The NRC is issuing a revision to an existing guide in the NRC's “Regulatory Guide” series. This series was developed to describe methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the agency's regulations, to explain techniques that the staff uses in evaluating specific issues or postulated events, and to describe information that the staff needs in its review of applications for permits and licenses.

Revision 4 of RG 1.129 was issued with a temporary identification number of DG-1401 (ADAMS Accession No. ML22026A441).

Revision 4 of RG 1.129 describes an approach that may be used to determine quality standards acceptable to the NRC staff to meet the regulatory requirements provides guidance to manage vented lead-acid battery degradation such that a battery in service would retain its readiness for supporting design-basis events. Revision 4 of RG 1.129 also endorses, with certain clarifying regulatory positions, IEEE Std. 450-2020, which provides the recommended maintenance, test schedules, and testing procedures intended to optimize the life and performance of permanently installed vented lead-acid storage batteries used for standby power applications. It also provides guidance to determine when batteries should be replaced.

The NRC issued RG 1.129, Revision 3, in September 2013, to endorse (with certain clarifying regulatory positions) IEEE Std. 450-2010. Since then, IEEE has revised the standard as IEEE Std. 450-2020 to provide clarifying guidance on maintenance, testing, and corrective actions. The revised IEEE standard provides guidance for the condition monitoring of stationary batteries. The staff determined that, based on the revised IEEE standard, a revision to this RG is necessary for guidance to support new license applications, design certifications, and applications for license amendments.

The NRC published a notice of availability of DG-1401 in the Federal Register on August 29, 2022 (87 FR 52814) for a 30-day public comment period. There were no comments from the public submitted for DG-1401, and no staff responses were needed.

As noted in the Federal Register on December 9, 2022 (87 FR 75671), this document is being published in the “Rules” section of the Federal Register to comply with publication requirements under 1 CFR chapter I.

This RG is a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808). However, the Office of Management and Budget has not found it to be a major rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.

Issuance of RG 1.129, Revision 4 does not constitute backfitting as defined in § 50.109 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), “Backfitting,” and as described in NRC Management Directive (MD) 8.4, “Management of Backfitting, Forward Fitting, Issue Finality, and Information Requests” (ADAMS Accession No. ML18093B087); constitute forward fitting as that term is defined and described in MD 8.4; or affect the issue finality of any approval issued under 10 CFR part 52, “Licenses, Certificates, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants.” As explained in RG 1.129, Revision 4, applicants and licensees are not required to comply with the positions set forth in this regulatory guide.

A member of the public may, at any time, submit suggestions to the NRC for improvement of existing RGs or for the development of new RGs. Suggestions can be submitted on the NRC's public website at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/reg-guides/contactus.html. Suggestions will be considered in future updates and enhancements to the “Regulatory Guide” series.

At its December 2020 meeting, the Board issued a final Subordinated Debt rule (the 2020 final rule). 1 The 2020 final rule permitted LICUs, complex credit unions, and new credit unions to issue Subordinated Debt for purposes of being included in Regulatory Capital. 2 Relevant to this final rule, the 2020 final rule provided that any secondary capital issued by LICUs under previously effective 12 CFR 701.34(b), outstanding as of the effective date of the 2020 final rule, would be considered Grandfathered Secondary Capital. The grandfathering provision of the 2020 final rule allowed LICUs with Grandfathered Secondary Capital to continue to be subject to the requirements of § 701.34(b), (c), and (d) (recodified in the current rule as § 702.414), rather than the requirements of the current rule. The 2020 final rule also provided that any issuances of secondary capital not completed by January 1, 2022, are, as of January 1, 2022, subject to the requirements of the current rule. Finally, the grandfathering provision in the 2020 final rule stated that Grandfathered Secondary Capital would continue to be included in Regulatory Capital for up to 20 years from the effective date of the 2020 final rule. 3 The 2020 final rule also contained a provision requiring Subordinated Debt Notes to have a minimum maturity of five years and a maximum maturity of 20 years.

After the NCUA issued the 2020 final rule, Congress passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021. 4 The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, among other things, created the ECIP. Under the ECIP, Congress appropriated funds and directed Treasury to make investments in “eligible institutions” to support the institutions' efforts to “provide loans, grants, and forbearance for small businesses, minority-owned businesses, and consumers, especially in low-income and underserved communities.”  5 The definition of “eligible institutions” includes federally insured credit unions that are minority depository institutions or community development financial institutions, provided such credit unions are not in troubled condition or subject to any formal enforcement actions related to unsafe or unsound lending practices. 6

Under the terms developed by Treasury, investments in eligible credit unions are in the form of subordinated debt. 7 Treasury also aligned its investments in LICUs with the Federal Credit Union Act (the Act) and the NCUA's regulations, which allowed eligible LICUs to apply to the NCUA for secondary capital treatment for these investments. Relevant to this final rule, Treasury offered either 15- or 30-year maturity options for the investments. Treasury opened the ECIP application process on March 4, 2021, with an application deadline of May 7, 2021. Treasury extended this deadline to September 1, 2021.

In October 2021, the NCUA issued a Letter to Credit Unions permitting LICUs participating in the ECIP to issue 30-year subordinated debt instruments. 8 In December 2021, the Board issued a final amendment to the current rule permitting secondary capital to be considered Grandfathered Secondary Capital regardless of the actual issuance date, provided the secondary capital issuance met the following conditions:

The final amendment and Letter to Credit Unions provided LICUs with additional flexibility to participate in the ECIP without being subject to the terms of the current rule.

The current rule restricts the maturity of Subordinated Debt Notes to a minimum of five years and a maximum of 20 years. In alignment with this maximum maturity, the current rule also terminates Grandfathered Secondary Capital's inclusion in Regulatory Capital after a maximum of 20 years beginning on the later of the date of issuance or January 1, 2022 (the effective date of the current rule).

As previously noted, under the ECIP, Treasury allowed 30-year subordinated debt instruments. The Supervisory Letter accompanying the Letter to Credit Unions discussed in the previous section of this document stated:

The Supervisory Letter, however, went on to state that after further consideration, the agency was recalibrating its position and permitting LICUs to issue 30-year subordinated debt under the ECIP. In relevant portion, the Supervisory Letter stated the following:

While this change facilitated LICU participation in the ECIP, the agency recognized that there is a distinct mismatch between a 30-year ECIP subordinated debt instrument and the 20-year maximum for inclusion in Regulatory Capital of the same. To address this discrepancy, the NCUA conducted additional research into these issues.

Both the maximum Regulatory Capital treatment for Grandfathered Secondary Capital and the maximum maturity for Subordinated Debt Notes are based on the statutory authority under which a Federal credit union (FCU) issues both instruments. Specifically, an FCU may only issue these instruments under its authority to borrow from any source. Therefore, the agency took precautions in the current rule to ensure that all issuances are in the form of debt. As noted in the January 2020 proposed Subordinated Debt rule, such precautions included imposing a maximum maturity of 20 years on Subordinated Debt Notes. The Board stated it was proposing such requirement “to help ensure the Subordinated Debt is properly characterized as debt rather than equity. Generally, by its nature, debt has a stated maturity, whereas equity does not.”  12

With respect to Grandfathered Secondary Capital, the January 2020 proposed Subordinated Debt rule stated that “the Board believes 20 years would provide a LICU sufficient time to replace Grandfathered Secondary Capital with Subordinated Debt if such LICU seeks continued Regulatory Capital benefits of Subordinated Debt.” The Board also stated that it believed “it is important to strike a balance between transitioning issuers of Grandfathered Secondary Capital to this proposed rule and ensuring that instruments do not indefinitely remain as Grandfathered Secondary Capital.”  13

As the Board received feedback from the credit union industry on the mismatch between ECIP investment maturities allowed and the Regulatory Capital treatment of the same, the NCUA conducted additional research into whether a 20-year maturity was necessary to ensure an FCU was operating squarely within its statutory authority. While the Board continues to believe that a 20-year maturity is an appropriate demarcation point to ensure an FCU is issuing Subordinated Debt under its statutory authority, the agency's additional research has provided grounds to offer additional flexibility in this area. Based on this additional research, the Board proposed the amendments discussed in the next section of this document.

At its September 2022 meeting, the Board issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend the current rule in a variety of ways. 14 First, the Board proposed revisions to § 702.401(b) to permit Grandfathered Secondary Capital to be included in Regulatory Capital for up to 30 years from the later of the date of issuance or January 1, 2022. Second, the Board proposed to remove the maximum maturity limit of 20 years from § 702.404(a)(2). In its place, the Board proposed a requirement that a credit union must provide certain information in its application for preapproval under § 702.408 when applying to issue Subordinated Debt Notes with maturities longer than 20 years. To demonstrate the issuance is debt, the proposal included a new paragraph in § 702.408(b) that requires a credit union applying to issue Subordinated Debt Notes with maturities longer than 20 years to submit, at the discretion of the Appropriate Supervision Office, one or more of the following:

• A written legal opinion from a Qualified Counsel.

• A written opinion from a licensed certified public accountant (CPA).

• An analysis conducted by the credit union or independent third party.

In addition to these substantive changes related to the maturity and Regulatory Capital treatment of issuances, the Board also proposed several minor changes to make the current rule clearer, more user-friendly, and aligned with current agency practices. First, the Board proposed to amend the definition of “Qualified Counsel” to clarify where such person(s) must be licensed to practice law by removing the phrase “in the relevant jurisdiction(s)” from the definition of “Qualified Counsel.” Second, the Board proposed to amend §§ 702.408(b)(7) and 702.409(b)(2) to remove the statement of cash flow from the Pro Forma Financial Statements requirement and replace it with a requirement for “cash flow projections.” Third, the Board proposed to amend the section of the current rule addressing the filing of documents and inspection of documents by removing the phrase “inspection of documents” from the titling of this section and replacing the current requirement that a credit union submit all applicable documents via the NCUA's website with a requirement that a credit union make all submissions directly to the Appropriate Supervision Office. Finally, the Board proposed to revise § 702.414(c) by removing “(“discounted secondary capital” re-categorized as Subordinated Debt)” from the description of Grandfathered Secondary Capital that may be redeemed by a credit union. This revision is consistent with recent changes to the NCUA Call Report.

For the reasons stated in the proposed rule and in consideration of the public comments received on the same, as discussed in the next section of this document, the Board is finalizing the proposed changes without further amendment.

The NCUA received 21 comments following publication of the proposed rule. Two of the commenters supported the rule as written and two commenters opposed the rule in its entirety. The remaining 17 commenters supported the proposed changes but recommended additional changes that are outside the scope of this rulemaking.

Two commenters expressly opposed the proposed changes and, more generally, the current rule in its entirety. Specific to the proposed rule, both commenters opposed the change that would permit credit unions to issue Subordinated Debt Notes with maturities greater than 20 years. Specifically, one commenter stated that “by extending their maximum maturity, these instruments become more like `equity-like.' [sic] Even by the NCUA's own admission, the fixed stated maturity is a factor in determining whether an instrument may be considered debt or equity with a general rule being that the shorter the maturity date, the more the instrument resembles debt.” The other commenter further stated the following:

This commenter went on to recommend that the Board should require credit unions to submit a written legal opinion from Qualified Counsel and a written opinion from a licensed CPA to the Appropriate Supervision Office before issuing Subordinated Debt. Conversely, this commenter suggested that the Board should only allow maturities over 20 years for issuances to the U.S. Government. This commenter supported its argument by stating that “[d]etermining whether an instrument constitutes debt or equity is not a simple matter, particularly when evaluating notes with long maturities.” This commenter went on to state:

Finally, this commenter cited the following case to support its position that credit union Subordinated Debt is already equity-like under the current rule:

The Board, however, recognizes that a fixed stated maturity date is but one factor in a debt versus equity analysis and, as noted by the U.S. Supreme Court, “[t]here is no one characteristic . . . which can be said to be decisive in the determination of whether obligations are risk investments in the corporations or debt.”  19 Considering the factors mentioned above, the Board proposed to provide Issuing Credit Unions with additional flexibility on this requirement and remove the fixed maximum maturity limit.

In its place, the Board proposed a requirement that a credit union must provide certain information in its application for preapproval under § 702.408 when applying to issue Subordinated Debt Notes with maturities longer than 20 years. To demonstrate the issuance is debt, the proposal included a new paragraph in § 702.408(b) that requires a credit union applying to issue Subordinated Debt Notes with maturities longer than 20 years to submit, at the discretion of the Appropriate Supervision Office, one or more of the following:

• A written legal opinion from Qualified Counsel.

• A written opinion from a licensed CPA.

• An analysis conducted by the credit union or independent third party.

In the proposal the Board articulated that the amount and type of information required to satisfy this requirement would be at the discretion of the Appropriate Supervision Office, but this determination would be based on the overall structure of the issuance, including the fixed stated maturity and any other information requested by the Appropriate Supervision Office. 20 The Board reiterates that the overall structure of the issuance and the proposed maturity of the Subordinated Debt Notes will dictate what information is sufficient to demonstrate that the proposed issuance would be considered debt and not equity. Therefore, in many cases an analysis by the credit union may not be sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the rule. As such, the proposal and this final rule are designed to guard against the assertions made by the commenters.

Further, in response to these two comments, the Board reiterates that FCUs only have the statutory authority to issue debt. As such, the current rule contains, in addition to the maturity restriction, several provisions designed to ensure issuances are debt and not equity. For example, the current rule requires that a Subordinated Debt Note must:

• Be in the form of a written, unconditional promise to pay on a specified date a sum certain in money in return for adequate consideration in money.

• Be properly characterized as debt in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).

• Not provide the holder thereof with any management or voting rights in the Issuing Credit Union. 21

In addition, each application to issue Subordinated Debt must go through a thorough vetting process by the Appropriate Supervision Office, and, if warranted, the Office of General Counsel.

Finally, the Board notes that the cases cited by the commenters present different circumstances than are created under the current rule. For example, one commenter cited United States v. Snyder Brothers Company for the proposition that “20-year debentures that were subordinated to all other indebtedness of the issuer and where there was no limitation as to payment of dividends or provision for any sinking fund or reserve did not constitute `indebtedness,' despite the intention of the issuer.” The Board points out, however, that unlike the notes in the Snyder Brothers case, credit unions are required to repay the note at maturity and interest payments when due, unless the credit union is subject to certain restrictions under the NCUA's Prompt Corrective rules. 22 This is in stark contrast to the following discussion in the Snyder Brothers case:

Further, it should be noted that, in the Snyder Brothers case the holders of the debentures were the sole shareholders of the corporation who received the debentures when they transferred the assets of the partnership to that corporation, which they had created. While the Board appreciates the discussion in the Snyder Brothers case, the debentures and circumstances of that case are quite different from the Subordinated Debt Notes issued by credit unions and the circumstances under which they are offered.

For the reasons set out above, the Board disagrees with the commenters' assertions that the proposed change would allow FCUs to operate outside of their statutory authority.

As noted earlier in this document, 17 commenters supported the proposed changes but offered comments on other aspects of the rule. As these comments are outside the scope of this rulemaking, the Board is not addressing them here. Rather, the Board will retain these comments for use in any future proposals to amend the current rule.

For the reasons articulated in this document and in the proposed rule, the Board is finalizing the proposed amendments without change.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) applies to rulemakings in which an agency creates new or amends existing information collection requirements. 24 For purposes of the PRA, an information collection requirement may take the form of a reporting, recordkeeping, or a third-party disclosure requirement. The NCUA may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to an information collection, unless it displays a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The current information collection requirements for Subordinated Debt are approved under OMB control number 3133-0207.

This rule removes the maximum maturity of Subordinated Debt Notes of 20 years and replaces it with a requirement that a credit union seeking to issue Subordinated Debt Notes with maturities longer than 20 years provide additional information as part of its application prescribed under new § 702.408(b)(15). This reporting requirement is estimated to impact two credit unions applying to issue Subordinated Debt for an additional 20 hours per response, an increase of 40 burden hours annually. The following shows the total PRA estimate for the entire Subordinated Debt rule, inclusive of the additions referenced in the preceding sentence:

OMB Control Number: 3133-0207.

Title of information collection: Subordinated Debt, 12 CFR part 702, subpart D.

Estimated number respondents: 3,300.

Estimated number of responses per respondent: 1.12.

Estimated total annual responses: 3,705.

Estimated total annual burden hours per response: 1.54.

Estimated total annual burden hours: 5,702.

The NCUA did not receive any comments on the proposed PRA burden estimate. In accordance with the PRA, the information collection requirements included in this final rule have been submitted to OMB for approval under control number 3133-0207.

Executive Order 13132 encourages independent regulatory agencies to consider the impact of their actions on state and local interests. The NCUA, an independent regulatory agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), voluntarily complies with the Executive order to adhere to fundamental federalism principles.

This final rule will not have a 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. The final rule affects only a small number of state-chartered LICUs with approved secondary capital applications for issuances to the U.S. Government or its subdivisions. This final rule extends the Regulatory Capital treatment for Grandfathered Secondary Capital, eliminates the maximum maturity for Subordinated Debt, and makes two minor clarifying changes. The final rule does not impose any new significant burden on credit unions and may ease some existing requirements. The NCUA has therefore determined that this final rule does not constitute a policy that has federalism implications for purposes of the Executive order.

The NCUA has determined that this final rule would not affect family well-being within the meaning of section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998).

The Regulatory Flexibility Act  25 requires the NCUA to prepare an analysis to describe any significant economic impact a regulation may have on a substantial number of small entities (defined as credit unions with under $100 million in assets). 26 This final rule extends the Regulatory Capital treatment for Grandfathered Secondary Capital eliminates the maximum maturity for Subordinated Debt, and makes several minor clarifying changes. As such, this final rule would not impose any new significant burden on credit unions and may ease some existing requirements. In addition, based on the NCUA's PRA estimates (shown elsewhere in this document), the NCUA estimates that any additional burden will only effect two credit unions per year. Accordingly, the NCUA certifies that this final rule would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small credit unions.

The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121) (SBREFA) generally provides for congressional review of agency rules. 27 A reporting requirement is triggered in instances where the NCUA issues a final rule as defined by Section 551 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). 28 The NCUA does not believe this rule is a “major rule” within the meaning of the relevant sections of SBREFA. As required by SBREFA, the NCUA will submit this final rule to the Office of Management and Budget for it to determine if the final rule is a “major rule” for purposes of SBREFA. The NCUA also will file all appropriate Congressional reports.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the NCUA Board is amending 12 CFR part 702 as follows:

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Boeing Model 737-8 and 737-9 airplanes, and certain Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on October 5, 2022 (87 FR 60347). The NPRM was prompted by reports of damage to the auxiliary power unit (APU) fuel line shroud located aft of the aft cargo area; investigation revealed that the placement of the pressure switch wire clamp assembly and its fastener allowed interference of the fastener against the APU fuel line shroud. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require inspecting the APU fuel line shroud for damage, inspecting the pressure switch wire clamp for correct bolt orientation and horizontal distance from the APU fuel line shroud, and applicable on-condition actions. The FAA is issuing this AD to address interference of the fastener against the APU fuel line shroud, possibly resulting in a damaged APU fuel line shroud and consequent failure of the APU fuel hose, which could result in a flammable fluid leak in an ignition zone.

The FAA received a comment from The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), who supported the NPRM without change.

The FAA received a comment from Aviation Partners Boeing (APB), who has reviewed the NPRM and determined that the incorporation of STC ST00830SE for installation of blended or split scimitar winglets on Boeing 737NG airplanes does not affect compliance with the mandated actions in the proposed rule. APB supported the NPRM without change.

The FAA received additional comments from Erick Leon, Delta Air Lines (DAL), Southwest Airlines (SWA), Boeing, and American Airlines (AAL). The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Eric Leon requested that the procedure for installing the wire clamp should be updated to prevent the fuel line shroud from being damaged. The commenter noted that APU manufacturers should be required to make necessary corrections on the installation requirements for APU fuel line shroud. Lastly, the commenter stated that it would be important to understand what regulations are doing to ensure installation requirements meet minimum safety requirements set by the FAA.

The FAA does not agree with the requested change by the commenter. As discussed in the NPRM, incorrect installation of the fastener of the pressure switch wire clamp allowed interference of the fastener against the APU fuel line shroud. This installation activity occurred as part of airplane production, and is not an area intended to be covered by the APU manufacturer's design or installation instructions. To address this issue, the Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletins mandated by this AD require an inspection to determine the orientation of the fastener installed for the pressure switch wire clamp. If the fastener is not installed correctly, it must be reinstalled according to the procedures provided by the Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletins. Correct installation of the fastener will eliminate the potential of the fastener contacting the APU fuel line shroud and prevent occurrences of damage to the APU fuel line shroud. Furthermore, the correct installation specified in the Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletins complies with applicable regulations and therefore meets the minimum FAA safety requirements. The FAA has not changed this AD in response to this comment.

DAL, AAL, and Boeing asked to revise the AD to require new revisions of service information that Boeing is currently drafting. Boeing noted that they are drafting revisions to Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-38A1072 RB, dated February 25, 2022, and Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-38A1073 RB, dated February 25, 2022, to address the condition of a missing clamp. As an alternative, AAL asked the FAA to consider allowing “later approved revisions” of the service information.

The FAA acknowledges the commenters' concerns regarding the procedures in the service information involving a potential missing clamp. In light of the critical nature of the identified unsafe condition, the FAA does not consider it appropriate to delay this final rule until new service information is available. Revisions of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletins 737-38A1072 RB and 737-38A1073 RB have not been submitted to the FAA for review and approval. Therefore, the FAA is unable to mandate those revisions as requested. Furthermore, we disagree to add a provision to the AD to allow the use of “later approved revisions” of the Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletins. The FAA can only mandate a published document since the mandated document becomes part of the AD as it is incorporated by reference. Therefore, we are unable to mandate a “later revision” that does not exist at the time of AD publication. The FAA has not changed this AD in response to this comment.

DAL requested to provide allowances for on-wing repairs of damage to the APU fuel line shroud. DAL noted that any crack or hole found on the APU fuel line shroud or any damage which exposes bare metal on the APU fuel line shroud exceeding the blend-out limits requires replacing the existing shroud with a new or repaired shroud. DAL explained that the action of removing and re-installing the shroud represents a significant maintenance burden, estimated at up to 300 labor hours as noted in the Costs of Compliance/On-Condition Costs of the NPRM. DAL noted that they are aware of on-wing repair actions for similar damage on other aircraft models, which would alleviate the need for shroud removal, potentially reducing repair labor hours to approximately 20 labor hours.

The FAA does not agree with the requested change by DAL. The FAA is unable to provide allowances for on-wing repairs of the damaged APU fuel line shroud since such repair procedures are not provided in the service information mandated by this AD. However, if an alternative procedure is available that would provide an acceptable level of safety, such a procedure can be requested for FAA approval through the provisions of paragraph (i) of this AD. The FAA has not changed this AD in response to this comment.

DAL's review of parts availability from information on MyBoeingFleet Part Page shows zero stock of MPN 346A2201-26 APU Fuel Line Shroud as of October 5, 2022, with one part expected to be available by June 25, 2023. The subject MPN 346A2201-26 is applicable to approximately 100 DAL 737-900ER aircraft. DAL stated lack of availability of this part could severely hamper their ability to comply with this AD in the time period proposed.

According to DAL, Boeing has advised DAL that they have what they believe to be an adequate number of MPN 346A2201-26 shrouds available, however these are under allocation control by Boeing. This condition minimizes an operator's ability to effectively plan for proper contingencies should a shroud require replacement as the operator will have to delay repair actions while awaiting Boeing to release and ship the part to the operator potentially delaying aircraft return to service. DAL stated that if an AD will mandate this action, parts must be available to accomplish the requirements under paragraph (g) of the proposed AD.

The FAA agrees to provide clarification. When the FAA assesses unsafe conditions and establishes compliance times for ADs, the agency accounts for the practical aspects associated with compliance, including parts availability. As indicated by the commenter, the manufacturer considers that parts availability will be adequate. Similarly, the FAA has not been informed of a potential shortage of necessary parts. Therefore, the FAA considers that the compliance time of three years is adequate for operators to acquire the necessary parts and accomplish the actions required by this AD. The FAA has not changed this AD in response to this comment.

DAL requested to include an inspection for clamp presence as the first action rather than current ACTION 1, mandated per paragraph (g)(1) of the proposed AD under Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-38A1072 RB, dated February 25, 2022. If the clamp is not installed, DAL requests a requirement to install the clamp prior to any work being performed. DAL also stated that Figure 2, sheet 3 of 4 of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-38A1072 RB, dated February 25, 2022, should have a provision to inspect for the missing clamp prior to any work being performed. DAL suggested an additional paragraph be added to inspect for the missing clamp. DAL stated that if the final rule continues to require accomplishment of the Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin rather than the forthcoming revision, ACTION 1 to establish inspection within 3 inches of the clamp cannot be accomplished if clamp is not present. Therefore, an inspection for the presence of the clamp must be done first. Then, installation of the clamp and the inspection included in ACTION 1 can be performed.

The FAA does not agree with the requested changes by DAL. As stated previously, in light of the critical nature of the identified unsafe condition, the FAA does not consider it appropriate to delay this final rule until new service information is available. In addition, a pressure switch wire clamp should be present at the location specified in the service information mandated by the AD in order for an airplane to conform to the type design. We have not received any reports from the manufacturer regarding airplanes delivered with a missing pressure switch wire clamp. Also, we have not received any reports regarding the potential of the pressure switch wire clamp failing in service. Therefore, we consider that the instructions provided in the service information are adequate to address the unsafe condition. If an operator discovers an airplane with a missing pressure switch wire clamp during the accomplishment of the service information, we recommend that the operator inform the manufacturer of that condition. Operators may also request an Alternative Method of Compliance (AMOC) using the provisions in paragraph (i) of this AD if necessary. The FAA has not changed this AD in response to this comment.

DAL requested to clarify the AMM reference in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-38A1072 RB, dated February 25, 2022, Part 2 for APU Fuel line shroud removal/installation to indicate the MAIN APU fuel line shroud. DAL stated the AMM 28-25-05 has two shroud removal procedures—MAIN and AFT. In AMM 28-25-05/401, step 1.C notes that the APU shroud is divided into 2 parts with the main shroud being the one between the center tank and the pressure bulkhead, which is the subject of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-38A1072 RB, dated February 25, 2022, and the NPRM.

The FAA agrees that the AMM reference should be clarified to reflect the intent of the AD, which is to replace the Main APU fuel line shroud only. However, the procedures in the Boeing Alert Service Bulletin (SB) that refer to AMM 28-25-05 are not required for compliance with this AD, and therefore those procedures are not provided in the Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin (RB). As stated in Note 1 to paragraph (g)(1) and Note 2 to paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, the Boeing Alert Service Bulletins (SB) provide guidance for accomplishing the actions required by this AD. The FAA has not changed this AD in response to this comment.

DAL stated that Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-38A1072 RB, dated February 25, 2022, Part 3, step 1.a. includes verbiage to ensure the damage is smoothed out and should not exceed 2 inches in length. DAL suggested an additional paragraph be provided to instruct operators to replace the existing shroud should the smoothing process require more than 2 inches. For Part 3, step 1.a., DAL stated there is no guidance should the smoothing be longer than 2 inches.

Additionally, DAL stated that Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-38A1072 RB, dated February 25, 2022, Part 3, step 1.b. indicates to not remove more than 0.018 inches of metal from the wall thickness. For Part 3, step 1.b., DAL stated there is no guidance should more than 0.018 inches of metal be removed.

The FAA does not agree with the requested changes by DAL. Although additional clarification as suggested by the commenter may be beneficial to operators, the FAA considers that the specific steps in the Requirements Bulletin (RB) are adequate to address the unsafe condition. Part 3 of the Service Bulletin (SB) provides one acceptable method of compliance. Part 3 of the SB provides an option to repair damage to the existing APU fuel line shroud. If the blend surface exceeds 2 inches, or if more than 0.018 inch of metal is removed from the wall thickness, the conditions required by Part 3 cannot be met, and therefore this option should not be taken. In this case, the FAA recommends the operator to follow the option provided by Part 2, which is to replace the APU fuel line shroud with a new or repaired shroud. As we clarified previously, the procedures identified by the commenter are not part of the Requirements Bulletin, and therefore are not required by this AD. Those procedures are provided in the Service Bulletin as guidance for accomplishing the actions required by this AD. The FAA has not changed this AD in response to this comment.

SWA stated the “Action” column of Table 1 in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-38A1072 RB, dated February 25, 2022, and Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-38A1073 RB, dated February 25, 2022, specifies “Replace existing APU fuel line shroud with new or repaired shroud.” For Condition 1, Condition 2 (Option 2), and Condition 3, SWA requested clarification regarding the use of an APU fuel line shroud which is not “new or repaired,” but is otherwise in serviceable condition. We infer SWA requested that the FAA allow an option to use serviceable parts.

The FAA agrees with the requested change by SWA. The service instructions should allow for serviceable parts, not just “new or repaired” shrouds. This AD allows the installation of a “serviceable” APU fuel line shroud. A “serviceable” APU fuel line shroud is defined as an APU fuel line shroud that has been maintained using methods acceptable to the FAA and identified by the FAA as airworthy. The FAA has added paragraphs (h)(3) and (4) to this AD to include this information.

Boeing requested to clarify the location of the APU fuel line shroud damage. Boeing proposed to revise paragraph (e) of the NPRM to change the statement from: “This AD was prompted by reports of damage to the auxiliary power unit (APU) fuel line shroud located in the aft cargo area” to: “This AD was prompted by reports of damage to the auxiliary power unit (APU) fuel line shroud located aft of the aft cargo area.” This will more precisely describe the location of the APU fuel line shroud damage that was found.

The FAA agrees with the requested change by Boeing because it better describes the location of the APU fuel line shroud. The FAA has changed the SUMMARY , Background, and paragraph (e) of this AD as requested.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, and any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletins 737-38A1072 RB and 737-38A1073 RB, both dated February 25, 2022. This service information specifies procedures for a general visual inspection of the APU fuel line shroud in the area within 3 inches of the fastener of the pressure switch wire clamp for any damage (any crack or hole, any damage that exposes bare metal on the APU fuel line shroud, and any dent damage found that decreases the outside diameter of the shroud by more than 0.031 inch); a detailed inspection of the pressure switch wire clamp to determine if the fastener of the pressure switch wire clamp is installed with the bolt head on top and the nut on the bottom, and that there is a minimum 1.5 inches of horizontal separation between the fastener of the pressure switch wire clamp and the APU fuel line shroud, and applicable on-condition actions. On-condition actions include replacing the existing APU fuel line shroud with a new or repaired shroud; repairing any damage to the APU fuel line shroud; reinstalling the fastener of the pressure switch wire clamp with the bolt head on top and the nut on the bottom; and reinstalling the pressure switch wire clamp assembly to make sure there is 1.5 inches minimum of horizontal separation between the fastener of the pressure switch wire clamp and the APU fuel line shroud. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane minor models. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in ADDRESSES .

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 1,919 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary repairs, replacements, or re-installations that would be required based on the results of the inspection. The agency has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these repairs, replacements, or re-installations:

The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some or all of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators.

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:

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company Model 747-400, -400D, and -400F series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on November 4, 2022 (87 FR 66615). The NPRM was prompted by the FAA's analysis of the fuel system reviews on Model 747-400, -400D, and -400F series airplanes conducted by the manufacturer, and by the determination that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations.

The FAA received comments from the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), Boeing, and an individual, who supported the NPRM without change.

The FAA received an additional comment from Delta Air Lines, Inc. (Delta). The following presents the comment received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to the comment.

Delta requested that the FAA allow operators the option to incorporate Section B, Airworthiness Limitations—Systems, of Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), of Boeing 747-400 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, D621U400-9, dated April 2022, in lieu of the September 2021 revision specified in the NPRM. Delta stated that allowing operators the option to incorporate this latest MPD will provide an opportunity to ensure the most current information is incorporated into their maintenance program and avoid the potential for additional alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs) in the immediate future when the final rule is published.

The FAA agrees with the request for the reasons stated above. The FAA has revised the reference to Section B, Airworthiness Limitations—Systems, of Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), of Boeing 747-400 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, D621U400-9, in paragraph (g) of this AD from “September 2021” to “April 2022.” The FAA reviewed this revision and determined it does not require additional work or impose any substantive changes to the actions proposed in the NPRM.

The FAA has also added paragraph (k) of this AD to provide credit for operators who have revised the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, before the effective date of this AD, to incorporate the information specified in Section B, Airworthiness Limitations—Systems, of Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), of Boeing 747-400 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, D621U400-9, dated September 2021. This change imposes no additional burden on operators who are required to comply with this AD.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, and any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

The FAA reviewed Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), of Boeing 747-400 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, D621U400-9, dated April 2022. This service information specifies airworthiness limitations for fuel tank systems. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in ADDRESSES .

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 119 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 FAA 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:

The FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include Docket No. FAA-2023-0440 and Project Identifier AD-2023-00245-T at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the final rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this final rule because of those comments.

Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this final rule.

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this AD contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this AD, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Samuel Dorsey, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-231-3415; email: Samuel.j.dorsey@faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA receives that is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

The FAA has received a report indicating that during a pre-flight check, the flightcrew discovered a bolt protruding through a drain hole at the bottom of the engine inlet near the EAI exhaust vent. Boeing determined that some of the fasteners for EAI exhaust ducts were installed at the factory with inadequate torque due to the use of a prohibited yoke-style torque wrench adapter at a significant angle. When used at a sufficiently large angle, which is expected due to the restricted access in the area of the EAI exhaust duct, this adapter will produce a significant under-torque of the installed fasteners. Inadequately-torqued fasteners may loosen over time due to engine vibration, eventually causing the fastener to drop into the inlet inner barrel.

The EAI system injects high-temperature bleed air from the engine into the interior of the inlet lip to prevent the formation of icing on the exterior of the inlet lip. This EAI exhaust air then exits the rear of the inlet lip through the EAI exhaust duct, which passes through the inlet inner barrel prior to exhausting air overboard. The composite construction of the inlet inner barrel structure is susceptible to heat damage at the temperatures of the EAI exhaust air should a leak occur.

These inadequately torqued (loose or missing) fasteners for the EAI exhaust duct could allow EAI exhaust air to escape from the EAI exhaust duct via two scenarios. In the first scenario, the loose or missing fasteners allow the EAI exhaust duct to vibrate excessively, which, when combined with the redistribution of structural loads onto the other fasteners, may lead to fatigue cracking of the EAI exhaust duct. This fatigue cracking would ultimately progress to a rupture of the EAI exhaust duct. In the second scenario, the loose or missing fasteners may allow EAI exhaust air to escape from a limited location. This escaping air may impinge directly on the inner barrel structure, depending on which specific fasteners are loose or missing. In both scenarios, EAI exhaust air enters the inlet inner barrel causing heat damage, which will compromise the structural integrity of the inlet, eventually leading to inlet failure and separation under normal flight loads.

Failure and separation of the inlet will lead to failure of the corresponding engine due to airflow disruption and ingestion of debris, and likely to failure and separation of the associated fan cowl. Damage to the engine and engine nacelle could result in a loss of engine thrust, increased nacelle drag, and disruption of airflow over the wing, which may excessively reduce the controllability and climb performance of the airplane; and damage from debris departing the engine and nacelle, which could impact the fuselage and empennage, could result in personal injury to passengers and loss of control of the airplane.

The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

The FAA is issuing this AD because the agency has determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

The FAA reviewed Boeing Service Letter 737-SL-71-081-A, Revision A, dated March 3, 2023. (Attachments I and II of this document are dated March 2, 2023.) The service information specifies procedures for an inspection to determine the serial number of each engine inlet, and if any affected engine inlet is found, an inspection of the EAI exhaust duct fasteners to determine the gap spacing and if all fasteners are installed, applicable related investigative and corrective actions, and part-marking the engine inlet. Related investigative actions include an inspection of the fasteners for proper torque, general visual and high frequency eddy current inspections of the EAI exhaust duct flange and fastener holes for cracking, and visual inspections of the inner barrel for thermal exposure ( i.e., heat damage). Corrective actions include re-torque of fasteners, repairing or replacing EAI exhaust ducts, repairing thermal exposure, and replacing the engine inlet. This service information 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.

This AD requires accomplishing the actions identified as “(RC)” (required for compliance) in the Work Instructions of Boeing Service Letter 737-SL-71-081-A, Revision A, dated March 3, 2023, described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between this AD and the Service Information,” and except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD.

For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-0440.

Boeing Service Letter 737-SL-71-081-A, Revision A, dated March 3, 2023, specifies that the actions must be done on all airplanes. However, airplanes produced after a certain production line number were verified to have properly torqued EAI exhaust duct fasteners. Therefore, paragraph (g) of this AD only applies to airplanes with an original airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before the effective date of the AD. The parts installation limitation specified in paragraph (i) of this AD applies to all airplanes.

Boeing Service Letter 737-SL-71-081-A, Revision A, dated March 3, 2023, includes an inspection to verify the serial number of the inlet. This AD also allows a review of airplane maintenance records in lieu of the inspection to verify the serial number of the inlet if the serial number of the inlet can be conclusively determined from that review.

The FAA considers this AD to be an interim action. The FAA is investigating if design changes may be needed to prevent a future common-cause failure of the EAI exhaust duct. If final action is later identified, the FAA might consider further rulemaking then.

Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. ) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment procedures for rules when the agency, for “good cause,” finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under this section, an agency, upon finding good cause, may issue a final rule without providing notice and seeking comment prior to issuance. Further, section 553(d) of the APA authorizes agencies to make rules effective in less than thirty days, upon a finding of good cause.

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies forgoing notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because loose or missing fasteners for the EAI exhaust duct might allow EAI exhaust air to enter the inlet interior causing heat damage, which could compromise the structural integrity of the inlet, eventually leading to inlet failure and separation under normal flight loads. Failure and separation of the inlet will lead to failure of the corresponding engine due to airflow disruption and ingestion of debris and likely failure and separation of the associated fan cowl. Damage to the engine and engine nacelle could result in a loss of engine thrust, increased nacelle drag, and disruption of airflow over the wing which may excessively reduce the controllability and climb performance of the airplane; and damage from debris departing the engine and nacelle, which could impact the fuselage and empennage, could result in personal injury to passengers and loss of control of the airplane. Accordingly, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).

In addition, the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days, for the same reasons the FAA found good cause to forgo notice and comment.

The requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) do not apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt a rule without prior notice and comment. Because the FAA has determined that it has good cause to adopt this rule without notice and comment, RFA analysis is not required.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 330 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would modify the ATS route structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA-2022-1395 in the Federal Register (87 FR 71266; November 22, 2022), amending Jet Routes J-10, J-84, J-100, J-128, J-144, and J-197, VOR Federal airways V-172 and V-380, and RNAV route T-288; and revoking VOR Federal airway V-219 due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Wolbach VORTAC NAVAID.

Subsequent to the NPRM publication, the FAA determined one route point listed in the RNAV route T-288 description could be removed without affecting the route's structure or alignment. The FESNT, NE, waypoint (WP) in the T-288 description does not denote a route turn point, does not have established holding requirements, and is not required due to PBN leg length maximum allowable distances being exceeded; therefore, it is not required in the description. This rule removes the FESNT, WP route point from the description of T-288 between the Ainsworth, NE, VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) and the ISTIQ, NE, WP route points.

Jet Routes are published in paragraph 2004, VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a), and United States Area Navigation Routes (T-routes) are published in paragraph 6011 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022. FAA Order JO 7400.11G is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11.

FAA Order JO 7400.11G lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by amending Jet Routes J-10, J-84, J-100, J-128, J-144, and J-197, VOR Federal airways V-172 and V-380, and RNAV route T-288; and revoking VOR Federal airway V-219 due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Wolbach, NE, VORTAC. The ATS route actions are described below.

J-10: J-10 extends between the Los Angeles, CA, VORTAC and the Iowa City, IA, VOR/DME. The route segment overlying the Wolbach VORTAC between the North Platte, NE, VOR/DME and the Des Moines, IA, VORTAC is removed. As amended, the route extends between the Los Angeles VORTAC and the North Platte VOR/DME, and between the Des Moines VORTAC and the Iowa City VOR/DME.

J-84: J-84 extends between the Oakland, CA, VOR/DME and the Danville, IL, VORTAC. The route segment overlying the Wolbach VORTAC between the Sidney, NE, VOR/DME and the Dubuque, IA, VORTAC is removed. As amended, the route extends between the Oakland VOR/DME and the Sidney VOR/DME, and between the Dubuque VORTAC and the Danville VORTAC.

J-100: J-100 extends between the Los Angeles, CA, VORTAC and the Northbrook, IL, VORTAC. The route segment overlying the Wolbach VORTAC between the Sidney, NE, VOR/DME and the Dubuque, IA, VORTAC is removed. As amended, the route extends between the Los Angeles VORTAC and the Sidney VOR/DME, and between the Dubuque VORTAC and the Northbrook VORTAC.

J-128: J-128 extends between the Los Angeles, CA, VORTAC and the Northbrook, IL, VORTAC. The route segment overlying the Wolbach VORTAC between the Hayes Center, NE, VORTAC and the Dubuque, IA, VORTAC is removed. As amended, the route extends between the Los Angeles VORTAC and the Hayes Center VORTAC, and between the Dubuque VORTAC and the Northbrook VORTAC.

J-144: J-144 extends between the Wolbach, NE, VORTAC and the Dubuque, IA, VORTAC. The route segment overlying the Wolbach VORTAC between the Wolbach VORTAC and the Des Moines, IA, VORTAC is removed. As amended, the route extends between the Des Moines VORTAC and the Dubuque VORTAC.

J-197: J-197 extends between the Dove Creek, CO, VORTAC and the Sioux Falls, SD, VORTAC. The route segment overlying the Wolbach VORTAC between the Goodland, KS, VORTAC and Sioux Falls, SD, VORTAC is removed. As amended, the route extends between the Dove Creek VORTAC and the Goodland VORTAC.

V-172: V-172 extends between the North Platte, NE, VOR/DME and the DuPage, IL, VOR/DME. The airway segment overlying the Wolbach VORTAC between the North Platte, NE, VOR/DME and the Columbus, NE, VOR/DME is removed. As amended, the airway extends between the Columbus VOR/DME and the DuPage VOR/DME.

V-219: V-219 extends between the Hayes Center, NE, VORTAC and the Norfolk, NE, VOR/DME. The airway is removed in its entirety.

V-380: V-380 extends between the O'Neill, NE, VORTAC and the Mankato, KS, VORTAC. The airspace within the O'Neill Military Operations Area (MOA) is excluded when the MOA is activated by Notice to Air Missions (NOTAM). The airway segment overlying the Wolbach VORTAC between the O'Neill, NE, VORTAC and the Grand Island, NE, VOR/DME, and the airway exclusion is removed. As amended, the airway extends between the Grand Island VOR/DME and the Mankato VORTAC.

T-288: T-288 currently extends between the Gillette, WY, VOR/DME and the Wolbach, NE, VORTAC. The Wolbach VORTAC route point is replaced by the ISTIQ, NE, WP located 3 nautical miles northwest of the Wolbach VORTAC on RNAV route T-413. Additionally, the Rapid City, SD, VORTAC latitude/longitude geographic coordinates are updated to match the FAA's National Airspace System Resource database information. As amended, the route extends between the Gillette VOR/DME and the ISTIQ, WP.

All NAVAID radials listed in the ATS route descriptions below are unchanged and stated in degrees True north.

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. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this action of amending Jet Routes J-10, J-84, J-100, J-128, J-144, and J-197, VOR Federal airways V-172 and V-380, and RNAV route T-288; and revoking VOR Federal airway V-219, due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Wolbach, NE, VORTAC NAVAID, qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points); paragraph 5-6.5(b), which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review actions regarding establishment of jet routes and Federal airways (see 14 CFR 71.15, Designation of jet routes and VOR Federal airways); operation of civil aircraft in a defense area, or to, within, or out of the United States through a designated Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) (14 CFR part 99, Security Control of Air Traffic); authorizations for operation of moored balloons, moored kites, amateur rockets, and unmanned free balloons (see 14 CFR part 101, Moored Balloons, Kites, Amateur Rockets and Unmanned Free Balloons); and, authorizations of parachute jumping and inspection of parachute equipment (see 14 CFR part 105, Parachute Operations); paragraph 5-6.5i, which categorically excludes from further environment impact review the establishment of new or revised air traffic control procedures conducted at 3,000 feet or more above ground level (AGL); procedures conducted below 3,000 feet AGL that do not cause traffic to be routinely routed over noise sensitive areas; modifications to currently approved procedures conducted below 3,000 feet AGL that do not significantly increase noise over noise sensitive areas; and increases in minimum altitudes and landing minima. For modifications to air traffic procedures at or above 3,000 feet AGL, the Noise Screening Tool (NST) or other FAA-approved environmental screening methodology should be applied; and paragraph 5-6.5k, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review the publication of existing air traffic control procedures that do not essentially change existing tracks, create new tracks, change altitude, or change concentration of aircraft on these tracks. As such, this action is not expected to result in any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis. The FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact study.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would modify the ATS route structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA-2022-1424 in the Federal Register (87 FR 72904; November 28, 2022), amending VOR Federal airways V-268 and V-474, revoking Jet Route J-518 and VOR Federal airway V-119, and establishing Area Navigation (RNAV) route Q-178 due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Indian Head, PA, VORTAC NAVAID. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. No comments were received.

In the NPRM, the FAA erroneously stated that, although the VOR portion of the Indian Head VORTAC was planned for decommissioning, the co-located Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) would be retained. Instead, the co-located Tactical Air Navigation (TACAN) is being retained to provide navigational service for military operations and DME service in support of current and future Next Generation Air Transportation System Performance Based Navigation procedures. This does not affect the changes to the airways in this rule.

Jet Routes are published in paragraph 2004, United States Area Navigation Routes (Q-routes) are published in paragraph 2006, and VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022. FAA Order JO 7400.11G is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11.

FAA Order JO 7400.11G lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by amending VOR Federal airways V-268 and V-474, revoking Jet Route J-518 and VOR Federal airway V-119, and establishing RNAV route Q-178. The Air Traffic Service (ATS) route amendments, revocations, and establishment are required due to the planned decommissioning of the Indian Head, PA, VOR and are described below.

J-518: J-518 extends between the Dryer, OH, VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) and the Baltimore, MD, VORTAC via the Indian Head, PA, VORTAC. The route is removed in its entirety.

Q-178: Q-178 is a new RNAV route extending between the Dryer, OH, VOR/DME and the Baltimore, MD, VORTAC via the LEJOY, PA, Fix located approximately 4 nautical miles (NM) northwest of the Indian Head VORTAC. The new Q-178 provides the high altitude enroute structure necessary to replace the loss of J-518 and maintain the connectivity to multiple instrument approach procedures for various airports.

V-119: V-119 extends between the Parkersburg, WV, VOR/DME and the Indian Head, PA, VORTAC. The airway is removed in its entirety.

V-268: V-268 extends between the intersection of the Morgantown, WV, VOR/DME 010° and Johnstown, PA, VOR/DME 260° radials (NESTO Fix) and the Augusta, ME, VOR/DME. The airspace within restricted area R-4001B and the airspace below 2,000 feet mean sea level (MSL) outside the United States is excluded. The airway segment overlying the Indian Head VORTAC between the NESTO Fix and the Hagerstown, MD, VOR is removed. As amended, the airway extends between the Hagerstown VOR and the Augusta VOR/DME. The exclusionary language remains unchanged.

V-474: V-474 extends between the intersection of the Morgantown, WV, VOR/DME 010° and Johnstown, PA, VOR/DME 260° radials (NESTO Fix) and the Modena, PA, VORTAC. The airway segment overlying the Indian Head VORTAC between the NESTO Fix and the St. Thomas, PA, VORTAC is removed. As amended, the airway extends between the St. Thomas VORTAC and the Modena VORTAC.

The NAVAID radials listed in the ATS route descriptions below are unchanged and stated in degrees True north.

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. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this action of amending VOR Federal airways V-268 and V-474, revoking Jet Route J-518 and VOR Federal airway V-119, and establishing RNAV route Q-178, due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Indian Head, PA, VORTAC NAVAID, qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points); and paragraph 5-6.5k, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review the publication of existing air traffic control procedures that do not essentially change existing tracks, create new tracks, change altitude, or change concentration of aircraft on these tracks. As such, this action is not expected to result in any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis. The FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact study.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as modifies the ATS route structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA-2022-1399 in the Federal Register (87 FR 72426, November 25, 2022), amending VOR Federal airways V-126, V-156, V-233, and V-422, and revoking VOR Federal airways V-340 and V-371 due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Knox, IN, VOR/DME NAVAID. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. No comments were received.

Subsequent to the NPRM, the FAA published a rule for Docket No. FAA-2022-1107 in the Federal Register (88 FR 4081, January 24, 2023), amending VOR Federal airway V-156 by removing the airway segment between the Gipper, MI, VOR/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) and the Kalamazoo, MI, VOR/DME. That airway amendment, effective April 20, 2023, is included in this rule.

Additionally, subsequent to the NPRM, the FAA published a rule for Docket No. FAA-2022-1113 in the Federal Register (88 FR 2504 January 17, 2023), amending VOR Federal airway V-233 by removing the airway segment between the Goshen, IN, VORTAC and the Litchfield, MI, VOR/DME. That airway amendment, effective April 20, 2023, is included in this rule.

VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022. FAA Order JO 7400.11G is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11.

FAA Order JO 7400.11G lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by amending VOR Federal airways V-126, V-156, V-233, and V-422, and revoking VOR Federal airways V-340 and V-371 due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Knox, IN, VOR/DME. The VOR Federal airway actions are described below.

V-126: V-126 extends between the intersection of the Peotone, IL, VORTAC 053° and Knox, IN, VOR/DME 297° radials (BEARZ Fix) and the intersection of the Goshen, IN, VORTAC 092° and Fort Wayne, IN, VORTAC 016° radials (ILTON Fix). The airway segment between the BEARZ Fix and the Goshen, IN, VORTAC is removed. As amended, the airway extends between the Goshen VORTAC and the intersection of the Goshen VORTAC 092° and the Fort Wayne VORTAC 016° radials (ILTON Fix).

V-156: V-156 extends between the Cedar Rapids, IA, VOR/DME and the Gipper, MI, VORTAC. The airway segment between the Peotone, IL, VORTAC and the Gipper, MI, VORTAC is removed. As amended, the airway extends between the Cedar Rapids VOR/DME and the Peotone VORTAC.

V-233: V-233 extends between the Spinner, IL, VORTAC and the Goshen, IN, VORTAC; and between the Mount Pleasant, MI, VOR/DME and the Pellston, MI, VORTAC. The airway segment between the Roberts, IL, VOR/DME and the Goshen, IN, VORTAC is removed. As amended, the airway extends between the Spinner VORTAC and the Roberts VOR/DME and between the Mount Pleasant VOR/DME and the Pellston VORTAC.

V-340: V-340 extends between the intersection of the Peotone, IL, VORTAC 053° and Knox, IN, VOR/DME 297° radials (BEARZ Fix) and the Fort Wayne, IN, VORTAC. The airway is removed in its entirety.

V-371: V-371 extends between the Boiler, IN, VORTAC and the Knox, IN, VOR/DME. The airway is removed in its entirety.

V-422: V-422 extends between the intersection of the DuPage, IL, VOR/DME 101° and Chicago Heights, IL, VORTAC 358° radials (NILES Fix) and the Flag City, OH, VORTAC. The airway segment between the NILES Fix and the Webster Lake, IN, VOR is removed. As amended, the airway extends between the Webster Lake VOR and the Flag City VORTAC.

The NAVAID radials listed in the VOR Federal airway descriptions below are unchanged and stated in degrees True north.

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. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this action of amending VOR Federal airways V-126, V-156, V-233, and V-422, and revoking VOR Federal airways V-340 and V-371, due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Knox, IN, VOR/DME NAVAID, qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points); and paragraph 5-6.5k, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review the publication of existing air traffic control procedures that do not essentially change existing tracks, create new tracks, change altitude, or change concentration of aircraft on these tracks. As such, this action is not expected to result in any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis. The FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact study.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would modify the ATS route structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA-2022-1436 in the Federal Register (87 FR 80095; December 29, 2022), amending VOR Federal airways V-50, V-52, V-63, and V-586, and revoking VOR Federal airway V-582 due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Quincy, IL, VORTAC NAVAID. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. No comments were received.

In the NPRM, the FAA erroneously stated that, although the VOR portion of the Quincy, IL, VORTAC was planned for decommissioning, the co-located Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) would be retained. Instead, the co-located Tactical Air Navigation (TACAN) is being retained to provide navigational service for military operations and DME service in support of current and future Next Generation Air Transportation System Performance Based Navigation procedures. This does not affect the changes to the airways in this rule.

VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022. FAA Order JO 7400.11G is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11.

FAA Order JO 7400.11G lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by amending VOR Federal airways V-50, V-52, V-63, and V-586, and revoking VOR Federal airway V-582 due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Quincy, IL, VORTAC. The airway actions are described below.

V-50: V-50 extends between the St Joseph, MO, VORTAC and the Dayton, OH, VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME). The airway segment overlying the Quincy VORTAC between the Kirksville, MO, VORTAC and the Spinner, IL, VORTAC is removed. As amended, the airway extends between the St Joseph VORTAC and the Kirksville VORTAC and between the Spinner VORTAC and the Dayton VOR/DME.

V-52: V-52 extends between the Des Moines, IA, VORTAC and the Pocket City, IN, VORTAC. The airway segment overlying the Quincy VORTAC between the Ottumwa, IA, VOR/DME and the St Louis, MO, VORTAC is removed. As amended, the airway extends between the Des Moines VORTAC and the Ottumwa VOR/DME and between the St Louis VORTAC and the Pocket City VORTAC.

V-63: V-63 extends between the Razorback, AR, VORTAC and the Davenport, IA, VORTAC; between the Janesville, WI, VOR/DME and the Oshkosh, WI, VORTAC; and between the Rhinelander, WI, VOR/DME and the Houghton, MI, VOR/DME. The airspace at and above 10,000 feet mean sea level (MSL) from 5 nautical miles (NM) north to 46 NM north of Quincy, IL, is excluded when the Howard West Military Operations Area (MOA) is active. The airway segment overlying the Quincy VORTAC between the Hallsville, MO, VORTAC and the Burlington, IL, VOR/DME is removed. The airspace exclusion language addressing the Howard West MOA activations is also removed as the amended airway no longer overlaps the Howard West MOA. As amended, the airway extends between the Razorback VORTAC and the Hallsville VORTAC, between the Burlington VOR/DME and the Davenport VORTAC, between the Janesville VOR/DME and the Oshkosh VORTAC, and between the Rhinelander VOR/DME and the Houghton VOR/DME.

V-582: V-582 extends between the St. Louis, MO, VORTAC and the Quincy, IL, VORTAC. The airway is removed in its entirety.

V-586: V-586 extends between the Quincy, IL, VORTAC and the Joliet, IL, VOR/DME. The airway segment overlying the Quincy VORTAC between the Quincy, IL, VORTAC and the Peoria, IL, VORTAC is removed. As amended, the airway extends between the Peoria VORTAC and the Joliet VOR/DME.

The NAVAID radials listed in the VOR Federal airway V-52 description below are unchanged and stated in degrees True north.

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. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this action of amending VOR Federal airways V-50, V-52, V-63, and V-586, and revoking VOR Federal airway V-582, due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Quincy, IL, VORTAC NAVAID, qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points); and paragraph 5-6.5k, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review the publication of existing air traffic control procedures that do not essentially change existing tracks, create new tracks, change altitude, or change concentration of aircraft on these tracks. As such, this action is not expected to result in any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis. The FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact study.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority, as it establishes and amends airspace in Dallas, GA, to support IFR operations in the area.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA-2022-1505 in the Federal Register (87 FR 74332, December 5, 2022), to establish Class E surface airspace for Paulding Northwest Atlanta Airport, Dallas, GA, to accommodate aircraft landing and departing this airport, as well as amending Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to accommodate RNAV GPS standard instrument approach procedures (SIAPs) serving this airport.

Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraphs 6002 and 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022. FAA Order JO 7400.11G is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11.

FAA Order JO 7400.11G lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic routes, and reporting points.

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by establishing Class E airspace surface airspace for Paulding Northwest Atlanta Airport (formerly Paulding County Regional Airport), Dallas, GA, as the airport now qualifies for surface airspace, and amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface by increasing the airport radius from 6.5-miles to 7.0-miles and updating the airport's name. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations in the area.

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 Department of Transportation (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 minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant the preparation of an environmental assessment.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

The New York Terminal Radar Approach Control facility (N90) provides ATC services to overhead flights in the North East corridor and to the New York airports—JFK, LGA, and EWR. The airspace complexity resulting from the close proximity of the major commercial airports serving the New York City region is a significant contributing factor to delays at JFK, LGA, and EWR. Against this already challenging backdrop, according to FAA data, nationwide Certified Professional Controller (CPC) staffing averages 81 percent while N90 is maintained at about 54 percent of its CPC staffing target. FAA acknowledges that temporary safety mitigations put in place in response to the COVID-19 pandemic impacted controller training. Dedicated training initiatives have been successful in reducing most of the training backlog with the exception of N90. The staffing shortfalls at N90 limit the FAA's ability to provide expeditious services to aircraft operators and their passengers that traverse this airspace.

During the period of May 2022 through September 2022, the total number of instances of delay to operations from JFK, LGA, and EWR totaled 41,498, with effects throughout the NAS and for which staffing was a contributing factor. Notwithstanding FAA's efforts to address N90 CPC staffing, the staffing rate for N90 has not improved and at the same time early carrier schedules indicate an increase in operations. This being the case, for summer 2023 the FAA expects increased delays in the New York region over summer 2022. Specifically, ATO modeling indicates operations at the New York airports is projected to increase by seven (7) percent, which FAA projects will result in overall delays increasing by 45 percent. 1 These projections are consistent with the 50 percent increase in the number of ground delay programs (GDPs) observed in January and February 2023 compared to the same months in 2022 at the same airports. 2 The FAA is progressing towards a solution to the N90 staffing issues, based on moving responsibility for the Newark, New Jersey radar sector from N90 to the Philadelphia TRACON (PHL). Training for this sector move is slated to begin in September of this year and will take time to complete for cutover of responsibilities to PHL. Accordingly, this solution will not resolve the anticipated operational impacts in the summer 2023 scheduling season.

At JFK and LGA, each slot must be used at least 80 percent of the time. 3 Slots not meeting the minimum usage requirements will be withdrawn. The FAA may waive the 80 percent usage requirement in the event of a highly unusual and unpredictable condition that is beyond the control of the slot-holding air carrier and which affects carrier operations for a period of five consecutive days or more. 4

At DCA, any slot not used at least 80 percent of the time over a two-month period will also be recalled by the FAA. 5 The FAA may waive this minimum usage requirement in the event of a highly unusual and unpredictable condition that is beyond the control of the slot-holding carrier and which exists for a period of nine or more days. 6

When deciding historical rights to allocated slots, including whether to grant a waiver of the usage requirement, the FAA seeks to ensure the efficient use of valuable aviation infrastructure and maximize the benefits to both airport users and the traveling public. This minimum usage requirement is expected to accommodate routine cancellations under all but the most unusual circumstances. Carriers proceed at risk if they decide slot usage in anticipation of the FAA granting a slot usage waiver.

Due to the amount of connecting flights in the New York region as well as the interdependency and complexity of the airspace surrounding EWR, JFK and LGA, delays caused by N90 staffing shortfalls could have significant impacts in the upcoming Summer traffic season. Absent increased flexibility, there exists a high probability congestion and delay at JFK, LGA, and EWR during significant NAS impact days ( e.g., holiday travel spike, adverse weather) could be exacerbated by N90 staffing shortfalls.

Typically, cancellations due to ATC staffing delays are accounted for by the 20 percent non-utilization allowed under the minimum usage requirement; however, due to the extent of N90 staffing shortfalls and the increase in scheduled operations, the effects of N90 staffing shortfalls are a highly unusual and unpredictable condition beyond the control of carriers that will impact operations through the summer 2023 scheduling season. A waiver of minimum slot usage requirements at JFK and LGA, and a similar policy of prioritizing returned operations at EWR, is necessary to allow carriers to reduce operations to enable scheduling and operational stability during significant NAS impact days through the summer 2023 season. A reduction in the operational volume at the New York airports would also aid in reducing the severity of significant NAS impact days.

In addition, because New York-DCA is a high frequency market for multiple carriers, the FAA recognizes this market is a likely target for carriers to consolidate flights while retaining their network connectivity. If carriers choose to reduce their schedules in the New York-DCA market, the FAA encourages carriers to utilize their DCA slots to operate to other destinations, to the extent that is practical. However, if carriers are unable to utilize their DCA slots elsewhere, it would be necessary to provide relief to DCA slots that are impacted by the reduction in operations at the New York airports.

Finally, carriers should be aware that the N90 staffing shortfalls will not form a sufficient basis for relief going forward because carriers will have had sufficient opportunity to plan and take remedial action under this waiver policy. The FAA does not foresee providing additional post-hoc relief associated with ATC staffing given the extraordinary relief provided here. Given this relief, operational impacts associated with N90 staffing during the summer 2023 scheduling season will not have been beyond the carriers control and will not serve as a valid basis for a waiver.

The FAA has determined the post-pandemic effects on N90 staffing meets the applicable waiver standards and warrants a limited waiver of minimum slot usage requirements at JFK and LGA to allow carriers to return up to 10 percent of their slots at each airport voluntarily as well as impacted operations between DCA and the New York airports. In addition, the FAA has determined the post-pandemic effects on N90 staffing warrants a limited policy for prioritizing returned operations at EWR to allow carriers to return 10 percent of their approved operating timings voluntarily, for purposes of establishing a carrier's operational baseline in the next corresponding season. Carriers wishing to return their slots and approved operating timings voluntarily must do so before April 30, 2023 to be eligible for this waiver. If carriers participating in this limited waiver at EWR subsequently operate unapproved flights at that airport, those carriers will forfeit their scheduling preference to an equal number of returned approved operating timings chosen at the FAA's discretion for the subsequent equivalent traffic season. Additionally, any other relief from minimum slot usage requirements or standard level 2 processes already in effect at JFK, LGA, or EWR will factor into the 10 percent of allowable returns. In other words, any returns made under a relief policy already in effect when this notice is published will count towards the carrier's 10 percent of allowable returns. Further, the FAA encourages carriers to up-gauge aircraft serving the affected airports to the extent possible to maintain passenger throughput and minimally impact consumers.

The FAA will not reallocate the returned slots or approved operating timings at JFK, LGA, or EWR, as the goal is to reduce the volume of operations in the New York region. Carriers are encouraged to utilize their DCA slots in other markets before returning them to the FAA. In the event DCA slots are returned under this waiver, other carriers will have an opportunity to operate the slots on an ad hoc basis without historic precedence to serve markets other than New York.

The FAA will treat as used the specific slots returned in accordance with the conditions in this document for the period from May 15, 2023, through September 15, 2023. The relief is subject to the following conditions:

1. The specific slots and approved operating timings must be returned to the FAA before April 30, 2023.

2. This waiver applies only to slots that have corresponding, scheduled operations during the period of the grant. A carrier temporarily returning a slot to FAA for relief under this waiver must identify corresponding scheduled operation. FAA may validate information against published schedule data as of March 14, 2023, and other operational data maintained by FAA. Slots returned without an associated scheduled and cancelled operation will not receive relief.

3. Slots or approved operating timings newly allocated for initial use before October 28, 2023, are not eligible for relief.

4. Slots authorized at DCA by Department of Transportation or FAA exemptions are not eligible for relief.

The Horseracing Integrity & Safety Act, 1 enacted on December 27, 2020, and amended on December 29, 2022, directs the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the activities of a private, self-regulatory organization called the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority.

The Act, in subsection 15 U.S.C. 3052(f), sets forth certain requirements for the Authority's budget. On the revenue side, as for initial funding, the Authority is to obtain loans, 2 and generally it “may borrow funds toward the funding of its operations.”  3 After the program effective date of July 1, 2022, the Authority performs an annual calculation of the “amount required” from each State in which covered horseracing takes place, which estimates the amount required from each State “to fund the State's proportionate share of the horseracing anti-doping and medication control program and the racetrack safety program for the next calendar year” and “to liquidate the State's proportionate share of any loan or funding shortfall.”  4 The amount required by each State is calculated under the Assessment Methodology rule  5 and must be “based on,” among other things, “the annual budget of the Authority for the following calendar year.”  6

On the expenditure side of the budget, the Act provides that the “initial budget” requires approval by a two-thirds supermajority of the Authority's Board of Directors, as does any “subsequent budget that exceeds the budget of the preceding calendar year by more than 5 percent.”  7 The Act has two more relevant provisions: “A proposed increase in the amount required under this subparagraph”—in other words, the Authority's budget—“shall be reported to the Commission.”  8 And: “The Commission shall publish in the Federal Register such a proposed increase and provide an opportunity for public comment.”  9

The Act does not specify whether the Authority's proposed budget takes effect upon the closing of the public-comment period or whether the Commission is to consider the public comments and then decide whether to approve or disapprove the Authority's proposed budget. On the one hand, the Authority's budget is not listed among the eleven enumerated items in 15 U.S.C. 3053(a) that “shall not take effect unless . . . approved by the Commission.”  10 On the other hand, what the Authority submits (in the event of an increase in the amount required) is a “ proposed increase,” which implies that a Commission decision to approve or disapprove the proposal will follow. 11 Although the Act does not identify criteria by which the Commission should evaluate the Authority's proposed budget, in December 2022 Congress conferred on the Commission the power to issue rules “as the Commission finds necessary or appropriate to ensure the fair administration of the Authority . . . or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of this Act.”  12

The Commission hereby exercises this newly granted rulemaking authority to clarify the Commission's role in approving and overseeing the Authority's budget, as well as the public's role in providing comment, and to set forth clear requirements as to the Authority's budget. Specifically, the Commission adds a new subpart U to part 1 of its Rules of Practice, to provide procedures for the Commission's oversight of the Authority's budget. 13

Section 1.150 provides for the Authority's proposed annual budget to use the calendar year as its fiscal year and to be submitted to the Commission by September 1 of the preceding year. The submission of the proposed budget is required regardless of whether the Authority's budget contains a “proposed increase in the amount required” as compared to the previous year. 14 The Commission believes that its oversight of the Authority's budget is best performed consistently rather than only when the amount required increases. In short, annual rather than less-frequent budget oversight is a baseline requirement “to ensure the fair administration of the Authority.”  15 The Authority's submission must contain: an indication of the vote of its Board of Directors; sufficient revenue and expenditure information, broken out by line item, as would be required for members of the Board of Directors to exercise their fiduciary duty of care; and a comparison of the current year's actual revenues and expenditures with those that were approved. The submission should address the Commission's budget approval decision criteria: that the proposed budget serves the goals of the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act in a prudent and cost-effective manner, utilizing commercially reasonable terms with all outside vendors, and that its anticipated revenues are sufficient to meet its anticipated expenditures. If the Commission determines that the proposed budget as submitted satisfies the requirements, the Commission will publish the proposed budget in the Federal Register for 14 days of public comment.

In addition, and notwithstanding the September 1 deadline for submission of the Authority's next year's budget to the Commission, § 1.150 requires the Authority to post its anticipated budget for the following year as early as is practicable in the preceding year. The Authority's posting of its planned next year's budget shall include an invitation to the public to submit comments to the Authority concerning any aspect of the planned annual budget. The Authority is required to post those public comments as they arrive on its website and to review the comments in order to ascertain whether to revise the budget in any manner. Further, § 1.150 requires the Authority to promptly provide the public comments that it receives to the Commission, together with an assessment of such public comments that the Authority believes would assist the Commission's evaluation of the planned budget.

Section 1.151 provides that the Authority's proposed budget takes effect only if approved by the Commission. This provision mirrors others in the Act that require proposals made by the Authority, such as for rules and rule modifications, to receive Commission approval before they take effect. For ease of administration and to account for the time the Commission may take to render a decision on the proposed budget, the Authority is permitted to conditionally collect fees, and State racing commissions (and covered persons in States that do not elect to remit fees) are permitted to pay, based on the annual budget as approved by the Authority's Board of Directors.

The criteria by which the Commission will decide whether to approve or disapprove the Authority's proposed budget are in § 1.151(c), which provides that the Commission will approve the proposed budget if the Commission determines, on balance, the proposed budget serves the goals of the Act in a prudent and cost-effective manner, utilizing commercially reasonable terms with all outside vendors, and anticipated revenues are sufficient to meet its anticipated expenditures. With respect to revenues and expenditures, the Commission may also modify any line item. The Commission will publish the Authority's proposed budget in the Federal Register for 14 days of public comment. Public comments are welcomed as to both whether the submission satisfies the Commission's decisional criteria and whether the Commission should modify any line items.

Section 1.152 sets forth what happens in circumstances in which actual revenues or expenditures deviate from those approved in the annual budget. When the Authority determines that, for a given expenditure's line item, the actual expenditure is likely to exceed the approved expenditure by more than 10 percent, it must immediately notify the Commission. Such a notice must indicate whether the Authority proposes to repurpose money from the line item of another expenditure to make up the difference for the expenditure whose likely actual amount will exceed the approved amount. So, too, when the Authority determines that its overall expenditures will exceed its approved expenditures, it must immediately notify the Commission. Such a notice must indicate the means by which the Authority intends to make up the difference, such as obtaining loans. For both overall-expenditure and line-item deviations, the Commission retains the right to disapprove the proposed repurposing or means of making up the difference, which it must do within seven business days of receiving the Authority's notice. If the Commission takes no action, the Authority's proposal takes effect as an amendment to its budget.

Because these rules relate solely to agency procedure and practice, publication for notice and comment is not required under the Administrative Procedure Act. 5 U.S.C. 553(b). 16

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Federal Trade Commission amends title 16, chapter I, subchapter A of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

FDA is amending 21 CFR part 312 to update the name of an office, its physical address, and instructions for sending certifications via email. Publication of this document constitutes final action on the changes under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553). FDA has determined that notice and public comment are unnecessary because this amendment to the regulations provides only technical changes to update organizational information.

Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 312 is amended as follows:

This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available on OFAC's website: www.treas.gov/ofac.

On February 3, 2010, OFAC issued the Belarus Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 548 (75 FR 5502, February 3, 2010) (the “Regulations”), to implement Executive Order (E.O.) 13405 of June 16, 2006, “Blocking Property of Certain Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Belarus” (71 FR 35485, June 20, 2006), pursuant to authorities delegated to the Secretary of the Treasury in E.O. 13405. OFAC subsequently amended the Regulations twice. OFAC is amending and reissuing the Regulations to implement E.O. 14038 of August 9, 2021, “Blocking Property of Additional Persons Contributing to the Situation in Belarus” (86 FR 43905, August 11, 2021). In addition, this rule incorporates one directive issued pursuant to E.O. 14038. Due to the number of regulatory sections being updated or added, OFAC is reissuing the Regulations in their entirety.

E.O. 14038. On August 9, 2021, the President, invoking the authority of, inter alia, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq. ) (IEEPA), issued E.O. 14038. In E.O. 14038, the President expanded the scope of the national emergency declared in E.O. 13405, finding that the Belarusian regime's harmful activities and long-standing abuses aimed at suppressing democracy and the exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms in Belarus—including illicit and oppressive activities stemming from the August 9, 2020, fraudulent Belarusian presidential election and its aftermath, such as the elimination of political opposition and civil society organizations and the regime's disruption and endangering of international civil air travel—constituted an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.

Section 1 of E.O. 14038 blocks, with certain exceptions, all property and interests in property that are in the United States, that come within the United States, or that are or come within the possession or control of any United States person of any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State to: (i) be or have been a leader, official, senior executive officer, or member of the board of directors of: (A) an entity that has, or whose members have, engaged in any of the activities described in section 1(a)(v) of E.O. 14038 or sections 1(a)(ii)(A)-(C) of E.O. 13405; or (B) an entity whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 14038 or E.O. 13405; (ii) be a political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality of the Government of Belarus; (iii) be or have been a leader or official of the Government of Belarus; (iv) operate or have operated in the defense and related materiel sector, security sector, energy sector, potassium chloride (potash) sector, tobacco products sector, construction sector, or transportation sector of the economy of Belarus, or any other sector of the Belarus economy as may be determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of the State; (v) be responsible for or complicit in, or to have directly or indirectly engaged or attempted to engage in, any of the following: (A) actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, stability or territorial integrity of Belarus; (B) actions or policies that prohibit, limit, or penalize the exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms (including freedoms of expression, peaceful assembly, association, religion or belief, and movement) by individuals in Belarus, or that limit access to the internet or print, online, or broadcast media in Belarus; (C) electoral fraud or other actions or policies that undermined the electoral process in a Republic of Belarus election; (D) deceptive or structured transactions or dealings to circumvent any United States sanctions by or for or on behalf of, or for the benefit of, directly or indirectly, the Government of Belarus or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 14038 or E.O. 13405; or (E) public corruption related to Belarus; (vi) have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, any activity described in section (a)(v) of E.O. 14038 or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 14038; or (vii) be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, the Government of Belarus or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 14038. The property and interests in property of the persons described above may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in.

Section 2 of E.O. 14038 provides that the prohibitions on any transaction or dealing in blocked property or interests in property include the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 14038, and the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.

In section 3 of E.O. 14038, the President determined that the making of donations of the type of articles specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 14038 would seriously impair the President's ability to deal with the national emergency declared in E.O. 13405 and expanded in E.O. 14038. The President therefore prohibited the donation of such items except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, rulings, instructions, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued.

Directive 1 issued pursuant to E.O. 14038. Section 1(a)(ii) of E.O. 14038 blocks all property and interests in property of any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of the State, to be a political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality of the Government of Belarus. Pursuant to this provision, on December 2, 2021, the Acting Director of OFAC, in consultation with the Secretary of the State, issued Directive 1 and determined that the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Belarus and the Development Bank of the Republic of Belarus are political subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities of the Government of Belarus, and prohibited the following activities by U.S. persons or within the United States: all transactions in, provision of financing for, and other dealings in new debt with a maturity of greater than 90 days issued on or after December 2, 2021 by the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Belarus or the Development Bank of the Republic of Belarus. Additionally, Directive 1 prohibits: (1) any transaction that evades or avoids, or has the purposes of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions contained in Directive 1; and (2) any conspiracy formed to violate any prohibitions of Directive 1.

OFAC is amending and reissuing the Regulations to incorporate and implement E.O. 14038 and make updates throughout the Regulations. In particular, in subpart B of the Regulations, OFAC is incorporating the new designation criteria provided in E.O. 14038 as well as Directive 1 to E.O. 14038.

In subpart C of the Regulations, OFAC is updating existing definitions and adding eleven new definitions for key terms used in E.O. 14038, Directive 1 pursuant to E.O. 14038, and throughout the Regulations. In addition, OFAC is alphabetizing and renumbering the definitions in subpart C.

In subpart D of the Regulations, OFAC is updating § 548.405 to conform with current OFAC interpretations and guidance regarding prohibitions related to the provision and receipt of services. In subpart E of the Regulations, OFAC is updating § 548.502 to conform with current OFAC statements of licensing policy, updating § 548.507 to remove the requirement that payment for legal services be specifically licensed, and renumbering the general licenses at §§ 548.508 through 548.512 as §§ 548.509 through 548.513. OFAC is adding new § 548.508, which authorizes payment for legal services from funds originating outside the United States. OFAC is updating the renumbered § 548.509 to remove the requirement that payment for emergency medical services be specifically licensed. OFAC is also adding § 548.514 to incorporate Belarus General License 3, which authorizes certain transactions with the State Security Committee of the Republic of Belarus and was previously issued on OFAC's website on June 21, 2021 and will be removed upon publication of this rule.

In subpart G of the Regulations, OFAC is adding § 548.705, which describes Findings of Violation. In subpart H of the Regulations, OFAC is amending the delegation at § 548.802 to add the delegation of certain authorities with respect to E.O. 14038.

Because the Regulations involve a foreign affairs function, the provisions of E.O. 12866 of September 30, 1993, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), and the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation, and delay in effective date are inapplicable. Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this rule, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) does not apply.

The collections of information related to the Regulations are contained in 31 CFR part 501 (the “Reporting, Procedures and Penalties Regulations”). Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), those collections of information have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1505-0164. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid control number.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, OFAC revises 31 CFR part 548 to read as follows:

The Coast Guard will enforce safety zones found in 33 CFR 165.1315 for the events specified below, during the designated enforcement periods, and within a 450-yard radius of the launch site and the listed locations. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during these events.

Our regulation for fireworks displays within the Thirteenth Coast Guard District designates the regulated areas and identifies the approximate dates for these events. The specific dates and times are specified below. During the enforcement periods, as reflected in § 165.1315, persons and vessels are prohibited from being in the regulated areas unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Columbia River or a designated representative. These safety zones are subject to enforcement at least 1 hour prior to the start and 1 hour after the conclusion of the events.

In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard will provide notification of these enforcement periods via the Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast notice to mariners.

In response to a request by the United States Air Force (USAF), Pacific Air Command (PACAF), and pursuant to its authorities in Section 7 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1917 (40 Stat. 266; 33 U.S.C. 1) and Chapter XIX of the Army Appropriations Act of 1919 (40 Stat. 892; 33 U.S.C. 3), the Corps of Engineers (Corps) is amending its restricted area regulations to establish a permanent restricted area in the navigable waters of Knik Arm adjacent to JBER, Alaska. The restricted area will allow the USAF PACAF 673rd Air Base Wing to prevent all vessels and individuals from entering the explosive arc area of the Six Mile MSA at JBER at all times, except for authorized vessels and individuals engaged in support of military training and management activities. This restricted area will be in place as a precautionary measure to protect the public from entering or being within the explosive arc during an inadvertent detonation, and encountering hazardous noise and fragments from such a detonation.

The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on July 13, 2022 (87 FR 41637). The regulations.gov docket number was COE-2022-0005. Concurrently, a local public notice for the proposed restricted area was sent out from the Alaska District. No comments were received in response to the proposed rule.

a. Regulatory Planning and Review. This final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011) and it was not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review.

b. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This rule has been reviewed under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354). The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities ( i.e., small businesses and small governments). The restricted area is located in Knik Arm, adjacent to JBER, within the explosive arc area of the Six Mile MSA and the restricted area is necessary to protect public safety. Small entities can continue to utilize navigable waters outside of the restricted area. After considering the economic impacts of this restricted area regulation on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

c. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act. An environmental assessment (EA) has been prepared for the establishment of this restricted area. The Corps has concluded that the establishment of the restricted area will not have a significant impact to the quality of the human environment and, therefore, preparation of an EIS is not required. The final EA and Finding of No Significant Impact may be reviewed at the Alaska District Office, 2204 3rd Street, JBER, Alaska 99506.

d. Unfunded Mandates Act. This rule does not impose an enforceable duty among the private sector and, therefore, it is not a federal private sector mandate and it is not subject to the requirements of either Section 202 or Section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act. We have also found that under Section 203 of the Act, small governments will not be significantly and uniquely affected by this rulemaking.

e. Congressional Review Act. The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, including a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The Corps will submit a report containing the final rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This final rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Corps amends 33 CFR part 334 as follows:

On August 3, 2020, the USPTO published a final rule in the Federal Register that included a new fee set forth in § 1.16(u) with an effective date of January 1, 2022. See Setting and Adjusting Patent Fees in Fiscal Year 2020, 85 FR 46932. As specified in § 1.16(u), the fee is due for any application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 for an original patent—except design, plant, or provisional applications—where the specification, claims, and/or abstract do not conform to the USPTO requirements for submission in the DOCX format. Therefore, the fee is due for nonprovisional utility applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111, including continuing applications, that are not filed in the DOCX format.

The USPTO conducted two pilot programs for filing applications in the DOCX format. The eMod Text Pilot Program was conducted between August 2016 and September 2017. The USPTO then expanded the ability to file patent applications in the DOCX format in EFS-Web to all users in September 2017. In 2018, the USPTO launched the Patent Center and conducted the Patent Center Text Pilot Program from June 2018 through April 2020. All applicants have been able to file applications in the DOCX format in the Patent Center since April 2020. Information about the Patent Center is available at www.uspto.gov/PatentCenter. The USPTO continues to hold many discussions and training sessions with stakeholders to ensure a fair and reasonable transition to the DOCX format.

The USPTO is delaying the effective date of the fee set forth in § 1.16(u) until June 30, 2023. The further delay will give applicants more time to adjust to filing patent applications in the DOCX format.

Applicants are strongly encouraged to begin filing patent applications in the DOCX format before the new effective date of the fee. Applicants are also reminded that they can file test submissions through the Patent Center training mode to practice filing in DOCX. Applicants who have not yet taken advantage of the DOCX training sessions hosted by the USPTO are strongly encouraged to do so. Information on filing application documents in DOCX and a link to the DOCX training sessions are available at www.uspto.gov/patents/docx.

A. Administrative Procedure Act: This final rule revises the effective date of a final rule published on August 3, 2020 implementing a non-DOCX filing surcharge fee, and is a rule of agency practice and procedure pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). See JEM Broad. Co. v. F.C.C., 22 F.3d 32 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (“[T]he `critical feature' of the procedural exception [in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A)] `is that it covers agency actions that do not themselves alter the rights or interests of parties, although [they] may alter the manner in which the parties present themselves or their viewpoints to the agency.' ” (quoting Batterton v. Marshall, 648 F.2d 694, 707 (D.C. Cir. 1980)); see also Bachow Commc'ns Inc. v. F.C.C., 237 F.3d 683, 690 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (rules governing an application process are procedural under the Administrative Procedure Act); Inova Alexandria Hosp. v. Shalala, 244 F.3d 342, 350 (4th Cir. 2001) (rules for handling appeals were procedural where they did not change the substantive standard for reviewing claims). Prior notice and opportunity for public comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b) or (c) (or any other law). See Cooper Techs. Co. v. Dudas, 536 F.3d 1330, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (stating that 5 U.S.C. 553, and thus 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2)(B), do not require notice and comment rulemaking for “interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice” (quoting 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A))).

Moreover, the Director of the USPTO, pursuant to authority at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), finds good cause to adopt the change to the effective date of § 1.16(u) in this final rule without prior notice and an opportunity for public comment, as such procedures would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The change to the effective date will provide the public an opportunity to more fully comprehend the nature of, and prepare to comply with, the DOCX format before the new fee is effective. Delay of this provision to provide prior notice and comment procedures is also impracticable because it would allow § 1.16(u) to go into effect before the public is ready for the DOCX format. The Director finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness of this rule. Immediate implementation of the delay in effective date of the fee is in the public interest because it will provide the public an opportunity to more fully comprehend the nature of, and prepare to comply with, the DOCX format before the new fee in § 16(u) is effective.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act: As prior notice and an opportunity for public comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, neither a regulatory flexibility analysis nor a certification under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) is required. See 5 U.S.C. 603.

C. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review): This rulemaking has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866 (Sept. 30, 1993).

D. Paperwork Reduction Act: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the USPTO consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. The USPTO has determined that there are no new requirements for information collection associated with this final rule.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Office amends 37 CFR part 1 as follows:

Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” means the EPA.

The background for this action is discussed in detail in our November 7, 2022 proposal. 1 In that document we proposed to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by Colorado which included changes to Regulation 3, Parts A, B, and C. The revisions to Regulation 3, Part A were originally intended to be finalized as an update to the date of IBR from November 29, 2013 to December 11, 2014 of Global Warming Potentials as codified in 40 CFR part 98, subpart A, table A-1. This date of IBR was meant to be added in both sections I.B.10 and I.B.44.b.(i) of Part A. However, it was determined that the final version of Regulation 3, Part A, which was inserted into the CCR, only showed the removal of the November 29, 2013 date without its necessary replacement with the updated date of IBR. The EPA is not able to approve the revised date into the SIP since it was not formally included in Colorado's regulations. Colorado is currently going through its state rulemaking process to add the revised date to section I.B.10 of Part A. Therefore, in order to prevent the deletion of the existing date of IBR without having a replacement date, the EPA will not take final action on the revisions to Regulation 3, Part A, section I.B.10 in this final rule. Further, while the revised date was properly included in the final version of section I.B.44 of Part A that was inserted into the CCR, the EPA will also not take final action on the revisions to section I.B.44 in this final rule in order to prevent conflicting dates of IBR between sections I.B.10 and I.B.44. Once Colorado has submitted revisions showing the revised date in section I.B.10 of Part A as having been formally inserted into the CCR, then the EPA will propose to take action on the revisions that update the dates of IBR in both sections I.B.10 and I.B.44.

In this action, the revisions to Regulation 3, Parts B and D are being finalized as proposed in our November 7, 2022 proposal. In that rule, we proposed to approve those revisions to Regulation 3, Parts B and D because they were prepared in accordance with the requirements in section 110 of the CAA.

The EPA held a 30-day comment period on the proposed rulemaking beginning on November 7, 2022 and closing on December 7, 2022. We received a comment on the proposal from one commenter. Our comment summary and response to the comment is below.

Comment: Commenter stated generally that any grammatical errors in Regulation 3, Part B should be corrected for clarity and offered their support of the digital availability of permit application materials.

Response: We thank the commenter and acknowledge their comments. We are not aware of, nor did the commenter specifically highlight, any grammatical errors in the submitted revisions to Regulation 3, Part B. Moreso, we are not aware of any grammatical errors that would change the meaning or substance of the submitted revisions. Therefore, the EPA is finalizing the proposed revisions to Regulation 3, Part B as proposed.

We are approving revisions to Regulation 3, Parts B, sections III.C, III.C.1.e, III.C.4, and III.D.1 as submitted by the State of Colorado on March 22, 2021. We are also approving revisions to Regulation 3, Part D, sections II.A.11.a(viii), IV, IV.A, IV.A.1, and IV.A.7 submitted by the State of Colorado on March 22, 2021. We are not finalizing approval of revisions to Regulation 3, Part A, sections I.B.10 and I.B.44.b(i) in this action as explained in section I of this preamble. The EPA intends to address Regulation 3, Part A, sections I.B.10 and I.B.44.b(i) in a future and separate rulemaking action.

In this document, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes IBR. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the IBR of Regulation 3, Parts B and D, which include updated references to other sections of the CCR and changes to Regulation 3 to reflect digitalization of public notice and comment procedures, as set forth below in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 8 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA for inclusion in the State implementation plan, have been incorporated by reference by the EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of the EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation. 2

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. );

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. );

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 26, 2023. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 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 may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. Throughout this document the use of “we,” “us,” or “our” is intended to refer to the EPA. We use multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here:

Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is organized as follows:

The source category that is the subject of this final action is surface coating of plastic parts for business machines regulated under CAA section 111 New Source Performance Standards. The 2022 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for the source category is 333310—Commercial and Service Industry Machinery Manufacturing. The NAICS code serves as a guide for readers outlining the type of entities that this final action is likely to affect. The new source performance standards (NSPS) codified in 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTTa, are directly applicable to affected facilities that begin construction, reconstruction, or modification after June 21, 2022, which is the date of publication of the proposed rule in the Federal Register . Final amendments to 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTT, are applicable to affected facilities that begin construction, reconstruction, or modification after January 8, 1986, but that begin construction, reconstruction, or modification no later than June 21, 2022. Federal, state, local, and tribal government entities would not be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria found in 40 CFR part 60, subparts TTT and TTTa, and consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble, your state air pollution control agency with delegated authority for NSPS, or your EPA Regional Office.

In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this final action is available on the internet at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/surface-coating-plastic-parts-business-machines-industrial-surface. Following publication in the Federal Register , the EPA will post the Federal Register version of the final rule and key technical documents at this same website.

Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by May 26, 2023. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the requirements.

Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that “[o]nly an objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment (including any public hearing) may be raised during judicial review.” This section also provides a mechanism for the EPA to convene a proceeding for reconsideration, “[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate to the EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within [the period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for public comment, (but within the time specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.” Any person seeking to make such a demonstration to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Room 3000, WJC West Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.

The EPA's authority for this final rule is CAA section 111, which governs the establishment of standards of performance for stationary sources. Section 111(b)(1)(A) of the CAA requires the EPA Administrator to list categories of stationary sources that in the Administrator's judgment cause or contribute significantly to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. The EPA must then issue performance standards for new (and modified or reconstructed) sources in each source category pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(1)(B). These standards are referred to as new source performance standards, or NSPS. The EPA has the authority to define the scope of the source categories, determine the pollutants for which standards should be developed, set the emission level of the standards, and distinguish among classes, types, and sizes within categories in establishing the standards.

CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) requires the EPA to “at least every 8 years review and, if appropriate, revise” new source performance standards. However, the Administrator need not review any such standard if the “Administrator determines that such review is not appropriate in light of readily available information on the efficacy” of the standard. When conducting a review of an existing performance standard, the EPA has the discretion and authority to add emission limits for pollutants or emission sources not currently regulated for that source category.

In setting or revising a performance standard, CAA section 111(a)(1) provides that performance standards are to reflect “the degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the best system of emission reduction which (taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction and any nonair quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated.” The term “standard of performance” in CAA section 111(a)(1) makes clear that the EPA is to determine both the best system of emission reduction (BSER) for the regulated sources in the source category and the degree of emission limitation achievable through application of the BSER. The EPA must then, under CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), promulgate standards of performance for new sources that reflect that level of stringency. CAA section 111(b)(5) precludes the EPA from prescribing a particular technological system that must be used to comply with a standard of performance. Rather, sources can select any measure or combination of measures that will achieve the standard.

Pursuant to the definition of new source in CAA section 111(a)(2), standards of performance apply to facilities that begin construction, reconstruction, or modification after the date of publication of the proposed standards in the Federal Register . Under CAA section 111(a)(4), “modification” means any physical change in, or change in the method of operation of, a stationary source which increases the amount of any air pollutant emitted by such source or which results in the emission of any air pollutant not previously emitted. Changes to an existing facility that do not result in an increase in emissions are not considered modifications. Under the provisions in 40 CFR 60.15, reconstruction means the replacement of components of an existing facility such that: (1) The fixed capital cost of the new components exceeds 50 percent of the fixed capital cost that would be required to construct a comparable entirely new facility; and (2) it is technologically and economically feasible to meet the applicable standards. Pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), the standards of performance or revisions thereof shall become effective upon promulgation.

As noted in section II.A of this preamble, CAA section 111 requires the EPA, at least every 8 years to review and, if appropriate revise the standards of performance applicable to new, modified, and reconstructed sources. If the EPA revises the standards of performance, they must reflect the degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the BSER considering the cost of achieving such reduction and any nonair quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements. CAA section 111(a)(1).

In reviewing an NSPS to determine whether it is “appropriate” to revise the standards of performance, the EPA evaluates the statutory factors, which may include consideration of the following information:

• Expected growth for the source category, including how many new facilities, reconstructions, and modifications may trigger NSPS in the future.

• Pollution control measures, including advances in control technologies, process operations, design or efficiency improvements, or other systems of emission reduction, that are “adequately demonstrated” in the regulated industry.

• Available information from the implementation and enforcement of current requirements indicates that emission limitations and percent reductions beyond those required by the current standards are achieved in practice.

• Costs (including capital and annual costs) associated with implementation of the available pollution control measures.

• The amount of emission reductions achievable through application of such pollution control measures.

• Any nonair quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements associated with those control measures.

In evaluating whether the cost of a particular system of emission reduction is reasonable, the EPA considers various costs associated with the particular air pollution control measure or a level of control, including capital costs and operating costs, and the emission reductions that the control measure or particular level of control can achieve. The Agency considers these costs in the context of the industry's overall capital expenditures and revenues. The Agency also considers cost-effectiveness analysis as a useful metric, and a means of evaluating whether a given control achieves emission reduction at a reasonable cost. A cost-effectiveness analysis allows comparisons of relative costs and outcomes (effects) of two or more options. In general, cost-effectiveness is a measure of the outcomes produced by resources spent. In the context of air pollution control options, cost effectiveness typically refers to the annualized cost of implementing an air pollution control option divided by the amount of pollutant reductions realized annually.

After the EPA evaluates the statutory factors, the EPA compares the various systems of emission reductions and determines which system is “best,” and therefore represents the BSER. The EPA then establishes a standard of performance that reflects the degree of emission limitation achievable through the implementation of the BSER. In doing this analysis, the EPA can determine whether subcategorization is appropriate based on classes, types, and sizes of sources, and may identify a different BSER and establish different performance standards for each subcategory. The result of the analysis and BSER determination leads to standards of performance that apply to facilities that begin construction, reconstruction, or modification after the date of publication of the proposed standards in the Federal Register . Because the new source performance standards reflect the best system of emission reduction under conditions of proper operation and maintenance, in doing its review, the EPA also evaluates and determines the proper testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements needed to ensure compliance with the emission standards.

The surface coating of plastic parts for business machines was listed as a source category for regulation under section 111 of the CAA in 1986, based on the Administrator's determination that emissions from facilities that surface coat plastic business machine parts cause, or contribute significantly to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. See 51 FR 869 (January 8, 1986). The EPA first promulgated new source performance standards for surface coating of plastic parts for business machines on January 29, 1988 (53 FR 2672) (1988 NSPS). These standards of performance are codified in 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTT, and are applicable to sources that commence construction, modification, or reconstruction after January 8, 1986. These standards of performance regulate VOC emissions from each type of coating used at each spray booth during each nominal 1-month period. Subsequent to promulgation of the NSPS, in 1988, the EPA issued a correction because of an inadvertent inclusion of delegable functions in the list of nondelegable functions in 40 CFR 60.726 (53 FR 19300, May 27, 1988). In 1989, the EPA issued a final rule (54 FR 25458, June 15, 1989) to clarify that electromagnetic interference and radio frequency interference (EMI/RFI) shielding coatings that are applied to the surface of plastic business machine parts to attenuate EMI/RFI signals were exempt from the regulation.

In general, plastic parts are coated to provide color, texture, and protection, improve appearance and durability, attenuate EMI/RFI signals, and conceal mold lines and flaws. Examples of plastic parts specific to the coatings industry sector for the surface coating of plastic parts for business machines include plastic housings for electronic office equipment, such as computers and copy machines, and for medical equipment. 1 Structural foam injection molding and straight injection molding are among predominant forming techniques used to manufacture plastic parts that are used in business machines. The surface coating of plastic parts for business machines may be performed within several industries, including business machine manufacturers, independent plastic molders and coaters, and “coating only” shops. Sources that perform surface coating of plastic parts for business machines include job shops that must accommodate a wide variety of coatings and wide range of part shapes.

In the 1986 NSPS proposal and the 1988 NSPS, the EPA identified the spray booth as the affected facility subject to subpart TTT. In the 1986 proposed NSPS, the EPA explained why the spray booth, a narrow and simple equipment grouping, was selected as the affected facility. 2 The term “spray booth” means the structure housing the spray application equipment and ancillary equipment associated with the enclosure. It includes not only the enclosure and ventilation system for spray coating but also the spray gun(s) and ancillary equipment such as pumps and hoses associated with the enclosure. 3 The 1988 NSPS applies to these sources regardless of production capacity.

As used in the affected facility (spray booth), the types of coatings subject to VOC emission limits in the 1988 NSPS include prime coats, color coats, texture coats, and touch-up coats. The VOC emission sources covered in the 1988 NSPS are: (1) the spray booths; (2) the flash-off areas; and (3) the curing ovens. 4 According to the regulation at 40 CFR 60.722(b), all VOC emissions that are caused by coatings applied in each affected facility, regardless of the actual point of discharge of emissions into the atmosphere, shall be included in determining compliance with the emission limits. Thus, as the EPA explained in the 1988 NSPS, VOC emissions from the flash-off area and oven are covered by the standards on the basis that the coatings application that takes place in the spray booth is the cause of VOC emissions from the flash-off area and oven. 5

Typically, a plastic part is surface coated in a spray booth that houses either automatic or manual spray application equipment (one or more spray guns). After being coated, the part is moved, whether manually or by conveyor, to a flash-off area and then to a curing oven. The purpose of the flash-off area is to allow sufficient time for some portion of the solvents from a newly applied coating to evaporate, sometimes between coats, because the coating may not dry correctly unless it is given the recommended flash time. The flash-off area is usually very large and not enclosed, and indoor VOC concentrations resulting from flash-off are typically reduced by dilution ventilation for worker safety. 6 Whether a batch oven or a conveyor oven, the curing oven applies enough heat to the newly coated part to create a chemical reaction that stabilizes the newly applied coating. For surface coating of plastic parts for business machines, coatings are typically cured at a relatively low temperature, near 60 degrees Celsius (140 degrees Fahrenheit).

Regardless of the type of coating in use at a facility that surface coats plastic parts for business machines, approximately 80 percent of total VOC emissions occur in the spray booth. Most of the solvent-laden air in these facilities comes from the spray booth and flash-off areas, and the concentration of VOC in that air is very low because it must be diluted to protect workers from breathing harmful levels of organic solvents. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has specific requirements for the design and construction of spray booths (see 29 CFR 1910.107(b)) and requires a minimum velocity of air into all openings of a spray booth (see 29 CFR 1910.94(c)(6), table G-10). An induced air flow is maintained in a spray booth not only to keep solvent concentrations at a safe level but also to remove overspray in order to minimize contamination. The VOC from these areas can be captured and ducted to a control device, but the high volume of air and low concentration of VOC make this a costly method of control. For example, the cost of using a thermal incinerator with primary heat recovery to control VOC emissions from the spray booths and flash-off areas for a medium-sized model plant was estimated in the EPA's 1985 document titled Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines—Background Information for Proposed Standards, EPA-450/3-85-019a, December 1985 (1985 BID), available in the docket for this action, to be $11,000 to $21,000 per megagram (Mg) ($10,000 to $19,000 per ton) of VOC controlled, in 1985 dollars. 7 The specific cost depends in part on the booth ventilation rate.

The EPA proposed the current review of the surface coating of plastic parts for business machines NSPS subpart TTT on June 21, 2022. No comments were received on the proposed revisions associated with the NSPS review, so the EPA is finalizing these amendments as proposed, as follows: Specific to affected facilities that commence construction, modification, or reconstruction after June 21, 2022, the EPA is, in a new subpart TTTa, finalizing the proposed volatile organic compound (VOC) emission limitations for prime, color, texture, and touch-up coating operations. We are also finalizing in subparts TTTa and TTT the proposed requirements for electronic submission of periodic compliance reports. For the new subpart TTTa, which is specific to affected facilities that are constructed, modified, or reconstructed after June 21, 2022, the EPA estimates that over the next 8 years following this final rule, no affected facilities will be new, modified, or reconstructed that perform surface coating of plastic parts for business machines.

On June 21, 2022 (87 FR 36796), the EPA proposed to amend NSPS subpart TTT and add a new NSPS subpart TTTa for the surface coating of plastic parts for business machines. In that action, we proposed revised emission limit requirements for new, modified, and reconstructed sources in 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTTa. We also proposed testing, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements associated with 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTTa, that include the requirement for electronic submittal of reports. Further, we proposed changes to the reporting requirements associated with 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTT, by including the requirement for electronic submittal of reports.

The EPA is finalizing the proposed revisions to the NSPS for Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines pursuant to the CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) review. The EPA is promulgating NSPS revisions in a new subpart, 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTTa. The revised NSPS subpart is applicable to affected sources constructed, modified, or reconstructed after June 21, 2022.The standards of performance in subpart TTTa apply at all times including during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM).

The EPA is also finalizing the proposed revisions to NSPS subpart TTT, which applies to affected sources that are constructed, modified, or reconstructed after January 8, 1986, but that are constructed, modified, or reconstructed no later than June 21, 2022. With these changes, NSPS subpart TTT requires electronic reporting, provides an updated definition of “business machine,” and makes new voluntary consensus standards (VCS) available for use as alternatives to EPA Method 24 for industrial surface coating of plastic parts for business machines. These same changes are reflected in new subpart TTTa.

No comments were received on these changes, so the EPA is finalizing these amendments as proposed.

In its BSER review in the proposed rule, the EPA proposed to determine that a combination of coating formulation and efficiency in application technology represents the updated BSER for surface coating of plastic parts for business machines. Additionally, the EPA proposed to determine that the 2008 Control Techniques Guidelines document's (CTG) VOC emission limits for primer, topcoat, texture coat, and touch-up and repair, which are more stringent than the current NSPS subpart TTT emission limits, represent the degree of emission limitation achievable through application of the updated BSER.

To make this determination, the EPA compared costs and emission reductions for three regulatory options with a baseline of the requirements in the 1988 NSPS subpart TTT. This analysis utilized a representative coating limit for VOC for each of the three regulatory options and estimated the per-facility VOC emission reduction and the cost effectiveness in dollars per ton of VOC reduced for each option. The CTG-based option was found to represent the BSER because it was the most cost effective of the three regulatory options and has been demonstrated in practice. We found no significant nonair quality impacts or energy requirements associated with this BSER determination. More details on the BSER review and determination can be found in the proposed rule preamble, section III.D (87 FR 36796 at 36805).

Based on this BSER review and determination, the EPA is finalizing VOC emission limits in NSPS subpart TTTa for application of coatings onto plastic parts for business machines at affected facilities that commence construction, reconstruction, or modification after June 21, 2022. The finalized NSPS limit VOC emissions from prime coating, color coating, texture coating, and touch-up coating to 1.4 kg VOC/l (12 lb VOC/gal) coating solids applied. Just as in subpart TTT, new subpart TTTa treats fog coating as a type of color coating and applies the same level of VOC emission control to fog coating and other color coating. No comments were received on these changes, so the EPA is finalizing these VOC emission limits as proposed.

The EPA is also finalizing the proposed menu of subpart TTT default transfer efficiency (TE) values and their associated spray applicator types in new subpart TTTa. Further, what the EPA is finalizing in subpart TTTa allows a subpart TTTa affected facility, for a given type of coating application equipment at a given coating operation, to use a different (higher) TE with the Administrator's case-by-case approval. The EPA is also finalizing the case-by-case compliance approaches in the new subpart TTTa. Specifically, facilities are not required to use the formulas and compliance demonstrations based on coating content and TE but can demonstrate compliance using add-on controls if the same VOC emissions reductions are demonstrated to the Administrator. No comments were received on including these provisions in new subpart TTTa, so the EPA is finalizing these amendments as proposed.

Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the EPA has established standards in this rule that apply at all times. We are finalizing in subpart TTTa specific requirements at § 60.723a that override the general provisions for SSM requirements. In finalizing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained in this section of the preamble, has not finalized alternate standards for those periods. The primary means of controlling VOC emissions from surface coating of plastic parts for business machines is use of low-VOC-content coatings. This means of control is unaffected by startup and shutdown events. No comments were received on the proposed requirements, so these requirements are being finalized as proposed.

Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Malfunctions, in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead, they are, by definition, sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failures of emissions control, process, or monitoring equipment (40 CFR 60.2). The EPA interprets CAA section 111 as not requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be factored into development of CAA section 111 standards. Nothing in CAA section 111 or in case law requires that the EPA consider malfunctions when determining what standards of performance reflect the degree of emission limitation achievable through “the application of the best system of emission reduction” that the EPA determines is adequately demonstrated. While the EPA accounts for variability in setting emissions standards, nothing in CAA section 111 requires the Agency to consider malfunctions as part of that analysis. The EPA is not required to treat a malfunction in the same manner as the type of variation in performance that occurs during routine operations of a source. A malfunction is a failure of the source to perform in a “normal or usual manner” and no statutory language compels EPA to consider such events in setting section 111 standards of performance. The EPA's approach to malfunctions in the analogous circumstances (setting “achievable” standards under CAA section 112) has been upheld as reasonable by the D.C. Circuit in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016).

In performing an NSPS review, the EPA also evaluates and determines the proper testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements needed to demonstrate compliance with the NSPS. The NSPS at 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTT, lists EPA Method 24 as the method for determination of VOC content of each coating as received. In the alternative, 40 CFR 60.725 allows use of “other methods . . . to determine the VOC content of each coating if approved by the Administrator before testing.” In performing this NSPS review, we looked at whether there are voluntary consensus standards (VCS) available and practical for use as alternatives to EPA Method 24 for industrial surface coating of plastic parts for business machines. The results of our initial VCS search, conducted prior to proposal, are provided in the memorandum Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for New Source Performance Standards Review for Industrial Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines, which is dated April 18, 2022, and is available in the docket for this action. Subsequent to proposal, the EPA learned, the ASTM International (ASTM) approved and published a new method as replacement for one of the methods that we proposed to incorporate by reference (IBR). The new method, designated ASTM D2697-22, approved July 1, 2022, is titled “Standard Test Method for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings.” Having compared the new method against the method it replaced, ASTM D2697-03 (2014), the EPA notes that use of the new method would likely improve the overall precision of the measurements, as the new method includes prescriptive procedures instead of referencing other procedures. Accordingly, the EPA has concluded that the new method is preferable to its replacement. The complete list of currently acceptable VCS is listed in a revised memorandum, dated November 30, 2022, and available in the docket. The VCS that that the EPA is incorporating by reference (IBR) under 40 CFR 60.17 as potential alternatives to EPA Method 24 are listed in section V.I of this preamble. These changes are being finalized for use with NSPS subparts TTT and TTTa. No comments were received on the proposed acceptable VCS. The EPA is finalizing these changes as proposed, with the exception that one method last reapproved in 2014 is being replaced by a new 2022 method for purposes of IBR in this final rule. This substitution of one method being incorporated by reference does not change any other aspect of what the EPA proposed and is finalizing.

The EPA is finalizing the proposed requirement that owners and operators of facilities that perform surface coating of plastic parts for business machines subject to the current and new NSPS at 40 CFR part 60, subparts TTT and TTTa, submit electronic copies of required performance test reports, quarterly reports of noncompliance, and semiannual statements of compliance, through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). For sources subject to subpart TTT, before May 26, 2023, performance test reports, quarterly reports of noncompliance, and semiannual statements of compliance shall be postmarked no later than 10 days after the end of the periods specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of 40 CFR 60.724. Beginning May 26, 2023, performance test reports, quarterly reports of noncompliance, and semiannual statements of compliance shall be submitted as a portable document format (PDF) upload not later than 10 days after the end of the periods specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of 40 CFR 60.724, according to paragraph (f) of 40 CFR 60.724. No comments were received on the proposed electronic reporting requirements, so the EPA is finalizing these changes as proposed.

The EPA is finalizing the proposed definition of “business machine” in subpart TTT, 40 CFR 60.721, that revises the list of example products included within the definition. Specifically, the EPA is deleting the listed Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes, which are no longer in use, and is replacing the list of example products that accompanied those SIC codes with a revised list of examples, as follows: “such as products classified as: electronic computing devices; calculating and accounting machines; telephone equipment; office machines; and photocopy machines.” Among example products that the EPA is deleting from the definition are typewriters and telegraph equipment, in light of the fact that these machines are far less commonly used than when this definition was first promulgated in 1988. These same changes are reflected in new subpart TTTa. The EPA received no comments on these proposed revisions to the definition of “business machine” and so is finalizing these changes as proposed.

Pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), the effective date of the final rule requirements in NSPS subparts TTT and TTTa is the promulgation date. Affected sources that commence construction, reconstruction, or modification after June 21, 2022, must comply with all requirements of subpart TTTa, no later than the effective date of the final rule or upon startup, whichever is later.

Based on the EPA's expectation that there will be no new, modified, or reconstructed sources over the next 8 years, we estimate that there will be no reduction in VOC emissions from NSPS subpart TTTa. If a new source were to be constructed, however, there would be a reduction in VOC emissions, because the subpart TTTa emission limits being finalized are more stringent than the subpart TTT emission limits. There would be no emission control cost associated with that hypothetical emission reduction because compliance with the subpart TTTa emission limits can be achieved through use of low-VOC-content coatings that are commercially available.

As described in the proposed rule preamble, for the baseline level of control for the BSER analysis, the EPA used an emission limit of 1.5 kg VOC/l (13 lb VOC/gal) coating solids applied as the representative coating limit, which is the same as the 1988 NSPS VOC emission limit both for prime coating and color coating. Of the three regulatory options that the EPA identified and evaluated in its NSPS review, the EPA found that its 2008 CTG-based option represents the BSER because it is demonstrated in practice and is the most cost-effective option. The EPA used an emission limit of 1.4 kg VOC/l (12 lb VOC/gal) coating solids applied as the representative coating limit for this option, which is derived from the 2008 CTG. The standard for NSPS subpart TTTa, based on this updated BSER, limits VOC emissions from prime coating, color coating, texture coating, and touch-up coating to 1.4 kg VOC/l (12 lb VOC/gal) coating solids applied. Therefore, the potential reduction in VOC emissions to result from NSPS subpart TTTa is estimated at 1.5 Mg/yr (13.0 tpy) per facility based on the BSER analysis in this NSPS review.

Because we do not anticipate that any source will operate a control device to meet NSPS subpart TTTa requirements, we anticipate no energy impacts (electricity, natural gas consumption, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions production) or secondary air quality impacts from NSPS subpart TTTa.

Based on the EPA's expectation that there will be no new, modified, or reconstructed sources over the next 8 years, we estimate that there will be no capital or annual costs incurred to comply with NSPS subpart TTTa in the 8-year period after the rule is final.

We anticipate minimal cost impacts on sources subject to NSPS subpart TTT. The EPA estimates a total cost of $828 ($276 per source), for sources subject to subpart TTT to become familiar with the CDX and CEDRI systems used to comply with the requirement to submit reports electronically. The labor costs (2 hours per source) would occur only in the first year following promulgation of the amendments to NSPS subpart TTT.

The EPA conducted an economic impact analysis for this review, as detailed in the memorandum Economic Impact Analysis for the Proposed New Source Performance Standards Review for Industrial Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines, which is available in the docket for this action.

The economic impacts of this finalized rule are expected to be minimal. The only incremental costs are associated with the electronic report submission requirements for the three existing facilities affected by subpart TTT. The EPA estimates total costs for this rule of $828 in 2021 dollars, which will be incurred in the first year following promulgation of the rule. No other costs are expected in the 8 years following promulgation of this rule other than these Year 1 costs. Because the estimated compliance costs are minimal, this rule is not expected to result in market impacts, regardless of whether costs are passed on to consumers or absorbed by affected firms.

Two of the three facilities affected by this rule are owned by small entities. However, neither small entity is expected to incur significant cost impacts based on a comparison of the Year 1 facility-level compliance costs to the annual sales revenues ( i.e., cost-to-sales ratios) of the two small parent companies. Thus, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The requirements in subpart TTT and new subpart TTTa to submit reports and test results electronically will improve monitoring, compliance, and implementation of the rule. Based on the EPA's expectation that there will be no new, modified, or reconstructed sources over the next 8 years, we estimate that there will be no reduction in VOC emissions from NSPS subpart TTTa. If a new source were to be constructed, however, there would be a reduction in VOC emissions, because the subpart TTTa emission limits are more stringent than the subpart TTT emission limits.

Reducing emissions of VOC is expected to help reduce ambient concentrations of ground level ozone and increase compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone. A quantitative analysis of the impacts on the NAAQS in the areas located near hypothetical new sources that perform surface coating of plastic parts for business machines would be technically complicated, resource intensive, and infeasible to perform in the time available, and would not represent the impacts for new, modified, and reconstructed affected facilities because the locations of those sources are currently unknown. For these reasons, we did not perform a quantitative analysis. However, currently available health effects evidence supporting the December 23, 2020, final decision for the ozone NAAQS continues to support the conclusion that ozone can cause difficulty breathing and other respiratory system effects. For people with asthma, these effects can lead to emergency room visits and hospital admissions. Exposure over the long term may lead to the development of asthma. People most at risk from breathing air containing ozone include people with asthma, children, the elderly, and outdoor workers. For children, exposure to ozone increases their risk of asthma attacks while playing, exercising, or engaging in strenuous activities outdoors.

Consistent with the EPA's commitment to integrating EJ in the Agency's actions, and following the directives set forth in multiple Executive orders, the Agency has conducted an analysis of the demographic groups living near existing facilities in the surface coating of plastic parts for business machines source category. Because this rule will affect new, modified, or reconstructed facilities that commence construction after June 21, 2022, we are not able to identify the location of those future new, modified, or reconstructed facilities. We anticipate that a total of three existing facilities will be affected by NSPS at 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTT, in the next 8 years and that no facilities will be affected by NSPS at 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTTa, in the next 8 years. For the demographic proximity analysis, we analyzed populations living near existing facilities to serve as a proxy of potential populations living near future facilities. The preamble for the proposed rule (87 FR 36796, June 21, 2022) indicated that the following demographic group was above the national average at the 5 kilometer (km) radius: People without a high school diploma. The analysis of the final rule remains unchanged from proposal. Therefore, the Agency used results from the proposal analysis to assess EJ impacts for this final rule.

Executive Order 12898 directs the EPA to identify the populations of concern who are most likely to experience unequal burdens from environmental harms—specifically, minority populations ( i.e., people of color), low-income populations, and indigenous peoples (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). Additionally, Executive Order 13985 is intended to advance racial equity and support underserved communities through Federal Government actions (86 FR 7009, January 20, 2021). The EPA defines EJ as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” The EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that “no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and policies.” In recognizing that people of color and low-income populations often bear an unequal burden of environmental harms and risks, the EPA continues to consider ways of protecting them from adverse public health and environmental effects of air pollution.

To examine the potential for any EJ issues that might be associated with the source category, we performed a demographic analysis at proposal and have determined that the data and affected facilities did not change as a result of public comments. Therefore, the analysis from the proposed rule is still applicable for this final action.

Because this action finalizes standards of performance for new, modified, and reconstructed sources that commence construction after June 21, 2022, the locations of the construction of new facilities that perform surface coating of plastic parts for business machines are not known. In addition, it is not known which of the existing facilities will be modified or reconstructed in the future. Therefore, the demographic analysis was conducted for the three existing facilities as a characterization of the demographics in areas where these facilities are now located.

The results of the demographic analysis can be found in section V.J of the proposed rule's preamble (see 87 FR 36796 at 36813) and are summarized in this document. The analysis included an assessment of individual demographic groups of the populations living within 5 km and within 50 km of the facilities. We then compared the data from the analysis to the national average for each of the demographic groups. The results show that for populations within 5 km of the three existing facilities, the percent of the population that is categorized as people of color (being the total population minus the white population) is below the national average (23 percent versus 40 percent). The percent of people living below the poverty level is below the national average (10 percent versus 13 percent). The percent of the population over 25 without a high school diploma (13 percent) and the percent of the population in linguistic isolation (5 percent) are similar to the corresponding national averages (12 percent and 5 percent, respectively).

The results of the analysis of populations within 50 km of the three existing facilities show that the percent of the population that is categorized as people of color (being the total population minus the white population) is significantly below the national average (29 percent versus 40 percent). However, the percent of the population that is African American (17 percent) is higher than the national average (12 percent). All other demographic subgroups within people of color are below the corresponding national averages. The percent of people living below the poverty level is slightly above the national average (14 percent versus 13 percent). The percent of the population over 25 without a high school diploma (10 percent) and the percent of the population in linguistic isolation (2 percent) were below the corresponding national averages (12 percent and 5 percent, respectively).

The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are presented in a technical report, “Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines,” available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0200).

The EPA expects that the NSPS for Industrial Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines subpart TTT and new subpart TTTa will ensure compliance via testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting, and that the new subpart TTTa will ensure compliance with the standards at all times (including periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunctions). The rule will also increase data transparency through electronic reporting. Therefore, effects of emissions on populations in proximity to any future affected sources, including in communities potentially overburdened by pollution, which are often people of color and low-income and indigenous communities, will be minimized due to the compliance with the standards of performance being finalized in this action.

Additional information about these statutes and Executive orders can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

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

The information collection activities in this rule have been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 1093.15. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here. The information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them.

The ICR is specific to information collection associated with the source category referred to as surface coating of plastic parts for business machines, through 40 CFR part 60, subparts TTT and TTTa. As part of the NSPS review, the EPA is finalizing emission limit requirements for new, modified, and reconstructed sources in 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTTa. We are also finalizing testing, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements associated with 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTTa, that include the requirement for electronic submittal of reports. Further, we are finalizing changes to the reporting requirements associated with 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTT, by including the requirement for electronic submittal of reports. This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subparts TTT and TTTa.

Respondents/affected entities: The respondents to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are owners or operators of facilities performing surface coating of plastic parts for business machines subject to 40 CFR part 60, subparts TTT and TTTa.

Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60, subparts TTT and TTTa).

Estimated number of respondents: In the 3 years after the amendments are final, approximately 3 respondents per year will be subject to the NSPS at 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTT, and approximately 0 respondents per year will be subject to the NSPS as 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTTa.

Frequency of response: The frequency of responses varies depending on the burden item. Responses include one-time review of rule requirements, reports of performance tests, quarterly reports of noncompliance, and semiannual statements of compliance.

Total estimated burden: The annual recordkeeping and reporting burden for responding facilities to comply with all of the requirements in the NSPS subpart TTT and NSPS subpart TTTa over the 3 years after the rule is final is estimated to be 2 hours (per year). The average annual burden to the Agency over the 3 years after the rule is final is estimated to be 0 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

Total estimated cost: The average annual cost to facilities that perform surface coating of plastic parts for business machines is $276 in labor costs in the first 3 years after the rule is final. The average annual capital and operation and maintenance cost is $0. The total average annual Agency cost over the first 3 years after the amendments are final is estimated to be $0.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display the OMB control number for the approved information collection activities contained in this final rule.

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. Details of the analysis in support of this determination are presented in the memorandum Economic Impact Analysis for the Proposed New Source Performance Standards Review for Industrial Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines, which is available in the docket for this action. The annualized costs associated with the requirements in this action for the affected small entities are described in section IV.C of this preamble.

This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. While this action creates an enforceable duty on the private sector, the cost does not exceed $100 million or more.

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. It will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized tribal governments nor preempt tribal law, and it does not have substantial direct effects 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, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). No tribal facilities are known to be engaged in the industry that would be affected by this action nor are there any adverse health or environmental effects from this action. However, the EPA conducted a proximity analysis for this source category and found that one affected facility is located within 50 miles of tribal lands. Consistent with the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes, the EPA offered consultation with tribal officials during the development of this action.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. No health or risk assessments were performed for this action. As described in section IV.E of this preamble, the EPA estimates that there will be no reduction in VOC emissions from NSPS subpart TTTa. If a new source were to be constructed, however, there would be a reduction in VOC emissions, because the subpart TTTa emission limits are more stringent than the subpart TTT emission limits.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. This action is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Further, sources will be able to achieve the level of control in NSPS subpart TTTa entirely through use of a variety of currently available coating formulations, without operation of a control device to meet the standards.

This action involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA conducted searches through the Enhanced National Standards Systems Network (NSSN) Database managed by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) to determine if there are VCS that are relevant to this action. The Agency also contacted VCS organizations and accessed and searched their databases. Searches were conducted for EPA Method 24.

During the search, if the title or abstract (if provided) of the VCS described technical sampling and analytical procedures that are similar to the EPA's reference method, the EPA considered it as a potential equivalent method. All potential standards were reviewed to determine the practicality of the VCS for this rule. This review requires significant method validation data which meets the requirements of the EPA Method 301 for accepting alternative methods or scientific, engineering and policy equivalence to procedures in the EPA reference methods. The EPA may reconsider determinations of impracticality when additional information is available for particular VCS. As a result, the EPA is amending 40 CFR 60.17 to incorporate by reference the following VCS:

• ASTM D2369-20, “Standard Test Method for Volatile Content of Coatings” is a test method that allows for more accurate results for multi-component chemical resistant coatings and is an alternative to EPA Method 24.

• ASTM Method D2697-22, “Standard Test Method for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings” is a test method that can be used to determine the volume of nonvolatile matter in clear and pigmented coatings and is an alternative to EPA Method 24.

• ASTM Method D6093-97 (Reapproved 2016) “Standard Test Method for Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using a Helium Gas Pycnometer” is a test method that can be used to determine the percent volume of nonvolatile matter in clear and pigmented coatings and is an alternative to EPA Method 24.

We also identified VCS ASTM D2111-10 (2015), “Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their Admixtures,” as an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 24. This ASTM standard can be used to determine the density for the specific coatings (halogenated organic solvents) cited using Method B (pycnometer) only (as in ASTM 1217). We are not incorporating by reference this VCS because facilities that perform surface coating of plastic parts for business machines do not use halogenated organic solvents, based on our knowledge of the industry.

The ASTM standards (methods) are available for purchase individually through the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Webstore, https://webstore.ansi.org. Telephone (212) 642-4980 for customer service.

Additional information for the VCS search and determinations can be found in the memorandum Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for New Source Performance Standards Review for Industrial Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines Revised, which is dated November 30, 2022, and is available in the docket for this action.

Under 40 CFR 60.8(b) and 60.13(i) of the general provisions, a source may apply to the EPA to use alternative test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in place of any required testing methods, performance specifications or procedures in the final rule or any amendments.

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations (people of color and/or indigenous peoples) and low-income populations.

The EPA believes that the human health and environmental conditions that exist prior to this action do not result in disproportionate and adverse effects on people of color, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples. See section IV.F of this preamble for additional details on the analysis of the distribution of the demographic groups living near existing facilities in the surface coating of plastic parts for business machines source category conducted by the EPA.

The EPA believes that this action is not likely to result in new disproportionate and adverse effects on people of color, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples. Based on the EPA's determination that there will be no new, modified, or reconstructed sources over the next 8 years, we estimate that there will be no reduction in VOC emissions from the new NSPS subpart TTTa. If a new source were to be constructed at a future date, the emission limits in subpart TTTa reflect the BSER demonstrated and establish a new more stringent standard of performance for the primary sources of VOC emissions from the source category. Thus, if a source were to be constructed, modified, or reconstructed, the EPA expects that the requirements in subpart TTTa will result in VOC emission reductions for communities surrounding the affected subpart TTTa sources compared to the existing rule in subpart TTT and will result in lower VOC emissions for communities located in areas designated as ozone non-attainment areas. These areas are already overburdened by pollution.

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).

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency is amending part 60 of title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

The proposed rule was published at 87 FR 23154 on April 19, 2022. The Petitioner filed comments in support of the petition reaffirming its commitment to apply for channel 35. No other comments were filed.

The Bureau believes the public interest would be served by substituting channel 35 for channel 11 at Hampton, Virginia. The Petitioner states that the Commission has recognized that VHF channels have certain characteristics that pose challenges for their use in providing digital television service, including propagation characteristics that allow undesired signals and noise to be receivable at relatively far distances. According to the Petitioner, it has received many complaints from viewers unable to receive a reliable signal on channel 11, despite being able to receive the NBC, CBS, and FOX network affiliates in the Norfolk, Virginia, market, all of which operate on UHF channels. The proposed channel change would not cause any loss of service to viewers of WVEC's existing coverage area. The proposed channel 35 facility causes 1.38 percent interference to WFMY-TV, Greensboro, North Carolina, in excess of the amount allowed in the Commission's rules. That station is also owned by the Petitioner and it provides an Interference Acceptance Consent letter from the station agreeing to accept the interference from the proposed channel 35 facility as Exhibit C to the Rulemaking Petition. In addition, the proposed facility was predicted to cause prohibited interference to WYSJ-CD, Yorktown, Virginia. An application for minor modification to co-locate WYSJ-CD with WVEC's proposed channel 35 facility (LMS File No. 0000188559), eliminating the adjacent-channel interference, was granted simultaneously with the issuance of the Order. See NPRM at para. 3, n.7.

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MB Docket No. 22-151; RM-11927; DA 23-229, adopted March 16, 2023, and released March 16, 2023. 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 the 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:

The proposed rule was published at 88 FR 42 on January 3, 2023. The Petitioner filed comments in support of the petition reaffirming its commitment to apply for channel 31. No other comments were filed.

The Bureau believes the public interest would be served by substituting channel 31 for channel 7 at Odessa, Texas. The proposed channel substitution will resolve significant over-the-air reception problems in KOSA-TV's existing service area. The Petitioner further states that the Commission has recognized the deleterious effects manmade noise has on the reception of digital VHF signals, and that the propagation characteristics of these channels allow undesired signals and noise to be receivable at relatively farther distances compared to UHF channels and nearby electrical devices can cause interference. According to the Petitioner, although the proposed channel 31 facility would result in a slight reduction in the predicted population served, once terrain-limited coverage predications are taken into account, the proposed channel 31 facility will result in a loss of service to 36 people, a number which the Commission considers de minimis This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MB Docket No. 22-435; RM-11940; DA 23-158, adopted March 1, 2023, and released March 1, 2023. 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 the 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:

The General Services Administration (GSA) conducts routine reviews of its acquisition regulations to identify outdated content and to ensure GSA policy referenced within the General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) is current. GSA discovered that the policy referenced in the GSAR clause 552.204-9 Personal Identity Verification Requirements was changed from GSA Order CIO P 2181.1 to GSA Order ADM 2181.1 in March 2020. The title was also updated from GSA HSPD-12 Personal Identity Verification and Credentialing Handbook to GSA HSPD-12 Personal Identity Verification and Credentialing, and Background Investigations for Contractor Employees. The title update provides better clarity regarding the information contained in the GSA Order.

By updating the policy referenced in the GSAR clause, this rule ensures contractors are directed to the correct policy.

The statute that applies to the publication of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) is 41 U.S.C. 1707. Subsection (a)(1) of 41 U.S.C. 1707 requires that a procurement policy, regulation, procedure, or form (including an amendment or modification thereof) must be published for public comment if it relates to the expenditure of appropriated funds, and has either a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of the agency issuing the policy, regulation, procedure, or form, or has a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors. This final rule is not required to be published for public comment because the change is technical in nature and makes conforming updates to the title and number of a referenced policy document.

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 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. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this rule is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, is not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a “major rule” may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The General Services Administration will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . OIRA has determined that this is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) does not apply to this rule because an opportunity for public comment is not required to be given for this rule under 41 U.S.C. 1707(a)(1) (see Section II. of this preamble). Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required, and none has been prepared.

The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the changes to the GSAR do not impose recordkeeping or information collection requirements, or the collection of information from offerors, contractors, or members of the public that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

Therefore, GSA amends 48 CFR part 552 as set forth below: