Table of Contents I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments II. Procedural Background III. Discussion IV. Section-by-Section Analysis V. Regulatory Flexibility Certification VI. Regulatory Analysis VII. Backfitting and Issue Finality VIII. Plain Writing IX. Environmental Assessment and Final Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact X. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement XI. Congressional Review Act I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0303 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2018-0303.

• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.

• Attention: The Public Document Room (PDR), where you may examine and order copies of public documents is currently closed. You may submit your request to the PDR via email at PDR.Resource@nrc.gov or call 1-800-397-4209 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. (EST), Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Please include Docket ID NRC-2018-0303 in your comment submission.

The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at https://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

Because the NRC anticipates that this action will be non-controversial, the NRC is using the “direct final rule procedure” for this rule. The amendments to the rule will become effective on August 17, 2020. However, if the NRC receives significant adverse comments on this direct final rule by July 2, 2020, then the NRC will publish a document that withdraws this action and will subsequently address the comments received in a final rule as a response to the companion proposed rule published in the Proposed Rules section of this issue of the Federal Register . Absent significant modifications to the proposed revisions requiring republication, the NRC will not initiate a second comment period on this action.

A significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment is adverse and significant if it meets the following criteria:

(1) The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For example, a substantive response is required in the following circumstances:

(a) The comment causes the NRC to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position or conduct additional analysis;

(b) The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or

(c) The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously addressed or considered by the NRC.

(2) The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without incorporation of the change or addition.

(3) The comment causes the NRC to make a change (other than editorial) to the rule. For detailed instructions on filing comments, please see the ADDRESSES section of this document.

The President signed into law the Social Security Number Fraud Prevention Act of 2017 (the Act) on September 15, 2017, to reduce the risk of identity theft by directing agencies to “issue regulations specifying the circumstances under which inclusion of a social security account number on a document sent by mail is necessary.”  1 The Act restricts the inclusion of an SSN on any document sent by mail “unless the head of the agency determines that the inclusion of the [SSN] on the document is necessary.”  2 The Act directs agencies to issue regulations that specify when inclusion of an SSN is necessary, include instructions for the partial redaction of SSNs where feasible, and provide a requirement that SSNs not be visible on the outside of any package sent by mail. 3 These regulations must be issued no later than 5 years after the date of enactment of the Act.

The NRC determined that rulemaking was necessary because the Act requires the NRC to amend its regulations. This effort could not be achieved through issuing guidance, as guidance documents are not legally binding and cannot be used to amend regulations. The NRC's rulemaking is narrowly tailored to address the requirements specifically set forth in the Act; therefore, the NRC determined that a direct final rule was appropriate, because the amendments are required by statute, expected to be non-controversial, and unlikely to yield public comment resulting in a significant change to the NRC's proposal. A direct final rule is preferable to a final rule because it allows for the opportunity for public comment, should there be any additional regulations that the public identifies as needing amendment or any additional considerations the NRC needs to evaluate to implement the Act.

To comply with the Act, the NRC examined whether SSNs are necessary in any of the written communications to the NRC required by regulation. The Act only applies to written communications sent or received via mail by the NRC that include SSNs. The Act does not apply to a licensee's validation of an individual's SSN because the SSN would not be included in written communications with the NRC in those cases. If inclusion of SSNs is not necessary, then each associated regulation would need to be amended to remove the inclusion of the SSN in the required documents. If inclusion of SSNs is necessary, the NRC must consider whether partial redaction of the SSN is feasible and amend the regulations accordingly to meet the “requirement that [SSNs] not be visible on the outside of any package sent by mail.”  4

Based on its review, the agency has concluded that, in all instances where it requires full or partial SSNs to be included in written communications, this information is necessary for identity confirmation. Reasons for this include instances when individuals have similar or same names and cases where outside factors require the NRC to collect either a full or partial SSN. For example, the collection may be required by law or by another agency. The NRC already requests SSNs to be partially redacted in documents sent by mail whenever feasible. Therefore, the NRC concluded that minimal changes to its regulations are needed to reduce the inclusion of full or partial SSNs. However, the agency determined that the following amendments are needed to fully implement the Act:

• In § 9.1, a new Subpart E needs to be added concerning the use of SSNs in documents sent by mail.

• In §§ 35.3045 and 35.3047, language should be revised to prioritize the use of identification numbers that are not SSNs when identifying patients.

In anticipation of the above revisions, all applicable NRC forms have been proactively modified to include language that SSNs must not be visible on the outside of any package sent by mail.

The following paragraphs describe the specific changes in this direct final rule.

This direct final rule adds new paragraph (e).

This direct final rule adds new subpart E—Social Security Number Fraud Prevention Act Requirements.

This direct final rule revises paragraph (g)(1)(ii) to replace “social security number or identification number” with “identification number or if no other identification number is available, the social security number.”

This direct final rule revises paragraph (f)(1)(ii) to replace “social security number or identification number” with “identification number or if no other identification number is available, the social security number.”

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the NRC certifies that this rule will not, if issued, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This direct final rule affects a number of “small entities” as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the size standards established by the NRC (10 CFR 2.810). However, as indicated in the regulatory analysis contained in this document, these amendments do not have a significant economic impact on the affected small entities.

The NRC has prepared a final regulatory analysis for this direct final rule. The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the alternatives considered by the NRC. The key findings are as follows:

• Benefits. This final rule ensures that the NRC is in compliance with the Act by doing the following:

(1) Revising regulations in 10 CFR part 9, § 35.3045(g)(1)(ii), and § 35.3047(f)(1)(ii) to address the intent of the Act; and

(2) Ensuring that NRC forms comply with the intent of the Act.

In accordance with the Act, the NRC requests that a SSN be included in documents sent by mail only when necessary and partially redacted whenever feasible. The redacted SSN should list only the number of digits necessary and must not be visible from the outside of packages sent to and from the NRC.

• Cost to the Industry. This direct final rule results in no incremental costs to material or reactor licensees.

• Cost to the Public. This direct final rule results in no incremental costs to the public.

• Cost to the NRC. This direct final rule results in no incremental costs to the NRC beyond those necessary to prepare and issue this direct final rule and make conforming changes to NRC forms, which are considered costs that have already been incurred.

This direct final rule modifies the NRC regulations to implement the requirements of the Act to use SSNs only where necessary and to partially redact SSNs to the extent practicable. These regulations relate solely to information collection and reporting requirements. The NRC has long taken the position that information collection and reporting requirements are not subject to the NRC's backfitting and issue finality regulations in 10 CFR 50.109, 10 CFR 70.76, 10 CFR 72.62, 10 CFR 76.76, and 10 CFR part 52. Therefore, the NRC has determined that the various backfitting and issue finality provisions do not apply to this final rule and has not prepared a backfit analysis.

The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31883).

The Commission has determined under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in subpart A of 10 CFR part 51, that this direct final rule, if adopted, would not be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and, therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required.

This direct final rule amends NRC's regulations in 10 CFR parts 9 and 35. These amendments are necessary to comply with the Social Security Number Fraud Prevention Act of 2017, which directed agencies to issue regulations that prohibit the inclusion of an individual's SSN on any document sent through the mail unless the head of the agency deems it necessary and the appropriate precautions are taken to protect the SSN. These amendments do not increase any effect on the environment.

The determination of this environmental assessment is that there will be no significant environmental impacts from this action.

This direct final rule does not contain any new or amended collections of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). Existing collections of information were approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), approval numbers 3150-0043, 3150-0014, 3150-0046, and 3150-0010.

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the document requesting or requiring the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.

This direct final rule is not a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808).

For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is adopting the following amendments to parts 9 and 35:

I. Background

On November 21, 2019, the OCC published a notice of proposed rulemaking (proposal or NPR) to codify its conclusion that when a national bank or savings association (bank) sells, assigns, or otherwise transfers (transfers) a loan, interest permissible before the transfer continues to be permissible after the transfer. 1

As the proposal explained, a bank may charge interest on a loan at the maximum rate permitted to any state-chartered or licensed lending institution in the state where the bank is located. In addition, banks are generally authorized to transfer their loans and to enter into and assign loan contracts. Despite these authorities, recent developments have created legal uncertainty about the ongoing permissibility of the interest term after a bank transfers a loan.

Consistent with the proposal, this regulation addresses that legal uncertainty by clarifying and reaffirming the longstanding understanding that a bank may transfer a loan without affecting the permissible interest term. Based on its supervisory experience, the OCC believes that unresolved legal uncertainty about this issue may disrupt banks' ability to serve consumers, businesses, and the broader economy efficiently and effectively, particularly in times of economic stress. The OCC also believes that enhanced legal certainty may facilitate responsible lending by banks, including in circumstances when access to credit is especially critical.

The OCC received over sixty comments on its NPR, including comments from industry trade associations, nonbank lenders, community groups, academics, state government representatives, and members of the public. Many commenters expressed support for the rule. Some stated that the legal uncertainty discussed in the proposal has had negative effects on the primary and secondary markets for bank loans. They argued that legal certainty regarding a bank's ability to transfer non-usurious loans without affecting the interest term would benefit banks and markets, including for liquidity and diversification purposes. Many supporting commenters also agreed that the OCC has the authority to address this issue by regulation and that the proposal reflected a permissible interpretation of relevant Federal banking law.

The OCC also received comments opposed to the rule, which raised both legal and policy concerns. Many commenters argued that the OCC does not have the authority to issue this regulation. Several also argued that the OCC's proposal was subject to, but did not comply with, the substantive and procedural provisions in 12 U.S.C. 25b. Opposing commenters also questioned the need for the rule, stating there is no evidence that legal uncertainty has had negative effects on banks or markets. Relying on these and other arguments, some commenters also argued that the OCC's proposal did not comply with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). 2 Finally, certain commenters stated that the NPR would facilitate predatory lending by promoting rent-a-charter relationships and allowing nonbanks to evade otherwise applicable state law.

Two commenters provided empirical studies analyzing the effects of the Madden v. Midland Funding, LLC   3 decision ( Madden ), including evidence that Madden restricted access to credit for higher-risk borrowers in states within the Second Circuit and that it caused a rise in personal bankruptcies due to a decline in marketplace lending, especially for low-income households.

As noted in the proposal, the OCC is undertaking this rulemaking to clarify that a bank may transfer a loan without impacting the permissibility or enforceability of the interest term in the loan contract, thereby resolving the legal uncertainty created by the Madden decision. To support this conclusion, the proposal discussed a bank's authority to lend money, to make contracts, to charge interest consistent with the laws of the state in which it is located, and to subsequently transfer that loan and assign the loan contract. It also discussed the principles of “valid-when-made” and the assignability of contracts, which, if applied to the transfer of a loan, would generally produce an outcome consistent with the OCC's conclusion.

As noted above, although many supporting commenters expressly agreed that the OCC may promulgate this rule, many opposing commenters questioned the OCC's authority, relying on several principal arguments:

• Certain Federal statutes (12 U.S.C. 85 and 1463(g)) are unambiguous and only address the interest a bank may charge. Because these statutes are unambiguous, the OCC cannot invoke National Cable & Telecommunications Ass'n v. Brand X internet Services   4 ( Brand X ) to overturn the result in Madden.

• Valid-when-made is not a historical usury principle that supports the OCC's proposal.

• There is no basis to conclude that Federal law should preempt state usury laws based on a bank's power to assign contracts.

• There is no basis to conclude that Federal law should preempt state usury laws based on a bank's authority to transfer loans.

The OCC has carefully considered these comments and believes there is ample authority to issue this regulation. Federal law grants national banks broad authority to engage in the business of banking. 5 Specifically relevant here, the National Bank Act (NBA) provides national banks with enumerated powers, including the ability to lend money, and “all such incidental powers as shall be necessary to carry on the business of banking.”  6 By statute, national banks also have the authority to transfer their loans. 7

Furthermore, the NBA expressly authorizes national banks to make contracts. 8 Among the essential rights associated with this power is the right to assign some or all of the benefits of a contract to a third party. 9 Generally, all contractual rights may be assigned “in the absence of clear language expressly prohibiting the assignment and unless the assignment would materially change the duty of the obligor or materially increase the obligor's burden or risk under contract or the contract involves obligations of a personal nature.” 10 In addition, contractual rights generally may not be assigned if the assignment is “specifically forbidden by statute or . . . void as against public policy.”  11 All ordinary business contracts are assignable, and a contract for money due in the future is among the types of contracts that normally may be assigned. 12 Therefore, a national bank's authority to enter into loan contracts pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 24(Third) necessarily includes the authority to assign such loan contracts. 13

When a national bank exercises its authority to lend money and enters into a loan contract, the NBA authorizes the bank to “charge on any loan . . . interest at the rate allowed by the laws of the State . . . where the bank is located.”  14 Section 85 is the sole provision that governs the interest permissible on a loan made by a national bank, and it operates primarily by incorporating the usury laws of the state in which the bank is located. Section 85 and 12 U.S.C. 86, which establishes the remedy for a violation of section 85, constitute the comprehensive statutory scheme governing the interest permitted on national bank loans. 15

The NBA thus clearly establishes that a national bank may (1) lend money, pursuant to a loan contract, with an interest term that is consistent with the laws of the state in which the bank is located and (2) subsequently transfer that loan and assign the loan contract. However, the comprehensive statutory scheme regarding interest permitted on national bank loans does not expressly address how the exercise of a national bank's authority to transfer a loan and assign the loan contract affects the interest term. When Congress enacted the NBA, it understood that loan transfers were a fundamental aspect of the business of banking and that such transfers would play an important role in the national banking system. 16 Therefore, section 85's silence in this regard is “conspicuous[ ],”  17 and the OCC may interpret section 85 to resolve this silence. 18

The OCC is not persuaded by commenters who argued that 12 U.S.C. 1735f-7a forecloses an argument that section 85's silence is ambiguous as to its application to loan transfers. These commenters argued that section 1735f-7a preempts state usury laws and expressly applies to originations and sales of certain loans, and therefore, Congress must be presumed to have intentionally omitted similar language in section 85, thereby precluding the application of section 85 to loan transfers. These commenters argued that this presumption is particularly strong, because several statutory parallels to section 85 were enacted at the same time as section 1735f-7a. At least one commenter also cited 12 U.S.C. 3803 to make a similar argument. 19 The OCC disagrees. First, while the OCC agrees that section 1735f-7a applies to certain loans that have been transferred, 20 this is not by virtue of express statutory language addressing loan transfers. Rather, section 1735f-7a implicitly applies to transferred loans, notwithstanding its silence on this issue, for reasons similar to why the OCC concludes that section 85 applies to transferred loans. Moreover, even if section 1735f-7a expressly applied to loan transfers, it would further highlight the ambiguity created by the silence in section 85. 21 As courts have stated, affirmative language in one provision (section 1735f-7a) and statutory silence in another (section 85) can indicate that Congress intended to provide the administering agency (the OCC) with discretion to interpret the latter statute. 22

After careful consideration, the OCC continues to conclude that it is appropriate to resolve the silence in section 85 by providing that when a bank transfers a loan, interest permissible before the transfer continues to be permissible after the transfer.

Well before the passage of the NBA, the Supreme Court recognized one of the “cardinal rules in the doctrine of usury” and described it as follows: “a contract, which, in its inception, is unaffected by usury, can never be invalidated by any subsequent usurious transaction.”  23 Courts have also held the inverse—a loan that is usurious at its inception remains usurious until purged by a new contract. 24 Notwithstanding comments to the contrary, the OCC continues to read the cases cited in the proposal, particularly when considered in light of the court decisions establishing the inverse, to support a broad proposition: The usurious or non-usurious character of a contract endures through assignment. 25

The OCC's interpretation is also supported by national banks' ability to assign contracts, as discussed above. Commenters argued that the interest term on a loan should be treated differently from other loan terms, including because it derives from a national bank's status under Federal law. For reasons stated in the proposal and herein, the OCC does not agree that the interest term of the contract should be treated differently, nor does it believe that the enforceability of an assigned interest term should depend on the licensing status of the assignor or assignee. 26 Upon assignment, the third-party assignee steps into the shoes of the national bank and may enforce the rights the bank assigned to it under the contract. 27 To effectively assign a loan contract and allow the assignee to step into the shoes of the national bank assignor, a permissible interest term must remain permissible and enforceable notwithstanding the assignment. 28 The loan should not be considered usurious after the assignment simply because a third party is enforcing the contractually agreed-upon interest term. 29 Furthermore, an assignment should not change the borrower's obligation to repay in any material way. 30

Several commenters argued that, as common law, valid-when-made and the assignability of contracts do not provide the OCC with authority for this regulation. However, the OCC is not citing these tenets as independent authority for this rulemaking but rather as tenets of common law that inform its reasonable interpretation of section 85. Because Congress is presumed to legislate with knowledge of, and incorporate, common law, it is reasonable to interpret section 85 in light of these tenets. 31

The OCC's interpretation is also consistent with the purpose of section 85. This statute facilitates national banks' ability to operate lending programs on a nationwide basis, a characteristic fundamental to national banks since their inception. 32 Recognizing the value of uniformity in applicable interest law, Congress extended the principles of section 85 to savings associations, state-chartered insured depository institutions, and insured credit unions. 33 Then, in 2010, while carefully examining the application of state law to national banks, Congress expressly preserved the authority conferred by section 85, thereby reaffirming its importance. 34 Reading section 85 as applying only to loans that a national bank holds to maturity would undermine this statutory scheme. 35

The OCC's interpretation also promotes safe and sound operations, a core component of the OCC's mission as the prudential regulator of national banks. Even in the mid-nineteenth century, the ability to transfer loans was recognized as an important tool to manage liquidity and enhance safety and soundness. 36 As the Supreme Court stated, “[banks] must be able to assign or sell [their] notes when necessary and proper, as, for instance, to procure more specie in an emergency, or return an unusual amount of deposits withdrawn, or pay large debts for a banking-house.”  37 Although the banking system has evolved significantly in the 150 years since Planters' Bank, national banks of all sizes continue to routinely rely on loan transfers to access alternative funding sources, manage concentrations, improve financial performance ratios, and more efficiently meet customer needs. 38 While the Madden decision's effect on a particular national bank necessarily varies depending on the bank's business model, the resulting legal uncertainty impairs many national banks' ability to rely on this risk management tool, which is particularly worrisome in times of economic stress when funding and liquidity challenges may be acute. 39 The OCC, therefore, concludes that its interpretation promotes safety and soundness.

The OCC also received comments arguing that the OCC's rulemaking is foreclosed by Madden. The OCC disagrees; the Second Circuit made no finding that section 85's language unambiguously forecloses the OCC's interpretation, nor did it rely on section 85 in arriving at its holding. 40 Therefore, the Madden decision does not limit the OCC's ability to issue this rulemaking.

With respect to the comments arguing that neither section 24(Third) nor section 24(Seventh) provides the OCC with authority to preempt state usury law, the OCC does not cite these statutes for this purpose. As this authority section makes clear, these statutes describe the scope of national bank authorities, highlight the silence in section 85, and inform the OCC's efforts to resolve this silence. 41

Although the foregoing discussion specifically addresses national banks, it applies equally to savings associations. In 12 U.S.C. 1463(g), Congress provided savings associations with authority similar to section 85 to charge interest as permitted by the laws of the state in which the savings association is located. Congress modeled section 1463(g) on section 85 to place savings associations on equal footing with their national bank competitors, and thus, these provisions are interpreted in pari materia. 42 Therefore, the OCC concludes that section 1463(g) should be interpreted coextensively with section 85 in this regard, which will help ensure that savings associations and national banks have equal authority to transfer their loans without affecting the permissibility of the interest term.

Based on the foregoing, the OCC concludes that, as a matter of Federal law, banks may transfer their loans without impacting the permissibility or enforceability of the interest term.

Several commenters argued that the OCC's rule is subject to the substantive and procedural requirements set forth in section 25b and that the OCC has not complied with these requirements. The OCC disagrees and continues to conclude that the requirements of section 25b are inapplicable to this rulemaking.

Section 25b applies when the Comptroller determines, on a case-by-case basis, that a state consumer financial law is preempted pursuant to the standard for conflict preemption established by the Supreme Court in Barnett Bank of Marion County, N. A. v. Nelson, Florida Insurance Commissioner, 43 i.e., when the Comptroller makes a “preemption determination.”  44 Interpretations about the substantive scope of section 85 are not preemption determinations. For example, the two most recent substantive Supreme Court opinions on section 85 primarily analyze what the statute authorizes as a matter of Federal law, rather than focus on preemption. 45 In fact, the Court specifically recognized this difference in Smiley, noting that “the question of the substantive (as opposed to pre-emptive) meaning of a statute” is distinct from “the question of whether a statute is pre-emptive.”  46 This rulemaking addresses the former question, i.e., the meaning of section 85. The proposal simply articulated the OCC's view about the substantive scope of authority granted to banks. The final rule adopts the same approach and thus is not a preemption determination under section 25b. 47

The OCC also concludes that this rulemaking is outside the scope of section 25b because of section 25b(f), which provides that “[n]o provision of title 62 of the Revised Statutes shall be construed as altering or otherwise affecting the authority conferred by section 85.” Section 25b is in title 62 of the Revised Statutes, and therefore, its requirements also do not alter or affect the authority conferred under section 85, including as interpreted in this rulemaking. 48 For these reasons, the OCC disagrees with the commenters who argued that section 25b(f) does not exempt rules interpreting section 85. 49

The OCC thus concludes that this rulemaking is not subject to the requirements of section 25b. 50 Because the OCC concludes that these requirements are inapplicable, the OCC declines to address comments regarding how to comply with these requirements.

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 Class D and E airspace in Jacksonville NAS, FL, and Mayport, FL, to support IFR operations in the area.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register (85 FR 8212, February 13, 2020) for Docket No. FAA-2020-0085, to amend Class D airspace for Jacksonville NAS, FL by updating the name and geographical coordinates of the airport, and the name of Herlong Recreational Airport. The FAA also proposed to update the geographic coordinates of Mayport NS (ADM David L McDonald Field), Mayport, FL, under Class D airspace and Class E surface airspace designated as an extension to a Class D surface area, as well as the name and geographic coordinates of Jacksonville Executive Airport at Craig. In addition, the FAA proposed to replace the outdated term Airport/Facility Directory with the term Chart Supplement in the associated Class D airspace and Class E surface airspace designated as an extension to a Class D surface area in the legal descriptions for Mayport NS (ADM David L McDonald Field), Mayport, FL.

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 D and Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraphs 5000 and 6004, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11D, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11D lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 amends Class D airspace at Jacksonville NAS (Towers Field), Jacksonville NAS, FL, by updating the name and geographical coordinates of the airport, and the name of Herlong Recreational Airport. Also, the name and geographic coordinates of Mayport NS (ADM David L McDonald Field), Mayport, FL, are updated under Class D airspace and Class E surface airspace designated as an extension to a Class D surface area, as well as the name and geographic coordinates of Jacksonville Executive Airport at Craig to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. In addition, the FAA replaces the outdated term Airport/Facility Directory with the term Chart Supplement in the associated Class D airspace and Class E surface airspace designated as an extension to a Class D surface area in the legal descriptions for Mayport NS (ADM David L McDonald Field), Mayport, FL.

These changes are necessary for continued safety and management of IFR operations at these airports.

FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

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 5-6.5a. 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:

In a document published in the Federal Register of October 1, 2019 (84 FR 52055), FDA announced that we had filed a food additive petition (animal use) (FAP 2308) submitted by Evonik Corp., 1707 Barrett Lakes Blvd. NW, Suite 340, Kennesaw, GA 30144. The petition proposed that the regulations for food additives permitted in feed and drinking water of animals be amended to provide for the safe use of silicon dioxide as an anticaking agent, grinding aid, antifoaming agent, or carrier in animal feed components (ingredients, intermediate premixes, premixes, supplements, or concentrates). This amendment to the regulation approves the use of the food additive for these technical uses across food substances.

FDA concludes that the data establish the safety and utility of silicon dioxide as an anticaking agent, grinding aid, antifoaming agent, or carrier in animal feed components (ingredients, intermediate premixes, premixes, supplements, or concentrates) and that the food additive regulations should be amended as set forth in this document.

In accordance with § 571.1(h) (21 CFR 571.1(h)), the petition and documents we considered and relied upon in reaching our decision to approve the petition will be made available for public disclosure (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). As provided in § 571.1(h), we will delete from the documents any materials that are not available for public disclosure.

We have determined under 21 CFR 25.32(r) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

Any person who will be adversely affected by this regulation may file with the Dockets Management Staff (see ADDRESSES ) either electronic or written objections. Each objection shall be separately numbered, and each numbered objection shall specify with particularity the provision of the regulation to which objection is made and the grounds for the objection. Each numbered objection on which a hearing is requested shall specifically so state. Failure to request a hearing for any particular objection shall constitute a waiver of the right to a hearing on that objection. Each numbered objection for which a hearing is requested shall include a detailed description and analysis of the specific factual information intended to be presented in support of the objection in the event that a hearing is held. Failure to include such a description and analysis for any particular objection shall constitute a waiver of the right to a hearing on the objection.

Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 573 is amended as follows:

Background TTB Authority

The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) administers provisions in chapter 51 of the IRC pertaining to the taxation of distilled spirits, wines, and beer (see title 26 of the United States Code (U.S.C.), chapter 51 (26 U.S.C. chapter 51)). The IRC also contains provisions requiring certain persons who are liable for taxes imposed with respect to distilled spirits, wines, and beer to furnish bonds, which are formal guarantees to pay tax obligations under the IRC (see, e.g., 26 U.S.C. 5173, 5354, and 5401(b)). TTB administers the provisions of the IRC, and their implementing regulations, pursuant to section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). The Secretary has delegated various authorities through Treasury Department Order 120-01, dated December 10, 2013 (superseding Treasury Department Order 120-01, dated January 24, 2003), to the TTB Administrator to perform the functions and duties in administration and enforcement of these provisions of law.

On December 18, 2015, the President signed into law the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (Pub. L. 114-113). Division Q of this Act is titled the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015 (PATH Act). Section 332 of the PATH Act amends the IRC to change tax return due dates and remove bond requirements for certain eligible taxpayers beginning January 1, 2017. These PATH Act amendments apply to certain taxpayers who reasonably expect to be liable for not more than $50,000 in taxes imposed with respect to distilled spirits, wines, and beer for the calendar year and who were not liable for more than $50,000 in such taxes in the preceding calendar year.

With respect to tax return dates, section 332 amends section 5061(d) of the IRC to authorize a new annual return period for deferred payment of tax, in addition to the preexisting semimonthly or quarterly periods for the deferred payment of taxes authorized under that section. “Deferred payment” refers to payment of tax by the proprietor of a distilled spirits plant, wine premises, or brewery after the product is removed from the facility, rather than payment immediately before or at the time the product is removed from the facility. To be eligible to use the new annual deferred payment period, the taxpayer must reasonably expect to be liable for not more than $1,000 in excise tax imposed with respect to distilled spirits, wines, and beer for the calendar year and must be liable for not more than $1,000 in such taxes in the preceding calendar year. To be eligible to use quarterly deferred payment periods, the taxpayer must reasonably expect to be liable for not more than $50,000 in such taxes imposed for the calendar year and must be liable for not more than $50,000 in such taxes in the preceding calendar year.

Section 332 of the PATH Act also amends several provisions of the IRC to remove bond requirements for certain eligible taxpayers. To be exempt from bond requirements, taxpayers must be eligible to use quarterly or annual return periods and must pay such taxes on a deferred basis. Even if taxpayers choose to pay taxes semimonthly, they still qualify for the bond exemption if they meet the criteria to pay taxes quarterly or annually. In addition, taxpayers are exempt from bond requirements with respect to distilled spirits and wine only to the extent those products are for nonindustrial use.

For a more detailed discussion of the provisions of section 332 of the PATH Act, see T.D. TTB-146.

On January 4, 2017, TTB published in the Federal Register at 82 FR 1108, T.D. TTB-146, amending the regulations in parts 18, 19, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 30. The temporary rule was effective January 4, 2017, and would have expired on January 4, 2020, if not finalized prior to that date. The temporary rule amended the regulations in 27 CFR parts 19, 24, 25, and 26 to incorporate the new annual tax return period provisions for eligible taxpayers, and it also amended parts 19, 24, 25, 26, and 28 to remove the bond requirements for taxpayers who are eligible for the bond exemption. In conjunction with removing bond requirements, TTB made other amendments to implement the bond exemption, including new procedures for eligible proprietors to terminate existing bonds and identify themselves as eligible for the bond exemption.

In addition, the temporary rule included amendments to parts 19, 24, 25, 26, and 28 to conform other regulatory language to the new tax return periods and bond exemptions, to remove provisions made obsolete by the provisions of section 332 of the PATH Act, to make technical corrections, and to update the information that the regulations prescribe for forms relating to tax payments and bonds.

For a detailed discussion of the specific amendments included in the temporary final rule, see T.D. TTB-146.

TTB solicited comments on the amendments adopted in the temporary rule through a notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Federal Register (Notice No. 167, 82 FR 780). TTB did not receive comments on the temporary regulations. Accordingly, TTB is adopting the regulations in the temporary rule as final. In conjunction with finalizing the regulations, TTB is making technical amendments and corrections to these regulations as discussed later in this document.

In Notice No. 167, TTB also proposed to amend the regulations governing reporting requirements for distilled spirits plants (DSPs) and brewers generally to align the frequency of submitting reports with the new tax filing periods. That is, an industry member who was eligible to pay tax annually or quarterly and did so, would also file reports either annually or quarterly, as applicable. This new requirement was intended to reduce regulatory burden. TTB also solicited comments on whether to make any amendments to current reporting requirements for bonded wine cellars (including bonded wineries), although current regulations for bonded wine cellars include reduced reporting requirements for certain proprietors who pay taxes using annual or quarterly return periods. TTB sought comment in Notice No. 167 on these new reporting requirements for proprietors who pay taxes less frequently under Section 332 of the PATH Act, but the PATH Act amendments did not require any changes to TTB's reporting regulations for DSPs, bonded wine cellars, or brewers.

TTB did not receive comments in response to Notice No. 167 regarding the proposed reporting requirements for DSPs and brewers or regarding whether it should amend current reporting requirements for bonded wine cellars. Because no changes to TTB's reporting regulations are required under the PATH Act amendments, TTB has decided not to move forward with new reporting regulations in this final rule, even those that might require less frequent reporting, but also less flexibility in instances in which an industry member may not want to change its reporting frequency. Instead, TTB is reviewing its current reporting requirements to identify any reductions it can make in the information collected and the frequency in reporting, and intends to address such changes in the future.

In addition to the temporary regulations TTB is adopting through this final rule, TTB is also making several technical amendments and corrections, as follows:

• In §§ 26.200(e), 26.300, 27.48(b), 27.171(b) and (c), and the heading of subpart L of part 27, TTB is removing or modifying certain references to bonds to clarify that the regulations apply to facilities that are required to have a bond, as well as to facilities that are exempt from bond requirements under section 332 of the PATH Act. See section 5551(d)(2) of the IRC, which provides that taxpayers exempt from bond requirements under section 5551(d)(1) “shall be treated as if sufficient bond has been furnished for purposes of covering operation and withdrawals of distilled spirits or wines for nonindustrial use or of beer for purposes of any requirements relating to bonds under [chapter 51 of the IRC].” These conforming amendments were inadvertently omitted from the temporary final rule (T.D. TTB-146).

• The last two sentences of paragraph (k) of § 24.109 are redesignated as a new paragraph (m) in order to clarify that all applicants shall furnish additional information upon request by the appropriate TTB officer and shall notify the appropriate TTB officer if any submitted information changes during the pending application. The addition of a new paragraph (l) to this section by T.D. TTB-146 had the unintended effect of making it appear as though the requirements in paragraph (k) to respond to requests for additional information and to inform TTB of information changes only applied to applicants who conduct other operations not specifically authorized by 27 CFR part 24 on wine premises.

• TTB is removing references to “the bonded premises of a distilled spirits plant” in § 27.171(b) and (c) that were added due to an inadvertent error in an amendatory instruction of T.D. TTB-146, and is replacing those references with the words “cellar” and “brewery,” respectively.

• TTB is amending several regulations in 27 CFR part 70 to reflect current requirements pertaining to tax returns and bond requirements. In 27 CFR 70.411(c)(26), TTB is replacing the words “internal revenue bond” with the words “distilled spirits plants” because the term “distilled spirits plant” refers to those plants that are required to have a bond, as well as those that are exempt from bond requirements under section 332 of the PATH Act. This change is in a cross-reference to part 26, and is intended to accurately describe the regulations in part 26. TTB is also amending 27 CFR 70.412(a) to add references to annual return periods. Finally, TTB is removing the word “bonded” from 27 CFR 70.414(b) to reflect the fact that 27 CFR part 20 does not currently require dealers and users of specially denatured spirits to hold bonds.

In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), TTB certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The final rule will not impose, or otherwise cause, a significant increase in reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance burdens on a substantial number of small entities. The final rule implements certain changes made to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 by the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015 (see Pub. L. 114-113, Division Q, section 332). These statutory changes eliminate bond requirements and reduce tax return filing frequency for certain eligible taxpayers. The regulatory amendments provide for taxpayers to use TTB's existing qualification procedures to establish that they are exempt from bond requirements, and any minor increased burden associated with conveying to TTB an industry member's eligibility for the exemption flows directly from the statutory changes that prescribe the criteria for eligibility for the exemption. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the IRC (26 U.S.C. 7805(f)), TTB submitted the temporary regulations to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on the impact of the temporary regulations on small businesses; TTB received no comment in reply.

This regulation is not subject to review under section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866 pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement (April 11, 2018) between the Department of the Treasury and the Office of Management and Budget regarding review of tax regulations.

Regulations addressed in this final rule contain current collections of information that have been previously reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3507). An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by OMB.

The collections of information associated with the regulations adopted in T.D. TTB-146 are assigned control numbers 1513-0005, 1513-0009, 1513-0015, 1513-0031, 1513-0037, 1513-0038, 1513-0048, 1513-0050, 1513-0083, 1513-0123, 1513-0125, and 1513-0135. Revisions to these collections and their connections to the regulatory amendments in T.D. TTB-146 are described in detail in that document, which also solicited comment regarding the revisions. TTB received no comments on the revisions. In cases where TTB revised the collections, these revisions were submitted to and approved by OMB.

TTB is finalizing the temporary regulations set forth in T.D TTB-146 in this final rule without a delayed effective date, pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) and (d)(3). As provided for in section 553(d)(1), the temporary regulations being finalized in this final rule recognize a statutory exemption from bond requirements and authorize a new voluntary annual tax return period. TTB has also determined that good cause exists under section 553(d)(3) to provide industry members with guidance on procedures to apply for and obtain the bond exemption authorized under provisions of a law that are already in effect.

The technical corrections in this final rule address typographical errors, and are meant to clarify the uniformity of the regulations, rather than change the Bureau's interpretation. Therefore, TTB has determined that no notice of proposed rulemaking and public comment period are required under section 553(b) for the technical corrections set out in this final rule. For these same reasons, TTB has determined that the technical corrections in this final rule are exempt from the delayed effective date procedure under section 553(d)(3).

Karen A. Thornton of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this document with the assistance of other Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau personnel.

The temporary rule that amended 27 CFR parts 18, 19, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 30, and published as T.D. TTB-146 at 82 FR 1108, January 4, 2017, is adopted as a final rule without change.

Further, as discussed in the preamble, TTB is making technical amendments and corrections to 27 CFR, chapter I, parts 24, 26, 27, and 70, as set forth below.

Recurring race, swim, and other marine events within the Seventh Coast Guard District are currently listed in 33 CFR 100.701, Table 1 to § 100.701. The process for amending the table ( e.g. adding or removing marine events) is lengthy and inefficient since it includes recurring marine events for seven different COTP zones within the Seventh District. To expedite and simplify the rulemaking process for new marine events/special local regulations, COTP's resorted to creating individual rules rather than amending the Table 1 to § 100.701.

This rule serves two purposes: (1) Create a table of recurring marine events/special local regulations occurring solely within the COTP Charleston Zone, and (2) consolidate into that table marine events/special local regulations previously established outside of Table 1 to § 100.701. The new table facilitates management of and public access to information about marine events within the COTP Charleston Zone.

The Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Special Local Regulations; Recurring Marine Events, Sector Charleston” (85 FR 5177). There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action. During the comment period that ended February 28, 2020, we received no comments.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). This rule makes the following changes:

The marine events listed in the new Table 1 to § 100.704 are scheduled to occur over a particular weekend and month each year. Exact dates are intentionally omitted since calendar dates for a specific weekend change from year to year. Once dates for a marine event are known, the Coast Guard will notify the public of its intent to enforce the special local regulation through various means including a Notice of Enforcement published in the Federal Register , Local Notice to Mariners, and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published January 29, 2020. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.

This rule revises existing regulations and consolidates the special local regulations into one table for recurring marine events at various locations within the geographic boundaries of the Seventh Coast Guard District Captain of the Port (COTP) Charleston Zone.

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. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the special local regulations. These areas are limited in size and duration, and usually do not affect high vessel traffic areas. Moreover, the Coast Guard would provide advance notice of the regulated areas to the local maritime community Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter 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 received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please 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 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 would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the establishment of special local regulations for recurring marine events within the COTP Charleston Zone. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraphs L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact 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:

On March 19, 2020, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Special Local Regulations; Recurring Marine Events in the Lake Michigan Captain of the Port Zone” (85 FR 15745). There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action to revise special local regulations regarding recurring marine events within the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan (COTP) zone. During the comment period that ended April 20, 2020, we received no comments.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The COTP has determined that the likely combination of recreactional vessels, commercial vessels, and an unknown number of spectators in close proximity to these various recurring marine events in and on the navigable waters of the United States pose a extra or unusual hazards to the safety of life on those waters. Therefore, the COTP has established special local regulations around the event locations listed in this rule to help miniminze risks to safety of life during these events. This rule consolidates and makes minor formatting updates to existing regulations.

As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published March 19, 2020. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.

This rule reorganizes five separate regulations of a similar nature currently listed in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) into a single regulation, makes minor formatting changes for consistency, moves six existing events into this regulation, updates the dates listed for events, and lists these regulations in table form.

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. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of these special local regulations. These regulations will be in effect only during the recurring marine events listed in this regulations for which the COTP has determined pose risks to the safety of life on waters of the United States. The size, location, and duration of these regulations will be limited to the extent necessary to minimize these risks. Moreover, the COTP will make advance notice of the enforcement of these regulations through the Local Notice to Mariners and/or Broacast Notice to Mariners. This regulation also provides a means for anyone needing to transit through or within a regulated area to seek permission from 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 received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the regulated areas listed in this 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 involves the consolidation of and minor formatting changes for five existing special local regulations. 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. A Memorandum for Record for Categorically Excluded Actions supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

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

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

The NSRR vertical lift bridge is maintained in the open to vessel position except when trains need to pass or when maintenance is performed. This bridge has a 44.09′ above normal pool elevation vertical clearance in the closed to vessel position and a vertical clearance of 73′ above normal pool elevation when raised to its maximum height. The bridge has a 300′ horizontal clearance. This bridge is located on a major commercial waterway used primarily by tugs, tows and barges. The drawbridge is regulated under 33 CFR 117.5 and opens on signal.

NSRR has developed a system of closed circuit cameras (CCTV), infrared sensors, VHF and landline communications, positive train control dispatch, programmable logic control, display monitors, vessel identification systems and procedures that allow a remote operator to perform all assignments of an onsite drawtender.

In December 2016 NSRR requested to operate the Tombigbee River bridge from a remote NSRR location in Decatur, AL. NSRR informed the Coast Guard that the bridge would operate under the following conditions.

(1) The draw would be maintained in the fully open to navigation position for vessels at all times, except during periods when it would be closed for the passage of rail traffic or to perform periodic maintenance authorized in accordance with the regulations.

(2) The draw would be remotely operated by the drawtender located at Norfolk Southern's drawbridge in Decatur, Alabama. The estimated duration that the bridge would remained closed for the passage of rail traffic would be 10 to 15 minutes per operation.

(3) When a train approached the bridge, the drawtender would initiate the bridge closing warning signal, consisting of radio calls via VHF-FM-channels 13 and 16 and activation of flashing red warning lights at each end of the span. The radio calls would be broadcast at five (5) minutes prior to bridge closing and at two (2) minutes prior to bridge closing. Photoelectric (infrared) boat detectors would monitor the waterway beneath the bridge for the presence of vessels.

(4) The drawtender would continuously monitor waterway traffic in the area using closed-circuit cameras mounted on the bridge. The draw would only be closed if the drawtender's visual inspection indicated that the channel was clear and there were no vessels transiting in the area. The drawtender would maintain constant surveillance of the navigation channel to ensure that no conflict with maritime traffic existed. Additionally, the draw would not be closed if the S11 bascule bridge that is located immediately west of the railroad bridge was in the open-to-navigation position. If two or more closed-circuit cameras were to become inoperable or if there was inclement weather, the draw would only be operated by a drawtender located on site at the bridge.

(5) At the end of the two-minute warning period, if no vessels were detected by the drawtender, the draw closing sequence would automatically proceed.

(6) Upon passage of the train, the draw would be returned to the fully open-to-navigation position to allow marine traffic to pass. The warning lights would continue to flash red until the draw was returned to the fully open-to-navigation position at which time they would deactivate.

(7) After the passage of each train, the draw would be returned to its fully open-to-navigation position.

(8) To request openings of the draw when the bascule span was in the closed-to-navigation position, mariners would be required to contact Norfolk Southern Railway via VHF-FM channel 13 or by telephone at the number displayed on the signs posted at the bridge.

(9) The draw would be operated locally if:

(i) Communication became lost between the drawbridge and the drawtender in Decatur, Alabama;

(ii) More than two closed-circuit cameras were not working;

(iii) The marine radio became inoperable;

(iv) Weather conditions warrant; or

(v) Ordered by the Coast Guard.

On July 12, 2017, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Tombigbee River, near Jackson, Alabama” in the Federal Register at 82 FR 32157. In that NPRM we stated that the District Commander could authorize a drawbridge to operate under an automated system or from a remote location. This NPRM proposed changing the drawbridge regulation on this bridge to allow the bridge to be remotely operated at a NSRR location in Decatur, AL. There was little discussion of the proposed rule.

During the comment period that ended September 11, 2017 the Coast Guard received three comments. Two were from vessel operators and one was from a union representing maintenance employees. All three entities opposed the rule change.

The Coast Guard considered these comments and on March 14, 2018 informed NSRR that the Coast Guard did not have sufficient information to address the above public concerns and thus could not finalize the proposed rule. This letter is in the docket.

On December 18, 2018 the Coast Guard visited the NSRR bridge control center in Decatur, Alabama to view their camera displays, communications systems and automated information systems (AIS) associated with their bridge remote operations.

In February 2019 NSRR provided the Coast Guard with documentation that addressed the following: Bridge demographics, Tombigbee River demographics, waterway safety, emergency response, vessel navigation assessments, remote operation system capabilities, maintenance capabilities, bridge casualty information, operational requirements and operating procedures.

After reviewing all NSRR information and public comments the Coast Guard has verified, to the extent of its authority and jurisdiction that NSRR has the capabilities to operate the bridge remotely.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 33 U.S.C. 499. The Eighth Coast Guard District Commander has determined that this change to the operating schedule of the NSRR vertical lift bridge across the Tombigbee River, mile 89.9 to allow the bridge to be operated from the remote location is reasonable. The purpose of this rule is to allow NSRR to operate the bridge from a NSRR location in Decatur, AL and meet the reasonable needs of vessels that use the Tombigbee River.

There were 3 comments submitted on our NPRM published on July 12, 2017. Two comments came from vessel operators on the Tombigbee River. One comment was provided by a labor union representing maintenance employees. There were a total of 14 concerns addressed in the three comments. All three commenters were against relocating the bridge tender to a remote location.

To address these concerns the Coast Guard separated the above comments into three general concerns: Removing the bridge tender would create significant delays to opening the bridge to vessel traffic, removing the bridge tender would create unsafe navigation conditions, and other general concerns. Below is the Coast Guard's evaluation for each of these areas.

Removing the bridge tender will not create unreasonable delays to opening the bridge to vessel traffic. Since the current onsite bridge tender does not perform routine maintenance or make bridge repairs, there will be no added time to maintain the bridge or respond to an outage or emergency. Emergency repairs and routine maintenance are conducted by NSRR bridge and building personnel who are located at the site of the bridge. NSRR procedures require that emergency response personnel arrive at the bridge within 1-2 hours of notification. If there is a failure to the bridge, NSRR will secure the bridge in the open to vessel position until the bridge is repaired.

Additionally locating the bridge tender in a remote location should not create added delays because of simultaneous bridge operations. The NSRR bridge tender, located in Decatur, AL will control three bridges located on Lake Pontchartrain, LA, the Tombigbee River, AL and the Tennessee River, AL. The Tombigbee River bridge closes to vessel traffic 8 times each day. The Tennessee River bridge is maintained in the closed to vessel position and opens to vessel traffic 7 times each day. The Lake Pontchartrain bridge is maintained in the open to vessel position and closes to vessel traffic 12 times each day. This equates to 27 bridge openings or closings (movements) per day which can be reasonably controlled by one bridge tender.

Processing simultaneous requests for bridge openings should also not create unreasonable delays. NSRR simultaneous operations procedures state that the bridge tender open and close one bridge at a time. The cycle time to open and close each NSRR bridge is about 8 minutes. Vessels, if 3rd in the queue to open, could be delayed by 24 minutes. The Coast Guard does not consider this to be unreasonable.

Dispatching a bridge tender to the Tombigbee River bridge because of a remote operation system failure or inclement weather will also not delay vessels. NSRR procedures require the bridge to be secured in the open to vessel traffic position if inclement weather prevents the remote bridge tender from operating the bridge or if there are failures to remote sensors at the Tombigbee River bridge. In this scenario NSRR will dispatch a bridge tender to the bridge; however, since the bridge is secured in the open to vessel traffic position, there will be no added vessel delays.

This rule will not create unsafe navigation conditions.

As stated above there are on average 27 bridge movements for the three bridges controlled by the bridge tender in Decatur, AL. These bridge movements can be safely processed by a single bridge tender.

NSRR has installed sensors that monitor the channel for vessels or other obstructions. These channel sensors are interlocked with the bridge control system to prevent or halt bridge operations while a vessel is in the channel.

Communication failures are addressed in NSRR procedures. If there are failures to both channel 13 and 16 radios, then NSRR will secure the bridge in the open to vessel traffic position until both radios are repaired. NSRR procedures require that a bridge tender be dispatched to the bridge if communications become severed with vessels.

NSRR has additionally installed an automatic identification system (AIS) that tracks and identifies vessels equipped with AIS equipment. This provides the bridge tender with a tool to identify vessels on the Tombigbee River before they arrive at the bridge.

There were other general concerns brought by the commenters that have been addressed by the Coast Guard or did not fall under Coast Guard authority.

One commenter stated that they could not address the NSRR request because it was not included in the docket. As stated in the Background Information and Regulatory History section of this final rule, the Coast Guard notified NSRR on March 14, 2018 that there was insufficient information to address public concerns and thus the Coast Guard could not finalize the proposed rule. This letter is in the docket. NSRR addressed this Coast Guard letter and provided the Coast Guard with a formal proposal that included information on bridge demographics, waterway demographics, emergency response, maintenance, navigation assessments, bridge structural history, rail safety, control system compatibility, remote system components and requirements, operations requirements, waterway safety and bridge tender procedures. This information is not included in the docket because it contains NSRR company confidential information. The Coast Guard has reviewed these documents and has determined that they sufficiently address the concerns brought by the commenters.

One commenter stated that NSRR would prioritize rail traffic over vessel traffic. There is no data to support this statement. There have been no reports that this bridge has not or did not operate according to Coast Guard regulations.

One commenter stated concern that there would be no on site presence to keep trespassers off the bridge or remove debris from the bridge. These concerns have been sent to NSRR. The Coast Guard did not address this because it does not fall under Coast Guard jurisdiction.

One commenter stated that this rule change would terminate jobs and had no correlation to railroad efficiency. These concerns have been sent to NSRR. The Coast Guard did not address this because it does not fall under Coast Guard jurisdiction.

After considering all of the comments we received, the Coast Guard believes that changing the operating schedule that governs the Norfolk Southern Railroad (NSRR) vertical lift bridge across the Tombigbee River, mile 89.9, near Jackson, between Washington and Clarke Counties, AL by moving the current onsite bridge tender control station to a geographically remote bridge control center located in Decatur, AL will provide for the reasonable needs of navigation and can be performed safely.

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 protesters.

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. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. 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) and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.

This regulatory action determination is based on the ability that vessels will be able to transit under the bridge given advance notice and the bridge will open in case of an emergency. We believe this change to the drawbridge operation regulations at 33 CFR 117.5 will meet the reasonable needs of navigation.

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 received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. 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 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 contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , above.

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 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a determination that this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. This action is categorically excluded from further review, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.

A Record of Environmental Consideration and a Memorandum for the Record are not required for this rule.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact 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 117 as follows:

On March 19, 2020, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Safety Zones; Annual Events Requiring Safety Zones in the Captain of the Port Zone Lake Michigan Zone” (85 FR 15749). There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action to revise existing safety zones within the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan (COTP) zone. During the comment period that ended April 20, 2020, we received no comments.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The COTP has determined that potential hazards associated with the events exist and these safety zones have been established to protect safety of life and property for the maritime public and event participants from the hazards associated with these events. This rule consolidates and makes minor formatting updates to existing regulations.

As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published March 19, 2020. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.

This rule reorganizes the table listing existing safety zones into four separate tables organized by the State in which the safety zone occurs, makes minor formatting changes for consistency, updates the dates listed for some events, consolidates one safety zone, and removes six safety zones that are no longer necessary.

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. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of these safety zones. These regulations will be in effect only during the events listed in this regulations for which the COTP has determined pose risks to the safety of life and property for the maritime public and event participants. The size, location, and duration of these regulations will be limited to the extent necessary to minimize these risks. Moreover, the COTP will make advance notice of the enforcement of these regulations through the Local Notice to Mariners and/or Broacast Notice to Mariners. This regulation also provides a means for anyone needing to transit through or within a published safety zone to seek permission from 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 received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) is amending 33 CFR 165.801 to update the table of annual fireworks displays and other marine-related events in Coast Guard Sector Ohio Valley. These events include air shows, fireworks displays, and other marine related events requiring a limited access area restricting vessel traffic for safety purposes.

On February 14, 2020, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Safety Zones; Coast Guard Sector Ohio Valley Annual and Recurring Safety Zones Update” (85 FR 8509). There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to those recurring safety zones. During the comment period that ended on March 16, 2020, no comments were received.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date of this rule would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest because immediate action is necessary to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with these marine events.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). Based on the nature of these marine events, large numbers of participants and spectators, and event locations, the COTP has determined that the events listed in this rule could pose a risk to participants or waterways users if the normal vessel traffic were to interfere with the events. Possible hazards include risks of injury or death from near or actual contact among participant vessels and spectators or mariners traversing through the regulated area. This purpose of this rule is to ensure the safety of all waterway users, including event participants and spectators, during the scheduled events.

As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published February 14, 2020. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule on the NPRM.

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. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the safety zones. These safety zones are limited in size and duration, and are usually positioned away from high vessel traffic areas. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zones, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zones.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L(60a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. We prepare a preliminary REC for these types of field regulations because the DHS Instruction Manual (and U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning Implementing Procedures) direct that a REC be prepared for these specified field regulations when certain conditions apply—see L59(a), L60(a), and L60(d).

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 U.S. Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary 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)(3)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we must establish this safety zone by April 27, 2020 and lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule. It is also contrary to the public interest as it would delay the safety measures necessary to protect life and property from the possible hazards associated with the bridge construction project.

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 is contrary to public interest because it would delay the safety measures necessary to respond to potential safety hazards associated with this project. Immediate action is needed to protect vessels and mariners from the safety hazards associated with the bridge construction project on the waterway.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Sector Mobile (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the bridge construction project on April 27, 2020 will be a safety concern for any vessels or persons within 100 yards from the pilings, work equipment, and structures of the Pensacola Bay Bridge, Pensacola Beach, FL. This rule is needed to protect the public, mariners, and vessels from the potential hazards associated with the bridge construction project on the waterway.

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone, effective for 24 hours a day, starting at 8 a.m. on April 27, 2020 through 8 a.m. on December 31, 2020. The safety zone encompasses the navigable waters within 100 yards from the pilings, work equipment, and structures of the Pensacola Bay Bridge, Pensacola Beach, FL. The location and duration of this safety zone is intended to protect persons and vessels during the bridge construction project that will take place on this navigable waterway. No person or vessel will be permitted to enter or transit within the safety zone, unless specifically authorized by the COTP or a designated representative. Public notifications will be made to the local maritime community through Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM). Mariners and other members of the public may also contact the COTP or designated representative to inquire about the safety zone by telephone at 251-441-5490.

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 protectors.

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. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.

This regulatory determination is based on the size, location, and duration, of the safety zone. This temporary safety zone will only restrict navigation within 100 yards from the pilings, work equipment and structures of the Pensacola Bay Bridge, Pensacola Beach, FL for duration of the bridge construction. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Local Notice to Mariners (LNM) about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

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 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 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. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

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 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, which guides 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 100 mariners and the public 100 yards from the pilings, work equipment and structures of the Pensacola Bay Bridge, Pensacola Beach, FL. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60 (a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev.01. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES .

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

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. The final details of the specific dates, vessels names, and safety zone distances concerning the safety zones were not finalized within a sufficient time to allow for notice and a subsequent 30-day comment period before work, inspection, surveying and removal of multiple cables. Delaying this rule to allow for a notice and comment period would be impracticable because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect the public from the potential hazards associated with aforementioned operation commencing on June 10, 2020.

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 . For the same reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph, delaying the effective date of this rule would be impracticable because immediate action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with the work, inspections, and surveying of underwater infrastructure.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the work, inspection, and surveying of underwater infrastructure in the Straits of Mackinac starting June 10, 2020, will be a safety concern for anyone within a 500-yard radius of the tug and barge. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the operation is conducted.

This rule establishes a safety zone from June 10, 2020, to September 15, 2020. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within 500 yards of a tug and barge being used to work, inspect, survey and remove cables in the Straits of Mackinac. The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters while the operation is conducted. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

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

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.

This regulatory action determination is based on the size and location of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone which would impact a small designated area of the Straits of Mackinac. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

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 500 yards of a tug and barge used to work, inspect, survey and remove cables in the Straits of Mackinac. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L[60(a)] of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

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

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

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone located in 33 CFR 165.801, Table 5, line 2 for the St. John the Baptist Independence Day Celebration event. The regulations will be enforced from 8:45 p.m. through 9:45 p.m. on July 3, 2020. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waterways during this event. Our regulations for marine events within the Eighth Coast Guard District, 33 CFR 165.801, as updated by Federal Register document (83 FR 55488), specifies the location of the regulated area on the Mississippi River between mile markers 137.5 and 138.5 on the Mississippi River near Reserve, Louisiana. During the enforcement period, as reflected in § 165.801(a)-(d), if you are the operator of a vessel in the safety zone, you must comply with directions from the Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans or a designated representative.

In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of this enforcement period via a Marine Safety Information Bulletin and/or Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

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

On October 3, 2019, the EPA proposed action on a SIP revision submitted by the State of Arizona on behalf of MAG to meet CAA requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS  1 in the Phoenix NAA. 2 We also proposed to approve the portions of a SIP revision, the MAG 2014 Ozone Plan, on which we previously deferred action. Our proposed action contains more information on the MAG 2017 Ozone Plan, the MAG 2014 Ozone Plan, and our evaluation of these submittals.

The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. During this period, we received comments from two commenters: (1) Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest (ACLPI) on behalf of ACLPI, the Sierra Club-Grand Canyon Chapter, and their supporters and members who live and work in the Phoenix metropolitan area; and (2) the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). We summarize the comments and provide our responses below. All the comments received are included in the docket for this action.

Comment 1.a: The commenter asserted that MAG should do more to combat worsening ozone pollution, particularly given the area's economic expansion and population, but that in this Plan, MAG relied on existing controls, tightening fuel standards, and fleet turnover, which are not enough to achieve attainment. Specifically, ACLPI noted that the Act and the 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule (SRR) require implementation of RACM to achieve attainment as expeditiously as practicable and to meet RFP requirements; and that “[s]tates should consider all available measures, including those being implemented in other areas.” The commenter stated that “MAG did not incorporate any new control measures in the Plan” and that the Plan's reliance on existing control measures, tighter fuel standards, and fleet turnover, is “clearly not enough to reach attainment in the Phoenix NAA.” The commenter also asserted that economic expansion and population growth in the Phoenix area will continue to drive onroad and nonroad mobile source emissions upwards, and that “MAG and its member agencies should lead the way in finding more effective and long-lasting solutions to Phoenix's ozone pollution problem.”

Response: We do not agree that the controls reflected in the Plan are insufficient to achieve attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the Phoenix NAA. For the reasons described in our proposal and in response to ACLPI's other comments in this document, we find that the Plan adequately demonstrates that the area will attain the 2008 Ozone NAAQS by the attainment date and meets all other applicable requirements, including RACM requirements. In particular, the Plan documents that the State did consider whether additional measures were reasonably available as part of its RACM analysis, but determined that no new control measures were needed to attain the NAAQS or achieve RFP in the Phoenix NAA at this time. 3 As described in our proposal, this analysis follows the approach outlined in the SRR, which provides that states need only adopt those control measures that “will advance the attainment date or contribute to RFP for the area.”  4 ACLPI has not provided any information or analysis that undermines our conclusion that the MAG 2017 Ozone Plan meets this requirement.

Comment 1.b: ACLPI commented that the area exceeded the 2008 ozone standard multiple days in 2015 through 2019, and that the design value for the 2017 attainment year exceeded the 2008 ozone NAAQS when “unsupported `exceptional events' exceedances on June 20, 2015 are included in the calculation.” The commenter also stated that, even assuming these exceedances were properly excluded, the design value for 2018 was 77 parts per billion (ppb). On this basis, the commenter asserted that “any paper `attainment' of the 2008 standard in 2017 was fleeting and not the result of permanent emission reductions.” Finally, the commenter stated that 2018 monitoring data indicate that ozone concentrations have increased since 2016 and that the Phoenix metropolitan area is ranked 7th on the American Lung Association's list of the most ozone-polluted cities in the U.S.

Response: Under the CAA, a determination of whether an area has attained by the attainment date is a separate action from the review of an attainment demonstration in a SIP revision. The EPA's review of the SIP revision occurs under CAA section 110(k), while a determination of whether an area has failed to attain is governed by CAA section 181(b)(2). Under section 181(b)(2), the EPA must determine whether an ozone NAA has attained the applicable NAAQS “[w]ithin 6 months following the applicable attainment date (including any extension thereof).” In this instance, the EPA has already undertaken a separate final action to determine, pursuant to section 181(b)(2), that the Phoenix NAA attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the “Moderate” area attainment date, based on 2015-2017 monitoring data. 5 That separate action was based, in part, on our prior concurrence with ADEQ's demonstration that, based on the weight of evidence, the ozone exceedances that occurred on June 20, 2015, were caused by wildfire ozone exceptional events. 6 These separate actions are beyond the scope of this final rule.

We do not consider the exceedances of the 2008 ozone standard in 2018 and 2019, years after the area's applicable attainment date, to be relevant to the approvability of the State's demonstration that this area would attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the attainment date, as discussed in our response to comment 1.d.

Comment 1.c: ACLPI stated that the EPA's approval of the Plan “would defer or significantly delay taking meaningful actions to protect . . . vulnerable residents, contravening the Act's express policy that `protection of public health is the highest priority' ” (quoting CAA section 319(b)(3)(A)).

The commenter further asserted that MAG and its member agencies should act now to “promote and implement clean mobility measures,” such as converting all or part of government fleets to zero-emission vehicles and offering tax incentives and rebate programs to residents who purchase electric vehicles, to bring the Phoenix area into compliance with ozone standards “with an adequate margin of safety and to ensure that such compliance is maintained.” In addition, the commenter argued that “MAG should do more to control ozone precursor emissions from gas-powered lawn equipment.” Finally, citing MAG's RACM analysis in Chapter 4 of the Plan, the commenter argued that MAG should evaluate additional control measures from the EPA's menu of control measures and measures adopted by the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, at least as contingency measures.

Response: Our approval is based on our finding that the Plan meets all of the applicable requirements of the Act, as described in our proposal and in this document. Under CAA section 110(k)(3), the EPA is required to approve any SIP submittal that meets all such requirements. The EPA cannot require states to adopt measures that are more stringent than necessary to meet CAA requirements. While we encourage ADEQ, MAG, and Maricopa and Pinal Counties to consider adopting the measures suggested by the commenter, we have determined that these measures are not necessary to provide for attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the Phoenix NAA by the attainment date or to meet RFP requirements, and are therefore not needed to meet RACM requirements. As noted in our response to comment 1.b, the EPA has determined, pursuant to section 181(b)(2), that the Phoenix NAA attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the “Moderate” area attainment date. In addition, for the reasons described in our response to comment 1.f, we find that RFP contingency measures are not required for the Phoenix NAA at this time. Therefore, ADEQ, MAG, and the counties are not required to adopt any additional control measures for purposes of the MAG 2017 Ozone Plan.

Furthermore, the commenter's reliance on CAA section 319(b)(3)(A) is misplaced. This provision establishes five principles that the EPA must follow in developing implementing regulations for exceptional events, including that “protection of public health is the highest priority.”  7 As noted in our response to comment 1.b, we previously concurred with ADEQ's demonstration that, based on the weight of evidence, the ozone exceedances that occurred on June 20, 2015, were caused by wildfire ozone exceptional events. 8 This was done through a separate Agency action and is beyond the scope of this final rule. Requirements for exceptional events demonstrations are not directly relevant to the EPA's action on an attainment plan pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(3).

Comment 1.d: ACLPI asserted that “the EPA should disapprove the Plan's attainment demonstration because it does not demonstrate that the Phoenix NAA attained the 2008 standard by the July 20, 2018 attainment date or made RFP goals.” The commenter stated that MAG erred in omitting ozone exceedances that occurred on June 20, 2015, from the 2015-2017 design value calculation. The commenter also argued that the “EPA cannot simply ignore the fact that monitors in the Phoenix NAA have continued to record numerous violations of the 2008 ozone standard in 2018 and 2019, or that the 8-hour ozone design value for the Phoenix NAA in 2018 was 77 ppb.”

Response: We do not agree with the commenter's argument that the EPA should disapprove the attainment demonstration because it did not demonstrate that the area factually attained or achieved RFP, or with the commenter's assertions concerning exceptional events and the consideration of monitoring data collected after the Moderate attainment date.

MAG has satisfied the legal and regulatory criteria for attainment demonstrations. Contrary to the commenter's suggestion, the CAA does not require an attainment demonstration to show that an area has attained the NAAQS based on monitored values, or that it has achieved emissions reductions corresponding to RFP. Such demonstrations would not be practical, given that attainment demonstrations are generally required to be submitted to the EPA well before the milestone and attainment dates. 9 Rather, the CAA requires states to submit SIP revisions that “provide for attainment” of the NAAQS by the attainment date and “require” RFP. 10

To address the requirements to provide for attainment and submit an attainment demonstration, the MAG 2017 Ozone Plan includes an attainment demonstration using air quality modeling that shows that existing control measures are sufficient for the Phoenix area to attain the 2008 ozone standard by 2017. In particular, to predict future ozone levels, the modeled attainment demonstration uses a baseline design value derived from historical monitoring data, historical meteorological data from the baseline period, emissions inventories representing the baseline design value period, and modeled reductions in emissions based on SIP control measures. The modeled attainment demonstration is intended to assess whether SIP controls are adequate to reduce ambient ozone to a level at or below the NAAQS by the attainment date. 11

The modeled attainment demonstration showed that the emissions reductions would provide for attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the attainment date. As a separate matter, as described in our response to comment 1.b, the monitoring data for 2015-2017 show attainment, and the EPA has already determined in a prior final Agency action that the area attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the attainment date based on these data. 12 Data from 2018 and preliminary data from 2019 for the area do not alter our assessment of the modeled attainment demonstration for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. However, we note that the Phoenix area is currently designated and classified as a “Marginal” NAA for the 2015 ozone NAAQS and has a maximum attainment date of August 3, 2021. 13 The EPA will consider the monitoring data from 2018 through 2020 to determine whether the area attained the 2015 ozone NAAQS by the attainment deadline. 14 If these data show that the area has not attained, the area would be reclassified to a Moderate NAA for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, and the State would be required to submit a new attainment plan that addresses the Moderate area requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. 15 Therefore, while the 2018-2019 monitoring data for the Phoenix NAA are not pertinent to our action on the 2017 MAG Ozone Plan, these data will be relevant to our determination of whether the area has attained the 2015 ozone standard.

Comment 1.e: The commenter argued that approval of the attainment demonstration would be “problematic, given the weaknesses of MAG's modeling” that the EPA identified in the proposed rule.

Response: We do not agree that the “weaknesses” identified in our proposal concerning meteorological inputs and model performance are obstacles to approving the attainment demonstration in the MAG 2017 Ozone Plan. As an initial matter, it is important to note that the EPA's “Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM 2.5, and Regional Haze” (“Modeling Guidance”) states, “[b]y definition, models are simplistic approximations of complex phenomena” and “all models have strengths and weaknesses.”  16 Accordingly, the Modeling Guidance recommends conducting evaluations of both meteorological inputs and air quality model performance to evaluate the reliability of the modeling results. These are important aspects of the attainment demonstration. However, the Modeling Guidance recommendations are not regulatory requirements, and there are no recommended pass/fail thresholds for any particular evaluation metric. The guidance recommendations are generally applicable to evaluating model performance, but there are no specific requirements that are applicable or must be met in all cases. The particular analyses used may vary on a case-by-case basis, depending on the availability of modeled and observational data (both meteorological and air quality data).

In evaluating the meteorological inputs to the modeling, MAG followed the recommendations of the Modeling Guidance by conducting an “operational evaluation” focusing on “the values and distributions of specific meteorological parameters as paired with and compared to observed data.”  17 Specifically, MAG used a series of statistical metrics to compare wind speed, wind direction, temperature, and water vapor mixing ratio values from the model to observations from weather stations in the NAA. As described in our proposal, temperature and water vapor mixing ratios showed good agreement with observations, with little bias. The modeled wind speed showed an overestimate at low wind speeds and an underestimate at high wind speed. Modeled wind direction showed poorer performance for wind directions from the south-east. MAG asserted that modeling wind speed and direction in Phoenix is difficult due to the complex terrain in the area, but that results are comparable to the benchmarks described in the Modeling Guidance. 18

The Modeling Guidance explains that these benchmarks are to be “used as a means of assessing general confidence in the meteorological model data” rather than as “as a `pass/fail' indicator of the acceptability of a model simulation.”  19 The fact the metrological parameters used in MAG's modeling are comparable to these benchmarks, despite the challenges presented by the complex terrain of the area, supports a conclusion that the meteorological inputs used by MAG “represent a reasonable approximation of the actual meteorology that occurred during the modeling period.”  20

In addition to an operational evaluation of meteorological inputs based on statistical comparisons, the Modeling Guidance also recommends that states conduct a phenomenological evaluation ( i.e., a qualitative comparison of observed features versus their depiction in the model data). As noted in our proposal, while the inclusion of such an analysis “would have provided additional confidence, the model adequately simulates the temporal and spatial variability in ozone concentrations across the area, suggesting the model captures the meteorological phenomena that are important for ozone formation in the Phoenix area.”  21 Therefore, we find that the absence of a phenomenological evaluation of meteorological data does not undermine the overall adequacy of the modeling.

Concerning air quality model performance evaluation, the EPA's “Guideline on Air Quality Models” explains that, “[t]here are no specific levels of any model performance metric that indicate `acceptable' model performance.”  22 Thus, “[t]he EPA recommends that air agencies conduct a variety of performance tests and weigh them qualitatively to assess model performance.”  23 Specifically, as part of an operational evaluation, the EPA recommends evaluating the following statistical metrics: mean observed, mean model, mean bias, mean error and/or root mean square error, normalized mean bias and/or fractional bias, normalized mean error and/or fractional error, and the correlation coefficient. 24 In this case, as part of its air quality model evaluation, MAG evaluated each of the recommended (except for the correlation coefficient, for which it substituted the related “coefficient of determination”) to evaluate ozone model performance. 25 Figures IV-5 through IV-10 of the Modeling technical support document provide time-series plots, scatter plots, spatial maps of mean error and bias, and box plots comparing model performance with previous studies. As described in the proposal, these analyses show that, although there were “a few periods where peak ozone concentrations were underpredicted in July and overpredicted in August, MAG modeling statistics are within or close to the distribution of other published modeling studies.”  26 Accordingly, we concluded that, “[o]verall, the operational evaluation shows good model performance.”  27 As we further noted in our proposal, the “addition of some dynamic and diagnostic evaluations as described in the Modeling Guidance would have provided additional confidence.”  28 However, the Modeling Guidance also explains that, “[g]iven that air agencies might have limited resources and time to perform diagnostic and dynamic evaluation, the use of these methods may be limited in scope in a typical regulatory modeling application.”  29 Accordingly, we do not consider the omission of such dynamic and diagnostic evaluations to undercut the adequacy of the modeling.

In sum, the meteorological inputs were reasonable, and the Plan demonstrated good air quality model performance. Furthermore, in addition to the modeling demonstration, the Plan also contains a comprehensive “weight of evidence” analysis, consisting of several supplemental analyses that further support the modeled attainment demonstration. 30 These include ozone air quality trends and precursor emission trends, both of which show continued progress and support the conclusion that the attainment demonstration is sound. Other analyses include: an evaluation of the sensitivity of the model to oxides of nitrogen (NO X ) and volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions reductions; a comparison to the EPA's modeling for the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, which projects the area will be in attainment in 2017; a process analysis using the VOC:NO X ratio as a photochemical indicator; and an examination of weekday versus weekend effects. These analyses provide assurance that the model is adequately simulating the physical and chemical processes leading to ozone in the atmosphere and that the model responds in a scientifically reasonable way to emissions changes. Therefore, we do not agree with the commenter that we should disapprove the attainment demonstration in the MAG 2017 Ozone Plan based on the modeling.

Comment 1.f: The commenter supported the EPA's proposal to disapprove the contingency measure element of the Plan based on Bahr v. EPA, 31 but argued that there is no statutory basis for “excusing” MAG from including contingency measures in the Plan. The commenter stated that CAA section 172(e) “expressly prevents EPA from loosening controls applicable to a nonattainment area when a NAAQS is relaxed,” and the EPA applies the same concept “where the NAAQS is made more stringent.” Citing South Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA ( “South Coast” ), 32 the commenter noted that contingency measures are “controls” because they are “designed to constrain ozone pollution.” Citing South Coast, the commenter argued that MAG cannot withdraw its contingency measures because “withdrawing measures from a SIP would also constitute impermissible backsliding.”

Response: The commenter's reliance on CAA section 172(e) is misplaced. This provision applies if the EPA relaxes a NAAQS and requires the EPA to promulgate “requirements applicable to all areas which have not attained that standard as of the date of such relaxation.”  33 The commenter alleges that this provision would preclude our determination that a SIP revision providing for contingency measures for the Phoenix NAA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS is no longer required. The promulgation of the 2008 ozone NAAQS was a strengthening from the prior 1997 ozone NAAQS. Accordingly, CAA section 172(e) is not directly applicable.

The commenter further discusses, but mischaracterizes, the EPA's past actions invoking the principles of section 172(e) when revoking an ozone standard. The commenter wrongly suggests that the EPA has applied section 172(e) in cases where the Agency strengthens the NAAQS; this is not true. The EPA has looked to the principles of section 172(e) to develop anti-backsliding regulations when the EPA has revoked ozone standards in order to ensure air quality protections are preserved during the transition to a more protective NAAQS. 34 The EPA has not taken any action to revoke the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 35

The relevant provision of the CAA, section 172(c)(9), requires nonattainment plans to “provide for the implementation of specific measures to be undertaken if the area fails to make [RFP], or to attain the [NAAQS] by the attainment date applicable under this part.” Thus, contingency measures are required for two purposes: attainment contingency measures and RFP contingency measures. On November 12, 2019, the EPA took final action to determine that the Phoenix NAA attained the Moderate area 2008 ozone NAAQS by the attainment date, and Arizona was no longer required to provide a SIP submission that includes attainment contingency measures for the 2008 NAAQS for the Phoenix NAA because attainment contingency measures for this NAAQS would never be required to be implemented. 36 With regard to the RFP contingency measure requirement, we proposed, in conjunction with our proposal on the MAG 2017 Ozone Plan, to find that the RFP contingency measure requirement would also no longer apply to the Phoenix NAA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 37 We explained that the EPA's long-standing interpretation is that RFP contingency measures for Moderate areas would be triggered only by a finding that the area failed to attain the standard by the Moderate area attainment date. 38 Because we have determined that the area has attained the standard by the attainment date, the RFP contingency measures have not, and will not, be triggered. Thus, we have determined that a SIP revision addressing RFP contingency measures is no longer needed.

Comment 1.g: The commenter noted that section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) prohibits the EPA from redesignating a NAA to attainment unless “the State . . . has met all requirements applicable to this area” under section 110 and part D of the CAA, including contingency measures under section 172(c)(9). The commenter also quoted CAA section 110(l), which prohibits the EPA from approving a SIP revision that would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and RFP or any other applicable requirement of the CAA.

Response: None of the provisions cited by the commenter are relevant either to our disapproval of the contingency measures for the Phoenix NAA or to our determination that a SIP revision addressing contingency measures is no longer required for the Phoenix NAA. CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) applies when the EPA is redesignating an area from nonattainment to attainment. ADEQ has not submitted a redesignation request for the Phoenix NAA, and we have not proposed to redesignate the area. Therefore, CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) does not apply to this action.

CAA section 110(l) prohibits the EPA from approving a SIP revision that would interfere with any applicable requirement of the CAA. Because we are disapproving the contingency measure element of the Plan, this requirement does not apply to our action on the contingency measure portion of the Plan. To the extent the commenter is suggesting that our approval of the remainder of the 2017 MAG Ozone Plan would interfere with any applicable requirement of the CAA, we do not agree. First, in this action, the EPA is not approving the removal of any existing provisions in the approved Arizona SIP, and thus there is no concern that our approval action would interfere with any applicable CAA requirement. Second, to the extent that the commenter is concerned that the EPA's approval of the nonattainment plan without contingency measures contravenes the requirements of the CAA to include such measures, the EPA has determined that such measures are not in fact required for this area for this NAAQS for the reasons described in our response to comment 1.f in this action. Section 110(l) prohibits the EPA's approval of a SIP revision if it would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. Given that attainment contingency measures and RFP contingency measures are no longer applicable requirements, following the EPA's final action to determine the area attained by the attainment date, the EPA's approval of the remainder of the SIP submission is consistent with CAA section 110(l). For the reasons discussed in our proposal and in this document, we find that the Plan meets all applicable CAA requirements. Therefore, our approval of the other elements of the Plan complies with CAA section 110(l).

Comment 1.h: The commenter stated that there was no merit to the EPA's argument that based on the “milestone” requirement for ozone NAAs classified as “Serious” or higher, the RFP contingency measures are no longer required. In particular, citing South Coast, the commenter asserted that “[t]his provision demonstrates that when Congress intended to exempt nonattainment areas from statutory requirements, it did so expressly.” The commenter concluded that the EPA must disapprove the contingency measure element of the Plan and require the adoption of additional contingency measures consistent with Bahr.

Response: In our proposal, we explained that under CAA section 182(g), ozone nonattainment areas classified Serious or higher are required to meet RFP emissions reduction milestones and to demonstrate compliance with those milestones, except when the milestone coincides with the attainment date and the standard has been attained. We noted that this specific statutory exemption from milestone compliance demonstration submittals for areas that attained by the attainment date indicates that Congress intended that a finding that an area attained the standard—the finding made in a determination of attainment by the attainment date—would serve as a demonstration that RFP requirements for the area have been met. Therefore, a finding that a Serious or above area has attained the NAAQS by the attainment date would also indicate that RFP contingency measures could not be triggered and are therefore no longer necessary.

The commenter points to the absence of a similar exemption ( i.e., an exemption from RFP milestone compliance demonstration submittals when the milestone coincides with the attainment date and the standard has been attained) for Moderate areas. The commenter appears to be arguing that this omission indicates that Congress intended to subject Moderate areas to the requirement for RFP contingency measures, even if they attained the NAAQS by the attainment date. Contrary to the commenter's suggestion, however, Congress expressly exempted Moderate areas from all RFP milestone compliance demonstration submittals. 39 Accordingly, unlike for Serious and above areas, Congress did not need to provide a specific exemption for a milestone coinciding with the attainment date for Moderate areas. The overall statutory exemption from requirements for RFP milestone compliance demonstration submittals in Moderate areas supports the EPA's interpretation that RFP contingency measures in Moderate ozone NAAs can be triggered only by a finding that the area has failed to attain the standard by the attainment date. 40 Therefore, while we are disapproving the contingency measure element of the Plan, we are also determining that Arizona is no longer required to submit a SIP revision including contingency measures for the Phoenix NAA.

Comment: ADEQ expressed support for the EPA's proposed action, including disapproval of the contingency measure requirements, provided the EPA finalizes its determination that the Phoenix NAA attained the 2008 ozone standard by the attainment date.

Response: The EPA finalized its determination that the Phoenix NAA attained the 2008 ozone standard by the applicable attainment date on November 12, 2019. 41

No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the determinations as described in our proposed action. Therefore, for the reasons discussed in the preceding sections and in our proposed rule, under CAA section 110(k)(3), the EPA is finalizing approval as a revision to the Arizona SIP the following portions of the “MAG 2017 Eight-Hour Ozone Moderate Area Plan for the Maricopa Nonattainment Area,” submitted by ADEQ on December 19, 2016:

• Base year and periodic emission inventories as meeting the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(3), 182(a)(1), and 182(a)(3)(A) and 40 CFR 51.1115(a) and (b);

• RACM demonstration and control strategy as meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(1) and 172(c)(6) and 40 CFR 51.1112(c);

• Attainment demonstration as meeting the requirements of CAA section 182(b)(1)(A)(i) and 40 CFR 51.112 and 51.1108(c);

• Rate of progress plan and RFP demonstration as meeting the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(2) and 182(b)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1110(a)(3)(i);

• Motor vehicle emissions budgets for the 2017 attainment year because they are consistent with the RFP demonstration and the attainment demonstration approved herein and meet the other criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e);

• Vehicle I/M provisions as meeting the requirements of 40 CFR part 51, subpart S;

• NSR discussion as demonstrating that the requirements of CAA sections 173 and 182(a)(2)(C) have been met; and

• Offset discussion as demonstrating that the requirements of CAA sections 173 and 182(b)(5) have been met.

The EPA is finalizing disapproval of the contingency measure element of the MAG 2017 Ozone Plan for failing to meet the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9). However, based on our November 12, 2019 finding of attainment by the applicable attainment date, 42 we are also finalizing our determination that Arizona is no longer required to submit a SIP revision addressing the contingency measures requirement for failure to meet RFP for the Phoenix 2008 ozone NAA. Therefore, our disapproval does not trigger sanctions or FIP clocks.

Finally, we are finalizing approval of the NSR and offset elements of the MAG 2014 Ozone Plan as meeting the Marginal area requirements of CAA section 182(a)(2)(C) and CAA sections 173 and 182(b)(5), respectively, for the Phoenix 2008 ozone NAA.

Additional information about the following statutes and Executive orders can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

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

This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA because this action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities beyond those imposed by state law.

This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, no additional costs to state, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, will result from this action.

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

This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175, because the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

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

Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.

The EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental justice in this rulemaking.

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

Under 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 August 3, 2020. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

In the Commission's Second Report and Order, Memorandum Opinion and Order, and Termination of Notice of Inquiry, ET Docket No. 03-137, ET Docket No. 13-84, FCC 19-126, adopted November 27, 2019, and released December 4, 2019, the Commission amended its rules related to the methods that may be used for determining and achieving compliance with the Commission's existing limits on human exposure to radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields. The amended rules are intended to provide more efficient, practical, and consistent RF exposure evaluation procedures and mitigation measures to help ensure compliance with the existing RF exposure limits. The summary of the Second Report and Order published at 85 FR 18131, April 1, 2020, incorrectly stated that the entire item would become effective sixty days after publication, June 1, 2020. In fact, the amendments to 47 CFR 1.1307, 2.1091, and 2.1093 require approval by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act. This document indefinitely delays the effective date of 47 CFR 1.1307, 2.1091, and 2.1093, while the Commission seeks OMB approval.

The Commission submitted revised information collection requirements for review and approval by OMB, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, on April 20, 2020, which were approved by the OMB on May 22, 2020. The information collection requirements are contained in the Commission's Rural Digital Opportunity Fund Order, FCC 20-5, published at 85 FR 13773, March 10, 2020. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1252. The Commission publishes this document as an announcement of the effective date of the rules published March 10, 2020. If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed below, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Nicole Ongele, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-A620, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554. Please include the OMB Control Number, 3060-1252, 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 and 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 Commission is notifying the public that it received OMB approval on May 22, 2020, for the information collection requirements contained in 47 CFR 54.804(a), published at 85 FR 13773, March 10, 2020. 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 OMB Control Number is 3060-1252.

The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 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: 3060-1252.

OMB Approval Date: May 22, 2020.

OMB Expiration Date: May 31, 2023.

Title: Application to Participate in Rural Digital Opportunity Fund Auction, FCC Form 183.

Form No.: FCC Form 183.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities, Not-for-profit institutions, and State, Local or Tribal governments.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 500 respondents and 500 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 7 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 154, 254 and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Total Annual Burden: 3,500 hours.

Total Annual Cost: No Cost.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Although most information collected in FCC Form 183 will be made available for public inspection, the Commission will withhold certain information collected in FCC Form 183 from routine public inspection. Specifically, the Commission will treat certain technical and financial information submitted in FCC Form 183 as confidential and as though the applicant has requested that this information be treated as confidential trade secrets and/or commercial information. In addition, an applicant may use the abbreviated process under 47 CFR 0.459(a)(4) to request confidential treatment of certain financial information contained in its FCC Form 183 application. However, if a request for public inspection for this technical or financial information is made under 47 CFR 0.461, and the applicant has any objections to disclosure, the applicant will be notified and will be required to justify continued confidential treatment of its request. To the extent that a respondent seeks to have other information collected in FCC Form 183 withheld from public inspection, the respondent may request confidential treatment pursuant to 47 CFR 0.459.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Needs and Uses: The Commission will use the information collected to determine whether applicants are eligible to participate in the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund auction. On January 30, 2020 the Commission adopted the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund Order, WC Docket Nos. 19-126, 10-90, FCC 20-5 which will commit up to $20.4 billion over the next decade to support up to gigabit speed broadband networks in rural America. The funding will be allocated through a multi-round, reverse, descending clock auction that favors faster services with lower latency and encourages intermodal competition in order to ensure that the greatest possible number of Americans will be connected to the best possible networks, all at a competitive cost.

To implement the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund auction, the Commission adopted new rules for the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund, including the adoption of a two-stage application process. For the Connect America Fund Phase II auction, applicants that wanted to qualify to bid in the auction were required to submit the FCC Form 183 short-form application. Because the Connect America Fund Phase II auction has ended, the Commission intends to repurpose the FCC Form 183 for the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund. Any entity that wishes to participate will be required to submit the FCC Form 183 short-form application to demonstrate its qualifications to bid. Accordingly, the Commission revises this collection to indicate that it now intends to collect this information pursuant to § 54.804(a) of the Commission's rules, replacing § 54.315(a) of the Commission's rules. 47 CFR 54.315(a), 54.804(a). The Commission also makes several revisions to FCC Form 183, including text changes to reflect the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund. Based on the Commission's experience with auctions and consistent with the record, this two-stage collection of information balances the need to collect information essential to conduct a successful auction with administrative efficiency.

Under this information collection, the Commission will collect information that will be used to determine whether an applicant is legally qualified to participate in an auction for Rural Digital Opportunity Fund support. To aid in collecting this information, the Commission will use FCC Form 183, which the public will use to provide the necessary information and certifications. Commission staff will review the information collected on FCC Form 183 as part of the pre-auction process, prior to the start of the auction, and determine whether each applicant satisfies the Commission's requirements to participate in an auction for Rural Digital Opportunity Fund support. Without the information collected on FCC Form 183, the Commission will not be able to determine if an applicant is legally qualified to participate in the auction and has complied with the various applicable regulatory and statutory auction requirements for such participation. This approach is an appropriate assessment of providers for ensuring serious participation without being unduly burdensome.

On April 27, 2020, we published a final rule (85 FR 23240) that implemented Framework Adjustment 8 to the Northeast skate fishery, including specifications and possession limits for fishing years 2020 and 2021. This rule published with an error.

The Framework 8 final rule outlined the final possession limits for the entire skate fishery in the preamble text, in a summary table, and in changes to the regulatory text. However, within the preamble, there were two typographical errors when noting the new skate wing possession limit for barndoor skates in Season 2 of the skate wing fishery. The first error is in the text on page 23241, where the rule incorrectly indicates that the barndoor skate possession limit in the wing fishery is increasing to 1,025 lb (465 kg) in Season 2. This is incorrect, as the Season 2 possession limit before this framework was 1,025 lb (465 kg). This line should be corrected to read that the barndoor skate possession limit is increasing to 1,250 lb (567 kg) in Season 2.

The second error is also on page 23241, in the table under the subheading “Table 2—Skate Fishery Possession Limits for Fishing Years 2020 and 2021.” In the cell describing the barndoor skate wing weight possession limit for Season 2, the value in pounds (1,250 lb) is correct, but the converted value in kilograms (465 kg) is in error. The kilogram value in this table should be corrected to 567 kg.

The correct values were published in the proposed rule (85 FR 6494, February 5, 2020) for this action, and elsewhere in this final rule, including in the regulatory text. Because the errors are not in the regulatory text, there is no need for correction to the CFR.

In the Federal Register of April 27, 2020, in FR Doc. 2020-07805, beginning on page 23240, the following corrections are made:

1. On page 23241, in the second column, in the second full paragraph, “to 1,025 lb (465 kg) in Season 2” is corrected to read “to 1,250 lb (567 kg) in Season 2.”

2. On page 23241, table 2 is corrected to read as follows:

The NMFS Administrator, Greater Atlantic Region, has determined that this action is necessary and consistent with the Northeast Skate Complex FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.

The NMFS Assistant Administrator finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action because the correct information was provided in the proposed rule, and the public had an opportunity to comment on it. This correcting amendment makes only minor, non-substantive corrections to typographical errors that included in the final rule text. It does not change operating practices in the fishery. It does not change any regulatory text. Therefore notice and comment are unnecessary and would be contrary to the public interest. Because this action makes no substantive changes and makes minor corrections, it does not constitute a substantive rule, and it is not subject to the requirement for a 30-day delay in effective date in 5 U.S.C. 553(d).