SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Legal Authority

The Federal Maritime Commission is an agency of the United States Government responsible for regulating the U.S. international ocean transportation system for the benefit of U.S. exporters, importers, and consumers. The FMC administers subtitle IV (Parts A through D) of Title 46, United States Code, to ensure a competitive and reliable international ocean transportation supply system that supports the U.S. economy and protects the public from unfair and deceptive practices. It is authorized by 46 U.S.C. 46105 to prescribe regulations to carry out its duties and powers.

B. Formal Versus Informal Rulemaking

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) provides the general procedures for agency rulemaking. Most rulemakings are conducted under the “informal rulemaking” procedures of 5 U.S.C. 553. In limited circumstances, federal agencies must engage in “formal rulemaking,” which has heightened procedural requirements. The formal rulemaking requirements of 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557 are only triggered when Congress explicitly requires rulemaking “on the record after opportunity for an agency hearing.” ^[1] None of the statutes that the FMC administers require a rulemaking hearing “on the record.” Therefore, the Commission follows the informal, notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553, which does not require trial-type procedures.^[2]

Section 553 requires: (1) publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register , (2) opportunity for public participation by submission of written comments, and (3) publication of a final rule in the Federal Register , generally not less than 30 days before the rule's effective date. An agency may, but is typically not required to, offer an opportunity for oral presentation of comments in informal rulemaking.^[3] It was once more common for the FMC and its predecessor agencies to hold in-person hearings during informal rulemaking proceedings.^[4] That practice, however, is no longer routine. The purpose of a hearing in informal rulemaking “is to permit the agency to educate itself and not to allow interested parties to choose the issue or narrow the scope of the proceedings . . . to allow interested parties to make useful comment and not to allow them to assert their `rights' to insist that the rule take a particular form,” and in making its final determination, the agency “can look beyond the particular hearing record.” ^[5] Written comments generally achieve this same goal through more economical and more efficient methods while also providing interested ( printed page 26977) members of the public more equal access to the rulemaking proceeding.

C. Ex Parte Communications in Informal Rulemaking

In adjudicatory contexts, “ex parte communication” mean a communication “[o]n or from one party only, usually without notice to or argument from the adverse party,” Black's Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2019). In a rulemaking context, an ex parte communication is a “[written or oral communication [ ] regarding the substance of an anticipated or ongoing rulemaking between . . . agency personnel and interested persons; and that are not placed in the rulemaking docket at the time they occur.” ^[6]

The Commission's current regulations generally prohibit most informal communications between the Commission and interested persons concerning all FMC proceedings. Section 4 of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409 (Sept. 13, 1976) expanded upon the original ex parte requirements located in section 5 the Administrative Procedure Act by establishing specific prohibitions against interested persons outside the agency as well as agency members, administrative law judges, and employees involved in the decision process from engaging in ex parte communications. In the agency's implementing regulations the Commission determined that the prohibition on ex parte communications should apply to informal rulemaking proceedings.^[7] That policy was supported by several contemporaneous court decisions which expressed the view that ex parte communications in informal rulemaking proceedings were inherently suspect.^[8] Accordingly, it has long been the agency's practice to prohibit meetings with individual stakeholders on issues that are the topic of pending informal rulemaking proceedings.^[9] In 1981, however, in Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d 298 (D.C. Cir. 1981), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit significantly clarified and liberalized treatment of this issue. In that case, the court considered the “timing, source, mode, content, and the extent of . . . disclosure” of numerous written and oral ex parte communications received after the close of the comment period to determine whether those communications violated the governing statute or due process. Id. at 391. The court held that, because the agency docketed most of the ex parte communications and none of the comments were docketed “so late as to preclude any effective public comment,” the agency satisfied its statutory requirements. Id. at 398. The court also declined to prohibit ex parte communications in informal rulemakings on constitutional due process grounds, and even held that not all ex parte communications must necessarily be docketed (implicitly concluding that whether such communications require docketing depends on case-specific circumstances). Id. at 402-04. Today, Sierra Club is considered the most definitive opinion on ex parte communications in informal rulemakings and is often cited by courts for the proposition that ex parte communications in informal agency rulemaking are generally permissible.^[10]

More recently, in 2014, the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS), the body charged by Congress with recommending agency best practices, provided guidance to agencies indicating that a general prohibition on ex parte communications in informal rulemaking proceedings is neither required nor advisable. Ex Parte Commc'ns in Informal Rulemaking Proceedings ( 2014 ACUS Recommendation), 79 FR 35988, 35994 (June 25, 2014). ACUS concluded that ex parte communications in informal rulemaking proceedings “convey a variety of benefits to both agencies and the public,” although it acknowledged that fairness issues can arise if certain groups have, or are perceived to have, “greater access to agency personnel than others.” Id. However, in balancing these competing considerations, ACUS urged agencies to consider placing few, if any, restrictions on ex parte communications that occur before an NPRM is issued because communications at this early stage are less likely to cause harm and more likely to “help an agency gather essential information, craft better regulatory proposals, and promote consensus building among interested persons.” Id. ACUS further recommended that agencies establish clear procedures ensuring that all ex parte communications occurring after an NPRM is issued, whether planned or unplanned, be disclosed.

Based on the developments in case law related to ex parte communications and the Commission's own experiences in proceedings, the Commission has determined that it is appropriate to revisit the agency's strict prohibition on ex parte communications in informal rulemaking proceedings.

D. Rules of Particular Applicability

The APA distinguishes between rules of “general applicability” and rules of “particular applicability.” See5 U.S.C. 551(4). Rules of particular applicability are rules that only impact the pre-existing legal rights or obligations of persons identified in the rule. A rule of general applicability, by contrast, impacts the legal rights or obligations of anyone within the agency's jurisdiction engaging in activities covered within the scope of the rule. Unlike rules of general applicability, the APA does not require rules of particular applicability to be published in the Federal Register . ( printed page 26978)

E. Petitions for Rulemaking

Under the APA, federal agencies are required to “give . . . interested person[s] the right to petition for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule,” 5 U.S.C. 553(e). An agency is not required to grant a petition for rulemaking.^[11] The APA generally does not establish procedures agencies must observe in connection with petitions for rulemaking. It does, however, require agencies to respond to petitions for rulemaking “within a reasonable time,” id. at 555(b), and to give petitioners “prompt notice” when a petition is denied in whole or in part, along with “a brief statement of the grounds for denial,” id. at 555(e). Agency denial of a rulemaking petition is subject to judicial review under an extremely deferential version of the arbitrariness and capriciousness standard.^[12]

F. eRulemaking

In October 2002, the eRulemaking Program was established as a cross-agency E-Gov initiative under section 206 of the 2002 E-Government Act (Pub. L. 107-347). The General Services Administration (GSA) manages the eRulemaking Program and is responsible for the development and implementation of Regulations.gov (the public-access side) and the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) (the agency-access side). The Commission began using FDMS for its rulemaking program in 2022. While the FMC had previously made rulemaking materials available online to the public through the Commission's Electronic Reading room on FMC.gov, by using Regulations.gov the public can comment on rulemakings directly through the system rather than having to email comments to the FMC Secretary. In addition to the benefit to the public, FDMS provides significant benefits to the agency such as adding and managing dockets electronically and running deduplication to identify near-duplicate comments and mass mail campaigns. The FMC's rulemaking regulations, however, have not been updated to reflect this procedural advancement.

G. Centralized Regulatory Review

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), issued in 1993, requires “significant regulatory actions” to be submitted for review to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993. A “significant regulatory action,” as defined by the Executive Order, is generally any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may:

• 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, territorial, or Tribal governments or communities;
• Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
• Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
• Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth inExecutive Order 12866.

Executive Order 14215, Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies, recently amended Executive Order 12866 to make its centralized regulatory review requirements applicable to the FMC and most other similarly-structured agencies. 90 FR 10447 (Feb. 18, 2025). The FMC's current prohibition on ex parte communications at 46 CFR 502.11, which applies to communications between federal agencies in informal rulemakings, is in direct conflict with this mandate.

III. Summary of Proposed Changes

A. Consolidation of Procedures for Petitions for Rulemaking and Informal Rulemaking Into Subpart D

While most FMC rulemaking procedures are currently located within subpart D, there are additional applicable procedural requirements, such as ex parte communication requirements, scattered throughout part 502. The FMC is proposing to consolidate petition for rulemaking and informal rulemaking procedures into subpart D. The one exception would be that alternative dispute resolution provisions in subpart U would not be transferred and would remain applicable to informal rulemaking proceedings. Consolidation would result in minor instances of duplication of regulatory text but would make it much easier for readers to locate requirements for petitions for rulemaking and informal rulemaking proceedings. This can be particularly useful for individuals who do not routinely engage in these types of proceedings. The proposed changes also reflect the fact that informal rulemaking proceedings are fundamentally different than adjudicatory proceedings, which is the primary focus of most of part 502.^[13] Most importantly, the Administrative Procedure Act does not require formal, trial-like proceedings for petitions for rulemaking or informal rulemaking.

The FMC does not engage in formal rulemaking as it is not required by any of the statutory provisions that authorize Commission rulemaking.^[14] Although not currently in use, the Commission would retain formal rulemaking procedures in the FMC's regulations in the event that any future FMC rulemaking is required to be conducted “on the record after opportunity for an agency hearing.” Current procedures would remain in their current form and location within part 502 outside of subpart D but would be revised as necessary to reflect that their application is limited to formal rulemakings conducted under sections 7 and 8 of the Administrative Procedure Act. The FMC is accordingly proposing to revise § 502.1 ( Scope of rules in this part), § 502.14 ( Public hearings), paragraphs (a) and (b) of § 502.61 ( Proceedings), and § 502.115 ( Service in rulemaking and petition proceedings).

Relevant language from § 502.14 and § 502.61(a) would be incorporated into subpart D. Consistent with current agency practice, the FMC would not incorporate the requirement of § 502.61(d) that requires the Commission to establish dates by which the initial and final decisions will be issued in an order instituting a proceeding. It is impracticable to establish dates by which a final rule will be issued in a notice of proposed rulemaking in informal rulemaking and is not required by the Administrative Procedure Act. The Commission's best estimates for timeframes in rulemaking activities are announced to the public in ( printed page 26979) the Fall and Spring Unified Agenda. In accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, within a reasonable time of filing, the Commission makes a final determination and promptly notifies the petitioner of the final action taken by the Commission.

Section 502.1 would also be revised to reflect potential application of additional subparts to formal rulemaking. This regulation has not been kept up-to-date as various subparts have been added to part 502.

B. Allowance of Ex Parte Communications in Informal Rulemakings

For the reasons discussed earlier in the document, the proposed revisions to § 502.1 would make the ex parte communication requirements of § 502.11 inapplicable to informal rulemaking. Consistent with applicable caselaw and ACUS's recommendation, the FMC is proposing to remove limitations on ex parte communications in informal rulemakings prior to a notice of proposed rulemaking. Communications, or a summary of those communications in the case of oral communications, received by the agency after the close of the public comment period would be required to be promptly placed into the docket and be made available to the public.

The Commission is proposing an additional change to the current ex parte regulation at § 502.11. Paragraph (a) directs readers to see the definition of “proceeding” at § 502.61. Section 502.61, however, does not define the term “proceeding”. Rather, § 502.61 describes how a proceeding is commenced at the Commission. The FMC is proposing to remove this cross-reference. In its place, the Commission is proposing to insert at the end of § 502.1 a cross-reference to the Administrative Procedure Act's definitional section, 5 U.S.C. 551, which includes a definition of “agency proceeding” at 5 U.S.C. 551(12). The Commission believes it is important to specifically cite this definition in the regulatory text at the front of the part as the Commission is aware that from time to time persons have expressed the misconception that rulemaking is not a “proceeding” for purposes of part 502. Consistent with longstanding practice, the revised regulation would also identify non-adjudicatory investigations as “proceedings.”

C. Rules of Particular Applicability

The Commission is proposing to remove the requirement that, in the event that replies or succeeding rounds of comments are permitted in either an informal rulemaking of particular applicability or a petition for the amendment or repeal of a rule of particular applicability, the commenter must serve copies of their comment on all prior participants in the proceeding. Such service is not required under the APA. This is a pre-internet procedure from a time when the only option other than direct service was physically coming into the agency's reading room in Washington, D.C., to review supporting documents not published in the Federal Register . All comments to proposed rulemakings, replies to public comments (when permitted by the agency), and petitions (when public comments are solicited) are now posted to the applicable docket at Regulations.gov and are available for inspection by the person(s) named in the rule as well as the general public.

D. Petitions for Rulemaking

In conjunction with the consolidation of requirements into subpart D, the Commission is proposing to make certain substantive revisions to procedures for petitions for rulemaking.

As a matter of law, any change to the effective date of a rule is itself an action that is required to go through the Administrative Procedure Act's rulemaking process.^[15] To alert those seeking a modification to an effective date of a rulemaking action of this requirement, the Commission is proposing to revise its subpart D to clearly state that any request for a modification to the effective date of a final rule must be made through a petition for rulemaking.

Rulemaking petitions would no longer be required to be verified. Verification of petitions for rulemaking is not required by the Administrative Procedure Act and is unnecessary. The purpose of verification is to ensure that the information stated in such verified document is true and correct and makes sense for adjudicatory proceedings. However, in rulemaking “[t]ypically, the issues relate not to the evidentiary facts, as to which the veracity . . . would often be important, but rather to the policy-making conclusions to be drawn from the facts.” ^[16] As is general practice across the Government, the Commission does not require verification of public comments submitted on rulemakings and petitions for rulemaking. There is no need for a higher standard for the rulemaking petition. In addition: (1) verification of any statements concerning legal authority for an existing rule, or for new rulemaking, must be undertaken independently by the agency regardless of whether a petition for rulemaking is verified; and (2) statements of facts asserted in the rulemaking petition, if necessary, can be verified through agency fact-gathering, including through the solicitation of public comments on the petition, and further verified, if necessary, in the rulemaking itself if the petition is granted. While the burdens imposed by § 502.6 are minimal, they could potentially dissuade someone from filing a petition for rulemaking. Documents, exhibits, or other papers or written materials written in a language other than English would still be required to be accompanied by an English translation thereof, duly verified under oath to be an accurate translation.

The Commission is proposing to remove the requirement that a petition for rulemaking for the amendment or repeal of a rule of particular applicability must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons subject to the requirements of the rule. Such service is not required by the APA, and a petition for rulemaking, if granted, does not affect the legal rights or obligations of the named party/parties—only the proceeding rulemaking, if finalized, has the potential to do that. The Commission may seek information from the party/parties subject to the rule of particular applicability during consideration of the petition if the Commission believes it would aid in the Commission's determination to accept or deny the petition for rulemaking.

The Commission is proposing to expand upon the previous requirement that the petition show the “nature of the relief desired” and require that the petition set forth the text or the substance of the proposed rule or amendment of the proposed rule. Draft regulatory text can be indispensable to understanding and evaluating a petition. For this reason, the Commission considered requiring proposed regulatory text for all petitions. Ultimately, however, this idea was rejected for two reasons. First, doing so might be a barrier to a less sophisticated participant in the rulemaking process. Second, in some situations it might be unnecessarily cumbersome.

The Commission is also proposing to prohibit the filing of confidential information in a petition for rulemaking. ( printed page 26980) We are not aware of any recent incidents where this has been an issue. The proposal is based on purely policy concerns. Confidential filings at this stage have the potential to stifle public participation in the process.

Finally, the Commission is proposing to eliminate filing fees for rulemaking petitions. The Commission attempted to eliminate these fees in 2016 while updating various other user fees. 81 FR 59141 (Aug. 29, 2016). The Commission stated in the 2016 rule that it was eliminating rulemaking petition filing fees to align with the practice of other agencies and to enhance access to the rulemaking process by making it fairer and more open. Unfortunately, to effectuate this change the Commission inadvertently only amended the regulatory text at 46 CFR 502.51(a), which pertained to the required filing fee for rulemaking petitions. Because the Commission did not make a corresponding change to 46 CFR 502.94, the regulation which establishes fees for petitions in the absence of more particular language in other portions of part 502, persons filing rulemaking petitions inadvertently became subject to the fee provisions of § 502.94(a). The Commission continues to believe that these fees should be eliminated for the same reason it stated in 2016. No change is required to § 502.94 as part of this rulemaking because the proposed changes to § 502.1 make § 502.94 inapplicable to subpart D.

E. e-Rulemaking and Public Commenting Procedures

The proposed revised regulations would codify that public dockets for petitions for rulemaking and informal rulemaking proceedings are now posted at Regulations.gov. Rulemaking dockets would no longer be posted to Proceedings on FMC.gov. Copies of proposed and final rules and regulations of the Commission would continue to be available without the requirement of a FOIA request by contacting the Office of the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission in accordance with § 503.22.

Because public comments on rulemaking proceedings are available to the public at any time on Regulations.gov, the Commission is proposing to remove the requirements that copies of comments must be served on all prior participants in rulemaking proceedings in instances where replies or succeeding rounds of public comment are permitted (§ 502.57; see also § 502.53(a)). Corresponding proposed edits are being made in § 502.115. This is not a requirement of the APA and is a hold-over from when members of the public needed to visit the agency's physical reading room to review comments. Service of comments on prior rulemaking participants would still be required under § 502.115 for formal rulemaking proceedings.

The current regulatory text of § 502.53(b) would not be incorporated into the revised regulations in subpart D. Not only is the cross-reference it contains to a regulation that no longer exists, but petitions to intervene are inherently inapplicable to informal rulemaking, regardless of whether they are rules of general or particular applicability. Paragraph (a) of § 502.68 would be revised to include a statement that in formal rulemaking proceedings involving rules of particular applicability, interested persons who wish to participate must file a motion to intervene.

The proposed regulations state that late comments would only be considered to the extent practicable. While the Commission is proposing to revise its ex parte policies to allow for communications following the close of a comment period, they are still generally disfavored in most instances. Typically, late-filed comments merely re-state issues that have been raised by previous commenters. A late-filed comment raising significant new issues runs the risk of causing significant delays in the rulemaking process and the further that the agency is in the drafting and review process, the more difficult it is to incorporate such comments. Agencies are required to conduct a variety of in-depth analysis for which the data inputs need to have a cut-off point if the project is ever to be finalized. The agency recognizes, however, that sometimes there are significant circumstances beyond a commenter's control that lead to missing a comment deadline.

F. Miscellaneous Changes

The Commission is proposing to eliminate the parenthetical rule identification number at the end of affected paragraphs where they appear (for example “[Rule 11]”). The CFR citation is sufficient to identify these requirements and retaining them imposes significant difficulty when updating and reorganizing regulations within part 502. This information will be removed from the other parts of 502 in future rulemakings as changes are made to the relevant sections.

IV. Public Participation and Requests for Comments

The FMC invites public comment on all aspects of this proposed rule, including the regulatory text and the preliminary regulatory analyses. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.

Please note that all comments received are considered part of the public record and will be made available for public inspection at https://www.regulations.gov. Such information includes personally identifiable information (“PII”) (such as your name and address). Any PII that is submitted is subject to being posted to the publicly accessible https://www.regulations.gov site without redaction. The Commission will not accept anonymous comments on this action.

The Commission may withhold from public viewing information provided in comments that it determines may impact the privacy of an individual, is offensive, or raises copyright or other legal concerns. For additional information, please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of https://www.regulations.gov.

How do I submit confidential business information?

The Commission will provide confidential treatment for identified confidential information to the extent allowed by law. If you would like to request confidential treatment, pursuant to 46 CFR 502.5, you must submit the following, by email, to secretary@fmc.gov:

• A transmittal letter that identifies the specific information in the comments for which protection is sought and demonstrates that the information is a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information.
• A confidential copy of your comments, consisting of the complete filing with a cover page marked “Confidential-Restricted,” and the confidential material clearly marked on each page.
• A public version of your comments with the confidential information excluded. The public version must state “Public Version—confidential materials excluded” on the cover page and on each affected page and must clearly indicate any information withheld.

V. Rulemaking Analysis

Regulatory Planning and Review

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory ( printed page 26981) approaches that maximize net benefits. This NPRM has been designated a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has reviewed this regulation.

Executive Order 14192

This action is not an “E.O. 14192 regulatory action” as defined under E.O. 14192.

Impact on Small Entities

When an agency issues a rulemaking proposal, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires the agency to prepare and make available for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis” which will “describe the impact of the proposed rule on small entities.” Section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an analysis, if the proposed rulemaking is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This proposed rule impacts all persons subject to the FMC's jurisdiction. The Commission presumes all Vessel Operating Common Carriers (VOCCs), Passenger Vessel Operators (PVOs), and Marine Terminal Operators (MTOs) to be large business entities. These organizations are generally very large companies with more than 500 employees and millions of dollars in revenues. The FMC presumes that all Ocean Transportation Intermediaries (OTIs) and Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carriers (NVOCCs) are small entities.

This proposed rulemaking would not impose a significant impact (positive or negative) on these small entities. The changes proposed relieve unnecessary regulatory burdens imposed by the current regulations and make it easier for interested parties to locate and understand the agency's procedural requirements related to rulemaking and rulemaking petitions. These are very important benefits—especially for entities that do not regularly participate in the rulemaking process. The substance of the requirements would remain mostly the same; as a result, these changes are not expected to result in significant time or monetary savings for the public.

If you think that your business or organization qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the proposed rule would affect your small business or organization and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This amendment does not contain any collection of information requirements as defined by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). See5 CFR 1320.3(c).

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

This rule meets the applicable standards in Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform) to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

National Environmental Policy Act

This rulemaking is exempt from additional environmental review under 46 CFR 504.4(a)(4). The rule consists solely of the promulgation of procedural rules pursuant to 46 CFR part 502.

For the reasons set out above, the Federal Maritime Commission proposes to amend 46 CFR part 502 as follows:

1. The authority citation for part 502 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 504, 551, 552, 553, 556(c), 559, 561-569, 571-584; 591-596; 18 U.S.C. 207; 28 U.S.C. 2112(a); 31 U.S.C. 9701; 46 U.S.C. 40103-40104, 40304, 40306, 40501-40503, 40701-40706, 41101-41109, 41301-41309, 44101-44106, 46105; 5 CFR part 2635.

2. Revise § 502.1 to read as follows:

3. Amend § 502.11 by:

a. Removing the words “as defined in § 502.61” in paragraph (a); and

b. Removing the words “[Rule 11.]” in paragraph (g).

4. Revise § 502.14 to read as follows:

5. Revise subpart D to read as follows:

6. Amend § 502.61 by:

a. Removing the words “for a rulemaking (Rule 51),” in paragraph (a);

b. Inserting the word “formal” after “a proceeding for a” in paragraph (b); and

c. Removing the words “[Rule 61.]” in paragraph (d).

7. Amend § 502.68 by adding a sentence at the end of paragraph (a) to read as follows:

8. Revise § 502.115 to read as follows:

91 FR 26976