Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Notices 81955 

as amended by the PROGRESS Act [25 

U.S.C. 5362(d)]; 

(2) Request participation in selfgovernance by resolution or other 

official action by the Tribal governing 

body; 

(3) Demonstrate for the 3 fiscal years 

preceding the date for which the Tribe 

requests participation, financial stability 

and financial management capability as 

evidenced by the Indian Tribe having no 

uncorrected significant and material 

audit exceptions in the required annual 

audit of its self-determination or selfgovernance agreements with any 

Federal Agency. 

Planning Phase 

An Indian Tribe seeking to begin 

participation in self-governance must 

complete a planning phase that: 

(1) Is conducted to the satisfaction of 

the Indian Tribe; and 

(2) Includes: 

• Legal and budgetary research; and 

• Internal Tribal government 

planning, training, and organizational 

preparation. 

Applicants should be guided by the 

referenced requirements in preparing 

their applications to begin participation 

in the Tribal self-governance program in 

fiscal year 2022 and calendar year 2022. 

Copies of these requirements may be 

obtained from the person identified in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section of this notice. 

Tribes/consortia wishing to be 

considered for participation in the 

Tribal self-governance program in fiscal 

year 2022 or calendar year 2022 must 

respond to this notice, except for those 

Tribes/consortia which are either: (1) 

Currently involved in negotiations with 

the Department; or (2) one of the 134 

Tribal entities with signed agreements. 

Information Collection 

This information collection is 

authorized by OMB Control Number 

1076–0143, Tribal Self-Governance 

Program, which expires December 31, 

2022. 

Tara Sweeney, 

Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 2020–27786 Filed 12–16–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4337–15–P 

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET 

Final Revisions to Uniform Freedom of 

Information Act Fee Schedule and 

Guidelines 

AGENCY: Office of Management and 

Budget. 

ACTION: Notice of revised guidelines. 

SUMMARY: The Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) is finalizing 

revisions to sections of its Uniform 

Freedom of Information Act Fee 

Schedule and Guidelines (‘‘Guidelines’’) 

last published in 1987. This action is 

necessary to conform the Guidelines 

with statutory amendments to the 

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and 

to clarify the scope of the Guidelines. 

This action is intended to provide 

Federal agencies with guidance on the 

appropriate and uniform application of 

FOIA processing fees. 

DATES: These revisions to the Guidelines 

are effective December 17, 2020. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jonathan Hill, Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, OMB, at (202) 395– 

1658 or oira_pb_comments@

omb.eop.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Freedom of Information Reform Act of 

1986, Public Law 99–570 (1986), 

required OMB to promulgate a uniform 

schedule of fees and guidelines, 

pursuant to notice and public comment, 

for agencies to use when processing 

FOIA requests. 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(A)(i). 

OMB issued the Uniform Freedom of 

Information Act Fee Schedule and 

Guidelines, 52 FR 10012 (available at 

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/ 

files/oip/legacy/2014/07/23/foia_fee_

schedule_1987.pdf) on March 27, 1987. 

In the ensuing years, the FOIA has been 

amended, notably by the OPEN 

Government Act of 2007, Public Law 

110–175 (2007), and the FOIA 

Improvement Act of 2016, Public Law 

114–185 (2016). In response, OMB has 

undertaken to revise the Guidelines. 

On May 4, 2020, OMB published a 

notice in the Federal Register, 85 FR 

26499, seeking comments on four 

proposed substantive revisions. OMB 

also proposed to revise Section 4. 

Inquiries, to update contact information 

for questions about the Guidelines. 

OMB received comments directly and 

through Regulations.gov from 13 

entities, including both individuals and 

organizations. OMB greatly appreciates 

the detailed comments it received, and 

believes the final guidance, as modified 

in response to those comments, has 

been significantly improved. A 

description of the relevant comments, 

and OMB’s responses, follow. 

(1) OMB proposes to revise Section 2. 

Scope to indicate that the Guidelines do 

not address the waiver or reduction of 

fees if disclosure is in the public 

interest. 

Four commenters recommended that 

OMB address public interest fee waivers 

in the Guidelines. OMB finds that 

addressing fee waivers is beyond the 

allowable scope of this guidance. In 

relevant part, the FOIA requires OMB to 

promulgate guidelines ‘‘which shall 

provide for a uniform schedule of fees 

for all agencies.’’ 5 U.S.C. 

552(a)(4)(A)(i). As OMB explained in 

the preamble to the first publication of 

the Guidelines, ‘‘OMB’s role is limited 

by the plain wording of the statute to 

developing guidelines and a fee 

schedule.’’ 52 FR 10016. 

The application of the OMB fee 

schedule to related fee categories is 

distinct from a public interest fee 

waiver. A requester’s fee category 

concerns the services—search, 

duplication, and review—for which that 

requester may be assessed fees. See 5 

U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(A)(ii). By contrast, a 

public interest fee waiver concerns 

whether the requester will ultimately be 

responsible for paying any such fees. 

See 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(A)(iii). 

The comments on this proposal 

suggested that there is an interrelationship between a requester’s fee 

category and whether they are eligible 

for a public interest fee waiver, and as 

a result, the OMB Guidelines should 

also address public interest fee waivers. 

Whether or not the two issues involve 

a common element, for instance 

whether there is a commercial interest 

at stake, the fact remains that separate 

legal constructs have developed around 

each, and other, independent 

considerations are necessary to the 

analysis of each. To expound on distinct 

elements of the public interest fee 

waiver would exceed OMB’s mandate, 

which is limited to fee categories. 

At least one commenter suggested that 

it would cause confusion among 

requesters and agencies for the 

Guidelines to address fee categories but 

not public interest fee waivers. OMB 

disagrees. Whatever commonalities 

there may be, OMB intends these 

Guidelines only to advise agencies with 

respect to fee categories. The revision to 

Section 2 is carefully worded, with 

citation to the public interest fee waiver 

provision in the FOIA, to specifically 

exclude from the scope of the 

Guidelines ‘‘the waiver or reduction of 

fees if the disclosure of the information 

is in the public interest.’’ No commenter 

offered a recommendation on a more 

effective way to achieve this limitation 

on the scope. 

OMB emphasizes that, while the 

Guidelines do not address public 

interest fee waivers, it is not the case 

that agencies have no guidance on this 

topic. Just as OMB issued the original 

Guidelines in response to the Freedom 

of Information Reform Act, one 

81956 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Notices 

1One commenter drew OMB’s attention to the 

FOIA Project, which claims that its website 

‘‘includes detailed information on every case that 

challenges government withholding [under the 

FOIA] in federal court.’’ See www.foiaproject.org/ 

about (last visited Dec. 10, 2020). While OMB has 

not verified this number, the FOIA Project reports 

that in fiscal year 2020, 844 FOIA cases were filed. 

See www.foiaproject.org (last visited Dec. 10, 2020). 

commenter rightly pointed out that the 

Department of Justice (DOJ) issued its 

own New Fee Waiver Policy Guidance 

(Apr. 2, 1987) (https://www.justice.gov/ 

oip/blog/foia-update-new-fee-waiverpolicy-guidance). Furthermore, the DOJ 

Guide to the Freedom of Information 

Act (https://www.justice.gov/oip/dojguide-freedom-information-act-0), 

updated in relevant part in September 

2020, also provides a thorough survey 

and discussion of case law related to 

public interest fee waivers. Rather than 

causing confusion, OMB believes it is 

more effective and efficient for the 

Guidelines to explicitly and only 

address fee categories, and to continue 

the decades-long practice of deferring to 

other sources for guidance on public 

interest fee waivers. 

(2) OMB proposes to remove Section 

6j, which defines ‘‘representative of the 

news media,’’ given that this term is 

now defined in statute. 

Six commenters submitted 

recommendations related to this 

proposal. Each commenter 

recommended that, instead of removing 

Section 6j, OMB revise it to explicitly 

reiterate the statutory definition of ‘‘a 

representative of the news media’’ and/ 

or incorporate judicial interpretations of 

that definition. OMB points out that the 

Guidelines already incorporate the 

FOIA’s statutory definitions, and rejects 

these recommendations, except as 

discussed below. 

As a general proposition, agencies are 

expected to stay abreast of relevant 

statutory and judicial developments 

related to their implementation of the 

FOIA. It is usually unnecessary to issue 

guidance that merely reiterates 

standards that are stated authoritatively 

elsewhere, and in the case of judicial 

developments, that are more susceptible 

to evolving factors. 

This is especially true with respect to 

the statutory definition of ‘‘a 

representative of the news media.’’ 

Section 6a of the Guidelines states 

clearly that ‘‘[a]ll the terms defined in 

the Freedom of Information Act apply.’’ 

There should be no doubt that this 

provision applies to the term ‘‘a 

representative of the news media,’’ 

which is defined at 5 U.S.C. 

552(a)(4)(A)(ii). One commenter 

suggested that reiterating the statutory 

definition in the Guidelines would 

avoid confusion, but did not elaborate. 

OMB fails to see what confusion would 

result from expressly incorporating all 

of the statutory definitions, rather than 

spelling them out in the guidance. 

Rather than causing confusion, OMB 

considers cross-referencing the statutory 

definition an effective way to avoid 

potential future confusion, if Congress 

amends the definition. 

Similarly, OMB does not agree with 

the all of the recommendations to 

incorporate judicial interpretations of 

the statutory definition into these 

Guidelines, but has made some 

modifications based on these comments. 

In the notice, OMB indicated that part 

of the purpose of revising the 

Guidelines is ‘‘to provide clarity in light 

of evolving judicial interpretation,’’ and 

to ‘‘ensure they reflect . . . leading 

judicial decisions.’’ 85 FR 26500. 

This goal has its limits, however. 

Commenters urged the incorporation of 

a D.C. Circuit opinion that interpreted 

the statutory definition of ‘‘a 

representative of the news media.’’ See 

Cause of Action v. FTC, 799 F.3d 1108, 

1125 (D.C. Cir. 2015). Insofar as the 

decision rejects the definition of 

‘‘representative of the news media’’ in 

Section 6j as factually inconsistent with 

the current statutory definition, OMB 

agrees with the comments and has 

removed the inconsistent language from 

the Guidelines. Instead the Guidelines 

cross-reference the definition now 

provided in statute, to avoid any 

inconsistency. 

However, OMB does not believe it is 

generally necessary to incorporate, 

proactively, judicially-developed 

analytical frameworks into the 

Guidelines, especially when no 

inconsistency is evident. In fact, there 

are practical and policy reasons why 

doing so is imprudent. Along these 

lines, OMB rejects other, specific 

recommendations made by commenters 

to incorporate other aspects of judicial 

holdings in the Guidelines. 

First, there are hundreds of FOIA 

cases decided each year.1 It would not 

be efficient to try to update the 

Guidelines to account for the decisions 

in these cases. While OMB recognizes 

that not every holding would require 

updates to the Guidelines, there would 

be diminishing returns in trying to parse 

out which ones rise to that level and 

retrospectively evaluating which ones 

last the test of time. To borrow an 

economic term, there would be an 

opportunity cost that would serve 

neither agencies nor the public, if 

agencies were to wait for OMB to update 

the Guidelines before applying 

otherwise applicable case law. 

Relatedly, it is not OMB’s role to serve 

as legal counsel to agencies. Every 

agency has attorneys, and the Office of 

Information Policy (OIP) at the 

Department of Justice exists, in part, to 

‘‘provide[ ] legal counsel and training to 

agency personnel,’’ with respect to 

complying with the FOIA. See 

www.justice.gov/oip/about-office (last 

visited Dec. 10, 2020). In fact, DOJ’s 

Guide to the Freedom of Information 

Act, discussed above, is a 

‘‘comprehensive legal treatise on the 

FOIA’’ that ‘‘contains a detailed analysis 

of the key judicial opinions issued on 

the FOIA,’’ including those related to 

fees and fee waivers. See https://

www.justice.gov/oip/doj-guide-freedominformation-act-0 (last visited Dec. 10, 

2020). OMB considers that agencies’ 

primary source of advice concerning the 

application of judicial decisions should 

be the attorneys who represent them. 

One commenter opined that some 

elements of Section 6j continue to 

warrant inclusion in the Guidelines, 

such as the definition of ‘‘news.’’ As the 

commenter recognizes, however, the 

definition of ‘‘news’’ in the statute, 5 

U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(A)(ii), is unchanged 

from the definition in Section 6j. 

Moreover, OMB fails to perceive any 

significant substantive differences—and 

the commenter failed to identify any— 

between the rest of the text in Section 

6j and in the statute. Insofar as any 

difference exists, OMB considers that 

Congress had the language in the 

Guidelines at its disposal when it 

amended the FOIA, and chose to 

diverge. In that case, OMB defers to the 

language in the statute as the best 

indicator of Congress’s will. Just as 

discussed above, OMB considers it 

unnecessary to restate the language in 

the statute. 

Several commenters recommended 

that OMB include in the Guidelines 

examples of types of entities that would 

be considered representatives of the 

news media. OMB declines. Congress 

has provided the framework agencies 

should use to determine when a 

requester qualifies as a representative of 

the news media, and the courts have 

interpreted, and continue to interpret, 

that framework. To the extent such 

authorities leave no doubt whether a 

type of entity qualifies as a 

representative of the news media, OMB 

will let those authorities speak for 

themselves. To the extent there is a 

doubt, as discussed above, OMB defers 

to agency counsel to advise on the 

proper application of the law under 

specific circumstances. Furthermore, 

OMB considers that including a list of 

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Notices 81957 

examples, even with a disclaimer that it 

is non-exclusive, runs the risk of being 

interpreted as exclusive. Failure to 

include a type of requester in this list— 

especially in light of the rapid evolution 

of the state of technology and 

information dissemination—could lead 

to the conclusion that such a requester 

is not a representative of the news 

media. This outcome would not serve 

agencies nor the public. 

One commenter recommended that 

OMB define representative of the news 

media because the Guidelines define 

other fee categories. The difference is 

that the FOIA does not define those 

other categories in the way that it 

defines ‘‘a representative of the news 

media.’’ As discussed, OMB does not 

consider it necessary to repeat the law. 

Furthermore, as discussed above, the 

definition in the statute generally covers 

the same subject matter as exists in 

Section 6j. Therefore, removing the 

section and cross-referencing the statute 

does not result in the loss of detail. 

OMB received comments of a 

technical nature on two issues. One 

commenter pointed out that the 

preamble of the notice seeking 

comments misidentified the section that 

OMB proposed to remove as Section 6f, 

instead of Section 6j. This comment is 

correct; however, no further revision to 

the Guidelines is necessary. OMB 

correctly identified Section 6j later in 

the notice, and there was no evident 

confusion about OMB’s intent. ExistingSection 6j is clearly the provision that 

defines ‘‘representative of the news 

media,’’ and despite the earlier 

typographical error, commenters 

discerned OMB’s intent and provided 

recommendations in response. OMB 

affirms that its actions with respect to 

this proposal relate to Section 6j, not 

Section 6f. 

Two comments pointed out that OMB 

failed to address a cross-reference to 

Section 6j appearing in Section 8c. OMB 

responds by revising Section 8c to bring 

it into conformity with its decision to 

remove Section 6j. Section 8c will refer 

to the statutory definition, rather than 

the definition in Section 6j. 

(3) OMB proposes to revise Section 8b. 

Educational and Non-commercial 

Scientific Institution Requesters to 

clarify that both teachers and students 

may be eligible for inclusion in this fee 

category. 

OMB received recommendations from 

three commenters with respect to this 

proposal. 

Two commenters recommended that 

Section 8b be further revised to clarify 

that it applies not only to teachers and 

students but to other staff of educational 

institutions, such as librarians. OMB 

accepts this recommendation and 

revises the relevant language in Section 

8b to include ‘‘faculty, staff, or 

students.’’ While the comments focused 

on staff of educational institutions, 

OMB considers that the inclusion of 

‘‘staff’’ also appropriately accounts for 

requests made in connection with a 

non-commercial scientific institution. 

So long as staff of an educational or 

non-commercial scientific institution 

can demonstrate that their request is 

being made in connection with their 

role at the institution, OMB considers 

them to be appropriately within the 

scope of this fee category. 

One commenter suggested that it 

would be necessary to amend Section 

6h to conform to the new language in 

Section 8b, to ensure consistency. OMB 

perceives no inconsistency, and 

therefore rejects this recommendation. 

The commenter drew an analogy to the 

relationship between Section 6j and 

Section 8c, discussed above. Section 6j 

and Section 8c both address requesters. 

Conversely, Section 6h (and Section 6i) 

defines a type of institution, while 

Section 8b addresses requesters 

associated with those institutions. The 

FOIA requires agencies to determine the 

nature of the institution as a distinct 

entity, which is why OMB provides a 

separate definition in Section 6. OMB 

does not consider clarifying who may be 

considered a requester, in Section 8b, to 

have a necessary impact on the 

definition of the institution, in Section 

6h or Section 6i. 

(4) OMB proposes to add a subsection 

to Section 9. Administrative Actions to 

Improve Assessment and Collection of 

Fees to indicate that agencies may not 

charge certain fees when they fail to 

comply with the FOIA’s time limits, 

except under certain circumstances 

provided in the statute. 

OMB received recommendations 

related to this proposal from three 

commenters. Two commenters 

recommended that OMB provide 

additional guidance on the application 

of the referenced provision concerning 

an agency’s failure to comply with the 

FOIA’s time limits, 5 U.S.C. 

552(a)(4)(A)(viii). OMB did not accept 

these recommendations. This is a 

complex statutory provision better 

addressed through legal analysis and 

individualized counsel, rather than 

OMB policy. Furthermore, insofar as the 

provision relies on terms defined in the 

statute, OMB defers to the statutory 

language and judicial interpretation, just 

as discussed above. OMB points out that 

the Department of Justice has issued 

guidance on this provision, including a 

‘‘Decision Tree for Assessing Fees.’’ See 

Dep’t of Justice, OIP Guidance: 

Prohibition on Assessing Certain Fees 

When the FOIA’s Time Limits Are Not 

Met (Oct. 19, 2016), https://

www.justice.gov/oip/oip-guidance/ 

prohibition_on_assessing_certain_fees_

when_foia_time_limits_not_met (last 

visited Dec. 10, 2020). 

One requester recommended that all 

charges and fees be waived for United 

States citizens when the government 

fails to comply with requests in a timely 

manner. This comment appears to OMB 

to be insufficiently supported by 

statutory authority, and therefore it is 

rejected. 

In addition to the four topics 

discussed above, OMB received a 

number of comments on topics that 

were clearly out of scope of the proposal 

and therefore will not be addressed 

here. 

As discussed in the notice seeking 

comment, OMB revises Section 4. 

Inquiries to update contact information 

for questions about the Guidelines. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

Preamble, and under the authority of 5 

U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(A)(i) and 44 U.S.C. 

chapter 35, OMB amends the Uniform 

Freedom of Information Act Fee 

Schedule and Guidelines, 52 FR 10012, 

by removing Section 6j, adding Section 

9f, and revising Sections 2, 4, 8b, and 

8c to read as follows: 

UNIFORM FREEDOM OF INFORMATION 

ACT FEE SCHEDULE AND GUIDELINES 

* * * * * 

2. Scope—* * * This Fee Schedule and 

Guidelines, including Sections 6 and 8, does 

not address the waiver or reduction of fees 

if the disclosure of the information is in the 

public interest, as provided in 5 U.S.C. 

552(a)(4)(A)(iii). 

* * * * * 

4. Inquiries—Inquiries should be directed 

to the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, at 

oira_pb_comments@omb.eop.gov. 

* * * * * 

8. Fees to be Charged—Categories of 

Requesters. * * * 

b. Educational and Non-commercial 

Scientific Institution Requesters—* * * To 

be eligible for inclusion in this category, 

requesters—whether faculty, staff, or 

students—must show that the request is 

being made in connection with their role at 

the institution, and that the records are not 

sought for a commercial use, but are sought 

in furtherance of scholarly (if the request is 

from an educational institution) or scientific 

(if the request is from a non-commercial 

scientific institution) research. * * * 

c. Requesters who are Representatives of 

the News Media—* * * To be eligible for 

inclusion in this category, a requester must 

meet the criteria established by the FOIA. See 

5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(A)(ii). * * * 

* * * * * 

9. Administrative Actions to Improve 

Assessment and Collection of Fees—* * * 

81958 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Notices 

f. Failure to Comply with Time Limits—An 

agency may not charge search fees (or in the 

case of educational or non-commercial 

scientific institution requesters, or 

representatives of the news media, 

duplication fees) if it has failed to comply 

with any time limit under 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6), 

except as provided in 5 U.S.C. 

552(a)(4)(A)(viii). 

Paul J. Ray, 

Administrator, Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 2020–27707 Filed 12–16–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3110–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2020–0245] 

Environmental Qualification of Certain 

Electrical Equipment Important to 

Safety for Nuclear Power Plants 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Draft regulatory guide; request 

for comment. 

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is issuing for public 

comment a draft regulatory guide (DG), 

DG–1361, ‘‘Environmental Qualification 

of Certain Electrical Equipment 

Important to Safety for Nuclear Power 

Plants.’’ This draft guide is proposed 

revision 2 of regulatory guide (RG) 1.89 

of the same name. The proposed 

revision describes an approach that is 

acceptable to the staff of the NRC to 

meet regulatory requirements for 

environmental qualification (EQ) of 

certain electric equipment important to 

safety for nuclear power plants. The 

previous revision of RG 1.89 was issued 

in June 1984 and endorsed the use of 

Institute of Electrical and Electronic 

Engineers (IEEE) Standard (Std.) 323– 

1974. This proposed revision 

incorporates additional information 

regarding the dual logo International 

Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)/IEEE 

Std. 60780–323, ‘‘Nuclear Facilities— 

Electrical Equipment Important to 

Safety—Qualification,’’ Edition 1, 2016– 

02. 

DATES: Submit comments by February 

16, 2021. Comments received after this 

date will be considered if it is practical 

to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure 

consideration only for comments 

received on or before this date. 

Although a time limit is given, 

comments and suggestions in 

connection with items for inclusion in 

guides currently being developed or 

improvements in all published guides 

are encouraged at any time. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods; 

however, the NRC encourages electronic 

comment submission through the 

Federal Rulemaking Website: 

• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to 

https://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2020–0245. Address 

questions about Docket IDs in 

Regulations.gov to Jennifer Borges; 

telephone: 301–287–9221; email: 

Jennifer.Borges@nrc.gov. For technical 

questions, contact the individuals listed 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this document. 

• Mail comments to: Office of 

Administration, Mail Stop: TWFN– 

7A06, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001. ATTN: Program Management, 

Announcements and Editing Staff. 

For additional direction on obtaining 

information and submitting comments, 

see ‘‘Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments’’ in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Matthew McConnell, Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, telephone: 301– 

415–1597, email: Matthew.McConnell@

nrc.gov, and Michael Eudy, Office of 

Nuclear Regulatory Research, telephone: 

301–415–3104, email: Michael.Eudy@

nrc.gov. Both are staff of the U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments 

A. Obtaining Information 

Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2020– 

0245 when contacting the NRC about 

the availability of information for this 

action. You may obtain publicly 

available information related to this 

action by any of the following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to 

https://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2020–0245. 

• NRC’s Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System 

(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly 

available documents online in the 

ADAMS Public Documents collection at 

https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ 

adams.html. To begin the search, select 

‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.’’ For 

problems with ADAMS, please contact 

the NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR) 

reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301– 

415–4737, or by email to pdr.resource@

nrc.gov. 

• Attention: The PDR, where you may 

examine and order copies of public 

documents is currently closed. You may 

submit your request to the PDR via 

email at pdr.resource@nrc.gov or call 1– 

800–397–4209 between 8:00 a.m. and 

4:00 p.m. (EST), Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

B. Submitting Comments 

The NRC encourages electronic 

comment submission through the 

Federal Rulemaking Website (https://

www.regulations.gov). Please include 

Docket ID NRC–2020–0245 in your 

comment submission. 

The NRC cautions you not to include 

identifying or contact information that 

you do not want to be publicly 

disclosed in your comment submission. 

The NRC posts all comment 

submissions at https://

www.regulations.gov as well as enter the 

comment submissions into ADAMS. 

The NRC does not routinely edit 

comment submissions to remove 

identifying or contact information. 

If you are requesting or aggregating 

comments from other persons for 

submission to the NRC, then you should 

inform those persons not to include 

identifying or contact information that 

they do not want to be publicly 

disclosed in their comment submission. 

Your request should state that the NRC 

does not routinely edit comment 

submissions to remove such information 

before making the comment 

submissions available to the public or 

entering the comment into ADAMS. 

II. Additional Information 

The NRC is issuing for public 

comment a draft guide in the NRC’s 

‘‘Regulatory Guide’’ series. This series 

was developed to describe methods that 

are acceptable to the NRC staff for 

implementing specific parts of the 

agency’s regulations, to explain 

techniques that the staff uses in 

evaluating specific issues or postulated 

events, and to describe information that 

the staff needs in its review of 

applications for permits and licenses. 

The DG, titled, ‘‘Environmental 

Qualification of Certain Electrical 

Equipment Important to Safety for 

Nuclear Power Plants,’’ is temporarily 

identified by its task number, DG–1361 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML20183A423). 

DG–1361 is proposed revision 2 of RG 

1.89. This revision of the guide (revision 

2) endorses, with clarifications, the 

‘‘English’’ portion of the dual logo IEC/ 

IEEE Std. 60780–323, Edition 1, 2016– 

02 as a method acceptable to the NRC 

for meeting the regulatory requirements 

for EQ of certain electric equipment 

important to safety for nuclear power 

plants. This DG applies to licensees and 

applicants subject to title 10 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) part 50, 

‘‘Domestic Licensing of Production and