16636 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 57 / Thursday, March 24, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

HI was five at the 95th percentile. See 

79 FR 78328–32. The Commission’s 

justification for the proposed rule was 

based on available data showing that a 

statistically stable, non-zero percentage 

of the women studied had an HI greater 

than one and that an HI less than or 

equal to one is necessary ‘‘to ensure a 

reasonable certainty of no harm to 

children, pregnant women, or other 

susceptible individuals with an 

adequate margin of safety.’’ See 79 FR 

78334–35. 

After publication of the proposed 

rule, the Commission examined new 

data using the CHAP’s original 

methodology. Based on the new data, 

the Commission determined that 

phthalate exposures had changed over 

time and that there were too few 

samples in the study with an HI above 

one to make a statistically reliable 

estimate for the population of the 

number or percentage of women of 

reproductive age with an HI greater than 

one. No new data on infants were 

available, so risk estimates for this 

population did not change in the 

updated analysis. Based on the new data 

for women of reproductive age, the 

Commission found that the risk of 

antiandrogenic effects had decreased, 

and that the HI at the 95th percentile 

had decreased from five to less than 

one. 82 FR 49958. Based on the new 

data, the Commission could not 

determine exactly what percentage of 

the women studied had an HI greater 

than one but did state that ‘‘between 

two and nine real women from the 

sample of 538 [women of reproductive 

age] had an HI greater than one.’’ Id. The 

Commission’s justification for the final 

rule was based on the facts that between 

two and nine individual samples had HI 

levels greater than one and not the 10 

percent of women who had exposures 

described in the proposed rule, and that 

no new data on infants were available. 

For details regarding the respective 

justifications, potential commenters are 

directed to the preamble of the 

respective Federal Register notices for 

the proposed and final rule. 

The court of appeals held that the 

Commission did not provide adequate 

notice and comment when it changed 

the justification for the prohibitions in 

the proposed rule to the final rule. 

Accordingly, the Commission is 

publishing this notice to request public 

comment regarding the justification for 

the final rule. 

B. Request for Comment on Cost-Benefit 

Analysis of Continuing Interim DINP 

Prohibition 

The Fifth Circuit held that the final 

phthalates rule was deficient because it 

did not consider the costs and benefits 

of continuing the interim prohibition on 

DINP. Specifically, the court found that 

the Commission was required at least to 

consider the cost, as well as the effect 

on utility and availability of products 

containing DINP, to determine whether 

to continue the interim prohibition. 

The staff of the Directorate for 

Economic Analysis has conducted a 

cost-benefit analysis regarding 

continuing the interim prohibition on 

DINP in the final rule. The staff 

memorandum ‘‘Cost-Benefit Analysis of 

Continuing the Interim DINP 

Prohibition in the Final Rule: 16 CFR 

part 1307 ‘Prohibition of Children’s 

Toys and Child Care Articles Containing 

Specified Phthalates’ ’’ can be found 

here. https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/ 

CostBenefitAnalysisDINPinPhthalates

FinalRule.pdf?VersionId=4dQErAhY2c

QdvQpf1I8rAqTNCjinie_h. The 

Commission requests public comment 

regarding the cost-benefit analysis of 

continuing the interim prohibition on 

DINP in the final rule. 

III. Submission of Comments 

We request comments on two issues: 

The rationale for the final rule in section 

II.A; and the cost-benefit analysis of 

continuing the DINP interim prohibition 

discussed in section II.B of this 

document. Only comments submitted 

regarding the rationale for the final rule 

and/or the cost-benefit analysis of 

continuing the DINP interim prohibition 

will be considered. Comments 

submitted on any other issues are out of 

scope and will not be considered. 

Finally, untimely submitted comments 

will not be considered. 

Information regarding the court 

decision is available on the CPSC 

website or http://www.regulations.gov, 

under Docket No. CPSC–2014–0033, 

Supporting and Related Materials. 

Alternatively, interested parties may 

obtain a copy of the court decision by 

writing or calling the Division of the 

Secretariat, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, 4330 East West Highway, 

Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 

504–6833. 

Alberta E. Mills, 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2022–06223 Filed 3–23–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

22 CFR Part 22 

[Public Notice: 11649] 

RIN 1400–AF48 

Schedule of Fees for Consular 

Services—Elimination of the ‘‘Return 

Check Processing Fee’’ 

AGENCY: Department of State. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of State (the 

Department) is adjusting the Schedule 

of Fees for Consular Services (Schedule) 

by removing Item Number 74, a $25 

return check processing fee. 

Domestically, the Bureau of Consular 

Affairs, Office of Passport Services (CA/ 

PPT), has charged customers this fee 

when the instruments they have used to 

submit payment for a passport 

application could not be processed due 

to insufficient funds, closed accounts, 

stop payments, and altered/fictious 

checks or money orders. A recent 

review of the Department’s Cost of 

Service Model (CoSM) established that 

the costs associated with attempts to 

recover on non-viable instruments are 

now captured within the passport 

application fee. The Department 

therefore stopped charging this fee on 

December 13, 2021, and will remove 

this fee from the Schedule. 

DATES: This rule is effective March 24, 

2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Johanna Cruz, Management Analyst, 

Office of the Comptroller, Bureau of 

Consular Affairs, Department of State; 

phone: 202–485–8915, email: fees@

state.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

This rule makes changes to the 

Schedule of Fees in 22 CFR 22.1 by 

removing Item Number 74, the $25 

return check processing fee, from the 

Schedule of Fees. This fee was added to 

the Schedule in 1991 to recoup the cost 

of time spent by passport office 

personnel attempting to recover on bad 

checks applicants had submitted to the 

Department. According to the Passport 

Directorate’s research, in FY 1989 there 

were approximately 8,800 bad checks 

and money orders, which required an 

estimated 5,400 staff hours to process. 

This fee has only been charged 

domestically; overseas posts do not 

accept personal checks and have not 

charged the fee. A recent review of the 

Department’s CoSM established that the 

costs associated with the return check 

processing fee are now captured within 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 57 / Thursday, March 24, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 16637 

a portion of the passport application fee 

the Department already charges. 

What is the authority for this action? 

The Department of State’s general 

authority to set and charge fees for 

consular services it provides derives 

from the user charges statute, 31 U.S.C. 

9701. See, e.g., 31 U.S.C. 9701(b)(2)(A) 

(‘‘The head of each agency . . . may 

prescribe regulations establishing the 

charge for a service or thing of value 

provided by the agency . . . based on 

. . . the costs to the government.’’). 

Various statutes permit the Department 

of State to retain some of the fee revenue 

it collects (e.g., passport security 

surcharge, immigrant visa security 

surcharge, affidavit of support, etc.), but 

the Department of State lacks statutory 

authority to retain the return check 

processing fee. As with many other 

consular fees, all collections of this fee 

must be deposited into the general fund 

of the Treasury pursuant to the 

Miscellaneous Receipts Statute, 31 

U.S.C. 3302(b). The Department 

likewise does not retain the passport 

application fee. See 22 U.S.C. 214(a) 

(‘‘There shall be collected and paid into 

the Treasury of the United States a fee, 

prescribed by the Secretary of State by 

regulation, for the filing of each 

application for a passport . . . .’’). 

Activity-Based Costing 

To set fees in accordance with the 

general user charges principles set forth 

in 31 U.S.C. 9701, the Department must 

calculate the true cost to the U.S. 

government of providing each consular 

service. Following guidance provided in 

‘‘Managerial Cost Accounting Concepts 

and Standards for the Federal 

Government,’’ OMB’s Statement #4 of 

Federal Accounting Standards (SFFAS 

#4), available at http://www.fasab.gov/ 

pdffiles/sffas-4.pdf, the Department 

chose to develop its CoSM using an 

Activity-Based Costing (ABC) 

methodology to determine the true cost 

of each consular service. 

The Government Accountability 

Office (GAO) defines ABC as a ‘‘set of 

accounting methods used to identify 

and describe costs and required 

resources for activities within 

processes.’’ Organizations can use the 

same staff and resources (computer 

equipment, production facilities, etc.) to 

produce multiple products or services; 

therefore, ABC models seek to identify 

and assign costs to processes and 

activities and then to individual 

products and services through the 

identification of key cost drivers 

referred to as ‘‘resource drivers’’ and 

‘‘activity drivers.’’ The goal is to 

proportionally and accurately distribute 

costs. ABC models require financial and 

accounting analysis and modeling skills 

combined with a detailed understanding 

of an organization’s business processes. 

SFFAS Statement #4 provides a detailed 

discussion of the use of cost accounting 

by the U.S. Government. 

The ABC approach focuses on the 

activities required to produce a 

particular service or product and uses 

resource drivers to assign costs through 

activities and activity drivers to assign 

costs from activities to services. In the 

context of the work of the Department’s 

Bureau of Consular Affairs (CA), 

resource drivers assign costs (resources 

including materials, supplies, and labor 

utilized in the production or delivery of 

services and products) to activities 

using business rules that reflect the 

operational reality of CA and the data 

available from consular systems, 

surveys, and internal records. Most 

resource drivers are based on time spent 

on each activity. Activity drivers assign 

the cost of consular activities to the 

services CA provides. Most activity 

drivers are based on volumes. 

Why is the department removing this 

fee? 

Based on feedback from CA/PPT’s 

field offices, the Department evaluated 

whether there was a need to charge the 

$25 return check processing fee. Upon 

review, it was determined that the costs 

associated with this service are now 

captured in the CoSM’s cashiering 

activity, which is accounted for in the 

passport application fee the Department 

already charges. The Department 

therefore no longer needs to charge the 

return check processing fee in order to 

recover the costs of providing this 

service. 

Regulatory Findings 

Administrative Procedure Act 

As removal of this fee constitutes a 

benefit, this rule is published as a final 

rule under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 

553(a)(2). Since the rule is exempt from 

§ 553, this rule is effective upon 

publication. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Department has reviewed this 

rule and, by approving it, certifies that 

it will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities as defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6). 

Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995 

This rule will not result in the 

expenditure by state, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

in any year, and it will not significantly 

or uniquely affect small governments. 

Therefore, no actions were deemed 

necessary under the provisions of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995, 2 U.S.C. 1501–1504. 

Congressional Review Act 

This rule is a not major rule as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Executive Order 12866 

The Department has reviewed this 

rule to ensure its consistency with the 

regulatory philosophy and principles set 

forth in the Executive Order and affirms 

that this regulation is consistent with 

the guidance therein. The Office of 

Management and Budget has designated 

this rule not significant for purposes of 

E.O. 12866. 

Details of the changes to the Schedule 

of Fee are as follows: 

TABLE 1—CHANGES TO THE SCHEDULE OF FEES

Item No. Proposed 

fee Current fee Change in fee 

Percentage 

increase 

Projected 

annual 

number of 

applications 1

Estimated 

change in 

annual fees 

collected 2

Change 

in state 

retained 

fees 

Change 

in remittance 

to Treasury 

SCHEDULE OF FEES FOR CONSULAR SERVICES 

*******

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 

*******

PPT 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
16638 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 57 / Thursday, March 24, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1—CHANGES TO THE SCHEDULE OF FEES—Continued 

Item No. Proposed 

fee Current fee Change in fee 

Percentage 

increase 

Projected 

annual 

number of 

applications 1

Estimated 

change in 

annual fees 

collected 2

Change 

in state 

retained 

fees 

Change 

in remittance 

to Treasury 

*******

74. Return Check Processing Fee ................... $0 $25 ($25) (100%) 8,293 ($207,325) $0 ($207,325) 

1Based on estimated FY 2021 workload calculated with 8/1/2021 actual demand. 

2 Using FY 2021 workload to generate collections. This will be a reduction in total annual remittance to Treasury. 

Executive Orders 12372 and 13132 

This regulation will not have 

substantial direct effects 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. Therefore, in 

accordance with section 6 of Executive 

Order 13132, it is determined that this 

rule does not have sufficient federalism 

implications to require consultations or 

warrant the preparation of a federalism 

summary impact statement. The 

regulations implementing Executive 

Order 12372 regarding 

intergovernmental consultation on 

federal programs and activities do not 

apply to this regulation. 

Executive Order 13175 

The Department has determined that 

this rulemaking will not have tribal 

implications, will not impose 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

Indian tribal governments, and will not 

preempt tribal law. Accordingly, the 

requirements of Executive Order 13175 

do not apply to this rulemaking. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule does not impose any new 

reporting or record-keeping 

requirements subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. 

List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 22 

Consular services, Fees. 

Accordingly, for the reasons stated in 

the preamble, 22 CFR part 22 is 

amended as follows: 

PART 22—SCHEDULE OF FEES FOR 

CONSULAR SERVICES— 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND 

FOREIGN SERVICE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 22 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101 note, 1153 note, 

1157 note, 1183a note, 1184(c)(12), 1201(c), 

1351, 1351 note, 1713, 1714, 1714 note; 10 

U.S.C. 2602(c); 22 U.S.C. 214, 214 note, 

1475e, 2504(h), 2651a, 4206, 4215, 4219, 

6551; 31 U.S.C. 9701; Exec. Order 10718, 22 

FR 4632 (1957); Exec. Order 11295, 31 FR 

10603 (1966). 

■ 2. Amend § 22.1 by 

■ a. Revising the introductory text; and 

■ b. In the table, removing and reserving 

entry 74. 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 22.1 Schedule of Fees 

The following table sets forth the fees 

for the following categories listed on the 

U.S. Department of State’s Schedule of 

Fees for Consular Services: 

* * * * * 

Rena Bitter, 

Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, 

Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 2022–06131 Filed 3–23–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket Number USCG–2021–0750] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone; Chesapeake Bay, 

Craighill Channel, MD 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Temporary final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is extending 

the duration of a temporary safety zone 

on certain navigable waters of the 

Chesapeake Bay. This action is 

necessary to provide for the safety of 

persons and the marine environment 

from the potential safety hazards 

associated with the damage assessment 

and salvage of the grounded freight ship 

EVER FORWARD, through 9 p.m. on 

April 13, 2022. This rule prohibits 

persons and vessels from being in the 

safety zone unless authorized by the 

Captain of the Port, Maryland-National 

Capital Region or a designated 

representative. 

DATES: This rule is effective without 

actual notice from March 24, 2022 until 

9 p.m. on April 13, 2022. For the 

purposes of enforcement, actual notice 

will be used from 9 p.m. on March 20, 

2022, until March 24, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: To view documents 

mentioned in this preamble as being 

available in the docket, go to https://

www.regulations.gov, type USCG–2021– 

0750 in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click 

‘‘SEARCH.’’ Next, in the Document 

Type column, select ‘‘Supporting & 

Related Material.’’ 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this rule, call or 

email Mr. Ron Houck, Sector MarylandNCR, Waterways Management Division, 

U.S. Coast Guard: telephone 410–576– 

2674, email Ronald.L.Houck@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Table of Abbreviations 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

COTP Captain of the Port 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FR Federal Register 

NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking 

§ Section 

U.S.C. United States Code 

II. Background Information and 

Regulatory History 

On March 14, 2022, the Coast Guard 

issued a final rule establishing a 

temporary safety zone on certain 

navigable waters of the Chesapeake Bay 

to protect persons and vessels during 

damage assessment and salvage 

operations at the grounded 1,102-foot 

Hong Kong-flagged motor vessel EVER 

FORWARD. The orignal rule runs 

through 9 p.m. on March 20, 2022. 

However, additional time is needed to 

conduct the damage assessment and 

salvage operations and, as a result, the 

Coast Guard needs to extend the safety 

zone through 9 p.m. on April 13, 2022. 

The Coast Guard is issuing this 

temporary rule without prior notice and 

opportunity to comment pursuant to 

authority under section 4(a) of the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 

U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision 

authorizes an agency to issue a rule 

without prior notice and opportunity to 

comment when the agency for good 

cause finds that those procedures are 

‘‘impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 

to the public interest.’’ Under 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that 

good cause exists for not publishing a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

with respect to this extension because it 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES