in order to Registration, and Alumni Systems 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork determine the eligibility and quality of Office of the Director Reduction Act of 1995 requires: Written comments and/or suggestions from the potential awardees for traineeships in AGENCY: National Institutes of Health public and affected agencies are invited these programs. The applications for (NIH), HHS. to address one or more of the following admission consideration solicit ACTION: Notice. points: (1) Whether the proposed information including: Personal collection of information is necessary information, ability to meet eligibility SUMMARY: In compliance with the for the proper performance of the criteria, contact information, university- requirement of the Paperwork function of the agency, including assigned student identification number, Reduction Act of 1995 to provide whether the information will have training program selection, scientific opportunity for public comment on practical utility; (2) The accuracy of the discipline interests, educational history, proposed data collection projects, the agency’s estimate of the burden of the standardized examination scores, National Institutes of Health (NIH) proposed collection of information, reference information, resume Office of Intramural Training & including the validity of the components, employment history, Education (OITE) will publish periodic methodology and assumptions used; (3) employment interests, dissertation summaries of proposed projects to be Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and research details, letters of submitted to the Office of Management clarity of the information to be recommendation, financial aid history, and Budget (OMB) for review and collected; and (4) Ways to minimize the sensitive data, and travel information, as approval. burden of the collection of information well as feedback questions about DATES: Comments regarding this on those who are to respond, including interviews and application submission information collection are best assured the use of appropriate automated, experiences. Sensitive data collected on of having their full effect if received electronic, mechanical, or other the applicants: Race, gender, ethnicity, within 60 days of the date of this technological collection techniques or relatives at NIH, and recruitment publication. other forms of information technology. method, are made available only to Proposed Collection Title: NIH Office OITE staff members or in aggregate form FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To of Intramural Training & Education— to select NIH offices and are not used by obtain a copy of the data collection Application, Registration, and Alumni the admission committees for admission plans and instruments, submit Systems, 0925–0299, exp., date, 06/30/ consideration. In addition, information comments in writing, or request more 2022, REVISION, Office of Intramural to monitor trainee placement after information on the proposed project, Training & Education (OITE), Office of departure from NIH is periodically contact: Dr. Patricia Wagner, Program Intramural Research (OIR), Office of the Analyst, Office of Intramural Training & Director (OD), National Institutes of collected. Education (OITE), Office of Intramural Health (NIH). OMB approval is requested for 3 Research (OIR), Office of the Director Need and Use of Information years. There are no costs to respondents (OD), National Institutes of Health Collection: The Office of Intramural other than their time. The total (NIH); 2 Center Drive: Building 2/Room Training & Education (OITE) estimated annualized burden hours are 2E06; Bethesda, Maryland 20892 or call administers a variety of programs and 13,858.

ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED BURDEN HOURS

Number of Average time/ Type of respondent Number of responses per response Total annual respondents respondent (hours) burden hours

High School Scientific Training & Enrichment 25 1 10/60...... 4 Program (HiSTEP)—Orientation. HiSTEP2—Orientation ...... 25 1 10/60 ...... 4 HiSTEP & HiSTEP2—Alumni Tracking ...... 125 2 30/60 ...... 125 Summer Internship Program (SIP)—Applica- 8,000 1 45/60...... 6,000 tion. SIP—Recommendation Letters ...... 16,000 1 10/60 ...... 2,667 Amgen Scholars at NIH—Supplemental Ap- 535 1 10/60...... 89 plication. Amgen Scholars at NIH—Feedback ...... 20 1 15/60 ...... 5 Amgen Scholars at NIH—Alumni Tracking .... 127 1 30/60 ...... 64 Community College Summer Enrichment Pro- 158 1 10/60...... 26 gram (CCSEP)—Alumni Tracking. College Summer Opportunities in Advanced 158 1 10/60...... 26 Research (C–SOAR)—Alumni Tracking. Graduate Summer Opportunities in Advanced 114 1 30/60...... 57 Research (G–SOAR)—Alumni Tracking. Graduate Data Science Summer Program 30 1 30/60...... 15 (GDSSP)—Alumni Tracking. Native American Visit Week—Application ...... 15 1 20/60 ...... 5

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:55 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES 69338 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices

ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED BURDEN HOURS—Continued

Number of Average time/ Type of respondent Number of responses per response Total annual respondents respondent (hours) burden hours

Native American Visit Week—Recommenda- 15 1 10/60...... 3 tion Letters. Native American Visit Week—Feedback ...... 15 1 15/60 ...... 4 Undergraduate Scholarship Program 125 1 60/60...... 125 (UGSP)—Application. UGSP—Recommendation Letters for Appli- 375 1 10/60...... 63 cants. UGSP—Exceptional Financial Need (EFN)— 125 1 3/60...... 6 Completed by Applicant. UGSP—EFN—Completed by University Staff 125 1 15/60 ...... 31 UGSP—Scholar Contract ...... 25 1 10/60 ...... 4 UGSP—Evaluation of Scholar PayBack Pe- 30 1 15/60...... 8 riod. UGSP—Renewal Application ...... 15 1 45/60 ...... 11 UGSP—Recommendation Letters for Renew- 15 1 10/60...... 3 als. UGSP—Deferment Form—Completed by 25 1 3/60...... 1 UGSP Scholar. UGSP—Deferment Form—Completed by Uni- 25 1 5/60...... 2 versity Staff. Postbaccalaureate Training Program (PBT)— 2,250 1 45/60...... 1,688 Application. PBT—Recommendation Letters ...... 6,750 1 10/60 ...... 1,125 NIH Academy—Fellow & Certificate Pro- 300 1 15/60...... 75 grams Application. NIH Academy—Enrichment Program Applica- 300 1 15/60...... 75 tion. Graduate Partnerships Program (GPP)—Ap- 325 1 60/60...... 325 plication. GPP—Recommendation Letters for Applica- 975 1 10/60...... 163 tion. GPP—Interview Experience Survey ...... 30 1 10/60 ...... 5 GPP—Registration ...... 175 1 15/60 ...... 44 GPP—Awards Certificate ...... 75 1 30/60 ...... 38 MyOITE—User Accounts ...... 6,000 1 3/60 ...... 300 MyOITE—NIH Alumni ...... 500 1 15/60 ...... 125 OITE Careers Blog—Success Stories ...... 7 1 45/60 ...... 5 Academic Internship Program (AIP)—Applica- 500 1 45/60...... 375 tion. AIP—Recommendation Letters ...... 1,000 1 10/60 ...... 167

Totals ...... 45,434 45,559 ...... 13,858

Dated: October 24, 2020. The meeting will be closed to the Contact Person: Robert Finkelstein, Ph.D., Lawrence A. Tabak, public in accordance with the Director of Extramural Research, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Principal Deputy Director, National Institutes provisions set forth in sections of Health. 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., Stroke, NIH, 6001 Executive Blvd., Suite 3309, MSC 9531, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) [FR Doc. 2020–24201 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] as amended. The grant applications and 496–9248, [email protected]. BILLING CODE 4140–01–P the discussions could disclose Information is also available on the confidential trade secrets or commercial Institute’s/Center’s home page: property such as patentable material, www.ninds.nih.gov, where an agenda and DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND and personal information concerning any additional information for the meeting HUMAN SERVICES individuals associated with the grant will be posted when available. applications, the disclosure of which (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance National Institutes of Health would constitute a clearly unwarranted Program Nos. 93.853, Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, National Institute of Neurological invasion of personal privacy. Biological Basis Research in the Disorders and Stroke; Notice of Closed Name of Committee: National Advisory Neurosciences, National Institutes of Health, Meeting Neurological Disorders and Stroke Council. HHS) Date: , 2020. Dated: October 27, 2020. Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Time: 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. Federal Advisory Committee Act, as Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Tyeshia M. Roberson, amended, notice is hereby given of a applications. Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory meeting of the National Advisory Place: National Institutes of Health, NSC Committee Policy. Neurological Disorders and Stroke Building, 6001 Executive Boulevard, [FR Doc. 2020–24176 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] Council. Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting). BILLING CODE 4140–01–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:55 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices 69339

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FR 29908); September 30, 1997 (62 FR Dynacare, 6628 50th Street NW, HUMAN SERVICES 51118); April 13, 2004 (69 FR 19644); Edmonton, AB Canada T6B 2N7, 780– , 2008 (73 FR 71858); 784–1190, (Formerly: Gamma- Substance Abuse and Mental Health , 2008 (73 FR 75122); April Dynacare Medical Laboratories) Services Administration 30, 2010 (75 FR 22809); and on January HHS-Certified Laboratories Approved 23, 2017 (82 FR 7920). Current List of HHS-Certified The Mandatory Guidelines using Oral kto Conduct Urine Drug Testing Laboratories and Instrumented Initial Fluid were first published in the In accordance with the Mandatory Testing Facilities Which Meet Minimum Federal Register on October 25, 2019 Guidelines using Urine dated January Standards To Engage in Urine and Oral (84 FR 57554) with an effective date of 23, 2017 (82 FR 7920), the following Fluid Drug Testing for Federal , 2020. HHS-certified laboratories meet the Agencies The Mandatory Guidelines were minimum standards to conduct drug and specimen validity tests on urine AGENCY: Substance Abuse and Mental initially developed in accordance with Health Services Administration, HHS. Executive Order 12564 and section 503 specimens: of Public Law 100–71 and allowed urine Alere Toxicology Services, 1111 Newton ACTION: Notice. drug testing only. The Mandatory St., Gretna, LA 70053, 504–361–8989/ SUMMARY: The Department of Health and Guidelines using Urine have since been 800–433–3823, (Formerly: Kroll Human Services (HHS) notifies federal revised, and new Mandatory Guidelines Laboratory Specialists, Inc., agencies of the laboratories and allowing for oral fluid drug testing have Laboratory Specialists, Inc.) Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities been published. The Mandatory Alere Toxicology Services, 450 (IITFs) currently certified to meet the Guidelines require strict standards that Southlake Blvd., Richmond, VA standards of the Mandatory Guidelines laboratories and IITFs must meet in 23236, 804–378–9130, (Formerly: for Federal Workplace Drug Testing order to conduct drug and specimen Kroll Laboratory Specialists, Inc., Programs using Urine or Oral Fluid validity tests on specimens for federal Scientific Testing Laboratories, Inc.; (Mandatory Guidelines). agencies. HHS does not allow IITFs to Kroll Scientific Testing Laboratories, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: conduct oral fluid testing. Inc.) Anastasia Donovan, Division of To become certified, an applicant Clinical Reference Laboratory, Inc., 8433 Workplace Programs, SAMHSA/CSAP, laboratory or IITF must undergo three Quivira Road, Lenexa, KS 66215– 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 16N06B, rounds of performance testing plus an 2802, 800–445–6917, Cordant Health Rockville, Maryland 20857; 240–276– on-site inspection. To maintain that Solutions, 2617 East L Street, Tacoma, 2600 (voice); Anastasia.Donovan@ certification, a laboratory or IITF must WA 98421, 800–442–0438, (Formerly: samhsa.hhs.gov (email). participate in a quarterly performance STERLING Reference Laboratories) testing program plus undergo periodic, Desert Tox, LLC, 5425 E Bell Rd, Suite SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A notice on-site inspections. 125, Scottsdale, AZ 85254, 602–457– listing all currently HHS-certified Laboratories and IITFs in the 5411/623–748–5045 laboratories and IITFs is published in applicant stage of certification are not to DrugScan, Inc., 200 Precision Road, the Federal Register during the first be considered as meeting the minimum Suite 200, Horsham, PA 19044, 800– week of each month. If any laboratory or requirements described in the HHS 235–4890, Dynacare*, 245 Pall Mall IITF certification is suspended or Mandatory Guidelines using Urine and/ Street, London, ONT, Canada N6A revoked, the laboratory or IITF will be or Oral Fluid. An HHS-certified 1P4, 519–679–1630, (Formerly: omitted from subsequent lists until such laboratory or IITF must have its letter of Gamma-Dynacare Medical time as it is restored to full certification certification from HHS/SAMHSA Laboratories) under the Mandatory Guidelines. (formerly: HHS/NIDA), which attests ElSohly Laboratories, Inc., 5 Industrial If any laboratory or IITF has that the test facility has met minimum Park Drive, Oxford, MS 38655, 662– withdrawn from the HHS National standards. HHS does not allow IITFs to 236–2609 Laboratory Certification Program (NLCP) conduct oral fluid testing. Laboratory Corporation of America during the past month, it will be listed Holdings, 7207 N Gessner Road, at the end and will be omitted from the HHS-Certified Laboratories Approved Houston, TX 77040, 713–856–8288/ monthly listing thereafter. To Conduct Oral Fluid Drug Testing: 800–800–2387 This notice is also available on the In accordance with the Mandatory Laboratory Corporation of America internet at https://www.samhsa.gov/ Guidelines using Oral Fluid dated Holdings, 69 First Ave., Raritan, NJ workplace/resources/drug-testing/ October 25, 2019 (84 FR 57554), the 08869, 908–526–2400/800–437–4986, certified-lab-list. following HHS-certified laboratories (Formerly: Roche Biomedical The Department of Health and Human meet the minimum standards to conduct Laboratories, Inc.) Services (HHS) notifies federal agencies drug and specimen validity tests on oral Laboratory Corporation of America of the laboratories and Instrumented fluid specimens: Holdings, 1904 TW Alexander Drive, Initial Testing Facilities (IITFs) At this time, there are no laboratories Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, currently certified to meet the standards certified to conduct drug and specimen 919–572–6900/800–833–3984, of the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal validity tests on oral fluid specimens. (Formerly: LabCorp Occupational Workplace Drug Testing Programs Testing Services, Inc., CompuChem (Mandatory Guidelines) using Urine and HHS-Certified Instrumented Initial Laboratories, Inc.; CompuChem of the laboratories currently certified to Testing Facilities Approved To Conduct Laboratories, Inc., A Subsidiary of meet the standards of the Mandatory Urine Drug Testing Roche Biomedical Laboratory; Roche Guidelines using Oral Fluid. In accordance with the Mandatory CompuChem Laboratories, Inc., A The Mandatory Guidelines using Guidelines using Urine dated January Member of the Roche Group) Urine were first published in the 23, 2017 (82 FR 7920), the following Laboratory Corporation of America Federal Register on , 1988 (53 HHS-certified IITFs meet the minimum Holdings, 1120 Main Street, FR 11970), and subsequently revised in standards to conduct drug and specimen Southaven, MS 38671, 866–827–8042/ the Federal Register on June 9, 1994 (59 validity tests on urine specimens: 800–233–6339, (Formerly: LabCorp

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:55 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES 69340 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices

Occupational Testing Services, Inc.; testing and laboratory inspection for All Urban Consumers of 1.3 percent MedExpress/National Laboratory processes. Other Canadian laboratories for the 12-month period that ended in Center) wishing to be considered for the NLCP August 2020. This is based on LabOne, Inc. d/b/a Quest Diagnostics, may apply directly to the NLCP information released by the Bureau of 10101 Renner Blvd., Lenexa, KS contractor just as U.S. laboratories do. Labor Statistics at the U.S. Department 66219, 913–888–3927/800–873–8845, Upon finding a Canadian laboratory to of Labor on September 11, 2020. (Formerly: Quest Diagnostics be qualified, HHS will recommend that Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. Incorporated; LabOne, Inc.; Center for DOT certify the laboratory (Federal 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance Laboratory Services, a Division of Register, , 1996) as meeting the (Presidentially Declared Disasters). LabOne, Inc.) minimum standards of the Mandatory Legacy Laboratory Services Toxicology, Guidelines published in the Federal Pete Gaynor, 1225 NE 2nd Ave., Portland, OR Register on January 23, 2017 (82 FR Administrator, Federal Emergency 97232, 503–413–5295/800–950–5295 7920). After receiving DOT certification, Management Agency. MedTox Laboratories, Inc., 402 W. the laboratory will be included in the [FR Doc. 2020–24239 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] County Road D, St. Paul, MN 55112, monthly list of HHS-certified BILLING CODE 9111–23–P 651–636–7466/800–832–3244 laboratories and participate in the NLCP Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical certification maintenance program. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND Center, Forensic Toxicology Anastasia Marie Donovan, SECURITY Laboratory, 1 Veterans Drive, Policy Analyst. Minneapolis, MN 55417, 612–725– [FR Doc. 2020–24196 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] Federal Emergency Management 2088, Testing for Veterans Affairs Agency (VA) Employees Only BILLING CODE 4160–20–P Pacific Toxicology Laboratories, 9348 [Docket ID FEMA–2020–0001] DeSoto Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND Notice of Maximum Amount of 800–328–6942, (Formerly: Centinela SECURITY Assistance Under the Individuals and Hospital Airport Toxicology Households Program Laboratory) Federal Emergency Management Phamatech, Inc., 15175 Innovation Agency AGENCY: Federal Emergency Drive, San Diego, CA 92128, 888– Management Agency, DHS. [Docket ID FEMA–2020–0001] 635–5840 ACTION: Notice. Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, 1777 Notice of Adjustment of Minimum Montreal Circle, Tucker, GA 30084, SUMMARY: FEMA gives notice of the Project Worksheet Amount 800–729–6432, (Formerly: SmithKline maximum amount for assistance under Beecham Clinical Laboratories; AGENCY: Federal Emergency the Individuals and Households SmithKline Bio-Science Laboratories) Management Agency, DHS. Program for emergencies and major Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, 400 ACTION: Notice. disasters declared on or after October 1, Egypt Road, Norristown, PA 19403, 2020. 610–631–4600/877–642–2216, SUMMARY: FEMA gives notice that the DATES: This adjustment applies to (Formerly: SmithKline Beecham minimum Project Worksheet Amount emergencies and major disasters Clinical Laboratories; SmithKline Bio- under the Public Assistance program for declared on or after October 1, 2020. Science Laboratories) disasters and emergencies declared on FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Redwood Toxicology Laboratory, 3700 or after October 1, 2020, will be Christopher B. Smith, Recovery Westwind Blvd., Santa Rosa, CA increased. Directorate, Federal Emergency 95403, 800–255–2159 DATES: This adjustment applies to major Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, U.S. Army Forensic Toxicology Drug disasters and emergencies declared on Washington, DC 20472, (202) 212–1000. Testing Laboratory, 2490 Wilson St., or after October 1, 2020. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section Fort George G. Meade, MD 20755– FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tod 408 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster 5235, 301–677–7085, Testing for Wells, Recovery Directorate, Federal Relief and Emergency Assistance Act Department of Defense (DoD) Emergency Management Agency, 500 C (the Stafford Act), 42 U.S.C. 5174, Employees Only Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) prescribes that FEMA must annually *The Standards Council of Canada 646–3834. adjust the maximum amount for (SCC) voted to end its Laboratory SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 44 CFR assistance provided under the Accreditation Program for Substance 206.202(d)(2) provides that FEMA will Individuals and Households Program Abuse (LAPSA) effective May 12, 1998. annually adjust the minimum Project (IHP). FEMA gives notice that the Laboratories certified through that Worksheet amount under the Public maximum amount of IHP financial program were accredited to conduct Assistance program to reflect changes in assistance provided to an individual or forensic urine drug testing as required the Consumer Price Index for All Urban household under section 408 of the by U.S. Department of Transportation Consumers published by the Stafford Act with respect to any single (DOT) regulations. As of that date, the Department of Labor. emergency or major disaster is $36,000 certification of those accredited FEMA gives notice of an increase to for housing assistance and $36,000 for Canadian laboratories will continue $3,320 for the minimum amount that other needs assistance. The increase in under DOT authority. The responsibility will be approved for any Project award amount is for any single for conducting quarterly performance Worksheet under the Public Assistance emergency or major disaster declared on testing plus periodic on-site inspections program for all major disasters and or after October 1, 2020. In addition, in of those LAPSA-accredited laboratories emergencies declared on or after accordance with 44 CFR 61.17(c), this was transferred to the U.S. HHS, with October 1, 2020. increases the maximum amount of the HHS’ NLCP contractor continuing to FEMA bases the adjustment on an available coverage under any Group have an active role in the performance increase in the Consumer Price Index Flood Insurance Policy (GFIP) issued.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:55 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices 69341

FEMA bases the adjustment on an for All Urban Consumers of 1.3 percent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. increase in the Consumer Price Index for the 12-month period that ended in 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance for All Urban Consumers of 1.3 percent August 2020. The Bureau of Labor (Presidentially Declared Disasters). for the 12-month period, which ended Statistics of the U.S. Department of Pete Gaynor, in August 2020. The Bureau of Labor Labor released the information on Administrator, Federal Emergency Statistics of the U.S. Department of September 11, 2020. Management Agency. Labor released the information on Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. [FR Doc. 2020–24237 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] September 11, 2020. 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance BILLING CODE 9111–23–P Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. (Presidentially Declared Disasters). 97.048, Federal Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households in Presidentially Pete Gaynor, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Administrator, Federal Emergency SECURITY Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance— Management Agency. Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals [FR Doc. 2020–24244 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] Transportation Security Administration and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals BILLING CODE 9111–23–P and Households—Other Needs. [Docket No. TSA–2009–0024] Pete Gaynor, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND Enforcement Actions Summary Administrator, Federal Emergency SECURITY Management Agency. AGENCY: Transportation Security [FR Doc. 2020–24235 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] Federal Emergency Management Administration, DHS. BILLING CODE 9111–23–P Agency ACTION: Notice of availability.

SUMMARY: [Docket ID FEMA–2020–0001] TSA is providing notice that DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND it has issued an annual summary of all SECURITY Notice of Adjustment of Statewide per enforcement actions taken by TSA Capita Impact Indicator under the authority granted in the Federal Emergency Management Implementing Recommendations of the Agency AGENCY: Federal Emergency 9/11 Commission Act of 2007. [Docket ID FEMA–2020–0001] Management Agency, DHS. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nikki Harding, Assistant Chief Counsel, ACTION: Notice. Notice of Adjustment of Countywide Civil Enforcement, Office of the Chief Per Capita Impact Indicator Counsel, TSA–2, Transportation SUMMARY: FEMA gives notice that the Security Administration, 601 South AGENCY: Federal Emergency statewide per capita impact indicator Management Agency, DHS. 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598–6002; under the Public Assistance program for telephone (571) 227–4777; facsimile ACTION: Notice. disasters declared on or after October 1, (571) 227–1378; email nikki.harding@ 2020, will be increased. SUMMARY: FEMA gives notice that the tsa.dhs.gov. countywide per capita impact indicator DATES: This adjustment applies to major SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: under the Public Assistance program for disasters declared on or after October 1, disasters declared on or after October 1, 2020. Background 2020, will be increased. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tod On August 3, 2007, section 1302(a) of DATES: This adjustment applies to major Wells, Recovery Directorate, Federal the Implementing Recommendations of disasters declared on or after October 1, Emergency Management Agency, 500 C the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (the 2020. Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 9/11 Act), Public Law 110–53, 121 Stat. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tod 646–3834. 392, gave TSA new authority to assess Wells, Recovery Directorate, Federal civil penalties for violations of any SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 44 CFR Emergency Management Agency, 500 C surface transportation requirements 206.48 provides that FEMA will adjust Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) under title 49 of the United States Code the statewide per capita impact 646–3834. (U.S.C.) and for any violations of indicator under the Public Assistance chapter 701 of title 46 of the U.S.C., SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In program to reflect changes in the assessing damages for area designations which governs transportation worker Consumer Price Index for All Urban identification credentials (TWICs). under 44 CFR 206.40(b), FEMA uses a Consumers published by the countywide per capita indicator to Section 1302(a) of the 9/11 Act, Department of Labor. 1 evaluate the impact of the disaster at the codified at 49 U.S.C. 114(u), authorizes county level. FEMA will adjust the FEMA gives notice that the statewide the Secretary of the DHS to impose civil countywide per capita impact indicator per capita impact indicator will be penalties of up to $10,000 per violation under the Public Assistance program to increased to $1.55 for all disasters of any surface transportation reflect annual changes in the Consumer declared on or after October 1, 2020. requirement under 49 U.S.C. or any Price Index for All Urban Consumers FEMA bases the adjustment on an requirement related to TWICs under 46 published by the Department of Labor. increase in the Consumer Price Index U.S.C. chapter 701. TSA exercises this FEMA gives notice of an increase in for All Urban Consumers of 1.3 percent function under delegated authority from the countywide per capita impact for the 12-month period that ended in indicator to $3.89 for all disasters August 2020. The Bureau of Labor 1 Pursuant to division K, title I, sec. 1904(b)(1)(I), of Public Law 115–254, (132 Stat. 3186, 3545; declared on or after October 1, 2020. Statistics of the U.S. Department of , 2018), the TSA Modernization Act—part FEMA bases the adjustment on an Labor released the information on of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, former 49 increase in the Consumer Price Index September 11, 2020. U.S.C. 114(v) was redesignated as 49 U.S.C. 114(u).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:55 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES 69342 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices

the Secretary. See DHS Delegation No. www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ calendar year 2019 under section 7060–2. collection.action?collectionCode=FR to 114(u).2 Under 49 U.S.C. 114(u)(7)(A), TSA is view the daily published Federal required to provide the public with an Register edition; or accessing the Background annual summary of all enforcement ‘‘Search the Federal Register by Section 114(u) of 49 U.S.C. gives the actions taken by TSA under this Citation’’ in the ‘‘Related Resources’’ TSA authority to assess civil penalties subsection; and include in each such column on the left, if you need to do a for violations of any surface summary the identifying information of Simple or Advanced search for transportation requirements under 49 each enforcement action, the type of information, such as a type of document U.S.C. and for any violations of chapter alleged violation, the penalty or that crosses multiple agencies or dates. 701 of 46 U.S.C., which governs TWICs. penalties proposed, and the final In addition, copies are available by assessment amount of each penalty. writing or calling the individual in the Specifically, section 114(u) authorizes This summary is for calendar year 2019. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT the Secretary of the DHS to impose civil 3 TSA will publish a summary of all section. Make sure to identify the docket penalties of up to $10,000 per violation enforcement actions taken under the number of this action. for violations of any surface statute in the beginning of the new transportation requirement under 49 calendar year to cover the previous Dated: October 27, 2020. U.S.C. or any requirement related to calendar year. Kelly D. Wheaton, TWIC under 46 U.S.C. chapter 701.4 Deputy Chief Counsel, Enforcement and Document Availability Incident Management. You can get an electronic copy of both October 27, 2020 this notice and the enforcement actions summary on the internet by— Annual Summary of Enforcement (1) Searching the electronic Federal Actions Taken Under 49 U.S.C. 114(u) Docket Management System (FDMS) Annual Report web page at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. TSA–2009–0024; or Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 114(u)(7)(A), (2) Accessing the Government TSA provides the following summary of Printing Office’s web page at http:// enforcement actions taken by TSA in

TSA case No. Type of violation Penalty proposed/assessed

2020IND0019 .... TWIC Inspection of Credential (49 CFR 1570.9(a)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2018OAK0032 ... TWIC Inspection of Credential (49 CFR 1570.9 (a)) ...... $1,680/$1,680. 2019BWI0076 .... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(d)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019HOU0041 ... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(d)) ...... $2,280/$2,280. 2019HOU0042 ... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(d)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019JAX0080 .... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(d)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019MSY0025 ... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(d)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019OAK0051 ... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(d)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019SAN0065 ... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(d)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2020JAX0009 .... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(d)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2020MCO0034 .. TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(d)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2020SEA0052 ... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(d)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2020SEA0054 ... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(d)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019BOS0092 ... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019BOS0093 ... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019BOS0147 ... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019BOS0204 ... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019BOS0211 ... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019BWI0079 .... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019BWI0086 .... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019BWI0087 .... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019BWI0103 .... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019CLT0182 .... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019HOU0038 ... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019HOU0078 ... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... $1,140/$1,140. 2019HOU0086 ... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019HOU0088 ... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019HOU0124 ... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... $1,140/$1,140. 2019HOU0126 ... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... $1,140/Pending. 2019HOU0149 ... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... $1,170/Pending. 2019JAX0055 .... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019JAX0056 .... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019JAX0074 .... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019JAX0075 .... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice).

2 49 U.S.C. 114(u)(7)(A) states: In general.—the proposed, and the final assessment amount of each Budget Act of 2015, this $10,000 civil penalty Secretary of Homeland Security shall—(i) provide penalty. maximum is adjusted for inflation annually. See 49 an annual summary to the public of all enforcement 3 Pursuant to title VII, sec. 701 of Public Law 114– CFR 1503.401(b). actions taken by the Secretary under this 74 (129 Stat. 583, 599; Nov. 2, 2015), the Federal 4 TSA exercises this function under delegated subsection; and (ii) include in each such summary the docket number of each enforcement action, the Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act authority from the Secretary. See DHS Delegation type of alleged violation, the penalty or penalties Improvements Act of 2015—part of the Bipartisan No. 7060–2.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:55 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices 69343

TSA case No. Type of violation Penalty proposed/assessed

2019JAX0078 .... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019JAX0079 .... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019JAX0089 .... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019JAX0098 .... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019JAX0102 .... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019JAX0103 .... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019JAX0106 .... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019JAX0111 .... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019JAX0113 .... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019JAX0114 .... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019JAX0158 .... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019JFK0196 .... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019LAX0225 .... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019LAX0226 .... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... $2,000/$2,000. 2019MCO0049 .. TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... $2,000/$2,000. 2019MCO0104 .. TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019MCO0177 .. TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019MCO0179 .. TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019MCO0212 .. TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019MCO0217 .. TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019MCO0218 .. TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019MCO0220 .. TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019MCO0227 .. TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019MCO0228 .. TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019MCO0230 .. TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019MCO0231 .. TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019MCO0232 .. TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019OAK0052 ... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019OAK0079 ... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019OAK0116 ... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019OAK0117 ... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019OAK0118 ... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019OAK0122 ... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019OAK0123 ... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019OAK0124 ... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019OAK0125 ... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019OAK0126 ... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019OAK0127 ... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019OAK0131 ... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019OAK0132 ... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019OAK0133 ... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019OAK0139 ... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019OAK0172 ... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019OAK0173 ... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019OAK0174 ... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019PDX0135 ... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019PDX0139 ... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019PDX0144 ... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019RIC0012 .... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019RIC0017 .... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... $570/$570. 2019RIC0024 .... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019RIC0028 .... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... $1,140/$50. 2019RIC0031 .... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019SAN0172 ... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019SEA0229 ... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019SEA0276 ... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019SMF0103 ... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019STL0086 .... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2020BOS0004 ... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2020HOU0009 ... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... $3,500/Pending. 2020JAX0001 .... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2020JAX0009 .... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2020JAX0010 .... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2020JAX0031 .... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2020MCO0025 .. TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2020MCO0043 .. TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2020MSP0014 ... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2020OAK0004 ... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2020OAK0020 ... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2020OAK0041 ... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2020PDX0023 ... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2020PDX0028 ... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2020SAN0006 ... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2020SEA0048 ... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:55 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES 69344 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices

TSA case No. Type of violation Penalty proposed/assessed

2020SEA0049 ... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2020SEA0051 ... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019BWI0084 .... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c) and (d)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019BWI0088 .... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c) and (d)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019BWI0096 .... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c) and (d)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019BWI0106 .... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c) and (d)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019BWI0107 .... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c) and (d)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019BWI0108 .... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c) and (d)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019BWI0113 .... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c) and (d)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019BWI0116 .... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c) and (d)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019BWI0117 .... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c) and (d)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019BWI0121 .... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c) and (d)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019BWI0126 .... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c) and (d)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019CLE0189 .... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c) and (d)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019CLE0190 .... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c) and (d)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019MCO0180 .. TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c) and (d)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019RIC0023 .... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c) and (d)) ...... $3,000/$500. 2019RIC0030 .... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c) and (d)) ...... $250/$250. 2020BWI0006 .... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c) and (d)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2020BWI0014 .... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c) and (d)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2020MCO0043 .. TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(c) and (d)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019HOU0085 ... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(b)) ...... $1,140/$1,140. 2016OAK0128 ... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(a)) ...... $4,000/$1,000. 2017MSY0190 ... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(a)) ...... Pending. 2018SAN0173 ... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(a)) ...... $250/Pending. 2018SEA0138 ... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(a)) ...... $1,120/$1,120. 2018SEA0172 ... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(a)) ...... $1,120/$1,120. 2018SEA0196 ... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(a)) ...... $1,120/$1,120. 2018SEA0247 ... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(a)) ...... $560/$560. 2019RIC0006 .... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(a)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019BWI0053 .... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(a) and (c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019HOU0057 ... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(a) and (c)) ...... $3,420/$500. 2020MIA0035 .... TWIC Fraudulent Use (49 CFR 1570.7(a) and (c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2018SEA0029 ... TWIC Access Control (49 CFR 1570.7(d)) ...... $4,000/$4,000. 2017MSY0184 ... TWIC Access Control (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... Pending. 2017MSY0189 ... TWIC Access Control (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... Pending. 2018HOU0154 ... TWIC Access Control (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... $1,120/$1,120. 2018MSY0045 ... TWIC Access Control (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2018RIC0088 .... TWIC Access Control (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... $1,120/$560. 2018SAN0067 ... TWIC Access Control (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... $250/Pending. 2018SEA0197 ... TWIC Access Control (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... $1,120/$1,120. 2018SEA0217 ... TWIC Access Control (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... $1,120/None (Consent Order). 2018SEA0297 ... TWIC Access Control (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... $1,120/$1,120. 2018SEA0298 ... TWIC Access Control (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2018SEA0358 ... TWIC Access Control (49 CFR 1570.7(c)) ...... $1,120/$1,120. 2018SEA0356 ... TWIC Access Control (49 CFR 1570.7 (c)) ...... $2,235/$1,000. 2019SAT0125 .... Transfer of Railcar Custody (49 CFR 1580.107(b)) ...... $22,820/$13,000. 2019CMH0109 .. Reporting Security Concerns (49 CFR 1580.105(b)) ...... None (Letter of Correction). 2019HOU0104 ... Reporting Railcar Location (49 CFR 1580.103(g)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019HOU0073 ... Reporting Railcar Location (49 CFR 1580.103(b) and (c) and (f)) ...... None (Warning Notice). 2019ELP0046 .... Railcar Transfer of Custody (49 CFR 1580.107(c)) and Reporting Security Con- None (Notice of Noncompliance). cerns (49 CFR 1580.203). 2019DTW0192 .. Railcar Transfer of Custody (49 CFR 1580.107(c)) ...... None (Letter of Correction). 2019MCO0149 .. Rail Security Coordinator (49 CFR 1580.201(d)) ...... None (Notice of Noncompliance).

[FR Doc. 2020–24180 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND ACTION: Notice. BILLING CODE 9110–05–P SECURITY SUMMARY: Through this notice, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Department of Homeland Security Services (DHS) announces that the Secretary of [CIS No. 2673–20; DHS Docket No. USCIS– Homeland Security (Secretary) is 2014–0004] extending the designation of South Sudan for Temporary Protected Status RIN 1615–ZB79 (TPS) for 18 months, from November 3, Extension of the Designation of South 2020, through , 2022. The Sudan for Temporary Protected Status extension allows currently eligible TPS beneficiaries to retain TPS through May AGENCY: U.S. Citizenship and 2, 2022, so long as they otherwise Immigration Services, Department of continue to meet the eligibility Homeland Security. requirements for TPS. This notice also

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:55 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices 69345

sets forth procedures necessary for DOS—U.S. Department of State USCIS Systematic Alien Verification for nationals of South Sudan (or aliens EAD—Employment Authorization Document Entitlements (SAVE) processes. having no nationality who last FNC—Final Nonconfirmation Aliens who have a South Sudan-based habitually resided in South Sudan) to Form I–765—Application for Employment Application for Temporary Protected Authorization re-register for TPS and to apply for Form I–797—Notice of Action Status (Form I–821) and/or Application Employment Authorization Documents Form I–821—Application for Temporary for Employment Authorization (Form I– (EADs) with U.S. Citizenship and Protected Status 765) that was still pending as of Immigration Services (USCIS). USCIS Form I–9—Employment Eligibility November 2, 2020 do not need to file will issue new EADs with a May 2, Verification either application again. If USCIS 2022, expiration date to eligible Form I–912—Request for Fee Waiver approves an alien’s Form I–821, USCIS beneficiaries under South Sudan’s TPS Form I–94—Arrival/Departure Record will grant the alien TPS through May 2, designation who timely re-register and FR—Federal Register 2022. Similarly, if USCIS approves a apply for EADs under this extension. Government—U.S. Government IJ—Immigration Judge pending TPS-related Form I–765, USCIS DATES: Extension of Designation of INA—Immigration and Nationality Act will issue the alien a new EAD that will South Sudan for TPS: The 18-month IER—U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights be valid through the same date. There extension of the TPS designation of Division, Immigrant and Employee Rights are currently approximately 98 South Sudan is effective November 3, Section beneficiaries under South Sudan’s TPS 2020, and will remain in effect through SAVE—USCIS Systematic Alien Verification designation. May 2, 2022. The 60-day re-registration for Entitlements Program What is Temporary Protected Status period runs from November 2, 2020 Secretary—Secretary of Homeland Security (TPS)? through January 4, 2021. (Note: It is TNC—Tentative Nonconfirmation TPS—Temporary Protected Status • TPS is a temporary immigration important for re-registrants to timely re- TTY—Text Telephone register during this 60-day period and USCIS—U.S. Citizenship and Immigration status granted to eligible nationals of a not to wait until their EADs expire.) Services country designated for TPS under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: U.S.C.—United States Code Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), • or to eligible aliens without nationality You may contact Maureen Dunn, Through this notice, DHS sets forth who last habitually resided in the Chief, Humanitarian Affairs Division, procedures necessary for eligible Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. designated country. nationals of South Sudan (or aliens • During the TPS designation period, Citizenship and Immigration Services, having no nationality who last U.S. Department of Homeland Security, TPS beneficiaries are eligible to remain habitually resided in South Sudan) to in the United States, may not be by mail at 20 Massachusetts Avenue re-register for TPS and to apply for NW, Washington, DC 20529–2060, or by removed, and are authorized to obtain renewal of their EADs with USCIS. Re- EADs so long as they continue to meet phone at 800–375–5283. registration is limited to aliens who • For further information on TPS, the requirements of TPS. have previously registered for TPS including guidance on the re- • TPS beneficiaries may also apply under the designation of South Sudan registration process and additional for and be granted travel authorization and whose applications have been information on eligibility, please visit as a matter of discretion. Upon return granted. from such authorized travel, TPS the USCIS TPS web page at For aliens who have already been beneficiaries retain the same www.uscis.gov/tps. You can find granted TPS under South Sudan’s immigration status they had prior to the specific information about this designation, the 60-day re-registration extension of South Sudan’s TPS travel. period runs from November 2, 2020 • The granting of TPS does not result designation by selecting ‘‘South Sudan’’ through January 4, 2021. USCIS will from the menu on the left side of the in or lead to lawful permanent resident issue new EADs with a May 2, 2022, status. TPS web page. expiration date to eligible South • If you have additional questions • To qualify for TPS, beneficiaries Sudanese TPS beneficiaries who timely about TPS, please visit uscis.gov/tools. must meet the eligibility standards at re-register and apply for EADs. Given Our online virtual assistant, Emma, can INA section 244(c)(1)–(2), 8 U.S.C. the timeframes involved with answer many of your questions and 1254a(c)(1)–(2). processing TPS re-registration • point you to additional information on When the Secretary terminates a applications, DHS recognizes that all re- our website. If you are unable to find country’s TPS designation, beneficiaries registrants may not receive new EADs your answers there, you may also call return to one of the following: before their current EADs expire on Æ our USCIS Contact Center at 800–375– The same immigration status or November 2, 2020. Accordingly, 5283 (TTY 800–767–1833). category that they maintained before through this Federal Register notice, • Applicants seeking information TPS, if any (unless that status or DHS automatically extends the validity about the status of their individual cases category has since expired or been of these EADs previously issued under may check Case Status Online, available terminated); or the TPS designation of South Sudan for Æ on the USCIS website at www.uscis.gov, Any other lawfully obtained 180 days, through May 1, 2021. or visit the USCIS Contact Center at immigration status or category they Therefore, TPS beneficiaries can show uscis.gov/contactcenter. received while registered for TPS, as • Further information will also be their EADs with (1) a November 2, 2020 long as it is still valid beyond the date available at local USCIS offices upon expiration date and (2) an A–12 or C– TPS terminates. publication of this notice. 19 category code as proof of continued employment authorization through May When was South Sudan designated for SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1, 2021. This notice explains how TPS TPS? Table of Abbreviations beneficiaries and their employers may South Sudan was initially designated BIA—Board of Immigration Appeals determine which EADs are on October 13, 2011, on the dual bases CFR—Code of Federal Regulations automatically extended and how this of ongoing armed conflict and DHS—U.S. Department of Homeland affects the Employment Eligibility extraordinary and temporary conditions Security Verification (Form I–9), E-Verify, and in South Sudan that prevented nationals

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:55 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES 69346 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices

of South Sudan from safely returning. conditions in the foreign state forces led to attacks against civilians, See Designation of Republic of South designated for TPS to determine including murders, looting, and sexual Sudan for Temporary Protected Status, whether the conditions for the TPS violence, and provoked extensive 76 FR 63629 (Oct. 13, 2011). Following designation continue to be met. See INA civilian displacement. In Western Bahr the initial designation, the Secretary section 244(b)(3)(A), 8 U.S.C. el-Ghazal state, internal SPLM/A extended and newly designated South 1254a(b)(3)(A). If the Secretary does not leadership disputes erupted, leading to Sudan for TPS in 2013, 2014, and 2016. determine that the foreign state no conflict-related incidents of sexual See Extension and Redesignation of longer meets the conditions for TPS violence and the kidnapping of South Sudan for Temporary Protected designation, the designation will be civilians, according to Status, 78 FR 1866 (Jan. 9, 2013); extended for an additional period of 6 reporting. In Warrap state, heavy clashes Extension and Redesignation of South months or, in the Secretary’s discretion, erupted between armed civilians and Sudan for Temporary Protected Status, 12 or 18 months. See INA section government forces carrying out a 79 FR 52019 (Sept. 2, 2014); Extension 244(b)(3)(A), (C), 8 U.S.C. disarmament project, resulting in many and Redesignation of South Sudan for 1254a(b)(3)(A), (C). If the Secretary deaths. Both DOS and the United Temporary Protected Status, 81 FR 4051 determines that the foreign state no Nations reported that the intensity of (Jan. 25, 2016). In 2017, DHS extended longer meets the conditions for TPS intercommunal violence increased in TPS for South Sudan, based on ongoing designation, the Secretary must 2019 and 2020, as localized competition armed conflict and extraordinary and terminate the designation. See INA for resources was exacerbated by temporary conditions. See Extension of section 244(b)(3)(B), 8 U.S.C. adverse weather conditions and South Sudan for Temporary Protected 1254a(b)(3)(B). struggles for dominance along ethnic, tribal, and subclan lines. Status, 82 FR 44205 (Sept. 21, 2017). Why is the Secretary extending the TPS Most recently, in 2019, the Secretary Sexual and gender-based violence designation for South Sudan through (SGBV) remains pervasive, with both extended South Sudan’s TPS May 2, 2022? designation for 18 months, based on state and non-state armed groups ongoing armed conflict and DHS has reviewed conditions in continuing to use SGBV as a weapon of extraordinary and temporary conditions. South Sudan. Based on the review, the war, according to DOS. SPLM/A and See Extension of the Designation of Secretary has determined that an 18- SPLM/A–IO forces continue to conscript South Sudan for Temporary Protected month extension is warranted because children under 15 years of age into their Status, 84 FR 13688 (Apr. 5, 2019). the ongoing armed conflict and ranks, according to the United Nations extraordinary and temporary conditions Commission on Human Rights in South What authority does the Secretary have supporting South Sudan’s TPS Sudan. In 2019 and 2020, DOS and the to extend the designation of South designation remain. United Nations Panel of Experts on Sudan for TPS? On February 21, 2020, President Salva South Sudan reported that state security Kiir Mayardit dissolved the incumbent Section 244(b)(1) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. forces suppressed political and civil government and appointed the 1254a(b)(1), authorizes the Secretary, activities, arbitrarily detaining civilians Chairman of the Sudan People’s after consultation with appropriate and engaging in torture and Liberation Movement/Army-In agencies of the U.S. Government extrajudicial killings. Opposition (SPLM/A–IO), Riek Machar (Government), to designate a foreign South Sudan continues to experience Teny, as First Vice-President, launching state (or part thereof) for TPS if the serious humanitarian conditions, the formation of the Revitalized Secretary determines that certain including significant levels of civilian Transitional Government of National country conditions exist.1 The decision displacement and food insecurity, Unity. Despite a decrease in large-scale significant impediments to to designate any foreign state (or part fighting and limited progress on the humanitarian assistance, and a severe thereof) is a discretionary decision, and country’s political transition, ongoing economic crisis, according to DOS. The there is no judicial review of any armed conflict persists in several areas United Nations estimates that 7.5 determination with respect to the in South Sudan among both signatories million people, over 60 percent of the designation, or termination of, or and non-signatories to the peace South Sudan’s population, are extension of, a designation. See id., INA agreement, according to the U.S. dependent on humanitarian assistance. section (b)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. Department of State (DOS). DOS All of South Sudan continues to 1265a(b)(5)(A). The Secretary, in his reported the continuing prevalance of experience food insecurity and an discretion, may then grant TPS to incidents of armed groups attacking estimated 6.5 million people, nearly 56 eligible nationals of that foreign state (or civilians—consistently the leading form percent of the total population, are eligible aliens having no nationality of violence throughout the conflict. In acutely food insecure, according to who last habitually resided in the addition, high military and ethnic DOS. DOS reports that continued designated country). See INA section militia mobilization, armed groups’ drought conditions in some parts of the 244(a)(1)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(a)(1)(A). readiness to resort to violence, and a country and flooding in other areas At least 60 days before the expiration lack of accountability persist, according exacerbate food insecurity among of a country’s TPS designation or to DOS. conflict-affected populations. extension, the Secretary, after Outbreaks of armed conflict in 2019 The total number of displaced consultation with appropriate and 2020 among SPLM/A, SPLM/A–IO, individuals has slightly decreased since Government agencies, must review the and non-signatory groups included South Sudan’s 2019 TPS extension; sporadic fighting in Central and Eastern however, conflict and intercommunal 1 As of March 1, 2003, in accordance with section 1517 of title XV of the Homeland Security Act of Equatoria states, where hostilities clashes continue to drive internal 2002, Public Law 107–296, 116 Stat. 2135, any contributed to the targeting of civilians displacement, and insecurity remains a reference to the Attorney General in a provision of through armed attacks, abductions, and key concern for many displaced people, the INA describing functions transferred from the kidnappings, according to the United according to UNOCHA. Currently, Department of Justice to DHS ‘‘shall be deemed to refer to the Secretary’’ of Homeland Security. See Nations Panel of Experts on South nearly 3.9 million South Sudanese are 6 U.S.C. 557 (codifying the Homeland Security Act Sudan. Fighting in Upper Nile state displaced, a reduction of 330,000 since of 2002, tit. XV, section 1517). between SPLM/A and SPLM/A–IO November 2018, when an estimated 4.2

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:55 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices 69347

million South Sudanese were reported section 244(b)(1)(A), 8 U.S.C. automatically extended for 180 days, displaced. 1.67 million South Sudanese 1254a(b)(1)(A). through May 1, 2021. Although not are internally displaced, and an • There continue to be extraordinary required to do so, if you want to obtain estimated 2.2 million South Sudanese and temporary conditions in South a new EAD valid through May 2, 2022, are refugees or asylum-seekers in Sudan that prevent South Sudanese you must file an Application for neighboring countries as of June 2020, nationals (or aliens having no Employment Authorization (Form I– according to the United Nations High nationality who last habitually resided 765) and pay the Form I–765 fee (or Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). in South Sudan) from returning to South submit a Request for a Fee Waiver (Form UNHCR reports 214,142 South Sudan in safety, and it is not contrary I–912)). If you do not want a new EAD, Sudanese refugees have spontaneously to the national interest of the United you do not have to file Form I–765 and returned since the revitalized peace States to permit South Sudanese TPS pay the Form I–765 fee. If you do not agreement was signed in September beneficiaries to remain in the United want to request a new EAD now, you 2018, although these returns States temporarily. See INA section may also file Form I–765 at a later date significantly slowed in the first half of 244(b)(1)(C), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(1)(C). and pay the fee (or request a fee waiver) 2020 due to escalating intercommunal • The designation of South Sudan for at that time, provided that you still have violence and COVID–19 border TPS should be extended for an 18- TPS or a pending TPS application. restrictions. According to DOS, the month period, from November 3, 2020, If you have a Form I–821 and/or Form United Nations Mission in South Sudan through May 2, 2022. See INA section I–765 that was still pending as of (UNMISS) hosted more than 181,000 244(b)(3)(C), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(3)(C). November 2, 2020, then you do not need civilians at six civilian protection sites to file either application again. If USCIS within UNMISS bases as of June 2020. Notice of Extension of the TPS approves your pending TPS application, After contracting for four consecutive Designation of South Sudan USCIS will grant you TPS through May years, South Sudan’s economy grew 3.2 By the authority vested in me as 2, 2022. Similarly, if USCIS approves percent in the 2018/19 Fiscal Year, Secretary under INA section 244, 8 your pending TPS-related Form I–765, it largely due to a rebound in the oil U.S.C. 1254a, I have determined, after will be valid through the same date. sector, according to the World Bank. consultation with the appropriate You may file the application for a new Nevertheless, oil sector shocks continue Government agencies, the conditions EAD either prior to or after your current to impact the economy and the supporting South Sudan’s designation EAD has expired. However, you are government’s ability to service debts for TPS continue to be met. See INA strongly encouraged to file your and fulfill obligations. In August 2020, section 244(b)(3)(A), 8 U.S.C. application for a new EAD as early as citing plummeting oil revenues, a senior 1254a(b)(3)(A). On the basis of this possible to avoid gaps in the validity of Central Bank official reported that the determination, I am extending the your employment authorization government had run out of foreign existing designation of TPS for South documentation and to ensure that you exchange reserves. Sudan for 18 months, from November 3, receive your new EAD by May 1, 2021. DOS assesses that South Sudan 2020, through May 2, 2022. See INA For more information on the remains in a deep economic crisis, with section 244(b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(C); 8 U.S.C. application forms and fees for TPS, further deterioration on the horizon. 1254a(b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(C). please visit the USCIS TPS web page at Over 88 percent of the population lives The Acting Secretary of Homeland www.uscis.gov/tps. Fees for the Form I– below the poverty line—an increase Security, Chad F. Wolf, having reviewed 821, the Form I–765, and biometric from 80 percent in 2016—and and approved this document, has services are also described in 8 CFR livelihoods remain concentrated in low delegated the authority to electronically 103.7(b)(1)(i). productive, unpaid agriculture and sign this document to Chad R. Mizelle, pastoralist work. The rate of inflation Biometric Services Fee who is the Senior Official Performing increased from 40 percent in December Biometrics (such as fingerprints) are the Duties of the General Counsel for 2018 to 86 percent in June 2019, required for all applicants 14 years of DHS, for purposes of publication in the according to World Bank estimates. The age and older. Those applicants must Federal Register. COVID–19 pandemic has contributed to submit a biometric services fee. As further increases in the prices of basic Chad R. Mizelle, previously stated, if you are unable to food items and a reduction in food Senior Official Performing the Duties of the pay the biometric services fee, you may imports, according to the Assessment General Counsel, U.S. Department of complete a Request for Fee Waiver Capacities Project (ACAPS), a Homeland Security. (Form I–912). For more information on consortium of humanitarian non-profit Required Application Forms and the application forms and fees for TPS, organizations. Application Fees To Re-Register for please visit the USCIS TPS web page at Based upon this review, and after TPS www.uscis.gov/tps. If necessary, you consultation with appropriate may be required to visit an Application Government agencies, the Secretary has To re-register for TPS based on the Support Center to have your biometrics determined that: designation of South Sudan, you must captured. For additional information on • The conditions supporting South submit an Application for Temporary the USCIS biometrics screening process, Sudan’s designation for TPS continue to Protected Status (Form I–821). There is please see the USCIS Customer Profile be met. See INA section 244(b)(3)(A) no Form I–821 fee for re-registration. Management Service Privacy Impact and (C), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(3)(A) and (C). See 8 CFR 244.17. You may be required Assessment, available at www.dhs.gov/ • There continues to be an ongoing to pay the biometric services fee. Please privacy. armed conflict in South Sudan and, due see additional information under the to such conflict, requiring the return to ‘‘Biometric Services Fee’’ section of this Refiling a TPS Re-Registration South Sudan of South Sudanese notice. Application After Receiving a Denial of nationals (or aliens having no Through this Federal Register notice, a Fee Waiver Request nationality who last habitually resided your existing EAD issued under the TPS You should file as soon as possible in South Sudan) would pose a serious designation of South Sudan with the within the 60-day re-registration period threat to their personal safety. See INA expiration date of November 2, 2020, is so USCIS can process your application

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:55 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES 69348 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices

and issue any EAD promptly. Properly 244(c)(3)(C); 8 U.S.C. 1254a(c)(3)(C); 8 you do not have to file the Form I–765 filing early will also allow you to have CFR 244.17(b). For more information on or pay the associated Form I–765 fee (or time to refile your application before the good cause for late re-registration, visit request a fee waiver) at the time of re- deadline, should USCIS deny your fee the USCIS TPS web page at registration, and can wait to seek an waiver request. If, however, you receive www.uscis.gov/tps. Following denial of EAD until after USCIS has approved a denial of your fee waiver request and your fee waiver request, you may also your TPS re-registration application. If are unable to refile by the re-registration refile your Form I–765 with fee either you choose to do this, to re-register for deadline, you may still refile your Form with your Form I–821 or at a later time, TPS you would only need to file the I–821 with the biometrics fee. USCIS if you choose. Form I–821 with the biometrics services will review this situation to determine Note: Although a re-registering TPS fee, if applicable, (or request a fee whether you established good cause for beneficiary age 14 and older must pay waiver). late TPS re-registration. However, you the biometric services fee (but not the Mailing Information are urged to refile within 45 days of the Form I–821 fee) when filing a TPS re- date on any USCIS fee waiver denial registration application, you may decide Mail your application for TPS to the notice, if possible. See INA section to wait to request an EAD. Therefore, proper address in Table 1.

TABLE 1—MAILING ADDRESSES

If you would like to send your application by: Then, mail your application to:

U.S. Postal Service ...... U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Attn: TPS South Sudan, P.O. Box 6943, Chicago, IL 60680–6943. A non-U.S. Postal Service courier ...... U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Attn: TPS South Sudan, 131 S Dearborn Street—3rd Floor, Chicago, IL 60603–5517.

If you were granted TPS by an Am I eligible to receive an automatic employment authorization), or you may Immigration Judge (IJ) or the Board of 180-day extension of my current EAD present an acceptable receipt as Immigration Appeals (BIA) and you through May 1, 2021, through this described in the Form I–9 instructions. wish to request an EAD or are re- Federal Register notice? Employers may not reject a document registering for the first time following a Yes. Provided that you currently have based on a future expiration date. You grant of TPS by an IJ or the BIA, please a South Sudan TPS-based EAD with a can find additional information about mail your application to the appropriate marked expiration date of November 2, Form I–9 on the I–9 Central web page mailing address in Table 1. When re- 2020, bearing the notation A–12 or C– at www.uscis.gov/I-9Central. registering and requesting an EAD based 19 on the face of the card under on an IJ/BIA grant of TPS, please An EAD is an acceptable document Category, this notice automatically under List A. See the section ‘‘How do include a copy of the IJ or BIA order extends your EAD through May 1, 2021. my employer and I complete Form I–9 granting you TPS with your application. Although this Federal Register notice using my automatically extended This will help us to verify your grant of automatically extends your EAD TPS and process your application. through May 1, 2021, you must re- Employment Authorization Document for a new job?’’ of this Federal Register Supporting Documents register timely for TPS in accordance with the procedures described in this notice for further information. If your The filing instructions on the Form I– Federal Register notice to maintain your EAD has an expiration date of 821 list all the documents needed to TPS and employment authorization. November 2, 2020, and states A–12 or establish eligibility for TPS. You may C–19 under Category, it has been When hired, what documentation may I also find information on the acceptable extended automatically by virtue of this show to my employer as evidence of documentation and other requirements Federal Register notice and you may employment authorization and identity for applying or registering for TPS on choose to present your EAD to your when completing Form I–9? the USCIS website at www.uscis.gov/tps employer as proof of identity and under ‘‘South Sudan.’’ You can find the Lists of Acceptable employment eligibility for Form I–9 Documents on the third page of Form I– through May 1, 2021, unless your TPS Employment Authorization Document 9 as well as the Acceptable Documents (EAD) has been withdrawn or your request for web page at www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/ TPS has been denied. See the subsection How can I obtain information on the acceptable-documents. Employers must titled, ‘‘How do my employer and I complete Form I–9 to verify the identity status of my EAD request? complete Form I–9 using my and employment authorization of all automatically extended Employment To get case status information about new employees. Within 3 days of hire, your TPS application, including the employees must present acceptable Authorization Document for a new job?’’ status of an EAD request, you can check documents to their employers as for further information. Case Status Online at www.uscis.gov, or evidence of identity and employment As an alternative to presenting visit the USCIS Contact Center at authorization to satisfy Form I–9 evidence of your automatically uscis.gov/contactcenter. If your Form I– requirements. extended EAD, you may choose to 765 has been pending for more than 90 You may present any document from present any other acceptable document days, and you still need assistance, you List A (which provides evidence of both from List A, a combination of one may ask a question about your case identity and employment selection from List B and one selection online at egov.uscis.gov/e-request/ authorization), or one document from from List C, or an acceptable receipt. Intro.do or call the USCIS Contact List B (which provides evidence of your Center at 800–375–5283 (TTY 800–767– identity) together with one document 1833). from List C (which provides evidence of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:55 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices 69349

What documentation may I present to List A, List B, or List C receipt. your job and your EAD has now been my employer for Form I–9 if I am Employers need not reverify List B automatically extended, your employer already employed but my current TPS- identity documents. Employers may not may need to re-inspect your current related EAD is set to expire? request documentation that does not EAD if the employer does not have a Even though your EAD has been appear on the Lists of Acceptable copy of the EAD on file. Your employer automatically extended, your employer Documents. Therefore, employers may should determine if your EAD is automatically extended by ensuring that is required by law to ask you about your not request proof of South Sudanese it contains Category A–12 or C–19 and continued employment authorization, citizenship or proof of re-registration for has a Card Expires date of November 2, and you will need to present your TPS when completing Form I–9 for new 2020. If your employer determines that employer with evidence that you are hires or reverifying the employment your EAD has been automatically still authorized to work. Once authorization of current employees. If extended, your employer should update presented, your employer should update presented with an EAD that has been Section 2 of your previously completed the EAD expiration date in Section 2 of automatically extended, employers should accept such a document as a Form I–9 as follows: Form I–9. See the section ‘‘What a. Write EAD EXT and May 1, 2021, corrections should my current employer valid List A document, so long as the EAD reasonably appears to be genuine as the last day of the automatic make to Form I–9 if my employment extension in the Additional Information authorization has been automatically and relates to the employee. Refer to the ‘‘Note to Employees’’ section of this field; and extended?’’ of this Federal Register b. Initial and date the correction. notice for further information. You may Federal Register notice for important information about your rights if your Note: This is not considered a show this Federal Register notice to reverification. Employers do not need to your employer to explain what to do for employer rejects lawful documentation, requires additional documentation, or complete Section 3 until either the 180- Form I–9 and to show that your EAD day automatic extension has ended, or has been automatically extended otherwise discriminates against you based on your citizenship or the employee presents a new document through May 1, 2021. Your employer to show continued employment may need to re-inspect your immigration status, or your national origin. authorization, whichever is sooner. By automatically extended EAD to check May 2, 2021, when the employee’s the Card Expires date and Category code How do my employer and I complete automatically extended EAD has if your employer did not keep a copy of Form I–9 using my automatically expired, employers are required by law your EAD when you initially presented extended Employment Authorization to reverify the employee’s employment it. Document for a new job? authorization in Section 3. If your The last day of the automatic When using an automatically original Form I–9 was a previous extension for your EAD is May 1, 2021. extended EAD to complete Form I–9 for version, your employer must complete Before you start work on May 2, 2021, a new job before May 2, 2021, for Section 3 of the current version of Form your employer is required by law to Section 1, you should: I–9 and attach it to your previously reverify your employment authorization a. Check ‘‘An alien authorized to work completed Form I–9. Your employer can in Section 3 of Form I–9. At that time, until’’ and enter May 1, 2021 as the check the I–9 Central web page at you must present any document from expiration date; and www.uscis.gov/I-9Central for the most List A or any document from List C on b. Enter your USCIS number or A- current version of Form I–9. Form I–9, Lists of Acceptable Number where indicated (your EAD or If I am an employer enrolled in E-Verify, Documents, or an acceptable List A or other document from DHS will have List C receipt described in the Form I– how do I verify a new employee whose your USCIS number or A-Number EAD has been automatically extended? 9 instructions to reverify employment printed on it; the USCIS number is the authorization. same as your A-Number without the A Employers may create a case in E- If your original Form I–9 was a prefix). Verify for a new employee by providing previous version, your employer must For Section 2, your employer should: the employee’s A-Number or USCIS complete Section 3 of the current a. Determine if the EAD is auto- number from Form I–9 in the Document version of Form I–9 and attach it to your extended by ensuring it is in Category Number field in E-Verify. previously completed Form I–9. Your A–12 or C–19 and has a Card Expires If I am an employer enrolled in E-Verify, employer can check the I–9 Central web date of November 2, 2020; what do I do when I receive a ‘‘Work page at www.uscis.gov/I-9Central for the b. Write in the document title; Authorization Documents Expiration’’ most current version of Form I–9. c. Enter the issuing authority; alert for an automatically extended Your employer may not specify which d. Enter either the employee’s A- EAD? List A or List C document you must Number or USCIS number from Section present and cannot reject an acceptable 1 in the Document Number field on E-Verify has automated the receipt. Form I–9; and verification process for TPS-related e. Write May 1, 2021, as the EADs that are automatically extended. If Can my employer require that I provide you have employees who provided a any other documentation to prove my expiration date. Before the start of work on May 2, TPS-related EAD when they first started status, such as proof of my South 2021, employers must reverify the working for you, you will receive a Sudanese citizenship or a Form I–797C employee’s employment authorization ‘‘Work Authorization Documents showing I re-registered for TPS? in Section 3 of Form I–9. Expiring’’ case alert when the auto- No. When completing Form I–9, extension period for this EAD is about including reverifying employment What corrections should my current to expire. Before this employee starts authorization, employers must accept employer make to Form I–9 if my work on May 2, 2021, you must reverify any documentation that appears on the Employment Authorization Document his or her employment authorization in Form I–9 Lists of Acceptable Documents has been automatically extended? Section 3 of Form I–9. Employers that reasonably appears to be genuine If you presented a TPS-related EAD should not use E-Verify for and that relates to you, or an acceptable that was valid when you first started reverification.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:55 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES 69350 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices

Note to All Employers E-Verify from an employee’s Form I–9 • A copy of your Form I–797, the differs from records available to DHS. notice of approval, for a past or current Employers are reminded that the laws Employers may not terminate, Form I–821, if you received one from requiring proper employment eligibility suspend, delay training, withhold pay, USCIS; and verification and prohibiting unfair lower pay, or take any adverse action • Any other relevant DHS-issued immigration-related employment against an employee because of the TNC document that indicates your practices remain in full force. This while the case is still pending with E- immigration status or authorization to Federal Register notice does not Verify. A ‘‘Final Nonconfirmation’’ be in the United States, or that may be supersede or in any way limit (FNC) case result is received when E- used by DHS to determine whether you applicable employment verification Verify cannot verify an employee’s have such status or authorization to rules and policy guidance, including employment eligibility. An employer remain in the United States. those rules setting forth reverification may terminate employment based on a Check with the government agency requirements. For general questions case result of FNC. Work-authorized regarding which document(s) the agency about the employment eligibility employees who receive an FNC may call will accept. Some benefit-granting verification process, employers may call USCIS for assistance at 888–897–7781 agencies use the USCIS Systematic USCIS at 888–464–4218 (TTY 877–875– (TTY 877–875–6028). For more Alien Verification for Entitlements 6028) or email USCIS at I9Central@ information about E-Verify-related (SAVE) program to confirm the current dhs.gov. USCIS accepts calls and emails discrimination or to report an employer immigration status of applicants for in English and many other languages. for discrimination in the E-Verify public benefits. While SAVE can verify For questions about avoiding process based on citizenship, when an alien has TPS, each agency’s discrimination during the employment immigration status, or national origin, procedures govern whether they will eligibility verification process (Form I– contact IER’s Worker Hotline at 800– accept an unexpired EAD, Form I–797, 9 and E-Verify), employers may call the 255–7688 (TTY 800–237–2515). or Form I–94, Arrival/Departure Record. U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Additional information about proper You should: a. Present the agency with a copy of Division, Immigrant and Employee nondiscriminatory Form I–9 and E- the relevant Federal Register notice Rights Section (IER) Employer Hotline Verify procedures is available on the showing the extension of TPS-related at 800–255–8155 (TTY 800–237–2515). IER website at www.justice.gov/ier and IER offers language interpretation in documentation in addition to your on the USCIS and E-Verify websites at recent TPS-related document with your numerous languages. Employers may www.uscis.gov/i-9-central and www.e- also email IER at [email protected]. A-number, USCIS number or Form I–94 verify.gov. number; Note to Employees Note Regarding Federal, State, and b. Explain that SAVE will be able to verify the continuation of your TPS For general questions about the Local Government Agencies (Such as Departments of Motor Vehicles) using this information; and employment eligibility verification c. Ask the agency to initiate a SAVE process, employees may call USCIS at For Federal purposes, TPS query with your information and follow 888–897–7781 (TTY 877–875–6028) or beneficiaries presenting an EAD through with additional verification email USCIS at [email protected]. referenced in this Federal Register steps, if necessary, to get a final SAVE USCIS accepts calls in English, Spanish, Notice do not need to show any other response showing the validity of your and many other languages. Employees document, such as an I–797C Notice of TPS. or applicants may also call the IER Action, to prove that they qualify for You can also ask the agency to look Worker Hotline at 800–255–7688 (TTY this extension. However, while Federal for SAVE notices or contact SAVE if 800–237–2515) for information Government agencies must follow the they have any questions about your regarding employment discrimination guidelines laid out by the Federal immigration status or auto-extension of based upon citizenship, immigration Government, state and local government TPS-related documentation. In most status, or national origin, including agencies establish their own rules and cases, SAVE provides an automated discrimination related to Form I–9 and guidelines when granting certain electronic response to benefit-granting E-Verify. The IER Worker Hotline benefits. Each state may have different agencies within seconds, but, provides language interpretation in laws, requirements, and determinations occasionally, verification can be numerous languages. about what documents you need to delayed. You can check the status of To comply with the law, employers provide to prove eligibility for certain your SAVE verification by using must accept any document or benefits. Whether you are applying for CaseCheck at save.uscis.gov/ combination of documents from the a Federal, state, or local government casecheck/, then by clicking the ‘‘Check Lists of Acceptable Documents if the benefit, you may need to provide the Your Case’’ button. CaseCheck is a free documentation reasonably appears to be government agency with documents that service that lets you follow the progress genuine and to relate to the employee, show you are a TPS beneficiary, show of your SAVE verification using your or an acceptable List A, List B, or List you are authorized to work based on date of birth and one immigration C receipt as described in the Form I–9 TPS or other status, and/or that may be identifier number (A-number, USCIS Instructions. Employers may not require used by DHS to determine whether you number or Form I–94 number). If an extra or additional documentation have TPS or other immigration status. agency has denied your application beyond what is required for Form I–9 Examples of such documents are: based solely or in part on a SAVE completion. Further, employers • Your current EAD; response, the agency must offer you the participating in E-Verify who receive an • A copy of your Form I–797C, Notice opportunity to appeal the decision in E-Verify case result of ‘‘Tentative of Action, for your Form I–765 accordance with the agency’s Nonconfirmation’’ (TNC) must promptly providing an automatic extension of procedures. If the agency has received inform employees of the TNC and give your currently expired or expiring EAD; and acted upon or will act upon a SAVE such employees an opportunity to • A copy of your Form I–797C, Notice verification and you do not believe the contest the TNC. A TNC case result of Action, for your Form I–821 for this SAVE response is correct, you may means that the information entered into re-registration; make an appointment for an in-person

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:55 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices 69351

interview at a local USCIS office. business hours. The FRS is available 24 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Detailed information on how to make hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a corrections or update your immigration message or question. You will receive a Bureau of Land Management record, make an appointment, or submit reply during normal business hours. [LLAK930000.L51010000.FP0000. a written request to correct records Individuals who need special LVRWL14L0740] under the Freedom of Information Act assistance, such as sign language can be found on the SAVE website at Notice of Availability of the Record of interpretation or other reasonable www.uscis.gov/save. Decision for the Proposed Willow accommodations, should contact [FR Doc. 2020–24238 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] Master Development Plan Project, Dolores Garcia no later than 2 weeks Alaska BILLING CODE 9111–97–P before the start of the meeting. AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 15- Interior DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR member RAC advises the Secretary of ACTION: Notice of availability. the Interior, through the BLM, on a Bureau of Land Management variety of planning and management SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land [LLAZ910000.L12100000.XP0000 19X issues associated with public land Management (BLM), Alaska State Office, 6100.241A] management in Arizona. announces the availability of the Record Agenda items will include orientation of Decision (ROD) for the Final Arizona Resource Advisory Council for newly appointed members; updates Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Meeting on BLM project work in compliance for the Willow Master Development AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, with Department of the Interior Plan (MDP) Project. The ROD includes Interior. priorities and Secretary’s Orders; a deferral on a decision for drill sites 4 and 5 and associated gravel roads and ACTION: Notice of public meeting. resource management updates, including the latest initiatives; District pipelines, at the request of the project proponent. The ROD constitutes the SUMMARY: In accordance with the updates; and public comment periods. final decision of the BLM on the Federal Land Policy and Management The final agenda will be posted on the Act of 1976 and the Federal Advisory remainder of the project and completes BLM Arizona RAC website (see the required National Environmental Committee Act of 1972; the U.S. ADDRESSES.) Department of the Interior, Bureau of Policy Act process for subsequent Land Management (BLM) will hold a The public may address the RAC on issuance of appropriate BLM rights-of- virtual public meeting of the Arizona BLM-related topics during the public way grant, permits to drill, and other Resource Advisory Council (RAC). comment portion of the virtual meeting authorizations necessary for initial DATES: The RAC will hold a two-day on November 30 and December 1, or by development of the Willow MDP virtual public meeting on November 30 submitting a written statement to the Project. and December 1, 2020. The November contact listed in the ADDRESSES section ADDRESSES: Requests for information 30 meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m. and prior to the meetings. Depending on the regarding the ROD may be mailed to: adjourn at approximately 2 p.m. The number of persons wishing to speak, Willow Master Development plan EIS, December 1 meeting will begin at 8:30 and the time available, the time for Attn: Racheal Jones, 222 West 7th a.m. and adjourn at approximately 3 individual comments may be limited. Avenue, #13, Anchorage, AK 99513– p.m. Each day will begin at 8:00 a.m. to Before including your address, phone 7504. The ROD is available on the BLM- allow for check-in and technical number, email address, or other Alaska website at http://www.blm.gov/ assistance with the virtual platform. personal identifying information in your alaska. Copies may be requested by ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held comment, you should be aware that calling Racheal Jones, BLM’s project virtually. The meeting link(s) will be your entire comment—including your manager, at 907–290–0307. made available at least one week before personal identifying information—may FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: the meeting dates on the RAC’s website, be made publicly available at any time. Racheal Jones, BLM Alaska State Office, https://www.blm.gov/get-involved/ While you can ask us in your comment telephone: 907–290–0307, email: resource-advisory-council/near-you/ to withhold your personal identifying [email protected]. Persons who use a arizona. Written comments may be information from public review, we telecommunications device for the deaf submitted in advance to Dolores Garcia, cannot guarantee that we will be able to (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Public Affairs Specialist, BLM Arizona Service (FRS) at 1–800–877–8339 to do so. State Office, One North Central Avenue, contact Ms. Jones during normal Suite 800, Phoenix, Arizona 85004– Authority: 43 CFR 1784.4–2. business hours. The FRS is available 24 4427; or by email to [email protected]. hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a Raymond Suazo, All comments received will be provided message or question. You will receive a to the Arizona RAC. Arizona State Director. reply during normal business hours. [FR Doc. 2020–24233 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Final Dolores Garcia, Public Affairs Specialist, BILLING CODE 4310–12–P EIS for the MDP Project was issued on by mail at the BLM Arizona State Office, August 13, 2020, and evaluated four One North Central Avenue, Suite 800, alternatives, including a no-action Phoenix, Arizona, 85004–4427; by alternative. The ROD adopts Alternative telephone at 602–417–9241; or by email B and module delivery Option 3 as at [email protected]. Persons who use a described in the Final EIS, subject to telecommunications device for the deaf minor modifications and clarifications (TDD) may call the Federal Relay described in the ROD. Service (FRS) at 1–800–877–8339 to The ROD constitutes the final contact Ms. Garcia during normal decision of the BLM and DOI except for

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:41 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES 69352 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices

drill sites BT 4 and 5 and associated issued antidumping and countervailing (5) An Importer is any person or firm gravel roads and pipelines and, in duty orders on imports of certain engaged, either directly or through a accordance with the regulations at 43 potassium phosphate salts from China parent company or subsidiary, in CFR 4.410(a)(3), is not subject to appeal (75 FR 42682–42684). Following the importing the Subject Merchandise into under Departmental regulations at 43 five-year reviews by Commerce and the the United States from a foreign CFR part 4. Commission, effective December 21, manufacturer or through its selling (Authority: 40 CFR 1506.6) 2015, Commerce issued a continuation agent. of the antidumping and countervailing Participation in the proceeding and Chad B. Padgett, duty orders on imports of certain public service list.—Persons, including State Director. potassium phosphate salts from China industrial users of the Subject [FR Doc. 2020–24232 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] (80 FR 79305). The Commission is now Merchandise and, if the merchandise is BILLING CODE 4310–JA–P conducting second reviews pursuant to sold at the retail level, representative section 751(c) of the Act, as amended consumer organizations, wishing to (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), to determine participate in the proceeding as parties INTERNATIONAL TRADE whether revocation of the orders would must file an entry of appearance with COMMISSION be likely to lead to continuation or the Secretary to the Commission, as recurrence of material injury to the provided in § 201.11(b)(4) of the [Investigation Nos. 701–TA–473 and 731– domestic industry within a reasonably Commission’s rules, no later than 21 TA–1173 (Second Review)] foreseeable time. Provisions concerning days after publication of this notice in the conduct of this proceeding may be the Federal Register. The Secretary will Potassium Phosphate Salts From maintain a public service list containing China; Institution of Five-Year Reviews found in the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure at 19 CFR part the names and addresses of all persons, AGENCY: United States International 201, subparts A and B, and 19 CFR part or their representatives, who are parties Trade Commission. 207, subparts A and F. The Commission to the proceeding. Former Commission employees who ACTION: Notice. will assess the adequacy of interested party responses to this notice of are seeking to appear in Commission SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives institution to determine whether to five-year reviews are advised that they notice that it has instituted reviews conduct full or expedited reviews. The may appear in a review even if they pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the Commission’s determinations in any participated personally and Act’’), as amended, to determine expedited reviews will be based on the substantially in the corresponding whether revocation of the antidumping facts available, which may include underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying and countervailing duty orders on information provided in response to this investigation. The Commission’s certain potassium phosphate salts from notice. designated agency ethics official has China would be likely to lead to Definitions.—The following advised that a five-year review is not the continuation or recurrence of material definitions apply to these reviews: same particular matter as the underlying injury. Pursuant to the Act, interested (1) Subject Merchandise is the class or parties are requested to respond to this original investigation, and a five-year kind of merchandise that is within the review is not the same particular matter notice by submitting the information scope of the five-year reviews, as specified below to the Commission. as an earlier review of the same defined by Commerce. underlying investigation for purposes of DATES: Instituted November 2, 2020. To (2) The Subject Country in these be assured of consideration, the 18 U.S.C. 207, the post-employment reviews is China. statute for Federal employees, and deadline for responses is December 2, (3) The Domestic Like Product is the Commission rule 201.15(b) (19 CFR 2020. Comments on the adequacy of domestically produced product or 201.15(b)), 79 FR 3246 (Jan. 17, 2014), responses may be filed with the products which are like, or in the 73 FR 24609 (, 2008). Commission by , 2021. absence of like, most similar in Consequently, former employees are not FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: characteristics and uses with, the required to seek Commission approval Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of Subject Merchandise. In its original to appear in a review under Commission Investigations, U.S. International Trade determinations and its expedited first rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if the Commission, 500 E Street SW, five-year review determinations, the corresponding underlying original Washington, DC 20436. Hearing- Commission defined anhydrous investigation or an earlier review of the impaired persons can obtain dipotassium phosphate (‘‘DKP’’) and same underlying investigation was information on this matter by contacting tetrapotassium pyrophosphate pending when they were Commission the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– (‘‘TKPP’’), each of which is within employees. For further ethics advice on 205–1810. Persons with mobility Commerce’s scope definition, as this matter, contact Charles Smith, impairments who will need special separate Domestic Like Products. Office of the General Counsel, at 202– assistance in gaining access to the (4) The Domestic Industry is the U.S. 205–3408. Commission should contact the Office producers as a whole of the Domestic Limited disclosure of business of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. Like Product, or those producers whose proprietary information (BPI) under an General information concerning the collective output of the Domestic Like administrative protective order (APO) Commission may also be obtained by Product constitutes a major proportion and APO service list.—Pursuant to accessing its internet server (https:// of the total domestic production of the § 207.7(a) of the Commission’s rules, the www.usitc.gov). The public record for product. In its original determinations Secretary will make BPI submitted in this proceeding may be viewed on the and its expedited first five-year review this proceeding available to authorized Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) determinations, the Commission applicants under the APO issued in the at https://edis.usitc.gov. defined two Domestic Industries as proceeding, provided that the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: follows: (1) All domestic producers of application is made no later than 21 Background.—On July 22, 2010, the DKP and (2) all domestic producers of days after publication of this notice in Department of Commerce (‘‘Commerce’’) TKPP. the Federal Register. Authorized

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:41 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices 69353

applicants must represent interested must accompany the document (if you U.S. producer of the Domestic Like parties, as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), are not a party to the proceeding you do Product, a U.S. union or worker group, who are parties to the proceeding. A not need to serve your response). a U.S. importer of the Subject separate service list will be maintained Please note the Secretary’s Office will Merchandise, a foreign producer or by the Secretary for those parties accept only electronic filings at this exporter of the Subject Merchandise, a authorized to receive BPI under the time. Filings must be made through the U.S. or foreign trade or business APO. Commission’s Electronic Document association (a majority of whose Certification.—Pursuant to § 207.3 of Information System (EDIS, https:// members are interested parties under the Commission’s rules, any person edis.usitc.gov). No in-person paper- the statute), or another interested party submitting information to the based filings or paper copies of any (including an explanation). If you are a Commission in connection with this electronic filings will be accepted until union/worker group or trade/business proceeding must certify that the further notice. association, identify the firms in which information is accurate and complete to No response to this request for your workers are employed or which are the best of the submitter’s knowledge. In information is required if a currently members of your association. making the certification, the submitter valid Office of Management and Budget (3) A statement indicating whether will acknowledge that information (‘‘OMB’’) number is not displayed; the your firm/entity is willing to participate submitted in response to this request for OMB number is 3117 0016/USITC No. in this proceeding by providing information and throughout this 20–5–476, expiration date June 30, information requested by the proceeding or other proceeding may be 2023. Public reporting burden for the Commission. disclosed to and used: (i) By the request is estimated to average 15 hours (4) A statement of the likely effects of Commission, its employees and Offices, per response. Please send comments the revocation of the antidumping and and contract personnel (a) for regarding the accuracy of this burden countervailing duty orders on the developing or maintaining the records estimate to the Office of Investigations, Domestic Industry in general and/or of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in U.S. International Trade Commission, your firm/entity specifically. In your internal investigations, audits, reviews, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC response, please discuss the various and evaluations relating to the 20436. factors specified in section 752(a) of the programs, personnel, and operations of Inability to provide requested Act (19 U.S.C. 1675a(a)) including the the Commission including under 5 information.—Pursuant to § 207.61(c) of likely volume of subject imports, likely U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. the Commission’s rules, any interested price effects of subject imports, and government employees and contract party that cannot furnish the likelyi mpact of imports of Subject personnel, solely for cybersecurity information requested by this notice in Merchandise on the Domestic Industry. purposes. All contract personnel will the requested form and manner shall (5) A list of all known and currently sign appropriate nondisclosure notify the Commission at the earliest operating U.S. producers of the agreements. possible time, provide a full explanation Domestic Like Product. Identify any Written submissions.—Pursuant to of why it cannot provide the requested known related parties and the nature of § 207.61 of the Commission’s rules, each information, and indicate alternative the relationship as defined in section interested party response to this notice forms in which it can provide 771(4)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. must provide the information specified equivalent information. If an interested 1677(4)(B)). below. The deadline for filing such party does not provide this notification (6) A list of all known and currently responses is December 2, 2020. Pursuant (or the Commission finds the operating U.S. importers of the Subject to § 207.62(b) of the Commission’s rules, explanation provided in the notification Merchandise and producers of the eligible parties (as specified in inadequate) and fails to provide a Subject Merchandise in the Subject Commission rule 207.62(b)(1)) may also complete response to this notice, the Country that currently export or have file comments concerning the adequacy Commission may take an adverse exported Subject Merchandise to the of responses to the notice of institution inference against the party pursuant to United States or other countries after and whether the Commission should § 776(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1677e(b)) 2014. conduct expedited or full reviews. The in making its determinations in the (7) A list of 3–5 leading purchasers in deadline for filing such comments is reviews. the U.S. market for the Domestic Like January 14, 2021. All written Information to be Provided in Product and the Subject Merchandise submissions must conform with the Response to this Notice of Institution: (including street address, World Wide provisions of § 201.8 of the Please provide the requested Web address, and the name, telephone Commission’s rules; any submissions information separately for each number, fax number, and Email address that contain BPI must also conform with Domestic Like Product, as defined by of a responsible official at each firm). the requirements of §§ 201.6, 207.3, and the Commission in its original (8) A list of known sources of 207.7 of the Commission’s rules. The determinations and its expedited first information on national or regional Commission’s Handbook on Filing five-year review determinations, and for prices for the Domestic Like Product or Procedures, available on the each of the products identified by the Subject Merchandise in the U.S. or Commission’s website at https:// Commerce as Subject Merchandise. As other markets. www.usitc.gov/documents/handbook_ used below, the term ‘‘firm’’ includes (9) If you are a U.S. producer of the on_filing_procedures.pdf, elaborates any related firms. Domestic Like Product, provide the upon the Commission’s procedures with (1) The name and address of your firm following information on your firm’s respect to filings. Also, in accordance or entity (including World Wide Web operations on that product during with §§ 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the address) and name, telephone number, calendar year 2019, except as noted Commission’s rules, each document fax number, and Email address of the (report quantity data in pounds and filed by a party to the proceeding must certifying official. value data in U.S. dollars, f.o.b. plant). be served on all other parties to the (2) A statement indicating whether If you are a union/worker group or proceeding (as identified by either the your firm/entity is an interested party trade/business association, provide the public or APO service list as under 19 U.S.C. 1677(9) and if so, how, information, on an aggregate basis, for appropriate), and a certificate of service including whether your firm/entity is a the firms in which your workers are

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:55 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES 69354 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices

employed/which are members of your Subject Merchandise imported from the produced in the United States, Subject association. Subject Country. Merchandise produced in the Subject (a) Production (quantity) and, if (11) If you are a producer, an exporter, Country, and such merchandise from known, an estimate of the percentage of or a trade/business association of other countries. total U.S. production of the Domestic producers or exporters of the Subject (13) (Optional) A statement of Like Product accounted for by your Merchandise in the Subject Country, whether you agree with the above firm’s(s’) production; provide the following information on definitions of the Domestic Like Product (b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to your firm’s(s’) operations on that and Domestic Industry; if you disagree produce the Domestic Like Product (that product during calendar year 2019 with either or both of these definitions, is, the level of production that your (report quantity data in pounds and please explain why and provide establishment(s) could reasonably have value data in U.S. dollars, landed and alternative definitions. duty-paid at the U.S. port but not expected to attain during the year, Authority: This proceeding is being assuming normal operating conditions including antidumping or conducted under authority of title VII of the (using equipment and machinery in countervailing duties). If you are a Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published place and ready to operate), normal trade/business association, provide the pursuant to § 207.61 of the Commission’s operating levels (hours per week/weeks information, on an aggregate basis, for rules. per year), time for downtime, the firms which are members of your By order of the Commission. maintenance, repair, and cleanup, and a association. Issued: October 28, 2020. (a) Production (quantity) and, if typical or representative product mix); Lisa Barton, known, an estimate of the percentage of (c) the quantity and value of U.S. Secretary to the Commission. commercial shipments of the Domestic total production of Subject Merchandise in the Subject Country accounted for by [FR Doc. 2020–24219 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] Like Product produced in your U.S. BILLING CODE 7020–02–P plant(s); your firm’s(s’) production; (b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm(s) (d) the quantity and value of U.S. to produce the Subject Merchandise in internal consumption/company the Subject Country (that is, the level of INTERNATIONAL TRADE transfers of the Domestic Like Product production that your establishment(s) COMMISSION produced in your U.S. plant(s); and could reasonably have expected to (e) the value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost [Investigation Nos. 701–TA–525 and 731– attain during the year, assuming normal TA–1260–1261 (Review)] of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, operating conditions (using equipment (iv) selling, general and administrative and machinery in place and ready to Welded Line Pipe From Korea and (SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating operate), normal operating levels (hours Turkey; Institution of Five-Year income of the Domestic Like Product per week/weeks per year), time for Reviews produced in your U.S. plant(s) (include downtime, maintenance, repair, and AGENCY: United States International both U.S. and export commercial sales, cleanup, and a typical or representative internal consumption, and company product mix); and Trade Commission. transfers) for your most recently (c) the quantity and value of your ACTION: Notice. completed fiscal year (identify the date firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives on which your fiscal year ends). Subject Merchandise and, if known, an notice that it has instituted reviews (10) If you are a U.S. importer or a estimate of the percentage of total pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the trade/business association of U.S. exports to the United States of Subject importers of the Subject Merchandise Merchandise from the Subject Country Act’’), as amended, to determine from the Subject Country, provide the accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports. whether revocation of the following information on your firm’s(s’) (12) Identify significant changes, if countervailing duty order on welded operations on that product during any, in the supply and demand line pipe from Turkey and the calendar year 2019 (report quantity data conditions or business cycle for the antidumping duty orders on welded line in pounds and value data in U.S. Domestic Like Product that have pipe from Korea and Turkey would be dollars). If you are a trade/business occurred in the United States or in the likely to lead to continuation or association, provide the information, on market for the Subject Merchandise in recurrence of material injury. Pursuant an aggregate basis, for the firms which the Subject Country after 2014, and to the Act, interested parties are are members of your association. significant changes, if any, that are requested to respond to this notice by (a) The quantity and value (landed, likely to occur within a reasonably submitting the information specified duty-paid but not including foreseeable time. Supply conditions to below to the Commission. antidumping or countervailing duties) consider include technology; DATES: Instituted November 2, 2020. To of U.S. imports and, if known, an production methods; development be assured of consideration, the estimate of the percentage of total U.S. efforts; ability to increase production deadline for responses is December 2, imports of Subject Merchandise from (including the shift of production 2020. Comments on the adequacy of the Subject Country accounted for by facilities used for other products and the responses may be filed with the your firm’s(s’) imports; use, cost, or availability of major inputs Commission by January 14, 2021. (b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. into production); and factors related to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: port, including antidumping and/or the ability to shift supply among Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of countervailing duties) of U.S. different national markets (including Investigations, U.S. International Trade commercial shipments of Subject barriers to importation in foreign Commission, 500 E Street SW, Merchandise imported from the Subject markets or changes in market demand Washington, DC 20436. Hearing- Country; and abroad). Demand conditions to consider impaired persons can obtain (c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. include end uses and applications; the information on this matter by contacting port, including antidumping and/or existence and availability of substitute the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– countervailing duties) of U.S. internal products; and the level of competition 205–1810. Persons with mobility consumption/company transfers of among the Domestic Like Product impairments who will need special

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:55 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices 69355

assistance in gaining access to the (5) The Order Date is the date that the applicants under the APO issued in the Commission should contact the Office antidumping and countervailing duty proceeding, provided that the of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. orders under review became effective. In application is made no later than 21 General information concerning the these reviews, the Order Date is days after publication of this notice in Commission may also be obtained by December 1, 2015. the Federal Register. Authorized accessing its internet server (https:// (6) An Importer is any person or firm applicants must represent interested www.usitc.gov). The public record for engaged, either directly or through a parties, as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), this proceeding may be viewed on the parent company or subsidiary, in who are parties to the proceeding. A Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) importing the Subject Merchandise into separate service list will be maintained at https://edis.usitc.gov. the United States from a foreign by the Secretary for those parties SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: manufacturer or through its selling authorized to receive BPI under the Background.—On December 1, 2015, agent. APO. the Department of Commerce Participation in the proceeding and Certification.—Pursuant to § 207.3 of (‘‘Commerce’’) issued a countervailing public service list.—Persons, including the Commission’s rules, any person duty order on imports of welded line industrial users of the Subject submitting information to the pipe from Turkey (80 FR 75054) and Merchandise and, if the merchandise is Commission in connection with this antidumping duty orders on imports of sold at the retail level, representative proceeding must certify that the welded line pipe from Korea and consumer organizations, wishing to information is accurate and complete to Turkey (80 FR 75056). The Commission participate in the proceeding as parties the best of the submitter’s knowledge. In is conducting reviews pursuant to must file an entry of appearance with making the certification, the submitter section 751(c) of the Act, as amended the Secretary to the Commission, as will acknowledge that information (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), to determine provided in § 201.11(b)(4) of the submitted in response to this request for whether revocation of the orders would Commission’s rules, no later than 21 information and throughout this be likely to lead to continuation or days after publication of this notice in proceeding or other proceeding may be recurrence of material injury to the the Federal Register. The Secretary will disclosed to and used: (i) By the domestic industry within a reasonably maintain a public service list containing Commission, its employees and Offices, foreseeable time. Provisions concerning the names and addresses of all persons, and contract personnel (a) for the conduct of this proceeding may be or their representatives, who are parties developing or maintaining the records found in the Commission’s Rules of to the proceeding. of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in Practice and Procedure at 19 CFR part Former Commission employees who internal investigations, audits, reviews, 201, subparts A and B, and 19 CFR part are seeking to appear in Commission and evaluations relating to the 207, subparts A and F. The Commission five-year reviews are advised that they programs, personnel, and operations of will assess the adequacy of interested may appear in a review even if they the Commission including under 5 party responses to this notice of participated personally and U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. institution to determine whether to substantially in the corresponding government employees and contract conduct full or expedited reviews. The underlying original investigation or an personnel, solely for cybersecurity Commission’s determinations in any earlier review of the same underlying purposes. All contract personnel will expedited reviews will be based on the investigation. The Commission’s sign appropriate nondisclosure facts available, which may include designated agency ethics official has agreements. information provided in response to this advised that a five-year review is not the Written submissions.—Pursuant to notice. same particular matter as the underlying § 207.61 of the Commission’s rules, each Definitions.—The following original investigation, and a five-year interested party response to this notice definitions apply to these reviews: review is not the same particular matter must provide the information specified (1) Subject Merchandise is the class or as an earlier review of the same below. The deadline for filing such kind of merchandise that is within the underlying investigation for purposes of responses is December 2, 2020. Pursuant scope of the five-year reviews, as 18 U.S.C. 207, the post-employment to § 207.62(b) of the Commission’s rules, defined by Commerce. statute for Federal employees, and eligible parties (as specified in (2) The Subject Countries in these Commission rule 201.15(b) (19 CFR Commission rule 207.62(b)(1)) may also reviews are Korea and Turkey. 201.15(b)), 79 FR 3246 (Jan. 17, 2014), file comments concerning the adequacy (3) The Domestic Like Product is the 73 FR 24609 (May 5, 2008). of responses to the notice of institution domestically produced product or Consequently, former employees are not and whether the Commission should products which are like, or in the required to seek Commission approval conduct expedited or full reviews. The absence of like, most similar in to appear in a review under Commission deadline for filing such comments is characteristics and uses with, the rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if the January 14, 2021. All written Subject Merchandise. In its original corresponding underlying original submissions must conform with the determinations, the Commission investigation or an earlier review of the provisions of § 201.8 of the defined a single Domestic Like Product same underlying investigation was Commission’s rules; any submissions consisting of certain welded line pipe, pending when they were Commission that contain BPI must also conform with coextensive with Commerce’s scope. employees. For further ethics advice on the requirements of §§ 201.6, 207.3, and (4) The Domestic Industry is the U.S. this matter, contact Charles Smith, 207.7 of the Commission’s rules. The producers as a whole of the Domestic Office of the General Counsel, at 202– Commission’s Handbook on Filing Like Product, or those producers whose 205–3408. Procedures, available on the collective output of the Domestic Like Limited disclosure of business Commission’s website at https:// Product constitutes a major proportion proprietary information (BPI) under an www.usitc.gov/documents/handbook_ of the total domestic production of the administrative protective order (APO) on_filing_procedures.pdf, elaborates product. In its original determinations, and APO service list.—Pursuant to upon the Commission’s procedures with the Commission defined the Domestic § 207.7(a) of the Commission’s rules, the respect to filings. Also, in accordance Industry to include all U.S. producers of Secretary will make BPI submitted in with §§ 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the certain welded line pipe. this proceeding available to authorized Commission’s rules, each document

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:55 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES 69356 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices

filed by a party to the proceeding must address) and name, telephone number, calendar year 2019, except as noted be served on all other parties to the fax number, and Email address of the (report quantity data in short tons and proceeding (as identified by either the certifying official. value data in U.S. dollars, f.o.b. plant). public or APO service list as (2) A statement indicating whether If you are a union/worker group or appropriate), and a certificate of service your firm/entity is an interested party trade/business association, provide the must accompany the document (if you under 19 U.S.C. 1677(9) and if so, how, information, on an aggregate basis, for are not a party to the proceeding you do including whether your firm/entity is a the firms in which your workers are not need to serve your response). U.S. producer of the Domestic Like employed/which are members of your Please note the Secretary’s Office will Product, a U.S. union or worker group, association. accept only electronic filings at this a U.S. importer of the Subject (a) Production (quantity) and, if time. Filings must be made through the Merchandise, a foreign producer or known, an estimate of the percentage of Commission’s Electronic Document exporter of the Subject Merchandise, a total U.S. production of the Domestic Information System (EDIS, https:// U.S. or foreign trade or business Like Product accounted for by your edis.usitc.gov). No in-person paper- association (a majority of whose firm’s(s’) production; based filings or paper copies of any members are interested parties under (b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to electronic filings will be accepted until the statute), or another interested party produce the Domestic Like Product (that further notice. (including an explanation). If you are a is, the level of production that your No response to this request for union/worker group or trade/business establishment(s) could reasonably have information is required if a currently association, identify the firms in which expected to attain during the year, valid Office of Management and Budget your workers are employed or which are assuming normal operating conditions (‘‘OMB’’) number is not displayed; the members of your association. (using equipment and machinery in OMB number is 3117 0016/USITC No. (3) A statement indicating whether place and ready to operate), normal 20–5–477, expiration date June 30, your firm/entity is willing to participate operating levels (hours per week/weeks 2023. Public reporting burden for the in this proceeding by providing per year), time for downtime, request is estimated to average 15 hours information requested by the maintenance, repair, and cleanup, and a per response. Please send comments Commission. typical or representative product mix); regarding the accuracy of this burden (4) A statement of the likely effects of (c) the quantity and value of U.S. estimate to the Office of Investigations, the revocation of the antidumping and commercial shipments of the Domestic U.S. International Trade Commission, countervailing duty orders on the Like Product produced in your U.S. 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC Domestic Industry in general and/or plant(s); 20436. your firm/entity specifically. In your (d) the quantity and value of U.S. Inability to provide requested response, please discuss the various internal consumption/company information.—Pursuant to § 207.61(c) of factors specified in § 752(a) of the Act transfers of the Domestic Like Product the Commission’s rules, any interested (19 U.S.C. 1675a(a)) including the likely produced in your U.S. plant(s); and party that cannot furnish the volume of subject imports, likely price (e) the value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost information requested by this notice in effects of subject imports, and likely of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, the requested form and manner shall impact of imports of Subject (iv) selling, general and administrative notify the Commission at the earliest Merchandise on the Domestic Industry. (SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating possible time, provide a full explanation (5) A list of all known and currently income of the Domestic Like Product of why it cannot provide the requested operating U.S. producers of the produced in your U.S. plant(s) (include information, and indicate alternative Domestic Like Product. Identify any both U.S. and export commercial sales, forms in which it can provide known related parties and the nature of internal consumption, and company equivalent information. If an interested the relationship as defined in transfers) for your most recently party does not provide this notification § 771(4)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. completed fiscal year (identify the date (or the Commission finds the 1677(4)(B)). on which your fiscal year ends). explanation provided in the notification (6) A list of all known and currently (10) If you are a U.S. importer or a inadequate) and fails to provide a operating U.S. importers of the Subject trade/business association of U.S. complete response to this notice, the Merchandise and producers of the importers of the Subject Merchandise Commission may take an adverse Subject Merchandise in each Subject from any Subject Country, provide the inference against the party pursuant to Country that currently export or have following information on your firm’s(s’) § 776(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1677e(b)) exported Subject Merchandise to the operations on that product during in making its determinations in the United States or other countries since calendar year 2019 (report quantity data reviews. the Order Date. in short tons and value data in U.S. Information to be provided in (7) A list of 3–5 leading purchasers in dollars). If you are a trade/business response to this notice of institution: If the U.S. market for the Domestic Like association, provide the information, on you are a domestic producer, union/ Product and the Subject Merchandise an aggregate basis, for the firms which worker group, or trade/business (including street address, World Wide are members of your association. association; import/export Subject Web address, and the name, telephone (a) The quantity and value (landed, Merchandise from more than one number, fax number, and Email address duty-paid but not including Subject Country; or produce Subject of a responsible official at each firm). antidumping or countervailing duties) Merchandise in more than one Subject (8) A list of known sources of of U.S. imports and, if known, an Country, you may file a single response. information on national or regional estimate of the percentage of total U.S. If you do so, please ensure that your prices for the Domestic Like Product or imports of Subject Merchandise from response to each question includes the the Subject Merchandise in the U.S. or each Subject Country accounted for by information requested for each pertinent other markets. your firm’s(s’) imports; Subject Country. As used below, the (9) If you are a U.S. producer of the (b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. term ‘‘firm’’ includes any related firms. Domestic Like Product, provide the port, including antidumping and/or (1) The name and address of your firm following information on your firm’s countervailing duties) of U.S. or entity (including World Wide Web operations on that product during commercial shipments of Subject

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:55 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices 69357

Merchandise imported from each importation in foreign markets or Commission’s TDD terminal on (202) Subject Country; and changes in market demand abroad). 205–1810. (c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. Demand conditions to consider include SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On port, including antidumping and/or end uses and applications; the existence February 12, 2019, the Commission countervailing duties) of U.S. internal and availability of substitute products; instituted this investigation under consumption/company transfers of and the level of competition among the section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as Subject Merchandise imported from Domestic Like Product produced in the amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (‘‘section each Subject Country. United States, Subject Merchandise 337’’), based on a complaint filed by BIC (11) If you are a producer, an exporter, produced in each Subject Country, and Corporation (‘‘Complainant’’) of or a trade/business association of such merchandise from other countries. Shelton, Connecticut. See 84 FR 3486– producers or exporters of the Subject (13) (Optional) A statement of 87 (Feb. 12, 2019). The complaint, as Merchandise in any Subject Country, whether you agree with the above supplemented, alleges a violation of provide the following information on definitions of the Domestic Like Product section 337 based upon the importation your firm’s(s’) operations on that and Domestic Industry; if you disagree into the United States, the sale for product during calendar year 2019 with either or both of these definitions, importation, and the sale within the (report quantity data in short tons and please explain why and provide United States after importation of value data in U.S. dollars, landed and alternative definitions. certain pocket lighters by reason of duty-paid at the U.S. port but not infringement of U.S. Trademark including antidumping or Authority: This proceeding is being conducted under authority of Title VII of the Registration Nos. 1,761,622 and countervailing duties). If you are a Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 2,278,917. See id. The notice of trade/business association, provide the pursuant to § 207.61 of the Commission’s investigation names numerous information, on an aggregate basis, for rules. the firms which are members of your respondents, including Milan Import association. By order of the Commission. Export Company, LLC (‘‘Milan’’) of San (a) Production (quantity) and, if Issued: October 28, 2020. Diego, California; Wellpine Company known, an estimate of the percentage of Lisa Barton, Limited of Hong Kong, China; and total production of Subject Merchandise Secretary to the Commission. Zhuoye Lighter Manufacturing Co., Ltd. in each Subject Country accounted for [FR Doc. 2020–24218 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] of Foshan City, China (collectively, by your firm’s(s’) production; BILLING CODE 7020–02–P ‘‘Defaulting Respondents’’). See id. The (b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm(s) Office of Unfair Import Investigations is to produce the Subject Merchandise in also a party to the investigation. See id. each Subject Country (that is, the level INTERNATIONAL TRADE The Commission previously of production that your establishment(s) COMMISSION terminated other respondents based on could reasonably have expected to settlement and entry of a consent order. attain during the year, assuming normal [Investigation No. 337–TA–1142] See Order No. 21 (Oct. 30, 2019), operating conditions (using equipment unreviewed, Comm’n Notice (Nov. 25, and machinery in place and ready to Notice of Commission Determination 2019). The Commission also terminated operate), normal operating levels (hours To Issue a Corrected General an unserved respondent based on the per week/weeks per year), time for Exclusion Order; Certain Pocket withdrawal of the complaint allegations downtime, maintenance, repair, and Lighters as to that respondent. See Order No. 23 cleanup, and a typical or representative (Dec. 18, 2019), unreviewed, Comm’n AGENCY: U.S. International Trade product mix); and Notice (Jan. 16, 2020). (c) the quantity and value of your Commission. The Commission further found each firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of ACTION: Notice. of the Defaulting Respondents in Subject Merchandise and, if known, an default. See Order No. 13 (June 6, 2019), SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that estimate of the percentage of total unreviewed, Comm’n Notice (July 8, the U.S. International Trade exports to the United States of Subject 2019); Order No. 14 (June 6, 2019), Commission has determined to issue a Merchandise from each Subject Country unreviewed, Comm’n Notice (July 8, corrected general exclusion order accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports. 2019); Order No. 15 (June 18, 2019), (12) Identify significant changes, if (‘‘GEO’’) in the above-captioned aff’d with modification, Comm’n Notice any, in the supply and demand investigation. (July 10, 2019). On February 12, 2020, conditions or business cycle for the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: the ALJ issued an ID granting Domestic Like Product that have Houda Morad, Office of the General Complainant’s motion for summary occurred in the United States or in the Counsel, U.S. International Trade determination of violation of section market for the Subject Merchandise in Commission, 500 E Street SW, 337 by the Defaulting Respondents. each Subject Country since the Order Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) On June 22, 2020, the Commission Date, and significant changes, if any, 708–4716. Copies of non-confidential issued a notice determining to affirm the that are likely to occur within a documents filed in connection with this ID and terminating the investigation. reasonably foreseeable time. Supply investigation may be viewed on the See 85 FR 38389–90 (, 2020). conditions to consider include Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) The Commission also determined to technology; production methods; at https://edis.usitc.gov. For help issue a GEO prohibiting the unlicensed development efforts; ability to increase accessing EDIS, please email entry of certain pocket lighters that production (including the shift of [email protected]. General infringe Complainant’s asserted trade production facilities used for other information concerning the Commission dress and a CDO directed to defaulting products and the use, cost, or may also be obtained by accessing its respondent Milan. See id. The GEO, availability of major inputs into internet server at https://www.usitc.gov. however, inadvertently omits a production); and factors related to the Hearing-impaired persons are advised provision requiring Complainant to file ability to shift supply among different that information on this matter can be a yearly written statement with the national markets (including barriers to obtained by contacting the Commission attesting that Complainant

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:55 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES 69358 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices

continues to use the asserted trade dress industry in the United States within a obtained by contacting the in commerce in the United States, that reasonably foreseeable time. Commission’s TDD terminal on (202) the asserted trade dress has not been 205–1810. Background abandoned, cancelled, or rendered SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The invalid or unenforceable, and that The Commission instituted this Commission instituted this investigation Complainant continues to satisfy the review on March 2, 2020 (85 FR 12337) on October 16, 2017, under section 337 domestic industry requirement. and determined on , 2020 that it of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, The Commission has determined to would conduct an expedited review (85 19 U.S.C. 1337 (‘‘section 337’’), based on issue a corrected GEO including the FR 62323, October 2, 2020). a complaint filed by Rockwell The Commission made this reporting requirement. Automation, Inc. (‘‘Complainant’’) of determination pursuant to section Milwaukee, Wisconsin. See 82 FR The Commission’s vote on this 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It 48113–15 (Oct. 16, 2017). The determination took place on October 27, completed and filed its determination in complaint, as supplemented, alleged 2020. this review on October 27, 2020. The violations of section 337 based on the The authority for the Commission’s views of the Commission are contained infringement of certain registered determination is contained in section in USITC Publication 5129 (October trademarks and copyrights and on 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 2020), entitled Tetrahydrofurfuryl unfair methods of competition and amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part Alcohol from China: Investigation No. unfair acts in the importation or sale of 210 of the Commission’s Rules of 731–TA–1046 (Third Review). Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part certain industrial automation systems By order of the Commission. 210). and components thereof including Issued: October 27, 2020. control systems, controllers, While temporary remote operating Lisa Barton, visualization hardware, motion and procedures are in place in response to motor control systems, networking COVID–19, the Office of the Secretary is Secretary to the Commission. equipment, safety devices, and power not able to serve parties that have not [FR Doc. 2020–24161 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] supplies, the threat or effect of which is retained counsel or otherwise provided BILLING CODE 7020–02–P to destroy or substantially injure an a point of contact for electronic service. industry in the United States. See id. Accordingly, pursuant to Commission The notice of investigation identified Rules 201.16(a) and 210.7(a)(1) (19 CFR INTERNATIONAL TRADE the following respondents: Can Electric 201.16(a), 210.7(a)(1)), the Commission COMMISSION Limited of Guangzhou, China (‘‘Can orders that the Complainant(s) complete [Investigation No. 337–TA–1074] Electric’’); Capnil (HK) Company service for any party/parties without a Limited of Hong Kong (‘‘Capnil’’); method of electronic service noted on Certain Industrial Automation Systems Fractioni (Hongkong) Ltd. of Shanghai, the attached Certificate of Service and and Components Thereof Including China (‘‘Fractioni’’); Fujian Dahong shall file proof of service on the Control Systems, Controllers, Trade Co. of Fujian, China (‘‘Dahong’’); Electronic Document Information Visualization Hardware, Motion and GreySolution Limited d/b/a Fibica of System (EDIS). Motor Control Systems, Networking Equipment, Safety Devices, and Power Hong Kong (‘‘GreySolution’’); Huang By order of the Commission. Supplies; Notice of Commission Wei Feng d/b/a A–O–M Industry of Issued: October 27, 2020. Determination To Issue a Corrected Shenzhen, China (‘‘Huang’’); KBS Lisa Barton. General Exclusion Order Electronics Suzhou Co, Ltd. of Secretary to the Commission. Shanghai, China (‘‘KBS’’); PLC–VIP AGENCY [FR Doc. 2020–24167 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] : U.S. International Trade Shop d/b/a VIP Tech Limited of Hong Commission. BILLING CODE 7020–02–P Kong (‘‘PLC–VIP’’); Radwell ACTION: Notice. International, Inc. d/b/a PLC Center of Willingboro, New Jersey (‘‘Radwell’’); SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that INTERNATIONAL TRADE Shanghai EuoSource Electronic Co., Ltd the U.S. International Trade COMMISSION of Shanghai, China (‘‘EuoSource’’); Commission has determined to issue a ShenZhen T-Tide Trading co., Ltd. of corrected general exclusion order Shenzhen, China (‘‘T-Tide’’); SoBuy [Investigation No. 731–TA–1046 (Third (‘‘GEO’’) in the above-captioned Review)] Commercial (HK) Co. Limited of Hong investigation. Kong (‘‘SoBuy’’); Suzhou Yi Micro Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol From China FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Optical Co., Ltd., d/b/a Suzhou Yiwei Houda Morad, Office of the General Guangxue Youxiangongsi, d/b/a Easy Determination Counsel, U.S. International Trade Microoptics Co. LTD. of Jiangsu, China On the basis of the record 1 developed Commission, 500 E Street SW, (‘‘Suzhou’’); Wenzhou Sparker Group in the subject five-year review, the Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) Co. Ltd., d/b/a Sparker Instruments of United States International Trade 708–4716. Copies of non-confidential Wenzhou, China (‘‘Sparker’’); and Commission (‘‘Commission’’) documents filed in connection with this Yaspro Electronics (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of investigation may be viewed on the of Shanghai, China (‘‘Yaspro’’). See id. 1930 (‘‘the Act’’), that revocation of the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) In addition, the Office of Unfair Import antidumping duty order on at https://edis.usitc.gov. For help Investigations was also a party in this tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol from China accessing EDIS, please email investigation. See id. would be likely to lead to continuation [email protected]. General Nine respondents were found in or recurrence of material injury to an information concerning the Commission default, namely, Fractioni, may also be obtained by accessing its GreySolution, KBS, EuoSource, T-Tide, 1 The record is defined in § 207.2(f) of the internet server at https://www.usitc.gov. SoBuy, Suzhou, Yaspro and Can Electric Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 Hearing-impaired persons are advised (collectively, ‘‘the Defaulted CFR 207.2(f)). that information on this matter can be Respondents’’). Furthermore, five

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:55 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices 69359

unserved respondents (Capnil, Dahong, retained counsel or otherwise provided this proceeding may be viewed on the Huang, PLC–VIP, and Sparker) were a point of contact for electronic service. Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) terminated from the investigation, and Accordingly, pursuant to Commission at https://edis.usitc.gov. one respondent (Radwell) was Rules 201.16(a) and 210.7(a)(1) (19 CFR SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: terminated based on the entry of a 201.16(a), 210.7(a)(1)), the Commission Background.—On , 2015, consent order. orders that the Complainant(s) complete the Department of Commerce On October 23, 2018, the service for any party/parties without a (‘‘Commerce’’) issued antidumping and Administrative Law Judge (‘‘ALJ’’) method of electronic service noted on countervailing duty orders on imports of issued a final initial determination the attached Certificate of Service and melamine from China (80 FR 80751). (‘‘FID’’) finding a violation of section shall file proof of service on the The Commission is conducting reviews 337 by the Defaulted Respondents and Electronic Document Information pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, as recommending that the Commission: (1) System (EDIS). amended (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), to Issue a general exclusion order (‘‘GEO’’); By order of the Commission. determine whether revocation of the and (2) issue a cease and desist order Issued: October 27, 2020. orders would be likely to lead to (‘‘CDO’’) against Defaulted Respondent continuation or recurrence of material Fractioni. The ALJ determined that the Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission. injury to the domestic industry within Defaulted Respondents infringed a reasonably foreseeable time. Complainant’s asserted trademarks, but [FR Doc. 2020–24166 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P Provisions concerning the conduct of that Complainant failed to establish its this proceeding may be found in the two other claims, namely, the Commission’s Rules of Practice and infringement of Complainant’s asserted Procedure at 19 CFR part 201, subparts copyrights and tortious interference INTERNATIONAL TRADE A and B, and 19 CFR part 207, subparts with Complainant’s contracts. COMMISSION On December 20, 2018, the A and F. The Commission will assess [Investigation Nos. 701–TA–526 and 731– the adequacy of interested party Commission issued a notice TA–1262 (Review)] determining not to review the FID. See responses to this notice of institution to 83 FR 67346–48 (Dec. 28, 2018). On Melamine From China; Institution of determine whether to conduct full or April 8, 2019, the Commission issued a Five-Year Reviews expedited reviews. The Commission’s notice determining that the appropriate determinations in any expedited AGENCY: United States International reviews will be based on the facts remedy is a GEO prohibiting the Trade Commission. unlicensed entry of certain industrial available, which may include ACTION: automation systems and components Notice. information provided in response to this notice. thereof including control systems, SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives controllers, visualization hardware, Definitions.—The following notice that it has instituted reviews definitions apply to these reviews: motion and motor control systems, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the networking equipment, safety devices, (1) Subject Merchandise is the class or Act’’), as amended, to determine kind of merchandise that is within the and power supplies that infringe whether revocation of the antidumping Complainant’s asserted trademarks, and scope of the five-year reviews, as and countervailing duty orders on defined by Commerce. a CDO directed to defaulted respondent melamine from China would be likely to Fractioni. See 84 FR 14971–72 (Apr. 12, (2) The Subject Country in these lead to continuation or recurrence of reviews is China. 2019). The GEO, however, inadvertently material injury. Pursuant to the Act, omits a provision requiring (3) The Domestic Like Product is the interested parties are requested to domestically produced product or Complainant to file a yearly written respond to this notice by submitting the statement with the Commission products which are like, or in the information specified below to the absence of like, most similar in attesting that Complainant continues to Commission. use the asserted trademarks in characteristics and uses with, the DATES: commerce in the United States, that the Instituted November 2, 2020. To Subject Merchandise. In its original asserted trademarks have not been be assured of consideration, the determinations, the Commission found abandoned, cancelled, or rendered deadline for responses is December 2, a single Domestic Like Product invalid or unenforceable, and that 2020. Comments on the adequacy of consisting of melamine, coextensive Complainant continues to satisfy the responses may be filed with the with Commerce’s scope definition. domestic industry requirement. Commission by January 14, 2021. (4) The Domestic Industry is the U.S. The Commission has determined to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: producers as a whole of the Domestic issue a corrected GEO including the Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of Like Product, or those producers whose reporting requirement. Investigations, U.S. International Trade collective output of the Domestic Like The Commission’s vote on this Commission, 500 E Street SW, Product constitutes a major proportion determination took place on October 27, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing- of the total domestic production of the 2020. impaired persons can obtain product. In its original determinations, The authority for the Commission’s information on this matter by contacting the Commission defined the Domestic determination is contained in section the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– Industry as all U.S. producers of the 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 205–1810. Persons with mobility melamine products described by amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part impairments who will need special Commerce’s scope. 210 of the Commission’s Rules of assistance in gaining access to the (5) The Order Date is the date that the Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part Commission should contact the Office antidumping and countervailing duty 210). of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. orders under review became effective. In While temporary remote operating General information concerning the these reviews, the Order Date is procedures are in place in response to Commission may also be obtained by December 28, 2015. COVID–19, the Office of the Secretary is accessing its internet server (https:// (6) An Importer is any person or firm not able to serve parties that have not www.usitc.gov). The public record for engaged, either directly or through a

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:55 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES 69360 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices

parent company or subsidiary, in who are parties to the proceeding. A are not a party to the proceeding you do importing the Subject Merchandise into separate service list will be maintained not need to serve your response). the United States from a foreign by the Secretary for those parties Please note the Secretary’s Office will manufacturer or through its selling authorized to receive BPI under the accept only electronic filings at this agent. APO. time. Filings must be made through the Participation in the proceeding and Certification.—Pursuant to § 207.3 of Commission’s Electronic Document public service list.—Persons, including the Commission’s rules, any person Information System (EDIS, https:// industrial users of the Subject submitting information to the edis.usitc.gov). No in-person paper- Merchandise and, if the merchandise is Commission in connection with this based filings or paper copies of any sold at the retail level, representative proceeding must certify that the electronic filings will be accepted until consumer organizations, wishing to information is accurate and complete to further notice. participate in the proceeding as parties the best of the submitter’s knowledge. In No response to this request for must file an entry of appearance with making the certification, the submitter information is required if a currently the Secretary to the Commission, as will acknowledge that information valid Office of Management and Budget provided in § 201.11(b)(4) of the submitted in response to this request for (‘‘OMB’’) number is not displayed; the Commission’s rules, no later than 21 information and throughout this OMB number is 3117 0016/USITC No. days after publication of this notice in proceeding or other proceeding may be 20–5–475, expiration date June 30, the Federal Register. The Secretary will disclosed to and used: (i) By the 2023. Public reporting burden for the maintain a public service list containing Commission, its employees and Offices, request is estimated to average 15 hours the names and addresses of all persons, and contract personnel (a) for per response. Please send comments or their representatives, who are parties developing or maintaining the records regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to the Office of Investigations, to the proceeding. of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in Former Commission employees who U.S. International Trade Commission, internal investigations, audits, reviews, are seeking to appear in Commission 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC and evaluations relating to the five-year reviews are advised that they 20436. programs, personnel, and operations of may appear in a review even if they Inability to provide requested the Commission including under 5 participated personally and information.—Pursuant to § 207.61(c) of U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. substantially in the corresponding the Commission’s rules, any interested government employees and contract underlying original investigation or an party that cannot furnish the personnel, solely for cybersecurity earlier review of the same underlying information requested by this notice in purposes. All contract personnel will investigation. The Commission’s the requested form and manner shall sign appropriate nondisclosure designated agency ethics official has notify the Commission at the earliest advised that a five-year review is not the agreements. possible time, provide a full explanation same particular matter as the underlying Written submissions.—Pursuant to of why it cannot provide the requested original investigation, and a five-year § 207.61 of the Commission’s rules, each information, and indicate alternative review is not the same particular matter interested party response to this notice forms in which it can provide as an earlier review of the same must provide the information specified equivalent information. If an interested underlying investigation for purposes of below. The deadline for filing such party does not provide this notification 18 U.S.C. 207, the post-employment responses is December 2, 2020. Pursuant (or the Commission finds the statute for Federal employees, and to § 207.62(b) of the Commission’s rules, explanation provided in the notification Commission rule 201.15(b) (19 CFR eligible parties (as specified in inadequate) and fails to provide a 201.15(b)), 79 FR 3246 (Jan. 17, 2014), Commission rule 207.62(b)(1)) may also complete response to this notice, the 73 FR 24609 (May 5, 2008). file comments concerning the adequacy Commission may take an adverse Consequently, former employees are not of responses to the notice of institution inference against the party pursuant to required to seek Commission approval and whether the Commission should § 776(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1677e(b)) to appear in a review under Commission conduct expedited or full reviews. The in making its determinations in the rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if the deadline for filing such comments is reviews. corresponding underlying original January 14, 2021. All written Information to be Provided in investigation or an earlier review of the submissions must conform with the Response to this Notice of Institution: same underlying investigation was provisions of § 201.8 of the As used below, the term ‘‘firm’’ includes pending when they were Commission Commission’s rules; any submissions any related firms. employees. For further ethics advice on that contain BPI must also conform with (1) The name and address of your firm this matter, contact Charles Smith, the requirements of §§ 201.6, 207.3, and or entity (including World Wide Web Office of the General Counsel, at 202– 207.7 of the Commission’s rules. The address) and name, telephone number, 205–3408. Commission’s Handbook on Filing fax number, and Email address of the Limited disclosure of business Procedures, available on the certifying official. proprietary information (BPI) under an Commission’s website at https:// (2) A statement indicating whether administrative protective order (APO) www.usitc.gov/documents/handbook_ your firm/entity is an interested party and APO service list.—Pursuant to on_filing_procedures.pdf, elaborates under 19 U.S.C. 1677(9) and if so, how, § 207.7(a) of the Commission’s rules, the upon the Commission’s procedures with including whether your firm/entity is a Secretary will make BPI submitted in respect to filings. Also, in accordance U.S. producer of the Domestic Like this proceeding available to authorized with §§ 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Product, a U.S. union or worker group, applicants under the APO issued in the Commission’s rules, each document a U.S. importer of the Subject proceeding, provided that the filed by a party to the proceeding must Merchandise, a foreign producer or application is made no later than 21 be served on all other parties to the exporter of the Subject Merchandise, a days after publication of this notice in proceeding (as identified by either the U.S. or foreign trade or business the Federal Register. Authorized public or APO service list as association (a majority of whose applicants must represent interested appropriate), and a certificate of service members are interested parties under parties, as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), must accompany the document (if you the statute), or another interested party

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:55 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices 69361

(including an explanation). If you are a is, the level of production that your value data in U.S. dollars, landed and union/worker group or trade/business establishment(s) could reasonably have duty-paid at the U.S. port but not association, identify the firms in which expected to attain during the year, including antidumping or your workers are employed or which are assuming normal operating conditions countervailing duties). If you are a members of your association. (using equipment and machinery in trade/business association, provide the (3) A statement indicating whether place and ready to operate), normal information, on an aggregate basis, for your firm/entity is willing to participate operating levels (hours per week/weeks the firms which are members of your in this proceeding by providing per year), time for downtime, association. information requested by the maintenance, repair, and cleanup, and a (a) Production (quantity) and, if Commission. typical or representative product mix); known, an estimate of the percentage of (4) A statement of the likely effects of (c) the quantity and value of U.S. total production of Subject Merchandise the revocation of the antidumping and commercial shipments of the Domestic in the Subject Country accounted for by countervailing duty orders on the Like Product produced in your U.S. your firm’s(s’) production; Domestic Industry in general and/or plant(s); (b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm(s) your firm/entity specifically. In your (d) the quantity and value of U.S. to produce the Subject Merchandise in response, please discuss the various internal consumption/company the Subject Country (that is, the level of factors specified in § 752(a) of the Act transfers of the Domestic Like Product production that your establishment(s) (19 U.S.C. 1675a(a)) including the likely produced in your U.S. plant(s); and could reasonably have expected to (e) the value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost volume of subject imports, likely price attain during the year, assuming normal of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, effects of subject imports, and likely operating conditions (using equipment (iv) selling, general and administrative impact of imports of Subject and machinery in place and ready to (SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating Merchandise on the Domestic Industry. operate), normal operating levels (hours income of the Domestic Like Product (5) A list of all known and currently per week/weeks per year), time for produced in your U.S. plant(s) (include operating U.S. producers of the downtime, maintenance, repair, and both U.S. and export commercial sales, Domestic Like Product. Identify any cleanup, and a typical or representative internal consumption, and company known related parties and the nature of product mix); and transfers) for your most recently the relationship as defined in (c) the quantity and value of your completed fiscal year (identify the date § 771(4)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of on which your fiscal year ends). 1677(4)(B)). Subject Merchandise and, if known, an (6) A list of all known and currently (10) If you are a U.S. importer or a estimate of the percentage of total operating U.S. importers of the Subject trade/business association of U.S. exports to the United States of Subject Merchandise and producers of the importers of the Subject Merchandise Merchandise from the Subject Country Subject Merchandise in the Subject from the Subject Country, provide the accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports. Country that currently export or have following information on your firm’s(s’) (12) Identify significant changes, if exported Subject Merchandise to the operations on that product during any, in the supply and demand United States or other countries since calendar year 2019 (report quantity data conditions or business cycle for the the Order Date. in pounds and value data in U.S. (7) A list of 3–5 leading purchasers in dollars). If you are a trade/business Domestic Like Product that have the U.S. market for the Domestic Like association, provide the information, on occurred in the United States or in the Product and the Subject Merchandise an aggregate basis, for the firms which market for the Subject Merchandise in (including street address, World Wide are members of your association. the Subject Country since the Order Web address, and the name, telephone (a) The quantity and value (landed, Date, and significant changes, if any, number, fax number, and Email address duty-paid but not including that are likely to occur within a of a responsible official at each firm). antidumping or countervailing duties) reasonably foreseeable time. Supply (8) A list of known sources of of U.S. imports and, if known, an conditions to consider include information on national or regional estimate of the percentage of total U.S. technology; production methods; prices for the Domestic Like Product or imports of Subject Merchandise from development efforts; ability to increase the Subject Merchandise in the U.S. or the Subject Country accounted for by production (including the shift of other markets. your firm’s(s’) imports; production facilities used for other (9) If you are a U.S. producer of the (b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. products and the use, cost, or Domestic Like Product, provide the port, including antidumping and/or availability of major inputs into following information on your firm’s countervailing duties) of U.S. production); and factors related to the operations on that product during commercial shipments of Subject ability to shift supply among different calendar year 2019, except as noted Merchandise imported from the Subject national markets (including barriers to (report quantity data in pounds and Country; and importation in foreign markets or value data in U.S. dollars, f.o.b. plant). (c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. changes in market demand abroad). If you are a union/worker group or port, including antidumping and/or Demand conditions to consider include trade/business association, provide the countervailing duties) of U.S. internal end uses and applications; the existence information, on an aggregate basis, for consumption/company transfers of and availability of substitute products; the firms in which your workers are Subject Merchandise imported from the and the level of competition among the employed/which are members of your Subject Country. Domestic Like Product produced in the association. (11) If you are a producer, an exporter, United States, Subject Merchandise (a) Production (quantity) and, if or a trade/business association of produced in the Subject Country, and known, an estimate of the percentage of producers or exporters of the Subject such merchandise from other countries. total U.S. production of the Domestic Merchandise in the Subject Country, (13) (Optional) A statement of Like Product accounted for by your provide the following information on whether you agree with the above firm’s(s’) production; your firm’s(s’) operations on that definitions of the Domestic Like Product (b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to product during calendar year 2019 and Domestic Industry; if you disagree produce the Domestic Like Product (that (report quantity data in pounds and with either or both of these definitions,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:55 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES 69362 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices

please explain why and provide Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) products which are like, or in the alternative definitions. at https://edis.usitc.gov. absence of like, most similar in Authority: This proceeding is being SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: characteristics and uses with, the conducted under authority of Title VII of the Background.—On October 24, 1997, Subject Merchandise. In its original Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published the Department of Commerce determinations, the Commission pursuant to § 207.61 of the Commission’s (‘‘Commerce’’) suspended antidumping defined the Domestic Like Product as rules. duty investigations on imports of cut-to- cut-to-length plate, co-extensive with By order of the Commission. length carbon steel plate from China, Commerce’s scope, produced by U.S. Issued: October 28, 2020. Russia, and Ukraine (62 FR 61766, mills or cut from coiled plate by service centers. In its full first, second, and Lisa Barton, 61773, and 61780, November 19, 1997). third five-year review determinations, Secretary to the Commission. Following the first five-year reviews by Commerce and the Commission, the Commission defined the Domestic [FR Doc. 2020–24217 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] effective , 2003, Commerce Like Product as cut-to-length plate, BILLING CODE 7020–02–P issued a continuation of the suspended including cut-to-length plate made from investigations on imports of cut-to- micro-alloy steel. One Commissioner length carbon steel plate from China, defined the Domestic Like Product INTERNATIONAL TRADE differently in the first five-year reviews. COMMISSION Russia, and Ukraine (68 FR 54417). The suspension agreement concerning cut- (4) The Domestic Industry is the U.S. producers as a whole of the Domestic to-length carbon steel plate from China [Investigation Nos. 731–TA–753, 754, and Like Product, or those producers whose was subsequently terminated and an 756 (Fourth Review)] collective output of the Domestic Like antidumping duty order was imposed Product constitutes a major proportion Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From effective November 3, 2003 (68 FR of the total domestic production of the China, Russia, and Ukraine; Institution 60081). Commerce issued a product. In its original determinations of Five-Year Reviews continuation of the antidumping duty and its full first, second, and third five- order on imports of cut-to-length carbon year review determinations, the AGENCY: United States International steel plate from China and of the Commission defined the Domestic Trade Commission. suspended investigations on imports of Industry to include all producers of the ACTION: Notice. cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Domestic Like Product, whether toll Russia and Ukraine following the SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives producers, integrated producers, or second five-year reviews (74 FR 57994, processors. One Commissioner defined notice that it has instituted reviews November 10, 2009) and third five-year pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the the Domestic Industry differently in the reviews (80 FR 79306, December 21, first five-year reviews. Act’’), as amended, to determine 2015). The Commission is now whether revocation of the antidumping (5) An Importer is any person or firm conducting the fourth five-year reviews engaged, either directly or through a duty order on cut-to-length carbon steel pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, as plate from China and the termination of parent company or subsidiary, in amended (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), to importing the Subject Merchandise into the suspended investigations on cut-to- determine whether revocation of the length carbon steel plate from Russia the United States from a foreign order concerning China and termination manufacturer or through its selling and Ukraine would be likely to lead to of the suspended investigations continuation or recurrence of material agent. concerning Russia and Ukraine would Participation in the proceeding and injury. Pursuant to the Act, interested be likely to lead to continuation or parties are requested to respond to this public service list.—Persons, including recurrence of material injury to the industrial users of the Subject notice by submitting the information domestic industry within a reasonably specified below to the Commission. Merchandise and, if the merchandise is foreseeable time. Provisions concerning sold at the retail level, representative DATES: Instituted November 2, 2020. To the conduct of this proceeding may be consumer organizations, wishing to be assured of consideration, the found in the Commission’s Rules of participate in the proceeding as parties deadline for responses is December 2, Practice and Procedure at 19 CFR part must file an entry of appearance with 2020. Comments on the adequacy of 201, subparts A and B, and 19 CFR part the Secretary to the Commission, as responses may be filed with the 207, subparts A and F. The Commission provided in § 201.11(b)(4) of the Commission by January 14, 2021. will assess the adequacy of interested Commission’s rules, no later than 21 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: party responses to this notice of days after publication of this notice in Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of institution to determine whether to the Federal Register. The Secretary will Investigations, U.S. International Trade conduct full or expedited reviews. The maintain a public service list containing Commission, 500 E Street SW, Commission’s determinations in any the names and addresses of all persons, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing- expedited reviews will be based on the or their representatives, who are parties impaired persons can obtain facts available, which may include to the proceeding. information on this matter by contacting information provided in response to this Former Commission employees who the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– notice. are seeking to appear in Commission 205–1810. Persons with mobility Definitions.—The following five-year reviews are advised that they impairments who will need special definitions apply to these reviews: may appear in a review even if they assistance in gaining access to the (1) Subject Merchandise is the class or participated personally and Commission should contact the Office kind of merchandise that is within the substantially in the corresponding of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. scope of the five-year reviews, as underlying original investigation or an General information concerning the defined by Commerce. earlier review of the same underlying Commission may also be obtained by (2) The Subject Countries in these investigation. The Commission’s accessing its internet server (https:// reviews are China, Russia, and Ukraine. designated agency ethics official has www.usitc.gov). The public record for (3) The Domestic Like Product is the advised that a five-year review is not the this proceeding may be viewed on the domestically produced product or same particular matter as the underlying

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:55 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices 69363

original investigation, and a five-year interested party response to this notice forms in which it can provide review is not the same particular matter must provide the information specified equivalent information. If an interested as an earlier review of the same below. The deadline for filing such party does not provide this notification underlying investigation for purposes of responses is December 2, 2020. Pursuant (or the Commission finds the 18 U.S.C. 207, the post-employment to § 207.62(b) of the Commission’s rules, explanation provided in the notification statute for Federal employees, and eligible parties (as specified in inadequate) and fails to provide a Commission rule 201.15(b) (19 CFR Commission rule 207.62(b)(1)) may also complete response to this notice, the 201.15(b)), 79 FR 3246 (Jan. 17, 2014), file comments concerning the adequacy Commission may take an adverse 73 FR 24609 (May 5, 2008). of responses to the notice of institution inference against the party pursuant to Consequently, former employees are not and whether the Commission should § 776(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1677e(b)) required to seek Commission approval conduct expedited or full reviews. The in making its determinations in the to appear in a review under Commission deadline for filing such comments is reviews. rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if the January 14, 2021. All written Information To Be Provided in corresponding underlying original submissions must conform with the Response to This Notice of Institution: If investigation or an earlier review of the provisions of § 201.8 of the you are a domestic producer, union/ same underlying investigation was Commission’s rules; any submissions worker group, or trade/business pending when they were Commission that contain BPI must also conform with association; import/export Subject employees. For further ethics advice on the requirements of §§ 201.6, 207.3, and Merchandise from more than one this matter, contact Charles Smith, 207.7 of the Commission’s rules. The Subject Country; or produce Subject Office of the General Counsel, at 202– Commission’s Handbook on Filing Merchandise in more than one Subject 205–3408. Procedures, available on the Country, you may file a single response. Limited disclosure of business Commission’s website at https:// If you do so, please ensure that your proprietary information (BPI) under an www.usitc.gov/documents/handbook_ response to each question includes the administrative protective order (APO) on_filing_procedures.pdf, elaborates information requested for each pertinent and APO service list.—Pursuant to upon the Commission’s procedures with Subject Country. As used below, the § 207.7(a) of the Commission’s rules, the respect to filings. Also, in accordance term ‘‘firm’’ includes any related firms. Secretary will make BPI submitted in with §§ 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the (1) The name and address of your firm this proceeding available to authorized Commission’s rules, each document or entity (including World Wide Web applicants under the APO issued in the filed by a party to the proceeding must address) and name, telephone number, proceeding, provided that the be served on all other parties to the fax number, and Email address of the application is made no later than 21 proceeding (as identified by either the certifying official. days after publication of this notice in public or APO service list as (2) A statement indicating whether the Federal Register. Authorized appropriate), and a certificate of service your firm/entity is an interested party applicants must represent interested must accompany the document (if you under 19 U.S.C. 1677(9) and if so, how, parties, as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), are not a party to the proceeding you do including whether your firm/entity is a who are parties to the proceeding. A not need to serve your response). U.S. producer of the Domestic Like separate service list will be maintained Please note the Secretary’s Office will Product, a U.S. union or worker group, by the Secretary for those parties accept only electronic filings at this a U.S. importer of the Subject authorized to receive BPI under the time. Filings must be made through the Merchandise, a foreign producer or APO. Commission’s Electronic Document exporter of the Subject Merchandise, a Certification.—Pursuant to § 207.3 of Information System (EDIS, https:// U.S. or foreign trade or business the Commission’s rules, any person edis.usitc.gov). No in-person paper- association (a majority of whose submitting information to the based filings or paper copies of any members are interested parties under Commission in connection with this electronic filings will be accepted until the statute), or another interested party proceeding must certify that the further notice. (including an explanation). If you are a information is accurate and complete to No response to this request for union/worker group or trade/business the best of the submitter’s knowledge. In information is required if a currently association, identify the firms in which making the certification, the submitter valid Office of Management and Budget your workers are employed or which are will acknowledge that information (‘‘OMB’’) number is not displayed; the members of your association. submitted in response to this request for OMB number is 3117 0016/USITC No. (3) A statement indicating whether information and throughout this 20–5–474, expiration date June 30, your firm/entity is willing to participate proceeding or other proceeding may be 2023. Public reporting burden for the in this proceeding by providing disclosed to and used: (i) By the request is estimated to average 15 hours information requested by the Commission, its employees and Offices, per response. Please send comments Commission. and contract personnel (a) for regarding the accuracy of this burden (4) A statement of the likely effects of developing or maintaining the records estimate to the Office of Investigations, the revocation of the antidumping duty of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in U.S. International Trade Commission, order concerning China and the internal investigations, audits, reviews, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC termination of the suspended and evaluations relating to the 20436. investigations concerning Russia and programs, personnel, and operations of Inability to provide requested Ukraine on the Domestic Industry in the Commission including under 5 information.—Pursuant to § 207.61(c) of general and/or your firm/entity U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. the Commission’s rules, any interested specifically. In your response, please government employees and contract party that cannot furnish the discuss the various factors specified in personnel, solely for cybersecurity information requested by this notice in section 752(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. purposes. All contract personnel will the requested form and manner shall 1675a(a)) including the likely volume of sign appropriate nondisclosure notify the Commission at the earliest subject imports, likely price effects of agreements. possible time, provide a full explanation subject imports, and likely impact of Written submissions.—Pursuant to of why it cannot provide the requested imports of Subject Merchandise on the § 207.61 of the Commission’s rules, each information, and indicate alternative Domestic Industry.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:55 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES 69364 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices

(5) A list of all known and currently income of the Domestic Like Product cleanup, and a typical or representative operating U.S. producers of the produced in your U.S. plant(s) (include product mix); and Domestic Like Product. Identify any both U.S. and export commercial sales, (c) the quantity and value of your known related parties and the nature of internal consumption, and company firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of the relationship as defined in transfers) for your most recently Subject Merchandise and, if known, an § 771(4)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. completed fiscal year (identify the date estimate of the percentage of total 1677(4)(B)). on which your fiscal year ends). exports to the United States of Subject (6) A list of all known and currently (10) If you are a U.S. importer or a Merchandise from each Subject Country operating U.S. importers of the Subject trade/business association of U.S. accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports. Merchandise and producers of the importers of the Subject Merchandise (12) Identify significant changes, if Subject Merchandise in each Subject from any Subject Country, provide the any, in the supply and demand Country that currently export or have following information on your firm’s(s’) conditions or business cycle for the exported Subject Merchandise to the operations on that product during Domestic Like Product that have United States or other countries after calendar year 2019 (report quantity data occurred in the United States or in the 2014. in short tons and value data in U.S. market for the Subject Merchandise in (7) A list of 3–5 leading purchasers in dollars). If you are a trade/business each Subject Country after 2014, and the U.S. market for the Domestic Like association, provide the information, on significant changes, if any, that are Product and the Subject Merchandise an aggregate basis, for the firms which likely to occur within a reasonably (including street address, World Wide are members of your association. foreseeable time. Supply conditions to Web address, and the name, telephone (a) The quantity and value (landed, consider include technology; number, fax number, and Email address duty-paid but not including production methods; development of a responsible official at each firm). antidumping duties) of U.S. imports efforts; ability to increase production (8) A list of known sources of and, if known, an estimate of the (including the shift of production information on national or regional percentage of total U.S. imports of facilities used for other products and the prices for the Domestic Like Product or Subject Merchandise from each Subject use, cost, or availability of major inputs the Subject Merchandise in the U.S. or Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) into production); and factors related to other markets. imports; the ability to shift supply among (9) If you are a U.S. producer of the (b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. different national markets (including Domestic Like Product, provide the port, including antidumping duties) of barriers to importation in foreign following information on your firm’s U.S. commercial shipments of Subject markets or changes in market demand operations on that product during Merchandise imported from each abroad). Demand conditions to consider calendar year 2019, except as noted Subject Country; and include end uses and applications; the (report quantity data in short tons and (c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. existence and availability of substitute value data in U.S. dollars, f.o.b. plant). port, including antidumping duties) of products; and the level of competition If you are a union/worker group or U.S. internal consumption/company among the Domestic Like Product trade/business association, provide the transfers of Subject Merchandise produced in the United States, Subject information, on an aggregate basis, for imported from each Subject Country. Merchandise produced in each Subject the firms in which your workers are (11) If you are a producer, an exporter, Country, and such merchandise from employed/which are members of your or a trade/business association of other countries. association. (13) (Optional) A statement of (a) Production (quantity) and, if producers or exporters of the Subject whether you agree with the above known, an estimate of the percentage of Merchandise in any Subject Country, definitions of the Domestic Like Product total U.S. production of the Domestic provide the following information on and Domestic Industry; if you disagree Like Product accounted for by your your firm’s(s’) operations on that with either or both of these definitions, firm’s(s’) production; product during calendar year 2019 please explain why and provide (b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to (report quantity data in short tons and alternative definitions. produce the Domestic Like Product (that value data in U.S. dollars, landed and is, the level of production that your duty-paid at the U.S. port but not Authority: This proceeding is being establishment(s) could reasonably have including antidumping duties). If you conducted under authority of title VII of the expected to attain during the year, are a trade/business association, provide Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published assuming normal operating conditions the information, on an aggregate basis, pursuant to § 207.61 of the Commission’s rules. (using equipment and machinery in for the firms which are members of your place and ready to operate), normal association. By order of the Commission. operating levels (hours per week/weeks (a) Production (quantity) and, if Issued: October 28, 2020. per year), time for downtime, known, an estimate of the percentage of Lisa Barton, maintenance, repair, and cleanup, and a total production of Subject Merchandise Secretary to the Commission. in each Subject Country accounted for typical or representative product mix); [FR Doc. 2020–24216 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] by your firm’s(s’) production; (c) the quantity and value of U.S. BILLING CODE 7020–02–P commercial shipments of the Domestic (b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm(s) Like Product produced in your U.S. to produce the Subject Merchandise in plant(s); each Subject Country (that is, the level (d) the quantity and value of U.S. of production that your establishment(s) DEPARTMENT OF LABOR internal consumption/company could reasonably have expected to Employment and Training transfers of the Domestic Like Product attain during the year, assuming normal Administration produced in your U.S. plant(s); and operating conditions (using equipment (e) the value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost and machinery in place and ready to Labor Surplus Area Classification of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, operate), normal operating levels (hours (iv) selling, general and administrative per week/weeks per year), time for AGENCY: Employment and Training (SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating downtime, maintenance, repair, and Administration, Labor.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:41 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices 69365

ACTION: Notice. available estimates from the Bureau of program’s exceptional circumstance the Census; or procedures, LSA classifications can be SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is 2. A town or township in the States made for civil jurisdictions, to announce the annual Labor Surplus of Michigan, New Jersey, New York, or Metropolitan Statistical Areas or Area (LSA) list for Fiscal Year (FY) Pennsylvania of 25,000 or more Combined Statistical Areas, as defined 2021. population and which possess powers by the U.S. Office of Management and and functions similar to those of cities; DATES: The annual LSA list is effective Budget. In order for an area to be October 1, 2020, for all states, the or classified as a LSA under the 3. All counties, except for those District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. exceptional circumstance criteria, the counties which contain any type of civil state workforce agency must submit a FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: jurisdictions defined in ‘‘1’’ or ‘‘2’’ petition requesting such classification to Samuel Wright, Office of Workforce above; or the Department of Labor’s ETA. The Investment, Employment and Training 4. A ‘‘balance of county’’ consisting of current criteria for an exceptional Administration, 200 Constitution a county less any component cities and circumstance classification are: Avenue NW, Room C–4514, townships identified in ‘‘1’’ or ‘‘2’’ 1. An area’s unemployment rate is at Washington, DC 20210. Telephone: above; or least 6 percent for each of the three most (202) 693–2870 (This is not a toll-free 5. A county equivalent which is a recent months; number) or email wright.samuel.e@ town in the States of Connecticut, 2. A projected unemployment rate of dol.gov. Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, or a at least 6 percent for each of the next 12 municipio in the Commonwealth of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The months because of an event; and Department of Labor’s regulations Puerto Rico. 3. Documentation that the exceptional implementing Executive Orders 12073 Procedures for Classifying Labor circumstance event has occurred. The and 10582 are set forth at 20 CFR part Surplus Areas state workforce agency may file 654, subpart A. These regulations petitions on behalf of civil jurisdictions, The Department of Labor (DOL) issues Metropolitan Statistical Areas, or require the Employment and Training the LSA list on a fiscal year basis. The Administration (ETA) to classify Micropolitan Statistical Areas. Please list becomes effective each October 1, note, high unemployment due to jurisdictions as LSAs pursuant to the and remains in effect through the criteria specified in the regulations, and COVID–19 will be considered an following September 30. The reference exceptional circumstance. to publish annually a list of LSAs. period used in preparing the current list Pursuant to those regulations, ETA is State Workforce Agencies may submit was January 2018 through December petitions in electronic format to hereby publishing the annual LSA list. 2019. The national average In addition, the regulations provide [email protected], or in hard unemployment rate (including Puerto copy to the U.S. Department of Labor, exceptional circumstance criteria for Rico) during this period is rounded to classifying LSAs when catastrophic Employment and Training 3.8 percent. Twenty percent higher than Administration, Office of Workforce events, such as natural disasters, plant the national unemployment rate during closings, and contract cancellations are Investment, 200 Constitution Avenue this period is rounded to 4.6 percent. NW, Room C–4514, Washington, DC expected to have a long-term impact on Since the calculated unemployment rate labor market area conditions, 20210, Attention Samuel Wright. Data plus 20 percent (4.6 percent) is below collection for the petition is approved discounting temporary or seasonal the ‘‘floor’’ LSA unemployment rate of factors. Please note, high unemployment under OMB 1205–0207, expiration date 6 percent, a civil jurisdiction must have May 31, 2023. due to COVID–19 will be considered an a two-year unemployment rate of 6 exceptional circumstance. percent or higher in order to be Signed at Washington, DC. John Pallasch, Eligible Labor Surplus Areas classified a LSA. To ensure that all areas classified as labor surplus meet the Assistant Secretary for Employment and A LSA is a civil jurisdiction that has requirements, when a city is part of a Training Administration. a civilian average annual county and meets the unemployment [FR Doc. 2020–24153 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] unemployment rate during the previous qualifier as a LSA, that city is identified BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P two calendar years of 20 percent or in the LSA list, the balance of county, more above the average annual civilian not the entire county, will be identified unemployment rate for all states during as a LSA if the balance of county also NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE the same 24-month reference period. meets the LSA unemployment criteria. ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES ETA uses only official unemployment The FY 2019 LSA list, statistical data on estimates provided by the Bureau of the current and previous years’ LSAs are National Endowment for the Labor Statistics in making these available at www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/ Humanities classifications. The average lsa. unemployment rate for all states Meeting of National Council on the includes data for the Commonwealth of Petition for Exceptional Circumstance Humanities Consideration Puerto Rico. The LSA classification AGENCY: National Endowment for the criteria stipulate a civil jurisdiction The classification procedures also Humanities; National Foundation on the must have a ‘‘floor unemployment rate’’ provide criteria for the designation of Arts and the Humanities. of 6 percent or higher to be classified a LSAs under exceptional circumstances ACTION: Notice of meeting. LSA. Any civil jurisdiction that has a criteria. These procedures permit the ‘‘ceiling unemployment rate’’ of 10 regular classification criteria to be SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal percent or higher is classified a LSA. waived when an area experiences a Advisory Committee Act, notice is Civil jurisdictions are defined as significant increase in unemployment hereby given that the National Council follows: which is not temporary or seasonal and on the Humanities will meet to advise 1. A city of at least 25,000 population which was not reflected in the data for the Chairman of the National on the basis of the most recently the 2-year reference period. Under the Endowment for the Humanities (NEH)

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:41 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES 69366 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices

with respect to policies, programs and proprietary financial and commercial Public Participation: The November procedures for carrying out his information given in confidence to the 19, 2020, meeting of the Federal functions; to review applications for agency by grant applicants, and Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee is financial assistance under the National discussion of certain information, the open to the public through advance Foundation on the Arts and Humanities premature disclosure of which could registration. Public participation is Act of 1965 and make recommendations significantly frustrate implementation of available for the teleconference by audio thereon to the Chairman; and to proposed agency action. I have made access only. All individuals who plan to consider gifts offered to NEH and make this determination pursuant to the attend the virtual public meeting to recommendations thereon to the authority granted me by the Chairman’s listen must register by sending an email Chairman. Delegation of Authority to Close to [email protected] with the subject line ‘‘November 19 FPRAC DATES: The meeting will be held on Advisory Committee Meetings dated Meeting’’ no later than Tuesday, Thursday, November 19, 2020, from April 15, 2016. Dated: October 27, 2020. November 17, 2020. 11:00 a.m. until 2:30 p.m., and Friday, The following information must be November 20, 2020, from 11:00 a.m. Caitlin Cater, provided when registering: until adjourned. Attorney-Advisor, National Endowment for • Name. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held by the Humanities. • Agency and duty station. videoconference originating at [FR Doc. 2020–24157 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] • Email address. Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW, BILLING CODE 7536–01–P • Your topic of interest. Washington, DC 20506. Members of the press, in addition to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: registering for this event, must also Elizabeth Voyatzis, Committee OFFICE OF PERSONNEL RSVP to [email protected] by November Management Officer, 400 7th Street SW, MANAGEMENT 17, 2020. 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20506; (202) A confirmation email will be sent 606–8322; [email protected]. Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory upon receipt of the registration. Audio Committee; Virtual Public Meeting teleconference information for SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The participation will be sent to registrants National Council on the Humanities is AGENCY: Office of Personnel the morning of the virtual meeting. meeting pursuant to the National Management. Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Office of Personnel Management. ACTION: Notice. Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 951–960, as Alexys Stanley, Regulatory Affairs Analyst. amended). The following Committees of SUMMARY: According to the provisions of the National Council on the Humanities section 10 of the Federal Advisory [FR Doc. 2020–24145 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] will convene by videoconference on Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463), notice BILLING CODE 6325–38–P November 19, 2020, from 11:00 a.m. is hereby given that the November 19, until 2:30 p.m., to discuss specific grant 2020, meeting of the Federal Prevailing applications and programs before the Rate Advisory Committee previously POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION Council: announced in the Federal Register on [Docket No. RM2020–9; Order No. 5738] Challenge Programs; Monday, , 2019, at 84 FR Digital Humanities; 70580, is being changed to a virtual Periodic Reporting Education Programs; meeting via teleconference. There will AGENCY: Federal/State Partnership; be no in-person gathering for this Postal Regulatory Commission. Preservation and Access; meeting. ACTION: Notice. Public Programs; and This meeting will be open to the Research Programs. SUMMARY: The Commission is public, with an audio option for establishing a comment deadline in this The plenary session of the National listening. This notice sets forth the Council on the Humanities will convene docket. This notice informs the public agenda for the meeting and the of the filing, invites public comment, by videoconference on November 20, participation guidelines. 2020, at 11:00 a.m. The agenda for the and takes other administrative steps. DATES: The virtual meeting will be held plenary session will be as follows: DATES: Comments are due: December on November 19, 2020, beginning at 15, 2020. A. Minutes of Previous Meeting 10:00 a.m. (EST). B. Reports ADDRESSES: Submit comments ADDRESSES: 1. Chairman’s Remarks The meeting will convene electronically via the Commission’s 2. Senior Deputy Chairman’s Remarks virtually. Filing Online system at http:// 3. Reports on Policy and General FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit Matters Madeline Gonzalez, 202–606–2858, or comments electronically should contact a. Challenge Programs email [email protected]. the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by b. Digital Humanities SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: c. Education Programs Meeting Agenda. The tentative agenda telephone for advice on filing d. Federal/State Partnership for this meeting includes the following alternatives. e. Preservation and Access Federal Wage System items: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: f. Public Programs • The definition of Monroe County, David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at g. Research Programs PA. 202–789–6820. This meeting of the National Council • The definition of San Joaquin SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A video on the Humanities will be closed to the County, CA. technical conference was held online in public pursuant to sections 552b(c)(4), • The definition of the Salinas- this proceeding via WebEx on 552b(c)(6), and 552b(c)(9)(B) of Title 5 Monterey, CA, wage area. September 29, 2020, to consider matters U.S.C., as amended, because it will • The definition of the Puerto Rico raised by the United Parcel Service include review of personal and/or wage area. proposal (UPS Proposal One) that is the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:41 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices 69367

subject of this docket.1 In its order investment adviser to the Funds approval of the board of trustees of the establishing this proceeding, the (collectively with the Trust, the Trust (collectively, the ‘‘Board’’),2 Commission stated that it would issue ‘‘Applicants’’). including a majority of the trustees who further orders prescribing additional SUMMARY OF APPLICATION: The requested are not ‘‘interested persons’’ of the Trust procedures. Order No. 5586 at 6. To exemption would permit Applicants to or the Adviser, as defined in section afford interested persons an opportunity enter into and materially amend 2(a)(19) of the Act (the ‘‘Independent to address matters raised by UPS subadvisory agreements with Trustees’’), without obtaining Proposal One and discussed at the subadvisers without shareholder shareholder approval, to: (i) Select September 29, 2020 technical approval and would grant relief from investment subadvisers (‘‘Subadvisers’’) conference, the Commission is hereby the Disclosure Requirements as they for all or a portion of the assets of one establishing , 2020, as the relate to fees paid to the subadvisers. or more of the Funds pursuant to an investment subadvisory agreement with deadline for filing written comments. FILING DATES: The application was filed It is ordered: on February 26, 2020, and amended on each Subadviser (each a ‘‘Subadvisory 1. Comments by interested persons June 1, 2020, and September 16, 2020. Agreement’’); and (ii) materially amend shall be filed on or before December 15, Subadvisory Agreements with the HEARING OR NOTIFICATION OF HEARING: An 2020. Subadvisers. order granting the requested relief will 2. The Secretary shall arrange for 2. Applicants also request an order be issued unless the Commission orders publication of this order in the Federal exempting the Subadvised Funds (as a hearing. Interested persons may Register. defined below) from the Disclosure request a hearing by emailing the Requirements, which require each Fund By the Commission. Commission’s Secretary at Secretarys- to disclose fees paid to a Subadviser. Erica A. Barker, [email protected] and serving Applicants Applicants seek relief to permit each Secretary. with a copy of the request by email. Subadvised Fund to disclose (as a dollar [FR Doc. 2020–24115 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] Hearing requests should be received by amount and a percentage of the Fund’s BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on net assets): (i) The aggregate fees paid to November 20, 2020, and should be the Adviser and any Wholly-Owned accompanied by proof of service on the Subadvisers; and (ii) the aggregate fees SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE Applicants, in the form of an affidavit, paid to Affiliated and Non-Affiliated COMMISSION or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Subadvisers (‘‘Aggregate Fee Pursuant to rule 0–5 under the Act, Disclosure’’).3 Applicants seek an [Investment Company Act Release No. hearing requests should state the nature 34075; 812–15100] exemption to permit a Subadvised Fund of the writer’s interest, any facts bearing to include only the Aggregate Fee upon the desirability of a hearing on the Investment Managers Series Trust II Disclosure.4 matter, the reason for the request, and and AXS Investments LLC 3. Applicants request that the relief the issues contested. Persons who wish apply to Applicants, as well as to any October 27, 2020. to be notified of a hearing may request any other existing or future registered AGENCY: Securities and Exchange notification by emailing the open-end management investment Commission (‘‘Commission’’). Commission’s Secretary. company or series thereof that intends ACTION: Notice. ADDRESSES: The Commission: to rely on the requested order in the [email protected]. Applicants: future and that: (i) Is advised by the Notice of an application under section [email protected]. Adviser; (ii) uses the multi-manager 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: structure described in the application; 1940 (‘‘Act’’) for an exemption from Bruce R. MacNeil, Senior Counsel, at and (iii) complies with the terms and section 15(a) of the Act, as well as from (202) 551–6817, or Kaitlin C. Bottock, certain disclosure requirements in rule Branch Chief, at (202) 551–6821 Adviser also will be registered with the 20a–1 under the Act, Item 19(a)(3) of (Division of Investment Management, Commission as an investment adviser under the Form N–1A, Items 22(c)(1)(ii), Advisers Act. Chief Counsel’s Office). 2 The term ‘‘Board’’ also includes the board of 22(c)(1)(iii), 22(c)(8) and 22(c)(9) of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The trustees or directors of a future Subadvised Fund (as Schedule 14A under the Securities following is a summary of the defined below), if different from the board of Exchange Act of 1934 (‘‘1934 Act’’), and application. The complete application trustees (‘‘Trustees’’) of the Trust. 3 A ‘‘Wholly-Owned Subadviser’’ is any sections 6–07(2)(a), (b), and (c) of may be obtained via the Commission’s Regulation S–X (‘‘Disclosure investment adviser that is (1) an indirect or direct website by searching for the file number ‘‘wholly-owned subsidiary’’ (as such term is Requirements’’). or an Applicant using the ‘‘Company’’ defined in the Act) of the Adviser, (2) a ‘‘sister APPLICANTS: Investment Managers Series name box, at http://www.sec.gov/ company’’ of the Adviser that is an indirect or Trust II (‘‘Trust’’), a Delaware statutory direct ‘‘wholly-owned subsidiary’’ of the same search/search.htm or by calling (202) company that indirectly or directly wholly owns trust registered under the Act as an 551–8090. the Adviser (the Adviser’s ‘‘parent company’’), or open-end management investment (3) a parent company of the Adviser. An ‘‘Affiliated company with multiple series (each a I. Requested Exemptive Relief Subadviser’’ is any investment subadviser that is ‘‘Fund’’) and AXS Investments LLC not a Wholly-Owned Subadviser, but is an 1. Applicants request an order to ‘‘affiliated person’’ (as defined in section 2(a)(3) of 1 (‘‘Initial Adviser’’), a Delaware limited permit the Adviser, subject to the the Act) of a Subadvised Fund or the Adviser for liability company registered as an reasons other than serving as investment subadviser investment adviser under the 1 The term ‘‘Adviser’’ means (i) the Initial to one or more Funds. A ‘‘Non-Affiliated Investment Advisers Act of 1940 Adviser, (ii) its successors, and (iii) any entity Subadviser’’ is any investment adviser that is not controlling, controlled by or under common control an ‘‘affiliated person’’ (as defined in the Act) of a (‘‘Advisers Act’’) that serves an with, the Initial Adviser or its successors that serves Fund or the Adviser, except to the extent that an as the primary adviser to a Subadvised Fund. For affiliation arises solely because the Subadviser 1 See Notice and Order Establishing Docket to the purposes of the requested order, ‘‘successor’’ is serves as a subadviser to one or more Funds. Obtain Information Regarding Proposed Changes to limited to an entity or entities that result from a 4 Applicants note that all other items required by Cost Methodologies and Scheduling Technical reorganization into another jurisdiction or a change sections 6–07(2)(a), (b) and (c) of Regulation S–X Conference, July 13, 2020, at 3–5 (Order No. 5586). in the type of business organization. Any other will be disclosed.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:41 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES 69368 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices

conditions of the application (each, a management services to the Funds Multi-manager Information Statement) ‘‘Subadvised Fund’’).5 subject to, without limitation, the is first sent to shareholders, and will requirements of Sections 15(c) and 36(b) maintain it on that website for at least II. Management of the Subadvised of the Act.7 The Subadvisers, subject to 90 days.10 Funds the oversight of the Adviser and the 4. The Adviser serves or will serve as Board, will determine the securities and III. Applicable Law the investment adviser to each other investments to be purchased, sold 8. Section 15(a) of the Act states, in Subadvised Fund pursuant to an or entered into by a Subadvised Fund’s part, that it is unlawful for any person investment advisory agreement with the portfolio or a portion thereof, and will to act as an investment adviser to a Fund (each an ‘‘Investment Advisory place orders with brokers or dealers that registered investment company ‘‘except Agreement’’). Each Investment Advisory they select.8 pursuant to a written contract, which Agreement has been or will be approved 6. The Subadvisory Agreements will contract, whether with such registered by the Board, including a majority of the be approved by the Board, including a company or with an investment adviser Independent Trustees, and by the majority of the Independent Trustees, in of such registered company, has been shareholders of the relevant Subadvised accordance with sections 15(a) and 15(c) approved by the vote of a majority of the Fund in the manner required by of the Act. In addition, the terms of each outstanding voting securities of such sections 15(a) and 15(c) of the Act. The Subadvisory Agreement will comply registered company.’’ terms of these Investment Advisory fully with the requirements of section 9. Form N–1A is the registration Agreements comply or will comply with 15(a) of the Act. The Adviser may statement used by open-end investment section 15(a) of the Act. Applicants are compensate the Subadvisers or the companies. Item 19(a)(3) of Form N–1A not seeking an exemption from the Act Subadvised Funds may compensate the requires a registered investment with respect to the Investment Advisory Subadvisers directly. company to disclose in its statement of Agreements. Pursuant to the terms of 7. Subadvised Funds will inform additional information the method of each Investment Advisory Agreement, shareholders of the hiring of a new computing the ‘‘advisory fee payable’’ the Adviser, subject to the oversight of Subadviser pursuant to the following by the investment company with respect the Board, will provide continuous procedures (‘‘Modified Notice and to each investment adviser, including investment management for each Access Procedures’’): (a) Within 90 days the total dollar amounts that the Subadvised Fund. For its services to after a new Subadviser is hired for any investment company ‘‘paid to the each Subadvised Fund, the Adviser Subadvised Fund, that Fund will send adviser (aggregated with amounts paid receives or will receive an investment its shareholders either a Multi-manager to affiliated advisers, if any), and any advisory fee from that Fund as specified Notice or a Multi-manager Notice and advisers who are not affiliated persons in the applicable Investment Advisory Multi-manager Information Statement; 9 of the adviser, under the investment Agreement. and (b) the Subadvised Fund will make advisory contract for the last three fiscal 5. Consistent with the terms of each the Multi-manager Information years.’’ Investment Advisory Agreement, the Statement available on the website Adviser may, subject to the approval of identified in the Multi-manager Notice 10. Rule 20a–1 under the Act requires the Board, including a majority of the no later than when the Multi-manager proxies solicited with respect to a Independent Trustees, and the Notice (or Multi-manager Notice and registered investment company to shareholders of the applicable comply with Schedule 14A under the Subadvised Fund (if required by 7 The Subadvisers will be registered with the 1934 Act. Items 22(c)(1)(ii), 22(c)(1)(iii), applicable law), delegate portfolio Commission as an investment adviser under the 22(c)(8) and 22(c)(9) of Schedule 14A, Advisers Act or not subject to such registration. management responsibilities of all or a taken together, require a proxy 8 A ‘‘Subadviser’’ also includes an investment statement for a shareholder meeting at portion of the assets of a Subadvised subadviser that will provide the Adviser with a Fund to a Subadviser. The Adviser will model portfolio reflecting a specific strategy, style which the advisory contract will be retain overall responsibility for the or focus with respect to the investment of all or a voted upon to include the ‘‘rate of management and investment of the portion of a Subadvised Fund’s assets. The Adviser compensation of the investment may use the model portfolio to determine the adviser,’’ the ‘‘aggregate amount of the assets of each Subadvised Fund. This securities and other instruments to be purchased, responsibility includes recommending sold or entered into by a Subadvised Fund’s investment adviser’s fee,’’ a description the removal or replacement of portfolio or a portion thereof, and place orders with of the ‘‘terms of the contract to be acted brokers or dealers that it selects. Subadvisers, allocating the portion of upon,’’ and, if a change in the advisory 9 A ‘‘Multi-manager Notice’’ will be modeled on fee is proposed, the existing and that Subadvised Fund’s assets to any a Notice of internet Availability as defined in Rule given Subadviser and reallocating those 14a–16 under the 1934 Act, and specifically will, proposed fees and the difference assets as necessary from time to time.6 among other things: (a) Summarize the relevant between the two fees. information regarding the new Subadviser (except 11. Regulation S–X sets forth the The Subadvisers will be ‘‘investment as modified to permit Aggregate Fee Disclosure); (b) advisers’’ to the Subadvised Funds inform shareholders that the Multi-manager requirements for financial statements within the meaning of Section 2(a)(20) Information Statement is available on a website; (c) required to be included as part of a of the Act and will provide investment provide the website address; (d) state the time registered investment company’s period during which the Multi-manager Information registration statement and shareholder Statement will remain available on that website; (e) 5 All registered open-end investment companies provide instructions for accessing and printing the reports filed with the Commission. that currently intend to rely on the requested order Multi-manager Information Statement; and (f) Sections 6–07(2)(a), (b), and (c) of are named as Applicants. Any entity that relies on instruct the shareholder that a paper or email copy Regulation S–X require a registered the requested order will do so only in accordance of the Multi-manager Information Statement may be investment company to include in its with the terms and conditions contained in the obtained, without charge, by contacting the application. Subadvised Fund. A ‘‘Multi-manager Information 6 Applicants represent that if the name of any Statement’’ will meet the requirements of 10 In addition, Applicants represent that Subadvised Fund contains the name of a Regulation 14C, Schedule 14C and Item 22 of whenever a Subadviser is hired or terminated, or a subadviser, the name of the Adviser that serves as Schedule 14A under the 1934 Act for an Subadvisory Agreement is materially amended, the the primary adviser to the Fund, or a trademark or information statement, except as modified by the Subadvised Fund’s prospectus and statement of trade name that is owned by or publicly used to requested order to permit Aggregate Fee Disclosure. additional information will be supplemented identify the Adviser, will precede the name of the Multi-manager Information Statements will be filed promptly pursuant to rule 497(e) under the subadviser. with the Commission via the EDGAR system. Securities Act of 1933.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:55 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices 69369

financial statements information about Subadvisers provides no more assets between itself and a Subadviser, investment advisory fees. meaningful information to shareholders and across Subadvisers, as it has an 12. Section 6(c) of the Act provides than the proposed Multi-manager interest in considering the benefit it will that the Commission may exempt any Information Statement. Applicants state receive, directly or indirectly, from the person, security, or transaction or any that, accordingly, they believe the fee the Subadvised Fund pays for the class or classes of persons, securities, or requested relief is necessary or management of those assets. Applicants transactions from any provisions of the appropriate in the public interest, and also state that to the extent the Adviser Act, or any rule thereunder, if such consistent with the protection of has a conflict of interest with respect to exemption is necessary or appropriate investors and the purposes fairly the selection of an Affiliated in the public interest and consistent intended by the policy and provisions of Subadviser, the proposed conditions are with the protection of investors and the the Act. protective of shareholder interests by purposes fairly intended by the policy 16. With respect to the relief ensuring the Board’s independence and and provisions of the Act. Applicants permitting Aggregate Fee Disclosure, providing the Board with the state that the requested relief meets this Applicants assert that disclosure of the appropriate resources and information standard for the reasons discussed individual fees paid to the Subadvisers to monitor and address conflicts. below. does not serve any meaningful purpose. 18. With respect to the relief permitting Aggregate Fee Disclosure, IV. Arguments in Support of the Applicants contend that the primary Applicants assert that it is appropriate Requested Relief reasons for requiring disclosure of individual fees paid to Subadvisers are to disclose only aggregate fees paid to 13. Applicants assert that, from the to inform shareholders of expenses to be Affiliated Subadvisers for the same perspective of the shareholder, the role charged by a particular Subadvised reasons that similar relief has been of the Subadvisers is substantially Fund and to enable shareholders to granted previously with respect to equivalent to the limited role of the compare the fees to those of other Wholly-Owned and Non-Affiliated individual portfolio managers employed comparable investment companies. Subadvisers. by an investment adviser to a traditional Applicants believe that the requested VI. Applicants’ Conditions investment company. Applicants also relief satisfies these objectives because assert that the shareholders expect the the Subadvised Fund’s overall advisory Applicants agree that any order Adviser, subject to review and approval fee will be fully disclosed and, granting the requested relief will be of the Board, to select a Subadviser who therefore, shareholders will know what subject to the following conditions: is in the best position to achieve the the Subadvised Fund’s fees and 1. Before a Subadvised Fund may rely on the order requested in the Subadvised Fund’s investment expenses are and will be able to Application, the operation of the objective. Applicants believe that compare the advisory fees a Subadvised Subadvised Fund in the manner permitting the Adviser to perform the Fund is charged to those of other described in the Application will be, or duties for which the shareholders of the investment companies. In addition, has been, approved by a majority of the Subadvised Fund are paying the Applicants assert that the requested Subadvised Fund’s outstanding voting Adviser—the selection, oversight and relief would benefit shareholders of the securities as defined in the Act, or, in evaluation of the Subadviser—without Subadvised Fund because it would incurring unnecessary delays or the case of a Subadvised Fund whose improve the Adviser’s ability to expenses of convening special meetings public shareholders purchase shares on negotiate the fees paid to Subadvisers. of shareholders is appropriate and in the the basis of a prospectus containing the In particular, Applicants state that if the interest of the Fund’s shareholders, and disclosure contemplated by condition 2 Adviser is not required to disclose the will allow such Fund to operate more below, by the initial shareholder before Subadvisers’ fees to the public, the efficiently. Applicants state that each such Subadvised Fund’s shares are Adviser may be able to negotiate rates Investment Advisory Agreement will offered to the public. that are below a Subadviser’s ‘‘posted’’ continue to be fully subject to section 2. The prospectus for each amounts. Applicants assert that the 15(a) of the Act and approved by the Subadvised Fund will disclose the relief will also encourage Subadvisers to relevant Board, including a majority of existence, substance and effect of any negotiate lower subadvisory fees with the Independent Trustees, in the order granted pursuant to the the Adviser if the lower fees are not manner required by section 15(a) and Application. In addition, each required to be made public. 15(c) of the Act. Subadvised Fund will hold itself out to 14. Applicants submit that the V. Relief for Affiliated Subadvisers the public as employing the multi- requested relief meets the standards for 17. The Commission has granted the manager structure described in the relief under section 6(c) of the Act. requested relief with respect to Wholly- Application. The prospectus will Applicants state that the operation of Owned and Non-Affiliated Subadvisers prominently disclose that the Adviser the Subadvised Fund in the manner through numerous exemptive orders. has the ultimate responsibility, subject described in the Application must be The Commission also has extended the to oversight by the Board, to oversee the approved by shareholders of that Fund requested relief to Affiliated Subadvisers and recommend their before it may rely on the requested Subadvisers.11 Applicants state that hiring, termination, and replacement. 3. The Adviser will provide general relief. Applicants also state that the although the Adviser’s judgment in management services to each proposed conditions to the requested recommending a Subadviser can be Subadvised Fund, including overall relief are designed to address any affected by certain conflicts, they do not supervisory responsibility for the potential conflicts of interest or warrant denying the extension of the general management and investment of economic incentives, and provide that requested relief to Affiliated the Subadvised Fund’s assets, and shareholders are informed when new Subadvisers. Specifically, the Adviser subject to review and oversight of the Subadvisers are hired. faces those conflicts in allocating fund 15. Applicants contend that, in the Board, will (i) set the Subadvised circumstances described in the 11 Carillon Series Trust, et al., Investment Co. Act Fund’s overall investment strategies, (ii) application, a proxy solicitation to Rel. Nos. 33464 (May 2, 2019) (notice) and 33494 evaluate, select, and recommend approve the appointment of new (, 2019) (order). Subadvisers for all or a portion of the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:55 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES 69370 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices

Subadvised Fund’s assets, (iii) allocate Fund, or an officer or board member of staff members who have an interest in and, when appropriate, reallocate the the Adviser (other than through a the matters also may be present. Subadvised Fund’s assets among pooled investment vehicle not In the event that the time, date, or Subadvisers, (iv) monitor and evaluate controlled by such person); and location of this meeting changes, an the Subadvisers’ performance, and (v) (iv) any other information that may be announcement of the change, along with implement procedures reasonably relevant to the Board in evaluating any the new time, date, and/or place of the designed to ensure that Subadvisers potential material conflicts of interest in meeting will be posted on the comply with the Subadvised Fund’s the proposed Subadviser Change or Commission’s website at https:// investment objective, policies and Subadviser Review. www.sec.gov. restrictions. (b) the Board, including a majority of The General Counsel of the 4. Subadvised Funds will inform the Independent Trustees, will make a Commission, or his designee, has shareholders of the hiring of a new separate finding, reflected in the Board certified that, in his opinion, one or Subadviser within 90 days after the minutes, that the Subadviser Change or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 hiring of the new Subadviser pursuant continuation after Subadviser Review is U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) to the Modified Notice and Access in the best interests of the Subadvised and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), Procedures. Fund and its shareholders and, based on (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and 5. At all times, at least a majority of the information provided to the Board, (a)(10), permit consideration of the the Board will be Independent Trustees, does not involve a conflict of interest scheduled matters at the closed meeting. and the selection and nomination of from which the Adviser, a Subadviser, The subject matter of the closed new or additional Independent Trustees any officer or Trustee of the Subadvised meeting will consist of the following will be placed within the discretion of Fund, or any officer or board member of topic: the then-existing Independent Trustees. the Adviser derives an inappropriate Institution and settlement of 6. Independent Legal Counsel, as advantage. injunctive actions; Institution and settlement of defined in Rule 0–1(a)(6) under the Act, 9. Each Subadvised Fund will administrative proceedings; will be engaged to represent the disclose in its registration statement the Independent Trustees. The selection of Resolution of litigation claims; Aggregate Fee Disclosure. Disclosure of non-public information; such counsel will be within the 10. In the event that the Commission discretion of the then-existing and adopts a rule under the Act providing Other matters relating to enforcement Independent Trustees. substantially similar relief to that in the 7. Whenever a Subadviser is hired or proceedings. order requested in the Application, the At times, changes in Commission terminated, the Adviser will provide the requested order will expire on the priorities require alterations in the Board with information showing the effective date of that rule. scheduling of meeting agenda items that expected impact on the profitability of 11. Any new Subadvisory Agreement may consist of adjudicatory, the Adviser. or any amendment to an existing examination, litigation, or regulatory 8. The Board must evaluate any Investment Advisory Agreement or matters. material conflicts that may be present in Subadvisory Agreement that directly or a subadvisory arrangement. Specifically, CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: indirectly results in an increase in the For further information; please contact whenever a subadviser change is aggregate advisory fee rate payable by proposed for a Subadvised Fund Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office the Subadvised Fund will be submitted of the Secretary at (202) 551–5400. (‘‘Subadviser Change’’) or the Board to the Subadvised Fund’s shareholders considers an existing Subadvisory for approval. Dated: October 28, 2020. Agreement as part of its annual review Vanessa A. Countryman, For the Commission, by the Division of process (‘‘Subadviser Review’’): Secretary. (a) The Adviser will provide the Investment Management, under delegated authority. [FR Doc. 2020–24285 Filed 10–29–20; 11:15 am] Board, to the extent not already being BILLING CODE 8011–01–P provided pursuant to section 15(c) of J. Matthew DeLesDernier, the Act, with all relevant information Assistant Secretary. concerning: [FR Doc. 2020–24160 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE (i) Any material interest in the BILLING CODE 8011–01–P COMMISSION proposed new Subadviser, in the case of a Subadviser Change, or the Subadviser [Release No. 34–90275; File No. 265–30] in the case of a Subadviser Review, held SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Fixed Income Market Structure directly or indirectly by the Adviser or Advisory Committee a parent or sister company of the Sunshine Act Meetings Adviser, and any material impact the AGENCY: Securities and Exchange proposed Subadvisory Agreement may TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, Commission. have on that interest; , 2020. ACTION: Notice of Federal Advisory (ii) any arrangement or understanding PLACE: Committee Renewal. in which the Adviser or any parent or The meeting will be held via sister company of the Adviser is a remote means and/or at the SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange participant that (A) may have had a Commission’s headquarters, 100 F Commission is publishing this notice to material effect on the proposed Street NE, Washington, DC 20549. announce that the Chairman of the Subadviser Change or Subadviser STATUS: This meeting will be closed to Commission, with the concurrence of Review, or (B) may be materially the public. the other Commissioners, has approved affected by the proposed Subadviser MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: the renewal of the Securities and Change or Subadviser Review; Commissioners, Counsel to the Exchange Commission Fixed Income (iii) any material interest in a Commissioners, the Secretary to the Market Structure Advisory Committee. Subadviser held directly or indirectly by Commission, and recording secretaries FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: an officer or Trustee of the Subadvised will attend the closed meeting. Certain David Dimitrious, Senior Special

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:55 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices 69371

Counsel, at (202) 551–5131, or Arisa the General Services Administration. A proposed rule change. The text of these Kettig, Special Counsel, at (202) 551– copy of the charter as so filed also will statements may be examined at the 5676, Division of Trading and Markets, be filed with the Chairman of the places specified in Item IV below. The Securities and Exchange Commission, Commission, furnished to the Library of Exchange has prepared summaries, set 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC Congress, and posted on the forth in sections A, B, and C below, of 20549–7010. Commission’s website at www.sec.gov. the most significant aspects of such SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In By the Commission. statements. accordance with the requirements of the Dated: October 27, 2020. A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 Vanessa A. Countryman, Statement of the Purpose of, and U.S.C.—App, the Commission is Secretary. Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule publishing this notice that the Chairman Change of the Commission, with the [FR Doc. 2020–24168 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] concurrence of the other BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 1. Purpose Commissioners, has approved the The Exchange proposes to amend the renewal of the Securities and Exchange Fee Schedule to establish market data Commission Fixed Income Market SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION fees. MIAX Emerald commenced Structure Advisory Committee (the operations as a national securities ‘‘Committee’’). The Chairman of the [Release No. 34–90274; File No. SR– exchange registered under Section 6 of Commission affirms that the renewal of EMERALD–2020–13] the Act 3 on March 1, 2019.4 The the Committee is necessary and in the Exchange adopted its transaction fees public interest.1 Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX and certain of its non-transaction fees in The Committee’s objective is to Emerald, LLC; Notice of Filing and its filing SR–EMERALD–2019–15.5 In provide the Commission with diverse Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed that filing, the Exchange expressly perspectives on the structure and Rule Change To Amend Its Fee waived, among others, market data fees operations of the U.S. fixed income Schedule To Establish Market Data to provide an incentive to prospective markets, as well as advice and Fees market participants to become recommendations on matters related to 6 October 27, 2020. Members of the Exchange. At that fixed income market structure. time, the Exchange waived market data No more than 21 voting members will Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the 7 Securities Exchange Act of 1934 fees for the Waiver Period and stated be appointed to the Committee. Such that it would provide notice to market members shall represent a cross-section (‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on October participants when the Exchange of those directly affected by, interested intended to terminate the Waiver in, and/or qualified to provide advice to 14, 2020, MIAX Emerald, LLC (‘‘MIAX Emerald’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the Period. the Commission on matters related to On September 15, 2020, the Exchange Securities and Exchange Commission fixed income market structure. The issued a Regulatory Circular which (‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule Committee’s membership will continue announced, among other things, that the change as described in Items I, II, and to be balanced fairly in terms of points Exchange would be ending the Waiver III below, which Items have been of view represented. Non-voting Period for market data fees, beginning prepared by the Exchange. The members may also be named. October 1, 2020.8 The charter provides that the duties of Commission is publishing this notice to On October 1, 2020, the Exchange the Committee are to be solely advisory. solicit comments on the proposed rule filed its proposal to assess fees for its The Commission alone will make any change from interested persons. determinations of actions to be taken I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 3 15 U.S.C. 78f. and policies to be expressed with 4 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84891 respect to matters within the Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change (December 20, 2018), 83 FR 67421 (December 28, Commission’s jurisdiction. The 2018) (File No. 10–233) (order approving Committee will meet at such intervals as The Exchange is filing a proposal to application of MIAX Emerald, LLC for registration are necessary to carry out its functions. amend the MIAX Emerald Fee Schedule as a national securities exchange). 5 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85393 The charter contemplates that the full (the ‘‘Fee Schedule’’) to establish market (, 2019), 84 FR 11599 (March 27, 2019) Committee will meet one time. Meetings data fees. (SR–EMERALD–2019–15) (Notice of Filing and of subgroups or subcommittees of the The text of the proposed rule change Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change full Committee may occur more is available on the Exchange’s website at To Establish the MIAX Emerald Fee Schedule). 6 ‘‘Member’’ means an individual or organization frequently. http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule- approved to exercise the trading rights associated The Committee will operate for four- filings/emerald, at MIAX’s principal with a Trading Permit. Members are deemed months from the date it is renewed or office, and at the Commission’s Public ‘‘members’’ under the Exchange Act. See Exchange such earlier date as determined by the Reference Room. Rule 100 and the Definitions Section of the Fee Commission unless, before the Schedule. 7 expiration of that time period, it is II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s ‘‘Waiver Period’’ means, for each applicable fee, Statement of the Purpose of, and the period of time from the initial effective date of renewed in accordance with the Federal the MIAX Emerald Fee Schedule until such time Advisory Committee Act. A copy of the Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule that the Exchange has an effective fee filing charter for the Committee has been filed Change establishing the applicable fee. The Exchange will with the Committee on Banking, issue a Regulatory Circular announcing the In its filing with the Commission, the establishment of an applicable fee that was subject Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Exchange included statements to a Waiver Period at least fifteen (15) days prior United States Senate, the Committee on concerning the purpose of and basis for to the termination of the Waiver Period and Financial Services of the United States the proposed rule change and discussed effective date of any such applicable fee. See the House of Representatives, and the any comments it received on the Definitions Section of the Fee Schedule. 8 See MIAX Emerald Regulatory Circular 2020–41 Committee Management Secretariat of available at https://www.miaxoptions.com/sites/ 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). default/files/circular-files/MIAX_Emerald_RC_ 1 See 41 CFR 102–3.30(a). 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 2020_41.pdf.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:55 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES 69372 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices

market data products, MIAX Emerald feed includes opening imbalance Exchange proposes to assess Internal Top of Market (‘‘ToM’’), Administrative condition information, opening routing Distributors $3,000 per month and Information Subscriber (‘‘AIS’’) feed, information, expanded quote range External Distributors $3,500 per month and MIAX Order Feed (‘‘MOR’’).9 On information, post-halt notifications, and for the MOR market data feed. The October 14, 2020, the Exchange liquidity refresh condition information. Exchange notes that its data feed prices withdrew the First Proposed Rule AIS real-time messages are disseminated are generally lower than other options Change and refiled its proposal in order over multicast to achieve a fair delivery exchanges’ data feed prices for their to provide more description regarding mechanism. AIS notifications provide comparable data feed products.13 the difference in pricing for internal current electronic system status 2. Statutory Basis distributors and external distributors. A allowing subscribers to take necessary more detailed description of the ToM, actions immediately. The Exchange believes that its AIS and MOR products can be found in MOR provides market participants proposal to amend its Fee Schedule is the Exchange’s previously filed Market with a direct data feed that allows consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 14 Data Product filings.10 The Exchange subscribers to receive real-time updates in general, and furthers the objectives of notes that it will not be assessing fees of options orders, products traded on Section 6(b)(4) of the Act 15 in for Complex Top of Market (‘‘cToM’’) 11 MIAX Emerald, MIAX Emerald Options particular, in that it is an equitable data at this time. System status, and MIAX Emerald allocation of reasonable dues, fees and To summarize, ToM provides market Options Underlying trading status. other charges among its members and participants with a direct data feed that Subscribers to the data feed will get a issuers and other persons using its includes the Exchange’s best bid and list of all options symbols and strategies facilities. The Exchange also believes offer, with aggregate size, and last sale that will be traded and sourced on that the proposal furthers the objectives of information, based on displayable order feed at the start of every session. Section 6(b)(5) of the Act in that it is and quoting interest on the Exchange. The Exchange proposes to charge designed to promote just and equitable The ToM data feed includes data that is monthly fees to Distributors (defined principles of trade, to remove identical to the data sent to the below) of the ToM, AIS, and MOR impediments to and perfect the processor for the Options Price market data products. MIAX Emerald mechanism of a free and open market Reporting Authority (‘‘OPRA’’). ToM will assess market data fees applicable and a national market system, and, in also contains a feature that provides the to the market data products on Internal general to protect investors and the number of Priority Customer 12 contracts and External Distributors in each month public interest and is not designed to that are included in the size associated the Distributor is credentialed to use the permit unfair discrimination between with the Exchange’s best bid and offer. applicable market data product in the customers, issuers, brokers and dealers. AIS provides market participants with production environment. A The Exchange believes that its a direct data feed that allows subscribers ‘‘Distributor’’ of MIAX Emerald data is proposal to adopt market data fees is to receive real-time updates of products any entity that receives a feed or file of reasonable in several respects. First, the traded on MIAX Emerald, trading status data either directly from MIAX Emerald Exchange is subject to significant for MIAX Emerald and products traded or indirectly through another entity and competitive forces in the market for on MIAX Emerald, and liquidity seeking then distributes it either internally options transaction and non-transaction event notifications. The AIS market data (within that entity) or externally services that constrain its pricing (outside that entity). All Distributors are determinations in that market. The 9 See SR–EMERALD–2020–10 (the ‘‘First required to execute a MIAX Emerald Commission has repeatedly expressed Proposed Rule Change’’). Distributor Agreement. Market data fees its preference for competition over 10 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85207 for ToM, AIS, and MOR will be reduced regulatory intervention in determining (, 2019), 84 FR 7963 (March 5, 2019) (SR–EMERALD–2019–09) (Notice of Filing and for new Distributors for the first month prices, products, and services in the Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change during which they subscribe to the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, to Establish MIAX Emerald Top of Market (‘‘ToM’’) applicable market data product, based the Commission highlighted the Data Feed, MIAX Emerald Complex Top of Market on the number of trading days that have importance of market forces in (‘‘cToM’’) Data Feed, MIAX Emerald Administrative Information Subscriber (‘‘AIS’’) Data Feed, and been held during the month prior to the determining prices and SRO revenues MIAX Emerald Order Feed (‘‘MOR’’)). date on which they have been and, also, recognized that current 11 cToM provides subscribers with the same credentialed to use the applicable regulation of the market system ‘‘has information as the ToM market data product as it market data product in the production been remarkably successful in relates to the strategy book, i.e., the Exchange’s best bid and offer for a complex strategy, with aggregate environment. Such new Distributors promoting market competition in its size, based on displayable order and quoting will be assessed a pro-rata percentage of broader forms that are most important to interest in the complex strategy on the Exchange. the fees described above, which is the investors and listed companies.’’ 16 cToM also provides subscribers with the percentage of the number of trading Numerous indicia demonstrate the identification of the complex strategies currently trading on MIAX Emerald; complex strategy last days remaining in the affected calendar competitive nature of this market. For sale information; and the status of securities month as of the date on which they have example, clear substitutes to the underlying the complex strategy (e.g., halted, open, been credentialed to use the applicable Exchange exist in the market for options or resumed). cToM is distinct from ToM, and market data product in the production transaction services. The Exchange is anyone wishing to receive cToM data must subscribe to cToM regardless of whether they are environment, divided by the total one of several options venues to which a current ToM subscriber. ToM subscribers are not number of trading days in the affected market participants may direct their required to subscribe to cToM, and cToM calendar month. order flow, and it represents a small subscribers are not required to subscribe to ToM. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to See id. assess Internal Distributors $1,250 per 13 See Nasdaq PHLX LLC Pricing Schedule, 12 The term ‘‘Priority Customer’’ means a person or entity that (i) is not a broker or dealer in month and External Distributors $1,750 Options 7, Section 10, Proprietary Data Feed Fees; securities, and (ii) does not place more than 390 per month for the ToM market data feed. Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. Fee Schedule, Market Data Fees; Cboe Data Services, LLC, Fee Schedule. orders in listed options per day on average during The Exchange proposes to assess a calendar month for its own beneficial account(s). 14 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). The number of orders shall be counted in Internal Distributors $1,250 per month 15 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5). accordance with Interpretation and Policy .01 to and External Distributors $1,750 per 16 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 Exchange Rule 100. See Exchange Rule 100. month for the AIS market data feed. The (June 9, 2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:55 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices 69373

percentage of the overall market. Within forces constrain the Exchange’s, and distribute the Exchange’s market data to this environment, market participants other options exchanges, ability to set persons who are not officers, employees can freely and often do shift their order transaction fees and market participants or affiliates of the external distributor,23 flow among the Exchange and can shift order flow based on fee and may charge their own fees for the competing venues in response to changes instituted by the exchanges. distribution of such market data. changes in their respective pricing Further, the Exchange no longer Accordingly, the Exchange believes it is schedules. There are currently 16 believes it is necessary to waive its fair, reasonable and not unfairly registered options exchanges competing market data fees to attract market discriminatory to assess external for order flow. Based on publicly- participants to the MIAX Emerald distributors a higher fee for the available information, and excluding market since this market is now Exchange’s market data products as index-based options, no single exchange established and MIAX Emerald no external distributors have greater usage has more than approximately 16% of longer needs to rely on such waivers to rights to commercialize such market the market share of executed volume of attract market participants. The data. The Exchange believes the multiply-listed equity and exchange- Exchange believes that the proposed proposed fees are a reasonable traded fund (‘‘ETF’’) options.17 change is equitable and not unfairly allocation of its costs and expenses Therefore, no exchange possesses discriminatory because the elimination among its Members and other persons significant pricing power. More of the fee waiver for market data fees using its facilities since it is recovering specifically, for the month of August will uniformly apply to all market the costs associated with distributing 2020, the Exchange had a market share participants and market participants are such data. Access to the Exchange is of approximately 3.24% of executed not required to purchase any market provided on fair and non-discriminatory multiply-listed equity options.18 data feed from the Exchange. As terms. The Exchange believes the Additionally, the Exchange notes that it described above, the Exchange does not proposed fees are equitable and not does not currently list any proprietary offer trading in any proprietary or unfairly discriminatory because the fee or singly-list products. Accordingly, singly-list options products. level results in a reasonable and there are no products listed on the Accordingly, the Exchange is not the equitable allocation of fees amongst Exchange for which the Exchange is the sole source of market data for any users for similar services. Moreover, the sole source of market data. Thus, it is a products listed on the Exchange. decision as to whether or not to business decision whether firms decide Therefore, it is a business decision as to purchase market data is entirely to purchase the Exchange’s market data whether a firm purchases the optional to all users. Potential feeds, as the Exchange only offers Exchange’s market data feeds. purchasers are not required to purchase trading in multiply-listed options. Additionally, the Exchange believes its the market data, and the Exchange is not The Exchange also believes that the proposal to establish market data fees is required to make the market data ever-shifting market share among the reasonable and well within the range of available. Purchasers may request the exchanges from month to month fees assessed among other exchanges, data at any time or may decline to demonstrates that market participants including the Exchange’s affiliate, 20 purchase such data. The allocation of can discontinue or reduce use of certain MIAX. fees among users is fair and reasonable The Exchange believes that it is categories of products, or shift order because, if the market deems the reasonable, equitable and not unfairly flow, in response to non-transaction and proposed fees to be unfair or discriminatory to assess internal transaction fee changes. For example, on inequitable, firms can diminish or distributors fees that are less than the February 28, 2019, the Exchange’s discontinue their use of this data. affiliate, MIAX PEARL, LLC (‘‘MIAX fees assessed for external distributors for In adopting Regulation NMS, the subscriptions to the Exchange’s ToM, PEARL’’) filed with the Commission a Commission granted self-regulatory AIS and MOR data feeds because proposal to increase Taker fees in organizations and broker-dealers internal distributors have limited, certain Tiers for options transactions in increased authority and flexibility to restricted usage rights to the market certain Penny classes for Priority offer new and unique market data to the data, as compared to external Customers and decrease Maker rebates public. It was believed that this distributors which have more expansive in certain Tiers for options transactions authority would expand the amount of usage rights. All Members and non- in Penny classes for Priority Customers data available to consumers, and also Members that determine to receive any (which fee was to be effective March 1, spur innovation and competition for the 19 market data feed of the Exchange (or its 2019). MIAX PEARL experienced a provision of market data: decrease in total market share for the affiliates, MIAX and MIAX PEARL), month of March 2019, after the proposal must first execute, among other things, [E]fficiency is promoted when broker-dealers the MIAX Exchange Group Exchange who do not need the data beyond the prices, went into effect. Accordingly, the sizes, market center identifications of the Exchange believes that the MIAX Data Agreement (the ‘‘Exchange Data 21 NBBO and consolidated last sale information PEARL March 1, 2019 fee change, to Agreement’’). Pursuant to the are not required to receive (and pay for) such increase certain transaction fees and Exchange Data Agreement, internal data when broker-dealers may choose to decrease certain transaction rebates, distributors are restricted to the receive (and pay for) additional market data may have contributed to the decrease in ‘‘internal use’’ of any market data they based on their own internal analysis of the 24 MIAX PEARL’s market share and, as receive. This means that internal need for such data. such, the Exchange believes competitive distributors may only distribute the By removing ‘‘unnecessary regulatory Exchange’s market data to the restrictions’’ on the ability of exchanges 17 The Options Clearing Corporation (‘‘OCC’’) recipient’s officers and employees and to sell their own data, Regulation NMS 22 publishes options and futures volume in a variety its affiliates. External distributors may advanced the goals of the Act and the of formats, including daily and monthly volume by principles reflected in its legislative exchange, available here: https://www.theocc.com/ 20 See the MIAX Options Fee Schedule. history. If the free market should market-data/volume/default.jsp. 21 See Exchange Data Agreement, available at 18 See id. https://miaxweb2.pairsite.com/sites/default/files/ 19 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85304 page-files/MIAX_Exchange_Group_Data_ 23 See id. (, 2019), 84 FR 10144 (, 2019) Agreement_09032020.pdf. 24 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (SR–PEARL–2019–07). 22 See id. (June 9, 2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:55 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES 69374 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices

determine whether proprietary data is fees before being required to pay them, ‘evolve through the interplay of competitive sold to broker-dealers at all, it follows and that the Commission should forces as unnecessary regulatory restrictions that the price at which such data is sold specifically approve all such fees. The are removed’ and that the SEC wield its should be set by the market as well. regulatory power ‘in those situations where Exchange believes that the amendment competition may not be sufficient,’ such as In July, 2010, Congress adopted H.R. to Section 19 reflects Congress’s in the creation of a ‘consolidated 4173, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street conclusion that the evolution of self- transactional reporting system.’ ’’ 26 Reform and Consumer Protection Act of regulatory organization governance and The court’s conclusions about 2010 (‘‘Dodd-Frank Act’’), which competitive market structure have Congressional intent are therefore amended Section 19 of the Act. Among rendered the Commission’s prior policy reinforced by the Dodd-Frank Act other things, Section 916 of the Dodd- on non-member fees obsolete. amendments, which create a Frank Act amended paragraph (A) of Specifically, many exchanges have presumption that exchange fees, Section 19(b)(3) of the Act by inserting evolved from member-owned, not-for- the phrase ‘‘on any person, whether or including market data fees, may take profit corporations into for-profit, effect immediately, without prior not the person is a member of the self- investor-owned corporations (or regulatory organization’’ after ‘‘due, fee Commission approval, and that the subsidiaries of investor-owned Commission should take action to or other charge imposed by the self- corporations). Accordingly, exchanges regulatory organization.’’ As a result, all suspend a fee change and institute a no longer have narrow incentives to proceeding to determine whether the fee SRO rule proposals establishing or manage their affairs for the exclusive changing dues, fees or other charges are change should be approved or benefit of their members, but rather disapproved only where the immediately effective upon filing have incentives to maximize the appeal regardless of whether such dues, fees or Commission has concerns that the of their products to all customers, change may not be consistent with the other charges are imposed on members whether members or non-members, so of the SRO, non-members, or both. Act. as to broaden distribution and grow The Exchange notes that it operates in Section 916 further amended paragraph revenues. Moreover, the Exchange (C) of Section 19(b)(3) of the Act to read, a highly competitive market in which believes that the change also reflects an market participants can readily favor in pertinent part, ‘‘At any time within endorsement of the Commission’s the 60-day period beginning on the date competing venues if they deem fee determinations that reliance on levels at a particular venue to be of filing of such a proposed rule change competitive markets is an appropriate in accordance with the provisions of excessive. In such an environment, the means to ensure equitable and Exchange must continually adjust its paragraph (1) [of Section 19(b)], the reasonable prices. Simply put, the Commission summarily may fees for services and products, in change reflects a presumption that all addition to order flow, to remain temporarily suspend the change in the fee changes should be permitted to take rules of the self-regulatory organization competitive with other exchanges. The effect immediately, since the level of all Exchange believes that the proposed made thereby, if it appears to the fees are constrained by competitive Commission that such action is changes reflect this competitive forces. environment. necessary or appropriate in the public Selling proprietary market data is a interest, for the protection of investors, means by which exchanges compete to B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s or otherwise in furtherance of the attract business. To the extent that Statement on Burden on Competition purposes of this title. If the Commission exchanges are successful in such The Exchange does not believe that takes such action, the Commission shall competition, they earn trading revenues the proposed rule change will impose institute proceedings under paragraph and also enhance the value of their data any burden on competition not (2)(B) [of Section 19(b)] to determine products by increasing the amount of necessary or appropriate in furtherance whether the proposed rule should be data they provide. The need to compete of the purposes of the Act. approved or disapproved.’’ for business places substantial pressure The Exchange believes that these Intra-Market Competition upon exchanges to keep their fees for amendments to Section 19 of the Act both executions and data reasonable.25 The Exchange does not believe that reflect Congress’s intent to allow the The Exchange therefore believes that the the proposed rule change would place Commission to rely upon the forces of fees for market data are properly certain market participants at the competition to ensure that fees for assessed on Members and Non-Member Exchange at a relative disadvantage market data are reasonable and compared to other market participants equitably allocated. Although Section users. The decision of the United States or affect the ability of such market 19(b) had formerly authorized Court of Appeals for the District of participants to compete. Unilateral immediate effectiveness for a ‘‘due, fee Columbia Circuit in NetCoalition v. action by the Exchange in the or other charge imposed by the self- SEC, No. 09–1042 (D.C. Cir. 2010), assessment of certain non-transaction regulatory organization,’’ the although reviewing a Commission fees for services provided to its Commission adopted a policy and decision made prior to the effective date Members and others using its facilities subsequently a rule stating that fees for of the Dodd-Frank Act, upheld the will not have an impact on competition. data and other products available to As a more recent entrant in the already persons that are not members of the self- Commission’s reliance upon competitive markets to set reasonable highly competitive environment for regulatory organization must be equity options trading, the Exchange approved by the Commission after first and equitably allocated fees for market data: does not have the market power being published for comment. At the necessary to set prices for services that time, the Commission supported the In fact, the legislative history indicates that the Congress intended that the market system are unreasonable or unfairly adoption of the policy and the rule by discriminatory in violation of the Act. pointing out that unlike members, The Exchange’s proposed market data whose representation in self-regulatory 25 See Sec. Indus. Fin. Mkts. Ass’n (SIFMA), Initial Decision Release No. 1015, 2016 SEC LEXIS organization governance was mandated 2278 (ALJ June 1, 2016) (finding the existence of 26 NetCoalition, at 15 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 94– by the Act, non-members should be vigorous competition with respect to non-core 229, at 92 (1975), as reprinted in 1975 U.S.C.C.A.N. given the opportunity to comment on market data). 321, 323).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:55 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices 69375

fee levels, as described herein, are III. Date of Effectiveness of the Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, comparable to fee levels charged by Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Washington, DC 20549, on official other options exchanges for the same or Commission Action business days between the hours of similar services, including those fees The foregoing rule change has become 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the assessed by the Exchange’s affiliate, effective pursuant to Section filing also will be available for MIAX.27 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,30 and Rule inspection and copying at the principal The Exchange believes that the 19b–4(f)(2) 31 thereunder. At any time office of the Exchange. All comments proposed market data fees do not place within 60 days of the filing of the received will be posted without change. certain market participants at a relative proposed rule change, the Commission Persons submitting comments are disadvantage to other market summarily may temporarily suspend cautioned that we do not redact or edit participants because the fees do not such rule change if it appears to the personal identifying information from apply unequally to different size market Commission that such action is comment submissions. You should participants, but instead would allow necessary or appropriate in the public submit only information that you wish the Exchange charge for the time and interest, for the protection of investors, to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File resource necessary for providing market or otherwise in furtherance of the Number SR–EMERALD–2020–13, and data to the market participants that purposes of the Act. If the Commission should be submitted on or before request such data. Accordingly, the takes such action, the Commission shall November 23, 2020. Exchange believes that the proposed institute proceedings to determine market data fees do not favor certain whether the proposed rule should be For the Commission, by the Division of categories of market participants in a approved or disapproved. Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.32 manner that would impose a burden on IV. Solicitation of Comments competition. J. Matthew DeLesDernier, Interested persons are invited to Assistant Secretary. submit written data, views, and Inter-Market Competition [FR Doc. 2020–24162 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] arguments concerning the foregoing, The Exchange believes the proposed including whether the proposed rule BILLING CODE P market data fees do not place an undue change is consistent with the Act. burden on competition on other SROs Comments may be submitted by any of SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE that is not necessary or appropriate. The the following methods: COMMISSION Exchange operates in a highly Electronic Comments competitive market in which market Sunshine Act Meetings participants can readily favor one of the • Use the Commission’s internet 16 competing options venues if they comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ TIME AND DATE: Notice is hereby given, deem fee levels at a particular venue to rules/sro.shtml); or pursuant to the provisions of the • be excessive. Based on publicly- Send an email to rule-comments@ Government in the Sunshine Act, Public available information, and excluding sec.gov. Please include File Number SR– Law 94–409, the Securities and index-based options, no single exchange EMERALD–2020–13 on the subject line. Exchange Commission will hold an has more than 16% market share.28 Paper Comments Open Meeting on Wednesday, November 4, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. Therefore, no exchange possesses • Send paper comments in triplicate significant pricing power in the to Secretary, Securities and Exchange PLACE: The meeting will be webcast on execution of multiply-listed equity and Commission, 100 F Street NE, the Commission’s website at ETF options order flow. For the month Washington, DC 20549–1090. www.sec.gov. of August 2020, the Exchange had a All submissions should refer to File STATUS: This meeting will begin at 2:00 market share of approximately 3.24% of Number SR–EMERALD–2020–13. This p.m. (ET) and will be open to the public executed multiply-listed equity via audio webcast only on the 29 file number should be included on the options, and the Exchange believes subject line if email is used. To help the Commission’s website at www.sec.gov. that the ever-shifting market share Commission process and review your MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: among exchanges from month to month comments more efficiently, please use 1. The Commission will consider demonstrates that market participants only one method. The Commission will whether to issue a Notice, pursuant to can discontinue or reduce use of certain post all comments on the Commission’s Exchange Act Rule 0–13, seeking public categories of products, or shift order internet website (http://www.sec.gov/ comment on an application made by a flow, in response to fee changes. In such rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the foreign financial regulatory authority, an environment, the Exchange must submission, all subsequent pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 3a71–6, continually adjust its fees and fee amendments, all written statements for a substituted compliance waivers to remain competitive with with respect to the proposed rule determination, and on a proposed order other exchanges and to attract order change that are filed with the providing for the conditional flow to the Exchange. Commission, and all written availability of substituted compliance in C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s communications relating to the connection with the application. Statement on Comments on the proposed rule change between the 2. The Commission will consider Proposed Rule Change Received From Commission and any person, other than whether to issue an order granting Members, Participants, or Others those that may be withheld from the exemptive relief from Sections 8 and public in accordance with the 15(a)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act Written comments were neither provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be of 1934 and Rules 3b–13(b)(2), 8c–1, solicited nor received. available for website viewing and 10b–10, 15a–1 and 15c2–1 thereunder printing in the Commission’s Public in connection with the revision of the 27 See the MIAX Options Fee Schedule. definition of ‘‘security’’ to encompass 28 See supra note 17. 30 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 29 Id. 31 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(2). 32 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:55 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES 69376 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices

security-based swaps; declining to The Interest Rates are: Administrative Specialist, by November extend exemptive relief from Rules 10b– 3rd, 2020. If you need accommodations 16 and 15c2–5; and determining the Percent because of a disability, translation expiration date for a temporary services, or require additional exemption from Section 29(b) of the For Physical Damage: information, please contact Joshua Homeowners With Credit Avail- Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in able Elsewhere ...... 2.375 Tovar, by phone (888) 734–3247, by fax connection with registration of security- Homeowners Without Credit (202) 481–5719 or email ombudsman@ based swap dealers and major security- Available Elsewhere ...... 1.188 sba.gov. based swap participants. Businesses With Credit Avail- For more information on the Office of CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: able Elsewhere ...... 6.000 the National Ombudsman, please visit For further information and to ascertain Businesses Without Credit our website at www.sba.gov/ what, if any, matters have been added, Available Elsewhere ...... 3.000 ombudsman. Non-Profit Organizations With deleted or postponed, please contact Credit Available Elsewhere ... 2.750 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant Vanessa A. Countryman, Office of the Non-Profit Organizations With- to the Small Business Regulatory Secretary, at (202) 551–5400. out Credit Available Else- Enforcement Fairness Act (Pub. L. 104– Dated: October 28, 2020. where ...... 2.750 121), Sec. 222, SBA announces the Vanessa A. Countryman, For Economic Injury: meeting of the Regional Small Business Businesses & Small Agricultural Secretary. Regulatory Fairness Boards (Regional Cooperatives Without Credit Regulatory Fairness Boards). The [FR Doc. 2020–24286 Filed 10–29–20; 11:15 am] Available Elsewhere ...... 3.000 Regional Regulatory Fairness Boards are BILLING CODE 8011–01–P Non-Profit Organizations With- out Credit Available Else- tasked to advise the National where ...... 2.750 Ombudsman on matters of concern to small businesses relating to enforcement SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION The number assigned to this disaster activities of agencies and to report on [Disaster Declaration #16708 and #16709; for physical damage is 16708 5 and for substantiated instances of excessive TEXAS Disaster Number TX–00576] economic injury is 16709 0. enforcement actions against small The State which received an EIDL business concerns, including any Administrative Declaration of a Declaration # is Texas. findings or recommendations of the Disaster for the State of Texas Board as to agency enforcement practice (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Number 59008) or policy. Administration. The purpose of the meeting is to Jovita Carranza, discuss the following topics related to ACTION: Notice. Administrator. the Regional Regulatory Fairness SUMMARY: This is a notice of an [FR Doc. 2020–24181 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] Boards: Administrative declaration of a disaster BILLING CODE 8026–03–P —Introduction of the Regional for the State of Texas dated 10/27/2020. Regulatory Fairness Boards and the Incident: Rose Hill Apartment staff of the Office of the National Complex Fire. SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Ombudsman Incident Period: 08/30/2020. —Facilitated discussion of ongoing Annual Meeting of the Regional Small DATES: Issued on 10/27/2020. regulatory issues for small business Business Regulatory Fairness Boards Physical Loan Application Deadline —FY2020 Outcomes and comments regarding the Annual Report to Date: 12/29/2020. AGENCY: Office of the National Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Ombudsman, U.S. Small Business Congress —Office of Advocacy regulatory review Application Deadline Date: 07/27/2021. Administration (SBA). —SBA update and future outreach ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan ACTION: Notice of open meeting of the planning applications to: U.S. Small Business Regional Small Business Regulatory Administration, Processing and Fairness Boards. Dated: October 28, 2020. Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Nicole Nelson, Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. SUMMARY: The SBA, Office of the SBA Committee Management Officer. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. National Ombudsman, is issuing this [FR Doc. 2020–24222 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, notice to announce the location, date, BILLING CODE 8026–03–P U.S. Small Business Administration, time and agenda for the annual board 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, meeting of the ten Regional Small Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205–6734. Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION The meeting is open to the public. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is [Disaster Declaration #16755 and #16756; hereby given that as a result of the DATES: The meeting will be held on UTAH Disaster Number UT–00078] Administrator’s disaster declaration, Wednesday, November 18, 2020 from applications for disaster loans may be 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EDT, and Administrative Declaration of a filed at the address listed above or other Thursday, November 19, 2020 from 8:30 Disaster for the State of Utah a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EDT. locally announced locations. AGENCY: U.S. Small Business ADDRESSES: The following areas have been The meeting will be held Administration. determined to be adversely affected by virtually through Microsoft Teams. ACTION: Notice. the disaster: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Primary Counties: Denton. meeting is open to the public; however SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Contiguous Counties: advance notice of attendance is Administrative declaration of a disaster Texas Collin, Cooke, Dallas, Grayson, requested. Anyone wishing to attend for the State of Utah dated 10/27/2020. Tarrant, Wise. must contact Joshua Tovar, Incident: Severe Storms and Flooding.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:41 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices 69377

Incident Period: 08/23/2020 through DEPARTMENT OF STATE —Election of officers 08/24/2020. —Any other business [Public Notice 11248] DATES: Issued on 10/27/2020. —Consideration of the report of the Committee on its 107th session Physical Loan Application Deadline Notice of Public Meeting in Preparation Date: 12/29/2020. for International Maritime Organization Please note: IMO’s Legal Committee Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Meeting may, on short notice, adjust the LEG 107 Application Deadline Date: 07/27/2021. agenda to accommodate the constraints ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan The Department of State will conduct associated with the virtual meeting applications to: U.S. Small Business a public meeting at 10 a.m. on format. Those who RSVP will be Administration, Processing and Thursday, November 19, 2020, by way notified of any agenda changes that the Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport of teleconference. Members of the coordinator is aware of. Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. public may participate up to the Those who plan to participate may FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. capacity of the teleconference phone contact the meeting coordinator, LT Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, line, which will handle 500 Jessica Anderson, by email at U.S. Small Business Administration, participants. To access the [email protected], by phone 409 3rd Street, SW, Suite 6050, teleconference line, participants should at (202) 372–1376, or in writing at 2703 Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205–6734. call (202) 475–4000 and use Participant Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE Stop Code: 415 533 25#. 7509, Washington DC 20593–7509. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is The primary purpose of the meeting is Additional information regarding this hereby given that as a result of the to prepare for the 107th session of the and other IMO public meetings may be Administrator’s disaster declaration, International Maritime Organization’s found at: https://www.dco.uscg.mil/ applications for disaster loans may be (IMO) Legal Committee to be held IMO. filed at the address listed above or other remotely, November 27 to December 1, locally announced locations. Jeremy M. Greenwood, 2020. The following areas have been The agenda items to be considered Coast Guard Liaison Officer, Office of Ocean determined to be adversely affected by and Polar Affairs, Department of State. include: the disaster: [FR Doc. 2020–24213 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] —Adoption of the agenda Primary Counties: Washington. BILLING CODE 4710–09–P Contiguous Counties: —Report of the Secretary-General on Utah: Iron, Kane. credentials Arizona: Mohave. —Facilitation of the entry into force and DEPARTMENT OF STATE Nevada: Lincoln. harmonized interpretation of the 2010 HNS Protocol [Public Notice 11247] The Interest Rates are: —Provision of financial security in case Request for Statements of Interest Percent of abandonment of seafarers, and shipowners’ responsibilities in AGENCY: Department of State. For Physical Damage: respect of contractual claims for ACTION: Solicitation of applications. Homeowners With Credit Avail- personal injury to, or death of, able Elsewhere ...... 2.375 seafarers in light of the progress of SUMMARY: The Department of State Homeowners Without Credit amendments to the ILO Maritime announces a request for statements of Available Elsewhere ...... 1.188 Labour Convention, 2006 interest (RSI) from qualified entities Businesses With Credit Avail- —Fair treatment of seafarers in the event interested in seeking the Department’s able Elsewhere ...... 6.000 Businesses Without Credit of a maritime accident designation as an Accrediting Entity Available Elsewhere ...... 3.000 —Advice and guidance in connection (AE) to accredit and approve U.S. Non-Profit Organizations With with the implementation of IMO agencies and persons that seek to Credit Available Elsewhere ... 2.750 instruments provide adoption services in Non-Profit Organizations With- —Measures to prevent unlawful intercountry adoption cases. The RSI is out Credit Available Else- practices associated with the posted on the website of the Office of where ...... 2.750 fraudulent registration and fraudulent Children’s Issues, Bureau of Consular For Economic Injury: registries of ships Affairs, U.S. Department State at Businesses & Small Agricultural —Regulatory scoping exercise and gap adoption.state.gov. Cooperatives Without Credit Available Elsewhere ...... 3.000 analysis of conventions emanating DATES: The RSI will be open from Non-Profit Organizations With- from the Legal Committee with November 1, 2020 through February 1, out Credit Available Else- respect to Maritime Autonomous 2021 at 5 p.m. EDT. Extended time to where ...... 2.750 Surface Ships (MASS) submit a statement of interest may be —Unified interpretation on the test for considered upon request to the The number assigned to this disaster breaking the owner’s right to limit Department. for physical damage is 16755 6 and for liability under the IMO conventions economic injury is 16756 0. —Matters relating to the work of the ADDRESSES: Consult the RSI posted on The States which received an EIDL legal Committee and the COVID–19 adoption.state.gov for instructions on Declaration # are Utah, Arizona, pandemic where to submit statements of interest Nevada. —Piracy and supporting documents. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance —Work of other IMO bodies Number 59008) —Technical cooperation activities Questions may be submitted to related to maritime legislation [email protected]. Jovita Carranza, —Review of the status of conventions SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Administrator. and other treaty instruments Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000 (Pub. [FR Doc. 2020–24182 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] emanating from the Legal Committee L. 106–279; 114 Stat. 825; 42 U.S.C. BILLING CODE 8026–03–P —Work programme 14901 et seq.) designates the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:55 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES 69378 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices

Department of State as the U.S. Central regarding the best interests of the DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Authority for the 1993 Hague accreditation/approval program. Convention on Protection of Children Federal Motor Carrier Safety P. Matthew Gillen, and Co-operation in Respect of Administration Chief, Adoptions Bilateral Engagement, Office Intercountry Adoption (Senate Treaty [Docket No. FMCSA–2000–7006; FMCSA– of Children’s Issues, Bureau of Consular Doc. 105–51, 105th Cong., 2d Sess.). 2002–11714; FMCSA–2002–12294; FMCSA– Affairs, Department of State. Some Central Authority duties are 2004–17984; FMCSA–2004–18885; FMCSA– [FR Doc. 2020–24211 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] explicitly assigned to other entities, 2005–21711; FMCSA–2005–22727; FMCSA– BILLING CODE 4710–06–P 2006–24783; FMCSA–2008–0021; FMCSA– including the Department of Homeland 2008–0106; FMCSA–2008–0231; FMCSA– Security (DHS). The IAA confers on the 2008–0266; FMCSA–2010–0082; FMCSA– Department the authority and DEPARTMENT OF STATE 2010–0114; FMCSA–2010–0161; FMCSA– responsibility for establishing and 2010–0187; FMCSA–2011–0380; FMCSA– overseeing the system for accreditation/ 2012–0104; FMCSA–2012–0159; FMCSA– approval and monitoring and oversight [Public Notice: 11234] 2012–0215; FMCSA–2013–0167; FMCSA– 2013–0174; FMCSA–2014–0002; FMCSA– of accredited agencies and approved Overseas Security Advisory Council 2014–0004; FMCSA–2014–0006; FMCSA– persons (hereinafter referred to as (OSAC) Renewal 2014–0007; FMCSA–2014–0010; FMCSA– adoption service providers (ASPs)). 2014–0011; FMCSA–2014–0296; FMCSA– Rather than mandating the Department The Department of State has renewed 2015–0070; FMCSA–2015–0345; FMCSA– to directly accredit/approve ASPs, the the Charter of the Overseas Security 2015–0347; FMCSA–2015–0350; FMCSA– 2016–0024; FMCSA–2016–0028; FMCSA– IAA directs the Department to select Advisory Council. This federal advisory and designate one or more AEs to carry 2016–0029; FMCSA–2016–0206; FMCSA– committee will continue to interact on 2018–0008; FMCSA–2018–0011; FMCSA– out those functions. overseas security matters of mutual 2018–0012; FMCSA–2018–0017] Designated AEs responsibilities are interest between the U.S. Government discussed in 22 CFR 96.7 and may be and the American private sector. The Qualification of Drivers; Exemption further established by agreement with Council’s initiatives and security Applications; Vision the Department of State. The federal publications provide a unique AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety regulations governing intercountry contribution to protecting American Administration (FMCSA), DOT. adoption and the accreditation of private sector interests abroad. The ACTION: Notice of final disposition. agencies and approval of persons can be Under Secretary for Management found at 22 CFR 96, with Subpart B determined that renewal of the Charter SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its focusing on the selection, designation, is necessary and in the public interest. decision to renew exemptions for 55 individuals from the vision requirement and duties of AEs. The Council consists of in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety This opportunity is extended to representatives from three (3) U.S. Regulations (FMCSRs) for interstate nonprofit organizations with expertise Government agencies and thirty-one commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in developing and administering (31) American private sector companies drivers. The exemptions enable these standards for entities providing child and organizations. The Council follows individuals to continue to operate CMVs welfare services and to U.S. State or the procedures prescribed by the in interstate commerce without meeting local government public entities with Federal Advisory Committee Act the vision requirement in one eye. such expertise and responsibility for (FACA) (Pub. L. 92–463). Meetings will DATES: Each group of renewed licensing adoption agencies, per 22 CFR be open to the public unless a exemptions were applicable on the 96.5. If selected, a State or local determination is made in accordance dates stated in the discussions below government public entity may only with Section 10(d) of the FACA and 5 and will expire on the dates provided accredit/approve agencies and persons U.S.C. 552b, that a meeting or a portion below. within the public entity’s State. Federal of the meeting should be closed to the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. government entities are not eligible to public. Notice of each meeting will be Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical apply. Newly established nonprofit provided in the Federal Register at least Programs Division, (202) 366–4001, organizations may apply provided they 15 days prior to the meeting. [email protected], FMCSA, meet the criteria for IRS Code 501(c)(3) For more information contact Marsha Department of Transportation, 1200 status and can demonstrate that they Thurman, Overseas Security Advisory New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64–224, have the required expertise, as Council, Bureau of Diplomatic Security, Washington, DC 20590–0001. Office discussed in 22 CFR 96.5, either as an U.S. Department of State, Washington, hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., ET, entity or within their staffing. DC 20522–2008, phone: 571–345–2214. Monday through Friday, except Federal Under 22 CFR 96.4, the Department is holidays. If you have questions Jason R. Kight, authorized to designate one or more regarding viewing or submitting entities to perform AE functions. The Executive Director, Overseas Security material to the docket, contact Dockets Advisory Council, Department of State. Department currently works with one Operations, (202) 366–9826. designated AE that is responsible for [FR Doc. 2020–24209 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: BILLING CODE 4710–43–P accreditation/approval of agencies and I. Public Participation persons throughout the United States. The number of AEs selected through the A. Viewing Documents and Comments upcoming RSI process will depend on To view comments, as well as any the qualifications of the applicants and documents mentioned in this notice as the Department’s determination being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Insert the docket number, FMCSA–2000–7006;

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:55 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices 69379

FMCSA–2002–11714; FMCSA–2002– physically qualified to drive a CMV if Donald R. Date, Jr. (MD) 12294; FMCSA–2004–17984; FMCSA– that person has distant visual acuity of Jacob Dehoyos (NM) 2004–18885; FMCSA–2005–21711; at least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye David Diamond (IL) FMCSA–2005–22727; FMCSA–2006– without corrective lenses or visual Timothy C. Dotson (MO) 24783; FMCSA–2008–0021; FMCSA– acuity separately corrected to 20/40 Michael Giagnacova (PA) 2008–0106; FMCSA–2008–0231; (Snellen) or better with corrective Joshua D. Giles (NC) FMCSA–2008–0266; FMCSA–2010– lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least Esteban G. Gonzalez (TX) 0082; FMCSA–2010–0114; FMCSA– 20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with or Jimmy G. Hall (NC) 2010–0161; FMCSA–2010–0187; without corrective lenses, field of vision Ricky P. Hastings (TX) FMCSA–2011–0380; FMCSA–2012– of at least 70° in the horizontal meridian Kevin L. Jones (SC) 0104; FMCSA–2012–0159; FMCSA– in each eye, and the ability to recognize Keith A. Kelley (ME) 2012–0215; FMCSA–2013–0167; the colors of traffic signals and devices William J. Krysinski (MN) FMCSA–2013–0174; FMCSA–2014– showing red, green, and amber. Melvin L. Lester (MS) 0002; FMCSA–2014–0004; FMCSA– William L. Martin (OR) 2014–0006; FMCSA–2014–0007; III. Discussion of Comments Michael P. Mazza (WA) FMCSA–2014–0010; FMCSA–2014– FMCSA received no comments in this Duane A. McCord (IL) 0011; FMCSA–2014–0296; FMCSA– proceeding. Richard L. Miller (IN) 2015–0070; FMCSA–2015–0345; IV. Conclusion Philip L. Neff (PA) FMCSA–2015–0347; FMCSA–2015– Michael Pace (TX) 0350; FMCSA–2016–0024; FMCSA– Based on its evaluation of the 55 Aaron L. Paustian (IA) 2016–0028; FMCSA–2016–0029; renewal exemption applications and Markus Perkins (LA) FMCSA–2016–0206; FMCSA–2018– comments received, FMCSA confirms Kent A. Perry (WY) 0008; FMCSA–2018–0011; FMCSA– its decision to exempt the following Mario A. Quezada (TX) 2018–0012; FMCSA–2018–0017, in the drivers from the vision requirement in Carroll G. Quisenberry (KY) keyword box, and click ‘‘Search.’’ Next, § 391.41(b)(10). Ruel W. Reed (IA) click the ‘‘Open Docket Folder’’ button As of October 1, 2020, and in Guadalupe Reyes (FL) and choose the document to review. If accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and Ivan Romero (IL) you do not have access to the internet, 31315, the following 37 individuals Jess C. Sanchez (TX) you may view the docket online by have satisfied the renewal conditions for Robert Schick (PA) visiting Dockets Operations in Room obtaining an exemption from the vision Michael D. Singleton (IN) W12–140 on the ground floor of the requirement in the FMCSRs for Ricky W. Witt (IA) interstate CMV drivers (65 FR 20245; 65 DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey The drivers were included in docket FR 57230; 67 FR 46016; 67 FR 57266; Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, numbers FMCSA–2000–7006; FMCSA– 67 FR 57267; 69 FR 51346; 69 FR 52741; between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday 2002–12294; FMCSA–2005–22727; 70 FR 71884; 71 FR 4632; 71 FR 53489; through Friday, except Federal holidays. FMCSA–2008–0021; FMCSA–2008– 73 FR 5259; 73 FR 15567; 73 FR 27015; 0106; FMCSA–2010–0082; FMCSA– B. Privacy Act 73 FR 35195; 73 FR 35199; 73 FR 48275; 2010–0114; FMCSA–2012–0104; 73 FR 51336; 75 FR 1451; 75 FR 19674; In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), FMCSA–2012–0159; FMCSA–2013– 75 FR 25918; 75 FR 34212; 75 FR 39729; DOT solicits comments from the public 0167; FMCSA–2013–0174; FMCSA– 75 FR 44051; 75 FR 47888; 75 FR 52062; to better inform its rulemaking process. 2014–0002; FMCSA–2014–0004; 77 FR 545; 77 FR 23797; 77 FR 27847; DOT posts these comments, without FMCSA–2014–0006; FMCSA–2014– 77 FR 36336; 77 FR 36338; 77 FR 38386; edit, including any personal information 0007; FMCSA–2014–0010; FMCSA– 77 FR 40945; 77 FR 46153; 77 FR 46795; the commenter provides, to 2015–0070; FMCSA–2015–0345; 77 FR 52389; 78 FR 64271; 78 FR 78475; www.regulations.gov, as described in FMCSA–2015–0347; FMCSA–2015– 79 FR 1908; 79 FR 2748; 79 FR 10606; the system of records notice (DOT/ALL– 0350; FMCSA–2016–0024; FMCSA– 79 FR 14333; 79 FR 18392; 79 FR 22003; 14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at 2016–0028; FMCSA–2016–0029; 79 FR 23797; 79 FR 29498; 79 FR 35212; www.transportation.gov/privacy. FMCSA–2016–0206; FMCSA–2018– 79 FR 35220; 79 FR 38659; 79 FR 38661; 0008; FMCSA–2018–0011; FMCSA– II. Background 79 FR 45868; 79 FR 46153; 79 FR 46300; 2018–0012. Their exemptions were On , 2020, FMCSA 79 FR 47175; 79 FR 51643; 79 FR 53514; applicable as of October 1, 2020, and published a notice announcing its 79 FR 64001; 80 FR 67476; 80 FR 79414; will expire on October 1, 2022. decision to renew exemptions for 55 80 FR 80443; 81 FR 1474; 81 FR 14190; As of October 6, 2020, and in individuals from the vision requirement 81 FR 15404; 81 FR 2043381; FR 21655; accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) to operate a 81 FR 28138; 81 FR 39100; 81 FR 39320; 31315, the following six individuals CMV in interstate commerce and 81 FR 42054; 81 FR 44680; 81 FR 48493; have satisfied the renewal conditions for requested comments from the public (85 81 FR 60115; 81 FR 66718; 81 FR 66720; obtaining an exemption from the vision FR 54628). The public comment period 81 FR 66722; 81 FR 72642; 81 FR 81230; requirement in the FMCSRs for ended on October 2, 2020, and no 81 FR 90050; 81 FR 91239; 81 FR 96196; interstate CMV drivers (67 FR 15662; 67 comments were received. 83 FR 6922; 83 FR 15195; 83 FR 15216; FR 37907; 69 FR 26206; 70 FR 48797; FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility 83 FR 24146; 83 FR 24585; 83 FR 28320; 70 FR 61493; 71 FR 26602; 71 FR 32183; of these applicants and determined that 83 FR 28323; 83 FR 28325; 83 FR 28332; 71 FR 41310; 73 FR 27018; 73 FR 36955; renewing these exemptions would 83 FR 34661; 83 FR 34677; 83 FR 45749; 75 FR 36778; 75 FR 36779; 75 FR 39725; achieve a level of safety equivalent to, 83 FR 56902): or greater than, the level that would be 75 FR 61833; 77 FR 17109; 77 FR 27845; Dominic A. Berube (MA) 77 FR 38384; 77 FR 56262; 79 FR 23797; achieved by complying with the current Mark F. Besco (IA) regulation § 391.41(b)(10). Lester E. Burnes (NM) 79 FR 35218; 79 FR 51642; 81 FR 71173; The physical qualification standard Antonio A. Calixto (MN) 83 FR 56902): for drivers regarding vision found in Walter O. Connelly (WA) John E. Breslin (NV) § 391.41(b)(10) states that a person is Tommy J. Cross, Jr. (TN) Ronald M. Green (OH)

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:55 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES 69380 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices

David W. Grooms (IN) Randall J. Benson (MN) would not be consistent with the goals Ralph E. Holmes (MD) James D. Drabek, Jr. (IL) and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and Daniel W. Johnson (NY) Delone W. Dudley (MD) 31315(b). Charles E. Stokes (FL) Jeromy W. Leatherman (PA) Larry W. Minor, The drivers were included in docket The drivers were included in docket Associate Administrator for Policy. number FMCSA–2002–11714; FMCSA– number FMCSA–2008–0266; FMCSA– 2005–21711; FMCSA–2006–24783; 2010–0161; FMCSA–2010–0187. Their [FR Doc. 2020–24185 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] FMCSA–2010–0161; FMCSA–2011– exemptions are applicable as of October BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 0380. Their exemptions were applicable 22, 2020, and will expire on October 22, as of October 6, 2020, and will expire 2022. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION on October 6, 2022. As of October 23, 2020, and in As of , 2020, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and Federal Motor Carrier Safety 31315, the following individual has Administration 31315, the following individual has satisfied the renewal conditions for satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision [Docket No. FMCSA–2014–0106; FMCSA– obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in the FMCSRs for 2016–0002; FMCSA–2017–0061] requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (77 FR 52381; 77 Qualification of Drivers; Exemption interstate CMV drivers (83 FR 45750; 83 FR 64841; 79 FR 56097; 81 FR 71173; Applications; Hearing FR 56137): 83 FR 56902): Thomas J. Knapp (WA) James T. Stalker (OH) AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety The driver was included in docket The driver was included in docket Administration (FMCSA), DOT. number FMCSA–2018–0017. The number FMCSA–2012–0215. The ACTION: Notice of final disposition. exemption was applicable as of October exemption is applicable as of October 11, 2020, and will expire on October 11, 23, 2020, and will expire on October 23, SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its 2022. decision to renew exemptions for eight As of , 2020, and in 2022. As of October 27, 2020, and in individuals from the hearing accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and requirement in the Federal Motor 31315, the following two individuals accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following two individuals Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for have satisfied the renewal conditions for interstate commercial motor vehicle obtaining an exemption from the vision have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision (CMV) drivers. The exemptions enable requirement in the FMCSRs for these hard of hearing and deaf interstate CMV drivers (69 FR 33997; 69 requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (69 FR 53493; 69 individuals to continue to operate CMVs FR 61292; 71 FR 55820; 73 FR 46973; in interstate commerce. 73 FR 54888; 73 FR 65009; 75 FR 52063; FR 62742; 71 FR 62148; 73 FR 61925; DATES: The exemptions were applicable 75 FR 57105; 77 FR 52388; 77 FR 60010; 75 FR 59327; 77 FR 64583; 79 FR 56117; on , 2020. The exemptions 81 FR 71173; 83 FR 56902): 81 FR 71173; 83 FR 56902): expire on September 6, 2022. William C. Ball (NC) and Kevin C. David W. Brown (TN) and Zbigniew P. Palmer (OR) Pietranik (WI) FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical The drivers were included in docket The drivers were included in docket Programs Division, 202–366–4001, numbers FMCSA–2004–17984; number FMCSA–2004–18885. Their [email protected], FMCSA, FMCSA–2008–0231. Their exemptions exemptions are applicable as of October Department of Transportation, 1200 were applicable as of October 15, 2020, 27, 2020, and will expire on October 27, New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64–224, and will expire on October 15, 2022. 2022. As of October 21, 2020, and in As of October 31, 2020, and in Washington, DC 20590–0001. Office accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., ET, 31315, the following individual has 31315, the following individual has Monday through Friday, except Federal satisfied the renewal conditions for satisfied the renewal conditions for holidays. If you have questions obtaining an exemption from the vision obtaining an exemption from the vision regarding viewing or submitting requirement in the FMCSRs for requirement in the FMCSRs for material to the docket, contact Dockets interstate CMV drivers (79 FR 56099; 79 interstate CMV drivers (79 FR 58856; 79 Operations, (202) 366–9826. FR 70928; 81 FR 71173; 83 FR 56902): FR 72754; 81 FR 71173; 83 FR 56902): SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Raymond Holt (CA) Henry L. Chrestensen (IA) I. Public Participation The driver was included in docket The driver was included in docket A. Viewing Documents and Comments number FMCSA–2014–0011. The number FMCSA–2014–0296. The exemption is applicable as of October exemption is applicable as of October To view comments, as well as any 21, 2020, and will expire on October 21, 31, 2020, and will expire on October 31, documents mentioned in this notice as 2022. 2022. being available in the docket, go to As of October 22, 2020, and in In accordance with 49 U.S.C. http://www.regulations.gov/ accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), each exemption will be valid docket?D=FMCSA-2014-0106, http:// 31315, the following four individuals for 2 years from the effective date unless www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA- have satisfied the renewal conditions for revoked earlier by FMCSA. The 2016-0002, or http:// obtaining an exemption from the vision exemption will be revoked if the www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA- requirement in the FMCSRs for following occurs: (1) The person fails to 2017-0061 and choose the document to interstate CMV drivers (73 FR 51689; 73 comply with the terms and conditions review. If you do not have access to the FR 63047; 75 FR 39725; 75 FR 47883; of the exemption; (2) the exemption has internet, you may view the docket 75 FR 61883; 75 FR 63257; 75 FR 64396; resulted in a lower level of safety than online by visiting Dockets Operations in 77 FR 64582; 79 FR 56104; 81 FR 71173; was maintained prior to being granted; Room W12–140 on the ground floor of 83 FR 56902): or (3) continuation of the exemption the DOT West Building, 1200 New

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:55 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices 69381

Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC exempt the following drivers from the meeting the vision requirement in one 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, hearing requirement in § 391.41(b)(11). eye. Monday through Friday, except Federal As of September 6, 2020, and in DATES: The exemptions were applicable accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and holidays. To be sure someone is there to on , 2020. The exemptions 31315(b), the following eight help you, please call (202) 366–9317 or expire on October 3, 2022. (202) 366–9826 before visiting Dockets individuals have satisfied the renewal Operations. conditions for obtaining an exemption FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. from the hearing requirement in the Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical B. Privacy Act FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (85 Programs Division, (202) 366–4001, In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), FR 54625): [email protected], FMCSA, Department of Transportation, 1200 DOT solicits comments from the public Weston Arthurs (CA) to better inform its rulemaking process. Mathias Conway (MI) New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64–224, DOT posts these comments, without Charles DePriest (TX) Washington, DC 20590–0001. Office edit, including any personal information Agustin Hernandez (TX) hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., ET, the commenter provides, to Robert Hilber (TX) Monday through Friday, except Federal www.regulations.gov, as described in Richard Hoots (AR) holidays. If you have questions the system of records notice (DOT/ALL– D’Nielle Smith (OH) regarding viewing or submitting 14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at Michael Sweet (GA) material to the docket, contact Dockets www.transportation.gov/privacy. The drivers were included in docket Operations, (202) 366–9826. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: II. Background number FMCSA–2014–0106, FMCSA– 2016–0002, or FMCSA–2017–0061. I. Public Participation On September 2, 2020, FMCSA Their exemptions were applicable as of published a notice announcing its September 6, 2020, and will expire on A. Viewing Documents and Comments decision to renew exemptions for eight September 6, 2022. individuals from the hearing standard in To view comments, as well as any In accordance with 49 U.S.C. documents mentioned in this notice as 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) to operate a CMV 31315(b), each exemption will be valid in interstate commerce and requested being available in the docket, go to for 2 years from the effective date unless http://www.regulations.gov/ comments from the public (85 FR revoked earlier by FMCSA. The 54625). The public comment period docket?D=FMCSA-2020-0011 and exemption will be revoked if the choose the document to review. If you ended on October 2, 2020, and no following occurs: (1) The person fails to comments were received. do not have access to the internet, you comply with the terms and conditions may view the docket online by visiting FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of the exemption; (2) the exemption has of these applicants and determined that Dockets Operations in Room W12–140 resulted in a lower level of safety than on the ground floor of the DOT West renewing these exemptions would was maintained prior to being granted; achieve a level of safety equivalent to, Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, or (3) continuation of the exemption Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. or greater than, the level that would be would not be consistent with the goals achieved by complying with and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and except Federal holidays. To be sure § 391.41(b)(11). 31315(b). The physical qualification standard someone is there to help you, please call for drivers regarding hearing found in Larry W. Minor, (202) 366–9317 or (202) 366–9826 § 391.41(b)(11) states that a person is Associate Administrator for Policy. before visiting Docket Operations. physically qualified to drive a CMV if [FR Doc. 2020–24188 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] B. Privacy Act that person first perceives a forced BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P whispered voice in the better ear at not In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), less than 5 feet with or without the use DOT solicits comments from the public of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION to better inform its rulemaking process. an audiometric device, does not have an DOT posts these comments, without average hearing loss in the better ear Federal Motor Carrier Safety edit, including any personal information greater than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Administration the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a [Docket No. FMCSA–2020–0011] hearing aid when the audiometric the system of records notice (DOT/ALL– 14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at device is calibrated to American Qualification of Drivers; Exemption www.transportation.gov/privacy. National Standard (formerly ASA Applications; Vision Standard) Z24.5—1951. II. Background This standard was adopted in 1970 AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety and was revised in 1971 to allow drivers Administration (FMCSA), DOT. On September 2, 2020, FMCSA to be qualified under this standard ACTION: Notice of final disposition. published a notice announcing receipt while wearing a hearing aid, 35 FR of applications from five individuals 6458, 6463 (, 1970) and 36 FR SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its requesting an exemption from the vision 12857 (July 3, 1971). decision to exempt five individuals requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) from the vision requirement in the and requested comments from the III. Discussion of Comments Federal Motor Carrier Safety public (85 FR 54621). The public FMCSA received no comments in this Regulations (FMCSRs) to operate a comment period ended on October 2, proceeding. commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in 2020, and no comments were received. interstate commerce. They are unable to FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility IV. Conclusion meet the vision requirement in one eye of these applicants and determined that Based upon its evaluation of the eight for various reasons. The exemptions granting the exemptions to these renewal exemption applications, enable these individuals to operate individuals would achieve a level of FMCSA announces its decision to CMVs in interstate commerce without safety equivalent to, or greater than, the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:55 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES 69382 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices

level that would be achieved by applicant has one eye that does not meet certified medical examiner (ME) who complying with § 391.41(b)(10). the vision requirement in attests that the individual is otherwise The physical qualification standard § 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 physically qualified under § 391.41; (2) for drivers regarding vision found in corrected vision in the other eye, and, each driver must provide a copy of the § 391.41(b)(10) states that a person is in a doctor’s opinion, has sufficient ophthalmologist’s or optometrist’s physically qualified to drive a CMV if vision to perform all the tasks necessary report to the ME at the time of the that person has distant visual acuity of to operate a CMV. annual medical examination; and (3) at least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye Doctors’ opinions are supported by each driver must provide a copy of the without corrective lenses or visual the applicants’ possession of a valid annual medical certification to the acuity separately corrected to 20/40 license to operate a CMV. By meeting employer for retention in the driver’s (Snellen) or better with corrective State licensing requirements, the qualification file, or keep a copy in his/ lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least applicants demonstrated their ability to her driver’s qualification file if he/she is 20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with or operate a CMV with their limited vision self-employed. The driver must also without corrective lenses, field of vision in intrastate commerce, even though have a copy of the exemption when of at least 70° in the horizontal meridian their vision disqualified them from driving, for presentation to a duly in each eye, and the ability to recognize driving in interstate commerce. We authorized Federal, State, or local the colors of traffic signals and devices believe that the applicants’ intrastate enforcement official. showing red, green, and amber. driving experience and history provide an adequate basis for predicting their VI. Preemption III. Discussion of Comments ability to drive safely in interstate During the period the exemption is in FMCSA received no comments in this commerce. Intrastate driving, like effect, no State shall enforce any law or proceeding. interstate operations, involves regulation that conflicts with this IV. Basis for Exemption Determination substantial driving on highways on the exemption with respect to a person interstate system and on other roads operating under the exemption. Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and built to interstate standards. Moreover, 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an driving in congested urban areas VII. Conclusion exemption from the FMCSRs for no exposes the driver to more pedestrian Based upon its evaluation of the five longer than a 5-year period if it finds and vehicular traffic than exists on exemption applications, FMCSA such exemption would likely achieve a interstate highways. Faster reaction to exempts the following drivers from the level of safety that is equivalent to, or traffic and traffic signals is generally vision requirement, § 391.41(b)(10), greater than, the level that would be required because distances between subject to the requirements cited above: achieved absent such exemption. The them are more compact. These statute also allows the Agency to renew Tanner L. Batey (MT) conditions tax visual capacity and Martin G. Burley, Jr. (ID) exemptions at the end of the 5-year driver response just as intensely as period. FMCSA grants medical Fernando Casillas Lucio (CA) interstate driving conditions. Franz E. Fehr (TX) exemptions from the FMCSRs for a 2- The applicants in this notice have Jonathan D. Steen (MN) year period to align with the maximum driven CMVs with their limited vision duration of a driver’s medical in careers ranging for 3 to 20 years. In In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) certification. the past 3 years, no drivers were and 31315(b), each exemption will be The Agency’s decision regarding these involved in crashes, and no drivers were valid for 2 years from the effective date exemption applications is based on convicted of moving violations in unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The medical reports about the applicants’ CMVs. All the applicants achieved a exemption will be revoked if the vision, as well as their driving records record of safety while driving with their following occurs: (1) The person fails to and experience driving with the vision vision impairment that demonstrates the comply with the terms and conditions deficiency. The qualifications, likelihood that they have adapted their of the exemption; (2) the exemption has experience, and medical condition of driving skills to accommodate their resulted in a lower level of safety than each applicant were stated and condition. As the applicants’ ample was maintained prior to being granted; discussed in detail in the September 2, driving histories with their vision or (3) continuation of the exemption 2020, Federal Register notice (85 FR deficiencies are good predictors of would not be consistent with the goals 54621) and will not be repeated here. future performance, FMCSA concludes and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and FMCSA recognizes that some drivers their ability to drive safely can be 31315(b). do not meet the vision requirement but projected into the future. Larry W. Minor, have adapted their driving to Consequently, FMCSA finds that in Associate Administrator for Policy. accommodate their limitation and each case exempting these applicants demonstrated their ability to drive from the vision requirement in [FR Doc. 2020–24187 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] safely. The five exemption applicants § 391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P listed in this notice are in this category. level of safety equal to that existing They are unable to meet the vision without the exemption. requirement in one eye for various DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION V. Conditions and Requirements reasons, including amblyopia, Federal Motor Carrier Safety chorioretinal scarring, glaucoma, and The terms and conditions of the Administration macular scarring. In most cases, their exemption are provided to the eye conditions did not develop recently. applicants in the exemption document Three of the applicants were either born and includes the following: (1) Each [Docket No. FMCSA–2020–0012] with their vision impairments or have driver must be physically examined Qualification of Drivers; Exemption had them since childhood. The two every year (a) by an ophthalmologist or Applications; Vision individuals that developed their vision optometrist who attests that the vision conditions as adults have had them for in the better eye continues to meet the AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety a range of 5 to 14 years. Although each standard in § 391.41(b)(10) and (b) by a Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:55 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices 69383

ACTION: Notice of applications for material online or by fax, mail, or hand greater than, the level that would be exemption; request for comments. delivery, but please use only one of achieved absent such exemption. The these means. FMCSA recommends that statute also allows the Agency to renew SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of you include your name and a mailing exemptions at the end of the 5-year applications from five individuals for an address, an email address, or a phone period. FMCSA grants medical exemption from the vision requirement number in the body of your document exemptions from the FMCSRs for a 2- in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety so that FMCSA can contact you if there year period to align with the maximum Regulations (FMCSRs) to operate a are questions regarding your duration of a driver’s medical commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in submission. certification. interstate commerce. If granted, the To submit your comment online, go to The five individuals listed in this exemptions will enable these http://www.regulations.gov/ notice have requested an exemption individuals to operate CMVs in docket?D=FMCSA-2020-0012. Click on from the vision requirement in 49 CFR interstate commerce without meeting the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ button and type 391.41(b)(10). Accordingly, the Agency the vision requirement in one eye. your comment into the text box on the will evaluate the qualifications of each DATES: Comments must be received on following screen. Choose whether you applicant to determine whether granting or before December 2, 2020. are submitting your comment as an an exemption will achieve the required ADDRESSES: You may submit comments individual or on behalf of a third party level of safety mandated by statute. identified by the Federal Docket and then submit. The physical qualification standard Management System (FDMS) Docket No. If you submit your comments by mail for drivers regarding vision found in FMCSA–2020–0012 using any of the or hand delivery, submit them in an § 391.41(b)(10) states that a person is following methods: unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by physically qualified to drive a CMV if • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 11 inches, suitable for copying and that person has distant visual acuity of http://www.regulations.gov/ electronic filing. If you submit at least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye docket?D=FMCSA-2020-0012. Follow comments by mail and would like to without corrective lenses or visual the online instructions for submitting know that they reached the facility, acuity separately corrected to 20/40 comments. please enclose a stamped, self-addressed (Snellen) or better with corrective • Mail: Dockets Operations; U.S. postcard or envelope. lenses, distant binocular acuity of at Department of Transportation, 1200 FMCSA will consider all comments least 20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building and material received during the or without corrective lenses, field of Ground Floor, Room W12–140, comment period. vision of at least 70° in the horizontal Washington, DC 20590–0001. Meridian in each eye, and the ability to B. Viewing Documents and Comments • Hand Delivery: West Building recognize the colors of traffic signals Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 To view comments, as well as any and devices showing standard red, New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, documents mentioned in this notice as green, and amber. DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, being available in the docket, go to On July 16, 1992, the Agency first Monday through Friday, except Federal http://www.regulations.gov/ published the criteria for the Vision Holidays. docket?D=FMCSA-2020-0012 and Waiver Program, which listed the • Fax: (202) 493–2251. choose the document to review. If you conditions and reporting standards that To avoid duplication, please use only do not have access to the internet, you CMV drivers approved for participation one of these four methods. See the may view the docket online by visiting would need to meet (57 FR 31458). The ‘‘Public Participation’’ portion of the the Dockets Operations in Room W12– current Vision Exemption Program was SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for 140 on the ground floor of the DOT established in 1998, following the instructions on submitting comments. West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue enactment of amendments to the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 statutes governing exemptions made by Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through § 4007 of the Transportation Equity Act Programs Division, (202) 366–4001, Friday, except Federal holidays. To be for the 21st Century (TEA–21), Public [email protected], FMCSA, sure someone is there to help you, Law 105–178, 112 Stat. 107, 401 (June Department of Transportation, 1200 please call (202) 366–9317 or (202) 366– 9, 1998). Vision exemptions are New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64–224, 9826 before visiting Dockets Operations. considered under the procedures established in 49 CFR part 381 subpart Washington, DC 20590–0001. Office C. Privacy Act hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., ET, C, on a case-by-case basis upon Monday through Friday, except Federal In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), application by CMV drivers who do not holidays. If you have questions DOT solicits comments from the public meet the vision standards of regarding viewing or submitting to better inform its rulemaking process. § 391.41(b)(10). To qualify for an exemption from the material to the docket, contact Dockets DOT posts these comments, without vision requirement, FMCSA requires a Operations, (202) 366–9826. edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to person to present verifiable evidence SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: www.regulations.gov, as described in that he/she has driven a commercial I. Public Participation the system of records notice (DOT/ALL– vehicle safely in intrastate commerce 14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at with the vision deficiency for the past A. Submitting Comments www.transportation.gov/privacy. 3 years. Recent driving performance is If you submit a comment, please especially important in evaluating include the docket number for this II. Background future safety, according to several notice (Docket No. FMCSA–2020–0012), Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and research studies designed to correlate indicate the specific section of this 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an past and future driving performance. document to which each comment exemption from the FMCSRs for no Results of these studies support the applies, and provide a reason for each longer than a 5-year period if it finds principle that the best predictor of suggestion or recommendation. You such exemption would likely achieve a future performance by a driver is his/her may submit your comments and level of safety that is equivalent to, or past record of crashes and traffic

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:55 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES 69384 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices

violations. Copies of the studies may be sufficient vision to perform the driving eye, 20/15. Following an examination in found at https://www.regulations.gov/ tasks operate a commercial vehicle.’’ 2020, his optometrist stated, ‘‘It is my docket?D=FMCSA-1998-3637. Mr. Enkers reported that he has driven medical option that Mike Westervelt has FMCSA believes it can properly apply straight trucks for 36 years, sufficient vision to perform the driving the principle to monocular drivers, accumulating 162,000 miles. He holds tasks required to operate a commercial because data from the Federal Highway an operator’s license from Minnesota. vehicle.’’ Mr. Westervelt reported that Administration’s (FHWA) former waiver His driving record for the last 3 years he has driven tractor-trailer study program clearly demonstrated the shows no crashes and no convictions for combinations for 50 years, accumulating driving performance of experienced moving violations in a CMV. 6,300,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL monocular drivers in the program is from Montana. His driving record for Michael J. Jewell better than that of all CMV drivers the last 3 years shows no crashes and no collectively.1 The fact that experienced Mr. Jewell, 35, has had amblyopia in convictions for moving violations in a monocular drivers demonstrated safe his left eye since childhood. The visual CMV. driving records in the waiver program acuity in his right eye is 20/20 and in supports a conclusion that other his left eye, 20/350. Following an IV. Request for Comments monocular drivers, meeting the same examination in 2020, his optometrist In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) qualifying conditions as those required stated, ‘‘It is my medical opinion that and 31315(b), FMCSA requests public by the waiver program, are also likely to Michael has sufficient vision to perform comment from all interested persons on have adapted to their vision deficiency the driving tasks necessary to operate a the exemption petitions described in and will continue to operate safely. commercial vehicle while he is wearing this notice. We will consider all The first major research correlating glasses or contact lenses.’’ Mr. Jewell comments and material received before past and future performance was done reported that he has driven straight the close of business on the closing date in England by Greenwood and Yule in trucks for 8 years, accumulating 50,000 indicated under the DATES section of the 1920. Subsequent studies, building on miles. He holds an operator’s license notice. that model, concluded that crash rates from Colorado. His driving record for for the same individual exposed to the last 3 years shows no crashes and no Larry W. Minor, certain risks for two different time convictions for moving violations in a Associate Administrator for Policy. periods vary only slightly (See Bates CMV. [FR Doc. 2020–24186 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] and Neyman, University of California BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P Anthony G. Offutt Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated theories of Mr. Offutt, 63, has had optic predicting crash proneness from crash neuropathy in his left eye since 2012. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION history coupled with other factors. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/ Federal Motor Carrier Safety These factors—such as age, sex, 20, and in his left eye, 20/400. Administration geographic location, mileage driven and Following an examination in 2020, his conviction history—are used every day optometrist stated, ‘‘Although Mr. [Docket No. FMCSA–2012–0123; FMCSA– by insurance companies and motor Offutt’s visual acuity is reduced due to 2015–0326; FMCSA–2015–0328; FMCSA– vehicle bureaus to predict the NAION, I believe Mr. Offutt has the 2015–0329; FMCSA–2017–0057; FMCSA– probability of an individual ability to operate a commercial vehicle.’’ 2017–0059; FMCSA–2017–0060; FMCSA– experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Mr. Offutt reported that he has driven 2017–0061] Donald C., ‘‘Accident Rate Potential: An tractor-trailer combinations for 25 years, Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Application of Multiple Regression accumulating 1.1 million miles. He Applications; Hearing Analysis of a Poisson Process,’’ Journal holds a Class A CDL from Oregon. His of American Statistical Association, driving record for the last 3 years shows AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety June 1971). A 1964 California Driver no crashes and no convictions for Administration (FMCSA), DOT. moving violations in a CMV. Record Study prepared by the California ACTION: Notice of final disposition. Department of Motor Vehicles Joseph Sottile concluded that the best overall crash SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its predictor for both concurrent and Mr. Sottile, 57, has chorioretinal decision to renew exemptions for 18 nonconcurrent events is the number of scarring in his right eye due to trauma individuals from the hearing single convictions. This study used 3 in childhood. The visual acuity in his requirement in the Federal Motor consecutive years of data, comparing the right eye is hand motion, and in his left Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for experiences of drivers in the first 2 years eye, 20/20. Following an examination in interstate commercial motor vehicle with their experiences in the final year. 2020, his ophthalmologist stated, ‘‘It is (CMV) drivers. The exemptions enable my opinion patient has good vision and III. Qualifications of Applicants these hard of hearing and deaf is capable of operating a commercial individuals to continue to operate CMVs Wesley D. Enkers vehicle.’’ Mr. Sottile reported that he in interstate commerce. has driven straight trucks for 30 years, Mr. Enkers, 58, has had amblyopia in accumulating 405,600 miles. He holds DATES: The exemptions were applicable his left eye since childhood. The visual an operator’s license from Illinois. His on , 2020. The exemptions acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in driving record for the last 3 years shows expire on August 22, 2022. his left eye, 20/80. Following an no crashes and no convictions for FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. examination in 2020, his optometrist moving violations in a CMV. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical stated, ‘‘In my medical opinion, he has Programs Division, 202–366–4001, Michael Westervelt [email protected], FMCSA, 1 A thorough discussion of this issue may be Mr. Westervelt, 70, has a prosthetic Department of Transportation, 1200 found in a FHWA final rule published in the right eye due to a traumatic incident in Federal Register on , 1996 and available New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64–224, on the internet at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/ 2009. The visual acuity in his right eye Washington, DC 20590–0001. Office pkg/FR-1996-03-26/pdf/96-7226.pdf. is no light perception, and in his left hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., ET,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:55 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices 69385

Monday through Friday, except Federal that person first perceives a forced following occurs: (1) The person fails to holidays. If you have questions whispered voice in the better ear at not comply with the terms and conditions regarding viewing or submitting less than 5 feet with or without the use of the exemption; (2) the exemption has material to the docket, contact Dockets of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of resulted in a lower level of safety than Operations, (202) 366–9826. an audiometric device, does not have an was maintained prior to being granted; SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: average hearing loss in the better ear or (3) continuation of the exemption greater than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 would not be consistent with the goals I. Public Participation Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and A. Viewing Documents and Comments hearing aid when the audiometric 31315(b). device is calibrated to American To view comments, as well as any National Standard (formerly ASA Larry W. Minor, documents mentioned in this notice as Standard) Z24.5—1951. Associate Administrator for Policy. being available in the docket, go to This standard was adopted in 1970 [FR Doc. 2020–24184 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] http://www.regulations.gov. Insert the and was revised in 1971 to allow drivers BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P docket number, FMCSA–2012–0123, to be qualified under this standard FMCSA–2015–0326, FMCSA–2015– while wearing a hearing aid, 35 FR 0328, FMCSA–2015–0329, FMCSA– 6458, 6463 (April 22, 1970) and 36 FR 2017–0057, FMCSA–2017–0059, 12857 (July 3, 1971). DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY FMCSA–2017–0060, or FMCSA–2017– 0061, in the keyword box, and click III. Discussion of Comments Office of Foreign Assets Control ‘‘Search.’’ Next, click the ‘‘Open Docket FMCSA received no comments in this Folder’’ button and choose the proceeding. Notice of OFAC Sanctions Actions document to review. If you do not have access to the internet, you may view the IV. Conclusion AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets docket online by visiting Dockets Based upon its evaluation of the 18 Control, Treasury. Operations in Room W12–140 on the renewal exemption applications, ACTION: Notice. ground floor of the DOT West Building, FMCSA announces its decision to 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, exempt the following drivers from the SUMMARY: The Department of the Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. hearing requirement in § 391.41 (b)(11). and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets As of August 22, 2020, and in Control (OFAC) is publishing the names except Federal holidays. To be sure accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and someone is there to help you, please call of one or more persons that have been 31315(b), the following 18 individuals placed on OFAC’s Specially Designated (202) 366–9317 or (202) 366–9826 have satisfied the renewal conditions for before visiting Dockets Operations. Nationals and Blocked Persons List obtaining an exemption from the based on OFAC’s determination that one B. Privacy Act hearing requirement in the FMCSRs for or more applicable legal criteria were interstate CMV drivers (85 FR 54626): In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), satisfied. All property and interests in DOT solicits comments from the public Mataio Brown (MS) property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of to better inform its rulemaking process. Barry Carpenter (SD) these persons are blocked, and U.S. DOT posts these comments, without Lyle Eash (VA) persons are generally prohibited from edit, including any personal information Clay Fitzpatrick (ID) engaging in transactions with them. the commenter provides, to Berenice Martinez (TX) Michael McCarthy (MN) DATES: See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION www.regulations.gov, as described in section for effective date(s). the system of records notice (DOT/ALL– Steven Moorehead (KY) 14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at Gary Nagel (MN) FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: www.transportation.gov/privacy. Christopher Poole (OH) OFAC: Associate Director for Global Ricardo Porras-Payan (TX) Targeting, tel.: 202–622–2420; Assistant II. Background James Quinn (TN) Director for Sanctions Compliance & On September 2, 2020, FMCSA Willine Smith (GA) Evaluation, tel.: 202–622–2490; published a notice announcing its Brandon Soto (MO) Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: decision to renew exemptions for 18 Dennis Stotts (OH) 202–622–2480; Assistant Director for individuals from the hearing standard in Michael Tayman (ME) Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202–622–4855. Carlos Torres (FL) 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) to operate a CMV SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: in interstate commerce and requested Paul Wentworth (WA) comments from the public (85 FR Joseph Woodle (KY) Electronic Availability 54626). The public comment period The drivers were included in docket ended on October 2, 2020, and no number FMCSA–2012–0123, FMCSA– The Specially Designated Nationals comments were received. 2015–0326, FMCSA–2015–0328, and Blocked Persons List and additional FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility FMCSA–2015–0329, FMCSA–2017– information concerning OFAC sanctions of these applicants and determined that 0057, FMCSA–2017–0059, FMCSA– programs are available on OFAC’s renewing these exemptions would 2017–0060, or FMCSA–2017–0061. website (www.treasury.gov/ofac). achieve a level of safety equivalent to, Their exemptions were applicable as of Notice of OFAC Action(s) or greater than, the level that would be August 22, 2020, and will expire on achieved by complying with August 22, 2022. On October 22, 2020, OFAC § 391.41(b)(11). In accordance with 49 U.S.C. determined that the property and The physical qualification standard 31315(b), each exemption will be valid interests in property subject to U.S. for drivers regarding hearing found in for 2 years from the effective date unless jurisdiction of the following persons are § 391.41(b)(11) states that a person is revoked earlier by FMCSA. The blocked under the relevant sanctions physically qualified to drive a CMV if exemption will be revoked if the authorities listed below.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:41 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES 69386 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Notices

Dated: October 22, 2020. Andrea Gacki, Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of the Treasury. [FR Doc. 2020–24228 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810–AL–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:55 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM 02NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES EN02NO20.035 Vol. 85 Monday, No. 212 November 2, 2020

Part II

Department of Transportation

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 571 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint Systems, Incorporation by Reference; Proposed Rule

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 69388 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION online instructions for submitting Avenue SE, West Building, Washington, comments. DC 20590. National Highway Traffic Safety • Mail: Docket Management Facility, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Administration M–30, U.S. Department of I. Executive Summary Transportation, West Building, Ground a. Background 49 CFR Part 571 Floor, Rm. W12–140, 1200 New Jersey b. Overview of this NPRM and Request for Comment [Docket No. NHTSA–2020–0093] Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. • Hand Delivery or Courier: West II. Statutory Mandate RIN 2127–AL34 a. National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Building, Ground Floor, Room W12– Safety Act (‘‘Vehicle Safety Act’’) 140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety b. MAP–21 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Standards; Child Restraint Systems, c. NHTSA’s Views Monday through Friday, except Federal III. Updating the Representative Seat Incorporation by Reference holidays. To be sure someone is there to Assembly AGENCY: National Highway Traffic help you, please call (202) 366–9332 a. Background on This Proposed Seat Safety Administration (NHTSA), before coming. Assembly • Fax: 202–493–2251. b. Consistency with the Side Impact Bench Department of Transportation (DOT). c. Seat Geometry ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking Regardless of how you submit your 1. Seat Back Angle (NPRM); request for comment. comments, please mention the docket 2. Seat Pan Angle number of this document. 3. Seat Pan Length SUMMARY: In accordance with the Instructions: For detailed instructions 4. Seat Back Height Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st on submitting comments and additional 5. Rear Seat Cushions Century Act (MAP–21), this document information on the rulemaking process, i. Stiffness of the Bottom Seat Cushion proposes to amend Federal Motor see the Public Participation heading of ii. Thickness of the Bottom Seat Cushion Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. the Supplementary Information section iii. The Foam is Suitable for Use in the 213, ‘‘Child restraint systems,’’ by Standard’s Dynamic Test of this document. Note that all iv. Thickness of the Seat Back Foam updating the standard seat assembly on comments received will be posted v. Summary of Seat Assembly Features which child restraint systems (CRSs) are without change to http:// 6. Summary of Seat Geometry Features tested to determine their compliance www.regulations.gov, including any d. Seat Belt Anchorage Locations with the standard’s dynamic personal information provided. e. Child Restraint Anchorage System performance requirements. This NPRM Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 Locations proposes other amendments to U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments IV. Installing CRSs with a Type 2 Belt Rather modernize FMVSS No. 213, including a from the public to better inform its Than a Type 1 Belt lessening of restrictions in some of the V. Denial of Petition Regarding a Floor decision-making process. DOT posts VI. No Safety Need to Increase Crash Pulse standard’s owner registration and these comments, without edit, including a. Introduction labeling requirements, to give any personal information the b. Safety Need—Crash Data Analysis manufacturers more flexibility in commenter provides, to c. Hard Copy Review of Case Files communicating with today’s parents for www.regulations.gov, as described in d. Globally, All Regulations Use a 30 MPH the purposes of increasing owner the system of records notice (DOT/ALL– Test Speed registrations for recall notification 14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at e. Sled Testing of CRSs purposes and increasing the correct use www.transportation.gov/privacy. In f. Agency Decision of CRSs, respectively. NHTSA is also VII. Fleet Testing of CRSs on the New Seat order to facilitate comment tracking and Assembly Designs proposing ways to streamline the response, the agency encourages a. Initial Standard Seat Assembly Design Agency’s use of test dummies to assess commenters to provide their name, or (V1) restraint performance, including the name of their organization; however, b. Proposed Standard Seat Assembly simplifying the standard’s compliance submission of names is completely Design (V2) tests to make them more reflective of the optional. Whether or not commenters VIII. Communicating with Today’s Parents real-world use of CRSs today. The identify themselves, all timely a. CRS Owner Registration purpose of these and other proposals is comments will be fully considered. 1. Background to modernize the seat assembly and 2. Overview Docket: For access to the docket to 3. Proposed Changes to the Registration other aspects of FMVSS No. 213, to help read background documents or Program ensure the continued effectiveness of comments received, go to i. Information Card CRSs in current and future vehicles. www.regulations.gov, or the street ii. Mail-in Card DATES: Comments must be received on address listed above. To be sure iii. Electronic Registration Form or before January 4, 2021. someone is there to help you, please call iv. Information on Labels and in Owners’ Proposed effective date: 180 days after (202) 366–9322 before coming. Follow Manuals publication of the final rule in the the online instructions for accessing the b. Information on Correctly Using CRSs 1. Removing Requirements for Specific Federal Register. dockets. Wording Proposed compliance date: Three FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 2. Labeling of Use Information years following the date of publication technical issues, you may call Cristina 3. Deleting S5.5.2(k)(2) of a final rule in the Federal Register, Echemendia, Office of Crashworthiness 4. Other Requests of Evenflo and Safe Ride with optional early compliance Standards (telephone: 202–366–6345) News Petition permitted. (fax: 202–493–2990). For legal issues, IX. Streamlining NHTSA’s Use of ATDs in Compliance Tests to Reflect CRS Use ADDRESSES: you may call Deirdre Fujita, Office of You may submit comments Today to the docket number identified in the Chief Counsel (telephone: 202–366– a. Introduction heading of this document by any of the 2992) (fax: 202–366–3820). Address: b. Testing CRSs for Children Weighing 10– following methods: National Highway Traffic Safety 13.6 kg (22–30 lb) • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to Administration, U.S. Department of c. Testing CRSs for Children Weighing http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 13.6–18.2 kg (30–40 lb)

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69389

d. Testing CRSs for Children Weighing 18– a. Background subparagraphs in FMVSS No. 213 29.5 kg (40–65 lb) FMVSS No. 213 applies to all new unless otherwise noted.) e. Positioning the Legs of the HIII–3YO child restraint systems (‘‘CRSs’’ or 1. As directed by § 31501(b) of MAP– Dummy in Rear-Facing CRSs ‘‘child restraints’’) sold in this country. 21, NHTSA proposes to amend the f. Table Summarizing Proposed FMVSS No. 213 specifies performance standard seat assembly (S6.1.1(a)(1)(ii)) Amendments requirements that must be met in a so that it more closely resembles ‘‘a g. Consistency with NHTSA’s Use of ATDs dynamic frontal sled test involving a 48 single representative motor vehicle rear in the Proposed Side Impact Test kilometer per hour (km/h) (30 mile per seat.’’ The updated seat would have a X. School Bus CRSs hour (mph)) velocity change, which is seat cushion stiffness, seat geometry, XI. Child Passenger Safety Issues Arising representative of a severe crash. Each and seat belt system (a lap/shoulder from Research Findings child restraint is tested with an belt) (3-point or Type 2 belt system) that XII. Proposed Lead Time anthropomorphic test device (‘‘ATD’’ or better represents rear seats of current XIII. Corrections and Other Minor ‘‘test dummy’’) while attached to a passenger vehicle models. Given that Amendments Type 2 belts are required to be installed a. Correct Reference standardized seat assembly representative of a passenger vehicle in passenger vehicles today, NHTSA b. Section 5.1.2.2 proposes that CRSs meet the c. Table to S5.1.3.1(a) and Test seat (‘‘standard seat assembly’’). Currently, CRSs for infants and toddlers performance requirements of the Configuration II standard while attached to the seat d. Updating reference to SAE must meet minimum performance requirements when attached to the assembly with a Type 2 belt. We Recommended Practice J211/1 propose to delete, as obsolete, the XIV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses standard seat assembly by means of a lap belt. In addition, those CRSs must current provisions in FMVSS No. 213 XV. Public Participation requiring CRSs to meet the standard’s XVI. Appendix to Preamble also meet those requirements in separate tests when attached by means of the requirements when attached to the seat I. Executive Summary assembly with a lap belt (2-point or lower anchorages of a child restraint 5 anchorage system.2 Belt-positioning Type 1 belt) (S5.3.2). Although features of the standard seat Consistent with MAP–21, NHTSA (booster) seats are tested on the standard assembly will be updated, NHTSA proposes to amend FMVSS No. 213 to seat assembly using a lap and shoulder believes that the differences between the update the standard seat assembly on belt, since the booster seats are specially which child restraint systems (CRSs) are updated and current seat assemblies designed to raise the child on a platform will not significantly affect the tested for compliance with the to obtain a proper fit of the vehicle lap standard’s dynamic performance 3 performance of CRSs in meeting FMVSS and shoulder belts. No. 213. In developing this NPRM, requirements. NHTSA also proposes Child restraints are highly effective in NHTSA tested a wide variety of CRS lessening restrictions in some of the reducing the likelihood of death and designs in the market using the updated standard’s owner registration injury in motor vehicle crashes. NHTSA seat assembly. These CRSs had been requirements to give manufacturers estimates that, for children less than 1 certified by their manufacturers as more flexibility to use current ways of year old, a child restraint can reduce the communication for the purposes of meeting FMVSS No. 213’s performance risk of fatality by 71 percent when used criteria using the current seat assembly increasing owner registrations for recall in a passenger car and by 58 percent notification purposes. This NPRM in the standard (which is representative when used in a pickup truck, van, or of designs of older vehicle seats). In the proposes to lessen restrictions on the sport utility vehicle (SUV) (‘‘light labeling requirements so manufacturers tests on the updated seat assembly, all truck’’). Child restraint effectiveness for of the CRSs also met the standard’s have the flexibility to provide CRS use children between the ages of 1 and 4 information in statements, or a performance requirements. These data years old is 54 percent in passenger cars indicate that new CRSs that will be combination of statements and and 59 percent in light trucks.4 pictograms, in their own words at certified as meeting FMVSS No. 213 on locations that they deem most effective b. Overview of this NPRM and Request the new standard seat assembly will in instructing caregivers on the correct for Comment perform as well in older model year vehicles. use of the CRS. This NPRM also The main topics discussed in this 2. To make FMVSS No. 213 more proposes ways to streamline the document are highlighted below. This Agency’s use of test dummies to assess responsive to the communication document retrospectively reviews and preferences and practices of today’s restraint performance, including proposes revisions to FMVSS No. 213 to simplifying NHTSA’s compliance tests parents and to provide greater flexibility modernize the seat assembly and to manufacturers in responding to those to make them more reflective of the real- remove obsolete provisions from the world use of CRSs today. In addition, preferences, this NPRM proposes to standard. The Agency’s goal is to ensure reduce the restrictions on the content NHTSA proposes amendments to the continued effectiveness of CRSs in FMVSS No. 213 to make the standard and format of the owner registration current and future vehicles, thereby card manufacturers must provide with more design-neutral in accommodating reducing the unreasonable risk of injury CRSs that are designed for exclusive use new CRSs for purposes of recall to children in motor vehicle crashes. notifications (S5.8). Manufacturers on school bus seats.1 Lastly, NHTSA (All references below are to would still be required to provide the requests comment on several means to register by mail, but, at their developments in child passenger safety, 2 See 49 CFR 571.225. option, would be able to use modern including the findings of research 3 There is also a 32 km/h (20 mph) test means of outreach and information studies that raise safety concerns configuration for CRSs that have a certain type of associated with some types of CRSs. torso restraint to ensure that the CRSs provide at least a minimum level of protection when the torso 5 ‘‘Type 1’’ and ‘‘Type 2’’ seat belt assemblies are restraint is misused. See FMVSS No. 213 defined in FMVSS No. 209, ‘‘Seat belt assemblies.’’ 1 Currently, FMVSS No. 213 only permits a type S6.1.1(b)(2), ‘‘Test Configuration II.’’ This NPRM would not change the current of school bus ‘‘harness.’’ The proposed amendments 4 Traffic Safety Facts—Children 2012 Data (April requirement that CRSs also need to meet FMVSS would permit designs other than harnesses for this 2016). https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ No. 213 requirements while attached using a child type of CRS. Publication/812491. Last accessed on Aug 6, 2018. restraint anchorage system.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 69390 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

exchange and take advantage of the inches (121.9 centimeters (cm)), the (40 lb). Crash data 9 show that, among 3- latest innovative technologies to label would indicate that the CRS is for and 4-year-olds, the risk of non- increase owner registration rates. use rear-facing by children weighing 5 incapacitating to fatal injury 10 increases 3. To improve FMVSS No. 213’s to 40 lb (2.2 to 18.2 kg) and with heights as much as 27 percent when the child labeling requirements to better instruct up to 48 inches (121.9 cm), and forward- is restrained in a booster seat rather than parents how best to use CRSs correctly, facing by children weighing 30 to 65 lb in a car safety seat (a CRS that has an the NPRM proposes amendments to the (13.6 to 29.5 kg) and with heights up to integral internal harness). An 18.4 kg labeling requirements (S5.5). FMVSS 48 inches (121.9 cm). The proposed (40 lb) threshold corresponds generally No. 213 currently requires condition would protect children under to the weight of a 97th percentile 3-year- manufacturers to label CRSs with age 1-year 7 better by providing greater old (17.7 kg (39.3 lb)) and an 85th information on the maximum height assurance that they are not turned percentile 4-year-old. NHTSA believes and weight of the children who can forward-facing too soon. The proposed that if booster seats were only safely occupy the system (S5.5.2(f)). condition would also provide better recommended for children weighing a NHTSA believes there is a continued guidance to caregivers on when to minimum of 18.4 kg (40 lb), more 3- and need for this ‘‘use information’’ to be graduate a child from a rear-facing CRS 4-year-olds will be transported in car permanently labeled on CRSs. However, to a forward-facing CRS with integral safety seats, where they are better to clarify the information, the NPRM internal harness (car safety seat) and to protected at that young age, than in proposes requiring that the information a CRS in the booster seat mode. booster seats. Booster seats are and must be provided for each mode in continue to be a critical type of child • Relatedly, the following condition which the CRS can be used (rear-facing, restraint needed to restrain children better ensures a child under age 1 will forward-facing, booster). Further, properly in vehicles.11 Children will be positioned rear-facing than forward- NHTSA proposes to lessen restrictions still transition to booster seats, but just facing. A child under age 1 is safest on the use information (S5.5, S5.6) by when they are a little larger. transported rear-facing. In seeking to deleting requirements that prescribe 4. To simplify and make more achieve that end, FMVSS No. 213 specific wording about the height and realistic the Agency’s compliance currently specifies that forward-facing weight ranges of children for whom the testing of child restraint systems with CRSs can only be recommended for CRS is recommended and that specify various anthropomorphic test devices children with a minimum weight of 9 kg that the label must be placed along other (ATDs) (test dummies), this NPRM (20 lb) (S5.5.2(k)(2)). However, the 9 kg required statements in a warning label proposes the following changes. (20 lb) threshold is too low. Although • (S5.5.2(f), S5.5.2(g)(1)(i))). Instead, NHTSA proposes streamlining the NHTSA meant for that weight to be a NHTSA proposes that, subject to the Agency’s selection of ATDs (test minimum, many CRSs use a weight of conditions listed below, manufacturers dummies) to assess CRS performance only 9 kg (20 lb), stating on their labels should have the flexibility to provide (S7). NHTSA would amend that a child may be forward-facing the use information in statements, or a specifications for ATD selection starting when he or she is 20 lb. NHTSA combination of statements and (S7.1.2(c)) so that CRSs for children would like to raise the standard’s 20-lb pictograms, at visible locations that weighing 10 kg to 13.6 kg (22 to 30 lb) threshold because it is too low to manufacturers deem most effective. would be tested with just the 12-month- The proposed conditions are based on capture a sufficient population of one- old child test dummy (Child Restraint sound best practice recommendations year-olds, as 9 kg (20 lb) is about the Air Bag Interaction (CRABI–12MO)), developed by the child passenger safety weight of an average 9-month-old. To and would no longer be subject to being community, or are derived from our increase the number of children under tested with the Hybrid III 3-year-old analyses of available data and other age 1 who are transported rear-facing, (HIII–3YO) test dummy. This proposed change would better align the dummy technical information. Manufacturers NHTSA proposes to raise this weight used in tests of infant carriers 12 with would have considerable flexibility to threshold to 12 kg (26.5 lb), which is the the size and weight of children typically optimize the use information they weight of a 95th percentile one-year- 8 restrained in infant carriers. provide for their CRSs, provided that old. The Agency believes that the • Similarly, NHTSA proposes the information meets these conditions. change to 26.5 lb would capture almost amendments affecting CRSs labeled for • Currently S5.5.2(f) requires child all one-year-olds and would therefore children weighing from 13.6 kg to 18.2 restraints to be labeled with the overall increase the number of children under maximum and minimum height and age 1 transported rear-facing. • 9 ‘‘Booster Seat Effectiveness Estimates Based on weight ranges of the children for whom The following condition would CDS and State Data,’’ NHTSA Technical Report, the CRS is recommended. In response to enhance the protection of 3- to 4-year- DOT HS 811 338, July 2010. http://www- a petition for rulemaking from Evenflo old children traveling in motor vehicles. nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811338.pdf, last accessed and SafeRide News,6 NHTSA proposes While FMVSS No. 213 currently on , 2018. 10 The KABCO injury scale used is an on-the- that, for CRSs that can be used in specifies that booster seats can only be scene police-reported measure of injury. ‘‘K’’ is multiple ‘‘modes’’ depending on the recommended for children with a killed, ‘‘A’’ is incapacitating injury, ‘‘B’’ is non- height and weight of the child (rear- minimum weight of 30 lb (S5.5.2(k)(2)), incapacitating injury and ‘‘C’’ is possible injury. facing, forward-facing, booster, etc.), the NHTSA tentatively believes this 11 NHTSA instructs that children should be use information must be stated minimum should be raised to 18.4 kg restrained in a CRS for the child’s age and size. From birth through adulthood, children should be separately for each mode. To illustrate, restrained first using a rear-facing car seat, then a instead of stating that a CRS (that can be 7 NHTSA and the entire child passenger safety forward-facing car seat, then a booster seat, and used rear-facing and forward-facing) is community strongly recommend that children be finally, the vehicle’s seat belts. https:// for use by children weighing 5 to 65 lb kept riding rear-facing at least up to the age of 1- www.nhtsa.gov/equipment/car-seats-and-booster- year. Children under age 1 are safer rear-facing than seats#age-size-rec. (2.2–29.5 kg) and with heights up to 48 forward-facing because in a crash the forces will be 12 An infant carrier is a rear-facing CRS designed spread evenly across the child’s back and to be readily used in and outside of the vehicle. It 6 A copy of the May 13, 2011 petition for shoulders, the strongest part of the child’s body. has a carrying handle that enables caregivers to tote rulemaking is in the docket. NHTSA is granting this Further, the back of the head rests against and is the CRS plus child outside of the vehicle. Some request; this document denies other aspects of the supported by the seating surface. come with a base that stays inside the vehicle onto petition. 8 A 50th percentile 1-year-old weighs 22 lb. which the carrier attaches.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69391

kg (30 to 40 lb). Currently, these CRSs 5. NHTSA proposes amendments to Registration Program are tested with the CRABI–12MO and FMVSS No. 213 to accommodate The proposed changes to the the HIII–3YO. NHTSA tentatively different types of CRSs that are designed registration card would provide believes that testing with the (22 lb) for exclusive use on school bus seats. flexibility to manufacturers in how they CRABI–12MO is unnecessary because These restraints are designed to install communicate with consumers and the dummy is not representative of on school bus seats by way of straps would likely help improve registration 13.6–18.2 kg (30–40 lb) children.13 This wrapped around the school bus seat rates and recall completion rates. change would make NHTSA’s back or the seat back and seat pan (seat However, NHTSA cannot quantify the compliance tests more reflective of real back mount or seat back and seat pan benefits at this time. The Agency world CRS use. mounts). Currently FMVSS No. 213 estimates there would be no costs • For CRSs for children in the 18.2 kg permits a type of school bus ‘‘harness’’ associated with the proposed changes. to 29.5 kg (40 to 65 lb) weight range, (see S5.3.1(b) and S5.6.1.11). To permit The proposed changes to the registration NHTSA proposes to amend FMVSS No. restraints other than harnesses, the program would lessen restrictions and 213 to specify testing solely with the proposed amendments would include a would be optional for manufacturers to state-of-the-art HIII–6YO child ATD. new design-neutral definition for this implement. While the changes could Due in part to issues relating to the HIII– type of CRS. This NPRM proposes affect the collection of information 6YO’s performance in tests on the specific requirements for the CRSs, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction current (outdated) standard seat including a warning label and Act (discussed later in this preamble), assembly, FMVSS No. 213 has provided instructions that indicate that the CRS there would be no additional material manufacturers the option of NHTSA must only be used on school bus seats. cost associated with the proposed conducting compliance tests using the changes to the registration card. HIII–6YO or an older Hybrid II (H2) Estimated Benefits and Costs Manufacturers could use the same card and just change the wording on them. version of the test dummy (H2–6YO) The proposal has the potential to (S7.1.2(d), S7.1.3). With the move to the provide safety benefits with, at most, Labeling updated seat assembly, the Agency minimal incremental costs. The Agency believes that the believes the unrealistic chin-to-chest proposed updates to the labeling and head-to-knee contact problems seen Updating Sled Assembly and Testing requirements would benefit safety by in tests of the HIII–6YO on the current With Type 2 Belts reducing the premature graduation of seat assembly would be eliminated. The children from rear-facing CRSs to HIII–6YO is preferred as it is a more The proposed updates to the sled test forward-facing CRSs, and from forward- biofidelic test device than the H2–6YO and testing with Type 2 belts would facing CRSs to booster seats. The dummy, and more and more CRS better align the performance of CRSs in compliance tests to that in real world Agency estimates potentially 0.7 to 2.3 manufacturers are using the HIII–6YO lives would be saved and 1.0 to 3.5 rather than the H2–6YO dummy. crashes. NHTSA believes there would be benefits from making the FMVSS No. moderate-to-critical severity injuries Further, phasing out of the older H2– would be prevented annually by raising 6YO is desirable because it is becoming 213 test more representative of real world crashes, but quantification of the the manufacturer-recommended more difficult to obtain replacement minimum child weight for the use of parts for the dummy. For these reasons, associated benefits/costs is not possible at this time due to a lack of data to make forward-facing CRSs from 9 kg (20 lb) to NHTSA is proposing to remove the 12 kg (26.5 lb). NHTSA also estimates such an assessment. optional use of the H2–6YO dummy potentially 1.2 to 4 lives would be saved and, instead, to adopt a provision that There would only be de minimus and 1.6 to 5.2 moderate-to-critical NHTSA will only use the HIII–6YO in costs involved in changing the standard injuries would be prevented by raising compliance tests. NHTSA proposes seat assembly used by NHTSA to assess the manufacturer-recommended sufficient lead time (e.g., 3 years after CRS compliance. Manufacturers are not minimum child weight for use of publication of a final rule) for the required to use the standard seat booster seats from 13.6 kg (30 lb) to 18.2 change. assembly, but as a practical matter they kg (40 lb).14 • Increasing numbers of CRSs are usually choose to do so, to test their The proposed changes to the labeling sold for use rear-facing with older CRSs as similarly as possible to the tests requirements would have minimal or no children. To facilitate the Agency’s conducted by NHTSA. The one-time cost impacts, as mostly they are compliance testing of the restraints, cost of the updated standard seat deregulatory. Manufacturers would be NHTSA proposes a procedure for assembly sled buck is about $8,000. given the flexibility to provide required positioning the 3-year-old child test Whether a manufacturer chooses to information in statements or a dummy’s legs when the dummy is rear- build the assembly itself or uses one at combination of statements and facing. The procedure involves placing an independent test facility, cost pictograms at locations that they deem the dummy’s legs up against the seat impacts are minimal when distributed most effective. Manufacturers may back and removing the dummy’s knee among the hundreds of thousands of provide the recommended child weight joint stops, which allows the legs to CRSs that would be sold by each and height ranges for the use of CRSs in extend at the knee in the sled test and manufacturer. a specific installation mode on existing not brace the legs against the seat back. voluntary labels by simply changing the NHTSA estimates that there would be minimum child weight limit values. The proposed procedure is already used little or no increased costs to child by some commercial test labs and CRS Since no additional information would restraints to meet FMVSS No. 213’s be required on the labels by this NPRM, manufacturers to assess the suitability of requirements when tested on the new rear-facing CRSs for older children. the size of the label would not need to sled assembly. The Agency’s test data of be increased. Thus, there would be representative CRSs in the fleet showed minimal or no additional cost for the 13 If the CRS were also labeled as suitable for use that virtually all CRSs met the by children weighing less than 13.6 kg (30 lb), then the CRS would be subject to testing with the standard’s requirements when tested on 14 The details of the benefits analysis are provided CRABI–12MO. the new sled assembly. in the Appendix to this preamble.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 69392 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

label. There would also be no decrease the CRSs due to this proposed update II. Statutory Authority in sales of forward-facing car safety since nearly all the CRSs tested with the This NPRM is issued under the seats or of booster seats as a result of the HIII–6YO in the proposed standard seat National Traffic and Motor Vehicle proposal to raise the minimum child assembly complied with all the FMVSS Safety Act (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) and weight limit values for forward-facing No. 213 requirements.16 NHTSA’s MAP–21. CRSs and booster seats. Most forward- testing also showed that CRSs that facing CRSs cover a wide child weight currently comply with FMVSS No. 213 a. National Traffic and Motor Vehicle range, so the labeling changes would using the H2–6YO dummy also met all Safety Act (‘‘Vehicle Safety Act’’) only affect how consumers use the the performance requirements in the Under the Vehicle Safety Act, the products and not the sale of them. For standard when tested using the HIII– Secretary of Transportation 17 is example, consumers would still 6YO dummy in the proposed standard responsible for prescribing motor purchase forward-facing car safety seats seat assembly. In addition, vehicle safety standards that are but would wait to use them until the manufacturers increasingly are practicable, meet the need for motor child is at least 1. They would still certifying at least some of their CRS vehicle safety, and are stated in purchase convertible 15 CRSs, but will models for older children using the objective terms.18 ‘‘Motor vehicle delay turning the child forward-facing HIII–6YO dummy rather than the H2– safety’’ is defined in the Vehicle Safety until the child is at least 1. Consumers 6YO and so most manufacturers already Act as ‘‘the performance of a motor would still purchase booster seats, but have access to the HIII–6YO dummy vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in would use them when the child reaches and would not need to purchase the a way that protects the public against 18.2 kg (40 lb) rather than 13.6 kg (30 dummy as a result of this proposed unreasonable risk of accidents occurring lb). update. because of the design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle, and ATDs We believe a lead time of three years is sufficient for redesigning CRSs that against unreasonable risk of death or The proposed updates in how ATDs may need modifications to comply with injury in an accident, and includes are used in the sled test for assessing the proposed updates to ATD selection nonoperational safety of a motor CRS performance better accords with 19 for the sled test because most CRSs vehicle.’’ ‘‘Motor vehicle safety current CRS designs and best practices would need minor or no modifications standard’’ means a minimum for transporting child passengers to meet the proposed requirements. performance standard for motor vehicles compared to the current specifications 20 Further, a 3-year time frame aligns with or motor vehicle equipment. When in FMVSS No. 213. NHTSA cannot the typical design cycle for CRSs, so any prescribing such standards, the quantify the possible safety benefits at change needed to meet the requirements Secretary must consider all relevant, this time. could be accommodated in the available motor vehicle safety Manufacturers are not required to test information, and consider whether a their CRSs the way NHTSA tests child manufacturers’ normal refinement or refreshing of their designs. We note also standard is reasonable, practicable, and restraints in a compliance test. appropriate for the types of motor Assuming manufacturers choose to that manufacturers have the option of not changing CRS designs in some vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for conduct the tests specified in FMVSS which it is prescribed.21 The Secretary No. 213 to make their certifications of instances, and may instead change the weight of the children for whom the must also consider the extent to which compliance, NHTSA believes there the standard will further the statutory would be no cost increases associated CRS is recommended. Narrowing the population of children for whom the purpose of reducing traffic crashes and with the proposals. Some of the associated deaths and injuries.22 proposed changes lessen testing burdens CRS is recommended in many instances by reducing the extent of testing with would reduce the number of ATDs b. MAP–21 ATDs. For example, the NPRM proposes NHTSA would use in its compliance MAP–21 incorporates Subtitle E, that CRSs for children weighing 10 kg tests of the CRS. ‘‘Child Safety Standards.’’ Section to 13.6 kg (22 to 30 lb) would no longer School Bus Child Restraint Systems 31501(b)(1) of Subtitle E requires that be subject to testing with the HIII–3YO not later than 2 years after the date of dummy. NHTSA estimates a reduction The proposed changes to include in enactment of the Act, the Secretary 23 in testing cost of $540,000 for the FMVSS No. 213 a new type of CRS shall commence a rulemaking current number of infant carrier models manufactured for exclusive use on proceeding to amend the standard seat in the market. Also, CRS for children school bus seats would allow the sale of assembly specifications under Federal weighing 13.6–18.2 kg (30–40 lb) would these products. The agency estimates Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number no longer be tested with the CRABI– there would be no cost impacts 213 to simulate a single representative 12MO. The proposed positioning associated with the proposed changes motor vehicle rear seat better. because currently available products procedure for the legs of the HIII–3YO c. NHTSA’s Views dummy in rear-facing CRSs is unlikely covered by the new definition of a to have cost implications because the school bus CRS already meet the NHTSA is issuing this NPRM under procedure is similar, if not identical, to proposed requirements. The benefits of Vehicle Safety Act authority and MAP– that currently used by manufacturers. the proposed changes are associated 21. Section 31501(b)(2) of MAP–21 NHTSA believes there would only be with the popularity of such CRSs in the minimal costs associated with NHTSA’s pupil transportation industry for 17 The responsibility for promulgation of Federal transporting preschool and special- motor vehicle safety standards is delegated to testing CRSs solely with the HIII–6YO NHTSA. 49 CFR 1.95. dummy rather than the H2–6YO needs children. However, NHTSA 18 49 U.S.C. 30111(a). dummy. This is because there would be cannot quantify these benefits at this 19 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(8). little or no design changes needed for time. 20 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(9). 21 49 U.S.C. 30111(b). 15 A convertible CRS is a type of CRS that can be 16 Of 21 tests with the HIII–6YO in the proposed 22 Id. used rear-facing or forward-facing with an internal seat assembly, all passed the performance metrics, 23 Authority delegated to NHTSA. 49 CFR harness system to secure a child. except for one that failed head excursion limits. 1.95(p)(2).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69393

directs NHTSA to issue a final rule study measured 43 individual rear cushion, and anchorage locations 29) for amending the standard seat assembly of seating positions in 24 model year (MY) both the side impact test and a frontal FMVSS No. 213. NHTSA believes that, 2010 vehicles. Measurements were impact test makes sense, since the aim in requiring a final rule amending obtained on features that included seat is to have a representative seat assembly ‘‘Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard back angle and height, seat pan width, and the same passenger vehicles are Number 213,’’ MAP–21 envisions that softness of the seat cushion, location of involved in side and frontal crashes. the rulemaking on the standard seat seat belts and locations of child restraint The standard seat assembly proposed assembly will accord with the anchorage systems. in the January 2014 side impact NPRM requirements and considerations for is substantially like the seat proposed in NHTSA used data from the Vehicle FMVSSs under the Vehicle Safety Act. this NPRM, but NHTSA believes this Rear Seat Study in designing the seat proposed seat assembly is a better seat III. Updating the Representative Seat assembly proposed in the , assembly primarily regarding the Assembly 2014 NPRM on FMVSS No. 213’s side 28 cushion foam. The former specified use To update FMVSS No. 213’s impact test. The dynamic sled test was of the ECE R.44 seat cushion, while this assessment of CRS performance, originally developed by Takata proposed seat assembly incorporates NHTSA proposes to amend the standard Corporation. The agency used the seat cushion foam that is more seat assembly specified by FMVSS No. vehicle survey data to guide the representative of the seat cushion 213 to better simulate ‘‘a single proposed seat design towards a seat stiffness of the current vehicle fleet. representative motor vehicle rear seat,’’ assembly better representing the U.S. This proposed seat cushion is also as directed by § 31501(b) of MAP–21. vehicle fleet. NHTSA sought to have the easier to procure than the ECE R.44 The updated seat would comprise a proposed seat assembly geometry and foam. Commenters to the January 2014 stiffer seat cushion, representative seat the belt and child restraint anchorage side impact NPRM expressed concerns geometry, and a 3-point seat belt (in lieu locations within one standard deviation about the difficulty to source the ECE of the 2-point lap belt on the current of the average values in the current R44 seat foam, which is only available seat assembly). The updated seat vehicle fleet. The proposed side impact from one overseas supplier.30 NHTSA assembly would have only one seating bench seat assembly also had features of tentatively believes that using the foam position, unlike the current FMVSS No. the seat assembly of Regulation No. 44 specified in this NPRM for the frontal 213 standard seat assembly, which has (R.44) of the United Nations Economic test seat assembly would alleviate those two positions. Commission for Europe (ECE), ‘‘Uniform concerns. a. Background on This Proposed Seat provisions concerning the approval of There would be a few adjustments Assembly restraining devices for child occupants that would be made to the standard seat In 2003, in response to the of power-driven vehicles (child restraint assembly proposed in the January 2014 Transportation Recall Enhancement, systems)’’ (ECE R.44). side impact NPRM to make it like the Accountability and Documentation The January 28, 2014 side impact seat assembly proposed today. This (TREAD) Act,24 NHTSA updated the NPRM generated many comments on NPRM proposes cushion foam 101.6 FMVSS No. 213 standard seat assembly the proposed side impact seat assembly, mm (4 inches) thick while the ECE R.44 to make it more representative of rear notably with regard to the difficulty seat cushion is 127 mm (5 inches). If the seats of the vehicle fleet (68 FR 37620, some commenters had in procuring the foam specified in this NPRM is used in , 2003).25 The 2003 final rule ECE R.44 seat cushion that had been the side impact test, the intruding door structure of the side impact standard changed the seat assembly’s seat pan proposed for inclusion in the seat seat assembly would need to be lowered angle, seat back angle, spacing between assembly. Commenters also requested about an inch to maintain the vertical the anchors of the lap belts and the some changes to the lower anchorage position of the intruding door relative to rigidity of the seat back. Due to TREAD specifications. Act timeframes, limited agency the standard seat assembly. Some resources and competing priorities, the b. Consistency with the Proposal for the adjustments would also be made to the update did not include modifications to Side Impact Bench seat belt anchorage locations and the the seat cushion.26 seat back height proposed in the January Aware that the seat cushion of the As noted above, NHTSA’s January 28, 2014 NPRM. These and other issues are FMVSS No. 213 seat assembly was 2014 NPRM proposing to add a dynamic discussed in detail below in this softer than the rear seat cushions of side impact test to FMVSS No. 213 preamble. The positioning of the child many new vehicles in the fleet, NHTSA included specifications for a standard restraint anchorage system would be continued to investigate seat cushion seat assembly that would be used in the slightly moved so that the lower bars stiffness and other characteristics after compliance test. After reviewing the would be located where they are on the the 2003 final rule. In 2012, the agency comments on the side impact proposal frontal test seat assembly proposed initiated a research program (‘‘Vehicle and other information, NHTSA is today.31 Rear Seat Study’’) as part of an initiative considering using the seat assembly to assess the representativeness of the proposed in this NPRM for the side 29 Anchorage locations are aligned to the impact test instead of the seat assembly corresponding seat assembly’s seat orientation FMVSS No. 213 frontal impact sled reference line (SORL). 27 that was proposed in the January 28, test. The Vehicle Rear Seat Study 30 See also a memorandum documenting ex parte surveyed vehicles in the fleet to compile 2014 side impact NPRM. NHTSA meeting with the Juvenile Products Manufacturers data on the rear seat environment. The believes that using the same Association (JPMA), available at Docket No. specifications of the standard seat NHTSA–2013–0055–0004. 31 NHTSA notes that the lower anchorage bars 24 assembly (including seat geometry, seat November 1, 2000, Pub. L. 106–414, Stat. 1800. may not be configured like they are on the frontal 25 The 2003 final rule also updated the sled pulse test seat assembly proposed today. The lower to provide a wider test corridor. 28 79 FR 4570, supra. As noted earlier, § 31501(a) anchorage design on the frontal test seat assembly 26 A seat cushion consists of foam and a cover. of MAP–21 states that the Secretary shall issue a consists of two side structures with a replaceable 27 Aram, M.L., Rockwell, T., ‘‘Vehicle Rear Seat final rule amending FMVSS No. 213 to improve the lower anchorage bar, a design that eases the bar’s Study,’’ Technical Report, July 2012. Report protection of children seated in child restraint replacement. NHTSA may not incorporate this available in the docket for this NPRM. systems during side impact crashes. Continued

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 69394 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

Comments are requested on this issue c. Seat Geometry a 76 mm (3 inches) hinge (see Figure 1 of consistency between the seat below). To make the rear seat geometry assembly used in the side impact test The Vehicle Rear Seat Study measurements, the SGMF was and the seat assembly proposed in this measured the vehicles’ seat geometry positioned on the centerline of each rear NPRM for FMVSS No. 213’s frontal and anchorage locations using a Seat seat position. Point A (see Figure 1), impact test. Geometry Measuring Fixture (SGMF). which corresponds to the hinge location The SGMF consisted of two wood of the SGMF, was the reference point for blocks (600 mm x 88 mm x 38 mm) and all measurements.

1. Seat Back Angle 2. Seat Pan Angle with anti-submarining devices or are contoured in a manner to prevent For the seat pan angle, the Vehicle The Vehicle Rear Seat Study found submarining. The Agency did not Rear Seat Study found that the average that the average seat back angle of the replicate these features in the standard angle was 13 degrees from the surveyed vehicles was 20 degrees from seat assembly for simplicity’s sake. horizontal, with a standard deviation of vertical, with a standard deviation of 4 NHTSA tentatively concludes that a seat 4 degrees.33 The seat pan angle ranged degrees.32 The seat back angle ranged pan angle of 15 degrees is representative from a minimum of 9 degrees to a from a minimum of 7 degrees to a maximum of 23 degrees. of the seat pan angle of rear seats in the maximum of 28 degrees from vertical. vehicle fleet and would be sufficient for The Agency is proposing to maintain The Agency is proposing a seat back evaluating the performance of CRSs a seat pan angle of 15 degrees on the attached to the seat. angle of 20 degrees on the updated test updated test seat assembly. The seat assembly. The value is measurement is representative of the At the end of the seat geometry representative of the seat back angles seat pan angles found in the vehicle section, Table 3, infra, shows a found in the vehicle fleet (within one fleet (within one standard deviation of comparison of the seat back and seat standard deviation of the average values the average values in the current fleet). pan angles found in the vehicle fleet, in the current fleet). Also, the proposed Also, the proposed seat pan angle would and the proposed and current angles of seat back angle would simplify the simplify the change to a new seat the test seat assembly. change to a new seat assembly in that assembly in that it would be the same 3. Seat Pan Length it would be the same as the angle of the as the angle of the current FMVSS No. current FMVSS No. 213 test seat 213 test seat assembly and that of the The Vehicle Rear Seat Study showed assembly and that of the originally- originally-proposed standard seat that the average seat pan length of the proposed standard seat for the side assembly for the side impact test. surveyed vehicles was 406 mm (16 impact test. The Agency notes that the seat pans inches) with a standard deviation of 38 of some vehicle rear seats are equipped mm (1.5 inches).34

particular anchorage design into the side impact design of the lower anchorages of the side impact 33 The current seat pan angle of the FMVSS No. seat assembly, as some commenters to the January seat assembly so that undue interference would be 213 seat assembly is 15 degrees. 2014 side impact NPRM noted that the side avoided. 34 The current FMVSS No. 213 test seat assembly structure of the lower anchorages can interfere with 32 The current seat back angle of the FMVSS No. has a seat pan length of 16.3 inch (416 mm). the lower anchorage attachments of the tested CRS. Instead, NHTSA is considering reconfiguring the 213 seat assembly is 20 degrees.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP02NO20.004 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69395

The Agency is proposing a seat pan new standard seat assembly, which is of the current vehicle fleet, and length of 412 mm (16.2 inches), which within one standard deviation of the comprise a mix of different vehicle is within one standard deviation of the average seat back height when the head types (passenger cars, SUVs, and average seat pan length in the current restraint is not included. minivans) produced by different vehicle vehicle fleet. 5. Rear Seat Cushions manufacturers. 4. Seat Back Height A quasi-static load was applied at a i. Stiffness of the Bottom Seat Cushion The Vehicle Rear Seat Study showed rate of 0.374 mm/s using a 203 that the average height of the seat back The Agency compared the stiffness of millimeters (mm) (8 inch) diameter disk was 688 mm (27 inches) with a standard rear seat cushions (consisting of foam shaped indentor. NHTSA compared the deviation of 76 mm (3 inches) when the and a cover) in the fleet to that of the force-deflection values to those of the head restraint was included and 578 seat cushions used in various test standard seat assembly specified in the mm (22.7 inches) with a standard programs, including FMVSS No. 213. New Programme for the Assessment of deviation of 60 mm (2.3 inches) when NHTSA first measured the quasi-static Child Restraint Systems (NPACS),37 the head restraint was not included in stiffness (force-deflection) of the seat ECE R.44, and FMVSS No. 213. The the measurement.35 cushions in rear seats of 13 MY 2003– force-deflection curves of the different The Agency is proposing a seat back 2008 passenger vehicles.36 The 13 seat cushions are presented in Figure 2 height of 573 mm (22.5 inches) for the passenger vehicles were representative below.

The data showed that the current Since CRSs are tested on the FMVSS R.44 and NPACS, and the seat cushion FMVSS No. 213 initial seat cushion No. 213 standard seat assembly in a of the FMVSS No. 213 standard seat stiffness (force for the first 25 mm of dynamic sled test, NHTSA also assembly.38 The dynamic stiffness of the deflection) is less than that of the seat evaluated the dynamic stiffness of the seat cushions and seat foams were cushions in the 13 MY 2003–2008 various seat cushions. NHTSA determined using a pendulum impact vehicles. Conversely, the initial stiffness compared the dynamic force-deflection device (PID), which consisted of an arm of the NPACS and the ECE R.44 seat (dynamic stiffness) of: The seat cushion with a 152.4 mm (6 inch) diameter cushions are greater than most of the in rear seats of 14 MY 2006–2011 impactor (weighing 7.8 kg (17.2 lb)). The measured vehicle seat cushions. vehicles, the seat foams specified in ECE impactor was dropped at an average

35 The current FMVSS No. 213 seat assembly has and five non-governmental organizations. The designed to test CRSs, while NCAP focuses on a seat back height of 20.35 inch (517 mm) and it objectives of NPACS is to provide scientifically vehicle performance. does not have a head restraint. based EU wide harmonized test and rating protocols 38 The ECE and NPACS foams were tested with 36 Wietholter, K., Louden, A., and Sullivan, L. to offer consumers clear and understandable the foams placed on a flat adjustable table, while information about dynamic performance and ‘‘Evaluation of Seat Foams for the FMVSS No. 213 the FMVSS No. 213 seat cushion was tested with usability of child restraint systems. NPACS is Test Bench,’’ June 2016 available in the docket for similar to NHTSA’s New Car Assessment Program the cushion placed on the FMVSS No. 213 standard this NPRM. (NCAP) and the NCAP program administered in seat assembly. The measured dynamic stiffness 37 The NPACS consortium was funded in 2005 by Europe (EuroNCAP), in that it is a voluntary characteristics of the foam and cushion are not governments of the United Kingdom, the consumer information program, rather than a expected to differ significantly whether placed on Netherlands, Germany, the Generalitat of Catalonia, binding regulation. The difference is that NPACS is a flat adjustable table or on a seat assembly.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP02NO20.005 69396 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

impact velocity of 3.4 meters per second sensor to calculate the displacement and FMVSS No. 213 foam, tested on the (m/s) (7.6 mph) on the seat cushion.39 a uniaxial load cell to measure the force. standard seat assembly with a cover, is The PID was instrumented with a tri- Figure 3 below shows that the ECE on the low end of the vehicle fleet rear axial accelerometer and an angular rate R.44 and NPACS foams were found to seat stiffness. be stiffer than the vehicle fleet. The

Since the ECE R.44 and NPACS seat ‘‘NHTSA-Woodbridge seat cushion’’ in (176.3 lb), respectively.41 The dynamic foam stiffness were found not to be this NPRM. The NHTSA-Woodbridge force-deflection of the NHTSA- representative of the current U.S. seat cushion consists of the foam Woodbridge standard seat cushion is vehicle fleet (both quasi-static and material covered by the cover used in shown below in Figure 4. NHTSA dynamic stiffness), the agency test procedures of ECE R.44. The ECE tentatively concludes that the stiffness developed a new seat cushion that R.44 cover material is a sun shade cloth of the NHTSA-Woodbridge seat cushion would be representative. The foam used made of poly-acrylate fiber with a is satisfactorily representative of the 2 in the seat cushion was manufactured specific mass of 290 (g/m ) and a average seat cushion stiffness found in by The Woodbridge Group lengthwise and breadthwise breaking the vehicle fleet (grey lines). (Woodbridge),40 and is referred to as the strength of 120 kg (264.5 lb) and 80 kg

39 See ‘‘Evaluation of Seat Foams for the FMVSS similar to how the foam was compressed in FMVSS 41 The properties of this new seat cushion would No. 213 Test Bench,’’ June 2016, supra. A 3.4 No. 213 sled tests with various test dummies. be fully specified in a drawing package m/s (7.6 mph) test speed was used. This speed 40 The Woodbridge Group is a supplier of accompanying this document to enable interested resulted in the impact device compressing the foam automotive seat foam, http://www.woodbridge parties to manufacture this seat cushion. group.com.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP02NO20.006 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69397

To simplify procurement of the molded urethane foam.’’ ‘‘IFD’’ refers to foam (50 mm (1.96 inch) by 50 mm and desired seat cushion foam, Table 1 the indentation force-deflection (IFD) 25 mm (0.98 inch) thickness) by 50 below sets forth characteristics of the test, which measures the force required percent. Further details of seat cushion NHTSA-Woodbridge seat cushion foam for 25 percent, 50 percent, and 65 characteristics are available in the as determined by the test methods percent deflection of the entire product drawings that are in the docket for this specified in ASTM D–3574–03, sample.42 The compression force- NPRM. ‘‘Standard test methods for flexible deflection (CFD) test measures the force cellular materials—slab, bonded, and required to compress a sample of the

TABLE 1—STIFFNESS OF THE NHTSA-WOODBRIDGE SEAT CUSHION FOAM

Foam characteristics

Density ...... 47 kg/m3 (2.9 lb/ft3). IFD (25% deflection) ...... 237 Newton (N) (53.2 lb). IFD (50% deflection) ...... 440 Newton (N) (99 lb). IFD (65% deflection) ...... 724 Newton (N) (162.7 lb). CFD (50% compression) ...... 6.6 kPa (137.8 lb/ft2).

ii. Thickness of the Bottom Seat 101.6 mm (4 inch) seat cushion foam iii. The Foam Is Suitable for Use in the Cushion thickness for the seat pan also has the Standard’s Dynamic Test advantage of simplifying procurement of NHTSA tentatively concludes that the the foam since foam standard The NHTSA-Woodbridge foam not bottom seat cushion foam should be specifications, such as IFD, are provided only would be representative of foam in 101.6 mm (4-inches) thick. A 101.6 mm by the manufacturer in 101.6 mm (4 real world vehicles, it also appears (4-inch) thickness would be suitable for use in the FMVSS No. 213 inches) samples, as specified in test representative of the seat cushions on compliance test. One concern about any method B1 of ASTM D3574. Thus, real world vehicles. The Vehicle Rear foam used on the standard seat specifying a 101.6 mm (4 inch) foam Seat Study found an average seat pan assembly is whether the foam would cushion thickness for both outboard and thickness would streamline compliance ‘‘bottom out’’ (fully compress) on to the center seating positions of 90 mm (3.5 testing because foam of that size would rigid backing during the demanding inches) with a standard deviation of 40 be relatively simple to procure. conditions of the sled test. The current mm (1.5 inches), measured at the soft FMVSS No. 213 seat cushion has a centerline of the seating position.43 A tendency to bottom out in tests of

42 Foam products are typically characterized by 43 The current FMVSS No. 213 seat assembly seat their IFD and density values rather than by their pan cushion has a thickness of 152.4 mm (6 inch). dynamic performance.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP02NO20.007 69398 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

forward-facing CRSs using the heavier than the test conditions specified in In our tests, NHTSA considered the test dummies specified in FMVSS No. FMVSS No. 213. seat cushion to have bottomed out along 213 (Hybrid III 6-year-old (HIII–6YO) NHTSA selected the Graco Smart Seat the front edge if the seat cushion and Hybrid III 10-year-old (HIII–10YO) for this testing because the CRS displacement exceeded 96.5 mm (3.8 child dummies). represents a heavy CRS relative to inches). Seat cushion displacement at The Agency conducted FMVSS No. the front edge of the seat was measured current CRSs in the market, weighing 213-type sled tests to evaluate whether by video analysis.44 Cushion 9.5 kg (21 lb) without its base and 14.9 the NHTSA-Woodbridge seat cushion displacement was not measured in the would bottom out when tested in a kg (33 lb) with its base (the base is used tests with rear-facing CRSs as the high severe impact test (35 g at 56.3 in rear-facing and forward-facing rotation of the CRS did not allow for an kilometers per hour (km/h) or 35 mph) modes). The CRS was tested in rear- accurate measurement. using heavy dummies restrained in a facing and forward-facing modes (with Test results are shown in Table 2 heavy CRS. NHTSA used two samples the base) using a HIII–3YO dummy and below. The NHTSA-Woodbridge seat of NHTSA-Woodbridge seat cushions HIII–6YO dummy, and tested in the cushion did not bottom out in any of the (101.6 mm (4 inches)) and the Graco belt-positioning booster seat mode tests, even when subjected to the severe Smart Seat in the test series. These (without the base) using a HIII–6YO and test conditions and when using a heavy pulse and test speeds were more severe HIII–10YO. test dummy and a heavy CRS.

iv. Thickness of the Seat Back Foam was 76 mm (3 inches) with a standard significantly affects a CRS’s dynamic deviation of 29 mm (1.14 inches), performance in the frontal sled test, the For the seat back cushion, NHTSA measured at the centerline of the seating Agency recognizes that a seat back proposes to use the NHTSA-Woodbridge position. The proposed seat back cushion on the thicker side could be a seat cushion foam with a 50.8 mm (2 cushion thickness of 50.8 mm (2 inches) potential source of variability when inch) thickness. A 50.8 mm (2 inch) is within 1 standard deviation of the testing CRSs with top tethers. When the thickness would be representative of average seat back cushion thickness in tether is tightened, the back cushion can seat back cushions in the fleet. The Vehicle Rear Seat Study showed that the the vehicle fleet. be compressed to varying degrees. Data overall seat back cushion thickness for Further, while NHTSA does not do not indicate that differences in outboard and center seating positions believe that the seat back cushion compression necessarily affect CRS

44 ‘‘Evaluation of Seat Foams for the FMVSS No. 213 Test Bench,’’ June 2016, supra.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP02NO20.008 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69399

performance, but a 50.8 mm (2 inch) No. 213 compliance test. Foam 6. Summary of Seat Geometry Features thick foam would reduce such manufacturers readily produce foams in differences and thus facilitate a more 101.6 mm (4 inch) sections. A 101.6 mm Table 3 below shows a comparison of repeatable installation. (4 inch) thick foam slab can be easily features of seating assemblies found in The Agency notes also that specifying cut into two 50.8 mm (2 inch) pieces to the vehicle fleet, and the proposed and that the foam thickness is 50.8 mm (2 be used for the seat back. current features of the FMVSS No. 213 inches) would streamline the FMVSS test seat assembly.

d. Seat Belt Anchorage Locations standard seat assembly using the 3-point agency proposes to incorporate a 3-point belt.) Three-point belts were first belt in the proposed standard seat FMVSS No. 213 requires CRSs (other required in outboard rear seats of assembly.46 than belt-positioning booster seats) to passenger vehicles starting in MY 1990 NHTSA began its assessment of where meet the standard’s performance and in trucks and multipurpose the seat belt anchorages should be requirements while attached with a 2- passenger vehicles (including passenger 45 located on the updated FMVSS No. 213 point belt (lap belt). In some tests, a vans and SUVs) starting in MY 1992. top tether may be used to supplement Three-point belts in center rear seats standard seat assembly by considering the belt attachment. The current seat were phased-in between September 1, anchor location requirements in FMVSS assembly has a 2-point belt for testing 2005 and September 1, 2007. The on- No. 210, ‘‘Seat belt assembly CRSs. the-road passenger vehicle fleet is now anchorages.’’ 47 Figure 5 shows the side To make FMVSS No. 213’s standard predominantly comprised of vehicles view of the proposed bench, the seat assembly more representative of the with 3-point belts in all rear seating proposed location of the lap belt vehicle fleet, the NPRM proposes positions, and more and more vehicles anchors and the FMVSS No. 210 replacing the 2-point belt with a 3-point will be so equipped in the near future. corridor. This figure shows that the lap belt. (This NPRM also proposes Therefore, to test CRSs with what will belt anchor locations on the proposed requiring CRSs to be tested under be the most common seat belt bench are within the FMVSS No. 210 FMVSS No. 213 while attached to the configuration in the vehicle fleet, the corridor.

45 Belt-positioning booster seats are currently with the counterpart Canadian regulation (Canadian Transport Canada is considering harmonizing its tested with a 3-point belt system, as these child Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (CMVSS) No. 213, standard with NHTSA’s proposed changes. restraint systems are designed for use with 3-point ‘‘Motor Vehicle Restraint Systems and Booster Seat 47 FMVSS No. 210 specifies a location corridor for belts. Safety Regulations’’). While the 3-point belt the lap belt anchorages which is between 30 and 75 46 Incorporating a 3-point belt on the standard anchorage locations in the Canadian standard seat degrees from the horizontal at the H-point. seat assembly would harmonize FMVSS No. 213 assembly are different than those in this proposal,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP02NO20.009 69400 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

NHTSA also considered the data on shoulder belt anchorages measured in locations on the current FMVSS No. 213 real-world anchorage locations from the the 24 vehicles surveyed. Measurements standard seat assembly, the proposed Vehicle Rear Seat Study. Table 4 below were made with respect to Point A of seat assembly, along with those in ECE shows the average position along with the SGMF. The table also shows similar R.44 and NPACS. the standard deviation of the lap and measurements of the seat belt anchorage

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP02NO20.010 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69401

NHTSA also located the anchorages to (S5.3.2).48 In some tests, a top tether location in the vehicle survey.49 NHTSA avoid interference with the seat may be used to supplement the lower located the anchorages slightly lower assembly structure in an FMVSS No. anchorage attachment (S6.1.2(a)(1)). because anchorages positioned higher 213 compliance test. Interaction of the The standard seat assembly of FMVSS may cause some CRS attachments to seat belt with the vehicle seat assembly, No. 213 has a child restraint anchorage interfere with the seat back cushion. or the child restraint with a seat belt system consisting of two lower anchor Also, the Agency was concerned that anchorage, could introduce variability bars and a top tether anchor. The child CRSs designed with rigid attachments in the test results. The shoulder belt restraint anchorage system is configured (that attach to the lower anchor bars without use of webbing) may adopt an anchor is located more rearward and as specified by FMVSS No. 225, ‘‘Child incorrect installation angle when the higher than the average location from restraint anchorage systems,’’ for the vehicle survey to avoid interaction bars are higher. systems installed on vehicles. FMVSS NHTSA also chose an anchorage of the shoulder belt with the seat back No. 225 requires lower anchors to be cushion, and interaction of large high location more forward (closer to the seat 280 mm (11 inches) apart and have bight) than the average from the Vehicle back boosters with the shoulder belt specific anchor geometry. anchorage hardware. The lap belt Rear Seat Study. The more forward anchors are located to be more rearward In the Vehicle Rear Seat Study location was selected to make it easier and lower than the average location NHTSA measured the location of the to install the CRS on the seat assembly from the vehicle survey, to avoid lower anchor and the tether anchor in in a compliance test, and to measure the interaction of the seat belt and seat belt the vehicles. Table 5 below shows the tension in the belt webbing used for the hardware with the seat cushion. location of the lower anchors and the lower anchorage attachment. Further, Even with these adjustments, as tether anchor from Point A of the SGMF NHTSA anticipates that lower shown in Table 4, supra, the fore/aft, in the 24-vehicle survey, and that of the anchorages will likely be more forward lateral, and vertical positions of the lap proposed FMVSS No. 213 seat than in current vehicles if future and shoulder belt anchorages relative to assembly. The lower anchors of the vehicles employ the design concepts point A for the proposed seat assembly proposed standard seat assembly have a discussed in NHTSA’s 2015 MAP–21 are within one standard deviation of the 280 mm (11 inch) lateral spacing as NPRM, supra, to improve the ease-of- average values found in the vehicle specified in FMVSS No. 225. Each lower use of child restraint anchorage 50 survey. anchor metal bar is 37 mm (1.45 inches) systems. Thus, while the proposed long. e. Child Restraint Anchorage System 49 The vertical location of the lower anchors in Locations The location of the lower anchorages the proposed seat assembly is just 2 mm lower than selected for the proposed seat assembly one standard deviation below the average vertical FMVSS No. 213 also requires CRSs to is slightly lower than the average location of lower anchors in the vehicle fleet. meet the standard’s performance 50 NPRM to improve the ease-of-use of child restraint anchorage systems. 80 FR 3744, January requirements while attached by way of 48 Some CRSs, such as belt-positioning seats and 23, 2015. Docket No. NHTSA–2014–0123. The a child restraint anchorage system harnesses, are excluded from this requirement. Continued

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP02NO20.011 69402 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

lower anchorage location in the aft seating position (DSP) centerline. Also, shelf, results in a slightly more direction is not within one standard the anchorages are found in two main demanding test as anchoring a CRS to deviation of the average in the current areas: The seat back at different heights the former causes more tether strap vehicle fleet, NHTSA believes that the (mainly in SUVs, hatchbacks, vans, and webbing to be used than if the anchor fleet will be changing. The proposed aft trucks) and the package shelf (mainly in were directly aft of and closer to the location of lower anchors for the sedans and coupe type vehicles). In a CRS. More webbing used in the test may upgraded standard seat would be few vehicles, the tether anchorage is on slightly increase the likelihood that representative of the average future the rear wall (pickup trucks) or the roof. higher head excursions could result, as vehicle fleet. Based on sales volumes, the number of webbing has a natural tendency to NHTSA also used the Vehicle Rear vehicles with tether anchorages in the elongate in the sled test. Seat Study to position the tether package shelf is about the same as those anchorage on the new standard seat with tether anchorages in the seat back. The location of the tether anchorage assembly. While FMVSS No. 225 The Agency proposes to locate the in the proposed standard seat assembly permits the tether anchorage to be in a tether anchorage in the seat back area. is within one standard deviation of the wide area in the vehicle, the study NHTSA believes that locating the average found by the Vehicle Rear Seat found that the tether anchorages are anchorage on the seat back, rather than Study as shown in Table 5. mostly centered along the designated in a position representing the package

TABLE 5—LOWER ANCHORS AND TETHER ANCHOR LOCATION FROM THE 24-VEHICLE SURVEY AND THOSE IN THE PROPOSED FMVSS NO. 213 STANDARD SEAT ASSEMBLY [All measurements are in millimeters from point A of the SGMF]

Average from Proposed vehicle survey FMVSS No. 213

Lower Anchors ...... Aft ...... 100 ± 21 58 Lateral ...... 137 ± 29 140 Vertical (¥) Below point A ...... ¥12 ± 24 ¥38 Tether Anchors (Seat Back Position) ...... Aft ...... 280 ± 88 330 Lateral ...... 0 ± 44 0 Vertical (¥) Below point A ...... 140 ± 281 133

IV. Installing CRSs With a Type 2 Belt V. Denial of Petition Regarding a Floor Volvo believes that the most effective Rather Than a Type 1 Belt way to fasten a rear-facing child On January 28, 2011, Volvo petitioned restraint is to use the seat belts or the To drive continued effective CRS NHTSA requesting that the Agency ISOFIX 54 anchors together with a performance in today’s vehicles, amend FMVSS No. 213 by: (1) Updating support leg extending down to the floor NHTSA proposes to require all CRSs to the seat cushion of the sled standard of the vehicle. Volvo states that this meet the performance requirements of seat assembly; (2) allowing a lap/ method of attachment has been FMVSS No. 213 while attached to the shoulder belt fastening in the test available to Volvo and child restraint seat assembly with a Type 2 (lap/ procedure; and (3) adding a floor to the manufacturers in countries outside the shoulder) belt. Currently, CRSs are sled sled fixture used in the compliance test U.S. for many years and has ‘‘proven to tested while attached with a Type 1 procedure. Volvo suggests that these be very practicable.’’ Volvo states: ‘‘For (lap) belt.51 With the prevalence of Type amendments would make FMVSS No. the US, it is not, however, possible to 2 belts in the rear seats of vehicles sold 213 more reflective of real-world certify this solution to FMVSS 213 since and on the road today, testing CRSs conditions and facilitate ‘‘rearward- this standard does not offer a floor for with the type of seat belt caregivers facing child seating for as long as the sled specified in the test procedure.’’ would be using better ensures the practicable.’’ Volvo states that it offers Volvo states that ‘‘the addition of the representativeness of the compliance add-on and built-in booster seats in the floor in the sled used in standard test. Test data do not indicate any U.S., but does not offer child restraints FMVSS 213 appears to be well justified significant difference in performance in for children under the age of 4 since all cars in the modern car fleet current child restraint designs when ‘‘primarily because of the inherent would have a floor between the first and installed using a Type 1 versus a Type problems in [FMVSS] No. 213 and in second rows of seats.’’ 52 2 belt. showing compliance with this standard NHTSA is denying the request. The Adopting a requirement that CRSs for larger rearward-facing child test parameters of the FMVSS No. 213 meet the standard when tested with a restraints.’’ sled test replicate the real-world vehicle Type 2 belt would be consistent with The requests of items (1) and (2) features and crash factors that bear on Canada’s CMVSS No. 213, supra. Since above are being met by this rulemaking. a child restraint’s performance in 2010, Transport Canada tests CRSs The request for adding a floor (item (3)) protecting a child in the real world. equipped with internal harnesses by is denied. NHTSA discusses this request Included in those test parameters are the installing them with a Type 2 belt.53 below. test seat assembly (seat geometry, seat

NPRM proposes to require vehicle manufacturers to 52 See results of test numbers 8917, 8922, 8919, 54 ISOFIX is a system for connecting child place the anchorages within 2 centimeters from the 8923, 8929 and 8931 in Table 11 and test numbers restraint systems to vehicles which consists of two seat bight. 8917, 8922, 8919 and 8923 in Table 12 of this rigid anchorages in the vehicle, two corresponding 51 NHTSA is not changing FMVSS No. 213’s NPRM. rigid attachments on the child restraint system and requirement that covered CRSs must also meet the 53 P.C. 2010–545 , 2010. 2010–05–12 a means to limit the pitch rotation of the child standard’s performance requirements while restraint system. attached using a child restraint anchorage system. Canada Gazette Part II, Vol. 144, No. 10.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69403

cushion characteristics), methods of to the vehicle seat and requires CRSs to loads during a crash. The attachment child restraint attachment to the test meet the FMVSS No. 213’s dynamic strategies specified in the FMVSSs do seat assembly (lap belt, lap/shoulder performance requirements when not involve compressive loading to the belt, and child restraint anchorage attached to the test seat assembly using vehicle floor, such as resulting from a system), the standard’s limits on head the standardized attachments (seat belt support leg of a CRS. The FMVSSs also excursion, the sled crash pulse, and the assembly; child restraint anchorage have no performance requirements for test velocity. The test parameters are system). Standardization increases the the vehicle floor to ensure stable also chosen and designed to reflect how likelihood of correct installation of child installation of a support leg and child restraints are actually used in the restraints, as consumers do not need to sufficient rigor to withstand loading real world. Thus, as examples, the learn novel ways of installing child from a leg during a crash. NHTSA is standard requires a universal and restraints each time a new child concerned that the floor of some standardized means of attaching CRSs to restraint is used. Standardization also vehicles, such as those with a storage reflect that CRS are used ensures that the minimum level of compartment under the seat, may not be interchangeably in all models of protection provided by FMVSS No. 213 strong enough to withstand the dynamic vehicles. The standard’s test parameters will be provided by each child restraint loads from a support leg. The include a test in which the CRS is installed in every vehicle. The petitioner’s request to allow the floor to installed without attaching a tether, standardized attachment does not contribute to the performance of the because non-use of a top tether is involve the vehicle floor. The presence CRS introduces unacceptable prevalent. of a floor structure on the FMVSS No. uncertainty that the CRS would provide Studies from NHTSA’s National Child 213 seat assembly is not a matter of the requisite minimum protection in the Restraint Use Special Study significance for the standard’s real world. 55 56 (NCRUSS), Safe Kids, and the compliance test as CRSs are tested By stating that only the standardized Insurance Institute for Highway Safety today. 57 means of attachment will be used in the (IIHS) have shown that tether use is In asking for a floor, Volvo impliedly compliance test, FMVSS No. 213 still low in the field. NCRUSS found asks that CRSs should be permitted to ensures that the performance of the that the overall tether use was 42 use a ‘‘support leg’’ in the test to meet child restraint in providing the percent. Safe Kids found that overall the minimum performance requirements minimum level of safety mandated by tether usage in forward-facing CRSs of the standard. The Agency denies this the standard is not dependent on a with internal harnesses was only 29 request for several reasons. FMVSS No. supplementary device that is suitable percent. Tether use was 45 percent 213 is written to prevent vehicle- for only certain vehicle makes and when the CRS was attached with lower specific CRSs, since the risk of misuse models and that may or may not be used anchorages and 15 percent when the in a vehicle for which a CRS is not by the consumer. Since a support leg is CRS was attached with seat belts. IIHS designed is high in this country. This is not used in the standard’s compliance researchers analyzed data from 479 a concern when the leg is needed to test, a floor on the seat assembly is vehicle observations and found that the meet the minimum performance unnecessary. Accordingly, NHTSA top tether was used only 56 percent of requirements of the standard.58 denies the request to add a floor to the the time. With prevalent tether nonuse Consumers might use the CRS in sled used in the FMVSS No. 213 in the field, NHTSA requires forward- vehicles that may not be compatible compliance test. facing CRSs to meet minimum with the use of a leg; using the CRS in performance requirements while a vehicle whose floor differs from the VI. No Safety Need to Increase Crash untethered in an FMVSS No. 213 Volvo floor could have negative safety Pulse compliance test. consequences when the floor A generic floor would serve no attachment is needed to meet the a. Introduction purpose in the FMVSS No. 213 minimum performance requirements of As part of NHTSA’s effort to ensure compliance test. FMVSS No. 213 the standard. Or, consumers may not FMVSS No. 213 continues to drive standardizes the method of attachment properly use a support leg. They might effective CRS performance in today’s forget to use it, or might not attach it vehicle environment, the Agency 55 National Child Restraint Use Special Study, correctly to the vehicle floor. Data from examined the sufficiency of the FMVSS DOT HS 811 679, https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/ NHTSA’s NCRUSS and IIHS, discussed Api/Public/ViewPublication/812142. NCRUSS is a No. 213 sled acceleration pulse and 48 large-scale nationally-representative survey that above, show that there already exists a km/h (30 mph) test velocity used in involves both an inspection of the child passenger’s problem of consumers not using the compliance testing. NHTSA has restraint system by a certified child passenger safety CRS top tether. Volvo did not provide evaluated this aspect of the test technician and a detailed interview of the driver. any information showing that The survey collected information on drivers and on procedure in each of the Agency’s child passengers ages 0–8 years between June and consumers in this country would use recurring retrospective reviews of the August 2011. the leg correctly. standard. 56 ‘‘A Look Inside American Family Vehicles NHTSA also notes that Volvo did not In 2003, NHTSA considered 2009–2010,’’ Safe Kids USA, September 2011. suggest how the floor should be increasing the severity of FMVSS No. (http://www.safekids.org/assets/docs/safety-basics/ specified on the standard seat assembly. safety-tips-by-risk-area/sk-car-seat-report-2011.pdf.) 213’s sled acceleration pulse but The study was based on 79,000 observations from Under the FMVSSs, the strength and decided against such a change. Instead, ‘‘car seat check’’ events and appointments that took configuration of the vehicle’s belt place between October 1, 2009 and September 30, the Agency redesigned the pulse and system and child restraint anchorage established a corridor around it to allow 2010. system are standardized to ensure the 57 the Agency to conduct compliance tests Eichelberger, A. H., Decina, L.E., Jermakian, J. vehicle attachments are sufficient to S., McCartt, A. T., ‘‘Use of top tether with forward at velocities closer to the 48 km/h (30 withstand the occupied CRS’s dynamic facing child restraints: Observations and driver mph) velocity specified in the interviews,’’ IIHS, April 2013. IIHS surveyed and 59 collected data at roughly 50 suburban sites near 58 FMVSS No. 213 does not prohibit Volvo or any standard. Fredericksburg, VA, Philadelphia, PA, Seattle, WA, other manufacturer from providing a support leg as and Washington, DC Shopping centers, recreation long as the child restraint meets the standard’s 59 Under FMVSS No. 213 (S6.1.1(b)(1)), the facilities, child-care centers, car seat checkpoints minimum performance levels without the support dynamic test is at a velocity change of 48 km/h (30 and healthcare facilities were among the locations. leg. Continued

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 69404 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

In that 2003 rulemaking proceeding, km/h (35 mph),61 which raised the countries, and sled test data from tests NHTSA requested comment on the question whether FMVSS No. 213’s the Agency conducted on the corridor for the acceleration pulse and frontal test speed should be increased as performance of CRSs when tested to on the severity of the crash pulse. well. In addition, more vehicles have different crash test speeds and sled Commenters from all segments of the become stiffer and/or smaller with high acceleration pulses. child passenger safety community were G crash acceleration pulses, and new b. Safety Need—Crash Data Analysis almost unanimous opposing an increase kinds of CRSs have emerged for older in the severity of the crash pulse. and heavier children. With those To learn more about the crash speeds Commenters were concerned that an developments in mind, NHTSA of frontal crashes in which children are increase in the severity of the pulse reevaluated the FMVSS No. 213 sled involved and to compare these to would lead to higher costs and reduced acceleration pulse and test velocity. crashes involving older occupants, usability of child restraints with Guiding Principles NHTSA analyzed the NASS–CDS data minimal or no increase in benefits.60 files for years 2008 to 2012 to determine After reviewing the comments and As stated earlier in this preamble, real the change in velocity distribution of other factors, NHTSA decided not to world data show CRSs to be highly non-rollover frontal crashes. During this increase the severity of the sled effective in reducing fatalities and 5-year period, there were 754 restrained acceleration pulse. The Agency injuries in motor vehicle crashes. children 12 years old (12–YO) and determined that increasing the severity NHTSA estimates that for children less younger who were occupants of light could necessitate the redesign of many than 1 year old, a CRS can reduce the passenger vehicles involved in non- CRSs and increase costs of CRSs risk of fatality by 71 percent when used rollover frontal crashes with a known without a commensurate safety benefit. in a passenger car and by 58 percent (estimated) change in velocity. During In that rulemaking, the Agency when used in a pickup truck, van, or this same 5-year period, there were determined that the FMVSS No. 213 SUV (light truck). Child restraint 7,749 older occupants (restrained sled acceleration pulse was severe, effectiveness for children between the occupants older than 12 years of age) ages 1 to 4 is 54 percent in passenger who were occupants of light passenger similar to rigid barrier crash test 62 accelerations of SUVs and trucks. Its cars and 59 percent in light trucks. vehicles involved in non-rollover frontal severity was appropriately high to These effectiveness estimates would be crashes with a known (estimated) ensure that CRSs would maintain their further enhanced if the misuse rate of change in velocity. CRSs is reduced. structural integrity in just about all The analysis found that 99.47 percent Given that CRSs are already highly crashes involving children, and limit of restrained children 12–YO and effective, the Agency carefully considers forces to the child’s head, neck, and the unintended impacts of any younger were involved in frontal torso to reasonable levels, no matter rulemaking purporting to enhance CRS crashes of speeds of 48 km/h (30 mph) what vehicle the child is in. safety. Any enhancement that would or less, and 99.57 percent of such In preparing this NPRM, NHTSA markedly raise the price of the restraints children were involved in frontal again investigated the sufficiency of the could potentially have an adverse effect crashes of speeds of 56 km/h (35 mph) FMVSS No. 213 sled acceleration pulse, on their sales. The net effect on safety or less. In comparison, for older ` particularly vis-a-vis an evolving could be negative if the effect of sales restrained occupants involved in frontal occupant protection environment. Since losses exceeds the benefit of the crashes, 98.5 percent and 99.27 percent the 2003 final rule, the stringency of the improved performance of the restraints were in crashes of speeds of 48 km/h (30 belted test of FMVSS No. 208, that are purchased. In addition, NHTSA mph) or less and 56 km/h (35 mph) or ‘‘Occupant crash protection,’’ was also considers the effects of improved less, respectively (Table 6). increased from 48 km/h (30 mph) to 56 performance on the ease of using child restraints. If the use of CRSs becomes TABLE 6—CHANGE IN VELOCITY IN mph) ‘‘with the acceleration of the test platform overly complex or unwieldy, the dual TOWAWAY, NON ROLLOVER, FRONTAL entirely within the curve shown in . . . Figure 2A.’’ CRASHES WITH KNOWN CHANGE IN 60 To illustrate, SafetyBeltSafe commented that a problems of misuse and nonuse of CRSs velocity increase would make products more could be exacerbated. Thus, in VELOCITY VALUES expensive and would not significantly improve CRS considering the safety impacts of its [NASS–CDS 2008–2012] * performance in the real world. The University of efforts on FMVSS No. 213, the agency Michigan Transportation Research Institute DV ≤30 DV ≤35 (UMTRI) stated that its review of NASS data files weighs those improvements against impacts on the price of restraints and mph mph indicated that a 48 km/h (30 mph) change in (%) (%) velocity was more severe than at least 98 percent CRS ease-of-use. of frontal impact crashes involving children With these guiding principles in Restrained Children nationwide. UMTRI was concerned that increasing mind, the agency evaluated the the velocity of the test is not likely to increase (0–12 yrs) ...... 99.47 99.57 safety, but will increase consumer cost of CRSs and sufficiency of the current FMVSS No. Other Restrained Oc- may lead to CRS designs that could make the 213 sled acceleration pulse and test cupants ...... 98.5 99.27 restraints less effective or more easily misused at velocity. NHTSA analyzed real world lower severity crashes, which occur much more crash data, the regulations of other * unweighted data (754 restrained children frequently. IIHS stated that its review of NASS 0–12 years old, 7,749 others) cases showed that CRSs designed to pass the current 48 km/h (30 mph) sled test are providing 61 FMVSS No. 208 sets forth vehicle frontal crash These data indicate that the 48 km/h very good protection to children in frontal crashes tests for evaluating occupant protection for adult (30 mph) sled test in FMVSS No. 213 and that there was no evidence that designing CRSs passengers. Examples of vehicle countermeasures ensures that CRSs are exposed to a crash to withstand higher crash forces could have used to meet the requirements include lap/shoulder condition which is at least as severe as prevented or mitigated any of the serious or fatal seat belts, belt tensioning devices, frontal head and injuries in the reviewed NASS cases. The only thorax air bag systems, improved passenger 99.47 percent of such real-world commenter supporting an increase in the FMVSS compartment integrity and vehicle front-end incidents involving restrained children No. 213 pulse was ARCCA Inc., which believed that crumple zones. ages 0 to 12–YO, and that an increase in the standard’s pulse led to test velocities that were 62 Traffic Safety Facts—Children 2013 Data. test speed to 56.3 km/h (35 mph) will less severe than 48 km/h (30 mph) rigid barrier https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ vehicle crash test acceleration pulses. (Docket No. ViewPublication/812154. Last accessed on August only marginally increase the crashes NHTSA–2002–11707.) 23, 2016. covered by the standard. In contrast,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69405

98.5 and 99.27 percent of older percent) covered by the 56 km/h (35 CRSs in passenger vehicles, about 72 are restrained occupants are involved in mph) vehicle crash test. The data show killed in crashes annually and about 634 crashes with a change in velocity up to that the current FMVSS No. 213 48 km/ sustain AIS 2+ injury.64 To better 48 km/h (30 mph) and 56.3 km/h (35 h (30 mph) sled test velocity does not understand the reason for injuries and mph), respectively. The fraction of equate to a diminished level of safety for fatalities among CRS-restrained children restrained children with change in restrained children as compared to older in frontal crashes, the agency reviewed velocity over 48 km/h (30 mph) (0.53 vehicle occupants. In fact, it could be all NASS–CDS and Crash Injury percent) is lower than that for older argued that FMVSS No. 213’s 48 km/h Research and Engineering Network restrained occupants (1.5 percent), and (30 mph) test provides a higher degree (CIREN) 65 data files for the years 2003 this difference between the two groups of protection than the 56 km/h (35 mph) to 2013 for instances in which children is statistically significant.63 Likewise, test of FMVSS No. 208 in terms of the 12–YO and younger in CRSs 66 in rear the estimate for the fraction of breadth of the crashes they cover seats of light passenger vehicles restrained children with change in involving the relevant restrained sustained AIS 3+ injuries in frontal velocity over 56 km/h (35 mph) (0.43 population. crashes without rollover. Only those percent) is lower than that for older cases in which the change in velocity c. Hard Copy Review of Case Files occupants (0.73 percent), and this exceeded 40 km/h (25 mph) were difference between the two groups is While a 56 km/h (35 mph) change in considered to eliminate low severity statistically significant. velocity would only cover an additional impacts where injuries were likely due These results reveal that restrained 0.1 percent of the crashes involving to factors such as the child being children are more involved in lower- restrained children, NHTSA undertook improperly restrained, or cases where severity crashes than older occupants. a review of case files to determine information was unavailable to assess The percentage of frontal crashes of whether a change in velocity could have crash severity and cause of injury. restrained children covered by the 48 possibly prevented fatal or serious There were 18 cases that met these km/h (30 mph) sled test (99.47 percent) injury to children involved in the selection criteria for the years 2003– is greater than the percentage of frontal additional 0.1 percent of crashes. 2013. Table 7 shows a summary of the crashes of older occupants (99.27 Among children 0–12 YO restrained by case review of the 18 cases.

TABLE 7—NASS–CDS & CIREN (2003–2013) CASE REVIEW: CHILDREN 12–YO AND YOUNGER RESTRAINED IN CRSS WITH AIS 3+ INJURIES IN FRONTAL IMPACT WITHOUT ROLLOVER WITH A CHANGE IN VELOCITY GREATER THAN 40 KM/H (25 MPH)

Cause of AIS 3+ Injuries Total Percentage

Gross CRS Misuse ...... 7 39 Exceedingly Severe ...... 4 22 Intrusion of the Front Seat Back ...... 3 17 Cargo intrusion ...... 1 6 Bracing ...... 1 6 Could not be determined ...... 2 11

Total ...... 18 100

The most frequent cause of AIS 3+ injuries. In one case, the child’s right other factors unrelated to crash severity injury to children was gross CRS humerus was fractured due to intrusion or CRS misuse. There is no indication misuse. Gross CRS misuse included of cargo from the trunk of the vehicle. that a CRS designed to meet a 56 km/ children restrained in a CRS intended In another case, the child’s arms were h (35 mph) FMVSS No. 213 compliance for larger/heavier children, infant seat braced against the front seat back before test would have prevented any of these with the carrying handle improperly the impact and the child sustained arm injuries. stowed, booster seats with only the lap fractures during the crash. The cause for The findings from the hard copy belt used to restrain the child, and injury in the remaining two cases could booster seat with no seat belt used. The not be determined due to lack of review are in accordance with the second most frequent cause of AIS 3+ evidence and/or missing or unknown findings from NHTSA’s National Child injury to CRS-restrained children was data. Restraint Use Special Study (NCRUSS) that the crash was exceedingly severe This hard copy case review indicates that shows that car seat and booster seat (beyond the severity of a 56 km/h (35 that AIS 3+ injuries to CRS-restrained misuse in the field is 46 percent, and mph) frontal crash). children in frontal crashes are due to that CRS misuse is a more frequent In three cases, the front seat back CRS misuse (39 percent), excessively causal factor for AIS 3+ injury to intruded into the restrained child’s severe crashes (beyond 56 km/h (35 restrained children than the severity of occupant space resulting in head or leg mph) crash severity) (22 percent), and the crash.67

63 The analysis was conducted with unweighted 66 Children in CRSs include children that may or and their child passengers of ages 0–8 years data assuming random sample selection. may not be restrained by the internal harness of a between June and August 2011. NCRUSS data were 64 NASS–CDS data file 2005–2009, 79 FR 4577. CRS or the seat belt when using a booster seat. collected at 24 primary sampling units (PSUs) 67 ‘‘Findings of the National Child Restraint Use across the country. The PSUs were previously 65 NHTSA’s Crash Injury Research and Special Study (NCRUSS),’’ DOT HS 812 142. May established from a separate ongoing data collection Engineering Network (CIREN) combines data 2015. NCRUSS is a large-scale nationally- effort, the National Automotive Sampling System collection with professional multidisciplinary representative survey that involves both an (NASS). The PSUs are defined geographically, analysis of medical and engineering evidence to inspection of the child passenger’s restraint system similar to cities or counties. The PSUs were determine injury causation in every crash by a technician and a detailed interview of the selected to cover urban, rural, and suburban investigation conducted. driver. The survey collected information on drivers environments and are located in 17 different States.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 69406 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

d. Globally, All Regulations Use a 30 examined the regulations for child standards simulate a 48–50 km/h (30— MPH Test Speed restraint systems that are implemented 31.0 mph) crash (see Table 8). In considering the sufficiency of the in other countries. The review found FMVSS No. 213 test speed, NHTSA that the frontal sled tests in all the CRS

TABLE 8—TEST SPEED OF FRONTAL SLED TESTS IN CRS STANDARDS FROM DIFFERENT COUNTRIES

Standard Type of test Speed km/h Speed mph

UNECE R.44 68& R.129 69 (Europe) ...... Sled Test ...... 50 31.0 Australia AS 1754 ...... Sled Test ...... 49 30.4 FMVSS/Canadian MVSS No. 213 ...... Sled Test ...... 48.2 30.0

At the same time, the crash pulse sled pulses used in other countries. The duration of the FMVSS No. 213 pulse used in FMVSS No. 213 appears more FMVSS No. 213 sled pulse corridor has and the Australian regulation are severe than that of the European and a very rapid rise reaching peak comparable but much shorter than the Australian regulations. Generally, for a acceleration much sooner than the ECE ECE R.44/R.129. The Canadian standard given crash speed, vehicle crash R.44/R.129 or the Australian (CMVSS No. 213) uses the same sled acceleration pulses with higher peak regulations. The rapid initial rise in acceleration pulse corridor as that acceleration, higher initial rise rate, and acceleration and the short duration of specified in FMVSS No. 213. shorter duration are more severe and the FMVSS No. 213 acceleration pulse Figure 6 shows the frontal sled pulses demanding on restraint systems. The is also characteristic of more recent used in FMVSS/CMVSS No. 213, peak acceleration of the FMVSS No. 213 smaller passenger car models with stiff UNECE R44/R129 and the Australian sled pulse is comparable to that of the front-ends in the U.S. fleet. The regulations.

e. Sled Testing of CRSs NHTSA-Woodbridge seat cushion. To vehicles tested to the 56 km/h (35 mph) assess how CRSs would perform when frontal barrier test of NHTSA’s New Car NHTSA tested different kinds of CRSs subjected to a 56 km/h (35 mph) pulse, Assessment Program (NCAP). in FMVSS No. 213-type sled tests at the agency developed five pulses using Table 9 below shows the velocity, 56.3 km/h (35 mph) and 48 km/h (30 passenger vehicle crash pulses of mph) change of velocities. The Agency crash pulse duration, and peak tested the CRSs on a sled assembly (and other countries) can be approved in comprising the current FMVSS No. 213 accordance with the new UN Regulation No. 129 for 70 The proposed test bench frame was not ready standard seat assembly frame 70 and the CRSs, also known as ‘‘I-Size Regulation.’’ R.129 at the time the 56 km/h (35 mph) tests were requires all children under 15 months to be performed. However, since the proposed seat transported rear facing, adds requirement for assembly geometry is not significantly different 68 Japan, Korea, and China adopted ECE R.44 or vehicle CRS compatibility, and has a dynamic test from the current FMVSS No. 213 seat assembly a regulation based on the ECE R.44. for side impact protection. In contrast, ECE.R44 geometry, NHTSA believes the results are 69 Regulation No. 129—Enhanced Child Restraint categorizes CRSs by weight groups and does not comparable to a test performed in the proposed Systems (ECRS). Since July 2013, CRSs in Europe have a side impact test. upgraded seat assembly.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP02NO20.012 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69407

acceleration for each of the five sled acceleration pulse, and the last row mph) NCAP frontal crash test. Figure 7 acceleration pulses. The first row in shows the characteristics of the average shows the sled acceleration pulse Table 9 sets forth the characteristics of acceleration pulse of MY 2012 profiles. the current FMVSS No. 213 sled passenger vehicles in the 56 km/h (35

TABLE 9—SLED AND VEHICLE ACCELERATION PULSE CHARACTERISTICS

Pulse Velocity (mph) Duration (ms) Peak acceleration (G)

213 ...... 29.7 81 23.0 A ...... 34.3 91 33.5 B ...... 35.0 95 31.5 C ...... 34.3–34.6 101–103 29.0–29.3 D ...... 34.4–35.0 100–105 26.9–29.0 E ...... 34.5–34.8 111 25.6–25.8 Average NCAP 71 ...... 35.0 104 32.0

In the 2003 final rule (supra),72 the has lower peak Gs and a lower change Forward-Facing CRSs Agency identified factors of the in velocity than the other 5 sled NHTSA tested three forward-facing acceleration pulse associated with crash acceleration pulses (A through E), the CRSs equipped with internal harnesses severity: change in velocity, peak FMVSS No. 213 pulse is reasonably on the sled using the five different 56.3 severe because of the rapid rise in acceleration, and acceleration pulse km/h (35 mph) sled pulses and the duration. Generally, for the same change acceleration in the initial portion of the FMVSS No. 213 48 km/h (30 mph) pulse in velocity, acceleration pulses of higher pulse (for comparison, see acceleration and the HIII–3YO and HIII–6YO peak acceleration and shorter duration pulses D and E). dummies. The CRSs were attached to are higher in crash severity. The 2003 The sled acceleration pulses A, B, and the standard seat assembly using the final rule also identified a rapid rise in C have a pulse shape and peak child restraint anchorage system initial acceleration to be associated with acceleration level similar to the 2012 (‘‘LATCH’’ lower anchors and tether). higher crash severity. Applying these NCAP average crash pulse. They have a Test results showed the HIII–6YO criteria to the acceleration pulses shown sharp decline to approximately 17g then dummy exhibiting unrepresentative in Table 9 and Figure 7, pulse A could a gradual decline to approximately 35 g. kinematics during the test. In some be the most severe and E the least Sled acceleration pulses D and E have tests, severe head-to-knee contact severe. Although the current FMVSS a smoother sinusoidal shape with lower occurred due to the legs of the dummy No. 213 acceleration pulse (see Figure 7) peak acceleration levels. rotating upwards during the test. The

71 Average crash acceleration time histories from 72 68 FR 37640. MY 2012 passenger vehicles in NCAP frontal crash tests.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP02NO20.013 69408 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

Agency deemed this kinematic to be did not prevent the legs from rotating pulse D and the dummy’s chest unrepresentative as it is unlikely that upwards.) acceleration exceeded threshold levels the legs of a 6YO child in a vehicle The Radian 65 model was tested with while HIC was barely within the would rotate upwards; the front seat pulse E (with and without legs threshold level (98.1 percent of 1,000 structure would impede such rotation. restrained) and in both tests the HIII– threshold level). There was chin-to- (The Agency attempted to retest the 6YO dummy head and chest injury chest contact for the HIII–6YO dummy CRSs with the legs of the HIII–6YO tied measures exceeded the allowable in the tests with the Radian 65 that to the seat assembly, but sometimes this threshold levels (see Table 10). The resulted in high head and chest injury Radian 65 model was also tested with measures.

The Graco MyRide 65 was tested in 4 1,000 due to head-to-knee contact. injury threshold). On average, in sled pulse types (A, C, D, and E) with the When tested with the HIII–6YO dummy tests of the Graco MyRide 65, HIC HIII–6YO dummy. In tests with pulses with pulse E, HIC and chest acceleration values were 72 percent greater, chest A, C, and D, the dummy’s HIC value threshold levels were met, but HIC acceleration were 16 percent higher, exceeded the injury threshold level of reached 993 (99.3 percent of 1,000 head excursions were 24 percent higher,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP02NO20.014 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69409

and knee excursions were 32 percent values in convertible CRSs tested in a that a CRS designed to meet a 56.3 km/ higher in tests with the 56 km/h (35 forward-facing configuration with the h (35 mph) FMVSS No. 213 compliance mph) sled pulses than in the HIII–6YO. Real world data indicate that test would have prevented or mitigated corresponding tests with the FMVSS while head-to-knee contacts may be any of these injuries. No. 213 sled pulse. present in the real world during a crash, • It is unclear whether a 56 km/h (35 The Graco ComfortSport CRS was they do not result in head injuries. mph) test velocity is appropriate for the tested using the HIII–3YO dummy with • Causes unrepresentative head-to- FMVSS No. 213 sled test environment acceleration pulses B, C, and D. The chest contact for the HIII–6YO dummy with the larger size dummies. The test CRS met the HIC and chest acceleration in forward-facing CRSs that result in dummies used in the test showed performance criteria; however, HIC and high head and chest injury measures. possible unrepresentative dummy head excursions were at elevated levels • Results in injury measures closer to kinematics (exacerbated head-to-knee or near the performance limits. HIC values the standard’s limit in some rear-facing chin-to-chest contact) that result in high were on average 65 percent greater and CRSs and booster seats. This suggests injury measures near or above the head excursions were 30 percent higher that some rear-facing CRSs and booster established threshold limits. in tests with the 56 km/h (35 mph) sled seats may need modification. • There may be unintended safety pulses than in the corresponding tests f. Agency Decision consequences associated with raising with the FMVSS No. 213 sled pulse. the FMVSS No. 213 test speed to 56 km/ As discussed above, after reviewing Rear-Facing and Booster Seats h (35 mph). The Agency’s sled tests real world crash data, regulations of conducted with various crash pulses of other countries, and sled test data, the NHTSA tested two rear-facing CRSs a 56 km/h (35mph) change in velocity Agency has decided not to increase the with the current FMVSS No. 213 indicate that the designs of many test velocity of FMVSS No. 213 to 56.3 acceleration and acceleration pulse C, forward-facing CRSs would need to be km/h (35 mph). To summarize, the using the HIII–3YO and CRABI–12MO changed to comply with performance reasons are as follows: dummies. Results showed no requirements of a 56 km/h (35 mph) performance measures exceeding their • CRSs are already highly effective in preventing injuries and fatalities in sled velocity test. The testing also corresponding threshold levels. suggests that some rear-facing CRSs and However, HIC (953) was very close to motor vehicle crashes. NASS–CDS data booster seats may need design the threshold value in the test with the files show that restrained children are modifications. The design changes may infant carrier (Peg Perego Viaggio) with more involved in lower-severity crashes increase the weight, cost, and size of the CRABI–12MO dummy. than older occupants. The percentage of NHTSA also conducted nine tests of frontal crashes of restrained children these CRSs. NHTSA is concerned that the Evenflo Big Kid High Back Booster covered by the 48 km/h (30 mph) sled the design changes could potentially Seat with pulses A, B, C, D, and E, and test is greater than the percentage of reduce the usability of CRSs, resulting three tests of the Evenflo Big Kid frontal crashes of restrained older in non-use or misuse of child restraints Backless Booster seat with pulses D and occupants covered by the 56 km/h (35 for no real benefit. In addition, there is E. This test series used the HIII–6YO mph) vehicle crash test. The FMVSS No. a concern that CRSs redesigned to meet and HIII–10YO dummies. All the 213 48 km/h (30 mph) sled test velocity increased test velocities may not performance measures were within does not equate to a diminished level of perform as well in the more common low speed crashes. threshold levels in these tests. However, safety for restrained children as • HIC was about 52 percent higher in tests compared to older vehicle occupants. In The current 48 km/h (30 mph) with the 56 km/h sled pulse compared fact, it could be argued that FMVSS No. FMVSS No. 213 sled test velocity is to the current FMVSS No. 213 sled 213’s 48 km/h (30 mph) test provides a similar, if not more severe, than those in acceleration pulse. higher degree of protection than the 56 CRS regulations of other countries. It km/h (35 mph) test of FMVSS No. 208 may be considered more severe because Summary of Sled Test Data in terms of the breadth of the crashes of its rapid initial rise in acceleration The tests conducted at 48.3 km/h (30 they cover involving the relevant and its short duration. mph) and 56.3 km/h (35 mph) indicate restrained population. Accordingly, after consideration of that increasing the test speed to 56.3 • There is no safety need to raise the these factors, NHTSA has decided that km/h (35 mph): FMVSS No. 213 test speed to 56 km/h raising the FMVSS No. 213 test speed to • Results in a high rate of failures of (35 mph). A 56 km/h (35 mph) change 56 km/h (35 mph) is unwarranted at this forward-facing CRSs tested with the in velocity would only cover an time. HIII–6YO test dummy. This suggests additional 0.1 percent of the crashes VII. Fleet Testing of CRSs on the New that most forward-facing CRSs that are involving restrained children, which Seat Assembly Designs subject to testing with the HIII–6YO suggests that the benefits accrued from dummy would need redesigning to meet a higher test velocity would be very a. Initial Standard Seat Assembly HIC and chest acceleration performance small. While only an additional 0.1 Design (V1) criteria. Alternatively, CRS percent of the crashes would be NHTSA sled tested a wide array of manufacturers might choose not to sell covered, NHTSA undertook a review of CRSs to see how they performed on the forward-facing CRSs that are subject to case files to determine whether a change initial seat assembly design 74 (referred testing with the HIII–6YO dummy, i.e., in velocity could have possibly CRSs recommended for use by children prevented fatal or serious injury to 74 The initial standard seat assembly design (V1) 73 weighing over 18.2 kg (40 lb), which children involved in the additional 0.1 used in these sled tests only differed from the would reduce the availability of those proposed standard seat assembly (V2) in minor percent of crashes. The review showed ways. The initial standard seat assembly used in CRSs to the public. that AIS 3+ injuries to CRS restrained • Causes unrepresentative head-to- these sled tests had a shorter seat back height and children in frontal crashes are due to slightly different seat belt and child restraint knee contacts that result in high HIC CRS misuse, excessively severe crashes anchorage locations. NHTSA performed tests on the beyond 56 km/h (35 mph) crash proposed standard seat assembly (V2) of some of 73 The agency is unable to estimate the number the CRSs that were tested on V1 standard seat of CRS models that would need redesign due to the severity, and other factors unrelated to assembly; results showed no significant difference limited nature of the agency’s testing. crash severity. There is no indication Continued

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 69410 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

to in this NPRM as Version 1 (V1)). The Agency selected CRSs based on: Sales (e) 3-point belt with tether; and (f) 2- V1 seat assembly design drawings were volume; CRS types, makes and models; point belt with tether. placed in Docket No. NHTSA–2013– CRS weight; CRS child weight/height Table 11 provides a test matrix of the 0055–0002 on , 2015. The tests recommendations; variety of design CRS name, orientation, installation were conducted with an acceleration (different belt path location, base size method, dummy used and injury pulse within the FMVSS No. 213 for rear-facing only CRSs); and special measures. All the CRSs tested on the specified acceleration corridor, with a features (such as an inflatable feature, proposed standard seat assembly met all peak acceleration of 21.2 g and average presence of a support leg and of rigid current performance requirements in sled velocity of 46.9 km/h (29.2 mph). attachments to child restraint anchorage All CRSs met the current FMVSS No. FMVSS No. 213 except for one CRS systems). The CRSs represented a wide 213 performance requirements, as well (Evenflo Titan Elite). The HIC and chest variety of CRSs from different as the proposed head excursion acceleration values were below injury requirement for forward-facing CRSs in manufacturers and are representative of threshold levels of 1,000 and 60 g, the untethered condition. the range of CRSs in the current market. respectively, in all the tests. The head The study consisted of 53 tests of 23 Tests were performed with test and knee excursions of the dummies CRS models of 12 different makes (i.e. dummies currently used in FMVSS No. used in testing forward-facing CRSs and Chicco, Britax, Evenflo, etc.). The 213, including the CRABI–12MO, HIII– booster seats were below allowable Agency 75 and booster type CRSs. The 3YO, HIII–6YO and HIII–10YO. The limits (head excursion of 813 mm (32 CRSs equipped with harnesses were inches) without tether use and 720 mm in CRS performance on the two standard seat installed by means that included: (a) (28 inches) with tether use, knee assemblies. These results are discussed in the next excursion of 915 mm (36 inches)) with section. Because there were no significant The lower anchors of a child restraint differences in CRS performance on the two seat anchorage system; (b) lower anchors and all the CRS models tested, except in a assemblies, the agency considers the results of CRS tether; (c) 3-point belt; (d) 2-point belt; test with the Evenflo Titan Elite where tests on V1 relevant in ascertaining the performance the head excursion of the HIII–6YO of CRSs on V2. dummy was 815 mm (32 inches). 75 A combination CRS is a type of forward-facing to secure a child. With removal of the internal car seat that is used with an internal harness system harness, it can be used as a belt-positioning booster. BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69411

Table 12 shows that the back support 70 degrees in any of the tests with the angle of rear-facing CRSs did not exceed proposed standard seat assembly.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP02NO20.015 69412 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

Paired Tests were conducted with a 3-point threshold levels. Paired T-test indicated attachment (tethered and untethered). In that at a 95 percent confidence level, the NHTSA compared some of the CRSs addition, some compliance tests used HIC injury measures of the CRABI– tested on the V1 standard seat assembly the H2–6YO at the manufacturer’s 12MO in tests with the V1 standard seat with available compliance test data option, while all applicable fleet tests assembly were not significantly (using the current FMVSS No. 213 with the V1 standard seat assembly used different from those with the current standard seat assembly) to see whether the HIII–6YO dummy. FMVSS No. 213 specified standard seat changes in the standard seat assembly assembly. On the other hand, the chest Rear-Facing CRSs affected CRS performance. The acceleration of the CRABI–12MO was comparison was limited in that current Table 13 compares the results of sled significantly different (lower) in tests compliance tests of CRSs with internal tests on the V1 standard seat assembly with the V1 seat assembly than those in harnesses are conducted with a 2-point with results from compliance tests using current compliance tests (p<0.01). The belt to install the CRS (tethered and the same rear-facing infant and average reduction in chest acceleration untethered conditions), while the fleet convertible CRS models. All when tested on the V1 standard seat tests with the V1 standard seat assembly performance measures were below assembly was 4.7 g.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP02NO20.016 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69413

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP02NO20.017 69414 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

Forward-Facing CRSs tests showed that all injury measures the V1 standard seat assembly and the were below injury threshold levels. current FMVSS No. 213 seat assembly. The results of the sled tests with the Paired T-test of each of the HIII–3YO Only one paired test was performed V1 standard seat assembly on forward- performance measures in Table 14 using the HIII–6YO dummy, so a paired facing CRSs, versus compliance tests, showed no significant difference (95 T-test was not possible. are shown in Table 14. The paired sled percent confidence level) when tested in

Booster Seats a 29.3 percent average increase in head than those in tests with the current excursion in all the booster seat models FMVSS No. 213 standard seat assembly. Results of paired sled tests of booster tested on the proposed standard seat On the other hand, paired T-test seats tested on the V1 standard seat assembly compared to the paired indicated no significant difference (95 assembly and on the FMVSS No. 213 compliance test. percent confidence level) in chest standard seat assembly are shown in Paired T-test indicated that HIC injury acceleration and knee excursions in Table 15. All injury measures were measures and head excursions in tests with the V1 standard seat assembly below injury threshold levels. The booster seat tests with the V1 standard and the current FMVSS No. 213 paired sled tests showed a 37.2 percent seat assembly were significantly standard seat assembly. average reduction in HIC measures and different (95 percent confidence level)

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP02NO20.018 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69415

Summary of Sled Test Results With the • Booster seats with HIII–6YO: HIC the anchorages and the seat back height. V1 Standard Seat Assembly measures were lower and head The lower anchorages deformed due to All CRSs tested on the V1 standard excursions were higher in tests with the the loads during testing and the seat assembly, except for one, met the V1 standard seat assembly. Chest shoulder belt anchor was positioned in FMVSS No. 213 performance accelerations and knee excursions were an overly outboard location causing the requirements. not significantly different from the dummy to roll out of the shoulder belt Comparing performance measures compliance tests. in low back booster seat tests. The seat from a sample of sled tests conducted • There were no high head back height of the initial bench design with the V1 standard seat assembly and acceleration spikes or severe chin-to- was too low (not within one standard from FMVSS No. 213 compliance tests chest contact in any of the sled tests deviation of the average) and during low indicate the following: with the proposed seat assembly. back booster seat testing, the dummies • Rear-facing CRSs with CRABI– • Testing with the V1 standard seat would hit the exposed metal seat back 12MO: No significant differences in HIC assembly results in only some minor in the rebound phase causing a measures but chest accelerations were changes in CRS performance relative to significant spike in head acceleration lower in tests with the V1 standard seat the specified performance limits. due to the contact. In response, the Agency modified the assembly. b. Proposed Standard Seat Assembly • Forward-facing CRSs with HIII– initial bench design (V1) by: (a) Design (V2) 3YO and HIII–6YO: No significant Changing the design of the lower differences in any of the performance During the research test series with anchorages to prevent their deformation measures (HIC, chest acceleration, head the initial bench design (V1), a few and to facilitate their easy replacement; excursion, and knee excursion). glitches were noticed, primarily with (b) placing the shoulder belt anchor in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP02NO20.019 69416 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

a more inboard position that was more models of 10 different CRS makes. lower anchors were attached to the representative of the anchor location in NHTSA tested infant, convertible, bench per manufacturer’s instructions. the vehicle fleet and that mitigated combination and booster type CRSs. Table 16 provides a test matrix of the unrealistic dummy rollout during low Twenty-two (22) tests also replicated the CRS name, orientation, installation back booster seat tests; and, (c) selection of tests performed with the V1 method, dummy used and injury increasing the seat back height to one standard seat assembly, to compare the measures. All the rear-facing CRSs, that was more representative of seat performance of 15 CRS models. Four (4) back height in the vehicle fleet, which tests used previously-selected CRSs forward-facing CRSs with tether would also mitigate dummy head strikes models but were tested in a different attached and booster seats tested on the with metal structure behind the seat attachment configuration or used a proposed standard seat assembly (V2) when testing low back booster seats. different sized dummy. Fifteen (15) tests met all performance requirements in These changes to the initial bench were performed with 10 newly-selected FMVSS No. 213, regardless of the design (V1) resulted in the proposed CRS models that included some newer method of attachment to the seat (child standard seat assembly (referred to in models in the market with particular restraint anchorage system or lap/ this NPRM as Version 2 (V2)). design features (i.e., Britax Clicktight shoulder belt), for each of the dummies Schematics of these changes were technology, Graco Affix Booster with used. For forward-facing CRSs tested placed on , 2015 in Docket lower anchorage attachments) and without the tether attached, HIC, chest No. NHTSA–2013–0055–0008), with expanded the variety of CRS makes and acceleration, and knee excursions were more detailed drawings placed there in models evaluated with V1. below performance limits in all the tests July 2018. Tests were performed with CRABI– regardless of the method of attachment NHTSA performed a second series of 12MO, HIII–3YO, HIII–6YO and HIII– to the standard seat assembly, for each sled tests with CRSs to see how they 10YO. Rear-facing and forward-facing of the dummies used. Head excursions performed on V2 (the seat assembly CRSs equipped with harnesses were were below the performance limits for proposed in this NPRM). The tests were installed by means that included: (a) all the CRSs tested with the HIII–3YO, conducted with an acceleration pulse The lower anchors of a child restraint HIII–6YO, and HIII–10YO except for one within the FMVSS No. 213 specified anchorage system; (b) lower anchors and acceleration corridor, with a peak tether; (c) 3-point belt; and (d), 3-point CRS model. The Diono Radian R120 acceleration of 21.2 g and average sled belt with tether as appropriate. Booster tested without the tether attached velocity of 46.9 km/h (29.2 mph). The seats were tested using a 3-point belt, exceeded the head excursion limit using study consisted of 40 tests of 24 CRS and in the case of the Graco Affix, the the HIII–10YO dummy.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69417

Comparison of sled tests on the initial restrained in the same or similar CRS measures were similar in both standard (V1) and proposed (V2) standard seat model show that dummy performance seat assemblies (see Table 17). assemblies with the same dummy

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP02NO20.020 69418 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

Paired T-test of rear-facing infant and Table 17 showed no significant level) when tested on the V1 and convertible CRS models indicate that at difference (95 percent confidence level) proposed (V2) standard seat assemblies. a 95 percent confidence level, the HIC when tested on V1 compared to V2, HIC results showed a significant change and chest acceleration injury measures except for knee excursions of the HIII– (p<0.01) but HIC measures were well in rear-facing infant and convertible 6YO. Knee excursions of the HIII–6YO within the head injury threshold level of CRS tests using the CRABI 12 MO and were on average 59 mm higher on the 1,000. Only one paired test was HIII–3YO dummy on V1 were not V1 standard seat assembly than on the performed using the HIII–10YO dummy; significantly different from those from V2 seat assembly. therefore, a paired T-test was not Paired T-test of each of the HIII–6YO tests on V2. possible. Paired T-test of each of the HIII–3YO head and knee excursions showed no and HIII–6YO performance measures in significant difference (95% confidence BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69419

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP02NO20.021 69420 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP02NO20.022 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69421

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP02NO20.023 69422 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

Three CRS models (Evenflo Nurture, tested three times on the proposed repeatability of the sled tests. Results Graco Nautilus, and Graco Affix) were standard seat assembly (V2) to evaluate showed that the coefficient of variation

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP02NO20.024 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69423

(CV) of the injury measures was under 10 percent, which is repeatable (see Table 18).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP02NO20.025 69424 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C were tested and all met all performance form with each CRS.78 The Agency The higher seat back in the V2 seat requirements. designed the form in part using assembly was intended to reduce information obtained in a NHTSA study VIII. Communicating With Today’s dummy head contact with rear seat of consumers’ attitudes about the Parents structure of the seat assembly that was intended program.79 The researchers observed in the V1 seat assembly. While NHTSA proposes to amend several of found that focus group participants— the number of head contacts with the FMVSS No. 213’s owner information rear seat structure were reduced [I]ndicated that they would be most likely to and labeling requirements to improve return a pre-addressed, postage-prepaid card compared to the V1 assembly, head communication with today’s CRS with an uncluttered graphic design that contact still occurs in the V2 seat owners. clearly and succinctly communicates the assembly when testing backless booster a. CRS Owner Registration benefits of recall registration, differentiates seats with the HIII–6YO dummy. For itself from a warranty registration card, and these tests, the HIC calculation was 1. Background requires minimal time and effort of the participant’s part. made using a head acceleration pulse NHTSA established a CRS owner truncated between 175–200 msec that registration program in FMVSS No. 213 The study also showed that corresponded to a time in the rebound (S5.8) to increase the ‘‘completion rate’’ participants reacted favorably to the phase before the head impact with the of recalled restraints, i.e., the percentage idea of being assured by the seat support structure. NHTSA seeks of recalled units sold to consumers for manufacturer that their names would comment on whether, in the FMVSS No. which the consumer contacts the not be placed on a mailing list if they 213 compliance test, HIC should be manufacturer for free remedy of the registered their restraints. computed for backless booster seats defect or noncompliance.76 Prior to the In view of the study’s findings, tested with the HIII–6YO dummy using registration program in FMVSS No. 213, NHTSA standardized the form’s text an acceleration pulse that is truncated to there was a 10 to 13 percent completion and layout to increase the likelihood 175 msec. rate for child restraint recalls. that the owners would register. NHTSA believed that the CRS The form consists of two parts (see Summary of All Sled Test Performed on Figures 9a and 9b of FMVSS No. 213). the Proposed Seat Assembly (V2) completion rate could be increased by disseminating recall information The first part (‘‘information card’’) NHTSA performed 40 tests using 24 directly to individual owners. Prior to contains a message on the importance of CRS models and 10 makes using the the program, consumers were only registering the CRS and instructions for 80 proposed seat assembly (V2). Results indirectly notified of a safety recall by registering. The information card is showed the following: intended to motivate owners to register. • notice to the general public. At the same Rear-facing CRSs including infant time, CRS owners were eager to know if The second part (‘‘mail-in card’’) is to carriers and convertibles tested with the their CRS was recalled and were highly be mailed in by the owner to register. CRABI–12MO or the HIII–3YO motivated to remedy their CRSs if the On the mail-in card, manufacturers dummies: Six (6) CRS models were restraints had been recalled.77 Given must preprint their return address and tested with the CRABI–12MO dummy this interest, NHTSA believed that information identifying the model name and 4 were tested with the HIII–3YO owners were not completing the remedy or number of the CRS to which the form dummy. All the CRSs tested met all the because they were unaware that their is attached, so that owners do not need performance requirements. CRS had been recalled. NHTSA adopted to look up and provide that information • Forward-facing CRSs tested with the registration program to facilitate themselves (a possible impediment to the HIII–3YO dummy: One (1) CRS direct notification of owners in a recall completing the registration). The card model was tested with tether attached campaign. must have distinct spaces for the owner and two (2) CRS models were tested There are three aspects to the to fill in his/her name and address and without tether attached. All CRSs tested registration program: (a) Manufacturers’ must use tint to highlight to the owner met all the performance requirements. providing a registration form to that minimal input is required to • Forward-facing CRSs tested with purchasers of new CRSs; (b) labeling on register. To distinguish the mail-in card the HIII–6YO dummy: Four (4) CRSs the CRS and in the owner’s manual to from a warranty card or some kind of tested with the tether attached met all notify and register owners who did not advertisement material, the standard the performance requirements. Four (4) use the mail-in card (this particularly prohibits any other information from CRS models were tested without the targets second-hand owners of the CRS); appearing on the card, except for tether attached. All met all the and (c) recordkeeping requirements for identifying information that performance requirements. manufacturers to maintain registrants’ distinguishes a particular CRS from • Forward-facing CRSs tested with contact information for 6 years in case other systems of that model name or the HIII–10YO dummy: One (1) CRS a defect or noncompliance arose with number. The card must meet minimum model was tested with the tether the CRS leading to a safety recall (49 U.S. Postal Service size and thickness attached and 2 CRS models were tested CFR part 588, ‘‘Child restraint systems specifications so that it can be mailed as without the use of the tether. The CRS recordkeeping requirements’’). This a postcard. To encourage consumers to tested with the tether attached met all NPRM proposes changes to program mail back the card, manufacturers must performance requirements. The CRSs aspects (a) and (b). pay the postage. tested without the tether met all With regard to (a) above, FMVSS No. performance requirements, except for 213 requires manufacturers to provide a 78 The form must be attached to a contactable surface of the CRS so that the owner will notice the one that exceeded the head excursion standardized, postage-paid registration form and need to handle it physically. limit. 79 See , 1993 final rule discussion of focus • Booster seats with the HIII–6YO 76 Final rule, 57 FR 41428, , 1992. group testing by National Analysts, ‘‘Child Safety dummy: Six (6) booster seat models NHTSA also issued the rule to assist the agency in Seat Registration: The Consumer View,’’ February were tested and all met all performance determining whether manufacturers met their recall 1991, 57 FR at 41426. notification responsibilities under the Vehicle 80 requirements. In 2005, NHTSA amended the requirements to • Safety Act, and to motivate owners to register CRSs permit information regarding online registration to Booster seats with the HIII–10YO for recall notification purposes. be included on this part of the owner registration dummy: Three (3) booster seat models 77 NPRM, February 19, 1991, 56 FR 6603, 6604. form (September 9, 2005; 70 FR 53569).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69425

2. Overview optimized and effective forms of Further, in the event NHTSA finalizes The CRS owner registration program communication that will lead to higher the proposal to increase flexibility here, has had mixed success. Prior to the rates of registration without introducing NHTSA anticipates that it will monitor registration program in FMVSS No. 213, consumer confusion that could have an the content and format that there was a 10 to 13 percent completion adverse effect on registration. The manufacturers use on the forms to see rate for child restraint recalls. The Agency requests comment on this if more standardization is needed. average recall completion rate is about assumption for all aspects of the Standardization might be appropriate 40 percent in recent years, which, while proposed changes here. not only to disallow confusing or Twenty-eight (28) years have passed ineffective designs, but to promote much higher than that before the 83 program, is still low compared to the since the final rule establishing the particularly effective content and format completion rate for vehicle recalls.81 registration program for FMVSS No. that have resulted in increased When NHTSA issued the final rule 213. Since that time, a generation of registration rates. children has grown to become the new adopting the registration program parents of today. This new generation 3. Proposed Changes to the Registration (1992), the Consumer Product Safety grew up with and continues to interact Program Commission (CPSC) had information with vast, rapidly-changing showing a return rate for warranty cards i. Information Card advancements in electronic of 20 to 30 percent for cards that did not The information card is the top part communication and information have postage paid and 40 percent for of the two-part registration form shown technology. To make FMVSS No. 213 cards that had postage paid. The current in Figures 9a and 9b of FMVSS No. 213. more responsive to the communication average registration rate for child The size, font, color, and layout of the preferences and practices of today’s restraint systems is only 23 percent, information card are currently parents, this NPRM would provide prescribed in Figures 9a and 9b, as is even with a postage-paid card. manufacturers leeway to use additional NHTSA’s intention in issuing this modern and creative means of outreach the attachment method (fold/ NPRM is to raise the 23 percent CRS and information exchange in an effort to perforation) of the information card to owner registration rate. By raising the increase owner registration rates. the lower part of the form (the mail-in registration rate, the Agency seeks to NHTSA’s purpose in allowing this card). The information card sets forth: raise the CRS recall completion rate. (a) Prescribed wording advising the NHTSA is taking graduated steps to flexibility is to allow CRS manufacturers the opportunity to cultivate their consumer of the importance of raise the CRS owner registration rate. method of communicating with their registering; (b) prescribed instructions NHTSA’s CRS registration program customer-caregivers and to use on how to register; and (c) prescribed primarily involves the interaction innovative ways to get their customers statements that the mail-in card is pre- between the CRS manufacturer and the to register. addressed and that postage is already CRS owner; the primary instrument At the same time, however, NHTSA paid. enabling and facilitating that interaction believes that the registration form also The Agency proposes to remove the is the registration form required by S5.8 restrictions on size, font, color, layout, 82 must be designed to meet the needs of of the standard. owners who may not have access to or and attachment method of the CRS manufacturers have expressed to may not be comfortable with modern information card portion. These changes NHTSA their interest in exploring electronic means of communication. would provide flexibility to CRS different registration methods, given the The Agency has drafted the proposed manufacturers on how the required advances in communication amendatory language in a way that information is presented to the technologies. They would like to maintains features of the current form consumer. The Agency believes that optimize the design of the registration for owners who would register by mail. these changes have the potential to form to increase registrations. However, NHTSA also recognizes that reducing increase registration rates, but does not the current registration form the restrictions on the content and have information suggesting the extent requirements prevent CRS format of the form reduces the to which this would occur and requests manufacturers from changing the standardization of the form, which comments on what effect, in any, these language and format of the form to raises some concerns. The standardized changes will have on increasing capture the consumer’s interest and registration form is readily recognizable, registration rates. Comments are also persuade them to register. easy to understand and designed with requested on whether a two-part In response, the agency is proposing carefully considered text and formatting registration form format is warranted. to provide flexibility to CRS features. When manufacturers are given Assuming it is, this NPRM proposes that manufacturers in the content and format substantial leeway to design content and manufacturers can decide how the of the form. NHTSA believes that format, it introduces a risk that some information card is attached to the mail- manufacturers will take advantage of designs may be confusing or ineffective. in card. The agency believes that the additional flexibilities to craft more This proposal provides more flexibility information card should be easily but also limits certain aspects of design detachable from the mail-in card 81 The average recall completion rate for vehicles that NHTSA believes would be portion, without the use of scissors and for the 10-year period from 2006 to 2015 is 79 percent. ineffective, such as advertisements on the like. 82 This NPRM focuses on improving the the form, and the Agency requests In addition, the agency is proposing to registration form to enhance the interaction comment on whether any other aspects amend the requirements in (a) and (b) between manufacturers and owners but the agency should be similarly prohibited. above such that the wording would no asks for comment on ways registration rates could possibly improve by the involvement of third Likewise, the Agency requests comment longer be prescribed. Instead, CRS parties, such as retailers and other dealers. NHTSA on whether any of the design aspects manufacturers would be given leeway to is interested in learning about programs that have that the agency has proposed to cease use their own words to convey the involved point-of-sale registration, the practicalities being standardized should, instead, importance of registering the CRS and to of the arrangement (e.g., how the merchant conveyed the owner information to the remain standardized. instruct how registration is achieved. manufacturer), and the successes and challenges NHTSA would allow statements associated with them. 83 Final rule, 57 FR 41428, September 10, 1992. explaining how consumers can use

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 69426 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

electronic (or any other means) of The web address must provide a direct manufacturers to determine the words registering, as long as instructions are link to an ‘‘electronic registration form’’ and diagrams that most effectively provided on using the paper card for meeting the requirements of S5.8.2 of instruct consumers on using their CRSs registering (including that the mail-in the standard. Under S5.8.2, the and to determine how the labeling card is pre-addressed and that the electronic registration form must should be presented to communicate postage is pre-paid). NHTSA requests conform to a specified format and have best with consumers. The goal of the comment on any benefits or safety risks certain content, including: (a) A proposal is to increase the correct use of of allowing manufacturers to provide prescribed message to advise the CRSs. their own language here. consumer of the importance of 1. Removing Requirements for Specific NHTSA also proposes to permit or registering; (b) prescribed instructions Wording possibly require a statement that the on how to register; and, (c) fields to information collected through the record the CRS’s model name or number FMVSS No. 213 requires registration process will not be used by and date of manufacture, and the manufacturers to label CRSs with the manufacturer for any purpose other owner’s name, mailing address, and information on the maximum height than contacting the consumer in the optionally, the owner’s email address. and weight of the children who can event of a recall. Comments are This NPRM proposes to amend safely occupy the system (S5.5.2(f)). requested on NHTSA’s requiring such a S5.8.1(d) so that the electronic form may NHTSA believes there is a continued statement. NHTSA also proposes to be reached by using methods other than need for this ‘‘use information’’ to be continue to prohibit any other a web address. For instance, should permanently labeled on CRSs. However, information unrelated to the registration consumers be able to access the because S5.5.2(f) prescribes specific of the CRS, such as advertising or electronic form by a code (such as a statements for the label that have warranty information. QR 85 code)? NHTSA is also considering become dated and that are not These proposed changes to the amending S5.8.l to delete the specific optimized for particular CRS designs information card, if adopted, would reference to an ‘‘electronic registration and features, the agency proposes to affect the collection of information, form,’’ and, instead, reference any rescind the requirement that they be ‘‘Consolidated Child Restraint System electronic means to register owners. used. Instead, NHTSA proposes Registration, Labeling and Defect With regard to the requirements for requiring that the information be Notification,’’ OMB Control Number: the electronic registration form (S5.8.2), provided for each mode the CRS can be 2127–0576. This NPRM includes a NHTSA proposes to change the used (rear-facing, forward-facing, request for comment on the collection of requirements for elements (a) and (b) booster) and, subject to the conditions information. Comments are requested above, from NHTSA-prescribed discussed below, manufacturers would from manufacturers on whether they messages to messages crafted by the CRS have the flexibility to provide the use plan to take advantage of this increased manufacturer conveying the importance information in statements or a flexibility in providing information to of registering and instructions on how to combination of statements and consumers to motivate them to register register. Comments are requested on pictograms at locations that they deem their child restraints. whether S5.8.2 should be further most effective. amended, possibly by rescinding some The proposed conditions are based on ii. Mail-In Card of the requirements in that section. sound best practice recommendations The Agency proposes that the mail-in What changes are needed to allow developed by the child passenger safety card portion of the form (the lower half innovative electronic methods for community. of the form depicted in Figures 9a and registering CRSs? How can FMVSS No. 213 facilitate use of those technologies? Conditions on the Provided Use 9b of FMVSS No. 213) does not need to Information be changed.84 The current mail-in card What benefits or safety risks would be has the basic elements needed for introduced by allowing these i. NHTSA and the entire child registering by mail, including the flexibilities? passenger safety community strongly necessary owner contact information, recommend that children up to the age iv. Information on Labels and in of 1 be kept riding rear-facing at least up preprinted CRS restraint information Owners’ Manuals (Figure 9a), manufacturer’s preprinted to the age of 1. NHTSA further address and prepaid postage NHTSA also proposes that provisions recommends that children 1 to 3 years information (Figure 9b), and minimum in FMVSS No. 213 requiring of age ride rear-facing as long as size of the card (important so it can be information on registering CRSs on possible, until they reach the 86 mailed to the manufacturer as a child restraint labels and in owners’ manufacturer-recommended upper 87 postcard). manuals also be amended in the height or weight limit for riding rear- NHTSA requests comment on manner discussed above. facing in the CRS, and that children 4 whether other elements should be b. Information on Correctly Using CRSs to 7 years of age ride forward-facing in added to or eliminated from the CRSs with internal harnesses as long as NHTSA proposes to lessen currently required mail-in card, and if they are within the height and weight restrictions in labeling and owner’s leeway should be given on how the card limits allowed by the CRS’s manual requirements so that 88 is formatted. manufacturer. manufacturers have more flexibility in With these recommendations in mind, iii. Electronic Registration Form providing information on correct CRS NHTSA proposes that the use FMVSS No. 213 currently permits use (S5.5, S5.6). The agency intends for information manufacturers provide for manufacturers to provide a web address CRSs that can be used in multiple 85 QR code means Quick Response Code. This is ‘‘modes’’ (rear-facing, forward-facing, on the information card to enable a matrix barcode similar to a standard Universal owners to register online (S5.8.1(d)). Product Code (UPC) barcode but has greater storage booster) must provide information about capacity. Usually QR codes are used for product the weight and height of children for 84 Typographical errors would be corrected, such tracking, item identification and general marketing. as the spelling of the words ‘‘postage’’ and 86 See S5.5.2(m) and S5.5.5(k). 88 https://www.safercar.gov/parents/CarSeats/ ‘‘mailed.’’ 87 See S5.6.1.7 and S5.6.2.2. Right-Car-Seat-Age-Size.htm?view=full.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69427

each mode of use. Currently S5.5.2(f) To illustrate, instead of stating that a forward-facing by children weighing 27 requires the overall maximum and convertible (a CRS that can be used rear- to 65 lb (12.2 to 29.5 kg) and with minimum height and weight ranges of facing and forward-facing) is for use by heights up to 48 inches (121.9 cm). This the children for whom the CRS is children weighing 5 to 65 lb (2.3 to 29.5 information may be provided in recommended, which are not broken kg) and with heights up to 48 inches combination with pictograms on labels down by modes of use. The requirement (121.9 centimeters (cm)), the statements already provided on the CRS, as shown to parse the height and weight ranges by or a combination of statements and in Figure 8. Evenflo and SafeRide News mode would result in clearer pictograms would indicate that the CRS have requested this amendment in a instructions on when to turn a child is used rear-facing by children weighing petition for rulemaking, supra. NHTSA forward-facing, so that children are not 5 to 40 lb (2.3 to 18.1 kg) and with grants this part of the petition. turned forward-facing too soon. heights up to 48 inches (121.9 cm), and

ii. Given the need for children to be facing. Rear-facing CRSs support the would help keep a larger percentage of kept rear-facing at least up to the age of infant or toddler’s posterior torso, neck, very young children restrained rear- 1, NHTSA proposes that CRSs may only head, and pelvis and help to distribute facing. be recommended for forward-facing use crash forces over the entire body. As explained in the Appendix to this by children weighing a minimum of 12 Developmental considerations, NPRM, NHTSA estimates 0.7 to 2.3 lives kg (26.5 lb). The 26.5 lb value including incomplete vertebral saved and 1.0 to 3.5 moderate to serious corresponds to the weight of a 95th ossification, more horizontally oriented injuries prevented by this amendment. percentile 1-year-old. This provision spinal facet joints, and excessive iii. NHTSA currently recommends would apply to CRSs designed to be ligamentous laxity put young children that children riding forward-facing used only forward-facing and to CRSs at risk for head and spinal cord injury. should be restrained in CRSs with that are designed for use rear-facing for Rear-facing CRSs address this risk by internal harnesses (car safety seats) as infants and forward-facing for older supporting the child’s head, preventing long as possible before transitioning to children (i.e., the latter restraints cannot the relatively large head from moving a booster seat. FMVSS No. 213 permits use a ‘‘turnaround weight’’ that is less independently of the proportionately booster seats only to be recommended than 12 kg (26.5 lb)). smaller neck. for children weighing at least 13.6 kg The purpose of this provision is to Although NHTSA recommends that (30 lb) (S5.5.2(f)). Based on an analysis increase the number of children younger children 1 to 3 ride in rear-facing child of field data and other considerations, than 1 that are transported rear-facing, restraints as long as possible to address NHTSA believes the 13.6 kg (30 lb) because a child under 1 is significantly the above risks, many caregivers are not value should be raised. Thirty pounds safer rear-facing than forward-facing in following this recommendation and corresponds to the weight of a 50th a crash. FMVSS No. 213 currently sets instead appear to be following labeling percentile 3-year-old, and to the weight the minimum weight recommendation instructions that specify a turnaround of a 95th percentile 18-month-old; i.e., for a child in a forward-facing CRS at 9 weight of 9kg (20 lb).89 NCRUSS 90 data children too small to be safely protected kg (20 lb) (S5.5.2(k)(2)), but that weight indicate that, among children weighing in a booster seat. is too low to capture a sufficiently full less than 9 kg (20 lb), 93 percent were NHTSA proposes to amend S5.5.2(f) population of children 1-year-old and restrained in a rear-facing CRS, yet to raise the 13.6 kg (30 lb) limit to 18.2 younger. A 50th percentile 1-year-old among children weighing 9 to 13.1 kg kg (40 lb), which is greater than the weighs 10 kg (22 lb); hence the 9 kg (20 (20 to 29 lb), only 22 percent were weight of a 97th percentile 3-year-old lb) threshold is unsatisfactory because it restrained in a rear-facing CRS. The (17.7 kg (39.3 lb)) and approximately the does not cover more than half the weight of 12 kg (26.5 lb) corresponds to weight of an 85th percentile 4-year-old. children under 1 year of age. The the weight of a 75th percentile 18- NHTSA’s field data analyses indicate change to 12 kg (26.5 lb) would capture month-old (18MO) and about a 50th risks associated with booster seat use by almost all 1-year-olds and would percentile 2-year-old. Raising the 3- and 4-year-old children.91 The therefore increase the likelihood that turnaround weight to 12 kg (26.5 lb) Agency conducted statistical analyses of children under 1 will be transported field data (NASS CDS data from 1998– rear-facing. 89 As noted above, S5.5.2(k)(2) permits a Another benefit from the 12 kg (26.5 turnaround weight of 9 kg (20 lb). Although NHTSA 91 ‘‘Booster Seat Effectiveness Estimates Based on lb) minimum weight would be to meant for that weight to be a minimum, many CRSs CDS and State Data,’’ NHTSA Technical Report, use a turnaround weight of only 9kg (20 lb). DOT HS 811 338, July 2010. http://www- increase the likelihood that more young 90 ‘‘Findings of the National Child Restraint Use nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811338.pdf, last accessed toddlers would be transported rear- Special Study (NCRUSS),’’ supra. on October 1, 2018.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP02NO20.026 69428 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

2008 and 17 combined years of State highest weight or height of the label, aligns with NHTSA’s data from Kansas, Washington and particular CRS they are using.93 recommendations by ensuring children Nebraska) to estimate the effect of early NHTSA is denying this request. As are almost always kept in rear-facing graduation from CRSs with an internal explained above, the Agency believes seats until they are at least age 1, while harness (car safety seats) to booster that the label specified by S5.5.2(k)(2) is also making clear that children over age seats. NHTSA found that among 3- and no longer necessary given the labeling 1 who are below the maximum weight 4-year-olds, there was as much as a 27 changes proposed in this NPRM, and and height for a seat’s rear facing mode percent increased risk in non- has proposed deleting that statement. can remain rear-facing. NHTSA incapacitating to fatal injury when Instead, NHTSA is proposing that continues to recommend that children restrained in booster seats compared to manufacturers include statements, or a remain in a rear-facing car seat until he car safety seats. The analysis indicated combination of statements and or she reaches the maximum height or that this effect may be more pronounced pictograms, specifying the weight limit allowed by the CRS for children 3 years old and younger manufacturer’s recommendations for the manufacturer. than for older children. These data mass and height ranges of children who NHTSA believes that it is also indicate a need to keep children in CRSs can safely occupy the system in each important to note that the AAP has with internal harnesses (car safety seats) applicable mode (i.e., rear-facing, since updated their 2011 until after the child turns 4 years old.92 forward-facing, or booster), subject to recommendation on car seat use by NHTSA estimates this change could NHTSA’s amended minimum weight removing the specific age 2 milestone.94 save 1.2 to 4 lives and prevent 1.6 to 5.2 recommendations. NHTSA believes that AAP’s 2018 best practice moderate to serious injuries. In the proposed change addresses the recommendation is that, ‘‘All infants addition, NHTSA’s proposed side concerns of Evenflo and SRN’s relating and toddlers should ride in a rear-facing impact test for CRSs would only apply to caregiver confusion on the wording of CRS as long as possible, until they reach to child restraints recommended for the label, as the requirement to parse the the highest weight or height allowed by children weighing less than 18.2 kg (40 height and weight ranges by mode their CRS’s manufacturer.’’ AAP’s 2018 lb). Keeping children in car safety seats would result in clearer instructions on recommendation is aligned with longer (until at least a weight of 18.2 kg when to turn a child forward-facing, so NHTSA’s recommendation. (40 lb)) would enhance their protection that children are not turned forward- Accordingly, the Agency believes that, in side impacts as well. facing sooner than recommended. for the CRS label, specifying the In addition, the proposed labeling appropriate child weight and height 2. Labeling of Use Information changes align with NHTSA’s ranges is more accurate to identify the The Agency proposes deleting a recommendation that children under child occupant for whom the CRS is requirement in S5.5.2(g)(1)(i) that the age 1 should always ride in a rear-facing designed to protect than specifying an car seat, and children 1–3 years old ride use information required by S5.5.2(f) age. rear-facing as long as possible, until must be in a specific warning label. The NHTSA is also denying the they reach the manufacturer- use information would still be on the petitioners’ request to delete a recommended upper height or weight CRS in a visible location, but would not requirement that the use information limit for riding rear-facing in the CRS. have to be part of the ‘‘warning label’’ include the heights of the children who As discussed above, rear-facing CRSs statements. NHTSA tentatively can occupy the system safely. The address the risk of head and spinal cord concludes that if S5.5.2(f) is amended as petitioners request that NHTSA delete injury for infants and toddlers, and the proposed in this NPRM, the use this requirement because they believe longer that these children are information that S5.5.2(f) provides will ‘‘overall child height is not the most transported rear-facing, the longer they be clearer to consumers, and there useful measure.’’ The petitioners suggest would not be a need to highlight the can take advantage of the posterior torso, neck, head, and pelvis support that consumers be instead directed to information on the specific warning ‘‘follow height requirements described label at issue. that a rear-facing CRS provides. However, since children of the same in the owner’s manual, up to a 3. Deleting S5.5.2(k)(2) age vary by size, NHTSA declines to maximum of ll inches (ll cm).’’ refer to a hard age on the CRS label. The petitioners believe that the This NPRM proposes deleting the caregiver can determine whether his or labeling requirement of S5.5.2(k)(2), as CRSs are made to protect the child occupant based on the management of her child’s height is within the S5.5.2(k)(2) would duplicate the maximum for the seat and can be alerted information of S5.5.2(f) if the latter were crash forces based on the child’s height and weight, not his or her age. NHTSA’s to important information on height by amended as described above. Both the CRS owner’s manual. provisions would instruct consumers to recommendations aim to provide general guidance to the public on what NHTSA denies this request. The use the rear-facing CRS with children Agency does not believe that the weighing under a specified weight limit. CRSs are appropriate to use during specific child age ranges, as an age- caregiver should be referred to the CRS 4. Other Requests of Evenflo and Safe based recommendation is easier for owner’s manual for information on the Ride News Petition consumers to remember than a weight- height limits for a child to use the restraint safely, because many Evenflo and Safe Ride News (SRN) based one. Raising the minimum weight consumers do not consult the manual.95 request that NHTSA amend S5.5.2(k)(2) for forward-facing CRSs to children that to reference a turnaround age (of 2 years weigh a minimum of 12 kg (26.5 lb), while also including the maximum 94 Benjamin D. Hoffman, M.D., FAAP, New child old). The petitioners refer to the age of passenger safety seat guidance advises kids to rise 2 based on a then-American Academy of weight and height for each mode on the rear-facing as long as possible; drops age criterion Pediatrics (AAP) recommendation that (Aug. 30, 2018), https://www.aappublications.org/ children use rear-facing CRSs up to at 93 AAP Updates Recommendation on Car Seats news/2018/08/30/passengersafety083018. (March 21, 2011), available at https:// 95 Findings from NCRUSS (DOT HS 811 679, least age 2 or until they reach the web.archive.org/web/20170824075402/https:// https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/ ViewPublication/812142) indicate that only 66 92 A 50th percentile 48-month-old weighs 16.1 kg pages/aap-updates-recommendation-on-car- percent of caregivers consulted the user’s manual (35.5 lb). seats.aspx. when installing a child restraint. There was no

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69429

The Agency believes that height used today. The proposed changes are dummies NHTSA uses to test child information should be permanently discussed below. restraints based on the height and attached to the CRS where it is readily By way of background, child restraint weight recommendations established for available and easily accessible. systems must meet FMVSS No. 213’s the restraint by the manufacturer. If a performance requirements when IX. Streamlining NHTSA’s Use of ATDs child restraint is recommended for a dynamically tested with test dummies range of children whose weight in Compliance Tests To Reflect CRS that represent children of various ages. Use Today overlaps, in whole or in part, two or The current dummies used in more of the weight ranges in the table, compliance testing are the newborn a. Introduction the restraint is subject to testing with infant, the CRABI–12MO, HIII–3YO, the dummies specified for each of those To simplify and to make more HIII–6YO or the H2–6YO, and the HIII– evaluative NHTSA’s compliance testing 10-year-old child dummy. ranges. Thus, for example, if a child of CRSs, this NPRM proposes to NHTSA selects which test dummy to restraint is recommended for children streamline how the Agency uses ATDs use based in part on the height and having weights from 10 kg to 22.7 kg (test dummies) to assess CRS weight of the children for whom the (22—50 lb), it would be subject to performance. Many of these changes manufacturer recommends for the child testing with the CRABI–12MO, the HIII– would make the Agency’s use of the restraint (see S7 of FMVSS No. 213). To 3YO, and the HIII–6YO or H2–6YO ATDs more reflective of how CRSs are illustrate, Table 19 below shows which dummies.

TABLE 19—CURRENT USE OF DUMMIES BASED ON MANUFACTURER’S WEIGHT RECOMMENDATION [571.213, S7]

Are compliance tested by NHTSA with these ATDs (subparts refer to CRS recommended for use by children of these weights— 49 CFR part 572)

Weight (W) ≤5 kg (11 lb), Height (H) ≤650 mm (25.5 inches) ...... Newborn (subpart K). Weight 5 kg (11 lb)

b. Testing CRSs for Children Weighing 30 lb) and a 13.6 to 18.2 kg (30—40 lb) requirement (S5.1.3.2) with the HIII– 10–13.6 kg (22–30 lb) weight range. CRSs recommended for 3YO without substantial redesign that children in the former range (10 to 13.6 would add weight, bulk and cost to the Currently under FMVSS No. 213, kg (22—30 lb)) would be tested with the CRS. CRSs labeled for use by children in the CRABI 12MO, while CRSs for children Given the purpose of infant carriers, weight range 10 kg to 18.2 kg (22 lb to in the latter (13.6 to 18.2 kg (30—40 lb)) there does not seem be a safety need 40 lb) are subject to testing with the would be tested with the HIII–3YO.96 warranting such redesign. Current infant CRABI 12MO and the HIII–3YO dummy NHTSA is particularly mindful of the carriers are convenient to use with (S7.1.2(c)). This NPRM proposes to effect the amendment would have on infants and are popular with parents. amend these specifications so that child infant carriers.97 The current CRS The availability and ease-of-use of restraints would not be subject to testing market has infant carrier models current carriers may result in more with the 3YO dummy unless the recommended for children weighing up infants riding rear-facing than if the recommended weights of children for to 10 kg (22 lb), 13.6 kg (30 lb), 15.8 kg carriers were heavier, bulkier and more whom the CRS is marketed is 13.6 to (35 lb), and 18.2 kg (40 lb) and with expensive. 18.2 kg (30—40 lb). NHTSA proposes child height limits ranging from 736 mm NHTSA expects that the proposed this change because, as a practical (29 inches) to 889 mm (35 inches). amendment would not necessitate any matter, 3YOs are too large to fit in a CRS Absent the amendment, these infant design changes in infant carriers. recommended for children in the lower carriers would be subject to testing with Currently there are a number of infant end of the 10 to 18.2 kg (22—40 lb) the HIII–3YO (35 lb) dummy rear-facing. carriers that are marketed for children weight range. The intent of this change However, the HIII–3YO dummy (stature weighing up to 15.8 kg (35 lb) or 18.2 is to reduce unnecessary test burdens. of 945 mm (37.2 inches)) does not fit kg (40 lb). The Agency expects that NHTSA proposes amending S7.1.2(c) by easily in infant carriers. Current infant manufacturers will reduce the splitting the 10 to 18.2 kg (22—40 lb) carriers would also likely fail FMVSS maximum weight recommendations weight range into a 10 to 13.6 kg (22— No. 213’s head containment such that the restraints would be

specific detail on what topic in the manual was than one weight category. A CRS that is 97 An infant carrier is a rear-facing CRS designed reviewed. recommended for a weight range that overlaps, in to be readily used in and outside of the vehicle. It 96 As a practical matter, most CRS would be whole or in part, two or more of the weight ranges has a carrying handle that enables caregivers to tote subject to testing using at least two ATDs since most is subject to testing with the ATDs specified for the CRS plus child outside of the vehicle. CRS are sold for children of weights spanning more each of those ranges (571.213, S7).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 69430 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

marketed for children up to 13.6 kg (30 c. Testing CRSs for Children Weighing and with enhanced capability to lb). Because NHTSA does not believe 13.6–18.2 kg (30–40 lb) measure an array of impact responses that the infant carriers are significantly This NPRM proposes amendments never before measured by a child test used by children weighing more than affecting CRSs labeled for use by dummy, such as neck moments and 102 13.6 kg (30 lb),98 the proposed children of weights from 13.6 kg to 18.2 chest deflection. amendment is not likely to engender an kg (30–40 lb). Currently, these CRSs are Problems arose after adoption of the unfulfilled need for the carriers by over- subject to testing with the CRABI–12MO HIII–6YO in FMVSS No. 213, however. 13.6 kg (30 lb) children. On the other and the HIII–3YO (S7.1.2(c)).99 NHTSA The HIII–6YO had been successfully hand, if a manufacturer would like to has tentatively determined that the used in low-risk deployment and static continue marketing its infant carrier for CRSs do not need to be tested with the suppression compliance tests of advanced air bags under FMVSS No. children weighing more than 13.6 kg (30 CRABI–12MO, since the 10 kg (22 lb) 208, ‘‘Occupant crash protection.’’ lb), it may do so, provided it can certify dummy is not representative of 13.6 to However, in the FMVSS No. 213 test that the CRS can meet the performance 18.2 kg (30–40 lb) children for whom environment where no air bag is requirements of FMVSS No. 213 when the restraint is intended.100 A new S7.1.1(d) would apply to these CRSs. present, the HIII–6YO exhibited tested with the HIII–3YO test dummy. unrealistic chin-to-chest and head-to- Comments are requested on this issue. The new S7.1.1(d) would specify that NHTSA would test CRSs recommended knee contact in tests of booster seats, This NPRM also proposes to amend for children in the weight range of 13.6 which resulted in inordinately high, S7.1.2’s height specifications for testing kg to 18.2 kg (30—40 lb) with the HIII– often times failing HIC values recorded with the ATDs so that height categories 3YO dummy. Also, to make the height by the dummy. are consistent with the corresponding specification for testing with the ATD NHTSA responded by adopting a weight limits. This is to simplify the consistent with the corresponding provision permitting the optional use of standard. This proposal is explained weight limit proposed in S7.1.1(c), the H2–6YO dummy in place of the further below. NHTSA proposes to use the HIII–3YO HIII–6YO. NHTSA originally intended the matter as an interim measure to Currently S7.1.2(b) specifies that the dummy to test CRSs recommended for provide manufacturers time to adjust to newborn and CRABI–12MO dummies children in the height range of 870 mm the new ATD, and later, on extension, are used to test CRSs recommended for to 1,100 mm (34.3 to 43.3 inches), instead of 850 mm to 1,100 mm (33.5 to to provide NHTSA time to develop children in a height range from 650 mm 103 43.3 inches). seating procedures for the dummy. to 850 mm. The average height of a However, in 2011, NHTSA issued a final 12MO child is 750 mm (29.5 inches), d. Testing CRSs for Children Weighing rule to permit optional use of the H2– not 850 mm. NHTSA proposes to 18–29.5 kg (40–65 lb) 6YO ‘‘until further notice.’’ The Agency change the upper end of that height FMVSS No. 213 currently provides announced that, while the HIII–6YO is range to 750 mm (29.5 inches), to child restraint manufacturers the option an advanced test dummy with state-of- correspond to the average height of a of having NHTSA use the HIII–6YO or the-art capabilities and is used by some 12MO child (750 mm (29.5 inches)) the H2–6YO in compliance tests of CRSs CRS manufacturers in certifying (which also is the height of the CRABI– for children weighing 18 to 29.5 kg (40 restraints, NHTSA wanted to complete 12MO ATD). The revised height range to 65 lb) (S7.1.3). This NPRM proposes ongoing efforts to improve the HIII–6YO would be part of a new S7.1.1(b). to test these CRSs only with the HIII– dummy to make it more useful as an Similarly, as discussed earlier, 6YO. The HIII–6YO is preferred as it is FMVSS No. 213 test device before proposed S7.1.1(c) specifies that the a more biofidelic test device than the testing child restraints solely with the CRABI–12MO dummy would be used to H2–6YO dummy, and more and more ATD.104 test a CRS recommended for children CRS manufacturers are using the HIII Since 2011, NHTSA has pursued weighing 10 to 13.6 kg (22 to 30 lb). A rather than the H2–6YO dummy. long-term improvements to the child weighing 13.6 kg (30 lb) on Further, it is becoming increasingly biofidelity of the HIII–6YO. Part of average is about 870 mm (34.3 inches) difficult to obtain replacement parts for NHTSA’s work involves development of tall. (The 95th percentile 18MO child the older H2–6YO dummy. a Large Omnidirectional Child (LODC) weighs about 13.6 (30 lb) and has a NHTSA adopted the HIII–6YO in dummy using the HIII–10YO dummy, corresponding height of about 870 mm FMVSS No. 213 in response to a formulating LODC concepts and (34.3 inches).) Therefore, to make the mandate in the Transportation Recall mechanisms that can eventually be height specifications for testing with Enhancement, Accountability and adapted to the design of a 6YO Documentation (TREAD) Act 101 that 105 ATDs consistent with the corresponding prototype. directed NHTSA to consider a number weight limits, this NPRM proposes that of rulemakings to improve CRS safety, 102 Final rule, 68 FR 37620, June 24, 2003. CRSs would be tested with the CRABI– including one on incorporating use of 103 70 FR 44520, , 2005; 73 FR 45355, 12MO if they are recommended for the HIII–6YO in FMVSS No. 213 August 5, 2008. The Hybrid III ATD was called the children in the weight range of up to compliance tests. NHTSA incorporated ‘‘HIII–6C’’and the Hybrid II was called the ‘‘H2–6C’’ 13.6 kg (30 lb) or in the height range of in these documents. the ATD into FMVSS No. 213 after 104 up 870 mm (34.3 inches). 76 FR 55825, September 9, 2011. determining in its rulemaking that the 105 The improvements in the prototype HIII–10YO dummy is ‘‘considerably more LODC dummy include: A head with pediatric mass 98 Feedback from child passenger safety biofidelic’’ than the H2–6YO dummy, properties; a neck that produces head lag with free technicians involved in child restraint system Z-axis rotation at the atlanto-occipital joint; a checks indicates that infants usually outgrow infant flexible thoracic spine; multi-point thoracic carriers because of reaching the height limit of the 99 The CRABI–12MO is not used to test a booster deflection measurement capability; skeletal carrier rather than the weight limit. Further, as an seat (S7.1.2(c)). anthropometry representative of a seated child; and infant reaches a 13.6 kg (30 lb) weight, the weight 100 However, if such a CRS were also labeled for an abdomen that can directly measure belt loading. of the infant and the infant carrier together becomes use by children weighing less than 13.6 kg (30 lb), More information on the LODC dummy can be too heavy for a caregiver to pull out of the vehicle then the CRS would be subject to testing with the found at: http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NVS/ and carry around by a handle. Therefore, parents CRABI–12MO. Public%20Meetings/SAE/2016/ often switch to a convertible or all-in one CRS as 101 November 1, 2000, Public Law 106–414, 114 Development%20of%20the%20LODC%20ATD- the child weight nears 13.6 kg (30 lb). Stat. 1800. SAE2016.pdf.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69431

Yet also since 2011, new information than the contact observed in tests on the tests on the current FMVSS No. 213 indicates NHTSA may not need to wait current seat assembly. On the proposed standard seat assembly in booster seats longer to use the HIII–6YO solely as the seat assembly, the high HIC values and (solid lines), and on the proposed 6YO child ATD in FMVSS No. 213 the high head acceleration spikes that standard seat assembly in booster seats compliance tests. While developing this had been measured by the dummy on (dashed lines) and in forward-facing NPRM, NHTSA tested the HIII–6YO in the current seat assembly were absent. harnessed-CRSs (dotted lines). As booster seats and in CRSs with internal NHTSA believes this change is due to shown in the figure, the peak head harnesses (‘‘harnessed-CRSs’’) on the the firmer seat cushion on the proposed accelerations curves of the HIII–6YO in proposed standard seat assembly and assembly that prevents the CRS from tests with the proposed standard seat found that the ATD did not exhibit high bottoming out against the seat frame. assembly are lower in magnitude than head injury measures and high head The difference in head accelerations in tests with the current seat assembly acceleration spikes in the dynamic tests. due to the different seat assemblies is and show the absence of severe head Chin-to-chest contact occurred at times, illustrated below. Figure 9 shows the 106 but it was a significantly softer contact head accelerations of the HIII–6YO in acceleration spikes.

Those data are consistent with other 52.9 g and 447.4, respectively. The percent lower when the proposed data showing that the HIII–6YO dummy average peak head acceleration and standard seat assembly is used versus measures lower peak head acceleration average HIC of the HIII–6YO dummy in the current seat assembly. Again, we and HIC on the proposed seat assembly tests conducted on the current FMVSS attribute the overall change in than on the current FMVSS No. 213 No. 213 standard seat assembly were magnitude in peak head acceleration to assembly. As shown in Table 20 below, 77.6 g and 976.2, respectively. This the stiffer seat cushion foam in the the average peak head acceleration and amounted to an average peak head proposed standard seat assembly. average HIC of the HIII–6YO on the acceleration that was 31.8 percent lower BILLING CODE 4910–59–P proposed standard seat assembly were and an average HIC that was 54.2

106 Full detail of the sled tests results are discussed in Section VII of this preamble, supra.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP02NO20.027 69432 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C in the past to using the HIII–6YO HIII–6YO’s chin-to-chest contact is In short, these data indicate that dummy in compliance tests. When CRSs absent or significantly reduced in updating the standard seat assembly are tested on the proposed, more severity. The absence of contact or softer would eradicate the impediments found realistic standard seat assembly, the chin-to-chest contact results in lower

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP02NO20.028 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69433

HIC scores compared to the HICs from kinematics more representative of the could boost those efforts to address the tests of both the HIII–6YO and the H2– kinematics of restrained children in real head injury problem. 6YO on the current FMVSS No. 213 seat world frontal crashes than current tests, The HIII–6YO dummy yields a more assembly. Thus, we believe we should given the proposed seat assembly is accurate depiction of the restrained terminate the optional use of the H2– specially designed to represent a current child’s head excursion and would help 6YO in compliance tests, as the primary vehicle rear seat. However, having the better ensure CRSs are designed to reason NHTSA permitted continued use HIII–6YO be a part of the test would prevent head impacts. Test data indicate of the H2–6YO is no longer valid. amplify that realism. the HIII–6YO exhibits more head Another reason is to improve our excursion than the older H2–6YO overall assessment of CRS performance Importantly, using the HIII–6YO dummy in FMVSS No. 213 tests. Table in the FMVSS No. 213 test. The HIII– could improve our assessment of CRS 21 shows paired sled test data of the 6YO dummy is more biofidelic than the performance particularly in the HIII–6YO on the proposed seat assembly H2–6YO dummy.107 The HIII–6YO has significant safety area of head injury. and the H2–6YO on the current FMVSS been shown to have good kinematics NASS–CDS data from 1995–2009 show No. 213 seat assembly, with the replicating that of a human in slow that 39 percent of AIS 2+ injuries to dummies restrained in the same or speed sled testing, exhibiting similar restrained children in frontal crashes are equivalent booster seat model. Paired T- head and pelvis excursion as human to the head and face, with 59 percent of tests indicated that the measured children.108 Testing CRSs on the these injuries due to contact with the differences in HIC and head excursion updated (proposed) standard seat seat and back support.109 Mandatory use were significant (p-value <0.01). assembly in itself would yield dummy of the HIII–6YO in compliance testing BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C The average HIC, chest acceleration, and head and knee excursions are shown in Table 22.

107 HIII–6YO also has extended instrumentation Pediatric Volunteers in Low-Speed Frontal contacted components. Arbogast, K.B., S. Wozniak, capability in many areas, such as in the neck and Crashes,’’ 56th Annals of Advances in Automotive Locey, C.M., Maltese, M.R., and Zonfrillo, M.R. chest, which would be advantageous in the event Medicine, October 2012. (2012). Head impact contact points for restrained a need should arise to measure the corresponding 109 In a study of 28 cases of children ages 0 to 15 child occupants. Traffic Injury Prevention, risk of injury to children in child restraints. who sustained AIS 2+ head or face injuries in a 13(2):172–81. 108 Seacrist, T., et al., ‘‘Kinematic Comparison of frontal crash, researchers found that the front row the Hybrid III and Q-Series Pediatric ATDs to seat back and the B-pillar were the most commonly

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP02NO20.029 69434 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 22—AVERAGE HIC, CHEST ACCELERATION, HEAD EXCURSION, AND KNEE EXCURSION OF THE HIII–6YO ON THE PROPOSED SEAT ASSEMBLY AND THE H2–6YO ON THE CURRENT SEAT ASSEMBLY USING THE SAME BOOSTER SEAT MODEL

Chest Head Knee ATD HIC acceleration excursion excursion

HIII–6YO on proposed seat assembly ...... 288 43 g 537 mm 584 mm H2–6YO on current seat assembly ...... 492 46 g 416 mm 533 mm T-test showed that there was no significant difference (p-value<0.15) between the chest acceleration and knee excursion measures of the HIII– 6YO in the proposed seat assembly and the H2–6YO on the current standard seat assembly when restrained in the same booster seat model.

NHTSA requests comments on least 50 percent of their models using 36-months in two rear-facing conditions whether using the HIII–6YO and the the HIII–6YO dummy. (wide and narrow seat).113 UMTRI took updated seat assembly would examine For the above reasons, NHTSA is anthropometry measures, surface scans more closely the ability of CRSs to proposing to specify in FMVSS No. 213 and coordinate measures to evaluate the manage the kinematics of a restrained that the agency will only use the HIII– toddler seating postures. child in modern vehicles than a test 6YO and not the H2–6YO dummy, with UMTRI found that the most common with the H2–6YO. provision of sufficient lead time (e.g., 3 seating postures for toddlers in rear- NHTSA is also concerned that years after publication of a final rule) for facing restraints are with the child’s legs replacement parts for the ATD are the change. Comments are requested on bent and ‘‘relaxed’’ with the bottom part becoming increasingly more difficult for the issues discussed above. of the feet up against the seat back, and the agency to procure. Although e. Positioning the Legs of the HIII–3YO with the child’s legs spread and ‘‘feet NHTSA’s crash test dummies are Dummy in Rear-Facing CRSs flat against each other.’’ These seating designed to be durable and capable of positions are not achievable by the HIII– withstanding crash testing without Because CRSs labeled for use by 3YO dummy due to the dummy’s unreasonably breaking, all test dummies children in the 10 kg–18.2 kg (22–40 lb) limited hip range of motion. However, need refurbishment and parts weight range are often sold to be used the children also frequently sat with replacement from time to time. As the rear-facing, we seek to make more their legs bent and elevated against the H2–6YO is not a state-of-the-art dummy, evaluative our compliance testing of vehicle seat back. The HIII–3YO’s legs it has become more difficult for NHTSA these CRSs when so used. are able to achieve this bent and Under current FMVSS No. 213, rear- to obtain replacement parts for the ATD. elevated position. facing CRSs labeled for use by children The Agency is concerned that as parts We have tentatively decided to in the 10 kg–18.2 kg (22–40 lb) weight become harder to obtain, NHTSA’s position the HIII–3YO’s legs bent and range are subject to testing with the (33 inability to obtain parts will delay and elevated in rear-facing seats as shown by lb) HIII–3YO test dummy. In the past, impede its compliance test program. many of the children in the UMTRI testing with the 3YO dummy rear-facing Ending the optional use of the H2–6YO has been complicated by the dummy’s study. Positioning the ATD’s legs this dummy in compliance testing would legs oftentimes getting crammed against way would replicate a typical position avoid that potential problem. the seat back 111 and the Agency not many children take in a rear-facing CRS. NHTSA does not believe that knowing how it ought to position the As noted above, the proposed procedure terminating the optional use of the H2– ATD’s legs in the compliance test. In is already used by some commercial test 6YO dummy would affect the this NPRM, we propose a dummy leg labs and CRS manufacturers to test rear- manufacture of current child restraints positioning procedure that calls for facing CRSs for older children. significantly. First, while the head and placing the ATD’s legs up against the As part of the study, UMTRI knee excursions of the HIII–6YO seat back and removing the test conducted sled tests to compare the dummy were greater than those of the dummy’s knee joint stops to allow the proposed positioning protocol to those H2–6YO, the excursion levels were well leg to extend at the knee in the dynamic used by Transport Canada in Canadian below FMVSS No. 213’s excursion test. The procedure is already used by Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (CMVSS) 110 limits. some commercial test labs and CRS No. 213 and by various commercial test Second, most CRS manufacturers are manufacturers to test rear-facing CRSs labs and CRS manufacturers, to assess already using the HIII–6YO dummy to for older children. differences, if any, in CRS performance test some or all of their CRS models. The positioning procedure is based on and the ease-of-use of the procedures.114 Information from manufacturers to data analyzing toddler lower extremity UMTRI evaluated the following NHTSA in 2014 showed that 43 percent postures when seated in rear-facing protocols: (a) Positioning the ATD in an of CRS manufacturers use the HIII–6YO CRSs. NHTSA initiated a research unaltered state (baseline); 115 (b) to test their CRSs, 21 percent use the project conducted by the University of removing knee joint stops to allow the H2–6YO and 36 percent use both Michigan Transportation Research leg to extend at the knee (NHTSA’s dummies for testing their various CRS Institute (UMTRI) to identify toddlers’ proposed procedure); (c) removing models. Manufacturers using both the common lower extremity postures.112 lower leg completely (used by CMVSS H2–6YO and HIII–6YO dummies test at UMTRI evaluated 29 subjects ages 18- to 113 UMTRI also identified the children’s common 110 Since not every CRS on the market was tested, 111 Positioning the HIII- 3YO dummy in a rear- lower extremity postures in forward-facing seats there may be some that may need some design facing CRSs has proven difficult in laboratory tests (long and short cushion). Id. changes to meet the head excursion limit when because of the bracing interaction between the legs 114 ‘‘Assessment of ATD Selection and Use for tested with the HIII–6YO on the proposed seat of the dummy and the seat which can change the Dynamic Testing of Rear Facing Restraint Systems assembly. However, the design changes would be pre-test set recline angle of the rear-facing CRS and Designed for Larger Toddlers.’’ UMTRI–2014–12. warranted for child safety, as using the HIII–6YO the pre-test applied lap belt tension. March 2015. better replicates the kinematics of an actual child 112 ‘‘Toddler Lower Extremity Posture in Child 115 Experienced bracing between the seat and CRS than the H2–6YO. Restraint Systems,’’ March 2015, UMTRI–2014–8. because of the legs.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69435

No. 213); (d) removing lower leg and Comfort Sport, Cosco Scenera and Cosco restraints.116 Table 23 shows that the attaching the shank mass to the sides or Scenera 40RF). coefficient of variation of the different top of thigh (used by CMVSS No. 213); Test results in Table 23 show that the dummy configurations in three different and (e) bending the leg at the knee. The different seating procedures had little CRSs was less than 10 percent except sled tests were conducted using three effect on the response data (HIC, chest for one that showed an 11 percent CV convertible child restraints (Graco acceleration, seat back rotation) for HIC. obtained from tests of the three

TABLE 23—HIII–3YO RESPONSES IN SLED TESTS WITH DIFFERENT SEATING CONFIGURATIONS

Chest Dummy Max seat acceleration UMTRI test number (NT12##) CRS configuration back angle HIC 3 ms clip (degrees) (g)

53 ...... Cosco Scenera ...... A–Baseline ...... 57 342 39 54 ...... Cosco Scenera ...... B–Kneestop ...... 59 293 38 55 ...... Cosco Scenera ...... D–Shank ...... 56 296 39 52 ...... Cosco Scenera ...... E–Bent Knee ...... 57 334 37

Average ...... 57.3 316.3 38.3 Standard Deviation ...... 1.3 25.4 1.0 CV ...... 2% 8% 3%

50 ...... Cosco Scenera 40 ...... A–Baseline ...... 55 383 38 49 ...... Cosco Scenera 40 ...... B–Kneestop ...... 55 359 40 48 ...... Cosco Scenera 40 ...... D–Shank ...... 54 361 40 51 ...... Cosco Scenera 40 ...... E–Bent ...... 55 337 37

Average ...... 54.8 360.0 38.8 STD ...... 0.5 18.8 1.5 CV ...... 1% 5% 4%

41 ...... Graco Comfort Sport ...... A–Baseline ...... 54 358 41 42 ...... Graco Comfort Sport ...... B–Kneestop ...... 54 350 45 45 ...... Graco Comfort Sport ...... C—No leg ...... 51 364 41 46 ...... Graco Comfort Sport ...... D–Shank ...... 51 436 35 44 ...... Graco Comfort Sport ...... E–Bent ...... 55 334 40

Average ...... 53 368.4 40.4 STD ...... 1.9 39.4 3.6 CV ...... 4% 11% 9%

UMTRI also found that sled testing segments were not sufficiently coupled leg to bend freely at the knee. Removing went more smoothly with some of the using tape and it added bulk to the thigh the knee joint stops results in a seating procedures than with others. An area of the dummy. We are also posture that toddlers adopt in real life, unaltered HIII–3YO dummy installation concerned that the added bulk of the minimizes the possibility of bracing (baseline) created the most interaction reattached segments can create fit issues between the CRS and the standard seat (bracing) between the dummy’s legs and in narrow CRSs.117 assembly, is a task easily accomplished the standard seat assembly. Removing In summary, more and more CRSs are in the test lab and minimizes changes to the HIII–3YO knee joint and bending the sold for use rear-facing with older the HIII–3YO dummy.118 legs at the knee (proposed procedure) children. The proposed positioning f. Table Summarizing Proposed were found to be easy to do in the lab procedure would facilitate NHTSA’s Amendments and added little time to the testing compliance testing of the CRSs to the process. Removing the HIII–3YO lower requirements of FMVSS No. 213. The Table 24 below illustrates this legs and attaching them to the upper leg procedure involves removing the NPRM’s proposed weight categories was not a simple task; the reattached dummy’s knee joint stops to allow the discussed above.

116 ‘‘Assessment of ATD Selection and Use for biofidelity. In addition, the CRABI–18MO is not hips. However, prototypes showed that making Dynamic Testing of Rear Facing Restraint Systems incorporated into 49 CFR part 572. Therefore, the those changes yielded little improvement in the Designed for Larger Toddlers,’’ supra. CRABI–18MO was not further considered. seating posture and that a more involved effort 117 UMTRI also tested a CRABI–18MO by adding 118 NHTSA and UMTRI explored making changes would be needed to attain the postures. Since the mass to the torso and thigh of the dummy to to the HIII–3YO dummy to allow it to achieve the test data indicated that different seating procedures achieve a 33–35 lb weight. UMTRI found that while ‘‘relaxed’’ and ‘‘feet flat against each other’’ had little effect on the response data, we decided adding mass to the CRABI–18MO dummy was not postures shown by toddlers in the study. Efforts difficult, the flexible weights have to be attached involved reshaping the dummy’s thigh flesh and there was not a sufficient need to pursue modifying around the torso of the dummy which changes the changing the thigh joint to a ball-and-socket joint the HIII–3YO dummy. ‘‘Toddler Lower Extremity shape of the dummy and may affect the ATD’s to improve the range of motion of the dummy’s Posture in Child Restraint Systems,’’ supra.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 69436 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 24—PROPOSED USE OF DUMMIES BASED ON MANUFACTURER’S WEIGHT AND HEIGHT RECOMMENDATIONS

Are compliance tested by NHTSA with these ATDs (subparts refer to CRS recommended for use by children of these weights and heights— 49 CFR part 572)

Weight (W) ≤5 kg (11 lb), Height (H) ≤650 mm (25.5 inches) ...... Newborn (subpart K). Weight 5 kg (11 lb)

g. Consistency With NHTSA’s Use of material, and that does not include a NHTSA proposes to add a definition of ATDs in the Proposed Side Impact Test rigid seating structure for the child.’’ ‘‘school bus child restraint system’’ in NHTSA requests comment on the NHTSA amended FMVSS No. 213 to S4 of FMVSS No. 213 that would define merits of adopting the above proposed accommodate harnesses manufactured the term as a child restraint system dummy selection categories in the for use on school bus seats because (including harnesses), sold for exclusive January 28, 2014 proposed side impact many school districts and school bus use on school bus seats, that has a label test for CRSs, regarding CRSs for operators needed a product with a seat conforming with S5.3.1(b) of FMVSS children weighing up to 18.2 kg (40 lb). back mount to transport preschoolers, No. 213. children who need help sitting upright, The January 28, 2014 NPRM referred to NHTSA proposes amending S5.3.1(b) and children who need to be physically the weight categories currently in to require school bus CRSs to bear a restrained because of physical or FMVSS No. 213 to determine which permanent warning label, depicted in behavioral needs.119 The seat back ATD NHTSA would use in a side Figure 12 of FMVSS No. 213, that is mount of the specialized harnesses impact compliance test. That is, NHTSA permanently affixed to the part of the proposed to use the CRABI–12MO manufactured for use on school bus seats does not use a seat belt to attach harness or strap that attaches the CRS to dummy to test CRSs designed for a vehicle seat back. This label must be children weighing up to 10 kg (22 lb), to the seat and thus can be used on large school buses without seat belts, which plainly visible when installed and easily and to use a newly-developed side readable, the message area must be impact ATD (called the ‘‘Q3s’’) to test most large school buses do not have. NHTSA has become aware of a CRS white with black text and no less than CRSs for children weighing 10 to 18.2 that is also designed exclusively for 20 square centimeters, and the kg (22–40 lb). To align the side impact school bus use. The CRS uses a seat pictogram shall be gray and black with test with this frontal impact test back mount to attach to the school bus a red circle and slash on a white proposal, NHTSA is considering using seat without the use of a seat belt. background and no less than 20 mm in the CRABI–12MO to test CRSs designed However, because the CRS is not a diameter. for children weighing up to 13.6 kg (30 harness, it does not qualify as a school NHTSA proposes to amend table lb), and using the Q3s (3YO dummy) to bus harness under the wording of the S5.1.3.1(a) which specifies the head and test CRSs designed for children standard and is not permitted under knee excursion requirements. School weighing 13.6 to 18.2 kg (30–40 lb) in FMVSS No. 213.120 bus CRSs would be subject to the the side impact test. The Agency’s NHTSA proposes amendments to current excursion limit requirements for reasons for considering this change are FMVSS No. 213 to make the standard harnesses manufactured for use on the same ones discussed above in this more design-neutral regarding CRSs that school bus seats when installed using a NPRM relating to fitting the ATDs in the are designed for exclusive use on school seat back mount or seat back and seat CRSs and how representative the ATDs bus seats. To permit restraints for pan mounts. Also, NHTSA proposes to are of the children who would be using exclusive school bus use other than amend the table to S5.3.2 to indicate the CRS. Further, NHTSA believes it harnesses, the proposed amendments that school bus CRSs must meet the would make sense for CRSs to be tested would include a new design-neutral relevant requirements of the standard with the same ATDs in both the frontal definition for this type of CRS. when attached with a seat back mount impact and side impact tests. NHTSA proposes to amend FMVSS or seat back and seat pan mounts. X. School Bus CRSs No. 213 so that CRSs manufactured for This NPRM also proposes to amend FMVSS No. 213 permits a type of CRS exclusive use on school bus seats could S5.6.1.11 of FMVSS No. 213 to require that is designed for exclusive use on be certified using a seat back mount or that printed instructions accompanying school buses. The CRS type is a a seat back and seat pan mount these school bus CRSs include the ‘‘harness,’’ which the standard defines attachment method. Specifically, warning statement: ‘‘WARNING! This in S4 as ‘‘a combination pelvic and restraint must only be used on school 119 69 FR 10928, March 9, 2004. upper torso child restraint system that 120 NHTSA letter to IMMI, , 2016 bus seats. Entire seat directly behind consists primarily of flexible material, https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/14- must be unoccupied or have restrained such as straps, webbing or similar 001678%20IMMI%20STAR%20crs.htm. occupants.’’

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69437

School bus CRSs would not be required to currently not available in the U.S., there are available to the public to improve have lower attachments to install the CRS are a wide variety of shield-only-CRSs the fit of CRSs to children.126 NHTSA using the child restraint anchorage system, in Europe intended for children requests comments from manufacturers nor would they be required to meet weighing less than 13.6 kg (30 lb). Child performance requirements when tested using and other parties on whether they used seat belt and lower anchorages attachment dummies (representing children aged the models and whether the models methods. School bus CRSs would not need 18-months old and 3-years-old) were helpful. to have alternative methods of attachments restrained in shield-only-CRSs in other than the seat back mount or seat back simulated vehicle rollover tests, 64 km/ XII. Proposed Lead Time and seat pan mounts because school bus h (40 mph) offset frontal impact vehicle This NPRM proposes that the seats do not always have seat belts and/or crash tests, and in 64 km/h (40 mph) compliance date for most of the lower anchorages. Allgemeiner Deutsher Automobil-Club amendments in this rulemaking action (ADAC) type frontal impact sled tests XI. Child Passenger Safety Issues would be three years following the date were completely or partially ejected Arising From Research Findings of publication of the final rule in the from the CRSs. These test results raise Federal Register, with optional early NHTSA requests comment on several concern about the ability of a shield- developments in child passenger safety only-CRS to retain small children in the compliance permitted (exceptions are that have arisen in the research context. CRS in certain crashes or in a rollover. discussed below). NHTSA tentatively The Agency would like commenters’ NHTSA seeks comment on the findings believes that a 3-year period is in the views on how best to approach those of these research tests. Should FMVSS public interest because CRS developments. The Agency has No. 213 require shield-only-CRSs to manufacturers would need to gain docketed a paper that discusses these have additional shoulder belts and a familiarity with the new standard seat issues in more detail. crotch strap, similar to the requirements assembly and new test protocols, and 1. NHTSA has reviewed research for child restraints that have belts would need time to assess their reports on testing done on certain kinds designed to restrain the child (S5.4.3.3)? products’ conformance to the new of child restraints—CRSs not yet widely 2. NHTSA requests information on a FMVSS No. 213 test requirements. They available in the U.S—that raise concerns matter showing up in the field would need time to implement design about a potential unreasonable risk of concerning children under 1YO and production changes as needed. A 3- 121 submarining or ejection from these outgrowing infant carriers by height year lead time also aligns with the devices in some crash scenarios. The much earlier than by weight. Research typical design cycle of child restraints. CRSs in question are inflatable booster 123 studies conducted at UMTRI show Exceptions to the proposed 3-year seats, and ‘‘shield-type’’ child restraints that some infant carriers marketed as compliance date would be as follows. (shield-only-CRSs) available in markets suitable for children up to 13.6 kg (30 NHTSA proposes a 180-day compliance overseas. Comments are requested on lb), which is greater than the weight of 122 date for the proposed changes to the findings of the reports. a 95th percentile 1 YO and an average (a) Inflatable booster seats: Transport registration card requirements and the 1.5 YO, cannot ‘‘fit’’ the height of a 95th proposed changes to permit school bus Canada conducted 25–30 mph frontal percentile 1 YO or an average 1.5 YO.124 impact crash tests of different vehicle child restraint systems (early optional NHTSA believes that infant carriers’ compliance would be permitted). A 1- models, with the HIII–6YO and HIII– height and weight recommendations 10YO dummies restrained in inflatable year compliance date is proposed for should better match the children for labeling requirement changes (early boosters in rear seats. In the tests, the whom the CRS is recommended. dummies experienced significant optional compliance would be NHTSA seeks comment on UMTRI’s permitted). NHTSA would like to submarining due to excessive research findings regarding how current implement these changes as early as compression of the inflatable booster infant carriers fit children that they are possible to attain the safety benefits they during the crash event. Booster seats designed for. Should infant carriers’ can achieve. The proposed time should sold in Canada are required to compress height and weight recommendations provide enough time to change the card by not more than 25 mm when better match up to better accommodate and labels. The proposed 180-day subjected to a 2,250 N quasi-static the children for whom the CRS is compliance date would be sufficient for compression force. Inflatable booster recommended? seats cannot meet the requirements of 3. NHTSA has supported the school bus CRSs since the proposed this quasi-static compression test and so development of computer models of amendment would remove a restriction inflatable boosters are not sold in children of different weights and on the manufacture of such products. Canada. Comments are requested on the heights to assist CRS manufacturers in XIII. Corrections and Other Minor findings of the research crash tests designing child restraints that better fit Amendments conducted in Canada, on the booster the children for whom the CRS is seat compression test requirements in recommended.125 These virtual models This NPRM proposes a few Canada, and on the safety need to have housekeeping and other amendments to a compression test in FMVSS No. 213. 123 Manary. M., et al., ‘‘Comparing the CRABI–12 the text of FMVSS No. 213. (b) Shield-only-CRSs: Shield-only- and CRABI–18 for Infant Child Restraint System CRSs only have a shield to restrain a Evaluation.’’ June 2015. DOT HS 812 156. The a. Correct Reference young child’s upper torso, lower torso, report is available in the docket for this NPRM. 124 and crotch. While such CRSs are Field experience indicates that children at the The Agency would amend higher end of growth charts typically outgrow the S5.5.2(l)(3)(i) of FMVSS No. 213 by carriers by height at around 9–10 months. 121 ‘‘Submarining’’ refers to the tendency for a 125 NHTSA has sponsored an UMTRI project correcting a reference to restrained occupant to slide forward feet first under developing toddler virtual dummies for use in ‘‘S5.5.2(l)(3)(A)(i), (ii), or (iii).’’ The the lap belt during a vehicle crash, which could improving of the fit of CRSs to child passengers. reference would be corrected to refer to result in serious abdominal, pelvic, and spinal Information on a 2015 UMTRI workshop describing ‘‘S5.5.2(l)(3)(i)(A), (B), or (C).’’ injuries. development of the toddler virtual fit dummies can 122 Reports documenting vehicle crash tests using be found at: http://umtri.umich.edu/our-results/ inflatable and shield-type CRSs are available in the projects/umtri-workshop-new-tools-child-occupant- 126 Toddler virtual models available for download docket for this NPRM. protection. at: http://childshape.org/toddler/manikins/.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 69438 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

b. Section 5.1.2.2 caregiver. If this happens, Test requirements to improve The Agency is removing and reserving Configuration II ensures that the communication with today’s CRS S5.1.2.2 because it applies to CRSs restraint will offer some minimal owners and to align with current best manufactured before , 2005 and protection even when the CRS is not practices for child passenger safety, and so is no longer applicable. properly used. (c) amending how NHTSA uses ATDs to make the Agency’s compliance tests d. Updating Reference to SAE c. Table to S5.1.3.1(a) and Test more evaluative of CRS performance. Recommended Practice J211/1 Configuration II The proposal would provide some The Agency is correcting the table to Current specifications of the test safety benefits with, at most, minimal S5.1.3.1(a), which specifies performance device for built-in child restraints in incremental costs. FMVSS No. 213 (S6.1.1(a)(2)(i)(B) and criteria and test conditions for FMVSS Updated Sled Assembly No. 213’s occupant excursion S6.1.1(a)(2)(ii)(G)) require that requirements for add-on forward-facing instrumentation and data processing be The proposed updates to the sled test CRSs. When NHTSA created the table in conformance with SAE would better align the performance of the agency inadvertently did not Recommended Practice J211 (June CRSs in compliance tests to that in real include a reference to Test 1980), ‘‘Instrumentation for Impact world crashes. NHTSA tested 24 CRS models Configuration II of FMVSS No. 213.127 Tests.’’ SAE Recommended Practice representing the market of infant carrier, NHTSA seeks to correct this oversight. J211 has been revised several times Test Configuration II is a 32 km/h (20 since June 1980 and most test facilities convertible, all-in-one, and booster type mph) ‘‘misuse’’ test that applies to CRSs are currently using newer versions of CRSs on the proposed standard seat that are ‘‘equipped with a fixed or the document. FMVSS No. 208, assembly with the appropriate size movable surface described in ‘‘Occupant crash protection,’’ currently dummies. All but one forward-facing S5.2.2.2.’’ 128 (S6.1.2(a)(2).) 129 In Test refers to the document as SAE CRS models met the current and Configuration II, NHTSA tests those Recommended Practice J211/1 (March proposed performance requirements. types of CRSs without attaching ‘‘any of 1995). The 1995 version of SAE J211/1 The Diono Radian tested with the HIII– the child restraint belts unless they are is consistent with the current 10YO dummy met all performance an integral part of the fixed or movable requirements for instrumentation and requirements except for the head surface.’’ 130 In addition, the child data processing in FMVSS No. 213. excursion limit in the untethered restraint is untethered (S6.1.2(a)(2)(i)). Using the same Recommended Practice condition. Based on these data, the The tested child restraint must meet all J211/1 (1995) in S6.1.1(a)(2)(i)(B) and Agency believes that only a few CRSs the dynamic performance requirements S6.1.1(a)(2)(ii)(G) would update the may need minor redesign to meet the FMVSS No. 213 provisions and requirements in the proposed standard of the standard, not just excursion 133 requirements, when tested in this facilitate the processing of test results seat assembly (V2). NHTSA believes that a lead time of manner.131 Test Configuration II is when combining a test of built-in child three years is sufficient for the redesign. intended to address the possibility that restraints with an FMVSS No. 208 test. The Agency has not estimated a cost of the restraint’s internal belt system will Therefore, NHTSA proposes updating this redesign, assuming the redesign be misused or not used at all by the the reference to SAE Recommended Practice J211(1980) in sections could be incorporated into a typical business model involving manufacturers 127 NHTSA adopted the table into FMVSS No. 213 S6.1.1(a)(2)(i)(B) and S6.1.1(a)(2)(ii)(G) in a March 5, 1999 final rule establishing the to SAE Recommended Practice J211/1 refining child restraint designs to requirements for child restraint anchorage systems (1995).132 freshen their product lines. The for vehicles and corresponding requirements for refinements result in new product CRSs (64 FR 10786). XIV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses offerings that appeal to consumers and 128 S5.2.2.2 states that each forward-facing child restraint system shall have no fixed or movable Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, E.O. help manufacturers remain competitive. surface: (a) directly forward of the dummy and 13563, and DOT Rulemaking Procedures There would be costs involved in intersected by a horizontal line, parallel to the seat changing the standard seat assembly orientation reference line (term defined in S4 of The Agency has considered the used by NHTSA to assess CRS FMVSS No. 213), in the case of the add-on child impact of this rulemaking action under compliance. Manufacturers are not restraint system, or parallel to a vertical plane E.O. 12866, E.O. 13563, and the required to use the standard seat through the longitudinal center line of the vehicle Department of Transportation’s seat, in the case of a built-in child restraint system, assembly, but as a practical matter they and (b) passing through any portion of the dummy, administrative rulemaking procedures usually choose to do so, to test their except for surfaces which restrain the dummy when set forth in 49 CFR part 5, subpart B. CRSs as similarly to the tests conducted the system is tested in accordance with S6.1.2(a)(2), This rulemaking is not considered by NHTSA. The one-time cost of the so that the child restraint system shall conform to significant and was not reviewed by the the requirements of S5.1.2 and S5.1.3.1. updated standard seat assembly sled 129 S6.1.2(a)(2)(i) and (ii) also state that Test Office of Management and Budget under Configuration II applies to ‘‘backless child restraint E.O. 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 133 Preliminary tests with the proposed standard system[s] with a top anchorage strap’’ and to a Review.’’ seat assembly using an average 23.3 g peak ‘‘built-in booster seat with a top anchorage strap.’’ acceleration pulse and an average 47.5 km/h (29.5 NHTSA is proposing to remove references in Estimated Benefits and Costs mph) velocity within the FMVSS No. 213 FMVSS No. 213 to those CRSs because such The NPRM proposes to amend acceleration corridor showed dummy HIC and chest restraints are no longer or have never been accelerations in some booster seats, tested with the produced. FMVSS No. 213 by (a) updating the HIII–6YO and HIII–10YO dummies, near or 130 See FMVSS No. 213 S10.2.1(b)(2) and standard seat assembly to represent exceeding allowable threshold levels. While S10.2.2(c)(2). better the rear seating environment in NHTSA expects that some booster seats may need 131 The CRSs must also meet the requirements of the current vehicle fleet, (b) amending to be redesigned to meet the performance measures FMVSS No. 213 when tested to Test Configuration when tested with a higher acceleration pulse, these I’s 48 km/h (30 mph) tests. The CRSs’ internal belts several labeling and owner information redesigns could be accomplished without are attached in Test Configuration I but the top additional material cost. For example, different tether cannot be attached to meet FMVSS No. 213’s 132 NHTSA would also reference the updated SAE foams could be used in the CRS seating cushions head excursion limit of 813 mm (32 inches) and the J211/1 in the compliance test procedure proposed that work better with the proposed stiffer standard other dynamic performance requirements in S5.1 of for FMVSS No. 213a’s side impact test. See 79 FR seat cushion foam to lower the HIC and chest g the standard. at 4603, S6.1.2(f). values.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69439

buck is about $8,000. If a manufacturer manufacturers to implement. These legs of the HIII–3YO dummy in rear- chooses to build the assembly itself or proposed changes to the registration facing CRSs is unlikely to have cost uses one at an independent test facility, card would provide flexibility to implications because the procedure is either way there would be minimal cost manufacturers in how they the same as that currently used by impacts when the cost of the assembly communicate with consumers and manufacturers. and testing CRSs is distributed among would likely help improve registration Similarly, NHTSA believes that the hundreds of thousands of CRSs that rates and recall completion rates. testing CRSs solely with the HIII–6YO would be sold by each manufacturer. NHTSA cannot quantify the benefits at rather than the H2–6YO dummy would this time. not have significant cost implications. Labeling and Owner Registration NHTSA estimates there would be no This is because there would be little or The Agency believes that the costs associated with the proposed no design changes needed for the CRSs proposed updates to the labeling changes. While the changes could affect due to this proposed update since requirements would benefit safety by the collection of information pursuant nearly all the CRSs tested with the HIII– reducing the premature graduation of to the Paperwork Reduction Act (which 6YO in the proposed standard seat children from rear-facing CRSs to is discussed later in this section), there assembly complied with all the FMVSS forward-facing CRSs, and from forward- would be no additional material cost No. 213 requirements.136 NHTSA’s facing CRSs to booster seats. The associated with the proposed changes to testing also showed that CRSs that Agency estimates 1.9 to 6.3 lives would the registration card or to the CRS label currently comply with FMVSS No. 213 be saved and 2.6 to 8.7 moderate-to- or owner manual pertaining to using the H2–6YO dummy also met all critical severity injuries would be registration. Manufacturers could use the performance requirements in the prevented annually by aligning FMVSS the same card and labels and just standard when tested using the HIII– No. 213’s use instructions with current change the wording on them. 6YO dummy in the proposed standard best practices on transporting seat assembly. In addition, 134 ATDs children. manufacturers are increasingly The proposed changes to the labeling The proposed updates of how ATDs certifying at least some of their CRS requirements would have minimal or no are used in the sled test for assessing models for older children using the cost impacts, as mostly they are CRS performance better accords with HIII–6YO dummy rather than the H2– deregulatory. Manufacturers would be current CRS designs and best practices 6YO and so most manufacturers already given the flexibility to provide required for transporting child passengers have access to the HIII–6YO dummy information in statements or a compared to the current specifications and would not need to purchase the combination of statements and in FMVSS No. 213. NHTSA cannot dummy as a result of this proposed pictograms at locations that they deem quantify the possible safety benefits at update. Most CRS manufacturers hire most effective. Manufacturers may this time. commercial test labs to test their CRSs Some of the proposed changes lessen provide the recommended child weight for conformance with FMVSS No. 213 testing burdens by reducing the extent and height ranges for the use of CRSs in requirements. These labs already have of testing with ATDs. For example, the a specific installation mode on existing the HIII–6YO dummy since some of NPRM proposes that CRSs for children voluntary labels by simply changing the their CRS manufacturer clients currently weighing 10 kg to 13.6 kg (22 to 30 lb) minimum child weight limit values. want to certify their CRSs based on tests would no longer be subject to testing Since no additional information would with the HIII–6YO dummy. Thus, there with the HIII–3YO dummy. NHTSA be required on the labels by this NPRM, would not be a cost increase to purchase estimates a reduction in testing cost of the size of the label would not need to and test with the dummy. be increased. Thus, there would be $540,000 for the current number of NHTSA believes that a lead time of 135 minimal or no additional cost for the infant carrier models in the market. three years is sufficient for redesigning label. There would also be no decrease Also, CRSs for children weighing 13.6– CRSs that may need modifications to in sales of forward-facing car safety 18.2 kg (30–40 lb) would no longer be comply with the proposed updates to seats or of booster seats as a result of the tested with the CRABI–12MO. However, ATD selection for the sled test because proposal to raise the minimum child the Agency does not expect any most CRSs would need minor or no weight limit values for forward-facing reduction in testing costs from this latter modifications as a result of the proposed CRSs and booster seats. Most forward- modification since all CRSs with updates. Further, a 3-year time frame facing CRSs cover a wide child weight internal harnesses are sold for children aligns with the typical design cycle for range, so the labeling changes would weighing less than 13.6 kg (30 lb), and CRSs. The Agency notes also that only affect how consumers use the so would still be subject to testing with manufacturers have the option of not products and not the sale of them. For the CRABI–12MO in that regard. The changing CRS designs in some example, consumers would still proposed positioning procedure for the instances, and may instead change the purchase forward-facing car safety seats weight of the children for whom the 135 but would wait to use them forward- There are currently 45 infant carrier models CRS is recommended. Narrowing the facing until the child is at least 1. They with recommended upper weight limit exceeding 10 kg (22 lb). Each rear-facing CRS is tested in three population of children for whom the would still purchase convertible CRSs, different configurations on the standard seat CRS is recommended could result in but will delay turning the child forward- assembly with each dummy used for testing the reducing the number of ATDs NHTSA facing until the child is at least 1. CRS: (1) CRS installed using seat belts, (2) CRS and manufacturers use in compliance Consumers would still purchase booster installed using the lower anchors and no tether, and (3) CRS installed without the base using the lower and certification tests, respectively. seats, but would use them only from anchors and no tether. The cost of a sled test is when the child reaches 18.2 kg (40 lb). estimated at $4,000. Therefore, the cost savings by School Bus Child Restraint Systems The proposed changes to the not testing the 45 infant carrier models using the The proposed changes to include in registration program generally lessen HIII–3YO dummy is estimated to be $540,000 (= $4,000 × 3 × 45). Since manufacturers typically FMVSS No. 213 a new type of CRS restrictions and are optional for conduct more than one test in each of the CRS installation configurations, NHTSA expects the 136 Of 21 tests with the HIII–6YO in the proposed 134 Details of the benefits analysis are provided in actual cost savings to be greater than the estimated seat assembly, all passed the performance metrics, the Appendix to this NPRM. $540,000. except for one that failed head excursion limits.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 69440 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

manufactured for exclusive use on Regulatory Flexibility Act Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an school bus seats would allow the sale of Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility express preemption provision: When a these products. The Agency estimates Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by motor vehicle safety standard is in effect there would be no cost impacts the Small Business Regulatory under this chapter, a State or a political associated with the proposed changes Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable because the amendment would permit 1996), whenever an agency is required to the same aspect of performance of a more products to be sold for school bus to publish a notice of proposed motor vehicle or motor vehicle use. The benefits of the proposed rulemaking or final rule, it must prepare equipment only if the standard is changes are associated with the and make available for public comment identical to the standard prescribed popularity of such CRSs in the pupil a regulatory flexibility analysis that under this chapter. 49 U.S.C. transportation industry for transporting describes the effect of the rule on small 30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command preschool and special-needs children. entities (i.e., small businesses, small by Congress that preempts any non- However, NHTSA cannot quantify these organizations, and small governmental identical State legislative and benefits at this time. jurisdictions), unless the head of an administrative law addressing the same Executive Order 13771 agency certifies the rule will not have a aspect of performance. significant economic impact on a The express preemption provision Executive Order 13771 titled substantial number of small entities. described above is subject to a savings ‘‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling Agencies must also provide a statement clause under which ‘‘[c]ompliance with Regulatory Costs,’’ directs that, unless of the factual basis for this certification. a motor vehicle safety standard prohibited by law, whenever an I certify that this proposed rule would prescribed under this chapter does not executive department or agency not have a significant economic impact exempt a person from liability at publicly proposes for notice and on a substantial number of small common law.’’ 49 U.S.C. 30103(e). comment or otherwise promulgates a entities. NHTSA estimates there to be 29 Pursuant to this provision, State new regulation, it shall identify at least manufacturers of child restraints, none common law tort causes of action two existing regulations to be repealed. of which are small businesses. Even if against motor vehicle manufacturers In addition, any new incremental costs there were a small CRS manufacturer, that might otherwise be preempted by associated with new regulations shall, to the impacts of this proposed rule would the express preemption provision are the extent permitted by law, be offset by not be significant. NHTSA believes that generally preserved. However, the the elimination of existing costs. Only virtually all CRSs would meet FMVSS Supreme Court has recognized the those rules deemed significant under No. 213’s requirements on the new seat possibility, in some instances, of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, assembly without modification. implied preemption of such State ‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ are Manufacturers may need to change the common law tort causes of action by subject to these requirements. As labels on their child restraints pursuant virtue of NHTSA’s rules, even if not discussed above, this rule is not a to the proposed requirements, but the expressly preempted. This second way significant rule under Executive Order changes are minor and would entail that NHTSA rules can preempt is 12866 and, accordingly, is not subject to switching out values on current labels. dependent upon there being an actual the offset requirements of 13771. National Environmental Policy Act conflict between an FMVSS and the higher standard that would effectively This proposed rule is expected to be NHTSA has analyzed this proposed an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action be imposed on motor vehicle rule for the purposes of the National manufacturers if someone obtained a because NHTSA believes it would Environmental Policy Act and State common law tort judgment against reduce the cost of complying with determined that it would not have any the manufacturer, notwithstanding the NHTSA’s requirements. The proposed significant impact on the quality of the manufacturer’s compliance with the rule would amend FMVSS No. 213 to human environment. NHTSA standard. Because most NHTSA update the standard seat assembly and Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) standards established by an FMVSS are reduce costs by eliminating unnecessary minimum standards, a State common or outdated requirements, such as NHTSA has examined this proposed law tort cause of action that seeks to unnecessary testing of infant carriers rule pursuant to Executive Order 13132 impose a higher standard on motor with the 3YO dummy. The proposal to (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and vehicle manufacturers will generally not eliminate unnecessary testing with the concluded that no additional be preempted. However, if and when 3YO test dummy would result in a consultation with States, local such a conflict does exist—for example, reduction in testing costs of $540,000 governments or their representatives is when the standard at issue is both a for the current number of infant carrier mandated beyond the rulemaking minimum and a maximum standard— models in the market. Removing the process. The Agency has concluded that the State common law tort cause of restrictions in the owner registration the rulemaking would not have action is impliedly preempted. See program will enable manufacturers to sufficient federalism implications to Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., interact with consumers using modern warrant consultation with State and 529 U.S. 861 (2000). methods of communication, which local officials or the preparation of a Pursuant to Executive Orders 13132 should encourage design innovation and federalism summary impact statement. and 12988, NHTSA has considered productivity. Proposals to update labels The proposed rule would not have whether this proposed rule could or and owners’ manuals would not ‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, should preempt State common law increase costs, as manufacturers would on the relationship between the national causes of action. The Agency’s ability to be replacing current labels and manuals government and the States, or on the announce its conclusion regarding the with updated versions. NHTSA distribution of power and preemptive effect of one of its rules estimates that virtually all CRSs made in responsibilities among the various reduces the likelihood that preemption the U.S. would meet FMVSS No. 213’s levels of government.’’ will be an issue in any subsequent tort performance requirements on the NHTSA rules can preempt in two litigation. To this end, the agency has proposed seat assembly. ways. First, the National Traffic and examined the nature (e.g., the language

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69441

and structure of the regulatory text) and International (SAE). The NTTAA directs Executive Order 13609 (Promoting objectives of this proposed rule and agencies to provide Congress, through International Regulatory Cooperation) finds that this proposed rule, like many OMB, explanations when the agency The policy statement in section 1 of NHTSA rules, would prescribe only a decides not to use available and E.O. 13609 provides, in part: minimum safety standard. As such, applicable voluntary consensus NHTSA does not intend that this standards. NHTSA searched for but did The regulatory approaches taken by foreign governments may differ from those taken by proposed rule would preempt State tort not find voluntary consensus standards U.S. regulatory agencies to address similar law that would effectively impose a directly applicable to the amendments issues. In some cases, the differences higher standard on motor vehicle proposed in this NPRM, other than the between the regulatory approaches of U.S. manufacturers than that established by minor proposal to update the reference agencies and those of their foreign this proposed rule. Establishment of a to SAE Recommended Practice J211/1 to counterparts might not be necessary and higher standard by means of State tort the March 1995 version. might impair the ability of American law would not conflict with the However, consistent with the NTTAA, businesses to export and compete minimum standard proposed here. NHTSA reviewed the procedures and internationally. In meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, Without any conflict, there could not be regulations developed globally to test environmental, and other issues, any implied preemption of a State child restraints dynamically and found international regulatory cooperation can common law tort cause of action. areas of common ground.137 While there identify approaches that are at least as is no single procedure or regulation of Civil Justice Reform protective as those that are or would be another country that sufficiently adopted in the absence of such cooperation. With respect to the review of the replicates frontal crashes occurring in International regulatory cooperation can also promulgation of a new regulation, the U.S., the agency considered various reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, aspects of international regulations differences in regulatory requirements. ‘‘Civil Justice Reform’’ (61 FR 4729, pertaining to the testing of child NHTSA requests public comment on , 1996) requires that restraint systems. NHTSA analyzed the ‘‘regulatory approaches taken by Executive agencies make every aspects of the seating assemblies used foreign governments’’ concerning the reasonable effort to ensure that the by NPACS, ECE R.44 and Transport subject matter of this rulemaking. In the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the Canada’s CMVSS No. 213 and the discussion above on the NTTAA, preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies frontal test speeds used worldwide in NHTSA has noted that it has reviewed the effect on existing Federal law or sled tests. NHTSA proposes a the procedures and regulations regulation; (3) provides a clear legal requirement to test CRSs with Type 2 (3- developed by Transport Canada standard for affected conduct, while point) seat belts, which is consistent regarding testing CRSs with Type 2 promoting simplification and burden with CMVSS No. 213. NHTSA (3-point) seat belts, and tentatively reduction; (4) clearly specifies the tentatively concludes that the agrees with the merits of the CMVSS retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately provisions would increase CRS safety, No. 213 provision. Comments are defines key terms; and (6) addresses and would promote harmonization of requested on the above policy statement other important issues affecting clarity our countries’ regulatory approaches in and the implications it has for this and general draftsmanship under any testing CRSs. rulemaking. guidelines issued by the Attorney If you have any responses to these General. This document is consistent Unfunded Mandates Reform Act questions, please write to NHTSA with with that requirement. Section 202 of the Unfunded your views. Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Paperwork Reduction Act as follows. The preemptive effect of this Public Law 104–4, requires Federal proposed rule is discussed above. agencies to prepare a written assessment Under the Paperwork Reduction Act NHTSA notes further that there is no of the costs, benefits, and other effects of 1995, a person is not required to requirement that individuals submit a of proposed or final rules that include respond to a collection of information petition for reconsideration or pursue a Federal mandate likely to result in the by a Federal agency unless the other administrative proceeding before expenditure by State, local, or tribal collection displays a valid OMB control they may file suit in court. governments, in the aggregate, or by the number. Before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must provide a 60-day National Technology Transfer and private sector, of more than $100 public comment period and otherwise Advancement Act million annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). Adjusting this consult with members of the public and Under the National Technology amount by the implicit gross domestic affected agencies concerning each Transfer and dvancement Act of 1995 product price deflator for the year 2010 collection of information requirement. (NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104–113), all Federal results in $136 million (110.993/81.606 NHTSA believes the proposed changes agencies and departments shall use = 1.36). This NPRM would not result in to the owner registration program technical standards that are developed a cost of $136 million or more to either (571.213, S5.8) constitute changes to a or adopted by voluntary consensus State, local, or tribal governments, in the ‘‘collection of information’’ requirement standards bodies, using such technical aggregate, or the private sector. Thus, for child restraint system manufacturers. standards as a means to carry out policy this NPRM is not subject to the NHTSA is providing a 60-day comment objectives or activities determined by requirements of sections 202 of the period on reporting burdens and other the agencies and departments. UMRA. matters associated with the proposal. Voluntary consensus standards are OMB has promulgated regulations technical standards (e.g., material 137 The NTTAA seeks to support efforts by the describing what must be included in the specifications, test methods, sampling Federal government to ensure that agencies work request for comment document. Under procedures, and business practices) that with their regulatory counterparts in other countries OMB’s regulation (at 5 CFR 1320.8(d)), are developed or adopted by voluntary to address common safety issues. Circular No. an agency must ask for public comment A–119, ‘‘Federal Participation in the Development consensus standards bodies, such as the and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in on the following: International Organization for Conformity Assessment Activities,’’ , Whether the proposed collection of Standardization (ISO) and the SAE 2016, p. 15. information is necessary for the proper

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 69442 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

performance of the functions of the name/address of the manufacturer, the The hour burden associated with the agency, including whether the pre-printed model and date of revised label consists of the child information will have practical utility; manufacture, and spaces for the restraint manufacturer: (a) Designing the The accuracy of the agency’s estimate purchaser to fill in his/her name and information card with statements to of the burden of the proposed collection address. Optionally, child restraint instruct how to register, encourage of information, including the validity of manufacturers are permitted to add to registration and optionally, how to the methodology and assumptions used; the registration form: (a) Specified register electronically and how the How to enhance the quality, utility, statements informing CRS owners that submitted information will be used; and and clarity of the information to be they may register online; (b) the internet (b) updating this information on the collected; address for registering with the existing information card, label and How to minimize the burden of the company; (c) revisions to statements instruction manual. NHTSA assumes for collection of information on those who reflecting use of the internet to register; purposes of this NPRM analysis that are to respond, including the use of and (d) a space for the consumer’s email each manufacturer would design the appropriate automated, electronic, address. registration information on the mechanical, or other technological Child restraint manufacturers are also information card, label and manuals 5 collection techniques or other forms of required to provide printed instructions times per year, whether it is to use information technology, e.g. permitting with new CRSs, with step-by-step different registration cards designs in electronic submission of responses. information on how the restraint is to be different CRS models or to adapt the In compliance with these used, and a permanently attached label design to improve registrations. The requirements, NHTSA asks for public that gives ‘‘quick look’’ information on Agency estimates 50 hours of additional comments on the following proposed matters such as use instructions and burden per child restraint manufacturer collection of information: information on registering the CRS. for the designing of the registration card Title: ‘‘Consolidated Child Restraint Under this NPRM, the Agency is (information card portion), labels and System Registration, Labeling and proposing to amend the requirements manuals that no longer have prescribed × × Defect Notifications.’’ OMB Control that prescribe wording advising the text (50 hours 5 designs/year 29 CRS Number: 2127–0576. consumer of the importance of manufacturers = 7,250 hours annually). Requested Expiration Date of registering and instructing how to Estimated Additional Annual Burden: Approval: Three years from the register. NHTSA proposes to stop 7,250 hours. approval date. prescribing the wording. Instead, CRS Comments are invited on: Whether Type of Request: Revision of a manufacturers would be given leeway to the proposed collection of information currently approved collection. use their own words to convey the is necessary for the proper performance Affected Public: Businesses, importance of registering the CRS and to of the functions of the Department, Individuals and Households. instruct how registration is achieved. including whether the information will Summary of the Collection of NHTSA would allow statements have practical utility; the accuracy of Information: instructing consumers to use electronic the Department’s estimate of the burden Child restraint manufacturers are (or any other means) of registering, as of the proposed information collection; required to provide an owner long as instructions are provided on ways to enhance the quality, utility and registration card for purchasers of child using the paper card for registering clarity of the information to be restraint systems in accordance with (including that the mail-in card is pre- collected; and ways to minimize the title 49 of the Code of Federal addressed and that the postage is pre- burden of the collection of information Regulations (CFR), part 571, section 213, paid). NHTSA also proposes to permit on respondents, including the use of ‘‘Child restraint systems.’’ The or possibly require a statement that the automated collection techniques of registration card is required to be information collected through the other forms of information technology. You may submit comments (identified perforated into two parts. The top part registration process will not be used by by the DOT Docket ID Number above) (information part) contains a message the manufacturer for any purpose other by any of the following methods: and suitable instructions to be retained than contacting the consumer in the • by the purchaser. The size, font, color, Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to event of a recall. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the and layout of the top part are currently The Agency also proposes to remove prescribed in Figures 9a and 9b,138 as is online instructions for submitting restrictions on manufacturers on their comments. the attachment method (fold/ use of size, font, color, layout, and • perforation) of the information card to Mail: Docket Management Facility: attachment method of the information U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 the lower part of the form (the mail-in card portion. NHTSA proposes to card). The top part of the registration New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building continue a current provision that Ground Floor, Room W12–140, card sets forth: (a) Prescribed wording prohibits any other information advising the consumer of the Washington, DC 20590–0001. unrelated to the registration of the CRS, • Hand Delivery or Courier: West importance of registering; (b) prescribed such as advertising or warranty Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, instructions on how to register; and (c) information. 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, prescribed statements that the mail-in If the proposed changes to the Washington, DC 20590–0001 between 9 card is pre-addressed and that postage is information card are adopted, NHTSA a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through already paid. anticipates a change to the hour burden Friday, except Federal holidays. The bottom part (the mail-in card) is or costs associated with the revised • Fax: 202–493–2251. to be returned to the manufacturer by information card, labels and owner’s Regardless of how you submit your the purchaser. The bottom part includes manuals. Child restraint manufacturers comments, you should mention the prepaid return postage, the pre-printed produce, on average, a total of docket number of this document. You approximately 15,000,000 child may call the Docket at (202) 366–9826. 138 Prescribed in FMVSS No. 213, ‘‘Child restraint Please identify the proposed collection systems.’’ As discussed in this preamble, this restraints per year. NHTSA estimates NPRM proposes to relieve some of those there are 29 CRS manufacturers with of information for which a comment is restrictions. 159 distinct CRS models. provided, by referencing its OMB

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69443

clearance number. It is requested, but 2019,’’ dated May 2019, into FMVSS If you are submitting comments not required, that two copies of the No. 213 (49 CFR 571.213). The drawing electronically as a PDF (Adobe) file, comment be provided. Note that all package consists of detailed drawings of NHTSA asks that the documents be comments received will be posted and other materials related to the submitted using the Optical Character without change to http:// proposed standard seat assembly. Recognition (OCR) process, thus www.regulations.gov, including any Interested persons could use the allowing NHTSA to search and copy personal information provided. Anyone drawing package to manufacture the certain portions of your submissions. is able to search the electronic form of standard seat assembly for their own use Please note that pursuant to the Data all comments received into any of our if they wished to do so. Quality Act, in order for substantive dockets by the name of the individual NHTSA has placed a copy of the data to be relied on and used by submitting the comment (or signing the drawing package in the docket for this NHTSA, it must meet the information comment, if submitted on behalf of an NPRM. Interested parties can download quality standards set forth in the OMB association, business, labor union, etc.). a copy of the drawing package or view and DOT Data Quality Act guidelines. You may review DOT’s complete the materials on line by accessing Accordingly, NHTSA encourages you to Privacy Act Statement in the Federal www.Regulations.gov. We also will consult the guidelines in preparing your Register published on April 11, 2000 place a copy of the drawing package in comments. DOT’s guidelines may be (65 FR 19477–78). the docket of the final rule that accessed at https:// incorporates the new standard seat www.transportation.gov/regulations/ Regulation Identifier Number assembly into FMVSS No. 213. dot-information-dissemination-quality- The Department of Transportation This NPRM also proposes to change guidelines. assigns a regulation identifier number an incorporation by reference of SAE Tips for Preparing Your Comments (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in Recommended Practice J211, the Unified Agenda of Federal ‘‘Instrumentation for Impact Tests,’’ When submitting comments, please Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. revised 1980, to a 1995 version of J211 remember to: The Regulatory Information Service (J211/1). SAE J211/1, Revised March Identify the rulemaking by docket Center publishes the Unified Agenda in 1995, ‘‘Instrumentation for Impact number and other identifying April and October of each year. You Test—Part 1—Electronic information (subject heading, Federal may use the RIN contained in the Instrumentation,’’ provides guidelines Register date and page number). heading at the beginning of this and recommendations for techniques of Explain why you agree or disagree, document to find this action in the measurement with electronic suggest alternatives, and substitute Unified Agenda. instrumentation used in impact tests. language for your requested changes. These include a series of performance Describe any assumptions you make Plain Language recommendations for data channels, and provide any technical information Executive Order 12866 requires each guidelines for selecting a frequency and/or data that you used. agency to write all rules in plain response class for electronic If you estimate potential costs or language. instrumentation, and guidelines on sign burdens, explain how you arrived at Application of the principles of plain convention and digital data processing. your estimate in sufficient detail to language includes consideration of the The Director of the Federal Register has allow for it to be reproduced. following questions: already approved the incorporation by Provide specific examples to illustrate • Have we organized the material to reference of SAE Recommended your concerns, and suggest alternatives. suit the public’s needs? Practice J211/1 (1995) into 49 CFR part Explain your views as clearly as • Are the requirements in the rule 571 (see 49 CFR 571.5(l)(4)). Interested possible, avoiding the use of profanity clearly stated? or personal threats. • parties can obtain a copy of the SAE Does the rule contain technical Recommended Practice J211/1 (March To ensure that your comments are language or jargon that isn’t clear? considered by the agency, make sure to • 1995) ‘‘Instrumentation for Impact Would a different format (grouping Test—Part 1—Electronic submit them by the comment period and order of sections, use of headings, Instrumentation,’’ from SAE deadline identified in the DATES section paragraphing) make the rule easier to International, 400 Commonwealth above. understand? Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096. For additional guidance on • Would more (but shorter) sections submitting effective comments, see Telephone: (724) 776–4841, website: _ be better? www.sae.org. https://www.regulations.gov/docs/Tips • Could we improve clarity by adding For_Submitting_Effective_ tables, lists, or diagrams? XV. Public Participation Comments.pdf. • What else could we do to make the How do I prepare and submit rule easier to understand? How can I be sure my comments were NHTSA has considered these comments? received? questions and attempted to use plain To ensure that your comments are If you wish Docket Management to language in writing this proposed rule. correctly filed in the Docket, please notify you upon its receipt of your Please inform the agency if you can include the Docket Number in your comments, enclose a self-addressed, suggest how NHTSA can improve its comments. stamped postcard in the envelope use of plain language. Your comments must be written and containing your comments. Upon in English. Your comments must not be receiving your comments, Docket Incorporation by Reference more than 15 pages long. NHTSA Management will return the postcard by In updating the standard seat established this limit to encourage you mail. assembly used in the FMVSS No. 213 to write your primary comments in a frontal test, NHTSA would incorporate concise fashion. However, you may How do I submit confidential business by reference a drawing package titled, attach necessary additional documents information? ‘‘NHTSA Standard Seat Assembly; to your comments, and there is no limit If you wish to submit any information FMVSS No. 213, No. NHTSA–213– on the length of the attachments. under a claim of confidentiality, you

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 69444 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

should submit three copies of your In consideration of the foregoing, ■ Revising the introductory paragraph complete submission, including the NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR part to S7.1.2; information you claim to be confidential 571 as set forth below. ■ Revising S7.1.3, and, business information, to the Chief ■ Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR Adding S10.2.2(e), and Figures 1D, above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS 1D’, 1E, 1E’, 9c and 9d. CONTACT. In addition, you should The revised and added text and ■ submit a copy from which you have 1. The authority citation for Part 571 figures read as follows: deleted the claimed confidential continues to read as follows: § 571.213 Child restraint systems. business information to the docket. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, When you send a comment containing 30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at * * * * * information claimed to be confidential 49 CFR 1.95. S4. Definitions * * * business information, you should ■ 2. Section 571.5 is amended by adding School bus child restraint system include a cover letter setting forth the and reserving paragraphs (k)(5) through means a child restraint system information specified in our (8), adding paragraph (k)(9), and (including a harness) manufactured and confidential business information revising paragraph (l)(4), to read as sold only for use on school bus seats, regulation. (49 CFR part 512.) follows: that has a label conforming with S5.3.1(b). Will the Agency consider late § 571.5 Matter incorporated by reference. comments? * * * * * * * * * * NHTSA will consider all comments (k) * * * S5.1.2.2 [Reserved] that the docket receives before the close (5) [Reserved.] * * * * * of business on the comment closing date (6) [Reserved.] S5.1.3.1 * * * indicated above under DATES. To the (7) [Reserved.] extent possible, NHTSA will also (8) [Reserved.] (a)(1) For each add-on child restraint consider comments that the docket (9) Drawing Package, ‘‘NHTSA system manufactured before [date 3 receives after that date. If the docket Standard Seat Assembly; FMVSS No. years after date of publication of final receives a comment too late for the 213, No. NHTSA–213–2019,’’ rule]— agency to consider it in developing a (consisting of drawings and a bill of (i) No portion of the test dummy’s final rule, NHTSA will consider that materials), May 2019, into § 571.213. head shall pass through a vertical comment as an informal suggestion for (l) * * * transverse plane that is 720 mm or 813 future rulemaking action. (4) SAE Recommended Practice J211/ mm (as specified in table 2 to this How can I read the comments submitted 1, revised March 1995, ‘‘Instrumentation S5.1.3.1(a)) forward of point Z on the by other people? for Impact Test—Part 1—Electronic Standard Seat Assembly No. NHTSA– Instrumentation’’ into §§ 571.202a; 213–2003, measured along the center You may read the comments received 571.208; 571.213; 571.213a 571.218; SORL (as illustrated in figure 1B of this by the docket at the address given above 571.403. standard); and under ADDRESSES. You may also see the comments on the internet (http:// * * * * * (ii) Neither knee pivot point shall pass ■ regulations.gov). 3. Section 571.213 is amended by— through a vertical transverse plane that ■ Please note that even after the Adding, in alphabetical order, a is 915 mm forward of point Z on the comment closing date, NHTSA will definition of ‘‘school bus child restraint Standard Seat Assembly No. NHTSA– continue to file relevant information in system’’ to S4; 213–2003, measured along the center the docket as it becomes available. ■ Removing and reserving S5.1.2.2; SORL. * * * ■ Further, some people may submit late Revising S5.1.3.1(a); (2) For each add-on child restraint ■ comments. Accordingly, the agency Revising S5.3.1(b); system manufactured on or after [date 3 ■ recommends that you periodically Revising S5.3.2; years after date of publication of final ■ check the docket for new material. Revising the introductory text of rule]— Anyone is able to search the S5.5.2; ■ Revising S5.5.2(f), S5.5.2(g)(1)(i), (i) No portion of the test dummy’s electronic form of all comments head shall pass through a vertical received into any of our dockets by the removing and reserving S5.5.2(k)(2); ■ Removing and reserving S5.5.2(l)(2), transverse plane that is 720 mm or 813 name of the individual submitting the mm (as specified in table 3 to this comment (or signing the comment, if revising S5.5.2(l)(3)(i); S5.1.3.1(a)) forward of point Z on the submitted on behalf of an association, ■ Revising S5.5.2(m), S5.5.5(f), Standard Seat Assembly No. NHTSA– business, labor union, etc.). You may S5.5.5(k), S5.6.1.7, S5.6.1.11, S5.6.2.2, 213–2019, measured along the center review DOT’s complete Privacy Act S5.8.1, S5.8.2, and S5.9(a); SORL (as illustrated in figure 1D of this Statement in the Federal Register ■ Adding S6.1.1(a)(1)(i) and revising standard); and published on April 11, 2000 (Volume S6.1.1(a)(1)(ii); 65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78). ■ Revising S6.1.1(a)(2)(i)(B) and (ii) Neither knee pivot point shall pass S6.1.1(a)(2)(ii)(G); through a vertical transverse plane that List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571 ■ Removing and reserving S6.1.1(c); is 915 mm forward of point Z on the Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor ■ Revising S6.1.2(a), S6.1.2(a)(1) and Standard Seat Assembly No. NHTSA– vehicles, and Tires; Incorporation by S6.1.2(a)(2) and S6.2(d)(1)(ii); 213–2019, measured along the center Reference. ■ Adding S7.1.1; SORL.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69445

TABLE 2 TO S5.1.3.1(a)—ADD-ON FORWARD-FACING CHILD RESTRAINTS MANUFACTURED BEFORE [Date 3 years after date of publication of final rule]

Explanatory note: in the test specified in 2nd column, the When this type of child Is tested in child restraint is attached to the test seat assembly in restraint accordance with— These excursion limits apply the manner described below, subject to certain conditions

Harnesses, backless booster S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(A) ... Head 813 mm; Knee 915 mm Attached with lap belt; in addition, if a tether is provided, seats and restraints de- it is attached. signed for use by physically handicapped children. School bus child restraint sys- S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(A) ... Head 813 mm; Knee 915 mm Attached with seat back mount, or seat back and seat tems. pan mounts. Belt-positioning seats ...... S6.1.2(a)(1)(ii) ...... Head 813 mm; Knee 915 mm Attached with lap and shoulder belt; no tether is at- tached. Child restraints other than har- S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(B) ... Head 813 mm; Knee 915 mm Attached with lap belt; no tether is attached. nesses, backless booster S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(D) ... Head 813 mm; Knee 915 mm Attached to lower anchorages of child restraint anchor- seats, restraints designed ...... age system; no tether is attached. for use by physically handi- ...... Attached with lap belt; in addition, if a tether is provided, capped children, school bus ...... it is attached. child restraint systems, and S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(A) ... Head 720 mm; Knee 915 mm belt-positioning seats...... S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(C) ... Head 720 mm; Knee 915 mm Attached to lower anchorages of child restraint anchor- age system; in addition, if a tether is provided, it is at- tached. Child restraints equipped with S6.1.2(a)(2)(i) ...... Head 813 mm; Knee 915 mm Attached with lap belt or lower anchorages of child re- a fixed or movable surface straint anchorage system; no tether is attached. described in S5.2.2.2 that has belts that are not an in- tegral part of that fixed or movable surface.

TABLE 3 TO S5.1.3.1(a)—ADD-ON FORWARD-FACING CHILD RESTRAINTS MANUFACTURED ONORAFTER [Date 3 years after date of publication of final rule]

Explanatory note: in the test specified in 2nd column, the When this type of child Is tested in child restraint is attached to the test seat assembly in restraint accordance with— These excursion limits apply the manner described below, subject to certain conditions

Harnesses and restraints de- S6.1.2(a)(1)(iv)(A) Head 813 mm; Knee 915 mm. Attached with lap and shoulder belt; in addition, if a teth- signed for use by physically er is provided, it is attached. handicapped children. School bus child restraint sys- S6.1.2(a)(1)(iv)(A) Head 813 mm; Knee 915 mm Attached with seat back mount, or seat back and seat tems. pan mounts. Booster seats ...... S6.1.2(a)(1)(iv)(B) Head 813 mm; Knee 915 mm Attached with lap and shoulder belt; no tether is at- tached. Child restraints other than har- S6.1.2(a)(1)(iv)(B) Head 813 mm; Knee 915 mm Attached with lap and shoulder belt; no tether is at- nesses, restraints designed S6.1.2(a)(1)(iv)(D) Head 813 mm; Knee 915 mm tached. for use by physically handi- ...... Attached to lower anchorages of child restraint anchor- capped children, school bus S6.1.2(a)(1)(iv)(A) Head 720 mm; Knee 915 mm age system; no tether is attached. child restraint systems, and ...... Attached with lap and shoulder belt; in addition, if a teth- booster seats. S6.1.2(a)(1)(iv)(C) Head 720 mm; Knee 915 mm er is provided, it is attached...... Attached to lower anchorages of child restraint anchor- ...... age system; in addition, if a tether is provided, it is at- tached. Child restraints equipped with S6.1.2(a)(2)(i) ...... Head 813 mm; Knee 915 mm Attached with lap and shoulder belt or lower anchorages a fixed or movable surface of child restraint anchorage system; no tether is at- described in S5.2.2.2 that tached. has belts that are not an in- tegral part of that fixed or movable surface.

* * * * * school bus child restraint system that (3) The pictogram shall be gray and S5.3.1 * * * attaches the system to a vehicle seat black with a red circle and slash on a (b) School bus child restraint systems back. white background. The pictogram shall must have a label, that conforms in (1) The label must be plainly visible be no less than 20 mm in diameter. content to Figure 12 and to the when installed and easily readable. S5.3.2 Each add-on child restraint requirements of S5.3.1(b)(1) through (2) The message area must be white system manufactured before [ date 3 S5.3.1(b)(3) of this standard, and that is with black text. The message area must years after date of publication of final permanently affixed to the part of the be no less than 20 square centimeters. rule] and each add-on child restraint

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 69446 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

system manufactured on or after [date 3 requirements of this standard when 6, respectively, for the particular type of years after date of publication of final installed solely by each of the means child restraint system: rule] shall be capable of meeting the indicated in the following tables 5 and

TABLE 5 TO S5.3.2 MEANS OF INSTALLATION FOR CHILD RESTRAINTS MANUFACTURED BEFORE [Date 3 years after date of publication of final rule]

Type 1 seat belt Type 1 assembly plus a Child restraint Type 2 seat Seat back mount, Type of add-on child restraint system seat belt tether anchorage, if anchorage system belt assembly or seat back and assembly needed seat pan mounts

School bus child restraint systems ...... X Other harnesses ...... X ...... Car beds ...... X ...... Rear-facing restraints ...... X ...... X ...... Belt-positioning seats ...... X ...... All other child restraints ...... X X X ......

TABLE 6 TO S5.3.2 MEANS OF INSTALLATION FOR CHILD RESTRAINTS MANUFACTURED ON OR AFTER [Date 3 years after date of publication of final rule]

Type 2 seat belt assembly plus a Child restraint Type 2 seat Seat back mount, Type of add-on child restraint system tether anchorage, if anchorage system belt assembly or seat back and needed seat pan mounts

School bus child restraint systems ...... X Other harnesses ...... X ...... Car beds ...... X ...... Rear-facing restraints ...... X X ...... Booster seats ...... X ...... All other child restraints ...... X X X ......

* * * * * (1) * * * included in the statement at the S5.5.2 The information specified in (i) As appropriate, the statements manufacturer’s option. paragraphs (a) through (e) and required by the following sections will * * * * * paragraphs (g) through (m) of this be bulleted and placed after the (m) Statements informing the owner section shall be stated in the English statement required by 5.5.2(g)(1) in the language and in letters and numbers of the importance of registering the following order: 5.5.2(k)(1), 5.5.2(h), child restraint for recall purposes and that are not smaller than 10 point type. 5.5.2(j), and 5.5.2(i). Unless otherwise specified, the instructing the owner how to register information shall be labeled on a white * * * * * the child restraint at least by mail and background with black text. Unless (k)(1) * * * by telephone, providing a U.S. written in all capitals, the information (2) [Reserved] telephone number. The following statement must also be provided: ‘‘For shall be stated in sentence * * * * * capitalization. recall information, call the U.S. (l) * * * Government’s Vehicle Safety Hotline at * * * * * (f) Statements or a combination of (2) [Reserved] 1–888–327–4236 (TTY: 1–800–424– statements and pictograms specifying (3) * * * 9153), or go to www.NHTSA.gov.’’ the manufacturer’s recommendations for (i) If the child restraint is designed to * * * * * the mass and height ranges of children meet the requirements of this standard S5.5.5 * * * who can safely occupy the system in when installed by the child restraint (f) The same statement(s) provided each applicable mode (rear-facing, anchorage system according to S5.3.2, under S5.5.2(f). forward-facing, booster), except and if the sum of the weight of the child * * * * * manufacturers shall not recommend restraint and the maximum child weight forward-facing child restraint systems recommended for the child restraint (k) Statements informing the owner of with internal harnesses for children of when used with the restraint’s internal the importance of registering the child masses less than 12 kg (26.5 lb), and harness or components is greater than restraint for recall purposes and shall not recommend booster seats for 65 lb when used forward-facing or rear- instructing the owner how to register children of masses less than 18.4 kg (40 facing, include the following statement the child restraint at least by mail and lb). For seats that can only be used as on this installation diagram: ‘‘Do not by telephone, providing a U.S. belt-positioning seats, manufacturers install by this method for a child telephone number. The following must include the maximum and weighing more than *.’’ At the statement must also be provided: ‘‘For minimum recommended height, but manufacturer’s option, ‘‘*’’ is the child recall information, call the U.S. may delete the reference to maximum weight limit in English units in Government’s Vehicle Safety Hotline at weight. accordance with S5.5.2(l)(3)(i)(A), (B) or 1–888–327–4236 (TTY: 1–800–424– * * * * * (C). The corresponding child weight 9153), or go to www.NHTSA.gov.’’ (g) * * * limit in metric units may also be * * * * *

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69447

S5.6.1.7 Statements informing the restraint system to which the form is address (in form of a website or code) owner of the importance of registering attached; that contains the electronic registration the child restraint for recall purposes (iii) Contain space for the owner to form shall not cause additional screens and instructing the owner how to record his or her name, mailing address, or electronic banners to appear. register the child restraint at least by email address, and other pertinent S5.9 * * * mail and by telephone, providing a U.S. information; and telephone number. The following (iv) Be addressed to the manufacturer, (a)(1) Each add-on child restraint statement must also be provided: ‘‘For and be postage paid. system manufactured before [ date 3 recall information, call the U.S. (c) The registration form attached to years after publication date of final Government’s Vehicle Safety Hotline at the child restraint shall also provide rule], other than a car bed, harness, 1–888–327–4236 (TTY: 1–800–424– information: school bus child restraint system, and 9153), or go to www.NHTSA.gov.’’ (1) Informing the owner of the belt-positioning seat, shall have * * * * * importance of registering the child components permanently attached that S5.6.1.11 For school bus child restraint; and, enable the restraint to be securely restraint systems, the instructions must (2) Instructing the owner how to fastened to the lower anchorages of the include the following statement: register the CRS. child restraint anchorage system ‘‘WARNING! This restraint must only (3) Manufacturers must provide specified in Standard No. 225 be used on school bus seats. Entire seat statements informing the purchaser that (§ 571.225) and depicted in Drawing directly behind must be unoccupied or the registration card is pre-addressed Package SAS–100–1000, Standard Seat have restrained occupants.’’ (The and that postage has been paid. Belt Assembly with Addendum A or in (4) Manufacturers may provide instruction’s reference to a ‘‘restrained Drawing Package, ‘‘NHTSA Standard instructions to register the child occupant’’ refers to an occupant Seat Assembly; FMVSS No. 213, No. restraint electronically. If an electronic restrained by any user-appropriate NHTSA–213–2003’’ (both incorporated registration form is used, it must meet vehicle restraint or child restraint by reference, see § 571.5). The the requirements of S5.8.2 of this system (e.g., lap belt, lap and shoulder connectors must be attached to the add- section. belt, booster seat or other child restraint on child restraint by use of a tool, such (5) Manufacturers must provide system.) as a screwdriver. In the case of rear- statements to the owner explaining that facing child restraints with detachable * * * * * the registration card is not a warranty bases, only the base is required to have S5.6.2.2 The instructions for each card, and that the information collected built-in child restraint system other than from the owner will not be used for the components. [NHTSA notes: a factory-installed restraint shall include marketing purposes. inclusion of the following text was statements informing the owner of the S5.8.2 Electronic registration form. proposed by a January 23, 2015 NPRM, importance of registering the child (a) Each electronic registration form 80 FR 3744, 3775. ‘‘The connectors restraint for recall purposes and must meet the requirements of this designed to attach the add-on child instructing the owner how to register S5.8.2. Each form shall: restraint to the lower anchorages of the the child restraint at least by mail and (1) Contain statements at the top of child restraint anchorage system shall by telephone, providing a U.S. the form: be permanently marked with the telephone number. The following (i) Informing the owner of the pictogram in Figure 15. The pictogram statement must also be provided: ‘‘For importance of registering the CRS; and, is not less than 9 mm in diameter.’’] recall information, call the U.S. (ii) Instructing the owner how to (2) Each add-on child restraint system Government’s Vehicle Safety Hotline at register the CRS. manufactured on or after [ date 3 years 1–888–327–4236 (TTY: 1–800–424– (2) Provide as required registration after publication date of final rule], 9153), or go to www.NHTSA.gov.’’ fields, space for the purchaser to record other than a car bed, harness, school bus * * * * * the model name or number and date of child restraint system and belt- S5.8.1 Attached registration form. manufacture (month, year) of the child positioning seat, shall have components (a) Each child restraint system, except restraint system, and space for the permanently attached that enable the purchaser to record his or her name and a factory-installed built-in restraint restraint to be securely fastened to the mailing address. At the manufacturer’s system, shall have a registration form lower anchorages of the child restraint attached to any surface of the restraint option, a space is provided for the anchorage system specified in Standard that contacts the dummy when the purchaser to record his or her email No. 225 (§ 571.225) and depicted in dummy is positioned in the system in address. Drawing Package, ‘‘NHTSA Standard accordance with S6.1.2 of Standard 213. (b) No advertising information shall Seat Assembly; FMVSS No. 213, No. The form shall not have advertising or appear on the electronic registration NHTSA–213–2019’’ (incorporated by any information other than that related form. to registering the child restraint system. (c) The electronic registration form reference, see § 571.5). The connectors (b) Each attached form shall provide may provide information identifying the must be attached to the add-on child a mail-in postcard that conforms in size, manufacturer or a link to the restraint by use of a tool, such as a and in basic content and format to the manufacturer’s home page, a field to screwdriver. In the case of rear-facing forms depicted in Figures 9c and 9d of confirm submission, and a prompt to child restraints with detachable bases, this section. indicate any incomplete or invalid only the base is required to have the (1) The mail-in postcard shall: fields prior to submission. components. [NHTSA notes: inclusion (i) Have a thickness of at least 0.007 (d) If a manufacturer printed the of the following text would be consistent inches and not more than 0.0095 inches; electronic address (in form of a website with a January 23, 2015 NPRM, 80 FR (ii) Be pre-printed with the or code) on the attached registration at 3775. ‘‘The connectors designed to information identifying the child form provided pursuant to S5.8.1, the attach the add-on child restraint to the restraint for recall purposes, such as the electronic registration form shall be lower anchorages of the child restraint model name or number and date of accessed directly by the electronic anchorage system shall be permanently manufacture (month, year) of the child address. Accessing the electronic marked with the pictogram in Figure 15.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 69448 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

The pictogram is not less than 9 mm in webbing with a width of not more than system at the center seating position of diameter.’’] 2 inches, and are attached to the the standard seat assembly in * * * * * anchorage points without the use of accordance with the manufacturer’s S6.1.1 * * * retractors or reels of any kind. As instructions provided with the system (a) * * * illustrated in Figures 1D’ and 1E’ of this pursuant to S5.6.1. The tether strap, if (1) * * * standard, attached to the standard seat one is provided, is attached to the tether (i) The test device for add-on restraint assembly is a child restraint anchorage anchorage. systems manufactured before date 3 system conforming to the specifications (D) Install the child restraint system years after publication date of final rule] of Standard No. 225 (§ 571.225). using only the lower anchorages of the is a standard seat assembly consisting of (2) * * * child restraint anchorage system as in a simulated vehicle bench seat, with (i) * * * S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(C). No tether strap (or any three seating positions, which is (B) The platform is instrumented with other supplemental device) is used. depicted in Drawing Package, ‘‘NHTSA an accelerometer and data processing (ii) Belt-positioning seats Standard Seat Assembly; FMVSS No. system having a frequency response of manufactured before [ date 3 years from 213, No. NHTSA–213–2003,’’ 60 Hz channel frequency class as date of publication of final rule]. A belt- (consisting of drawings and a bill of specified in SAE Recommended positioning seat is attached to either materials) dated June 3, 2003 Practice J211/1 (1995), ‘‘Instrumentation outboard seating position of the (incorporated by reference; see § 571.5). for Impact Tests,’’ (incorporated by standard seat assembly in accordance The assembly is mounted on a dynamic reference, see § 571.5). The with the manufacturer’s instructions test platform so that the center SORL of accelerometer sensitive axis is parallel provided with the system pursuant to the seat is parallel to the direction of the to the direction of test platform travel. S5.6.1 using only the standard vehicle test platform travel and so that (ii) * * * lap and shoulder belt and no tether (or movement between the base of the (G) All instrumentation and data any other supplemental device). Place assembly and the platform is prevented. reduction is in conformance with SAE the belt-positioning seat on the standard As illustrated in Figures 1A and 1B of Recommended Practice J211/1 (1995), seat assembly such that the center plane this standard, attached to the seat belt ‘‘Instrumentation for Impact Tests,’’ of the belt-positioning seat is parallel anchorage points provided on the (incorporated by reference, see § 571.5). and aligned to the center plane of the standard seat assembly are Type 1 seat * * * * * outboard seating positions on the belt assemblies in the case of add-on S6.1.1(c) [Reserved] standard seat assembly and the base of child restraint systems other than belt- S6.1.2 Dynamic test procedure. the belt-positioning seat is flat on the positioning seats, or Type 2 seat belt (a) Activate the built-in child restraint standard seat assembly cushion. Move assemblies in the case of belt- or attach the add-on child restraint to the belt-positioning seat rearward on the positioning seats. These seat belt the seat assembly in any of the standard seat assembly until some part assemblies meet the requirements of following manners, at the agency’s of the belt-positioning seat touches the Standard No. 209 (§ 571.209) and have option. standard seat assembly back. Keep the webbing with a width of not more than (1) Test configuration I. belt-positioning seat and the seating 2 inches, and are attached to the (i) Child restraints other than belt- position center plane aligned as much anchorage points without the use of positioning seats, manufactured before as possible. Apply 133 N (30 pounds) of retractors or reels of any kind. As [date 3 years from date of publication of force to the front of the belt-positioning illustrated in Figures 1A’ and 1B’ of this final rule]. Attach the child restraint in seat rearward into the standard seat standard, attached to the standard seat any of the following manners specified assembly and release. assembly is a child restraint anchorage in S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(A) through (D), unless (iii) In the case of each built-in child system conforming to the specifications otherwise specified in this standard. restraint system, activate the restraint in of Standard No. 225 (§ 571.225). (A) Install the child restraint system at the specific vehicle shell or the specific (ii) The test device for add-on the center seating position of the vehicle, in accordance with the restraint systems manufactured on or standard seat assembly, in accordance manufacturer’s instructions provided in after [ date 3 years after publication date with the manufacturer’s instructions accordance with S5.6.2. of final rule] is a standard seat assembly provided with the system pursuant to (iv) Child restraints other than booster consisting of a simulated vehicle rear S5.6.1, except that the standard lap belt seats, manufactured on or after [ date 3 seat which is depicted in Drawing is used and, if provided, a tether strap years from date of publication of final Package, ‘‘NHTSA Standard Seat may be used. Attach school bus child rule]. At the agency’s option, attach the Assembly; FMVSS No. 213, No. restraint systems in accordance with the child restraint in any of the following NHTSA–213–2019,’’ (consisting of manufacturer’s instructions provided manners specified in S6.1.2(a)(1)(iv)(A) drawings and a bill of materials) dated with the system pursuant to S5.6.1, i.e., through (D), unless otherwise specified May 2019 (incorporated by reference; the seat back or seat back and seat pan in this standard. see § 571.5). The assembly is mounted mounts are used. (A) Install the child restraint system on a dynamic test platform so that the (B) Except for a harness, a school bus on the standard seat assembly, in center SORL of the seat is parallel to the child restraint system, a backless child accordance with the manufacturer’s direction of the test platform travel and restraint system with a tether strap, and instructions provided with the system so that movement between the base of a restraint designed for use by pursuant to S5.6.1, except that the the assembly and the platform is physically handicapped children, install standard lap and shoulder belt is used prevented. As illustrated in Figures 1D the child restraint system at the center and, if provided, a tether strap may be and 1E of this standard, attached to the seating position of the standard seat used. Attach the school bus child seat belt anchorage points provided on assembly as in S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(A), except restraint system in accordance with the the standard seat assembly is a Type 2 that no tether strap (or any other manufacturer’s instructions provided seat belt assembly. The seat belt supplemental device) is used. with the system pursuant to S5.6.1, i.e., assembly meets the requirements of (C) Install the child restraint system the seat back or seat back and seat pan Standard No. 209 (§ 571.209) and has using the child restraint anchorage mounts are used.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69449

(B) Except for a harness, a school bus lap and shoulder belt to secure the includes any children having a mass child restraint system, and a restraint system to the standard seat, or at greater than 10 kg but not greater than designed for use by physically NHTSA’s option, only the lower 13.6 kg (22 to 30 lb), or by children in handicapped children, install the child anchorages of the child restraint a specified height range that includes restraint system on the standard seat anchorage system. Do not attach the top any children whose height is greater assembly as in S6.1.2(a)(1)(iv)(A), tether. than 750 mm but not greater than 870 except that no tether strap (or any other (ii) In the case of each built-in child mm, is tested with a part 572 subpart R supplemental device) is used. restraint system which is equipped with dummy (CRABI 12-month-old infant (C) Install the child restraint system a fixed or movable surface described in dummy). using the child restraint anchorage S5.2.2.2 that has belts that are not an (d) A child restraint that is system on the standard seat assembly in integral part of that fixed or movable recommended by its manufacturer in accordance with the manufacturer’s surface, activate the system in the accordance with S5.5 for use either by instructions provided with the system specific vehicle shell or the specific children in a specified mass range that pursuant to S5.6.1. The tether strap, if vehicle in accordance with the includes any children having a mass one is provided, is attached to the tether manufacturer’s instructions provided in greater than 13.6 kg but not greater than anchorage. accordance with S5.6.2. 18.2 kg (30 to 40 lb), or by children in (D) Install the child restraint system * * * * * a specified height range that includes using only the lower anchorages of the (d) Belt adjustment. any children whose height is greater child restraint anchorage system as in (1) * * * than 870 mm but not greater than 1100 S6.1.2(a)(1)(iv)(C). No tether strap (or (i) * * * mm, is tested with a part 572 subpart P any other supplemental device) is used. (ii) All Type I belt systems used to dummy (Hybrid III 3-year-old dummy). (v) Booster seats manufactured on or attach an add-on child restraint to the (e) A child restraint that is after [date 3 years from date of standard seat assembly, and any recommended by its manufacturer in publication of final rule]. A booster seat provided additional anchorage belt accordance with S5.5 for use either by is attached to the standard seat assembly (tether), are tightened to a tension of not children in a specified mass range that in accordance with the manufacturer’s less than 53.5 N and not more than 67 includes any children having a mass instructions provided with the system greater than 18.2 kg (40 lb) but not pursuant to S5.6.1 using only the N, as measured by a load cell used on greater than 22.7 kg (50 lb), or by standard lap and shoulder belt and no the webbing portion of the belt. All belt children in a specified height range that tether (or any other supplemental systems used to attach a school bus includes any children whose height is device). Place the booster seat on the child restraint system are also tightened greater than 1100 mm but not greater standard seat assembly such that the to a tension of not less than 53.5 N and than 1250 mm is tested with a 49 CFR center plane of the booster seat is not more than 67 N, by measurement part 572, subpart N dummy (Hybrid III parallel and aligned to the center plane means specified in this paragraph. 6-year-old dummy). of the standard seat assembly and the * * * * * (f) A child restraint that is base of the booster seat is flat on the S7.1.1 Child restraints that are standard seat assembly cushion. Move manufactured on or after date three recommended by its manufacturer in the booster seat rearward on the years after date of publication of the accordance with S5.5 for use either by standard seat assembly until some part final rule], are subject to the following children in a specified mass range that of the booster seat touches the standard provisions. includes any children having a mass seat assembly back. Keep the booster (a) A child restraint that is greater than 22.7 kg (50 lb) but not seat and the seating position center recommended by its manufacturer in greater than 29.5 kg (65 lb) or by plane aligned as much as possible. accordance with S5.5 for use either by children in a specified height range that Apply 133 N (30 pounds) of force to the children in a specified mass range that includes any children whose height is front of the booster seat rearward into includes any children having a mass of greater than 1100 mm but not greater the standard seat assembly and release. not greater than 5 kg (11 lb), or by than 1250 mm is tested with a 49 CFR (2) Test configuration II. (i) In the case children in a specified height range that part 572, subpart N dummy (Hybrid III of each add-on child restraint system includes any children whose height is 6-year-old dummy) and with a part 572, manufactured before [ date 3 years from not greater than 650 mm, is tested with subpart S dummy (Hybrid III 6-year-old date of publication of final rule] which a 49 CFR part 572 subpart K dummy weighted dummy). is equipped with a fixed or movable (newborn infant dummy). (g) A child restraint that is surface described in S5.2.2.2 that has (b) A child restraint that is recommended by its manufacturer in belts that are not an integral part of that recommended by its manufacturer in accordance with S5.5 for use either by fixed or movable surface, install the accordance with S5.5 for use either by children in a specified mass range that add-on child restraint system at the children in a specified mass range that includes any children having a mass center seating position of the standard includes any children having a mass greater than 29.5 kg (65 lb) or by seat assembly using only the standard greater than 5 kg but not greater than 10 children in a specified height range that seat lap belt to secure the system to the kg (11 to 22 lb), or by children in a includes any children whose height is standard seat. Do not attach the top specified height range that includes any greater than 1250 mm is tested with a tether. In the case of each add-on child children whose height is greater than 49 CFR part 572, subpart T dummy restraint system manufactured on or 650 mm but not greater than 750 mm, (Hybrid III 10-year-old dummy). after [ date 3 years from date of is tested with a 49 CFR part 572 subpart S7.1.2 Child restraints that are publication of final rule] which is K dummy (newborn infant dummy), and manufactured before [ date three years equipped with a fixed or movable a part 572 subpart R dummy (CRABI 12- after date of publication of the final surface described in S5.2.2.2 that has month-old infant dummy). rule], are subject to the following belts that are not an integral part of that (c) A child restraint that is provisions and S7.1.3. fixed or movable surface, install the recommended by its manufacturer in * * * * * add-on child restraint system on the accordance with S5.5 for use either by S7.1.3 Voluntary use of alternative standard seat assembly using only the children in a specified mass range that dummies. For child restraint systems

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 69450 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

manufactured before [ date 3 years after an internal restraint system, remove the fixed or movable surface. For all other date of publication of a final rule], at the knee stop screw (210–6516 in drawing child restraint systems and for a child manufacturer’s option (with said option 210–5000–1,-2; incorporated by restraint system with a fixed or movable irrevocably selected prior to, or at the reference, see § 571.5) from the right and surface that is being tested under the time of, certification of the restraint), left knee so as to let the knees conditions of test configuration I, attach when this section specifies use of the 49 hyperextend. all appropriate child restraint belts and CFR part 572, subpart N (Hybrid III 6- (2) Place the Subpart P dummy in the tighten them as specified in S6.1.2. year-old dummy) test dummy, the test forward- or rear-facing child restraint Attach all appropriate vehicle belts and dummy specified in 49 CFR part 572, system being tested so that the back of tighten them as specified in S6.1.2. subpart I (Hybrid II 6-year-old dummy) the dummy torso contacts the back Position each movable surface in may be used in place of the subpart N support surface of the system. For a accordance with the instructions that test dummy. child restraint system equipped with a the manufacturer provided under S5.6.1 * * * * * fixed or movable surface described in or S5.6.2. S5.2.2.2 that is being tested under the S10.2.2 * * * Figures to § 571.213 (e)(1) When using the Hybrid III 3- conditions of test configuration II, do year-old (part 572, subpart P) dummy in not attach any of the child restraint belts * * * * * a rear-facing child restraint system with unless they are an integral part of the BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP02NO20.030 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69451

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP02NO20.031 69452 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP02NO20.032 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69453

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP02NO20.033 69454 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP02NO20.034 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69455

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C safety and are anticipated to have a beneficial number of children killed and injured in Note: The following appendix will not effect on child passenger safety. This CRSs categorized by age of child; (c) the appear in the Code of Federal Regulations. appendix provides the data and analysis percentage of children by age in rear-facing methodology to illustrate and estimate that and forward-facing CRSs; (d) the percentage Appendix to Preamble beneficial effect, in terms of potential lives of children by age weighing less than 12 kg saved and injuries prevented. (26.5 lb); and, (e) the percentage of caregivers Estimation of Potential Benefits From the who would follow manufacturer’s Proposed Increase in the Manufacturer- (1) Increasing Manufacturer-Recommended Minimum Child Weight for Forward-Facing instructions provided on CRS labels and the Recommended Minimum Child Weight for users’ manual regarding use of the CRS. Use of Forward-Facing CRSs and Booster CRS Use From 9 kg to 12 kg (20 lb to 26.5 Seats lb) Incremental Effectiveness of Rear-Facing Under FMVSS No. 213, manufacturers Increasing the manufacturer-recommended CRSs Over Forward-Facing CRSs label their child restraints with information minimum child weight for use of forward- McMurry, et al.140 examined the National about the children for whom the CRS is facing CRSs from 9 kg to 12 kg (20 lb to 26.5 Automotive Sampling System— lb) could potentially reduce premature recommended, based on the children’s height Crashworthiness Data System (NASS–CDS) graduation of children to forward-facing and weight. Children should be rear-facing data files for the years 1988–2015 to compare CRSs. NHTSA recommends 139 that all until they are at least 1 year in age, as the injury risk for children up to the age of physically they are safer riding rear-facing so children up to the age of one year should always ride in rear-facing CRSs and that 2 years in rear-facing CRSs and forward- that their head and neck are supported by the facing CRSs. The data showed an extremely CRS back structure in a crash. Currently, the children 1 to 3 years of age ride in rear-facing CRSs as long as possible and until they reach low injury rate in children up to 2 years of standard requires forward-facing child age in both rear-facing CRSs and forward- restraints to be recommended for children the upper height or weight limit allowed by the CRS’s manufacturer. By supporting the facing CRSs. McMurry noted that children 2– weighing a minimum of 9 kg (20 lb). This YO and younger experienced lower rates of NPRM proposes to raise this minimum to 12 entire posterior torso, neck, head, and pelvis, injury when restrained in rear-facing CRSs kg (26.5 lb), because 12 kg (26.5 lb) a rear-facing CRS distributes crash forces than when restrained in forward-facing CRSs, corresponds to the weight of a 95th over the entire body rather than focusing percentile one-year-old. In addition, FMVSS them only at belt contact points as with a but this difference was not statistically No. 213 currently requires booster seats to be forward-facing CRS. Therefore, significant. Due to the absence of any other recommended for children weighing at least biomechanical experts, together with the field data to estimate the incremental 13.6 kg (30 lb). This NPRM proposes to raise child passenger safety community, effectiveness of rear-facing CRS over forward- that weight limit to 18.2 kg (40 lb). The recommend rear-facing CRS use for infants facing CRSs for children up to 2 years of age, proposed increase in the manufacturer- and toddlers. NHTSA used the weighted data in NASS– recommended minimum child weight for To determine the potential lives saved and CDS reported by McMurry, as shown in forward-facing CRSs reduce the premature injuries prevented by this proposal, the Table A–1. Though the weighted data is graduation from rear-facing CRSs to forward- Agency reviewed literature and analyzed provided as a percentage, it can still be used facing CRSs, and from forward-facing car available data for: (a) Estimating the to determine incremental effectiveness of safety seats to booster seats. The proposed incremental effectiveness of rear-facing CRSs rear-facing CRS over forward-facing CRS changes would align the standard with over forward-facing CRSs in protecting since effectiveness is estimated from a ratio current best practices on child passenger children in crashes; (b) determining the of injured to uninjured occupants.

TABLE A–1—NUMBER OF INJURED AND UNINJURED CHILD OCCUPANTS BY AGE AND CRS ORIENTATION (RFCRS OR FFCRS) ALONG WITH SURVEY-WEIGHTED PERCENTAGES [NASS–CDS 1988–2015]

Age RFCRS FFCRS

Infants (0–11 months)

Uninjured ...... 551 (99.4%) 71 (99.3%) Injured ...... 27 (0.6%) 3 (0.7%)

Effectiveness of RFCRSs over FFCRSs ...... =1-(0.6/99.4)/(0.7/99.3) = 0.144

1 year-olds (12–23 months)

Uninjured ...... 98 (99.8%) 339 (99.5%) Injured ...... 3 (0.2%) 14 (0.5%)

Effectiveness of RFCRSs over FFCRSs ...... =1-(0.2/99.8)/(0.5/99.5) = 0.601

McMurry’s data in Table A–1 shows that over forward-facing CRSs for 12–23 month- percent was used for rear-facing CRSs in the effectiveness of rear-facing CRSs over old children seems to be rather high preventing fatalities among children 0 to 23 forward-facing CRSs for 0–11 months is 14.4 considering the low fatality and injury rates months over that of forward-facing CRSs. percent and that for 12–23 months is 60.1 for this age group, so the agency used the percent. Based on biomechanical testing, the same effectiveness rate for this age group as Number of Children Retrained in CRSs Killed incremental protection offered by rear-facing that computed for the 0–11 month age group. Annually in Motor Vehicle Crashes CRSs over forward-facing CRSs should be Therefore, for estimating the potential The Fatality Analysis Reporting System greater for smaller/younger children than benefits of raising the minimum child weight (FARS) data files for the 5-year period from larger/older children. The 60.1 percent limit for forward-facing CRSs from 9 kg to 12 2010 to 2014 were analyzed to determine the incremental effectiveness of rear-facing CRSs kg, the incremental effectiveness of 14.4 annual average number of children restrained

139 NHTSA’s Car Seat Recommendations: https:// 140 McMurry, T.L., Arbogast, K.B., Sherwood, an updated assessment,’’ Injury Prevention, www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/ C.P., Vaca, F., Bull, M., Crandall, J.R., Kent, R.W., 2017;0:1–5.doi:10.1136/injuryprev-2017–042512. nhtsacarseatrecommendations.pdf. ‘‘Rear-facing versus forward-facing child restraints:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 69456 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

in CRSs killed in motor vehicle crashes (see analyzed to determine the percentage of CRSs (rear-facing CRSs, forward-facing CRSs, Table A–2). These data files were also fatally injured children in different types of and booster seats) (see Table A–3).

TABLE A–2—AVERAGE ANNUAL FATALITIES AMONG 0–7 YEAR-OLD CHILDREN RESTRAINED IN CRSSINREAR SEATING POSITIONS OF LIGHT VEHICLES [2010–2014 FARS]

Age (years) Percent Crash mode <1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total total

Rollover ...... 9.4 8.2 6.6 6.2 6.2 6.2 3.6 2.2 48.6 28.0 Front ...... 9.2 11.8 9 11.8 8.8 5.8 4.6 2.2 63.2 36.4 Side ...... 8.2 6.2 5.4 6 3.6 3 2.6 1.8 36.8 21.2 Near-side ...... 5.2 3.8 3.6 4 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.2 23.2 13.4 Far-side ...... 3 2.4 1.8 2 1.8 1.2 0.8 0.6 13.6 7.8 Rear ...... 4.2 5.6 4.2 3 3.2 2.6 1.4 0.8 25.0 14.4

Total ...... 31 31.8 25.2 27 21.8 17.6 12.2 7 173.6 100.0

TABLE A–3—PERCENTAGE OF FATALLY INJURED CHILDREN RESTRAINED IN DIFFERENT CRS TYPES OF CRSSINREAR SEATING POSITIONS OF LIGHT VEHICLES BY AGE OF CHILD [FARS 2010–2014]

Age (years) <1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 CRS type (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)

RFCRS ...... 73.5 11.9 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 FFCRS ...... 26.5 85.1 78.7 58.2 38.5 36.5 23.1 11.1 Booster ...... 0.0 3.0 19.7 41.8 58.5 63.5 76.9 88.9

Percentage of Children 0 to 3–YO Weighing determined using the 2000 Center for Disease and averaged for 12-month periods to Less Than 12 kg (26.5 lb) Control (CDC) Growth Charts. The percent of determine the percentage of children The percent of children weighing less than girls and boys weighing less than 12 kg from weighing less than 12 kg for less than 1-year, 12 kg (26.5 lb) for children of age less than the growth charts for each month from 1-year, 2-years, and 3-years of age (see Table 1 year, 1-year, 2 years, and 3-years was newborn to 36 months of age was determined A–4).141

TABLE A–4—PERCENT OF CHILDREN WEIGHING LESS THAN 12 kg (26.5 lb) BY CHILD AGE [2000 CDC growth charts]

<1 YO 1 YO 2 YO 3 YO (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)

Percentile ...... 99.8 71.4 22.3 0

Percentage of Caregivers Following and frontal impact crashes for the years as existing instructions themselves are not Information on CRS Use on CRS Labels or the 2003–2013 143 where a CRS restrained child followed by all caregivers. Users’ Manual was killed. This review showed that, among The Agency does not have further The proposed raising of the manufacturer- survivable side and front crashes with a child information on the efficacy of instructions on fatality, nearly half the children were recommended minimum child weight for use CRS labels and the manual and is therefore incorrectly restrained in CRSs, meaning that of forward-facing CRSs from 9 kg to 12 kg using the low rates of 15 percent and 50 the CRSs were either not installed percent of caregivers that would follow the could reduce premature graduation of appropriately in the vehicle and/or the children from rear-facing CRSs to forward- instructions on the CRS labels and manual children were not restrained correctly in for forward-facing CRS use. facing CRSs. However, this is contingent CRSs in accordance with manufacturer’s upon caregivers reading and following the instructions. Further, NHTSA’s National Estimating Lives Saved manufacturer-supplied information on CRS Child Restraint Use Special Study (NCRUSS) Using the information derived from field use on the CRS labels and the Users’ manual. published in 2015 noted CRS misuse of about data on the incremental effectiveness of rear- There is no field data on the percentage of 46 percent (DOT HS 812 157). This high rate facing CRSs over forward-facing CRSs, the caregivers who would follow the information of CRS misuse means that a change in the number of children killed who are restrained on CRS labels or the manual but inferences minimum child weight for use of forward- in forward-facing CRSs, the percentage of can be made from studies on CRS misuse. facing CRSs that is provided on CRS labels children weighing less than 12 kg, and the NHTSA conducted a detailed review of side and in the Users’ manual is highly unlikely assumptions regarding caregivers following impact crashes for the years 2002—2009 142 to lead to all caregivers making the switch, CRS use instructions supplied by the

141 Data from 2000 CDC http://www.cdc.gov/ 142 PRIA for the January 28, 2014 NPRM to 143 This NPRM upgrading the frontal sled test in growthcharts. include a side impact test in FMVSS No. 213 (79 FMVSS No. 213. FR 4570, Docket No. NHTSA–2014–0012).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69457

manufacturer, the agency estimates that the saved (see Table A–5) by raising the weight for use of forward-facing CRSs from lives of 0.7–2.3 children 0–2 YO could be manufacturer-recommended minimum child 9 kg to 12 kg.

TABLE A–5—ESTIMATE OF POTENTIAL LIVES SAVED FROM THE PROPOSED INCREASE IN THE MANUFACTURER- RECOMMENDED MINIMUM CHILD WEIGHT FOR USE OF FORWARD-FACING CRSS FROM 9 kg TO 12 kg

Age (years) <1 1 2

Average Annual Fatalities (a) ...... 31 31.8 25.2 Percent in FFCRS (b) ...... 26.5% 85.1% 78.7% Percent weight less than 26.5 lb (c) ...... 99.8% 71.4% 22.3% Target Population (d) = (a)×(b)×(c) ...... 8.2 19.3 4.4 Effectiveness of RFCRSs vs FFCRSs (e) ...... 14.4% 14.4% 14.4% Percent people following instructions (f) ...... 15%–50% 15%–50% 15%–50% Benefits for 15% follow instructions (d)×(e)×0.15 ...... 0.2 0.4 0.1 Benefits for 50% follow instructions (d)×(e)×0.5 ...... 0.6 1.4 0.3

Moderate-to-Critical Injuries Prevented 2+ injured children who are restrained in Among Children Restrained in CRSs in Motor CRSs in rear seating positions of light Vehicle Crashes vehicles. On an annual average, there were 31 children under 1 year of age and 77 The agency analyzed NASS–CDS data files children 1–2 years old that sustained AIS 2+ for the year 2010–2014 to determine average injuries for the period 2010–2014 (See Table 144 annual Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) A–6).

TABLE A–6—AVERAGE ANNUAL ESTIMATES OF 0 TO 7 YEAR-OLD CRS RESTRAINED CHILDREN WITH AIS 2+ INJURIES IN REAR SEATING POSITIONS OF LIGHT PASSENGER VEHICLES INVOLVED IN MOTOR VEHICLE CRASHES BY CRASH MODE [Weighted data NASS–CDS 2010–2014]

Age (years) Crash mode Under 1 1–2 YO 3 YO * 4–7 YO Total

Rollover ...... 0 0 0 172 172 Front ...... 0 55 37 47 139 Side ...... 30 14 10 1 55 Near-side ...... 29 5 4 0 38 Far-side ...... 1 9 6 1 17 Rear ...... 1 7 5 73 86

Total ...... 31 77 51 293 452 * NASS–CDS data have very few cases of restrained injured children. For this reason, the ages are grouped together. About 40% of AIS 2+ in- juries among AIS 2+ 1–3 YO children are to 3-year-old children. Therefore, the number of 1–2 YO children injured is 128*0.6 = 77.

The information on whether children were data files so this information was obtained System (NCRUSS) 145 as shown in Table restrained in RFCRS or FFCRS was not from the National Child Restraint Use Survey A–7.146 available in many cases in the NASS–CDS

TABLE A–7—TYPE OF CRS USED TO RESTRAIN CHILDREN IN NON-FATAL CRASHES [NCRUSS]

RFCRS FFCRS Booster Seat belt percent percent percent percent

under 1YO ...... 96 4 1 ...... 1–2YO ...... 11 86 2 1 3 YO ...... 76 22 2 4–7YO ...... 30 64 6

As before, 15 percent to 50 percent of the Users’ manual regarding CRS use and assumptions along with the percentage caregivers were assumed would follow the would keep children weighing less than 12 effectiveness of RFCRSs over FFCRS and the manufacturer’s instructions on CRS labels or kg (26.5 lb) in rear-facing CRSs. Using these 2010–2014 NASS–CDS data, the agency

144 The Abbreviated Injury Scale is a 6-point 145 National Child Restraint Use Special Study, technician and a detailed interview of the driver. ranking system used for ranking the severity of DOT HS 811 679, https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/ The survey collected information on drivers and injuries. AIS2+ Injuries means injuries of severity Api/Public/ViewPublication/812142. NCRUSS is a child passengers ages 0–8 years between June and level 2 (moderate), 3 (serious), 4 (severe), 5 (critical) large-scale nationally-representative survey that August 2011. according to the Abbreviate Injury Scale. involves both an inspection of the child passenger’s 146 Tables C–5 and C–6 of DOT–HS–812142. www.aaam.org. restraint system by a certified child passenger safety

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 69458 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules

estimated that 1.0–3.5 AIS 2+ injuries could manufacturer-recommended minimum child be prevented for children 0–2 YO (see Table weight limit for forward-facing CRS use. A–8) by the proposed change in the

TABLE A–8—ESTIMATE OF INJURIES PREVENTED FROM THE PROPOSED INCREASE IN THE MANUFACTURER-RECOMMENDED MINIMUM CHILD WEIGHT FOR USE OF FORWARD-FACING CRSS FROM 9 kg TO 12 kg

Age (years) <1 1–2

Average Annual AIS 2+ injured children (a) ...... 31 77 Percent in FFCRS (b) ...... 4.0% 86.0% Percent weight less than 12 kg (26.5 lb) (c) ...... 99.8% 71.4% Target Population (d) = (a)x(b)x(c) ...... 1.2 47.3 Effectiveness of RFCRSs vs FFCRSs (e) ...... 14.4% 14.4% Percent people following label (f) ...... 15%–50% 15%–50% Benefits for 15% follow label (d)x(e)x0.15 ...... 0.0 1.0 Benefits for 50% follow label (d)x(e)x0.50 ...... 0.1 3.4

The agency estimates that the increase in facing CRSs to booster seats. NHTSA that there is a 10 percent increased risk of the minimum child weight from 9 kg to 12 determined that among 3- to 4-year-olds, fatal injuries when restrained in booster seats kg for FFCRS use could potentially save 0.7– there is a 27 percent increased risk of compared to forward-facing CRSs. An 2.3 lives and prevent 1.0–3.5 AIS 2+ injuries. moderate to fatal injuries when restrained in average 3-year old weighs 13.6 kg (30 lb) and (2) Increasing Manufacturer-Recommended booster seats compared to forward-facing an average 4-year old weighs 16.1 kg (35.5 Minimum Child Weight for Booster Seat Use CRSs.147 The effectiveness of FFCRS over lb). Using the 2000 Center for Disease Control Increasing the manufacturer-recommended booster seats is likely reduced for older (CDC) Growth Charts, the agency determined minimum child weight for booster seat use children who may be taller and have the percentage of children weighing less than from 13.6 kg to 18.2 kg (30 lb to 40 lb) would improved belt fit in a booster seat. So, for 18.2 kg (40 lb) for each age group (see Table reduce premature graduation from forward- children 5—7 years of age, NHTSA assumed A–9).

TABLE A–9. PERCENT OF CHILDREN WEIGHING LESS THAN 18.2 kg (40 lb) BY AGE OF CHILD [2000 CDC growth charts]

2 YO 3 YO 4 YO 5 YO 6 YO 7 YO (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)

Percentile ...... 100 100 82.5 50 20 4

To determine the lives saved by increasing same assumptions that 15 percent to 50 Based on this analysis, the agency estimates the minimum child weight for booster seat percent of caregivers would follow that 1.2- 4 lives could potentially be saved use, the agency: (1) Used the fatality data in manufacturer’s instructions in the CRS labels (see Table A–10) by raising the manufacturer- Table A–2, the percentage of children in and/or Users’ manual and keep children recommended minimum child weight for booster seats in Table A–3, and the weighing less than 18.2 kg (40 lb) in CRSs booster seat use from 13.6 kg to 18.2 kg (30 percentage of children weighing less than with internal harnesses, and (3) followed a lb to 40 lb). 18.2 kg (40 lb) in Table A–9; (2) made the similar analysis method as in Table A–5.

TABLE A–10—ESTIMATE OF LIVES SAVED FOR PROPOSED LABEL CHANGE INCREASING WEIGHT OF CHILDREN IN BOOSTER SEATS FROM 13.6 TO 18.2 kg [30 to 40 lb]

Age 2 3 4 5 6 7

Average Annual Fatalities (a) ...... 25.2 27 21.8 17.6 12.2 7 Percent in booster seats (b)...... 19.7% 41.8% 58.5% 63.5% 76.9% 88.9% Percent weight less than 18.2 kg (40 lb) (c) ...... 100.0% 100.0% 82.5% 50.0% 20.0% 4.0% Target Population (d) = (a)x(b)x(c) ...... 5.0 11.3 10.5 5.6 1.9 0.2 Effectiveness of FFCRSs vs Boosters (e) 27.0% 27.0% 27.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% Percent people following label (f)...... 15%-50% 15%-50% 15%-50% 15%-50% 15%-50% 15%-50% Benefits for 50% follow label (d)x(e)x0.15 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 Benefits for 15% follow label (d)x(e)x0.5 0.7 1.5 1.4 0.3 0.1 0.0

147 DOT HS 811 338 July 2010—Booster seat effectiveness estimates based on CDS and State data.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules 69459

Using the data in Table A–6 and Table A– prevented by the proposed increase in the estimated that 1.6–5.2 AIS 2+ injuries could 7 and following the analysis as shown in minimum child weight recommendation for be prevented. Table A–10, the number of AIS 2+ injuries booster seat use from 13.6 to 18.2 kg (30 to were estimated that could potentially be 40 lb). This analysis, shown in Table A–11,

TABLE A–11—ESTIMATE OF INJURIES PREVENTED FOR PROPOSED INCREASE IN MANUFACTURER-RECOMMENDED MINIMUM CHILD WEIGHT FOR BOOSTER SEAT USE FROM 13.6 TO 18.2 kg [30 to 40 lb]

Age 1–3 4–7

Average Annual AIS 2+ injured children (a) ...... 128 293 Percent in Boosters (b) ...... 9.0% 64.0% Percent weight less than 18.2 kg (40 lb) (c) ...... 100.0% 39.1% Target Population (d) = (a)×(b)×(c) ...... 11.5 73.4 Effectiveness of FFCRSs vs. boosters (e) ...... 27.0% 10.0% Percent people following label (f) ...... 15%–50% 15%–50% Benefits for 70% follow label (d)×(e)×(f) ...... 0.5 1.1 Benefits for 15% follow label (d)×(e)×0.15 ...... 1.6 3.7

The agency estimates that the increase in In summary, the proposed increase in the Issued in Washington, DC, under authority the minimum child weight for booster seat manufacturer-recommended minimum child delegated in 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8. use from 13.6 kg to 18.2 kg (30 lb to 40 lb) weight for forward-facing CRS use and James C. Owens, booster seat use could potential save 1.9 to could potentially save 1.2–4 lives and Deputy Administrator. prevent 1.6–5.2 AIS 2+ injuries. 6.3 lives and prevent 2.6 to 8.7 AIS 2+ injuries. [FR Doc. 2020–21477 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Vol. 85 Monday, No. 212 November 2, 2020

Part III

The President

Notice of October 30, 2020—Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Sudan

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\02NOO0.SGM 02NOO0 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with MEMO_FR VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\02NOO0.SGM 02NOO0 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with MEMO_FR 69463

Federal Register Presidential Documents Vol. 85, No. 212

Monday, November 2, 2020

Title 3— Notice of October 30, 2020

The President Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Sudan

On November 3, 1997, by Executive Order 13067, the President declared a national emergency with respect to Sudan pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701–1706) and took related steps to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by the actions and policies of the Government of Sudan. On , 2006, by Executive Order 13400, the President determined that the conflict in Sudan’s Darfur region posed an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, expanded the scope of the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13067, and ordered the blocking of property of certain persons connected to the Darfur region. On October 13, 2006, by Executive Order 13412, the President took additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13067 and expanded in Executive Order 13400. In Executive Order 13412, the President also took steps to implement the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act of 2006 (Public Law 109–344). On January 13, 2017, by Executive Order 13761, the President found that positive efforts by the Government of Sudan between July 2016 and January 2017 improved certain conditions that Executive Orders 13067 and 13412 were intended to address. Given these developments, and in order to encour- age the Government of Sudan to sustain and enhance these efforts, section 1 of Executive Order 13761 provided that sections 1 and 2 of Executive Order 13067 and the entirety of Executive Order 13412 would be revoked as of July 12, 2017, provided that the criteria in section 12(b) of Executive Order 13761 had been met. On , 2017, by Executive Order 13804, I amended Executive Order 13761, extending until , 2017, the effective date in section 1 of Executive Order 13761. On October 12, 2017, pursuant to Executive Order 13761, as amended by Executive Order 13804, sections 1 and 2 of Executive Order 13067 and the entirety of Executive Order 13412 were revoked. Despite recent positive developments, the crisis constituted by the actions and policies of the Government of Sudan that led to the declaration of a national emergency in Executive Order 13067 of November 3, 1997; the expansion of that emergency in Executive Order 13400 of April 26, 2006; and, with respect to which additional steps were taken in Executive Order 13412 of October 13, 2006, Executive Order 13761 of January 13, 2017, and Executive Order 13804 of July 11, 2017, has not been resolved. These actions and policies continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. Therefore, I have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13067, as expanded by Executive Order 13400, with respect to Sudan.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\02NOO0.SGM 02NOO0 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with MEMO_FR 69464 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Presidential Documents

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.

THE WHITE HOUSE, October 30, 2020. [FR Doc. 2020–24429 Filed 10–30–20; 11:15 am] Billing code 3295–F1–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\02NOO0.SGM 02NOO0 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with MEMO_FR Trump.EPS i

Reader Aids Federal Register Vol. 85, No. 212 Monday, November 2, 2020

CUSTOMER SERVICE AND INFORMATION CFR PARTS AFFECTED DURING NOVEMBER

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. 40 CFR Presidential Documents 3 CFR Executive orders and proclamations 741–6000 Administrative Orders: 9...... 69189 The United States Government Manual 741–6000 Notices: 122...... 69189 Notice of October 30, 123...... 69189 Other Services 2020 ...... 69463 127...... 69189 Electronic and on-line services (voice) 741–6020 403...... 69189 8 CFR Privacy Act Compilation 741–6050 503...... 69189 Proposed Rules: Proposed Rules: ELECTRONIC RESEARCH 214...... 69236 152...... 69307 12 CFR World Wide Web 1003...... 69119 43 CFR Full text of the daily Federal Register, CFR and other publications 8340...... 69206 is located at: www.govinfo.gov. 13 CFR Federal Register information and research tools, including Public 124...... 69120 47 CFR Inspection List and electronic text are located at: 125...... 69120 www.federalregister.gov. 129...... 69120 Proposed Rules: 73...... 69311 E-mail 14 CFR 39 ...... 69126, 69129, 69131, FEDREGTOC (Daily Federal Register Table of Contents Electronic 69134, 69138, 69140, 69142, 49 CFR Mailing List) is an open e-mail service that provides subscribers 69144 with a digital form of the Federal Register Table of Contents. The Proposed Rules: 71...... 69147, 69148 digital form of the Federal Register Table of Contents includes 571...... 69388 97...... 69149, 69151 HTML and PDF links to the full text of each document. Proposed Rules: To join or leave, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/ 27...... 69265 50 CFR USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your email address, then 39 ...... 69267, 69269, 69272, 27...... 69223 follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your 69276 subscription. 71...... 69279, 69281 PENS (Public Law Electronic Notification Service) is an e-mail service that notifies subscribers of recently enacted laws. 21 CFR To subscribe, go to http://listserv.gsa.gov/archives/publaws-l.html 1301...... 69153 and select Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow 1306...... 69153 the instructions. Proposed Rules: 1300...... 69282 FEDREGTOC and PENS are mailing lists only. We cannot 1301...... 69282 respond to specific inquiries. Reference questions. Send questions and comments about the 29 CFR Federal Register system to: [email protected] 1695...... 69167 The Federal Register staff cannot interpret specific documents or 33 CFR regulations. 165...... 69172 Proposed Rules: FEDERAL REGISTER PAGES AND DATE, NOVEMBER 165...... 69299, 69301 69119–69464...... 2 36 CFR 1...... 69175 4...... 69175 Proposed Rules: 222...... 69303

VerDate Sep 11 2014 23:34 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4712 E:\FR\FM\02NOCU.LOC 02NOCU jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with FR_CU ii Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 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 October 26, 2020 subscribe, go to https:// address.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 23:34 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\02NOCU.LOC 02NOCU jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with FR_CU Federal Register / Vol. 85 No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 / Reader Aids iii

TABLE OF EFFECTIVE DATES AND TIME PERIODS—NOVEMBER 2020

This table is used by the Office of the dates, the day after publication is A new table will be published in the Federal Register to compute certain counted as the first day. first issue of each month. dates, such as effective dates and When a date falls on a weekend or comment deadlines, which appear in holiday, the next Federal business day agency documents. In computing these is used. (See 1 CFR 18.17)

DATE OF FR 15 DAYS AFTER 21 DAYS AFTER 30 DAYS AFTER 35 DAYS AFTER 45 DAYS AFTER 60 DAYS AFTER 90 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION PUBLICATION PUBLICATION PUBLICATION PUBLICATION PUBLICATION PUBLICATION PUBLICATION

November 2 Nov 17 Nov 23 Dec 2 Dec 7 Dec 17 Jan 4 Feb 1

November 3 Nov 18 Nov 24 Dec 3 Dec 8 Dec 18 Jan 4 Feb 1

November 4 Nov 19 Nov 25 Dec 4 Dec 9 Dec 21 Jan 4 Feb 2

November 5 Nov 20 Nov 27 Dec 7 Dec 10 Dec 21 Jan 4 Feb 3

November 6 Nov 23 Nov 27 Dec 7 Dec 11 Dec 21 Jan 5 Feb 4

November 9 Nov 24 Nov 30 Dec 9 Dec 14 Dec 24 Jan 8 Feb 8

November 10 Nov 25 Dec 1 Dec 10 Dec 15 Dec 28 Jan 11 Feb 8

November 12 Nov 27 Dec 3 Dec 14 Dec 17 Dec 28 Jan 11 Feb 10

November 13 Nov 30 Dec 4 Dec 14 Dec 18 Dec 28 Jan 12 Feb 11

November 16 Dec 1 Dec 7 Dec 16 Dec 21 Dec 31 Jan 15 Feb 16

November 17 Dec 2 Dec 8 Dec 17 Dec 22 Jan 4 Jan 19 Feb 16

November 18 Dec 3 Dec 9 Dec 18 Dec 23 Jan 4 Jan 19 Feb 16

November 19 Dec 4 Dec 10 Dec 21 Dec 24 Jan 4 Jan 19 Feb 17

November 20 Dec 7 Dec 11 Dec 21 Dec 28 Jan 4 Jan 19 Feb 18

November 23 Dec 8 Dec 14 Dec 23 Dec 28 Jan 7 Jan 22 Feb 22

November 24 Dec 9 Dec 15 Dec 24 Dec 29 Jan 8 Jan 25 Feb 22

November 25 Dec 10 Dec 16 Dec 28 Dec 30 Jan 11 Jan 25 Feb 23

November 27 Dec 14 Dec 18 Dec 28 Jan 4 Jan 11 Jan 26 Feb 25

November 30 Dec 15 Dec 21 Dec 30 Jan 4 Jan 14 Jan 29 Mar 1

VerDate Sep 11 2014 23:34 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4201 Sfmt 4701 E:\FR\FM\02NOEF.LOC 02NOEF jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with FRONT MATTER EF