Background

In July 2023, the FMCS issued a proposed rule to establish the Supplemental Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (Supplemental Standards), which are to be codified in 5 CFR part 10300. 88 FR 45822 (July 18, 2023). The proposed rule provided a 30 day comment period, which ended on August 17, 2023. The FMCS did not receive any timely and responsive comments. The rationale for the proposed rule, which the FMCS is now adopting as final, is explained in the preamble at: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/07/18/2023-15021/supplemental-standards-of-ethical-conduct-for-employees-of-the-federal-mediation-and-conciliation. For those reasons, the FMCS is, with the concurrence of OGE, issuing the rule as final with no substantive changes.

In accordance with 5 CFR 2635.803, the FMCS has determined it is necessary for the purpose of administering its ethics program to require its employees, other than special government employees, to obtain approval before engaging in certain outside employment and outside activities. The FMCS's mission is to promote labor-management peace and cooperation. The FMCS has a large and broad range of clients external to the Government. Given the volume of public and private sector clients, there is a greater likelihood that conflicts of interest, impartiality, or other concerns may arise that employees may not be aware of and therefore it is necessary for the FMCS to screen for such conflicts. The approval requirement will help to ensure that potential ethics conflicts of interest, impartiality, or other concerns are resolved before certain employees begin outside employment or outside activities. Requiring prior approval ensures the neutrality and integrity of the FMCS' services.

Paragraph (a) explains that the regulation applies to all FMCS employees, other than special government employees, and supplements the OGE Standards.

Paragraph (b) notes that employees must comply with ethics guidance and procedures issued by the FMCS and should contact an FMCS ethics official if an ethics question arises. This paragraph also includes cross-references to other OGE ethics related regulations.

This section defines terms and phrases used throughout this supplemental regulation.

Paragraph (a) sets forth that an employee of the FMCS, other than a special government employee, is required to seek prior written approval before engaging in certain outside employment and outside activities.

Paragraph (b) sets out the standards and procedures for requesting approval to engage in certain outside employment and outside activities.

Paragraph (c) sets forth the requirement for submitting a revised request when there is a significant change in the nature, duties or scope of the outside employment or activity or to the employee's official duties or responsibilities.

Paragraph (d) provides that the DAEO may issue agency wide-policies, handbooks, or other written guidance governing the submission of requests for approval of outside employment and activities, which may exempt categories of employment and activities from the prior approval requirement of this section based on a determination that employment or activities within those categories would generally be approved and is not likely to involve conduct prohibited by statute or Federal regulation, including 5 CFR part 2635.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2), rules relating to agency management or personnel are exempt from the notice and comment rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). In addition, under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A), notice and comment rulemaking requirements do not apply to rules concerning matters of agency organization, procedure, or practice. Given that the rule concerns matters of agency management or personnel, and organization, procedure, or practice, the notice and comment requirements of the APA do not apply here. Nor is a public hearing required under 45 U.S.C. 160a. The public comment period on the proposed rule opened on July 18, 2023, the date of its publication in the Federal Register , and closed on August 17, 2023. During this period, the FMCS did not receive any comments on the proposed rule.

This rule is not a significant rule for purposes of Executive Order 12866 and has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

The FMCS has determined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. chapter 6, that this final rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it would primarily affect FMCS employees.

The Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, does not apply to this final rule because it does not contain any information collection requirements that would require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget.

The FMCS has determined that this final rule does not meet the definition of a rule, as defined by the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. chapter 8, and thus does not require review by Congress.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) imposes quarantines on citrus products in accordance with the regulatory authority provided under the Plant Protection Act (PPA or the Act) (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq. ). Under the Act, APHIS may prohibit or restrict the importation or interstate movement of any plant or plant product if the agency determines it is necessary to prevent the introduction into the United States or dissemination of a plant pest or noxious weed within the United States.

APHIS' regulations in 7 CFR part 301 (referred to below as the regulations) regulate the interstate movement of certain plants, plant parts, and other articles from areas of the United States quarantined because of citrus canker. These regulations are to prevent the interstate spread of citrus canker, and they are contained in “Subpart M—Citrus Canker” (7 CFR 301.75-1 through 301.75-17).

Citrus canker is a plant disease caused by strains of the bacterium Xanthomonas citri subsp. citri. The disease is known to affect plants and plant parts, including fruit, of citrus and citrus relatives (Family Rutaceae). It can cause defoliation and other serious damage to the leaves and twigs of susceptible plants. It may also make the fruit of diseased plants unmarketable by causing lesions on the fruit. Infected fruit may also drop from trees before reaching maturity. Some strains of Xanthomonas citri. subsp. citri. are aggressive and can infect susceptible plants rapidly and lead to extensive economic losses in commercial citrus-producing areas.

Current regulations refer to the bacterium that causes citrus canker as Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. citri ; however, there has been an internationally recognized change in the nomenclature. The bacterium should be listed as Xanthomonas citri subsp. citri ; the term Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. citri is obsolete and no longer in use. Therefore, we are revising the definition of citrus canker in § 301.75-1, accordingly.

Paragraph (a) of § 301.75-5 currently lists commercial citrus-producing areas in the United States. Listed States have stated to APHIS that they have commercial citrus production in their States. The State of Alabama has stated to APHIS that it has such production. Accordingly, we are adding the State of Alabama to this list.

This recognition will provide the State of Alabama with Federal protections regarding the interstate movement of regulated articles for citrus canker that are afforded to the areas currently listed in § 301.75-5(a).

We are also revising the regulations in “Subpart M—Citrus Canker” to add reference to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 0579-0363 and replace references to 0579-0325 and 0579-0369. OMB control numbers 0579-0325 and 0579-0369 were discontinued, and the associated activities are currently under 0579-0363.

This rule updates APHIS' domestic regulations regarding citrus canker in order to update the scientific name used for citrus canker and to recognize Alabama as a commercial citrus-producing State. With regard to the former change, the scientific name listed in the regulations is obsolete and no longer in international taxonomic use. With regard to the latter change, APHIS updates the regulations in this manner whenever a State claims that commercial citrus production occurs in the State. Because the international taxonomic norms are not within APHIS' purview, and because the update to the list of commercial citrus-producing States is based on a State's self-designation and ensures that the regulations align with this designation, there is good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to consider notice and a comment period for this rule unnecessary and contrary to the public interest and to make it effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

Further, this action is a category that OMB has designated exempt from the provisions of Executive Order 12866. Finally, this action is not a rule as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) and, thus, it is exempt from the provisions of that Act.

This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 2 CFR chapter IV.)

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no retroactive effect; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

This rule contains no reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR part 301 as follows:

Authority

The RHS Single Family Housing Direct Division administers the Sec. 502 Direct Loan Program under the authority of Section 502 of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended; and operates under 7 CFR 3550, subpart B. Section 506(b) of Title V of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1476(b)), permits the Secretary to conduct demonstrations relating to national housing goals. All statutory or regulatory program requirements that are not waived in this document will remain in effect.

The RHS offers a variety of programs to build or improve housing and essential community facilities in rural areas. The Agency offers loans, grants, and loan guarantees for single- and multifamily housing, child-care centers, fire and police stations, hospitals, libraries, nursing homes, schools, first responder vehicles and equipment, housing for farm laborers, and much more. RHS also provides technical assistance loans and grants in partnership with non-profit organizations, Indian Tribes, State and Federal government agencies, and local communities.

The RHS administers the Section 502 Direct Loan Program to assist low- and very low-income applicants who currently do not own adequate housing and cannot obtain other credit the opportunity to acquire, build, rehabilitate, improve, or relocate dwellings in rural areas. Homes financed through the Section 502 Direct loan program can be located on land owned by a Community Land Trust (CLT). CLTs are a growing land management tool used by affordable housing providers nationwide and are recognized for their use of ground leases and/or long-term deed restrictions as mechanisms to achieve lasting affordability. CLTs were traditionally organized as member nonprofits but are increasingly organized as entities without members and/or without strict representation on governing boards, because they meet community accountability standards through other means. Similarly, mission-driven affordable housing developers other than CLTs use ground leases or deed restrictions to maintain lasting affordability of the housing units developed and initially sold to income-eligible homebuyers to ensure the units remain affordable after the initial sale.

To receive agency supported financing, eligible dwellings located on land owned by a CLT must comply with 7 CFR 3550.72. Additional requirements for a community housing development organization identifying as a CLT are found at 42 U.S.C. 1472(a)(3)(B), which also incorporates definitions provided at 42 U.S.C. 12704 as described. These requirements include, in part, that a CLT's governing board maintains representation of low-income community residents and, to the extent practicable, low-income beneficiaries. 42 U.S.C. 1472(a)(3)(B); 42 U.S.C. 12704(6)(B). The Act also requires the CLT to have its corporate membership open to any adult resident of a particular geographic area specified in its bylaws. 42 U.S.C. 1472(a)(3)(B)(iv). As written, the community representation requirements are prohibitive for some affordable housing providers also acting as a CLT.

As land prices increase and availability decreases, many affordable housing providers are exploring various model to achieve lasting affordability in the housing stock they contribute to their community, including CLTs, ground leases and long-term deed restrictions. Some affordable housing providers that utilize ground leases do not meet the governing board membership requirements and/or requirement of open corporate membership required of CLTs in the Housing Act of 1949 and are therefore unable to access the Section 502 program for their low to very low-income clients in rural communities when using a land trust ownership model.

To ensure applicants working with affordable housing providers have access to the Section 502 program when using a land trust ownership model, RHS will approve affordable housing providers, under this pilot, that meet the eligibility criteria described in this document. The goal of this pilot is to test the viability of aligning the Section 502 program CLT requirements with affordable housing providers' current strategies to provide lasting affordability in homeownership.

RHS has determined that the following two waivers are to be tested under the new pilot (demonstration) program for the Single-Family Housing Section 502 Direct Loan Program under the demonstration program authority provided in Section 506(b) of Title V of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1476(b)) and at 7 CFR 3550.7):

1. The first waiver approved for this pilot is for affordable housing providers to be exempt from the requirement that a CLT maintain accountability to low-income community residents with regard to decisions on the design, siting, development, and management of affordable housing through significant representation on the organization's governing board. (42 U.S.C. 1472(a)(3)(B); 42 U.S.C. 12704(6)(B)).

Instead, organizations may propose to the Agency through this pilot, other methods by which the organization will maintain this accountability and ensure low-income community residents are included in these decisions. This could be demonstrated through community meetings, public notice for comment, a community advisory board, etc. Organizations should include detailed information related to the activities it will undertake to ensure community involvement is comparable to the input afforded the organizations board members. The Agency will evaluate these proposals and determine whether they are sufficient to maintain accountability.

2. The second waiver approved for this pilot is for affordable housing providers to be exempt from the requirements that a CLT be a membership organization with its corporate membership open to any adult resident of a particular geographic area specified in the by-laws of the organization (1472(a)(3)(B)(iv))).

Affordable housing providers who meet the eligibility criteria described in this document may request approval to take part in this pilot by providing information sufficient to determine their eligibility as described in this document to the applicable state office. State office information can be found online at— https://www.rd.usda.gov/browse-state.

To be eligible to participate in this pilot, organizations must be a private nonprofit entity, state or local government, Indian tribe or Tribal corporation; that meets all other requirements provided at 7 CFR 3550.72, and at 42 U.S.C. 1472(a)(3)(B), except item (iv), and satisfactorly demonstrates to the Agency the steps they will take to be accountable to low income residences with regard to decisions on the design, siting, development, and management of affordable housing.

Except as specified in this document, affordable housing providers seeking approval as a CLT must abide by all applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. Eligible participants in the Section 502 Direct program must otherwise abide by all statutory requirements and by the regulatory requirements outlined in 7 CFR 3550.

The regulatory waivers for this pilot contain no new reporting or recordkeeping burdens under OMB control number 0575-0179 that would require approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

In accordance with Federal civil rights laws and USDA civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Mission Areas, agencies, staff offices, employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Program information may be made available in languages other than English. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication to obtain program information ( e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language) should contact the responsible Mission Area, agency, staff office; or the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

To file a program discrimination complaint, a complainant should complete a Form AD-3027, USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which can be obtained online at https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ad-3027.pdf, from any USDA office, by calling (866) 632-9992, or by writing a letter addressed to USDA. The letter must contain the complainant's name, address, telephone number, and a written description of the alleged discriminatory action in sufficient detail to inform the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights (ASCR) about the nature and date of an alleged civil rights violation. The completed AD-3027 form or letter must be submitted to USDA by:

(1) Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410; or

(2) Fax: (833) 256-1665 or (202) 690-7442; or

(3) Email: Program.Intake@usda.gov.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

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 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 amends the Class E surface airspace and the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Roseau Municipal Airport/Rudy Billberg Field, Roseau, MN, to support instrument flight rule (IFR) operations at this airport.

The FAA published an NPRM for Docket No. FAA-2023-1786 in the Federal Register (88 FR 62477; September 12, 2023) proposing to amend the Class E airspace at Roseau, MN. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023. FAA Order JO 7400.11H is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11.

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

This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 modifies 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 Roseau Municipal Airport/Rudy Billberg Field, Roseau, MN; and updates the name (previously Roseau Municipal Airport) and geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

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

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

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

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends the Class E surface airspace and the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Mount Pleasant Municipal Airport, Mount Pleasant, MI, to support instrument flight rule (IFR) operations at this airport.

The FAA published an NPRM for Docket No. FAA-2023-1787 in the Federal Register (88 FR 62479; September 12, 2023) proposing to amend the Class E airspace at Mount Pleasant, MI. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023. FAA Order JO 7400.11H is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11.

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

This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 modifies the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.6-mile (decreased from a 7-mile) radius of Mount Pleasant Municipal Airport, Mount Pleasant, MI; and updates the geographic coordinates of airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

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

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

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

Authority for the Policy: This document is published under the authority described in Title 49 of the United States Code, Subtitle VII, part B, chapter 471, section 47122(a).

This policy should be used in conjunction with FAA Order 5190.6, Airport Compliance Manual, Chapter 22, Releases from Federal Obligations; and FAA Order 5100.38, Airport Improvement Handbook; and any related policy implemented in conjunction and complementary with Airports Planning and Programming (APP) guidance. Additionally, compliance specialists will consult with FAA environmental protection specialists to determine what, if any, environmental obligations under relevant statutes or regulations may apply to specific land use changes at specific airports.

Congress authorized financial assistance for an airport development project to acquire land, including land for future airport development (See 49 U.S.C. 47104, 47107(c)(2)). Under the Airport Improvement Act, land is needed for an airport purpose “if the land may be needed for an aeronautical purpose (including runway protection zone) or serves as noise buffer land, and revenue from interim uses of the land contributes to the financial self-sufficiency of the airport.” (See 49 U.S.C. 47107(c)(1)). Congress also authorized the conveyance of Federal non-surplus and surplus property for developing, improving, operating or maintaining a public airport. (See 49 U.S.C. 47125, 47151).

Federally conveyed or federally acquired land must be used for airport purposes until the FAA approves or consents to a change in land use. (See 49 U.S.C. 47153(a), 47125(a), and 47107(c)(2)(B)). In addition, Congress requires the FAA to submit an annual report listing airports not in compliance with airport land use restrictions and identifying necessary corrective action. (49 U.S.C. 47131(a)(5)). 1

The FAA's decision to approve or consent to a non-aeronautical or mixed land use or to release Federal obligations depends on the obligating documents, the current and future aeronautical need for the property, and the requested land use. For example, residential use of airport property is incompatible with the needs of civil aviation. Incompatible land uses on the airport are prohibited by FAA policy and are contrary to Federal obligations. Limiting the use of aeronautical facilities to aeronautical purposes ensures that airport facilities are available to meet aviation demand at the airport. Aviation tenants and aircraft owners should not be displaced by non-aviation commercial uses that could be conducted off airport property. 2 The FAA must consider both the existing and future aviation demand.

Through the “ FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 ” (Pub. L. 115-254), Section 163, Congress changed the FAA's authority to regulate non-federally acquired or conveyed airport land. The FAA's authority over a proposed land use change may be limited when (1) it does not impact the safe and efficient operation of aircraft or the safety of people and property on the ground related to aircraft operations or (2) does not adversely affect the value of prior Federal investments to a significant extent. ( See Pub. L. 115-254, section 163(b)(1)(A) and (d)(1)(B)). Section 163(a) limits the FAA's authority to directly or indirectly regulate an airport owner or operator's acquisition, use, lease, encumbrance, transfer, or disposal of land, any facility upon such land, or any portion of such land or facility. However, Section 163(b) contains three exceptions and provides that the limitations of Section 163(a) do not apply to the following:

1. Any regulation ensuring the safe and efficient operation of aircraft or the safety of people and property on the ground related to aircraft operations;  3

2. Any regulation imposed with respect to land or a facility acquired or modified using Federal funding;  4

3. Any authority contained in a Surplus Property Act instrument of transfer, 5 or section 40117 of title 49 United States Code (Passenger Facility Charge statute). 6

When the FAA retains approval authority over a proposed land use change or sale, the FAA will follow this policy guidance and FAA Order 5190.6, Airport Compliance Manual. When the FAA does not have approval authority over a proposed land use change or sale, all of the airport sponsor's Federal statutory and grant assurance obligations remain in full force and effect, including over its remaining airport property. In addition, airport sponsors remain obligated under FAA's Policies and Procedures Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue (64 FR 7696, February 16, 1999) (Revenue Use Policy), and FAA's Policy Regarding Rates and Charges (78 FR 55330, September 10, 2013). Any land that is to be sold or leased must be at fair market value and the funds must be used in accordance with the FAA's Revenue Use Policy. (See 49 U.S.C. 47107(c)(2)(B)). The airport sponsor should retain sufficient authority over the disposed land to prevent uses that conflict with its Federal obligations and related requirements or create conditions resulting in violations of the Grant Assurances. To retain this authority, airport sponsors should consider using subordination clauses, reservations, covenants, or other restrictions in a deed, or other instrument, to protect the public's right to fly over the land, prohibit obstructions to air navigation or interference with the flight of aircraft, or assure compatible land use. The deed or other instrument containing the restrictions should be recorded in local land records.

The FAA may verify compliance with these requirements through a financial compliance review, request and review of supporting documentation, enforcement of grant assurances, or other enforcement mechanisms. The airport sponsor also has the responsibility to comply with all Federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations.

In September 2022, the FAA issued a Draft FAA Policy Regarding Processing Land Use Changes on Federally Acquired or Federally Conveyed Airport Land and requested comments. (87 FR 56601, September 15, 2022). The FAA received comments from 29 commenters representing airport sponsors, industry groups, and airport consultants.

The following summary of comments reflects the major issues raised and does not restate each comment received. The FAA considered all comments received even if not specifically identified and responded to in this notice.

1. Comment: Commenters asked for clarification on the purpose and reason for the policy clarification.

Response: As the steward of federally acquired and federally conveyed land, FAA's role is to ensure that such land is available to serve aviation needs. New aviation entrants (air mobility, UAS, etc.) are changing the nature of aviation and their ability to use land previously deemed inaccessible due to its distance from the runway and taxiway environment is changing. To ensure land is available to serve these growing aviation needs, the FAA, as a general policy, will only release Federal obligations when land is to be sold or conveyed. This policy allows airport sponsors to seek approval for non-aeronautical land use in excess of 3-5 years without a release of obligations.

2. Comment: Commenters asked whether the policy applies to land acquired for noise compatibility.

Response: This policy does not apply to land acquired for noise compatibility purposes. FAA's Noise Land Management and Requirements for Disposal of Noise Land or Development Land Funded with AIP issued June 2014 ( www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/airports/environmental/policy_guidance/Noise-Land-Management-Disposal-AIP-Funded-Noise-Development-Land.pdf ) provides guidance on disposal and retention of noise land through the Noise Land Reuse Plan.

3. Comment: Commenters are concerned that the duration of FAA's approval or consent to a land use change will be limited to the length of a lease and create additional workload.

Response: The final policy clarifies that the duration of the FAA's approval or consent will be dependent on the circumstances at the airport. It may be permitted for the duration of the approved use so long as the land is not needed for aeronautical use. The duration is not limited to an individual lease term.

4. Comment: Commenters asked whether FAA will now review and approve leases.

Response: The policy does not change the FAA's approach to the review of an airport sponsor's leases. The FAA does not approve leases but will continue to review some leases, as needed, to ascertain compliance with an airport sponsor's Federal obligations.

5. Comment: Commenters asked whether aeronautical or airport purpose land uses need FAA consent or approval?

Response: Aeronautical and airport purpose land uses do not need FAA approval or consent for the use. However, airport sponsors are reminded that other approvals, such as airspace, may still be required.

6. Comment: Commenters asked FAA to provide a timeframe for completing a land use change review.

Response: FAA recommends that airport sponsors work closely with their Region/ADO to determine the timeframes for completing a land use change review. Each situation is unique and the timeframe is dependent upon the level of documentation submitted and airport-specific information.

7. Comment: Commenters asked if there is an appeal process if a sponsor's request is denied.

Response: Similar to an airport sponsor's request for a release, if the request is denied, the airport sponsor is encouraged to work with Region/ADO to find possible alternatives that will meet their needs, while protecting the aeronautical use of the airport. A Region/ADOs determination is not a final agency decision. The Region/ADO can coordinate with ACO-100 as needed.

8. Comment: Commenters asked if the policy is retroactive and if existing uses will be grandfathered.

Response: This policy is not retroactive. It will not apply to land that FAA has previously released for non-aeronautical use under a Letter of Release or a Deed of Release. However, existing interim/concurrent use approvals will be reviewed in accordance with this policy when the existing approval expires.

9. Comment: Commenters asked when under this policy must airport sponsors update their Exhibit A.

Response: Under this policy, an airport sponsor's Exhibit A must be updated when the FAA issues a letter of consent or approval or when the property is released for sale or conveyance off the airport.

10. Comment: Commenters asked if the designation of a non-aeronautical area on the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) mean the land use has been approved.

Response: The designation of non-aeronautical areas on the ALP does not mean a particular land use has been approved. These areas can still be shown as proposed on the ALP but must be updated on the Exhibit A once the FAA has approved or consented to the use.

11. Comment: Commenters asked whether NEPA applies to FAA's issuance of letters of consent or approval.

Response: These comments are not within the scope of the policy and have been shared with the appropriate office for consideration. Airport sponsors should coordinate with their local FAA Region/ADO to determine their National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) obligations.

12. Comment: Commenters asked how this policy relates to the FAA's existing Section 163 guidance?

Response: This policy does not change FAA's review and approval authority for ALPs or land use under Section 163. The policy only addresses how land use approvals are processed after FAA has determined we retain approval authority.

13. Comment: Commenters noted that 49 U.S.C. 47107(c)(1)(A) includes “(ii) revenue from interim uses of the land [that] contributes to the financial self-sufficiency of the airport . . .” and should not be omitted from the definition of Airport Purpose.

Response: In the final policy, the FAA has included 49 U.S.C. 47107(c)(1)(A)(i) and (ii) in the definition of airport purpose.

14. Comment: Commenters asked for additional detail on how the FAA will assess the primary purpose of a requested land use change. Some commenters suggested square footage, customer base, nature of the structure, etc.

Response: The FAA recognizes that there are numerous ways a requested land use change can be evaluated to determine its primary purpose. Airport sponsors should work closely with their Region/ADO to complete the land use change review.

15. Comment: Some Commenters requested a response to specific individual examples at their airport.

Response: The FAA recognizes that land use decisions must be based on the specific use identified and the situation at the airport. The FAA has provided general guiding examples, but the determination is dependent on the specific facts of a situation and should be discussed with the local Region/ADO.

The FAA is adopting the following FAA policy and practice regarding processing land use changes on federally acquired or federally conveyed airport land:  7 (1) in reviewing an airport sponsor's request for a land use change on federally acquired or federally conveyed airport land, the FAA will review the primary purpose of the requested land use, rather than examining each individual component of the request as aeronautical or nonaeronautical; (2) FAA written approval or consent is only required for a change in land use to non-aeronautical use, mixed use, or for interim uses of the land that contribute to the financial self-sufficiency of the airport; (3) the duration of the FAA's approval or consent will be dependent on the circumstances at the airport and may be permitted for the duration of the approved use;  8 (4) The FAA will only release Federal obligations when the airport sponsor requests a release for the sale or conveyance of airport land that meets FAA release requirements, such a release must have ACO-100 concurrence;  9 and (5) FAA letters of approval or consent will be documented on the Exhibit A.

This policy applies to all requests for land use changes on federally acquired or federally conveyed land as well as when a land use change impacts the safe and efficient operation of aircraft or the safety of people and property on the ground related to aircraft operations.

This policy and practice is intended to ensure that the Federal investment in federally obligated airports is protected by making the use of aeronautical land and facilities available for aeronautical purposes and to ensure that airport land and facilities are available to meet the current and future aeronautical demand of the airport. Aeronautical users should not be displaced by non-aviation commercial uses, especially those that could be conducted off airport property.

Aeronautical Use —The FAA considers the aeronautical use of an airport to be any activity that involves, makes possible, is required for the safety of, or is otherwise directly related to, the operation of aircraft. Aeronautical use includes services provided by air carriers related directly and substantially to the movement of passengers, baggage, mail, and cargo at the airport. ( FAA's Policy Regarding Rates and Charges, 78 FR 55331, September 10, 2013).

Over time, the definition of aeronautical use has remained relatively unchanged, except when changes were needed to reflect necessary access for sky diving and new entrants. Land on which an aeronautical activity takes place is by its nature aeronautical use ( e.g., drop zone, apron, hangar).

The FAA confirms the use of a narrow definition of what constitutes an “aeronautical use” for land use purposes. Congress authorized financial assistance for an airport development project to acquire land, including land for future airport development (See 49 U.S.C. 47104, 47107(c)(2)(B)). Congress also authorized the conveyance of Federal non-surplus and surplus property for developing, improving, operating or maintaining a public airport. (See 49 U.S.C. 47125, 47151). The Congressional intent is furthered by a policy that requires aeronautical land to be used for aeronautical purposes unless the FAA discharges the airport sponsor of that obligation. Limiting the use of aeronautical land and facilities for aeronautical purposes ensures that airport land and facilities are available to meet the aeronautical demand of the airport, including future demand. Also, aeronautical users should not be displaced by non-aviation commercial uses, especially those that could be conducted off airport property.

Aeronautical use lands receive additional protection and benefits. They are afforded the protection of the grant assurances and aeronautical users may be charged favorable below market aeronautical rates. Overall, a narrower definition of aeronautical use helps protect the Federal investment in aviation by ensuring that nonaeronautical uses cannot easily displace aeronautical uses and thereby diminish the safety, efficiency, and utility of the entire airport.

Examples of aeronautical use include:

1. Operational uses such as aerial approaches, navaids, runways, taxiways, aprons, hangars, or other aircraft movement areas;

2. Future developmental uses to reserve property interests for foreseeable aeronautical development ( e.g., a planned runway extension or a planned terminal building development); and

3. Essential services that directly support flight operations ( e.g., aircraft maintenance, fueling, and servicing; mail, passenger, and cargo processing facilities; communications and air traffic control; crash rescue, firefighting, and airport maintenance).

Airport Purpose: Uses of land that are (1) directly related to the actual operation or the foreseeable aeronautical development of a public airport and (2) whose nonaeronautical components do not conflict with existing or foreseeable aeronautical needs/demands. These uses do not require FAA consent or approval of land use. These are situations where a primary aeronautical facility has some nonaeronautical components, including parking, that support that facility's core aeronautical function within its operation. These nonaeronautical components should be paying a fair market value lease rate. Examples of this include:

1. A terminal complex: All components of a terminal complex (including the building, terminal concessions, airline ticket and car rental counters, parking, and roads);

2. A fixed base operator (FBO) facility, including parking and classrooms;

3. Parking associated with the airport purpose ( e.g., passenger and employee parking);

4. Airport service roads; and

5. Truck parking for air cargo processing facilities when it is directly related to moving inbound and outbound air cargo on and off the airport.

This does not include certain uses, such as aircraft manufacturing plants and warehouse distribution facilities, which are considered as mixed-use as defined below.

In addition, airport purpose includes land that may be needed in the future for an aeronautical purpose and revenue from an interim use of the land contributes to the financial self-sufficiency of the airport. Such interim uses require FAA approval or consent as described below.

Non-Aeronautical Use: All other uses that are not considered aeronautical or airport purpose. These uses will require FAA consent or approval of the land use. Examples of non-aeronautical use include:

1. Car rental facility (stand-alone);

2. Hotel;

3. Warehouse and distribution center; and

4. Parking associated with non-aeronautical uses ( e.g., customer and employee parking for hotel, warehouse and distribution center, car rental).

Non-aeronautical uses commonly occur at airports, but these uses do not have the priority or protection of the grant assurances. There is no Federal requirement that obligated airport sponsors accommodate non-aeronautical uses. This differentiation between aeronautical and non-aeronautical is intended to protect the Federal investment in aviation and ensure that non-aeronautical uses cannot easily displace aeronautical uses and thereby diminish the safety, efficiency, and utility of the airport. 10

Mixed Uses —A mixed-use facility contains both aeronautical and non-aeronautical uses, but the non-aeronautical use could be located off airport property. These uses will need FAA consent or approval for the land use. The FAA will take into account whether the non-aeronautical component will impact existing uses or conflict with existing or foreseeable aeronautical needs/demand. Examples of mixed uses include:

1. Mail distribution centers that are connected to an air cargo operation;

2. Cargo operations where the primary purpose of the operation goes beyond air cargo processing facilities and expands into non-aeronautical elements, such as office building complexes, sorting facilities, long-term storage (warehousing), freight forwarders, and third-party logistics providers, certain access infrastructure, or certain truck parking/trailer facilities (stalls). Most of these are related to other transportation modes or aspects of the cargo business, not directly and substantially to its “aeronautical activity”;

3. Aircraft manufacturing facility that includes final assembly, but also significant non-aeronautical uses such as engineering facilities, research and development facilities, parts manufacturing and storage, or office buildings; and

4. Parking associated with the mixed use ( e.g., customer and employee parking for mail distribution, cargo operations, aircraft manufacturing).

Federally acquired land —This is land that was acquired with Federal funds including the Airport Improvement Program (AIP), Federal Aid to Airports Program (FAAP), Airport Development Aid Program (ADAP), and as part of an AP-4 agreement. 11 It also includes airport sponsor-acquired land that was used for the airport sponsor match for an AIP project or was swapped for AIP purchased land.

Federally conveyed land —This is land conveyed to the airport sponsor by the Federal government through a written deed of conveyance (sometimes called a patent or included in a lease termination, etc.) that contained specific restrictions or allowances for the use of the land. The FAA recognizes that some Federal conveyance documents specifically permit non-aeronautical use for revenue production or a specific identified use—in these instances, there is not a change in land use. Federally conveyed land includes land transferred under:

1. Surplus Property Act, codified in 49 U.S.C. 47151-47153, including former military airports conveyed to local public entities under 10 U.S.C. 2687 of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act (BRAC) program or any other Federal laws; and,

2. Section 16 of the Federal Airport Act of 1946, 119 Public Law 79-377, Section 23 of the Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970, Public Law 91-258, and Section 516 of the Airport and Airway Development Act of 1982, codified in 49 U.S.C. 47125. These are sometimes referred to as non-surplus property transfers.

Release of Federal obligations —The formal, written authorization discharging and relinquishing all or part of the FAA's right to enforce an airport's contractual or deeded obligations. The FAA's authority to release, waive, or amend an obligation is contained in 49 U.S.C. 47153(a) and 47107(h)(2).

Letter of consent or approval —The FAA's action on a proposed land use change will be documented in the form of a letter of consent or a letter of approval, depending upon the obligating deeds or documents and the land at issue. Surplus Property Act deeds require the FAA's written consent for a non-aeronautical use, so a letter of consent is appropriate.

Alternatively, Grant Assurance 5, Preserving Rights and Powers, requires prior written approval of the Secretary for the sale or transfer of any property upon which Federal funds have been expended, which would require a letter of approval. In both cases, the letters serve the equivalent purpose of documenting the FAA's action on the airport sponsor's request. These letters also serve to approve interim uses for revenue production on property acquired for an airport purpose.

Uses of airport land will fall into one of four categories: (1) aeronautical use, (2) airport purpose, (3) non-aeronautical use, or (4) mixed-use.

The airport sponsor must obtain FAA approval or consent for all non-aeronautical and mixed uses of federally acquired or federally conveyed land. 12 FAA approval or consent is not needed for a proposed land use that meets the definition of aeronautical use or airport purpose. The following explains the process when an airport sponsor requests a change in land use on federally conveyed or federally acquired land:

The airport sponsor's request needs to include the following:  13

1. identification of the property and documentation on how the land was acquired ( i.e., Federal conveyance documents, Federal grant agreements, Exhibit A);

2. current use of the property;

3. current and future aeronautical demand of the airport and the property ( e.g., current Master Plan, forecasts, hangar waitlists); and,

4. proposed use of the property, including the anticipated length of the use.

Upon receipt of all documents, the FAA will promptly review the airport sponsor's request. The review involves a certain level of discretion by the FAA and the airport sponsor. The FAA may request additional information regarding the proposal. Major considerations in granting approval or consent include the:

1. Reasonableness and practicality of the airport sponsor's request,

2. The effect of the request on needed aeronautical facilities,

3. The net benefit to civil aviation, and

4. Compatibility of the proposal with the needs of civil aviation. (Incompatible land uses on the airport, including residential use, are prohibited by FAA policy and are contrary to federal obligations.)

The distinctions may vary slightly depending on the circumstances of the situation, such as intermodal functionality, business model, project integrity, available airport land, project size and location, airport planning priorities, and funding requirements and restrictions. The land use must benefit the airport and its functions in support of aeronautical uses and must not adversely affect the value of the federal investment in the airport and its facilities. 49 U.S.C. 47107(a)(16)(B), 47125(a), and 47152(1).

The land use should be compatible with the airport's current or future aeronautical use or demand. FAA approval will not be granted if the FAA determines that an aeronautical demand for the land is likely to exist within the period of the requested land use. The duration of FAA's approval or consent will depend on the circumstances at the airport and may be permitted for the duration of the approved use. The approval or consent must state that the land will be returned to aeronautical use at the end of the approved period.

Upon completion of the review, the FAA will either issue a letter of approval or consent for the use or deny the request. Where possible, the FAA may issue the letter of approval or consent concurrently with a Section 163 determination letter.

The letter of approval or consent will document the FAA's determination of the land use on federally acquired or federally conveyed airport land. This letter will outline the conditions of the approval or consent and include a requirement that the land must be available for aeronautical use at the end of the approval or consent period. Generally, the approval or consent will remain in effect for the duration of the approved use. The letter of approval or letter of consent does not affect or negate the airport sponsor's Federal obligations.

The requirement for NEPA should be coordinated with the Regions/ADO Environmental Protection Specialist (EPS).

After an airport sponsor receives an FAA letter of consent or approval, it will update the Exhibit A.

Background Liberalizing Controls for Allies and Partners

Historically, the United States has relied on deep connections with its allies and partners to protect its vital national security and foreign policy interests. In particular, the United States acts in close cooperation with its allies and partners to bring together the international community to address military aggression, threats to sovereignty, and human rights abuses around the world. This is especially true in the context of export controls, in which multilateral and plurilateral controls are typically the most effective path toward accomplishing our national security and foreign policy objectives.

In remarks made at the U.S. State Department on February 4, 2021, regarding America's place in the world, President Biden noted that America's alliances are some of our greatest assets and that leading with diplomacy means standing shoulder to shoulder and working closely with our allies and key partners, thereby protecting the world against nefarious actors. At that time, President Biden highlighted the fact that the United States would be “more effective in dealing with Russia when we work in coalition and coordination with other like-minded partners.” ( https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/02/04/remarks-by-president-biden-on-americas-place-in-the-world/ ). Consistent with this direction, a year later, following Russia's unjustifiable further invasion of Ukraine and Belarus's complicity in that invasion, the United States led the formation of and continues to lead alignment within the Global Export Controls Coalition (GECC), now comprising the United States and 38 other global economies. BIS's export controls on Russia and Belarus have been successful because they have been imposed and maintained in coordination with U.S. allies and partners. At the same time, in addition to the GECC, BIS has forged deeper ally and partner country relationships through a series of bilateral and multilateral export controls dialogues, including under the auspices of the U.S.-European Union Trade and Technology Council (TTC) and the U.S.-Japan Commercial and Industrial Partnership (JUCIP).

The changes made with this rule and two other ally and partner rules published today are part of a broad effort to liberalize controls for allies and partner countries under the EAR (15 CFR parts 730-774). Together, these rules will ease several categories of export licensing requirements and increase the availability of export license exceptions for key allied and partner countries, as well as members of certain multilateral export control regimes.

As described below, in recognition of key allies' and partners' support of our efforts against Russia, along with their leadership in the areas of chemical and biological weapons nonproliferation and the promotion of human rights, BIS is making two sets of amendments to the EAR. First, it is revising the Chemical and Biological Nonproliferation (CB) controls that apply to certain pathogens and toxins that are destined for members of the Australia Group (AG). Second, it is removing Crime Controls (CC) on seven key allied and partner countries, Austria, Finland, Ireland, Liechtenstein, South Korea, Sweden, and Switzerland. These amendments to the EAR eliminate certain controls on allied and partner countries, as well as on AG member countries, thereby facilitating exports and reexports involving these countries and allowing BIS to apply its resources toward reviewing and monitoring more sensitive exports and higher-risk transactions. These amendments are part of a larger effort announced by BIS today that includes several EAR amendments eliminating certain license requirements and broadening the availability of license exceptions for allied and partner countries, including member countries of international regimes.

The AG is the multilateral export control regime responsible for controlling chemical and biological items to ensure that such items do not contribute to chemical and biological weapons proliferation. The AG currently has 43 members, including the United States. All items controlled under ECCNs 1C351, 1C353, 1C354, 1E001, and 1E351 on the Commerce Control List (CCL) (supp. no. 1 to part 774 of the EAR) are controlled multilaterally by the AG, except those items controlled under ECCN 1C351.b.

Prior to this rule, entries for pathogens and toxins controlled under ECCNs 1C351, 1C353, 1C354, and their related technologies controlled under ECCNs 1E001, and 1E351, listed CB Column 1 (CB:1) (see Commerce Country Chart, supp. no. 1 to part 738) as a reason for control applying to each entry. Pursuant to § 742.2(a)(1) of the EAR, ECCNs with a CB:1 reason for control require a BIS license for export or reexport to all destinations, regardless of AG membership. Separately, the controls on ECCNs referring to CB Column 2 (CB:2) are described in § 742.2(a)(2); items with a CB:2 reason for control require a BIS license for all destinations except AG member countries (see Country Group A:3, supp. no. 1 to part 740).

BIS is amending the EAR in recognition of the fact that each of the AG member countries has an effective export control system capable of regulating dual-use exports in a manner consistent with U.S. national security, foreign policy, and nonproliferation objectives. In particular, all AG members implement AG control agreements under their domestic laws, including by imposing stringent biosafety and biosecurity standards and maintaining comparable license requirements. Consequently, exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) of items controlled under these ECCNs to AG member countries are low-risk transactions. This assessment is evidenced by recent licensing data on approved and denied BIS license applications for the items controlled under these ECCNs to AG member countries. In 2021, BIS approved approximately 1,000 applications for ECCN 1C351, 1C353, 1C354, 1E001, and 1E351 items to AG member countries and did not deny any license applications for such items to AG member countries. Consistent with the demonstrated low risk posed by these items when destined to AG member countries, BIS is amending the reason for control from CB:1 to CB:2 in each of the entries for these items. Although these items remain CB-controlled, they will no longer require a license for CB reasons when destined to AG member countries. By amending the reason for control from CB:1 to CB:2 in each of the entries for these items, BIS estimates that it is alleviating a burden of approximately 1,000 license applications per year. This decrease in burden will benefit both the public, by reducing the need to submit applications and wait for processing, and BIS, by freeing resources for applications involving higher-risk destinations.

With this rule, BIS revises ECCNs 1C351, 1C353, 1C354, 1E001, and 1E351 on the CCL. This rule revises the reason for control in each of these ECCNs from CB:1 to CB:2. As a conforming change, BIS revises § 742.2(a) of the EAR such that it reflects the changes to ECCNs 1C351, 1C353, 1C354, 1E001, and 1E351.

This rule does not make changes to the item paragraphs or other reasons for control associated with these ECCNs. Notably, CB:1 will continue to be the reason for control in ECCN 1C351.d.14 and .15 and genetic elements of ECCN 1C353 of toxins controlled in 1C351.d.14 and .15, pursuant to the requirements of the Chemical Weapons Convention. Relatedly, ECCNs 1E001 and 1E351 will retain CB:1 as the reason for control for “technology” controlled by the ECCN 1C351.d.14 and .15 and the genetic elements thereof.

This rule makes two conforming changes involving ECCN 1C351 that reflect the easing of licensing requirements described above. Prior to this rule, certain toxins controlled under ECCN 1C351 required a license but were eligible for License Exception Strategic Trade Authorization (STA) when destined to Country Group A:5 countries pursuant to § 740.20(b)(2)(vi). Given the changes made by this rule to ECCN 1C351, there is no longer a license requirement for these toxins when destined for a Country Group A:5 country. Therefore, this rule removes § 740.20(b)(2)(vi) and references to License Exception STA from ECCN 1C351.

Crime controls (CC) on crime control detection equipment, related technology, and software, set forth in § 742.7 of the EAR, support U.S. foreign policy interests that promote the observance of human rights throughout the world. Pursuant to § 742.7(a)(1), ECCNs on the CCL referencing CC Column 1 on the Country Chart (CC:1) require a BIS license for export and reexport. Similarly, § 742.2(a)(3) describes the license requirements for items referencing CC Column 3 on the Country Chart (CC:3). Prior to this rule, Austria, Finland, Ireland, Liechtenstein, South Korea, Sweden, and Switzerland were each subject to license requirements for CC:1 and CC:3 items set forth on the CCL. With this rule, the items specified in § 742.7(a)(1) and (a)(3) will no longer require a license for export and reexport to these seven countries; this reflects—along with their inclusion in Country Group A:5 (see supp. no. 1 to part 740) as well as in supplement no. 3 to part 746 (countries that have implemented export controls on Russia and Belarus that are substantially similar to U.S. export controls)—these seven countries' status as close United States allies and partners. Moreover, these seven countries share the United States' commitment to the observance of human rights worldwide. All seven countries have strong records regarding the safeguarding of civil liberties and individual freedoms and upholding other democratic norms.

In 2021, BIS approved approximately 200 licenses and did not deny any licenses for CC items destined to these seven countries. BIS anticipates that the removal of CC controls on these seven countries will enable the agency to reallocate its licensing application review and processing resources on higher-risk destinations that present human rights concerns.

This rule revises the Commerce Country Chart by removing the X for CC reason for control from CC:1 and CC:3 for Austria, Finland, Ireland, Liechtenstein, South Korea, Sweden, and Switzerland. Doing so eliminates the license requirements for items controlled under CC:1 and CC:3. This rule makes no further revisions to the Commerce Country Chart or conforming changes elsewhere in the EAR.

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

1. BIS has examined the impact of this rule as required by Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094, which direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public, health, and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). This rule is considered a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to or be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. This regulation involves collections previously approved by OMB under control number 0694-0088, Simplified Network Application Processing System, which includes, among other things, license applications and commodity classifications, and carries a burden estimate of 29.4 minutes for a manual or electronic submission for a total burden estimate of 35,739 hours. Total burden hours associated with the PRA and OMB control number 0694-0088 are expected to decrease as a result of this rule. This rule is expected to decrease the licensing burden by approximately 1,200 licenses per year; this will result in an overall reduction in burden house by almost 588 hours per year, for a new total burden estimate of 35,151 hours.

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

4. Pursuant to section 1762 of the Export Control Reform Act of 2018, this action is exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requirements for notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation, and delay in effective date.

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

Accordingly, parts 738, 740, 742, and 774 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774) is amended as follows:

Background

The Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR or Regime) is an export control arrangement among 35 nations, including most of the world's suppliers of advanced missiles and missile-related equipment, materials, software, and technology. The regime establishes a common list of controlled items (the Annex) and a common export control policy (the Guidelines) that member countries implement in accordance with their national export controls. The MTCR seeks to limit the risk of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by controlling exports of goods and technologies that could make a contribution to delivery systems (other than manned aircraft) for such weapons.

In 1993, the MTCR's original focus on missiles for nuclear weapons delivery was expanded to include the proliferation of missiles for the delivery of all types of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), i.e., nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. Such proliferation has been identified as a threat to international peace and security. One way to address this threat is to maintain vigilance over the transfer of missile equipment, material, and related technologies usable for systems capable of delivering WMD. MTCR members voluntarily pledge to adopt the Regime's export Guidelines and to restrict the export of items contained in the Regime's Annex. The Regime's Guidelines are implemented through the national export control laws, regulations and policies of the regime members.

This final rule, as further described in section A of this preamble, revises six ECCNs under the EAR to reflect changes to the MTCR Annex agreed to at the March 2018 Technical Experts Meeting (TEM) in Reykjavik, Iceland; November 2018 TEM in Basel, Switzerland; May 2019 TEM in Berlin, Germany; October 2019 TEM in Auckland, New Zealand; and October 2021 TEM in Sochi, Russian Federation. References are provided below for the MTCR Annex changes agreed to at the meetings that correspond to the EAR revisions described below. These changes are primarily editorial corrections to these ECCNs for consistency with the MTCR Annex. This rule also makes changes to the Commerce Control List (CCL) (supplement no. 1 to part 774 of the EAR) to conform with the MTCR Annex. All of the changes in this final rule align the MT controls on the CCL with the MTCR Annex. In the discussion below, BIS identifies the origin of each change in the regulatory text of this final rule by using one the following parenthetical phrases: (Reykjavik 2018 TEM), (Basel 2018 TEM), (Berlin 2019 TEM), (Auckland 2019 TEM), (Sochi 2021 TEM), or (Changes to Align with MTCR Annex).

This final rule expands the eligibility of license exceptions for MT-controlled items, as further described in section B, by amending the EAR to expand the eligibility for the use of four license exceptions under the EAR for MT-controlled items and to add one new license exception authorization under an existing license exception. In addition, this rule revises the general restriction on the use of license exceptions to ensure that the limited set of additional license exception authorizations specified are not available for destinations of concern for missile technology reasons or that are subject to a U.S. arms embargo and makes conforming changes where needed to license exceptions to ensure that only certain license exceptions or portions of license exceptions will be available for MT-controlled items. These changes to license exception eligibility for MT-controlled items will better harmonize the availability of license exceptions for such items with the availability of license exceptions that are available for other items of similar sensitivity under the EAR. Because of the terms and conditions of existing licenses exceptions there will only be a limited number of license exceptions or portions of those license exceptions that will be available for MT-controlled items.

Making these limited additional license exceptions or portions of those license exceptions available will ease the burden on exporters, reexporters, and transferors and allow for BIS, as well as the other agencies that review BIS licenses, to focus its license reviews on transactions that warrant individual reviews through the license review process.

The changes with this rule to license exception eligibility and two other ally and partner rules published today are part of a broad effort to liberalize controls for allies and partner countries under the EAR (15 CFR parts 730-774). Together, these rules will ease several categories of export licensing requirements and increase the availability of export license exceptions for key allied and partner countries, as well as members of certain multilateral export control regimes.

This final rule amends the CCL to reflect changes to the MTCR Annex by amending six ECCNs, as follows:

ECCN 1C111. This final rule amends ECCN 1C111 by adding a new “items” paragraph e in the List of Items Controlled section to control Dimethylaminoethylazide (DMAZ) (CAS 86147-04-8) as a Hydrazine replacement fuel, and [Reserves] “items” paragraph e.2 to conform to Federal Register requirements for the addition of “items” paragraph e.1 (Changes to Align with MTCR Annex). DMAZ was added to the MTCR Annex in 2014. At the time, it was not added to the United States Munitions List (USML) or the CCL. This change to ECCN 1C111 corrects that oversight, ensuring that DMAZ will be appropriately controlled under the EAR and consistent with U.S. Government commitments to the MTCR. This is consistent with the 2014 rules that transitioned hydrazine and its derivatives to the CCL. These changes are expected to result in an increase of three to five license applications received annually by BIS, due to the low volume of such items exported.

In addition, BIS takes this opportunity to correct the ITAR citation regarding ferrocene derivatives controlled under Category V(f)(4) in paragraph (2) of the Related Controls paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section. Ferrocene derivatives were moved from paragraph (f)(3) to (f)(4) by Department of State Export Control Reform (ECR) rule 79 FR 34, Jan. 2, 2014, but were not included in the companion BIS rule, 79 FR 264, Jan. 2, 2014. To preclude the need for similar amendments in the future, the citation is limited to the higher level USML Category. A corresponding revision is made in reference to Inhibited Red Fuming Nitric Acid in Related Controls paragraph (5).

ECCN 2A101. This final rule amends ECCN 2A101 by revising the heading to add the word “of” after the phrase “having all,” so this part of the heading will now read as “having all of the following characteristics.” This is an editorial correction for consistency with the MTCR Annex that does not substantively change the scope of ECCN 2A101 (MTCR Annex Change, Category II: Item 3.A.7., Reykjavik 2018 TEM). These changes are not expected to have any impact on the number of license applications received by BIS.

ECCN 2B119. This final rule amends ECCN 2B119 by revising “items” paragraph a in the List of Items Controlled section. In “items” paragraph a, this final rule adds the word “of” after the phrase “having all,” so the control parameter will now read as “balancing machines having all of the following characteristics.” This is an editorial correction for consistency with the MTCR Annex that does not substantively change the scope of ECCN 2B119 (MTCR Annex Change, Category II: Item 9.B.2., Reykjavik 2018 TEM). This change is not expected to have any impact on the number of license applications received by BIS.

ECCN 6A107. This final rule amends ECCN 6A107 by revising “items” paragraphs a, in the List of Items Controlled section. In “items” paragraphs a, this final rule adds the word “of” after the phrase “having all” and adds the word “characteristics” after the word “following,” so the control parameter will now read as “Gravity meters having all of the following characteristics.” This is an editorial correction for consistency with the MTCR Annex that does not substantively change the scope of the ECCN (MTCR Annex Change, Category II: Item 12.A.3., Reykjavik 2018 TEM). These changes are not expected to have any impact on the number of license applications received by BIS.

ECCN 9A101. This final rule amends ECCN 9A101 by revising “items” paragraphs a.2 in the List of Items Controlled section to remove the parenthetical phrase “at maximum continuous power at sea level static conditions using the ICAO standard atmosphere.” This final rule also redesignates Technical notes 2 and 3 as Technical notes 3 and 4, respectively, and adds a new Technical Note 2 in the List of Items Controlled section (MTCR Annex Change, Category II: Item 3.A.1., Berlin 2019 TEM). This final rule adds new Technical note 2 to specify that specific fuel consumption is determined at maximum continuous thrust for engine type un-installed at sea level static conditions using the ICAO standard atmosphere. This change is a correction on how specific fuel consumption is determined—using thrust rather than power. Additionally, the parenthetical phrase in “items” paragraph a.2 is being moved from a parenthetic in the control text to a technical note, where it better belongs in the context of ECCN 9A101. This is a clarification and will not change any scope of control. These changes are not expected to have any impact on the number of license applications received by BIS.

ECCN 9E515. This final rule amends ECCN 9E515 by revising the “MT” paragraph in the table in the License Requirements section to add a reference to ECCN 9A515.h to specify the MT control applies to technology for items in ECCN 9A515.h (Change to Align with MTCR Annex). This addition is to correct an oversight to ensure the MT technology control appropriately extends to all the intended MT commodities. The technology for ECCN 9A515.h., which has an MT control, should be controlled under ECCN 9E515. This correction will align the technology control in ECCN 9E515 with 20.A.1.b.2./20.E.1. in the MTCR Annex. These changes are not expected to have any impact on the number of license applications received by BIS.

This final rule makes changes to the EAR for license exception eligibility for MT-controlled items. These changes consist of the following: (1) revising the general restriction on the use of license exceptions for MT-controlled items in § 740.2(a)(5); (2) revising the terms and conditions of four license exceptions: License Exceptions TMP under § 740.9(b)(1)(i) and (b)(2)(ii)(C), GOV under § 740.11 introductory text, TSU under § 740.2(d)(2) to add additional requirements or exclusions for items controlled for MT items; and (3) adding a new authorization to existing License Exception AVS under § 740.15(b)(2), under a new paragraph (b)(2)(ii).

BIS emphasizes that it is important to understand that although this final rule revises the general restriction on the use of license exceptions for MT-controlled items to make it more narrowly focused, that the majority of EAR license exceptions will still not be available because the terms and conditions of those license exceptions do not allow for MT-controlled items, e.g., License Exception GBS, which is only available to overcome a license requirement for items that are only controlled for national security (NS) reasons.

BIS identifies here the thirteen License Exceptions that are not available for items that are MT controlled:

• § 740.3 Shipments of limited value (LVS);

• § 740.4 Shipments to Country Group B countries (GBS);

• § 740.6 Technology and software under restriction (TSR);

• § 740.7 Computers (APP);

• § 740.8 Notified Advanced Computing (NAC);

• § 740.12 Gift parcels and humanitarian donations (GFT);

• § 740.14 Baggage (BAG);

• § 740.17 Encryption commodities, software, and technology (ENC);

• § 740.18 Agricultural commodities (AGR);

• § 740.19 Consumer Communications Devices (CCD);

• § 740.20 License Exception Strategic Trade Authorization (STA);

• § 740.21 Support for the Cuban People (SCP); and

• § 740.22 Authorized Cybersecurity Exports (ACE).

BIS identifies here the six license exceptions, or portions of those license exceptions, that are available for items that are MT controlled (only the referenced paragraphs will be eligible for MT-controlled items) for any destination other than destinations identified under Country Groups D:4 or D:5 in supplement no. 1 to part 740:

• § 740.9 Temporary imports, exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) (TMP) for paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(3) through (8) and (a)(10), (b)(1) through (b)(3), and Notes 2, 3, and 4 to paragraph (b), excluding any commodity controlled under ECCN 9A012 that is “capable of” delivering at least 500 kilograms payload to a range of at least 300 kilometers;

• § 740.10 License Exception Servicing and replacement of parts and equipment (RPL) for paragraphs (a) and (b);

• § 740.11 Governments, international organizations, international inspections under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and the International Space Station (GOV) for paragraph (b)(2) (as described below under section B.2.ii, this final rule adds a new exclusion to the introductory text of License Exception GOV to exclude all other paragraphs under this license exception for MT-controlled items);

• § 740.13 Technology and software—unrestricted (TSU) for paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (g) (as described below under section B.2.iii, this final rule adds a new exclusion to exclude MT controlled software from paragraph (d));

• § 740.15 Aircraft, vessels and spacecraft (AVS) for paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2) (including the new authorization this final rule adds to paragraph (b)(2)(ii) (as described below under section B.3 of this final rule)), (b)(3), (b)(4), (c)(1), (c)(2), (e), and (f); and

• § 740.16 Additional permissive reexports (APR) for paragraphs (c), (d), (e), and (f).

BIS provides the two lists of license exceptions above to assist with public understanding on the scope and impact of these license exception changes in this final rule for MT-controlled items. BIS notes here that in order to use any EAR license exception at the time of export, reexport, or transfer (in-country), the exporter, reexporter, or transferor must review and make a determination that they meet all of the applicable requirements of the license exception to be used as the authorization and that the export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) is not otherwise restricted under any of the general restrictions under § 740.2.

These changes for license exception eligibility for MT-controlled items described under section B of this final rule are expected to result in a reduction of 400 license applications per year received by BIS.

In § 740.2 Restrictions on all License Exceptions, this final rule revises paragraph (a)(5) to make the general restriction on the use of license exceptions for MT-controlled items to allow the use of portions of additional license exceptions. Prior to this final rule, this provision restricted the use of all EAR license exceptions for MT-controlled items, except for the limited number of ECCNs identified in paragraphs (a)(5)(i) and (ii) for the specified license exceptions or portions of those license exceptions ( i.e., when MT-controlled items identified in paragraph (a)(5)(i) are exported as part of a spacecraft, manned aircraft, land vehicle or marine vehicle or in quantities appropriate for replacement parts for such applications under § 740.9(a)(4) (License Exception TMP for kits consisting of replacement parts), § 740.10 (License Exception RPL), § 740.13 (License Exception TSU), or § 740.15(b) (License Exception AVS for equipment and spare parts for permanent use on a vessel, aircraft or spacecraft; or for ECCNs 2A001 or 2A101 identified in paragraph (a)(5)(ii) are exported under § 740.9(a)(4) (License Exception TMP) or § 740.10 (License Exception RPL) as one-for-one replacement for equipment previously legally exported, reexported, or transferred (in-country)).

The restriction under paragraph (a)(5) was originally included in the EAR to reflect a statutory restriction in the Export Administration Act of 1979 (EAA), which was repealed in 2018. The limited license exceptions previously available were in accordance with provisions of the MTCR Annex that stipulate that controls do not extend to certain items for use in manned aircraft or other non-missile applications. The restriction under paragraph (a)(5) had some effects that are inconsistent with current national security and foreign policy interests. For example, the export of an MT-controlled item to the U.S. Department of Defense for its own use, prior to this final rule, would have required the submission of a BIS license application. BIS is also aware that other MTCR member countries, as permissible under their own national discretion in implementing their MTCR commitments, allow in certain cases for the use of authorizations for certain MT Annex items that would be equivalent to EAR license exceptions, e.g., for trade of MTCR Annex items from the EU or UK to certain other countries, including the United States.

This restriction on the use of license exceptions for MT-controlled items was not included in ECRA. Because there is no longer a statutory restriction and for policy reasons such a general restriction is no longer warranted ( e.g., some of the examples referenced in the preceding paragraph of instances in which license exception eligibility for MT items would advance U.S. national security and foreign policy interests), this final rule revises the general restriction on the use of license exceptions for MT-controlled items to allow the use of portions of additional license exceptions. This change will better harmonize the availability of license exceptions for MT-controlled items under the EAR with those available for other EAR items of similar sensitivity and advance U.S. national security and foreign policy interests. BIS considered completely removing the general restriction, but took into account that exporters, reexporters, and transferors were already familiar with the general restriction placement in the EAR and that because many license exceptions, based on the other terms and conditions of those license exceptions would not be eligible for MT-controlled items regardless of whether there was a general restriction, BIS determined it would be easier to identify an exhaustive, positive list of license exceptions and portions of license exceptions that will be available under the EAR for MT-controlled items to overcome the general restriction instead of making exporter, reexporters, and transferors review the terms and conditions of each of the EAR license exceptions to make those determinations.

The revision of the general restriction on the use of license exceptions results in only limited availability of additional license exceptions for MT-controlled items, as specified above under section B introductory text.

In order to implement this change, this final rule revises § 740.2(a)(5)(i) to specify no license exceptions may be used for MT-controlled items and then specifies under new paragraphs (a)(5)(i)(A) through (G) the license exceptions or other license exceptions that will be available for MT-controlled items to destinations other than those identified in Country Groups D:4 or D:5 (see supplement no. 1 to part 740 of the EAR). The purpose of this revision is to limit the expanded license exception eligibility this rule adds to only those destinations that are not of concern for missile technology reasons specified under Country Group D:4 and not subject to a U.S. arms embargo. This final rule will retain the status quo on the license exception restrictions on destinations identified under Country Groups D:4 or D:5. However, to ensure that the very limited license exception eligibility under § 740.2(a)(5)(i) and (ii) that previously was available for all destinations, including those identified under Country Group D:4 or D:5, provided the license exception was not excluded under the respective license exceptions under part 740 or the respective embargoes or sanctions sections under part 746, this final rule revises paragraph (a)(5)(ii) to specify that the ECCNs identified under paragraphs (a)(5)(i) and (ii) prior to this final rule are still available for destinations identified in Country Groups D:4 or D:5, provided the terms and conditions in parts 740 and 746 as applicable are met and none of the part 744 end-use and end-user controls are applicable.

In § 740.9(a) Temporary imports, exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) (TMP), this final rule revises the introductory text of paragraphs (a) and (b) to specify that these two paragraphs do not authorize any export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) of a commodity controlled under ECCN 9A012 that is “capable of” delivering at least 500 kilograms payload to a range of at least 300 kilometers. This final rule revises the first sentence of paragraph (a)(1), which authorizes exports or certain tools of trade to specify MT controlled commodities or software are not eligible for Country Groups D:4 and D:5, which is also addressed under the restriction this rule adds to § 740.2(a)(5)(ii), but as an additional reminder this rule includes the additional restriction. This final rule under paragraph (b)(1), which authorizes the export of certain items moving in transit through the United States, adds an exclusion for items controlled for MT reasons when the export is to a Country Group D:4 country in supplement no. 1 to part 740. The exclusion under paragraph (b)(1)(i) had already applied to national security (NS) reasons, nuclear proliferation (NP) reasons, and chemical and biological weapons (CB) when the export was to a country of concern for NS, NP, or CB under Country Groups D:1, D:2, or D:3, respectively. Because MT-controlled items under the changes in this final rule are now eligible for this paragraph (b)(1) authorization, the same type of exclusion under paragraph (b)(1)(i) is needed for items controlled for MT reasons when the export is to a destination of concern for missile technology, destinations under Country Group D:4.

This final rule also revises paragraph (b)(2) (Items imported for marketing, or for display at U.S. exhibitions or trade fair), to revise the exclusion under paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(C), to add the same type of exclusion that this final rule adds to paragraph (b)(1)(i), for items controlled for MT reasons to not be allowed to be exported under this paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(C) authorization when the export is to a destination in Country Group D:4.

In § 740.11 Governments, international organizations, international inspections under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and the International Space Station (GOV), this final rule adds one sentence at the end of the introductory text of the section to specify that for items controlled for MT reasons that they are only eligible for transactions described in paragraphs (b)(2) (United States Government) of this section. No other authorizing paragraphs under License Exception GOV will be eligible for items controlled for MT reasons.

In § 740.13 Technology and software—unrestricted (TSU), this final rule revises paragraph (d) (General Software Note: mass market software) by adding one sentence to the end of the exclusions under paragraph (d)(2) to specify that the paragraph (d) authorization is not available for any software that is controlled for missile technology (MT) reasons. Because of the terms that must be met in order to use § 740.13(d) prior to this final rule, it is unlikely that software controlled for MT reasons would be eligible for this authorization, but to make it explicit that software controlled for MT reasons is not eligible under paragraph (d) under any case, this final rule specifies that in the paragraph (d)(2) exclusions.

In § 740.15 Aircraft, vessels and spacecraft (AVS), this final rule revises paragraph (b)(2) (Aircraft) to redesignate the existing paragraph (b)(2) authorization text as new paragraph (b)(2)(i), including adding the term transferred (in-country) for clarity. This final rule also adds a new paragraph (b)(2)(ii) that will authorize exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) to any destination identified in Country Group A:2 and supplement no. 3 to part 746 of ECCNs 7A101, 7A102, or 7A103 when the commodities are for use in or for the “production” of civil manned aircraft. For commodities controlled for MT reasons, these three ECCNs are the subject of some of the most common license applications that BIS reviews and the specific end uses involving the use of these commodities in civil manned aircraft and for the “production” of civil manned aircraft are the most common end uses specified in these licenses. Provided these licenses do not involve a part 744 prohibited end use or end user concern or a destination of missile technology concern identified under Country Group D:4 or subject to a U.S. arms embargo identified under Country Group D:5, these types of license applications are regularly approved. Accordingly, creation of a license exception authorization under new paragraph (b)(2)(ii) to authorize these exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country), provided the terms and conditions of the authorization are met and the general restrictions under § 740.2 are not otherwise applicable, is warranted. As an additional safeguard, this final rule limits the country scope of this new authorization to only destinations that are identified in Country Group A:2 and supplement no. 3 to part 746.

For the changes being made in this final rule, shipments of items removed from eligibility for a License Exception or export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) without a license (NLR) as a result of this regulatory action that were en route aboard a carrier to a port of export, reexport, or transfer (in-country), on December 8, 2023, pursuant to actual orders for export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) to or within a foreign destination, may proceed to that destination under the previous eligibility for a License Exception or export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) without a license (NLR), provided the export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) is completed no later than on January 8, 2024.

On August 13, 2018, the President signed into law the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, which included the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA) (codified, as amended, at 50 U.S.C. 4801-4852). ECRA provides the legal basis for BIS's principal authorities and serves as the authority under which BIS issues this rule. To the extent it applies to certain activities that are the subject of this rule, the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (TSRA) (codified, as amended, at 22 U.S.C. 7201-7211) also serves as authority for this rule.

1. BIS has examined the impact of this rule as required by Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094, which direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public, health, and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). This rule is considered a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number.

This rule involves the following OMB-approved collections of information subject to the PRA:

• 0694-0088, “Multi-Purpose Application,” which carries a burden hour estimate of 29.4 minutes for a manual or electronic submission;

• 0694-0096 “Five Year Records Retention Period,” which carries a burden hour estimate of less than 1 minute;

• 0694-0122, “Licensing Responsibilities and Enforcement;” and

• 0607-0152 “Automated Export System (AES) Program,” which carries a burden hour estimate of 3 minutes per electronic submission.

BIS expects the burden hours associated with these collection to decease slightly by 221 hours for an estimated cost decrease of $7,735, which is within the estimated burdens and costs of these collections. Additional information regarding these collections of information—including all background materials—can be found at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain by using the search function to enter either the title of the collection or the OMB Control Number.

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

4. Pursuant to section 1762 of ECRA (50 U.S.C. 4821), this action is exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553) requirements for notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation, and delay in effective date. While section 1762 of ECRA provides sufficient authority for such an exemption, this action is also independently exempt from these APA requirements because it involves a military or foreign affairs function of the United States (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)).

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

For the reasons stated in the preamble, parts 740 and 774 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730 through 774) are amended as follows:

To ensure its rules and industry guides remain relevant and are not unduly burdensome, the Commission reviews each on a ten-year schedule. Every year the Commission publishes its review schedule, with adjustments made in response to public input, changes in the marketplace, and resource demands.

When the Commission reviews a rule or guide, it publishes a document in the Federal Register seeking public comment on the continuing need for the rule or guide, as well as the rule's or guide's costs and benefits to consumers and businesses. Based on this feedback, the Commission may modify or repeal the rule or guide to address public concerns, changed conditions, or to reduce undue regulatory burden.

The Commission posts information about its review schedule on its website  1 to facilitate comment. This website contains an updated review schedule, a list of rules and guides previously eliminated in the regulatory review process, and the Commission's regulatory review plan.

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because we must establish this special local regulation by December 9, 2023. The Coast Guard did not receive final details regarding the parade route until October 18, 2023. As such, it is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule. This regulation is necessary to ensure the safety of life on the navigable waters of Lake Havasu during the marine event.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date of this rule would be contrary to public interest because immediate action is needed to ensure the safety of life on the navigable waters of Lake Havasu during the marine event on December 9, 2023.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port Sector San Diego (COTP) has determined that the large presence of vessels in Lake Havasu associated with the 2023 Lake Havasu City Christmas Parade of Lights on December 9, 2023, poses a potential safety concern. This rule is needed to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within Lake Havasu while the event is occurring.

This rule establishes a special local regulation from 5 p.m. until 9 p.m. on December 9, 2023. The special local regulation will cover all navigable waters encompassing the parade route on a pre-determined course through North Lake Havasu, Bridgewater Channel, and Thompson Bay. The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters while the bridge is being repaired. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the special local regulation without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

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

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review). Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the regulated area. The affected portion of Lake Havasu will be of very limited duration, during evening hours when vessel traffic is historically low, and is necessary for safety of life to participants in the event. Moreover, the Coast Guard would make a post in the Local Notice to Mariners with details on the regulated area.

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

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

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a special local regulation lasting only 4 hours that will prohibit entry into a pre-determined course for a vessel parade. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1.

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

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

The Coast Guard is issuing this final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is unnecessary. The John F. Kennedy Space Center Bridge , that once required the draw operations in 33 CFR 117.261(l), was removed from the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (Indian River) and replaced with a fixed bridge in 2023. Therefore, the regulation is no longer applicable and shall be removed from publication. It is unnecessary to publish an NPRM because this regulatory action does not purport to place any restrictions on mariners but rather removes a restriction that has no use or value because the new bridge does not open.

We are issuing this rule under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective in less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . The bridge has been removed from the waterway and this rule merely requires an administrative change to the Federal Register , in order to omit a regulatory requirement that is no longer applicable or necessary. The modification has already taken place and the removal of the regulation will not affect mariners currently operating on this waterway. Therefore, a delayed effective date is unnecessary.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 33 U.S.C. 499.

The John F. Kennedy Space Center bridge was removed and replaced with a fixed bridge in 2023. The elimination of this drawbridge necessitates the removal of the drawbridge operation regulation, 33 CFR 117.261(l), that pertain to the former drawbridge.

The purpose of this rule is to remove the paragraph of 33 CFR 117.261(l) that refers to the John F. Kennedy Space Center Bridge, across the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (Indian River) at mile 885, from the Code of Federal Regulations since it governs a bridge that is no longer able to be opened.

The Coast Guard is changing the regulation in 33 CFR 117.261 by removing restrictions and the regulatory burden related to draw operations for a bridge that is no longer a drawbridge. The change removes § 117.261(l) of the regulation governing the John F. Kennedy Space Center Bridge since the bridge has been removed from the waterway and replaced with a fixed bridge. This final rule seeks to update the CFR by removing language that governs the operation of the John F. Kennedy Space Center Bridge. This change does not affect waterway or land traffic. This change does not affect, nor does it alter the operating schedules in 33 CFR 117.261 that govern the remaining active drawbridges on the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway from St. Marys River to Key Largo.

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

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 proposed rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review). This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

This regulatory action determination is based on the fact that the bridge was replaced and no longer operates as a drawbridge. The removal of the operating schedule from 33 CFR 117 Subpart B will have no effect on the movement of waterway or land traffic.

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 rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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

This rule calls 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 rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security 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 rule promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges and is 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.

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

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of the Port Sector Honolulu DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

On August 8, 2023, high winds and wildfires struck portions of Maui, Hawaii, causing damage to coastal infrastructure and prompting mass rescue operations for area residents.

On August 9, 2023, the Coast Guard issued a temporary rule establishing a safety zone for all waters extending 1 nautical mile from shore starting from the northernmost point of Kekaa Point, Maui, thenceforth to the southernmost point at Hekili Point, Maui, to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards associated with emergency response and port recovery operations after wildfires affected the area. The safety zone was effective through August 23, 2023. A copy of the rulemaking that ended on August 23, 2023, is available in Docket USCG-2023-0669, which can be found using instructions in the ADDRESSES section.

On September 22, 2023, the Coast Guard issued a rulemaking creating a temporary safety zone that encompassed all waters extending 200 yards from shore from the northernmost point, 100 yards south of the intersection of Kaniau Road and Honoapiilani Highway (Highway 30), Maui, thenceforth to the southernmost boundary at the southern end of Launiupoko Beach Park, Maui, with an effective end date of December 5, 2023. A copy of the rulemaking ending on December 5, 2023 is available in the Docket USCG-2023-0743, which can be found using instructions in the ADDRESSES section. However, additional time is needed to continue to provide protection against hazards in the area due to emergency response and port recovery operations. As a result, the Coast Guard is establishing through temporary regulations a safety zone that will be in effect through December 15, 2023. The safety zone encompasses all waters extending 200 yards from shore from the northernmost boundary, 60 yards south of the intersection of Front Street and Baker Street, Maui, to the southernmost boundary, 20 yards south of the intersection of Front Street and Shaw Street, Maui.

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) because it would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The Coast Guard was unable to publish an NPRM and hold a reasonable comment period for this rulemaking due to the emergent nature of the continuing damage assessment and salvage operations.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date of this rule would be impracticable because immediate action to restrict vessel traffic within the safety zone is needed to protect life, property, and the environment, therefore a 30-day notice period is impracticable. Delaying the effective date would be contrary to the safety zone's intended objectives of providing immediate protection to on-scene emergency personal, creating a working buffer necessary to mitigate any safety and potential pollution threats caused by the wildfires and establishing immediate maritime safety in the vicinity of on-scene damage assessments.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Coast Guard Captain of the Port Sector Honolulu (COTP) has determined that the potential hazards associated with the emergency response and port recovery efforts connected to wildfires in the area constitute a safety concern for anyone within the designated safety zone. This rule is necessary to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment within the navigable waters of the safety zone during ongoing emergency response and port recovery operations.

This rule establishes a temporary safety zone that will be enforced from December 01, 2023, through December 15, 2023, at 11:59 p.m., or until emergency response and port recovery operations are complete, whichever is earlier. If the safety zone is terminated prior to 11:59 p.m. on December 15, 2023, the Coast Guard will provide notice via a broadcast notice to mariners. The temporary safety zone encompasses all waters extending 200 yards from shore from the northernmost boundary, 60 yards south of the intersection of Front Street and Baker Street, Maui, to the southernmost boundary, 20 yards south of the intersection of Front Street and Shaw Street, Maui. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards associated with ongoing emergency response and port recovery operations after wildfires affected the area. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone absent the express authorization of the COTP or her designated representative.

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

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review). Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and limited duration of the safety zone. This zone impacts a small, designated area of the Lahaina Harbor and surrounding waters and operations may suspend early at the discretion of the COTP.

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

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

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone that will prohibit entry within certain navigable waters of Lahaina Boat Basin. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(d) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1.

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

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

The DDRA Fellowship Program provides opportunities for doctoral students to engage in dissertation research abroad in modern foreign languages and area studies. The program is designed to contribute to the development and improvement of the study of modern foreign languages and area studies in the United States and to increase scholars' knowledge of the culture of the people in the countries or regions of research. The program provides fellowships to doctoral candidates who are planning a teaching career in the United States upon completion of their programs and who possess sufficient foreign language skills in the country or countries of research to carry out the dissertation research project.

The FRA Fellowship Program provides opportunities for faculty members teaching modern foreign languages or area studies at U.S. institutions of higher education (IHEs) to engage in research abroad in those languages or areas studied. The program is designed to contribute to the faculty members' foreign language skills and to increase knowledge of the culture of the people in the countries or regions of research.

On March 21, 2023, the Secretary published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for these parts in the Federal Register . 1 These final regulations contain changes from the NPRM, which we explain in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section of this document.

Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPRM, the Department received five comments on the proposed regulations. We address those comments in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section below.

We group issues according to subject, with appropriate sections of the regulations referenced in parentheses, where applicable. We discuss other substantive issues under the sections of the regulations to which they pertain. Generally, we do not address minor, non-substantive changes (such as renumbering paragraphs, adding a word, or typographical errors). Additionally, we do not address recommended changes that the statute does not authorize the Secretary to make or comments pertaining to operational processes. We generally do not address comments pertaining to issues that were not within the scope of the NPRM.

An analysis of the public comments received and the changes to the regulations since publication of the NPRM follows.

Comments: Two commenters supported the proposed regulations.

Discussion: We thank the commenters for their support. We believe these changes maintain the statutory goals and the integrity of the programs.

Changes: None.

Comments: One commenter objected to the existence of both the DDRA and the FRA programs.

Discussion: These programs are authorized by statute. 2

Changes: None.

Comments: One commenter asked the Department to explain whether the proposed rule is intended to merely clarify the Secretary's existing discretion to vary selection criteria point values assigned to DDRA or FRA, which was granted in a 2005 rulemaking, or whether the proposed rule would grant new discretion to the Secretary. If the latter, the commenter believed that the Department should explain any additional discretion and give the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed expansion.

The commenter further opined that, as the Fulbright-Hays Act and the Department's eligibility regulations require the Secretary to meaningfully consider foreign language skills, the Department should finalize §§ 662.21(c) and 663.21(c) without the proposed “one or more” phrase in the introductory text or otherwise clarify that the Secretary may not ignore foreign language skills when awarding DDRA and FRA Fellowships. The commenter objected to the proposed rule to the extent that it would grant discretion to ignore foreign language skills in the DDRA and FRA competitions.

Lastly, this commenter stated that, if finalized as proposed, the revisions to §§ 662.21(c)(3), 662.21(c)(4), 663.21(c)(3), and 663.21(c)(4) would address the concerns identified in a recent lawsuit filed on behalf of DDRA applicants  3 who challenged the weight given to their respective native languages in the selection process.

Discussion: The Department appreciates this commenter's concerns and wishes to clarify that the additional discretion proposed under §§ 662.21(c) and 663.21(c) to allow the Secretary to consider “one or more” of the listed applicant qualification criteria, while expanding the Secretary's discretion under these particular programs, is an appropriate exercise of the Secretary's general authority under 34 CFR 75.201 to identify and notify applicants of grant competition selection criteria (an authority which is routinely used, for example, across Departmental programs utilizing the general selection criteria under 34 CFR 75.210) and is consistent with the Fulbright-Hays Act. 4 The Department would only use this flexibility consistent with the programs' statutory requirement to “promot[e] modern foreign language training and area studies in United States schools[.]”  5 The Department believes that it is able to discharge this requirement and the purpose of these grants for “improving [an applicant's] skill in languages” within the framework of several of the criteria looking at the Qualification of an Applicant, and that this duty does not rest solely on any single criteria under that section. The flexibility to select “one or more” of the applicant qualification criteria under §§ 662.21(c) and 663.21(c) will enhance the Department's ability to structure its grant competitions to select the most qualified applicants for funding, because it will allow the Department to focus from year-to-year on those selection criteria that have yielded applications from the most qualified candidates. It also will allow the Department to review the effect of omitting a particular selection criterion in a given year on the quality of applicants, without having to go through additional rulemaking to obtain this information.

Changes: None.

Comments: None.

Discussion: Current regulations in 34 CFR 662 and 663 do not address severability. The Department seeks to clarify its intent that, with regard to severability, each of the regulations in 34 CFR parts 662 and 663 and its subparts serves one or more important, related, but distinct, purposes. To best serve these purposes, we included this administrative provision in the regulations to make clear that the regulations are designed to operate independently of each other and to convey the Department's intent that the potential invalidity of one provision or any of its subparts should not affect the remainder of the provisions.

Changes: We have added new severability provisions in §§ 662.8 and 663.8.

Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, the Secretary must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the E.O. and subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, as amended by E.O. 14094, defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $200 million or more (adjusted every three years by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for changes in gross domestic product); or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, territorial, or Tribal governments or communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise legal or policy issues for which centralized review would meaningfully further the President's priorities or the principles stated in the Executive order, as specifically authorized in a timely manner by the Administrator of OIRA in each case.

This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (as amended by E.O. 14094).

We have also reviewed these regulations under E.O. 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in E.O. 12866. To the extent permitted by law, E.O. 13563 requires that an agency—

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations;

(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);

(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and

(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or providing information that enables the public to make choices.

E.O. 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” OMB's OIRA has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”

The Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action, and we are issuing these final requirements only on a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that would maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows and the reasons stated elsewhere in this document, the Department believes that the final requirements are consistent with the principles in E.O. 13563.

We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly interfere with state, local, territorial, or Tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.

In this regulatory impact analysis, we discuss the need for regulatory action, the potential costs and benefits, and net budget impacts.

Elsewhere, under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), we identify and explain burdens specifically associated with information collection requirements.

The Department amends the DDRA and FRA program regulations to promote fairness in the application review process for native speakers of languages other than English. These revisions are also consistent with the statutory framework for the DDRA and FRA programs and are necessary to support the statutory goal of “promoting modern foreign language training and area studies in United States schools[.]”  6 Additionally, revising the introductory language of §§ 662.21(c) and 663.21(c) to allow consideration of “one or more” of the listed criteria will enable the Department to administer these competitive grant programs in a manner that prioritizes the most qualified applicants for funding. Finally, the addition of severability clauses to the regulations for these programs will enable the Department to administer these programs more effectively if a component of the regulations is invalidated by a court.

The Department believes this regulatory action will not impose significant new cost-bearing requirements on IHEs or other entities. We also believe that the benefits of implementing this regulatory action outweigh any associated costs.

We anticipate a minimal increase of 10-15 DDRA and FRA program applications as a result of eliminating the native language proficiency exclusion and foresee minimal impact on the Department's time and cost for reviewing these additional applications.

Over the last 5 years, the amount of annual funding for the DDRA program has ranged from approximately $3.4 to $5.5 million, with an average of 200 grant applications received per year, and an average of 50 percent of applications ultimately receiving grant awards. With the changes to the regulation, the Department expects an increase of 10-15 applications per year, based on the number of applicants that have applied to study a geographic area that shares their native language skills in recent years.

An increase in the number of applicants or awards granted could result in additional costs to the Department in securing readers to review applications, but if additional costs arise, they will be minimal. The Department pays readers $1,200 to review applications, and the number of applications per reader ranges from 15 to a maximum of 22. An increase in 10-15 applications could increase costs by an additional $1,200 to secure an additional reader. However, the number of DDRA applications has declined over the last several years from a high of almost 250 to a low of just more than 150 in 2022. As a result, an increase in immediate applications would not result in any overall comparative additional costs, as a nominal increase in applications will restore DDRA to the average amount of applications received in prior years. We anticipate no additional costs to grant recipients, as we will continue to pay for grant activities with program funds. We also note that program participation is voluntary.

In fiscal year (FY) 2022, the Department conducted an FRA competition and awarded 22 recipients a total of approximately $1.3 million. The FY 2022 competition was the first FRA competition in more than 10 years. The Fulbright-Hays appropriation decreased from $15.6 million in FY 2010 to $7.5 million in FY 2011; the nearly 50 percent decrease in available funding hindered our ability to conduct competitions and make awards under all four Fulbright-Hays programs. The result was a suspension of the FRA program from 2011 to 2021.

Between 2011 and 2021, the funding level for the Fulbright-Hays programs averaged $7.4 million. In FY 2022, the amount increased to $9.8 million, which enabled us to re-activate the FRA program. Although we will not conduct the FRA competition in FY 2023, we do anticipate conducting another FRA competition in FY 2024, contingent upon funding availability. Given that we held only one FRA competition in the last 10 years, we cannot discuss potential trends in those program applications or potential corresponding costs.

The benefits of these final regulations include better aligning DDRA and FRA applicant qualifications with other comparable grant programs to focus on overall language proficiency and increasing equitable access to research abroad for those demonstrating language proficiency in the language of the countries in which their doctoral-level or faculty research study will occur. This will apply regardless of the applicant's native language. Additionally, we expect that the regulations will lead to an increase in the number of applications overall, which will make the program more competitive and enable the Department to fund even higher quality applications. The increase in applications specifically from individuals with native languages other than English will yield additional applications from individuals speaking a wider variety of native languages, as well as more applications recommended for funding from these individuals. These regulations will also more fully account for proficiency by adding a new selection criterion that considers an applicant's academic record. Under this criterion, we will consider any steps the applicant has taken to improve proficiency in the language of study and ensure adequate preparation for the proposed research project. We believe this criterion will support the programmatic goal of the DDRA and FRA to promote training “in United States schools, colleges, and universities.” Allowing applicants to show steps taken to improve their language proficiency in an academic setting will better demonstrate their ability to study in that language abroad. This change may also encourage applicants to complete additional training as a way to strengthen their application.

Finally, providing Secretarial discretion to determine the factors that will be considered when reviewing the qualifications of applicants would increase flexibility to implement the program within statutory requirements while adapting to changing Departmental priorities for international and foreign language education. This change will align DDRA and FRA with other Departmental programs that provide discretion to the Secretary to select among the regulated selection criteria when deciding which criteria to emphasize in a competition year.

We do not anticipate any cost to the Federal government as a result of this particular change, beyond nominal costs associated with updating the application package. We do not expect any impact on the number of applications received as a result of this change, nor do we anticipate any costs to grant recipients. Accordingly, we do not anticipate any burden cost with the addition of this particular criterion.

These proposed regulations are not estimated to have a significant net impact on the Federal budget. As noted above, the Department estimates that these final regulations will not result in additional net costs.

In addition to allowing native speakers to receive points based on §§ 662.21(c)(3) and 663.21(c)(3), we considered allowing English as the language for the country of research, which is currently restricted. We did not take that approach because we believe maintaining the requirement that applicants demonstrate proficiency in a language “other than English” more appropriately meets the statutory goal of “promoting modern foreign language training and area studies in United States schools[.]”  7

We also considered continuing to solely provide points for language proficiency without consideration of additional steps taken to improve proficiency. We did not take that approach because we believe that including a criterion that considers steps taken to improve proficiency in a domestic academic setting better meets the statutory goal of promoting training “in United States schools, colleges, and universities”  8 and will better demonstrate applicants' ability to study in that language abroad. This change may also encourage applicants to complete additional training as a way to strengthen their application. Additionally, we believe that replacing the exclusion for native language skills other than English with a focus on both an applicant's current foreign language skills and efforts to master the language of study will be more effective in increasing the capabilities and diversity of applicants and participants, while remaining consistent with the statutory goals of these programs.

The Secretary certifies under the Regulatory Flexibility Act  9 that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of “small entities.”

The small entities that will be affected by the proposed regulations are IHEs that submit applications to the Department under this program. The final regulations will not have a significant economic impact on the small entities affected because they will not impose excessive regulatory burdens or require unnecessary Federal supervision. The final regulations will impose minimal requirements to ensure the proper expenditure of program funds.

In the NPRM, we invited the public to comment on our proposed certification that these regulations would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We did not receive any comments on this subject.

The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines “small institution” using data on revenue, market dominance, tax filing status, governing body, and population. Most entities to which the Office of Postsecondary Education's regulations apply are postsecondary institutions. However, we do not require institutions to report such data to the Department. As a result, for purposes of this final rule, the Department defines “small entities” by reference to enrollment to allow meaningful comparison of regulatory impact across all types of higher education institutions. 10 We consider two-year postsecondary educational institutions with enrollment of fewer than 500 full-time equivalent (FTE) and 4-year postsecondary educational institutions with enrollment of fewer than 1,000 FTE to be small entities.

The Department used Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) data from fiscal year 2020 reported under the finance data category. This reporting does not include all participating institutions and provides approximate data.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act also requires us to estimate the effect of the final regulations on small entities. We identified 27 of the 97 affected entities as small. As noted above, we estimated that this final rule will result in benefits for all affected entities without regulatory burden. We estimated that small institutions will, on average, see an increase of approximately $952,400 in funding. Similarly, we projected that non-small institutions will receive an increase of approximately $407,900.

In terms of regulatory impact, these regulations are designed to avoid excessive burdens or unnecessary Federal supervision. The minimal cost that these regulations will impose are those associated with grantees' obligation to certify participant eligibility and safeguard the proper expenditure of program funds. Consequently, the Department certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, the Department provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections of information in accordance with the PRA. 11 This helps to ensure that the public understands the Department's collection instructions, respondents can provide the requested data in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the Department can properly assess the impact of collection requirements on respondents.

Sections 662.21(c)(3) and 663.21(c)(3) of the regulations contain information collection requirements. Under the PRA, the Department submitted a copy of these sections to OMB for review.

A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless OMB approves the collection under the PRA and the corresponding information collection instrument displays a currently valid OMB control number. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to comply with, or is subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information if the collection instrument does not display a currently valid OMB control number.

In these final regulations, we provide the control number assigned by OMB to any information collection requirements. The information collection impacted by these regulatory changes is the Application for the DDRA and FRA Programs, OMB Control Number 1840-0005. Under the DDRA and FRA programs, individual scholars apply through eligible institutions for an institutional grant to support the research fellowship. These institutions administer the program, in cooperation with the Department, pursuant to §§ 102(b)(6) and 104(e)(1) of the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (Fulbright-Hays Act), 34 CFR parts 662 and 663, the Policy Statements of the J. William Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board (FSB), and the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR).

The Department, U.S. foreign language and area studies specialists, the U.S. Department of State, U.S. Embassies, Fulbright Commissions, host country officials and scholars, and the FSB use these data. This use is necessary to determine the academic qualifications and suitability of the individual applicant, potential political sensitivity and feasibility of the project in the host country, research climate, and adequacy of the proposed budget.

The Department awards grants under these programs annually.

The DDRA and FRA application (1840-0005) will be affected by the regulatory changes in the following ways:

• We will change the application package to eliminate the native language proficiency exclusion.

• We will include additional language in the DDRA and FRA selection criteria (under §§ 662.21(c)(3) and 663.21(c)(3)) that requires minimal changes on the technical review forms.

The hour burden for individual DDRA student respondents is estimated at an average of 25 hours for each student. The cost burden for DDRA student applicants is zero. We estimated that the changes to these regulations may result in a small increase in the number of DDRA student respondents from 310 to 325 submitting a single application. When multiplied by 25 hours, this results in an increase in DDRA student burden hours from 7,750 to 8,125.

We estimated the hour burden for the 50 DDRA institutional project directors to be 25 hours for reviewing each DDRA application for a total burden of 1,250. The cost burden of $47.20 for institutional DDRA applicants totals $59,000. We used feedback from DDRA respondents during the last three years to estimate these amounts.

The hour burden for the 70 individual FRA respondents is estimated to average 25 hours for each faculty member to complete the application for a total of 1,750 hours. The cost burden for faculty applicants at $36.33 totals $63,578.

The hour burden for the 50 FRA institutional project directors is estimated to be 15 hours for reviewing each FRA application for a total burden of 750 hours. The cost burden for institutional FRA applicants at $47.20 is $35,400. These estimates are based on feedback from FRA respondents during the last three years.

These estimates incorporate completion of the following tasks:

1. Register in the G5 e-Application system (project director);

2. Complete official forms (student/faculty and project director);

3. Develop the application narrative and budget (student/faculty);

4. Screen individual completed applications (project director); and

5. Transmit completed individual applications to the Department in a single submission via G5 (project director).

We note that the hour burdens for the DDRA and FRA project directors differ because the FRA program is smaller and has fewer applicants. DDRA project directors generally process applications for multiple students; FRA project directors generally process an application for a single faculty member.

The data in Table 2 are an estimate of the time needed for both institutional project directors and individual student and faculty respondents to complete tasks listed.

We prepared an Information Collection Request (ICR) for these changes to the information collection requirements. We invited the public to comment on the ICR but did not receive any comments.

OMB approved the collection of information contained in these regulations under OMB Control number 1840-0005 on March 2, 2023.

The proposed regulations are not subject to E.O. 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79.

Based on our review, we have determined that these regulations do not require transmission of information that any other agency or authority of the United States gathers or makes available.

E.O. 13132 requires us to obtain meaningful and timely input by state and local elected officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications. “Federalism implications” means substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the National Government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The proposed regulations do not have federalism implications.

Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format. The Department will provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc, or other accessible format.

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register . You may access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register , in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Secretary amends parts 662 and 663 of title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

On November 22, 2023, the PRC favorably reviewed the price adjustments proposed by the Postal Service. The price adjustments and DMM revisions are scheduled to become effective on January 21, 2024. Final prices are available under Docket No. R2024-1 (Order No. 6814) on the Postal Regulatory Commission's website at www.prc.gov.

Currently, Certificate of Mailing is processed manually at the BMEU for individual pieces of Priority Mail®, First-Class Mail®, USPS Marketing Mail®, and Package Services. Certificate of Mailing provides evidence of mailing only and does not provide a record of delivery.

The Postal Service is adding an automated option for processing forms 3606-D Certificate of Bulk Mailing; 3665 Certificate of Mailing; and 3877 Firm Mailing Book for Accountable Mail at the BMEU when electronically uploaded to PostalOne! and payment via EPS (Enterprise Payment System).

Currently, mailers are unable to see the discount breakdown at product level for each promotion; in addition, when a new promotion is added or an existing promotion is enhanced, changes applied to the product line is not readily available to mailers.

The Postal Service will implement an update that will enable mailers to see promotion discounts at the product level for each promotion as well as ensure all updates are applied to applicable systems in sync.

These revisions will provide consistency within postal products and add value for customers.

The Postal Service did not receive any formal comments on the October 2023 proposed rule (88 FR 71329-71332).

The Postal Service adopts the described changes to Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM), incorporated by reference in the Code of Federal Regulations. We will publish an appropriate amendment to 39 CFR part 111 to reflect these changes.

Accordingly, 39 CFR part 111 is amended as follows:

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

The background and rationale for this action are discussed in detail in our August 14, 2023 proposed rule and our Response to Comments document for this action. 1 In the proposed rule, we proposed to disapprove certain provisions submitted by the State to meet reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements in SIP submissions from March 22, 2021, and May 20, 2022. Specifically, we proposed disapproval of the categorical RACT rules for refinery fueled process heaters as well as landfill or biogas fired reciprocating internal combustion engines and the State's RACT determination for the Golden Aluminum facility. We also proposed to approve the enhanced monitoring element and to disapprove the contingency measures element of the March 22, 2021 8-hour ozone attainment plan SIP submission from the State of Colorado for the DMNFR Area. Final action on the enhanced monitoring and contingency measures elements was taken on November 07, 2023. 2 In this action, we are finalizing action on the remaining RACT provisions.

We received comments on the August 14, 2023 proposal from several commenters: the Center for Biological Diversity, the Air Pollution Control Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, William Weese Pepple & Ferguson on behalf of Suncor Energy Inc., and one citizen. All comments received are in the docket for this action. The comments included views concerning the timing, process, and approach for EPA to act on Colorado's SIP submittals; supportive and adverse comments related to our proposed action on the contingency measures element; and adverse comments related to our proposed action on certain RACT elements. A summary of the comments that are relevant to this final action and the EPA's responses are provided in the Response to Comments document, which is in the docket for this action. Comments related to contingency measures were addressed in our November 7, 2023 final rule.

The EPA is disapproving certain provisions submitted by the State to meet RACT requirements in SIP submissions from March 22, 2021, and May 20, 2022, because we find they do not satisfy the requirements under CAA sections 182(b) and 182(c). EPA has previously acted on all other parts of these submittals. 3

Section 110(c)(1) of the CAA requires the Administrator to promulgate a Federal implementation plan (FIP) at any time within two years after the Administrator finds that a state has failed to make a required SIP submission, finds a SIP submission to be incomplete, or disapproves a SIP submission, unless the state corrects the deficiency, and the Administrator approves the SIP revision, before the Administrator promulgates a FIP. Therefore, EPA will be obligated under CAA section 110(c)(1) to promulgate a FIP within two years after the effective date of this disapproval, unless the state submits, and the EPA approves, SIP revisions to correct the identified deficiencies before EPA promulgates the FIP.

In addition, this final disapproval will trigger mandatory sanctions in accordance with the timelines and provisions of CAA section 179 and 40 CFR 52.31 unless the state submits, and EPA approves, SIP revisions that correct the identified deficiencies within 18 months of the effective date of the final disapproval action.

The EPA reviewed demographic data, which provides an assessment of individual demographic groups of populations living within the DMNFR Area. The EPA then compared the data to the national averages for each of the demographic groups. The results of this analysis are being provided for informational and transparency purposes. The results of the demographic analysis indicate that for populations within the DMNFR Area, there are census block groups in which the percentage of people of color (persons who reported their race as a category other than White alone and/or Hispanic or Latino) is greater than the national average (39%) and above the 80th percentile. 4 There are also census block groups within the DMNFR Area that are below the national average (33%) poverty level and above the 80th percentile. 5

This final SIP action identifies deficiencies in the State's March 22, 2021 and May 20, 2022 RACT submittals. The EPA has defined RACT as the lowest emission limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility. The EPA's disapproval of these RACT submittals will require that Colorado submit RACT plans for the DMNFR Area consistent with the requirements of the CAA. Such measures may help to improve air quality in the entire affected nonattainment area through reductions of ozone precursor emissions.

The CAA requires this action, and the EPA recognizes the adverse impacts of ozone. Information on ozone and its relationship to negative health impacts can be found in the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone. 6 We expect that this action and resulting emission reductions will generally be neutral or contribute to reduced environmental and health impacts on all populations in the DMNFR Area, including people of color and low income populations. At a minimum, this action would not worsen any existing air quality and is expected to ensure the area is meeting requirements to attain and/or maintain air quality standards. Further, there is no information in the record indicating that this action is expected to have disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental effects on a particular group of people.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 Colorado Air Quality Control Division 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 performed an environmental justice analysis, as is described above in the section titled, “Environmental Justice Considerations.” The analysis was done for the purpose of providing additional context and information about this rulemaking to the public, not as a basis of the action. Due to the nature of the action being taken here, this action is expected to have a neutral to positive impact on the air quality of the affected area. In addition, there is no information in the record upon which this decision is based inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 6, 2024. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule will not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review, nor will it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed or postpone the effectiveness of this rule. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

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

This is a summary of the Commission's Order, FCC 23-28, adopted on April 20, 2023, and released on April 25, 2023, and the Supplemental Order, DA 23-745, adopted and released on August 22, 2023. The full text of these documents is available on the Commission's website at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-28A1.pdf and https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-23-745A1.pdf . This document also announces that, on June 6, 2023, OMB approved, for a period until December 31, 2023, the information collection requirements associated with the Commission's Order, FCC 23-28. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1308. On August 31, 2023, OMB approved the Commission's request for a non-substantive change to the currently approved collection. On November 1, 2023, OMB approved the Commission's request for an emergency extension of this information collection, for a period until June 30, 2024. On December 4, 2023, OMB approved the Commission's request for a non-substantive change to the currently approved collection. The Commission publishes this document as an announcement of the effective date of the information collection required by the Order. The Commission also publishes this document as an announcement of the filing deadline for the information collection requirements in the Order. If you have any comments on the burden estimates, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Cathy Williams, Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554. Please include the OMB Control Number, 3060-1308, in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via email at PRA@fcc.gov . To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to FCC504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received final OMB approval on June 6, 2023, for the information collection requirements associated with the Commission's Order, FCC 23-28. Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.

No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number.

The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.

The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:

OMB Control Number: 3060-1308.

OMB Approval Date: June 6, 2023.

OMB Expiration Date: June 30, 2024.

Title: Reporting On Foreign Ownership of International Section 214 Authorization Holders.

Form Number: N/A.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 1,500 respondents; 1,500 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 6 hours.

Frequency of Response: One time reporting requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in sections 4(i), 214, 218, 219, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 4(i), 214, 218, 219, and 403.

Total Annual Burden: 4,500 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $1,350,000.

Needs and Uses: The Commission established a new one-time information collection in the Review of International Section 214 Authorizations to Assess Evolving National Security, Law Enforcement, Foreign Policy, and Trade Policy Risks, IB Docket No. 23-119; Amendment of the Schedule of Application Fees Set Forth in Sections 1.1102 through 1.1109 of the Commission's Rules, MD Docket No. 23-134, Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 23-28. Each international section 214 authorization holder is required to identify its 10% or greater direct or indirect foreign interest holders (reportable foreign ownership) as of thirty (30) days prior to the filing deadline. Additionally, the filer will be required to certify as to the accuracy of the information provided. Subsequently, in Review of International Section 214 Authorizations to Assess Evolving National Security, Law Enforcement, Foreign Policy, and Trade Policy Risks, IB Docket No. 23-119; Amendment of the Schedule of Application Fees Set Forth in Sections 1.1102 through 1.1109 of the Commission's Rules, MD Docket No. 23-134, Order, DA 23-745, the Telecommunications and Analysis Division, Office of International Affairs, as directed by the Commission, exempted qualifying authorization holders from answering questions in the information collection regarding the identities, specific equity and voting interests, and description of controlling interests of their reportable foreign interest holders, instead requiring them to identify, on an aggregated basis, all of the citizenship(s) or place(s) of organization of their reportable foreign interest holders. The Order and the Supplemental Order are summarized below.

1. The Commission adopts an Order requiring all international section 214 authorization holders to respond to a one-time collection to update the Commission's records regarding the foreign ownership of international section 214 authorization holders. 1 The Commission has incomplete and outdated information about international section 214 authorization holders. For example, the Commission's records in the International Communications Filing System (ICFS) reflect there are approximately 7,000 international section 214 authorization holders, though the Commission estimates the more accurate number is closer to approximately 1,500 active authorization holders. Additionally, the Commission does not have visibility on authorized carriers' current foreign ownership. Thus, the collection of this information is a necessary first step for the Commission to make an informed decision concerning the proposed rules and procedures set forth in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). Among other things, the information derived from this one-time collection will allow the Commission to determine the number of active authorization holders and whether they have reportable foreign ownership. In addition, the information will enable the Commission to identify those authorization holders that are no longer in business or are in business but discontinued service under their international section 214 authority. Overall, the information will assist the Commission in developing a timely and effective process for prioritizing the review of international section 214 authorizations that are most likely to raise national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and/or trade policy concerns, as proposed in the NPRM.

2. Under the Commission's current rules, international section 214 authorization holders are not required to periodically report their ownership, including the extent of any foreign ownership interests, the identity of their foreign interest holders, and the countries associated with such foreign ownership. Following the grant of an international section 214 authorization, an authorized U.S.- international carrier can provide service globally to any route for which it is classified as non-dominant pursuant to the terms of its international section 214 authorization. 2 After the grant, the Commission ordinarily does not receive updated information unless an authorization holder files an application for a modification, assignment, or transfer of control of the authorization. 3 Additionally, international section 214 authorization holders only need to notify the Commission of a planned discontinuance of service when the authorization holder seeks to discontinue service for which it has customers. If an international section 214 authorization holder does not have any customers when it discontinues offering service, it may file with the Commission a notification to surrender its authorization, but is not required to do so. In those circumstances, the authorization holder may retain the authorization indefinitely. Following the grant of international section 214 authority, an authorization holder may retain the authorization even if it was never used or the authorization holder is not currently offering service or simply is no longer in business.

3. One-Time Information Collection. In furtherance of the Commission's goals in this proceeding and to inform the Commission's consideration of the regulatory approaches on which the Commission seeks comment in the NPRM, the Commission adopts the information collection requirements herein, which are based on the requirements set forth in § 63.18(h) of the Commission's rules. 4 Section 63.18(h) requires international section 214 applicants to provide the name, address, citizenship and principal businesses of any person or entity that directly or indirectly owns at least 10% of the equity of the applicant, and the percentage of equity owned by each of those entities (to the nearest 1%). 5 Specifically, the Commission directs each authorization holder to identify its 10% or greater direct or indirect foreign interest holders that hold such equity and/or voting interests (reportable foreign ownership)  6 as of thirty (30) days prior to the filing deadline. Additionally, the Commission requires each authorization holder to certify as to the accuracy of the information provided. Such certification requires each authorization holder to conduct appropriate due diligence, thereby increasing the reliability of its information. In the NPRM, the Commission proposes to cancel the authorizations of carriers that fail to respond to this Order and impose forfeitures or other measures where a carrier fails to respond in a timely or complete manner.

4. The Commission anticipates that its information collection will not be unduly burdensome as international section 214 authorization holders, including small entities, would have information about their ownership available for purposes of compliance with the Commission's rules, e.g., to ascertain whether their ownership requires approval for, or notification of, a substantive or non-substantive assignment or transfer. Most businesses likely maintain records of their 10% or greater direct or indirect equity and/or voting interest holders in the ordinary course of business. An authorization holder that is a privately held entity likely knows its investors. An authorization holder that is a publicly held company is also required to identify its interest holders in requisite filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

5. Pursuant to this Order, the Commission requires an international section 214 authorization holder to submit information based on the categories below.

(1) Reportable Foreign Ownership—Foreign Adversary—China (including Hong Kong), Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, Maduro Regime. Where there are interest holders that are entities and individuals that are a government organization or citizen of a “foreign adversary” country, an authorization holder must identify its 10% or greater direct or indirect foreign interest holders, including any 10% or greater direct or indirect foreign interest holders outside the foregoing “foreign adversary” countries. A “foreign adversary” country is defined in the Department of Commerce's rule, 15 CFR 7.4. 7 The authorization holder must:

• identify each interest holder and the foreign country or countries, including countries that are not foreign adversary countries;

• disclose whether any interest holder has dual or more citizenships and identify all countries where citizenship is held;  8 and

• certify to the truth and accuracy of all information.

(2) Reportable Foreign Ownership—No Foreign Adversary. Where there are no interest holders that are entities or individuals that are a government organization or citizen of any foreign country that is a “foreign adversary” country defined in the Department of Commerce's rule, 15 CFR 7.4, an authorization holder must identify its 10% or greater direct or indirect foreign interest holders. The authorization holder must:

• identify each interest holder and the foreign country or countries;

• disclose whether any interest holder has dual or more citizenships and identify all the countries where citizenship is held;  9 and

• certify to the truth and accuracy of all information.

(3) No Reportable Foreign Ownership. An authorization holder that has no reportable foreign ownership must certify to the truth and accuracy of this information.

6. Information Collection Process and Deadline. The Commission directs the Office of International Affairs to conduct this information collection, including the creation of the forms, submit the information collection for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review  10 and, following OMB review, publish notice of the effective date of the information collection requirement and the filing deadline in the Federal Register . In so doing, the Office of International Affairs should take into account information recently provided to the Commission on the record that has not materially changed. 11 The filing deadline shall be no fewer than thirty (30) days following the effective date of this Order. The Office of International Affairs also will issue a Public Notice announcing the deadline and will provide instructions for filing this information with the Commission.

7. FCC Registration Number (FRN). All authorization holders must have an FCC Registration Number (FRN) in order to file their response in ICFS. 12 An FRN is the 10-digit number assigned to all entities (individual and corporate) that transact business with the Commission, and it must be provided any time an authorization holder submits a filing or application in ICFS. The Commission notes that many international section 214 authorizations were granted to entities prior to the Commission requiring an FRN in 2001. 13 Such entities will need to obtain an FRN prior to filing their response to the information collection.

8. Surrender of Authorizations. Authorization holders that surrender their international section 214 authorizations before the filing deadline do not need to respond to the one-time information collection. Accordingly, the Commission strongly encourages international section 214 authorization holders that no longer need or use their authorizations to do so before the filing deadline. International section 214 authorization holders may file a surrender letter in ICFS.

9. Pursuant to the Commission's directive to take into account recently-provided information that has not changed, the Office of International Affair adopts an exemption (Exemption) for Authorization Holders whose applications were granted within three years prior to the deadline of the One-Time Information Collection. The Exemption will reduce the burden for qualifying Authorization Holders while still allowing the Commission to collect necessary information from the One-Time Information Collection. Under this Exemption, qualifying Authorization Holders are exempt from answering questions in the One-Time Information Collection regarding the identities, specific equity and voting interests, and description of controlling interests, of their Reportable Foreign Interest Holders. Instead, Authorization Holders that qualify for the Exemption will be required to identify, on an aggregated basis, all of the citizenship(s) or place(s) of organization of their Reportable Foreign Interest Holders. Specifically, to qualify for the Exemption:

(1) The Authorization Holder must have filed an application for an initial International Section 214 Authorization, modification, or substantial (not a pro forma filing) assignment or transfer of control of the authorization that was reviewed by the Executive Branch agencies and was granted by the Commission on or after [date 3 years before date of filing deadline, 2020]; and

(2) There are no Reportable Foreign Interest Holders of the Authorization Holder other than those disclosed in the application (including any amendment), and there are no changes to the Reportable Foreign Interest Holders disclosed in the application (including any amendment) as of [date 30 days prior to filing deadline, 2023]. 14

10. To qualify for the Exemption, Authorization Holders will also need to supply the File Number of the application that fulfills all of these requirements.

11. Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires that an agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice and comment rulemakings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” Because the Order does not adopt a rule and therefore does not require notice and comment, no Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is required.

12. Final Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis. This document contains new information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. On June 6, 2023, OMB approved, for a period until December 31, 2023, the information collection requirements in this document. On November 1, 2023, OMB approved an emergency extension of this information collection, for a period until June 30, 2024. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission considers how it might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. In the Order, the Commission has assessed the effects of requiring international section 214 authorization holders to identify reportable foreign ownership and to certify as to the accuracy of the information provided and find that they would have information about their ownership available in the ordinary course of business, for instance, for purposes of compliance with the Commission's rules. Further, although the Commission does not have an estimated number of authorization holders that will need to obtain an FRN number or to file a surrender letter, the burdens are also low. For instance, obtaining an FRN for this purpose entails only a minimal burden. Therefore, the Commission anticipates that the new collection will not be unduly burdensome.

13. People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).

14. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to sections 4(i), 214, 218, 219, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 4(i), 214, 218, 219, and 403, this Order is hereby adopted .

15. It is further ordered that this Order shall be effective after the Office of Management and Budget completes review of any information collection requirements that the Office of International Affairs determines are required under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

16. It is further ordered that the Office of International Affairs shall conduct the information collection required by the Order, including the creation of any information collection forms or other instrument, and shall publish notice of the effective date of the information collection required by the Order and the filing deadline in the Federal Register . The filing deadline shall be no fewer than 30 days following the effective date of the Order. The Office of International Affairs shall announce the effective date and the filing deadline for the requirements in this Order by subsequent Public Notice.

17. It is further ordered, pursuant to sections 4(i), 214, 218, 219, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 4(i), 214, 218, 219, and 403, and §§ 0.19, 0.204, and 0.351 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.19, 0.204, 0.351, that the Exemption from responding to certain portions of the One-Time Information Collection, as described herein, is adopted .