DOE has proposed amended energy conservation standards for manufactured housing and is maintaining both a rulemaking proceeding and an associated NEPA proceeding. In the rulemaking proceeding, DOE published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNOPR) proposing amended energy conservation standards for manufactured housing on August 26, 2021 (August 2021 MH SNOPR). 86 FR 47744. In the August 2021 MH SNOPR, DOE's primary proposal was the “tiered” approach, based on the 2021 IECC, wherein a subset of the energy conservation standards would be less stringent for certain manufactured homes in light of the cost-effectiveness considerations required by statute. Under the tiered proposal, two sets of standards would be established in proposed 10 CFR part 460, subpart B ( i.e., Tier 1 and Tier 2).

On October 26, 2021, DOE published a NODA regarding updated inputs and results of corresponding analyses and invited interested parties to comment on these analyses. 86 FR 59042 (October 2021 NODA). In addition, DOE reopened the public comment period on the SNOPR through November 26, 2021. DOE explained that it would consider the updated inputs and corresponding analyses, as well as comments on the inputs and analyses, as part of the rulemaking. In addition, DOE stated it may further revise the analysis presented in this rulemaking based on any new or updated information or data it obtains and encouraged stakeholders to provide any additional data or information that may inform the analysis.

In the NEPA proceeding, on July 7, 2021, DOE published a notice of intent (NOI) to prepare an environmental impact statement for energy conservation standards for manufactured housing, to invite public comments on the EIS scope, and to conduct public scoping meetings. 86 FR 35773 (July 7, 2021). DOE conducted online meetings July 21 and July 22, 2021, and invited oral comments on the scope of the EIS, with written comments invited through August 6, 2021. DOE has announced the availability of, and is seeking comment on, the Draft EIS. More information is available on the EIS website ( https://ecs-mh.evs.anl.gov/ ).

DOE is re-opening comment on the rulemaking proceeding to consider how the Draft EIS should inform the final energy conservation standards for manufactured housing The Draft EIS analyzes price-based alternatives based around a $63,000 threshold for manufacturer retail list price and different wall insulation requirements. It also analyzes alternatives based on size of the manufactured housing (single sections and multiple sections with differences in wall insultation requirements), untiered alternatives with only differences in wall insultation requirements, and a no action alternative ( i.e., no DOE standard). Stakeholders are encouraged to provide comment on the alternatives, assumptions, and analyses presented in the Draft EIS through the EIS process as described on the EIS website ( https://ecs-mh.evs.anl.gov/ ).

Through this document, DOE invites comments in the docket for this rulemaking specifically on how the analyses and results presented in the Draft EIS should inform DOE's final rule for energy conservation standards for manufactured housing.

DOE is interested in receiving comments on how aspects of the data and analysis presented in the Draft EIS and supporting documentation should inform DOE's final energy conservation standards for manufactured housing.

DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this document, but no later than the date provided in the DATES section at the beginning of this document. Interested parties may submit comments, data, and other information using any of the methods described in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this document.

Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties, DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.

However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.

Do not submit to www.regulations.gov information for which disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as Confidential Business Information (“CBI”)). Comments submitted through www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business Information section.

DOE processes submissions made through www.regulations.gov before posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that www.regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.

Submitting comments via email. Comments and documents submitted via email also will be posted to www.regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal contact information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact information in a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any comments.

Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE. No telefacsimiles (“faxes”) will be accepted.

Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not secured, that are written in English, and that are free of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author.

Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting time.

Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via email two well-marked copies: One copy of the document marked “confidential” including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked “non-confidential” with the information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination.

It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public docket, without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure).

The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this notice and re-opening of comment period.

This document of the Department of Energy was signed on January 10, 2022, by Kelly J. Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register .

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2021-0173 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2021-0173.

• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to PDR.Resource@nrc.gov. The RIS 2022-XX, Operational Leakage, is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML21166A122.

• NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents, by appointment, at the PDR, Room P1 B35, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. To make an appointment to visit the PDR, please send an email to PDR.Resource@nrc.gov or call 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. (ET), Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal Rulemaking website ( https://www.regulations.gov ). Please include Docket ID NRC-2021-0173 in your comment submission.

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

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

This RIS is intended for all holders of operating licenses and combined licenses for nuclear power reactors, except those who have permanently ceased operations and have certified that fuel has been permanently removed from the reactor vessel.

Operational leakage is leakage through a flaw in the pressure retaining boundary of American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (BPVC) Code Class 1, 2 or 3 systems, structures, and components (SSC) discovered during the operational life of the nuclear power plant outside any ASME BPVC-required pressure test. The term “through-wall” describes a condition that extends from one surface to another surface in a component. If through-wall operational leakage is observed from an ASME BPVC Class 1, 2 or 3 SSC, and the structural integrity of the SSC must be established to conclude that the system remains operable, then the methods described in the provisions of the applicable inservice inspection requirements, as specified in paragraph 50.55a(g) of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, must be used. These methods require analysis in accordance with the original construction code, the implementation of an NRC-approved ASME BPVC Code Case, or Nonmandatory Appendix U of ASME BPVC, Section XI, to verify structural integrity or perform a repair/replacement activity.

This RIS emphasizes that operational leakage must be addressed in the same manner as leakage detected during an ASME BPVC, Section XI, pressure test. That is, when operational leakage is found in a system that is within the scope of ASME BPVC, Section XI, and is required to be operable by plant TS, the component must be evaluated by the licensee for operability. Structural integrity determinations must be conducted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the original construction code, the ASME BPVC, Section XI, or otherwise addressed through authorized methods. This entails evaluation in accordance with an NRC-approved Code Case; the use of Nonmandatory Appendix U of ASME BPVC, Section XI; or a repair/replacement activity.

The NRC issues RISs to communicate with stakeholders on a broad range of matters. This may include communication and clarification of NRC technical or policy positions on regulatory matters that have not been communicated to or are not broadly understood by the nuclear industry.

As noted in “Relocation of Regulatory Issue Summary Notices in the Federal Register ” (May 8, 2018, 83 FR 20858), this document is being published in the Proposed Rules section of the Federal Register to comply with publication requirements under 1 CFR chapter I.

The NRC is requesting public comments on the draft RIS. The NRC plans to hold a public meeting to discuss this RIS and the issues associated with it. Additional details regarding the meeting will be posted at least 10 days prior to the public meeting on the NRC's Public Meeting Schedule website at https://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/public-meetings/index.cfm. All comments that are to receive consideration in the final RIS must still be submitted electronically or in writing as indicated in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

The NRC staff will make a final determination regarding issuance of the RIS after it considers any public comments received in response to this request.

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2021-1178; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-00986-R” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposal because of those comments.

Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this NPRM.

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Andrea Jimenez, Aerospace Engineer, COS Program Management Section, Operational Safety Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA, 1600 Stewart Ave., Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone (516) 228-7330; email andrea.jimenez@faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

The FAA issued AD 2020-20-06, Amendment 39-21262 (85 FR 60356, September 25, 2020) (AD 2020-20-06), for Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited Model 429 helicopters with a bellcrank assembly part number (P/N) 429-001-523-101, 429-001-523-103, 429-001-532-101, or 429-001-532-103 installed. AD 2020-20-06 requires within 12 months after the helicopter was manufactured or 30 days after the effective date of AD 2020-20-06, whichever occurs later, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6 months, disconnecting the forward ends of the collective control tube, longitudinal stability and control augmentation system (SCAS) actuator, and lateral SCAS actuator and stowing the collective control tube and each SCAS actuator to prevent binding. AD 2020-20-06 requires slowly moving the cyclic fore/aft and laterally, and the collective up/down from stop to stop to determine if there is any roughness. If there is any roughness in the flight control system, AD 2020-20-06 requires, before further flight, replacing the six pivot bearings in the collective lateral bellcrank assembly and the longitudinal bellcrank assembly. Finally, AD 2020-20-06 requires inspecting each arm end bearing at the end of the collective, lateral, and longitudinal arm assemblies by rotating each bearing and ensuring each bearing rotates freely. If there is any binding in any arm end bearing or on the longitudinal bellcrank assembly, AD 2020-20-06 requires replacing each arm end bearing before further flight.

AD 2020-20-06 was prompted by Transport Canada AD CF-2016-11R2, dated October 18, 2017 (Transport Canada AD CF-2016-11R2), issued by Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, to correct an unsafe condition for Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Model 429 helicopters equipped with a bellcrank assembly P/N 429-001-523-101, 429-001-523-103, 429-001-532-101, or 429-001-532-103. Transport Canada advised that in-service reports show that bearings in the roof-mounted flight control bellcranks are adversely affected by precipitation. Pooling can occur at the forward portion of the roof, providing a source of contamination for bearings in the roof-mounted flight controls. Precipitation may reduce the effectiveness of the grease in the bearings, allowing corrosion to occur. This can result in intermittent restrictions, such as binding and roughness in the flight controls. Transport Canada also advised that an undetected corroded bearing could lead to restrictions in the collective, directional, or pitch control systems, resulting in difficulty controlling the helicopter.

Transport Canada AD CF-2016-11R2 required within 12 months after the helicopter was manufactured and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6 months, inspecting the flight controls and replacing any discrepant bearings. If the helicopter's age exceeded 12 months, Transport Canada AD CF-2016-11R2 required the 12-month inspection within 30 days. Transport Canada AD CF-2016-11R2 also required, within 30 days, performing a functional check and replacement, if applicable, of the bearings if the most recent functional check of the helicopter was performed with the alternate procedure of using a hydraulic test stand or if the inspection method was unknown.

Since the FAA issued AD 2020-20-06, Transport Canada issued AD CF-2016-11R3, dated August 30, 2021 (Transport Canada AD CF-2016-11R3), which supersedes Transport Canada AD CF-2016-11R2. Transport Canada advises of new collective and cyclic bellcrank assemblies which have been upgraded with corrosion resistant steel bearings.

Accordingly, Transport Canada AD CF-2016-11R3 requires, for certain serial-numbered helicopters, within 12 months from the helicopter manufacture date, or for helicopters that have exceeded the age threshold of 12 months from the helicopter manufacturer date, within 30 days, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6 months, performing a functional check of the flight controls to detect roughness in the pivot bearings and binding of the collective, lateral, or longitudinal arm end bearings of the bellcrank assemblies. If any roughness or binding is detected, Transport Canada AD CF-2016-11R3 requires replacement of each affected bellcrank assembly before further flight. Transport Canada AD CF-2016-11R3 also requires, within 24 months, installing the upgraded collective and cyclic bellcrank assemblies and considers this action a terminating action to the recurring inspections. Finally, Transport Canada AD CF-2016-11R3 prohibits an affected bellcrank assembly from being installed on any helicopter.

These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Canada and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with Canada, Transport Canada, its technical representative, has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA is proposing this AD after evaluating all known relevant information and determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type design.

The FAA reviewed Bell Technical Bulletin 429-18-58, Revision B, dated August 23, 2021 (TB 429-18-58 Rev B), which specifies procedures to upgrade certain part-numbered bellcrank assemblies to the bellcrank assemblies that utilize the corrosion resistant steel bearings.

The FAA also reviewed Bell Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin 429-15-21, Revision C, dated August 23, 2021 (ASB 429-15-21 Rev C), which specifies moving the cyclic stick fore, aft, and laterally, and the collective stick up and down from stop to stop to detect deteriorated pivot bearings. ASB 429-15-21 Rev C also specifies inspecting to determine whether the bearings in the collective, lateral, and longitudinal arm assemblies rotate freely. If discrepant arm bearings are found, ASB 429-15-21 Rev C specifies contacting Bell Product Support Engineering to report the findings and replacing the discrepant parts with serviceable parts.

This proposed AD would retain some of the requirements of AD 2020-20-06. This proposed AD would require, for certain serial-numbered helicopters, within 12 months after the helicopter was manufactured or 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6 months, disconnecting certain parts, stowing certain parts to prevent binding, and moving the cyclic stick and the collective stick to inspect for roughness in the flight control system and binding in the collective, lateral, and longitudinal arm assemblies. If any of these conditions exist, this proposed AD would require, before further flight, removing certain parts from service and installing upgraded bellcrank assemblies.

This proposed AD would also require, for certain serial-numbered helicopters that do not have the upgraded bellcrank assemblies installed, within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, installing the upgraded bellcrank assemblies, which would provide a terminating action for the recurring inspections. Finally, this proposed AD would prohibit installing any affected bellcrank assembly on any helicopter.

Transport Canada AD CF-2016-11R3 provides requirements if the most recent functional check was performed using a hydraulic test stand as an alternate procedure. This proposed AD provides no such alternate procedure. Transport Canada AD CF-2016-11R3 provides requirements for helicopters that have exceeded the age threshold of 12 months from the helicopter manufacturer date to complete the initial functional check within 30 days from the effective date of its AD. This proposed AD would require the initial inspection within 12 months after the helicopter was manufactured or 30 days after the effective date of this proposed AD, whichever occurs later. Transport Canada AD CF-2016-11R3 allows credit for the corrective actions of Part I if the initial functional check was accomplished prior to the effective date of Transport Canada AD CF-2016-11R3, whereas this proposed AD does not.

The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 64 helicopters of U.S. Registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on these numbers, the FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD.

Inspecting the cyclic and the collective bellcrank assemblies for roughness in the pivot bearings and binding in the collective, lateral, and longitudinal arm end bearings would take about 3 work-hours for an estimated cost of $255 per inspection cycle.

Installing the upgraded collective and cyclic bellcrank assemblies would take about 18 work-hours and parts would cost about $1,750 for an estimated cost of $3,280 per upgrade installation.

The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed, I certify this proposed regulation:

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

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

(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES. Include “Docket No. FAA-2021-1071; Project Identifier AD-2021-01055-E” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposal because of those comments.

Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to John Tallarovic, Aviation Safety Engineer, Chicago ACO, FAA, 2300 E. Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60018. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

The FAA issued AD 2017-18-14, Amendment 39-19023 (82 FR 42443, September 8, 2017), (AD 2017-18-14), for RRC 250-C20, -C20B, -C20F, -C20J, -C20R, -C20R/1, -C20R/2, -C20R/4, -C20W, -C300/A1, and -C300/B1 turboshaft engines with either a 3rd-stage turbine wheel, part number (P/N) 23065818, or a 4th-stage turbine wheel, P/N 23055944 or RR30000240, installed. AD 2017-18-14 was prompted by in-service turbine blade failures that revealed the need for changes to the inspections of a certain 3rd-stage turbine wheel and removal from service of a certain 4th-stage turbine wheel. AD 2017-18-14 requires repetitive visual inspections and FPIs of the 3rd-stage turbine wheel and removal from service of the 4th-stage turbine wheel. AD 2017-18-14 also revises the applicability to remove all RRC turboprop engines and adds additional turboshaft engines. The agency issued AD 2017-18-14 to prevent failure of the 3rd-stage and 4th-stage turbine wheel blades, damage to the engine, and damage to the aircraft.

Since the FAA issued AD 2017-18-14, the manufacturer redesigned the 3rd-stage turbine wheel. The manufacturer has issued Rolls-Royce (RR) Alert Commercial Engine Bulletin (CEB) CEB A-1428/CEB A-72-4111 (single document), specifying procedures for replacement of the 3rd-stage turbine wheel, P/N 23065818, with the new increased blade fillet 3rd-stage turbine wheel, P/N M250-10473. Additionally, the FAA determined that the RRC 250-C20C (T63-A-720) model turboshaft engine is also susceptible to the unsafe condition. The FAA, therefore, added RRC 250-C20C (T63-A-720) model turboshaft engines to the applicability of this proposed AD. The FAA is proposing this AD to require the replacement of 3rd-stage and 4th-stage turbine wheels with redesigned 3rd-stage and 4th-stage turbine wheels.

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

The FAA reviewed RR Alert CEB CEB A-1428/CEB A-72-4111 (single document), Revision 1, dated September 29, 2021. This service information describes procedures for replacing the 3rd-stage turbine wheel, P/N 23065818, with the new increased blade fillet 3rd-stage turbine wheel, P/N M250-10473.

The FAA reviewed Rolls-Royce Alert CEB CEB-A-1422/CEB-A-72-4108 (single document), Original Issue, dated September 13, 2017. This service information describes procedures for replacing 4th-stage turbine wheel, P/N 23055944, with the new increased fillet 4th-stage turbine wheel, P/N M250-10445.

The FAA also reviewed Rolls-Royce Alert Service Bulletin SB RR300-A-72-024, Original Issue, dated September 13, 2017. This service information describes procedures for replacing the 4th-stage turbine wheel, P/N RR30000240, with the new increased fillet 4th-stage turbine wheel, P/N RR30000494.

This proposed AD would require removal and replacement of the 3rd-stage and 4th-stage turbine wheels.

The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 3,041 3rd-stage stage turbine wheels and 3,769 4th-stage stage turbine wheels installed on helicopters of U.S. registry.

The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2021-1180; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-00794-R” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposal because of those comments.

Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this NPRM.

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Andrea Jimenez, Aerospace Engineer, COS Program Management Section, Operational Safety Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA, 1600 Stewart Ave., Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone (516) 228-7330; email andrea.jimenez@faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA receives that is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2021-0160, dated July 5, 2021 (EASA AD 2021-0160), to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (AHD), formerly Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH, Model MBB-BK117 D-3 helicopters, all serial numbers, including Model MBB-BK117 D-2 helicopters that have been converted into Model MBB-BK117 D-3 helicopters through Airbus Helicopters Service Bulletin MBB-BK117 D-2-00-003.

This proposed AD was prompted by reports of an M/R blade lead-lag damper in a tilted position. EASA advises that subsequent investigation results determined that the tolerances stack-up may lead to an insufficient clamping on the bearing pin. The FAA is proposing this AD to address this unsafe condition, which if not detected and corrected, could result in an unbalance of the M/R system, excessive vibration, and reduced control of the helicopter. See EASA AD 2021-0160 for additional background information.

EASA AD 2021-0160 requires a one-time inspection of the affected FCU and depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective actions. EASA AD 2021-0160 also requires after the initial FCU inspection, re-working and re-identifying each affected part by marking the part with a letter “M.” EASA AD 2021-0160 prohibits installing an affected FCU or affected part on any helicopter.

This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA reviewed Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin ASB MBB-BK117 D-3-62A-002, dated June 29, 2021, which specifies procedures for a one-time inspection of the FCU and re-work of the bearing pin installed on the support assembly.

These helicopters have been approved by EASA and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the European Union, EASA has notified the FAA about the unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA is proposing this AD after evaluating all known relevant information and determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type design.

This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2021-0160, described previously, as incorporated by reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.

In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the FAA proposes to incorporate EASA AD 2021-0160 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2021-0160 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in EASA AD 2021-0160 does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in EASA AD 2021-0160. Service information referenced in EASA AD 2021-0160 for compliance will be available at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-1180 after the FAA final rule is published.

The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 41 helicopters of U.S. Registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on these numbers, the FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD.

Inspecting each FCU, including inspecting each rotor hub-shaft, hexagonal screw, nut, damper assembly, bearing pin, support assembly, spherical bearing, and integrated bearing sleeve, would take about 3 work-hours for an estimated cost of $255 per FCU inspection and $10,455 for the U.S. fleet per FCU inspection.

Reworking and re-identifying the bearing pin would take about 0.5 work-hour for an estimated cost of $43 per helicopter and $1,763 for the U.S. fleet per bearing pin.

The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost estimates for the on-condition repairs specified in this proposed AD.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

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

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

(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would expand the availability of RNAV in Alaska and improve the efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System (NAS) by lessening the dependency on ground based navigation.

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.

Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2021-1194; Airspace Docket No. 19-AAL-39) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov.

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2021-1194; Airspace Docket No. 19-AAL-39”. The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

All communications received on or before the specified comment closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the comment closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

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

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198.

This document proposes to amend 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.

In 2003, Congress enacted the Vision 100-Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act (Pub L., 108-176), which established a joint planning and development office in the FAA to manage the work related to the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). Today, NextGen is an ongoing FAA-led modernization of the nation's air transportation system to make flying safer, more efficient, and more predictable.

In support of NextGen, this proposal is part of a larger and comprehensive T-route modernization project in the state of Alaska. The project mission statement states: “To modernize Alaska's Air Traffic Service route structure using satellite based navigation Development of new T-routes and optimization of existing T-routes will enhance safety, increase efficiency and access, and will provide en route continuity that is not subject to the restrictions associated with ground based airway navigation.” As part of this project, the FAA evaluated the existing Colored Airway structure for: (a) Direct replacement ( i.e., overlay) with a T-route that offers a similar or lower Minimum En route Altitude (MEA) or Global Navigation Satellite System Minimum En route Altitude (GNSS MEA); (b) the replacement of the Colored airway with a T-route in an optimized but similar geographic area, while retaining similar or lower MEA; or (c) removal with no route structure (T-route) restored in that area because the value was determined to be insignificant.

The aviation industry/users have indicated a desire for the FAA to transition the Alaskan en route navigation structure away from dependency on Non-Directional Beacons (NDB), and move to develop and improve the RNAV route structure. The FAA proposes to establish RNAV route T-370 between Port Heiden Airport (PTH), Alaska and the Kenai, AK, (ENA) VHF Omnidirectional Radar/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME). The intent of this proposal is to support future decommissioning of the Port Heiden, AK, (PDN); Wood River, AK, (BTS); and Iliamna, AK, (ILI) NDBs. The proposed route would provide an alternative to G-1, V-351, and V-457 with lower GNSS MEAs, while ensuring continuous two-way VHF communications throughout. Finally, the proposed route would provide instrument approach procedures connectivity to PTH.

The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to establish RNAV route T-370 in the vicinity of Kenai, AK in support of a large and comprehensive T-route modernization project for the state of Alaska. The proposed route is described below.

T-370: The FAA proposes to establish T-370 from the newly established WIXER, AK, waypoint (WP), located over Port Heiden Airport to the Kenai, AK, (ENA) VOR/DME. The full legal description is included in “The Proposed Amendment” section below.

United States Area Navigation Routes are published in paragraph 6011 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 RNAV listed in this document would be published subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.

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

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

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

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

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority, as it would modify the Class E airspace at Rifle Garfield County Airport, Rifle, CO, to support IFR operations at the airport.

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2021-0465; Airspace Docket No. 20-ANM-59”. The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

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

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200 S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198.

This document proposes to amend 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 proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 by modifying the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Rifle Garfield County Airport, Rifle, CO. This airspace is designed to contain IFR departures to 1,200 feet above the surface and IFR arrivals descending below 1,500 feet above the surface. The FAA is proposing a modification to the RNAV (GPS) Y Runway 8 approach into the airport; to ensure containment of the procedure, additional airspace should be added west of the airport. The additional airspace would be 4.8 miles wide and would extend from the 11-mile radius of the airport to 11.9 miles west of the airport.

Class E5 airspace designations are published in paragraph 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 E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.

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.

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

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority, as it would amend airspace in Elkton, MD, to support IFR operations in the area.

Interested persons are invited to comment on this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.

Communications should identify both docket numbers (Docket No. FAA-2021-1190 and Airspace Docket No. 21-AEA-41) and be submitted in triplicate to DOT Docket Operations (see “ ADDRESSES ” section for the address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov.

Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2021-1190; Airspace Docket No. 21-AEA-41.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this document may be changed in light of the comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the comment closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

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

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

This document proposes to amend 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 proposes an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Claremont Airport, Elkton, MD, providing the controlled airspace required to support the IFR operations at this airport. This action would increase the radius to 6.9 miles (previously 6.0 miles), and update the airport's name to Claremont Airport, (formerly Cecil County Airport). Also, this action would remove the city name from the airport's description, as it is unnecessary (as per FAA Order 7400.2).

Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 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 E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.

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

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

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

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

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would expand the availability of RNAV in the northcentral United States and improve the efficient flow of air traffic within the NAS by lessening the dependency on ground-based navigation.

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.

Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2021-1189; Airspace Docket No. 21-AGL-40) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov.

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2021-1189; Airspace Docket No. 21-AGL-40.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

All communications received on or before the specified comment closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the comment closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

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

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX, 76177.

This document proposes to amend 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.

In August, 2021, the FAA revoked VOR Federal airway V-242 within the U.S. to mirror similar action taken by NAV CANADA within Canadian airspace due to the decommissioning of the Atikokan, ON, Canada, NDB in support of Canada's Airspace Modernization Program. Upon revocation of V-242, NAV CANADA initiated action to replace V-242 with an RNAV route designated T-768. T-768 has been established within Canadian airspace; however, the route is currently charted as T-786 and being corrected to reflect T-768.

The FAA is proposing this action to provide routing across the U.S./Canada border by connecting to NAV CANADA's T-768 at the border. The proposed T-768 within U.S. airspace would extend between the International Falls, MN, VOR/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) NAVAID and the U.S./Canada border located approximately 16 nautical miles northeast of International Falls, MN.

Additionally, the proposed T-768 would support FAA NextGen efforts to transition the NAS from a ground-based navigation system to a satellite-based navigation system. The proposed route would provide positive course guidance into and out of Canadian airspace; support enroute structure in an area of limited or no radar coverage; reduce air traffic control sector workload and complexity; reduce pilot and controller communications; and increase NAS efficiency and capacity in the International Falls, MN, area.

The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to establish RNAV route T-768. The proposed new T-route is described below.

T-768: T-768 is a new RNAV route proposed to extend between the International Falls, MN, VORTAC and the ARBBY, MN, waypoint (WP). This proposed T-route would provide routing between the International Falls VORTAC and the U.S./Canada border; connecting to NAV CANADA's existing T-768 within Canadian airspace.

Canadian RNAV T-routes are published in paragraph 6013 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 RNAV T-route listed in this document would be published subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.

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

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

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

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

In this proposed rule, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) proposes to schedule the following five controlled substances in schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), including their salts, isomers, and salts of isomers whenever the existence of such salts, isomers, and salts of isomers is possible within the specific chemical designation:

• 4-Hydroxy-N,N-diisopropyltryptamine (4-OH-DiPT),

• 5-Methoxy-alphamethyltryptamine (5-MeO-AMT),

• N-Isopropyl-5-Methoxy-N-Methyltryptamine (5-MeO-MiPT),

• N,N-Diethyl-5-methoxytryptamine (5-MeO-DET), and

• N,N-Diisopropyltryptamine (DiPT).

All comments received in response to this docket are considered part of the public record. DEA will make comments available, unless reasonable cause is given, for public inspection online at https://www.regulations.gov. Such information includes personal identifying information (such as your name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter. The Freedom of Information Act applies to all comments received. If you want to submit personal identifying information (such as your name, address, etc.) as part of your comment, but do not want DEA to make it publicly available, you must include the phrase “PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also place all of the personal identifying information you do not want made publicly available in the first paragraph of your comment and identify what information you want redacted.

If you want to submit confidential business information as part of your comment, but do not want DEA to make it publicly available, you must include the phrase “CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also prominently identify the confidential business information to be redacted within the comment.

DEA will generally make available in publicly redacted from comments containing personal identifying information and confidential business information identified, as directed above. If a comment has so much confidential business information that DEA cannot effectively redact it, DEA may not make available publicly all or part of that comment. Comments posted to https://www.regulations.gov may include any personal identifying information (such as name, address, and phone number) included in the text of your electronic submission that is not identified as confidential as directed above.

An electronic copy of this document and supplemental information to this proposed rule are available at https://www.regulations.gov for easy reference.

Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a), this action is a formal rulemaking “on the record after opportunity for a hearing.” Such proceedings are conducted pursuant to the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 551-59. 21 CFR 1308.41 through 1308.45; 21 CFR part 1316, subpart D. Interested persons may file requests for a hearing or notices of intent to participate in a hearing in conformity with the requirements of 21 CFR 1308.44(a) or (b), and such requests must include a statement of interest in the proceeding and the objections or issues, if any, concerning which the person desires to be heard. 21 CFR 1316.47(a). Any interested person may file a waiver of an opportunity for a hearing or to participate in a hearing together with a written statement regarding the interested person's position on the matters of fact and law involved in any hearing as set forth in 21 CFR 1308.44(c).

All requests for hearing and waivers of participation, together with a written statement of position on the matters of fact and law involved in such hearing, must be sent to DEA using the address information provided above.

The CSA provides that proceedings for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of the scheduling of any drug or other substance may be initiated by the Attorney General on his own motion. 21 U.S.C. 811(a). This proposed action was initiated on the Attorney General's own motion, as delegated to the Administrator of DEA (Administrator), and is supported by, inter alia, a recommendation from the former Assistant Secretary for Health of the Department of Health and Human Services (former Assistant Secretary of HHS or former Assistant Secretary)  1 and an evaluation of all relevant data by DEA. If finalized, this action would impose the regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions applicable to controlled substances, including those specific to schedule I controlled substances, on persons who handle or propose to handle 4-OH-DiPT, 5-MeO-AMT, 5-MeO-MiPT, 5-MeO-DET, and DiPT.

4-OH-DiPT, 5-MeO-AMT, 5-MeO-MiPT, 5-MeO-DET, and DiPT are tryptamine hallucinogens. They share structural and pharmacological similarities with several schedule I tryptamine hallucinogens, such as alpha -methyltryptamine (AMT), N,N -dimethyltryptamine (DMT), 5-methoxy- N,N -diisopropyltryptamine (5-MeO-DiPT), and psilocyn. They have no approved medical use in the United States.

Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(b), DEA gathered the necessary data on 4-OH-DiPT, 5-MeO-AMT, 5-MeO-MiPT, 5-MeO-DET, and DiPT, and on December 19, 2008, submitted it to the former Assistant Secretary with a request for a scientific and medical evaluation of available information and a scheduling recommendation for 4-OH-DiPT, 5-MeO-AMT, 5-MeO-MiPT, 5-MeO-DET, and DiPT.

On March 29, 2012, May 17, 2012, and August 14, 2012, HHS provided to DEA scientific and medical evaluations for the above mentioned five tryptamines and a scheduling recommendation for each. The evaluations were entitled: (1) “Basis for the Recommendation to Control 4-Hydroxy-N,N-diisopropyltryptamine (4-OH-DIPT) and its Salts in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA);” (2) “Basis for the Recommendation to Control 5-Methoxy-alphamethyltryptamine (5-MeO-AMT) and its Salts in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA);” (3) “Basis for the Recommendation to Control N-Isopropyl-5-Methoxy-N-Methyltryptamine (5-MeO-MIPT) and its Salts in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA);” (4) “Basis for the Recommendation to Control N,N-Diethyl-5-methoxytryptamine (5-MeO-DET) and its Salts in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA);” and (5) “Basis for the Recommendation to Control N,N-Diisopropyltryptamine (DIPT) and its Salts in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).” Following consideration of the eight factors and findings related to each of the substances' abuse potential, legitimate medical use, and dependence liability, HHS recommended that 4-OH-DiPT, 5-MeO-AMT, 5-MeO-MiPT, 5-MeO-DET, and DiPT and their respective salts be controlled in schedule I of the CSA under 21 U.S.C. 812(b).

In response, DEA reviewed the scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendation provided by HHS and all other relevant data, and completed its own eight-factor review pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(c). Included below is a brief summary of each factor as analyzed by HHS and DEA in their respective eight-factor analyses, and as considered by DEA in this proposed scheduling determination. Please note that both DEA and HHS analyses are available in their entirety under “Supporting Documents” of the public docket for this proposed rule at https://www.regulations.gov under docket number “DEA-623.”

In addition to considering the information HHS provided in its scientific and medical evaluation documents for 4-OH-DiPT, 5-MeO-AMT, 5-MeO-MiPT, 5-MeO-DET, and DiPT, DEA also considered all other relevant data regarding actual or relative potential for abuse of each substance. The term “abuse” is not defined in the CSA, however the legislative history of the CSA suggests the following four prongs in determining whether a particular drug or substance has a potential for abuse:  2

a. Individuals are taking the drug or other substance in amounts sufficient to create a hazard to their health or to the safety of other individuals or to the community; or

b. There is a significant diversion of the drug or other substance from legitimate drug channels; or

c. Individuals are taking the drug or other substance on their own initiative rather than on the basis of medical advice from a practitioner licensed by law to administer such drugs; or

d. The drug is so related in its action to a drug or other substance already listed as having a potential for abuse to make it likely that it will have the same potential for abuse as such substance, thus making it reasonable to assume that there may be significant diversions from legitimate channels, significant use contrary to or without medical advice, or that it has a substantial capability of creating hazards to the health of the user or to the safety of the community.

DEA reviewed the scientific and medical evaluation provided by HHS and all other data relevant to the abuse potential of 4-OH-DiPT, 5-MeO-AMT, 5-MeO-MiPT, 5-MeO-DET, and DiPT. These data as presented below demonstrate that 4-OH-DiPT, 5-MeO-AMT, 5-MeO-MiPT, 5-MeO-DET, and DiPT have a high potential for abuse.

a. There is evidence that individuals are taking the drug or other substance in amounts sufficient to create a hazard to their health or to the safety of other individuals or to the community.

According to HHS 2012 review, and more current DEA findings, data show that 4-OH-DiPT, 5-MeO-AMT, 5-MeO-MiPT, 5-MeO-DET, and DiPT have been encountered by law enforcement (Factor 5). Based on published case reports in the medical literature and anecdotal reports (Factor 2), HHS states that these substances are being abused for their hallucinogenic properties. HHS has determined that consumption of these five tryptamines due to their hallucinogenic properties poses a safety hazard to the public health. There were hospital emergency room admissions related to the abuse of 5-MeO-AMT and 5-MeO-MiPT. One confirmed death was reported in 2004 from the abuse of 5-MeO-AMT, taken in combination with alcohol and the antidepressant bupropion; however, it is unclear what role 5-MeO-AMT played in the death.

b. There is significant diversion of the drug or substance from legitimate drug channels.

HHS, in its 2012 review, stated that 4-OH-DiPT, 5-MeO-AMT, 5-MeO-MiPT, 5-MeO-DET, and DiPT are not Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved drug products for treatment in the United States and that it is unaware of any country in which their use is legal. DEA has confirmed with HHS that their 2012 statements are still applicable. In addition, HHS' 2012 review stated that there appear to be no legitimate sources for 4-OH-DiPT, 5-MeO-AMT, 5-MeO-MiPT, 5-MeO-DET, and DiPT as marketed drugs. DEA notes that these substances are available for purchase from legitimate suppliers for scientific research. However, there is no evidence of significant diversion of 4-OH-DiPT, 5-MeO-AMT, 5-MeO-MiPT, 5-MeO-DET, and DiPT from legitimate suppliers.

c. Individuals are taking the substance on their own initiative rather than on the basis of medical advice from a practitioner licensed by law to administer such substance.

4-OH-DiPT, 5-MeO-AMT, 5-MeO-MiPT, 5-MeO-DET, and DiPT are not approved for medical use and are not formulated or available for clinical use. Therefore, individuals are taking 4-OH-DiPT, 5-MeO-AMT, 5-MeO-MiPT, 5-MeO-DET, and DiPT on their own initiative, rather than based on medical advice from a practitioner licensed by law to administer drugs. This is consistent with the data from law enforcement seizures and case reports suggesting that individuals are taking these substances for similar hallucinogenic effects produced by lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) and N,N -diethyltryptamine (DET), while possibly simultaneously attempting to circumvent criminal prosecution since these are explicitly scheduled substances ( see Factor 5 for more detailed information).

d. The drug is a new drug so related in its action to a drug or other substance already listed as having a potential for abuse to make it likely that the drug substance will have the same potential for abuse as such drugs, thus making it reasonable to assume that there may be significant diversion from legitimate channels, significant use contrary to or without medical advice, or that it has a substantial capability of creating hazards to the health of the user or to the safety of the community.

After scientific evaluation, HHS states that 4-OH-DiPT, 5-MeO-AMT, 5-MeO-MiPT, 5-MeO-DET, and DiPT are structural analogs of schedule I hallucinogens (4-OH-DiPT of 5-MeO-DiPT, 5-MeO-AMT of AMT, 5-MeO-MiPT of DMT, 5-MeO-DET of 5-MeO-DMT and DMT, and DiPT of 5-MeO-DiPT) and produce similar pharmacological effects to natural and synthetic schedule I hallucinogens.

4-OH-DiPT elicits pharmacological responses similar to the schedule I substances 4-methyl-2,5-dimethoxy-amphetamine (DOM) and LSD, which have no accepted medical use and have high abuse potential. In animal drug discrimination studies, 4-OH-DiPT fully generalizes for the discriminative stimulus effects of DOM and LSD in rats. Additionally, 4-OH-DiPT produces classic hallucinogenic effects such as perceptual distortions and pleasurable physical effects. Risks and effects of 4-OH-DiPT include: Hallucinations, euphoria, fatigue, headache, gastrointestinal distress, insomnia, and anxiety. HHS states that these effects are like those of schedule I hallucinogens and concludes that based on the psychological and cognitive disturbances associated with effects of 4-OH-DiPT, it is reasonable to assume that this substance has a substantial capability to cause a hazard to public health, both to the user and to the community.

According to HHS, 5-MeO-AMT elicits pharmacological responses similar to the schedule I substances LSD and DET which have no accepted medical use and have high abuse potential. Drug discrimination data demonstrate that 5-MeO-AMT produces partial generalization for the discriminative stimulus effects of LSD in rats. In humans, 5-MeO-AMT produces hallucinogenic effects similar to those produced by LSD and DET, including euphoria and visual and auditory hallucinations. Adverse effects caused by 5-MeO-AMT are similar to those of schedule I hallucinogens including: Fatigue, headache, gastrointestinal distress, insomnia, and anxiety. Based on the hallucinogenic and other effects caused by 5-MeO-AMT, HHS states that it is reasonable to assume that this substance has substantial capability to cause a hazard to public health, both to the user and to the community.

According to HHS, 5-MeO-MiPT elicits pharmacological responses similar to the schedule I substances LSD and DMT, which have no accepted medical use and have high abuse potential. Drug discrimination studies showed that 5-MeO-MiPT fully generalizes to the discriminative stimulus effects of DOM in rats, and partially generalizes to the discrimination stimulus effects of LSD, DMT, and 3,4-methylenedioxy-methamphetamine (MDMA, schedule I). In humans it has been reported that 5-MeO-MiPT is 15-fold more potent than DMT when comparing doses that produce hallucinogenic effects. Thus, HHS concluded that it is reasonable to assume that 5-MeO-MiPT has substantial capability to cause a hazard to public health, both to the user and to the community.

According to HHS, 5-MeO-DET elicits pharmacological responses similar to the schedule I substances DMT and DOM, which have no accepted medical use and have high abuse potential. In animal drug discrimination studies, 5-MeO-DET fully generalizes for the discriminative stimulus effect of DMT in rats. 5-MeO-DET partially generalizes to the discriminative stimulus cues of DOM and MDMA. The reports from users describe the effects of 5-MeO-DET as being similar to those produced by DMT and LSD. Adverse health risks associated with 5-MeO-DET use include: Bizarre behavior, hallucinations, and sympathomimetic effects, such as increased heart rate. These adverse effects are similar to those of schedule I hallucinogens. Based on available information, it is reasonable to assume that 5-MeO-DET has substantial capability to cause a hazard to public health, both to the user and to the community.

According to HHS, DiPT elicits pharmacological responses similar to the schedule I substances DOM and DMT, which have no accepted medical use and have high abuse potential. Drug discrimination studies showed that DiPT fully substitutes for the discriminative stimulus effects of DOM and DMT in rats. The reports from users describe the effects of DiPT as being similar to those produced by 4-bromo-2,5-dimethoxyphenethylamine (2C-B), 2-(2,5-dimethoxy-4-methylphenyl)ethanamine (2C-D), and 2,5-dimethoxy-4-ethylamphetamine (DOET), all of which are classified as schedule I substances. Risks associated with DiPT use are based on the perceptual changes in the auditory experience. Like schedule I hallucinogens, DiPT produces adverse effects such as: Auditory and other sensory distortions, lethargy, nausea, hyperreflexia, and mydriasis. Based on the adverse effects associated with DiPT, it is reasonable to assume that this substance has substantial capability to cause a hazard to public health, both to the user and to the community.

As stated by HHS (HHS reviews, 2012a-e), the neurochemical effects of 4-OH-DiPT, 5-MeO-AMT, 5-MeO-MiPT, 5-MeO-DET, and DiPT mainly involve serotonergic system in the central nervous system (CNS). Tryptamine hallucinogens are believed to produce their characteristic effects primarily through stimulation of the 2A subtype of serotonin (5-HT) receptors (5-HT 2A ). DEA further notes that the 5-HT 2A receptor has also been shown to mediate the in vivo behavioral effects and discriminative stimulus effects of the three classes of classic hallucinogens, ergotamines ( e.g., LSD), phenethylamines ( e.g., DOM), and tryptamines ( e.g., DMT).

Animal testing data in rats show that stimulus properties of 4-OH-DiPT are similar to DOM and LSD, and partially similar to DMT; 5-MeO-AMT substantially overlaps with LSD; 5-MeO-MiPT substantially overlaps with DOM, LSD, and MDMA; 5-MeO-DMT are similar to DMT, DOM, and MDMA; and DiPT are similar to DOM and DMT, and are partially similar to LSD. Thus, 4-OH-DiPT, 5-MeO-AMT, 5-MeO-MiPT, 5-MeO-DET, and DiPT produce psychopharmacologic effects similar to those produced by serotonin-mediated hallucinogens in an animal model, which are predictive of its abuse in humans.

In humans, users of 4-OH-DiPT, 5-MeO-AMT, 5-MeO-MiPT, 5-MeO-DET, and DiPT report hallucinogenic effects similar to LSD and DET including: Euphoria, hallucinations involving various senses, perceptual distortions and pleasant intensification of sensory experiences. Physiological and psychological effects have been reported to be frightening or disturbing and can include: Dizziness, fatigue, headache, trembling, anxiety, insomnia, restlessness, cold sweats, and gastrointestinal disturbances ( i.e., nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea), among others. One death was reported in 2004 with the use of 5-MeO-AMT, however alcohol and bupropion (an antidepressant) were also detected in post mortem toxicology analyses.

4-OH-DiPT, 5-MeO-AMT, 5-MeO-MiPT, 5-MeO-DET, and DiPT are part of the tryptamine family and share the core tryptamine structure with substitutions at the α-position, 4-position, 5-position, and on the nitrogen (N) atom. All of these substances contain an indole ring with a substituted ethylamino sidechain. 4-OH-DiPT, 5-MeO-AMT, 5-MeO-MiPT, 5-MeO-DET, and DiPT share structural similarities with schedule I tryptamine hallucinogens such as DMT, DET, AMT, and psilocyn.

Metabolism studies have not been conducted for 4-OH-DiPT, 5-MeO-AMT, 5-MeO-DET, and DiPT. However, metabolism has been reported for 5-MeO-MiPT. Similar to other structurally related tryptamines, 5-MeO-MiPT has been reported to undergo metabolism through oxidative deamination, N -demethylation, O -demethylation, and N -oxidation with N -oxides as the major metabolites. Thus, it is highly likely that 4-OH-DiPT, 5-MeO-AMT, 5-MeO-DET, and DiPT will be metabolized in a similar manner.

In the U.S., law enforcement entities have initially encountered 5-MeO-AMT and DiPT in 2003, 5-MeO-MiPT in 2004, 5-MeO-DET in 2006, and 4-OH-DiPT in 2009, according to the National Forensic Laboratory Information System (NFLIS). 3 Each of these tryptamines has been encountered in one or more of the following forms: Powder, tablets, capsules, liquid, or on blotter paper. These substances are generally purchased from internet-based companies in addition to being purchased from dealers. These tryptamines are often misrepresented as LSD to users due to their similarities in producing hallucinogenic effects.

4-OH-DiPT, 5-MeO-AMT, 5-MeO-MiPT, 5-MeO-DET, and DiPT do not have an approved medical indication in the U.S. and therefore have no legitimate medical use in the U.S. Anecdotal reports from users of these substances indicate that these substances produce classical hallucinogenic properties, such as perceptual distortions and pleasurable physical effects. Users report oral administration as the most common route of administration. Other routes of administration such as insufflation, smoking, and rectal administration have been reported.

Tryptamine hallucinogens, both natural and synthetic, have been popular among the attendees of rave parties, music concerts, and other large or social venues, as well as in intimate and smaller settings since the 1990s in the U.S. and Europe. Often these substances are promoted as substitutes for LSD. Synthetic hallucinogens and stimulants are known as “club drugs.” In addition to sales in raves and nightclubs, internet sales have become one of the main outlets for the sale and distribution of tryptamine hallucinogens.

In the U.S., there has been significant availability, trafficking and abuse of a number of tryptamines including 4-OH-DiPT, 5-MeO-AMT, 5-MeO-MiPT, 5-MeO-DET, and DiPT. This is evidenced by large numbers of encounters of one or more of these tryptamines by U.S. law enforcement in 47 states and the District of Columbia.

According to NFLIS, there have been 5 reports of 4-OH-DiPT (first reported in 2009), 92 reports of 5-MeO-AMT (first reported in 2003), 348 reports of 5-MeO-MiPT (first reported in 2004), 17 reports of 5-MeO-DET (first reported in 2006), and 25 reports of DiPT (first reported in 2003). 4

HHS indicates that 4-OH-DiPT, 5-MeO-AMT, 5-MeO-MiPT, 5-MeO-DET, and DiPT pose a risk to public health due to their hallucinogenic properties that usually occur quickly (often between 5-15 minutes, dependent on the route of administration) after ingestion and may cause impairing effects on the user's judgment and lead to dangerous behavior. The risks could be to the individual user or to the community, especially when the user is operating a motor vehicle. Several adverse effects were reported in animal studies and in humans from internet forums for all five tryptamines (see Factor 2). HHS also cited published and anecdotal reports that described the adverse effects of these five hallucinogens including agitation, confusion, psychological distress for all five substances, and death in the case of 5-MeO-AMT. It is unclear what role 5-MeO-AMT played in the death. The toxicology report also reported alcohol and the presence of an antidepressant, bupropion. Users of 4-OH-DiPT reported that the hallucinations were intense and the psychological and physiological effects were frightening or disturbing. A non-lethal poisoning was reported in an adolescent after ingesting an alleged combination of 5-MeO-MiPT and harmaline, a CNS stimulant.

According to HHS, hallucinogens are not usually associated with physical dependence and the physiological dependence liability in animals or humans has not been reported in scientific and medical literature for these five substances. Thus, it is not possible at this time to determine whether 4-OH-DiPT, 5-MeO-AMT, 5-MeO-MiPT, 5-MeO-DET, and DiPT produce physiological dependence following acute or chronic administration. However, hallucinogen abusers may develop psychological dependence to these substances as evidenced by the continued use of these substances despite knowledge of the potential toxic and adverse effects.

The data on the drug discrimination studies conducted by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, cited in HHS reviews and later published, show that 4-OH-DiPT, 5-MeO-AMT, 5-MeO-MiPT, 5-MeO-DET, and DiPT share discriminative stimulus effects with other schedule I hallucinogens: 4-OH-DiPT fully substitutes for DOM and LSD; 5-MeO-AMT partially substitutes for LSD and DMT; 5-MeO-MiPT fully substitutes for DOM; 5-MeO-DET fully substitutes for DMT; and DiPT fully substitutes for DOM and DMT. DEA adds that LSD, DOM, and MDMA fully substitute for DiPT-trained discriminative stimulus effects, confirming that DiPT has hallucinogenic effects similar to other schedule I hallucinogens.

4-OH-DiPT, 5-MeO-AMT, 5-MeO-MiPT, 5-MeO-DET, and DiPT are not immediate precursors of a substance already controlled under the CSA as defined by 21 U.S.C. 802(23).

Based on consideration of the scientific and medical evaluation and accompanying recommendations of HHS, and on DEA's consideration of its own eight-factor analysis, DEA finds that these facts and all relevant data constitute substantial evidence of potential for abuse of 4-OH-DiPT, 5-MeO-AMT, 5-MeO-MiPT, 5-MeO-DET, and DiPT. As such, DEA hereby proposes to schedule 4-OH-DiPT, 5-MeO-AMT, 5-MeO-MiPT, 5-MeO-DET, and DiPT as controlled substances under the CSA.

The CSA establishes five schedules of controlled substances known as schedules I, II, III, IV, and V. The CSA also outlines the findings required to place a drug or other substance in any particular schedule. 21 U.S.C. 812(b). After consideration of the analysis and recommendation of the former Assistant Secretary and review of all other available data, the Administrator, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 812(b)(1), finds that:

(1) 4-OH-DiPT, 5-MeO-AMT, 5-MeO-MiPT, 5-MeO-DET, and DiPT elicit pharmacological effects qualitatively similar to those of schedule I hallucinogens ( e.g., DOM, LSD, DMT, DET). These effects are marked by hallucinations and CNS stimulation. Law enforcement reported a number of encounters of 5-MeO-AMT and DiPT beginning in 2003, 5-MeO-MiPT beginning in 2004, 5-MeO-DET beginning in 2006, and 4-OH-DiPT beginning in 2009.

The available data indicate that 4-OH-DiPT, 5-MeO-AMT, 5-MeO-MiPT, 5-MeO-DET, and DiPT have high potential for abuse that is similar to that of other schedule I tryptamine hallucinogens DET (5-MeO-AMT) and DMT (5-MeO-DET, 5-MeO-MiPT, and DiPT), the phenethylamine hallucinogen DOM (4-OH-DiPT, 5-MeO-DET, 5-MeO-MiPT, and DiPT), and the ergotamine hallucinogen LSD (5-MeO-AMT, 4-OH-DiPT, 5-MeO-DET, 5-MeO-MiPT).

(2) 4-OH-DiPT, 5-MeO-AMT, 5-MeO-MiPT, 5-MeO-DET, and DiPT are not legally marketed in the U.S. They lack current marketing approval under new drug applications, abbreviated new drug applications, or investigational use under an active investigational new drug application. There is no evidence that 4-OH-DiPT, 5-MeO-AMT, 5-MeO-MiPT, 5-MeO-DET, and DiPT have a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the U.S. 5

(3) Because 4-OH-DiPT, 5-MeO-AMT, 5-MeO-MiPT, 5-MeO-DET, and DiPT have no approved medical use and have not been thoroughly investigated as new drugs, their safety for use under medical supervision is not determined. Thus, there is a lack of accepted safety for use of these substances under medical supervision.

Based on these findings, the Administrator concludes that 4-OH-DiPT, 5-MeO-AMT, 5-MeO-MiPT, 5-MeO-DET, and DiPT warrant control in schedule I of the CSA. More precisely, because of their hallucinogenic effects, and because they may produce hallucinogenic-like tolerance and dependence in humans, DEA proposes to place 4-OH-DiPT, 5-MeO-AMT, 5-MeO-MiPT, 5-MeO-DET, and DiPT, including their salts, isomers, and salts of isomers whenever the existence of such salts, isomers, and salts of isomers is possible within the specific chemical description, in 21 CFR 1308.11(d) (the hallucinogenic substances category of schedule I).

If this rule is finalized as proposed, 4-OH-DiPT, 5-MeO-AMT, 5-MeO-MiPT, 5-MeO-DET, and DiPT would be subject to the CSA's schedule I regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions applicable to the manufacture, distribution, reverse distribution, import, export, research, conduct of instructional activities or chemical analysis with, and possession of schedule I controlled substances, including the following:

1. Registration. Any person who handles (manufactures, distributes, reverse distributes, imports, exports, engages in research, or conducts instructional activities or chemical analysis with, or possesses), or who desires to handle, 4-OH-DiPT, 5-MeO-AMT, 5-MeO-MiPT, 5-MeO-DET, or DiPT would be required to be registered with DEA to conduct such activities pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 822, 823, 957, and 958, and in accordance with 21 CFR parts 1301 and 1312, as of the effective date of a final scheduling action. Any person who currently handles 4-OH-DiPT, 5-MeO-AMT, 5-MeO-MiPT, 5-MeO-DET, or DiPT, and is not registered with DEA, would need to submit an application for registration and may not continue to handle 4-OH-DiPT, 5-MeO-AMT, 5-MeO-MiPT, 5-MeO-DET, or DiPT as of the effective date of a final scheduling action, unless DEA has approved that application for registration pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 822, 823, 957, 958, and in accordance with 21 CFR parts 1301 and 1312.

2. Disposal of stocks. Any person unwilling or unable to obtain a schedule I registration would be required to surrender or transfer all quantities of currently held 4-OH-DiPT, 5-MeO-AMT, 5-MeO-MiPT, 5-MeO-DET, and DiPT to a person registered with DEA before the effective date of a final scheduling action, in accordance with all applicable Federal, State, local, and tribal laws. As of the effective date of a final scheduling action, 4-OH-DiPT, 5-MeO-AMT, 5-MeO-MiPT, 5-MeO-DET, and DiPT would be required to be disposed of in accordance with 21 CFR part 1317, in addition to all other applicable Federal, State, local, and tribal laws.

3. Security. 4-OH-DiPT, 5-MeO-AMT, 5-MeO-MiPT, 5-MeO-DET, and DiPT would be subject to schedule I security requirements for DEA registrants and would need to be handled and stored pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823 and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.71 through 1301.76 as of the effective date of a final scheduling action. Non-practitioners handling 4-OH-DiPT, 5-MeO-AMT, 5-MeO-MiPT, 5-MeO-DET, and DiPT would also need to comply with the employee screening requirements of 21 CFR 1301.90 through 1301.93.

4. Labeling and Packaging. All labels and labeling for commercial containers of 4-OH-DiPT, 5-MeO-AMT, 5-MeO-MiPT, 5-MeO-DET, or DiPT would need to be in compliance with 21 U.S.C. 825, and be in accordance with 21 CFR part 1302, as of the effective date of a final scheduling action.

5. Quota. Only registered manufacturers would be permitted to manufacture 4-OH-DiPT, 5-MeO-AMT, 5-MeO-MiPT, 5-MeO-DET, and DiPT in accordance with a quota assigned pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 826 and in accordance with 21 CFR part 1303, as of the effective date of a final scheduling action.

6. Inventory. Every DEA registrant who possesses any quantity of 4-OH-DiPT, 5-MeO-AMT, 5-MeO-MiPT, 5-MeO-DET, and DiPT on the effective date of the final rule would need to take an inventory of 4-OH-DiPT, 5-MeO-AMT, 5-MeO-MiPT, 5-MeO-DET, and/or DiPT on hand at that time, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and in accordance with 21 CFR 1304.03, 1304.04, and 1304.11(a) and (d).

Any person who registers with DEA on or after the effective date of the final scheduling action would be required to take an initial inventory of all stocks of controlled substances (including 4-OH-DiPT, 5-MeO-AMT, 5-MeO-MiPT, 5-MeO-DET, and/or DiPT) on hand on the date the registrant first engages in the handling of controlled substances, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and in accordance with 21 CFR 1304.03, 1304.04, and 1304.11(a) and (b).

After the initial inventory, every DEA registrant would be required to take a new inventory of controlled substances (including 4-OH-DiPT, 5-MeO-AMT, 5-MeO-MiPT, 5-MeO-DET, and/or DiPT) on hand every two years, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and in accordance with 21 CFR 1304.03, 1304.04, and 1304.11.

7. Records and Reports. Every DEA registrant would be required to maintain records and submit reports with respect to 4-OH-DiPT, 5-MeO-AMT, 5-MeO-MiPT, 5-MeO-DET, DiPT, or products containing 4-OH-DiPT, 5-MeO-AMT, 5-MeO-MiPT, 5-MeO-DET, and/or DiPT pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.74(b) and (c) and parts 1304, 1312, and 1317, as of the effective date of a final scheduling action. Manufacturers and distributors would need to submit reports regarding these substances to the Automation of Reports and Consolidated Order System pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and in accordance with 21 CFR parts 1304 and 1312, as of the effective date of a final scheduling action.

8. Order Forms. Every DEA registrant who distributes 4-OH-DiPT, 5-MeO-AMT, 5-MeO-MiPT, 5-MeO-DET, or DiPT would be required to comply with the order form requirements, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 828, and 21 CFR part 1305, as of the effective date of a final scheduling action.

9. Importation and Exportation. All importation and exportation of 4-OH-DiPT, 5-MeO-AMT, 5-MeO-MiPT, 5-MeO-DET, or DiPT would need to be in compliance with 21 U.S.C. 952, 953, 957, and 958, and in accordance with 21 CFR part 1312, as of the effective date of a final scheduling action.

10. Liability. Any activity involving 4-OH-DiPT, 5-MeO-AMT, 5-MeO-MiPT, 5-MeO-DET, or DiPT not authorized by, or in violation of, the CSA or its implementing regulations would be unlawful, and could subject the person to administrative, civil, and/or criminal sanctions.

In accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(a), this proposed scheduling action is subject to formal rulemaking procedures performed “on the record after opportunity for a hearing,” which are conducted pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557. The CSA sets forth procedures and criteria for scheduling a drug or other substance. Such actions are exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to section 3(d)(1) of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 and the principles reaffirmed in E.O. 13563.

This proposed regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988, to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize litigation, provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, and promote simplification and burden reduction.

This proposed rulemaking does not have federalism implications warranting the application of E.O. 13132. The proposed rule does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

This proposed rule does not have tribal implications warranting the application of E.O. 13175. It does not 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.

This proposed action does not impose a new collection of information requirement under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521).

The Administrator, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), has reviewed this proposed rule, and by approving it, certifies that it will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

DEA proposes placing the substances 4-hydroxy- N,N -diisopropyltryptamine (4-OH-DiPT), 5-methoxy- alpha -methyltryptamine (5-MeO-AMT), 5-methoxy- N -methyl- N -isopropyltryptamine (5-MeO-MiPT), 5-methoxy- N,N -diethyltryptamine (5-MeO-DET), and N,N -diisopropyltryptamine (DiPT), including their salts, isomers, and salts of isomers whenever the existence of such salts, isomers, and salts of isomers is possible within the specific chemical designation, in schedule I of the CSA. If finalized, this action would impose regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and/or criminal sanctions applicable to schedule I controlled substances on persons who handle (manufacture, distribute, reverse distribute, import, export, engage in research, conduct instructional activities, or chemical analysis with, or possess), or propose to handle 4-OH-DiPT, 5-MeO-AMT, 5-MeO-MiPT, 5-MeO-DET, or DiPT.

There appear to be no legitimate sources for 4-OH-DiPT, 5-MeO-AMT, 5-MeO-MiPT, 5-MeO-DET, and DiPT as marketed drugs and no accepted medical use in the United States, but DEA notes that these substances are available for purchase from legitimate suppliers for scientific research. There is no evidence of significant diversion of 4-OH-DiPT, 5-MeO-AMT, 5-MeO-MiPT, 5-MeO-DET, and DiPT from legitimate suppliers.

DEA has identified 31 domestic suppliers of one or more of the following substances: 4-hydroxy- N,N -diisopropyltryptamine (4-OH-DiPT), 5-methoxy- alpha -methyltryptamine (5-MeO-AMT), 5-methoxy- N -methyl- N -isopropyltryptamine (5-MeO-MiPT), 5-methoxy- N,N -diethyltryptamine (5-MeO-DET), and N,N -diisopropyltryptamine (DiPT). Thirty (30) of the 31 domestic suppliers are not registered with DEA to handle controlled substances. The one registered supplier is already registered with DEA and has all security and other handling processes in place, resulting in minimal impact to this supplier. Therefore, the remaining 30 non-registered domestic suppliers are affected. Since the vast majority of DEA registrants are small entities or are employed by small entities, all 30 affected suppliers are assumed to be small entities. It is impossible to know how much 4-hydroxy- N,N -diisopropyltryptamine (4-OH-DiPT), 5-methoxy- alpha -methyltryptamine (5-MeO-AMT), 5-methoxy- N -methyl- N -isopropyltryptamine (5-MeO-MiPT), 5-methoxy- N,N -diethyltryptamine (5-MeO-DET), and N,N -diisopropyltryptamine (DiPT) are distributed by these suppliers. It is common for suppliers to have items on their catalog while not actually having any material level of sales. Based on the discussion above, DEA believes any quantity of sales from these distributors for legitimate purposes is minimal. Therefore, these suppliers are expected to remove the product from their catalog rather than incur the cost of obtaining a DEA registration and physical security for products with minimal sales. Therefore, DEA estimates the cost of this rule, in form of lost sales, if any, on the affected small entities is minimal. DEA welcomes any public comment regarding this estimate.

Because of these facts, this proposed rule will not, if promulgated, result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

On the basis of information contained in the “Regulatory Flexibility Act” section above, DEA has determined pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. ) that this proposed action would not result in any Federal mandate that may result “in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any 1 year . . . .” Therefore, neither a Small Government Agency Plan nor any other action is required under UMRA of 1995.

For the reasons set out above, DEA proposes to amend 21 CFR part 1308 as follows:

In the Federal Register of December 2, 2021, in proposed rule FR Doc. 2021-25844, on page 68446, in the second column, change the Dates caption to read:

In the Federal Register of December 2, 2021, in proposed rule FR Doc. 2021-25838, on page 68445, in the first column, change the Dates caption to read:

DATES: Written comments on this proposed rule must be received on or before January 31, 2022.

In the Federal Register of December 1, 2021, in proposed rule FR Doc. 2021-25843, on page 70067, in the third column, change the DATES caption to read:

On January 5, 2022, the Postal Service filed a petition pursuant to 39 CFR 3050.11 requesting that the Commission initiate a rulemaking proceeding to consider changes to analytical principles relating to periodic reports. 1 The Petition identifies the proposed analytical changes filed in this docket as Proposal One.

Background. In Docket No. RM2015-7, 2 the Postal Service proposed, and the Commission accepted, an approach to estimating variabilities for city carrier street time that relied upon three separate econometric equations, one for letters and flats, one for in-receptacle parcels, and one for deviation parcels and accounts. Petition, Proposal One at 1. The Commission directed the Postal Service to undertake an effort to investigate what data would be needed to estimate a unified, or “top-down,” model. Id. Subsequent to Docket No. RM2015-7, the Commission opened a public inquiry case, Docket No. PI2017-1, 3 to follow the Postal Service's progress in updating its data capabilities and modeling efforts for city carrier street time and specified the type and structure of the data set that would be appropriate to estimate a top-down model. Id. at 2. In response to the Commission's directives, the Postal Service compiled the appropriate data, investigated alternative methods of estimating a top-down model, and specified a model that includes an estimation of new variabilities for city carrier, letter route, and street time. Id. at 2-3.

Proposal. Proposal One would update the methodology for calculating attributable city carrier, letter route, street time costs by employing an overall top-down model that replies upon expanded operational carrier data. Id. at 1, 3. The Postal Service proposes that the new top-down study would improve the previous analysis of letter route street time by making use of ongoing operation data systems; incorporating seasonality effects and controls for day-of-week effects; including new characteristic variables that help control for non-volume variations in hours across ZIP Codes; relying upon a new econometric technique, called a correlated random effects model, that controls for unobserved differences across ZIP Codes while explicitly recognizing those differences are correlated with volume; taking a holistic approach to analyzing city street time; and producing marginal delivery and collection times that comport with current carrier street time operational practice. Id. at 3-4.

The overall levels of variabilities produced by the top-down model is lower than the current model because a reduction in the variabilities for the volume types associated with market dominant letter and flat mail is only partially offset by an increase in the parcel variabilities. The overall changes in the variabilities result in lower costs for letters and flats and higher costs for parcels. Id. at 6.

Impact. The following table presents the impact of Proposal One on city carrier street unit costs, including indirect costs.

Under the new top-down model, the unit costs for market dominant products fall while the unit costs for competitive products rise, reflecting the changes in variabilities. Id. at 7.

The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2022-3 for consideration of matters raised by the Petition. More information on the Petition may be accessed via the Commission's website at http://www.prc.gov. Interested persons may submit comments on the Petition and Proposal One no later than March 14, 2022. Reply comments on the Petition and Proposal One are due no later than March 28, 2022. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Philip T. Abraham is designated as officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding.

It is ordered:

1. The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2022-3 for consideration of the matters raised by the Petition of the United States Postal Service for the Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider Proposed Changes in Analytical Principles (Proposal One), filed January 5, 2022.

2. Comments by interested persons in this proceeding are due no later than March 14, 2022. Reply comments on the Petition and Proposal One are due no later than March 28, 2022.

3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission appoints Philip T. Abraham to serve as officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this docket.

4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the Federal Register .

On July 30, 2020, the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE), on behalf of the State of Maryland, submitted a revision to the Maryland SIP entitled, “2015 8- Hour Ozone NAAQS (0.070 ppm) Marginal Area State Implementation Plan for the Cecil County, MD Nonattainment Area, SIP #20-09.” Cecil County comprises the Maryland portion of the Philadelphia Area. This SIP revision, referred to in this rulemaking action as the “Cecil County base year inventory SIP,” addresses the base year inventory requirement for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

On October 1, 2015, EPA strengthened the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, lowering the level of the NAAQS from 0.075 ppm parts per million (ppm) to 0.070 ppm. 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015). Effective August 3, 2018, EPA designated the Philadelphia Area, which consists of Cecil County in Maryland and counties in Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, as marginal nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. 83 FR 25776 (June 4, 2018). CAA section 182(a)(1) requires ozone nonattainment areas classified as marginal or above to submit a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all emissions sources in the nonattainment area, known as a “base year inventory.” The Cecil County base year inventory SIP addresses a base year inventory requirement for the Philadelphia Area.

EPA's review of the Maryland's base year inventory SIP indicates that it meets the base year inventory requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. As required by 40 CFR 51.1315(a), MDE selected 2017 for the base year inventory, which is consistent with the baseline year for the RFP because it is the year of the most recent triennial inventory. MDE included actual ozone season day emissions, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.1315(c).

EPA has prepared a technical support document (TSD) in support of this rulemaking. In that TSD, EPA reviewed the results, procedures, and methodologies for the SIP base year, and found them to be acceptable and developed in accordance with EPA's technical guidance. The TSD is available online at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2021-0834.

In EPA's December 6, 2018 (83 FR 62998) rulemaking, “Implementation of the 2015 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: Nonattainment Area State Implementation Plan Requirements,” known as the “SIP Requirements Rule,” EPA set out nonattainment area requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The SIP Requirements Rule established base year inventory requirement, which are codified at 40 CFR 51.1315. 40 CFR 51.1315(a) requires each 2015 ozone nonattainment area to submit a base year inventory within 2 years of designation, i.e., by no later than August 3, 2020.

40 CFR 51.1315(a) also requires that the inventory year be selected consistent with the baseline year for the reasonable further progress (RFP) plan as required by 40 CFR 51.1310(b), which states that the baseline emissions inventory shall be the emissions inventory for the most recent calendar year for which a complete triennial inventory is required to be submitted to the EPA under the provisions of subpart A of 40 CFR part 51, Air Emissions Reporting Requirements, 40 CFR 51.1 through 50. The most recent triennial inventory year conducted for the National Emissions Inventory (NEI) pursuant to the Air Emissions Reporting Requirements (AERR) rule is 2017. 73 FR 76539 (December 17, 2008). Maryland selected 2017 as their baseline emissions inventory year for RFP. This selection comports with EPA's implementation regulations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS because 2017 is the inventory year. 40 CFR 51.1310(b). 1

40 CFR 51.1315(c) requires emissions values included in the base year inventory to be actual ozone season day emissions as defined by 40 CFR 51.1300(q), which states:

The Cecil County base year inventory SIP contains an explanation of MDE's 2017 base year emissions inventory for Cecil County (2017 Cecil County BYE) for stationary, non-point, non-road, and on-road anthropogenic sources, as well as biogenic sources, in the Cecil County Area. The Cecil County Area consists solely of Cecil County, MD. MDE estimated anthropogenic emissions for volatile organic compound (VOC), nitrogen oxide (NO X ), and carbon monoxide (CO) for a typical ozone season workweek day.

MDE developed the 2017 Cecil County BYE with the following source categories of anthropogenic emissions sources: Point, quasi-point, non-point, non-road, on-road, and commercial marine vessels, airport, and railroad emissions sources (MAR). Appendix A of the Cecil County base year inventory SIP, 2017 Base Year SIP Emissions Inventory Methodologies (Appendix A), sets out the methodologies MDE used to develop its base year inventory.

Point sources are larger sources that are located at a fixed, stationary location. As defined by the AERR in 40 CFR 51.50, point sources are large, stationary (non-mobile), identifiable sources of emissions that release pollutants into the atmosphere. A point source is a facility that is a major source under 40 CFR part 70 for one or more of the pollutants for which reporting is required by 40 CFR 51.15(a)(1). These point sources can be associated with a single point or group of points in space. Examples of point source emissions categories include power plants, industrial boilers, petroleum refineries, cement plants, and other industrial plants.

As stated in Appendix A, for the 2017 Cecil County BYE, MDE defined a point source located within a designated ozone nonattainment area as a stationary commercial or industrial facility that operations and emits more than 10 tons per year (tpy) of VOC; or 25 tons per year of NO X ; or a 100 tpy of CO, sulfur oxides (SO X ), particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than 10 micrometers (PM 10 ), diameter less than 2.5 micrometers (PM 2.5 ), and total suspended particulates (TSP).

In Appendix A, MDE explains that it used several methods of source identification to ensure the point source inventory is as complete as possible. MDE's primary data source is its permitting program, and MDE's compliance program identifies other point sources through facility inspections and investigations. In addition, facilities are required by Maryland's emissions statement regulations, Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) 26.11.01.05-1 and 26.11.02.19D to certify the air emissions for the past calendar year. The certified emissions are used for inventory and planning purposes.

MDE developed the point source data for the 2017 base year inventory. The point source inventory contains emissions for electric generating units (EGUs) and Non-EGU sources in the nonattainment area. EPA guidance for emissions inventory development provides that ozone season day emissions are used for the base year inventory for the nonattainment area. MDE developed their 2017 inventory by using emissions directly reported to the agency by facilities as required by Maryland air quality regulations. These emissions are also reported to EPA, and after going through EPA's quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) process, are included in EPA's National Emissions Inventory (NEI). The emissions for this base year can be found in EPA's 2017 NEI. 2

MDE defines quasi-point sources as that are generally considered part of the non-point or non-road emissions sectors but are included in the point source emissions inventory for a particular reason. Such reasons include Federal guidance, as in the case of certain airports, or to facilitate future general conformity determinations, as in the case of military bases, ports, and other similar facilities. EPA has reviewed the source categories included in the quasi-point sources and has found this to be a reasonable approach to handle these sources. MDE has not identified any quasi-point sources in Cecil County.

Non-point sources are also called “area sources.” These sources collectively represent individual sources of emissions that have not been inventoried as either specific point or mobile sources. These individual sources treated collectively as non-point sources are typically too small, numerous, or difficult to inventory using the methods for the other classes of sources.

Non-point sources that MDE evaluated for the 2017 Cecil County BYE include petroleum distribution losses ( e.g., tank truck unloading and auto refueling), stationary source solvent application ( e.g., dry cleaners, auto refinishing), bioprocess emissions sources ( e.g., bakeries, breweries, wineries, distilleries), catastrophic/accidental releases ( e.g., oil spills and leaking underground storage tanks), solid waste disposal, treatment, and recovery ( e.g., incineration, open burning), small stationary source fossil fuel use ( e.g., small utility boilers, wood combustion, commercial cooking), fugitive sources ( e.g., construction activity and unpaved roads), fire sources ( e.g., agricultural burning and vehicle fires), and ammonia sources ( e.g., agricultural livestock production operations). Appendix A sets out the methodologies MDE used to estimate emissions for each of these non-point source categories. These methods are consistent with the most recent EPA emission inventory guidance.

Non-road mobile sources are also called “off-highway” mobile sources. These are defined as a non-road engine or non-road vehicle. As per 40 CFR 51.50, a non-road engine is an internal combustion engine (including the fuel system) that is not used in an on-road motor vehicle or a vehicle used solely for competition, or that is not affected by sections 111 or 202 of the CAA. Also defined by 40 CFR 51.50, a non-road vehicle (rather than engine) is a vehicle that is run by a non-road engine and that is not an on-road motor vehicle or a vehicle used solely for competition. Examples of non-road mobile sources include airport ground support equipment, agricultural and construction equipment powered by an internal combustion engine, and lawn and garden engines and equipment.

As explained in Appendix A, consistent with EPA's Emission Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Regional Haze Regulations, MDE used the most current version of EPA's NONROAD2008a model, which is incorporated into EPA's Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) model, specifically MOVES2014a, to develop the inventory for non-road mobile sources. The NONROAD2008a model includes more than 80 basic and 260 specific types of non-road equipment ( e.g., agricultural, airport support, commercial, construction, industrial, recreational vehicles, recreational watercraft, lawn and garden, railway maintenance, etc.) and further stratifies equipment types by horsepower rating. Fuel types include gasoline, diesel, compressed natural gas (CNG), and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG).

Marine Vessels, Airport, Railroad Locomotives (MAR) Sources are a non-road subcategory. MDE states in its Cecil County base year inventory SIP that, for MAR sources, MDE calculated emissions by collecting data directly from surveyed sources, or activity from state and federal reporting agencies. To develop the commercial marine vehicle emissions for the base year, Maryland used EPA's 2016 beta modeling platform. This platform was used because it provided the most recent descriptions and methodologies for calculation of marine vessel emissions. To estimate emissions for aircraft, Maryland used airport activity statistics from the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA), landing and takeoff cycle information from the Maryland Aviation Administration, and statewide survey information for landing and takeoffs, engine type, location, and usage data. Railroad emission estimates were developed using activity and fuel consumption estimates collected from the rail companies and proportioned to each county by the amount of track miles each company utilized in a county. MDE applied EPA emission factors using EPA guidance and methodologies or the best engineering method. These methods of calculating emissions are consistent with the most recent EPA emission inventory guidance. 3 Details of the development of emissions for these sources along with other non-road model sources are provided in Appendix A.

On-road mobile sources are also called “highway mobile sources.” These sources are the motor vehicles ( e.g., automobiles, buses, trucks) traveling on local and highway roads. On-road mobile source emission estimates should utilize the latest recommended on-road mobile source models; currently, that means the EPA's MOVES model for all states except California.

The MOVES model estimates emissions from vehicle exhaust and from mobile source evaporative emissions, both of which must be included in the inventory. Volatile hydrocarbons evaporate from fuel systems while a vehicle is refueling, parked, or driving. Evaporative processes differ from exhaust emissions because they don't directly involve combustion, which is the main process driving exhaust emissions.

As stated in Appendix A, MDE used EPA's MOVES2014a model to estimate the 2017 annual emissions as well as 2017 daily emissions from on-road vehicles and total energy consumption in Maryland. Emissions were estimated based on emission factors and vehicle activity. Emission factors for vehicles were based on vehicle type ( e.g., passenger cars, passenger trucks), vehicle age, and the vehicle's operating modes. Operating modes for running, start, and idle emissions are included in MOVES. The emission factors varied over a range of conditions, such as the ambient air temperature, speed, traffic conditions, road types, road topography, etc. The generated emission factors were then multiplied by the appropriate vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to estimate emissions.

To estimate the rate at which emissions are being generated and to calculate VMT, MDE examined its road network and fleet to estimate vehicle activity. For the annual inventories, this was done for each of the twelve months in 2017 and aggregated for the entire year. MDE used computer models to perform these calculations by simulating the travel of vehicles on the Maryland's roadway system.

EPA has reviewed the results, procedures, and methodologies for the SIP base year, as well as comparing the inventory with previously QA/QC data in EPA's 2017 NEI for any data discrepancies and found none. EPA has therefore determined the base year inventory to be acceptable and developed in accordance with EPA's technical guidance.

MDE also inventoried biogenic emissions, which are not included in the anthropogenic total. Biogenic emissions come from natural sources, including vegetation, soils, volcanic emissions, lightning, and sea salt. They need to be accounted for in photochemical grid models, as most types are widespread and ubiquitous contributors to background formation of ozone. However, they are not included in the RFP baseline.

Biogenic emissions are typically computed using a model which utilizes spatial information on vegetation and land use and environmental conditions of temperature and solar radiation. The model inputs are typically horizontally allocated (gridded) data, and the outputs are gridded biogenic emissions which can then be speciated and utilized as input to photochemical grid models.

In Appendix A, MDE explains that it used the data files created and made available by EPA. MDE computed biogenic emissions with a modified version of EPA's Biogenic Emission Inventory System (BEIS) model that utilized county land use data from EPA's land use inventory and temperature and cloud cover data from the National Weather Service. This method is acceptable under EPA's emission inventory guidance.

The Cecil County base year inventory SIP contains a summary of 2017 ozone season day emissions by source category, which is presented in Table 1 in this document. MDE notes that the biogenic emissions are taken from EPA's NEI 2014 database. Total biogenic emissions for July 2014 were divided by 31 days to develop average ozone season day emissions for each jurisdiction in the region and then added together to develop the regional total.

EPA's review of this material indicates the Cecil County base year inventory SIP meets the base year inventory requirement for the 2015 ozone NAAQS for Maryland's portion of the Philadelphia Area, which consists solely of Cecil County, Maryland. Therefore. EPA is proposing to approve the Cecil County base year inventory SIP, which was submitted on July 30, 2020. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition, this proposed rulemaking, proposing to approve Maryland's portion of the Philadelphia nonattainment area base year inventory for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

In proposed rule document FR Doc. 2022-00322 in the issue of January 11, 2022, on page 1390 in the third column, make the following correction in DATES:

Public hearing: On January 26, 2022, we will hold a public hearing on the ivory-billed woodpecker proposed delisting from 6:00 to 7:30 p.m., Central Time, using the Zoom platform (for more information, see Public Hearing, below).

The dolphin and wahoo fishery in Federal waters from Maine south to the Florida Keys in the Atlantic is managed under the Dolphin and Wahoo FMP. The Dolphin and Wahoo FMP was prepared by the Council and implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

The current total ACLs for both dolphin and wahoo were implemented in 2014 by Amendment 5 to the Dolphin and Wahoo FMP (Amendment 5), and are based on the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee's (SSC) ABC recommendations using the third highest landings value during 1999-2008 (79 FR 32878; June 9, 2014). The landings data during that time period did not include recreational landings from Monroe County, Florida, and were based on recreational data from the Marine Recreational Information Program's (MRIP) Coastal Household Telephone Survey (CHTS) method. In April 2020, the Council's SSC recommended new ABC levels for dolphin and wahoo using the third highest annual commercial and recreational landings value during 1994-2007. These landings include recreational landings from Monroe County, Florida, and used MRIP's Fishing Effort Survey (FES) method, which is considered more reliable and robust compared to the CHTS survey method. The new ABC recommendations for dolphin and wahoo are also based on the new weight estimation procedure from NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) that uses a 15 fish minimum sample size and represents the best scientific information available. This proposed rule would revise the total ACLs for dolphin and wahoo to equal the new ABC values.

The current sector allocations for dolphin were implemented in 2016 by Amendment 8 to the Dolphin and Wahoo FMP (Amendment 8), with 10.00 percent of the total ACL to the commercial sector and 90.00 percent of the total ACL to the recreational sector (81 FR 3731; January 22, 2016). In 2015, the commercial sector was closed because the commercial ACL was met during that fishing year. In Amendment 8, the Council set the commercial allocation at the average of the percentages of the total commercial catch for 2008-2012, and the resulting 10 percent of the total ACL for the commercial allocation was expected to prevent subsequent closures of the commercial sector. The current sector allocations for wahoo were implemented in 2014 by Amendment 5, with 3.93 percent of the total ACL to the commercial sector and 96.07 percent of the total ACL to the recreational sector. The Council decided on these wahoo allocations by balancing long-term catch history with recent catch history, and determined this method as the most fair and equitable way to allocate fishery resources since it considered past and present participation. The current allocations for both dolphin and wahoo were applied to the respective species' total ACLs (equal to the ABCs) to obtain the sector ACLs.

Amendment 10 would specify commercial and recreational allocations for dolphin at 7.00 percent and 93.00 percent, respectively. For wahoo, Amendment 10 would specify commercial and recreational allocations at 2.45 percent and 97.55 percent, respectively. These proposed allocations would be applied to the respective species' proposed total ACLs (equal to the proposed ABCs) using the third highest landings value during 1994-2007 to determine the proposed sector ACLs. The proposed sector ACLs for dolphin and wahoo were derived from landings which include recreational landings from Monroe County, Florida, use MRIP's FES method, and SEFSC'S new weight estimation procedure. For dolphin, the Council has determined that the proposed allocations and revised sector ACLs would avoid a decrease in the current pounds of dolphin available to either sector's ACL. For wahoo, the Council's intent is to maintain the current commercial ACL and allocate the remaining revised ACL to the recreational sector.

Amendment 10 and this proposed rule do not propose any changes to the commercial AMs for dolphin or wahoo. The current recreational AMs for dolphin and wahoo were implemented in 2014 by Amendment 5, and do not contain an in-season AM but instead require a monitoring for persistence in recreational landings during the year following any recreational ACL overage. Further, the current recreational post-season AMs state that if the combined commercial and recreational landings exceed the combined commercial and recreational ACLs, and dolphin and wahoo are overfished, the recreational ACL for the following year will be reduced by the amount of the recreational overage in the prior fishing year, and the recreational fishing season will be reduced by the amount necessary to ensure recreational landings do not exceed the reduced ACL. The Regional Administrator (RA) will determine, using the best scientific information available, if a reduction in the recreational ACL and a reduction in the length of the following fishing season is unnecessary. These recreational post-season AMs for dolphin and wahoo are not viable because the post-season AMs would not be triggered as there is not a peer-reviewed stock assessment for dolphin and wahoo, and such assessment is unlikely to be conducted in the near future. Therefore, there is no likely method to determine their stock status. This proposed rule would establish a trigger to implement post-season AMs and once triggered, specify the post-season AMs for dolphin and wahoo that would not be based on their stock status.

In 2017, Regulatory Amendment 1 to the Dolphin and Wahoo FMP and associated final rule implemented the current commercial trip limit for dolphin of 4,000 lb (1,814 kg), round weight, once 75 percent of the commercial ACL is reached (82 FR 8820; January 31, 2017). Prior to reaching 75 percent of the commercial ACL, there is no commercial trip limit for dolphin. In 2004, the final rule for the original Dolphin and Wahoo FMP implemented the current commercial trip limit for wahoo of 500 lb (227 kg); and a commercial trip limit of 200 lb (91 kg) of dolphin and wahoo, combined, provided that all fishing on and landings from that trip are north of 39° N latitude, for a vessel that does not have a Federal commercial vessel permit for dolphin and wahoo but has a Federal commercial vessel permit in any other fishery.

In 2004, the final rule for the original Dolphin and Wahoo FMP also implemented the currently authorized commercial gear types in the dolphin and wahoo fishery in the Atlantic Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) as automatic reel, bandit gear, handline, pelagic longline, rod and reel, and spearfishing gear (including powerheads). A person aboard a vessel in the Atlantic EEZ that has on board gear types (including trap, pot, or buoy gear) other than authorized gear types may not possess dolphin or wahoo. In 2016, the Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen's Association initially requested that the Council modify the fishing gear regulations to allow the lobster fishery's historical practice of harvesting dolphin by rod and reel while in the possession of lobster pots to continue. This proposed rule would allow a vessel in the Atlantic EEZ that possesses both a Federal Atlantic Dolphin/Wahoo commercial permit and any valid Federal commercial permit(s) required to fish using trap, pot, or buoy gear; or is in compliance with permit requirements specified for the spiny lobster fishery in 50 CFR 622.400 to retain dolphin and wahoo caught by rod and reel while in possession of such gear types.

In 2004, the original Dolphin and Wahoo FMP and associated final rule implemented the requirement for a vessel operator or a crew member to hold a valid operator permit (also called an operator card) for the Atlantic dolphin and wahoo commercial permit or a charter vessel/headboat permit for Atlantic dolphin and wahoo to be valid. The operator permit requirement was implemented to improve enforcement within the fishery, aid in data collection, and decrease costs to vessel owners from fishery violations by vessel operators. However, in actuality, the benefits of operator permits to improve enforcement have not occurred as they have not been widely used as an enforcement tool since implementation. Rather, other methods of fishery enforcement, such as vessel permits and landings, have been used by law enforcement within the fishery. Because the expected benefits from operator permits are not being realized, this proposed rule would remove the requirement for operator permits in the dolphin and wahoo fishery.

The current dolphin recreational bag limit of 10 fish per person, not to exceed 60 fish per vessel in the Atlantic EEZ, was implemented by the original Dolphin and Wahoo FMP in 2004. Since then, interest in recreational harvest of dolphin has increased and Council public testimony, especially from Florida and its constituents, has recommended a decrease in the recreational retention limits to further control recreational harvest. This proposed rule would decrease the dolphin recreational vessel limit for charter vessels and private recreational vessels, excluding headboats. The dolphin individual recreational bag limit or 10 fish per person in the Atlantic EEZ remains unchanged.

The current total ACL for dolphin is 15,344,846 lb (6,960,305 kg), round weight. This proposed rule would revise the total ACL for dolphin to 24,570,764 lb (11,145,111 kg), round weight, based on the ABC recommended by the Council's SSC. The revised total ACL is equal to the ABC as described in Amendment 10 and is based upon best scientific information available. As a species, dolphin are highly fecund, spawn throughout a wide geographical range, have an early age at first maturity, and a short generation time and so therefore, dolphin's life-history could support the increase in the total ACL. The Report to Congress on the Status of U.S. Stocks indicates dolphin is not overfished, and is not undergoing overfishing. Additionally, the Council noted that based on the last 20 years of total landings data for dolphin, it appears unlikely that harvest would consistently exceed the proposed total ACL. Commercial landings are well tracked through electronic dealer reporting requirements, there is a commercial trip limit in place, and recreational landings for dolphin exhibit relatively low percent standard errors (PSE). The Council also noted that setting the ACL equal to the ABC may allow the dolphin portion of the dolphin and wahoo fishery to take advantage of years of exceptionally high abundance of dolphin.

The current commercial and recreational ACLs for dolphin are 1,534,485 lb (696,031 kg), round weight, and 13,810,361 lb (6,264,274 kg), round weight, respectively. These are based on the current commercial and recreational allocations of 10.00 percent and 90.00 percent, respectively. The proposed commercial and recreational ACLs for dolphin are 1,719,953 lb (780,158 kg), round weight, and 22,850,811 lb (10,364,954 kg), round weight, respectively. The proposed dolphin sector ACLs are based on the commercial and recreational allocations of 7.00 percent and 93.00 percent, respectively.

The current total ACL for wahoo is 1,794,960 lb (814,180 kg), round weight. The proposed rule would revise the total ACL for wahoo to 2,885,303 lb (1,308,751 kg), round weight based upon the ABC recommended by the Council's SSC. The revised total ACL is equal to the ABC and is based upon best scientific information available. Wahoo also exhibit rapid growth rates, are highly migratory, and are sexually mature at an early age and so their life history also supports an increase in the ACL. The overfishing and overfished status of wahoo is unknown. However, recent studies found that wahoo did not show a negative decline in relative abundance in recent years. The Council noted that commercial landings for wahoo are also well tracked through electronic dealer reporting requirements, there is a commercial trip limit of 500 lb (227 kg), and that recreational landings for wahoo exhibit relatively low PSEs. The Council also noted that setting the ACL equal to the ABC will allow the wahoo portion of the dolphin and wahoo fishery to take advantage of years when there is exceptionally high abundance of wahoo.

The current commercial and recreational ACLs for wahoo are 70,542 lb (31,997 kg), round weight, and 1,724,418 lb (782,183 kg), round weight, respectively. These are based on the current commercial and recreational allocations of 3.93 percent and 96.07 percent, respectively. The proposed commercial and recreational ACLs for wahoo are 70,690 lb (32,064 kg), round weight, and 2,814,613 lb (1,276,687 kg), round weight, respectively. The proposed sector ACLs are based on the commercial and recreational allocations of 2.45 percent and 97.55 percent, respectively.

No biological effects are expected to the dolphin and wahoo stocks from these allocation changes because the proposed sector ACLs would not change the proposed total ACLs for dolphin and wahoo. The commercial sector for dolphin and wahoo has effective in-season AM already in place to help constrain commercial harvest, and this proposed rule considers modifications to the post-season AMs to both stocks to reduce the risk of the recreational ACL from being exceeded. In deciding on new sector allocations, the Council wanted to recognize the needs of the recreational sector for dolphin and wahoo which would exhibit higher landings than previously estimated with the new accounting of recreational landings using MRIP's FES method. At the same time the Council did not want to reduce the commercial ACLs on a pound basis for dolphin and wahoo and noted that the proposed allocations and sector ACLs would strike a balance between the needs of both sectors.

This proposed rule would revise the recreational AMs for dolphin. The current in-season closure and stock status based post-season AM would be replaced. The proposed recreational AM would be a post-season AM that would be triggered in the following fishing year if the total ACL (commercial and recreational ACLs, combined) is exceeded. The Council's intent is to avoid closing recreational harvest in-season and extend maximum fishing opportunities to the recreational sector without triggering the recreational AM, as long as the commercial sector is under harvesting its sector ACL. The revised recreational AM trigger would also help ensure sustainable harvest by preventing the total ACL from being exceeded on a consistent basis. Once triggered, the proposed post-season recreational AM would reduce the length of the following recreational fishing season by the amount necessary to prevent the recreational ACL from being exceeded in the following year. However, the length of the recreational season would not be reduced if the Regional Administrator (RA) determines, using the best available science, that the season reduction is not necessary. The Council noted that there would be a relatively low likelihood of the recreational AM for dolphin being triggered, because the proposed recreational ACL is based on the proposed ABC, which is set at a relatively high level of landings that is not often observed in the dolphin portion of the dolphin and wahoo fishery. Additionally, any determination that the total ACL had been exceeded would allow for the monitoring of landings during the following season to evaluate whether the elevated landings from the previous fishing year are continuing to persist. That information would inform decisions on whether a fishing season closure would actually need to occur to constrain harvest to the ACL.

This proposed rule would revise the recreational AMs for wahoo. The current in-season closure and stock status based post-season AM would be replaced. The proposed recreational AM would be a post-season AM that would be triggered in the following fishing year if the recreational ACLs are constant and the 3-year geometric mean of landings exceeds the recreational ACL. As described in Amendment 10, whenever the recreational ACL is changed, a single year of landings would be used an overage determination, beginning with the most recent available year of landings, then a 2-year average of landings from that single year and the subsequent year, then a 3-year average of landings from those 2 years and the subsequent year, and thereafter a progressive running 3-year average would be used to determine if the recreational AM trigger has been met. The Council noted this approach would allow the recreational AM to be triggered if the ACL was exceeded on a consistent basis. A 3-year geometric mean would help to smooth the data and potentially avoid implementing restrictive recreational post-season AMs unnecessarily if there was an anomaly in the recreational landings estimates during those 3 years that was not accurately reflecting an actual increase in the harvest of wahoo. It was also noted by the Council that a geometric mean is less sensitive to being affected by abnormally large variations in landings estimates than using the arithmetic mean or using a single year point estimate. Once triggered, the post-season recreational AM would reduce the length of the following recreational fishing season by the amount necessary to prevent the recreational ACL from being exceeded in that year. However, the length of the recreational season would not be reduced if the RA determines, using the best available science, that a fishing season reduction is not necessary. Additionally, any determination that the ACL had been exceeded would allow for the monitoring of landings for the following season to evaluate whether the elevated landings from the previous year are continuing to persist. That information would inform decisions on whether a late season harvest closure would actually need to occur. The Council also noted the relatively equitable nature and equally distributed effects of a shortening of the recreational season, as wahoo are often targeted and caught late in the year in many areas of the Atlantic region.

For vessels with a commercial permit for Atlantic dolphin and wahoo, under the current trip limits, dolphin and wahoo may only be harvested and possessed with the authorized gear types onboard. These gear types are automatic reel, bandit gear, handline, pelagic longline, rod and reel, and spearfishing gear. Possession on the vessel of any other gear type results in a prohibition of the possession of any dolphin or wahoo.

American lobster fishers requested to the Council that they be allowed to possess dolphin or wahoo while they moved from one lobster pot to the next. The Council wanted to allow for the authorized gear exemption based on a request from the Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen's Association to allow the historical practice of harvesting dolphin with rod and reel while in the possession of lobster pots to continue and also take a broader approach to allow vessels fishing with trap, pot, or buoy gear to possess dolphin or wahoo as long as the fish were harvested with rod and reel gear. The Council decided to be more comprehensive and included other trap, pot, and buoy gear. This proposed rule would allow for a new category of commercial trip limits for dolphin and wahoo based on a proposed authorized gear exemption for trap, pot, and buoy gear. This proposed rule would allow the harvest and retention of 500 lb (227 kg), gutted weight, of dolphin and 500 lb (227 kg) of wahoo, on board a vessel in the Atlantic EEZ that possesses both an Atlantic Dolphin/Wahoo commercial permit and any valid Federal commercial permit(s) required that allow a vessel to fish using trap, pot, or buoy gear or is in compliance with the permitting requirements for the spiny lobster of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic as described at 50 CFR 622.400, caught by rod and reel while in possession of such gear types. The proposed commercial trip limits under the authorized gear exemption may not be combined with the current commercial trip limits for commercially permitted dolphin and wahoo vessels. The Council determined that this additional regulatory flexibility would have positive economic effects within the fishery while also limiting the potential for any unforeseen significant increases in commercial landings through the specific setting of the 500 lb (227 kg), gutted weight, trip limit.

Currently, an operator of a vessel with either a commercial permit or a charter vessel/headboat permit for dolphin and wahoo is required to have an operator permit. Such operator permit must be onboard the vessel and the vessel owner is required to have a permitted operator onboard the vessel while it is at sea or offloading. This operator permit requirement was implemented in 2004, through the original FMP for dolphin and wahoo, as a way to assist in law enforcement efforts within the fishery by holding the vessel operator accountable for any violation of regulations and to aid in data collection (69 FR 30235; May 27, 2004).

This proposed rule would remove the current requirements for operator permits and permitted operators for both the dolphin and wahoo commercial and charter vessel/headboat permitted vessels. At the March 2016 Council meeting, the NMFS Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) gave a presentation on operator permits, and stated that the operator permits are not used to a large extent by OLE or their law enforcement partners for gathering data, distributing information, or enforcement. The Council noted that there is some potential value for operator permits in aiding law enforcement efforts, but the inconsistent requirements between Atlantic fisheries greatly diminishes this utility. Public testimony indicated that operator permits are rarely checked by enforcement personnel during fishing trips and are burdensome for fishermen to renew and maintain. The Council determined that the limited use of operator permits in the dolphin and wahoo fishery did not outweigh the cost to fishermen to obtain the permit, and removing this requirement would yield positive social, economic, and administrative benefits.

For Atlantic dolphin, the current bag and possession limits are 10 fish per person, not to exceed 60 fish per vessel, whichever is less, except onboard a headboat where the limit is 10 per paying passenger. This proposed rule would decrease the recreational dolphin vessel limit from 60 fish per vessel to 54 fish for charter vessels and private recreational vessels, excluding headboats, in the Atlantic EEZ. The recreational bag limit for private recreational anglers and passengers onboard charter vessels and headboats will remain at 10 fish per person in the Atlantic EEZ. As a result of the proposed possession limit reduction, the total estimated annual reduction in recreational landings is expected to be 114,051 lb (51,733 kg), round weight. Data analysis in Amendment 10 demonstrated that most of the recreational trips in the Atlantic EEZ targeting dolphin harvested less than 10 fish per vessel. Therefore, as a result of the very small proportion of recreational trips that might reach the proposed vessel limit of 54 fish per vessel, no change in fishing activity or behavior is anticipated. The Council noted that one of the goals of the Dolphin and Wahoo FMP is to maintain a precautionary approach to management. While there is no Southeast Data and Assessment Review stock assessment for dolphin and the stock is listed as not overfished or undergoing overfishing, the Council heard public testimony, particularly from anglers in Florida, that dolphin abundance appears to be low and there was concern over the health of the dolphin stock and the associated fishery. The Council determined a coast-wide reduction in the vessel limit was appropriate to maintain consistency of regulations across the region in the retention limits for dolphin and noted that such a change in retention limits would lead to more substantial harvest reductions than a Florida-specific or regional approach.

The current ABC for dolphin and wahoo was implemented in 2014 by Amendment 5, and are based on the Council's SSC's recommendations using the third highest landings value during 1999-2008. These landings did not include recreational landings from Monroe County, Florida, and were based on recreational data from the MRIP CHTS method. In April 2020, the Council's SSC recommended new ABC levels for dolphin and wahoo using the third highest landings value during 1994-2007. These landings include recreational landings from Monroe County, Florida, and used MRIP's FES method, which is considered more reliable by the Council's SSC, the Council, and NMFS, and more robust compared to the CHTS survey method. The new ABC recommendations within Amendment 10 for dolphin and wahoo are also based on the new weight estimation procedure from NMFS SEFSC that uses a 15 fish minimum sample size and represents the best scientific information available.

As discussed, Amendment 10 would revise the commercial and recreational allocations for both dolphin and wahoo. For dolphin, the current commercial and recreational allocations are 10.00 percent and 90.00 percent, respectively. The new dolphin sector allocations would result in commercial and recreational allocations of 7.00 percent and 93.00 percent, respectively. For wahoo, the current commercial and recreational allocations are 3.93 percent and 96.07 percent, respectively. The new wahoo sector allocations would result in commercial and recreational allocations of 2.45 percent and 97.55 percent, respectively.

As discussed, in deciding on new sector allocations, the Council wanted to recognize the needs of the recreational sector for both dolphin and wahoo which would exhibit higher landings than previously estimated with the new accounting of recreational landings using MRIP's FES method. At the same time the Council did not want to reduce the commercial ACLs on a pound basis for dolphin and wahoo and noted that the proposed allocations and sector ACLs would strike a balance between the needs of both sectors.

The goals and objectives of the Dolphin and Wahoo FMP were implemented through the original fishery management plan in 2004 and have not been revised since then. In 2016, the Fisheries Allocation Review Policy (NMFS Policy Directive 01-119) encouraged the use of adaptive management with respect to allocation revisions, and recommended periodic re-evaluation and updating of the management goals and objectives of any FMP to ensure they are relevant to current conditions and needs. Amendment 10 would revise these Dolphin and Wahoo FMP goals and objectives in response to the 2016 Fisheries Allocation Review Policy and ensure the goals and objectives reflect the current dolphin and wahoo fishery. Specifically, the revised goals and objectives seek to manage the dolphin and wahoo fishery using a precautionary approach that maintains access, minimizes competition, preserves the social and economic importance of the fishery, as well as promotes research and incorporation of ecosystem considerations where practicable.

Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with Amendment 10, the Dolphin and Wahoo FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.

This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the legal basis for this proposed rule. No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. In addition, no new reporting and record- keeping requirements are introduced by this proposed rule. A description of this proposed rule, why it is being considered, and the purposes of this proposed rule are contained in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. The objectives of this proposed rule are to base conservation and management measures on the best scientific information available and increase net benefits to the Nation, consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and its National Standards.

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) that this proposed rule, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. A description of the factual basis for this determination follows. All monetary estimates in the following analysis are in 2019 dollars.

This proposed rule, if implemented, would set the total ACL for dolphin equal to the new ABC for dolphin that was recommended by the Council's SSC. The new total ACL would be equal to 24,570,764 lb (11,145,102 kg), round weight, where the recreational component of the total ACL is based on MRIP-FES data. The current total ACL is 15,344,846 lb (6,960,299 kg), round weight, where the recreational component of the total ACL is based on MRIP-CHTS data. Amendment 10 would increase the recreational allocation of the total ACL for dolphin from 90 percent to 93 percent and decrease the commercial allocation of the total ACL for dolphin from 10 percent to 7 percent.

This proposed rule would set the total ACL for wahoo equal to the new ABC for wahoo that was recommended by the Council's SSC. The new total ACL would be equal to 2,885,303 lb (1,308,750 kg), round weight, where the recreational component of the total ACL is based on MRIP-FES data. The current total ACL is 1,794,960 lb (814,179 kg), round weight, where the recreational component of the total ACL is based on MRIP-CHTS data. Amendment 10 would also increase the recreational allocation of the total ACL for wahoo from 96.07 percent to 97.55 percent and decrease the commercial allocation of the total ACL for wahoo from 3.93 percent to 2.45 percent.

This proposed rule would also revise the trigger for the post-season recreational AM for dolphin and revise the post-season recreational AM for dolphin. Currently, if recreational landings exceed the recreational ACL, then during the following fishing year, recreational landings will be monitored for persistence in increased landings. If the recreational ACL is exceeded, it will be reduced by the amount of the recreational ACL overage in the following fishing year and the recreational season will be reduced by the amount necessary to ensure that recreational landings do not exceed the reduced ACL, only if the species is overfished and the total ACL is exceeded. Under the proposed rule, post season AMs would be implemented in the following fishing year for the recreational sector if the total ACL is exceeded, and the length of the following recreational fishing season would be reduced by the amount necessary to prevent the recreational ACL from being exceeded in the following year. However, the length of the recreational season would not be reduced if the RA determines it is not necessary using the best available science.

This proposed rule would also revise the trigger for the post-season recreational AM for wahoo and revise the post-season recreational AM for wahoo. Currently, if recreational landings exceed the recreational ACL, then during the following fishing year, recreational landings will be monitored for persistence in increased landings. If the recreational ACL is exceeded, it will be reduced by the amount of the recreational ACL overage in the following fishing year and the recreational season will be reduced by the amount necessary to ensure that recreational landings do not exceed the reduced ACL only if wahoo is overfished and the total ACL is exceeded. Under the proposed rule, if the recreational ACL is constant, post season AMs would be implemented in the following fishing year if the 3-year geometric mean of landings exceeds the recreational ACL and the length of the following recreational fishing season would be reduced by the amount necessary to prevent the recreational ACL from being exceeded in the following year. If the recreational ACL is changed, then the most recent 1-year or 2-year average of landings would be used as the trigger in place of the 3-year geometric mean. However, the length of the recreational season would not be reduced if the RA determines it is not necessary using the best available science.

This proposed rule would also allow a vessel that possesses a valid Atlantic dolphin and wahoo commercial vessel permit, and either possesses a valid Federal commercial permit to fish trap, pot, or buoy gear or is in compliance with the Federal regulations for spiny lobster permits, to retain up to 500 lb (228 kg), gutted weight, of dolphin and 500 lb (228 kg) of wahoo using rod and reel gear with trap, pot, or buoy gear on board. Currently, vessels with trap, pot, or buoy gear on board are not allowed to retain dolphin or wahoo.

This proposed rule would also remove the requirement for a vessel captain or crewmember to possess an operator permit (also known as an “operator card”) in order for a vessel's Atlantic dolphin and wahoo commercial permit or Atlantic dolphin and wahoo charter vessel/headboat permit to be valid. Lastly, this proposed rule would also reduce the recreational vessel limit for dolphin from 60 fish to 54 fish per trip for private recreational and charter vessels.

From 2015 through 2019, the average number of vessels that commercially harvested dolphin or wahoo using any type of gear was 721 per year. Many vessels commercially harvest both dolphin and wahoo and some vessels use longline gear as well as other gear to harvest dolphin or wahoo on trips throughout a given year. The direct effects on commercial vessels from the actions to change the total ACLs and sector allocations are expected to vary depending on whether they harvest dolphin or wahoo as well as whether they use longline gear or other gear to harvest dolphin or wahoo. From 2015 through 2019, the average number of vessels commercially harvesting Atlantic dolphin per year was 677. Of these 677 vessels, an average of 85 vessels used longline gear while an average of 592 vessels used other gear to commercially harvest Atlantic dolphin per year. During this time, the average number of vessels commercially harvesting Atlantic wahoo was 319. Of these 319 vessels, an average of 53 vessels used longline gear and an average of 266 vessels used other gear to commercially harvest Atlantic wahoo.

However, the proposed action to remove the requirement for a vessel captain or crewmember to possess an operator permit would affect all vessels with valid Atlantic dolphin and wahoo commercial or Atlantic charter vessel/headboat permits regardless of whether they harvest dolphin or wahoo. Further, some vessels possess both permits. The total number of vessels with either a valid Atlantic dolphin and wahoo commercial or Atlantic charter vessel/headboat permit is estimated to be 4,070, of which 2,266 were determined to primarily be commercial fishing vessels while 1,804 vessels were determined to primarily be for-hire fishing vessels.

Although NMFS possesses complete ownership data for businesses and vessels that participate in other industries, ownership data regarding businesses that possess Atlantic dolphin and wahoo commercial or charter vessel/headboat permits are incomplete. Therefore, it is not currently feasible to accurately determine affiliations between these particular businesses. Because of the incomplete ownership data, for purposes of this analysis, it is assumed each of these vessels is independently owned by a single business, which is expected to result in an overestimate of the actual number of businesses directly regulated by this proposed action. Thus, based on the information above, this proposed rule is estimated to directly regulate 2,266 commercial fishing businesses and 1,804 for-hire fishing businesses in the Atlantic dolphin and wahoo fishery.

From 2015 through 2019, the average annual gross revenue for a vessel commercially harvesting Atlantic dolphin using longline gear was $268,849 while the average annual gross revenue for a vessel commercially harvesting Atlantic wahoo using longline gear was $244,552. The best available estimate of economic profit for longline vessels is net revenue as a percentage of gross revenue, which is estimated to be 39.7 percent. This estimate results in an overestimate of actual economic profit as it does not account for implicit costs ( e.g., the cost of an owner operator's time) or fixed costs. Nonetheless, annual economic profit for vessels harvesting Atlantic dolphin using longline gear is estimated to be $105,472 per vessel, while annual economic profit for vessels harvesting Atlantic wahoo using longline gear is estimated to be $136,787.

From 2015 through 2019, the average annual gross revenue for a vessel commercially harvesting Atlantic dolphin using other gear was $52,009 while the average annual gross revenue for a vessel commercially harvesting Atlantic wahoo using other gear was $46,336. For vessels using other gear, after accounting for all costs, net operating revenue is estimated to be 0.5 percent of gross revenue. Therefore, annual economic profit for vessels harvesting Atlantic dolphin using other gear is estimated to be $261 per vessel, while annual economic profit for vessels harvesting Atlantic wahoo using other gear is estimated to be $232.

For Regulatory Flexibility Act purposes, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily involved in the commercial fishing industry is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and its combined annual receipts (revenue) are not in excess of $11 million for all of its affiliated operations worldwide. From 2015 through 2019, the maximum annual gross revenue earned by a single commercial fishing vessel (business) in the Atlantic dolphin wahoo fishery was approximately $1.56 million. Based on the information above, all commercial fishing businesses directly regulated by this proposed rule are determined to be small businesses for the purpose of this analysis.

For other industries, the SBA has established size standards for all major industry sectors in the U.S., including for-hire fishing businesses (NAICS code 487210). A business primarily involved in for-hire fishing is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has annual receipts (revenue) not in excess of $8 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. Average annual gross revenue for a charter vessel in the South Atlantic is slightly more than $125,000, while average annual gross revenue for a headboat in the South Atlantic is more than $304,000. Thus, on average, annual gross revenue for headboats is more than double the annual gross revenue for charter vessels, reflecting the fact that businesses that own charter vessels are typically smaller than businesses that own headboats. Average annual gross revenues for charter vessels and headboats in the Northeast region are less than in the South Atlantic. The maximum annual gross revenue for a single headboat in the South Atlantic was about $.78 million in 2017. Based on this information, all for-hire fishing businesses directly regulated by this proposed rule are determined to be small businesses for the purpose of this analysis.

The proposed actions to increase the total ACLs for dolphin and wahoo are not expected to directly affect for-hire fishing vessels. Harvest for the non-headboat components of the recreational sector, including for charter vessels, will now be based on MRIP-FES data rather than MRIP-CHTS data. Non-headboat landings accounted for 99.9 percent of dolphin and wahoo recreational landings from 2015 through 2019. This change in the estimation method does not change how many dolphin or wahoo are actually being harvested by for-hire vessels. Rather, the FES method generates more accurate estimates of effort (trips) and harvest. Thus, the increase in the recreational component of the new ACLs does not necessarily reflect an actual increase in what the recreational sector, including for-hire fishing vessels, can potentially harvest.

With respect to the proposed actions to increase the recreational sector allocations for dolphin and wahoo, assuming the new total ACLs discussed above, the recreational ACL for dolphin is expected to increase by 737,123 lb (334,353 kg), round weight, or by 3.3 percent, and the recreational ACL for wahoo is expected to increase by 42,702 lb (19,369 kg), round weight, or 1.5 percent. The underlying analysis assumed that changes in the recreational ACLs due to these proposed actions would only affect catch per angler trip and not the total number of trips harvesting dolphin or wahoo ( i.e., catch trips or effort). It is even more likely that target trips for dolphin and wahoo are unlikely to change because of these proposed actions, which is important as target trips are assumed to be the source of profits for for-hire fishing vessels. The recreational fishing seasons for dolphin and wahoo are currently year-round and that is not expected to change because of these actions. Thus, target trips for dolphin or wahoo would not be expected to change because of a change in the fishing season length. Headboats only accounted for 0.1 percent of dolphin and wahoo landings from 2015 through 2019. If that trend continues in the future, their landings would only potentially increase by 7,371 lb (3,343 kg), round weight, of dolphin and 43 lb (20 kg), round weight, of wahoo. It is highly unlikely that headboats would increase their target effort for dolphin or wahoo because of such small increases. Charter vessels accounted for 15.8 percent of dolphin landings and 13.4 percent of wahoo landings from 2015 through 2019. If that continues in the future, their landings could potentially increase by 116,465 lb (52,828 kg), round weight, for dolphin and 5,722 lb (2,595 kg), round weight, for wahoo. As with headboats, this minor increase in their potential landings for wahoo would not be expected to change their target effort for wahoo. However, the potential increase in dolphin landings by charter vessels is not insignificant and it is possible that the number of trips harvesting and even targeting dolphin could increase. However, the increase in the supply of dolphin available for harvest by charter vessels would only lead to an increase in the number of target trips for dolphin if it is accompanied by an increase in the demand for trips targeting dolphin by charter vessels. As the proposed action by itself is not expected to induce a higher demand for target trips, the assumption that target trips for dolphin by charter vessels would not change seems reasonable. Because the number of for-hire fishing trips targeting dolphin or wahoo is not expected to change, no change in economic profits to for-hire fishing vessels is expected due to these actions. However, if target trips for dolphin by charter vessels were to increase, their profits would be expected to increase as well.

Conversely, the proposed actions to increase the total ACL and decrease the commercial sector's allocation of the total ACL for dolphin are expected to directly affect vessels commercially harvesting dolphin. The magnitude of these effects are expected to vary depending on whether vessels use longline gear or other gear to commercially harvest dolphin, in part because longline vessels are responsible for harvesting 78 percent of the commercial Atlantic dolphin landings while vessels using other gear only harvest 22 percent. Further, the average ex-vessel price for dolphin landed by longline gear is $3.17/lb, round weight, while the average ex-vessel price for dolphin landed by other gear is only $3.05/lb, round weight.

Compared to average annual landings from 2015 through 2019, for longline vessels, the increase in the total ACL for dolphin could result in an increase of 1,309,456 lb (593,959 kg), round weight, in landings of dolphin. This increase in landings would be expected to increase their gross revenue by approximately $4,150,976, or $48,835 per vessel. This potential increase in gross revenue would be expected to increase economic profit for longline vessels by approximately $1,647,937, or $19,387 per vessel, which represents an 18.4 percent increase in their economic profits. Compared to average annual landings from 2015 through 2019, for vessels using other gear, the increase in the total ACL could result in an increase of 369,480 lb (167,593 kg), round weight, in landings of dolphin. This would be expected to increase their gross revenue by approximately $1,126,914, or $1,904 per vessel. This potential increase in gross revenue would be expected to increase economic profits by approximately $5,634, or about $10 per vessel, which represents a 3.6 percent increase in their economic profits.

However, the decrease in the commercial sector's allocation from 10 percent to 7 percent would partially offset some of these potential gains in landings, revenue and economic profits. Specifically, given the increased total ACL, for longline vessels, the decrease in the commercial sector's allocation for dolphin would reduce the potential landings, revenue, and economic profits of dolphin by 574,956 lb (260,795 kg), round weight, $1,822,611, and $723,577, respectively. On a per vessel basis, revenue and economic profit would decrease by approximately $21,442 and $8,513, respectively. Thus, for longline vessels, the combined effects of the higher total ACL and reduced commercial sector allocation for dolphin would potentially lead to an increase in landings, revenue, and economic profits for dolphin of 734,500 lb (333,163 kg), round weight, $2,328,365, and $924,360, respectively. On a per vessel basis, revenue and economic profit would increase by approximately $27,393 and $10,875, respectively, or by about 10.3 percent.

For vessels using other gear, increase in the total ACL and the decrease in the commercial sector's allocation for dolphin would reduce the potential landings, revenue, and economic profits of dolphin by 162,176 lb (73,562 kg), round weight, $494,610, and $2,473, respectively. On a per vessel basis, revenue and economic profit would decrease by approximately $36 and $4, respectively. Thus, for vessels using other gear, the combined effects of the higher total ACL and reduced commercial sector allocation for dolphin would potentially lead to an increase in landings, revenue, and economic profits for dolphin of 207,313 lb (94,036 kg), round weight, $632,304, and $3,161, respectively. On a per vessel basis, revenue and economic profit would increase by approximately $1,068 and $5, respectively, or by about 2 percent.

Similarly, the proposed actions to increase the total ACL and decrease the commercial sector's allocation of the total ACL for wahoo are expected to directly affect vessels commercially harvesting wahoo. The magnitude of these effects are expected to vary depending on whether vessels use longline gear or other gear to commercially harvest wahoo, in part because longline vessels are responsible for harvesting 28 percent of the commercial Atlantic wahoo landings while vessels using other gear harvest 72 percent. Further, the average ex-vessel price for wahoo landed by longline gear is $3.75/lb, round weight, while the ex-vessel price for wahoo landed by other gear is $4.05/lb, round weight.

Compared to average annual landings for longline vessels from 2015 through 2019, the increase in the total ACL for wahoo could result in an increase of 13,936 lb (6,321 kg), round weight, in landings of wahoo. This increase in landings would be expected to increase their gross revenue by approximately $52,260, or $986 per vessel. This potential increase in gross revenue would be expected to increase economic profits for longline vessels by approximately $20,747, or $391 per vessel, which represents a 0.3 percent increase in their economic profits. Compared to average annual landings for vessels using other gear from 2015 through 2019, the increase in the total ACL could result in an increase of 38,837 lb (17,616 kg), round weight, in landings of wahoo. This increase in landings would be expected to increase their gross revenue by approximately $157,290, or $591 per vessel. This potential increase in gross revenue would be expected to increase economic profits by approximately $786, or about $3 per vessel, which represents a 1.3 percent increase in their economic profits.

However, the decrease in the wahoo commercial sector's allocation from 3.93 percent to 2.45 percent would mostly offset these potential gains in landings, revenue and economic profits. Specifically, for longline vessels, the decrease in the commercial sector's allocation for wahoo would reduce the potential landings, revenue, and economic profits of wahoo by 11,957 lb (5,424 kg), round weight, $44,839, and $17,800, respectively. On a per vessel basis, revenue and economic profit would decrease by approximately $846 and $336, respectively. Thus, for longline vessels, the combined effects of the higher ACL and reduced commercial sector allocation for wahoo would potentially lead to an increase in landings, revenue, and economic profits for wahoo of 1,979 lb (898 kg), round weight, $7,421, and $2,947, respectively. On a per vessel basis, revenue and economic profit would increase by approximately $140 and $55, respectively, or by less than 0.1 percent.

For vessels using other gear, the decrease in the commercial sector's allocation for wahoo would reduce the potential landings, revenue, and economic profits of wahoo by 30,745 lb (13,946 kg), round weight, $124,519, and $623, respectively. On a per vessel basis, revenue and economic profit would decrease by approximately $468 and slightly more than $2, respectively. Thus, for vessels using other gear, the combined effects of the higher ACL and reduced commercial sector allocation for wahoo would potentially lead to an increase in landings, revenue, and economic profits for wahoo of 8,092 lb (3,670 kg), round weight, $32,771, and $163, respectively. On a per vessel basis, revenue and economic profit would increase by approximately $123 and less than $2, respectively, or by about 0.2 percent.

The proposed actions to revise the triggers for the post-season recreational AMs for dolphin and wahoo and to revise the post-season recreational AMs for dolphin and wahoo do not directly regulate any for-hire fishing businesses and are not expected to directly affect for-hire fishing vessels. These actions revise existing administrative procedures that could affect management measures in the future if various criteria are met. Thus, these actions may only cause indirect economic effects in the future and neither the direction nor the magnitude of those effects are foreseeable at this time.

The proposed action to allow a vessel that possesses a valid Atlantic dolphin and wahoo commercial vessel permit, and either possesses a valid Federal commercial permit to fish trap, pot, or buoy gear or is in compliance with the Federal regulations for spiny lobster permits, to retain up to 500 lb (228 kg), gutted weight, of dolphin and 500 lb (228 kg) of wahoo using rod and reel gear with trap, pot, or buoy gear on board is expected to increase economic profits. Under the current regulations, vessels with trap, pot, or buoy gear on board were not allowed to retain dolphin or wahoo, and thus were forced to discard any dolphin or wahoo they may have incidentally harvested. Because these vessels may now retain and sell these fish, their gross revenue from fishing would be expected to increase without any increase in costs, and thus their economic profits would be expected to increase as well. Because retention has not been previously allowed and discard data are limited, it is not possible to determine how many commercial fishing vessels may benefit, or the magnitude of the potential increase in economic profits that may result, from this proposed action.

The proposed action to remove the requirement for a vessel captain or crewmember to possess an operator permit is expected to reduce costs for 2,266 commercial fishing businesses and 1,804 for-hire fishing businesses. The current requirement results in direct costs to vessels that possess Atlantic dolphin and wahoo commercial or charter vessel/headboat permits. These costs include application fees and associated preparation costs incurred in the permit application process, including the need to obtain two passport photos, postage, and the time to prepare and send the application materials once every 3 years. The total reduction in costs associated with removing this requirement is estimated to be $369,515, of which $205,730 would accrue to fishing vessels determined to primarily be commercial fishing businesses and $163,785 would accrue to vessels determined to primarily be for-hire fishing businesses. The reduction to both types of businesses is approximately $91 per vessel/business, which represents less than 0.1 percent of a commercial longline vessel's annual economic profit but as much as 39 percent of the annual economic profit for a commercial vessel using other gear. Profit estimates are not available for these for-hire fishing businesses, but this cost reduction represents less than 0.1 percent of the average annual gross revenue for both charter vessels and headboats in the South Atlantic and headboats in the Northeast Region, and about 0.3 percent of the annual average gross revenue for charter vessels in the Northeast Region.

The proposed action to reduce the recreational vessel limit for dolphin from 60 fish to 54 fish per trip for private recreational and charter vessels does not apply to headboats. Further, private recreational vessels are not businesses or entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act and therefore are not germane to this analysis. In addition, this proposed action is not expected to directly affect charter vessels for reasons similar to why the proposed actions to change the total ACL is not expected to directly affect charter vessels and the recreational sector allocation for dolphin is not expected to adversely affect charter vessels. Specifically, the recreational fishing season for dolphin is currently year-round and that is not expected to change because of this action. Further, the underlying analysis assumed that a change in the vessel limit would only affect catch per angler on charter vessel trips and not the total number of charter vessel trips. Because the number of for-hire fishing trips is not expected to change, no change in economic profits to for-hire fishing businesses is expected due to this action.

Based on the information above, although a substantial number of small entities would be affected by this proposed rule, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on those entities. Because this proposed rule, if implemented, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.

This proposed rule contains a change to a collection-of-information requirement subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This proposed rule would revise existing requirements for the collection of information approved under OMB Control Number 0648-0205, Southeast Region Permit Family of Forms. NMFS proposes to remove the requirement for an operator permit in the commercial and for-hire portions of the Atlantic dolphin and wahoo fishery as specified by 50 CFR 622.270(c). For the Federal Permit Application for Southeast Region Issued Operator Card, NMFS estimates this proposed rule would decrease the annual number of respondents to 74 and decrease the annual number of responses to 74. Further, NMFS estimates the annual burden hours would decrease to 37 hours, and the annual burden cost would decrease to $3,774. Public reporting burden for the Federal Permit Application for Southeast Region Issued Operator Card is estimated to average 30 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

Public comment is sought regarding whether this proposed change to a collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Submit comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of information at www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor will any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, NOAA proposes to amend 50 CFR part 622 as follows:

The revisions read as follows:

and

The revisions and additions read as follows:

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires that each Regional Fishery Management Council transmit any amendment it prepares to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving an amendment and associated regulations deemed necessary by the Council to implement the amendment, immediately publish notification in the Federal Register that the amendment is available for public review and comment. The Council transmitted its final version of Amendment 23 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP (Amendment 23) to NMFS for review on August 9, 2021. On January 3, 2022, the Council submitted Amendment 23 proposed rule regulations they deemed to be necessary and appropriate as specified in section 303(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

The Council initiated Amendment 23 to consider changes to the Northeast multispecies (groundfish) monitoring and reporting system to ensure it is providing the accurate catch information necessary to manage the fishery effectively and efficiently. The alternatives considered in this action focus on measures that adjust the existing industry-funded sector monitoring program to better (1) determine effort and the total catch of target and regulated species; and (2) achieve monitoring coverage sufficient to minimize the effects of potential monitoring bias while maintaining flexibility to enhance fleet viability. To address these issues, the Council approved Amendment 23 that would:

• Replace the current process for calculating an annual monitoring coverage target with a fixed coverage target as a percentage of trips. The coverage target would be 100 percent of trips for 4 years, as long as Federal funding can support agency and industry costs;

• Set a baseline coverage target for when there is an absence of Federal funding to pay industry costs. The coverage target in that instance would default to 40 percent;

• Allow for increased coverage in subsequent years (years 5+) when Federal funding is available to support industry costs;

• Approve additional electronic monitoring (EM) technologies as an alternative to human at-sea monitors;

• Exclude from the human at-sea monitoring requirement all trips in geographic areas with low groundfish catch;

• Require periodic evaluation of the monitoring program and exclusions from the monitoring requirement;

• Allow for removal of the management uncertainty buffer from the portion of the acceptable biological catch (ABC) allocated to the sector catch share when the monitoring coverage target is 100 percent; and

• Grant authority to the Greater Atlantic Regional Administrator to revise sector reporting requirements to streamline reporting for the industry.

The Northeast Multispecies FMP specifies the management measures for 13 groundfish species (cod, haddock, yellowtail flounder, pollock, plaice, witch flounder, white hake, windowpane flounder, Atlantic halibut, winter flounder, redfish, ocean pout, and Atlantic wolffish) off the New England and Mid-Atlantic coasts. The Northeast multispecies fishery occurs from Maine to North Carolina, although most fishing activity takes place north of New Jersey. The fishery has a recreational component and a commercial component. The commercial component is comprised of the common pool and the sector system. NMFS manages fishing by vessels in the common pool with a suite of effort controls, including limits to the number of days-at-sea that vessels may fish and possession limits for various species. The sector system is a voluntary catch share program where vessels form legal entities, called sectors. NMFS allocates each sector annual catch entitlements, subdivisions of annual catch limits (ACL), for most groundfish species. The annual catch entitlements are based on the collective catch history of the sector's members. NMFS also grants each sector exemptions from many effort controls in exchange for the sector monitoring and managing the catch of all member vessels.

Amendment 16 (75 FR 18261; April 9, 2010), which became effective on May 1, 2010, expanded the sector management program and adopted a process for setting ACLs for the groundfish fishery. Each sector must submit an operations plan and sector contract to the Regional Administrator, and must receive approval to operate for a fishing year. The sector contract binds all members to the sector and to each other for a fishing year. The sector operations plan, once approved by NMFS, is an enforceable set of requirements governing how the sector and its members operate, including administrative measures ( e.g., sector fees and membership rules) and fishing operations. The Council specified a number of operational requirements for sectors and require that sector operations plans explain how the sector will meet the requirements and operate. Sector operations plans and/or contracts must contain a number of elements. Required elements are codified at § 648.87(b)(2), and additional requirements are specified by NMFS in the Sector Operations Plan, Contract, and Environmental Assessment Requirements posted at: https://bit.ly/3pdau1L.

Amendment 16 also updated the requirements for sector and common pool monitoring programs, including requirements for industry-funded at-sea monitoring (ASM) and dockside monitoring (DSM). Amendment 16 required each sector to implement an industry-funded monitoring program as part of its approved operations plan. Each sector must monitor catch (landings and discards) by participating sector vessels to ensure that the sector does not exceed its allocated quotas during the fishing year. Each sector must determine all species landings by stock areas; apply discard estimates to landings; deduct catch from each quota allocated to the sector; and report the sector's catch on a weekly basis to NMFS. Sectors are required to pay for their monitoring costs to the extent they are not covered by Federal funds. Sectors may use EM systems ( e.g., cameras and hydraulic sensors) in place of human at-sea monitors if NMFS has approved the EM method and technology. Currently, sectors can use the audit model EM method and technology, which we have described in more detail below.

Framework Adjustment 48 (78 FR 26117; May 3, 2013) specified the overall goals and objectives of the groundfish monitoring program and discontinued the DSM program. Framework 55 (81 FR 26411; May 2, 2016) clarified that the primary goal of the monitoring program is to verify area fished, catch, and discards by species and gear type; and should be done in the most cost effective means practicable. Framework 55 further clarified that all other goals and objectives of groundfish monitoring programs are equally weighted secondary goals. Additionally, Framework 55 modified the method used to set the coverage target for the industry-funded sector ASM program and excluded certain types of groundfish trips with low groundfish catch from the monitoring requirement. Amendment 23 would revise the monitoring program further to improve catch accounting and management of the groundfish sector program fishery.

Amendment 23 would require sectors to meet the coverage level for each year, as described below. The amendment includes an exemption for vessels that fish on trips that occur entirely west of 71°30′ W longitude. This provision is intended to reduce the monitoring burden on vessels that fish in areas where groundfish catch is minimal.

Current regulations at § 648.87(b)(1)(v)(B)( 1 )( i ) set forth an annual process for determining the target at-sea coverage rate for the sector monitoring program, which must be less than 100 percent. NMFS is required to determine an ASM coverage target that is sufficient to at least meet the coefficient of variation (CV) specified in the Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology at the overall stock level for each stock of regulated species and ocean pout, and to monitor sector operations, to the extent practicable, in order to reliably estimate overall catch by sector vessels. Framework 55 revised the method used to calculate the coverage target necessary to meet the CV standard to make the program more cost effective and smooth the fluctuations in the annual coverage level to provide additional stability for the fishing industry. NMFS determines the coverage target for the upcoming fishing year based on the most recent 3-year average of the total required coverage level necessary to reach the required CV for each stock. For each stock, the coverage level needed to achieve the required CV is calculated first for each of the 3 years and then averaged. The coverage level that will apply is the maximum stock-specific level after considering several criteria. For a given fishing year, stocks that are not overfished, with overfishing not occurring according to the most recent available stock assessment, and that in the previous fishing year have less than 75 percent of the sector sub-ACL harvested and less than 10 percent of catch comprised of discards, are not used to set the coverage target. A stock must meet all of these criteria to be eliminated from use as the annual coverage target for a given year. This prescriptive methodology is used to calculate the ASM coverage target that would meet the CV standard, but NMFS must also ensure that the coverage target reliably estimates overall catch by sector vessels. Accordingly, NMFS considers factors beyond the coverage target that meets the CV standard and in recent years has set an ASM coverage target above the minimum to account for bias in the monitoring program.

Amendment 23 would replace the current process for calculating an annual monitoring coverage target with a fixed coverage target as a percentage of trips. The coverage target would be 100 percent of trips for 4 years, as long as Federal funding can pay for both agency and industry costs. The amendment would set a baseline coverage target for when there is an absence of Federal funding to pay industry's costs. In that instance, the coverage target would default to 40 percent. Amendment 23 would also allow for increased coverage in subsequent years, i.e., for years 5 and beyond, when Federal funding is available to pay for industry's costs.

Beginning in 2016, NMFS worked with members of industry and other stakeholders to develop EM as a tool to meet the sector monitoring requirements. In December 2019, NMFS notified the Council of its intent to expand EM and allow sectors to submit an EM plan as part of the fishing years 2021-2022 sector operations plan approval process. On March 31, 2021, NMFS announced its determination that the EM audit model is sufficient for use instead of ASM to meet sector monitoring and reporting requirements (86 FR 16687).

Amendment 23 would implement two EM programs that sector vessels could use to satisfy the sector monitoring requirement. Amendment 23 does not remove or alter the existing authority for the Regional Administrator to deem types of EM technology sufficient to be used in place of human at-sea monitors. However, the two EM models in Amendment 23 would be available for sectors to include in their operations plans without requiring a separate determination by the Regional Administrator. The audit model, as described in the rule announcing its approval, is one of the EM models included in Amendment 23 (86 FR 16687; March 31, 2021). Amendment 23 would also allow the maximized retention EM model (MREM).

Under the MREM model, on all sector EM trips, the vessel operator and crew are required to retain and land all catch of allocated groundfish, including fish below the minimum size that they would otherwise be required to discard. Unallocated groundfish and non-groundfish species must be handled in accordance with standard commercial fishing operations. Any allowable discards must occur at designated discard control points on the vessel, described in the vessel-specific monitoring plan. EM data from the trip would be reviewed by the EM service provider to verify that the vessel operator and crew complied with the catch retention requirements. A human dockside monitor would meet the vessel at port upon its return from each trip to observe the offload and collect information on the catch. Landings of all fish, including fish below the minimum size in the regulations, are reported to NMFS by the dealer.

Amendment 16 established sector monitoring requirements, codified at § 648.87(b)(1)(v), and sector reporting requirements, codified at § 648.87(b)(1)(vi). Each sector must submit weekly reports to NMFS. When a sector has caught 90 percent of any quota, that sector must submit daily catch reports. Each sector must also submit an annual report that summarizes the fishing activities of participating vessels. In addition to the reporting requirements applicable to all commercial groundfish vessels, sector vessels must submit additional information through their vessel monitoring systems.

At the time the reporting requirements were developed for Amendment 16, sectors were expected to use real-time information from their vessels to monitor catch. In practice, NMFS provides sector managers with a weekly download of official trip data (dealer and vessel trip report landings data, observer discard data, and calculated discard rates for unobserved trips), which most sectors use to update their sector accounting and then submit a weekly report to NMFS. Some sectors use data collected directly from vessels in their reports. Data reconciliation occurs regularly between the sectors and NMFS to improve monitoring accuracy by identifying and resolving any data errors in either the sector's or NMFS' information.

Amendment 23 would authorize the Regional Administrator to modify the sector monitoring requirements at § 648.87(b)(1)(v) and the sector reporting requirements at § 648.87(b)(1)(vi) to streamline the sector reporting process. More efficient methods might be developed that would still involve timely monitoring and reconciliation of data sources between sectors and NMFS. For example, NMFS could eliminate the requirement for sectors to submit weekly and daily reports and instead the agency would provide monitoring summaries for the sectors to use for catch accounting and managing annual catch entitlements, while continuing the process where NMFS and sectors reconcile catch data to confirm accuracy. Authorizing the Regional Administrator to streamline the sector reporting process could help to reduce reporting redundancies, provide flexibility to sectors and sector managers, and improve timeliness of data processing.

In 2010, Amendment 16 implemented new requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, including ACLs and accountability measures. Amendment 16 included a process for setting an overfishing limit (OFL) for groundfish stocks. The OFL represents the maximum amount of fish that can be caught in a year without resulting in overfishing. The Council typically recommends an ABC for a groundfish stock that is lower than the OFL to account for scientific uncertainty. The Council sets an ACL at a level below the ABC to account for management uncertainty, and this serves as a buffer to prevent the fishery from exceeding the ABC. The management uncertainty buffer accounts for the possibility that management measures will result in a level of catch greater than expected. The current process for evaluating management uncertainty buffers includes consideration of the following elements: (1) Enforceability of management measures; (2) monitoring adequacy (including timeliness, completeness, and accuracy of monitoring data); (3) precision; (4) latent effort; and (5) other fishery catch.

The Council evaluates the management uncertainty buffers in each specification setting action. The current default adjustment for management uncertainty for groundfish stocks is 5 percent of the ABC. For stocks with less management uncertainty, the buffer is set at 3 percent of the ABC; for stocks with more uncertainty, the buffer is set at 7 percent of the ABC. Stocks not caught in state waters have a lower management uncertainty buffer of 3 percent of the ABC; zero possession, discard-only stocks have a higher management uncertainty buffer of 7 percent of the ABC.

Amendment 23 would remove the management uncertainty buffer from the portion of the ABC allocated to the sector catch share when the monitoring coverage target is 100 percent. The revised management uncertainty buffers would apply only to sectors, and not to the common pool component of the fishery, or other sub-ACLs or sub-components for any stocks. After NMFS determines the coverage target for a fishing year, NMFS will remove the management uncertainty buffer from the sector allocation in any year the coverage target is 100 percent. If Federal funds are not available for 100 percent coverage and a lower target coverage level is set, the management uncertainty buffers would be in place for that fishing year, subject to the Council's review as part of each specification action.

The Magnuson-Stevens Act allows us to approve, partially approve, or disapprove measures recommended by the Council in an amendment based on whether the measures are consistent with the FMP, plan amendment, the Magnuson-Stevens Act and its National Standards, and other applicable law. The Council develops policy recommendations for its fisheries and NMFS review and approves the recommendations after considering consistency the Magnuson-Steven Act and other applicable law. As such, we are seeking comment on whether the measures in Amendment 23 are consistent with the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act and its National Standards, and other applicable law, including whether the Amendment's measures will achieve its goals and objectives. Through this notice, NMFS seeks comments on Amendment 23 and its incorporated documents through the end of the comment period stated in the DATES section of this notice of availability (NOA). Following the publication of this NOA, a rule proposing the implementation of measures in this amendment is anticipated to be published in the Federal Register for public comment. Public comments must be received by the end of the comment period provided in this NOA of Amendment 23 to be considered in the approval/disapproval decision. All comments received by the end of the comment period on the NOA, whether specifically directed to the NOA or the proposed rule, will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision. Comments received after the end of the comment period for the NOA will not be considered in the approval/disapproval decision of Amendment 23.

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