The FCIC serves America's agricultural producers through effective, market-based risk management tools to strengthen the economic stability of agricultural producers and rural communities. FCIC is committed to increasing the availability and effectiveness of Federal crop insurance as a risk management tool. Approved Insurance Providers (AIPs) sell and service Federal crop insurance policies in every state through a public-private partnership. FCIC reinsures the AIPs who share the risks associated with catastrophic losses due to major weather events. FCIC's vision is to secure the future of agriculture by providing world class risk management tools to rural America.

Federal crop insurance policies typically consist of the Basic Provisions, the Crop Provisions, the Special Provisions, the Commodity Exchange Price Provisions, if applicable, other applicable endorsements or options, the actuarial documents for the insured agricultural commodity, the Catastrophic Risk Protection Endorsement, if applicable, and the applicable regulations published in 7 CFR chapter IV.

FCIC amends the Subpart R (7 CFR part 400), ARPI Basic Provisions (7 CFR part 407), CCIP Basic Provisions (7 CFR 457.8), Sunflower Seed Crop Provisions (7 CFR 457.108), Coarse Grains Crop Provisions (7 CFR 457.113); and Dry Bean Crop Provisions (7 CFR 457.150). The changes to the policy made in this rule are applicable for the 2022 and succeeding crop years for crops with a contract change date on or after November 30, 2021. For all other crops, the changes to the policy made in this rule are applicable for the 2023 and succeeding crop years.

The first final rule with request for comment was published in the Federal Register on June 29, 2020, (85 FR 38749-38760) amending the ARPI Regulations; CCIP Basic Provisions; and the Common Crop Insurance Regulations, Coarse Grains Crop Insurance Provisions (Coarse Grains Crop Provisions). Comments were received from five commenters. Three comments were from individuals, whose comments were unrelated to the rule. One comment was from an insurance company. The last comment was from a trade association. FCIC addressed editorial comments in the final rule with request for comment published in the Federal Register on November 30, 2020, (85 FR 76420-76428). FCIC addressed the non-editorial public comments related to the ARPI Basic Provisions and CCIP Basic Provisions in a final rule with request for comment published in the Federal Register on June 30, 2021, (86 FR 34606-34611). The comments received regarding the June 29, 2020, final rule with request for comment regarding the Coarse Grains Crop Provisions and FCIC's responses are as follows:

Comment: A commenter recommended replacing the term “defined” with “specified” in the definition of “Following another crop (FAC)” and “Not following another crop (NFAC)” Unless the Special Provisions actually contain “definitions” of the FAC and NFAC cropping practices (the same or different from these in the Crop Provisions?), it would be more accurate to change “defined” to “specified.” This phrasing is commonly used in policies and procedures.

Response: FCIC agrees and is replacing the term “defined” with “specified” in the definition of “Following another crop (FAC)” and “Not following another crop (NFAC).”

Comment: A commenter recommended adding the phrase, “in the same crop year” at the end of the definition of “Following another crop (FAC)” and “Not following another crop (NFAC)” as a clarification. While the reference to “. . . in the same crop year” might not be strictly necessary, it might a helpful clarification. For example, if a 2021 crop year spring crop is planted in spring of 2021, followed by a 2022 crop year fall crop planted on the same acreage in fall 2021, that fall crop is not considered “FAC” because those are two different crop years even though in the same calendar year.

Response: The FAC and NFAC Special Provisions (SP) statements refer to calendar year and adding the reference to crop year in the Crop Provisions is conflicting and may cause even more confusion. No change will be made.

Comment: A commenter stated that FCIC has expanded the term silage to include various usages such as earlage. It would provide clarity to either include reference to earlage, etc., usages in the definition of “Silage” or revise the definition of “Harvest” to state: “Combining, threshing, or picking the insured crop for grain, or cutting for hay, silage (including earlage, etc.), or fodder.”

Response: FCIC is revising the definition of “harvest” to include earlage and snaplage to treat earlage and snaplage consistent with grain, hay, or fodder.

Comment: A commenter suggested adding the bolded language in section 11(c), Duties in the Event of Damage or Loss: “(c) If you will harvest any acreage in a manner other than as you reported it for coverage ( e.g., you reported planting it to harvest as grain but will harvest the acreage for silage, hay or fodder; or you reported planting it to harvest as silage but will harvest the acreage for grain), you must notify us before harvest begins so the acreage can be appraised as the type insured. Failure to timely provide notice will result in production to count determined in accordance with section 12(c)(1)(i)(E).”

Response: FCIC agrees and will clarify in section 11(c) that notice is required before harvest begins if a producer decides to harvest in a manner other than reported on their acreage report (such as harvesting grain as silage or vice versa) so the adjuster can appraise the acreage to determine production to count used for claim purposes.

Comment: A commenter noted in section 2, Unit Division, if the producer elects separate “EC,” enterprise units by cropping practice for both FAC and NFAC cropping practices but then does not qualify for EC on one of the cropping practices (and that is discovered on or before the acreage reporting date), the new option allows the insured to keep EC on the one that qualifies and have Basic Unit and/or Optional Unit on the other. With three options for unit structure in this situation, it is not necessary to have “or” at the end of 2(a)(4)(i)(A).

Response: FCIC agrees and is removing the “or” from the end of the phrase in section 2(a)(4)(i)(A).

Comment: A commenter noted in section 6(e), Insured Crop, that this provision states, in part, that “. . . the soybean crop insured will be all of the soybeans in the county that are planted for harvest as beans.” [emphasis added]. Since the term “beans” is not included in the definition of “harvest” nor elsewhere in the provisions, the commenter suggested either changing “beans” to “soybeans,” or by adding a definition of “beans” in section 1 to provide useful clarity.

Response: FCIC agrees and is replacing the term “beans” with “soybeans” for clarity.

In addition to the changes described above, FCIC has made the following changes:

In the General Administrative Regulations Subpart R—Administrative Remedies for Non-Compliance, FCIC is revising the cap on civil fines to reference the maximum amount specified in 7 CFR 3.91(b)(7). Prior to this rule, the provisions list a fixed dollar amount of $10,000; however, this fine should be updated in accordance with 7 CFR 3.91(b)(7) which is routinely adjusted for inflation.

For both ARPI Basic Provisions (7 CFR part 407) and CCIP Basic Provisions (7 CFR 457.8), in section 1, FCIC is:

Revising the definitions of “buffer zone,” “certified organic acreage,” “organic farming practice,” and “transitional acreage” to be consistent with the National Organic Program definitions. This will ensure terms are clear, descriptive, and consistent across USDA.

Revising the definition of “cover crop” to add a reference to the Special Provisions. A Special Provisions statement prohibits corn from being considered a cover crop if it was planted on acreage that has been prevented from being planted. Potential abuse was reported for the 2019 crop year regarding corn being planted on the same acreage after a prevented planting payment has been made and claimed as a cover crop when the corn was not planted for conservation purposes but rather the benefit of corn cut for silage.

Adding a definition of “NAP” for Non-Insured Crop Disaster Assistance Program. The term is used more than once throughout the policy.

Revising the definition of “Second crop” to remove the reference to a cover crop covered by FSA's Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP) because cover crops are not insurable under NAP.

Adding a definition of “volunteer crop” to define the term used in the policy and Crop Provisions. Throughout the policy the terms cover crop and volunteer crop are often in the same phrase. Cover crop is defined in the policy and it is appropriate to also define volunteer crop.

A change applicable only to the ARPI Basic Provisions (7 CFR part 407) is the removal of the Preamble language which references the crop year insurance is in effect. The crop year in effect for the crops covered under the ARPI Basic Provisions varies depending on the contract change date. The changes to the policy made in this rule are applicable for the 2022 and succeeding crop years for crops with a contract change date on or after November 30, 2021. For all other crops, the changes to the policy made in this rule are applicable for the 2023 and succeeding crop years. Therefore, FCIC is removing the sentence in the Preamble.

Other changes applicable only to the CCIP Basic Provisions (7 CFR 457.8) are:

Section 14, Duties in the Event of Damage, Loss, Abandonment, Destruction, or Alternative Use of Crop or Acreage, of the CCIP Basic Provisions, revise section 14(e)(1)(ii) to allow the option to delay measurement of farm-stored production (180-day extension) if allowed by the Special Provisions. Previously, the option was only allowed for grain crops. A Special Provisions statement will be created, and the extension will apply on a crop basis for crops that can easily and safely be stored and do not naturally deteriorate easily during farm storage, and therefore, are low risk for delaying measurements for loss adjustment.

Section 15, Production Included in Determining an Indemnity and Payment Reductions, discontinue reducing prevented planting payments on acreage that has been prevented from planting that is later cash rented. Prior to this rule, policy and procedure stated that if a producer receives cash rent for acreage that had been prevented from planting a first insured crop, the producer was limited to 35 percent of the prevented planting payment on the acreage regardless of the subsequent person's use of the rented acreage. With the removal of the November 1 date, as mentioned in the section 17 changes below, a producer with acreage claimed as prevented planting could plant a cover crop and hay, graze, or cut the cover crop for silage, haylage, or baleage without a reduction in their prevented planting payment. FCIC considers the benefits of using a cover crop as animal feed similar to the benefit of cash renting the acreage. Therefore, FCIC will no longer reduce prevented planting payments when acreage that has been prevented from planting is cash rented as long as it is not harvested for grain or seed.

Section 17, Prevented Planting, of the CCIP Basic Provisions, revise the policy provisions in response to a Prevented Planting Workgroup that included RMA and industry representatives. Prevented planting is a feature of many crop insurance plans that provides a partial payment to cover certain pre-plant costs for a crop that was prevented from being planted due to an insurable cause of loss. The workgroup reviewed the current policy related to cover crops, volunteer crops, discussed impacts to the prevented planting program, and explored policy improvements. The workgroup also reviewed the requirement that acreage must be physically available for planting to be eligible for a prevented planting payment (added November 30, 2020). The “1 in 4” requirement is a part of the requirement that the acreage must be physically available for planting. The “1 in 4” requirement states that the acreage must have been planted to a crop, insured, and harvested (or adjusted for a loss excluding flood, excess moisture, or drought or other cause of loss specified in the Special Provisions) in at least 1 out of the previous 4 crop years. The following lists the changes to section 17(f):

Incorporate RMA Manager's Bulletin MGR-21-004 by revising section 17(f)(5) to allow a cover crop planted on acreage claimed as prevented from being planted to be hayed, grazed, or cut for silage, haylage, or baleage at any time without a reduction to the prevented planting payment, provided the producer meets all other policy provisions. Prior to this rule, throughout FCIC-approved procedures for cover crops and prevented planting, November 1 is used as a reference point for when a cover crop may be hayed, grazed, or cut for silage, haylage, or baleage. For example, a cover crop planted after the late planting period for a crop that was prevented from being planted may be hayed, grazed, or cut for silage, haylage, or baleage on or after November 1, and the producer could still receive a full prevented planting payment. If the cover crop was hayed, grazed, or cut for silage, haylage, or baleage before November 1, or harvested for grain or seed at any time, the cover crop was considered a second crop and the producer's prevented planting payment was reduced by 65 percent.

As defined in the CCIP Basic Provisions, a cover crop is a crop generally recognized by agricultural experts as agronomically sound for the area for erosion control or other purposes related to conservation or soil improvement. FCIC rescinded the November 1 standard, as it relates to haying, grazing, or cutting for silage, haylage, or baleage of a cover crop from procedure for the 2021 and succeeding crop years. However, a cover crop harvested for grain or seed at any time will continue to result in a prevented planting payment reduction in accordance with section 15(f)(2) of the CCIP Basic Provisions. Similar revisions were made for language consistency regarding double cropping eligibility determination in section 15(g), Production Included in Determining an Indemnity and Payment Reductions, of the CCIP Basic Provisions.

Add language in section 17(f)(8) to incorporate RMA Manager's Bulletin MGR-21-002 which allows the annual regrowth for the crop year of an insured perennial Category B crop, such as alfalfa, red clover, or mint, to be considered planted when determining if the land is available for planting. In addition, the annual regrowth for the crop year of a perennial planted forage insured under Pasture, Rangeland, and Forage (PRF) reported with the intended use of haying is considered planted for the purpose of determining if the land is available for planting. Provided the land was planted (including the clarifications stated above), insured, and harvested (or adjusted for a loss excluding flood, excess moisture, or drought or other cause of loss specified in the Special Provisions) within the same crop year in 1 of the last 4 crop years, the land would meet the current prevented planting available for planting “1 in 4” requirement.

Add language in section 17(f)(8) to include another test to determine if the land was available for planting if it was not previously insured. If the land does not meet the current “1 in 4” requirement because crop insurance for a single crop or NAP coverage was not available, the land may qualify for prevented planting if the producer can prove the land was planted and harvested using good farming practices for the crop in at least 2 consecutive years out of the 4 previous crop years.

Add language in section 17(f)(8) that will allow changes to the eligible for planting language through the Special Provisions, for the “1 in 4” requirement.

Add language in section 17(f)(8) to allow for NAP coverage to qualify as “insured” for the “1 in 4” requirement.

Add a new section 2, Unit Division, to allow enterprise and optional units by type for sunflower seed. Allowing separate enterprise and optional units enables producers to be indemnified separately by type. The benefit for producers is that a gain on one type ( e.g., confectionery type) does not offset the loss payment on another type ( e.g., oil type). Enterprise units are attractive to producers because additional premium discounts are available as the risk is diversified across the county. Since FCIC is adding a new section 2, all subsequent sections and references to subsequent sections will be renumbered accordingly.

FCIC is also updating the example in redesignated section 12 to reflect current market prices for a more accurate portrayal of the prices that producers are experiencing.

The Coarse Grains Crop Provisions were revised on June 29, 2020, with a final rule with request for comment. FCIC is making the following revisions in response to comments received:

Section 1, Definitions, of the Coarse Grains Crop Provisions, revise the definition of “harvest” to include earlage and snaplage as a harvested crop. FCIC received questions in the past to identify earlage and snaplage in the policy. Questions were raised in response to the 2020 Derecho on whether FCIC considers earlage as harvested. FCIC will revise the definition of “harvest” to include earlage and snaplage to treat earlage and snaplage consistent with grain, hay, or fodder. This change is in response to a comment made to the June 29, 2020, final rule.

Section 11, Duties in the Event of Damage or Loss, of the Coarse Grains Crop Provisions, revise section 11(c) to include “hay or fodder” to be consistent with the definition of “harvest.” FCIC is clarifying that notice is required before harvest begins if a producer decides to harvest in a manner other than reported on the producer's acreage report (such as harvesting grain for silage or vice versa) so the adjuster can appraise the acreage to determine production to count that is used for claim purposes. This change is in response to a comment made to the June 29, 2020, final rule.

Section 12(e)(2), Settlement of Claim, remove the word “may” and replace with “will.” Prior to this rule, the policy stated for silage appraisals made after the normal harvest period, the insurance companies “may” increase production to count to a 65 percent moisture equivalent. The word “may” is misleading because procedure requires this adjustment; there is no other option for increasing production to count in these situations. Changing the language to state, “will” is more transparent and consistent with existing FCIC issued procedures.

FCIC is also making non-substantive changes to the regulation. Examples include making stylistic changes, making grammatical corrections, updating prices, and clarifying word changes. These revisions are editorial in nature and are intended to provide clarity to the regulation.

The Dry Bean Crop Provisions were revised June 24, 2021, with a final rule with request for comment. FCIC is making the following clarifications in response to questions received after the close of the comment period about how to implement the new provisions.

Section 2, Unit Division, of the Dry Bean Crop Provisions, clarifies that a separate enterprise or optional unit for contract seed beans is allowed where contract seed beans are listed as an insurable type in the county actuarial documents. This clarifies a change issued as a Final Rule in June 2021, allowing separate enterprise units by type. Some dry bean varieties ( e.g., Pinto, Navy) are listed as insurable types but could also be produced under a contract as seed. This has caused confusion because “Contract Seed Beans” are also an insurable type in some counties. Insurance providers have questioned how to interpret the June Final Rule allowing separate enterprise units by type for these varieties.

FCIC will also be removing language in section 2 that restricts seed bean contracts based on both acreage and production from being eligible for a separate enterprise or optional unit. Many seed bean contracts include an estimated or typical yield that is in addition to actual production. These yields have often been included in seed bean contracts so the seed company can track production inventory estimates and help the grower with expected crop value when lending institutions are involved. The withdrawal of these combination style contracts from this section will avoid making them ineligible for optional or enterprise units and move the focus on whether the seed bean contracts meet the requirements stated in the Special Provisions.

FCIC is also making a grammatical change to the introductory text for subject-verb agreement.

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA, 5 U.S.C. 553) provides that the notice and comment and 30-day delay in the effective date provisions do not apply when the rule involves specified actions, including matters relating to contracts. This rule governs contracts for crop insurance policies and therefore falls within that exemption.

This rule is exempt from the regulatory analysis requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.

For major rules, the Congressional Review Act requires a delay the effective date of 60 days after publication to allow for Congressional review. This rule is not a major rule under the Congressional Review Act, as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Therefore, this final rule is effective on the date of publication in the Federal Register . Although not required by APA or any other law, FCIC has chosen to request comments on this rule.

Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasized the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. The requirements in Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 for the analysis of costs and benefits apply to rules that are determined to be significant.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) designated this rule as not significant under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and therefore, OMB has not reviewed this rule and analysis of the costs and benefits is not required under either Executive Order 12866 or 13563.

Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, requires each agency to write all rules in plain language. In addition to your substantive comments on this rule, we invite your comments on how to make the rule easier to understand. For example:

• Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated? Are the scope and intent of the rule clear?

• Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is not clear?

• Is the material logically organized?

• Would changing the grouping or order of sections or adding headings make the rule easier to understand?

• Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?

• Would more, but shorter, sections be better? Are there specific sections that are too long or confusing?

• What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?

In general, the environmental impacts of rules are to be considered in a manner consistent with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) and the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1508). FCIC conducts programs and activities that have been determined to have no individual or cumulative effect on the human environment. As specified in 7 CFR 1b.4, FCIC is categorically excluded from the preparation of an Environmental Analysis or Environmental Impact Statement unless the FCIC Manager (agency head) determines that an action may have a significant environmental effect. The FCIC Manager has determined this rule will not have a significant environmental effect. Therefore, FCIC will not prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement for this action and this rule serves as documentation of the programmatic environmental compliance decision.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform.” This rule will not preempt State or local laws, regulations, or policies unless they represent an irreconcilable conflict with this rule. Before any judicial actions may be brought regarding the provisions of this rule, the administrative appeal provisions of 7 CFR part 11 are to be exhausted.

This rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with Tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have Tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects 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.

RMA has assessed the impact of this rule on Indian Tribes and determined that this rule does not, to our knowledge, have Tribal implications that require Tribal consultation under E.O. 13175. The regulation changes do not have Tribal implications that preempt Tribal law and are not expected have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes. If a Tribe requests consultation, RMA will work with the USDA Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is provided where changes, additions and modifications identified in this rule are not expressly mandated by Congress.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA, Pub. L. 104-4) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions of State, local, and Tribal governments, or the private sector. Agencies generally must prepare a written statement, including cost benefits analysis, for proposed and final rules with Federal mandates that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more in any 1 year for State, local or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector. UMRA generally requires agencies to consider alternatives and adopt the more cost effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. This rule contains no Federal mandates, as defined in Title II of UMRA, for State, local, and Tribal governments, or the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.

The title and number of the Federal Domestic Assistance Program listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance to which this rule applies is No. 10.450—Crop Insurance.

In accordance with the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35, subchapter I), the rule does not change the information collection approved by OMB under control numbers 0563-0053.

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

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (for example, braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 or 844-433-2774 (toll-free nationwide). Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at https://www.usda.gov/oascr/how-to-file-a-program-discrimination-complaint and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by mail to: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or email: OAC@usda.gov.

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

For the reasons discussed above, FCIC amends 7 CFR parts 400, 407, and 457, effective for the 2022 and succeeding crop years for crops with a contract change date on or after November 30, 2021, and for the 2023 and succeeding crop years for all other crops, as follows:

The NRC is amending its regulations in parts 9, 37, 40, 50, 51, 52, 55, 71, 73, and 110 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR). The NRC is making these amendments to correct a grammatical error, punctuation, a reference, formatting, a mathematical formula, and spelling; clarify language; revise contact information; and update an authority citation and internal procedures.

Update Authority Citation. This final rule updates the authority citation for 10 CFR part 9 to include the reference for the Social Security Number Fraud Prevention Act of 2017.

Correct Mathematical Formula. This final rule revises appendix A to 10 CFR part 37 and appendix P to 10 CFR part 110 to correct a sum of fractions formula. The correction is necessary to make the expression mathematically reflect that an indefinite number of nuclides may be included in the calculation, consistent with the explanations in the respective rule texts. An ellipsis and a plus sign are added at the appropriate locations, and the summation sign (sigma) and brackets are deleted as unnecessary.

Update Internal Procedures. This final rule revises §§ 40.23(b)(1), 40.66(a), 40.67(a), 73.73(a)(1), and 73.74(a)(1) to add the email address that has been used for submitting advance notices for shipments of radioactive material.

Revise Contact Information. This final rule amends the introductory text of § 50.74 to refer licensees to the appropriate contact information in § 55.5.

Provide Clarity. This final rule revises section IV.F.2.j of appendix E to 10 CFR part 50 to clarify the emergency preparedness exercise scenarios that must be performed within an 8-year exercise cycle. This revision does not change the regulations; it only clarifies the regulations by adding paragraph numbers and organization.

Correct Spelling. This final rule amends footnote 4 to § 51.52 to correct “appiled” to read “applied.” This final rule also amends § 51.10(b)(2) to correct “acitivity” to read “activity.”

Correct Reference. This final rule amends § 52.136 by removing the reference “10 CFR 50.33(a) through (d) and (j)” and adding in its place the reference “10 CFR 50.33(a) through (c) and (j).”

Correct Punctation. This final rule amends § 55.33(a)(1) to correct the word “applicants” to read “applicant's.”

Correct a Formatting Error. This final rule corrects § 71.4 to italicize the term licensed material.

Correct Grammatical Error. This final rule amends the definition for medical isotope in § 110.2 to correct the phrase “radiopharmaceutical for diagnostic, therapeutic procedures or for research and development” to read “radiopharmaceutical for diagnostic or therapeutic procedures or for research and development.”

Under section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.553(b)), an agency may waive publication in the Federal Register of a notice of proposed rulemaking and opportunity for comment requirements if it finds, for good cause, that it is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. As authorized by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), the NRC finds good cause to waive notice and opportunity for comment on these amendments, because notice and opportunity for comment is unnecessary. The amendments will have no substantive impact and are of a minor and administrative nature dealing with corrections to certain CFR sections or are related only to management, organization, procedure, and practice. Specifically, the revisions correct a grammatical error, punctuation, a reference, formatting, a mathematical formula, and spelling; clarify language; revise contact information; and update an authority citation and internal procedures. The Commission is exercising its authority under 5 U.S.C.553(b) to publish these amendments as a final rule. The amendments are effective December 30, 2021. These amendments do not require action by any person or entity regulated by the NRC and do not change the substantive responsibilities of any person or entity regulated by the NRC.

The NRC has determined that the corrections in this final rule would not constitute backfitting as defined in § 50.109, “Backfitting,” and as described in NRC Management Directive (MD) 8.4, “Management of Backfitting, Forward Fitting, Issue Finality, and Information Requests.” These corrections also would not constitute forward fitting as that term is defined and described in MD 8.4 or affect the issue finality of any approval issued under 10 CFR part 52. The amendments are non-substantive in nature, including correcting a grammatical error, punctuation, a reference, formatting, a mathematical formula, and spelling; clarifying language; revising contact information; and updating an authority citation and internal procedures. They impose no new requirements and make no substantive changes to the regulations. The corrections do not involve any provisions that would impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR chapter I, or that would be inconsistent with the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52. For these reasons, the issuance of this final rule would not constitute backfitting or be inconsistent with any of the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52. Therefore, the NRC has not prepared any additional documentation for this correction rulemaking addressing backfitting or issue finality.

The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31885).

The NRC has determined that this final rule is the type of action described in § 51.22(c)(2), which categorically excludes from environmental review rules that are corrective or of a minor, nonpolicy nature and do not substantially modify existing regulations. Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this rule.

This final rule does not contain a collection of information as defined in the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) and, therefore, is not subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

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

Under the “Agreement State Program Policy Statement” approved by the Commission on October 2, 2017, and published in the Federal Register on October 18, 2017 (82 FR 48535), NRC program elements (including regulations) are placed into compatibility categories A, B, C, D, NRC, or adequacy category Health and Safety (H&S). Compatibility Category A program elements are those program elements that are basic radiation protection standards and scientific terms and definitions that are necessary to understand radiation protection concepts. An Agreement State should adopt Category A program elements in an essentially identical manner in order to provide uniformity in the regulation of agreement material on a nationwide basis. Compatibility Category B program elements are those program elements that apply to activities that have direct and significant effects in multiple jurisdictions. An Agreement State should adopt Category B program elements in an essentially identical manner. Compatibility Category C program elements are those program elements that do not meet the criteria of Category A or B, but contain the essential objectives that an Agreement State should adopt to avoid conflict, duplication, gaps, or other conditions that would jeopardize an orderly pattern in the regulation of agreement material on a national basis. An Agreement State should adopt the essential objectives of the Category C program elements. Compatibility Category D program elements are those program elements that do not meet any of the criteria of Category A, B, or C and, therefore, do not need to be adopted by Agreement States for purposes of compatibility. Compatibility Category NRC program elements are those program elements that address areas of regulation that cannot be relinquished to the Agreement States under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or provisions of 10 CFR. These program elements should not be adopted by the Agreement States. Compatibility Category H&S program elements are program elements that are required because of a particular health and safety role in the regulation of agreement material within the State and should be adopted in a manner that embodies the essential objectives of the NRC program. The portions of this final rule that amend 10 CFR parts 37, 40, and 71 are a matter of compatibility between the NRC and the Agreement States, thereby providing consistency among Agreement State and NRC requirements, and are listed in the following table. The changes to 10 CFR parts 9, 50, 51, 52, 55, 73, and 110 categories are not subject to Agreement State jurisdiction and consequently are not required for compatibility.

For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR chapter I:

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank Act) amended TILA to add special appraisal requirements for “higher-risk mortgages.”  1 In January 2013, the Agencies jointly issued a final rule implementing these requirements and adopted the term “higher-priced mortgage loan” (HPML) instead of “higher-risk mortgage” (the January 2013 Final Rule). 2 In July 2013, the Agencies proposed additional exemptions from the January 2013 Final Rule. 3 In December 2013, the Agencies issued a supplemental final rule with additional exemptions from the January 2013 Final Rule (the December 2013 Supplemental Final Rule). 4 Among other exemptions, the Agencies adopted an exemption from the new HPML appraisal rules for transactions of $25,000 or less, to be adjusted annually for inflation.

The OCC's, Board's, and Bureau's versions of the January 2013 Final Rule and December 2013 Supplemental Final Rule and corresponding official interpretations are substantively identical. The FDIC, NCUA, and FHFA adopted the Bureau's version of the regulations under the January 2013 Final Rule and December 2013 Supplemental Final Rule. 5

The OCC's, Board's, and Bureau's regulations, 6 and their accompanying interpretations, 7 provide that the exemption threshold for smaller loans will be adjusted effective January 1 of each year based on any annual percentage increase in the CPI-W that was in effect on the preceding June 1. Any increase in the threshold amount will be rounded to the nearest $100 increment. For example, if the annual percentage increase in the CPI-W would result in a $950 increase in the threshold amount, the threshold amount will be increased by $1,000. However, if the annual percentage increase in the CPI-W would result in a $949 increase in the threshold amount, the threshold amount will be increased by $900. If there is no annual percentage increase in the CPI-W, the OCC, the Board, and the Bureau will not adjust the threshold amounts from the prior year. 8

On November 30, 2016, the OCC, the Board, and the Bureau published a final rule in the Federal Register to memorialize the calculation method used by the Agencies each year to adjust the exemption threshold to ensure that the values for the exemption threshold keep pace with the CPI-W (HPML Small Dollar Adjustment Calculation Rule). 9 The HPML Small Dollar Adjustment Calculation Rule memorialized the policy that, if there is no annual percentage increase in the CPI-W, the OCC, Board, and Bureau will not adjust the exemption threshold from the prior year. The HPML Small Dollar Adjustment Calculation Rule also provided that, in years following a year in which the exemption threshold was not adjusted because there was a decrease in the CPI-W from the previous year, the threshold is calculated by applying the annual percentage change in the CPI-W to the dollar amount that would have resulted, after rounding, if the decreases and any subsequent increases in the CPI-W had been taken into account. If the resulting amount calculated, after rounding, is greater than the current threshold, then the threshold effective January 1 the following year will increase accordingly; if the resulting amount calculated, after rounding, is equal to or less than the current threshold, then the threshold effective January 1 the following year will not change, but future increases will be calculated based on the amount that would have resulted, after rounding.

Effective January 1, 2022, the exemption threshold amount is increased from $27,200 to $28,500. This amount is based on the CPI-W in effect on June 1, 2021, which was reported on May 12, 2021 (based on April 2021 data). 10 The CPI-W is a subset of the CPI-U index (based on all urban consumers) and represents approximately 29 percent of the U.S. population. The CPI-W reported on May 12, 2021, reflects a 4.7 percent increase in the CPI-W from April 2020 to April 2021. Accordingly, the 4.7 percent increase in the CPI-W from April 2020 to April 2021 results in an exemption threshold amount of $28,500, after rounding. The OCC, the Board, and the Bureau are revising the commentaries to their respective regulations to add new comments as follows:

• Comment 203(b)(2)-3.ix to 12 CFR part 34, Appendix C to Subpart G (OCC);

• Comment 43(b)(2)-3.ix to Supplement I of 12 CFR part 226 (Board); and

• Comment 35(c)(2)(ii)-3.ix to Supplement I of 12 CFR part 1026 (Bureau).

These new comments state that, from January 1, 2022, through December 31, 2022, the threshold amount is $28,500. These revisions are effective January 1, 2022.

Under the Administrative Procedure Act, notice and opportunity for public comment are not required if the agency finds that notice and public comment are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. 11 The amendments in this rule are technical and apply the method previously memorialized in the December 2013 Supplemental Final Rule and the HPML Small Dollar Adjustment Calculation Rule. For these reasons, the OCC, the Board, and the Bureau have determined that publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking and providing opportunity for public comment are unnecessary. Therefore, the amendments are adopted in final form.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) does not apply to a rulemaking where a general notice of proposed rulemaking is not required. 12 As noted previously, the Agencies have determined that it is unnecessary to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for this final rule. Accordingly, the RFA's requirements relating to an initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis do not apply.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 13 the Agencies reviewed this final rule. No collections of information pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act are contained in the final rule.

The OCC analyzes proposed rules for the factors listed in Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, before promulgating a final rule for which a general notice of proposed rulemaking was published. 14 As discussed above, the OCC has determined that the publication of a general notice of proposed rulemaking is unnecessary.

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), the Bureau will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to the rule taking effect. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has designated this rule as not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

The Associate Director of Research, Markets, and Regulations, Janis K. Pappalardo, having reviewed and approved this document, is delegating the authority to electronically sign this document to Laura Galban, Bureau Federal Register Liaison, for purposes of publication in the Federal Register .

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the OCC amends 12 CFR part 34 as set forth below:

The Dodd-Frank Act increased the threshold in the CLA for exempt consumer leases, and the threshold in the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) for exempt consumer credit transactions, 1 from $25,000 to $50,000, effective July 21, 2011. 2 In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act requires that, on and after December 31, 2011, these thresholds be adjusted annually for inflation by the annual percentage increase in the CPI-W, as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In April 2011, the Board issued a final rule amending Regulation M (which implements the CLA) consistent with these provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act, along with a similar final rule amending Regulation Z (which implements TILA) (collectively, the Board Final Threshold Rules). 3

Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act transferred rulemaking authority for a number of consumer financial protection laws from the Board to the Bureau, effective July 21, 2011. In connection with this transfer of rulemaking authority, the Bureau issued its own Regulation M implementing the CLA, 12 CFR part 1013, substantially duplicating the Board's Regulation M. 4 Although the Bureau has the authority to issue rules to implement the CLA for most entities, the Board retains authority to issue rules under the CLA for certain motor vehicle dealers covered by section 1029(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act, and the Board's Regulation M continues to apply to those entities. 5

The Board's and the Bureau's regulations, 6 and their accompanying commentaries, provide that the exemption threshold will be adjusted annually effective January 1 of each year based on any annual percentage increase in the CPI-W that was in effect on the preceding June 1. They further provide that any increase in the threshold amount will be rounded to the nearest $100 increment. For example, if the annual percentage increase in the CPI-W would result in a $950 increase in the threshold amount, the threshold amount will be increased by $1,000. However, if the annual percentage increase in the CPI-W would result in a $949 increase in the threshold amount, the threshold amount will be increased by $900. 7 Since 2011, the Board and the Bureau have adjusted the Regulation M exemption threshold annually, in accordance with these rules.

On November 30, 2016, the Board and the Bureau published a final rule in the Federal Register to memorialize the calculation method used by the agencies each year to adjust the exemption threshold to ensure that, as contemplated by section 1100E(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act, the values for the exemption threshold keep pace with the CPI-W (Regulation M Adjustment Calculation Rule). 8 The Regulation M Adjustment Calculation Rule memorialized the policy that, if there is no annual percentage increase in the CPI-W, the Board and the Bureau will not adjust the exemption threshold from the prior year. The Regulation M Adjustment Calculation Rule also provided that, in years following a year in which the exemption threshold was not adjusted because there was a decrease in the CPI-W from the previous year, the threshold is calculated by applying the annual percentage change in the CPI-W to the dollar amount that would have resulted, after rounding, if the decreases and any subsequent increases in the CPI-W had been taken into account. If the resulting amount calculated, after rounding, is greater than the current threshold, then the threshold effective January 1 the following year will increase accordingly; if the resulting amount calculated, after rounding, is equal to or less than the current threshold, then the threshold effective January 1 the following year will not change, but future increases will be calculated based on the amount that would have resulted, after rounding.

Effective January 1, 2022, the exemption threshold amount is increased from $58,300 to $61,000. This amount is based on the CPI-W in effect on June 1, 2021, which was reported on May 12, 2021 (based on April 2021 data). 9 The CPI-W is a subset of the CPI-U index (based on all urban consumers) and represents approximately 29 percent of the U.S. population. The CPI-W reported on May 12, 2021 reflects a 4.7 percent increase in the CPI-W from April 2020 to April 2021. Accordingly, the 4.7 percent increase in the CPI-W from April 2020 to April 2021 results in an exemption threshold amount of $61,000, after rounding. The Board and the Bureau are revising the commentaries to their respective regulations to add new comment 2(e)-11.xiii to state that, from January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022, the threshold amount is $61,000. These revisions are effective January 1, 2022. 10

Under the Administrative Procedure Act, notice and opportunity for public comment are not required if the Board and the Bureau find that notice and public comment are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. 11 The amendments in this rule are technical and apply the method previously set forth in the Board Final Threshold Rules and the Regulation M Adjustment Calculation Rule. For these reasons, the Board and the Bureau have determined that publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking and providing opportunity for public comment are unnecessary. Therefore, the amendments are adopted in final form.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) does not apply to a rulemaking where a general notice of proposed rulemaking is not required. 12 As noted previously, the agencies have determined that it is unnecessary to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for this joint final rule. Accordingly, the RFA's requirements relating to an initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis do not apply.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 13 the agencies reviewed this final rule. No collections of information pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act are contained in the final rule.

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), the Bureau will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to the rule taking effect. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has designated this rule as not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

The Associate Director of Research, Markets, and Regulations, Janis K. Pappalardo, having reviewed and approved this document, is delegating the authority to electronically sign this document to Laura Galban, Bureau Federal Register Liaison, for purposes of publication in the Federal Register .

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Board amends Regulation M, 12 CFR part 213, as set forth below:

The Dodd-Frank Act increased the threshold in TILA for exempt consumer credit transactions, 1 and the threshold in the Consumer Leasing Act (CLA) for exempt consumer leases, from $25,000 to $50,000, effective July 21, 2011. 2 In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act requires that, on and after December 31, 2011, these thresholds be adjusted annually for inflation by the annual percentage increase in the CPI-W, as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In April 2011, the Board issued a final rule amending Regulation Z (which implements TILA) consistent with these provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act, along with a similar final rule amending Regulation M (which implements the CLA) (collectively, the Board Final Threshold Rules). 3

Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act transferred rulemaking authority for a number of consumer financial protection laws from the Board to the Bureau, effective July 21, 2011. In connection with this transfer of rulemaking authority, the Bureau issued its own Regulation Z implementing TILA, 12 CFR part 1026, substantially duplicating the Board's Regulation Z. 4 Although the Bureau has the authority to issue rules to implement TILA for most entities, the Board retains authority to issue rules under TILA for certain motor vehicle dealers covered by section 1029(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act, and the Board's Regulation Z continues to apply to those entities. 5

The Board's and the Bureau's regulations, 6 and their accompanying commentaries, provide that the exemption threshold will be adjusted annually effective January 1 of each year based on any annual percentage increase in the CPI-W that was in effect on the preceding June 1. They further provide that any increase in the threshold amount will be rounded to the nearest $100 increment. For example, if the annual percentage increase in the CPI-W would result in a $950 increase in the threshold amount, the threshold amount will be increased by $1,000. However, if the annual percentage increase in the CPI-W would result in a $949 increase in the threshold amount, the threshold amount will be increased by $900. 7 Since 2011, the Board and the Bureau have adjusted the Regulation Z exemption threshold annually, in accordance with these rules.

On November 30, 2016, the Board and the Bureau published a final rule in the Federal Register to memorialize the calculation method used by the agencies each year to adjust the exemption threshold to ensure that, as contemplated by section 1100E(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act, the values for the exemption threshold keep pace with the CPI-W (Regulation Z Adjustment Calculation Rule). 8 The Regulation Z Adjustment Calculation Rule memorialized the policy that, if there is no annual percentage increase in the CPI-W, the Board and the Bureau will not adjust the exemption threshold from the prior year. The Regulation Z Adjustment Calculation Rule also provided that, in years following a year in which the exemption threshold was not adjusted because there was a decrease in the CPI-W from the previous year, the threshold is calculated by applying the annual percentage change in the CPI-W to the dollar amount that would have resulted, after rounding, if the decreases and any subsequent increases in the CPI-W had been taken into account. If the resulting amount calculated, after rounding, is greater than the current threshold, then the threshold effective January 1 the following year will increase accordingly; if the resulting amount calculated, after rounding, is equal to or less than the current threshold, then the threshold effective January 1 the following year will not change, but future increases will be calculated based on the amount that would have resulted, after rounding.

Effective January 1, 2022, the exemption threshold amount is increased from $58,300 to $61,000. This amount is based on the CPI-W in effect on June 1, 2021, which was reported on May 12, 2021 (based on April 2021 data). 9 The CPI-W is a subset of the CPI-U index (based on all urban consumers) and represents approximately 29 percent of the U.S. population. The CPI-W reported on May 12, 2021 reflects a 4.7 percent increase in the CPI-W from April 2020 to April 2021. Accordingly, the 4.7 percent increase in the CPI-W from April 2020 to April 2021 results in an exemption threshold amount of $61,000, after rounding. The Board and the Bureau are revising the commentaries to their respective regulations to add new comment 3(b)-3.xiii to state that, from January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022, the threshold amount is $61,000. These revisions are effective January 1, 2022. 10

Under the Administrative Procedure Act, notice and opportunity for public comment are not required if the Board and the Bureau find that notice and public comment are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. 11 The amendments in this rule are technical and apply the method previously set forth in the Board Final Threshold Rules and the Regulation Z Adjustment Calculation Rule. For these reasons, the Board and the Bureau have determined that publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking and providing opportunity for public comment are unnecessary. Therefore, the amendments are adopted in final form.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) does not apply to a rulemaking where a general notice of proposed rulemaking is not required. 12 As noted previously, the agencies have determined that it is unnecessary to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for this joint final rule. Accordingly, the RFA's requirements relating to an initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis do not apply.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 13 the agencies reviewed this final rule. No collections of information pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act are contained in the final rule.

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), the Bureau will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to the rule taking effect. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has designated this rule as not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

The Associate Director of Research, Markets, and Regulations, Janis K. Pappalardo, having reviewed and approved this document, is delegating the authority to electronically sign this document to Laura Galban, Bureau Federal Register Liaison, for purposes of publication in the Federal Register .

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Board amends Regulation Z, 12 CFR part 226, as set forth below:

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Bureau amends Regulation Z, 12 CFR part 1026, as set forth below:

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would modify the Class D airspace, Class E surface airspace, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above ground level to support IFR operations at Tacoma Narrows Airport, Tacoma, WA.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register (85 FR 71289; November 9, 2020) for Docket No. FAA-2020-0925 to modify the Class D and Class E airspace at Tacoma Narrows Airport, Tacoma, WA. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. One comment in support of the action was received.

Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 5000, 6002, 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.

This document amends FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11F lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The FAA is amending 14 CFR part 71 by modifying the lateral boundaries of the Class D and Class E surface airspace and the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet AGL at Tacoma Narrows Airport, Tacoma, WA. A review of the airspace was initiated due to corresponding reviews at McChord Field (Joint Base Lewis-McChord) and Gray AAF (Joint Base Lewis-McChord). All three locations were evaluated at the same time due to their close proximity to one another and operational interdependence. The airspace at McChord Field and Gray AAF (Joint Base Lewis-McChord) were reviewed due to three actions. The FAA decommissioned the McChord VORTAC because the U.S. Air Force was no longer going to maintain the NAVAID. The U.S. Air Force requested the elimination of previously excluded airspace, which required an airspace review to evaluate that request, and the Class D airspace at McChord Field and Gray AAF (Joint Base Lewis-McChord) had not been examined in the previous two years, as required by FAA Orders.

The Tacoma Narrows Airport Class D and Class E surface airspace that extends to 5.3 miles south of the airport would be removed as it is no longer needed for arrivals or departures.

In addition, the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet AGL within 4 miles each side of the 007° and 187° bearings from the Tacoma Narrows Airport extending to 8 miles north and 7 miles south of the airport will be shortened to 6 miles, respectively.

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

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

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

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

This rule is required to implement section 701 of NDAA-2020. As a “housekeeping” matter, this rule includes necessary changes to the TRICARE regulation to conform it to the new statutory requirements enacted in the NDAA-2020, over which the Department has no administrative discretion. In implementing section 701 of NDAA-2020, this rule advances the better care component of the Military Health System's aims by expanding the options available to Federal employees.

Agency informal rule-making is governed by section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. Section 553(b) requires that, unless the rule falls within one of the enumerated exemptions, an agency must publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register that provides interested persons an opportunity to submit written data, views, or arguments, prior to finalization of regulatory requirements. Section 553(b)(B) of the APA authorizes an agency to dispense with the prior notice and opportunity for public comment requirement when the agency, for “good cause,” finds that notice and public comment thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. Section 553 also requires an agency to include an explanation of such good cause with the publication of the rule. As noted in the preamble, the change in law was effective upon enactment on December 20, 2019. The change in law is self-executing and Department of Defense (DoD) has no discretion for implementing the law, including amending the TRICARE regulation to conform it to the statutory requirements. Because DoD cannot change the law, it is impracticable and unnecessary to delay amending the TRICARE regulation to conform it to the law until a full public notice-and-comment process is completed. In addition, it would be contrary to public interest to retain in existence a TRICARE regulation relied upon by the public which contains an eligibility requirement which is legally inconsistent with the controlling legislation for TRS coverage pending completion of a full public notice-and-comment process. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), and for reasons stated in this preamble, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs (ASD(HA)), therefore, concludes that there is good cause to dispense with prior public notice and the opportunity to comment on this rule before finalizing this rule.

The rule amends the TRICARE regulation to conform it to the current law that defines eligibility for TRICARE Reserve Select, specifying that Selected Reserve members eligible for or enrolled in a Federal Employee Health Benefits (FEHB) plan (5 U.S.C. Chapter 89, “Health Insurance”) are eligible to enroll in TRS beginning January 1, 2030.

The statutory authority for this final rule is 10 U.S.C. 1076d, as amended by Public Law 116-92, NDAA-2020, Section 701, “Modification of Eligibility for TRICARE Reserve Select for Certain Members of the Selected Reserve.” This final rule amends title 32, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), § 199.24, “TRICARE Reserve Select,” which offers the TRICARE Select self-managed, preferred-provider network option and can be found at https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?SID=2e53e1af44c38aa7d9076c076a2acd02&mc=true&node=se32.2.199_124&rgn=div8. The TRICARE Reserve Select program is established under 10 U.S.C. 1076d, “TRICARE program: TRICARE Reserve Select coverage for members of the Selected Reserve.”

This final rule is the only regulatory action relating to implementation of section 701 of NDAA-2020.

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distribute impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been designated a “non-significant regulatory action,” although, not determined to be economically significant, under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, the rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. This rule is not economically significant as its effect on the economy is less than $100 million, will not materially adversely affect the economy, a sector of the economy; productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities. Net benefit is supported by the Defense Health Agency's mission of complying with all NDAA constraints and providing the best health care options to beneficiaries.

This rule amends the current TRICARE regulation which, consistent with 10 U.S.C. 1076d prior to NDAA-2020 amendment, excluded from TRS eligibility any Selected Reserve member who was also enrolled in, or eligible for a health benefit plan under the Federal Employee Health Benefits program under 5 U.S.C. chapter 89, section 8903. According to NDAA-2020, this exclusion will be repealed and these government employees will be eligible for coverage under TRS beginning January 1, 2030, provided they meet all other TRS eligibility requirements.

This rulemaking action will apply to an employee of the Federal Government who, under 5 U.S.C. chapter 89, is eligible for the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program and eligible for TRS as described by 32 CFR 199.24(b), “Qualifications for TRICARE Reserve Select coverage”. These specific beneficiaries will have the option to enroll in TRS beginning January 1, 2030. This enrollment will be voluntary, and will proceed through established enrollment procedures. The affected population will receive notification of this rule change via publication of this final rule and by TRS program literature published by the Defense Health Agency and distributed by TRICARE regional managed care support contractors.

The Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) only projects five years into the future, thus, an accurate estimate of monetary cost to the government cannot be done. Projections templated over FY2020 through FY2025 project cost savings to the DoD in excess of $10 million per fiscal year (FY). This net takes into consideration the revenue lost through fewer Federal Employees Health FEHB Program plan premium contributions and assumes that approximately 33% of employees eligible to switch from their current FEHB Program plan to TRS will do so. Again, these projections are for FY2020-FY2025, and this rule is not to be implemented until calendar year 2030.

The administrative costs of this rule are assessed as only including increased customer service queries and beneficiary education required to ensure beneficiaries have all the necessary information to make an informed decision. Administrative processes to manage plan changes triggered by this rule are already in place.

There is no projected cost to the public. Should they decide to change health plans, employees affected by this rule may experience cost savings due to lower premiums, catastrophic cap, deductible, and other cost shares. However, these savings are subject to plan specifics at the time of rule implementation.

Extending TRS eligibility to Federal employees increases health care options for beneficiaries, especially through the preferred-provider network (PPN). Depending on their health care needs, the PPN provided by TRS may increase access to care for eligible Federal employees who choose to enroll. The projected monetary cost saving to the government, still to be itemized, is the final important benefit; this rulemaking action frees up Government funds for appropriate reallocation.

Alternative 1: No action. Not implementing this rule would be in direct violation of the law set forth in NDAA-2020 requiring TRS to be an option for eligible Federal employees who desire to enroll in TRS coverage beginning January 1, 2030. The result of taking no action would be continued cost to the government in the form of FEHB plans that could have been transferred to TRS beginning in CY2030. Cost to beneficiaries would be the loss of additional coverage options and likely increased health care out-of-pocket costs. There is no benefit to taking no action and the Department has no discretion to forgo compliance with the law requiring this rulemaking action.

Alternative 2: Postponed action. Postponement of rulemaking would result in inconsistency between the TRICARE regulation and the controlling statute. The statute is self-executing and was effective upon enactment of NDAA-2020 on December 20, 2019. Delaying rulemaking to conform the regulation with the law will result in inaccurate information available to the public regarding statutory eligibility for TRS coverage.

The Department of Defense certifies that this final rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601) because it would not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, does not require us to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis.

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

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1532) requires agencies to assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. This final rule will not mandate any requirements for State, local, or tribal governments, nor will affect private sector costs.

It has been determined that 32 CFR 199.24 does not impose reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Existing information collection requirements of the TRICARE program will be utilized, using a DD Form 2896-1, Reserve Component Health Coverage Request Form. This enrollment form, accessible through the Beneficiary Web Enrollment (BWE) website, does not meet information collection requirements and thus does not trigger requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

E.O. 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a rule that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on State and local governments, preempts State law, or otherwise has federalism implications. This final rule will not have a substantial effect on State and local governments.

Accordingly, 32 CFR part 199 is amended as follows:

New prices will be posted under Docket Number CP2022-22 on the Postal Regulatory Commission's website at http://www.prc.gov.

Over the course of time, mailing services to countries change due to a variety of reasons. The Postal Service is updating IMM Exhibit 292.45a to reflect that International Priority Airmail® (IPA®) service is available to Sudan.

In addition, the Postal Service is extending USPS Tracking Plus® service to certain international products, allowing customers to request the Postal Service retain scan data, or scan and signature data, for certain pieces beyond the Postal Service's standard data retention period, for up to 7 years. USPS Tracking Plus service is available for certain pieces sent via Priority Mail Express International® service (PMEI), Priority Mail International® (PMI) service, and single-piece First-Class Package International Service® (FCPIS®) for which Electronic USPS Delivery Confirmation International Service is available, and certain pieces for those services for which insurance has been purchased (not to include Global Express Guaranteed® (GXG®)). For pricing, see the Postal Explorer® website at https://pe.usps.com. Customers may request USPS Tracking Plus service online at www.usps.com or through a Shipping Services File.

This final rule describes the international price and classification changes and the corresponding mailing standards changes for the following Competitive Services:

• Global Express Guaranteed.

• Priority Mail Express International.

• Priority Mail International.

• First-Class Package International Service.

• International Priority Airmail® (IPA®).

• International Surface Air Lift® (ISAL®).

• Direct Sacks of Printed Matter to One Addressee (Airmail M-bag® services).

• The following competitive international extra services and fees:

• International Insurance.

• Certificate of Mailing.

• International Registered Mail.

• International Return Receipt.

• International Postal Money Orders.

• International Money Order Inquiry Fee.

• International Money Transfer Service.

• Customs Clearance and Delivery Fee.

Global Express Guaranteed (GXG) service provides fast international shipping, with international transportation and delivery provided through an alliance with FedEx Express®. The price increase for GXG service averages 2.3 percent.

The Postal Service provides Commercial Base® pricing to online customers who prepare and pay for GXG shipments via USPS-approved payment methods (other than Click-N-Ship® service), with a discount below the published retail prices for GXG service. Customers who prepare GXG shipments via Click-N-Ship service will continue to pay retail prices. Commercial Plus® prices are set to match the Commercial Base prices.

Priority Mail Express International (PMEI) service provides fast service to approximately 180 countries in 3-5 business days for many major markets, although the actual number of days may vary based upon origin, destination, and customs delays. PMEI with Money-Back Guarantee service is available for certain destinations. (Due to COVID-19 service impacts, PMEI with Money-Back Guarantee service has been suspended for several destinations until further notice. For more information, see the USPS Service Updates page on www.usps.com. ) The price increase for PMEI service averages 3.2 percent. The Commercial Base price provides a discount below the published retail prices for customers who prepare and pay for PMEI shipments via permit imprint, online at USPS.com ®, or as registered end-users using an authorized PC Postage vendor (with the exception of Click-N-Ship service). Customers who prepare PMEI shipments via Click-N-Ship service pay retail prices. Commercial Plus will be equivalent to Commercial Base; however, deeper discounting may still be available to customers through negotiated service agreements.

The Postal Service will continue to include PMEI service in customized contracts offered to customers who meet certain revenue thresholds and are willing to commit a larger amount of revenue to the USPS® for PMEI service and PMI service.

PMEI flat rate pricing continues to be available for Flat Rate Envelopes.

Priority Mail International (PMI) is an economical way to send merchandise and documents to approximately 180 countries in 6-10 business days for many major markets, although the actual number of days may vary based upon origin, destination, and customs delays. The price increase for PMI service averages 3.7 percent. The Commercial Base price provides a discount below the published retail prices for customers who prepare and pay for PMI items via permit imprint, online at USPS.com, or as registered end-users using an authorized PC Postage vendor (with the exception of Click-N-Ship). Customers who prepare PMI shipments via Click-N-Ship pay retail prices. Commercial Plus prices will be equivalent to Commercial Base; however, deeper discounting may still be made available to customers through negotiated service agreements.

The Postal Service will continue to include PMI service in customized contracts offered to customers who meet certain revenue thresholds and are willing to commit to a larger amount of revenue to the USPS for PMEI and PMI.

PMI flat rate pricing continues to be available for Flat Rate Envelopes, Small Flat Rate Boxes, and Medium and Large Flat Rate Boxes.

First-Class Package International Service (FCPIS) is an economical international service for small packages not exceeding 4 pounds in weight and $400 in value. The price increase for FCPIS averages 4.2 percent. The Commercial Base price provides a discount below the published retail prices for customers who prepare and pay for FCPIS items via permit imprint or by USPS-approved online payment methods. Customers who prepare FCPIS shipments via Click-N-Ship service pay retail prices. Commercial Plus prices will be equivalent to Commercial Base; however, deeper discounting will be made available to customer through negotiated service agreements.

Electronic USPS Delivery Confirmation International service (E-USPS DELCON INTL®) is available for FCPIS items to select destination countries at no charge.

International Priority Airmail (IPA) service, including IPA M-bags, is a commercial service designed for volume mailings of all First-Class Mail International postcards, letters, and large envelopes (flats), and for volume mailings of FCPIS packages (small packets) weighing up to a maximum of 4.4 pounds. IPA shipments are typically flown to foreign destinations (exceptions apply to Canada and Mexico) and are then entered into that country's air or surface priority mail system for delivery. The price increase for IPA letters, flats, and packets is 4.9 percent, and there is no increase for IPA M-bags. International Surface Airlift (ISAL) is like IPA except that once flown to the foreign destination, ISAL is entered into that country's air or surface nonpriority mail system for delivery. The price increase for ISAL letters, flats, and packets is 8.2 percent, and the price increase for ISAL M-bags is 2.9 percent.

An Airmail M-bag is a direct sack of printed matter sent to a single foreign addressee at a single address. Prices are based on the weight of the sack. The price increase for Airmail M-bag service averages 5.0 percent.

Depending on country destination and mail type, customers may add a variety of extra services to their outbound shipments and pay a variety of fees. The Postal Service proposes to increase fees for certain competitive international extra services as follows:

• GXG insurance: There is no charge for GXG insurance for coverage up to $100. The fee for GXG insurance will increase to $1.35 for each additional $100 or fraction over $100, up to a maximum indemnity of $2,499 per shipment (the maximum indemnity varies by country).

• PMEI and PMI insurance: There is no charge for PMEI and PMI merchandise insurance coverage up to $200. The fee for PMEI and PMI merchandise insurance for each additional $100 or fraction over $200 is set forth in the table below, up to a maximum indemnity of $5,000 (the maximum indemnity varies by country).

• Certificate of mailing service: Prices for competitive international certificate of mailing service will be as follows:

• International Registered Mail service: The fee for competitive international registered mail will increase to $17.15.

• International return receipt service: The fee for competitive international return receipt service will increase to $4.75.

• Customs clearance and delivery fee: The competitive customs clearance and delivery fee per dutiable item will increase to $7.05.

• Pickup on Demand: The fee for pickup on demand will remain at $25.00.

• International Postal Money Orders: The fee for international postal money orders will increase to $12.25.

• International Money Order Inquiry: The fee for international money orders inquiry will increase to $9.00.

• International Money Transfer Service (Sure Money® service): Prices for international money transfer service will be as follows:

The Postal Service hereby adopts the following changes to Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, International Mail Manual (IMM), which is incorporated by reference in the Code of Federal Regulations. See 39 CFR 20.1.

Accordingly, 39 CFR part 20 is amended as follows:

We will publish an appropriate amendment to 39 CFR part 20 to reflect these changes.

The following is an outline of the Preamble.

The following are abbreviations of terms used in the preamble.

The purpose of this final action is to announce and promulgate revised 2015 ozone NAAQS designations for two counties in response to the July 10, 2020, decision by the District of Columbia Circuit Court that remanded the counties to the EPA for further consideration. The affected counties were initially designated on April 30, 2018. The EPA addressed the 14 additional remanded counties in a previous Federal Register document (86 FR 31438; June 14, 2021).

On October 1, 2015, the EPA promulgated revised primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone (80 FR 6592; October 26, 2015). In that action, the EPA strengthened both standards to a level of 0.070 parts per million (ppm), while retaining their indicators, averaging times, and forms. The EPA revised the ozone standards based on an integrated assessment of an extensive body of new scientific evidence, which substantially strengthens our knowledge regarding ozone-related health and welfare effects, the results of exposure and risk analyses, the advice of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and consideration of public comments.

The process for designating areas following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS is contained in the CAA section 107(d) (42 U.S.C. 7407(d)). After promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the CAA requires the EPA to determine if areas in the country meet the new standards. Accordingly, the EPA designated all areas of the country as to whether they met, or did not meet, the NAAQS in three rounds. 1

Several environmental and public health advocacy groups, three local government agencies, and the state of Illinois filed a total of six petitions for review challenging the EPA's 2015 ozone NAAQS designations promulgated on April 30, 2018. The District of Columbia Circuit Court consolidated the petitions into a single case, Clean Wisconsin v. EPA, 964 F.3d 1145 (D.C. Cir. 2020). Collectively, the petitioners challenged aspects of the EPA's final designations for 17 counties associated with nine nonattainment areas. The petitioners primarily argued that the EPA improperly designated counties (in whole or part) as attainment that should have been designated as nonattainment because of contribution to nearby counties with violating monitors. In its response brief, the EPA requested voluntary remand of the final designation decisions for 10 counties associated with four nonattainment areas to further review those designations.

On July 10, 2020, the District of Columbia Circuit Court granted the EPA's requests for voluntary remand and also remanded several other counties ( see Clean Wisconsin, 964 F.3d 1145). In total, the Court remanded back to the EPA 16 counties associated with nine nonattainment areas. The Court did not vacate the initial April 30, 2018, designations, but required the EPA to “issue revised designations as expeditiously as practicable.” In response to the Court decision, the EPA re-evaluated the existing technical record, including data and information, that was used for the initial April 2018 designations under a uniform, nationwide analytical approach, to support either revising or affirming the designations for these remanded counties. Table 1 summarizes the EPA's revised 2015 ozone NAAQS designations for the two remanded counties that are addressed in this Federal Register document. The technical support documents (TSDs) that describe the re-evaluation of these counties are included in the public docket. The amended 40 CFR part 81 tables for the revised designations, which appear in the regulatory tables included at the end of this final rule, identify the revised designation for the two remanded counties and the classification for the associated nonattainment areas.

For the 14 remanded counties addressed in a previous action, as discussed further in Sections V and VI of this document, the EPA exercised its authority to take final action under section 107(d) of the CAA. For the remaining two remanded counties addressed in this action (El Paso County, Texas and Weld County, Colorado), a different process is required. As discussed in Section V of this document, CAA section 107(d) specifies that whenever the EPA Administrator intends to make a modification to a state's designation recommendation, the EPA must notify the state and provide the state with the opportunity to submit additional information to demonstrate why the EPA's intended modification is inappropriate. The EPA is required to give the notification no later than 120 days before promulgating the final designation, including any modification thereto.

After re-evaluating the El Paso County, Texas and Weld County, Colorado areas in response to the court remand, the EPA notified Texas and Colorado of the Agency's intent to make modifications to the state recommendations for those two counties and conducted the required 120-day notification process. CAA section 107(d)(1)(B)(ii). The EPA also sent a letter to New Mexico notifying that state of the EPA's intended modification of Texas's attainment recommendation that would expand the boundary of the existing Doña Ana County (Sunland Park Area), NM nonattainment area to include El Paso County, TX and, thus, become a multi-state nonattainment area. The EPA also issued a notice of availability for these letters and offered a public comment period (86 FR 31460; June 14, 2021).

Ground-level ozone is a gas that is formed by the reaction of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NO X ) in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight. These precursor emissions are emitted by many types of pollution sources, including power plants and industrial emissions sources, on-road and off-road motor vehicles and engines, and smaller sources, collectively referred to as area sources. Ozone is predominately a summertime air pollutant. However, high ozone concentrations have also been observed in cold months, where a few areas in the Western United States (U.S.) have experienced high levels of local VOC and NO X emissions that have formed ozone when snow is on the ground and temperatures are near or below freezing. Ozone and ozone precursors can be transported to an area from sources in nearby areas or from sources located hundreds of miles away. For purposes of determining ozone nonattainment area boundaries, the CAA requires the EPA to include areas that contribute to nearby violations of the NAAQS.

On October 1, 2015, the EPA revised both the primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone to a level of 0.070 ppm (annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average concentration, averaged over 3 years). 2 The level of the ozone NAAQS previously set in 2008 is 0.75 ppm. The 2015 ozone NAAQS retain the same general form and averaging time as the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

The primary ozone standards provide protection for children, older adults, and people with asthma or other lung diseases, and other at-risk populations against an array of adverse health effects that include reduced lung function, increased respiratory symptoms and pulmonary inflammation; effects that contribute to emergency department visits or hospital admissions; and mortality. The secondary ozone standards protect against adverse effects to the public welfare, including those related to impacts on sensitive vegetation and forested ecosystems.

After the EPA promulgates a new or revised NAAQS, the EPA is required to designate all areas in the country as nonattainment, attainment, or unclassifiable, for that NAAQS pursuant to section 107(d)(1)-(2) of the CAA. Section 107(d)(1)(A)(i) of the CAA defines a nonattainment area as an area that does not meet the NAAQS or that contributes to a nearby area that does not meet the NAAQS. An attainment area is defined by the CAA as any area that meets the NAAQS and does not contribute to any nearby areas that do not meet the NAAQS. Unclassifiable areas are defined by the CAA as those that cannot be classified on the basis of available information as meeting or not meeting the NAAQS.

Historically for ozone, the EPA has designated most areas that do not meet the definition of nonattainment as unclassifiable/attainment. This category includes areas that have air quality monitoring data meeting the NAAQS and areas that do not have monitors but for which the EPA has no evidence that the areas may be violating the NAAQS or contributing to a nearby violation. In the designations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, the EPA reversed the order of the label to attainment/unclassifiable to better convey the definition of the designation category and to more easily distinguish the category from the separate unclassifiable category. In a few instances, based on circumstances where some monitoring data are available but are not sufficient for a determination that an area is or is not attaining the NAAQS, the EPA has designated an area as unclassifiable.

The EPA notes that CAA section 107(d) provides the Agency with discretion to determine how best to interpret the terms in the definition of a nonattainment area ( e.g., “contributes to” and “nearby”) for a new or revised NAAQS, given considerations such as the nature of a specific pollutant, the types of sources that may contribute to violations, the form of the standards for the pollutant, and other relevant information. In particular, the EPA's position is that the statute does not require the Agency to establish bright line tests or thresholds for what constitutes “contribution” or “nearby” for purposes of designations. 3

Similarly, the EPA's position is that the statute permits the EPA to evaluate the appropriate application of the term “area” to include geographic areas based upon full or partial county boundaries, as may be appropriate for a particular NAAQS. For example, CAA section 107(d)(1)(B)(ii) explicitly provides that the EPA can make modifications to designation recommendations for an area “or portions thereof,” and under CAA section 107(d)(1)(B)(iv) a designation remains in effect for an area “or portion thereof” until the EPA redesignates it.

Section 107(d)(1)(B) of the CAA requires the EPA to issue initial area designations within 2 years of promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. However, if the Administrator has insufficient information to make these designations within that time frame, the EPA has the authority to extend the deadline for designation decisions by up to 1 additional year.

By no later than 1 year after the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, CAA section 107(d)(1)(A) provides that each state governor shall recommend air quality designations, including the appropriate boundaries for areas, to the EPA. The EPA reviews those state recommendations and is authorized to make any modifications the Administrator deems necessary. The statute does not define the term “necessary,” but the EPA interprets this to authorize the Administrator to modify designation recommendations that are inconsistent with the statutory language, including modification of recommended boundaries for nonattainment areas that are not supported by the facts or analysis. If the EPA intends to modify a state's recommendation, section 107(d)(1)(B) of the CAA requires the EPA to notify the state of any such intended modifications not less than 120 days prior to the EPA's promulgation of the final designation. These notifications are commonly known as the “120-day letters.” During this period, if the state does not agree with the EPA's proposed modification, it has an opportunity to respond to the EPA and to demonstrate why it believes the modification proposed by the EPA is inappropriate. If a state fails to provide any recommendation for an area, in whole or in part, the EPA must promulgate a designation that the Administrator deems appropriate, pursuant to CAA section 107(d)(1)(B)(ii).

Section 301(d) of the CAA authorizes the EPA to approve eligible Indian tribes to implement provisions of the CAA on Indian reservations and other areas within the tribes' jurisdiction. The Tribal Authority Rule (TAR) (40 CFR part 49), which implements section 301(d) of the CAA, sets forth the criteria and process for tribes to apply to the EPA for eligibility to administer CAA programs. The designations process contained in section 107(d) of the CAA is included among those provisions determined to be appropriate by the EPA for treatment of tribes in the same manner as states. Under the TAR, tribes generally are not subject to the same submission schedules imposed by the CAA on states. As authorized by the TAR, tribes may seek eligibility to submit designation recommendations to the EPA.

On February 25, 2016, the EPA issued guidance for states and tribal agencies to use for purposes of making designation recommendations as required by CAA section 107(d)(1)(A). ( See February 25, 2016, memorandum from Janet G. McCabe, Acting Assistant Administrator, to Regional Administrators, Regions 1-10, titled, “Area Designations for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards” (Designations Guidance)). The Designations Guidance provided the anticipated timeline for designations and identified important factors that the EPA recommended states and tribes consider in making their recommendations and that the EPA intended to consider in promulgating designations. These factors include air quality data, emissions and emissions-related data, meteorological data, geography/topography, and jurisdictional boundaries. In the Designations Guidance, the EPA asked that states and tribes submit their designation recommendations, including appropriate area boundaries, to the EPA by October 1, 2016. The EPA had previously issued two guidance memoranda related to designating areas of Indian country that also apply for designations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

See December 20, 2011, memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to Regional Air Directors, Regions I-X, titled, “Policy for Establishing Separate Air Quality Designations for Areas of Indian Country,” (Tribal Designations Guidance) and December 20, 2011, memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to Regional Air Directors, Regions I-X, titled, “Guidance to Regions for Working with Tribes during the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Designations Process.” In the Designation Guidance, the EPA indicated the Agency expected to complete the initial designations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS on a 2-year schedule, by October 1, 2017, consistent with CAA 107(d)(1)(B)(i).

On November 6, 2017, the EPA designated as attainment/unclassifiable 2,646 counties, 4 including tribal lands within those counties, for which the states recommended a designation of attainment or attainment/unclassifiable. This represents approximately 85 percent of the counties in the U.S. The EPA also designated a three-county area in Washington as unclassifiable as recommended by the state. Consistent with the EPA's Tribal Designation Guidance, the EPA designated two areas of Indian country (Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians and Forest County Potawatomi Community) as separate attainment/unclassifiable areas.

On or about December 22, 2017, the EPA sent 120-day letters to Governors and tribal leaders notifying them of the EPA's preliminary response to their designation recommendations for all areas of the country not designated in the November 2017 action, with the exception of eight counties in the San Antonio, Texas metropolitan area. For the areas addressed in the 120-day letters, the EPA requested that states and tribes submit any additional information that they wanted the EPA to consider in making final designation decisions by February 28, 2018, including any certified 2017 air quality monitoring data.

Although not required by section 107(d)(2)(B) of the CAA, the EPA also provided a 30-day public comment period on the designation recommendations from states and tribes and the EPA's intended designations addressed in the 120-day letters to states and tribes. The EPA announced the public comment period in the Federal Register on January 5, 2018 (83 FR 651). On April 30, 2018, the EPA finalized designations for the areas addressed in the December 2017 120-day letter responses to states and tribes.

In response to the Clean Wisconsin court decision relating to that April 30, 2018, action, the EPA has again applied a uniform, nationwide analytical approach and interpretation of CAA section 107(d)(1) to these areas across the country and reviewed the state and tribal responses and public comments, as well as reviewed the court decision itself, in the Agency's decision to revise certain designations remanded by the court. Comments from the states, tribes and the public, and the EPA's updated responses to significant comments, are also available in the docket along with the individual TSDs for areas with associated remanded counties.

In the Clean Wisconsin decision, the D.C. Circuit directed the EPA to complete a process to revise, as appropriate, its April 2018 designations for the remanded counties “as expeditiously as practicable.” The CAA does not require the EPA to follow a specific process when final designations are remanded to the Agency. The EPA's final action reflects a reasonable interpretation of the CAA section 107(d) requirements, particularly given the court's direction.

Under CAA section 107(d)(2)(B), the EPA is not required to provide an Administrative Procedure Act (APA) public comment period for designations actions. CAA section 107(d)(1)(B)(ii) lays out a particular process when the EPA disagrees with a state's recommended designations. In particular, the Administrator must provide the state with 120 days to demonstrate why any proposed modifications to the state's recommendation are inappropriate. The EPA notified Texas and Colorado on or about May 24, 2021, that the Agency intended to modify the states' recommendations and provided intended designations revisions. Although not required by section 107(d)(2)(B) of the CAA, the EPA also provided a 30-day public comment period on the designation recommendations from Texas and Colorado and the EPA's intended designations revisions addressed in the 120-day letters.

For the two remanded counties and associated nonattainment areas addressed in this action, as well the 14 remanded counties addressed in a previous action, the EPA has re-evaluated the designations under a uniform, nationwide analytical approach in considering the specific facts and circumstances of the areas using data and information available at the time of the April 30, 2018, final designations action. The EPA has primarily based the revised final ozone designations in this action on air quality monitoring data from the years 2014-2016, which were the most recent data that states were required to certify at the time the EPA notified states of its intended designations and any intended modifications to their recommendations in December 2017. Under 40 CFR 58.16, states are required to report all monitored ozone air quality data and associated quality assurance data within 90 days after the end of each quarterly reporting period, and under 40 CFR 58.15(a)(2), states are required to submit annual summary reports and a data certification letter to the EPA by May 1 for ozone air quality data collected in the previous calendar year. Thus, at the time of the 120-day letters, the most recent certification obligation was for air quality data from 2016. In the 120-day notification letters to states, the EPA indicated that for the EPA to consider air quality data for the period 2015-2017 in the final designation decisions for any area, a state must submit certified, quality assured 2015-2017 air quality monitoring data for the area to the EPA by February 28, 2018. Colorado, Texas, and New Mexico did not choose to submit early certified air quality monitoring data. Therefore, the April 30, 2018 initial designations for these states were based on air quality data from 2014-2016.

The EPA's reliance on only information available at the time of the April 30, 2018, designations action to support the revised designations in this Federal Register document is reasonable in light of the circumstances. The CAA does not specify what data the Agency must rely on in re-promulgating designations upon remand from a court. As such, the EPA's reasonable reliance on data available on April 30, 2018, reflects the EPA's dedication to national consistency and the specific direction of the court in Clean Wisconsin: “to issue revised designations as expeditiously as practicable” in responding to the remand. 5

Section 107(d) of the CAA lays out a particular timeline for designations decisions to be made, triggered from the promulgation date of a NAAQS. For the 2015 ozone NAAQS, the designation of every area of the country, apart from those remanded to the Agency, relied on the existing record. 6 As the D.C. Circuit stated in previous cases reviewing the EPA's designations decisions, “inconsistency is the hallmark of arbitrary agency action.”  7 Relying on the data available to the Agency at the time of the April 2018 designations action would prevent inconsistent treatment between the remanded counties and every other area of the country.

In addition, both our previous action responding to the Court remand for 14 counties and this action expand the boundaries of existing nonattainment areas but do not create any new nonattainment areas. If it is important to treat areas across the country consistently, it is that much more important that the EPA treat different portions of the same nonattainment area consistently. The EPA received some comments on this approach; further explanation for the EPA's decision to rely on the data available on April 30, 2018, appears in the EPA's Response to Comments document, available in the electronic docket for this action ( www.regulations.gov, docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0548) and at the EPA's Ozone Designations web page ( https://www.epa.gov/ozone-designations ).

The D.C. Circuit's direction to act “as expeditiously as practicable” also weighs in favor of using information available on April 30, 2018. Gathering and analyzing new data would necessarily have taken longer, because much of the data the EPA generally relies upon in its designations decision-making process is obtained outside the Agency, including from states.

In accordance with CAA section 181(a)(1), each area designated as nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS is classified by operation of law when designated by the EPA. Under Subpart 2 of part D of title I of the CAA, state planning and emissions control requirements for ozone are determined, in part, by a nonattainment area's classification. The ozone nonattainment areas are classified based on the severity of their ozone levels (as determined based on the area's “design value,” which represents air quality in the area for the most recent 3 years). 8 The possible classifications are Marginal, Moderate, Serious, Severe, and Extreme. Nonattainment areas with a “lower” classification have ozone levels that are closer to the standard than areas with a “higher” classification. Areas in the lower classification levels have fewer and/or less stringent mandatory air quality planning and control requirements than those in higher classifications. On March 9, 2018 (83 FR 10376), the EPA published the Classifications Rule that establishes how the statutory classifications will apply for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, including the air quality thresholds for each classification category. Each nonattainment area's design value, based on the then-most recent 3 years of certified air quality monitoring data, is used to establish the classification for the area.

The regulatory tables included at the end of this action for the Denver Metro/North Front Range, CO nonattainment area and the El Paso-Las Cruces, TX-NM nonattainment area provide the classification for the designated nonattainment area for the 2015 ozone NAAQS based on the design value for the area and the classification thresholds established in the Classification Rule. Both of these areas addressed in this Federal Register document are Marginal nonattainment areas.

As established in the final implementing regulations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, nonattainment areas (including the areas subject to this final action) shall attain the 2015 standards as expeditiously as practicable but not later than the dates provided in Table 1 of 40 CFR 51.1303(a) expressed in years after the effective date of area designations, which was August 3, 2018 (83 FR 25776; June 4, 2018). The resulting attainment date for Marginal areas is not later than 3 years from the designation effective date, or August 3, 2021. Further, states with Marginal nonattainment areas have 2 years from the effective date of designation to submit state implementation plan (SIP) revisions addressing emissions inventories (required by CAA section 182(a)(1)) and emissions statement regulations (CAA section 182(a)(3)(B)) (83 FR 62998, 63000; December 6, 2018). See also 40 CFR 51.1315. The resulting emissions inventory and emissions statement SIP revisions were due August 3, 2020. The August 3, 2021, Marginal area attainment date still applies for the areas subject to this final action, inclusive of the revised nonattainment boundaries. As with the other 14 remanded counties, the August 3, 2020, SIP submission requirements apply to the entirety of Weld County, Colorado. The EPA expects states with areas subject to this final action to work with their respective EPA Regional office to submit any necessary supplements or revisions to fulfill the Marginal area SIP revision requirements associated with the nonattainment boundaries in this final action as expeditiously as practicable.

However, the EPA recognizes that Texas is in a unique position among the states affected by the D.C. Circuit's remand. For all of the other nonattainment area boundaries modified either in this document or in the previous action (86 FR 31438; June 14, 2021) in response to the court's decision, the relevant states already had counties or portions of counties as a part of those nonattainment areas, and thus already had an August 3, 2020, deadline to submit SIPs meeting the requirements for a Marginal nonattainment area. However, no portion of Texas was already designated nonattainment as a part of the Doña Ana, New Mexico area; as such, Texas had no notice that it should prepare a Marginal area SIP submission for that area. Given the lack of prior notice, the EPA believes it is reasonable to provide Texas with a deadline of December 30, 2022 to submit a SIP submission that meets all the Marginal nonattainment area planning requirements for the newly expanded El Paso-Las Cruces Texas-New Mexico nonattainment area. See CAA section 301(a)(1).

Setting a separate deadline for El Paso's SIP submission is not at odds with the EPA's decision to keep a consistent attainment date for the entirety of the El Paso-Las Cruces Texas-New Mexico nonattainment area, or CAA section 182(j). The CAA requires that states take “reasonable” steps to coordinate planning efforts for joint nonattainment areas. Providing additional time to allow Texas to make a Marginal area submission will not interfere, and could better serve, future coordination on planning efforts for the entire nonattainment area. Other parts of the CAA also provide support for this final action's decisions regarding attainment dates and SIP submission deadlines. Section 182(i) of the CAA allows the Administrator to adjust SIP deadlines but not attainment dates upon mandatory reclassification of certain ozone nonattainment areas. In addition, areas subject to Marginal area requirements are not required to “plan” for attainment in the same way as areas classified Moderate and above. The primary substantive obligations associated with a Marginal classification are the requirement to submit an emissions inventory and the requirement that new sources in the area must implement nonattainment new source review. Neither requirement is integrally related to attainment planning—they are not submitted to demonstrate how the area will attain or make reasonable further progress towards attainment, and they are not suspended if the area is attaining.

Setting a reasonable future deadline for SIP submissions is consistent with the EPA's past practice and D.C. Circuit precedent. On January 4, 2013, the D.C. Circuit remanded the EPA's 2007 PM 2.5 Implementation Rule, 9 finding that the EPA had applied the incorrect set of implementation provisions within the CAA, including a series of deadlines for SIP submissions. 10 Upon remand, the deadlines that should have applied to the relevant areas were in the past. Given that, the EPA took final action in 2014 to set up “relatively brief but reasonable” deadlines for required SIP submissions. While the action changed the submission deadlines, it also left in place the attainment dates that had occurred in the past for the relevant nonattainment areas. Petitioners challenged the EPA's rule establishing future SIP submittal deadlines on the basis that the CAA established SIP submittal deadlines, those should have applied based on the D.C. Circuit's earlier decision, and the EPA lacked discretion to change those deadlines. The EPA's rule establishing new, future SIP submittal deadlines in this circumstance was upheld by the D.C. Circuit in WildEarth Guardians v. EPA, 830 F.3d 529 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (finding that the EPA acted within its authority in novel circumstances where a SIP submission deadline passed without states' awareness due to a remanded action).

The EPA recognizes that the Agency did not specifically provide notice in its June 14, 2021 intended designations that Texas's Marginal area SIP submission deadlines would be extended from August 3, 2020 to December 30, 2022. However, as discussed in the previous section, under CAA section 107(d)(2)(B), designations actions are specifically exempted from the notice and comment requirements of the APA. See CAA section 172(b) (requiring the Administrator to establish a schedule for SIP requirements at the time the Administrator promulgates a nonattainment designation). In addition, the Agency did not specify what deadline would apply, and numerous commenters addressed the issue in comments, suggesting that the Agency in fact provided enough notice on the issue that it is appropriate to finalize without additional notice. As such, the EPA does not believe that a more specific notice was necessary to extend Texas's SIP submission deadlines.

Even if additional notice were required, the EPA would have good cause to waive such a requirement to finalize an extension of Texas's SIP submission deadlines for the revised additional portion of the El Paso-Las Cruces TX-NM nonattainment area, as providing an additional notice and comment period would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. See APA Section 553(b)(B). Upon the effective date of this final action, without a finalized extension of Texas's SIP deadline, the EPA would immediately be vulnerable to deadline litigation for the Agency's failure to issue findings of failure to submit under CAA section 107(k)(1)(B)—for a state that until today was not required to submit anything to the Agency. And, the Agency does not have time, given the deadlines for other statutorily-required actions and the Clean Wisconsin court's direction for the EPA to act as expeditiously as practicable, to wait to finalize these revised designations for a full notice-and-comment process on this lone issue, which is a small part of a large and complex series of Agency actions. Further, a specific, brief, and reasonable deadline set in the future provides the state and stakeholders with certainty and the ability to develop and submit the SIP revisions at issue on a timely basis, rather than complications and potential mandatory duty deadline suit litigation that could ensue if the EPA established a submittal deadline that had already lapsed.

Consideration of EJ concerns is consistent with an Administrator directive and presidential executive orders. On April 7, 2021, the Administrator directed the EPA offices to take immediate and affirmative steps to incorporate EJ considerations into the regulatory development processes. 11 The EPA has defined environmental justice as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies.”  12 The Administrator's directive came as part of implementing the Biden-Harris Administration's executive order (E.O. 13985, 86 FR 7009, January 25, 2021) directing all federal agencies to embed equity into their programs and services to ensure the consistent and systematic fair, just, and impartial treatment of all individuals, including those who belong to underserved communities that have been denied such treatment. 13 E.O. 13985 defines the term “underserved communities” as referring to populations sharing a particular characteristic, as well as geographic communities, that have been systematically denied a full opportunity to participate in aspects of economic, social, and civic life. The new E.O. 13985 is an update to E.O. 12898 (“Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,” 59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) that directed federal agencies to focus on the environmental and human health effects of federal actions on minority and low-income populations with the goal of achieving environmental protection for all communities. 14 Finally, in a subsequent executive order addressing the global climate crisis (E.O. 14008), the Biden-Harris Administration formalized their commitment to make EJ a part of the mission of every agency by directing federal agencies to develop programs, policies, and activities to address the disproportionate health, environmental, economic, and climate impacts on disadvantaged communities. 15

When the EPA establishes a new or revised NAAQS, the CAA requires the EPA to designate all areas of the U.S. as either nonattainment, attainment, or unclassifiable. This action for El Paso County, Texas and Weld County, Colorado, revises certain designation determinations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS that were identified in the July 10, 2020, court remand. Since these two areas have air quality that do not meet the NAAQS, or have been determined to contribute emissions to such areas, the CAA requires relevant state authorities to initiate appropriate air quality management actions to ensure that all those residing, working, attending school, or otherwise present in those areas are protected, regardless of minority and economic status.

As part of this area designation action, the EPA evaluated a number of EJ issues, including the demographics of the impacted area, higher susceptibility in response to pollution exposure, and capacity to participate in decision making, as described in this section. Specifically, the EPA analyzed certain key demographics for both El Paso County, Texas, and Weld County Colorado, as part of the EJ evaluation conducted for this rulemaking effort. Additionally, the EPA provided the public with information about the air quality in the relevant areas of the country and provided adequate opportunity for public comment on the EPA's proposal.

Demographics of impacted area. The EPA evaluated the 2019 census data available for El Paso County, Texas and Weld County, Colorado to identify key demographic indicators. These include the percent of the population identifying as people of color  16 as well as the percent of the population identifying as low income. 17 In El Paso County, Texas, 18 91.1 percent of the population identify as people of color (mostly as Hispanic or Latino) and 18.8 percent identify as low income. By comparison, 39.7 percent of the population of the state of Texas and 18.5 percent of the nation identify as Hispanic or Latino. In Weld County, Colorado, 19 37.6 percent of the population identify as people of color and 8.4 percent of the population identify as low income. 20

Higher susceptibility in response to pollution exposure. As discussed in the EPA's EJ Technical Guidance, people of color, low-income populations, and indigenous peoples often experience greater exposure and disease burdens than the general population as a whole, which can increase their susceptibility to adverse health effects from environmental stressors. 21 We recognize also that underserved communities can experience reduced access to health care, nutritional, and fitness resources, further increasing their susceptibility. People susceptible to the effects of degraded ambient air include people with asthma, children, older adults, and people who are active outdoors, especially outdoor workers. The resulting adverse respiratory effects can include, e.g., difficulty in breathing, airway inflammation and damage, aggravation of lung diseases, and increased frequency of asthma attacks. 22 Exposure to elevated concentrations of nitrogen dioxide (a type of NO X compound and ozone precursor) can produce similar adverse health effects to ozone. 23 VOC emissions can include listed Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) that cause or may cause serious health problems such as cancer, and noncancer effects on the lungs and other parts of the respiratory system; on the immune, nervous and reproductive systems; and to organs such as the heart, liver and kidneys. 24

Capacity to participate in decision making. The inability to participate in the environmental decision-making process may contribute to disproportionate adverse impacts for underserved communities. Obstacles to participation may include lack of trust; availability or lack of information; language barriers and other socio-cultural issues; inability to access available communication channels; and limited capacity to access technical and legal resources.

On June 14, 2021, the EPA published a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register , providing EPA's intended designations for the remanded El Paso and Weld Counties and provided a 30-day public comment period. The EPA received comments from a wide range of stakeholders to include small business, industry, environmental groups, governmental planning agencies, county commissioners and the public at large from both areas. All comments received and responses are in the docket for this action.

This action is exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget because it responds to the CAA requirement to promulgate air quality designations after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS.

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA. This action fulfills the non-discretionary duty for the EPA to promulgate air quality designations after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS and does not contain any information collection activities.

This action is not subject to the RFA. The RFA applies only to rules subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other statute.

This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.

This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The division of responsibility between the federal government and the states for purposes of implementing the NAAQS is established under the CAA.

This action has tribal implications. However, it will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. There was one Federally Recognized Tribe that was potentially affected by this action, the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo. Consistent with the EPA Policy on Coordination and Consultation with Indian Tribes, by letter dated May 26, 2021, the EPA offered the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo the opportunity for consultation and informed the tribe of the designations process and the intended designation for El Paso County, TX. The tribe did not request any consultation.

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.

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

This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The documentation for this determination is contained in Section IX of this preamble, “Environmental Justice Concerns.”

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

Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA governs judicial review of final actions by the EPA. This section provides, in part, that petitions for review must be filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit: (i) When the Agency action consists of “nationally applicable regulations promulgated, or final action taken, by the Administrator,” or (ii) when such action is locally or regionally applicable, “if such action is based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect and if in taking such action the Administrator finds and publishes that such action is based on such a determination.” For locally or regionally applicable final actions, the CAA reserves the EPA complete discretion whether to invoke the exception in (ii).

This final action designating areas for the 2015 ozone NAAQS is “nationally applicable” within the meaning of CAA section 307(b)(1). In the alternative, to the extent a court finds this action to be locally or regionally applicable, the Administrator is exercising the complete discretion afforded to him under the CAA to make and publish a finding that this action is based on a determination of “nationwide scope or effect” within the meaning of CAA section 307(b)(1). 25 This final action establishes designations for two areas across the U.S. for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, located in two states, in two EPA regions, and in two different federal judicial circuits. 26 This final action applies a uniform, nationwide analytical method and interpretation of CAA section 107(d)(1) to these areas across the country in a single final action, and the final action is based on this common core of determinations. More specifically, this final action is based on a determination by the EPA to evaluate areas nationwide under a common five factor analysis in determining whether areas were in violation of or contributing to an area in violation of the 2015 ozone NAAQS at the time of the April 2018 designations final action. For example, the EPA's revised designations are based on a determination by the EPA to reconsider the information and data in the record and available at the time of the designations action signed April 2018, rather than considering newer air quality information.

For these reasons, this final action is nationally applicable or, alternatively, the Administrator is exercising the complete discretion afforded to him by the CAA and hereby finds that this final action is based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect for purposes of CAA section 307(b)(1) and is hereby publishing that finding in the Federal Register . Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, any petitions for review of this final action must be filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days from the date this final action is published in the Federal Register . Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of these final actions does not affect the finality of the actions for the purposes of judicial review, nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review must be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such actions.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 81 as follows:

In the final rule which appeared in the August 13, 2021, Federal Register (86 FR 44774) entitled “Medicare Program; Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems for Acute Care Hospitals and the Long Term Care Hospital Prospective Payment System and Policy Changes and Fiscal Year 2022 Rates; Quality Programs and Medicare Promoting Interoperability Program Requirements for Eligible Hospitals and Critical Access Hospitals; Changes to Medicaid Provider Enrollment; and Changes to the Medicare Shared Savings Program” (hereinafter referred to as the FY 2022 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule), there were a number of technical and typographical errors. To correct the typographical and technical errors in the FY 2022 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule, we published a correcting document that appeared in the October 20, 2021, Federal Register (86 FR 58019) (hereinafter referred to as the FY 2022 IPPS/LTCH PPS correcting amendment).

In FR Doc. 2021-22724 of October 20, 2021 (86 FR 58019), there was an inadvertent omission and typographical error that are identified and corrected in this correcting document. This document also corrects additional typographical errors in FR Doc. 2021-16519 of August 13, 2021 (86 FR 44774). The corrections in this correcting document are applicable to discharges occurring on or after October 1, 2021, as if they had been included in the document that appeared in the August 13, 2021, Federal Register .

On page 44974, in the table displaying the continuation of technologies approved for FY 2021 new technology add-on payments and still considered new for FY 2022, we are correcting inadvertent typographical errors in the coding used to identify cases involving the use of the BAROSTIM NEO TM System that are eligible for new technology add-on payments.

On page 58023 in section IV.A. of the FY 2022 IPPS/LTCH PPS correcting amendment, we inadvertently omitted corrections to pages 45133, 45150, and 45157 of the FY 2022 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule, as summarized on page 58019 in section II.A. of the FY 2022 IPPS/LTCH PPS correcting amendment. We are also correcting an inadvertent typographical error in the coding used to identify cases involving the use of RECARBRIO TM that are eligible for new technology add-on payments.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the agency is required to publish a notice of the proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register before the provisions of a rule take effect. Similarly, section 1871(b)(1) of the Act requires the Secretary to provide for notice of the proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register and provide a period of not less than 60 days for public comment. In addition, section 553(d) of the APA, and section 1871(e)(1)(B)(i) of the Act mandate a 30-day delay in effective date after issuance or publication of a rule. Sections 553(b)(B) and 553(d)(3) of the APA provide for exceptions from the notice and comment and delay in effective date APA requirements; in cases in which these exceptions apply, sections 1871(b)(2)(C) and 1871(e)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act provide exceptions from the notice and 60-day comment period and delay in effective date requirements of the Act as well. Section 553(b)(B) of the APA and section 1871(b)(2)(C) of the Act authorize an agency to dispense with normal rulemaking requirements for good cause if the agency makes a finding that the notice and comment process are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. In addition, both section 553(d)(3) of the APA and section 1871(e)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act allow the agency to avoid the 30-day delay in effective date where such delay is contrary to the public interest and an agency includes a statement of support.

We believe that this final rule correction does not constitute a rule that would be subject to the notice and comment or delayed effective date requirements. This document corrects typographical errors in the FY 2022 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule and the FY 2022 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule correcting amendment, but does not make substantive changes to the policies or payment methodologies that were adopted in the final rule. As a result, this final rule correction is intended to ensure that the information in the FY 2022 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule accurately reflects the policies adopted in that document.

In addition, even if this were a rule to which the notice and comment procedures and delayed effective date requirements applied, we find that there is good cause to waive such requirements. Undertaking further notice and comment procedures to incorporate the corrections in this document into the final rule or delaying the effective date would be contrary to the public interest because it is in the public's interest for providers to receive appropriate payments in as timely a manner as possible, and to ensure that the FY 2022 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule accurately reflects our policies. Furthermore, such procedures would be unnecessary, as we are not altering our payment methodologies or policies, but rather, we are simply implementing correctly the methodologies and policies that we previously proposed, requested comment on, and subsequently finalized. This final rule correction is intended solely to ensure that the FY 2022 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule accurately reflects these payment methodologies and policies. Therefore, we believe we have good cause to waive the notice and comment and effective date requirements. Moreover, even if these corrections were considered to be retroactive rulemaking, they would be authorized under section 1871(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act, which permits the Secretary to issue a rule for the Medicare program with retroactive effect if the failure to do so would be contrary to the public interest. As we have explained previously, we believe it would be contrary to the public interest not to implement the corrections in this final rule correction because it is in the public's interest for providers to receive appropriate payments in as timely a manner as possible, and to ensure that the FY 2022 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule accurately reflects our policies.

In FR Doc. 2021-16519 of August 13, 2021(86 FR 44774), we are making the following corrections:

1. On page 44974, in the table titled “Continuation of Technologies Approved for FY 2021 New Technology Add-On Payments and Still Considered New for FY 2022, the entry in row 3 is corrected to read as follows:

In FR Doc. 2021-22724 of October 20, 2021 (86 FR 58019), we are making the following corrections:

1. On page 58023, lower half of the page (following the table), third column:

a. Preceding the beginning of the partial paragraph (before item 10), the paragraph is corrected by adding items 7 through 9 to read as follows:

“7. On page 45133, top of the page,

a. First column, partial paragraph,

(1) Line 4, the figure “$31,500” is corrected to read “$63,000”.

(2) Line 5, the figure “$10,500” is corrected to read “$21,000”.

b. Second column, partial paragraph, last line, the figure “$20,475” is corrected to read “$40,950”.

8. On page 45150, second column, last full paragraph, lines 27 through 31, the phrase “in combination with one of the following ICD-10-CM codes: D65 (Disseminated intravascular coagulation) or D68.2 (Hereditary deficiency of other clotting factors).” is corrected to read “in combination with one of the following ICD-10-CM codes: D62 (Acute posthemorrhagic anemia), D65 (Disseminated intravascular coagulation), D68.2 (Hereditary deficiency of other clotting factors), D68.4 (Acquired coagulation factor deficiency) or D68.9 (Coagulation defect, unspecified).”.

9. On page 45157, top third of the page, first column, first partial paragraph, last line, the phrase, “technology group 6).” is corrected to read “technology group 6) in combination with the following ICD-10-CM codes: Y95 (Nosocomial condition) and one of the following: J14 (Pneumonia due to Hemophilus influenzae) J15.0 (Pneumonia due to Klebsiella pneumoniae), J15.1 (Pneumonia due to Pseudomonas), J15.5 (Pneumonia due to Escherichia coli), J15.6 (Pneumonia due to other Gram-negative bacteria), J15.8 (Pneumonia due to other specified bacteria), or J95.851 (Ventilator associated pneumonia) and one of the following: B96.1 (Klebsiella pneumoniae [K. pneumoniae] as the cause of diseases classified elsewhere), B96.20 (Unspecified Escherichia coli [E. coli] as the cause of diseases classified elsewhere), B96.21 (Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli [E. coli] [STEC] O157 as the cause of diseases classified elsewhere), B96.22 (Other specified Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli [E. coli] [STEC] as the cause of diseases classified elsewhere), B96.23 (Unspecified Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli [E. coli] [STEC] as the cause of diseases classified elsewhere, B96.29 (Other Escherichia coli [E. coli] as the cause of diseases classified elsewhere), B96.3 (Hemophilus influenzae [H. influenzae] as the cause of diseases classified elsewhere, B96.5 (Pseudomonas (aeruginosa) (mallei) (pseudomallei) as the cause of diseases classified elsewhere), or B96.89 (Other specified bacterial agents as the cause of diseases classified elsewhere).”

b. Within the partial paragraph (item 10), line 8, the code number “J14.0” is corrected to read “J14”.

DoD is amending the DFARS to revise the policies at DFARS 201.170 for the conduct of peer reviews by the Office of the Principal Director, Defense Pricing and Contracting (DPC). The rule removes the requirement for DPC-led, preaward peer reviews of competitive procurements valued at $1 billion or more unless the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment (USD(A&S)) is the milestone decision authority or unless USD(A&S) designates a competitive procurement as requiring a peer review, regardless of dollar value. Additionally, DoD components may request DPC-led peer reviews for competitive acquisitions valued below the $1 billion threshold. DPC will conduct the reviews upon approval by the Director, DPC (Contract Policy).

The threshold for DPC-led, preaward peer reviews of noncompetitive procurements is increased from $500 million to $1 billion. Additionally, the requirement for DPC-led peer reviews of noncompetitive procurements will include any other contract actions USD(A&S) designates as requiring a peer review, regardless of dollar value. DoD components may request DPC-led peer reviews for noncompetitive acquisitions valued below the $1 billion threshold. DPC will conduct the reviews upon approval by the Director, DPC (Price, Cost and Finance).

The rule includes clarification of the types of contract actions included in preaward peer reviews for noncompetitive procurements and guidance on how to identify the contract actions that are subject to preaward peer reviews for competitive and noncompetitive procurements. DoD components establish procedures to conduct preaward peer reviews of competitive and noncompetitive procurements that do not meet the criteria for a DPC-led review. The rule also removes DPC-led, postaward peer reviews of acquisitions for services from the DFARS, and the cross-reference at DFARS 237.102-76 has been removed.

The statute that applies to the publication of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) is 41 U.S.C. 1707, Publication of Proposed Regulations. Subsection (a)(1) of the statute requires that a procurement policy, regulation, procedure or form (including an amendment or modification thereof) must be published for public comment if it relates to the expenditure of appropriated funds, and has either a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of the agency issuing the policy, regulation, procedure or form, or has a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors. This final rule is not required to be published for public comment, because the rule concerns DoD's internal review processes and does not have a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors.

This rule does not create or revise any solicitation provisions or contract clauses. It does not impact any existing solicitation provisions or contract clauses or their applicability to contracts valued at or below the simplified acquisition threshold or for commercial items, including commercially available off-the-shelf items.

Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 and E.O. 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993.

As required by the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808) before an interim or final rule takes effect, DoD will submit a copy of the interim or final rule with the form, Submission of Federal Rules under the Congressional Review Act, to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States. A major rule under the Congressional Review Act cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply to this rule because this final rule does not constitute a significant DFARS revision within the meaning of FAR 1.501-1, and 41 U.S.C. 1707 does not require publication for public comment.

The rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

Therefore, 48 CFR parts 201 and 237 are amended as follows:

The Regional Administrator of the Greater Atlantic Regional Office monitors Atlantic herring fishery catch based on vessel and dealer reports, state data, and other available information. Regulations at 50 CFR 648.201(a)(1)(ii) require that we close the herring fishery and implement a 2,000-lb (907.2-kg) possession limit for herring beginning on the date that catch is projected to reach 95 percent of the annual catch limit (ACL).

Based on vessel reports, dealer reports, and other available information, the Regional Administrator projects that the herring fleet has caught 95 percent of the herring ACL by November 23, 2021. Therefore, effective 00:01 hr local time November 25, 2021, through December 31, 2021, a person may not attempt or do any of the following: Fish for; possess; transfer; purchase; receive; land; or sell more than 2,000 lb (907.2-kg) of herring per trip or more than once per calendar day.

Vessels that enter port before 00:01 hr local time on November 25, 2021, may land and sell more than 2,000 lb (907.2 kg) of herring from that trip, provided that catch is landed in accordance with state management measures and the herring were not caught in a Management Area already subject to a 2,000-lb (907.2-kg) possession limit.

Also effective 00:01 hr local time, November 25, 2021, through 24:00 hr local time, December 31, federally permitted dealers may not attempt or do any of the following: Purchase; receive; possess; have custody or control of; sell; barter; trade; or transfer more than 2,000 lb (907.2 kg) of herring per trip or calendar day from a vessel, unless it is from a vessel that enters port before 00:01 hr local time on November 25, 2021, catch is landed in accordance with state management measures, and the herring were not caught in a Management Area already subject to a 2,000-lb (907.2-kg) possession limit.

This action is required by 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

NMFS finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment because it is unnecessary, contrary to the public interest, and impracticable. Ample prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this action has been provided for the required implementation of this action. The requirement to implement this fishery closure was developed by the New England Fishery Management Council using public meetings that invited public comment on the measures when they were developed and considered along with alternatives. Further, the regulations requiring NMFS to implement this fishery closure also were subject to public notice and opportunity to comment. Herring fishing industry participants monitor catch closely and anticipate a potential fishery closure as the catch total approaches the ACL. The regulation provides NMFS with no discretion and is designed for implementation as quickly as possible to prevent catch from exceeding limits designed to prevent overfishing while allowing the fishery to achieve optimum yield.

The 2021 Atlantic herring fishing year began on January 1, 2021. Data indicating that the Atlantic herring fleet will have landed at least 95 percent of the 2021 ACL only recently became available. High-volume catch and landings in this fishery can increase total catch relative to the ACL quickly, especially in this fishing year where catch limits are unusually low. If implementation of this fishery closure is delayed to solicit prior public comment, the 2021 herring ACL will likely be further exceeded; thereby undermining the conservation objectives of the Atlantic Herring Fishery Management Plan (FMP). When the ACL is exceeded, the excess must be deducted from a future ACL and reduces future fishing opportunities. The public expects these fishery closure actions to occur in a timely way consistent with the FMP's objectives. For the reasons stated above, NMFS also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delayed effectiveness in accordance with 5 U.S.C 553(d)(3).

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

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 2021 TAC of Atka mackerel, in the BS/EAI, allocated to vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access sector fishery was established as a directed fishing allowance of 2,209 metric tons by the final 2021 and 2022 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (86 FR 11449, February 25, 2021).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Atka mackerel in the BS/EAI by vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access sector fishery. 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 directed fishing closure of Atka mackerel in the BS/EAI for vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access sector fishery. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of November 22, 2021.

The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI 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 2021 Pacific cod TAC specified for pot catcher vessels greater than or equal to 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA in the BSAI is 9,334 mt as established by the final 2021 and 2022 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (86 FR 11449, February 25, 2021).

The 2021 Pacific cod TAC specified for trawl catcher vessels in the BSAI is 24,704 mt as established by the final 2021 and 2022 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (86 FR 11449, February 25, 2021).

The 2021 Pacific cod TAC allocated to catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear in the BSAI is 3,944 mt as established by final 2021 and 2022 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (86 FR 11449, February 25, 2021) and reallocation (86 FR 47240, August 24, 2021).

The 2021 Pacific cod TAC specified for pot catcher/processors in the BSAI is 1,667 mt as established by the final 2021 and 2022 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (86 FR 11449, February 25, 2021).

The 2021 Pacific cod TAC specified for AFA trawl catcher/processors in the BSAI is 2,571 mt as established by the final 2021 and 2022 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (86 FR 11449, February 25, 2021).

The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, (Regional Administrator) has determined that pot catcher vessels greater than or equal to 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA will not be able to harvest 500 mt of the 2021 Pacific cod TAC allocated to those vessels under § 679.20(a)(7)(ii)(A)( 5 ) and that trawl catcher vessels will not be able to harvest 3,054 mt of the 2021 Pacific cod TAC allocated to those vessels under § 679.20(a)(7)(ii)(A)( 9 ).

Therefore, in accordance with § 679.20(a)(7)(iii)(A), NMFS reallocates 500 mt of Pacific cod from pot catcher vessels greater than or equal to 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA and 3,054 of Pacific cod from trawl catcher vessels. In accordance with § 679.20(a)(7)(iii)(A), the 3,554 mt of Pacific cod is reallocated as follows: 500 mt for catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear, 500 mt for pot catcher/processors, and 2,554 mt for AFA trawl catcher/processors.

The harvest specifications for 2021 Pacific cod included in final 2021 and 2022 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (86 FR 11449, February 25, 2021) and revision (86 FR 47240, August 24, 2021), are further revised as follows: 8,834 mt to pot catcher vessels greater than or equal to 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA, 21,650 mt to trawl catcher vessels, 4,444 mt to catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear, 2,167 mt to pot catcher/processors, and 5,125 mt to AFA trawl catcher/processors.

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.