Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 48507 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

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

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by November 1, 2021. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. 

This action pertaining to the District’s 

regional haze state implementation plan 

for the second implementation period 

and correction for the RACT rule for 

major stationary sources of NOX may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides. 

Dated: August 11, 2021. 

Diana Esher, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 

52 as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart J—District of Columbia 

■ 2. Amend § 52.470: 

■ a. In the table in paragraph (c), by 

revising the entry for ‘‘Section 805’’; and 

■ b. In the table in paragraph (e), by 

adding the entry ‘‘Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan for the Second 

Implementation Period’’ at the end of 

the table. 

The revision and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 52.470 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

EPA—APPROVED REGULATIONS AND STATUTES IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

State citation Title/subject State effective 

date EPA approval date Additional explanation 

*******

Chapter 8 Asbestos, Sulfur and Nitrogen Oxides 

*******

Section 805 ............. Reasonably Available Control Technology for Major Stationary Sources 

of Nitrogen Oxides.

12/14/2018 8/31/2021, [insert 

Federal Register 

citation].

Amended 805.1(a), 805.1(a)(2), and 

805.4 (a) and (b). Previous approval 

(see the Federal Register of 2/24/ 

2020) corrected to include accurate 

citation of amendments to DC NOx 

RACT rule. 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * (e) * * * 

Name of non-regulatory SIP 

revision Applicable geographic area State submittal date EPA approval date Additional explanation 

*******

Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for the Second Implementation Period.Statewide ............................... 11/8/2019 8/31/2021, [insert Federal 

Register citation].

For the Regional Haze Second Implementation Period. 

[FR Doc. 2021–17952 Filed 8–30–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2020–0475; FRL–8763–01– 

OCSPP] 

Acequinocyl; Pesticide Tolerances 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes 

tolerances for residues of acequinocyl in 

or on tropical and subtropical, medium 

to large fruit, smooth, inedible peel 

subgroup 24B. The Interregional Project 

Number 4 (IR–4) requested this 

tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug, 

and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). 

DATES: This regulation is effective 

August 31, 2021. Objections and 

requests for hearings must be received 

on or before November 1, 2021, and 

must be filed in accordance with the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
48508 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

instructions provided in 40 CFR part 

178 (see also Unit I.C. of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2020–0475, is 

available at http://www.regulations.gov 

or at the Office of Pesticide Programs 

Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) 

in the Environmental Protection Agency 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William 

Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 

20460–0001. The Public Reading Room 

is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the OPP 

Docket is (703) 305–5805. 

Due to the public health concerns 

relating to COVID–19, the EPA Docket 

Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is 

closed to visitors with limited 

exceptions. The staff continues to 

provide customer service via email, 

phone, and webform. For the latest 

status information on EPA/DC services, 

docket access, visit http://www.epa.gov/ 

dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marietta Echeverria, Acting Director, 

Registration Division (7505P), Office of 

Pesticide Programs, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460–0001; 

main telephone number: (703) 305– 

7090; email address: RDFRNotices@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. The following 

list of North American Industrial 

Classification System (NAICS) codes is 

not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide to help readers 

determine whether this document 

applies to them. Potentially affected 

entities may include: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

B. How can I get electronic access to 

other related information? 

You may access a frequently updated 

electronic version of EPA’s tolerance 

regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through 

the Government Publishing Office’s eCFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/ 

text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/ 

Title40/40tab_02.tpl. 

C. How can I file an objection or hearing 

request? 

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 

U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an 

objection to any aspect of this regulation 

and may also request a hearing on those 

objections. You must file your objection 

or request a hearing on this regulation 

in accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure 

proper receipt by EPA, you must 

identify docket ID number EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2020–0475 in the subject line on 

the first page of your submission. All 

objections and requests for a hearing 

must be in writing and must be received 

by the Hearing Clerk on or before 

November 1, 2021. Addresses for mail 

and hand delivery of objections and 

hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 

178.25(b). 

In addition to filing an objection or 

hearing request with the Hearing Clerk 

as described in 40 CFR part 178, please 

submit a copy of the filing (excluding 

any Confidential Business Information 

(CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. 

Information not marked confidential 

pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be 

disclosed publicly by EPA without prior 

notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your 

objection or hearing request, identified 

by docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP– 

2020–0475, by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be CBI or 

other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. 

• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/ 

DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. 

NW, Washington, DC 20460–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: To make special 

arrangements for hand delivery or 

delivery of boxed information, please 

follow the instructions at http://

www.epa.gov/dockets/where-sendcomments-epa-dockets. 

Additional instructions on 

commenting or visiting the docket, 

along with more information about 

dockets generally, is available at http:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

II. Summary of Petitioned-For 

Tolerance 

In the Federal Register of December 

21, 2020 (85 FR 82998) (FRL–10016–93), 

EPA issued a document pursuant to 

FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 

346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a 

pesticide petition (PP 0E8860) by IR–4, 

Rutgers, The State University of New 

Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 

201W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition 

requested that 40 CFR 180.599 be 

amended by establishing a tolerance for 

the residue of the miticide acequinocyl 

[2-(acetyloxy)-3-dodecyl-1,4- 

naphthalenedione] and its metabolite 

acequinocyl-OH [2-dodecyl-3-hydroxy1,4-naphthoquinone], expressed as 

acequinocyl, in or on tropical and 

subtropical, medium to large fruit, 

smooth, inedible peel subgroup 24B at 

7 parts per million (ppm). That 

document referenced a summary of the 

petition prepared by IR–4, the 

petitioner, which is available in the 

docket, http://www.regulations.gov. 

There were no comments received in 

response to the notice of filing. 

Based upon review of the data 

supporting the petition, EPA is 

establishing the tolerance for the 

tropical and subtropical, medium to 

large fruit, smooth, inedible peel 

subgroup 24B at 4 ppm. The reason for 

this change is explained in Unit IV.C. 

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and 

Determination of Safety 

Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA 

allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the 

legal limit for a pesticide chemical 

residue in or on a food) only if EPA 

determines that the tolerance is ‘‘safe.’’ 

Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA 

defines ‘‘safe’’ to mean that ‘‘there is a 

reasonable certainty that no harm will 

result from aggregate exposure to the 

pesticide chemical residue, including 

all anticipated dietary exposures and all 

other exposures for which there is 

reliable information.’’ This includes 

exposure through drinking water and in 

residential settings but does not include 

occupational exposure. Section 

408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to 

give special consideration to exposure 

of infants and children to the pesticide 

chemical residue in establishing a 

tolerance and to ‘‘ensure that there is a 

reasonable certainty that no harm will 

result to infants and children from 

aggregate exposure to the pesticide 

chemical residue. . . .’’ 

Consistent with FFDCA section 

408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in 

FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has 

reviewed the available scientific data 

and other relevant information in 

support of this action. EPA has 

sufficient data to assess the hazards of 

and to make a determination on 

aggregate exposure for acequinocyl 

including exposure resulting from the 

tolerance established by this action. 

EPA’s assessment of exposures and risks 

associated with acequinocyl follows. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 48509 

In an effort to streamline its 

publications in the Federal Register, 

EPA is not reprinting sections that 

repeat what has been previously 

published for tolerance rulemaking of 

the same pesticide chemical. Where 

scientific information concerning a 

particular chemical remains unchanged, 

the content of those sections would not 

vary between tolerance rulemaking and 

republishing the same sections is 

unnecessary. EPA considers referral 

back to those sections as sufficient to 

provide an explanation of the 

information EPA considered in making 

its safety determination for the new 

rulemaking. 

EPA has previously published a 

number of tolerance rulemakings for 

acequinocyl, in which EPA concluded, 

based on the available information, that 

there is a reasonable certainty that no 

harm would result from aggregate 

exposure to acequinocyl and established 

tolerances for residues of that chemical. 

EPA is incorporating previously 

published sections from those 

rulemakings as described further in this 

rulemaking, as they remain unchanged. 

Toxicological profile. For a discussion 

of the Toxicological Profile of 

acequinocyl, see Unit III.A. of the June 

7, 2018 rulemaking (83 FR 26369) (FRL– 

9978–20). 

Toxicological Points of Departure/ 

Levels of Concern. For a summary of the 

Toxicological Points of Departure/ 

Levels of Concern for acequinocyl used 

for human risk assessment, please 

reference Unit III.B. of the January 18, 

2017 rulemaking (82 FR 5409) (FRL– 

9956–85). 

Exposure assessment. Much of the 

exposure assessment remains the same 

although updates have occurred to 

accommodate exposures from the 

petitioned-for tolerance. These updates 

are discussed in this section; for a 

description of the rest of the EPA 

approach to and assumptions for the 

exposure assessment, please reference 

Unit III.C. of the June 7, 2018 

rulemaking. 

EPA’s dietary exposure assessments 

have been updated to include the 

additional exposure from the new use of 

acequinocyl on the commodities in 

tropical and subtropical, medium to 

large fruit, smooth, inedible peel 

subgroup 24B. The assessment used the 

same assumptions as the June 7, 2018 

final rule concerning tolerance-level 

residues, default processing factors for 

all processed commodities and 100 

percent crop treated. 

Drinking water exposure. EPA has 

revised the acequinocyl drinking water 

assessment since the June 7, 2018 

rulemaking to reflect the water 

solubility limits of acequinocyl and its 

hydroxylated degradate acequinocyl-OH 

(R1) due to uncertainty in the 

environmental fate study data. The 

recommended acute estimated drinking 

water concentration (EDWC) is 21 parts 

per billion (ppb) based on the water 

solubility limits of acequinocyl and 

acequinocyl-OH added together. The 

recommended chronic EDWC is 14 ppb, 

which is the maximum amount of 

acequinocyl residues of concern that 

may be present over a year. This level 

is based on the solubility of the 

degradate acequinocyl-OH (R1), which 

persists over the chronic exposure 

period. 

Non-occupational exposure. There are 

no new residential (non-occupational) 

exposures associated with the new 

proposed use. The assessment of 

exposures to the currently registered 

uses on residential sites (e.g., 

ornamentals for landscapes, gardens, 

and trees) has not changed since the 

June 7, 2018 rulemaking. 

Cumulative exposure. Unlike other 

pesticides for which EPA has followed 

a cumulative risk approach based on a 

common mechanism of toxicity, EPA 

has not made a common mechanism of 

toxicity finding as to acequinocyl and 

any other substances and acequinocyl 

does not appear to produce a toxic 

metabolite produced by other 

substances. For the purposes of this 

action, therefore, EPA has not assumed 

that acequinocyl has a common 

mechanism of toxicity with other 

substances. 

Safety Factor for Infants and 

Children. EPA continues to conclude 

that there are reliable data to support 

the reduction of the Food Quality 

Protection Act (FQPA) safety factor. See 

Unit III.D. of the June 7, 2018 

rulemaking for a discussion of the 

Agency’s rationale for that 

determination. 

Aggregate Risks and Determination of 

Safety. EPA determines whether acute 

and chronic dietary pesticide exposures 

are safe by comparing aggregate 

exposure estimates to the acute 

population adjusted dose (aPAD) and 

the chronic population adjusted dose 

(cPAD). Short-, intermediate-, and 

chronic term risks are evaluated by 

comparing the estimated aggregate food, 

water, and residential exposure to the 

appropriate points of departure to 

ensure that an adequate margin of 

exposure (MOE) exists. For linear cancer 

risks, EPA calculates the lifetime 

probability of acquiring cancer given the 

estimated aggregate exposure. 

Acute dietary risks are below the 

Agency’s level of concern of 100% of 

the aPAD; they are 96% of the aPAD for 

children 1 to 2 years old, the population 

subgroup with the highest exposure 

estimate. Chronic dietary risks are 

below the Agency’s level of concern of 

100% of the cPAD; they are 90% of the 

cPAD for children 1 to 2 years old, the 

population subgroup with the highest 

exposure estimate. 

As explained in the June 7, 2018 

rulemaking, the Agency has assumed 

that there will be no residential handler 

exposure; therefore, a residential 

handler assessment was not conducted. 

The Agency only anticipates short-term 

post-application dermal exposures from 

registered uses of acequinocyl in 

residential areas. Using the exposure 

assumptions described for short-term 

exposures, EPA has concluded the 

combined short-term food, water, and 

residential exposures result in aggregate 

MOEs of 1,800 in adults and 1,400 for 

children 6 to 11 years old. Because 

EPA’s level of concern for acequinocyl 

is an MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs 

are not of concern. 

As stated in the June 7, 2018 

rulemaking, acequinocyl is not 

registered for any use patterns that 

would result in intermediate-term 

residential exposure. Because there is 

no intermediate-term residential 

exposure and chronic dietary exposure 

has been assessed under the 

appropriately protective cPAD, EPA 

relies on the chronic dietary risk 

assessment for evaluating intermediateterm risk for acequinocyl. 

Based on the lack of evidence of 

carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent 

carcinogenicity studies, acequinocyl is 

not expected to pose a cancer risk to 

humans. 

Therefore, based on the risk 

assessments and information described 

above, EPA concludes there is 

reasonable certainty that no harm will 

result to the general population, or to 

infants and children, from aggregate 

exposure to acequinocyl residues. More 

detailed information can be found at 

http://www.regulations.gov in the 

document titled ‘‘Acequinocyl. Human 

Health Risk Assessment for the 

Proposed New Use on Tropical and 

Subtropical, Medium to Large Fruit, 

Smooth, Inedible Peel (Subgroup 24B)’’ 

in docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP– 

2020–0475. 

IV. Other Considerations 

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology 

For a discussion of the available 

analytical enforcement method, see Unit 

IV.A. of the June 7, 2018 rulemaking. 

B. International Residue Limits 

In making its tolerance decisions, EPA 

seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
48510 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

international standards whenever 

possible, consistent with U.S. food 

safety standards and agricultural 

practices. EPA considers the 

international maximum residue limits 

(MRLs) established by the Codex 

Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as 

required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). 

The Codex has not established an 

MRL for residues of acequinocyl in/on 

tropical and subtropical, medium to 

large fruit, inedible peel, subgroup 24B. 

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For 

Tolerances 

FFDCA section 408(d)(4)(A)(i) permits 

the Agency to finalize a tolerance that 

varies from that sought by the petition. 

The petitioner initially requested a 

tolerance of 7 ppm for tropical and 

subtropical, medium to large fruit, 

smooth, inedible peel (crop subgroup 

24B). However, upon review of the 

requested tolerance, the Agency noticed 

that the petitioner incorrectly calculated 

the residues for whole fruit. Whole fruit 

residues were calculated as the sum of 

residues for pulp and peel combined 

and did not account for total sample 

weight. Residue concentrations are 

expressed in ppm, which is equivalent 

to mg/kg; therefore, residues from pulp 

and peel cannot simply be combined 

together to determine whole fruit 

residues without accounting for total 

sample weight. The corrected residue 

concentrations for the whole fruit were 

approximately half of the initially 

calculated concentrations and produced 

a recommended tolerance of 4 ppm 

when entered into the OECD calculator. 

V. Conclusion 

Therefore, a tolerance is established 

for residues of acequinocyl, including 

its metabolites and degradates, in or on 

tropical and subtropical, medium to 

large fruit, smooth, inedible peel 

subgroup 24B at 4 ppm. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This action establishes 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 to 

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 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). 

VII. 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: August 18, 2021. 

Catherine Aubee, 

Acting Director, Registration Division, Office 

of Pesticide Programs. 

Therefore, for the reasons stated in the 

preamble, EPA is amending 40 CFR 

chapter 1 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. In § 180.599, amend the table in 

paragraph (a) by adding a table heading 

and in alphabetical order an entry for 

‘‘Tropical and subtropical, medium to 

large fruit, smooth, inedible peel 

subgroup 24B’’ to read as follows: 

§ 180.599 Acequinocyl; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) * * * 

TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (a) 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

*******

Tropical and subtropical, medium to large fruit, smooth, inedible peel subgroup 24B ....................................................................... 4 

*******


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 48511 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2021–18716 Filed 8–30–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Parts 59, 61, and 62 

[Docket ID FEMA–2018–0026] 

RIN 1660–AA95 

National Flood Insurance Program: 

Conforming Changes To Reflect the 

Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance 

Reform Act of 2012 (BW–12) and the 

Homeowners Flood Insurance 

Affordability Act of 2014 (HFIAA), and 

Additional Clarifications for Plain 

Language; Correction 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency; DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: On July 20, 2020, FEMA 

published in the Federal Register a final 

rule revising the National Flood 

Insurance Program (NFIP) regulations to 

codify certain provisions of the BiggertWaters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 

2012 and the Homeowner Flood 

Insurance Affordability Act of 2014, and 

to clarify certain existing NFIP rules 

relating to NFIP operations and the 

Standard Flood Insurance Policy. This 

final rule provides corrections to those 

instructions, to be used in lieu of the 

information published July 20. 

DATES: This correction is effective 

October 1, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this 

rulemaking is available for inspection 

using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

http://www.regulations.gov and can be 

viewed by following that website’s 

instructions. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kelly Bronowicz, Director, Policyholder 

Services Division, Federal Insurance 

and Mitigation Administration, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, 400 C 

Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 

557–9488. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc. 

2020–09260, beginning on page 43946 

in the Federal Register of Monday, 

July 20, 2020, the following corrections 

are made: 

PART 61—INSURANCE COVERAGE 

AND RATES 

Appendix A(1) to Part 61 [Corrected] 

■ 1. On page 43961, in the first column, 

in Appendix A(1) to Part 61, article 

III.A.5.a, ‘‘(see II.B.6.a)’’ is corrected to 

read ‘‘(see II.C.6.a)’’. 

■ 2. On page 43963, in the second 

column, in Appendix A(1) to Part 61, 

article IV.4, ‘‘(see II.B.6.c)’’ is corrected 

to read ‘‘(see II.C.6.c)’’. 

Appendix A(2) to Part 61 [Corrected] 

■ 3. On page 43970, in the first column, 

in Appendix A(2) to Part 61, article 

III.A.6.a, ‘‘(see II.B.6.a.)’’ is corrected to 

read ‘‘(see II.C.6.a)’’. 

Appendix A(3) to Part 61 [Corrected] 

■ 4. On page 43978, in the first column, 

in Appendix A(3) to Part 61, article 

III.A.6.a, ‘‘(see II.B.6.a.)’’ is corrected to 

read ‘‘(see II.C.6.a)’’. 

Deanne B. Criswell, 

Administrator, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency. 

[FR Doc. 2021–18262 Filed 8–30–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–52–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 0 and 64 

[WC Docket Nos. 17–97 and 21–291; FCC 

21–93; FR ID 45192] 

Call Authentication Trust Anchor; 

Appeals of the STIR/SHAKEN 

Governance Authority Token 

Revocation Decisions 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission (the 

Commission) adopts rules establishing a 

process for voice service providers 

aggrieved by a token revocation decision 

of the private STIR/SHAKEN 

Governance Authority to file a request 

for review to the Commission. Without 

this process the private STIR/SHAKEN 

Governance Authority can place other 

private entities out of compliance with 

the Commission’s STIR/SHAKEN 

implementation rules without oversight 

from the Commission. The adopted 

rules will provide appropriate oversight 

and ensure due process for voice service 

providers aggrieved by a Governance 

Authority token revocation decision. 

DATES: Effective September 30, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alexander Hobbs, Attorney Advisor, 

Competition Policy Division, Wireline 

Competition Bureau, at (202) 418–7433, 

or email: Alexander.Hobbs@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Report 

and Order in WC Docket Nos. 17–97, 

21–291, FCC 21–93, adopted on August 

5, 2021, and released on August 6, 2021. 

The complete text of this document is 

available for download at https://

docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC21-93A1.pdf. To request materials in 

accessible formats for people with 

disabilities (Braille, large print, 

electronic files, audio format), send an 

email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the 

Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice), (202) 

418–0432 (TTY). 

Synopsis 

I. Introduction 

Caller ID authentication using the 

STIR/SHAKEN framework is a key 

component of our multi-pronged effort 

to combat the scourge of illegal 

robocalls. STIR/SHAKEN is a set of 

technological standards that helps to 

prevent illegal ‘‘spoofing,’’ a practice 

that involves falsifying caller ID 

information in order to trick 

unsuspecting Americans into thinking 

that calls are trustworthy because the 

caller ID information appears as if the 

call came from a neighbor or a familiar 

or reputable source. With voice service 

providers required by our rules to 

implement STIR/SHAKEN in the 

internet Protocol (IP) portions of their 

networks by June 30, 2021, Americans 

are now in a position to answer their 

phones with greater confidence that the 

number displayed is correct. 

To guard against bad actors and 

preserve trust within the distributed 

caller ID authentication system, the 

ability of a voice service provider to 

participate in STIR/SHAKEN can be 

revoked by the private Governance 

Authority that oversees the STIR/ 

SHAKEN framework. This revocation 

process effectively allows the private 

Governance Authority to make 

decisions that render voice service 

providers noncompliant with our rules. 

To provide appropriate oversight and 

ensure due process, today we establish 

a process for voice service providers to 

appeal such revocation decisions to the 

Commission. 

II. Background 

To address the issue of illegal caller 

ID spoofing, technologists from the 

internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) 

and the Alliance for 

Telecommunications Industry Solutions 

(ATIS) developed standards to allow for 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES