Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 248 / Monday, December 28, 2020 / Proposed Rules 84275 

document, would USDA need to 

consider in order to properly review and 

assess risks associated with amenable 

species modified or developed using 

genetic engineering that are intended for 

agricultural purposes? Are there 

limitations to the types of information 

that could be gathered or technologies 

that could be used to inform the 

evaluation of animal health claims? If 

so, please describe the limitations. 

• What is the minimal information 

would need to consider to evaluate 

animal disease claims made for the 

animals of the amenable species 

modified or developed using genetic 

engineering? What are the limitations of 

current technologies that exist to 

evaluate animal disease claims? 

• What other animal health claims, 

aside from disease resistance, should 

USDA require developers to validate? 

Why? 

• Under the current proposal, USDA 

is not performing a post-market 

evaluation of animal health. Should 

USDA require developers to submit 

information in order to monitor risks to 

animal health post-market? Why? 

• Are there any gaps in the 

contemplated framework with respect to 

animal and human health, and if so, 

how might they be addressed? 

Regulatory Authority and Framework 

• Does the contemplated regulatory 

framework provide adequate scope and 

flexibility to regulate current and future 

advances in agricultural animals 

developed using genetic engineering? 

• What, if any, terms related to the 

regulation of animals of the amenable 

species modified or developed using 

genetic engineering would need to be 

defined under the contemplated 

regulatory framework? 

• Should animals of the amenable 

species modified or developed using 

genetic engineering with multiple uses 

(such as an amenable species modified 

or developed using genetic engineering 

and intended for both biomedical/ 

pharmaceutical purposes and 

agricultural purposes) receive any 

different treatment than other amenable 

species during USDA’s review 

processes? What steps should USDA 

take to ensure efficient review of these 

products? What steps should USDA take 

to account for existing regulatory 

burden when a product must be 

reviewed both by USDA and by another 

agency? 

• Do you have any other specific 

concerns or recommendations for 

appropriately reducing regulatory 

burdens involving the regulation of 

amenable species modified or 

developed using genetic engineering by 

USDA as described in this document? 

Genetic Engineering and Conventional 

Breeding 

• What are the known current limits 

of conventional breeding in animals in 

terms of generating and/or selecting for 

a specific trait, or multiple traits? 

• What problems are entities 

currently attempting to solve using 

animals modified or developed using 

genetic engineering? 

FSIS Assessment 

• Would the pre-slaughter assessment 

ever require physical examination or 

testing by FSIS of amenable species 

modified or developed using genetic 

engineering, specifically examination or 

testing in regard to their genetic 

modifications, prior to arrival at the 

slaughter facility? If so, under what 

circumstances? 

• What documentation, if any, should 

accompany amenable species modified 

or developed using genetic engineering 

destined for slaughter, certifying that 

their modifications have been assessed 

by USDA (APHIS and FSIS)? 

Economic Considerations 

• What classes of entities are 

currently engaged in the modification, 

production, breeding, distribution, 

commercialization or any related 

activities involving animals modified or 

developed using genetic engineering? 

How many of these entities fall within 

or below the threshold for ‘‘small 

entity’’ size standards according to the 

Small Business Administration? 

• What markets are there where 

animals for agricultural use modified or 

developed using genetic engineering 

have been produced and 

commercialized? What challenges and 

opportunities (regulatory, economic, or 

otherwise) have been encountered by 

the relevant authorities? 

• How often does a start-up company 

or not-for-profit university or research 

organization modify or develop an 

animal using genetic engineering? 

• Could the contemplated regulatory 

framework have adverse impacts on 

international trade (imports or exports)? 

If so, what? 

• Should USDA assess user fees in 

connection with conducting reviews for 

animals modified or developed using 

genetic engineering? If so, how should 

USDA structure the fees? What factors 

should USDA consider in assessing 

fees? 

We welcome all comments on the 

questions outlined above and on all 

aspects of this document. 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8301–8317; 7 CFR 2.22, 

2.80, and 371.4. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 18th day of 

December 2020. 

Lorren Walker, 

Acting Under Secretary for Marketing and 

Regulatory Programs. 

Paul Kiecker, 

Administrator, Food Safety and Inspection 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2020–28534 Filed 12–23–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2020–1165; Project 

Identifier 2019–SW–027–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus 

Helicopters 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a 

new airworthiness directive (AD) for 

certain Airbus Helicopters Model 

SA341G and SA342J helicopters. This 

proposed AD was prompted by the 

determination that a new life limit was 

necessary for certain tail rotor blades 

(TRBs). This proposed AD would 

require replacing certain TRBs, reidentifying certain TRBs, and repairing 

certain other TRBs, as specified in a 

European Union Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA) AD, which is proposed for 

incorporation by reference. The FAA is 

proposing this AD to address the unsafe 

condition on these products. 

DATES: The FAA must receive comments 

on this proposed AD by February 11, 

2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 

11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail 

address above between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
84276 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 248 / Monday, December 28, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

For material that will be incorporated 

by reference (IBR) in this AD, contact 

the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 

50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 

221 89990 000; email ADs@

easa.europa.eu; internet 

www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this 

IBR material on the EASA website at 

https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may 

view this IBR material at the FAA, 

Office of the Regional Counsel, 

Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood 

Pkwy., Room 6N–321, Fort Worth, TX 

76177. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, 

call 817–222–5110. It is also available in 

the AD docket on the internet at https:// 

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2020– 

1165. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the internet at https://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2020– 

1165; or in person at Docket Operations 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

The AD docket contains this NPRM, any 

comments received, and other 

information. The street address for 

Docket Operations is listed above. 

Comments will be available in the AD 

docket shortly after receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Blaine Williams, Aerospace Engineer, 

Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 

Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, California 

90712; telephone (562) 627–5371; email 

blaine.williams@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

The FAA invites you to send any 

written relevant data, views, or 

arguments about this proposal. Send 

your comments to an address listed 

under ADDRESSES. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2020–1165; Project Identifier 

2019–SW–027–AD’’ at the beginning of 

your comments. The most helpful 

comments reference a specific portion of 

the proposal, explain the reason for any 

recommended change, and include 

supporting data. The FAA will consider 

all comments received by the closing 

date and may amend this proposal 

because of those comments. 

Except for Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) as described in the 

following paragraph, and other 

information as described in 14 CFR 

11.35, the FAA will post all comments 

received, without change, to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. The 

agency will also post a report 

summarizing each substantive verbal 

contact received about this proposal. 

Confidential Business Information 

CBI is commercial or financial 

information that is both customarily and 

actually treated as private by its owner. 

Under the Freedom of Information Act 

(FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt 

from public disclosure. If your 

comments responsive to this NPRM 

contain commercial or financial 

information that is customarily treated 

as private, that you actually treat as 

private, and that is relevant or 

responsive to this NPRM, it is important 

that you clearly designate the submitted 

comments as CBI. Please mark each 

page of your submission containing CBI 

as ‘‘PROPIN.’’ The FAA will treat such 

marked submissions as confidential 

under the FOIA, and they will not be 

placed in the public docket of this 

NPRM. Submissions containing CBI 

should be sent to Blaine Williams, 

Aerospace Engineer, Los Angeles ACO 

Branch, 3960 Paramount Blvd., 

Lakewood, California 90712; telephone 

(562) 627–5371; email blaine.williams@

faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA 

receives that is not specifically 

designated as CBI will be placed in the 

public docket for this rulemaking. 

Discussion 

The EASA, which is the Technical 

Agent for the Member States of the 

European Union, has issued EASA AD 

2019–0034, dated February 14, 2019 

(EASA AD 2019–0034) (also referred to 

as the Mandatory Continuing 

Airworthiness Information, or the 

MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition 

for all Airbus Helicopters Model 

SA341G and SA342J helicopters. 

This proposed AD was prompted by 

the determination that a new life limit 

was necessary for TRBs that were 

manufactured without a new process 

that affects the structural characteristics. 

The FAA is proposing this AD to 

address TRBs that might break, resulting 

in loss of tail rotor control and 

consequent loss of control of the 

helicopter. See the MCAI for additional 

background information. 

Related Service Information Under 1 

CFR Part 51 

EASA AD 2019–0034 describes 

procedures for replacing TRBs having 

certain part numbers, re-identifying 

TRBs having a certain part number and 

certain serial numbers, and repairing 

TRBs that have been reworked/repaired/ 

modified before being re-identified. 

This material is reasonably available 

because the interested parties have 

access to it through their normal course 

of business or by the means identified 

in the ADDRESSES section. 

FAA’s Determination and Requirements 

of This Proposed AD 

This product has been approved by 

the aviation authority of another 

country, and is approved for operation 

in the United States. Pursuant to the 

bilateral agreement with the State of 

Design Authority, the FAA has been 

notified of the unsafe condition 

described in the MCAI referenced 

above. The FAA is proposing this AD 

because the FAA evaluated all the 

relevant information and determined 

the unsafe condition described 

previously is likely to exist or develop 

in other products of the same type 

design. 

Proposed AD Requirements 

This proposed AD would require 

accomplishing the actions specified in 

EASA AD 2019–0034, described 

previously, as incorporated by 

reference, except for any differences 

identified as exceptions in the 

regulatory text of this proposed AD. 

Explanation of Required Compliance 

Information 

In the FAA’s ongoing efforts to 

improve the efficiency of the AD 

process, the FAA initially worked with 

Airbus and EASA to develop a process 

to use certain EASA ADs as the primary 

source of information for compliance 

with requirements for corresponding 

FAA ADs. The FAA has since 

coordinated with other manufacturers 

and civil aviation authorities (CAAs) to 

use this process. As a result, EASA AD 

2019–0034 will be incorporated by 

reference in the FAA final rule. This 

proposed AD would, therefore, require 

compliance with EASA AD 2019–0034 

in its entirety, through that 

incorporation, except for any differences 

identified as exceptions in the 

regulatory text of this proposed AD. 

Using common terms that are the same 

as the heading of a particular section in 

the EASA AD does not mean that 

operators need comply only with that 

section. For example, where the AD 

requirement refers to ‘‘all required 

actions and compliance times,’’ 

compliance with this AD requirement is 

not limited to the section titled 

‘‘Required Action(s) and Compliance 

Time(s)’’ in the EASA AD. Service 

information specified in EASA AD 

2019–0034 that is required for 

compliance with EASA AD 2019–0034 

will be available on the internet at 

https://www.regulations.gov by 

searching for and locating Docket No. 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 248 / Monday, December 28, 2020 / Proposed Rules 84277 

FAA–2020–1165 after the FAA final 

rule is published. 

Costs of Compliance 

The FAA estimates that this proposed 

AD affects 20 helicopters of U.S. 

registry. The FAA estimates the 

following costs to comply with this 

proposed AD: 

ESTIMATED COSTS FOR REQUIRED ACTIONS

Labor cost Parts cost Cost per 

product 

Cost on U.S. 

operators 

1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 .............................................................................................. $3,900 $3,985 $79,700 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

Title 49 of the United States Code 

specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 

rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, 

section 106, describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: 

Aviation Programs, describes in more 

detail the scope of the Agency’s 

authority. 

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking 

under the authority described in 

Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 

44701: General requirements. Under 

that section, Congress charges the FAA 

with promoting safe flight of civil 

aircraft in air commerce by prescribing 

regulations for practices, methods, and 

procedures the Administrator finds 

necessary for safety in air commerce. 

This regulation is within the scope of 

that authority because it addresses an 

unsafe condition that is likely to exist or 

develop on products identified in this 

rulemaking action. 

Regulatory Findings 

The FAA determined that this 

proposed AD would not have federalism 

implications under Executive Order 

13132. This proposed AD would not 

have a substantial direct effect on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national Government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify this proposed regulation: 

(1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866, 

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation 

in Alaska, and 

(3) Will not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 

39 as follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. 

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding 

the following new airworthiness 

directive: 

Airbus Helicopters: Docket No. FAA–2020– 

1165; Project Identifier 2019–SW–027– 

AD. 

(a) Comments Due Date 

The FAA must receive comments by 

February 11, 2021. 

(b) Affected Airworthiness Directives (ADs) 

None. 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters 

Model SA341G and SA342J helicopters, 

certificated in any category, equipped with 

any tail rotor blade (TRB) specified in 

paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this AD. 

(1) An affected part as defined in European 

Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 

2019–0034, dated February 14, 2019 (EASA 

AD 2019–0034). 

(2) A TRB having part number (P/N) 

341A335101.01, P/N 341A335130.05, or P/N 

341A335130.06. 

(d) Subject 

Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) 

Code 6410, Tail Rotor Blades. 

(e) Reason 

This AD was prompted by the 

determination that a new life limit was 

necessary for TRBs that were manufactured 

without a new process that affects the 

structural characteristics. The FAA is issuing 

this AD to address TRBs that might break, 

resulting in loss of tail rotor control and 

consequent loss of control of the helicopter. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Requirements 

Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this 

AD: Comply with all required actions and 

compliance times specified in, and in 

accordance with, EASA AD 2019–0034. 

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2019–0034 

(1) Where EASA AD 2019–0034 refers to its 

effective date, this AD requires using the 

effective date of this AD. 

(2) The ‘‘Remarks’’ section of EASA AD 

2019–0034 does not apply to this AD. 

(3) Where EASA AD 2019–0034 refers to 

flight hours (FH), this AD requires using 

hours time-in-service. 

(4) Where paragraph (4) of EASA AD 2019– 

0034 specifies to contact the manufacturer, 

for this AD, repair using a method approved 

by the Manager, Strategic Policy Rotorcraft 

Section, FAA. For a repair method to be 

approved by the Manager, Strategic Policy 

Rotorcraft Section, as required by this 

paragraph, the Manager’s approval letter 

must specifically refer to this AD. 

(5) Where paragraph (5) of EASA AD 2019– 

0034 specifies it must be determined that the 

rework/repair/modification is valid for part 

number 341A335130.06, for this AD, rework/ 

repair/modification of an affected part is 

prohibited. 

(i) Special Flight Permit 

Special flight permits, as described in 14 

CFR 21.197 and 21.199, are not allowed. 

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

The Manager, Strategic Policy Rotorcraft 

Section, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this 

AD. Send your proposal to: Manager, 

Strategic Policy Rotorcraft Section, FAA, 

10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 

76177; telephone 817–222–5110; email 9- 

ASW-FTW-AMOC-Requests@faa.gov. 

(k) Related Information 

(1) For EASA AD 2019–0034, contact the 

EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 

Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 89990 

000; email ADs@easa.europa.eu; internet 

www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this 

EASA AD on the EASA website at https://

ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this 

material at the FAA, Office of the Regional 

Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood 

Pkwy., Room 6N–321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. 

For information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 817–222–5110. This 

material may be found in the AD docket on 

the internet at https://www.regulations.gov 

by searching for and locating Docket No. 

FAA–2020–1165. 

(2) For more information about this AD, 

contact Blaine Williams, Aerospace Engineer, 

Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount 

Blvd., Lakewood, California 90712; telephone 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
84278 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 248 / Monday, December 28, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

(562) 627–5371; email blaine.williams@

faa.gov. 

Issued on December 17, 2020. 

Lance T. Gant, 

Director, Compliance & Airworthiness 

Division, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2020–28440 Filed 12–23–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

32 CFR Part 310 

[Docket ID DoD–2020–OS–0094] 

RIN 0790–AL17 

Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary of 

Defense (OSD), Department of Defense 

(DoD). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense 

(Department or DoD) is giving 

concurrent notice of a new Departmentwide system of records pursuant to the 

Privacy Act of 1974 for the DoD 0005 

‘‘Defense Training Records’’ system of 

records and this proposed rulemaking. 

In this proposed rulemaking, the 

Department proposes to exempt 

portions of the Defense Training 

Records system of records from certain 

provisions of the Privacy Act because of 

national security requirements and to 

preserve the objectivity and fairness of 

testing and examination material. 

DATES: Send comments on or before 

February 26, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by docket number and title, 

by any of the following methods. 

* Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

* Mail: The DoD cannot receive 

written comments at this time due to the 

COVID–19 pandemic. Comments should 

be sent electronically to the docket 

listed above. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number or Regulatory 

Information Number (RIN) for this 

Federal Register document. The general 

policy for comments and other 

submissions from members of the public 

is to make these submissions available 

for public viewing on the internet at 

https://www.regulations.gov as they are 

received without change, including any 

personal identifiers or contact 

information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Lyn Kirby, Defense Privacy, Civil 

Liberties and Transparency Division, 

Directorate for Oversight and 

Compliance, Department of Defense, 

4800 Mark Center Drive, Mailbox #24, 

Suite 08D09, Alexandria, VA 22350– 

1700; OSD.DPCLTD@mail.mil; (703) 

571–0070. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The DoD 0005, ‘‘Defense Training 

Records’’ system of records describes 

training records created and maintained 

by all component parts of the DoD, 

wherever they are maintained. The 

system consists of both electronic and 

paper records and will be used by DoD 

components and offices to maintain 

records about training provided to DoDaffiliated individuals, including Military 

Service members, civilian employees, 

dependents and family members, 

contractors, and other individuals 

enrolled in courses administered by the 

DoD. These records may include 

information pertaining to class 

schedules, enrollment, participation, 

programs, and instructors; training 

trends and needs; testing and 

examination materials; and assessments 

of training efficacy. The collection and 

maintenance of this information will 

assist the DoD in meeting its obligations 

under law, regulation, and policy to 

provide training on various subjects to 

ensure that the agency mission can be 

successfully accomplished. 

II. Privacy Act Exemption 

The Privacy Act allows federal 

agencies to exempt eligible records in a 

system of records from certain 

provisions of the Act, including those 

that provide individuals with a right to 

request access to and amendment of 

their own records. If an agency intends 

to exempt a particular system of records, 

it must first go through the rulemaking 

process to provide public notice and an 

opportunity to comment on the 

proposed exemption. This proposed 

rule explains why an exemption is being 

claimed for this system of records and 

invites public comment, which DoD 

will consider before the issuance of a 

final rule implementing the exemption. 

The DoD proposes to modify 32 CFR 

part 310 to add a new Privacy Act 

exemption rule for the DoD 0005 

‘‘Defense Training Records’’ system of 

records. The DoD proposes this 

exemption because some of its training 

records may contain classified national 

security information and disclosure of 

those records to an individual may 

cause damage to national security. The 

Privacy Act, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

552a(k)(1), authorizes agencies to claim 

an exemption for systems of records that 

contain information properly classified 

pursuant to executive order. The DoD is 

proposing to claim an exemption from 

the access and amendment requirements 

of the Privacy Act, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

552a(k)(1), to prevent disclosure of any 

information properly classified pursuant 

to executive order, as implemented by 

DoD Instruction 5200.01 and DoD 

Manual 5200.01, Volumes 1 and 3. 

The DoD also proposes an exemption 

for DoD 0005 ‘‘Defense Training 

Records’’ because these records contain 

testing and examination material, the 

release of which could undermine the 

objectivity and fairness of the testing 

and examination process. The Privacy 

Act, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(6), 

authorizes agencies to claim an 

exemption for systems of records that 

contain examination and testing 

material used solely to determine 

individual qualification for appointment 

or promotion in the Federal service. The 

DoD is proposing to claim an exemption 

from the access and amendment 

requirements of the Privacy Act, 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(6), to 

prevent disclosure of any information 

that would compromise the objectivity 

or fairness of testing and examination 

material. 

If implemented, this rule will deny an 

individual access under the Privacy Act 

to only those portions of records for 

which one or more claimed exemptions 

apply. In addition, records in the DoD 

0005 ‘‘Defense Training Records’’ 

system of records are only exempt from 

the Privacy Act to the extent the 

purposes underlying the exemption 

pertain to the record. 

A notice of a new system of records 

for DoD 0005 ‘‘Defense Training 

Records’’ is also published in this issue 

of the Federal Register. 

Regulatory Analysis 

Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’ and Executive 

Order 13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation 

and Regulatory Review’’ 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

direct agencies to assess all costs and 

benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, distribute impacts, and equity). 

Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the 

importance of quantifying both costs 

and benefits, of reducing costs, of 

harmonizing rules, and of promoting 

flexibility. It has been determined that 

this proposed rule is not a significant 

regulatory action. 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS