Final Revisions to Uniform Freedom of Information Act Fee Schedule and Guidelines
| Published date | 17 December 2020 |
| Citation | 85 FR 81955 |
| Record Number | 2020-27707 |
| Section | Notices |
| Court | Management And Budget Office |
81955
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Notices
as amended by the PROGRESS Act [25
U.S.C. 5362(d)];
(2) Request participation in self-
governance by resolution or other
official action by the Tribal governing
body;
(3) Demonstrate for the 3 fiscal years
preceding the date for which the Tribe
requests participation, financial stability
and financial management capability as
evidenced by the Indian Tribe having no
uncorrected significant and material
audit exceptions in the required annual
audit of its self-determination or self-
governance agreements with any
Federal Agency.
Planning Phase
An Indian Tribe seeking to begin
participation in self-governance must
complete a planning phase that:
(1) Is conducted to the satisfaction of
the Indian Tribe; and
(2) Includes:
•Legal and budgetary research; and
•Internal Tribal government
planning, training, and organizational
preparation.
Applicants should be guided by the
referenced requirements in preparing
their applications to begin participation
in the Tribal self-governance program in
fiscal year 2022 and calendar year 2022.
Copies of these requirements may be
obtained from the person identified in
the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this notice.
Tribes/consortia wishing to be
considered for participation in the
Tribal self-governance program in fiscal
year 2022 or calendar year 2022 must
respond to this notice, except for those
Tribes/consortia which are either: (1)
Currently involved in negotiations with
the Department; or (2) one of the 134
Tribal entities with signed agreements.
Information Collection
This information collection is
authorized by OMB Control Number
1076–0143, Tribal Self-Governance
Program, which expires December 31,
2022.
Tara Sweeney,
Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2020–27786 Filed 12–16–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4337–15–P
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND
BUDGET
Final Revisions to Uniform Freedom of
Information Act Fee Schedule and
Guidelines
AGENCY
: Office of Management and
Budget.
ACTION
: Notice of revised guidelines.
SUMMARY
: The Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) is finalizing
revisions to sections of its Uniform
Freedom of Information Act Fee
Schedule and Guidelines (‘‘Guidelines’’)
last published in 1987. This action is
necessary to conform the Guidelines
with statutory amendments to the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and
to clarify the scope of the Guidelines.
This action is intended to provide
Federal agencies with guidance on the
appropriate and uniform application of
FOIA processing fees.
DATES
: These revisions to the Guidelines
are effective December 17, 2020.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
:
Jonathan Hill, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, OMB, at (202) 395–
1658 or oira_pb_comments@
omb.eop.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
: The
Freedom of Information Reform Act of
1986, Public Law 99–570 (1986),
required OMB to promulgate a uniform
schedule of fees and guidelines,
pursuant to notice and public comment,
for agencies to use when processing
FOIA requests. 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(A)(i).
OMB issued the Uniform Freedom of
Information Act Fee Schedule and
Guidelines, 52 FR 10012 (available at
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/
files/oip/legacy/2014/07/23/foia_fee_
schedule_1987.pdf) on March 27, 1987.
In the ensuing years, the FOIA has been
amended, notably by the OPEN
Government Act of 2007, Public Law
110–175 (2007), and the FOIA
Improvement Act of 2016, Public Law
114–185 (2016). In response, OMB has
undertaken to revise the Guidelines.
On May 4, 2020, OMB published a
notice in the Federal Register, 85 FR
26499, seeking comments on four
proposed substantive revisions. OMB
also proposed to revise Section 4.
Inquiries, to update contact information
for questions about the Guidelines.
OMB received comments directly and
through Regulations.gov from 13
entities, including both individuals and
organizations. OMB greatly appreciates
the detailed comments it received, and
believes the final guidance, as modified
in response to those comments, has
been significantly improved. A
description of the relevant comments,
and OMB’s responses, follow.
(1) OMB proposes to revise Section 2.
Scope to indicate that the Guidelines do
not address the waiver or reduction of
fees if disclosure is in the public
interest.
Four commenters recommended that
OMB address public interest fee waivers
in the Guidelines. OMB finds that
addressing fee waivers is beyond the
allowable scope of this guidance. In
relevant part, the FOIA requires OMB to
promulgate guidelines ‘‘which shall
provide for a uniform schedule of fees
for all agencies.’’ 5 U.S.C.
552(a)(4)(A)(i). As OMB explained in
the preamble to the first publication of
the Guidelines, ‘‘OMB’s role is limited
by the plain wording of the statute to
developing guidelines and a fee
schedule.’’ 52 FR 10016.
The application of the OMB fee
schedule to related fee categories is
distinct from a public interest fee
waiver. A requester’s fee category
concerns the services—search,
duplication, and review—for which that
requester may be assessed fees. See 5
U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(A)(ii). By contrast, a
public interest fee waiver concerns
whether the requester will ultimately be
responsible for paying any such fees.
See 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(A)(iii).
The comments on this proposal
suggested that there is an inter-
relationship between a requester’s fee
category and whether they are eligible
for a public interest fee waiver, and as
a result, the OMB Guidelines should
also address public interest fee waivers.
Whether or not the two issues involve
a common element, for instance
whether there is a commercial interest
at stake, the fact remains that separate
legal constructs have developed around
each, and other, independent
considerations are necessary to the
analysis of each. To expound on distinct
elements of the public interest fee
waiver would exceed OMB’s mandate,
which is limited to fee categories.
At least one commenter suggested that
it would cause confusion among
requesters and agencies for the
Guidelines to address fee categories but
not public interest fee waivers. OMB
disagrees. Whatever commonalities
there may be, OMB intends these
Guidelines only to advise agencies with
respect to fee categories. The revision to
Section 2 is carefully worded, with
citation to the public interest fee waiver
provision in the FOIA, to specifically
exclude from the scope of the
Guidelines ‘‘the waiver or reduction of
fees if the disclosure of the information
is in the public interest.’’ No commenter
offered a recommendation on a more
effective way to achieve this limitation
on the scope.
OMB emphasizes that, while the
Guidelines do not address public
interest fee waivers, it is not the case
that agencies have no guidance on this
topic. Just as OMB issued the original
Guidelines in response to the Freedom
of Information Reform Act, one
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:52 Dec 16, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17DEN1.SGM 17DEN1
81956
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Notices
1
One commenter drew OMB’s attention to the
FOIA Project, which claims that its website
‘‘includes detailed information on every case that
challenges government withholding [under the
FOIA] in federal court.’’ See www.foiaproject.org/
about (last visited Dec. 10, 2020). While OMB has
not verified this number, the FOIA Project reports
that in fiscal year 2020, 844 FOIA cases were filed.
See www.foiaproject.org (last visited Dec. 10, 2020).
commenter rightly pointed out that the
Department of Justice (DOJ) issued its
own New Fee Waiver Policy Guidance
(Apr. 2, 1987) (https://www.justice.gov/
oip/blog/foia-update-new-fee-waiver-
policy-guidance). Furthermore, the DOJ
Guide to the Freedom of Information
Act (https://www.justice.gov/oip/doj-
guide-freedom-information-act-0),
updated in relevant part in September
2020, also provides a thorough survey
and discussion of case law related to
public interest fee waivers. Rather than
causing confusion, OMB believes it is
more effective and efficient for the
Guidelines to explicitly and only
address fee categories, and to continue
the decades-long practice of deferring to
other sources for guidance on public
interest fee waivers.
(2) OMB proposes to remove Section
6j, which defines ‘‘representative of the
news media,’’ given that this term is
now defined in statute.
Six commenters submitted
recommendations related to this
proposal. Each commenter
recommended that, instead of removing
Section 6j, OMB revise it to explicitly
reiterate the statutory definition of ‘‘a
representative of the news media’’ and/
or incorporate judicial interpretations of
that definition. OMB points out that the
Guidelines already incorporate the
FOIA’s statutory definitions, and rejects
these recommendations, except as
discussed below.
As a general proposition, agencies are
expected to stay abreast of relevant
statutory and judicial developments
related to their implementation of the
FOIA. It is usually unnecessary to issue
guidance that merely reiterates
standards that are stated authoritatively
elsewhere, and in the case of judicial
developments, that are more susceptible
to evolving factors.
This is especially true with respect to
the statutory definition of ‘‘a
representative of the news media.’’
Section 6a of the Guidelines states
clearly that ‘‘[a]ll the terms defined in
the Freedom of Information Act apply.’’
There should be no doubt that this
provision applies to the term ‘‘a
representative of the news media,’’
which is defined at 5 U.S.C.
552(a)(4)(A)(ii). One commenter
suggested that reiterating the statutory
definition in the Guidelines would
avoid confusion, but did not elaborate.
OMB fails to see what confusion would
result from expressly incorporating all
of the statutory definitions, rather than
spelling them out in the guidance.
Rather than causing confusion, OMB
considers cross-referencing the statutory
definition an effective way to avoid
potential future confusion, if Congress
amends the definition.
Similarly, OMB does not agree with
the all of the recommendations to
incorporate judicial interpretations of
the statutory definition into these
Guidelines, but has made some
modifications based on these comments.
In the notice, OMB indicated that part
of the purpose of revising the
Guidelines is ‘‘to provide clarity in light
of evolving judicial interpretation,’’ and
to ‘‘ensure they reflect . . . leading
judicial decisions.’’ 85 FR 26500.
This goal has its limits, however.
Commenters urged the incorporation of
a D.C. Circuit opinion that interpreted
the statutory definition of ‘‘a
representative of the news media.’’ See
Cause of Action v. FTC, 799 F.3d 1108,
1125 (D.C. Cir. 2015). Insofar as the
decision rejects the definition of
‘‘representative of the news media’’ in
Section 6j as factually inconsistent with
the current statutory definition, OMB
agrees with the comments and has
removed the inconsistent language from
the Guidelines. Instead the Guidelines
cross-reference the definition now
provided in statute, to avoid any
inconsistency.
However, OMB does not believe it is
generally necessary to incorporate,
proactively, judicially-developed
analytical frameworks into the
Guidelines, especially when no
inconsistency is evident. In fact, there
are practical and policy reasons why
doing so is imprudent. Along these
lines, OMB rejects other, specific
recommendations made by commenters
to incorporate other aspects of judicial
holdings in the Guidelines.
First, there are hundreds of FOIA
cases decided each year.
1
It would not
be efficient to try to update the
Guidelines to account for the decisions
in these cases. While OMB recognizes
that not every holding would require
updates to the Guidelines, there would
be diminishing returns in trying to parse
out which ones rise to that level and
retrospectively evaluating which ones
last the test of time. To borrow an
economic term, there would be an
opportunity cost that would serve
neither agencies nor the public, if
agencies were to wait for OMB to update
the Guidelines before applying
otherwise applicable case law.
Relatedly, it is not OMB’s role to serve
as legal counsel to agencies. Every
agency has attorneys, and the Office of
Information Policy (OIP) at the
Department of Justice exists, in part, to
‘‘provide[ ] legal counsel and training to
agency personnel,’’ with respect to
complying with the FOIA. See
www.justice.gov/oip/about-office (last
visited Dec. 10, 2020). In fact, DOJ’s
Guide to the Freedom of Information
Act, discussed above, is a
‘‘comprehensive legal treatise on the
FOIA’’ that ‘‘contains a detailed analysis
of the key judicial opinions issued on
the FOIA,’’ including those related to
fees and fee waivers. See https://
www.justice.gov/oip/doj-guide-freedom-
information-act-0 (last visited Dec. 10,
2020). OMB considers that agencies’
primary source of advice concerning the
application of judicial decisions should
be the attorneys who represent them.
One commenter opined that some
elements of Section 6j continue to
warrant inclusion in the Guidelines,
such as the definition of ‘‘news.’’ As the
commenter recognizes, however, the
definition of ‘‘news’’ in the statute, 5
U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(A)(ii), is unchanged
from the definition in Section 6j.
Moreover, OMB fails to perceive any
significant substantive differences—and
the commenter failed to identify any—
between the rest of the text in Section
6j and in the statute. Insofar as any
difference exists, OMB considers that
Congress had the language in the
Guidelines at its disposal when it
amended the FOIA, and chose to
diverge. In that case, OMB defers to the
language in the statute as the best
indicator of Congress’s will. Just as
discussed above, OMB considers it
unnecessary to restate the language in
the statute.
Several commenters recommended
that OMB include in the Guidelines
examples of types of entities that would
be considered representatives of the
news media. OMB declines. Congress
has provided the framework agencies
should use to determine when a
requester qualifies as a representative of
the news media, and the courts have
interpreted, and continue to interpret,
that framework. To the extent such
authorities leave no doubt whether a
type of entity qualifies as a
representative of the news media, OMB
will let those authorities speak for
themselves. To the extent there is a
doubt, as discussed above, OMB defers
to agency counsel to advise on the
proper application of the law under
specific circumstances. Furthermore,
OMB considers that including a list of
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:52 Dec 16, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17DEN1.SGM 17DEN1
81957
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Notices
examples, even with a disclaimer that it
is non-exclusive, runs the risk of being
interpreted as exclusive. Failure to
include a type of requester in this list—
especially in light of the rapid evolution
of the state of technology and
information dissemination—could lead
to the conclusion that such a requester
is not a representative of the news
media. This outcome would not serve
agencies nor the public.
One commenter recommended that
OMB define representative of the news
media because the Guidelines define
other fee categories. The difference is
that the FOIA does not define those
other categories in the way that it
defines ‘‘a representative of the news
media.’’ As discussed, OMB does not
consider it necessary to repeat the law.
Furthermore, as discussed above, the
definition in the statute generally covers
the same subject matter as exists in
Section 6j. Therefore, removing the
section and cross-referencing the statute
does not result in the loss of detail.
OMB received comments of a
technical nature on two issues. One
commenter pointed out that the
preamble of the notice seeking
comments misidentified the section that
OMB proposed to remove as Section 6f,
instead of Section 6j. This comment is
correct; however, no further revision to
the Guidelines is necessary. OMB
correctly identified Section 6j later in
the notice, and there was no evident
confusion about OMB’s intent. Existing-
Section 6j is clearly the provision that
defines ‘‘representative of the news
media,’’ and despite the earlier
typographical error, commenters
discerned OMB’s intent and provided
recommendations in response. OMB
affirms that its actions with respect to
this proposal relate to Section 6j, not
Section 6f.
Two comments pointed out that OMB
failed to address a cross-reference to
Section 6j appearing in Section 8c. OMB
responds by revising Section 8c to bring
it into conformity with its decision to
remove Section 6j. Section 8c will refer
to the statutory definition, rather than
the definition in Section 6j.
(3) OMB proposes to revise Section 8b.
Educational and Non-commercial
Scientific Institution Requesters to
clarify that both teachers and students
may be eligible for inclusion in this fee
category.
OMB received recommendations from
three commenters with respect to this
proposal.
Two commenters recommended that
Section 8b be further revised to clarify
that it applies not only to teachers and
students but to other staff of educational
institutions, such as librarians. OMB
accepts this recommendation and
revises the relevant language in Section
8b to include ‘‘faculty, staff, or
students.’’ While the comments focused
on staff of educational institutions,
OMB considers that the inclusion of
‘‘staff’’ also appropriately accounts for
requests made in connection with a
non-commercial scientific institution.
So long as staff of an educational or
non-commercial scientific institution
can demonstrate that their request is
being made in connection with their
role at the institution, OMB considers
them to be appropriately within the
scope of this fee category.
One commenter suggested that it
would be necessary to amend Section
6h to conform to the new language in
Section 8b, to ensure consistency. OMB
perceives no inconsistency, and
therefore rejects this recommendation.
The commenter drew an analogy to the
relationship between Section 6j and
Section 8c, discussed above. Section 6j
and Section 8c both address requesters.
Conversely, Section 6h (and Section 6i)
defines a type of institution, while
Section 8b addresses requesters
associated with those institutions. The
FOIA requires agencies to determine the
nature of the institution as a distinct
entity, which is why OMB provides a
separate definition in Section 6. OMB
does not consider clarifying who may be
considered a requester, in Section 8b, to
have a necessary impact on the
definition of the institution, in Section
6h or Section 6i.
(4) OMB proposes to add a subsection
to Section 9. Administrative Actions to
Improve Assessment and Collection of
Fees to indicate that agencies may not
charge certain fees when they fail to
comply with the FOIA’s time limits,
except under certain circumstances
provided in the statute.
OMB received recommendations
related to this proposal from three
commenters. Two commenters
recommended that OMB provide
additional guidance on the application
of the referenced provision concerning
an agency’s failure to comply with the
FOIA’s time limits, 5 U.S.C.
552(a)(4)(A)(viii). OMB did not accept
these recommendations. This is a
complex statutory provision better
addressed through legal analysis and
individualized counsel, rather than
OMB policy. Furthermore, insofar as the
provision relies on terms defined in the
statute, OMB defers to the statutory
language and judicial interpretation, just
as discussed above. OMB points out that
the Department of Justice has issued
guidance on this provision, including a
‘‘Decision Tree for Assessing Fees.’’ See
Dep’t of Justice, OIP Guidance:
Prohibition on Assessing Certain Fees
When the FOIA’s Time Limits Are Not
Met (Oct. 19, 2016), https://
www.justice.gov/oip/oip-guidance/
prohibition_on_assessing_certain_fees_
when_foia_time_limits_not_met (last
visited Dec. 10, 2020).
One requester recommended that all
charges and fees be waived for United
States citizens when the government
fails to comply with requests in a timely
manner. This comment appears to OMB
to be insufficiently supported by
statutory authority, and therefore it is
rejected.
In addition to the four topics
discussed above, OMB received a
number of comments on topics that
were clearly out of scope of the proposal
and therefore will not be addressed
here.
As discussed in the notice seeking
comment, OMB revises Section 4.
Inquiries to update contact information
for questions about the Guidelines.
For the reasons discussed in the
Preamble, and under the authority of 5
U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(A)(i) and 44 U.S.C.
chapter 35, OMB amends the Uniform
Freedom of Information Act Fee
Schedule and Guidelines, 52 FR 10012,
by removing Section 6j, adding Section
9f, and revising Sections 2, 4, 8b, and
8c to read as follows:
UNIFORM FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
ACT FEE SCHEDULE AND GUIDELINES
* * * * *
2. Scope—* * * This Fee Schedule and
Guidelines, including Sections 6 and 8, does
not address the waiver or reduction of fees
if the disclosure of the information is in the
public interest, as provided in 5 U.S.C.
552(a)(4)(A)(iii).
* * * * *
4. Inquiries—Inquiries should be directed
to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, at
oira_pb_comments@omb.eop.gov.
* * * * *
8. Fees to be Charged—Categories of
Requesters. ***
b. Educational and Non-commercial
Scientific Institution Requesters—* * * To
be eligible for inclusion in this category,
requesters—whether faculty, staff, or
students—must show that the request is
being made in connection with their role at
the institution, and that the records are not
sought for a commercial use, but are sought
in furtherance of scholarly (if the request is
from an educational institution) or scientific
(if the request is from a non-commercial
scientific institution) research. * * *
c. Requesters who are Representatives of
the News Media—* * * To be eligible for
inclusion in this category, a requester must
meet the criteria established by the FOIA. See
5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(A)(ii). * * *
* * * * *
9. Administrative Actions to Improve
Assessment and Collection of Fees—***
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:52 Dec 16, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17DEN1.SGM 17DEN1
81958
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Notices
f. Failure to Comply with Time Limits—An
agency may not charge search fees (or in the
case of educational or non-commercial
scientific institution requesters, or
representatives of the news media,
duplication fees) if it has failed to comply
with any time limit under 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6),
except as provided in 5 U.S.C.
552(a)(4)(A)(viii).
Paul J. Ray,
Administrator, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2020–27707 Filed 12–16–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3110–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2020–0245]
Environmental Qualification of Certain
Electrical Equipment Important to
Safety for Nuclear Power Plants
AGENCY
: Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION
: Draft regulatory guide; request
for comment.
SUMMARY
: The Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is issuing for public
comment a draft regulatory guide (DG),
DG–1361, ‘‘Environmental Qualification
of Certain Electrical Equipment
Important to Safety for Nuclear Power
Plants.’’ This draft guide is proposed
revision 2 of regulatory guide (RG) 1.89
of the same name. The proposed
revision describes an approach that is
acceptable to the staff of the NRC to
meet regulatory requirements for
environmental qualification (EQ) of
certain electric equipment important to
safety for nuclear power plants. The
previous revision of RG 1.89 was issued
in June 1984 and endorsed the use of
Institute of Electrical and Electronic
Engineers (IEEE) Standard (Std.) 323–
1974. This proposed revision
incorporates additional information
regarding the dual logo International
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)/IEEE
Std. 60780–323, ‘‘Nuclear Facilities—
Electrical Equipment Important to
Safety—Qualification,’’ Edition 1, 2016–
02.
DATES
: Submit comments by February
16, 2021. Comments received after this
date will be considered if it is practical
to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure
consideration only for comments
received on or before this date.
Although a time limit is given,
comments and suggestions in
connection with items for inclusion in
guides currently being developed or
improvements in all published guides
are encouraged at any time.
ADDRESSES
: You may submit comments
by any of the following methods;
however, the NRC encourages electronic
comment submission through the
Federal Rulemaking Website:
•Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2020–0245. Address
questions about Docket IDs in
Regulations.gov to Jennifer Borges;
telephone: 301–287–9221; email:
Jennifer.Borges@nrc.gov. For technical
questions, contact the individuals listed
in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT
section of this document.
•Mail comments to: Office of
Administration, Mail Stop: TWFN–
7A06, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001. ATTN: Program Management,
Announcements and Editing Staff.
For additional direction on obtaining
information and submitting comments,
see ‘‘Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments’’ in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of
this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
:
Matthew McConnell, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, telephone: 301–
415–1597, email: Matthew.McConnell@
nrc.gov, and Michael Eudy, Office of
Nuclear Regulatory Research, telephone:
301–415–3104, email: Michael.Eudy@
nrc.gov. Both are staff of the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555–0001.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
:
I. Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2020–
0245 when contacting the NRC about
the availability of information for this
action. You may obtain publicly
available information related to this
action by any of the following methods:
•Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2020–0245.
•NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly
available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html. To begin the search, select
‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.’’ For
problems with ADAMS, please contact
the NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR)
reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301–
415–4737, or by email to pdr.resource@
nrc.gov.
•Attention: The PDR, where you may
examine and order copies of public
documents is currently closed. You may
submit your request to the PDR via
email at pdr.resource@nrc.gov or call 1–
800–397–4209 between 8:00 a.m. and
4:00 p.m. (EST), Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
B. Submitting Comments
The NRC encourages electronic
comment submission through the
Federal Rulemaking Website (https://
www.regulations.gov). Please include
Docket ID NRC–2020–0245 in your
comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include
identifying or contact information that
you do not want to be publicly
disclosed in your comment submission.
The NRC posts all comment
submissions at https://
www.regulations.gov as well as enter the
comment submissions into ADAMS.
The NRC does not routinely edit
comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating
comments from other persons for
submission to the NRC, then you should
inform those persons not to include
identifying or contact information that
they do not want to be publicly
disclosed in their comment submission.
Your request should state that the NRC
does not routinely edit comment
submissions to remove such information
before making the comment
submissions available to the public or
entering the comment into ADAMS.
II. Additional Information
The NRC is issuing for public
comment a draft guide in the NRC’s
‘‘Regulatory Guide’’ series. This series
was developed to describe methods that
are acceptable to the NRC staff for
implementing specific parts of the
agency’s regulations, to explain
techniques that the staff uses in
evaluating specific issues or postulated
events, and to describe information that
the staff needs in its review of
applications for permits and licenses.
The DG, titled, ‘‘Environmental
Qualification of Certain Electrical
Equipment Important to Safety for
Nuclear Power Plants,’’ is temporarily
identified by its task number, DG–1361
(ADAMS Accession No. ML20183A423).
DG–1361 is proposed revision 2 of RG
1.89. This revision of the guide (revision
2) endorses, with clarifications, the
‘‘English’’ portion of the dual logo IEC/
IEEE Std. 60780–323, Edition 1, 2016–
02 as a method acceptable to the NRC
for meeting the regulatory requirements
for EQ of certain electric equipment
important to safety for nuclear power
plants. This DG applies to licensees and
applicants subject to title 10 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) part 50,
‘‘Domestic Licensing of Production and
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:52 Dec 16, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17DEN1.SGM 17DEN1
