80 FR 81191 - Removal of Requirement To File Direct-Pay Fee Agreements With the Office of the General Counsel
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 249 (December 29, 2015)
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 249 (December 29, 2015)
| Page Range | 81191-81194 | |
| FR Document | 2015-32687 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 249 (Tuesday, December 29, 2015)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 81191-81194] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-32687] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 38 CFR Part 14 RIN 2900-AP28 Removal of Requirement To File Direct-Pay Fee Agreements With the Office of the General Counsel AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. ACTION: Final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is amending its regulations concerning the payment of fees for representation by agents and attorneys in proceedings before VA. Specifically, this rule removes the requirement that an agent or attorney file a direct-pay fee agreement with both the VA Office of the General Counsel and the agency of original jurisdiction. The intended effect of this final rule is to require that direct-pay fee agreements be submitted only to the agency of original jurisdiction, thereby eliminating duplicate filings by agents and attorneys. DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective December 29, 2015. Applicability Date: The provisions of this final rule shall apply to all fee agreements transmitted to VA on or after December 29, 2015. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dana Raffaelli, Staff Attorney, Office of the General Counsel (022O), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-7699. (This is not a toll-free telephone number.) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends 38 CFR part 14 to remove the requirement that agents and attorneys file direct-pay fee agreements with the VA Office of the General Counsel in Washington, DC. Current provisions in 38 CFR 14.636(g) and (h) require agents and attorneys to file direct-pay fee agreements with both the Office of the General Counsel and the agency of original jurisdiction. Removal of this requirement will eliminate administrative burdens associated with these direct-pay fee agreements. Agents and attorneys will be relieved from filing direct-pay fee agreements with the Office of the General Counsel, and the [[Page 81192]] Office of the General Counsel will no longer be required to process and maintain those fee agreements. In cases where it is necessary for the Office of the General Counsel to review fee agreements for reasonableness, such agreements may be called to our attention and copies of the agreements may be provided to the Office of the General Counsel by claimants or the agencies of original jurisdiction. Current 38 CFR 14.636(g)(2) and (g)(3) requires agents and attorneys to file all fee agreements with the Office of the General Counsel in Washington, DC, and to clearly specify in the agreement whether VA is to directly pay the agent or attorney fees out of an award of past-due benefits. Current 38 CFR 14.636(h)(4) requires agents and attorneys to notify the agency of original jurisdiction, within 30 days of the date of execution of the agreement, of the existence of a direct-pay fee agreement and also provide the agency of original jurisdiction with a copy of the agreement. The requirement that all fee agreements be filed with the Office of the General Counsel was established in 2008. See 73 FR 29852, May 22, 2008. Prior to June 20, 2007, agents and attorneys were required to file all fee agreements with the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) because agents and attorneys could not charge fees for services provided to VA claimants until after the Board had first made a final decision in the case. See 38 U.S.C. 5904(c)(1), (c)(2) (2002); see also 38 CFR 20.609(g) (2007). However, on December 22, 2006, Congress enacted Public Law 109-461, which allowed agents and attorneys to charge fees after the filing of a notice of disagreement in a case and required them to file any fee agreements ``with the Secretary pursuant to regulations prescribed by the Secretary'' rather than with the Board. Public Law 109-461, Sec. 101(d); see 38 U.S.C. 5904(c)(1), (c)(2); see also Public Law 109-461, Sec. 101(h) (2006) (amendments to statutory fee requirements effective June 20, 2007). On May 22, 2008, VA implemented the statutory amendments regarding fees in Sec. 14.636 (formerly Sec. 20.609 (2007)), one of which directs attorneys and agents to file all fee agreements with the Office of the General Counsel in Washington, DC. See 73 FR 29852; 38 CFR 14.636(g)(3). However, in addition to filing all fee agreements with the Office of the General Counsel, Sec. 14.636(h)(4) requires that direct-pay fee agreements also be filed with the agency of original jurisdiction, so that the agency of original jurisdiction could make an initial determination regarding an agent or attorney's eligibility for fees following an award of past-due benefits and withhold fees from the award when an agent or attorney is found eligible for fees. The revisions to Sec. 14.636(g)(3) and (h)(4) eliminate the requirement for agents and attorneys to file a direct-pay fee agreement with the Office of the General Counsel. Any fee agreement calling for the direct payment of fees out of any past-due benefits now must be filed only with the agency of original jurisdiction. The agency of original jurisdiction is the most appropriate location for such filings as that entity must determine when direct payment of fees is called for and authorize the correct payment. The agency of original jurisdiction will file the fee agreement in the claimant's electronic claims file contained in Veterans Benefits Administration's electronic database, the Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS), and associate the attorney or agent's Power of Attorney (POA) code--meaning the three digit code that was assigned to the attorney or agent at the time of his or her VA accreditation--with the claimant's claim file. See M21-1, pt. III, ch.3 sec. C.5. The association of attorneys' and agents' POA codes with the claimants' files will allow VA to retrieve, from VBMS, a list of the claims for which an attorney or agent has entered his or her appearance, by filing a VA Form 21-22a, Appointment of Individual as Claimant's Representative, with VA. An attorney or agent may look up their POA code through the search feature on the accreditation Web page's Web site at: http://www.va.gov/ogc/apps/accreditation/index.asp--with the claimant's file. Fee agreements that do not provide for the direct payment of fees must still be filed with the Office of the General Counsel. The Office of the General Counsel retains authority to review all fee agreements for reasonableness in light of the services that the attorney or agent provided on a claim and the authority to review any fee agreement for eligibility that has not undergone review by another agency of original jurisdiction. See 38 CFR 14.636(i). In a reasonableness-review case involving a direct-pay fee agreement, the Office of the General Counsel will obtain a copy of the direct-pay fee agreement from the agency of original jurisdiction at which the agreement was filed. This will generally be accomplished by retrieving the document from VBMS. VA also makes an additional conforming amendment to 38 CFR 14.637(b) to reference fee agreements filed with either the Office of the General Counsel or the agency of original jurisdiction under Sec. 14.636. Administrative Procedure Act This final rule is a procedural rule that does not impose new rights, duties, or obligations on affected individuals but, rather, eliminates duplicate filings under the statutory requirement that agents and attorneys file a copy of a fee agreement ``with the Secretary.'' See 38 U.S.C. 5904(c)(2). Therefore, it is exempt from the prior notice-and-comment and delayed-effective-date requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A) and (d)(3). This rule merely removes the prior requirement for attorneys and agents to file copies of any direct-pay fee agreement with both the Office of the General Counsel and the agency of original jurisdiction. Attorneys and agents must now file a copy of any direct-pay fee agreement with the agency of original jurisdiction and all other fee agreements with the Office of the General Counsel. Paperwork Reduction Act The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (at 44 U.S.C. 3507) requires that VA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. Under 44 U.S.C. 3507(a), an agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of information, nor may it impose an information collection requirement unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. See also 5 CFR 1320.8(b)(3)(vi). Section 14.636 of title 38 of the Code of Federal Regulations contains collections of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, which OMB approved under control number 2900-0605. This final rule will amend Sec. 14.636(g)(3) and (h)(4) to remove the requirement that an agent or attorney file a direct-pay fee agreement with both the Office of the General Counsel and the agency of original jurisdiction, i.e., the VA regional office. The intended effect of this amendment is to require that direct-pay fee agreements be submitted only to the agency of original jurisdiction, thereby eliminating duplicate filings by agents and attorneys. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (at 44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), VA submitted this amended information collection to OMB for its review. OMB approved the amended information collection requirements under existing OMB control number 2900-0605. We also note that, in 2008, VA did not amend Sec. 14.636 to reflect the OMB control number. Therefore, we are also [[Page 81193]] amending Sec. 14.636 to reflect that the correct OMB control number is 2900-0605. Regulatory Flexibility Act The initial and final regulatory flexibility analyses requirements of sections 603 and 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, are not applicable to this rule, because a notice of proposed rulemaking is not required for this rule. Even so, the Secretary hereby 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. At a minimum, this rule will affect only the attorneys and agents who file fee agreements with the Office of the General Counsel. However, it will not have a significant economic impact on these individuals, as it will result in modest savings for affected attorneys and agents who will avoid the expense of duplicate filings. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this rulemaking is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604. 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. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) defines a ``significant regulatory action,'' requiring review by OMB, unless OMB waives such review, as ``any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.'' The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this final rule have been examined, and it has been determined not to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. VA's impact analysis can be found as a supporting document at http://www.regulations.gov, usually within 48 hours after the rulemaking document is published. Additionally, a copy of the rulemaking and its impact analysis are available on VA's Web site at http://www.va.gov/orpm/, by following the link for VA Regulations Published From FY 2004 to FYTD. 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 will have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance There are no Federal Domestic Assistance programs associated with this final rule. Signing Authority The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document 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. Robert L. Nabors II, Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on December 22, 2015, for publication. List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 14 Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Courts, Foreign relations, Government employees, Lawyers, Legal services, Organization and functions (Government agencies), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds, Trusts and trustees, Veterans. Dated: December 23, 2015. William F. Russo Director, Office of Regulation Policy & Management, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs. For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Department of Veterans Affairs amends 38 CFR part 14 as follows: PART 14--LEGAL SERVICES, GENERAL COUNSEL, AND MISCELLANEOUS CLAIMS 0 1. The authority citation for part 14 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 28 U.S.C. 2671-2680; 38 U.S.C. 501(a), 512, 515, 5502, 5901-5905; 28 CFR part 14, appendix to part 14, unless otherwise noted. 0 2. Amend Sec. 14.636 by: 0 a. Revising paragraph (g)(3). 0 b. Revising paragraph (h)(4). 0 c. Revising the parenthetical at the end of the section. The revisions read as follows: Sec. 14.636 Payment of fees for representation by agents and attorneys in proceedings before Agencies of Original Jurisdiction and before the Board of Veterans' Appeals. * * * * * (g) * * * (3) A copy of a direct-pay fee agreement, as defined in paragraph (g)(2) of this section, must be filed with the agency of original jurisdiction within 30 days of its execution. A copy of any fee agreement that is not a direct-pay fee agreement must be filed with the Office of the General Counsel within 30 days of its execution by mailing the copy to the following address: Office of the General Counsel (022D), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420. Only fee agreements that do not provide for the direct payment of fees, documents related to review of fees under paragraph (i) of this section, and documents related to review of expenses under Sec. 14.637, may be filed with the Office of the General Counsel. All documents relating to the adjudication of a claim for VA benefits, including any correspondence, evidence, or argument, must be filed with the agency of original jurisdiction, Board of Veterans' Appeals, or other VA office as appropriate. (h) * * * (4) As required by paragraph (g)(3) of this section, the agent or attorney must file with the agency of original jurisdiction within 30 days of the date of execution a copy of the agreement providing for the direct payment of fees out of any benefits subsequently determined to be past due. * * * * * (The Office of Management and Budget has approved the information collection requirements in this section under control number 2900- 0605.) [[Page 81194]] Sec. 14.637 [Amended] 0 3. Amend Sec. 14.637, paragraph (b), by removing ``under Sec. 14.636'' and adding, in its place, ``or the agency of original jurisdiction under Sec. 14.636''. [FR Doc. 2015-32687 Filed 12-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 81191
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; enforcement will cease immediately
above. 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; upon conditions returning to safe levels.
Department of Homeland Security Delegation
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act No. 0170.1. Dated: December 6, 2015.
J.F. Williams,
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act ■ 2. Add § 165.T11–750 to read as Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires follows: Port Los Angeles—Long Beach.
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
§ 165.T11–750 Safety Zone; Morro Bay [FR Doc. 2015–32734 Filed 12–28–15; 8:45 am]
their discretionary regulatory actions. In
particular, the Act addresses actions Breaking Bar; Morro Bay Harbor Entrance; BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
that may result in the expenditure by a Morro Bay, CA.
State, local, or tribal government, in the (a) Location. The following area is a
aggregate, or by the private sector of safety zone: All navigable waters of the DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or Morro Bay Harbor Entrance in AFFAIRS
more in any one year. Though this rule approximate coordinates: from a point
will not result in such an expenditure, on the shoreline at 35°22.181′ N. 38 CFR Part 14
we do discuss the effects of this rule 120°52.207′ W., thence westward to RIN 2900–AP28
elsewhere in this preamble. 35°22.181′ N. 120°52.538′ W., thence
southward to 35°21.367′ N. 120°52.538′ Removal of Requirement To File
F. Environment W., thence eastward to a point on the Direct-Pay Fee Agreements With the
We have analyzed this rule under shoreline at 35°21.366′ N. 120°51.717′ Office of the General Counsel
Department of Homeland Security W., thence northward along the AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.
Management Directive 023–01 and shoreline to a point inside the Morro
Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, ACTION: Final rule.
Bay Harbor to 35°22.153′ N. 120°51.698′
which guide the Coast Guard in W., thence northwestward to a point on SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans
complying with the National land at 35°22.233′ N. 120°51.847′ W., Affairs (VA) is amending its regulations
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 thence southward along the shoreline to concerning the payment of fees for
U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have the beginning. These coordinates are representation by agents and attorneys
determined that this action is one of a based on North American Datum of in proceedings before VA. Specifically,
category of actions that do not 1983. this rule removes the requirement that
individually or cumulatively have a (b) Definitions. For the purposes of an agent or attorney file a direct-pay fee
significant effect on the human this section: agreement with both the VA Office of
environment. This rule is categorically Designated representative means a the General Counsel and the agency of
excluded from further review under Coast Guard Patrol Commander, original jurisdiction. The intended effect
paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2–1 of the including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty of this final rule is to require that direct-
Commandant Instruction. An officer, or other officer operating a Coast pay fee agreements be submitted only to
environmental analysis checklist Guard vessel and a Federal, State, and the agency of original jurisdiction,
supporting this determination and a local officer designated by or assisting thereby eliminating duplicate filings by
Categorical Exclusion Determination are the Captain of the Port Los Angeles— agents and attorneys.
available in the docket where indicated Long Beach (COTP) in the enforcement DATES: Effective Date: This rule is
under ADDRESSES. We seek any of the safety zone. effective December 29, 2015.
comments or information that may lead Rough Bar means any swell, breaking Applicability Date: The provisions of
to the discovery of a significant surf, or wind conditions that create this final rule shall apply to all fee
environmental impact from this rule. safety hazards. This includes but is not agreements transmitted to VA on or after
G. Protest Activities limited to, breaking surf 8 feet of greater December 29, 2015.
or extreme steep or confused swell in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
The Coast Guard respects the First the main channel or in the judgment of Dana Raffaelli, Staff Attorney, Office of
Amendment rights of protesters. the COTP or the COTP’s designated the General Counsel (022O), Department
Protesters are asked to contact the representative rough conditions exist. of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont
person listed in the FOR FURTHER
(c) Regulations. (1) Under the general Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420,
INFORMATION CONTACT section to
safety zone regulations in subpart C of (202) 461–7699. (This is not a toll-free
coordinate protest activities so that your
this part, you may not enter the safety telephone number.)
message can be received without
zone described in paragraph (a) of this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule
jeopardizing the safety or security of
section unless authorized by the COTP amends 38 CFR part 14 to remove the
people, places or vessels.
or the COTP’s designated representative. requirement that agents and attorneys
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 (2) To seek permission to enter, hail file direct-pay fee agreements with the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation Coast Guard Station Morro Bay on VHF– VA Office of the General Counsel in
(water), Reporting and recordkeeping FM Channel 16 or call at (805) 772– Washington, DC. Current provisions in
requirements, Security measures, 2167. Those in the safety zone must 38 CFR 14.636(g) and (h) require agents
Waterways. comply with all lawful orders or and attorneys to file direct-pay fee
directions given to them by the COTP or agreements with both the Office of the
For the reasons discussed in the
the COTP’s designated representative. General Counsel and the agency of
preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
(d) Enforcement period. This rule is original jurisdiction. Removal of this
CFR part 165 as follows:
effective from 12:01 a.m. December 9, requirement will eliminate
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 2015 until February 29, 2016 11:59 p.m. administrative burdens associated with
AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS The safety zone will only be enforced these direct-pay fee agreements. Agents
when the COTP or her designated and attorneys will be relieved from
■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 representative deems it necessary filing direct-pay fee agreements with the
continues to read as follows: because of the rough bar conditions, and Office of the General Counsel, and the
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:24 Dec 28, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29DER1.SGM 29DER1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_81440/page/1.svg)
![81194 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
§ 14.637 [Amended] fishing industry, and allow NMFS to number of small entities. Agencies
■ 3. Amend § 14.637, paragraph (b), by determine when changes to the standard generally rely on the SBA size standards
removing ‘‘under § 14.636’’ and adding, are necessary and appropriate. to identify small entities for RFA
in its place, ‘‘or the agency of original DATES: This final rule is effective July 1, purposes. For NMFS, rulemaking
jurisdiction under § 14.636’’. 2016. activities that have been impacted by
[FR Doc. 2015–32687 Filed 12–28–15; 8:45 am] ADDRESSES: Copies of the Regulatory changes to the size standards for
Impact Review (RIR), proposed rule and defining ‘‘small’’ businesses include,
BILLING CODE 8320–01–P
associated comments are available via but are not limited to, regulatory actions
the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// and analyses undertaken pursuant to the
www.regulations.gov, docket NOAA– Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA),
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Endangered Species Act (ESA), Marine
NMFS–2015–0061.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), and
Administration Mike Travis, Industry Economist, at National Environmental Policy Act
(727) 209–5982, or email: mike.travis@ (NEPA). Between 2012 and 2014, NMFS
50 CFR Part 200 noaa.gov. published an average of 285 final rules
per year, more than 40 percent of which
[Docket No. 150227193–5999–02] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: required an RFA analysis, and a
RIN 0648–BE92 Background majority of those directly regulated
commercial fishing businesses. Thus,
For the purposes of this final rule, a NMFS’ costs of complying with the RFA
Establish a Single Small Business Size ‘‘commercial fishing business’’ is a
Standard for Commercial Fishing are significant even when the small
business primarily engaged in business size standards are stable, and
Businesses commercial fishing and the those costs increase substantially when
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries ‘‘commercial fishing industry’’ (NAICS the standards are changing on a
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 11411) is composed of all such recurring basis.
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), businesses. Prior to 2013, SBA had NMFS and the Regional Fishery
Commerce. established a single small business size Management Councils (Councils) have
ACTION: Final rule. standard for all businesses in the encountered significant difficulties
commercial fishing industry. Since implementing and adjusting to the new
SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to 2005, this standard had been $4 million standards because: (1) The change was
establish a small business size standard in annual gross receipts (revenues). from a single size standard for all
of $11 million in annual gross receipts Effective July 22, 2013, SBA established commercial fishing businesses to three
for all businesses in the commercial significantly different and higher size very different standards, (2) many
fishing industry (NAICS 11411), for standards for the three separate sectors commercial fishing businesses
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of the industry (78 FR 37398, June 20, participate in both finfish and shellfish
compliance purposes only. For the 2013): $19 million for commercial fishing activities, making it unclear
purposes of this final rule, a finfish fishing businesses (NAICS which standard to apply in the RFA
‘‘commercial fishing business’’ is a 114111), $5.0 million for commercial analyses, and (3) a number of rules
business primarily engaged in shellfish fishing businesses (NAICS simultaneously implement regulations
commercial fishing, the ‘‘commercial 114112), and $7.0 million for other under fishery management plans for
fishing industry’’ is composed of all commercial marine fishing businesses both finfish and shellfish species (for
such businesses, and the $11 million (NAICS 114119). These standards were e.g., 76 FR 82044, December 29, 2011;
standard only applies to this industry. subsequently adjusted for inflation to 76 FR 82414, December 30, 2011; 77 FR
This standard does not apply to $20.5 million, $5.5 million, and $7.5 15916, March 26, 2012; and 80 FR
businesses primarily engaged in seafood million, respectively, via an interim 41472, July 15, 2015), again making it
processing (NAICS 311170), seafood final rule, effective July 14, 2014 (79 FR unclear which standard to apply in the
wholesale activities (NAICS 424460), or 33647, June 12, 2014). The Small RFA analyses.
any other activity within the seafood Business Jobs Act of 2010 requires SBA Furthermore, one of the RFA’s
industry. The $11 million standard will to review all size standards every five primary purposes is to determine if
be used in RFA analyses in place of the years to account for changes in industry proposed regulations are expected to
U.S. Small Business Administration’s structure and market conditions. SBA is have disproportionate economic
(SBA) current standards of $20.5 also required to assess the impact of impacts on small businesses relative to
million, $5.5 million, and $7.5 million inflation on its monetary-based size large businesses and, if so, to consider
for the finfish (NAICS 114111), shellfish standards at least once every five years alternatives that would minimize any
(NAICS 114112), and other marine (13 CFR 121.102). However, as reflected significant adverse economic impacts on
fishing (NAICS 114119) sectors of the by the timing of the two recent small businesses. Under SBA’s current
U.S. commercial fishing industry, rulemakings adjusting the size standards for commercial fishing
respectively. Establishing a single size standards, SBA is not required to businesses, practically all commercial
standard of $11 million for the conduct the reviews for these two fishing businesses, and particularly
commercial fishing industry will purposes simultaneously. Thus, these commercial finfish fishing businesses,
simplify the RFA analyses done in size standards are likely to change on a would likely be determined to be small.
support of NMFS’ rules, better meet the regular basis. Thus, in their RFA analyses, NMFS and
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
RFA’s intent by more accurately Under the RFA, an agency must the Councils would not be able to
representing expected disproportionate prepare an initial and final regulatory discern, consider, or address any
effects of NMFS’ rules between small flexibility analysis (IRFA/FRFA) for disproportionate economic impacts that
and large commercial fishing each proposed and final rule, various regulatory alternatives might
businesses, create a standard that more respectively, unless it certifies that a have on businesses NMFS and the
accurately reflects the size distribution rule will not have a significant Councils think are ‘‘small’’ in the
of all businesses in the commercial economic impact on a substantial commercial fishing industry. Such an
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:24 Dec 28, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29DER1.SGM 29DER1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_81440/page/4.svg)
Document Created: 2015-12-29 10:15:44
Document Modified: 2015-12-29 10:15:44
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Rules and Regulations | |
| Action | Final rule. | |
| Contact | Dana Raffaelli, Staff Attorney, Office of the General Counsel (022O), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-7699. (This is not a toll-free telephone number.) | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 81191 | |
| RIN Number | 2900-AP28 | |
| CFR Associated | Administrative Practice and Procedure; Claims; Courts; Foreign Relations; Government Employees; Lawyers; Legal Services; Organization and Functions (government Agencies); Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements; Surety Bonds; Trusts and Trustees and Veterans |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR