In 2012, Congress passed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-95). Section 332 of Public Law 112-95 (codified at 49 U.S.C. 44802) directed the FAA to develop a comprehensive plan to safely accelerate the integration of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) into the National Airspace System (NAS). As part of that plan, the FAA issued the Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems final rule (81 FR 42064, June 28, 2016), which added 14 CFR part 107 to the FAA's regulations in Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR).

Part 107 sets forth rules for the operation of small UAS  1 that do not require FAA airworthiness certification. Under part 107, operations may not occur over persons, 2 at night, generally above an altitude of 400 feet above ground level, or beyond visual line-of-sight, without a waiver issued by the FAA. UAS weighing 55 pounds or more and small UAS operating outside the limitations imposed by part 107 must receive airworthiness certification, a waiver, or an exemption as appropriate.

The FAA establishes airworthiness criteria and issues type certificates to ensure the safe operation of aircraft in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 44701(a) and 44704. Section 44704 requires the Administrator to find an aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance is properly designed and manufactured, performs properly, and meets the regulations and minimum standards prescribed under section 44701(a) before issuing a type certificate for it.

14 CFR part 21 contains the FAA's procedural requirements for airworthiness and type certification. When the FAA promulgated part 21 as part of its recodification to combine and streamline the Civil Air Regulations, it originally required applicants for a type certificate to show that the product met existing airworthiness standards (29 FR 14562, October 24, 1964). Existing airworthiness standards for aircraft and other products, issued as a separate part of the FAA's regulations, are: Normal category airplanes under 14 CFR part 23, transport category airplanes under 14 CFR part 25, normal category rotorcraft under 14 CFR part 27, transport category rotorcraft under 14 CFR part 29, manned free balloons under 14 CFR part 31, aircraft engines under 14 CFR part 33, and propellers under 14 CFR part 35.

The FAA subsequently amended part 21 to add procedural requirements for the issuance of type certificates for special classes of aircraft (52 FR 8040, March 13, 1987). In the final rule (amendment 21-60), the FAA explained that it intended the special class category to include, in part, those aircraft that would be eligible for a standard airworthiness certificate but for which certification standards do not exist due to their unique, novel, or unusual design features. The FAA further stated that the “decision to type certificate an aircraft in either the special class aircraft category or under . . . the FAR is entirely dependent upon the aircraft's unique, novel, and/or unusual design features.” (52 FR 8041).

Specifically, the final rule (amendment 21-60) revised § 21.17(b) to include the certification procedure for special classes of aircraft. For special classes of aircraft, for which airworthiness standards have not been issued, the applicable airworthiness requirements will be the portions of those existing standards contained in parts 23, 25, 27, 29, 31, 33, and 35 found by the FAA to be appropriate for the aircraft and applicable to a specific type design, or such airworthiness criteria as the FAA may find provide an equivalent level of safety to those parts.

An “unmanned aircraft” is an aircraft operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft. See 49 U.S.C. 44801(11); 14 CFR 1.1. Unmanned aircraft include all classes of airplanes, rotorcraft, and powered-lift aircraft. Many UAS elements, while essential for safe operation, are part of the UAS system but are not permanent features of the unmanned aircraft. For example, instead of traditional landing gear with wheels and brakes, many UAS have a launch and recovery system. Additionally, because the pilot is not situated within the aircraft, unique configurations and applications of airframes, powerplants, fuels, and materials are possible and can result in flight characteristics different from those of conventional aircraft. These features specific to UAS are the very unique, novel, and/or unusual features the special class category was designed to accommodate.

A notice of policy and request for comments regarding the type certification of certain UAS was published in the Federal Register on February 3, 2020 (85 FR 5905). The public comment period for the notice closed on March 4, 2020. The notice proposed that some UAS with no occupants onboard may be type certificated as a special class of aircraft under § 21.17(b). The notice also proposed that for airplane and rotorcraft designs, when appropriate, the FAA may still issue type certificates under § 21.17(a).

The FAA received 66 comments. The majority of the commenters were individual UAS operators. The remaining commenters included UAS manufacturers, the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma (CNO), the People's Republic of China (PRC), and organizations such as the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA), the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), Airlines for America (A4A), the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI), the Commercial Drone Alliance (CDA), the National Agricultural Aviation Association (NAAA), SAE International (SAE), and the Small UAV Coalition. The following summarizes the comments received and the FAA's response.

AIA, AOPA, A4A, Amazon Prime Air, the Choctaw Nation, the Commercial Drone Alliance, SAE, and twelve other commenters expressed support for the policy.

An anonymous commenter requested the FAA publish a timeline for the certification process. FAA Order 8110.4C, Type Certification, dated March 28, 2007, 3 contains procedures and policy for the type certification of products. This order describes the FAA and applicant responsibilities in establishing a project schedule. The certification timeline for each project will vary significantly depending on the project details, scope, and complexity. Due to these many variables, the FAA is unable to publish a timeline specific to the type certification of UAS that would be widely applicable.

An individual requested that the FAA establish a less restrictive process for UAS type certification for first responders and emergency management operators for State agencies and subdivisions. The commenter suggested that because the primary job of emergency responders is public safety, the type certification process was burdensome and unwarranted. Certain FAA civil certification and safety oversight regulations do not apply to public aircraft. Aircraft that do not meet the qualifications for public aircraft status are civil aircraft. 4 UAS operated by government agencies, law enforcement, and State public safety entities may qualify as public aircraft, as defined by statute under 49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(41) and 40125. 5 This policy for type certification of certain UAS only applies to civil aircraft.

Aero Systems West requested the FAA provide an accelerated process for small UAS with parachute safety systems installed. The commenter stated that controlling descent rate is the most important contributor to decreasing the probability of human injury during a UAS flight mishap. The FAA disagrees that a different process is appropriate for designs that incorporate a parachute system. While a parachute recovery system may mitigate some risks for a UAS, it is, by itself, unlikely to provide comprehensive mitigation of all potential risks such that an accelerated type certification process would be suitable.

Another individual questioned how the public could provide meaningful comments on the particularized airworthiness criteria for each applicant when the applicant's proprietary operational and design data are normally withheld by the FAA. Under the process for certification as a special class of aircraft, the FAA will publish a notice for public comment on the particularized airworthiness criteria for each applicant. The commenter is correct that the FAA cannot disclose proprietary or confidential design data from manufacturers in these notices because such disclosure is prohibited by the Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. 1905 (1979). Instead, the FAA will provide a general description of the product, similar to what will be shown on the type certificate data sheet (TCDS). This is the same process the FAA has followed for the certification of special class aircraft such as gliders, airships, and very light airplanes.

The CNO and the CDA requested that the FAA clarify the effect of this policy on other rules. This request was specific to a statement in the proposed policy that the policy would apply only to the procedures for the type certification of UAS and is not intended to establish or impact other FAA rules (operations, pilot certification, or maintenance) regarding UAS. These commenters agreed that a type certificate will not provide a UAS operator with operational authority, but stated the FAA should clarify that the operating limitations in the TCDS will address, and therefore impact, issues such as operations, pilot certification, or maintenance. The FAA agrees that type certification of individual UAS may include operating limitations that impact operations, pilot certification, or maintenance. The purpose of the statement in the proposal was to advise the public that the FAA does not intend for this policy to overrule FAA regulations regarding UAS, particularly other FAA rules outside of part 21.

An individual and AOPA requested that the FAA exempt model aircraft from this policy, and fifteen individual commenters objected to the policy contending that it would have a negative impact on hobbyists. The CNO and the CDA stated the policy should apply to all UAS regardless of weight. Several commenters requested that the FAA clarify the types of advanced operations, in addition to package delivery, affected by the policy and which UAS may require type certification.

This policy addresses the process the FAA will use to establish airworthiness standards for type certification of some UAS with no occupants onboard, when a UAS manufacturer requests type certification. Whether a UAS requires a type certificate depends upon the weight of the UAS, the purpose of the operations, and the particular operating rules under which the UAS is expected to operate. 6 This policy does not apply to UAS that are operated under the exception for limited recreational operations, as they are not required to meet airworthiness requirements or apply for type certification. 7 Small UAS operating under part 107 do not require a type certificate. 8 UAS weighing 55 pounds or more and small UAS operating under the requirements of 14 CFR parts 91 or 135 require either a type certificate, a waiver, an exemption, or a special airworthiness certificate, as appropriate. Package delivery, for example, and other complex operations such as agricultural, inspection, monitoring, infrastructure surveillance, pseudo-satellites, or those involving carriage of other property for compensation or hire may be affected by this policy.

One commenter requested the policy not apply to UAS carrying occupants, as any occupant-carrying UAS should be certificated under the same process as manned aircraft. The FAA agrees. This policy addresses type certification of some UAS with no occupants onboard.

AIA requested that the scope of the policy also include optionally piloted aircraft. The commenter stated that optionally piloted aircraft are becoming increasingly possible as technology continues to mature. The FAA disagrees. An optionally piloted aircraft (OPA) is a manned aircraft that can be flown or controlled by the onboard pilot in command or by another individual from a location not onboard the aircraft. 9 Although the method of controlling the aircraft is optional, in either case the pilot in command always remains onboard the aircraft. Thus, OPA are beyond the scope of this policy because they are not unmanned aircraft as defined by 49 U.S.C. 44801(11) and 14 CFR 1.1.

The CNO and the CDA requested that the type certification policy be streamlined, flexible, and account for changing technologies. The commenters stated that the type certification process should take months instead of years and should accommodate innovation. The FAA responds that this policy provides a flexible type certification process that allows particularized airworthiness criteria for each product design. Under this policy, as technologies change and applicants propose innovative and unique type designs, so too may the airworthiness criteria evolve. The FAA further notes that the pace of any certification program is driven by many factors, including the complexity of the project and the applicant's development and testing timelines.

Joby Aviation requested the FAA prioritize using existing airworthiness standards under the process in § 21.17(a) when a product closely matches the characteristics of the airplane or rotorcraft class and where special conditions (under § 21.16) can be reasonably used to address differences. The commenter stated the approach of using the flexibility of the special class process in § 21.17(b) makes sense for certain UAS or products where it is not reasonable to apply existing airworthiness standards. The purpose of this policy is to use the flexibility provided in the § 21.17(b) certification process to address the unique configurations and innovative applications of airframes, powerplants, fuels, and materials found in most UAS designs. For unmanned airplane and unmanned rotorcraft designs where the airworthiness standards in part 23 or 27, respectively, are appropriate for the certification basis, the FAA may still issue type certificates under the processes in §§ 21.16 and 21.17(a). The certification path for each individual UAS project will be based on applicability, relevance, appropriateness, and suitability.

Joby Aviation also requested that the FAA certificate passenger-carrying UAS under the existing, proven standards in part 23 or part 27, as appropriate to the individual aircraft design, under the process in § 21.17(a). Kilroy Aviation suggested a multi-tiered certification approach for UAS, with a tier for passenger-carrying UAS. These comments are beyond the scope of this policy, which does not apply to UAS that carry occupants.

Another commenter requested that the FAA define the certification types, methods, and timeline more thoroughly before issuing this policy. This commenter stated that the widely varying types and uses of UAS make one blanket type of certification ineffective, or even meaningless. The FAA notes that this policy is only a procedural policy for establishing the airworthiness standards for the type certification of some UAS. The notice of proposed policy requesting comments for the type certification of unmanned aircraft systems, which published in the Federal Register on February 3, 2020 (85 FR 5905), explained the legislative and regulatory history, background, and the FAA's reasons for type certificating certain UAS as a special class of aircraft under § 21.17(b). The purpose of this policy is to provide a flexible process until generally applicable UAS airworthiness standards are identified and established. Under the process for certification as a special class of aircraft, the FAA will publish a notice seeking public comment on the particularized airworthiness criteria for each applicant. The particularized airworthiness criteria will not become final until the FAA considers any public comments and publishes the airworthiness criteria as the certification basis for the applicant's design.

The PRC requested that the FAA's policy use the three UAS categories (open, specific, and certified) proposed by the Joint Authorities for Rulemaking on Unmanned Systems (JARUS) and issued by the European Union. 10 This commenter also requested that the FAA timely inform international aviation partners of its UAS type certification standards. The FAA notes that this policy is only a procedural policy for establishing airworthiness standards for the type certification of certain UAS. If the FAA determines it appropriate, as UAS technology develops and generally applicable standards are identified, the FAA may establish standards through rulemaking. During those activities, the FAA would further evaluate the UAS categories established by the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the diversity of UAS designs to help inform future agency action. The FAA will continue its collaboration with international partners in government and industry on UAS certification requirements.

Kilroy Aviation, the CNO, and the CDA commented on FAA resources for UAS certification projects. The CNO and the CDA requested the FAA allocate sufficient personnel to support the exponential increase in UAS certification projects. Kilroy Aviation requested the FAA delegate UAS compliance findings to designees. The FAA is committed to the safe and efficient integration of UAS into the NAS, and type certification of UAS is an important step in that process. The FAA will continue to assess its resources and make any necessary adjustments to process certification projects of UAS and other aircraft. However, comments regarding the delegation of UAS certification findings to designees are beyond the scope of this policy.

One commenter requested the policy prohibit UAS manufacturers from self-certifying their designs. This comment is beyond the scope of this policy. This policy outlines only the process for how the FAA will establish airworthiness standards for the type certification of certain UAS. FAA Order 8110.4C contains procedures and policy for the type certification of products, including how an applicant for a type certificate demonstrates compliance.

The CNO and the CDA requested the FAA ensure early and frequent coordination among FAA offices. These commenters stated that inter-office coordination between those responsible for issuing the type certificate and those responsible for issuing operational authority was critical, so that applicants have the authority to operate the UAS when its type certificate is issued. The FAA agrees. A type certificate is a design approval and only one of several requirements (airworthiness, pilot certification, registration, air traffic control authorization, air carrier certification, etc.) that must be met for an aircraft to operate in the NAS. The FAA established the UAS Integration Office to facilitate coordination amongst FAA offices on UAS activities.

ALPA requested the FAA limit the duration of the policy to not more than two years, as the process should only be interim until the FAA develops certification regulations specifically designed for UAS. The FAA does not agree. At this time, it is not possible to foresee when generally applicable airworthiness standards for UAS would be established or what form they may take. The FAA may supersede this policy at any time by issuing generally applicable standards through rulemaking.

An individual requested the policy define unmanned aircraft using consistent taxonomy. This commenter noted that many common UAS designs are not easy to categorize as an airplane, rotorcraft, or hybrid lift. This commenter also requested that the policy define the term “unmanned aircraft system,” as that term is not defined in 14 CFR 1.1. The FAA agrees that UAS designs are diverse. However, this policy only addresses the process for how the FAA will establish airworthiness standards for the type certification of certain UAS as a special class. Although there is no corresponding definition in 14 CFR part 1, the term “unmanned aircraft system” is defined by statute at 49 U.S.C. 44801(12) as an unmanned aircraft and its associated elements (including communication links and the components that control the unmanned aircraft) that are required for the operator to operate safely and efficiently in the NAS. 11

ALPA, the CNO, the CDA, NAAA, Wing Aviation LLC (Wing Aviation), Kilroy Aviation, Valqari LLC, and six individual commenters requested the FAA adopt specific airworthiness criteria for UAS. These criteria included subjects such as weather, collision avoidance, marking and coloring, strobe lighting, system safety assessments, payload, weight, software, propeller shrouds and other safety equipment, noise, batteries, public safety, and control stations. Kilroy Aviation requested the FAA consider using the certification criteria for “small category VTOL aircraft” adopted by EASA. Amazon Prime Air requested that, while the FAA uses the process under § 21.17(b) for type certification, the agency also form a working group to evaluate and create new rules for UAS airworthiness standards. These comments are beyond the scope of this policy. This policy outlines only the procedures for how the FAA will establish airworthiness standards for the type certification of certain UAS. The particularized airworthiness criteria for each applicant will vary as appropriate and applicable to the specific UAS design. The FAA will announce and seek public comment on the airworthiness criteria for each applicant. The FAA will also continue to work with the public, industry, other civil aviation authorities, and standards development organizations to create and refine standards and policy for UAS.

Wing Aviation and other commenters requested the airworthiness criteria for UAS be performance-based. The FAA agrees and anticipates issuing performance-based airworthiness criteria based on each applicant's design when possible. The FAA will announce and seek public comment on these criteria for each applicant.

Kilroy Aviation, the CNO, and the CDA requested the FAA harmonize UAS certification standards with EASA and other foreign civil aviation authorities. The FAA agrees that having harmonization and consistency on UAS policy and requirements with foreign authorities is prudent; however, the implementation of this comment is beyond the scope of this policy.

The CNO, the CDA, Valqari LLC, and three individual commenters requested the FAA adopt specific criteria and rules for UAS based on operational factors. These factors included beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) operations (especially in rural areas), designated airspace below 400 feet for agricultural drone use, night operations, and location of the UAS operation. Operational considerations, such as BVLOS and detect and avoid requirements, are beyond the scope of this policy.

Several commenters also requested that the policy be risk-based and account for the specific risks encountered by each UAS within its operating environment. The FAA agrees and plans to use a risk-based approach for UAS type certification. The FAA anticipates issuing performance-based airworthiness criteria for each individual applicant's design. For example, some applicants will demonstrate compliance with the criteria by durability and reliability (D&R) testing at a level tailored for the design based on its risk. The D&R testing would result in an acceptable number of successful flight hours, representative of mission cycles to substantiate the overall reliability of the UAS.

Several commenters requested that the FAA restrict UAS operations over residential areas and schools and provide protections for citizens' right to privacy. The operational issues raised by these comments are beyond the scope of this policy, which is limited to the process for establishing airworthiness standards for type certification.

The CNO, the CDA, and an individual requested that the FAA combine operational authority with the issuance of the type certificate. These commenters suggested that since the airworthiness criteria for each type-certificated UAS will go through the public notice and comment process, that process should include any exemptions from parts 91 and 61 (general operating and flight rules and flight crew certification requirements) necessary to operate. These commenters further suggested that the conditions and limitations typically included in the grant of an exemption could then be incorporated on the TCDS as operating limitations. This policy outlines the process for how the FAA will establish airworthiness standards for the type certification of certain UAS. The process for granting relief from operational and airmen certification rules is addressed in 14 CFR part 11.

Kilroy Aviation, the CNO, the CDA, and an individual requested that the FAA issue additional guidance or rulemaking or recognize standards for UAS certification in a timely manner. The FAA is committed to developing the regulations, policy, procedures, guidance material, and training requirements necessary to support the safe and efficient integration of UAS into the NAS. The implementation of these activities is beyond the scope of this policy.

Droneport Texas LLC requested the FAA update remote pilot training requirements and study aids so pilots are aware of the distinctions for type-certificated UAS. This commenter also requested the FAA create specialized training for maintainers, operators, and remote pilots of UAS type certificated as a special class of aircraft. One individual requested the FAA develop different classes of recreational UAS pilots. Another individual requested the FAA create specific aircraft type ratings for remote pilots. However, the airmen training and certification issues raised by these comments are beyond the scope of this policy, which is limited to the process for type certification.

An anonymous commenter opposed the policy and stated it will stifle innovation, limit recreation, and unnecessarily intrude on personal freedoms. Fifteen individual commenters opposed the policy based on concerns it would overburden hobbyists and negatively impact the model aircraft community. The FAA infers that these commenters would like the FAA to withdraw the policy. This policy will not burden or negatively impact a person conducting limited recreational operations with a small unmanned aircraft under 49 U.S.C. 44809, because type certification is not required for these operations. For other UAS, type certification may be required, depending on the weight of the UAS, the purpose of the operations, and the operating rules to which the UAS is subject. This policy provides a timely and flexible type certification process to ensure that a UAS design complies with appropriate safety standards.

Two individual commenters requested that the FAA extend the comment period in order to solicit additional input and define additional requirements. These comments noted that the comment period for this notice overlapped with the comment period for the FAA's proposed rulemaking on remote identification of UAS (84 FR 72438, December 31, 2019). The FAA has considered the request and determined that 30 days provided an appropriate time for comment on the proposed policy, as sufficient feedback on the policy was provided by the public during the comment period.

Some commenters expressed concerns about the FAA's proposed remote identification rule. Other commenters stated opposition to FAA's rules for small UAS in part 107. DJI Technology, Inc., commented on operations and associated waivers under part 107. Because these comments concern FAA rulemakings on other issues, they are outside the scope of this policy.

Two commenters requested the FAA address UAS-related products (3-D printed parts, test benches). DJI Technology, Inc., requested that the FAA revise its regulations to allow American companies to manufacture UAS at facilities outside the United States. An individual commenter requested that the FAA revise 14 CFR 21.25(a)(1) to allow UAS as a special purpose operation for issuance of a restricted category type certificate. These comments are outside the scope of this policy, which specifies a process for establishing airworthiness standards for type certification of certain UAS.

The FAA also received and reviewed several comments that were very general, stated the commenter's viewpoint without a suggestion specific to the policy, or did not make a request the FAA can act on. These comments are outside the scope of this policy.

The FAA has determined that some UAS may be type certificated as a “special class” of aircraft under § 21.17(b). The FAA will issue type certificates for UAS with no occupants onboard under the process in § 21.17(b). However, the FAA may still issue type certificates under § 21.17(a) for airplane and rotorcraft UAS designs where the airworthiness standards in part 23, 25, 27 or 29, respectively, are appropriate for the certification basis. This policy applies only to the procedures for the type certification of UAS, and is not intended to establish policy impacting other FAA rules pertaining to unmanned aircraft, such as operations, pilot certification, or maintenance.

The FAA will seek public comment on the particularized airworthiness criteria for each applicant as certification standards for this new special class evolve. Once generally applicable standards are identified, the FAA may conduct rulemaking.

The FAA's part 107 rulemaking on small UAS was only the first step in the FAA's plan to integrate UAS into the NAS. Many long-term activities are required for full integration of present and future UAS operations, which will include the delivery of packages and transportation of people. The UAS affected by this policy will include those used for package delivery. Future FAA activity, through either further policy or rulemaking, will address type certification for UAS carrying occupants.

The contents of this document do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. This document is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.

You may obtain an electronic copy using the internet by:

(1) Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal ( http://www.regulations.gov );

(2) Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or

(3) Accessing the Government Printing Office's web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.

You also may obtain a copy by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make sure to identify the amendment number or docket number of this rulemaking.

The FAA has historically limited the number of arrivals and departures at LGA during peak demand periods through the implementation of the High Density Rule (HDR), to address constraints based on LGA's limited runway capacity. 1 By statute enacted in April 2000, the HDR's applicability to LGA operations terminated as of January 1, 2007. 2

The FAA issued an Order on December 27, 2006, adopting temporary limits pending the completion of rulemaking to address long term limits and related policies. 3 This Order was amended on November 8, 2007, and August 19, 2008. 4 The FAA extended the December 27, 2006, Order placing temporary limits on operations at LGA, as amended, on October 7, 2009, April 4, 2011, May 14, 2013, March 27, 2014, May 25, 2016, and September 18, 2018. 5

Under the Order for LGA, as amended, the FAA (1) maintains the current hourly limits on scheduled and unscheduled operations at LGA during the peak period; (2) imposes an 80 percent minimum usage requirement for Operating Authorizations (OAs) with defined exceptions; (3) provides a mechanism for withdrawal of OAs for FAA operational reasons; (4) provides for a lottery to reallocate withdrawn, surrendered, or unallocated OAs; and (5) allows for trades and leases of OAs for consideration for the duration of the Order.

The reasons for issuing the Order have not changed appreciably since it was implemented. Based upon experience from the 2018-2020 period, runway capacity at LGA remains limited, while demand for access to LGA remains high. In 2009, the FAA reduced the scheduling limits under this Order from 75 operations per hour to 71 per hour in order to provide an opportunity to improve operations. 6 The FAA did not require a reduction of historic slots to reach the new hourly limits. Instead, historic allocations were honored. However, slots voluntarily returned or withdrawn per the terms of the Order are not reallocated if the hourly totals exceed the revised 71 hourly scheduling limit. As a result of this historic “grand-fathering,” between 72 and 75 slots remain authorized in most slot-controlled hours.

The FAA has reviewed the on-time and other performance metrics in the peak May to August 2018 and 2019 months and found declining performance in several metrics relative to the same period in 2008 and year over year. 7 The FAA has determined that the operational limitations imposed by this Order remain necessary. Notwithstanding the disruption caused by the COVID-19 public health emergency, the duration of which is uncertain, without the operational limitations imposed by this Order, the FAA expects severe congestion-related delays due to the anticipated demand for new operations and the retiming of existing flights into more desirable hours. During the effective period of this Order, the FAA will continue to monitor demand, performance, and runway capacity at LGA, including the effects of the COVID-19 public health emergency, to determine if changes are warranted. 8 The FAA, in coordination with the Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST), will continue to consider potential rulemaking in the future to codify the slot management policies at LGA, and also at John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK). 9

In the FAA's 2018 actions extending the JFK and LGA Orders, the FAA noted that it has received specific proposals for policy changes that would necessitate amending the Orders. 10 Consideration of these issues is ongoing. Accordingly, the FAA is extending the expiration date of this Order until October 29, 2022. This expiration date coincides with the extended expiration date for the Order limiting scheduled operations at JFK, as also published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register . This LGA action incorporates ministerial changes to the terms of the Order concerning internal FAA process, removing an obsolete provision concerning the final decision-maker in paragraph A3, and adding a comprehensive provision concerning the final decision-maker under the Order at new paragraphs A9 and B10. This action also adds a provision for revocation and amendment at new paragraphs A10 and B11 consistent with the terms of the JFK Order, and makes other minor edits to improve readability.

The FAA finds that notice and comment procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest, as carriers have begun planning schedules for the winter 2020/2021 season and no substantive changes are included in this action. For these reasons, the FAA also finds that it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to delay the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d).

The Order, as amended, is recited below in its entirety:

With respect to scheduled operations at LaGuardia:

1. The Order governs scheduled arrivals and departures at LaGuardia from 6 a.m. through 9:59 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday and from 12 noon through 9:59 p.m., Eastern Time, Sunday. Seventy-one (71) Operating Authorizations are available per hour and will be assigned by the FAA on a 30-minute basis. The FAA will permit additional, existing operations above this threshold; however, the FAA will retire Operating Authorizations that are surrendered to the FAA, withdrawn for non-use, or unassigned during each affected hour until the number of Operating Authorizations in that hour reaches seventy-one (71).

2. The Order took effect on January 1, 2007, and will expire on October 29, 2022.

3. The FAA will assign operating authority to conduct an arrival or a departure at LaGuardia during the affected hours to the air carrier that holds equivalent slot or slot exemption authority under the High Density Rule of FAA slot exemption rules as of January 1, 2007; to the primary marketing air carrier in the case of AIR-21 small hub/non-hub airport slot exemptions; or to the air carrier operating the flights as of January 1, 2007, in the case of a slot held by a non carrier. The FAA will not assign operating authority under the Order to any person or entity other than a certificated U.S. or foreign air carrier with appropriate economic authority and with operating authority from FAA under 14 CFR part 121, 129 or 135.

4. For administrative tracking purposes only, the FAA will assign an identification number to each Operating Authorization.

5. An air carrier may lease or trade an Operating Authorization to another carrier for any consideration, not to exceed the duration of the Order. Notice of a trade or lease under this paragraph must be submitted in writing to the FAA Slot Administration Office, facsimile (202) 267-7277 or email 7-AWA-Slotadmin@faa.gov, and must come from a designated representative of each carrier. The FAA must confirm and approve these transactions in writing prior to the effective date of the transaction. However, the FAA will approve transfers between carriers under the same marketing control up to 5 business days after the actual operation. This post-transfer approval is limited to accommodate operational disruptions that occur on the same day of the scheduled operation.

6. Each air carrier holding an Operating Authorization must forward in writing to the FAA Slot Administration Office a list of all Operating Authorizations held by the carrier along with a listing of the Operating Authorizations actually operated for each day of the two-month reporting period, within 14 days after the last day of the two-month reporting period beginning January 1 and every two months thereafter. Any Operating Authorization not used at least 80 percent of the time over a two-month period will be withdrawn by the FAA except:

A. The FAA will treat as used any Operating Authorization held by an air carrier on Thanksgiving Day, the Friday following Thanksgiving Day, and the period from December 24 through the first Saturday in January.

B. The FAA will treat as used any Operating Authorization obtained by an air carrier through a lottery under paragraph 7 for the first 120 days after allocation in the lottery.

C. The Administrator of the FAA may waive the 80 percent usage requirement in the event of a highly unusual and unpredictable condition which is beyond the control of the air carrier and which affects carrier operations for a period of five consecutive days or more.

7. In the event that Operating Authorizations are withdrawn for nonuse, are surrendered to the FAA, or are unassigned, the FAA will determine whether any of the available Operating Authorizations should be reallocated. If so, the FAA will conduct a lottery using the provisions specified under 14 CFR 93.225. The FAA may retime an Operating Authorization prior to reallocation in order to address operational needs.

8. If the FAA determines that a reduction in the number of allocated Operating Authorizations is required to meet operational needs, such as reduced airport capacity, the FAA will conduct a weighted lottery to withdraw Operating Authorizations to meet a reduced hourly or half-hourly limit for scheduled operations. The FAA will provide at least 45 days' notice unless otherwise required by operational needs. Any Operating Authorization that is withdrawn or temporarily suspended will, if reallocated, be reallocated to the air carrier from which it was taken, provided that the air carrier continues to operate scheduled service at LaGuardia.

9. The Vice President, System Operations Services, in coordination with the Chief Counsel of the FAA, is the final decision maker for determinations under this Order.

10. The FAA may modify or withdraw any provision in this Order on its own or on application by any carrier for good cause shown.

With respect to unscheduled flight operations at LaGuardia, the FAA adopts the following:

1. The Order applies to all operators of unscheduled flights, except helicopter operations, at LaGuardia from 6 a.m. through 9:59 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday and from 12 noon through 9:59 p.m., Eastern Time, Sunday.

2. The Order took effect on January 1, 2007, and will expire on October 29, 2022.

3. No person can operate an aircraft other than a helicopter to or from LaGuardia unless the operator has received, for that unscheduled operation, a reservation that is assigned by the David J. Hurley Air Traffic Control System Command Center's Airport Reservation Office (ARO), or for unscheduled visual flight rule operations, received clearance from ATC. Additional information on procedures for obtaining a reservation is available via the internet at http://www.fly.faa.gov/ecvrs.

4. Three (3) reservations are available per hour for unscheduled operations at LaGuardia. The ARO will assign reservations on a 30-minute basis.

5. The ARO receives and processes all reservation requests. Reservations are assigned on a “first-come, first-served” basis, determined as of the time that the ARO receives the request. A cancellation of any reservation that will not be used as assigned is required.

6. Filing a request for a reservation does not constitute the filing of an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan, as separately required by regulation. After the reservation is obtained, an IFR flight plan can be filed. The IFR flight plan must include the reservation number in the “remarks” section.

7. Air Traffic Control will accommodate declared emergencies without regard to reservations. Nonemergency flights in direct support of national security, law enforcement, military aircraft operations, or public aircraft operations will be accommodated above the reservation limits with the prior approval of the Vice President, System Operations Services, Air Traffic Organization. Procedures for obtaining the appropriate reservation for such flights are available via the internet at http://www.fly.faa.gov/ecvrs.

8. Notwithstanding the limits in paragraph 4, if the Air Traffic Organization determines that air traffic control, weather, and capacity conditions are favorable and significant delay is not likely, the FAA can accommodate additional reservations over a specific period. Unused operating authorizations can also be temporarily made available for unscheduled operations. Reservations for additional operations are obtained through the ARO.

9. Reservations cannot be bought, sold, or leased.

10. The Vice President, System Operations Services, in coordination with the Chief Counsel of the FAA, is the final decision maker for determinations under this Order.

11. The FAA may modify or withdraw any provision in this Order on its own or on application by any carrier for good cause shown.

The FAA may enforce the Order through an enforcement action seeking a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. 46301(a). The FAA or Department of Justice also could file a civil action in U.S. District Court, under 49 U.S.C. 46106 or 46107, respectively, seeking to enjoin any carrier from violating the terms of the Order.

You may obtain an electronic copy using the internet by:

(1) Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal ( http://www.regulations.gov );

(2) Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or

(3) Accessing the Government Printing Office's web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.

You also may obtain a copy by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make sure to identify the amendment number or docket number of this rulemaking.

The FAA historically limited the number of arrivals and departures at JFK through the implementation of the High Density Rule (HDR). 1 By statute enacted in April 2000, operations were added at JFK through provisions permitting exemptions for new entrant carriers and flights to small and non-hub airports. 2 The HDR's applicability to JFK operations terminated as of January 1, 2007. 3 With the AIR-21 exemptions and the HDR phase-out, some air carriers serving JFK significantly increased their scheduled operations throughout the day and retimed existing flights. This resulted in scheduled demand in peak hours that exceeded the airport's capacity and caused significant congestion and delay. In January 2008, the FAA placed temporary limits on scheduled operations at JFK to mitigate persistent congestion and delays at the airport. 4 The FAA extended the January 18, 2008, Order placing temporary limits on scheduled operations at JFK on October 7, 2009, April 4, 2011, May 14, 2013, March 26, 2014, May 24, 2016, as corrected June 21, 2016, and on September 17, 2018. 5

Under the Order, as amended, the FAA (1) maintains the current hourly limits of 81 scheduled operations at JFK during the peak period; (2) imposes an 80 percent minimum usage requirement for Operating Authorizations (OAs)  6 with defined exceptions; (3) provides a mechanism for withdrawal of OAs for FAA operational reasons; (4) establishes procedures to allocate withdrawn, surrendered, or unallocated OAs; and (5) allows for trades and leases of OAs for consideration for the duration of the Order.

The reasons for issuing the Order have not changed appreciably since it was implemented. Based upon experience from the 2018-2020 period, demand for access to JFK remains high and multiple new entrant and other incumbent airlines have been waitlisted for new peak period operations and retiming existing flights to higher demand hours. Many of these airlines were on a waitlist for several scheduling seasons. The average hourly flights and allocated slots in the busiest hours were generally at the limits under this Order.

The FAA has reviewed the on-time and other performance metrics for the past two years in the peak months—May to August 2018 and 2019—and generally found continuing improvements relative to the same peak period in 2008. Year over year trends show a modest decrease in performance overall largely due to the closure of Runway 13L/31R for construction in 2019. 7 The FAA has determined that the operational limitations imposed by this Order remain necessary. Notwithstanding the disruption caused by the COVID-19 public health emergency, the duration of which is uncertain, without the operational limitations imposed by this Order, the FAA expects severe congestion-related delays would occur at JFK and at other airports throughout the National Airspace System (NAS) as flights are added or retimed into peak periods at JFK. The FAA will continue to monitor demand, performance, and runway capacity at JFK, including the effects of the COVID-19 public health emergency, to determine if changes are warranted during the effective period of this Order. 8 The FAA, in coordination with the Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST), will also continue to consider potential rulemaking to codify policies for slot-controlled airports.

In the FAA's 2018 actions extending the JFK and LGA Orders, the FAA noted that it has received specific proposals for policy changes that would necessitate amending the Orders. 9 Consideration of these issues is ongoing. In addition, the FAA is reviewing recent substantive amendments to the International Air Transport Association Worldwide Slot Guidelines (IATA WSG, now known as the Worldwide Airport Slot Guidelines or “WASG”) and considering whether to implement certain changes in the United States. 10 In the meantime, the FAA continues to apply version 9 of the IATA WSG (Jan. 1, 2019) to inform its slot administration decisions at JFK. 11

Accordingly, the FAA is extending the expiration date of this Order until October 29, 2022. This expiration date coincides with the extended expiration date for the Order limiting operations at LGA, as also extended by action published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register . This JFK action incorporates ministerial changes to the terms of the Order concerning internal FAA processes, amending a provision concerning the final decision-maker in paragraph 1.c., and makes other minor edits to improve readability.

The FAA finds that notice and comment procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest, as carriers have begun planning schedules for the winter 2020/2021 season and no significant substantive changes are included in this action. For these reasons, the FAA also finds that it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to delay the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d).

This Order is the equivalent of limited local rules as referenced in the IATA WSG and takes precedence over the WSG where there are differences. 12 At JFK, the FAA follows the WSG in many respects such as new entrant priority  13 and consideration of schedule constraints such as terminal, gate, parking, customs and immigration, curfews, and similar operational factors.

Under current rules, the FAA uses an approach adapted from the WSG for reallocating available OAs at JFK. 14 This includes applying priorities for new entrant airlines, the retiming of historic slots, and allocation of remaining available capacity. The FAA also considers factors such as delays or operational performance in certain hours or periods when the allocation is above the limits in adjacent hours. In general, the FAA reviews retiming requests to move from less congested hours to more congested hours in a similar manner to a new request. New entrants may receive a higher priority in the case of competing requests. The FAA also maintains a waiting list of carrier requests that could not be accommodated in prior scheduling seasons, if requested by the initial submission deadline, and prioritizes such requests over requests for new slots submitted after the initial submission deadline. Carriers that obtain temporary slot swaps to meet their operational needs do not lose priority on the waiting list for permanent slot allocations. The priorities considered by the FAA under established policy and practice when allocating OAs on a permanent or temporary basis are set forth in paragraph 11 of the Amended Order.

The Order, as amended, is recited below in its entirety.

1. This Order continues the process for assigning operating authority to conduct an arrival or a departure at JFK during the affected hours to any certificated U.S. air carrier or foreign air carrier. The FAA will not assign operating authority under this Order to any person or entity other than a certificated U.S. or foreign air carrier with appropriate economic authority and with operating authority from FAA under 14 CFR part 121, 129, or 135. This Order applies to the following:

a. All U.S. air carriers and foreign air carriers conducting scheduled operations at JFK as of the date of this Order, any U.S. air carrier or foreign air carrier that operates under the same designator code as such a carrier, and any air carrier or foreign-flag carrier that has or enters into a codeshare agreement with such a carrier.

b. All U.S. air carriers or foreign air carriers initiating scheduled or regularly conducted commercial service to JFK while this Order is in effect.

c. The Vice President, System Operations Services, in coordination with the Chief Counsel of the FAA, is the final decision maker for determinations under this Order.

2. This Order governs scheduled arrivals and departures at JFK from 6 a.m. through 10:59 p.m., Eastern Time, Sunday through Saturday.

3. This Order took effect on March 30, 2008, and will expire October 29, 2022.

4. Under the authority provided to the Secretary of Transportation and the FAA Administrator by 49 U.S.C. 40101, 40103, and 40113, we hereby order that:

a. No U.S. air carrier or foreign air carrier initiating or conducting scheduled or regularly conducted commercial service at JFK may conduct such operations without an Operating Authorization assigned by the FAA.

b. Except as otherwise authorized by the FAA based on historic precedence, scheduled U.S. air carrier and foreign air carrier arrivals and departures will not exceed 81 per hour from 6 a.m. through 10:59 p.m., Eastern Time.

c. The Administrator may change the limits if the Administrator determines that capacity exists to accommodate additional operations without a significant increase in delays.

5. For administrative tracking purposes only, the FAA will assign an identification number to each Operating Authorization.

6. A carrier holding an Operating Authorization may request the Administrator's approval to move any arrival or departure scheduled from 6 a.m. through 10:59 p.m. to another half hour within that period. Except as provided in paragraph 7, the carrier must receive the written approval of the Administrator, or his delegate, prior to conducting any adjusted arrival or departure. All requests to move an allocated Operating Authorization must be submitted to the FAA Slot Administration Office, facsimile (202) 267-7277 or email 7-AWA-Slotadmin@faa.gov, and must come from a designated representative of the carrier. If the FAA cannot approve a carrier's request to move a scheduled arrival or departure, the carrier may then apply for a trade in accordance with paragraph 7.

7. For the duration of this Order, a carrier may enter into a lease or trade of an Operating Authorization to another carrier for any consideration. Notice of a trade or lease under this paragraph must be submitted in writing to the FAA Slot Administration Office, facsimile (202) 267-7277 or email 7-AWA-Slotadmin@faa.gov, and must come from a designated representative of each carrier. The FAA must confirm and approve these transactions in writing prior to the effective date of the transaction. The FAA will approve transfers between carriers under the same marketing control up to five business days after the actual operation, but only to accommodate operational disruptions that occur on the same day of the scheduled operation. The FAA's approval of a trade or lease does not constitute a commitment by the FAA to grant the associated historical rights to any operator in the event that slot controls continue at JFK after this order expires.

8. A carrier may not buy, sell, trade, or transfer an Operating Authorization, except as described in paragraph 7.

9. Historical rights to Operating Authorizations and withdrawal of those rights due to insufficient usage will be determined on a seasonal basis and in accordance with the schedule approved by the FAA prior to the commencement of the applicable season.

a. For each day of the week that the FAA has approved an operating schedule, any Operating Authorization not used at least 80% of the time over the time-frame authorized by the FAA under this paragraph will be withdrawn by the FAA for the next applicable season except:

i. The FAA will treat as used any Operating Authorization held by a carrier on Thanksgiving Day, the Friday following Thanksgiving Day, and the period from December 24 through the first Saturday in January.

ii. The Administrator of the FAA may waive the 80% usage requirement in the event of a highly unusual and unpredictable condition which is beyond the control of the carrier and which affects carrier operations for a period of five consecutive days or more.

b. Each carrier holding an Operating Authorization must forward in writing to the FAA Slot Administration Office a list of all Operating Authorizations held by the carrier along with a listing of the Operating Authorizations and:

i. The dates within each applicable season it intends to commence and complete operations.

A. For each winter scheduling season, the report must be received by the FAA no later than August 15 during the preceding summer.

B. For each summer scheduling season, the report must be received by the FAA no later than January 15 during the preceding winter.

ii. The completed operations for each day of the applicable scheduling season:

A. No later than September 1 for the summer scheduling season.

B. No later than January 15 for the winter scheduling season.

iii. The completed operations for each day of the scheduling season within 30 days after the last day of the applicable scheduling season.

10. In the event that a carrier surrenders to the FAA any Operating Authorization assigned to it under this Order or if there are unallocated Operating Authorizations, the FAA will determine whether the Operating Authorizations should be reallocated. The FAA may temporarily allocate an Operating Authorization at its discretion. Such temporary allocations will not be entitled to historical status for the next applicable scheduling season under paragraph 9.

11. The FAA considers the following factors and priorities in allocating Operating Authorizations, which the FAA has determined are available for reallocation—

a. Historical requests for allocation of an Operating Authorization in the same time;

b. New entrant status;

c. Retiming of historic Operating Authorizations;

d. Extension of a seasonal Operating Authorization to year-round service;

e. The effective period of operation;

f. The extent and regularity of intended use with priority given to year-round services;

g. The operational impacts of scheduled demand, including the hourly and half-hour demand and the mix of arrival and departure flights; and

h. Airport facility constraints.

Any carrier that is not approved for allocation of an Operating Authorization by the FAA may request it be placed on a waiting list for consideration should an Operating Authorization in the requested time become available during that scheduling season.

12. If the FAA determines that an involuntary reduction in the number of allocated Operating Authorizations is required to meet operational needs, such as reduced airport capacity, the FAA will conduct a weighted lottery to withdraw Operating Authorizations to meet a reduced hourly or half-hourly limit for scheduled operations. The FAA will provide at least 45 days' notice unless otherwise required by operational needs. Any Operating Authorization that is withdrawn or temporarily suspended will, if reallocated, be reallocated to the carrier from which it was taken, provided that the carrier continues to operate scheduled service at JFK.

13. The FAA may enforce this Order through an enforcement action seeking a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. 46301(a). The FAA or Department of Justice also could file a civil action in U.S. District Court, under 49 U.S.C. 46106 or 46107, respectively, seeking to enjoin any carrier from violating the terms of this Order.

14. The FAA may modify or withdraw any provision in this Order on its own or on application by any carrier for good cause shown.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

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

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

This amendment provides the affected CFR sections, and specifies the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure and the amendment number.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The VGBA, 15 U.S.C. 8001 et seq., took effect on December 19, 2008. The VGBA's purpose is to prevent drain entrapment and child drowning in swimming pools and spas. In part, the Act requires that drain covers must comply with entrapment protection requirements specified by the joint standard from the American Society of Material Engineers (ASME) and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), ASME/ANSI A112.19.8 performance standard, or any successor standard. The VGBA also states that public pools must be equipped with drain covers that meet the requirements of the ASME/ANSI standard or any successor standard. Under the VGBA, if ASME or another organization proposes a successor standard, the Commission will incorporate the revised standard if the Commission determines that it is in the public interest.

On February 17, 2011, the Association of Pool and Spa Professionals (APSP) approved the ANSI/APSP/IAPMO-16 2011 standard, Suction Fittings for Use in Swimming Pools, Wading Pools, Spas, and Hot Tubs, to succeed ASME/ANSI A112.19.8-2007. ASME then withdrew ASME/ANSI A112.19.8 2007. On August 5, 2011, the Commission incorporated APSP-16 2011 into 16 CFR part 1450 as the successor drain cover standard, with an effective date of September 6, 2011. 76 FR 47436 (Aug. 5, 2011).

On August 18, 2017, APSP published APSP-16 2017. On May 24, 2019, the Commission published a direct final rule in the Federal Register , incorporating portions of APSP-16 2017 into its mandatory drain cover standard, 16 CFR part 1450, with an effective date of November 24, 2020 (84 FR 24021).

On March 24, 2020, the Pool & Hot Tub Alliance (PHTA)  1 requested a minimum 6-month extension of the effective date for APSP-16 2017, due to the COVID-19 health crisis, which, PHTA indicated, had led to closures of third party testing laboratories. On May 28, 2020, PHTA updated its request to a 60-day extension, noting that although laboratories remained open, COVID-19 disruptions to testing and SOFA manufacturing remain.

APSP-16 2017 establishes materials, testing, use, installation, and marking requirements for new or replacement bather-accessible suction outlet fitting assemblies (SOFAs), other than maintenance drains, which are designed to be fully submerged in any pool. CPSC incorporated changes from the 2011 to the 2017 version of the standard into its mandatory drain cover standard, 16 CFR part 1450. The changes include: A change in the hair test approach time; changes that require assessment and hair testing at all suction outlet pipes; the addition of an “unblockable drain” definition; and labeling requirements.

APSP-16 2017 reduced the test time for hair to approach the suction outlet cover in the hair entrapment testing. The cumulative reduction in test time decreases the test burden in two separate iterative hair test procedures, without affecting test results. In another change, APSP-16 2017 expands the scope of the hair tests to include locations at all outlet pipes within SOFAs that can be reached by the test hair. This change ensures that any outlet in a SOFA, within reach of the 16-inch test hair, will be tested. Multiple outlet SOFAs are typically installed in larger pools. For affected SOFAs, the change will tend to lower water flow ratings because the lowest flow among all the outlets tested becomes the flow rating.

The definition section of APSP-16 2017 includes a definition of “Unblockable SOFA”:

The Commission incorporated this definition into its mandatory drain cover standard.

Section 8.4 of APSP-16 2017 contains requirements for the labelling of a SOFA, requiring identifying information, such as the manufacturer name and cover/grate part number, and date of the installation of the cover/grate. Section 8.5.1 contains labeling requirements for Registered Design Professional (RDP) SOFAs. Section 9.3 adds provisions regarding a General Certificate of Conformity (GCC) that are consistent with the Consumer Product Safety Act and VGBA. These requirements identify the product, the manufacturer, and the test lab that performed the analysis, as well as state the standard to which the product was tested, and when and where it was tested. Because the presence of this information makes it easy to identify relevant safety information about the product, the Commission found these requirements to be in the public interest, and thus, incorporated them into its mandatory drain cover standard.

PHTA requested that the Commission extend the effective date of the mandatory drain cover standard. This may delay the implementation of the changes that were made to APSP-16 2017 and incorporated into the mandatory drain cover standard. The multiple outlet testing has some direct benefit to public safety due to modestly lowered water flow ratings for those multiple outlet SOFA types. The other changes—hair entrapment test times, the new definitions and labelling—are in the public interest and may indirectly benefit public safety. However, the Commission does not believe extending the effective date would have a significant negative impact on safety. The Commission believes that up to a 6-month extension of the effective date is not expected to adversely affect public safety because:

(1) Multiple outlet SOFAs are typically installed in large public pools, predominately located outdoors and open in the warmest months, and are less likely to be installed in public spas open during other seasons. Outdoor pools are likely to continue to transition towards full capacity for summer 2020, at a pace dependent upon developments with the COVID-19 crisis. Less exposure overall to outdoor pools will lessen the public's exposure to affected SOFA installations, which are those in new construction or replacements. Accordingly, the Commission does not expect a delay in the availability of SOFAs complying with APSP-16 2017 to adversely impact public safety;

(2) According to the 2019 CPSC entrapment report, 2 there have been six injuries (and no deaths) due to hair entrapment in the years 2014 to 2018. The report includes incidents with all types of SOFAs in both public and residential pools. CPSC staff estimates that each year, all new SOFAs installed as replacements, 3 or in new installations, 4 together represent no more than 15 percent of all SOFAs in public pools. Multiple outlet SOFAs that are affected by the new multiple outlet testing requirements represent a fraction of this total; although CPSC staff does not have an estimate of the size of the affected multiple outlet market. Because few injuries and no deaths are reported over 5 years of data, a delay due to an extension is not expected to adversely impact any benefit that improved multiple outlet testing may have on public safety;

(3) An extension of the effective date prior to Memorial Day 2021 will require firms to comply before the seasonal opening of most outdoor public pools in the United States.

The Commission is issuing this final rule without an additional opportunity for public comment. Under section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), general notice and the opportunity for public comment are not required for a rulemaking when an “agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefor in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.”  5

The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted economic activity in the United States. Executive Order 13294 urges federal agencies to take actions to reduce regulatory burdens that arise as a result of the pandemic “consistent with applicable law and with protection of the public health and safety.” Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, manufacturers may face difficulties in their ability to comply with the new requirements of the mandatory drain cover standard by the November 24, 2020, effective date set in the DFR. Therefore, the Commission is delaying the effective date of the drain cover standard until May 24, 2021. Delaying the effective date will not have an adverse impact on public health and safety; and as encouraged by E.O. 13924, the delayed effective date will help provide relief from disruptions exacerbated by the pandemic. Because of the relatively short time frame until the original November 24, 2020 effective date is scheduled to go into effect, and for the reasons discussed above, the Commission finds that there is good cause consistent with the public interest to issue the rule without advance notice and comment. 6 As a result of this rule, the DFR published by the Commission on May 24, 2019, which incorporated sections of APSP-16 2017 into the Commission's mandatory drain cover standard, will not be reflected in the Code of Federal Regulations until May 24, 2021.

The APA generally requires a 30-day delayed effective date for final rules, except for: (1) Substantive rules which grant or recognize an exemption or relieve a restriction; (2) interpretative rules and statements of policy; or (3) as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause. 7 The Commission believes that the public interest is best served by having this final rule become effective immediately upon publication in the Federal Register , instead of the usual 30-day delayed effective date normally required by the APA. Therefore, the Commission finds that there is good cause to delay the effective date of the previously approved change to 16 CFR part 1450 of the Commission's standard, for the reasons noted above.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires that agencies review proposed and final rules for their potential economic impact on small entities, including small businesses, and prepare regulatory flexibility analyses. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. The RFA applies to any rule that is subject to notice and comment procedures under section 553 of the APA. Id. As discussed, consistent with section 553(b)(B) of the APA, the Commission has determined for good cause that general notice and opportunity for public comment is unnecessary. Thus, the RFA's requirements relating to initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis do not apply. However, the Commission has assessed how the COVID-19 pandemic may impact manufacturers of SOFA covers.

The COVID-19 pandemic has severely impacted the business operations of many sectors of the U.S. economy. Businesses have curtailed operations in efforts to safeguard the health of their employees and customers; these actions include restrictions imposed by state and local governments. PHTA reported that SOFA manufacturers have also been impacted by disruptions caused by the pandemic, ranging from limited to substantial disruptions. While test labs remained open, some manufacturers reportedly experienced longer delays in completing testing since March. Furthermore, according to PHTA, product changes, such as molding, tooling, and labeling, are often necessary after the results of testing are reported. These tasks could be affected by restrictions, which vary by location.

On May 19, 2020, President Trump issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13924, “Regulatory Relief to Support Economic Recovery.” 85 FR 31385. E.O. 13924 encourages Federal agencies to address the economic consequences of COVID-19 by: Rescinding, modifying, waiving, or providing exemptions from regulations and other requirements that may inhibit economic recovery, consistent with applicable law and with protection of the public health and safety, with national and homeland security, and with budgetary priorities and operational feasibility. They should also give businesses, especially small businesses, the confidence they need to reopen by providing guidance on what the law requires; by recognizing the efforts of businesses to comply with often-complex regulations in complicated and swiftly changing circumstances; and by committing to fairness in administrative enforcement and adjudication.

The Commission has identified approximately 20 firms that currently manufacture products that would appear to be affected by the revised standard. Under size standards issued by the U.S. Small Business Administration, manufacturers of SOFAs with fewer than 750 employees (including their subsidiaries and affiliates) are considered to be small businesses. 8 On this basis, nearly all of the manufacturers and importers of suction outlet fitting assemblies are believed to be small businesses. As noted, some manufacturers reportedly have had greater disruptions due to COVID-19 restrictions than others. We do not know the portion of SOFA manufacturers that have been more severely impacted.

VGBA-compliant drain cover sales are comprised of covers sold with new pools and replacement covers for previously installed pools. Current sales of SOFAs are unknown; however, statistics reported by APSP provide a rough indication of the number of units sold annually. APSP reports that 58,000 in-ground pools, 184,029 hot tubs, and 2,432 commercial pools were sold or installed in 2014. 9 These new installations likely introduced at least 225,000 SOFAs requiring VGBA-compliant drain covers. The installed base of in-ground pools, hot tubs, and commercial pools totaled more than 11 million in 2014, according to statistics reported by APSP. Manufacturers of plastic drain covers typically recommend that they be replaced in 5 to 7 years (and this is stated on the covers). If such recommendations are followed, the market for replacement VGBA-compliant covers could exceed 1.5 million units annually.

As discussed in Section C and D of this preamble, the Commission believes that an extension of the effective date, up to 6 months, will not have a significant adverse effect on public safety. Therefore, the Commission is providing relief to SOFA manufacturers as a result of the COVID-19 crisis, by extending the effective date of the drain cover standard. The Commission has considered the two separate requests submitted by PHTA. The 60-day extension is the minimum request made by PHTA, based on their most current estimates of potential impact on the pool and spa SOFA manufacturers. The 6-month extension is the maximum request made by PHTA, based on their early, although erroneous, understanding of test laboratory closures.

Due to the uncertainties surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and the likely minimal impact that an extension of the effective date might have on public safety, and the direction in E.O. 13294 to address the economic consequences of COVID-19, the Commission is delaying the effective date of the mandatory drain cover standard in 16 CFR part 1450 by 6 months, to May 24, 2021.

The drain cover standard does not impose any information collection requirements. Accordingly, this rule is not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

The Commission's regulations provide a categorical exclusion for the Commission's rules from any requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement where they “have little or no potential for affecting the human environment.” 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(2). This rule falls within the categorical exclusion, so no environmental assessment or environmental impact statement is required.

Section 26(a) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2075(a), provides that where a consumer product safety standard is in effect and applies to a product, no state or political subdivision of a state may either establish or continue in effect a requirement dealing with the same risk of injury unless the state requirement is identical to the Federal standard. Section 26(c) of the CPSA also provides that states or political subdivisions of states may apply to the CPSC for an exemption from this preemption under certain circumstances. Section 1404(a) of the VGBA specifies that a rule issued under section 1404(b) of the VGBA shall be treated as a consumer product safety standard under the CPSA, thus, implying that the preemptive effect of section 26(a) of the CPSA would apply. Therefore, the rule will invoke the preemptive effect of section 26(a) of the CPSA when it becomes effective.

The Congressional Review Act (CRA; 5 U.S.C. 801-808) states that, before a rule may take effect, the agency issuing the rule must submit the rule, and certain related information, to each House of Congress and the Comptroller General. 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1). The submission must indicate whether the rule is a “major rule.” The CRA states that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) determines whether a rule qualifies as a “major rule.” Pursuant to the CRA, this rule does not qualify as a “major rule,” as defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(2). To comply with the CRA, the Office of the General Counsel will submit the required information to each House of Congress and the Comptroller General.

This document amends the Income Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 1) to finalize rules under section 47 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code). On May 22, 2020, the Department of the Treasury (Treasury Department) and the IRS published a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-124327-19) in the Federal Register (85 FR 31096) (proposed regulations). The proposed regulations were necessary to address the amendments to section 47 by section 13402 of Public Law 115-97, 131 Stat. 2054 (2017), commonly referred to as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). The proposed regulations provide that the rehabilitation credit is properly determined in the year the qualified rehabilitated building (QRB) is placed in service but allocated ratably over the 5-year period beginning in such year as required by the TCJA, rather than being allocated entirely to the taxable year the QRB is placed in service as under section 47 prior to the TCJA. The proposed regulations add § 1.47-7(a) through (f) and include: A general rule for calculating the rehabilitation credit; definitions of ratable share and rehabilitation credit determined; and a rule coordinating the changes to section 47 with the special rules in section 50. The proposed regulations also contain examples, including examples illustrating the interaction of section 47 with rules in section 50(a) (recapture in case of dispositions, etc.), section 50(c) (basis adjustment to investment credit property), and section 50(d)(5) (relating to certain leased property when the lessee is treated as owner and subject to an income inclusion requirement). The preamble to the proposed regulations contains a detailed explanation regarding the amendment of section 47 by the TCJA and the addition of § 1.47-7(a) through (f).

The Treasury Department and the IRS received three written comments on the proposed regulations. No requests for a public hearing were made, and no public hearing was held. After consideration of the comments, this Treasury decision adopts the proposed regulations without modification.

The three comments submitted in response to the proposed regulations are available at www.regulations.gov or upon request.

Two of the comments were supportive of the proposed regulations and did not provide any suggested revisions or additions. This summary of comments does not further address those comments.

The other comment did not disagree with or suggest revision to any of the rules in the proposed regulations. The comment raised issues that the commenter believes the proposed regulations did not address. These include the potential impact of the new 5-year period on a partner's capital account under § 1.704-1 (partner's distributive share) when a partnership directly owns the property, whether and how the partnership allocates the rehabilitation credit to partners, potential reporting obligations by a partnership on Schedule K-1 (Form 1065), the treatment of the remaining ratable share when a partner sells a partnership interest within the 5-year credit period, and the interaction of § 1.704-1 with § 1.50-1 (lessee's income inclusion following election of lessor of investment credit property to treat lessee as acquirer).

With respect to the potential impact of the new 5-year period on a partner's capital account under § 1.704-1 when the partnership directly owns the QRB, the comment concluded that for partners “there would be a capital account effect that would not take into account the 5-year allocation of the credit.” Partnership capital accounting rules are addressed in the regulations to section 704, and therefore are not included in these final regulations. However, for clarification, the Treasury Department and the IRS agree that there would be a capital account adjustment that would not take into account the 5-year credit period. In other words, the full amount of the capital account adjustment under § 1.704-1 is reflected in a partner's capital account in the year the rehabilitation credit is determined.

With respect to whether and how the partnership allocates the rehabilitation credit to partners, the comment specifically asked “whether the partners are allocated 20 percent of the credit each year although all of the credit basis is reduced in the first year when the property is placed in service or whether, after the first year, the remaining four years over which the credit is spread is taken into account and applied solely at the partner level over those remaining years, consistent with the section 1.50-1 regulations.” Partnership allocation rules of general business credits are specifically addressed in the regulations to section 704, and therefore are not included in these final regulations. However, for clarification, the rehabilitation credit is not allocated by the partnership, but is calculated at the partner level and claimed by the partner ratably over the 5-year credit period. As under section 47 prior to the TCJA, the partnership allocates qualified rehabilitation expenditures (QREs) to its partners. Under section 47(b), QREs with respect to any QRB are taken into account for the taxable year in which the QRB is placed in service.

By way of further explanation, the calculation of the rehabilitation credit at the partner level is made as part of calculating the investment credit under section 46, which is listed as a current year general business credit under section 38. Section 1.704-1(b)(4)(ii), which requires allocations with respect to the investment tax credit provided by section 38 to be made in accordance with the partners' interests in the partnership, provides that allocations of cost or qualified investment (as opposed to the investment credit itself, which is not determined at the partnership level) that are made in accordance with § 1.46-3(f) shall be deemed to be made in accordance with the partners' interests in the partnership. For purposes of the investment credit, part of those allocations to partners would include QREs to calculate the rehabilitation credit. Partners then compute the investment credit at the partner level based on partner level limitations. See also TD 9872 (84 FR 34775) and TD 9776 (81 FR 47701) (these Treasury decisions relate to § 1.50-1 and both preambles contain relevant descriptions of how the rehabilitation credit is calculated in the context of passthrough entities, including that the calculation is done at the partner level in the case of partnerships and the S corporation shareholder level in the case of subchapter S corporations).

Lastly, addressing issues related to potential reporting obligations by a partnership on Schedule K-1, the sale of a partnership interest within the 5-year credit period, and the interaction of § 1.704-1 with § 1.50-1 (including amending § 1.704-1 as recommended in the comment) is beyond the scope of the final regulations.

These final regulations apply to taxable years beginning on or after September 18, 2020. However, taxpayers may choose to apply these final regulations for QREs paid or incurred after December 31, 2017, in taxable years beginning before September 18, 2020, provided the taxpayers apply the final regulations in their entirety and in a consistent manner. See section 7805(b)(7).

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 Treasury Department and the Office of Management and Budget regarding review of tax regulations.

In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6), it is hereby certified that these final regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Although the rules may affect small entities, data are not readily available about the number of taxpayers affected. The economic impact of these regulations is not likely to be significant, however, because these final regulations substantially incorporate statutory changes made to section 47 by the TCJA that have been effective for QREs paid or incurred after December 31, 2017. The final regulations will assist taxpayers in understanding the changes to section 47 and make it easier for taxpayers to comply with those changes and section 50, which was not changed by the TCJA.

Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, these regulations were submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on their impact on small business. No comments were received from the Small Business Administration.

The principal author of these final regulations is Barbara J. Campbell, Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Passthroughs and Special Industries), IRS. However, other personnel from the Treasury Department and the IRS participated in their development.

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended as follows:

We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this rule. Under title 5 of the United States Code (U.S.C.), Section 553(b)(A), the Coast Guard finds that this final rule is exempt from notice and public comment rulemaking requirements because these changes involve rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice. In addition, the Coast Guard finds that notice and comment procedures are unnecessary for this final rule under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as this rule consists of only technical and editorial corrections and these changes will have no substantive effect on the public. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that, for the same reasons, good cause exists for making this final rule effective upon publication in the Federal Register .

This final rule, which becomes effective on September 18, 2020, makes technical and editorial corrections throughout titles 33 and 46 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). These changes are necessary to update authority citations, correct errors, update contact information, and make other non-substantive amendments that improve the clarity of the CFR. This rule does not create or change any substantive requirements.

This final rule is issued under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 553; 14 U.S.C. 102 and 503; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1 and authorities listed at the end of this rule for each CFR part this rule amends.

The Coast Guard periodically issues technical, organizational, and conforming amendments to existing regulations in titles 33 and 46 of the CFR. These technical amendments provide the public with accurate and current regulatory information, but do not change the effect of any Coast Guard regulations on the public.

On December 4, 2018, Congress enacted the Frank LoBiondo Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2018 (Authorization Act), Public Law 115-282, 132 Stat. 4192. The Authorization Act redesignated multiple provisions within U.S.C. titles 14, 33, 46, and 50, without substantive change, in an effort to reorganize these titles. The Authorization Act redesignated two of our main regulatory authorities, without change, from 14 U.S.C. 2 and 633 into 14 U.S.C. 102 and 503, respectively. Additionally, the Authorization Act redesignated the Ports and Waterways Safety Act (PWSA) provisions, previously located in 33 U.S.C. 1221 through 1236, without substantive change into the new Chapter 700 of U.S.C. title 46, entitled “Ports and Waterways Safety.”  1 The Coast Guard often uses the affected statutory provisions as authority for issuing regulations related to maritime safety and security. This rule replaces the old statutory authority citations with their redesignated statutory authorities throughout titles 33 and 46 of the CFR.

This rule updates the authority citations in 33 CFR parts 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 13, 17, 23, 25, 26, 40, 45, 50, 51, 52, 55, 62, 64, 66, 67, 70, 72, 74, 76, 80, 82, 101, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 109, 114, 115, 118, 125, 126, 127, 143, 145, 146, 150, 153, 154, 155, 156, 160, 161, 162, 164, 165, 166, 167, and 169.

Additionally, within title 33 of the CFR, this rule updates the authority citations for subparts 1.01, 1.05, 1.07, 1.08, 1.10, 1.20, and 1.26 in part 1 and subpart B in part 25.

This rule updates the authority citations in 46 CFR parts 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 35, 39, and 68.

Additionally, within title 46 of the CFR, this rule updates the authority citation for subpart 1.03.

In § 1.01-40, this rule revises an in-text citation from 14 U.S.C. 47(a) to its new designation in 14 U.S.C. 304.

Section 1.05-25 contains information on the public docket. All of the docket information is maintained electronically on www.regulations.gov and the Coast Guard no longer uses a Docket Management Facility. We are removing references to the Docket Management Facility physical location from this section and noting that it is an electronic docket.

In the parentheses appearing after the regulatory text of § 1.08-1, this rule replaces the citation to 14 U.S.C. 633 with its redesignated section in 14 U.S.C. 503.

In the note to § 1.20-1, this rule replaces the citations to 14 U.S.C. 632 and 633 with their redesignated sections in 14 U.S.C. 505 and 503, respectively.

In § 1.26-10, this rule replaces the citation to 14 U.S.C. 891 with its redesignated section in 14 U.S.C. 4101. In the note to this section, this rule makes the same change.

In § 1.26-15, in paragraph (a) and in the note after the regulatory text, this rule updates the 14 U.S.C. citations from sections 641(b) and 654 to redesignated sections 901(b) and 942, respectively.

In the note to § 2.5, this rule replaces an incorrect cross-reference to 46 CFR 10.103 with the correct reference in 46 CFR 10.107 concerning the definition of “inland waters.” Title 46 CFR 10.107 contains the relevant definition.

In § 2.22(a)(1)(i), this rule removes the reference to the PWSA provisions in 33 U.S.C. 1221-1232 and replaces the citation with 46 U.S.C. subtitle VII, titled “Ports and Waterways Safety,” which is where the PWSA provisions were redesignated by the Authorization Act. We also update in this paragraph the references to 50 U.S.C. 191-195 with their new designations in 46 U.S.C. 70051-70054.

In § 2.32(c), this rule updates the citations to 14 U.S.C. 89(a) and 86 to their new designations, 14 U.S.C. 522 and 545, respectively.

In § 3.01-5, this rule replaces the citation to 14 U.S.C. 633 with its redesignated section in 14 U.S.C. 503.

In the definition of “Auxiliary Act” in § 5.1, this rule updates the previous citations to 14 U.S.C. 821-894 to their newly redesignated citations in 14 U.S.C. 3901-3913 and 4101-4104.

In § 5.17, this rule replaces the citation to 14 U.S.C. 823a with its redesignated section in 14 U.S.C. 3904.

In § 5.18(c), this rule replaces the citation to 14 U.S.C. 707 with its redesignated section in 14 U.S.C. 3707.

In § 5.30(b)(1) and (b)(2), this rule updates references to 14 U.S.C. 822 with its redesignated section in 14 U.S.C. 3902.

In § 5.40(c)(2), this rule updates the citations to 14 U.S.C. 638, 639, and 892 with their redesignated sections, 14 U.S.C. 933, 934, and 4102.

In § 6.18-1, this rule updates the citation 50 U.S.C. 192 to its redesignated citation in 46 U.S.C. 70052.

In § 8.1(b)(2), this rule updates references to 14 U.S.C. 712 with its redesignated section in 14 U.S.C. 3713.

In § 13.01-1, this rule updates references to 14 U.S.C. 500 with its redesignated section in 14 U.S.C. 2744.

In § 23.30, this rule updates references to 14 U.S.C. 638(b) with its redesignated section in 14 U.S.C. 933(b). Additionally, this rule changes the text in the restatement of the statute from “Each Person” to “Every person” to conform to the actual text of 14 U.S.C. 933(b).

In § 25.131(a)(5) through (8), this rule updates references to 14 U.S.C. 642, 646, 647, and 830 with their redesignated sections, 14 U.S.C. 546, 937, 938, and 3911 respectively.

In the parentheses appearing after the regulatory text of § 26.02, this rule replaces the 14 U.S.C. 2 citation with its redesignated section in 14 U.S.C. 102.

In the Civil Penalty Adjustment Table in table 1 to § 27.3, this rule updates U.S.C. title 14 citations to their redesignated sections as noted herein. Specifically, the penalties for Confidentiality of Medical Quality Assurance Records (first offense and subsequent offenses), previously in 14 U.S.C. 645(i), were redesignated without change into 14 U.S.C. 936(i) by the Authorization Act.

In § 52.2(a), this rule updates the in-text citation to 14 U.S.C. 425 to its redesignated section in 14 U.S.C. 2507.

In § 66.01-45, this rule updates the in-text citation to 14 U.S.C. 83 to its redesignated section in 14 U.S.C. 542.

In § 67.40-25, this rule updates the in-text citation 14 U.S.C. 85 to its redesignated section in 14 U.S.C. 544.

In the parenthetical after § 72.05-1(b), this rule updates the citation to 14 U.S.C. 93 to its redesignated section in 14 U.S.C. 504.

This rule removes the text “in accordance with Part 25 of the title” from § 74.01-1. In 1981, the Coast Guard removed all claims, except for defensive claims, from 33 CFR part 25. Section 74.01-1 deals with claims for damages. Because a claim for damages is not a defensive claim, referencing part 25 in this section is not a proper cross-reference. Removing this language will not have any effect on a claim for damages made under this section.

In § 83.22(c), this rule revises a formatting inconsistency. After the word “length” in paragraph (c), this rule changes the hyphen to a colon to align it with the other paragraphs in this section that end with a colon.

In § 100.35(c), this rule removes reference to the Act of April 28, 1908 because the Act was repealed by the Authorization Act of 2018. The section will continue to state that special local regulations must be issued under the authority of 46 U.S.C. 70041 authorized by 33 CFR 1.05-1, which contains the Coast Guard's rulemaking delegations.

In § 101.415(a), this rule updates the in-text citations to 33 U.S.C. 1232 and 50 U.S.C. 192 because they were redesignated into 46 U.S.C. 70036 and 70052, respectively, by the Authorization Act.

In Part 105, this rule deletes Appendix A—Facility Vulnerability and Security Measures Summary (Form CG-6025) because the form in Appendix A is not current. The current version of form CG-6025 is available at the Coast Guard forms web address. In §§ 105.140(b),105.405(a)(18), and 105.410(e), this rule removes references to the form in Appendix A and inserts a Coast Guard web address, http://www.dcms.uscg.mil/forms/, where the updated electronic form CG-6025 can be found.

In § 107.200, within the definition of “U.S. territorial waters,” this rule updates the in-text citation to 50 U.S.C. 195 to its redesignated section 46 U.S.C. 70054. This amendment will have no substantive effect on the definition because the text of 50 U.S.C. 195 was redesignated by the Authorization Act into 46 U.S.C. 70054 without change.

In § 114.05, within the definition of “United States Coast Guard or Coast Guard”, this rule updates the in-text citation to 14 U.S.C. 1 to its identical redesignated section, 14 U.S.C. 101.

In §§ 114.25, 114.50, 115.60, and 115.70 within the parentheses after the regulatory texts, this rule updates the citations to 14 U.S.C. 633 with its redesignated section in 14 U.S.C. 503.

This rule corrects the names of the drawbridges in § 117.149 from 3rd Street and 4th Street drawbridges to Third Street and Fourth Street drawbridges. On June 28, 2019, the Coast Guard issued a technical amendment final rule that contained this same change (84 FR 30879). The amendment could not be incorporated into § 117.149 at the time because the section was suspended. Now that the suspension of § 117.149 has been lifted, the Coast Guard is using this rule to change the names of the drawbridges.

In § 117.235, regarding the Conrail bridge, this rule adds the bridge operator's name to the regulatory text. This amendment will help vessel operators determine whom to contact for information and requests regarding the Conrail bridge operation.

In § 117.243, concerning Norfolk Southern Railway Bridge on the Nanticoke River, this rule adds the drawbridge operator's name and updates the existing phone number in the regulatory text. This updated information is necessary for vessel operators to contact the Norfolk Southern Railway Bridge operators as needed.

In § 117.569(a), this rule also adds the bridge operator's name and contact information for the Conrail railroad bridge on the Pocomoke River so vessel operators can contact the bridge operator as needed.

In the section name of § 117.785, this rule corrects the spelling of the Genesee River from the previous incorrect spelling of “Genessee” River.

This rule corrects the name of the Livingston Ave. (Amtrak) Bridge in § 117.791(c) from the previous incorrect spelling of “Livingstone”.

Section 117.903(a) contains the regulations for bridges on Darby Creek, including the Conrail railroad bridge. This rule removes the word, “automated,” from the Conrail railroad bridge's name to reflect the proper name of the bridge.

In § 117.1087, this rule corrects the name of the Canadian National Bridge by removing “Railroad” from the bridge name in paragraph (b) and capitalizing “Bridge” in its name in both paragraphs (b) and (c).

In § 118.5, this rule updates the in-text citation to 14 U.S.C. 85 to its redesignated section in 14 U.S.C. 544.

In § 126.13(b), this rule removes references to the PWSA (33 U.S.C. 1232) and inserts the citation to 46 U.S.C. 70036, because the Authorization Act repealed and redesignated the relevant PWSA provision to 46 U.S.C. 70036.

Similarly, in §§ 126.25 and 126.33, this rule removes the references to the repealed section 13 of the PWSA (33 U.S.C. 1232) and inserts the redesignated citation in 46 U.S.C. 70036.

In § 127.015(c)(1), this rule adds the word “Policy” to correct the title of the Assistant Commandant for Prevention Policy (CG-5P).

In § 148.5, this rule adds the word “Policy” to correct the title of the Assistant Commandant for Prevention Policy (CG-5P).

This rule updates the office symbol for Assistant Commandant for Prevention Policy (CG-5P) in § 148.105(i). The Coast Guard reorganized offices so that the relevant office within the previous CG-5 became CG-5P.

In § 148.115(a), this rule adds the word “Policy” to correct the title of the Assistant Commandant for Prevention Policy (CG-5P).

In § 148.207(c), this rule updates the Coast Guard web address that contains the list of deepwater port projects and corrects the responsible office to the Vessel and Facility Operating Standards Division (CG-OES-2). The updated web address is https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Our-Organization/Assistant-Commandant-for-Prevention-Policy-CG-5P/Commercial-Regulations-standards-CG-5PS/Office-of-Operating-and-Environmental-Standards/vfos12/.

In § 148.209(a), this rule updates the web address in the regulations for a list of the Federal agencies involved in the deep water port licensing. The updated web address is https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/DCO%20Documents/5p/5ps/Operating%20and%20Environmental%20Standards/OES-2/DWP/dwp_white_house_task_force_energy_streamlining.pdf?ver=2017-07-26-102702-223.

This rule updates the current web address listed in § 148.252(d) where the public can obtain a proposed subpoena form. The updated web address is https://www.uscg.mil/Resources/Administrative-Law-Judges/General-Suspension-and-Revocation-Information/Subpoena-Information/.

This rule updates the office symbol for the Assistant Commandant for Prevention Policy (CG-5P) in §§ 148.222(b), 149.15(a), (d) and (e). The Coast Guard reorganized offices so that the relevant office within the previous CG-5 became CG-5P.

In § 151.28, this rule updates the office symbol designation from “(CG-5431)” to “(CG-CVC-1),” to reflect the redesignated office symbol.

In § 151.66(b)(3), this rule corrects the spelling of “Discharges” in the title of table § 151.66(b)(3).

In § 155.1015(c)(1), this rule replaces the citation to 14 U.S.C. 827 with its redesignated section, 14 U.S.C. 3908.

In § 160.1, this rule removes references to the repealed PWSA (33 U.S.C. 1221) and inserts 46 U.S.C. Chapter 700, “Ports and Waterways Safety” to reflect the Authorization Act's redesignation of regulatory authority.

In § 160.107, this rule removes the repealed PWSA sections, 33 U.S.C. 1221-1232, and inserts 46 U.S.C. Chapter 700 as a current source of authority for denial of entry.

In § 160.320, this rule removes reference to the repealed authority in 33 U.S.C. 1223(b), and inserts its redesignated authority for the Secretary to control vessel movement in 46 U.S.C. 70002.

In §§ 161.1 and 161.6, this rule removes references to the repealed PWSA and inserts 46 U.S.C. Chapter 700, “Ports and Waterways Safety” to reflect the redesignation of our regulatory authority.

In the authorities listed in the parentheses below the note to § 162.80, this rule updates the repealed PWSA authority, 33 U.S.C. 1231, to its redesignated section, 46 U.S.C. 70034.

In the parentheses following the regulatory text of §§ 164.25, 164.35, and 164.37, this rule replaces the repealed PWSA authority with its redesignated authority in 46 U.S.C. Chapter 700.

In the note to § 164.46(b), this rule replaces the repealed PWSA citation, 33 U.S.C. 1223(b)(3), with its redesignated section, 46 U.S.C. 70002.

In the parentheses following the regulatory text of § 164.53, this rule replaces the repealed PWSA authority citation, 33 U.S.C. 1221, with it our updated regulatory authority, 46 U.S.C. 70034.

In § 164.82(c), this rule replaces an outdated cross-reference to a reporting requirements section that no longer exists. This section references § 161.124 as the source of the requirement to report any malfunction of vessel operating equipment or other restricted maneuverability to the Coast Guard. A final rule titled, “National Vessel Traffic Services Regulations” (59 FR 36316), issued on July 15, 1994, deleted § 161.124 from the CFR and consolidated all of the reporting requirements into the new section § 161.18(a). When § 164.82(c) was implemented by the final rule, “Navigation Safety Equipment for Towing Vessels” (61 FR 35064), issued on July 3, 1996, the cross-referenced section, § 161.124, had already been deleted. The vessel malfunction and restricted maneuverability reporting requirement was moved into table 161.18(a), Row Q, by the “National Vessel Traffic Services Regulations” final rule. This rule inserts table 161.18(a), Row Q, as the correct cross-reference for the vessel malfunction or deficiency reporting requirement mentioned in § 164.82(c). Additionally, this rule removes the in-text summary of § 161.124 in subparagraphs (c)(1), (2) and (3) because that section no longer exists.

Section 165.5(a) currently states that an “authorized Coast Guard official” may establish a security zone, safety zone, or regulated navigation area. This rule will add in paragraph (a), a cross-reference to 33 CFR 1.05-1, where the rulemaking delegations are listed, as the source for determining the proper Coast Guard official to issue these regulations.

In § 165.9(d), this rule replaces the citations 14 U.S.C. 91 and 633 with their redesignated sections, 14 U.S.C. 527 and 503, respectively.

In § 165.758(d), this rule replaces the authority citation to 33 U.S.C. 1231 with its redesignated section, 46 U.S.C. 70034.

This rule redesignates § 165.784 titled “Safety Zone, Schuylkill River; Philadelphia, PA” as § 165.559, without change, so that it is listed within the correct Coast Guard district. This safety zone is geographically located in District 5, but it was inadvertently given a section number that placed it among District 7 regulations in part 165.

In the parentheses after § 165.810, this rule removes the repealed PWSA authorities, 33 U.S.C. 1223 and 1224, and inserts the redesignated authority, 46 U.S.C. Chapter 700.

This rule changes the section number of a 14th Coast Guard District safety zone titled “Safety Zones; Hawaiian Islands Commercial Harbors, HI” from § 165.14-1414 to § 165.1415 to align with the section numbering scheme within part 165.

In §§ 166.110 and 167.15(a), this rule removes references to the repealed PWSA authorities, 33 U.S.C. 1223(c) and 33 U.S.C. 1223, respectively, and inserts the redesignated authority, 46 U.S.C. 70003.

In §§ 169.135(b) and (c), the Coast Guard is including an email address reporting option for the Right Whale Mandatory Ship Reporting System. Currently, email reports are permitted and comprise the majority of the reports received. This will update the contact information and communication vectors to reflect current technology.

In § 177.03(c), this rule replaces the 14 U.S.C. 89 citation with its redesignated section, 14 U.S.C. 522.

In § 16.500(b)(1) and (b)(2), this rule updates the web address for submitting the form titled “U.S. Department of Transportation Drug and Alcohol Testing MIS Data Collection Form.” The updated web address is https:// www.dco.uscg.mil/Our-Organization/Assistant-Commandant-for-Prevention-Policy-CG-5P/Inspections-Compliance-CG-5PC-/Office-of-Investigations-Casualty-Analysis/DAPI-Program-Main-Page/.

In § 28.50, this rule replaces the 14 U.S.C. 89 citation with its redesignated section, 14 U.S.C. 522.

In § 28.275(a)(2), this rule removes “46 CFR” preceding the cross-reference citation and replaces it with a section symbol in order to align with the formatting of all other cross-references in this section.

In § 30.30-1(c), this rule replaces the repealed PWSA authority, 33 U.S.C. 1228(a)(5), with its redesignated authority in 46 U.S.C. 70021(a)(5).

In § 39.1005(a), this rule updates the Coast Guard's mailing address for the Office of Design and Engineering Standards.

In § 39.1015, this rule corrects a cross-reference to 33 CFR 39.1013(a) to the intended citation of 46 CFR 39.1013(a).

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

Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) 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 (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs) directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.”

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. Because this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See the OMB Memorandum titled “Guidance Implementing Executive Order 13771, titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (April 5, 2017). A regulatory analysis (RA) follows.

This rule involves non-substantive technical amendments and internal agency practices and procedures; it will not impose any additional costs. The unquantified benefits of the non-substantive technical amendments are increased clarity of regulations and alignment with the updated section numbers for statutory authority citations that the Coast Guard already references in new rulemakings. In addition, the correction of technical items such as Coast Guard offices, bridge titles and addresses, as well as current web addresses will improve ability to reference and contact the correct entities.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, we have considered whether this rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 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.

This rule is not preceded by a notice of proposed rulemaking. The Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply when notice and comment rulemaking is not required. Therefore, this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This rule consists of technical, organizational, and conforming amendments and does not have any substantive effect on the regulated industry or small businesses.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, we offer to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. 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.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, requires that the Coast Guard consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens. The Coast Guard has determined that there is no new requirement for information collection associated with this final rule.

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) if it has a substantial direct effect on 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 Executive Order 13132 and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

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. Although this rule will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630 (Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights).

This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform) to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks). This rule is not an economically significant rule and will not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.

This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), because it will 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.

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use). We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, codified as a note to 15 U.S.C. 272, directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.

This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management 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 concluded that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. A final Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES portion of this preamble.

This rule is categorically excluded under paragraphs A3 and L54 of Appendix A, table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01, Rev. 1. 2 Paragraph A3 pertains to the promulgation of rules, issuance of rulings or interpretations, and the development and publication of policies, orders, directives, notices, procedures, manuals, advisory circulars, and other guidance documents of the following nature: (a) Those of a strictly administrative or procedural nature; (b) those that implement, without substantive change, statutory or regulatory requirements; (c) those that implement, without substantive change, procedures, manuals, and other guidance documents; and (d) those that interpret or amend an existing regulation without changing its environmental effect. Paragraph L54 pertains to regulations which are editorial or procedural. This final rule involves non-substantive technical, organizational, and conforming amendments to existing Coast Guard regulations.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR parts 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 13, 17, 23, 25, 26, 27, 40, 45, 50, 51, 52, 55, 62, 64, 66, 67, 70, 72, 74, 76, 80, 82, 83, 100, 101, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 109, 114, 115, 117, 118, 125, 126, 127, 143, 145, 146, 148, 149, 150, 151, 153, 154, 155, 156, 160, 161, 162, 164, 165, 166, 167, 169, and 177, and 46 CFR parts 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 16, 28, 30, 35, 39, and 68 as follows:

A. Administrative Procedure Act: This rulemaking corrects typographical and format errors in a rulemaking setting and adjusting patent fees. The changes in this rulemaking involve rules of agency practice and procedure and/or interpretive rules. See Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass'n, 135 S. Ct. 1199, 1204 (2015) (Interpretive rules “advise the public of the agency's construction of the statutes and rules which it administers.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Nat'l Org. of Veterans' Advocates v. Sec'y of Veterans Affairs, 260 F.3d 1365, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (rule that clarifies interpretation of a statute is interpretive); Bachow Commc'ns Inc. v. FCC, 237 F.3d 683, 690 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (Rules governing an application process are procedural under the Administrative Procedure Act.); Inova Alexandria Hosp. v. Shalala, 244 F.3d 342, 350 (4th Cir. 2001) (Rules for handling appeals were procedural where they did not change the substantive standard for reviewing claims.).

Accordingly, prior notice and opportunity for public comment for the changes in this rulemaking are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b) or (c), or any other law. See Perez, 135 S. Ct. at 1206 (Notice and comment procedures are required neither when an agency “issue[s] an initial interpretive rule” nor “when it amends or repeals that interpretive rule.”); Cooper Techs. Co. v. Dudas, 536 F.3d 1330, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (stating that 5 U.S.C. 553, and thus 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2)(B), do not require notice and comment rulemaking for “interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice” (quoting 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A))).

The 30-day delay in effectiveness is not applicable because this rule is not a substantive rule, as the changes in this rule have no impact on the standard for reviewing patent applications. As discussed above, the changes in this rulemaking involve correcting typographic errors in the final rule published on August 3, 2020. These changes are administrative in nature and will have no substantive impact on the evaluation of a patent application. The purpose of a delay in effectiveness is to allow affected parties time to modify their behaviors, businesses, or practices to come into compliance with new regulations. This rule imposes no additional requirements on the affected entities. Therefore, the requirement for a 30-day delay in effectiveness is not applicable, and the rule is made effective on October 2, 2020.

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

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

D. Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs): This rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant.

In FR Doc. 2020-16559, appearing on page 46932 in the Federal Register of Monday, August 3, 2020, the following corrections are made:

In a July 21, 2020 (85 FR 44027), notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), EPA proposed to approve revisions to the South Carolina SIP, submitted by SC DHEC on August 8, 2014, and August 12, 2015, concerning the frequency with which fossil fuel-fired steam generators are required to submit continuous opacity monitoring reports to the State. In that NPRM, EPA also proposed to approve a revision to the Tennessee SIP, submitted by TDEC on February 17, 2014, concerning the frequency with which major sources subject to the title V operating permit program are required to report excess emissions data to the State. These SIP revisions would change certain existing quarterly emission reporting requirements to semiannual requirements for affected facilities. Due to a conflict with the federal rule at that time, EPA stated that the Agency did not intend to take final action on these SIP revisions unless and until EPA has taken final action to revise Appendix P of 40 CFR part 51 (Appendix P), as proposed in the Agency's February 21, 2020, notice of proposed rulemaking.

In a final action published on August 14, 2020 (85 FR 49596), EPA finalized revisions to Appendix P that changed the minimum frequency for submitting reports of excess emissions from “each calendar quarter” to “twice per year at 6-month intervals” for the four source categories subject to Appendix P (fossil fuel-fired steam generators, nitric acid plants, sulfuric acid plants, and fluid bed catalytic cracking unit catalyst regenerators at petroleum refineries). As a result, states may establish semiannual reporting as the minimum frequency for affected sources to submit reports of excess emissions to the state. This reporting frequency aligns with what EPA has generally established as the reporting frequency applicable to the Appendix P source categories under more recently updated regulations. Due to this change to Appendix P, the South Carolina SIP revision and the Tennessee SIP revision are no longer in conflict with the federal requirement for quarterly excess emissions reporting for the four source categories subject to Appendix P.

EPA received no adverse comments on the July 21, 2020, NPRM, which includes the full rationale behind the proposed approval of the revisions to the South Carolina and Tennessee SIPs. EPA is taking final action to approve these SIP revisions because they are consistent with the provisions of the CAA.

In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is incorporating by reference South Carolina Regulation 61-62.5 Standard No. 1, Section IV, “ Opacity Monitoring Requirements, ” state effective September 23, 2016, 1 which revises the quarterly reporting requirement to a semiannual requirement. Also, in accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is incorporating by reference Tennessee Rule 1200-03-10-.02, “ Monitoring of Source Emissions, Recording, and Reporting of the Same Are Required, ” state effective February 5, 2013, which revises the quarterly reporting requirement to a semiannual requirement. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 4 office (please contact the person identified in the “For Further Information Contact” section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in their respective SIPs, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into those plans, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation. 2

EPA is approving a portion of South Carolina's August 8, 2014, and August 12, 2015, SIP revisions to change Rule 61-62.5 Standard 1, Section IV.B.1 to provide that the owner or operator of any fossil fuel-fired steam generators having a heat input capacity of more than 250 million Btu/hr shall submit a written continuous opacity monitor report to SC DHEC semiannually or more often if requested, thus revising the existing requirement to submit such reports on a quarterly basis. EPA is also approving Tennessee's February 17, 2014, SIP revision including a change to Rule 1200-03-10-.02 to add a new subparagraph (2)(d) which states: “Any source located at a facility required to obtain a major source operating permit in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (11) of Rule 1200-03-09-.02 may submit the reports required by this rule on a semi-annual basis.” This revision to the Tennessee SIP changes the existing SIP requirement for title V sources to submit monitoring reports required by Rule 1200-03-10-.02 to the State from a quarterly basis to a semiannual basis.

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

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

• Are not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition, for Tennessee, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

For South Carolina, because this final action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law, this final action for the State of South Carolina does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Therefore, this action will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law. The Catawba Indian Nation (CIN) Reservation is located within the boundary of York County, South Carolina. Pursuant to the Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act, S.C. Code Ann. 27-16-120 (Settlement Act), “all state and local environmental laws and regulations apply to the [Catawba Indian Nation] and Reservation and are fully enforceable by all relevant state and local agencies and authorities.” The CIN also retains authority to impose regulations applying higher environmental standards to the Reservation than those imposed by state law or local governing bodies, in accordance with the Settlement Act.

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 17, 2020. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as follows:

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

On April 2, 2020 (85 FR 18509), under section 110(k) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or “Act”), the EPA proposed to approve the Imperial PM 10 Plan submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) by letter dated February 6, 2019, as a revision to the California SIP. 1 In addition, under CAA section 107(d)(3)(D), we proposed to approve CARB's request to redesignate the Imperial Valley Planning Area to attainment for the PM 10 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). We did so based on our conclusion that the area has met, or will meet as part of this action, all the criteria for redesignation under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E).

In our proposed rule, we provided background information on the NAAQS for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal ten micrometers (PM 10 );  2 the area designations and related SIP revision requirements under the CAA; the Exceptional Events Rule (EER) codified at 40 CFR 50.1, 40 CFR 50.14 and 40 CFR 51.930; and the PM 10 planning for the Imperial Valley Planning Area. 3 In short, in 1987, we established a NAAQS for PM 10 of 150 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m 3 ), 24-hour average. Under the CAA Amendments of 1990 and based on monitoring data collected in the 1980s, a portion of Imperial County, 4 referred to as the Imperial Valley Planning Area or Imperial Valley nonattainment area, 5 was designated as a nonattainment area for the PM 10 NAAQS. We classified the Imperial Valley Planning Area as a Moderate, and later, as a Serious nonattainment area for the PM 10 NAAQS. 6

In response to the nonattainment designation, CARB and the Imperial County Air Pollution Control District (ICAPCD or “District”) adopted control measures, including the District's Regulation VIII (“Fugitive Dust Rules”), and air quality plans to attain the PM 10 NAAQS in the area. Regulation VIII has been strengthened through various amendments over the years since the area was designated nonattainment and is approved as part of the Imperial County portion of the California SIP. The District then developed the Imperial PM 10 Plan in light of ambient PM 10 data that showed that, with concurrences by the EPA on flagged exceptional events under the EER, the area had attained the standard.

For our proposed rule, we reviewed CARB's request for redesignation for compliance with the criteria for redesignation in CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) and determined that the Imperial Valley Planning Area met the criteria for redesignation from nonattainment to attainment for the PM 10 NAAQS. First, in our proposed rule, based on complete, quality-assured and certified data for the 2014-2018 period, we found that the Imperial Valley Planning Area attained the PM 10 NAAQS in 2016 and has continued to attain since that time. 7 Our proposed determination of attainment reflects concurrences by the EPA on a number of exceedances that had been flagged as exceptional events by CARB and the District.

Second, in our proposed rule, we found that, with approval of certain SIP elements for which we proposed approval, the Imperial Valley Planning Area will have a fully approved applicable SIP under section 110(k) that meets all applicable requirements under section 110 and part D for the purposes of redesignation. 8 In connection with our determination that all applicable requirements under section 110 and part D were satisfied, we proposed to find, based on CARB's ambient PM 2.5 mass and speciation analysis, that PM 10 precursors do not significantly contribute to elevated PM 10 concentrations in the Imperial Valley Planning Area and will not do so over the course of the initial 10-year maintenance plan. We also proposed to approve the best available control measures (BACM) demonstration included in the Imperial PM 10 Plan as meeting the requirements of CAA section 189(b)(1)(B) based on our prior approval of the District's Regulation VIII fugitive dust rules and our conclusion that the Regulation VIII rules cover all significant PM 10 source categories in the Imperial PM 10 nonattainment area. 9

Third, based on our previous approval of the District's Regulation VIII fugitive dust rules as part of the Imperial County portion of the California SIP, we proposed to find that the improvement in air quality in the Imperial Valley Planning Area is due to permanent and enforceable emissions reductions. 10 Fourth, we proposed to approve the Imperial PM 10 Plan as satisfying the requirements for maintenance plans under CAA section 175A. 11 In so doing, we proposed to approve the plan's attainment year (2016) emissions inventory as meeting the emissions inventory requirements under CAA section 172(c)(3), the plan's maintenance demonstration showing attainment through 2030, the District's commitments to verify continued attainment, and the contingency plan.

Lastly, we proposed to approve the motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs or “budgets”) in the Imperial PM 10 Plan for direct PM 10 for 2016 and 2030 for transportation conformity purposes because they meet all applicable criteria for such budgets including the adequacy criteria under 40 CFR 93.118(e). The MVEBs are shown in table 1, below. In our proposed rule, we explained that the applicable source categories included in the budgets include vehicle emissions (including exhaust, brake wear, and tire wear) and entrained dust from vehicle travel over paved and unpaved roads. With respect to unpaved road dust, we explained that the budgets include only those emissions generated by vehicle travel over city- and county-owned unpaved roads, not canal roads, farm roads or those owned by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management or the U.S. Forest Service. In addition, we mistakenly noted that the budgets reflect vehicle miles traveled (VMT) throughout the entire County, including the portion of the County that lies outside of the PM 10 nonattainment area; however, we now understand that the budgets reflect the VMT only within the Imperial Valley Planning Area, not the entire county. 12

Please see our April 2, 2020 proposed rule for a detailed discussion of the background for this action and the rationale for our proposed approval of the Imperial PM 10 Plan and for granting California's request for redesignation of the Imperial Valley Planning Area to attainment.

Our April 2, 2020 proposed rule provided a 30-day public comment period that closed on May 4, 2020. During this period, we received comments from a private citizen and from the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indian Tribe (“Torres Martinez Tribe” or “Tribe”). A summary of the comments and our responses follow.

Comment 1: The private citizen commenter contends that air pollution and particulate matter in the Imperial Valley will continue to increase as the shoreline of the Salton Sea continues to recede due to reduced water inflows. The commenter asserts that increased exposure of the lakebed will allow toxic particulate matter from the lakebed to become airborne, resulting in adverse public health impacts and adverse effects on farmland and crops downwind of the Salton Sea. The commenter urges the EPA to include ambitious restoration requirements for the Salton Sea as part of this action.

Response 1: The commenter correctly notes that the Salton Sea will continue to recede, exposing an increasing amount of the lakebed. The EPA agrees that this creates the potential for increases in airborne particulate matter from the lakebed that can potentially have adverse impacts on human health and the environment, including on crops.

The Imperial PM 10 Plan addresses the potential for increased emissions from the Salton Sea. The Plan includes a description of the efforts underway to evaluate and proactively control this emerging source in Chapter 5, “Salton Sea Considerations,” in Appendix I, “Salton Sea Management Program Phase 1: 10-Year Plan (March 2017),” and in Appendix J, “Salton Sea Air Quality Mitigation Program (July 2016).”  13

As we noted in our proposed rule, these efforts include the State's establishment in 2015 of the Salton Sea Task Force, which has developed a 10-year plan that endeavors to expedite wildlife habitat construction and to suppress dust from playa that will be exposed in the future. The Imperial Irrigation District's Salton Sea Air Quality Mitigation Program, which applies in addition to other programs and requirements, represents another of these efforts. It includes three components: a monitoring program and development of an emissions inventory; a dust control strategy that includes the development and testing of dust control measures; and the implementation of an annual proactive dust control plan that includes performance modeling.

The District also notes that state law and water transfer permits include requirements to control PM 10 emissions from exposed lakebed, and that District Rule 804, which requires the control of fugitive dust from open areas, also applies to the playa. In our notice of proposed rulemaking, we explained that Rule 804 provides that all persons who own or otherwise have jurisdiction over an open area are required to choose from a list of best available control measures to achieve a stabilized surface and to limit visible dust emissions to 20 percent opacity. All EPA-approved District rules, including Rule 804, are enforceable by the EPA and by citizens. 14 Of note, in June 2020, the District issued notices of violations to the Imperial Irrigation District and the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service for alleged violations of dust controls required by District rules. While the specific restoration projects at the Salton Sea are not a part of the Imperial PM 10 Plan, enforcement of District Regulation VIII fugitive dust rules, particularly Rule 804, provide a mechanism to ensure that such projects include and implement reasonable dust controls that will reduce airborne dust emissions, including any toxic constituents in those emissions, and related downwind impacts.

Comment 2: The Torres Martinez Tribe does not support the proposed redesignation and is very concerned about existing elevated levels of PM 10 in the region and the likely increase in PM 10 emissions from the lowering of the Salton Sea. The Tribe finds the effort to redesignate Imperial County attainment for the PM 10 NAAQS to be completely contrary to the Imperial County Board of Supervisors' unanimous vote to declare a Local State of Emergency at the Salton Sea. The Tribe further notes that local media has reported that Imperial County's Public Health Officer has expressed concerns about public health due to dust storms, citing the high and increasing asthma rates.

Response 2: With respect to existing elevated levels of PM 10 , in our proposed rule, we reviewed the ambient PM 10 data for years 2014 through 2018 collected by CARB and the District at the various monitoring sites in the Imperial Valley Planning Area and found that the area has attained the PM 10 NAAQS. The data from 2014 through 2018 included a number of exceedances of the PM 10 NAAQS that were flagged by CARB and the District as exceptional events due to high winds. As noted in the proposed rule, we reviewed the exceptional events documentation provided by CARB and the District for compliance with the EER and concurred that 91 exceedance days qualify for exclusion under the EER. Under the EER, exceedances flagged as exceptional events for which the EPA issues concurrences are excluded from determinations made in connection with area redesignations. 15 Thus, while we acknowledge the occurrence of elevated PM 10 concentrations in the Imperial Valley Planning Area, we have determined that, once exceptional events are excluded, as provided for under the EER, the area attained the PM 10 NAAQS in 2016 and continued to attain the standard in 2017 and 2018. We have also reviewed the ambient PM 10 data for 2019 and the first half of 2020 and find that they are consistent with continued attainment of the PM 10 NAAQS in the Imperial Valley Planning Area.

With respect to the potential for increases in airborne PM 10 that could result from the increased exposure of the lakebed around the Salton Sea, we share the Tribe's concern. As we describe in response to Comment 1, there are mechanisms in place and efforts underway to proactively address this emerging issue. Should these efforts fall short, the District, the EPA, and citizens are able to enforce the District's EPA-approved rules, including Rule 804, which requires that persons who own or otherwise have jurisdiction over an open area, including the exposed lakebed, achieve a stabilized surface and limit opacity to 20 percent.

Lastly, we acknowledge the Imperial County Board of Supervisors' proclamation of a local emergency for air pollution at the Salton Sea but do not view the proclamation as irreconcilable with the redesignation request also adopted by the Imperial County Board of Supervisors (as members of the Imperial County Air Pollution Control Board of Directors). 16 In our proposed rule, we noted that the proclamation was based primarily on ambient PM 10 concentration data collected at two nonregulatory monitors located immediately west of the Salton Sea at Salton City and Naval Test Base that showed exceedances of the PM 10 NAAQS. Nonregulatory monitors are those that have not been determined to meet the applicable requirements in 40 CFR part 50, 53 and 58, which include detailed sampling, siting, and quality assurance requirements. The data from nonregulatory monitors are not considered in determining whether an area attained or failed to attain the NAAQS, but the data are appropriate for other purposes. In this case, under the Salton Sea Air Quality Mitigation Program, the nonregulatory data are used to produce the annual emissions inventories, assemble dust control plans, and evaluate the performances of the dust control plans. 17

The State of California's initial response to Imperial County's proclamation is contained in a letter dated January 6, 2020, from Wade Crowfoot, Secretary for Natural Resources and Jared Blumenfeld, Secretary for Environmental Protection (referred to herein collectively as the “State”), which is included in the docket for this rulemaking. The letter from the State acknowledges the urgent public health problem posed by the Salton Sea and outlines the significant work underway  18 to address the concerns voiced by the County supervisors. The letter also notes that “a study funded by the National Institute of Health is currently underway to determine the health effects of childhood exposure to particulate matter and inform public health action in the Imperial Valley.”  19 Thus, rather than viewing the proclamation of local emergency as contrary to the redesignation request, we find the County's proclamation and the State's response to be further evidence that the emerging playa at the Salton Sea will be appropriately controlled to reduce dust impacts as anticipated in the maintenance demonstration of the Imperial PM 10 Plan. 20

Finally, we note that, in support of the redesignation request, the Imperial PM 10 Plan includes a maintenance plan and related contingency provisions to address future violations of the PM 10 NAAQS that are recorded at any of the regulatory monitoring sites after redesignation of the area to attainment. In accordance with the contingency provisions in the Imperial PM 10 Plan, if the EPA determines that contingency provisions have been triggered by a violation of the PM 10 NAAQS in the Imperial Valley Planning Area, the District would have 18 months from the EPA notification date to evaluate the cause of the exceedance and to take the appropriate action. 21 Such action could include strengthening the fugitive dust rules in District Regulation VIII as necessary to address windblown dust off the playa if such dust is found to be the cause of the violation. The contingency provisions in the Imperial PM 10 Plan thereby provide support for the ongoing effort to address the dust issues associated with emerging playa around the Salton Sea.

Comment 3: The Tribe asserts that the redesignation proposal will potentially allow or make it easier for new sources of PM 10 to begin emitting in the area.

Response 3: The District is responsible for the regulation of stationary sources and its rules govern the issuance of air permits. While no PM 10 controls in the SIP would be relaxed or suspended upon redesignation of the area to attainment, federal permitting requirements for new or modified major stationary sources would shift from the District's federal nonattainment new source review (NNSR) program to its prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) program.

NNSR requires the application of the highest level of control (lowest achievable emissions rate or LAER) to sources that have the potential to emit 70 tons of PM 10 per year and the offsetting of new emissions. 22 PSD requires best available control technology and a demonstration that the source (or major modification) will not cause significant deterioration of air quality or interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS for sources that emit more than 100 tons per year for certain listed source categories, or 250 tons per year for unlisted categories. 23 Upon redesignation to attainment, new PM 10 major sources and major modifications with significant PM 10 emissions at major sources will be required to obtain a PSD permit or address PM 10 emissions in their existing PSD permit. Sources with potential emissions below the major threshold are subject to the District's minor new source review program. Under federal minor NSR SIP requirements, compliance with SIP rules and a determination that the new or modified source will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS is required. 24 Thus, although new or modified stationary sources emitting PM 10 emissions greater than the applicable NNSR thresholds would no longer be subject to the LAER or offset requirements once the area is redesignated, the minor source and PSD programs would ensure that permits would include conditions intended to assure compliance with applicable District rules, such as Regulation VIII, and would only be issued if the applicant demonstrates that the new or modified source would not cause a violation of the NAAQS.

Comment 4: The Tribe believes flawed or inadequate analyses were utilized in the proposed redesignation. First, the Tribe is concerned that CARB and Imperial County APCD certified their monitoring data as complete and accurate, despite some monitors being incorrectly configured or operated in such a way that they couldn't accurately measure concentrations of PM 10 greater than 985 or 995 μg/m 3 , which are known to be present in the region. Consequently, the Tribe contends that the data are biased low. The Tribe notes that the dataset includes numerous hourly PM 10 values of 985 or 995 μg/m 3 , which are the maximum concentrations that samplers were configured to record. According to the Tribe, the actual, accurate measurements are most likely higher than the concentration values submitted to the EPA and certified as accurate.

The Tribe asserts that this inaccuracy (bias low) in the highest and most important measurements of the dataset affects the analysis in two ways. First, for days where the NAAQS was exceeded and monitors recorded values of 985 or 995 μg/m 3 , accurate information about the spatial distribution of PM 10 measurements across the region was not available for the exceptional events analysis, and this lack of accurate data to access the spatial distribution of PM 10 across the region limits the exceptional events analysis and conclusions. Second, days that did not appear to have exceeded the NAAQS but had high winds and one or more hourly values of 985 or 995 μg/m 3 , likely would have exceeded if the actual concentrations had been accurately recorded. The Tribe believes that days such as these should have been included in the exceptional events analysis.

The Tribe asserts that CARB and the District knowingly operated these monitors and reported low biased concentrations for the over-range hours, although the sampler manufacturer provided a variety of options for obtaining the correctly calculated hourly values. These options included changing the sampler range to allow measurements in the range known to occur in the region as well as manually retrieving the over-range values from a file contained in the sampler's memory. The Tribe notes that, during this period, the Torres Martinez PM 10 monitoring program (using the same type of monitor) was able to operate their PM 10 sampler, following manufacture's guidance, to accurately measure values greater than 995 μg/m 3 .

Response 4: Attainment of the PM 10 NAAQS is determined by measuring PM 10 in ambient air using either a Federal Reference Method (FRM) or a Federal Equivalent Method (FEM) in accordance with 40 CFR part 53. During the data years associated with this action (2014-2018), both CARB and ICAPCD operated Met One Beta Attenuation Monitor (BAM) 1020 p.m. 10 monitors, which are designated as FEM monitors (EQPM-0798-122), at monitoring sites in the Imperial PM 10 nonattainment area. Data from these monitors form part of the data record used in this action. The method is further described in the EPA List of Designated Reference and Equivalent Methods.

Historically, the maximum concentration that this monitor could measure was a function of two instrument settings: The offset, which sets the minimum concentration measured by the instrument, and the range, which sets the full-scale range of the concentration measurement system. The standard range setting for the BAM 1020 is 1,000 µg/m 3 with a default offset of -15 µg/m 3 . For this reason, the maximum full-scale concentration that can be measured using the standard range and default offset is 985 µg/m 3 . There are also several optional range settings, up to 10,000 µg/m 3 . The FEM designation does not list specifications for the selection of the range and offset values to be used by the instrument but states that the “[i]nstrument must be operated in accordance with the appropriate instrument manual.”  25

The BAM 1020 instrument manual has been revised many times since its initial FEM designation, including several revisions during the 2014 to 2018 time period. An early revision of the BAM 1020 instrument manual relevant to the earliest data used in this action (revision K, released in October 2012) and a more recent revision (revision U, released in November 2017) both include information concerning the standard and optional ranges. 26 The 1,000 µg/m 3 setting is consistently described as the standard range setting. Both versions of the manual state that the range may be set higher; however, increasing the range setting reduces the digital resolution at lower concentrations. The manuals caution against setting the range higher than the standard range unless necessary, due to this loss of resolution.

After evaluation and consideration of these factors, including the potential loss of resolution at lower concentrations, CARB and ICAPCD chose to transition from the standard range to one of the other optional ranges. The CARB-operated Calexico (AQS ID: 06-025-0005) monitors' upper range was increased to 5,000 µg/m 3 on December 5, 2017. The ICAPCD-operated Brawley (AQS ID: 06-025-0007), El Centro (AQS ID: 06-025-1003), Niland (AQS ID: 06-025-4004), and Westmorland (AQS ID: 06-025-4003) monitors' upper ranges were increased to measure concentrations to 10,000 ug/m 3 on August 30, 2018, March 16, 2018, January 28, 2019, and December 27, 2018, respectively. While hourly data collected prior to these dates is subject to the limitations of the standard range setting, during that period the instrument was operated consistent with the method designation, the instrument manual, and relevant EPA regulations (40 CFR parts 50, 53, and 58); and the EPA therefore considers this data valid and appropriate for use in comparison to the NAAQS.

The EPA disagrees with the Tribe's assertion that on days where the NAAQS was exceeded and at least one monitor reported an hourly concentration at the maximum value allowed by the range setting, the inaccuracy of this value limits the exceptional events conclusions and analysis. The EPA reviews the information and analyses in an air agency's exceptional events demonstration package using a weight of evidence approach. The EPA considers a variety of evidence when evaluating whether the exceptional event criteria were met, and weighs the available evidence based on its relevance, degree of certainty, persuasiveness, and other considerations appropriate to the individual pollutant, as well as the nature and type of event. As further described in the response to the following comment, the EPA considered many types of analyses in its consideration of the exceptional event demonstrations concurred on in this action, several of which are independent of the hourly data reported by the instrument. Concerns that the highest hourly concentrations reported by the instrument may have been artificially low for some events do not undermine the weight of evidence showing that there was a clear causal relationship between the monitored exceedances and the associated high wind dust events.

The EPA also disagrees with the Tribe's assertion that days that did not exceed the NAAQS but at least one monitor reported an hourly concentration at the maximum value allowed by the range setting should have been reviewed as exceptional events. As described above, the EPA considers the reported data valid and appropriate for use in comparison to the NAAQS. The days referenced by the Tribe are therefore not eligible for treatment as exceptional events because they do not contribute to an exceedance or violation of any NAAQS.

Finally, data collected after all instruments were re-ranged continue to be consistent with attainment of the NAAQS in the Imperial Valley Planning Area. Based on certified 2019 data available in the Air Quality System (AQS), only two exceedance days were recorded in 2019: May 16, 2019 at Brawley and May 21, 2019 at Brawley, Niland and Westmorland. Preliminary 2020 data available in AQS and AirNow Tech indicate that no PM 10 exceedances were measured in the Imperial Valley Planning Area through June 30, 2020. While the lower number of exceedances may be the result of multiple factors, including changes in weather, more recent data continue to be consistent with the EPA's finalization of this action.

Comment 5: The Tribe is concerned that some exceptional events analyses did not consider that the non-homogenous pattern of spatial impacts across the region could indicate that the exceedances were not due to transport from areas with sustained winds speeds of greater than 25 miles per hour (mph), but instead were due to poorly controlled local emissions in areas that were not experiencing sustained wind speeds of greater than 25 mph and therefore would not qualify for exclusion. The Tribe notes that some of the exceptional events days excluded from the data set showed dramatic variations in measured PM 10 between nearby sites. The exceptional events analysis made the case that the exceedance was due to transport of emissions from an outside area that experienced sustained winds greater than 25 mph. According to the Tribe, one would expect transported emissions to affect nearby monitoring sites in a somewhat homogenous fashion, which did not occur in some cases, suggesting that these exceedances were primarily caused by poorly controlled local emissions where there were not sustained winds greater than 25 mph.

Response 5: Exceptional events demonstrations for high wind dust events must show that there exists a clear causal relationship between the specific high wind dust event and the monitored exceedance at each monitor, i.e., the demonstrations must address this criteria for each individual monitor that measured an exceedance caused by the particular event. Contrary to the commenter's statement, spatial homogeneity of high PM 10 concentrations is not always expected with a high wind dust event and a homogenous increase in PM 10 concentrations is not a necessary factor to demonstrate a clear causal relationship between a high wind dust event and observed exceedances. The EPA evaluated other analyses and evidence provided in the demonstrations and related addenda and concluded that the weight of the evidence established a clear causal relationship between each specific high wind dust event and each individual concurred exceedance. These analyses in the demonstrations typically included information such as: Historical PM 10 monitoring data; time-series graphs and tables of PM 10 concentrations, wind speeds, wind gusts, and wind directions; hourly PM 10 concentrations; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Hybrid Single Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory Model (HYSPLIT) back trajectories showing potential source regions; upwind wind speed and directions; and National Weather Service (NWS) reports and advisories.

The Tribe specifically expressed concern that spatial non-homogenous exceedances were a result of local sources of emissions with wind speeds less than 25 mph rather than transport from areas with sustained winds greater than 25 mph. For these exceedances, the EPA believes that the clear casual analyses demonstrated that the exceedances were caused by high wind dust exceptional events. In instances where the high winds that generated dust emissions were measured outside of the Imperial Valley Planning Area, NOAA HYSPLIT trajectories included in the demonstrations were consistent with transport from those outside areas. This, along with other supporting documentation and analyses in the demonstration, indicates that a clear causal relationship existed between the specific high wind dust event and the monitored exceedances.

Further, the EPA believes that the demonstrations addressed the potential influence of poorly controlled local sources in showing that the events were not reasonably controllable. High wind dust demonstrations must address this criterion by showing that reasonable measures to control the influence of event-related emissions on air quality were implemented at the time of the event. This includes an assessment of relevant natural and anthropogenic sources that may be causing or contributing to the monitored exceedances, including the contribution from local sources; identification of the relevant SIP or other enforceable control measures in place for these sources and the implementation status of these controls; and evidence of effective implementation and enforcement of the identified enforceable control measures. 27 In addressing the not reasonably controllable or preventable criterion, deference is given to measures in a SIP approved 5 years or less prior to the event and addresses the event-related pollutant and all relevant sources. 28

For concurred events between 2014 and 2017, the EPA had approved the PM 10 SIP for the Imperial County PM 10 nonattainment area within the previous 5 years; it is therefore presumed that there were reasonable controls for local sources in place at the time of the event. For concurred 2018 events where the applicable SIP's approval date was more than 5 years from the event, the demonstrations provided additional information indicating that there were reasonable controls for local sources in place at the time of the event, and the EPA further assessed controls in the addendum to the relevant Technical Support Documents (TSDs). Finally, the demonstrations also provided evidence of effective implementation and enforcement of the relevant controls. As further outlined in the EPA TSDs, the EPA therefore concluded that the not reasonably controllable or preventable criterion was met for all concurred events.

Under CAA section 110(k)(3), for the reasons set forth in this final rule and in our proposed rule, the EPA is approving the Imperial PM 10 Plan submitted by CARB by letter dated February 6, 2019, as a revision to the California SIP. In so doing, the EPA is approving the BACM demonstration and attainment inventory included as part of the Imperial PM 10 Plan as meeting the requirements of CAA sections 189(b)(1)(B) and 172(c)(3), respectively. We are approving the maintenance demonstration and contingency provisions as meeting all applicable requirements for maintenance plans and related contingency provisions in CAA section 175A. The EPA is also approving the motor vehicle emissions budgets for 2016 and 2030 (shown in Table 1, above) because we find they meet all applicable criteria for such budgets including the adequacy criteria under 40 CFR 93.118(e) and is determining that the submitted 2016 and 2030 budgets included in the Imperial PM 10 Plan (20 tpd and 19 tpd, respectively) are adequate for transportation conformity purposes. 29

In addition, under CAA section 107(d)(3)(D), we are approving CARB's request to redesignate the Imperial PM 10 Planning Area from nonattainment to attainment for the PM 10 NAAQS. We are doing so based on our conclusion that the area has met, or will meet as part of this action, all the criteria for redesignation under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E). More specifically, we find the following: That the Imperial PM 10 nonattainment area has attained the PM 10 standard based on quality-assured, certified, and complete PM 10 data;  30 that relevant portions of the California SIP are, or will be as part of this action, fully approved; that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions; that California has met all requirements applicable to the Imperial PM 10 nonattainment area with respect to section 110 and part D of the CAA given our approvals of the BACM demonstration and the attainment inventory in the Imperial PM 10 Plan, as finalized herein; and that the Imperial PM 10 nonattainment area will have a fully approved maintenance plan meeting the requirements of CAA section 175A, as finalized herein. In connection with the above approvals and determinations, and as authorized under CAA section 189(e), we are determining that PM 10 precursors do not contribute significantly to PM 10 exceedances in the Imperial PM 10 nonattainment area.

Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the status of a geographic area and do not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those imposed by state law. Redesignation to attainment does not in and of itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves a State plan and redesignation request as meeting federal requirements and do not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For these reasons, this action:

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

• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition, the State plan the EPA is approving does not 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. In those areas of Indian country, the rule, as it relates to the maintenance plan, does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). However, the redesignation does apply to Indian country within the nonattainment area. In those areas of Indian country, the redesignation action will not result in the relaxation of measures and programs currently in place to protect air quality and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). The EPA invited the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians and the Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation, who have lands within the Imperial PM 10 nonattainment area, to consult on this action. The Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians accepted our invitation, and consultation was conducted on December 8, 2019 and on January 6, 2020.

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 17, 2020. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

The NFIP enables property owners to purchase Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale of NFIP flood insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. We recognize that some of these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities will not be suspended and will continue to be eligible for the sale of NFIP flood insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of such communities will be published in the Federal Register .

In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities. The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and public comment procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.

Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days.

National Environmental Policy Act. FEMA has determined that the community suspension(s) included in this rule is a non-discretionary action and therefore the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) does not apply.

Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Administrator has determined that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, Section 1315, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no longer comply with the statutory requirements, and after the effective date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the communities unless remedial action takes place.

Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule does not involve any collection of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:

This is a summary of the Commission's Order, FCC 20-58, adopted and released on April 29, 2020. The full text of this document is available for public inspection online at https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-media-bureau-reorganization. Alternative formats are available for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format) by sending an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or calling the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

In this Order, we conclude that it will serve the public interest and improve the Commission's operations to streamline the organization of the Media Bureau. Specifically, we eliminate the Engineering Division and fold the work and staff of the Engineering Division into the Media Bureau's Industry Analysis Division (IAD). We take this action to account for changes in the Engineering Division's duties and in the organizational structure of the Commission. By incorporating the work and staff of the Engineering Division into IAD, we can better ensure that the Bureau's technical expertise is integrated more fully into the Bureau's adjudicatory matters and policy proceedings. We therefore conclude that this organizational change is warranted and amend the Commission's rules accordingly to reflect this new structure.

Background. The current composition of the Engineering Division and the IAD stem back to the creation of the Media Bureau in 2002. The Engineering Division was established to conduct technical reviews of media related matters, including essential work overseeing technical compliance of multichannel video programming distributors, as well as television and radio broadcast licensees, with Commission rules. The IAD was established to conduct and participate in proceedings regarding media ownership and the economic aspects of existing and proposed rules and policies, to review license transfers that implicate significant policy issues, and to develop reports on relevant industry and market data and information.

More specifically, the Engineering Division processed cable industry regulatory filings (such as registrations and their updates, and signal leakage and proof of performance results), Cable Television Relay Service (CARS) applications, and requests for rulings on technical matters. As the industry has transitioned from analog to digital and from paper to electronic filing processes, and as the Commission has engaged in dozens of proceedings to modernize its rules, the Engineering Division's tasks have diminished. For example, many of the tasks that the Engineering Division used to perform, such as monitoring and enforcing proof-of-performance testing requirements and collecting FCC Form 325 (Annual Report of Cable Television Systems), are no longer necessary given updates to our rules. The Division's work is now primarily focused on consulting with other Bureaus and Offices and the Media Bureau's other divisions in all aspects of media-related technical rulemakings and enforcement and providing analysis of the Commission's cable industry data, as well as maintaining the Cable Operations and Licensing System (COALS) database, which includes the CARS licensing process.

Among other things, the IAD collects, compiles, analyzes and develops reports on relevant industry and market data and information, including conducting rulemakings and preparing reports to Congress on the status of competition in the media industry. With the recent creation of the Office of Economics and Analytics (OEA), the IAD's economists and a portion of its responsibilities were relocated to the new OEA.

Discussion. We find that there are notable benefits to bringing the Engineering Division team within the larger IAD. Simplifying the organizational structure of the Bureau will streamline its operations, improve the supervisor-to-employee ratio thereby reducing redundancies in management, and encourage more extensive staff interaction and collaboration. The IAD staff has extensive experience analyzing the media industry and incorporating such analysis into the Bureau's rulemaking and regulation. Therefore, they are well positioned to effectively utilize the technical resources of the Engineering Division. Further, IAD manages the Bureau's collection of data pertaining to media ownership issues. Combining this extensive experience and responsibility for information technology with the Engineering Division's COALS database expertise would be beneficial to the Bureau's management and would coalesce much-needed technical resources. In addition, the mission of both divisions involves providing technical support and subject matter expertise to the Media Bureau's other divisions, as well as consultation and coordination with other Bureaus and Offices related to various policy proceedings, adjudications, and enforcement matters.

For these reasons, we believe that combining the Engineering Division and the IAD will promote more effective use of Commission resources. Accordingly, we find that Engineering Division personnel and responsibilities should be moved into the IAD, and the Engineering Division should be eliminated as a separate Media Bureau division. The key objectives of this organizational change are to more efficiently deploy Commission resources, enhance the Bureau's understanding and analysis of the media industry, and rationalize and modernize our organizational structure. We believe that we can best accomplish these objectives through organizational change. In order to effectuate this change, we modify our rules to account for the reorganization.

The amendments adopted herein pertain to agency organization, procedure, and practice. Consequently, the notice and comment and effective date provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act contained in 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and (d) do not apply.

This document does not contain information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

The Commission will not send a copy of this Order pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because the adopted rules exclusively relate to agency management or personnel.

It is ordered that, pursuant to sections 1, 4, 5(b), 5(c), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 155(b), 155(c), and 303(r) this Order is adopted .

It is further ordered that part 73 of the Commission Rules is amended.

It is further ordered that consistent with the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, this Order will become effective when the appropriate clearance has been obtained and upon the date set forth in the Federal Register publication of this Order.

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

On December 20, 2019, NMFS published a final rule in the Federal Register (84 FR 70040) under the Tuna Conventions Act of 1950, as amended, and the Marine Mammal Protection Act, as amended, to implement IMO requirements in IATTC Resolution C-18-06 ( Resolution (Amended) on a Regional Vessel Register ) and amendments to existing regulations governing inclusion on the Vessel Register by purse seine vessels fishing in the EPO. That final rule became effective January 21, 2020, except for amendatory instructions that included new or revised information collections, which were delayed until publication of a document in the Federal Register announcing the effective date. OMB has approved these collection-of-information requirements under control number 0648-0387. Accordingly, this final rule announces effectiveness of the collection-of-information requirements at 50 CFR 216.24 and 50 CFR 300.22 that were published in the December 20, 2019 final rule. On June 10, 2020, a final rule was published in the Federal Register announcing the effectiveness of these collection-of-information requirements and a correcting amendment (85 FR 35379). However, that final rule did not result in the effectiveness of these collection-of-information requirements due to an error in the DATES section, which is corrected in this final rule.

This final rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866. This rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

This final rule announces the date of effectiveness of new and revised collection-of-information requirements approved by OMB under PRA control number 0648-0387 that were published in the Federal Register (84 FR 70040) on December 20, 2019. Comments regarding the burden estimates, or any other aspects of the collection of information may be sent to the NMFS West Coast Region Long Beach Office (see ADDRESSES above) and to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information collection by using the search function and entering the title of the collection or the OMB Control Number (0648-0387). Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. All currently approved NOAA collections of information may be viewed at: http://www.cio.noaa.gov/services_programs/prasubs.html.

The NOAA Assistant Administrator for Fisheries (AA) finds there is good cause to waive prior notice and opportunity for public comment for this action pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), because prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this final rule is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. In part, this action simply provides notice of OMB's approval of the reporting requirements at issue, which has already occurred, and renders those requirements effective. Thus, this part of this action does not involve any further exercise of agency discretion by NMFS or OMB. Moreover, the public has had prior notice and the opportunity to comment on the collection-of-information requirements. NMFS published a proposed rule including the collection-of-information requirements on April 16, 2019 (84 FR 15556), with comments accepted through May 16, 2019. NMFS received two comments on the collection-of-information requirements related to a proposed supplementation of a vessel departure notification and an ability to apply for associated permit applications online. The final rule published on December 20, 2019 (84 FR 70040), addressed these comments, keeping the proposed supplemental vessel departure notice in place for the reasons described there, while revising the purse seine vessel permit application collection-of-information requirements to allow for an online process. Both such processes were considered and approved under PRA control number 0648-0387. Additional opportunity for public comment at this point would not be meaningful and would be duplicative. Any further delay to allow for public comment is therefore unnecessary and would result in public confusion.

For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

These measures are thus exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because prior notice and comment are not required under the APA.

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

The 2020 Pacific cod total allowable catch (TAC) allocated to catcher vessels greater than or equal to 60 feet (18.3m) LOA using pot gear in the BSAI is 11,616 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2020 and 2021 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (85 FR 13553, March 9, 2020).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the 2020 Pacific cod TAC allocated as a directed fishing allowance to catcher vessels greater than or equal to 60 feet (18.3m) LOA using pot gear in the BSAI will soon be reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher vessels greater than or equal to 60 feet (18.3m) LOA using pot gear in the BSAI.

While this closure is effective the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.

NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR part 679, which was issued pursuant to section 304(b), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest, as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of Pacific cod by catcher vessels greater than or equal to 60 feet (18.3m) LOA using pot gear in the BSAI. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of September 14, 2020.