Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 94 / Monday, May 16, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 29671 

edge into the river as measured from the 

LWRP. The outer boundary of the 

anchorage is a line parallel to the 

nearest bank 1,100 feet from the water’s 

edge into the river as measured from the 

LWRP. 

Note 2 to paragraph (a)(7): Point Michel 

and Diamond Revetments extend/run 

adjacent to this anchorage. Mariners are 

urged to use caution in this anchorage. 

* * * * * 

(9) Davant Anchorage. An area, 1.4 

miles in length, along the left 

descending bank of the river extending 

from mile 52.5 to mile 53.9 Above Head 

of Passes. The width of the anchorage is 

800 feet. 

* * * * * 

(11) Wills Point Anchorage. An area, 

1.1 miles in length, along the left 

descending bank of the river extending 

from mile 66.5 to mile 67.6 Above Head 

of Passes. The width of the anchorage is 

500 feet. The inner boundary of the 

anchorage is a line parallel to the 

nearest bank 200 feet from the water’s 

edge into the river as measured from the 

LWRP. The outer boundary of the 

anchorage is a line parallel to the 

nearest bank 700 feet from the water’s 

edge into the river as measured from the 

LWRP. 

(12) Cedar Grove Anchorage. An area, 

1.34 miles in length, along the right 

descending bank of the river extending 

from mile 69.56 to mile 70.9 Above 

Head of Passes. The width of the 

anchorage is 500 feet. The inner 

boundary of the anchorage is a line 

parallel to the nearest bank 200 feet 

from the water’s edge into the river as 

measured from the LWRP. The outer 

boundary of the anchorage is a line 

parallel to the nearest bank 700 feet 

from the water’s edge into the river as 

measured from the LWRP. 

Note 3 to paragraph (a)(12): Jesuit Bend 

Revetment extends/runs adjacent to the 

lower portion of this anchorage. Mariners are 

urged to use caution in this anchorage. 

(13) Belle Chasse Anchorage. An area, 

2.15 miles in length, along the right 

descending bank of the river extending 

from mile 73.05 to mile 75.2 Above 

Head of Passes. The width of the 

anchorage is 500 feet. The inner 

boundary of the anchorage is a line 

parallel to the nearest bank 375 feet 

from the water’s edge into the river as 

measured from the LWRP. The outer 

boundary of the anchorage is a line 

parallel to the nearest bank 875 feet 

from the water’s edge into the river as 

measured from the LWRP. 

Note 4 to paragraph (a)(13): Oak Point 

Revetment extends/runs adjacent to the 

lower portion of this anchorage. Mariners are 

urged to use caution in this anchorage. 

(14) Lower 12 Mile Point Anchorage. 

An area, 2.2 miles in length, along the 

right descending bank of the river 

extending from mile 78.6 to mile 80.8 

Above Head of Passes. The width of the 

anchorage is 500 feet. The inner 

boundary of the anchorage is a line 

parallel to the nearest bank 300 feet 

from the water’s edge into the river as 

measured from the LWRP. The outer 

boundary of the anchorage is a line 

parallel to the nearest bank 800 feet 

from the water’s edge into the river as 

measured from the LWRP. 

Note 5 to paragraph (a)(14): English Turn 

Revetment extends/runs adjacent to the 

lower portion of this anchorage. Mariners are 

urged to use caution in this anchorage. 

(15) Lower 9 Mile Anchorage. An area, 

2.4 miles in length, along the right 

descending bank of the river extending 

from mile 82.6 to mile 85.0 Above Head 

of Passes. The width of the anchorage is 

500 feet. The inner boundary of the 

anchorage is a line parallel to the 

nearest bank 300 feet from the water’s 

edge into the river as measured from the 

LWRP. The outer boundary of the 

anchorage is a line parallel to the 

nearest bank 800 feet from the water’s 

edge into the river as measured from the 

LWRP. 

Note 6 to paragraph (a)(15): Twelve Mile 

Point Revetment extends/runs adjacent to the 

lower portion of this anchorage. Mariners are 

urged to use caution in this anchorage. 

Caution: A wreck is located within the 

boundaries of this anchorage. Mariners are 

urged to use caution in this anchorage. 

* * * * * 

Note 7 to paragraph (a)(16): * * * 

* * * * * 

Note 8 to paragraph (a)(18): * * * 

* * * * * 

Note 9 to paragraph (a)(22): * * * 

* * * * * 

(35) Point Michel Anchorage. An area, 

2.2 miles in length, along the right 

descending bank of the river extending 

from mile 40.0 to mile 42.2 Above Head 

of Passes. The width of the anchorage is 

500 feet. The inner boundary of the 

anchorage is a line parallel to the 

nearest bank 325 feet from the water’s 

edge into the river as measured from the 

LWRP. The outer boundary of the 

anchorage is a line parallel to the 

nearest bank 825 feet from the water’s 

edge into the river as measured from the 

LWRP. 

Note 10 to paragraph (a)(35): Point Michel 

Revetment extends/runs adjacent to this 

anchorage. Mariners are urged to use caution 

in this anchorage. 

* * * * * 

(37) Phoenix Anchorage. An area, 0.6 

miles in length, along the left 

descending bank of the river extending 

from mile 57.82 to mile 58.42 Above 

Head of Passes. The width of the 

anchorage is 400 feet. The inner 

boundary of the anchorage is a line 

parallel to the nearest bank 400 feet 

from the water’s edge into the river as 

measured from the LWRP. The outer 

boundary of the anchorage is a line 

parallel to the nearest bank 800 feet 

from the water’s edge into the river as 

measured from the LWRP. 

Note 11 to paragraph (a)(37): Myrtle Grove 

Revetment extends/runs adjacent to this 

anchorage. Mariners are urged to use caution 

in this anchorage. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(6) * * * 

Note 12 to paragraph (c)(6): * * * 

* * * * * 

Dated: 2 May 2022. 

John W. Reed, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting 

Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2022–10356 Filed 5–13–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

38 CFR Part 13 

RIN 2900–AR11 

Fiduciary Bond 

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) amends its regulations that 

govern fiduciary activities. More 

specifically, the amendments revise 

specific procedures to exempt a VAappointed fiduciary who is also serving 

as a court-appointed fiduciary from 

posting multiple bonds and to also 

exempt a VA-appointed fiduciary that is 

also a State agency with existing, Statemandated liability insurance or a 

blanket bond from having to obtain an 

additional bond payable to the Secretary 

of Veterans Affairs (Secretary). 

DATES: This rule is effective June 15, 

2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kevin Baresich, Program Analyst, 

Pension and Fiduciary Service (21PF), 

Veterans Benefits Administration, 

Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 

Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 

20420, (202) 632–8863. (This is not a 

toll-free number.) 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a 

document published in the Federal 


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
29672 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 94 / Monday, May 16, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

Register on September 29, 2021, at 86 

FR 53913, VA proposed to amend its 

fiduciary activity regulations by 

providing an exception to certain 

eligibility requirements to exempt a VAappointed fiduciary who is also a courtappointed fiduciary, or a State agency 

with existing State-mandated liability 

insurance or a blanket bond from 

obtaining a separate surety bond 

payable to the Secretary. The 60-day 

public comment period ended on 

November 29, 2021. VA received 

comments from two individuals. 

The first commenter was fully 

supportive of the proposed rule. The 

other commenter was not in support of 

the proposed rule. Neither commenter 

recommended revisions to the proposed 

rule. However, the second commenter 

expressed general concerns with the 

purpose of the rulemaking. The 

commenter opposed the exemption of a 

VA bond requirement, even if 

redundant, to protect a VA beneficiary’s 

funds. The commenter was not 

persuaded that a bond made payable to 

the Secretary is unnecessary when VA 

funds under management are also 

protected by bonds ordered by a court, 

State-mandated liability insurance, or a 

blanket bond. The commenter believed 

that a VA-specific bond provides an 

additional layer of protection and 

safeguards the funds of a vulnerable VA 

beneficiary. However, the commenter 

did not explain how removing 

redundant coverage would increase risk 

to beneficiaries. We do not agree that 

our proposed regulation would 

disadvantage a VA beneficiary or limit 

any protections provided and make no 

changes based upon this comment. 

In 2018, VA amended its fiduciary 

program regulations. 83 FR 32716 (July 

13, 2018). VA promulgated new 

regulations meant to establish a national 

standard for the appointment and 

supervision of VA fiduciaries. 

Specifically, VA implemented a 

requirement that certain potential VA 

fiduciaries obtain a surety bond payable 

to the Secretary to ensure that VA 

would be able to recoup misused funds 

from a surety company as opposed to 

initiating collections against a fiduciary. 

38 CFR 13.230(d). However, as 

explained in the proposed rule, we 

recognize that the purpose for which 

this requirement was imposed would be 

defeated in instances where a courtappointed fiduciary or State-agency 

already had a bond in place. We noted 

that in these instances, the bond 

typically would be payable to the state 

where the court is located, and for this 

reason VA would be unable to make a 

direct claim against that bond. This 

circumstance highlighted a potential 

problem with VA’s practice of requiring 

multiple bonds, that if a surety company 

already paid out on a misused-benefits 

claim under a state-court bond, another 

surety company would not pay out on 

a VA bond for the same misconduct. 

Therefore, a second bond would not 

satisfy its intended purpose. Further, it 

would not make sense to burden a VA 

beneficiary with paying a second bond 

premium where there already is 

adequate protection in place. Indeed, to 

do so would be contrary to VA’s core 

mission to ensure that a VA 

beneficiary’s benefits are managed in 

their best interest. A VA beneficiary 

would not be financially disadvantaged 

by the removal of a duplicative bond 

requirement because VA is now 

required to reimburse a beneficiary of 

any misused funds. 38 U.S.C. 6107. 

Finally, the same commenter stated 

that if a fiduciary breaches his or her 

duties as a fiduciary, that individual 

should be held accountable by both the 

State and VA. 

The amendments under this rule do 

not waive VA’s obligation under the law 

to hold a fiduciary who has misused VA 

benefits accountable for such misuse. 38 

CFR 13.400, 13.500. 

VA adopts the rule as proposed 

without change. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

direct agencies to assess the costs and 

benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, when regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, and other advantages; 

distributive impacts; and equity). 

Executive Order 13563 (Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review) 

emphasizes the importance of 

quantifying both costs and benefits, 

reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and 

promoting flexibility. The Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs has 

determined that this rule is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. The Regulatory 

Impact Analysis associated with this 

rulemaking can be found as a 

supporting document at 

www.regulations.gov. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This final rule includes provisions 

constituting a revised collection of 

information under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– 

3521) that require approval by the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB). 

Accordingly, under 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), 

VA has submitted a copy of this 

rulemaking action to OMB for review 

and approval. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Secretary certifies that this final 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities as they are 

defined in the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612. This regulation 

has the potential to impact all 2,350 

small entities within the North 

American Industry Classification 

System Code 524126 (casualty and 

bonding companies). There is a 

projected loss of revenue of $66,989 per 

firm which yields a 0.16% revenue loss 

to each entity. Based on this analysis, 

the Secretary certifies that the adoption 

of this final rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities as 

they are defined in the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. Therefore, pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. 605(b), the initial and final 

regulatory flexibility analysis 

requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 do 

not apply. 

Unfunded Mandates 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that 

agencies prepare an assessment of 

anticipated costs and benefits before 

issuing any rule that may result in the 

expenditure by State, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

(adjusted annually for inflation) in any 

one year. This final rule would have no 

such effect on State, local, and tribal 

governments, or on the private sector. 

Assistance Listing 

The Assistance Listing program 

number and title for programs affected 

by this rule are as follows: 64.104, 

Pension for Non-Service-Connected 

Disability for Veterans; 64.105, Pension 

to Veterans Surviving Spouses, and 

Children; 64.109, Veterans 

Compensation for Service-Connected 

Disability; and 64.110, Veterans 

Dependency and Indemnity 

Compensation for Service-Connected 

Death. 

Congressional Review Act 

Pursuant to Subtitle E of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (known as the 

Congressional Review Act) (5 U.S.C. 801 

et seq.), the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs designated this rule 

as not a major rule, as defined by 5 

U.S.C. 804(2). 


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 94 / Monday, May 16, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 29673 

List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 13 

Surety bonds, Trusts and trustees, and 

Veterans. 

Signing Authority 

Denis McDonough, Secretary of 

Veterans Affairs, approved this 

document on May 5, 2022, and 

authorized the undersigned to sign and 

submit the document to the Office of the 

Federal Register for publication 

electronically as an official document of 

the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

Luvenia Potts, 

Regulations Development Coordinator, Office 

of Regulation Policy & Management, Office 

of General Counsel, Department of Veterans 

Affairs. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Department of Veterans 

Affairs amends 38 CFR part 13 as set 

forth below: 

PART 13—FIDUCIARY ACTIVITIES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 13 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 5502, 5506– 

5510, 6101, 6106–6108, and as noted in 

specific sections. 

Source: 83 FR 32738, July 13, 2018, unless 

otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 13.230 by revising 

paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows: 

§ 13.230 Protection of beneficiary funds. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * *. (1) The provisions of 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section do 

not apply to: 

(i) A fiduciary that is a trust company 

or a bank with trust powers organized 

under the laws of the United States or 

a state; 

(ii) A fiduciary who is the 

beneficiary’s spouse; 

(iii) A fiduciary in the Commonwealth 

of Puerto Rico, Guam, or another 

territory of the United States, or in the 

Republic of the Philippines, who has 

entered into a restricted withdrawal 

agreement in lieu of a surety bond; 

(iv) A fiduciary that is also appointed 

by a court and has obtained a state-court 

bond, as referenced in 38 CFR 14.709, 

sufficient to cover both VA and non-VA 

funds; or 

(v) A fiduciary that is also a state 

agency with existing, state-mandated 

liability insurance or a blanket bond 

sufficient to cover both VA and non-VA 

funds. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2022–10388 Filed 5–13–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

POSTAL SERVICE 

39 CFR Part 241 

Post Office Organization and 

Administration: Discontinuance of 

USPS-Operated Retail Facilities 

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The United States Postal 

Service® has revised its regulations 

concerning the Postal Service-Operated 

Retail Facilities Discontinuance Guide 

to conform to organizational changes. 

DATES: Effective May 16, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sal 

Faraglia, 202–494–3329, Post Office 

Operations and Processing Logistics and 

Integration. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

revision makes minor changes to § 241.3 

to update the text with the correct job 

titles following organizational changes. 

List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 241 

Organization and functions 

(Government agencies). 

Accordingly, 39 CFR part 241 is 

amended as follows: 

PART 241—ESTABLISHMENT 

CLASSIFICATION, AND 

DISCONTINUANCE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 241 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 39 U.S.C. 101, 401, 403, 404, 

410, 1001. 

■ 2. Amend § 241.3 by revising 

paragraphs (b)(2) and (d)(3) introductory 

text to read as follows: 

§ 241.3 Discontinuance of USPS-operated 

retail facilities. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) ZIP Code assignment. The ZIP 

Code for each address formerly served 

from the discontinued USPS-operated 

retail facility should be kept, wherever 

practical. In some cases, the ZIP Code 

originally assigned to the discontinued 

USPS-operated retail facility may be 

changed if the responsible District 

Manager receives approval from his or 

her Vice President of Area Delivery and 

Retail Operations before any proposal to 

discontinue the USPS-operated retail 

facility is posted. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(3) Other steps. In addition to 

providing notice and inviting comment, 

the District Manager must take any other 

steps necessary to ensure that the 

persons served by affected USPSoperated retail facilities understand the 

nature and implications of the proposed 

action. A community meeting must be 

held to provide outreach and gain 

public input after the proposal is 

posted, unless otherwise instructed by 

the responsible Headquarters Vice 

President or the applicable Vice 

President of Area Delivery and Retail 

Operations. Authorization to forgo a 

community meeting should issue only 

where exceptional circumstances make 

a community meeting infeasible, such as 

where the community no longer exists 

because of a natural disaster or because 

residents have moved elsewhere. 

* * * * * 

Joshua J. Hofer, 

Attorney, Ethics & Legal Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2022–10283 Filed 5–13–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 170 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2017–0543; FRL–9803–01– 

OCSPP] 

Pesticides; Agricultural Worker 

Protection Standard; Revision of the 

Application Exclusion Zone 

Requirements; Court Order; Stay of 

Effectiveness 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule; court-ordered stay of 

effectiveness. 

SUMMARY: On December 28, 2020, the 

United States District Court for the 

Southern District of New York issued an 

order in the case of State of New York 

et al. v. United States Environmental 

Protection Agency, which resulted in a 

stay of the effectiveness for an October 

30, 2020 final rule (2020 AEZ Rule) 

amending certain provisions of EPA’s 

Agricultural Worker Protection 

Standard (WPS) regulations under the 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) related to the 

application exclusion zone (AEZ). 

Subsequent orders have extended this 

stay of the effectiveness. Although the 

text of the Code of Federal Regulations 

reflects the amendments to the AEZ 

provisions under the 2020 AEZ Rule, 

the district court’s stay orders have 

prevented those amendments from 

going into effect. Accordingly, the 

regulatory text prior to the amendments 

provides the operative regulatory 

language during the current stay and 

any future extensions of the stay. 

DATES: As of February 15, 2022, the 

effectiveness of the final rule published 


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1