EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2020-0210, dated October 5, 2020 (EASA AD 2020-0210) (also referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on February 26, 2021 (86 FR 11664). The NPRM was prompted by a determination that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. The NPRM proposed to require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations, as specified in EASA AD 2020-0210.

The FAA is issuing this AD to address reduced structural integrity of the airplane. See the MCAI for additional background information.

The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

EASA AD 2020-0210 specifies procedures for new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations for airplane structures and safe life limits. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 15 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator to operator. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate. Therefore, the agency estimates the average total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

This amendment to part 95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) amends, suspends, or revokes IFR altitudes governing the operation of all aircraft in flight over a specified route or any portion of that route, as well as the changeover points (COPs) for Federal airways, jet routes, or direct routes as prescribed in part 95.

The specified IFR altitudes, when used in conjunction with the prescribed changeover points for those routes, ensure navigation aid coverage that is adequate for safe flight operations and free of frequency interference. The reasons and circumstances that create the need for this amendment involve matters of flight safety and operational efficiency in the National Airspace System, are related to published aeronautical charts that are essential to the user, and provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace. In addition, those various reasons or circumstances require making this amendment effective before the next scheduled charting and publication date of the flight information to assure its timely availability to the user. The effective date of this amendment reflects those considerations. In view of the close and immediate relationship between these regulatory changes and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and that good cause exists for making the amendment effective in less than 30 days.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR part 95 Airspace, Navigation (air).

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, part 95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) is amended as follows effective at 0901 UTC, August 12, 2021.

This rule amends 14 CFR part 97 by establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, 8260-15B, when required by an entry on 8260-15A, and 8260-15C.

The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers or aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA form documents is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and specifies the typed of SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flights safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.

Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CRF part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

This rule amends 14 CFR part 97 by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP contained on FAA form documents is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections, and specifies the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure and the amendment number.

The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.

The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than 30 days.

Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, CFR part 97, (is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

The Entity List (supplement no. 4 to part 744 of the EAR) identifies entities for which there is reasonable cause to believe, based on specific and articulable facts, that the entities have been involved, are involved, or pose a significant risk of being or becoming involved in activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. The EAR (15 CFR parts 730-774) impose additional license requirements on, and limit the availability of most license exceptions for, exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) to listed entities. The license review policy for each listed entity is identified in the “License Review Policy” column on the Entity List, and the impact on the availability of license exceptions is described in the relevant Federal Register document adding entities to the Entity List. BIS places entities on the Entity List pursuant to part 744 (Control Policy: End-User and End-Use Based) and part 746 (Embargoes and Other Special Controls) of the EAR.

The End-User Review Committee (ERC), composed of representatives of the Departments of Commerce (Chair), State, Defense, Energy and, where appropriate, the Treasury, makes all decisions regarding additions to, removals from, or other modifications to the Entity List and the MEU List. The ERC makes all decisions to add an entry to the Entity List and MEU List by majority vote and all decisions to remove or modify an entry by unanimous vote. The Departments represented on the ERC approved these changes to the Entity List.

In this final rule, six entities are added to the Entity List on the basis of activities that are described in Executive Order (E.O.) 14024 (86 FR 20249, April 19, 2021), Blocking Property With Respect To Specified Harmful Foreign Activities of the Government of the Russian Federation, issued on April 15, 2021. In E.O. 14024, the President found that specified harmful foreign activities of the Russian government constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States. In issuing E.O. 14024, the President declared a national emergency to deal with this threat.

E.O. 14024 elevates the U.S. government's capacity to deploy strategic and economically impactful sanctions to deter and respond to Russia's destabilizing behavior and to counter Russia's harmful foreign activities that threaten the national security and foreign policy of the United States, including: Undermining the conduct of free and fair elections and democratic institutions in the United States and its allies and partners; engaging in and facilitating malicious cyber activities against the United States and its allies and partners that threaten the free flow of information; fostering and using transnational corruption to influence foreign governments; pursuing extraterritorial activities targeting dissidents or journalists; undermining security in countries and regions important to the United States' national security; and violating well-established principles of international law, including respect for the territorial integrity of states. To address these threats, E.O. 14024 authorizes sanctions on a wide range of persons, including, among others, those operating in the technology and defense and related materiel sectors of the Russian economy and in any additional sectors of the Russian economy as may be determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State.

The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has designated the following six entities as being within the scope of E.O. 14024: Aktsionernoe Obshchestvo AST; Aktsionernoe Obshchestvo Pasit; Aktsionernoe Obshchestvo Pozitiv Teknolodzhiz; Federal State Autonomous Institution Military Innovative Technopolis Era; Federal State Autonomous Scientific Establishment Scientific Research Institute Specialized Security Computing Devices and Automation; and Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu NEOBIT. OFAC's first use of E.O. 14024 targeted companies operating in the technology sector of the Russian economy that support Russian intelligence services.

In conjunction with OFAC's designation, BIS is taking concurrent action to ensure the efficacy of existing sanctions on Russia that target aggressive and harmful activities by the Russian government. BIS is adding the six entities designated by OFAC—Aktsionernoe Obshchestvo AST; Aktsionernoe Obshchestvo Pasit; Aktsionernoe Obshchestvo Pozitiv Teknolodzhiz; Federal State Autonomous Institution Military Innovative Technopolis Era; Federal State Autonomous Scientific Establishment Scientific Research Institute Specialized Security Computing Devices and Automation; and Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu NEOBIT—to the Entity List, and is imposing a license requirement for exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) of all items subject to the EAR to these blocked persons. This concurrent action by BIS will complement the actions already taken by OFAC by ensuring that U.S. sanctions on these entities will apply to all items subject to the EAR regardless of whether a U.S. person is involved in the transaction or whether the transaction involves the U.S. financial system. BIS imposes a license review policy of a presumption of denial for these six entities. In addition, no license exceptions are available for exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) to the persons being added to the Entity List in this rule. This license requirement implements an appropriate measure within the authority of the EAR to carry out the provisions of E.O. 14024.

• Aktsionernoe Obshchestvo AST;

• Aktsionernoe Obshchestvo Pasit;

• Aktsionernoe Obshchestvo Pozitiv Teknolodzhiz;

• Federal State Autonomous Institution Military Innovative Technopolis Era;

• Federal State Autonomous Scientific Establishment Scientific Research Institute Specialized Security Computing Devices and Automation; and

• Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu NEOBIT.

This final rule implements a correction to one existing entry on the Entity List under Russia. The correction is for the entity, Federal Security Service (FSB). This entity was added to the EAR on January 4, 2017 (82 FR 724, January 4, 2017). The License Requirement for this entity applies to all items subject to the EAR, apart from items that are related to transactions that are authorized by OFAC pursuant to their February 2, 2017, General License No. 1 (“Authorizing Certain Transactions with the Federal Security Service”). Effective March 2, 2021, General License No. 1A, dated March 15, 2018, was replaced and superseded in its entirety by General License No. 1B (“Authorizing Certain Transactions with the Federal Security Service”). This final rule corrects the existing entry's License Requirement column by inserting General License 1B for reference to OFAC's General License No. 1, and amends the effective date from February 2, 2017, to the current effective date of March 2, 2021.

Shipments of items removed from eligibility for a License Exception or export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) without a license (NLR) as a result of this regulatory action that were en route aboard a carrier to a port of export, reexport, or transfer (in-country), on July 19, 2021, pursuant to actual orders for export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) to or within a foreign destination, may proceed to that destination under the previous eligibility for a License Exception or export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) without a license (NLR).

On August 13, 2018, the President signed into law the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, which included the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA) (50 U.S.C. 4801-4852). ECRA provides the legal basis for BIS's principal authorities and serves as the authority under which BIS issues this rule.

1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This final rule has been designated to be not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866.

2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to or be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. This regulation involves collections previously approved by OMB under control number 0694-0088, Simplified Network Application Processing System, which includes, among other things, license applications, and carries a burden estimate of 29.6 minutes for a manual or electronic submission. Total burden hours associated with the PRA and OMB control number 0694-0088 are not expected to increase as a result of this rule.

3. This rule does not contain policies with federalism implications as that term is defined in E.O. 13132.

4. Pursuant to section 1762 of ECRA ( see 50 U.S.C. 4821), this action is exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requirements for notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation, and delay in effective date.

5. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., are not applicable. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required and none has been prepared.

Accordingly, part 744 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774) is amended as follows:

On March 6, 2014, the President, invoking the authority of, inter alia, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706) (IEEPA), issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13660, “Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine” (79 FR 13493, March 10, 2014). In E.O. 13660, the President determined that the actions and policies of persons including persons who have asserted governmental authority in the Crimean region without the authorization of the Government of Ukraine that undermine democratic processes and institutions in Ukraine; threaten its peace, security, stability, sovereignty, and territorial integrity; and contribute to the misappropriation of its assets, constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, and declared a national emergency to deal with that threat.

The President subsequently issued E.O. 13661 of March 16, 2014, “Blocking Property of Additional Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine” (79 FR 15535, March 19, 2014), and E.O. 13662 of March 20, 2014, “Blocking Property of Additional Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine” (79 FR 16169, March 24, 2014), pursuant to the national emergency declared in E.O. 13660. E.O. 13661 and E.O. 13662 expanded the scope of the national emergency declared in E.O. 13660. On May 8, 2014, OFAC published the Ukraine Related Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 589 (the “Regulations”), to implement E.O. 13660, E.O. 13661, and E.O. 13662 (79 FR 26365, May 8, 2014). The President has issued additional Executive orders pursuant to the national emergency declared in E.O. 13660, and expanded in E.O. 13661 and E.O. 13662, which are not discussed in this publication as they are not relevant to the web GLs being published.

OFAC, in consultation with the Department of State, issued GL 14 on April 23, 2018, pursuant to the Regulations, to authorize certain transactions and activities ordinarily incident and necessary to the maintenance or wind down of operations, contracts, or other agreements involving United Company RUSAL PLC, or any other entity in which United Company RUSAL PLC owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest, and that were in effect prior to April 6, 2018, through 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, October 23, 2018.

Subsequently, OFAC issued five further iterations of GL 14, each of which extended the period the authorizations in GL 14 remained in effect: On September 21, 2018, OFAC issued GL 14A, which replaced and superseded GL 14, and extended the authorizations through 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time, November 12, 2018; on October 12, 2018, OFAC issued GL 14B, which replaced and superseded GL 14A, and extended the authorizations through 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time, December 12, 2018; on November 9, 2018, OFAC issued GL 14C, which replaced and superseded GL 14B, and extended the authorizations through 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time, January 7, 2019; on December 7, 2018, OFAC issued GL 14D, which replaced and superseded GL 14C, and extended the authorizations through 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time, January 21, 2019; and on January 16, 2019, OFAC issued GL 14E, which replaced and superseded GL 14D, and extended the authorizations through 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time, January 28, 2019. Following the delisting of United Company RUSAL PLC on January 27, 2019, OFAC authorization was no longer required to transact with the company or any other entity in which United Company RUSAL PLC owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest. The texts of GLs 14, 14A, 14B, 14C, 14D, and 14E are provided below.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this general license, all transactions and activities otherwise prohibited by the Ukraine Related Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 589, that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the maintenance or wind down of operations, contracts, or other agreements, including the importation of goods, services, or technology into the United States, involving United Company RUSAL PLC or any other entity in which United Company RUSAL PLC owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest and that were in effect prior to April 6, 2018, are authorized through 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, October 23, 2018.

(b) All funds in accounts of blocked persons identified in paragraph (a) that were blocked as of 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, April 23, 2018 remain blocked, except that such funds may be used for maintenance or wind-down activities authorized by this general license.

(c) This general license does not authorize:

(1) The divestiture or transfer of debt, equity, or other holdings in, to, or for the benefit of the blocked persons described above;

(2) Any transactions or dealings otherwise prohibited by any other part of 31 CFR chapter V, or any transactions or dealings with any blocked person other than the blocked persons described in paragraph (a) of this general license; or

(3) The unblocking of any property blocked pursuant to any part of 31 CFR chapter V, except as authorized by paragraphs (a) or (b).

(d) U.S. persons participating in transactions authorized by this general license are required, within 10 business days after the expiration date of this general license, to file a comprehensive, detailed report of each transaction, including the names and addresses of parties involved, the type and scope of activities conducted, and the dates on which the activities occurred, with the Office of Foreign Assets Control, Office of Compliance and Enforcement, U.S. Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Freedman's Bank Building, Washington, DC 20220, or via email to OFACReport@treasury.gov.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this general license, all transactions and activities otherwise prohibited by the Ukraine Related Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 589, that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the maintenance or wind down of operations, contracts, or other agreements, including the importation of goods, services, or technology into the United States, involving United Company RUSAL PLC or any other entity in which United Company RUSAL PLC owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest and that were in effect prior to April 6, 2018, are authorized through 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time, November 12, 2018.

(b) All funds in accounts of blocked persons identified in paragraph (a) that were blocked as of 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, April 23, 2018 remain blocked, except that such funds may be used for maintenance or wind-down activities authorized by this general license.

(c) This general license does not authorize:

(1) The divestiture or transfer of debt, equity, or other holdings in, to, or for the benefit of the blocked persons described above;

(2) Any transactions or dealings otherwise prohibited by any other part of 31 CFR chapter V, or any transactions or dealings with any blocked person other than the blocked persons described in paragraph (a) of this general license; or

(3) The unblocking of any property blocked pursuant to any part of 31 CFR chapter V, except as authorized by paragraphs (a) or (b).

(d) U.S. persons participating in transactions authorized by this general license are required, within 10 business days after the expiration date of this general license, to file a comprehensive, detailed report of each transaction, including the names and addresses of parties involved, the type and scope of activities conducted, and the dates on which the activities occurred, with the Office of Foreign Assets Control, Office of Compliance and Enforcement, U.S. Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Freedman's Bank Building, Washington, DC 20220, or via email to OFACReport@treasury.gov.

(e) Effective September 21, 2018, General License No. 14, dated April 23, 2018, is replaced and superseded in its entirety by this General License No. 14A.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this general license, all transactions and activities otherwise prohibited by the Ukraine Related Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 589, that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the maintenance or wind down of operations, contracts, or other agreements, including the importation of goods, services, or technology into the United States, involving United Company RUSAL PLC or any other entity in which United Company RUSAL PLC owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest and that were in effect prior to April 6, 2018, are authorized through 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time, December 12, 2018.

(b) All funds in accounts of blocked persons identified in paragraph (a) that were blocked as of 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, April 23, 2018 remain blocked, except that such funds may be used for maintenance or wind-down activities authorized by this general license.

(c) This general license does not authorize:

(1) The divestiture or transfer of debt, equity, or other holdings in, to, or for the benefit of the blocked persons described above;

(2) Any transactions or dealings otherwise prohibited by any other part of 31 CFR chapter V, or any transactions or dealings with any blocked person other than the blocked persons described in paragraph (a) of this general license; or

(3) The unblocking of any property blocked pursuant to any part of 31 CFR chapter V, except as authorized by paragraphs (a) or (b).

(d) U.S. persons participating in transactions authorized by this general license are required, within 10 business days after the expiration date of this general license, to file a comprehensive, detailed report of each transaction, including the names and addresses of parties involved, the type and scope of activities conducted, and the dates on which the activities occurred, with the Office of Foreign Assets Control, Office of Compliance and Enforcement, U.S. Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Freedman's Bank Building, Washington, DC 20220, or via email to OFACReport@treasury.gov.

(e) Effective October 12, 2018, General License No. 14A, dated September 21, 2018, is replaced and superseded in its entirety by this General License No. 14B.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this general license, all transactions and activities otherwise prohibited by the Ukraine Related Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 589, that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the maintenance or wind down of operations, contracts, or other agreements, including the importation of goods, services, or technology into the United States, involving United Company RUSAL PLC or any other entity in which United Company RUSAL PLC owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest and that were in effect prior to April 6, 2018, are authorized through 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time, January 7, 2019.

(b) All funds in accounts of blocked persons identified in paragraph (a) that were blocked as of 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, April 23, 2018 remain blocked, except that such funds may be used for maintenance or wind-down activities authorized by this general license.

(c) This general license does not authorize:

(1) The divestiture or transfer of debt, equity, or other holdings in, to, or for the benefit of the blocked persons described above;

(2) Any transactions or dealings otherwise prohibited by any other part of 31 CFR chapter V, or any transactions or dealings with any blocked person other than the blocked persons described in paragraph (a) of this general license; or

(3) The unblocking of any property blocked pursuant to any part of 31 CFR chapter V, except as authorized by paragraphs (a) or (b).

(d) U.S. persons participating in transactions authorized by this general license are required, within 10 business days after the expiration date of this general license, to file a comprehensive, detailed report of each transaction, including the names and addresses of parties involved, the type and scope of activities conducted, and the dates on which the activities occurred, with the Office of Foreign Assets Control, Office of Compliance and Enforcement, U.S. Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Freedman's Bank Building, Washington, DC 20220, or via email to OFACReport@treasury.gov.

(e) Effective November 9, 2018, General License No. 14B, dated October 12, 2018, is replaced and superseded in its entirety by this General License No. 14C.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this general license, all transactions and activities otherwise prohibited by the Ukraine Related Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 589, that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the maintenance or wind down of operations, contracts, or other agreements, including the importation of goods, services, or technology into the United States, involving United Company RUSAL PLC or any other entity in which United Company RUSAL PLC owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest and that were in effect prior to April 6, 2018, are authorized through 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time, January 21, 2019.

(b) All funds in accounts of blocked persons identified in paragraph (a) that were blocked as of 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, April 23, 2018 remain blocked, except that such funds may be used for maintenance or wind-down activities authorized by this general license.

(c) This general license does not authorize:

(1) The divestiture or transfer of debt, equity, or other holdings in, to, or for the benefit of the blocked persons described above;

(2) Any transactions or dealings otherwise prohibited by any other part of 31 CFR chapter V, or any transactions or dealings with any blocked person other than the blocked persons described in paragraph (a) of this general license; or

(3) The unblocking of any property blocked pursuant to any part of 31 CFR chapter V, except as authorized by paragraphs (a) or (b).

(d) U.S. persons participating in transactions authorized by this general license are required, within 10 business days after the expiration date of this general license, to file a comprehensive, detailed report of each transaction, including the names and addresses of parties involved, the type and scope of activities conducted, and the dates on which the activities occurred, with the Office of Foreign Assets Control, Office of Compliance and Enforcement, U.S. Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Freedman's Bank Building, Washington, DC 20220, or via email to OFACReport@treasury.gov.

(e) Effective December 7, 2018, General License No. 14C, dated November 9, 2018, is replaced and superseded in its entirety by this General License No. 14D.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this general license, all transactions and activities otherwise prohibited by the Ukraine Related Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 589, that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the maintenance or wind down of operations, contracts, or other agreements, including the importation of goods, services, or technology into the United States, involving United Company RUSAL PLC or any other entity in which United Company RUSAL PLC owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest and that were in effect prior to April 6, 2018, are authorized through 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time, January 28, 2019.

(b) All funds in accounts of blocked persons identified in paragraph (a) that were blocked as of 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, April 23, 2018 remain blocked, except that such funds may be used for maintenance or wind-down activities authorized by this general license.

(c) This general license does not authorize:

(1) The divestiture or transfer of debt, equity, or other holdings in, to, or for the benefit of the blocked persons described above;

(2) Any transactions or dealings otherwise prohibited by any other part of 31 CFR chapter V, or any transactions or dealings with any blocked person other than the blocked persons described in paragraph (a) of this general license; or

(3) The unblocking of any property blocked pursuant to any part of 31 CFR chapter V, except as authorized by paragraphs (a) or (b).

(d) U.S. persons participating in transactions authorized by this general license are required, within 10 business days after the expiration date of this general license, to file a comprehensive, detailed report of each transaction, including the names and addresses of parties involved, the type and scope of activities conducted, and the dates on which the activities occurred, with the Office of Foreign Assets Control, Office of Compliance and Enforcement, U.S. Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Freedman's Bank Building, Washington, DC 20220, or via email to OFACReport@treasury.gov.

(e) Effective January 16, 2019, General License No. 14D, dated December 7, 2018, is replaced and superseded in its entirety by this General License No. 14E.

On March 6, 2014, the President, invoking the authority of, inter alia, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706) (IEEPA), issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13660, “Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine” (79 FR 13493, March 10, 2014). In E.O. 13660, the President determined that the actions and policies of persons including persons who have asserted governmental authority in the Crimean region without the authorization of the Government of Ukraine that undermine democratic processes and institutions in Ukraine; threaten its peace, security, stability, sovereignty, and territorial integrity; and contribute to the misappropriation of its assets, constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, and declared a national emergency to deal with that threat.

The President subsequently issued E.O. 13661 of March 16, 2014, “Blocking Property of Additional Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine” (79 FR 15535, March 19, 2014), and E.O. 13662 of March 20, 2014, “Blocking Property of Additional Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine” (79 FR 16169, March 24, 2014), pursuant to the national emergency declared in E.O. 13660. E.O. 13661 and E.O. 13662 expanded the scope of the national emergency declared in E.O. 13660. On May 8, 2014, OFAC published the Ukraine Related Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 589 (the “Regulations”), to implement E.O. 13660, E.O. 13661, and E.O. 13662 (79 FR 26365, May 8, 2014). The President has issued additional Executive orders pursuant to the national emergency declared in E.O. 13660, and expanded in E.O. 13661 and E.O. 13662, which are not discussed in this publication as they are not relevant to the web GLs being published.

OFAC, in consultation with the Department of State, issued GL 12 on April 6, 2018, pursuant to the Regulations, to authorize certain transactions and activities ordinarily incident and necessary to the maintenance or wind down of operations, contracts, or other agreements involving certain specified blocked persons and that were in effect prior to April 6, 2018, through 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, June 5, 2018. Subsequently, OFAC issued three further iterations of GL 12, each of which made slight adjustments to the scope of the authorizations in the GL: On April 23, 2018, OFAC issued GL 12A, which replaced and superseded GL 12; on May 1, 2018, OFAC issued GL 12B, which replaced and superseded GL 12A; and on May 22, 2018, OFAC issued GL 12C, which replaced and superseded GL 12B. The texts of GLs 12, 12A, 12B, and 12C are provided below.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this general license, all transactions and activities otherwise prohibited by the Ukraine Related Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 589, that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the maintenance or wind down of operations, contracts, or other agreements, including the importation of goods, services, or technology into the United States, involving one or more of the following blocked persons and that were in effect prior to April 6, 2018, are authorized through 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, June 5, 2018:

(b) Any payment to or for the direct or indirect benefit of a blocked person that is ordinarily incident and necessary to give effect to a transaction authorized in paragraph (a) of this general license must be made into a blocked, interest-bearing account located in the United States in accordance with 31 CFR 589.203.

(c) This general license does not authorize:

(1) The divestiture or transfer of debt, equity, or other holdings in, to, or for the benefit of the blocked persons listed above;

(2) Any transactions or dealings otherwise prohibited by any other part of 31 CFR chapter V, or any transactions or dealings with any blocked person other than the blocked persons listed in paragraph (a) of this general license;

(3) The unblocking of any property blocked pursuant to any part of 31 CFR chapter V, except as authorized by paragraph (a); or

(4) The exportation of goods from the United States.

(d) U.S. persons participating in transactions authorized by this general license are required, within 10 business days after the expiration date of this general license, to file a comprehensive, detailed report of each transaction, including the names and addresses of parties involved, the type and scope of activities conducted, and the dates on which the activities occurred, with the Office of Foreign Assets Control, Office of Compliance and Enforcement, U.S. Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Freedman's Bank Building, Washington, DC 20220, or via email to OFACReport@treasury.gov.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this general license, all transactions and activities otherwise prohibited by the Ukraine Related Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 589, that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the maintenance or wind down of operations, contracts, or other agreements, including the importation of goods, services, or technology into the United States, involving one or more of the following blocked persons and that were in effect prior to April 6, 2018, are authorized through 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, June 5, 2018:

(b) Any payment to or for the direct or indirect benefit of a blocked person that is ordinarily incident and necessary to give effect to a transaction authorized in paragraph (a) of this general license must be made into a blocked, interest-bearing account located in the United States in accordance with 31 CFR 589.203, except as authorized by Ukraine Related General License 14.

(c) This general license does not authorize:

(1) The divestiture or transfer of debt, equity, or other holdings in, to, or for the benefit of the blocked persons listed above;

(2) Any transactions or dealings otherwise prohibited by any other part of 31 CFR chapter V, or any transactions or dealings with any blocked person other than the blocked persons listed in paragraph (a) of this general license;

(3) The unblocking of any property blocked pursuant to any part of 31 CFR chapter V, except as authorized by paragraph (a); or

(4) The exportation of goods from the United States.

(d) U.S. persons participating in transactions authorized by this general license are required, within 10 business days after the expiration date of this general license, to file a comprehensive, detailed report of each transaction, including the names and addresses of parties involved, the type and scope of activities conducted, and the dates on which the activities occurred, with the Office of Foreign Assets Control, Office of Compliance and Enforcement, U.S. Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Freedman's Bank Building, Washington, DC 20220, or via email to OFACReport@treasury.gov.

(e) Effective April 23, 2018, General License No. 12, dated April 6, 2018, is replaced and superseded in its entirety by this General License No. 12A.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this general license, all transactions and activities otherwise prohibited by the Ukraine Related Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 589, that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the maintenance or wind down of operations, contracts, or other agreements, including the importation of goods, services, or technology into the United States, involving one or more of the following blocked persons and that were in effect prior to April 6, 2018, are authorized through 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, June 5, 2018:

(b) Except as authorized by Ukraine Related General License 14, any payment to or for the direct or indirect benefit of a blocked person that is ordinarily incident and necessary to give effect to a transaction authorized in paragraph (a) of this general license must be made into a blocked, interest-bearing account located in the United States in accordance with 31 CFR 589.203. Any such payment that is directly or indirectly to the account of a blocked U.S. person identified in paragraph (a) at a U.S. financial institution may be processed in accordance with the original wire transfer instructions, provided that those instructions are consistent with this general license.

(c) All funds in accounts of blocked U.S. persons identified in paragraph (a), including funds originating from authorized payments to such accounts received on or after April 6, 2018, may be used for maintenance or wind-down activities authorized by this general license.

(d) This general license does not authorize:

(1) The divestiture or transfer of debt, equity, or other holdings in, to, or for the benefit of the blocked persons identified above;

(2) Any transactions or dealings otherwise prohibited by any other part of 31 CFR chapter V, or any transactions or dealings with any blocked person other than the blocked persons identified in paragraph (a) of this general license;

(3) The unblocking of any property blocked pursuant to any other part of 31 CFR chapter V; or

(4) The exportation of goods from the United States.

(e) U.S. persons participating in transactions authorized by this general license are required, within 10 business days after the expiration date of this general license, to file a comprehensive, detailed report of each transaction, including the names and addresses of parties involved, the type and scope of activities conducted, and the dates on which the activities occurred, with the Office of Foreign Assets Control, Office of Compliance and Enforcement, U.S. Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Freedman's Bank Building, Washington, DC 20220, or via email to OFACReport@treasury.gov.

(f) Effective May 1, 2018, General License No. 12A, dated April 23, 2018, is replaced and superseded in its entirety by this General License No. 12B.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this general license, all transactions and activities otherwise prohibited by the Ukraine Related Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 589, that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the maintenance or wind down of operations, contracts, or other agreements, including the importation of goods, services, or technology into the United States, involving one or more of the following blocked persons and that were in effect prior to April 6, 2018, are authorized through 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, June 5, 2018:

(b) Except as authorized by Ukraine Related General License 14 or Ukraine Related General License 15, any payment to or for the direct or indirect benefit of a blocked person that is ordinarily incident and necessary to give effect to a transaction authorized in paragraph (a) of this general license must be made into a blocked, interest-bearing account located in the United States in accordance with 31 CFR 589.203. Any such payment that is directly or indirectly to the account of a blocked U.S. person identified in paragraph (a) at a U.S. financial institution may be processed in accordance with the original wire transfer instructions, provided that those instructions are consistent with this general license.

(c) All funds in accounts of blocked U.S. persons identified in paragraph (a), including funds originating from authorized payments to such accounts received on or after April 6, 2018, may be used for maintenance or wind-down activities authorized by this general license.

(d) This general license does not authorize:

(1) The divestiture or transfer of debt, equity, or other holdings in, to, or for the benefit of the blocked persons identified above;

(2) Any transactions or dealings otherwise prohibited by any other part of 31 CFR chapter V, or any transactions or dealings with any blocked person other than the blocked persons identified in paragraph (a) of this general license;

(3) The unblocking of any property blocked pursuant to any other part of 31 CFR chapter V; or

(4) The exportation of goods from the United States.

(e) U.S. persons participating in transactions authorized by this general license are required, within 10 business days after the expiration date of this general license, to file a comprehensive, detailed report of each transaction, including the names and addresses of parties involved, the type and scope of activities conducted, and the dates on which the activities occurred, with the Office of Foreign Assets Control, Office of Compliance and Enforcement, U.S. Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Freedman's Bank Building, Washington, DC 20220, or via email to OFACReport@treasury.gov.

(f) Effective May 22, 2018, General License No. 12B, dated May 1, 2018, is replaced and superseded in its entirety by this General License No. 12C.

On April 29, 2021, the Coast Guard published a temporary safety zone to protect persons and vessels from the hazards associated with high speed boat races in Orange, TX (86 FR 22610). That event was cancelled due to weather. On May 19, 2021 the City of Orange, TX notified the Coast Guard that they rescheduled the races for September 18 and 19, 2021, in the same location, adjacent to the public boat ramp in Orange, TX. In response, on June 23, 2021, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Safety Zone, Sabine River, Orange, TX (86 FR 32846). There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this marine event. During the comment period that ended July 8, 2021, we received one comment supporting the proposed rule.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Port Arthur (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with high speed boat races will be a safety concern for spectator craft and vessels in the vicinity of these race event.

As noted above, we received one comment supporting the establishment of this safety zone on our NPRM published June 23, 2021. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.

This rule establishes a safety zone from 7:30 a.m. through 6 p.m. daily on September 18, 2021 and September 19, 2021. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of the Sabine River, extending the entire width of the river, adjacent to the public boat ramp located in Orange, TX bounded to the north by the Orange Public Wharf and latitude 30°05′50″ N and to the south at latitude 30°05′33″ N. The duration of the zone is intended to protect participants, spectators, and other persons and vessels, in the navigable waters of the Sabine River during high-speed boat races and will include breaks and opportunity for vessels to transit through the regulated area.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

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 approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

This regulatory action determination is based on the proposed size, location and duration of the rule. The safety zone will encompass a less than half-mile stretch of the Sabine River for 10.5-hours on each of two days. The Coast Guard will notify the public by issuing Local Notice to Mariners (LNM), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletin (MSIB) and Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM radio and the rule will allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone during scheduled breaks.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received one supporting comment on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

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 rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction 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.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone that will last 10.5 hours on each of two days and that would prohibit entry on less than a half-mile stretch of the Sabine River in Orange, TX. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable.

It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because this safety zone must be established by July 14, 2021, and we lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this interim rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . For the same reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph, a 30 day delay of the effective date would be contrary to public interest because action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with the demolition of Lock and Dam 53 involving explosives beginning July 14, 2021.

The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters of the Ohio River from mile marker (MM) 961 to MM 964.6 before, during, and after the demolition of Lock and Dam 53 involving explosives. The Coast Guard is establishing this rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231).

This rule establishes a temporary safety zone that covers all navigable waters of the Ohio River from MM 961 to MM 964.6. This rule will be enforced every day at midday from July 14, 2021 through December 1, 2021 as necessary to facilitate safe demolition of Lock and Dam 53. Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNM) will be issued six hours prior to the start of blasting to notify the public that the safety zone is being enforced. Vessels will be able to transit the safety zone when explosives are not being detonated. This safety zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters during the detonation of explosives for the demolition. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative during demolition operations involving explosives.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

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 approaches that maximize net benefits. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. This safety zone will only be enforced daily for a short period of time and only impact a small portion of the Ohio River. Additionally, this safety zone will only be enforced in daytime hours during the demolition operations of the Lock and Dam 53. Vessels may seek permission to transit safety through the area from the COTP or a designated reperesentative.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not have a significant economic

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above, this rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this 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 rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction 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. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments) because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves involves a temporary safety zone for the demolition of Lock and Dam 53 involving explosives on the Ohio River in Olmsted, IL. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places, or vessels.

We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

Submitting comments. We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal Decision Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. To do so, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2021-0495 in the search box and click “Search.” Next, look for this document in the Search Results column, and click on it. Then click on the Comment option. If you cannot submit your material by using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this rule for alternate instructions.

Viewing material in docket. To view documents mentioned in this rule as being available in the docket, find the docket as described in the previous paragraph, and then select “Supporting & Related Material” in the Document Type column. Public comments will also be placed in our online docket and can be viewed by following instructions on the https://www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked Questions web page. We review all comments received, but we will only post comments that address the topic of the rule. We may choose not to post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we receive.

Personal information. We accept anonymous comments. Comments we post to https://www.regulations.gov will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and submissions to the docket in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it would be impracticable. On July 7, 2021 a cruise ship grounded near MM 62 of the Cumberland River. Due to the nature of the Cumberland River and the amount of recreational and commerical vessels there is potential safety risk during salvage of the cruise ship to the vessels in the area. The safety zone must be established immediately to protect people, vessels, and the marine environment from hazards associated with the salvage of a cruise ship. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM and consider the comments before issuing this rule because we must establish this safety zone by July 17, 2021.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date of this rule would be impracticable because immediate action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with the salvage of a cruise ship.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The COTP has determined that potential hazards associated with the salvage of a grounded cruise ship will be a safety concern for anyone between MM 61.5 and MM 63.5 on the Cumberland River during active salvage operations. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards associated with the salvage of a cruise ship at MM 62 on the Cumberland River.

This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from July 17, 2021 through September 16, 2021, or until the hazards have been mitigated. The temporary safety zone will cover all navigable waters of the Cumberland River from MM 61.5 to MM 63.5. The COTP will terminate the enforcement of this temporary safety zone before September 16, 2021 if the hazards associated with the salvage of a cruise ship have been resolved. A Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNM) will be issued twenty-four hours prior to the start of salvage operations to notify the public that the safety zone is being enforced. Vessels will be able to transit the safety zone when no active salvage operations are being conducted. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. Requests for entry will be considered and reviewed on a case-by-case basis. The COTP may be contacted by telephone at 502-779-5422 or the on scene designated representative can be reached via VHF-FM channel 16. Persons and vessels permitted to enter this temporary safety zone must transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful directions issued by the COTP or the designated representative.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

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 approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. This safety zone will only be enforced between MM 61.5 to MM 63.5 during active salvage operations of the cruise ship and will only impact a small portion of the Cumberland River. Additionally, this safety zone will only be enforced in daytime hours during active salvage operations.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

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 rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction 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.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a temporary safety zone for the salvage of a cruise ship that grounded at MM 62 on the Cumberland River. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to do so. There is insufficient time to allow for a reasonable comment period prior to the event. The rule must be in force by July 24, 2021. We are taking immediate action to ensure the safety of spectators and the general public from hazards associated with the fireworks display. Hazards include accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date of this rule would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The rule needs to be in place by July 24, 2021, to mitigate the potential safety hazards associated with a fireworks display in this location.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority granted in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Delaware Bay (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks to be used in this July 24, 2021, display will be a safety concern for anyone within a 300-yard radius of the barge. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of vessels and the navigable waters in the safety zone before, during, and after the scheduled event.

This rule establishes a temporary safety zone on the waters of Great Egg Harbor Bay in Ocean City, NJ, during a fireworks display from a barge. The event is scheduled to take place between 9 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. on July 24, 2021. The safety zone will extend 300 yards around the barge, which will be anchored at approximate position latitude 39°17′22″ N, longitude 074°34′29″ W. The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters during the fireworks display. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

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 approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

This regulatory action determination is based on the following factors: (1) Although persons and vessels may not enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone without authorization from the COTP Delaware Bay or a designated representative, they may operate in the surrounding area during the enforcement period; (2) persons and vessels will still be able to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area if authorized by the COTP Delaware Bay; and (3) the Coast Guard will provide advance notification of the safety zone to the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

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 rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction, 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.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in expenditures by a state, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such expenditures, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a temporary safety zone that prohibits persons and vessels from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within a limited area on the navigable water in Great Egg Harbor Bay during a fireworks display lasting approximately 30 minutes. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places, or vessels.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR 165 as follows:

Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.

The EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on December 20, 2019 (“2019 NPRM” or “2019 proposal”)  1 including revisions to four sets of NSR regulations. 2 The proposed revisions were intended to correct various typographical and grammatical errors, remove regulatory provisions that have been vacated by the court, remove or update outdated or incorrect cross references, conform certain provisions to changes contained in the 1990 CAA Amendments, and remove outdated exemptions.

The NSR regulations have undergone revisions and restructurings by the EPA during their long history as a result of statutory and policy changes, as well as numerous court decisions. These revisions and restructurings have sometimes introduced errors within those regulations. In this action, the EPA is finalizing revisions to address these inadvertent errors. The agency is also finalizing other revisions to reflect statutory changes enacted by Congress which have already been applied in practice or changes that have been necessitated by court decisions. Thus, the EPA considers this final rule to be administrative in nature. The EPA's intent is to provide clarity to the affected NSR regulations, but not to alter the substantive requirements of those regulations. The NSR regulations affected by this action contain requirements for the preconstruction review of new major stationary sources and major modifications of existing major stationary sources.

In response to the 2019 proposal, the EPA received 15 sets of comments: Five from industries and industry associations, five from anonymous commenters, four from state agencies, and one from an individual. The commenters generally agreed with most of the editorial and typographical changes that the EPA had proposed. Some commenters, however, disagreed with some of the proposed changes and made alternative recommendations for consideration in the final rule. In addition, some commenters identified additional regulatory text needing changes. The following section addresses some of the significant comments and provides the EPA's responses. For a complete description of the comments received and the EPA's responses, please refer to the Response to Comment (RTC) document that the EPA has placed in the docket for this rulemaking.

In order to provide a clear description of the regulatory revisions contained in the 2019 proposal, the EPA also included a separate table in the rulemaking docket showing each of the proposed changes in a redline/strikeout (RLSO) format to clearly illustrate where and what changes were proposed. Some commenters correctly noted that there were some inconsistencies between the changes shown in the docketed table and the revised regulatory text in the 2019 NPRM. These inconsistencies have been corrected in this final rule and the table has been revised to show all of the changes that are being made to the four sets of NSR regulations, including those that have been made since the 2019 proposal. Further, the EPA has made some very minor, non-substantive rule language format conforming revisions in this final rule as required by Office of the Federal Register (OFR) guidelines for rule language publication in the Federal Register according to the Document Drafting Handbook. 3 These rule language consistency edits from OFR are contained in the final rule language and the revised table. The revised table is available in the docket for this final rule (see Reference Table of New Source Review Error Corrections—Final Rule, in Docket ID. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0435).

Based on the comments received, the EPA is not finalizing some of the proposed changes or is finalizing revised versions of the proposed changes. The following section provides a summary of many of the comments received and the EPA's response to those comments, including our rationale for not finalizing some of the proposed changes or modifying changes that were originally proposed. All of comments and responses, including those not discussed in this preamble, are included in the RTC, which the EPA has placed in the docket for this rulemaking.

A. Typographical, grammatical and punctuation errors. The EPA proposed to correct misspelled words, such as those contained in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(viii) and 51.166(j)(4). No adverse comments were received concerning these types of corrections. The EPA did, however, receive comments providing notification of similar typographical errors, including the incorrect use of the word “and” in lieu of “through” in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(ii) and 52.21(b)(49)(ii), and is making these corrections along with similar proposed corrections such as the use of “that” in lieu of “than” in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(1)(iii)( z ). The EPA is also updating the rule language to correct other errors identified by commenters, including an inadvertent reference to “Class II” in the proposed revision to 40 CFR 52.21(u)(3), and other minor clarifying edits (s ee 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xxi)(A) through (D), 51.165(a)(1)(xl), Appendix S II.A.12, Appendix S II.A.37, 51.166(b)(2)(iii)( a ), 51.166(b)(12), 51.166(b)(32)(i) through (iv), 51.166(b)(48)(ii), 51.166(j)(1), 51.166(w)(9)(ii), 52.21(b)(12), 52.21(b)(33)(i) through (iv), 52.21(b)(49)(iii), and 52.21(j)(1)). These corrections are a logical outgrowth of the proposal but, in any event, the EPA also finds there is good cause to make these corrections without soliciting public comment on them because it would be unnecessary given that the changes are not substantive. 4

In numerous instances, the EPA proposed to correct inappropriate words or punctuation, including capitalizations, commas and hyphens, such as those contained in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(2)(iii), Appendix S II.A.4.(iii), and 52.21(b)(23)(ii). One adverse comment was received on an edit proposed to the definition of “emissions increase” to change “is” to “shall be” to make the language consistent throughout the paragraph. The EPA had only proposed this change in 40 CFR 52.21. The commenter pointed out that the use of “is” is already consistent within the paragraph and raised concern that the proposed change could be seen as suggesting that the provision would function as a significant emissions rate even though the EPA has not yet completed a rulemaking to set a significance level for GHGs. See 81 FR 68110 (October 3, 2016). Instead the commenter suggested deleting a comma to clarify the provision. The EPA agrees with the commenter and is not changing “is” to “shall be” in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(iii) and 51.166(b)(48)(iii).

Other errors identified by commenters or identified by the EPA subsequent to the 2019 proposal include the inadvertent capitalization of “for” in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(48)(i)( c ) and the incorrect pluralization of the term “standard” in 40 CFR 51.166(j)(1). Correction of these errors is a logical outgrowth of the proposal but, in any event, the EPA also finds there is good cause to make these corrections without soliciting public comment because it would be unnecessary given that the changes are not substantive.

B. Regulatory references. The EPA proposed to correct the way in which reference is made in one regulation to requirements contained in another regulation, such as references contained in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(v)(C)( 5 )( i ), 51.166(b)(2)(iii)( e )( 1 ), 51.166(b)(2)(iii)( f ), Appendix S II.A.5.(iii)( e )( 1 ), and Appendix S II.A.5.(iii)( f ). In some cases, the references were outdated, while others simply referenced an incorrect paragraph. The EPA did not receive adverse comment on these changes and the EPA is finalizing them in this rule. The EPA is also updating a reference made in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(D) in response to a comment requesting that a reference made within this regulation to a memorandum be updated to reflect the subsequent codification of the referenced language. The EPA is similarly amending a dated reference in 40 CFR 51 Appendix S I. Introduction and correcting an erroneous cross reference in Paragraph IV.D from V to IV in response to comments received. These corrections are a logical outgrowth of the proposal but, in any event, the EPA also finds there is good cause to make these corrections without soliciting public comment given that the changes are not substantive.

C. Court vacaturs. Some of the proposed changes involve the removal of text that the EPA needed to remove to implement the vacatur of the provision in a court ruling. These changes include the following:

1. In 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) indefinitely stayed the effective date of the NSR provision known as the Equipment Replacement Provision (ERP), which amended the NSR requirements in 2003 to add a Routine Maintenance, Repair, and Replacement Exclusion. 5 The ERP allowed sources to avoid NSR when replacing equipment under certain circumstances. The stay of the affected paragraphs was subsequently noted in the CFR under the three affected NSR regulations, 40 CFR 51.165, 51.166, 52.21. 6 Later, in a 2006 decision, the court vacated the ERP, concluding that the provision was “contrary to the plain language of section 111(a)(4) of the Act.” New York v. EPA, 443 F.3d 880, 883 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (“ New York II” ). The EPA is now removing the vacated ERP provisions consistent with New York II as well as the notes contained in the affected NSR regulations describing the indefinite stay of the various affected provisions. See proposed 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(v)(C)( 1 ), 51.165(h), 51.166(b)(2)(iii)( a ), 51.166(y), 52.21(b)(2)(iii)( a ), and 52.21(cc).

Additionally, in the proposal, the EPA noted that two components of the 2003 ERP rule, the criteria for “basic design parameters” (contained at 40 CFR 51.165(h)(2), 51.166(y)(2), and 52.21(cc)(2)), and “process units” (contained at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xliii), 51.166(b)(53), and 52.21(b)(55)), are incorporated within the definition of “replacement unit,” which was not part of the New York II decision. See 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xxi), 51.166(b)(32), and 52.21(b)(33). The EPA proposed to move definitions and criteria for “basic design parameters” and “process unit,” into the definition of “replacement unit” in each of the three affected NSR regulations. See proposed 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xxi)(E)-(F), 51.166(b)(32)(v)-(vi), and 52.21(b)(33)(v)-(vi). 7 The EPA's 2019 proposal to move this language to a different location in the regulation necessitated revising a cross reference made to the definition of “basic design parameters” to cite its new location. See proposed 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xxi)(C), 51.166(b)(32)(iii), and 52.21(b)(33)(iii). 8

Commenters had a variety of different recommendations in response to the EPA's 2019 proposal to relocate two definitions which the EPA did not consider to be subject to the court's vacatur decision. Those recommendations introduced alternative language for these provisions. Some commenters questioned the EPA's proposal to relocate certain components without also providing a more comprehensive rationale and opportunity for public comment. One commenter objected to moving the definition of “process unit” in an error corrections action, claiming that retaining provisions that were vacated by the court in a different location amounted to a substantive change because it “represents neither a statutory change nor a change required by a court decision.” The same commenter claimed that the EPA provided no rationale for why the vacated definition of “process unit” should be retained, and further stated that “[i]f EPA believes a definition is necessary, it should provide an analysis of why the specific definition it has proposed is appropriate, instead of simply relying on a definition included in a rule that was vacated by a federal court.” The commenter continued, however, that, should the EPA decide to define “process unit” as part of the definition of “replacement unit,” then “[EPA] should clarify that this definition is limited to determining whether a unit meets the criteria for a replacement unit. This clarification would prevent confusion on the implication of this term.” Finally, the commenter recommended, as an alternative, that the EPA “could propose to eliminate the reference to process unit in the definition of `replacement unit' and instead reference an `emissions unit.' ”

Three commenters recommended that the EPA retain the definition of “functionally equivalent component” ( e.g., 40 CFR 52.21(b)(56)), which the EPA proposed to remove as part of the ERP vacatur component of this rule. One of the commenters recommended that the EPA incorporate the definition of “functionally equivalent component” into the definition of “replacement unit” “in order to retain the clarification that the `functionally equivalent component' definition provides.” One of the commenters noted that “[t]he replacement unit provision was intended to recognize that identical replacement is not required and often is not possible, which is why EPA will look to the `function' and the `basic design parameters.' ” This commenter concluded that “[b]y deleting this definition, the intent of the replacement unit concept could be undermined.” Finally, one of the commenters also recommended that the EPA retain the definition of “functionally equivalent component,” as well as the definitions of “process unit” and “basic design parameters,” as separate definitions rather than as part of the definition of “replacement unit.”

A state commenter did not agree with the EPA's 2019 proposal to relocate the three examples of “process units” for source categories, including refineries, municipal waste incinerators, and steam electric generating facilities. Another commenter recommended that if the EPA chose to retain an example of a process unit for a steam electric generating facility, the example should not include equipment that does not contribute to the production of electricity. The commenter claimed that “EPA provides no explanation for the inconsistency between its example for a pulverized coal-fired facility and the proposed regulatory text for a steam electric generating facility, which states that only portions of the plant that contribute directly to the production of electricity would be included in the definition of `process unit.'”

Another state agency commenter noted that in the 2019 proposal the EPA “inadvertently” left out the paragraph describing “pollution control equipment,” which the commenter stated was supposed to have been included in the definition of “process unit” and therefore should have been included with the EPA's proposal to relocate the definition of “process unit.” The affected provision, previously contained at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xliii)(B), 51.166(b)(53)(ii), and 52.21(b)(55)(ii), reads as follows: “Pollution control equipment is not part of the process unit, unless it serves a dual function as both process and control equipment. Administrative and warehousing facilities are not part of the process unit.”

The EPA has carefully considered the adverse comments concerning the proposal to relocate certain provisions that were part of the 2003 ERP rule vacated by the court in 2006. Due to the concerns expressed in the comments, the EPA has decided to also remove provisions pertaining to “process unit” and “basic design parameters” in this final rule. Based upon comments received, we have been persuaded that the better interpretation of the judgment in New York II is that the court vacated the ERP rule in its entirety, such that the EPA should remove all of this content to effectuate the judgment. While the replacement unit definition was adopted in a separate 2003 rulemaking that was not vacated by the court, that rulemaking action (which pre-dated New York II ) does not provide a sufficient basis to conclude that content from the ERP rule that is referenced in definition of the “replacement unit” survived the vacatur. Since this dynamic is not addressed in New York II and that opinion post-dates the 2003 rule, the EPA believes New York II is best read as vacating all the content adopted in the ERP rule. Therefore, at this time, the EPA is removing the entirety of the ERP rule from the NSR regulations and is not moving the definitions of “basic design parameters” and “process unit” into the “replacement unit” definition in this final rule. For the same reason, the EPA is removing the definition of “functionally equivalent component” as proposed.

As a result of this action, the NSR regulations will lack a definition of “basic design parameters” and “process unit” that can be applied in the context of identifying whether a unit is a “replacement unit.” However, while not controlling, the EPA and stakeholders may continue to look to the vacated definitions from the ERP rule to guide their understanding of the definition of “replacement unit.” The EPA will evaluate whether further rulemaking is needed to restore definitions of “basic design parameter” and “process unit.” If this need does arise, such a rulemaking would provide an opportunity for more targeted public input on the way such terms should be defined when applied in the specific context of defining a “replacement unit” for purposes of determining the method of calculating the change in emissions from a project. 2. In 2007, the EPA removed certain provisions pertaining to Clean Units (CU) and Pollution Control Projects (PCP), which were vacated by the D.C. Circuit in New York v. EPA, 413 F.3d 3 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (“ New York I” ). 9 The EPA explained that, although the court's opinion addressed the CU and PCP provisions in 40 CFR 52.21, but not the corresponding provisions in 40 CFR 51.165 and 51.166, “the plain language of the Court's opinion clearly applies to the parallel constructions in those latter provisions . . . .” 72 FR 32526, 32527 (June 13, 2007). Accordingly, the EPA's 2007 action was intended to remove the relevant provisions from all three NSR regulations, but the EPA only specified its removal from 40 CFR 51.165 and not 40 CFR 51.166 and 52.21. Therefore, in the 2019 NPRM, the EPA proposed to remove the remaining CU and PCP provisions that were vacated in accordance with New York I. See proposed 40 CFR 51.166(b)(3)(iii)( c ), 52.21(b)(3)(iii)( b ), and cross references to vacated PCP provisions 40 CFR 51.165(a)(2)(ii)(A), 51.166(a)(7)(iv)( a ), and 52.21(a)(2)(iv)( a ). The EPA did not receive any adverse comments addressing this aspect of the 2007 proposal and is therefore finalizing the changes to the regulatory text addressing the vacatur as proposed.

D. Outdated and incorrect references.

1. In 1980, the EPA made significant revisions to the PSD regulations under parts 51 and 52. 10 One revision deleted existing paragraph (k) and redesignated paragraphs (l) through (s) as (k) through (r). The EPA proposed to correct incorrect references affected by the 1980 redesignation of paragraphs (l) through (s). The EPA received no adverse comment on this proposed revision and will be finalizing this change. See 40 CFR 51.166(r)(2) and 52.21(r)(4).

2. In the same 1980 rulemaking, the EPA added a provision under the source obligation requirements at 40 CFR 52.21(r)(2) applicable to stationary sources that might be granted a future relaxation of a preconstruction permit that previously enabled the source or modification to be regulated as a “minor” rather than as a major stationary source. The provision requires the owner or operator of a source or modification obtaining a relaxation of the limits referenced to comply with the permit requirements for a major stationary source or major modification as if construction had not yet commenced on the source or modification. The provision references the permit requirements contained under paragraphs (j) through (s) of 40 CFR 51.166. However, paragraph (s) contains discretionary provisions concerning the application of innovative control technology. In light of the non-mandatory nature of those provisions, it should not have been included in the reference to required permit elements. Accordingly, the EPA proposed to correct the source obligation requirement at 40 CFR 51.166(r)(2) by removing the reference to paragraph (s) and replacing it with a reference to paragraph (r). See proposed 40 CFR 51.166(r)(2). The EPA received a comment supporting this proposed change, but no adverse comments, and will therefore finalize this change as proposed.

3. The Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) regulations at 40 CFR 51.165 and 40 CFR part 51 Appendix S contain a restriction which prohibits sources that replace one hydrocarbon compound with another of lesser reactivity from obtaining emissions credit for that replacement. See 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(D) and part 51 Appendix S IV.C.4. At the same time, the provisions make it clear that a source may obtain an emissions credit, also referred to as an offset credit (when intended to be used as an emissions offset), in cases where a VOC is replaced by an organic compound that is not considered to be a VOC ( i.e., recognized to have negligible photochemical reactivity). The EPA has now included as part of the regulatory definition of “volatile organic compounds,” codified at 40 CFR 51.100(s), organic compounds that are not VOCs that the EPA included in the definition because they have negligible photochemical reactivity. Accordingly, we proposed to revise both sets of NNSR regulations to provide an updated reference to the organic compounds that the EPA does not define as VOC.

Two commenters recommended that the EPA completely delete, rather than edit, these provisions, asserting that they are outdated offset conditions. One of the commenters, using CAA section 173(c) as their basis, noted that “[w]hen the EPA changed from regulating hydrocarbons to regulating VOC as a single pollutant, the EPA no longer considered reactivity in the offsets provision.”

The EPA recognizes that because of the shift in how the EPA regulates photochemically reactive compounds that form ozone, this restriction on offsets may no longer be necessary. However, the EPA did not provide a rationale for the wholesale removal of this restriction. Therefore, the EPA is making the proposed change, with some small variations. The provisions will be revised to update the list of negligible photochemical reactive compounds and to more clearly reflect the fact that the organic compounds listed with negligible photochemical reactivity are, by definition, not VOCs. At worst, the continued inclusion of this restriction on offsets is merely redundant. The EPA may consider whether to remove it in a future action. See 40 CFR 51.100(s)(1) and paragraph IV.C.4. at part 51 Appendix S.

4. In 1986, the NSR provisions in 40 CFR 51.18 were moved in a restructuring rule that placed them under new subpart I of part 51. 11 40 CFR 51.18 is an obsolete reference to the NSR regulations that were applicable to minor sources, major sources locating in areas that do not meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (40 CFR 51.18(j)), and major sources locating in areas that meet the NAAQS, but significantly impact an area that is not meeting the NAAQS (40 CFR 51.18(k)). Subpart I now contains the preconstruction review requirements for state minor NSR programs (40 CFR 51.160-164) as well as state major NNSR programs (40 CFR 51.165) and state PSD programs (40 CFR 51.166). 12 The EPA proposed to update the reference to 40 CFR 51.18 in Appendix S V.A. by replacing it with a reference to 40 CFR 51.165, which includes NSR requirements for major stationary sources in nonattainment areas. See proposed section V.A. [2nd paragraph] of 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S. The EPA received two comments supporting this change as proposed and received no adverse comments regarding this proposed change. Upon review for the final rule, the EPA determined that the citation referencing 40 CFR 51.165 should be changed to 40 CFR 51.102 since the reference in Appendix S Paragraph V.A. concerns the proper public participation process for a state implementation revision if necessary to make an offset enforceable. 40 CFR 51.102 addresses the public notice for the preparation, adoption and submittal of implementation plans and is therefore a more appropriate reference than the proposed reference to 40 CFR 51.165.

5. On December 31, 2002, the EPA amended its NSR regulations to add, among other things, provisions for Plantwide Applicability Limitations (PALs). 13 In each of the NSR regulations, new provisions were added to require major stationary sources with PAL permits to monitor affected emissions units in accordance with monitoring requirements set forth elsewhere in the regulations. The PSD regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 incorrectly provided a reference to the recordkeeping requirements under paragraph (w)(13) instead of the intended monitoring requirements for PALs at paragraph (w)(12). The other NSR regulations provided the correct cross reference to the monitoring requirements. The EPA proposed to correctly reference the monitoring requirements for PALs in 40 CFR 51.166(w)(7)(vii). The EPA received no adverse comments on this proposed change and will therefore finalize the change as proposed.

6. On December 21, 2007, the EPA amended the NSR regulations by, among other things, adding new paragraphs to explain when a stationary source will have a “reasonable possibility” of causing a significant emissions increase. 14 In 40 CFR 51.166(r)(6)(vi)( b ), reference is incorrectly made to “paragraph (a)(6)(vi)( a )” and “paragraphs (a)(6)(ii) through (v).” Both references mistakingly reference paragraph (a), which is where similar references are made in the “reasonable possibility” provision contained in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(6)(vi)(B). The EPA proposed to correct the references in 40 CFR 51.166 by changing the language to reference the applicable subparagraphs under paragraph (r). The EPA did not receive any adverse comments on the proposed changes and will therefore finalize the changes as proposed.

E. Clean Air Act Amendments. Some of the corrections result from new statutory requirements introduced in the 1990 CAA Amendments, which the EPA did not address in subsequent rulemakings involving the affected NSR regulations.

1. Major source threshold for municipal incinerators. The 1990 CAA Amendments amended the definition of “major emitting facility” at section 169(1) by striking out the words “two hundred and” as those words appeared in the phrase “municipal incinerators capable of charging more than two hundred and fifty tons of refuse per day.”  15 This amendment had the effect of lowering the charging capacity threshold for qualifying a municipal incinerator as a “major emitting facility” from 250 tons of refuse per day to 50 tons per day when such incinerator emits or has the potential to emit at least 100 tons per year of any regulated NSR pollutant. In the 2019 NPRM, the EPA proposed to revise all four sets of major NSR regulations to reflect this change with regards to the statutory definition of “major emitting facility” for municipal incinerators. See proposed 40 CFR part 51 Appendix S II.A.4.(iii)( h ), Appendix S II.F.8, 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(iv)(C)( 8 ), 51.165(a)(4)(viii), 51.166(b)(1)(i)( a ), 51.166(b)(1)(iii)( h ), 51.166(i)(1)(ii)( h ), 52.21(b)(1)(i)( a ), 52.21(b)(1)(iii)( h ), and 52.21(i)(1)(vii)( h ). The EPA did not receive any adverse comments on the proposed changes and will finalize the changes as proposed.

2. Standards under section 112 of the Act. The NSR regulations in several places refer to emissions standards established pursuant to 40 CFR part 61. See e.g., 40 CFR 51.166(b)(12). Part 61 contains national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP), which the EPA promulgated based on the pre-1990 CAA Amendment version of section 112. The 1990 CAA Amendments revised section 112, causing the EPA to promulgate additional NESHAP, which are included in part 63. Accordingly, to ensure that the requirements associated with the section 112 standards are adequately addressed in the NSR regulations, the EPA proposed that each regulatory reference to part 61 should also include a reference to part 63. The EPA proposed to make the necessary updates in the affected NSR regulations.

Several commenters recommended various options that differed from the 2019 EPA proposal. A state agency commenter recommended that the EPA add reference to not only part 63 but also to part 62. This, the commenter noted, would “include all potentially applicable federal standards” to specific provisions under the affected NSR regulations. 40 CFR part 62 sets forth the Administrator's approval and disapproval of state plans for the control of pollutants from facilities regulated under CAA 111(d) and 129 and the Administrator's promulgation of such plans or portions of plans when a state has failed to provide an approvable plan or portions thereof. Plans under part 62 contain standards of performance that apply to existing sources that would be subject to 40 CFR part 60 (standards of performance for new stationary sources) if such existing sources were new sources. Such plans are approved state plans or federal plans for each separate source category.

Two commenters claimed that the EPA has incorrectly proposed to add reference to part 63 because the CAA at section 112(b)(6), added to the Act in 1990, explicitly removes section 112 hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) from the PSD program. One of the commenters noted that the NNSR program “inherently does not directly regulate a HAP as it is not a criteria pollutant with a national ambient air quality standard.” Thus, the commenters argued that the EPA was incorrect in proposing to add reference to part 63 and should additionally be removing reference to part 61, which also contains standards for HAPs. One of the commenters concluded that “including part 61 and, as proposed, part 63 in various NSR definitions will give the mistaken impression that HAPs are regulated by the NSR programs.” The commenters acknowledged that the statutory definition of “best available control technology” did include a reference to standards promulgated pursuant to CAA section 112; therefore, one of the commenters recommended that “[i]n order to reduce confusion from the insertion of parts 61 and 63 to the PSD BACT requirements and to remain consistent with the 1991 transitional guidance, EPA should clarify in the rule that BACT applies to a regulated NSR pollutant by adding the term `for a regulated NSR pollutant' after the term `major stationary source or major modification' in 40 CFR 51.166(j)(1) and 52.21(j)(1).”

One commenter was concerned about the EPA's 2019 proposal to add reference to part 63 to the definition of “allowable emissions.” The commenter indicated that the addition of a reference to part 63 therein would indicate that Congress intended that compliance with limits issued under CAA section 112, as amended in 1990, should not be considered creditable reductions for netting purposes. The commenter further stated that “there is no indication that Congress intended Maximum Achievable Control Technology (`MACT') (or CAA section 112(f)) reductions to be excluded under a creditability rationale.” Moreover, the commenter argued that “[i]f EPA intends this result . . . then the agency must do it in a more substantive rulemaking, not as part of this `error correction' rulemaking.”

In light of several commenters' adverse comments expressing concerns about adding a reference to part 63 emissions standards to the NSR regulations, the EPA has decided not to finalize the proposed changes concerning the part 63 reference, with one exception. The EPA agrees that additional assessment is needed to determine how including HAPs in the definitions of “allowable emissions” and “federally enforceable” would function in practice and whether the commenters' concerns are justified. However, in one particular case—the definition of “BACT”—the statute expressly requires the inclusion of emissions standards under CAA section 112 in that definition (which includes emissions limitations contained in both 40 CFR parts 61 and 63). By adding the restriction that BACT cannot allow emissions in excess of 112 standards, the EPA is not suggesting that HAPs are regulated under NSR. Rather, there are certain NSR regulated pollutants that inherently include HAP pollutants. For instance, PM may contain constituents that include HAPs, such as cadmium. By including the CAA section 112 standards in the restriction in the definition of BACT, the EPA is ensuring that BACT cannot allow emissions of HAPs in excess of any applicable section 112 standard under 40 CFR parts 61 and 63. See revised 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xl), 51.166(b)(12), part 51 Appendix S II.A.34, and 52.21(b)(12).

F. Outdated exemptions. The PSD regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 and 52.21 contain various exemption provisions that allow certain permit applicants— e.g., portable stationary sources and nonprofit health or nonprofit educational institutions—to be exempt from all or a portion of the PSD preconstruction review requirements. In some cases, these provisions allowed permit applicants to be excluded from certain requirements— e.g., new or revised PM 2.5 NAAQS or PSD increments—which became effective before a final permit could be issued, commonly known as PM 2.5 grandfathering provisions ( see 40 CFR 51.166(i)(10) and 52.21(i)(11)). Some of the existing exemption provisions are outdated because the time in which they were relevant has long since passed. Accordingly, the EPA proposed to remove such outdated provisions, which allow for grandfathering or the implementation of alternative procedures for PSD permit applicants, under the regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 and 52.21.

The EPA received a few adverse comments concerning the proposed removal of outdated exemptions. One of these comments pertained to an exemption that the EPA did not actually propose to remove. The commenter correctly pointed out that the PSD exemption applicable to portable sources, 40 CFR 52.21(i)(1)(viii), continues to be relevant and should not be removed. The EPA acknowledges that the preamble text indicated that the EPA proposed to delete paragraphs (i)(1)(viii) through (x) of the 40 CFR 52.21 PSD regulations, which include the portable source provision at paragraph (i)(1)(viii). However, it was not the EPA's intention to delete paragraph (i)(1)(viii) and a review of the proposed regulatory text and the Error Corrections Table in the docket shows that the EPA did not actually include the deletion of this paragraph in the 2019 proposal. Instead, the proposed regulatory text shows the deletion of only paragraphs (i)(1)(ix) and (x). Accordingly, the EPA is not deleting the portable source exemption provision at 40 CFR 52.21(i)(1)(viii) in this final action. As proposed, the EPA is deleting the following outdated exemption provisions in the final rule: 40 CFR 51.166(i)(6) through (11); 52.21(i)(1)(i) through (v), 52.21(i)(6) through (12), and 52.21(m)(1)(v), and 52.21(m)(1)(vii) and (viii) and 52.21(i)(1)(ix) and (x).

The EPA received one comment asking that the EPA retain the outdated exclusion of carbon dioxide emissions from biogenic material (the combustion or decomposition of non-fossilized and biodegradable organic material originating from plants, animals, or micro-organisms) from the definition of “subject to regulation.” This temporary exclusion was vacated by a court in 2013  16 and expired on its own terms on July 21, 2014. The commenter suggested that, because this expiration was relatively recent, “[r]etaining this language will aid regulatory personnel, owners/operators, and consultants in the future when trying to fully understand the basis for recent NSR permitting determinations based on EPA's prior GHG requirements.” The EPA is not persuaded that this justifies retaining the vacated and outdated provision. If anyone seeks to understand the basis of older NSR permitting decisions, they can consult the version of the Code of Federal Regulations that applied at the time of those decisions. Therefore, the EPA is finalizing removal of the vacated and outdated exclusion of carbon dioxide emissions from biogenic material from the definition of “subject to regulation.” See 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(ii)(a) and 52.21(b)(49)(ii)( a ).

This final action corrects minor, inadvertent, and non-substantive errors in 40 CFR parts 51 and 52 which govern NSR permitting programs, and updates the regulatory text to reflect statutory changes and certain court decisions vacating elements of the regulatory text, but does not change the requirements within these programs. Based upon comments received, as noted in this preamble and the RTC document in the docket, the EPA is moving forward with the majority of the proposed minor edits without change. Additionally, regarding state SIP submittals, the 2019 NPRM proposed that states need not be subject to any deadline to make conforming changes. The EPA received one comment in support of this position and no adverse comments. The EPA is therefore reaffirming that states can have discretion as to when to make these changes and may choose to combine them with other SIP submittals. Also, please refer to the RTC for further discussion about comments which are not included in Section II of this final rule preamble.

This final action removes an exemption in the PSD regulations vacated by the D.C. Circuit in 2019 as well as the ozone interprecursor trading (IPT provision in the NNSR regulations vacated by the D.C. Circuit in 2021. This section explains the court's vacatur of these provisions and the basis for their removal.

On October 26, 2015, the EPA promulgated a final rule containing revised NAAQS for ozone and grandfathering provisions that enabled pending PSD permit applications to be issued on the basis of a demonstration that the proposed source would not cause or contribute to a violation of the prior ozone NAAQS in effect at the time the permit application was deemed to be complete or noticed for public comment. 17 The PSD grandfathering provisions were promulgated as a transition plan to reduce delays to pending PSD permit applications that may have otherwise been caused by the revised ozone standards. The PSD regulations implement CAA section 165(a)(3)(B) at 40 CFR 52.21(k)(1) and 51.166(k)(1) and require that PSD permit applications include a demonstration that emissions from the proposed facility will not cause or contribute to a violation of any NAAQS, which generally means any NAAQS in effect on the date of a PSD permit issuance. Absent the PSD grandfathering provision, this demonstration requirement would have applied to the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any PSD permit application pending at the time the 2015 ozone NAAQS became effective. However, on August 23, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concluded that the EPA lacked the authority to grandfather pending PSD permit applications in this manner and vacated the ozone NAAQS grandfathering provisions in a decision resolving challenges brought by industry, state, and environmental and public health petitioners to the 2015 primary and secondary ozone NAAQS and the PSD grandfathering provisions that were promulgated with these standards. 18

On December 6, 2018, the EPA promulgated the final implementation rules for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, including provisions to address for ozone ground level ozone precursors Oxides of Nitrogen (NO X ) and VOC. The provisions at 51.165(a)(11)(i) and Part 51 Appendix S Paragraph IV.G.5. were promulgated to allow permit applications to use IPT to satisfy the NNSR offset requirement for ozone in nonattainment areas. The IPT provisions were designed to support the EPA's long-standing policy allowing NNSR permit applicants to satisfy their offset obligation for ozone precursors substituting NO X for VOC, or vice versa, supported by a technical demonstration showing an equivalent, or greater, air quality benefit with respect to ground level ozone concentrations in the ozone nonattainment area. 19 On January 29, 2021, the D.C. Circuit concluded that Ozone IPT is not permissible under the CAA and vacated this part of the 2018 regulation. 20 Thus, in this action, EPA is removing the language allowing interprecursor trading for ozone and restoring the language in the NNSR regulations to the form it was in after the EPA's 2008 PM 2.5 implementation rule.

The EPA did not include the removal of these court-vacated provisions at 40 CFR 51.166(i)(11), 52.21(i)(12), 51.165(a)(11) and Part 51 Appendix S Paragraph IV.G.5. in the proposal to this rule. However, the EPA is adding this action to this final rule without providing an opportunity for public comment or a public hearing because the EPA finds that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) good cause exemption applies here. In general, the APA and section 307(d) of the CAA require that general notice of proposed rulemakings shall be published in the Federal Register . Such notice must provide an opportunity for public participation in the rulemaking process. However, the APA and section 307(d) of the CAA provide an avenue for an agency to directly issue a final rulemaking in certain specific instances. This may occur, in particular, when an agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons in the rule issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B); 42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(1). The EPA has determined that it is not necessary to provide a public hearing or an opportunity for public comment on this action because amending the regulations to remove the vacated grandfathering and ozone IPT provisions is a necessary ministerial act. Since the court vacated these provisions, the EPA no longer has the authority to allow the use of the affected provisions. Therefore, in as much as this action to remove the affected regulatory text simply implements the decision of the court, providing an opportunity for public comment or a public hearing on this issue would serve no useful purpose.

In addition, providing notice and comment would be contrary to the public interest because it would unnecessarily delay the removal of the unlawful grandfathering and ozone IPT provisions from the Code of Federal Regulations, which could result in confusion for the regulated industry and state, local, and tribal air agencies about the PSD and NNSR regulations and permitting. Promulgation of this rule serves to clarify that sources cannot continue to demonstrate their compliance with the PSD and NNSR requirements by relying on the prior ozone NAAQS, or ozone IPT, respectively, as was previously allowed. It is thus in the public interest for the EPA to remove the PSD Grandfathering and Ozone IPT provisions without delay. Consistent with the approach described in section III, the EPA is not establishing a deadline in this rule for states to remove these provisions form the SIPs. States thus have the discretion as to when they amend their SIPs to remove the Ozone PSD grandfathering and Ozone IPT provisions and may combine such changes with other SIP submittals.

For these reasons, the EPA finds good cause to issue a final rulemaking to remove the ozone NAAQS grandfathering and ozone NNSR IPT provisions pursuant to section 553 of the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). Therefore, the requirements of CAA section 307(d), including the requirement for public comment and hearing on proposed rulemakings, do not apply to this action.

This action corrects minor, inadvertent, and non-substantive errors in 40 CFR parts 51 and 52 governing NSR permitting programs and updates the regulatory text to reflect statutory changes and certain court decisions vacating elements of the regulatory text but does not change the requirements within these programs. Therefore, this final rule will not change the protection for all those residing, working, attending school, or otherwise present in the applicable areas, regardless of minority and economic status. Further, this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income, or indigenous populations.

This action is not a significant regulatory action and was, therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA. This action is clerical in nature and addresses non-controversial edits to errors in the NSR regulatory text. Therefore, this final rulemaking does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0003.

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. This action corrects minor, inadvertent and non-substantive errors in existing rules. We have therefore concluded that this action will have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.

This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. This action corrects minor, inadvertent and non-substantive errors in existing rules.

This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action only makes technical amendments to correct minor, inadvertent, and non-substantive errors in existing rules. None of these technical amendments has a substantial direct effect on any tribal land; thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

This action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

The documentation for this decision is contained in Section IV of this preamble titled “Environmental Justice Considerations.” This action makes technical amendments to correct minor, inadvertent, and non-substantive errors to existing rules.

This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under CAA section 307(b)(1), petitions for judicial review of any nationally applicable regulation, or any action the Administrator “finds and publishes” as based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days of the date the promulgation, approval, or action appears in the Federal Register . 21 These technical amendments are nationally applicable, as it corrects minor, inadvertent, and non-substantive errors to existing rules. As a result, petitions for review of this final action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by September 17, 2021. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final action does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review must be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of this action. 22

The statutory authority for this action is provided by 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

The proposed rule was published at 86 FR 23340 on May 3, 2021. The Petitioner filed comments in support of the petition reaffirming its commitment to apply for channel *28. No other comments were filed. The Petitioner states that WYES-TV is the only station licensed to New Orleans operating on a VHF channel, and moving to a UHF channel would improve viewers' access to WYES-TV's PBS and other public television programming by improving indoor reception and resolving VHF reception issues. In addition, the Petitioner submitted an analysis, using the Commission's TVStudy software analysis program, demonstrating that it will continue to serve all of the population located within the licensed channel *11 contour.

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MB Docket No. 21-178; RM-11905; DA 21-770, adopted July 2, 2021, and released July 2, 2021. The full text of this document is available for download at https://www.fcc.gov/edocs. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).

This document does not contain information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, do not apply to this proceeding.

The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 73 as follows: