54626 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

V. Determination of Safety for U.S. 

Population, Infants and Children 

Based on the Agency’s assessment, 

EPA concludes that there is reasonable 

certainty that no harm will result to the 

U.S. population, including infants and 

children, from aggregate exposure to 

residues of thymol. Therefore, the 

establishment of an exemption from the 

requirement of a tolerance for residues 

of thymol (5-methyl-2-isopropyl-1- 

phenol) in or on all food commodities 

when used in accordance with good 

agricultural practices is safe under 

FFDCA section 408. 

VI. Other Considerations 

Analytical Enforcement Methodology 

An analytical method is not required 

for enforcement purposes since the 

Agency is establishing an exemption 

from the requirement of a tolerance 

without any numerical limitation. 

VII. Conclusion 

Therefore, an exemption from the 

requirement of a tolerance is established 

for residues of thymol (5-methyl-2- 

isopropyl-1-phenol) in or on all food 

commodities when used in accordance 

with good agricultural practices. 

In addition, as a housekeeping 

measure, EPA is removing time-limited 

exemptions from the requirement of a 

tolerance for residues of thymol on 

honey and honeycomb in connection 

with use of the pesticide under section 

18 emergency exemptions granted by 

the EPA. These exemptions expired on 

June 30, 2007. 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This action establishes an exemption 

from the requirement of a tolerance 

under FFDCA section 408(d) in 

response to a petition submitted to the 

Agency. The Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) has exempted these types 

of actions from review under Executive 

Order 12866, entitled ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993). Because this action 

has been exempted from review under 

Executive Order 12866, this action is 

not subject to Executive Order 13211, 

entitled ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001), or Executive 

Order 13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997). This action does not 

contain any information collections 

subject to OMB approval under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require 

any special considerations under 

Executive Order 12898, entitled 

‘‘Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income 

Populations’’ (59 FR 7629, February 16, 

1994). 

Since tolerances and exemptions that 

are established on the basis of a petition 

under FFDCA section 408(d), such as 

the tolerance exemption in this final 

rule, do not require the issuance of a 

proposed rule, the requirements of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.), do not apply. This 

action directly regulates growers, food 

processors, food handlers, and food 

retailers, not States or Tribes, nor does 

this action alter the relationships or 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established by Congress 

in the preemption provisions of FFDCA 

section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency 

has determined that this action will not 

have a substantial direct effect on States 

or Tribal Governments, on the 

relationship between the National 

Government and the States or Tribal 

Governments, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government or between 

the Federal Government and Indian 

Tribes. Thus, the Agency has 

determined that Executive Order 13132, 

entitled ‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999), and Executive Order 

13175, entitled ‘‘Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments’’ (65 FR 67249, November 

9, 2000), do not apply to this action. In 

addition, this action does not impose 

any enforceable duty or contain any 

unfunded mandate as described under 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et 

seq.). 

This action does not involve any 

technical standards that would require 

Agency consideration of voluntary 

consensus standards pursuant to section 

12(d) of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act 

(NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). 

IX. Congressional Review Act 

Pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will 

submit a report containing this rule and 

other required information to the U.S. 

Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. This action is not a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides 

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: September 1, 2022. 

Charles Smith, 

Director, Biopesticides and Pollution 

Prevention Division, Office of Pesticide 

Programs. 

Therefore, for the reasons stated in the 

preamble, EPA is amending 40 CFR 

chapter I as follows: 

PART 180—TOLERANCES AND 

EXEMPTIONS FOR PESTICIDE 

CHEMICAL RESIDUES IN FOOD 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 180 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 

■ 2. Amend § 180.1240 by revising 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 180.1240 Thymol; exemption from the 

requirement of a tolerance. 

(a) An exemption from the 

requirement of a tolerance is established 

for thymol (5-methyl-2-isopropyl-1- 

phenol) in or on all food commodities 

when used in accordance with good 

agricultural practices. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2022–19294 Filed 9–6–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND 

COMMUNITY SERVICE 

45 CFR Part 2502 

RIN 3045–AA77 

Employee Indemnification Regulations 

AGENCY: Corporation for National and 

Community Service. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Corporation for National 

and Community Service (operating as 

AmeriCorps), is finalizing regulations to 

indemnify AmeriCorps employees who, 

because of conduct taken within the 

scope of employment with AmeriCorps, 

have a verdict, judgment, monetary 

award, or personal damages claim 

issued against them that is not 

otherwise covered by the Federal Tort 

Claims Act. These regulations set out 

how AmeriCorps employees may 

request indemnification or settlement of 

a claim and the circumstances in which 

AmeriCorps may approve 

indemnification or settlement of a 

claim. 

DATES: Effective November 7, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kiara Rhodes, Associate General 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 54627 

Counsel, Corporation for National and 

Community Service, 250 E Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20525, 

PublicComments@cns.gov, 202–606– 

6709. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

This rule addresses indemnification 

of AmeriCorps employees in 

circumstances not covered by the 

Federal Employee Liability Reform and 

Tort Compensation Act of 1988 

(FELRTCA), 28 U.S.C. 2679(b)(1), or the 

Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 

U.S.C. 1346(b). FELRTCA provides that, 

with certain exceptions, the FTCA is the 

exclusive remedy for injuries caused by 

a Federal employee acting in the scope 

of employment, such that the United 

States must be substituted as the 

defendant and the claim must proceed 

against the Government under the 

FTCA. See 28 U.S.C. 2679(b)(1). The 

exceptions, for which substitution is not 

available, are claims brought for a 

violation of the Constitution and claims 

authorized by and brought for a 

violation of a Federal statute. See 28 

U.S.C. 2679(b)(2). In these claims, the 

individual is sued in their personal 

capacity. For instance, lawsuits against 

Federal employees in their personal 

capacities for alleged constitutional 

violations are available under certain 

circumstances since the Supreme 

Court’s decision in Bivens v. Six 

Unknown Named Agents of the Federal 

Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 

(1971). The Bivens decision was the first 

time that the Supreme Court recognized 

an implied cause of action directly 

under the Constitution for personalcapacity claims for alleged 

constitutional violations. In rare 

circumstances, even a State or common 

law claim might be brought against a 

Federal employee for whom the United 

States has formally substituted itself, 

but for which a court rejected 

substitution, and in these cases too, the 

individual could be liable in their 

personal capacity. 

AmeriCorps believes that actions 

against its employees in their personal 

capacities and the potential for a 

judgment against agency employees may 

hinder the agency’s effectiveness in 

meeting its mission. AmeriCorps 

employees’ ability to carry out functions 

related to volunteer management and 

grant-making depends on the 

willingness of the employees to make 

decisions and take actions that may 

expose them to liability. Uncertainty 

regarding the potential for a personal 

liability claim resulting in monetary 

judgment may intimidate employees, 

stifle creativity and initiative, and limit 

decisive action. The threat of personal 

liability for a decision made or action 

taken as part of official duties can 

adversely affect AmeriCorps’ 

achievement of its mission. The 

adoption of these regulations permitting 

indemnification would afford 

AmeriCorps employees the same 

protection given to Federal employees 

in several other government agencies, 

including the Federal Trade 

Commission, Agency for International 

Development, Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission, Department of 

Commerce, Department of Education, 

Department of Health and Human 

Services, Department of the Interior, and 

the Department of Justice. 

This final rule would address these 

situations when an AmeriCorps 

employee is sued in their personal 

capacity for conduct performed in the 

scope of their employment, by 

providing the process for AmeriCorps 

employees to request indemnification or 

settlement of a claim and the 

circumstances in which AmeriCorps 

may approve indemnification or 

settlement of a claim. 

II. Development of This Rule 

AmeriCorps proposed this rule on 

May 26, 2022. See 87 FR 31967. 

AmeriCorps received one comment 

during the public comment period. 

First, the commenter stated that the rule 

would create a lack of access to justice. 

Response: The rule has no effect on 

any person’s access to justice. Nothing 

in the rule would prevent or deter an 

individual from raising a claim against 

a current or former AmeriCorps 

employee or from obtaining a judgment 

against them. 

The commenter also stated that a 

focus should be on preventing 

employees from overstepping their 

bounds rather than indemnifying them, 

and that the rule would embolden 

federal employees in committing 

injustices because they will be 

indemnified and undermine public 

trust. 

Response: The rule does not provide 

employees with the ability or authority 

to act illegally or outside the scope of 

their employment. Federal employees 

face a number of consequences, 

including but not limited to termination 

and other legal action, that prevent them 

from ‘‘overstepping their bounds’’ and 

committing injustices. Neither does the 

rule guarantee indemnification of 

employees; rather, it establishes a 

process for employees and former 

employees to seek indemnification for 

claims against them personally for 

conduct giving rise to the claims that 

was taken within the scope of their 

employment with AmeriCorps. The 

ultimate decision as to whether 

indemnification is appropriate is left to 

the AmeriCorps Chief Executive Officer. 

Finally, the commenter states that the 

rule is extremely broad in that it would 

indemnify former employees and allow 

AmeriCorps to decide whether to 

indemnify in its sole discretion. 

Inclusion of former AmeriCorps 

employees in the rule is necessary 

because a lawsuit may be brought 

against an individual related to actions 

conducted in the scope of their 

employment with AmeriCorps, even 

though AmeriCorps may no longer 

employ that individual. The final rule 

therefore continues to include former 

employees in its scope. The final rule 

also includes the provision stating that 

AmeriCorps will decide in its sole 

discretion whether to indemnify an 

individual. This provision is not overly 

broad because it includes criteria upon 

which AmeriCorps will base this 

decision (namely, that the AmeriCorps 

employee’s conduct giving rise to the 

verdict, judgment, monetary award, or 

claim was taken within the scope of 

their employment; that the 

indemnification or settlement is in 

AmeriCorps’ best interest; and that 

appropriated funds are available for the 

indemnification or settlement). See 

§ 2502.40. It is appropriate for 

AmeriCorps’ determination as to 

whether these criteria are met to be 

within AmeriCorps’ sole discretion 

because determination of whether the 

indemnification is in the agency’s best 

interest is subjective and therefore 

necessarily non-reviewable. 

AmeriCorps did not make any edits to 

the proposed rule as a result of the 

comment. 

III. Scope and Summary of the Final 

Rule 

The rule would allow AmeriCorps to 

indemnify a present or former 

AmeriCorps employee who is 

personally named as a defendant in a 

legal proceeding for conduct arising 

within the scope of their employment 

when the FTCA does not apply because 

(1) the claim alleges the conduct is a 

violation of the Constitution; or (2) the 

claim alleges a violation of a Federal 

statute that authorizes the claim; or (3) 

the claim is brought under State or 

common law against a Federal employee 

for whom the United States has formally 

substituted itself, but for which a court 

rejected substitution. The regulations 

would permit AmeriCorps to indemnify 

an Agency employee who suffers an 

adverse verdict, judgment, or other 

monetary award, provided that the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
54628 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

actions giving rise to the judgment were 

taken within the scope of employment, 

and that AmeriCorps determines that 

the indemnification is in its interest. 

The regulations would also allow 

AmeriCorps to settle a claim brought 

against an employee in their individual 

capacity by the payment of funds, upon 

a similar determination. Generally, 

AmeriCorps will not entertain a request 

to indemnify a personal damage claim 

against an employee before entry of an 

adverse verdict, judgment, or monetary 

award. However, in certain cases, 

AmeriCorps may determine that 

exceptional circumstances justify the 

earlier indemnification or payment of a 

settlement amount. The rule would 

provide procedures for present or 

former AmeriCorps employees to follow 

if they are personally named in these 

types of lawsuits and wish to be 

indemnified, and also would provide 

procedures for AmeriCorps’ review of 

requests for indemnification. 

IV. Regulatory Analyses 

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 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, distributive impacts, and 

equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the 

importance of quantifying both costs 

and benefits, of reducing costs, of 

harmonizing rules, and of promoting 

flexibility. The Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of 

Management and Budget has 

determined that this is not a significant 

regulatory action. 

B. Congressional Review Act (Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, Title II, Subtitle E) 

As required by the Congressional 

Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801–808) before an 

interim or final rule takes effect, 

AmeriCorps will submit for an interim 

or final rule a report to each chamber of 

the Congress and to the Comptroller 

General of the United States. A major 

rule cannot take effect until 60 days 

after it is published in the Federal 

Register. The Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs in the Office of 

Management and Budget anticipates 

that this will not be a major rule under 

5 U.S.C. 804 because this rule will not 

result in (1) an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more; (2) a 

major increase in costs or prices for 

consumers, individual industries, 

Federal, state, or local government 

agencies, or geographic regions; or (3) 

significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or on the 

ability of United States-based 

enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises in domestic and 

export markets. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et 

seq.), AmeriCorps certifies that this rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. Therefore, AmeriCorps has not 

performed the initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis that is required 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) for rules that are 

expected to have such results. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

For purposes of Title II of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, as well as 

Executive Order 12875, this regulatory 

action does not contain any Federal 

mandate that may result in increased 

expenditures in either Federal, State, 

local, or Tribal governments in the 

aggregate, or impose an annual burden 

exceeding $100 million on the private 

sector. 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

Under the PRA, an agency may not 

conduct or sponsor a collection of 

information unless the collections of 

information display valid control 

numbers. This rule does not contain 

information collection requirements 

within the meaning of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501–3520. 

F. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism, 

prohibits an agency from publishing any 

rule that has federalism implications if 

the rule imposes substantial direct 

compliance costs on State and local 

governments and is not required by 

statute, or the rule preempts State law, 

unless the agency meets the 

consultation and funding requirements 

of section 6 of the Executive order. This 

rule does not have any federalism 

implications, as described above. 

G. Takings (E.O. 12630) 

This rule does not affect a taking of 

private property or otherwise have 

taking implications under Executive 

Order 12630 because this rule does not 

affect individual property rights 

protected by the Fifth Amendment or 

involve a compensable ‘‘taking.’’ A 

takings implication assessment is not 

required. 

H. Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988) 

This rule complies with the 

requirements of Executive Order 12988. 

Specifically, this rule: (a) meets the 

criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all 

regulations be reviewed to eliminate 

errors and ambiguity and be written to 

minimize litigation; and (b) meets the 

criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that 

all regulations be written in clear 

language and contain clear legal 

standards. 

I. Consultation With Indian Tribes (E.O. 

13175) 

AmeriCorps recognizes the inherent 

sovereignty of Indian Tribes and their 

right to self-governance. We have 

evaluated this rule under the 

AmeriCorps consultation policy and the 

criteria in E.O. 13175 and determined 

that this rule does not impose 

substantial direct effects on federally 

recognized Tribes. 

List of Subjects in 45 CFR Part 2502 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Government employees, 

Indemnity payments. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, under the authority of 42 

U.S.C. 12651c(c), the Corporation for 

National and Community Service 

amends chapter XXV of title 45 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations by adding 

part 2502 to read as follows: 

PART 2502—EMPLOYEE 

INDEMNIFICATION REGULATIONS 

Sec. 

2502.10 Purpose. 

2502.20 Applicability. 

2502.30 Definitions. 

2502.40 Under what circumstances may 

AmeriCorps indemnify employees? 

2502.50 At what point in a legal proceeding 

will AmeriCorps consider a request to 

indemnify the employee? 

2502.60 What types of legal proceedings 

may an AmeriCorps employee seek 

indemnification or settlement for? 

2502.70 What must an AmeriCorps 

employee do if served with process or 

pleadings in a legal proceeding? 

2502.80 What may the General Counsel do 

upon receipt of the process and 

pleadings and report of circumstances? 

2502.90 How may an AmeriCorps employee 

request indemnification? 

2502.100 How will AmeriCorps handle the 

request for indemnification? 

Authority: 28 U.S.C. 2679(b)(1); 42 U.S.C. 

12651c(c). 

§ 2502.10 Purpose. 

The purpose of this part is to provide 

the procedures for indemnification of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 54629 

AmeriCorps employees who are 

personally named in certain legal 

proceedings not covered by the Federal 

Tort Claims Act (FTCA) or the Federal 

Employee Liability Reform and Tort 

Compensation Act (FELRTCA) when 

AmeriCorps determines both that the 

actions arose within the scope of their 

AmeriCorps employment and that 

indemnification is in the agency’s 

interest. These determinations are 

matters of agency discretion. 

§ 2502.20 Applicability. 

(a) This part is applicable to all former 

and current AmeriCorps employees, 

including special Government 

employees. 

(b) This part does not apply to 

volunteers, service members, 

contractors, or any other individuals 

who may be affiliated with AmeriCorps, 

but not employed by the agency. 

§ 2502.30 Definitions. 

AmeriCorps means the Corporation 

for National and Community Service. 

AmeriCorps employee means a 

current or former employee of the 

Corporation for National and 

Community Service, regardless of 

whether the individual was an 

employee before the Corporation for 

National and Community Service began 

operating under the name AmeriCorps. 

CEO means the AmeriCorps Chief 

Executive Officer or their designee. 

Covered claim means a claim seeking 

damages against an employee personally 

(or against their estate) for personal 

injury, death, or loss of property, 

resulting from the employee’s activities, 

when AmeriCorps determines both that 

the actions arose within the scope of 

their office or employment but are not 

covered by the Federal Tort Claims Act 

(FTCA) or the Federal Employee 

Liability Reform and Tort Compensation 

Act (FELRTCA). 

General Counsel means the 

AmeriCorps General Counsel or their 

designee. 

§ 2502.40 Under what circumstances may 

AmeriCorps indemnify employees? 

AmeriCorps may, at its sole 

discretion, indemnify an AmeriCorps 

employee for a verdict, judgment, or 

other monetary award rendered against 

the employee personally in a claim or 

may settle or compromise a personal 

damages claim against an AmeriCorps 

employee if: 

(a) The CEO determines that the 

AmeriCorps employee’s conduct giving 

rise to the verdict, judgment, monetary 

award, or claim was taken within the 

scope of their employment; 

(b) The CEO determines that the 

indemnification or settlement is in 

AmeriCorps’ best interest; and 

(c) AmeriCorps appropriated funds 

are available for the indemnification or 

settlement. 

§ 2502.50 At what point in a legal 

proceeding will AmeriCorps consider a 

request to indemnify the employee? 

(a) AmeriCorps may settle or 

compromise a claim against an 

AmeriCorps employee at any time. 

(b) Unless there are exceptional 

circumstances, as determined by the 

CEO, AmeriCorps will not consider a 

request to indemnify a claim before 

entry of an adverse verdict, judgment, or 

award. 

§ 2502.60 What types of legal proceedings 

may an AmeriCorps employee seek 

indemnification or settlement for? 

An AmeriCorps employee may seek 

indemnification or settlement in any 

civil action or proceeding brought, in 

any court, for a covered claim. 

§ 2502.70 What must an AmeriCorps 

employee do if served with process or 

pleadings that includes a covered claim? 

An AmeriCorps employee who is 

named as a defendant (or the personal 

representative of the AmeriCorps 

employee’s estate) in a legal proceeding 

that includes a covered claim and who 

wishes to seek indemnification must 

promptly notify their supervisor, who 

then promptly notifies the Office of 

General Counsel. Former employees 

must directly notify the Office of 

General Counsel. 

§ 2502.80 What may the General Counsel 

do upon receipt of the process and 

pleadings and report of circumstances? 

Where appropriate, the General 

Counsel may request that the 

Department of Justice provide legal 

representation for the AmeriCorps 

employee. 

§ 2502.90 How may an AmeriCorps 

employee request indemnification? 

To request indemnification for a 

verdict, judgment, award, or settlement 

proposal of a covered claim, the 

AmeriCorps employee must: 

(a) Have complied with the 

requirements of § 2502.70. 

(b) Submit a written request, via their 

supervisor, to the head of the 

employee’s office, or (in the case a 

former employee) directly to the Office 

of General Counsel. The written request 

must include appropriate 

documentation, including copies of the 

verdict, judgment, award, or settlement 

proposal. 

§ 2502.100 How will AmeriCorps handle 

the request for indemnification? 

(a) The head of the office or their 

designee will review the employee’s 

request and submit all of the following 

to the General Counsel: 

(1) The original or a copy of the 

employee’s request. 

(2) A recommendation to approve or 

deny the request. 

(3) A detailed analysis of the basis for 

a recommendation. 

(4) A certification from the Chief 

Financial Officer as to whether the 

agency has funds available to pay the 

indemnification. 

(b) The General Counsel will: 

(1) Review the circumstances of the 

incident that gave rise to the action or 

proceeding, and all data relevant to the 

question of whether the employee was 

acting within the scope of their 

employment. 

(2) Where appropriate, seek the views 

of the U.S. Department of Justice and/ 

or the U.S. Attorney for the district 

encompassing the location where the 

action or proceeding is brought. 

(3) Prepare a recommendation to 

approve or deny the request. 

(4) Forward the request, the 

accompanying documentation, and the 

General Counsel’s recommendation to 

the CEO for a decision. 

Dated: August 22, 2022. 

Fernando Laguarda, 

General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2022–19322 Filed 9–6–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6050–28–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 79 

[CG Docket No. 05–231; FCC 14–12 and 

FCC 16–17; FR ID 103115] 

Closed Captioning of Video 

Programming; Telecommunications for 

the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc., 

Petition for Rulemaking; Corrections 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Correcting amendments. 

SUMMARY: This document corrects the 

final rules portion of Federal Register 

documents published on March 31, 

2014, and August 23, 2016. These 

Federal Register documents 

inadvertently listed several erroneous 

cross-references and a typographical 

error. This document corrects the final 

regulation. 

DATES: Effective September 7, 2022. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1