Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without change, to www.regulations.gov, including any personal information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the docket website, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as well as at https://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

The FAA invites interested parties to take part in the development of the proposed policy statement by sending written comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include Docket No. FAA-2023-0938; Policy No. PS-AIR-600-39-01 at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, 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 the proposal 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 proposed policy.

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 notice 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 notice, 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 notice. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to the individual listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Any commentary that the FAA receives that is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this notice.

The current performance standards for radio altimeters (also known as radar altimeters) are based on the presumption that no occupancy of an adjacent radio frequency spectrum would cause interference with radio altimeters. During 2021, the radio frequency operating environment surrounding radio altimeters substantially changed when wireless telecommunication service providers began offering 5G C-Band services near the 4.2-4.4 GHz band, which is reserved for aviation radio altimeters. The FAA subsequently determined that radio altimeters cannot be relied upon to perform their intended function if they experience interference from 5G wireless broadband operations in the C-Band.

Deployment of the new 5G C-Band services prompted the FAA to address the risks posed by radio frequency (RF) interference to radio altimeters. On December 7, 2021, the FAA issued AD 2021-23-12  1 for transport and commuter category airplanes equipped with a radio altimeter and AD 2021-23-13  2 for helicopters equipped with a radio altimeter. AD 2021-23-12 and AD 2021-23-12 prohibit certain flight operations requiring radio altimeter data when flying in the presence of 5G C-Band interference as identified by Notices to Air Missions (NOTAMs). In response to AD 2021-23-12, the aviation industry developed a method to show compatibility with 5G emissions in the United States national airspace system for the initial 5G deployment, which was limited to 3.7-3.8 GHz, and the 5G spurious emissions in the radio altimeter band (4.2-4.4 GHz). The FAA accepted this method as support for proposals for alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs) with AD 2021-23-12 and AD 2021-23-13. These AMOCs used standardized assessment parameters, values, and methods to estimate an installed altimeter system protection radii or distance. Aircraft with an altimeter operating beyond this distance from all 5G base stations would not expect deleterious effects from RF incompatibility and indeed could depend upon the radio altimeter system to fully perform its intended function. These AMOCs were based on interference thresholds of specific individual radio altimeter transceivers. That is, each transceiver was tested to benchmark their performance in the presence of out-of-band and in-band C-Band signals. The thresholds were then modified and tailored to installation factors specific to the installed platform ( e.g., measured antenna gains and line losses). These values were then used to determine the necessary mitigations to protect the airport airspace most critical for the safety of operations. The mitigations included actions by wireless providers as well as flight limitations imposed by the FAA for the airspace areas identified by NOTAM, unless operating under an approved AMOC.

On January 6, 2023, the FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to supersede AD 2021-23-12. 3 On April 5, 2023, the FAA issued an NPRM proposing to supersede AD 2021-23-13. 4 The flight limitations in the new proposed ADs would depend on whether an aircraft has a radio altimeter that demonstrates certain tolerances using a method approved by the FAA.

This proposed policy would provide guidance for operators and manufacturers to demonstrate an aircraft is a radio altimeter tolerant aircraft, under the proposed definition in the NPRMs.

You may review the proposed policy statement at www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FAA-2023-0938; or on the FAA's website at www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/.

Comments Invited

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2023-0934; Project Identifier AD-2022-01443-T” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, 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 proposal 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 NPRM.

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 NPRM 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 NPRM, 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 NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Stefanie Roesli, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3964; email: stefanie.n.roesli@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 the presence of cracks in stringers, common to the end fittings, at stringer location S-42L/R and S-46L/R on the aft side of the bulkhead at station (STA) 2598. The airplane had accumulated 5,517 total flight cycles and 32,468 total flight hours at time the cracks were found. In addition, during foreign object debris (FOD) inspections Boeing found five cracks in stringers, common to the end fittings, at stringer locations S-2L, S-6L, S-8L, and S-2R on the forward side and S-5L on the aft side of the bulkhead at STA 2598 on two airplanes. The FAA has also received reports of similar cracks found on additional airplanes. In all cases, the cracks were found in the side walls of the stringers and had grown in longitudinal and transverse directions, but there was no other damage or deformation in the surrounding area. An investigation by Boeing found that during airplane assembly, un-shimmed or incorrectly shimmed gaps that were larger than engineering requirements caused excessive and sustained internal tensile stresses and resulted in stress corrosion cracking in the stringers. This condition, if not addressed, could lead to a failure of the skin adjacent to the bulkhead at STA 2598, which could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-53A2911 RB, dated November 3, 2022. This service information specifies procedures for repetitive detailed inspections of the stringers, common to the end fittings, forward and aft of the bulkhead at STA 2598, for any crack, and applicable on-condition actions. On-condition actions include repair.

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 .

This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information already described, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-0934.

The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 42 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

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

The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some or all of the costs of this proposed 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.

The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed regulation:

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

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

(3) Would 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 proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 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 would amend Class E airspace in Greenville, NC.

The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. Comments are specifically invited on the proposal's overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should submit only once if comments are filed electronically, or commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments are filed in writing.

The FAA will file all comments it receives in the docket and a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible without incurring expense or delay. The FAA may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.

Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded online at www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can be accessed through the FAA's web page at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except for Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except for Federal holidays at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337.

Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6002 and 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 annually. This document proposes to amend the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022. These updates would subsequently be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11G is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11G lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The FAA proposes an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 by Amending the Class E surface airspace for Pitt-Greenville Airport, Greenville, NC, by increasing the radius to 4.6 miles (previously 4.4 miles) and replacing the outdated Notice to Airmen with the Notice to Air Missions.

Amending the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface by increasing the radius of the Pitt-Greenville Airport to 7.1 miles (previously 6.4 miles) and establishing an extension of 1.1 miles on each side of the Pitt-Greenville Airport's 008° bearing extending from the airport's 7.1-mile radius to 13.4 miles northeast of the airport. In addition, this action would establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.2-mile radius of ECU Health Medical Center.

Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations in the area. This action is necessary to support IFR operations in the area.

The FAA has determined that this proposed 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 so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 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 expand the availability of RNAV in the eastern United States and improve the efficient flow of air traffic within the NAS by lessening the dependency on ground-based navigation.

The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should submit only one time if comments are filed electronically, or commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments are filed in writing.

The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The FAA may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.

Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Operations office (see ADDRESSES section for address, phone number, and hours of operations). An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 210, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337.

United States Area Navigation 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 proposes to amend the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022. These updates would be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. That order is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

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

The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to amend one and establish three low altitude RNAV T-routes in the northeast United States to support the VOR MON Program, and the transition of the NAS from ground-based navigation aids to satellite-based navigation. The proposed route changes are described below.

T-299: T-299 is a proposed amended route that would extend from the OBEPE, VA, Fix to the Albany, NY (ALB), VOR with Tactical Air Navigational System (VORTAC). The route would overlay VOR Federal airway V-377 from the SCAPE, PA, Fix to the Harrisburg, PA (HAR), VORTAC; VOR Federal airway V-162 from the Harrisburg, PA (HAR), VORTAC to the Huguenot, NY (HUO), VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment (DME); VOR Federal airway V-489 from the Huguenot, NY (HOU), VOR/DME to the Albany, NY (ALB), VORTAC.

T-452: T-452 is a proposed new route that would extend from the VINSE, PA, waypoint (WP) to the REESY, PA, WP. The route is replacing VOR Federal airway V-469 from the St. Thomas, VA (THS), VORTAC to the JOANE, PA, Fix. The VINSE, PA, WP is being used to replace the St. Thomas, VA (THS), VORTAC.

T-456: T-456 is a proposed new route that would extend from the VINSE, PA, Fix to the Modena, PA (MXE), VORTAC. The route would overlay VOR Federal airway V-474 from the AMISH, PA, Fix to the Modena, PA (MXE), VORTAC.

T-477: T-477 is a proposed new route that would extend from the CPTAL, MD, WP to the Philipsburg, PA (PSB), VORTAC. The route would overlay VOR Federal Airway V-501 from the Hagerstown, MD (HGR), VOR to the Philipsburg, PA (PSB), VORTAC.

The FAA has determined that this proposed 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 will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F: “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 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 would amend Class E airspace in Carrabassett, ME. An airspace evaluation determined that this update is necessary to support IFR operations in the area.

The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. Comments are specifically invited on the proposal's overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should submit only one time if comments are filed electronically, or commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments are filed in writing.

The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives and a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The FAA may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.

Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter, provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded online at www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can be accessed through the FAA's web page at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except for Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except for federal holidays at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337.

Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 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 proposes to amend the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022. These updates would subsequently be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11G is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11G lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The FAA proposes an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for Sugarloaf Regional Airport, Carrabassett, ME, to accommodate area navigation (RNAV) global positioning system (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures (SIAPs) serving this airport. This action would amend the existing extension from the airport to the 166° bearing (previously 346°), as an airspace evaluation determined the existing extension was determined in error, as no instrument approaches exist for runway 17. The GPS-A approach for runway 35 requires the 166° bearing extension. This action would also update the airport's geographic coordinates to coincide with the FAA's database. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations in the area.

The FAA has determined that this proposed 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 so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 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 would amend the Class E surface airspace and the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface Class E surface airspace at Devils Lake Regional Airport, Devils Lake, ND, to support instrument flight rule (IFR) operations at this airport.

The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should submit only one time if comments are filed electronically, or commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments are filed in writing.

The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it received on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or dely. The FAA may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.

Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT post these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address, phone number, and hours of operations). An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

Class E airspace is published in paragraph 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 proposes to amend the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022. These updates would be published subsequently in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. That order is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

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

The FAA is proposing to amend 14 CFR part 71 by:

Modifying the Class E surface airspace to within a 4.3-mile (increased from a 4-mile) radius of Devils Lake Regional Airport, Devils Lake, ND; removing the Devils Lake VOR/DME and associated extensions from the airspace legal description; updating the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; and replacing the outdated term “Notice to Airmen” with “Notice to Air Missions”;

Modifying the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.8-mile (decreased from an 8.7-mile) radius of Devils Lake Regional Airport; removing the Devils Lake VOR/DME from the airspace legal description; removing the Class E airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface as it is now redundant with the Class E airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface over the State of North Dakota; and updating geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

This action is the result of an airspace review due to the decommissioning of the Devils Lake VOR, which provided navigation information to this airport, as part of the VOR MON Program, and to support IFR operations at this airport.

The FAA has determined that this proposed 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 will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 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 controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations in the area.

The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. Comments are specifically invited on the proposal's overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should submit only once if comments are filed electronically, or commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments are filed in writing.

The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives and a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible without incurring expense or delay. The FAA may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.

Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without editing, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can be accessed through the FAA's web page at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Operations office (see ADDRESSES section for address, phone number, and hours of operations). An informal docket may also be examined during regular business hours at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 350, 1701 Columbia Ave., College Park, GA 30337.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 6003 and 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 annually. This document proposes to amend the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022 and effective September 15, 2022. These updates will be published in the next FAA Order JO 7400.11. That order is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

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

The FAA proposes to amend Class E airspace designated as an extension to the Class C surface area of Nashville International Airport by extending it from the 7-mile radius of the airport instead of the 5-mile radius, as a result of the new Class C structure. The FAA also proposes to amend the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface surrounding Music City Executive Airport by extending it from within a 7-mile radius to within a 7.5-mile radius of the airport, and by reducing the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface surrounding Lebanon Municipal Airport from within a 10-mile radius to within an 8-mile radius of the airport. The FAA also proposes to reduce the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface surrounding Murfreesboro Municipal Airport from within a 9-mile radius to within a 7.3-mile radius of the airport and 2.6 miles each side of the 182° bearing from the airport, extending from the 7.3-mile radius to 12 miles south of the airport. Additionally, the FAA proposes to reduce the airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface surrounding John C. Tune Airport from within an 8.6-mile radius to within an 8.1-mile radius of the airport.

The FAA proposes these changes to support IFR procedures as a result of a Class C Airspace modification and a biennial evaluation.

The FAA has determined that this proposed 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 will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to a14 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 would amend the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Hartington Municipal Airport/Bud Becker Field, Hartington, NE, to support instrument flight rule (IFR) operations at this airport.

The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should submit only one time if comments are filed electronically, or commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments are filed in writing.

The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it received on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or dely. The FAA may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.

Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT post these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address, phone number, and hours of operations). An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

Class E airspace is published in paragraph 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 proposes to amend the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022. These updates would be published subsequently in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. That order is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

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

The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 by modifying the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.9-mile (decreased from an 8.6-mile) radius of Hartington Municipal Airport/Bud Becker Field, Hartington, NE; and updating the name (previously Hartington Municipal Airport) and geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

This action is the result of an airspace review due to the decommissioning of the Yankton VOR, which provided navigation information to this airport, as part of the VOR MON Program, and to support IFR operations at this airport.

The FAA has determined that this proposed 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 will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 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 would amend the Class E surface airspace and the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface Class E surface airspace at Chan Gurney Municipal Airport, Yankton, SD, to support instrument flight rule (IFR) operations at this airport.

The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should submit only one time if comments are filed electronically, or commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments are filed in writing.

The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it received on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or dely. The FAA may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.

Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT post these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address, phone number, and hours of operations). An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

Class E airspace is 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 proposes to amend the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022. These updates would be published subsequently in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. That order is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

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

The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 by:

Modifying the Class E surface area to within a 5.1-mile (increased from a 4.1-mile) radius of Chan Gurney Municipal Airport, Yankton, SD; removing the Yankton VOR/DME and all associated extensions from the airspace legal description; and removing the city associated with the airport in the header of the airspace legal description to comply with changes to FAA Order JO 7400.2N, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters;

And modifying the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 7.6-mile (decreased from a 7.8-mile) radius of Chan Gurney Municipal Airport; and removing the city associated with the airport in the header of the airspace legal description to comply with changes to FAA Order JO 7400.2N.

This action is the result of an airspace review due to the decommissioning of the Yankton VOR, which provided navigation information to this airport, as part of the VOR MON Program, and to support IFR operations at this airport.

The FAA has determined that this proposed 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 will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 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 Class E airspace to support IFR operations at Burley Municipal Airport, Burley, ID.

The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should submit only one time if comments are filed electronically, or commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments are filed in writing.

The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The FAA may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.

Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Operations office (see ADDRESSES section for address, phone number, and hours of operations). An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200 S. 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198.

Class E2 and E5 airspace designations are published in paragraphs 6002 and 6005, respectively, 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 proposes to amend the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022. These updates would be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. That order is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

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

The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to modify the Class E airspace designated as a surface area, modify the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, and modify Class E airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface at Burley Municipal Airport, Burley, ID.

The current Class E airspace designated as a surface area is oversized for the purpose of containing instrument flight procedures. This area should be reduced to be within a 5-mile radius of the airport, with the southwest portion extending to the airport's 7-mile radius from the airport's 208° bearing clockwise to the 274° bearing to more appropriately contain IFR operations while between the surface and 1,000 feet above the surface and IFR departure operations while between the surface and the base of adjacent controlled airspace.

The existing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface should be modified to more appropriately contain arriving IFR operations below 1,500 feet above the surface and departing IFR operations until they reach 1,200 feet above the surface. The northern portion of the airspace should be reduced to be within a 6.5-mile radius of the airport, from the airport's 274° bearing clockwise to the 074° bearing. The southeast portion of the airspace should be reduced to be within a 5.6-mile radius of the airport, from the airport's 074° bearing clockwise to the 208° bearing. Lastly, the southwest portion of the airspace should be reduced to be within a 7-mile radius of the airport, from the airport's 208° bearing clockwise to the 274° bearing.

The existing Class E airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface should be modified to better align with adjacent, similarly typed Class E airspace. A realignment would better accommodate arriving IFR operations at 1,500 feet and higher above the surface and departing IFR operations from the point they reach 1,200 feet above the surface until reaching overlying or adjacent controlled airspace.

Finally, the FAA proposes administrative modifications to the airport's associated legal descriptions. The navigational aid (NAVAID) referenced in legal descriptions is identified as a very high frequency omni-directional range/tactical air navigation (VORTAC) should be removed. It is incorrectly identified (it is actually a very high frequency omni-directional range/distance measuring equipment (VOR/DME)) and is not needed in the legal description.

The FAA has determined that this proposed 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 will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 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 would establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface Class E surface airspace and Class E airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface at Whiteriver Airport, Whiteriver, AZ, to support instrument flight rule (IFR) operations at this airport.

The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should submit only one time if comments are filed electronically, or commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments are filed in writing.

The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it received on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The FAA may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.

Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT post these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address, phone number, and hours of operations). An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

Class E airspace is published in paragraph 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 proposes to amend the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022. These updates would be published subsequently in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. That order is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

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

The FAA is proposing to amend 14 CFR part 71 by:

Establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 37.8-mile radius of Whiteriver Airport, Whiteriver, AZ;

And establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface to within a 78.3-mile radius of Whiteriver Airport.

This action is to support new instrument procedures and IFR operations at this airport.

The FAA has determined that this proposed 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 will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

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 National Airspace System (NAS) as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic.

The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should submit only one time if comments are filed electronically, or commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments are filed in writing.

The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The FAA may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.

Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Operations office (see ADDRESSES section for address, phone number, and hours of operations). An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX, 76177.

Jet Routes are published in paragraph 2004, United States RNAV Routes (Q-routes) are published in paragraph 2006, VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a), and United States RNAV 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 proposes to amend the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022. These updates would be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. That order is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

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

The FAA is planning to decommission the VOR portion of the Danville, IL, VORTAC in January 2024. The Danville VOR was one of the candidate VORs identified for discontinuance by the FAA's VOR MON program and listed in the Final policy statement notice, “Provision of Navigation Services for the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) Transition to Performance-Based Navigation (PBN) (Plan for Establishing a VOR Minimum Operational Network),” published in the Federal Register on July 26, 2016 (81 FR 48694), Docket No. FAA-2011-1082.

Although the VOR portion of the Danville VORTAC is planned for decommissioning, the co-located Tactical Air Navigation (TACAN) portion of the NAVAID is being retained. The TACAN would continue to provide navigational service for military operations and Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) service supporting current and future NextGen PBN flight procedure requirements.

The ATS routes affected by the planned decommissioning of the Danville VOR are J-84, Q-42, V-171, and V-251. With the planned decommissioning of the Danville VOR, the remaining ground-based NAVAID coverage in the area is insufficient to enable the continuity of the affected routes. As such, proposed modifications to J-84 and V-251 would result in the ATS routes being shortened; to V-171 would result in a second gap being added in the route; and to Q-42 would result in the route being amended to replace the Danville VORTAC route point, as well as the Kirksville, MO, VORTAC and the Muncie, IN, VOR/DME route points, with a waypoint (WP).

To address the affected ATS route proposed amendments, instrument flight rules (IFR) traffic could use adjacent Jet Routes J-73, J-80, and J-89 in the high-altitude stratum, VOR Federal airways V-55, V-274, or V-277 in the low-altitude stratum, or request air traffic control (ATC) radar vectors to fly around or through the affected area. Additionally, pilots equipped with RNAV capabilities could also navigate point to point using the existing fixes that would remain in place to support continued operations though the affected area. Visual flight rules (VFR) pilots who elect to navigate via the affected ATS routes could also take advantage of the adjacent routes or ATC services listed previously.

Additionally, the FAA proposes to establish RNAV route T-478 between the Champaign, IL, VORTAC and the Boiler, IN, VORTAC as a mitigation to the portion of V-251 affected by the planned Danville VOR decommissioning. The new T-478 would also provide non-radar routing between the RIVRS Fix located near the Bowling Green, MO, area and the Champaign VORTAC.

Prior to this NPRM, the FAA published a rule for Docket No. FAA-2022-1395 in the Federal Register (88 FR 18023; March 27, 2023) amending J-84 by removing the route segment overlying the Wolbach, NE, VORTAC between the Sidney, NE, VOR/DME and the Dubuque, IA, VORTAC. The J-84 route amendment is effective June 15, 2023 and is reflected in this action.

The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to amend Jet Route J-84, RNAV route Q-42, and VOR Federal airways V-171 and V-251, and to establish RNAV route T-478 due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Danville, IL, VORTAC. The proposed ATS route actions are described below.

J-84: J-84 currently extends between the Oakland, CA, VOR/DME and the Sidney, NE, VOR/DME; and between the Dubuque, IA, VORTAC and the Danville, IL, VORTAC. The FAA proposes to remove the route segment between the Northbrook, IL, VOR/DME and the Danville, IL, VORTAC. As amended, the route would be changed to extend between the Oakland VOR/DME and the Sidney VOR/DME and between the Dubuque VORTAC and the Northbrook VOR/DME.

Q-42: Q-42 currently extends between the Kirksville, MO, VORTAC and the ZIMMZ, PA, Fix. The FAA proposes to replace the Kirksville VORTAC route point with the LEWRP, MO, WP; replace the Danville, IL, VORTAC route point with the LCOLN, IL, WP; and replace the Muncie, IN, VOR/DME route point with the SNKPT, IN, WP. Additionally, editorial corrections to the state abbreviation and the type of route point for the ZIMMZ Fix would be made to match the National Airspace System Resource (NASR) database information. As amended, the route would be changed to extend between the LEWRP, MO, WP and the ZIMMZ, PA, Fix.

V-171: V-171 currently extends between the Lexington, KY, VOR/DME and the Joliet, IL, VOR/DME; and between the Nodine, MN, VORTAC and the Roseau, MN, VOR/DME. The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment between the Terre Haute, IN, VORTAC and the Peotone, IL, VORTAC. As amended, the airway would be changed to extend between the Lexington VOR/DME and the Terre Haute VORTAC, between the Peotone VORTAC and the Joliet VOR/DME, and between the Nodine VORTAC and the Roseau VOR/DME. Additional amendments to the airway have been proposed in a separate rulemaking action.

V-251: V-251 currently extends between the Adders, IL, VORTAC and the Boiler, IN, VORTAC. The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment between the Champaign, IL, VORTAC and the Boiler, IN, VORTAC. As amended, the airway would be changed to extend between the Adders VORTAC and the Champaign VORTAC.

T-478: T-478 is a new RNAV route the FAA proposes to establish between the RIVRS, MO, Fix located northeast of the Bolling Green, MO, area and the BOLRR, IN, WP that is being established near the Boiler, IN, VORTAC. This proposed T-route would provide routing between the Champaign, IL, VORTAC and the Lafayette, IN, area to mitigate the proposed removal of the V-251 airway segment addressed above and provide non-radar routing between the RIVRS Fix and the Champaign VORTAC, when needed.

All NAVAID radials listed in the VOR Federal airway V-171 description below are unchanged and stated in degrees True north.

The FAA has determined that this proposed 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 will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 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 would amend the Class D airspace and the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface Class E surface airspace, and remove the Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D airspace at Kalamazoo/Battle Creek International Airport, Kalamazoo, MI, to support instrument flight rule (IFR) operations at this airport.

The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should submit only one time if comments are filed electronically, or commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments are filed in writing.

The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it received on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or dely. The FAA may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.

Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT post these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address, phone number, and hours of operations). An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

Class D and E airspace are published in paragraphs 5000, 6004, 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 proposes to amend the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022. These updates would be published subsequently in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. That order is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

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

The FAA is proposing to amend 14 CFR part 71 by:

Modifying the Class D airspace to within a 4.2-mile (increased from a 4.1-mile) radius of Kalamazoo/Battle Creek International Airport, Kalamazoo, MI; replacing the outdated terms “Notice to Airmen” with “Notice to Air Missions” and “Airport/Facility Directory” with “Chart Supplement”; and updating the geographic coordinates of Kalamazoo/Battle Creek International Airport to coincide with the FAAs aeronautical database;

Removing the Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D airspace at Kalamazoo/Battle Creek International Airport as it is no longer required;

And modifying the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.7-mile (increased from a 6.6-mile) radius of Kalamazoo/Battle Creek International Airport; updating geographic coordinates of Kalamazoo/Battle Creek International Airport and the name of Borgess Medical Center Helipad (previously Burgess Hospital), Kalamazoo, MI, to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; and removing the cities associated with the airports in the header of the airspace legal description to comply with changes to FAA Order JO 7400.2N, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters.

This action is the result of an airspace review due to the decommissioning of the Kalamazoo VOR, which provided navigation information to this airport, as part of the VOR MON Program, and to support IFR operations at this airport.

The FAA has determined that this proposed 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 will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 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 would amend the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface Class E surface airspace at Wabash Municipal Airport, Wabash, IN, to support instrument flight rule (IFR) operations at this airport.

The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should submit only one time if comments are filed electronically, or commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments are filed in writing.

The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it received on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or dely. The FAA may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.

Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT post these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address, phone number, and hours of operations). An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

Class E airspace is published in paragraph 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 proposes to amend the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022. These updates would be published subsequently in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. That order is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

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

The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 by modifying the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.5-mile (decreased from a 7-mile) radius of Wabash Municipal Airport, Wabash, IN; and updating geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

This action is the result of an airspace review due to the decommissioning of the Kokomo VOR, which provided navigation information to this airport, as part of the VOR MON Program, and to support IFR operations at this airport.

The FAA has determined that this proposed 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 will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 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 would amend Class E airspace in Covington, TN. This action is necessary to support IFR operations in the area.

The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. Comments are specifically invited on the proposal's overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should submit only once if comments are filed electronically, or commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments are filed in writing.

The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives and a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible without incurring expense or delay. The FAA may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.

Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded online at www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except for Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on Federal holidays at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337.

Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 annually. This document proposes to amend the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022. These updates would subsequently be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11G is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11G lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The FAA proposes an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for Covington Municipal Airport, Covington, TN, to accommodate area navigation (RNAV) global positioning system (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures (SIAPs) serving this airport. This amendment supports a new instrument approach at this airport. The existing radius would be increased to 10.2 miles (previously 7 miles). Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations in the area.

The FAA has determined that this proposed 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 so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 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 National Airspace System (NAS) as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic.

The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should submit only one time if comments are filed electronically, or commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments are filed in writing.

The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The FAA may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.

Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Operations office (see ADDRESSES section for address, phone number, and hours of operations). An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

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 proposes to amend the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022. These updates would be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. That order is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

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

The FAA is planning to decommission the VOR portion of the Vandalia, IL, VOR/DME in January 2024. The Vandalia VOR is one of the candidate VORs identified for discontinuance by the FAA's VOR MON program and listed in the Final policy statement notice, “Provision of Navigation Services for the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) Transition to Performance-Based Navigation (PBN) (Plan for Establishing a VOR Minimum Operational Network),” published in the Federal Register on July 26, 2016 (81 FR 48694), Docket No. FAA-2011-1082.

Although the VOR portion of the Vandalia VOR/DME is planned for decommissioning, the co-located DME portion of the NAVAID is being retained to support current and future NextGen PBN flight procedure requirements.

The Air Traffic Service (ATS) routes affected by the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Vandalia VOR/DME are VOR Federal airways V-14 and V-67, and RNAV route T-272. With the planned decommissioning of the Vandalia VOR, the remaining ground-based NAVAID coverage in the area is insufficient to enable the continuity of the affected ATS routes. As such, proposed modifications to V-14 would result in an additional gap in the airway between St. Louis, MO, and Terre Haute, IN, and to V-67 would result in the airway being shortened to begin in the Springfield, IL, area. Additionally, proposed modification to T-272 would result in retaining the route by changing the Vandalia VOR/DME route point with the TYMME waypoint (WP).

To address the affected ATS route proposed amendments, instrument flight rules (IFR) traffic could use portions of adjacent VOR Federal airways V-4, V-12, V-50, V-52, and V-69 for conventional navigation or RNAV routes T-272, T-301, and T-305 for GPS equipped aircraft. Additionally, pilots equipped with RNAV capabilities could also navigate point to point using the existing NAVAIDs, fixes, and WPs that would remain in place to support continued operations through the affected area. IFR aircraft may also receive air traffic control (ATC) radar vectors to fly around or through the affected area, upon request. Visual flight rules (VFR) pilots who elect to navigate via the affected VOR Federal airways could also take advantage of the adjacent airways or ATC services listed previously.

The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to amend VOR Federal airways V-14 and V-67, and RNAV route T-272 due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Vandalia, IL, VOR/DME. The proposed airway actions are described below.

V-14: V-14 currently extends between the Chisum, NM, VOR/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) and the Tulsa, OK, VORTAC; and between the Springfield, MO, VORTAC and the Flag City, OH, VORTAC. The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment between the St. Louis, MO, VORTAC and the Terre Haute, IN, VORTAC. As amended, the airway would be changed to extend between the Chisum VORTAC and the Tulsa VORTAC, between the Springfield VORTAC and the St. Louis VORTAC, and between the Terre Haute VORTAC and the Flag City VORTAC.

V-67: V-67 currently extends between the intersection of the Centralia, IL, VORTAC 010° and Vandalia, IL, VOR/DME 162° radials (CORKI Fix) and the Rochester, MN, VOR/DME. The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment between the intersection of the Centralia VORTAC 010° and Vandalia VOR/DME 162° radials (CORKI Fix) and the Spinner, IL, VORTAC. As amended, the airway would be changed to extend between the Spinner VORTAC and the Rochester VOR/DME.

T-272: T-272 currently extends between the Hallsville, MO, VORTAC and the Vandalia, IL, VOR/DME. The FAA proposes to change the Vandalia, IL (VLA), VOR/DME route point to the TYMME, IL, WP which is located approximately 60 feet northeast of the Vandalia VOR/DME. As amended, the route would be changed to extend between the Hallsville VORTAC and the TYMME WP. Additionally, the Hallsville, MO, “HLV” identifier would be added to the first line of the route description and the geographic coordinates of each route point would be updated to be expressed in degrees, minutes, seconds, and hundredths of a second.

The NAVAID radials listed in the V-14 description below are unchanged and stated in degrees True north.

The FAA has determined that this proposed 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 will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

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

On June 23, 2005, the Commission published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) regarding the possible revocation or amendment of 16 CFR part 1632, Standard for the Flammability of Mattress and Mattress Pads (Cigarette Ignition). 70 FR 36357.

Since publication of the ANPR, CPSC staff has conducted testing of full-scale mattress prototypes, evaluated fire incident data, and evaluated both the existing and alternate ticking substitution tests for the substitution of components under 16 CFR part 1632. See 16 CFR 1632.6.

On February 1, 2017, the Commission published a Request for Information (RFI) Regarding Mattress Materials. 82 FR 8923. The Commission requested information on the materials, components, and methods of assembly currently used to comply with part 1632, Standard for the Flammability of Mattresses and Mattress Pads, and part 1633, Standard for the Flammability (Open Flame) of Mattress Sets. Six public comments were submitted. The commenters represented several segments of the mattress industry, but the small number of comments submitted gave CPSC a limited understanding of industry practices.

Below we identify the topics for the June 14, 2023, meeting. 1 As described in Section IV of this notice, we also are seeking written comments on these topics and related matters. We have identified the following specific topics we would like panelists to address at the meeting:

CPSC will determine the presenters and order of the presentations once we confirm the number of panelists available for each topic area. We may combine, expand, or eliminate panel sessions, depending upon the level of interest. The final schedule will be announced on our website before the meeting.

The meeting will be held from 1 to 4 p.m. on June 14, 2023, at the CPSC's National Product Testing and Evaluation Center (NPTEC), 5 Research Place, Rockville, MD 20850.

If you would like to be a panelist or present information for a specific session of the meeting, you should register by May 22, 2023. (See the ADDRESSES section of this document for instructions on how to register.) We also ask that you submit a brief (less than 200 word) abstract of your topic and area of expertise. Staff will select panelists based on a variety of considerations, including: Whether the information to be presented has been received in previous open comment periods; the individual's familiarity or expertise with the topic to be discussed; the practical utility in the information to be presented; and the topic's relevance to the identified theme and topic area. Although an effort will be made to accommodate all persons who wish to be panelists, we expect to limit each panel session to no more than approximately five panelists. Therefore, the final number of panelists may be limited. We recommend that individuals and organizations with common interests consolidate or coordinate their panelist requests. To assist in making final panelist selections, staff may ask potential panelists to submit planned presentations in addition to the initial abstract. We plan to notify panelists of their selection by May 26, 2023.

If you wish to attend and participate in the meeting, but you do not wish to be a panelist, you should register by June 7, 2023, and identify your affiliation. Every effort will be made to accommodate each person's request; however, we may need to limit registration to meet the occupant capacity of our meeting rooms. If you have registered, but are unable to attend the meeting in person, there will be a remote video conferencing link available to watch the meeting live, but you will not be able to interact with the panels and presenters. You may be able to submit written questions in real time for the presenters to answer. You will need to register by email as described in the ADDRESSES section of this document to receive a conferencing link for the meeting.

If you wish to submit written comments, you may do so before or after the meeting, as described in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. These comments should be received by July 5, 2023. Comments should focus on new information not submitted previously that is related to the topic areas listed above.

The meeting will open with a plenary session that includes a brief overview of the staff's activities since the publication of the 2005 ANPR. Following the plenary session, there will be a series of presentations covering topics listed above. We expect potential presenters to speak for approximately 10-20 minutes each about their topic area. At the conclusion of the presentations, there will be a question, answer, and discussion session among the presenters and the audience, limited to the topics discussed by the panelists.

If we decide to cancel or change the meeting, an email will be sent to each registered participant who provides a valid email address when registering as described in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

We request comments related to the possible revocation or amendment of 16 CFR part 1632 and other topics as noted below related to both flammability standards. Staff are interested in receiving written comments either before the public meeting or by July 5, 2023, on the following questions:

1. What types of procedures or alternative test protocols are available to be used for evaluating or substituting tickings? Are there alternative test protocols that may result in different ticking classifications? Please provide information about the benefits of these alternatives, their impact on safety, and whether and why the different ticking classification results are more or less accurate for the different methods.

2. If the test described in 16 CFR 1632.6(e) Test Procedure is performed, who is likely to perform the test ( e.g., the mattress manufacturer, the ticking supplier, or another party), and why? Is the ticking classification verified by a lab report or some other documentation?

3. If a ticking is to be substituted on a qualified mattress prototype, how are candidate tickings for a substitution evaluated and selected? Other than ticking classification, what factors or features are important when selecting a ticking material? Please explain the benefits and/or concerns and impact on safety related to structure ( e.g., knit, woven, nonwoven), fiber content, or other factors that may affect the decision. Is the effect on compliance with the Open Flame Standard a consideration in the selection process?

4. CPSC staff anticipate that recordkeeping requirements may be updated if the Commission opts to amend 16 CFR part 1632. These changes may be made to be consistent with the requirements in 16 CFR part 1633 (for mattresses) and/or separately updated for mattress pads. What recordkeeping changes should be considered for mattresses and/or mattress pads?

5. Are there emerging topics that should be considered in any proposed changes to either 16 CFR part 1632 or 16 CFR part 1633? Examples could include sustainability, accessibility of components, scope of products covered by either standard, and custom products.

Located on the south shore of Lake Erie, Sandusky Bay extends west from its entrance between Cedar Point and Bay Point for about 15 miles to Muddy Creek Bay. The Sandusky River flows into the south side of Muddy Creek Bay. Recreational and commercial small craft can navigate through Sandusky Bay, Muddy Creek Bay, and upstream in the Sandusky River for about 15 miles to the Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge at the town of Fremont, Ohio. The only movable bridge over the Sandusky Bay is the Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge, mile 3.5.

Sandusky Bay is one of the principal waterways in northern Ohio and its shoreline covers three counties. International commerce is heavy enough in the area that the U.S. Customs and Border Protection opened a Sandusky Bay Station in 2012. The south shore of Sandusky Bay boasts one of the largest rail-to-ship coal loading facilities in the Great Lakes and is home to over 35 recreational vessel marinas and boat ramps. Commercial fishing vessels, uninspected charter vessels, power boat rental agencies, sailing vessels, and water-skiers pass through the draw of the Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge, mile 3.5 daily in the summertime.

Cedar Point amusement park and marina, near the mouth of Sandusky Bay, hosts 21,232 visitors each day, except for holidays and special events when visitor numbers average 60,000 people a day.

The Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge, mile 3.5, is a single leaf bascule bridge in the center of a long causeway that provides a horizontal clearance of 64-feet and a vertical clearance of 9-feet in the closed position and an unlimited clearance in the open clearance based on LWD. The bridge is remotely operated by the Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge, mile 5.76, at Toledo and is regulated by 33 CFR 117.853. The bridge is required to open on signal, except from November through April the bridge is required to open if a 24-hour advance notice is provided.

In 2009, the Coast Guard posted in the Federal Register (74 FR 63612) a final rule adding the authority for the bridge to operate remotely, but the Coast Guard did not update or modernize the rest of the regulation. Much of the current regulation remains the same as it was listed in the Federal Register in 1984 (49 FR 17452).

In addition to modernizing the regulation, the Coast Guard also hopes the proposed rule will address two specific concerns the Coast Guard has noted as it relates to the operation of the Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge, mile 3.5: the responsiveness of drawtenders to marine traffic and improved processes as it relates to the use of wind blockers. The Coast Guard has received several complaints, mostly informal, on the operations of the bridge, specifically complaints that the remote drawtender are, at times, non-responsive to telephone and radio calls from mariners. The Coast Guard is proposing new requirements to address these complaints. As it relates to wind blockers, when the winds exceed 40 mph there is a danger that lightweight railcars could be blown off the causeway. These half-floating railcars are a potential hazard to motorists and marine traffic. During wind events, the railroad routinely sets upwind blockers composed of heavy railcars on the parallel track to block the wind. The heavier railcars protect the lighter cars from the effects of the wind as said lighter cars transit the bridge. When in place, the heavy wind blocking trains prevent the bridge from opening. Accordingly, the railroad must coordinate with the local Coast Guard Sector office before posting wind blockers, as the wind blockers may disrupt a bridge's posted operating schedule. Often, there is confusion on how long the wind blocker can be posted and when it needs to be moved to allow vessels to pass through the bridge. The Coast Guard is proposing new language that will specify when a wind blocker is appropriate and stipulate how it will be used by the railroad.

The winter hours allowing for a 24-hour advance notice was popular when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulated bridges before the 1966 Transportation Act transferred those duties to the U.S. Coast Guard.

To enhance communications and insist that the remote drawtender answer the telephone, we propose to require the remote drawtender operate and maintain a telephone so boaters can call. We intend to continue the requirement of maintaining a VHF-FM Marine Radio Telephone.

The remote bridge operator for Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge, mile 3.5, the subject of this regulation, is physically located at Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge, mile 5.76, in Toledo. Currently, the winter advance notice requirements for the two bridges are different; which can be confusing to the drawtender. We propose to match the requirements of the Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge, mile 5.76, with Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge, mile 3.5.

Over the past few years, the Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge, mile 3.5, has been programed to automatically open after a train clears the block. This has greatly reduced complaints and improved the flow of traffic in the waterway. We are proposing to include this as a requirement in the new regulation to ensure that said operations, which greatly benefit marine traffic, are not interrupted by personnel changes at the Railroad.

Norfolk Southern Railroad historically has placed a wind blocker on the bridge when the predicted winds will exceed 40 mph. As discussed earlier, a wind blocker is a heavy train that, when posted on a bridge, shields lighter trains from the effects of wind. Normally the Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge, mile 5.76, at Toledo, drawtender will call USCG Sector Detroit and request to place the wind blocker. However, at times, drawtenders don't provide sufficient information to the Sector, making it difficult for Sector to effectively act on said requests. Still at other times, wind blockers can be found on bridges well before or after a wind event, delaying or otherwise frustrating the opening of the bridge for vessels. We are proposing a clause to remedy these issues.

We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and Executive Orders.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

This regulatory action determination is based on the ability that vessels can still transit the bridge given advanced notice.

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

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

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01, Rev.1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning Policy COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f). The Coast Guard has determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review, under paragraph L49, of chapter 3, Table 3-1 of the U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning Implementation Procedures.

Neither a Record of Environmental Consideration nor a Memorandum for the Record are required for this rule. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

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

Submitting comments. We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal Decision-Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. To do so, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2023-0185 in the search box and click “Search.” Next, look for this document in the Search Results column, and click on it. Then click on the Comment option. If your material cannot be submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

Viewing material in docket. To view documents mentioned in this proposed rule as being available in the docket, find the docket as described in the previous paragraph, and then select “Supporting & Related Material” in the Document Type column. Public comments will also be placed in our online docket and can be viewed by following instructions on the https://www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked Questions web page. We review all comments received, but we will only post comments that address the topic of the proposed rule. We may choose not to post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we receive. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted, or a final rule is published of any posting or updates to the docket.

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

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR  Federal Register IGLD International Great Lakes Datum of 1985 LWD Low Water Datum based on IGLD85 OMB Office of Management and Budget NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

The Ashtabula River flows into Lake Erie at the City of Ashtabula, Ohio. The Ashtabula River is 40 miles in length but only the first 2 miles of the river is navigable. Large commercial vessels, passenger vessels, and recreational vessels use the waterway. There are three bridges crossing the Ashtabula River. The Norfolk Southern Railroad, mile 0.5, is a fixed overhead conveyor with a horizontal clearance of over 50 feet and a vertical clearance of 100 feet above LWD. The Fifth Street Bridge, mile 1.4, is a single leaf bascule bridge with a reported horizontal clearance of 50 feet and a vertical clearance of 11 feet above LWD in the closed position and an unlimited clearance in the open position. The Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge, mile 1.5, is a single leaf bascule bridge with a horizontal clearance of 112 feet and a vertical clearance of 11 feet above LWD in the closed position and an unlimited clearance in the open position. There is no alternative route for vessels traveling the Ashtabula River beyond mile 0.5 to prevent them from passing under or through one or all these bridges. Commercial vessels over 600 feet utilize moorings just outside of the river's mouth. Several of the vessels in the Ashtabula River are small passenger vessels and other small craft over 21-feet.

The two bascule bridges across the Ashtabula River are regulated by 33 CFR 117.847. The draw of the Fifth Street Bridge, mile 1.4, is required to open on signal for the passage of commercial and emergency vessels and on the hour and half for all other vessels. The Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge, mile 1.5, is authorized to operate remotely, and is required to open on signal from April 1 through November 30 from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. and requires a 24-hour advance notice outside of this time.

The Fifth Street Bridge, mile 1.4, does not have winter hours identified in the regulations. The Ashtabula County Engineers submitted a written request for winter hours every year from mid-December to the end of March; in past years, a 12-hour advance notice for openings has been awarded.

The Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge, mile 1.5, has winter hours identified in the regulations; said hours begin on the last day of November and end on the first day in April, where a 24-hour advance notice is required.

The Coast Guard proposes to modify the regulation for both bridges to operate with a 12-hour advance notice from October 10 to May 1 when ice and other winter weather factors often restrict vessels from operating in the river and to provide clarity and consistency to the mariners.

The Fifth Street Bridge, mile 1.4, has operated without complaint for the last four years and we do not see a reason to change the signage; however, the owner will need to add the winter hours and contact information to the currant signage in accordance with 33 CFR 117.55.

The Coast Guard proposes more significant changes to the regulation as it relates to the Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge, mile 1.5. The Coast Guard proposes these changes in an attempt to resolve issues related to timely bridge openings and clear signage. The Coast Guard receives several informal complaints annually from mariners related to the Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge, mile 1.5. One series of complaints relates to concerns that Norfolk Southern has unreasonably hindered or delayed interstate commerce by prioritizing land transportation needs over the marine transportation needs. Several vessels have reported that they were delayed over twelve hours, which placed an additional burden on the mariners to obtain temporary dockage, transportation, or hotel rooms because the bridge would not open, preventing them from returning to their dock. Typically, the railroad states that the remote drawtender forgot to reopen the bridge after a train crossed or that it was too windy to open the bridge for vessels.

Another concern related to the Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge, mile 1.5 is that mariners do not understand how the bridge is supposed to operate. The current signs do not inform the mariners that the bridge is remotely operated; the signs also fail to list the sound signal to request a bridge opening. The current sign instructs mariners to call the bridge on VHF-FM marine Channel 13, the ship-to-ship navigation and collision prevention channel and not channel 16 the international hailing channel.

The Coast Guard and Norfolk Southern have been able to resolve some of the delay issues, but not all. The crossing has continued to be problematic, requiring the Coast Guard to propose a change in the regulation to ensure that marine traffic can use the waterway in manner contemplated by law and regulation.

Communications between the mariners and the bridge owners have been identified as the leading contributing factor in almost every delay of bridge operations and previous signs at the Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge, mile 1.5, have voluntarily provided phone numbers for the mariners to call, but the numbers on the sign have often been outdated or have gone unanswered by the remote drawtender. 33 CFR 117.55 requires signage that summarizes how the bridge shall operate under the requirements of 33 CFR 117-part B and this has proven challenging to the railroad and mariners alike. The most recent signs do not include all communication methods available between the railroad drawtender and the vessel operators. As shown below:

We propose to standardize this signage for the remotely operated railroad bridges and propose the example below to be the signage used. The size, type, and spacing of characters must conform to the standard alphabets for highway signs and be visible to vessels approaching the bridge from upriver or down river of the bridge and be readable at a minimum distance of 500 feet.

To improve communications the District Commander is requiring the Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge, mile 1.5, in addition to monitoring the signals listed in 33 CFR 117.15, to operate and maintain a Radio Telephone as required under 33 CFR 117.23 and operate and maintain a telephone whose number will be maintained on the appropriate signs at the bridge.

We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and Executive Orders.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This regulatory action determination is based on the ability that vessels can still transit the bridge given advanced notice and the requirement for signage has been in effect since April 24, 1984 (49 FR 17452) without any complaint to the burden of cost to the bridge owner.

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

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

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01, Rev.1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning Policy COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f). The Coast Guard has determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review, under paragraph L49, of Chapter 3, Table 3-1 of the U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning Implementation Procedures.

Neither a Record of Environmental Consideration nor a Memorandum for the Record are required for this rule. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

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

Submitting comments. We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal Decision-Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. To do so, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2023-0189 in the search box and click “Search.” Next, look for this document in the Search Results column, and click on it. Then click on the Comment option. If your material cannot be submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

Viewing material in docket. To view documents mentioned in this proposed rule as being available in the docket, find the docket as described in the previous paragraph, and then select “Supporting & Related Material” in the Document Type column. Public comments will also be placed in our online docket and can be viewed by following instructions on the https://www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked Questions web page. We review all comments received, but we will only post comments that address the topic of the proposed rule. We may choose not to post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we receive. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted, or a final rule is published of any posting or updates to the docket.

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

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

EPA is proposing to approve changes submitted by Florida on April 1, 2022, 1 seeking to revise Rule 62-296.405, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), Fossil Fuel Steam Generators with More Than 250 million Btu Per Hour Heat Input and 62-296.570 F.A.C., Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)—Requirements for Major VOC- and NO X -Emitting Facilities. Florida's April 1, 2022, SIP revision includes technical support materials to demonstrate that the changes and deletions to the rule will not interfere with the attainment or maintenance of any National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), or with any other applicable requirement of the CAA. EPA's analysis of these changes in Florida's April 1, 2022, SIP revision below provides EPA's rationale for proposing approval of the changes to Rules 62-296.405 and 62-296.570. 2

Florida's April 1, 2022, SIP revision contains changes to Florida's SIP-approved rules under Chapter 62-296, Stationary Source—Emission Standards, and provides a non-interference demonstration to support these changes. The non-interference demonstration explains why the proposed changes to the SIP would not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in CAA section 171), or any other applicable requirement of the Act ( i.e., how the proposed revision satisfies CAA section 110(l)). This section of the notice of proposed rulemaking will address the portion of the SIP revision that contains changes to Rule 62-296.405, Fossil Fuel Steam Generators with More Than 250-million Btu Per Hour Heat Input.

Specifically, the April 1, 2022, submission contains amendments to provisions 62-296.405(1)(a); 62-296.405(1)(c)1.; 62-296.405(1)(c)1.b. through e.; 62-296.405(1)(c)1.h. through i.; 62-296.405(1)(c)2.a., b., and d.; 62-296.405(1)(c)3.; 62-296.405(1)(d)3..; 62-296.405(1)(e); and 62-296.405(2). These provisions regulate emissions of SO 2 , NO X , and visible emissions from certain fossil fuel-fired steam generators with more than 250 million British Thermal Units (MMBtu) per hour heat input. As described below, the changes to these provisions revise a visible emissions limitation and clarify to whom the results of visible emissions testing must be submitted. The changes also remove outdated language, including emission limits for sources that have shut down or have more stringent federally enforceable limits, add specific citations for EPA test methods, and make minor wording edits. These changes do not allow for any pollutant emission increases because they only remove certain SIP rules that are either obsolete or less stringent than other applicable regulations, and revise other rules in a way that does not lessen stringency.

Subparagraph 296.405(1)(a) requires subject sources to comply with a visible emissions limit of 20 percent opacity. However, the rule also allows sources two options for exceeding 20 percent opacity: one six-minute period per hour during which opacity cannot exceed 27 percent, or one two-minute period per hour during which opacity cannot exceed 40 percent. The rule requires that the option selected by the source be specified in the source's construction and operation permits. The option allowing opacity of no more than 40 percent over a two-minute average stems from, and was consistent with, Florida DEP Method 9, which measured opacity on a two-minute average; however, Florida removed this method from its state rules on July 10, 2014. The option allowing one exceedance per hour of an opacity up to 27 percent over a six-minute average stems from, and is consistent with, EPA Method 9, which measures opacity on a two-minute average. The two options are approximately equivalent on a six-minute average, as affirmed by the State. 3 The SIP revision removes the option that provides an exception of no more than 40 percent opacity over a two-minute period per hour. EPA is proposing to approve this change because Florida has removed DEP Method 9 from the state rules, and because the exception is approximately equivalent to the 27 percent exception that remains in the rule.

Subparagraph 296.405(1)(a) is also revised to remove the word “compliance” from the phrases “test for particulate emissions compliance annually” and “test for particulate matter emissions compliance quarterly” in the context of required periodic testing requirements. These revisions alter neither the SIP requirements for periodic particulate matter testing nor the availability of such testing results for compliance determination purposes.

Subparagraph 62-296.405(1)(a) is also revised to add that the results of required visible emissions tests must be submitted to “the local program” instead of the Department if submission to the local program is specified in the facility's permit. EPA believes this addition is appropriate because Florida's eight local air programs take lead responsibility for air compliance and enforcement activities in their counties, and it ensures consistency with the relevant permit requirements.

Subparagraph 62-296.405(1)(c) contains SO 2 emission limit requirements for the existing emissions units covered by the rule. Subparagraph (1)(c)1., which provides emission limits for sources that burn liquid fuel, is being revised to remove the extraneous text “Stations—2.5 pounds per million Btu heat input.” This phrase is not linked to any specific emissions units, but rather, as explained in Florida's April 1, 2022, SIP submittal, was inadvertently retained when the rest of a former version of provision 62-296.405(1)(c)1.a., F.A.C. was deleted from the State's rules. The text intended for deletion from the State's rules reads, “Duval County north of Heckscher Drive excluding Jacksonville Electric Authority Northside Generating Stations—2.5 pounds per mission Btu heat input.” However, the words “Stations—2.5 pounds per million Btu heat input” were unintentionally submitted to EPA and approved into the SIP. Because this text is detached from the units it once applied to, EPA is proposing to approve its removal.

In addition to this change, FL DEP requests the removal of several subparagraphs from Rule 62-296.405 because they contain SO 2 limits for emissions units that no longer exist or that have more stringent federally enforceable requirements.

The first subparagraph FL DEP requests the removal of is subparagraph (1)(c)1.b. Subparagraph (1)(c)1.b. regulates emission units in Duval County burning liquid fuel with a nameplate generating capacity of less than 160 megawatts (MW), and which commenced operation prior to October 1, 1964. The provision limits SO 2 emissions from these units to 1.10 pounds per million Btu heat input (lbs/MMBtu). This subparagraph is proposed for removal from the Florida SIP because it is applicable only to Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA) Southside Units 4 and 5, which were permanently shut down on October 31, 2001, and JEA Kennedy Units 7, 8, and 9, which were permanently shut down on October 30, 2000. Since these units are shut down and there are no existing emissions units potentially subject to subparagraph (1)(c)1.b., its removal will not increase SO 2 emissions. Therefore, EPA is proposing to remove this subparagraph.

The second subparagraph FL DEP requests the removal of is subparagraph (1)(c)1.c. Subparagraph (1)(c)1.c. limits SO 2 emissions from all existing subject units burning liquid fuel in Duval County other than those covered by subparagraphs (1)(c)1.a. or (1)(c)1.b. to 1.65 lbs/MMBtu. However, there are no longer any existing emissions units  4 in Duval County that subparagraph (1)(c)1.c. would apply to. Since there are no longer any existing emissions units subject to or potentially subject to subparagraph (1)(c)1.c., its removal will not increase SO 2 emissions. Therefore, EPA is proposing to remove this subparagraph.

The third subparagraph FL DEP requests the removal of is subparagraph (1)(c)1.d. Subparagraph (1)(c)1.d. limits SO 2 emissions from Hillsborough County units south of State Highway 60 burning liquid fuel with a nameplate generating capacity of less than 100 MW, and which commenced operation prior to June 1, 1955, to 1.1 lbs/MMBtu. This subparagraph is applicable only to Tampa Electric Company (TECO) Gannon and Hooker's Point emission units which have shut down. The dates of the various TECO emission units' permanent shutdowns are shown in Table 1, below.

Since these units have shut down and there are no existing emissions units potentially subject to subparagraph (1)(c)1.d., its removal will not increase SO 2 emissions. Therefore, EPA is proposing to remove this subparagraph.

The fourth subparagraph FL DEP requests the removal of is subparagraph (1)(c)1.e. Subparagraph (1)(c)1.e. limits SO 2 emissions from Escambia County's units north of Interstate 10 burning liquid fuel with a nameplate generating capacity of less than 50 MW, and which commenced operation prior to October 1, 1952, to 1.98 lbs/MMBtu. This subparagraph is applicable only to the Gulf Power Crist Units 1-3, which were permanently shut down on December 31, 2005. Since these units have shut down and there are no emissions units potentially subject to subparagraph (1)(c)1.e., its removal will not increase SO 2 emissions. Therefore, EPA is proposing to remove this subparagraph.

The fifth subparagraph FL DEP requests the removal of is subparagraph (1)(c)1.h. Subparagraph (1)(c)1.h. limits SO 2 emissions from the units in Leon and Wakulla Counties burning liquid fuel with a nameplate generating capacity of less than 260 MW, and for which a valid Department operating permit was issued prior to November 1, 1977, to 1.87 lbs/MMBtu. This subparagraph is applicable only to City of Tallahassee Hopkins and Purdom units which were permanently shut down. The dates of the various City of Tallahassee Hopkins and Purdom emission units' permanent shutdowns are shown in Table 2, below.

Since these units have shut down and there are no existing emissions units potentially subject to subparagraph (1)(c)1.h., its removal will not increase SO 2 emissions. Therefore, EPA is proposing to remove this subparagraph.

The sixth subparagraph FL DEP requests the removal of is subparagraph (1)(c)1.i. Subparagraph (1)(c)1.i. limits SO 2 emissions from the units in Dade, Broward, and Palm Counties burning liquid fuel with a nameplate generating capacity of less than 170 MW, and which commenced operation prior to May 1, 1958, to 1.1 lbs/MMBtu (except in the event of a fuel or energy crisis declared by the Governor of Florida or the President of the United States, in which case the limit is 2.75 lbs/MMBtu). This subparagraph is applicable only to Florida Power and Light (FP&L) Cutler, Lauderdale, and Riviera Beach units, the last of which was permanently shut down on May 21, 2013. The dates of the various FP&L Cutler, Lauderdale, and Riviera Beach emission units' permanent shutdowns are shown in Table 3, below.

Since these units have shut down and there are no existing emissions units potentially subject to subparagraph (1)(c)1.i., its removal will not increase SO 2 emissions. Therefore, EPA is proposing to remove this subparagraph.

The seventh subparagraph FL DEP requests the removal of is subparagraph (1)(c)2.a. Subparagraph (1)(c)2.a. limits SO 2 emissions from Hillsborough County's units burning solid fuel with a nameplate generating capacity of greater than 120 MW and which commenced operation prior to November 1, 1967, to 2.4 lbs/MMBtu on a weekly average. The provision also limits any group of such emissions units located on one or more contiguous or adjacent properties ( i.e., collectively) to 10.6 tons of SO 2 per hour on a weekly average. This subparagraph is applicable only to TECO Gannon units which were permanently shut down. The dates of the various TECO Gannon units' permanent shutdowns are shown in Table 4, below.

Since these units have shut down and there are no existing emissions units potentially subject to subparagraph (1)(c)2.a., its removal will not increase SO 2 emissions. Therefore, EPA proposes to remove this subparagraph.

The eighth subparagraph FL DEP requests the removal of is subparagraph (1)(c)2.b. Subparagraph (1)(c)2.b. limits SO 2 emissions from units in Hillsborough County burning solid fuel with a nameplate generating capacity of greater than 400 MW, and which commenced operation after November 1, 1967, and prior to June 1, 1976, to 6.5 lbs/MMBtu over a two-hour average. 5 This subparagraph is applicable only to TECO Big Bend Units 1, 2, and 3. However, Unit 1 was permanently shut down on June 1, 2020, and Unit 2 was permanently shut down on November 30, 2021. For TECO Big Bend Unit 3, subparagraph (1)(c)2.b. yields an allowable SO 2 emission rate of 26,747.5 pounds per hour (lbs/hr) based on the limit of 6.5 lbs/MMBtu and a unit heat input capacity of 4,115 MMBtu/hr. 6 The TECO Big Bend facility is also subject to a source-specific SO 2 emissions cap of 2,156 lbs/hr for all of the TECO Big Bend units combined, which was approved into the SIP as a source-specific SIP revision in 2019. 7 8 This emissions cap, even though averaged over a 30-day period, is significantly more stringent than the subparagraph (1)(c)2.b. emission limit. For example, under subparagraph (1)(c)2.b., a unit is allowed to emit 963 tons of SO 2 in just three days, which is more than the total allowed in 30 days under the source-specific SO 2 emissions cap, 776 tons. Therefore, because the TECO Big Bend units are either permanently shut down or are subject to another more stringent SO 2 limit in the SIP, EPA is proposing to remove this subparagraph.

The ninth subparagraph FL DEP requests the removal of is subparagraph (1)(c)2.d. Subparagraph (1)(c)2.d. limits SO 2 emissions from units burning solid fuel in all other areas of the State to 6.17 lbs/MMBtu. This subparagraph is only applicable to Gulf Power Scholz Units 1 and 2, which were permanently shut down on April 16, 2015. Since these units have shut down and there are no existing emissions units potentially subject to subparagraph (1)(c)2.d., its removal will not increase SO 2 emissions. Therefore, EPA is proposing to remove this subparagraph.

Finally, subparagraph (1)(c)3. requires owners of fossil fuel steam generators to monitor their emissions and the effects of the emissions on ambient concentrations of SO 2 in a particular manner and frequency, and at locations approved and deemed reasonably necessary and ordered by the Department. FL DEP notes that the monitoring of stack emissions is regulated by SIP-approved Chapter 62-297, F.A.C., Stationary Sources—Emissions Monitoring, and views subparagraph (1)(c)3. as a discretionary ambient SO 2 monitoring provision that is no longer needed in the SIP. FL DEP explains that the State has the authority and capability of setting up ambient air quality monitoring stations as needed. In addition, Rule 62-212.400(7) F.A.C., requires that the owner or operator of a major stationary source or major modification under the prevention of significant deterioration program provide any required monitoring and analysis as required in 40 CFR 52.21(m). EPA agrees that Florida operates an approved plan for monitoring compliance with the SO 2 NAAQS and may require owners of fossil fuel steam generators to conduct ambient monitoring as needed when constructing or modifying emissions units. For these reasons, EPA is proposing to approve removal of this subparagraph from the SIP.

FL DEP's April 1, 2022, submission requests the removal of subparagraph (1)(d)3. Subparagraph (1)(d)3. limits NO X emissions from unit in Leon County with a nameplate generating capacity of greater than 200 MW, and for which a valid Department operating permit was issued prior to November 1, 1977, to 0.30 lbs/MMBtu. This subparagraph applies only to the City of Tallahassee's Hopkins Boiler 2, which was permanently shut down on February 9, 2008. Since this unit has shut down and there are no emissions units potentially subject to subparagraph (1)(d)3., its removal will not increase NO X emissions. Therefore, EPA is proposing to remove this subparagraph.

Florida's SIP revision seeks to revise subparagraph 62-296.405(1)(e) by adding specific citations for EPA test methods and removing outdated language. This will not result in increased emissions or change any existing requirements; therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the changes to this subparagraph. These revisions are summarized as follows:

(1) The changes replace the reference to repealed FL DEP Method 9 with EPA Method 9, as described at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-4, and adopted by reference at Rule 62-204.800, 9 as the test method for visible emissions. The changes also add that the State has adopted and incorporated by reference 40 CFR part 75 at Rule 62-204.800.

(2) The changes remove a redundant and unnecessary statement that an owner or operator may use EPA Method 5 to demonstrate compliance. The changes also specify where the applicable test methods are found in the Federal rules as follows: Methods 3 and 3A are described at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2; Methods 5, 5B, and 5F are described at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3; Method 17 is described at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-6; and Method 19 is described at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7. In addition, the changes update the rule by stating that the State has adopted and incorporated these methods by reference at Rule 62-204.800, F.A.C., rather than Chapter 62-297, F.A.C., due to the repeal of Rule 62-297.401, Compliance Test Methods, which EPA previously removed from the SIP. See 83 FR 13875 (April 2, 2018).

(3) The changes specify that the SO 2 test methods—EPA Methods 6, 6A, 6B and 6C—are “as described at 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-4” and that these methods are adopted and incorporated by reference at Rule 62-204.800, F.A.C., rather than Chapter 62-297, F.A.C.

(4) The changes specify that the NO X test methods—EPA Methods 7, 7A, or 7E—are “as described at 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-4, adopted and incorporated by reference at Rule 62-204.800, F.A.C.” This phrase replaces the reference to Chapter 62-297. The changes also add that the State has adopted and incorporated by reference 40 CFR parts 60, 75, and 76 at Rule 62-204.800.

FL DEP is requesting the removal of subsection 62-296.405(2), which reads as follows: 62-296.405(2) New Emissions Units.

(a) Visible Emissions—(See subsection 62-204.800(7), F.A.C., and 40 CFR 60.42 and 60.42a).

(b) Particulate Matter—(See subsection 62-204.800(7), F.A.C., and 40 CFR 60.42 and 60.42a).

(c) Sulfur Dioxide—(See subsection 62-204.800(7), F.A.C., and 40 CFR 60.43 and 60.43a).

(d) Nitrogen Oxides—(See subsection 62-204.800(7), F.A.C., and 40 CFR 60.44 and 60.44a).

This subparagraph lists visible emissions and three air pollutants, particulate matter, SO 2 , and NO X , and the federal new source performance standards (NSPS), adopted and incorporated by reference by Florida in Rule 62-204.800, that regulate these pollutants for certain electric utility steam generating units. 10 This subparagraph merely identifies the federal NSPS that are applicable to certain fossil fuel steam generators and the Florida rule that incorporates the relevant federal NSPS by reference. This subparagraph does not need to be in the Florida SIP because the NSPS requirements are independently applicable and federally enforceable. Sources that are subject to these Federal requirements must comply with them regardless of whether this subparagraph is in the SIP. Thus, EPA proposes to remove subsection 62-296.405(2) from the SIP.

EPA has evaluated the State's non-interference demonstration and is proposing to find that the changes to Rule 62-296.405 would not interfere with any requirement concerning attainment and RFP, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA for the reasons discussed above.

The April 1, 2022, submission removes obsolete provisions in Rule 62-296-570, Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)—Requirements for Major VOC- and NO X -Emitting Facilities and makes changes to clarify the intent of the Rule and update certain cross-references. FL DEP developed Rule 62-296.570 to implement VOC and NO X RACT for existing major sources of VOC and NO X in its then moderate ozone nonattainment area—the South Florida Area (consisting of Broward, Dade, and Palm Beach Counties)—as required by CAA section 182. 11 After EPA redesignated the South Florida Area to attainment, Florida revised its RACT rules such that Rule 62-296.570 now applies to the South Florida maintenance area. 12

Subparagraph 62-296.570(1)(b) is revised to clarify the intent of the rule. Chapter 62-296.570 establishes requirements for major VOC- and NO X -emitting facilities. The following text is added to subparagraph (1)(b) to clarify that the rule requirements do not apply to activities considered insignificant for title V permitting purposes: “or that would otherwise be considered insignificant pursuant to Rule 62-213.300(2)(a)1., F.A.C., or Rule 62-213.430(6)(b), F.A.C[,],”. Insignificant activities are not considered major emitting activities for the purposes of a title V permitting, so this text is clarifying that the rule does not apply to insignificant activities.

Paragraph 62-296.570(3) is proposed for removal from the SIP. Currently, subparagraph 62-296.570(3)(a) requires an owner or operator of any emission unit subject to the Rule to apply for a new or revised permit to operate in accordance with 62-296.570 by March 1, 1993, unless a later filing date is specified by FL DEP in writing. Subparagraph (3)(b) extends the expiration date of existing operation permits for any emission unit subject to the requirements of this rule if the existing permit would expire between the effective date of the section and March 1, 1993, or any later filing date specified by the Department, unless a permit is revoked or suspended. All affected facilities already have operating permits and the date for compliance with this rule has passed; therefore, these rules are no longer needed in the SIP.

Subparagraphs 62-296.570(4)(a)1. and 2. are also proposed for removal from the SIP. Currently, subparagraph 62-296.570(4)(a)1. requires applicants for a new or revised operation permit for an emissions unit subject to the rule to propose a schedule implementing RACT emission limiting standards no later than May 31, 1995. Further, the emissions unit must demonstrate compliance with the RACT emission limiting standards in accordance with the schedule specified in its air operation permit. Subparagraph (4)(a)2. requires that fuel specific NO X and VOC emission limits established under Rule 62-296.570 are incorporated into the new or revised operation permit for each emissions unit and become effective in accordance with the terms of the permit. All affected facilities were those outlined in paragraphs 62-296.570(3)(a) and (b). The requirements in subparagraphs (4)(a)1. and (4)(a)2 have already been met for those operating permits and the date for compliance with the subparagraphs has passed; therefore, these rules are no longer needed in the SIP and their removal will not alter current regulatory requirements.

Subparagraph 62-296.570(4)(b)1. is proposed for removal from the SIP. Currently, subparagraph 62-296.570(4)(b)1. requires that emissions of NO X from any rear wall-fired, forced circulation, 16-burner, compact furnace shall not exceed 0.20 lb/MMBtu while firing natural gas, and 0.36 lb/MMBtu while firing oil. However, the emission units subject to the provision, FP&L Port Everglades Units 1 and 2, were permanently shut down. Further, as discussed above, since the Rule only applies to existing emission units, this subparagraph does not apply to any future units. Additionally, any future major units would undergo major new source review under Chapter 62-212. For these reasons, this subparagraph is no longer needed in the SIP.

Subparagraph 62-296.570(4)(b)2. is proposed for removal from the SIP. Currently, subparagraph 62-296.570(4)(b)2. requires that NO X emissions from any front wall fired, natural circulation, 18-burner, compact furnace shall not exceed 0.40 lb/MMBtu while firing natural gas and 0.53 lb/MMBtu while firing oil. However, the emission units subject to this provision, FP&L Port Everglades Units 3 and 4, and Turkey Point Units 1 and 2, were permanently shut down. Further, since the Rule only applies to existing emission units, this subparagraph does not apply to any future units. Additionally, any future major units would undergo major new source review under Chapter 62-212. For these reasons, this rule subparagraph is no longer needed in the SIP.

Subparagraph 62-296.570(4)(b)3. is proposed for removal from the SIP. Currently, subparagraph 62-296.570(4)(b)3. requires that NO X emissions from any front wall fired, natural circulation, 24-burner, compact furnace shall not exceed 0.50 lb/MMBtu while firing natural gas and 0.62 lb/MMBtu while firing oil. However, the emission units subject to this provision, FP&L Riviera Beach Units 3 and 4, were permanently shut down. Further, since the Rule only applies to existing emission units, this subparagraph does not apply to any future units. Additionally, any future major units would undergo major new source review under Chapter 62-212. For these reasons, this subparagraph is no longer needed in the SIP.

Subparagraph 62-296.570(4)(b)4. is proposed for removal from the SIP. Currently, subparagraph 62-296.570(4)(b)4. requires that NO X emissions from any tangentially fired, low heat release, large furnace shall not exceed 0.20 lb/MMBtu while firing natural gas. However, the emission units subject to this provision, FP&L Cutler Units 3 and 4, were permanently shut down. Further, since the Rule only applies to existing emission units, this subparagraph does not apply to any future units. Additionally, any future major units would undergo major new source review under chapter 62-212. For these reasons, this rule subparagraph is no longer needed in the SIP. 13

Subparagraph 62-296.570(4) is further revised to update cross-references and to clarify that not all testing is for determining compliance. The first language change replaces the word “Compliance” in the phrase “Compliance Dates and Monitoring” in (4)(a) to “Emissions Testing.” Another language change removes the phrase “compliance with the emission limits established in this rule shall be demonstrated by” as unnecessarily descriptive text in subparagraph (4)(a)3. A reference update in the revision removes the cross-reference to Rule 62-297.401, Compliance Test Methods, which as noted previously, EPA has removed from the SIP. 14 This cross-reference described the applicable EPA reference methods used to conduct annual emissions testing for emission units not equipped with continuous emission monitoring systems for NO X or VOCs. Florida replaces this cross-reference with the phrase “as described in 40 CFR part 60, Appendices A-1 through A-8, adopted and incorporated by reference at Rule 62-204.800”. Florida makes these same cross-reference changes to paragraph (4)(b)9.

EPA has evaluated the State's non-interference demonstration and is proposing to find that the changes to Rule 62-296.570 would not interfere with any requirement concerning attainment and RFP, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA for the reasons discussed above.

In this document, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, as discussed in sections I and II of the preamble, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference: Florida Rule 62-296.405, Fossil Fuel Steam Generators with More than 250 million Btu per Hour Heat Input, which modifies stationary source emission standards for fossil fuel-fired steam generators in the Florida SIP, state-effective July 10, 2014, and Florida Rule 62-296.570, Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)—Requirements for Major VOC- and NO X -Emitting Facilities, which modifies stationary source emission standards for major VOC and NO X facilities in the Florida SIP, state effective July 10, 2014, except for subparagraph 62-296.570(4)(b)9. 15 EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 4 office (please contact the person identified in the “For Further Information Contact” section of this preamble for more information).

For the reasons discussed above, EPA is proposing to approve the portion of Florida's April 1, 2022, SIP revision seeking to amend Rules 62-296.405 and 62-296.570.

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

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 as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects” of their actions on minority populations and low-income populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. EPA defines environmental justice (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.” 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.”

The air agency did not evaluate EJ considerations as part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this proposed action. Due to the nature of the action being proposed here, this proposed action is expected to have a neutral to positive impact on the air quality of the affected area. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this proposed action, and there is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving EJ for people of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.

On February 22, 2013, EPA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking outlining EPA's policy at the time with respect to SIP provisions related to periods of SSM. EPA analyzed specific SSM SIP provisions and explained how each one either did or did not comply with the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) with regards to excess emission events. For each SIP provision that EPA determined to be inconsistent with the CAA, EPA proposed to find that the existing SIP provision was substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements and thus proposed to issue a SIP call under CAA section 110(k)(5). On September 17, 2014, EPA issued a document supplementing and revising what the Agency had previously proposed on February 22, 2013, in light of a United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decision that determined the CAA precludes authority of EPA to create affirmative defense provisions applicable to private civil suits. EPA outlined its updated policy that affirmative defense SIP provisions are not consistent with CAA requirements. EPA proposed in the supplemental proposal document to apply its revised interpretation of the CAA to specific affirmative defense SIP provisions and proposed SIP calls for those provisions where appropriate. See 79 FR 55920 (September 17, 2014).

On June 12, 2015, pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(5), EPA finalized “State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking; Restatement and Update of EPA's SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction,” hereinafter referred to as the “2015 SSM SIP Action.” See 80 FR 33840 (June 12, 2015). The 2015 SSM SIP Action clarified, restated, and updated EPA's interpretation that SSM exemption and affirmative defense SIP provisions are inconsistent with CAA requirements. The 2015 SSM SIP Action found that certain SIP provisions in 36 states, including Florida, were substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements and issued a SIP call to those states to submit SIP revisions to address the inadequacies. EPA established an 18-month deadline by which the affected states had to submit such SIP revisions. States were required to submit corrective revisions to their SIPs in response to the SIP calls by November 22, 2016.

EPA issued a memorandum in October 2020 (2020 Memorandum), which stated that certain provisions governing SSM periods in SIPs could be viewed as consistent with CAA requirements. 1 Importantly, the 2020 Memorandum stated that it “did not alter in any way the determinations made in the 2015 SSM SIP Action that identified specific state SIP provisions that were substantially inadequate to meet the requirements of the Act.” Accordingly, the 2020 Memorandum had no direct impact on the SIP call issued to Florida in 2015. The 2020 Memorandum did, however, indicate EPA's intent at the time to review SIP calls that were issued in the 2015 SSM SIP Action to determine whether EPA should maintain, modify, or withdraw particular SIP calls through future agency actions.

On September 30, 2021, EPA's Deputy Administrator withdrew the 2020 Memorandum and announced EPA's return to the policy articulated in the 2015 SSM SIP Action (2021 Memorandum). 2 As articulated in the 2021 Memorandum, SIP provisions that contain exemptions or affirmative defense provisions are not consistent with CAA requirements and, therefore, generally are not approvable if contained in a SIP submission. This policy approach is intended to ensure that all communities and populations, including minority, low-income and indigenous populations overburdened by air pollution, receive the full health and environmental protections provided by the CAA. 3 The 2021 Memorandum also retracted the prior statement from the 2020 Memorandum regarding EPA's plans to review and potentially modify or withdraw particular SIP calls. That statement no longer reflects EPA's intent. EPA intends to implement the principles laid out in the 2015 SSM SIP Action as the Agency acts on SIP submissions, including the November 22, 2016, SIP submittal provided by FDEP in response to the 2015 SIP call.

In the 2015 SSM SIP Action, EPA determined that Florida Administrative Code Rules (hereinafter referred to as “Rules”) 62-210.700(1), 62-210.700(2), 62-210.700(3), and 62-210.700(4) are substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements. See 80 FR 33839, 33962 (June 12, 2015). In the existing Florida SIP, Rule 62-210.700(1) provides that excess emissions resulting from SSM modes of operation for any emissions unit “shall be permitted” if the best operational practices to minimize those emissions is employed and the duration of the excess emissions does not exceed two hours in a 24-hour period. Rules 62-210.700(2) and .700(3) provide specifically that excess emissions from fossil fuel steam generators resulting from startup or shutdown or from boiler cleaning (soot blowing) and load change, respectively, “shall be permitted” if the best operational practices to minimize the emissions and duration of excess emissions are employed. Finally, SIP-called Rule 62-210.700(4) provides that excess emissions which are caused entirely or in part by “poor maintenance, poor operation, or any other equipment or process failure which may reasonably be prevented” during SSM “shall be prohibited.” The rationale underlying EPA's determination that Rules 62-210.700(1), (2), (3) and (4) were substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements, and therefore should be included in the 2015 SSM SIP Action to remedy the deficiencies, is detailed in the 2015 SSM SIP Action and accompanying proposals.

On November 22, 2016, FDEP submitted a revision to the Florida SIP (hereinafter referred to as Florida's “Excess Emissions Rule SIP Revision”) in response to the 2015 SSM SIP Action. In that revision, FDEP requests EPA approval of the following changes to the Florida SIP: (1) removal of Rule 62-210.700(4) with the addition of equivalent language to Rules 62-210.700(1) and (2); (2) amendment of Rule 62-210.700(3) to amend the particulate matter (PM) limits applicable during boiler cleaning (soot blowing) and load changes by removing the statement that excess emissions during these periods “shall be permitted,” removing the exemption for pollutants other than PM and visible emissions, and removing a specific allowance for visible emissions which exceed 60 percent opacity for up to four six-minute periods during the 3-hour period of excess emissions allowed for soot blowing or load change; (3) addition of Rule 62-210.700(6) which states that Rules 62-210.700(1) and (2) shall not apply after May 22, 2018, to either category-specific or unit-specific limits that have been incorporated into Florida's SIP; and (4) addition of Rule 62-210.700(7), which states that after the effective date of the rule change (October 23, 2016), Rules 62-210.700(1) and (2) shall not apply to new permit-specific emission limits established pursuant to Florida's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) regulations (Rules 62-212.400 and 62-210.500).

On September 30, 2022, FDEP submitted a supplemental revision (hereinafter referred to as Florida's “Supplemental SSM SIP Revision”) to the State's November 22, 2016, Excess Emissions Rule SIP Revision. In the Supplemental SSM SIP Revision, FDEP includes “alternative SIP emission limits for those SIP emission limits that [FL] DEP identified as problematic” if applied continuously and several changes to language throughout Chapter 62-296. The State requests EPA approval of the following changes: (1) amendment of existing Rule 62-296.405, “Fossil Fuel Steam Generators with More Than 250 Million Btu Per Hour Heat Input” and Rule 62-296.570, “Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)—Requirements for Major VOC- and NO X -Emitting Facilities” to clarify how emissions are calculated, including during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction; (2) addition of emissions-unit-specific SO 2 and NO X emission limits for certain sulfuric acid plants (SAPs) and nitric acid plants (NAPs) in Florida; (3) removal of SO 2 emission limits in Rule 62-296.402, “Sulfuric Acid Plants”; and (4) removal of NO X emission limits in Rule 62-296.408, “Nitric Acid Plants.”

The SIP-called provisions of Rules 62-210.700(1), (2), and (3) provide that excess emissions “shall be permitted” under certain circumstances and thus provide that such excess emissions will not be violations, which is inconsistent with CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A), 110(a)(2)(C), and 302(k). The SIP-called provision of Rule 62-210.700(4) provides that excess emissions caused entirely or in part by poor maintenance, poor operation, or any other equipment or process failure that may reasonably be prevented during periods of SSM are prohibited. As EPA has previously noted, such a provision “does not negate the underlying problem of providing exemptions for the excess emissions in the first instance.” See 78 FR 12459, 12503 (February 22, 2013).

Florida's Excess Emissions Rule SIP Revision makes changes to Rule 62-210.700 to address the specific deficiencies identified in the 2015 SSM SIP Action. Florida has added new Rule 62-210.700(6), 4 which provides that paragraphs .700(1) and .700(2) shall no longer apply for purposes of the SIP after May 22, 2018. Specifically, Rule 62-210.700(6) provides that these paragraphs will not apply to limits in Chapter 62-296 that are incorporated or will be incorporated into the SIP, nor will they apply to unit-specific emission limits which have been or will be incorporated into the SIP. This covers all SIP emission limits, since FDEP establishes its applicable limits in Chapter 62-296 and otherwise would submit to EPA unit-specific emission limits via source-specific SIP revisions for incorporation into the SIP at 40 CFR 52.520(d). Because May 22, 2018, has passed, EPA's proposed approval of Florida's Excess Emissions Rule SIP Revision, if finalized, would effectively remove Rules 62-210.700(1) and .700(2) from the SIP. The only changes made to Rule 62-210.700(1) and .700(2) are to remove the word “operational” in describing the requirement that sources adhere to best practices during periods of SSM and the addition of the prohibitory provision from existing Rule 62-210.700(4) (which is being deleted, as discussed below). EPA proposes to find that the addition of new Rule 62-210.700(6) addresses the deficiencies in .700(1) and .700(2) that EPA identified in the 2015 SSM SIP Action.

The SIP-called version of Rule 62-210.700(3) allows excess emissions “from existing fossil fuel steam generators resulting from boiler cleaning (soot blowing) and load change.” As explained in the 2015 SSM SIP Action, such exemptions are inconsistent with CAA requirements. The changes to Rule 62-210.700(3) transmitted in Florida's Excess Emissions Rule SIP Revision include: replacement of the term “Excess” with “Visible”; deletion of the term “shall be permitted”; deletion of the exemption for visible emissions above 60 percent opacity during up to 24 total minutes over a 3-hour period for periods of soot blowing or load change; linguistic changes to the opacity and PM limits applicable during “boiler cleaning (soot blowing) and load change”; and exclusion of startup and shutdown from, plus non-substantive changes to, the definition of load change. The effect of deleting the statement that excess emissions “shall be permitted” during soot blowing or load change is the removal of the exemption for such excess emissions. So, rather than permitting excess emissions during such periods and specifically allowing for visible emissions above 60 percent opacity during up to 24 total minutes over a 3-hour period for periods of soot blowing or load change, the revised rule only retains the existing requirement that opacity during these periods may not exceed 60 percent opacity for the 6-minute averaging time for up to 3 hours in any 24-hour period. Additionally, the corresponding PM limit is also retained. Thus, the revised version of Rule 62-210.700(3) no longer allows for exempt periods during which no standard applies to the affected facilities and makes it more stringent than the current SIP-approved version of the rule.

As noted above, Rule 62-210.700(4) is removed, but the same language from that provision is added at Rules .700(1) and .700(2). This is not a specific change to the treatment of excess emissions under these provisions but given the addition of Rule 62-210.700(6), covered in more detail below, these provisions do not apply after May 22, 2018, and thus will have no effect in the SIP.

Rule 62-210.700(6) is a new provision which terminates the applicability of Rules 62-210.700(1) and .700(2) after May 22, 2018, for emission limits or unit-specific emission limits that have been incorporated into Florida's SIP. According to Florida's Supplemental SSM SIP Revision, the purpose of this provision was to provide “time to develop and submit alternative SIP emission limits for those limits that would be problematic if they applied at all times.”

Rule 62-210.700(7) is a new provision which terminates the applicability of paragraphs 62-210.700(1) and .700(2) on October 23, 2016, for new permit-specific emission limits established pursuant to Florida's PSD and NNSR regulations (Rules 62-212.400 and 62-210.500). With the addition of this rule, Florida establishes that emission limits incorporated into Florida's permits via the State's SIP-approved major new source review program apply at all times.

EPA proposes to find that with the addition of paragraph 62-210.700(6) and the removal of other exemptions for transient modes of operation in 62-210.700(3), emission limits incorporated into Florida's SIP apply at all times, including periods of SSM. Moreover, EPA is proposing to find that the addition of 62-210.700(7) ensures that emission limits incorporated into Florida construction permits will not allow excess emissions during periods of SSM. Therefore, based on Florida's changes to Rule 62-210.700 and the State's request to incorporate the revised language in the Florida SIP, EPA proposes to find that Florida's Excess Emissions Rule SIP Revision is consistent with CAA requirements and adequately addresses the specific deficiencies that EPA identified in the 2015 SSM SIP Action with respect to Rule 62-210.700 in the Florida SIP.

Florida's Supplemental SSM SIP Revision requests that EPA approve multiple changes to Florida's SIP as discussed in the following sections. The changes include SSM-related amendments to Rule 62-296.402, “Sulfuric Acid Plants,” Rule 62-296.405, “Fossil Fuel Steam Generators with More Than 250 Million Btu Per Hour Heat Input,” Rule 62-296.408, “Nitric Acid Plants,” and Rule 62-296.570, “Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)—Requirements for Major VOC- and NO X -Emitting Facilities,” and the addition of emissions-unit-specific SO 2 and NO X emission limits for certain SAPs and NAPs located within the State of Florida.

In the Supplemental SSM SIP Revision, FDEP proposes several amendments to Rule 62-296.402, “Sulfuric Acid Plants.” Specifically, FDEP proposes deletion of the production-based SO 2 emission limits in renumbered Rules 62-296.402(2)(a)2., 62-296.402(2)(b)2., and 62-296.402(3)(b) from the SIP. Those production-based SO 2 emission limits were written in units of pounds per ton of 100 percent acid produced (pounds per ton (lbs/ton)) and, when adopted decades ago into Florida's first SIP, were not intended to be applicable during periods of SSM because (1) the methodology to calculate compliance with a rolling three-hour production-based limit is skewed by the lack of production during hours of startup and shutdown, and (2) the corresponding New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) at 40 CFR part 60, subpart H, on which the Florida emission limit for new units is based, exempted periods of SSM via performance testing requirements in subpart A to part 60 in the original promulgation of part 60 and as subsequently clarified. 5

The SIP-called version of Rule 62-210.700 allows excess emissions during periods of SSM. Eleven SAPs that are otherwise subject to Rule 62-296.402 are already subject to SIP-approved pound-per-hour SO 2 emission limits which apply at all times, including during SSM, imposed to attain and maintain the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS. 6 To replace the deleted production-based SO 2 emission limits, FDEP is proposing to incorporate new SO 2 emission limits in units of pounds per hour (lbs/hr) based on a longer-term averaging period (specifically, either 6-hour or 24-hour averages, as opposed to the 3-hour average limit in Rule 62-296.402) for the remaining SAPs in Florida. The remaining SAPs are Emissions Units 066 and 067 at the White Springs Agricultural Chemicals, Inc., Suwannee River/Swift Creek Complex (Nutrien White Springs); Emissions Units 004 and 005 at the Mosaic Fertilizer, South Pierce Facility (Mosaic South Pierce); and Emissions Unit 004 at the TECO Polk Power Station (TECO-Polk).

The proposed SO 2 emission limits for these facilities apply at all times, including periods of SSM, and are at least as stringent as the current SO 2 limits in Florida's SIP in Rule 62-296.402. Construction permits containing the proposed SO 2 emission limits for these emissions units have been issued by FDEP, and relevant portions of those permits are included in the Supplemental SSM SIP Revision for incorporation into the SIP. Sections II.B.5.iii-v of this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) provide a detailed discussion of the emissions-unit-specific SO 2 emission limits, the methodology used for developing the new emission limits, and the technical demonstration showing that these limits are at least as stringent as the existing emission limits at Rule 62-296.402 proposed for deletion.

Additionally, FDEP has renumbered existing provisions in Rule 62-296.402 with the addition of paragraph .402(1). This new paragraph provides that the SO 2 emission limits do not apply to SAPs which are subject to the applicable NSPS at 40 CFR part 60, subpart H. Instead of revising the rule applicability for SIP purposes with new paragraph .402(1), FDEP has elected to remove the SO 2 emission limits directly from the SIP and replace them with new, source-specific emission limits. Thus, FDEP has not requested that EPA incorporate Rule 62-296.402(1), 62-296.402(2)(a)2., 62-296.402(2)(b)2., or 62-296.402(3)(b), as renumbered, into the SIP.

Finally, FDEP is revising Rule 62-296.402(6), as renumbered from .402(5), to change the excess emissions reporting requirement from quarterly to semi-annual. This revision to the frequency of reporting is consistent with EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 51, appendix P, as revised August 14, 2020. See 85 FR 49596. Paragraph .402(5), as renumbered from .402(4), requires that facilities producing more than 300 tons per day (tpd) of sulfuric acid must install and operate continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS). Paragraph .402(6), as renumbered from .402(5), requires the SAPs which install and operate CEMS to make semi-annual reports of excess emissions, including the nature and cause of the excess emissions. In the original promulgation of Appendix P to 40 CFR part 51  7 and the promulgation of early revisions to the NSPS the same day, 8 EPA required quarterly reporting of such excess emissions. When FDEP promulgated requirements for SAPs at Rule 62-296.402, it regulated sources subject to both Appendix P of part 51 and the NSPS, and the quarterly reporting requirement aligned with federal minimum requirements. Since that time, EPA has revised both the NSPS and Appendix P to allow for less frequent (namely, semi-annual) reporting of excess emissions. 9 10 Additionally, EPA's title V major source operating permit program regulations, promulgated in 1992, require semi-annual reporting. 11

Section 110(l) of the CAA provides that EPA shall not approve a revision to a plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. The proposed revision to the frequency of the excess emissions reporting requirement in the Florida SIP for Rule 62-296.402 will not override any more stringent reporting requirements, 12 will not cause any changes in allowable pollutant emissions, and will not otherwise interfere with the State's ability to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) or interfere with any other applicable CAA requirement. Furthermore, this change makes Florida's reporting requirements consistent with the federal requirements in Appendix P to part 51, the NSPS, and other major source reporting required for title V major sources.

EPA is also proposing to approve the portion of Florida's Supplemental SSM SIP Revision that removes the existing SO 2 limit from Rule 62-296.402 and incorporate the source-specific permit limits into the SIP because the source-specific emission limits submitted to EPA, or previously approved by EPA for some sources, are continuous and at least as stringent as the existing SIP-approved limit in this rule. See sections II.B.5.i, iii-vi of this NPRM for a detailed analysis of EPA's proposal to remove the existing SO 2 limit from Rule 62-296.402.

Florida's Supplemental SSM SIP Revision transmits several changes to Rule 62-296.405. First, the title is revised from “Fossil Fuel Steam Generators with More Than 250 Million Btu Per Hour Heat Input” to “Existing Fossil Fuel Steam Generators with Greater than or Equal to 250 Million Btu Per Hour Heat Input.” The revised title clarifies that this section is only applicable to existing units with a heat input rate equal to or greater than 250 million Btu per hour. Next, a similar clarifying change is made to add a new paragraph 62-296.405(1), which specifies applicability. This new paragraph defines an “existing” fossil fuel steam generator as one in existence, in operation, under construction, or which had received a permit to begin construction prior to January 18, 1972. EPA is proposing to find that this provision aligns with the definition of “existing emission unit” already SIP-approved at Rule 62-210.200 and clarifies that only existing emission units are subject to Rule 62-296.405. The existing SIP-approved rule specifies SIP emission limits for existing emission units and contains a paragraph addressing new emissions units that simply refers to applicable NSPS. A SIP revision submitted on April 1, 2022, seeks to remove the paragraph covering “new emission units” which would allow for the changes described above. EPA is proposing to act on the April 1, 2022, SIP revision in a separate rulemaking. EPA will not finalize the changes described above unless EPA finalizes the removal of the paragraph covering “new emission units.”

Next, the Supplemental SSM SIP Revision renumbers Rule 62-296.405(1)(a) to Rule 62-296.405(2), and renumbers Rule 62-296.405(1)(b) to Rule 62-296.405(3). Paragraph .405(3), as renumbered, is revised to require stack testing to demonstrate compliance unless a PM CEMS is used, specify the manner of demonstrating compliance when a PM CEMS is used, and add a definition for the term “operating day.” Under the existing SIP rule, the PM emission limit applicable to existing sources only requires compliance to be determined via “applicable compliance methods.” In the Supplemental SSM SIP Revision, FDEP notes that, pursuant to existing Rule 62-296.405(1)(e)2, the applicable compliance methods would be either stack testing or PM CEMS. Where PM CEMS are required, such as for sources subject to Appendix P of 40 CFR part 51 or subject to the NSPS, the definition of “operating day” utilized in this provision is consistent with the definition of “boiler operating day” defined in the NSPS at 40 CFR part 60, subpart D. 13 FDEP specifies the averaging period applicable to the PM emission limit as a 30-operating day limit. Prior to this change, no averaging time was specified for this emission limit, and the SIP did not require compliance with the emission limit during periods of SSM. EPA is proposing to find that these changes clarify the existing emission limit, specify appropriate methods for determining compliance, and ensure that periods of non-compliance during periods of SSM can be evaluated, consistent with the removal of exemptions from applicable SIP emission limits in the Excess Emissions Rule SIP Revision.

On July 1, 2022, the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) submitted a revision to its SIP pertaining to the amendments of Legislative Rule, 45 Code of State Rule (CSR) Ambient Air Quality Standards. The SIP submittal updates West Virginia's IBR of the NAAQS promulgated by EPA and found at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 50 and ambient air monitoring reference methods and equivalent methods promulgated by EPA and found at 40 CFR part 53 into West Virginia's legislative rules.

WVDEP has historically chosen to incorporate by reference the NAAQS, found at 40 CFR part 50, and the associated Federal ambient air monitoring reference methods and equivalent methods for these NAAQS found at 40 CFR part 53. When incorporating by reference these Federal regulations, WVDEP has specified that it is incorporating by reference these regulations as they existed on a certain date. The IBR of the NAAQS that is currently approved in the West Virginia SIP incorporates by reference 40 CFR parts 50 and 53 as they existed on June 1, 2020. West Virginia's July 1, 2022, SIP revision updates the State's IBR of the primary and secondary NAAQS and the ambient air monitoring reference and equivalent methods, found in 40 CFR parts 50 and 53, respectively, as of June 1, 2021. Primary NAAQS establish air quality standards which the administrator of EPA determines are necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health. Secondary NAAQS establish air quality standards which the administrator of EPA determines necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant. This revision also incorporates by reference the ambient air monitoring reference methods and equivalent methods promulgated by EPA under 40 CFR part 53.

Since the last West Virginia IBR of June 1, 2020, EPA: (1) updated method 201A of Appendix M of Part 51; (2) completed the review of the NAAQS for particulate matter; (3) completed the review of the NAAQS for ozone; and (4) designated one new reference method for measuring concentrations of sulfur dioxide and one new equivalent method for measuring concentrations of particulate matter (PM 10 ) in ambient air. See 85 FR 63394 (October 7, 2020—corrected in 86 FR 9470 (February 16, 2021)), 85 FR 82684 (December 18, 2020), 85 FR 87256 (December 31, 2020), and 86 FR 12682 (March 4, 2021).

The amendments to the legislative rule include changes to section 45-8-1 (General) and 45-8-3 (Adoption of Standards). The amendments alphabetize the criteria pollutants list in the scope (1.1), update the filing and effective dates (1.3, 1.4) and update West Virginia's IBR of the primary and secondary NAAQS and the ambient air monitoring reference and equivalent methods from June 1, 2020 to June 1, 2021 (1.6, 3.1, 3.2). West Virginia is incorporating the Federal rules in 40 CFR parts 50 and 53 as they existed on June 1, 2021, into sections 45-8-1 and 45-8-3.

EPA is proposing to approve the West Virginia SIP revision of July 1, 2022 updating the IBR of EPA's NAAQS and associated ambient air monitoring reference methods and equivalent methods. EPA is soliciting public comments on the update to West Virginia's IBR. Please note that EPA is not seeking public comment on the level of the NAAQS which West Virginia incorporated by reference into its regulations. An opportunity for public comment on the level of each individual NAAQS was given when EPA proposed each such NAAQS. Relevant comments will be considered before taking final action.

In this document, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes IBR. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference 45CSR8, as effective on April 1, 2022, as discussed in Sections I and II of this document. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region III Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. 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 proposed 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, as 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); and,

• 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.

In addition, this proposed rulemaking, proposing to approve the West Virginia SIP revision updating its IBR of EPA's NAAQS and associated ambient air monitoring reference methods and equivalent methods, does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects” of their actions on minority populations and low-income populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. EPA defines environmental justice (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.” 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.”

WVDEP did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and there is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

Atlantic HMS fisheries are managed under the dual authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. ) and the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA; 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq. ). The 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments are implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 635.

Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, conservation and management measures must prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery (16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(1)). Where a fishery is determined to be in or approaching an overfished condition, NMFS must adopt conservation and management measures to prevent or end overfishing and rebuild the fishery (16 U.S.C. 1853(a)(10) and 1854(e)). In addition, NMFS must, among other things, comply with the Magnuson-Stevens Act's 10 National Standards, including a requirement to use the best scientific information available as well as to consider potential impacts on residents of different States, efficiency, costs, fishing communities, bycatch, and safety at sea (16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(1-10)). Internationally, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) has issued recommendations for the conservation of shark species caught in association with ICCAT fisheries, while the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) has passed measures that place requirements or restrictions on the trade of some shark species and shark fins.

In Amendment 14 (88 FR 4157, January 24, 2023), NMFS sets forth a revised framework for establishing quotas and related management measures for Atlantic shark fisheries. This amendment incorporated, for potential use, several optional fishery management tools that were adopted in the revised guidelines for implementing National Standard 1 (NS1) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (81 FR 71858, October 18, 2016). Amendment 14 modified the general procedures that are followed in establishing the ABC and ACLs, and the process used to account for carryover or underharvest of quotas. It also allows the option to phase-in ABC control rules and to adopt multi-year overfishing status determination criteria (SDC) in certain circumstances.

In addition to Amendment 14, NMFS recently developed the Atlantic shark fishery review (SHARE) document (88 FR 16944, March 21, 2023). This document analyzed trends within the commercial and recreational shark fisheries to identify main areas of success and concerns with conservation and management measures and to find ways to improve management of the shark fishery. Overall, the review found that NMFS is sustainably managing shark stocks; however, the commercial shark fishery is in decline in terms of use of available quota and the number of participants. This decline is happening despite fishermen having available quotas for many species, and, in most regions, an open season year-round. The review also identified a need in the recreational fishery to improve angler education so that improved species identification could improve shark fishery data, thus improving management overall. The final report can be found here: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/atlantic-shark-fishery-review-share.

Additionally, some recent national and international regulations are likely to have direct and indirect impacts on the commercial shark fishery. On December 23, 2022, President Biden signed into law the James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 (NDAA), Public Law 117-263. Section 5946(b) of the NDAA, which is also known as the Shark Fin Sales Elimination Act, makes it illegal, with certain exceptions, to possess, buy, sell, or transport shark fins or any product containing shark fins, with an exemption for smooth or spiny dogfish fins. The Agency is currently considering a separate rule to implement the Shark Fin Sales Elimination Act. Internationally, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) has passed measures to list all Carcharhinidae species (requiem sharks) under Appendix II, with a 12-month implementation delay. This listing means that as of November 2023, all of the authorized shark species, except for smoothhound sharks, in our fishery management unit will require CITES permits before any trade can occur. At this time, the impacts of the Shark Fin Sales Elimination Act and CITES listing are unknown. However, in the scoping document, we consider several management options that could add flexibility to the fishery in order to be reactive to these additional factors affecting the Atlantic shark fisheries.

Through the scoping document, NMFS is beginning the process under the revised framework for establishing quotas and related management measures for Atlantic shark fisheries, as established in Amendment 14. Additionally, the scoping document provides examples of how NMFS could potentially implement the ABC control rule finalized in Amendment 14, while also considering options on the potential process. These potential changes also lead NMFS to consider options to potentially revise commercial shark management groups and quotas, since shark ACLs would be revised and some of the management groups might not be suitable. Since external factors (markets, different state and international regulations, etc. ) have impacted participation in the shark fishery, NMFS is considering options to update the commercial retention limits to ensure the fishery stays viable in the future. In the recreational shark fishery, the number of trips targeting or catching coastal sharks has stayed fairly consistent, while target effort levels for pelagic sharks have decreased significantly since the prohibition on shortfin mako sharks. In response to these changes, NMFS is reviewing the current recreational shark fishery regulations. This includes considering options for the authorized species list, minimum size limits, and bag limits. The current list of authorized species for recreational fishermen has been in place since 2008 when NMFS revised the list based on the sandbar shark stock assessment. Minimum size limits and bag limits for sharks are the main accountability measures NMFS can implement to control or adjust recreational shark harvest rates during the fishing year.

Given the substantial amount of existing relevant information ( e.g., Amendment 14, SHARE, and various state and international actions), the scoping document for this FMP amendment outlines some potential management measures for Atlantic shark fisheries. The list of management measures should not be considered an exhaustive list. The management options are intended to facilitate discussion of the merits of each range of topics under consideration. Interested members of the public are encouraged to provide specific suggestions and recommendations on the options or other options that NMFS should consider.

NMFS anticipates large overall changes to shark management through Amendment 16. In the scoping document, NMFS details a wide range of potential management options based on the framework action in Amendment 14 and the findings from the SHARE document. The scoping document along with the public hearing presentation is available online at the HMS website: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/scoping-amendment-16-2006-consolidated-atlantic-highly-migratory-species-fishery-management. Three in-person scoping meetings and two virtual scoping meetings will be held to provide the opportunity for public comment on these potential management options (Table 1). Any comments received on the scoping document will be used to assist in the development of options to be considered in Amendment 16.

The public is reminded that NMFS expects participants at in-person and virtual scoping meetings to conduct themselves appropriately. At the beginning of each meeting, a representative of NMFS will explain the ground rules ( e.g., all comments are to be directed to the Agency; attendees will be called to give their comments in the order in which they registered to speak; each attendee will have an equal amount of time to speak; and attendees should not interrupt one another). The in-person meeting locations will be physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Guy DuBeck at 301-427-8503, at least 7 days prior to the meeting. A NMFS representative will attempt to structure the meeting so that all attending members of the public will be able to comment if they so choose, regardless of the controversial nature of the subject matter. If attendees do not respect the ground rules they will be asked to leave the scoping meeting. For the virtual scoping meetings, participants are strongly encouraged to log/dial in 15 minutes prior to the meeting. NMFS will show the presentations via webinar and allow public comment during identified times on the agenda.