The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (“EPCA”), 1 authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part C  2 of EPCA, added by Public Law 95-619, Title IV, section 441(a) (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified), established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment. This equipment includes automatic commercial ice makers, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(F))

EPCA prescribed the initial energy and water conservation standards for automatic commercial ice makers. (42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(1)) EPCA also authorizes DOE to establish new standards for automatic commercial ice makers not covered by the statutory standards. (42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(2)) Not later than January 1, 2015, with respect to the standards established under 42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(1), and, with respect to the standards established under 42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(2), not later than 5 years after the date on which the standards take effect, EPCA required DOE to issue a final rule to determine whether amending the applicable standards is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(3)(A)) Not later than 5 years after the effective date of any amended standards under 42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(3)(A) or the publication of a final rule determining that amending the standards is not technologically feasible or economically justified, DOE must issue a final rule to determine whether amending the standards established under 42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(1) or the amended standards, as applicable, is technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(3)(B)) A final rule issued under 42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(2) or (3) must establish standards at the maximum level that is technically feasible and economically justified, as provided in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) and (p). (42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(4))

EPCA further provides that, not later than 6 years after the issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish either a notification of determination that standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NOPR”) including new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) Not later than three years after issuance of a final determination not to amend standards, DOE must publish either a notice of determination that standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a NOPR including new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(3)(B))

Under EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new or amended standard must result in a significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))

DOE is publishing this preliminary analysis to collect data and information to inform its decision consistent with its obligations under EPCA.

DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or amended standards for covered equipment, including automatic commercial ice makers. As noted, EPCA requires that any new or amended energy conservation standard prescribed by the Secretary of Energy (“Secretary”) be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency (or water efficiency for certain equipment specified by EPCA) that is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that would not result in the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3))

The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking. 3 For example, the United States rejoined the Paris Agreement on February 19, 2021. As part of that agreement, the United States has committed to reducing GHG emissions in order to limit the rise in mean global temperature. 4 As such, energy savings that reduce GHG emissions have taken on greater importance. Additionally, some covered products and equipment have most of their energy consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of these products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than products or equipment with relatively constant demand. In evaluating the significance of energy savings, DOE considers differences in primary energy and full-fuel cycle (“FFC”) effects for different covered products and equipment when determining whether energy savings are significant. Primary energy and FFC effects include the energy consumed in electricity production (depending on load shape), in distribution and transmission, and in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels ( i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels), and thus present a more complete picture of the impacts of energy conservation standards. Accordingly, DOE evaluates the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the significance of cumulative FFC national energy savings, the cumulative FFC emissions reductions, and the need to confront the global climate crisis, among other factors.

DOE has initially determined the energy savings estimated for the candidate standard levels considered in this preliminary analysis are “significant” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B).

To determine whether a standard is economically justified, EPCA requires that DOE determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following seven factors:

(1) The economic impact of the standard on the manufacturers and consumers of the products subject to the standard;

(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the covered products that are likely to result from the standard;

(3) The total projected amount of energy (or as applicable, water) savings likely to result directly from the standard;

(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the products likely to result from the standard;

(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the standard;

(6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and

(7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) considers relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))

DOE fulfills these and other applicable requirements by conducting a series of analyses throughout the rulemaking process. Table I.1 shows the individual analyses that are performed to satisfy each of the requirements within EPCA.

Further, EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of the energy savings during the first year that the consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii))

EPCA also contains what is known as an “anti-backsliding” provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing any amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe an amended or new standard if interested persons have established by a preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in the unavailability in the United States in any covered product type (or class) of performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as those generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))

Additionally, EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an energy conservation standard for a covered product that has two or more subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level for a type or class of product that has the same function or intended use, if DOE determines that products within such group: (A) Consume a different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered products within such type (or class), or (B) have a capacity or other performance-related feature which other products within such type (or class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard for a group of products, DOE must consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of the feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate. Id. Any rule prescribing such a standard must include an explanation of the basis on which such higher or lower level was established. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2))

Before proposing a standard, DOE typically seeks public input on the analytical framework, models, and tools that DOE intends to use to evaluate standards for the equipment at issue and the results of preliminary analyses DOE performed for the equipment.

DOE is examining whether to amend the current standards pursuant to its obligations under EPCA. This notification announces the availability of the preliminary TSD, which details the preliminary analyses and summarizes the preliminary results of DOE's analyses. In addition, DOE is announcing a public meeting to solicit feedback from interested parties on its analytical framework, models, and preliminary results.

In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A (“appendix A”), DOE notes that it is deviating from the provision in appendix A regarding the pre-NOPR stages for an energy conservation standards rulemaking. Section 6(a)(2) of appendix A states that if the Department determines it is appropriate to proceed with a rulemaking (after initiating the rulemaking process through an early assessment), the preliminary stages of a rulemaking to issue or amend an energy conservation standard that DOE will undertake will be a framework document and preliminary analysis, or an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (“ANOPR”). DOE is opting to deviate from this step by publishing a preliminary analysis without a framework document. A framework document is intended to introduce and summarize the various analyses DOE conducts during the rulemaking process and requests initial feedback from interested parties. As discussed further in the following section, prior to this notification of the preliminary analysis, DOE issued an early assessment request for information (“RFI”) in which DOE identified and sought comment on the analyses conducted in support of the most recent energy conservation standards rulemaking (80 FR 4646; Jan. 28, 2015 (the “January 2015 Final Rule”)). 85 FR 60923, 60295 (Sept. 29, 2020) (the “September 2020 RFI”). DOE provided a 75-day comment period for the early assessment RFI. 85 FR 60923. As DOE is intending to rely on substantively the same analytical methods as in the most recent rulemaking, publication of a framework document would be largely redundant with the published early assessment RFI. As such, DOE is not publishing a framework document.

Section 6(d)(2) of appendix A specifies that the length of the public comment period for pre-NOPR rulemaking documents will vary depending upon the circumstances of the particular rulemaking, but will not be less than 75 calendar days. For this preliminary analysis, DOE has opted to instead provide a 60-day comment period. As stated, DOE requested comment in the September 2020 RFI on the analysis conducted in support of the January 2015 Final Rule and provided stakeholders a 75-day comment period. For this preliminary analysis, DOE has relied on many of the same analytical assumptions and approaches as used in the previous rulemaking and has determined that a 60-day comment period in conjunction with the prior 75-day comment period provides sufficient time for interested parties to review the preliminary analysis and develop comments.

In the January 2015 Final Rule, DOE prescribed the current energy conservation standards for automatic commercial ice makers manufactured on and after January 28, 2018. 80 FR 4646. These standards are set forth in DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 431.134(c) and (d) and are repeated in Table II.1 and Table II.2.

In the September 2020 RFI, DOE published a notification that it was initiating an early assessment review to determine whether any new or amended standards would satisfy the relevant requirements of EPCA for a new or amended energy conservation standard for automatic commercial ice makers as well as a request for information. 85 FR 60923.

Comments received to date as part of the current process have helped DOE identify and resolve issues related to the preliminary analyses. Chapter 2 of the preliminary TSD summarizes and addresses the comments received.

For the equipment covered in this preliminary analysis, DOE conducted in-depth technical analyses in the following areas: (1) Engineering, (2) markups to determine product price, (3) energy use, (4) life-cycle cost (“LCC”) and payback period (“PBP”), and (5) national impacts. The preliminary TSD that presents the methodology and results of each of these analyses is available at www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2017-BT-STD-0022.

DOE also conducted, and has included in the preliminary TSD, several other analyses that support the major analyses or are preliminary analyses that will be expanded if DOE determines that a NOPR is warranted to propose amended energy conservation standards. These analyses include (1) the market and technology assessment; (2) the screening analysis, which contributes to the engineering analysis; and (3) the shipments analysis, which contributes to the LCC and PBP analysis and the national impact analysis (“NIA”). In addition to these analyses, DOE has begun preliminary work on the manufacturer impact analysis and has identified the methods to be used for the consumer subgroup analysis, the emissions analysis, the employment impact analysis, the regulatory impact analysis, and the utility impact analysis. DOE will expand on these analyses in the NOPR should one be issued.

DOE develops information in the market and technology assessment that provides an overall picture of the market for the equipment concerned, including general characteristics of the equipment, the industry structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used in the equipment. This activity includes both quantitative and qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly available information. The subjects addressed in the market and technology assessment include (1) a determination of the scope of the rulemaking and equipment classes, (2) manufacturers and industry structure, (3) existing efficiency programs, (4) shipments information, (5) market and industry trends, and (6) technologies or design options that could improve the energy efficiency of the equipment.

See chapter 3 of the preliminary TSD for further discussion of the market and technology assessment.

DOE uses the following five screening criteria to determine which technology options are suitable for further consideration in an energy conservation standards rulemaking:

(1) Technological feasibility. Technologies that are not incorporated in commercial products or in working prototypes will not be considered further.

(2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it is determined that mass production and reliable installation and servicing of a technology in commercial products could not be achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the projected compliance date of the standard, then that technology will not be considered further.

(3) Impacts on equipment utility or equipment availability. If it is determined that a technology would have a significant adverse impact on the utility of the equipment for significant subgroups of consumers or would result in the unavailability of any covered equipment type with performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as equipment generally available in the United States at the time, it will not be considered further.

(4) Adverse impacts on health or safety. If it is determined that a technology would have significant adverse impacts on health or safety, it will not be considered further.

(5) Unique-pathway proprietary technologies. If a design option utilizes proprietary technology that represents a unique pathway to achieving a given efficiency level, that technology will not be considered further due to the potential for monopolistic concerns. 10 CFR 431.4; 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, sections 6(b)(3) and 7(b).

If DOE determines that a technology, or a combination of technologies, fails to meet one or more of the listed five criteria, it will be excluded from further consideration in the engineering analysis.

See chapter 4 of the preliminary TSD for further discussion of the screening analysis.

The purpose of the engineering analysis is to establish the relationship between the efficiency and cost of automatic commercial ice makers. There are two elements to consider in the engineering analysis: The selection of efficiency levels to analyze ( i.e., the “efficiency analysis”) and the determination of equipment cost at each efficiency level ( i.e., the “cost analysis”). In determining the performance of higher-efficiency equipment, DOE considers technologies and design option combinations not eliminated by the screening analysis. For each equipment class, DOE estimates the manufacturer production cost (“MPC”) for the baseline as well as higher efficiency levels. The output of the engineering analysis is a set of cost-efficiency “curves” that are used in downstream analyses ( i.e., the LCC and PBP analyses and the NIA).

DOE converts the MPC to the manufacturer selling price (“MSP”) by applying a manufacturer markup. The MSP is the price the manufacturer charges its first customer, when selling into the equipment distribution channels. The manufacturer markup accounts for manufacturer non-production costs and profit margin. DOE developed the manufacturer markup by examining publicly available financial information for manufacturers of the covered product.

See chapter 5 of the preliminary TSD for additional detail on the engineering analysis. See chapter 12 of the preliminary TSD for additional detail on the manufacturer markup.

The markups analysis develops appropriate markups ( e.g., retailer markups, distributor markups, contractor markups) in the distribution chain and sales taxes to convert MSP estimates derived in the engineering analysis to consumer prices, which are then used in the LCC and PBP analysis. At each step in the distribution channel, companies mark up the price of the product to cover business costs and profit margin.

DOE developed baseline and incremental markups for each actor in the distribution chain. Baseline markups are applied to the price of products with baseline efficiency, while incremental markups are applied to the difference in price between baseline and higher-efficiency models (the incremental cost increase). The incremental markup is typically less than the baseline markup and is designed to maintain similar per-unit operating profit before and after new or amended standards. 6

Chapter 6 of the preliminary TSD provides details on DOE's development of markups for automatic commercial ice makers.

The purpose of the energy use analysis is to determine the annual energy consumption of automatic commercial ice makers at different efficiencies in representative commercial buildings, and to assess the energy savings potential of increased ACIM efficiency. The energy use analysis estimates the range of energy use of automatic commercial ice makers in the field ( i.e., as they are actually used by consumers). The energy use analysis provides the basis for other analyses DOE performed, particularly assessments of the energy savings and the savings in consumer operating costs that could result from adoption of amended or new standards.

Chapter 7 of the preliminary TSD addresses the energy use analysis.

The effect of new or amended energy conservation standards on individual consumers usually involves a reduction in operating cost and an increase in purchase cost. DOE used the following two metrics to measure consumer impacts:

• The LCC is the total consumer expense of equipment over the life of that equipment, consisting of total installed cost (MSP, distribution chain markups, sales tax, and installation costs) plus operating costs (expenses for energy use, maintenance, and repair). To compute the operating costs, DOE discounts future operating costs to the time of purchase and sums them over the lifetime of the equipment.

• The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including installation) of more-efficient equipment through lower operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost at higher efficiency levels by the change in annual operating cost for the year that amended or new standards are assumed to take effect.

Chapter 8 of the preliminary TSD addresses the LCC and PBP analyses.

The NIA estimates the national energy savings (“NES”), national water savings (“NWS”), and the net present value (“NPV”) of total consumer costs and savings expected to result from amended standards at specific efficiency levels (referred to as candidate standard levels). 7 DOE calculates the NES, NWS, and NPV for the potential standard levels considered based on projections of annual equipment shipments, along with the annual energy consumption and total installed cost data from the energy use and LCC analyses. For the present analysis, DOE projected the energy savings, operating cost savings, equipment costs, and NPV of consumer benefits over the lifetime of automatic commercial ice makers sold from 2027 through 2056.

DOE evaluates the impacts of new or amended standards by comparing a case without such standards with standards case projections (“no-new-standards case”). The no-new-standards case characterizes energy use and consumer costs for each equipment class in the absence of new or amended energy conservation standards. For this projection, DOE considers historical trends in efficiency and various forces that are likely to affect the mix of efficiencies over time. DOE compares the no-new-standards case with projections characterizing the market for each equipment class if DOE adopted new or amended standards at specific energy efficiency levels for that class. For each efficiency level, DOE considers how a given standard would likely affect the market shares of equipment with efficiencies greater than the standard.

DOE uses a spreadsheet model to calculate the energy savings and the national consumer costs and savings from each efficiency level. Interested parties can review DOE's analyses by changing various input quantities within the spreadsheet. The NIA spreadsheet model uses typical values (as opposed to probability distributions) as inputs. Critical inputs to this analysis include shipments projections, estimated equipment lifetimes, installed costs and operating costs, annual energy consumption, the base case efficiency projection, and discount rates.

DOE estimates a combined total of 0.324 quads of site energy savings at the max-tech efficiency levels for automatic commercial ice makers. Combined site energy savings at efficiency level 1 for all equipment classes are estimated to be 0.030 quads.

Chapter 10 of the preliminary TSD addresses the NIA.

DOE invites public engagement in this process through participation in the webinar and submission of written comments, data, and information. After the webinar and the closing of the comment period, DOE will consider all timely-submitted comments and additional information obtained from interested parties, as well as information obtained through further analyses. Following such consideration, the Department will publish either a determination that the energy conservation standards for automatic commercial ice makers need not be amended or a NOPR proposing to amend those standards. The NOPR, should one be issued, would include proposed energy conservation standards for the products covered by this rulemaking, and members of the public would be given an opportunity to submit written and oral comments on the proposed standards.

The time and date for the webinar meeting are listed in the DATES section at the beginning of this document. Webinar registration information, participant instructions, and information about the capabilities available to webinar participants will be published on DOE's website: www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/public-meetings-and-comment-deadlines. Participants are responsible for ensuring their systems are compatible with the webinar software.

Any person who has an interest in the topics addressed in this document, or who is representative of a group or class of persons that has an interest in these issues, may request an opportunity to make an oral presentation at the webinar. Such persons may submit requests to speak via email to the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program at: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov. Persons who wish to speak should include with their request a computer file in Microsoft Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format that briefly describes the nature of their interest in this rulemaking and the topics they wish to discuss. Such persons should also provide a daytime telephone number where they can be reached.

DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the webinar and may also use a professional facilitator to aid discussion. The meeting will not be a judicial or evidentiary-type public hearing, but DOE will conduct it in accordance with section 336 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6306). A court reporter will be present to record the proceedings and prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the right to schedule the order of presentations and to establish the procedures governing the conduct of the webinar. There shall not be discussion of proprietary information, costs or prices, market share, or other commercial matters regulated by U.S. anti-trust laws. After the webinar and until the end of the comment period, interested parties may submit further comments on the proceedings and any aspect of the rulemaking.

The webinar will be conducted in an informal, conference style. DOE will present a general overview of the topics addressed in this rulemaking, allow time for prepared general statements by participants, and encourage all interested parties to share their views on issues affecting this rulemaking. Each participant will be allowed to make a general statement (within time limits determined by DOE), before the discussion of specific topics. DOE will allow, as time permits, other participants to comment briefly on any general statements.

At the end of all prepared statements on a topic, DOE will permit participants to clarify their statements briefly. Participants should be prepared to answer questions by DOE and by other participants concerning these issues. DOE representatives may also ask questions of participants concerning other matters relevant to this rulemaking. The official conducting the webinar/public meeting will accept additional comments or questions from those attending, as time permits. The presiding official will announce any further procedural rules or modification of the above procedures that may be needed for the proper conduct of the webinar.

A transcript of the webinar will be included in the docket, which can be viewed as described in the Docket section at the beginning of this document. In addition, any person may buy a copy of the transcript from the transcribing reporter.

DOE invites all interested parties, regardless of whether they participate in the public meeting webinar, to submit in writing no later than the date provided in the DATES section at the beginning of this document, comments and information on matters addressed in this notification and on other matters relevant to DOE's consideration of potential amended energy conservations standards for automatic commercial ice makers. 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. If this instruction is followed, 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 faxes will be accepted.

Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, 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 notification of availability of the preliminary technical support document and request for comment.

This document of the Department of Energy was signed on March 17, 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 .

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-2022-0154; Project Identifier AD-2021-01153-T” 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 Luis Cortez-Muniz, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3958; email: luis.a.cortez-muniz@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 has received a report of a crack found in the front spar lower chord of a Model 777-300ER airplane undergoing an underwing longeron replacement. The affected airplane had 6,303 flight cycles and 53,727 flight hours. The crack was found near a critical fastener hole in the front spar lower chord; the underwing longeron was not cracked. Cracking in the front spar lower chord can lead to cracking in the front spar web. The front spar web is protected against fuel leaks from small cracks by a secondary barrier on the forward side of the front spar bulkhead. If a crack in the front spar web grows to a critical length, that cracking could result in a fuel leak from the center wing tank into the environmental control system (ECS) mix bay. This condition, if not addressed, could result in a fuel leak and fire hazard, or in the case of more severe cracking, also affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

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 Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-57A0122 RB, dated October 8, 2021. This service information specifies procedures for repetitive high frequency eddy current (HFEC), detailed, and ultrasonic inspections (depending on configuration) for cracking of the left and right side ring chords, repair angles, front spar lower chords, and front spar webs (depending on configuration) common to the underwing longeron located at STA 1035; modification of the front spar lower chord for some airplanes; repetitive post-modification inspections; and applicable on-condition actions. On-condition actions include repair. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in ADDRESSES .

This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information already described and except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-0154.

The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 261 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

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

The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some or all 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 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 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-2022-0156; Project Identifier AD-2021-01474-T” 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 received 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 Courtney Tuck, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3986; email: Courtney.K.Tuck@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 2021-06-03, Amendment 39-21469 (86 FR 12809, March 5, 2021) (AD 2021-06-03), for all The Boeing Company Model 777F series airplanes. AD 2021-06-03 was prompted by a report of a water supply line that detached above an electronic equipment (EE) cooling filter, leading to water intrusion into the forward EE bay. AD 2021-06-03 requires deactivating the potable water system. The agency issued AD 2021-06-03 to address water entering the EE cooling system via the cooling filter, which can affect multiple EE bay racks and line replaceable units (LRUs), resulting in loss of functionality or inaccurate output of critical electrical systems and possible loss of control of the airplane.

The reported water supply detachment occurred on a Model 777F series airplane with 34,000 total flight hours and 6,000 total flight cycles. During potable water servicing on ground, the operator received multiple messages appearing on the engine indication and crew alert system (EICAS) indicating multiple affected EE LRUs. Further investigation revealed that the location of a joint on a swaged end fitting ferrule of a corrosion resistant stainless steel (CRES) water supply line had become partially or fully detached from the tube, causing water to spill onto an EE cooling filter (directly below the fitting) in the left-hand sidewall at station (STA) 571. The amount and duration of the water spillage are unknown. Water saturated the cooling filter, which was then blown via the EE cooling system into multiple EE LRUs located in the EE bay.

Model 777F series airplanes line numbers (L/Ns) 960 and subsequent have a joint at this location from the factory-installed CRES tube assembly. Boeing released Service Bulletin 777-38-0042 as an economic service bulletin providing operators with airplanes prior to L/N 960 instructions to retrofit to this configuration at their discretion. Therefore, AD 2021-06-03 requires deactivation of the potable water system for all 777F airplanes with this joint installed either in production or through accomplishment of Boeing SB 777-38-0042.

Since the FAA issued AD 2021-06-03, the FAA has determined that further rulemaking is necessary. The preamble to AD 2021-06-03 specifies that the FAA considers the requirements “interim action” and that the manufacturer is developing a modification to address the unsafe condition. That AD explains that the FAA might consider further rulemaking if a modification is developed, approved, and available. The manufacturer now has developed such a modification, and this proposed AD follows from that determination.

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 Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-38A0048 RB, dated October 18, 2021. This service information specifies procedures for replacing tubes and hoses from the water supply line and installing a shroud to the water supply and return lines in the forward cargo compartment and performing a leak test of the potable water system.

This proposed AD would also require Boeing Multi Operator Message MOM-MOM-21-0089-01B, dated February 26, 2021, which the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by reference as of March 5, 2021 (86 FR 12809, March 5, 2021).

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

This proposed AD would retain all of the requirements of AD 2021-06-03. This proposed AD would also require accomplishment of the actions identified in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-38A0048 RB, dated October 18, 2021, described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the Service Information,” and except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. This proposed AD would also prohibit the future accomplishment of the actions specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 777-38-0042.

For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-0156.

Boeing Multi Operator Message MOM-MOM-21-0089-01B, dated February 26, 2021, specifies one Safety Action and six Recommended Actions. Although the FAA recommends accomplishment of all of these actions, this proposed AD would require only deactivation of the potable water system, as specified in the Safety Action of the service information.

The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 58 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some or all 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 has 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 that the 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 modify the route structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System.

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-2022-0248; Airspace Docket No. 22-AGL-4) 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-2022-0248; Airspace Docket No. 22-AGL-4.” 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.

The FAA is planning decommissioning activities for the VOR portion of the Watertown, SD, VORTAC in December 2022. The Watertown VOR was one of the candidate VORs identified for discontinuance by the FAA's VOR MON program and listed in the final policy statement notice, “Provision of Navigation Services for the NextGen Transition to Performance-Based Navigation (PBN) (Plan for Establishing a VOR MON),” published in the Federal Register of July 26, 2016 (81 FR 48694), Docket No. FAA-2011-1082. Although the VOR portion of the Watertown VORTAC is planned for decommissioning, the co-located DME portion of the navigational aid is being retained in support of current and future RNAV procedures.

The VOR Federal airways affected by the Watertown VOR are V-24, V-78, V-181, and V-398. With the planned decommissioning of the Watertown VOR, the remaining ground-based navigational aid coverage in the area is insufficient to enable the continuity of these affected airways. As such, the proposed modifications would result in the removal of airway segments.

To overcome the impacts from the loss of portions of the airways, instrument flight rules (IFR) traffic could use adjacent airways, including V-2, V-148, V-170, V-175, and V-344, or receive air traffic control radar vectors to fly through or around the affected areas. Aircraft equipped with RNAV capabilities could also file point to point through the affected area using the fixes that will remain in place, use alternate RNAV routes, including T-322, T-405, and T-407, or use the new RNAV route, T-462, proposed in this action. Visual flight rules (VFR) pilots who elect to navigate via the affected ATS routes could also take advantage of the adjacent ATS routes or ATC services listed previously.

Further, the FAA proposes to establish RNAV T-route, T-462, to mitigate the proposed removal of the airway segments for V-24 between the Aberdeen, SD, VOR/DME and the Watertown, SD, VORTAC and for V-78 between the Watertown, SD, VORTAC and the Darwin, MN, VORTAC. The new route would provide navigational options in areas of limited or no radar coverage to pilots whose aircraft are RNAV equipped, as well as, support the FAA's efforts to transition the National Airspace System from ground-based to satellite-based navigation.

The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to amend four VOR Federal airways and establish one RNAV T-route. The proposed Air Traffic Service (ATS) route actions are described below.

V-24: V-24 currently extends between the Aberdeen, SD, VOR/DME and the Rochester, MN, VOR/DME; between the Janesville, WI, VOR/DME and the Northbrook, IL, VOR/DME; and between the Peotone, IL, VORTAC and the Brickyard, IN, VORTAC. The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment between the Aberdeen, SD, VOR/DME and the Redwood Falls, MN, VOR/DME. This would result in the first segment of the airway extending between the Redwood Falls, MN, VOR/DME and the Rochester, MN, VOR/DME. The second and third segments of the airway would remain unchanged.

V-78: V-78 currently extends between the Watertown, SD, VORTAC and the Escanaba, MI, VOR/DME; and between the Pellston, MI, VORTAC and the Saginaw, MI, VOR/DME. The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment between the Watertown, SD, VORTAC and the Darwin, MN, VORTAC. This would result in the first segment of the airway extending between the Darwin, MN, VORTAC and the Escanaba, MI, VOR/DME. The second segment of the airway would remain unchanged.

V-181: V-181 currently extends between the Kirksville, MO, VORTAC and the Grand Forks, ND, VOR/DME. The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment between the Sioux Falls, SD, VORTAC and the Fargo, ND, VOR/DME. This would result in the airway extending between the Kirksville, MO, VORTAC and the Sioux Falls, SD, VORTAC; and between the Fargo, ND, VOR/DME and the Grand Forks, ND, VOR/DME.

V-398: V-398 currently extends between the Aberdeen, SD, VOR/DME and the Rochester, MN, VOR/DME. The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment between Aberdeen, SD, VOR/DME and the Redwood Falls, MN, VOR/DME. This would result in the airway extending between the Redwood Falls, MN, VOR/DME and the Rochester, MN, VOR/DME.

T-462: T-462 would be a new RNAV route that extends between the Bismarck, ND, VOR/DME and the GENEO, MN, waypoint (WP) located near the Darwin, MN, VOR.

All navigational aid radials listed in the VOR Federal airway descriptions below are unchanged and stated in True degrees.

VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a), and RNAV T-routes are published in paragraph 6011 of FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021, which are incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR Federal airways listed in this document would be published subsequently in FAA 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:

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of 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 modify the route structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System.

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-2022-0243; Airspace Docket No. 22-AGL-5) 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-2022-0243; Airspace Docket No. 22-AGL-5.” 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.

The FAA is planning decommissioning activities for the VOR portion of the Wausau, WI, VOR/DME in December 2022. The Wausau VOR was one of the candidate VORs identified for discontinuance by the FAA's VOR MON program and listed in the final policy statement notice, “Provision of Navigation Services for the NextGen Transition to Performance-Based Navigation (PBN) (Plan for Establishing a VOR MON),” published in the Federal Register of July 26, 2016 (81 FR 48694), Docket No. FAA-2011-1082. Although the VOR portion of the Wausau VOR/DME is planned for decommissioning, the co-located DME portion of the navigational aid is being retained in support of current and future RNAV procedures.

The VOR Federal airways affected by the Wausau VOR are V-26 and V-63. With the planned decommissioning of the Wausau VOR, the remaining ground-based navigational aid coverage in the area is insufficient to enable the continuity of these affected airways. As such, the proposed modifications would result in the removal of airway segments.

To overcome the impacts from the loss of portions of the airways, instrument flight rules (IFR) traffic may use adjacent airways, including V-9, V-78, V-191, V-217, V-413, and V-493, to navigate through or around the affected areas or could receive air traffic control radar vectors through the area. Aircraft equipped with RNAV capabilities may file point to point through the affected area using the fixes that will remain in place or use the proposed new RNAV route, T-464, which is proposed as part of this action. Visual flight rules (VFR) pilots may utilize the ATC services previously listed.

Additionally, to mitigate the proposed removal of the V-26 airway segment between the Wausau, WI, VOR/DME and Green Bay, WI, VOR/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) navigational aids, the FAA would establish a new RNAV route, T-464. The proposed new T-464 would also provide navigational options in areas of limited or no radar coverage to pilots whose aircraft are RNAV equipped, as well as, support the FAA's efforts to transition the National Airspace System from ground-based to satellite-based navigation.

Finally, the FAA has determined the Wausau, WI, Domestic Low Altitude Reporting Point would no longer be required by air traffic control. As such, the Wausau, WI, reporting point would also be revoked in this action.

The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to amend two VOR Federal airways, establish one RNAV T-route, and revoke one Domestic Low Altitude Reporting Point. The proposed ATS route and Reporting Point actions are described below.

V-26: V-26 currently extends between the Blue Mesa, CO, VOR/DME and the Pierre, SD, VORTAC; and between the Redwood Falls, MN, VOR/DME and the White Cloud, MI, VOR/DME. The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment between the Eau Claire, WI, VOR/DME and the Green Bay, WI, VORTAC. As a result, V-26 would extend between the Blue Mesa, CO, VOR/DME and the Pierre, SD, VORTAC; between the Redwood Falls, MN, VOR/DME and the Eau Claire, WI, VOR/DME; and between the Green Bay, WI, VORTAC and the White Cloud, MI, VOR/DME. Concurrent changes to other segments of V-26 are proposed in a separate rulemaking action.

V-63: V-63 currently extends between the Razorback, AR, VORTAC and the Davenport, IA, VORTAC; between the Janesville, WI, VOR/DME and the Oshkosh, WI, VORTAC; and between the Wausau, WI, VOR/DME and the Houghton, MI, VOR/DME. The airspace at and above 10,000 feet MSL from 5 NM north to 46 NM north of Quincy, IL, when the Howard West MOA is active, is excluded. The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment between the Wausau, WI, VOR/DME and the Rhinelander, WI, VOR/DME. As a result, V-63 would extend between the Razorback, AR, VORTAC and the Davenport, IA, VORTAC; between the Janesville, WI, VOR/DME and the Oshkosh, WI, VORTAC; and between the Rhinelander, WI, VOR/DME and the Houghton, MI, VOR/DME. The excluded airspace would remain unchanged.

T-464: T-464 would be a new RNAV route that is proposed to extend between the CUSAY, WI, waypoint (WP) located northwest of Eau Clarie, WI, and the CHURP, WI, fix located near Clintonville, WI.

Wausau, WI: The Wausau, WI, Domestic Low Altitude Reporting Point is proposed to be revoked.

All of the navigational aid radials listed in the VOR Federal airway descriptions below are unchanged and stated in True degrees.

VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a), RNAV T-routes are published in paragraph 6011, and Domestic Low Altitude Reporting Points are published in paragraph 7001 of FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021, which are incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The ATS routes listed in this document would be published subsequently in FAA 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 Department of Defense Commercial Air Transportation Quality and Safety Review Program establishes the safety requirements and criteria for evaluating civil air carriers, to include foreign air carriers, providing air transportation to the DOD. As stated in 32 CFR 861.6, foreign air carriers providing or seeking to provide services to DOD are subject to review and, if appropriate, approval by DOD. Application of the criteria and requirements of this rule and the degree of oversight to be exercised by DOD over a foreign air carrier depends upon the type of services performed and, in some instances, by the quality of oversight exercised by the foreign air carrier's Civilian Aviation Authority (CAA). The scope and frequency of review of any given foreign air carrier under this rule will be at the discretion of the Commercial Airlift Review Board (CARB) or higher authority. This rule was last revised on October 28, 2002 (67 FR 65698), to add § 861.7 relating to the disclosure of voluntarily provided safety-related information and to make minor administrative adjustments. DOD's internal instruction associated with this rule was last updated on May 7, 2021, as DOD Instruction (DODI) 4500.53, “DoD Commercial Air Transportation Quality and Safety Review Program” (available at https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/450053p.pdf?ver=2019-02-26-144429-747 ).

This action is authorized by 10 U.S.C. 113, 2640 and 9013. Sections 113 and 9013 contain the authority of the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Air Force, respectively, to publish regulations necessary for the functioning of the Department of Defense and the Department of the Air Force. Section 2640 requires the Secretary of Defense to establish the Department of Defense Commercial Airlift Review Board; specifies minimum requirements which must be met by air carriers in order to be eligible for contracts to provide charter passenger air transportation services to the Department of Defense; and sets minimum requirements for an inspection regime. Further, section 2640 requires the Secretary of Defense to prescribe regulations to implement the requirements of section 2640. Additionally, section 2640 prescribes requirements relating to the provision, protection, and dissemination of safety-related information.

The proposed revisions clarify aircrew flying a charter mission on behalf of the Department of Defense must, without exception, have a minimum of 250 hours flying time in the type of aircraft being operated. The rule also proposes to elaborate and revise several aspects of the oversight program to more closely resemble Federal Aviation Administration processes, thus reducing complexity and the need to maintain duplicative and potentially conflicting processes.

Every country has a National Aviation Authority, also known as a Civil Aviation Authority, which governs and regulates civil aviation. Each aviation authority oversees aircraft airworthiness, the licensing of pilots, air traffic controllers, flight dispatchers, and maintenance engineers, licensing of airports, and other aviation standards. The ultimate goal of these aviation authorities is aviation safety through regulation and oversight. All pilots must meet the standards of their respective countries where they fly. The regulations at 32 CFR 861.*(d) prohibit DOD personnel on official business, except for the first leg into and the last leg out of the U.S., from using foreign air carriers from countries in which the Civil Aviation Authority is not in compliance with International Civil Aviation Organization standards as determined by the International Civil Aviation Organization, or Federal Aviation Administration, or other aviation safety oversight body. This rule would extend that policy to any DOD contract for charter air transportation services with an air carrier.

Major provisions include:

(1) Amend § 861.3, “Definitions.” The term “Operational support services” in paragraph (l) is proposed to be replaced with “Other commercial air services” in order to be consistent with the statutory definition used by the Federal Aviation Administration in title 49, U.S. Code, section 40102(a)(41)(E). The substance of the definition is otherwise unchanged. This change in terminology will be made throughout part 861.

(2) Amend § 861.3, “Definitions.” The term “paratroop drops” is proposed to be deleted from the list of examples in the definition of “Air transportation” in paragraph (b), and inserted in the list of examples of “Other commercial air services” in paragraph (l). In addition, the terms “target towing”, “chaff dispensing”, and “electronic countermeasures target flights” have been deleted from the list of examples. Both changes are intended to more closely align with the statutory definitions of “air transportation” and “other commercial air services” used by the Federal Aviation Administration in title 49, U.S. Code, sections 40102(a)(5) and 40102(a)(41)(E), respectively.

(3) Amend § 861.4(e)(3)(vi), “Aircrew scheduling.” Paragraph (e)(3)(vi) currently requires the Captain and first officer flying Department of Defense charter passenger missions have at least 250 hours of combined experience in the type of aircraft being operated. However, an exception to this requirement is provided for aircraft new to the air carrier. This rule proposes to delete this exception in order to ensure aircrew flying Department of Defense charter missions have adequate experience in the type of aircraft being flown.

(4) Amend § 861.4(e)(3)(ix), “DOD charter procedures.” Paragraph (e)(3)(ix) requires an air carrier have procedures reflecting that weights and balance information are used in computing aircraft weight and balance. A sentence is proposed to be added requiring that personnel loading an aircraft be adequately trained on aircraft loading and restraint, special cargo, weight and balance, and hazardous/dangerous goods procedures. This revision would align the qualifications required for personnel loading an aircraft with recent Federal Aviation Administration cargo loading regulations and guidance in 14 CFR 121.665, 14 CFR 121.1001, Advisory Circular 120.85A and Flight Standards Information Manual System 8900.1 Volume 3, with which air carriers are already in compliance.

(5) Amend § 861.4(e)(4)(iii), “Quality assurance.” Paragraph (e)(4)(iii) addresses the requirement that an air carrier have a quality assurance program that analyzes the performance and effectiveness of maintenance activities and inspections. This requirement is alluded to in § 861.4(e)(2). This change proposes to add language making clear that the Department of Defense will expect the air carrier to audit results of the program to determine the root cause of discrepancies.

(6) Amend § 861.4(e)(4)(vi), “Maintenance control,” is proposed to be revised to require that air carriers have programs in place to adequately plan for all maintenance requirements. While planning for maintenance is inherent in maintenance control and is implied in the words “method to control maintenance activities”, this revision clarifies that formal programs are necessary and mirrors Federal Aviation Administration requirements.

(7) Amend § 861.5, “DOD Commercial Airlift Review Board procedures,” is proposed to be revised to replace “CINCTRANS” with “CDRUSTRANSCOM” wherever “CINCTRANS” appears. This reflects a change in the acronym used to refer to the Commander of the United States Transportation Command.

(8) Amend § 861.6(d), “DOD review of foreign air carriers,” is proposed to be revised to add a sentence reflecting an established, longstanding Department of Defense policy in Department of Defense Instruction 4500.53, of not contracting with foreign air carriers from countries whose Civil Aviation Authority has been determined to not meet International Civil Aviation Organization standards.

Providers of air transportation and other commercial air services to the Department of Defense consist of approximately 100 U.S. air carriers and operators offering services under parts 105, 121, 125, 133, and 135 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) of title 14 CFR, and foreign air carriers and operators offering services under the equivalent Civil Aviation Authority regulations applicable to their operations. Both U.S. and foreign air carriers and operators range from large corporations with hundreds of aircraft, to small entities operating a handful of aircraft. Whether domestic or foreign, and regardless of size, air carriers and operators offering air transportation or other commercial air services to the Department of Defense must meet the requirements specified by law and this rule to be eligible for Department business, and must comply with the oversight requirements of the law and this rule to remain eligible for Department business. Changes proposed in this rule should not prompt air carriers or operators to either leave or join the air carrier survey and analysis program. Additionally, the proposed changes will not expand or contract carrier eligibility to participate in the program. Furthermore, the proposed changes will not impact the overall economics for carriers in the aviation industry marketplace. This proposed rule is not expected to impact on the public or state, local, or tribal governments.

This rule has been was first promulgated in 1987 (see 52 FR 37609 (October 8, 1987)). The proposed revisions are not expected to increase costs compliance. Although several revisions alter minor aspects of the existing oversight program, they are intended to streamline oversight processes by more closely aligning them with current Federal Aviation Administration guidance. This harmonization may decrease costs for U.S. carriers although these savings may not be appreciable. Operators of paratroop drop services may realize slightly more appreciable savings as a result of being considered a provider of “other commercial air services” rather than of “air transportation services,” since the latter results in an increased level of oversight. Conversely, the failure to enact the proposed changes may result in increased costs to U.S. air carriers and operators as specific requirements and procedures of this program increasingly diverge from those required by the FAA, requiring that separate compliance processes be maintained that cover the same substantive area.

The affected air carriers and operators will benefit from the clarifications, updated information, and alignment of processes with those of the Federal Aviation Administration resulting from this proposed revision. This, in turn, should lead to a more effective safety oversight program, benefitting them, the Department of Defense, members of the armed forces transported on the contracted aircraft, and the public at large.

The basic parameters of the program described in this Part are specified in section 2640 of title 10, U.S. Code, and serve to limit the scope of alternatives available.

• No action: This alternative would leave the existing rule in place without change. Parts of this rule are obsolete as a result of changes in terminology, responsible offices, and the evolution of technology since 2002. No action would also result in the loss of an opportunity to incorporate lessons learned since the last revision in 2002. The rule would consequently continue to become less effective over time, as the FAA adopts updated, more stringent standards and practices that are not reflected in the DOD standards and practices reflected in this rule. This course of action is therefore not preferred.

• Expansion of the scope of the oversight program. Expansion of the scope of the oversight program would go beyond that which is necessary to ensure the safe transportation of members of the armed forces as well as beyond the scope of what the law requires. This course of action is therefore not preferred, as it would impose increased costs on the Department of Defense and all affected parties to no discernable end.

• Contracting the scope of the oversight program. Contracting the scope of the oversight program would result in a failure to do as the law requires, although it would be less burdensome and expensive for the affected parties. Consequently, this course of action is not preferred.

Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distribute impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been designated as a “significant regulatory action” but not economically significant under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. generally provides before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The DAF will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States.

The DAF has determined the proposed amendments of the Department of Defense Commercial Air Transportation Quality and Safety Review Program is not a major federal action within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ). The proposed amendments do not result in any impacts to human health or the environment.

It has been determined this regulatory action does not impose reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

The DAF has certified this regulatory action is not subject to the relevant provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)). The Secretary of the Air Force has certified that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 to 612, because this rule does not have a significant economic impact on small entities as defined by the Act, and does not impose any obligatory information requirements beyond internal DAF use.

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1532) requires agencies to assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any one year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. This regulatory action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action only addresses the Department of Defense Commercial Air Transportation Quality and Safety Review Program.

Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements an agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed rule (and subsequent final rule) that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on State and local governments, preempts State law, or otherwise has federalism implications. The DAF has determined this regulatory action does not contain policies with federalism as that term is defined in E.O. 13132.

Accordingly, 32 CFR part 861 is proposed to be amended as follows:

The revisions read as follows:

The revisions and additions read as follows:

On May 8, 2020, the Coast Guard published a notification of inquiry in the Federal Register (85 FR 27343) to solicit public comments on whether we should initiate a rulemaking to establish an anchorage ground offshore in the approaches to the Cape Fear River, North Carolina, and to increase the size and relocate the existing Lockwood's Folly Inlet explosives anchorage. After receiving favorable comments, the Coast Guard decided to propose the rulemaking. On August 17, 2021, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in Federal Register (86 FR 45936), stating why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed anchorage. During the comment period that ended on October 18, 2021, we received five comment letters in response. The Coast Guard is now issuing this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to solicit comments on changes made to the NPRM.

The purpose of this proposed rule is to accommodate recent and anticipated future growth in cargo vessel traffic and vessel size that call on Military Ocean Terminal Sunny Point and the Port of Wilmington, improve navigation and public safety, and to preserve areas traditionally used for anchoring.

The legal basis and authorities for this notice of proposed rulemaking are found in 46 U.S.C.70006, 33 CFR 1.05-1, DHS Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to propose, establish, and define regulatory anchorage grounds.

As noted above, we received five comments on our NPRM published August 17, 2021. One was in full support of the proposed rule, one had concerns over possible area use conflicts with offshore wind energy development, and three were regarding potential conflict with the anchorage and an artificial reef. The following sections detail the concerns raised by these comments. As a result, the Coast Guard has issued this SNPRM with proposed changes to the regulatory text of the rule. Specifically, we propose the western boundary and coordinates of the proposed Explosives Anchorage B be moved 1000 yards eastward to avoid a conflict with a North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries Artificial Reef (AR-455). The remainder of the proposed rule remains unchanged.

One commenter raised concerns that the proposed anchorage would take up an area that could be utilized for offshore wind energy development, and by doing so, would deprive the local economy of investment and energy resulting from the development. The Coast Guard finds this comment to be not applicable to this particular rulemaking as the proposed anchorage area does not overlap or limit any known wind energy lease area as published by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), the lead agency in the U.S. offshore wind development. The Coast Guard works closely with BOEM in the planning of these offshore lease areas and has confirmed the area proposed for this rule is not under consideration for wind development.

There were three comments received by the Coast Guard with concerns that the westernmost boundary of the proposed Explosives Anchorage B overlapped the location of an artificial reef, North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries' Reef (AR-455). This overlap reveals potential hazards as anchoring vessels could damage the reef or possibly foul their anchors on the underwater structures. The Coast Guard agreed with these concerns and reached out to the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries to discuss a new agreeable boundary for the anchorage that would not conflict with AR-455. After reviewing the location of each of the underwater features within AR-455, the Coast Guard proposes to move the western boundary of Anchorage B 1000 yards to the east of AR-455. This distance would prevent any vessel anchored within Anchorage B from damaging the reef or interfering with other vessels visiting the reef. This would reduce the overall size of anchorage area initially proposed, but the Coast Guard believes there is still sufficient area within the anchorage to meet anchorage needs.

The intent of this proposed rule remains unchanged. This proposed rule would formally establish an anchorage ground, Anchorage A, approximately eight nautical miles southwest of the Oak Island Light. This proposed rule would also increase the size and relocate Lockwoods Folly Inlet explosives anchorage to adjacent Anchorage A on its western boundary; and rename it Anchorage B. The specific coordinates for these proposed anchorage grounds are included in the proposed regulatory text at the end of this document.

You may find an illustration of the anchorages in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . Additionally, the anchorage ground is available for viewing on the Mid-Atlantic Ocean Data Portal at https://portal.midatlanticocean.org/visualize/. See “USCG Proposed Areas and Studies” under the “Maritime” portion of the Data Layers section.

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

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and historical vessel traffic data pertaining to the anchorage locations. The regulation would designate and preserve an approximately 22 square mile deep water area traditionally used by cargo ships for anchoring near existing traffic lanes. It would also relocate the existing explosives anchorage approximately five nautical miles further offshore increasing separation distances between vessels laden with explosives and the public, and expand its size from approximately five to seven square miles. This regulatory action provides commercial vessel anchorage needs while enhancing the navigation safety, environmental stewardship, and public safety.

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

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to use the anchorages may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV. A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator. The towns and communities along the Cape Fear River approaches have an economy based on tourism and numerous small entities and businesses. The establishment of Anchorage A and Anchorage B will increase controls over vessels that currently anchor in the general vicinity and increase the distance between anchored vessels and the shore and beaches, lessening impacts these small entities may currently experience.

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

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

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

Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments) because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves establishing an anchorage ground, Anchorage A, in an area traditionally used by cargo ships for anchoring in the approaches to the Cape Fear River, NC; and increasing the size of and relocating the Lockwoods Folly Inlet explosives anchorage to an area adjacent to Anchorage A (on its western boundary), expanding its use, and renaming it Anchorage B. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L[59] of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

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

We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

Submitting comments. We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal Decision Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. To do so, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2020-0216 in the search box and click “Search.” Next, look for this document in the Search Results column, and click on it. Then click on the Comment option. If you cannot submit your material by using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this proposed rule for alternate instructions.

Viewing material in docket. To view documents mentioned in this proposed rule as being available in the docket, find the docket as described in the previous paragraph, and then select “Supporting & Related Material” in the Document Type column. Public comments will also be placed in our online docket and can be viewed by following instructions on the https://www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked Questions web page. We review all comments received, but we will only post comments that address the topic of the proposed rule. We may choose not to post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we receive.

Personal information. We accept anonymous comments. Comments we post to https://www.regulations.gov will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and submissions to the docket in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing to amend 33 CFR part 110 as follows:

On February 4, 2022, VA issued a proposed rule to revise its medical regulations to establish a new pilot program related to graduate medical education and residency, as required by section 403 of the John S. McCain III, Daniel K. Akaka, and Samuel R. Johnson VA Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Network Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-182, hereinafter referred to as the MISSION Act). See 87 FR 6456.

Consistent with section 403 of the MISSION Act, the proposed rule established parameters by which VA would determine those covered facilities in which residents would be placed under the pilot program, such as certain consideration factors to determine whether there is a clinical need for providers in areas where residents would be placed. VA further proposed to prioritize placement of residents under the pilot program in Indian Health Service facilities, Indian tribal or tribal organization facilities, certain underserved VA facilities, or other covered facilities, as required by section 403 of the MISSION Act. In addition, VA proposed parameters to pay resident stipends and benefits and certain startup costs of new residency programs if residents are placed in such programs under the pilot program.

The proposed rule provided an opportunity to submit comments by April 5, 2022. In response to requests from stakeholders to extend the comment period, VA extends the comment period by 90 days to allow additional time for interested persons to submit comments on the proposed rule. Comments must now be received on or before July 5, 2022.

Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on March 21, 2022, and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

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

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2022-0285, at https://www.regulations.gov. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov . The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission ( i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

The EPA is proposing to approve a SIP revision submitted by the State of Missouri on January 30, 2020. Missouri requests the EPA to approve revisions to their SIP by replacing the existing rule, Title 10, Division 10 of the Code of State Regulations (CSR), (10 CSR 10-6.140) “Restriction of Emissions Credit for Reduced Pollutant Concentrations from the Use of Dispersion Techniques”, with a revised restructured version of the same rule. The State has revised this rule in order to incorporate the provisions of 40 CFR part 51, appendix W-Guideline on Air Quality Models, add definitions specific to this rule, organize the rule into standard rule organizational format, and removes unnecessary words. After review and analysis of the revisions, the EPA concludes that these changes do not have adverse effects on air quality. The full text of these changes can be found in the State's submission, which is included in the docket for this action. The EPA's analysis of the revisions can be found in the technical support document (TSD), also included in the docket.

The State submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The State provided public notice on this SIP revision from June 3, 2019, to August 1, 2019, and received no comments. In addition, as explained above and in more detail in the State submittal document and EPA's TSD, which is in the docket, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.

The EPA is proposing to amend the Missouri SIP by approving the State's request to revise 10 CSR 10-6.140 “Restriction of Emissions Credit for Reduced Pollutant Concentrations from the Use of Dispersion Techniques.” Approval of these revisions will ensure consistency between State and federally approved rules. Because this rule was previously approved into Missouri's SIP, we are soliciting comments solely on the proposed revisions to the rule and not on the existing text that is approved into Missouri's SIP. The EPA has determined that these changes meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act and will not have a negative impact to air quality. We are processing this as a proposed action because we are soliciting comments on this proposed action. Final rulemaking will occur after consideration of any comments.

In this document, the EPA is proposing to include regulatory text in an EPA final rule that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the Missouri Regulations described in Section II of this preamble as set forth in the proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 52 below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 7 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

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

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

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

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

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, 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 the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTA) because this rulemaking does not involve technical standards; 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).

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

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.

On December 21, 2020, the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CT DEEP) submitted revisions to its SIP to EPA. The SIP revisions consist of information documenting how Connecticut complied with the RACT  1 requirements for the 2015 ozone standard, and a certification that it also meets the RACT requirements for areas classified as serious for the 2008 ozone standard. Connecticut's submittal includes an order issued by the State that establishes NO X RACT requirements for facilities owned by NRG Connecticut. The State also included within the December 21, 2020, submittal a certification that its SIP meets the requirements for NNSR permitting for purposes of the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS.

Sections 172(c)(1) and 182(b)(2) of the CAA require states to implement RACT in areas classified as moderate (and higher) non-attainment for ozone, while section 184(b)(1)(B) of the Act requires RACT in states located in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR). Specifically, these areas are required to implement RACT for all major VOC and NO X emissions sources and for all sources covered by a Control Techniques Guideline (CTG). A CTG is a document issued by EPA which establishes a “presumptive norm” for RACT for a specific VOC source category. A related set of documents, Alternative Control Techniques (ACT) documents, exists primarily for NO X control requirements. States must submit rules, or negative declarations when no such sources exist, for CTG source categories. The ACT documents were issued to help States determine RACT for major sources of NO X , but States do not have to submit negative declarations for ACTs if they have no sources covered by them. However, states must ensure that a RACT level of control is imposed on major sources of NO X , some of which may be within a sector covered by an ACT document.

In 2008, EPA revised the health-based NAAQS for ozone, setting it at 0.075 parts per million (ppm) averaged over an 8-hour time frame. EPA determined that the revised 8-hour standard would be more protective of human health, especially for children and adults who are active outdoors and individuals with a pre-existing respiratory disease such as asthma. On May 21, 2012, EPA published a final rule establishing designations and classifications for the 2008 ozone standard for most areas of the country, including Connecticut (See 77 FR 30088, May 21, 2012). This final rule created two marginal nonattainment areas within Connecticut that together encompass the entire State. The two areas are identified as follows: The Greater Connecticut area, which includes Hartford, Litchfield, New London, Tolland, and Windham counties, and the New York, Northern New Jersey-Long Island NY-NJ-CT area, which includes, within Connecticut, Fairfield, Middlesex, and New Haven counties.

Neither of Connecticut's 2008 NAAQS nonattainment areas were able to meet the marginal area attainment date, and so on May 4, 2016, EPA published a final rule that revised the classifications of Connecticut's and other state's nonattainment areas from marginal to moderate (See 81 FR 26697, May 4, 2016). Subsequently, Connecticut's two moderate nonattainment areas also failed to meet the moderate area attainment date, and so on August 23, 2019, EPA published a final rule that revised the classifications of Connecticut's, and other state's nonattainment areas, from moderate to serious (See 84 FR 44238, August 23, 2019).

On March 6, 2015, EPA published a final rule in the Federal Register that outlined the obligations that areas found to be in nonattainment of the 2008 ozone standard needed to address (See 80 FR 12264, March 6, 2015). This rule, herein referred to as the “2008 ozone implementation rule,” contained, among other things, a description of EPA's expectations for states with RACT and NNSR obligations. Regarding RACT, the 2008 ozone implementation rule indicated that states could demonstrate that controls representing RACT were in place through the establishment of new or more stringent requirements that meet RACT control levels, through a certification that previously adopted RACT controls in their SIP approved by EPA under a prior ozone NAAQS represent adequate RACT control levels for attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS, or with a combination of these two approaches. In addition, a state must submit a negative declaration in instances where there are no CTG sources within its borders.

Regarding the 2015 ozone NAAQS, on June 4, 2018, EPA published a final rule establishing designations and classifications for this standard for most areas of the country, including Connecticut (See 83 FR 25776, June 4, 2018). This final rule created a marginal and a moderate nonattainment area within Connecticut that together encompass the entire State, identified as follows: The Greater Connecticut marginal area, which includes Hartford, Litchfield, New London, Tolland, and Windham counties, and the New York, N New Jersey-Long Island NY-NJ-CT moderate area, which includes, within Connecticut, Fairfield, Middlesex, and New Haven counties. Additionally, on December 6, 2018, EPA published a final rule outlining requirements for states to follow as they implement the 2015 ozone NAAQS (See 83 FR 62998, December 6, 2018). The December 6, 2018, final rule is herein referred to as the 2015 ozone implementation rule. It contains RACT and NNSR requirements similar to those outlined within the 2008 ozone implementation rule, although the discretionary inter-pollutant trading program provided for within the NNSR portion of the rule was subsequently voided as noted below.

Regarding NNSR, the minimum SIP requirements for NNSR permitting programs for the 2008 and the 2015 ozone NAAQS are located in 40 CFR 51.165. These NNSR program requirements include those promulgated in the “Phase 2 Rule” implementing the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (See 70 FR 71612, November 29, 2005) and the 2008 ozone implementation rule. Additionally, although the 2015 ozone implementation rule included a provision to explicitly allow for inter-pollutant trading for meeting the emissions offset requirement for ozone, this provision was subsequently vacated. 2 Under the Phase 2 Rule, the SIP for each ozone nonattainment area must contain NNSR provisions that: Set major source thresholds for NO X and VOC pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(iv)(A)( 1 )( i ) through ( iv ) and (a)(1)(iv)(A)( 2 ); classify physical changes at a major source if the change would constitute a major source by itself pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(iv)(A)(3); consider any significant net emissions increase of NO X as a significant net emissions increase for ozone pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(v)(E); consider increases of VOC emissions in extreme ozone nonattainment areas as significant net emissions increases and major modifications for ozone pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(v)(F); set significant emissions rates for VOC and NO X as ozone precursors pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(x)(A) through (C) and (E); contain provisions for emissions reductions credits pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C)( 1 ) and ( 2 ); provide that the requirements applicable to VOC also apply to NO X pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(8); and set offset ratios for VOC and NO X pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(9)(i) through (iii) (renumbered as (a)(9)(ii) through (iv) under the 2008 ozone implementation rule). Additionally, pursuant to the 2008 ozone implementation rule, areas designated as nonattainment for that standard that also remain nonattainment for the 1997 ozone standard must satisfy the anti-backsliding requirements of 40 CFR 51.1105.

On December 21, 2020, Connecticut submitted a demonstration that its regulatory framework for stationary sources meets the criteria for RACT as defined in EPA's 2015 ozone implementation rule. The submittal also contained a certification that the State's RACT requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS that EPA approved on July 31, 2017 when the State was classified as moderate continue to meet the RACT standard for areas classified as serious, as Connecticut became pursuant to EPA's August 23, 2019, final rule mentioned above (See 82 FR 35454, July 31, 2017). Connecticut's RACT submittal notes that its prior designation as a nonattainment area for the 1979, 1997, and 2008 ozone standards resulted in the adoption of stringent controls for major sources of VOC and NO X , including RACT level controls. Connecticut's major source applicability threshold for both VOC and NO X have been maintained at 50 tons per year except for the portion of the state designated as severe for the one-hour ozone standard (portions of Fairfield and Litchfield counties (See 56 FR 56694, November 6, 1991) where the threshold is 25 tons per year). In accordance with the 2008 and 2015 ozone implementation rules, much of Connecticut's submittal consists of a review of RACT controls adopted under previous ozone standards and an indication of whether those previously adopted controls still represent RACT for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS. Additionally, Connecticut notes that as a member state of the OTR, it works with the Ozone Transport Commission to identify and adopt, as deemed appropriate, regulations on additional VOC and NO X categories beyond those for which EPA has issued CTGs or ACT documents.

Regarding VOC RACT, the State's December 21, 2020, submittal identifies the specific control measures that had been previously adopted to control emissions from major sources of VOC emissions and reaffirms negative declarations for some CTG categories. Table 3 of Connecticut's submittal contains a summary of the previously adopted measures for each of the CTG categories. The table identifies the specific state rule, where relevant, that is in place, the date of state adoption, and the date that EPA approved the rule into the Connecticut SIP. Table 3 also indicates the CTGs for which the state makes a negative declaration due to no sources existing within the State for the sector covered by that CTG. Connecticut notes that the following regulations are the principal means by which stationary sources of VOC emissions are controlled, the first being Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA) section 22a-174-20, Control of Organic Compound Emissions, the second being RCSA section 22a-174-32, Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for Volatile Organic Compounds, and the third being RCSA 22a-174-30a, Stage I Vapor Recovery. These rules are generally applicable to sources with the potential to emit 50 tons or more of VOCs per year, except that in portions of the State classified as a severe nonattainment area under the 1-hour ozone standard these rules are applicable to sources with the potential to emit 25 tons or more per year. Additionally, for some CTG categories such as surface coating sources, Connecticut's rules include lower applicability thresholds consistent with the recommended applicability level of the relevant CTGs.

As required, Connecticut's submittal addresses NO X emissions as well as VOC emissions. In particular, the submittal's Table 4 lists all major sources of NO X (and VOC) in the State and identifies the NO X control regulation governing each source. Connecticut notes that all facilities in the State with the potential to emit 50 tons or more of NO X per year (or 25 tons in the portions of Fairfield and Litchfield counties noted above) are subject to RCSA section 22a-174-22e, “Control of Nitrogen Oxide Emissions from Fuel Burning Equipment at Major Stationary Sources of Nitrogen Oxides.” Connecticut also subjects some non-major sources of NO X to emission limits via requirements within RCSA 22a-174-22f, High Daily NO X Emitting Units at Non-major Sources of NO X . In addition, RCSA section 22a-174-38, Municipal Waste Combustors, regulates NO X emissions from Connecticut's MWCs, which are currently the largest NO X emitting sector in the State. Connecticut reviewed these regulations and determined that they did not need to be updated to represent RACT for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS given recent updates to both regulations that EPA approved into the Connecticut SIP. Connecticut submittal did include updates to NO X emission limits for some major sources of NO X , specifically, those owned and operated by the State's largest electric utility, NRG Connecticut. Those requirements are contained within Consent Order No. 8377 which the State issued to NRG Connecticut on March 10, 2020, and which Connecticut included within its December 21, 2020, SIP revision request.

Connecticut's review of its control program for major sources of VOC and NO X thus concludes that all major sources in the State are subject to RACT meeting the requirements of the 2008 and 2015 ozone standards.

EPA has reviewed and agrees with Connecticut's determination that it has adopted VOC and NO X control regulations for stationary sources that constitute RACT and determined that the set of regulations cited by the State within its December 21, 2020, RACT certification SIP submittals, along with the NO X control requirements for equipment owned and operated by NRG Connecticut, constitute RACT for purposes of the 2015 ozone standard and continue to represent RACT for the 2008 ozone standard. The rationale for our determination is provided below.

Connecticut's RACT certification submittals document the State's VOC and NO X control regulations that have been adopted to ensure that major sources are subject to RACT level controls in the State. These requirements include the following Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies: Section 22a-174-20, Control of Organic Compound Emissions; section 22a-174-22e, Control of Nitrogen Oxide Emissions from Fuel Burning Equipment at Major Stationary Sources of Nitrogen Oxides; section 22a-174-30a, Stage I Vapor Recovery; section 22a-174-32, RACT for Organic Compound Emissions; and 22a-174-38, Municipal Waste Combustors. Two of these regulations, sections 22a-174-22e and 22a-174-38, contain recently strengthened NO X emissions limits that EPA has approved into the Connecticut SIP (See 82 FR 35454, July 31, 2017). Connecticut's RACT certification submittal notes that it has adopted numerous single source RACT orders for major sources of VOC and NO X that are not covered by one of EPA's CTGs or ACTs, and these orders have been submitted to EPA and incorporated into the SIP, as have individual orders providing for NO X trading among facilities within the State as authorized by section 22a-174-22e (g) of Connecticut's regulations.

The State's submittal documents a substantial downward trend in ozone exceedance days between 1975 and 2019, much of which is attributable to the control measures put in place by Connecticut and federal control measures adopted since the early 1990s pursuant to the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990. Connecticut's submittal also documents a substantial decline of 63 percent in NO X emissions from major stationary sources between 2002 and 2017. Furthermore, data from EPA's National Emissions Inventory (NEI) database indicates that between 2008 and 2017 VOC emissions from stationary point sources emitting 5 tons per year or more declined by 15%. In 2017, the State's major VOC sources emitted less than 1 percent of Connecticut's total anthropogenic VOC emissions, and only 6 individual facilities emitted more than 50 tons that year.

We last approved a RACT certification SIP for Connecticut on July 31, 2017 for the 2008 ozone standard (See 82 FR 35454, July 31, 2017). That action included approval of a SIP revision that consisted of a comprehensive update of the State's NO X control requirements. Specifically, the revision included the regulatory changes that Connecticut determined were necessary after evaluating its RACT requirements for boilers, turbines, and reciprocating internal combustion engines (RICE). The submittal included two new regulations, RCSA 22a-174-22e, Control of nitrogen oxide emissions from fuel-burning equipment at major stationary sources of nitrogen oxides and 22a-174-22f, High daily NO X emitting units at non-major sources of NO X . Section 22a-174-22e has reduced NO X emissions via “Phase 1” requirements that became effective on June 1, 2018 and will reduce emissions further when more stringent “Phase 2” limits take effect on June 1, 2023. Given the later compliance date, Connecticut did not rely on the Phase 2 requirements as part of its RACT certification as a moderate area for the 2008 ozone standard. Rather, the Phase 2 limits, which are among the most stringent limits adopted by any state in the Northeast, were adopted then to provide lead time for sources subject to Phase 2 limits to plan for the financial and logistical aspects of meeting these strengthened limits. Our July 31, 2017, approval contains a description of the Phase 1 and Phase 2 NO X emission limits Connecticut adopted for boilers, turbines, and RICE units. Connecticut's submittal indicates the State explored other possible control measures that might qualify as a RACT measure or measures needed for attainment, and additionally considered measures that might qualify as a RACT measure or measures not tied to attainment but could not identify measures that would fit in either category.

In addition to the requirements mentioned above, our July 31, 2017, action also approved Connecticut's newly adopted RCSA section 22a-174-22f, High Daily NO X Emitting Units at Non-major Sources of NO X . This regulation requires owners of equipment at small and medium-sized “non-major” sources to track daily emissions during the ozone season and take steps to reduce emissions if they exceed a certain level of NO X emissions. Connecticut was not obligated by CAA requirements to adopt a regulation for these sources to meet RACT since they are not major sources. The rule will, however, strengthen the State's overall regulatory program for sources of NO X and help the State in its efforts to attain the ozone NAAQS.

Connecticut's December 21, 2020, submittal included Consent Order No. 8377 which the State issued to Connecticut Jet Power LLC, Devon Power LLC, Middletown Power LLC, and Montville Power LLC (collectively referred to as NRG Connecticut) on March 10, 2020. The Order establishes case-by-case NO X RACT emission limits for five distillate-fired 20-megawatt (MW) turbines, identified as Devon 10, Middletown 10, Branford 10, Torrington Terminal 10, and Franklin Drive 10, two diesel-fired 2.75 MW engines identified as Montville 10 and Montville 11, and for three boilers identified as Middletown Unit 4, Montville Unit 5 and Montville Unit 6. Connecticut issued Order No. 8377 in accordance with RCSA Section 22a-174-22e (h). The RACT limits within the Order are for Phase 2 of Connecticut's NO X RACT requirements, which become applicable on June 1, 2023. The seven engines and turbines are infrequently run units, running on average less than 25 hours per year based on data from 2014 through 2018. NRG Connecticut demonstrated to the Connecticut DEEP that installing and operating NO X controls on this equipment was not technically or economically feasible. Section 22a-174-22e (h)(1)(C) requires that sources applying for a case-by-case RACT determination demonstrate a net air quality benefit will occur if the request is granted. Consent Order No. 8377 accomplishes this in two ways, first, by requiring that NRG Connecticut install new synthetic non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) NO X controls on the three boilers under its control mentioned above. These three boilers will reduce their emissions beyond their respective NO X emission limits during the Phase 1 control period, which runs from June 1, 2018 through May 31, 2023. Additionally, Consent Order No. 8377 requires the company to retire 250 banked Discrete Emission Reduction Credits (DERCs).

Connecticut's submittal also addresses RACT for sources of VOCs. Prior to the CAA Amendments of 1990, VOC control strategies were the primary means by which ground level ozone was reduced. Accordingly, beginning in the 1970's EPA issued Control Technique Guidelines (CTGs) for many industries that use VOCs. The CTGs provide an overview of emission sources and control options and establish presumptive levels of control. Given this, Connecticut has a long history of adopting regulations to limit VOC emissions from within the State. Table 3 of Connecticut's December 21, 2020 submittal lists the name and issue date of all of EPA's CTGs, an indication of whether or not facilities in the CTG category exist in Connecticut, the date and Federal Register citation for EPA's approval of regulations Connecticut adopted to meet the requirements of the CTG, and a comments column that, among other things, identifies the CTGs for which the State makes a negative declaration affirming no sources exist within the State that would be covered by the CTG. We are proposing approval of negative declarations Connecticut makes for the following CTG categories: Automobile coatings, Large petroleum dry cleaners, Fiberglass boat manufacturing, Equipment leaks from natural gas and gasoline processing plants, the Oil and natural gas industry, Control of refinery vacuum producing systems, wastewater separators and process unit turnarounds, Control of VOC leaks from petroleum refinery equipment, and Flatwood paneling coatings. Connecticut reviewed the inventory information, interviewed field staff, and searched telephone and internet web pages, including other state government databases, to confirm that no facilities exist in the State that are covered by the above mentioned CTG categories.

We have reviewed Connecticut's RACT certification demonstration and determined that the State's regulatory requirements and the resulting reduction in VOC and NO X emissions from major sources that they accomplish demonstrate that a RACT level of control for both pollutants are in place. Since we agree that the VOC and NO X stationary source control regulations which Connecticut has cited as meeting RACT do conform with RACT for the 2015 and 2008 ozone standards, we propose approval of Connecticut's December 21, 2020, RACT certification SIP revision requests.

Connecticut's longstanding SIP-approved NNSR program, established in RCSA sections 22a-174-1 (definitions), and 22a-174-3a (applicability and substantive requirements) applies to the construction and modification of stationary sources, including major stationary sources in nonattainment areas. In Connecticut's December 21, 2020, SIP revision, the State certifies that the version of RCSA Sections 22a-174-1 and 22a-174-3a in the current SIP meet the federal NNSR requirements for both ozone nonattainment areas within Connecticut. EPA last approved revisions to the SIP-approved version of Connecticut's NNSR rule in 2015  3 addressing, among other things, the NNSR requirements that apply when a major source or major modification causes a significant impact in an area that is violating the PM 2.5 ambient air quality standard. In Connecticut's certification, the State provides a side-by-side comparison demonstrating the State's Rules are at least as stringent as EPA's nonattainment new source review permitting program requirements.

As discussed above, on August 23, 2019, EPA published a final rule that reclassified both nonattainment areas in Connecticut from moderate to serious nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. For the 2015 ozone NAAQS, the Greater Connecticut nonattainment area is classified as marginal and the Connecticut portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island area is classified as moderate (See 83 FR 25776, June 4, 2018).

Connecticut's SIP-approved NNSR regulation retains the NNSR requirements applicable to serious and severe nonattainment areas. The State's SIP-approved NNSR regulation defines the term “Severe nonattainment area for ozone” as including the cities and towns in portions of Fairfield and Litchfield counties that were historically part of the severe New York-N New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT ozone nonattainment area designated for the one-hr ozone NAAQS. The term “Serious nonattainment area for ozone” is defined to include “all towns within the State of Connecticut, except those towns located in the severe non-attainment area for ozone.” This is the portion of the State that was historically part of the serious Greater Connecticut nonattainment area designated for the one-hr ozone NAAQS. The SIP's definition of “Major stationary source” then uses these terms to define the NO X and VOC emission thresholds when determining if a source is major for ozone. The SIP's major stationary source threshold for NO X and VOC in a “Severe nonattainment area for ozone” is 25 tons per year. The SIP's major stationary source threshold for NO X and VOC in a “Serious nonattainment area for ozone” is 50 tons per year. These thresholds for NO X and VOC are consistent with EPA regulations and with CAA major source thresholds for ozone nonattainment areas.

Connecticut's NNSR SIP also properly addresses the thresholds for NO X and VOC, as precursors to ozone, in the definition of “Major modification” by establishing the threshold for either of these ozone precursors at 25 tons per year in severe non-attainment areas and 50 tons per year in serious non-attainment areas. These thresholds for a major modification are consistent with EPA regulations. Lastly, since Connecticut's NNSR SIP retains its previously approved major source thresholds, the State's SIP meets the anti-backsliding requirements.

EPA is proposing approval of Connecticut's December 21, 2020, SIP submittals that demonstrate that the State has adopted air pollution control strategies that represent RACT needed for attainment and RACT not tied to attainment for purposes of compliance with the 2008 and 2015 ozone standards. Additionally, we are proposing approval of Consent Order No. 8377 containing NO X RACT requirements for facilities operated by NRG Connecticut, and negative declarations for CTG categories for which Connecticut asserts no facilities exist within its borders.

We are also proposing to approve Connecticut's December 21, 2020, SIP revision request addressing the NNSR requirements for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS for both nonattainment areas in the State. The approval also includes the applicable NNSR provisions of Connecticut's regulations that satisfy the CAA's anti-backsliding requirements. We have concluded that the State's submission fulfills the 40 CFR 51.1114 revision requirement and meets the requirements of CAA section 110 and the minimum SIP requirements of 40 CFR 51.165.

EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this notice or on other relevant matters. These comments will be considered before taking final action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to the EPA New England Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES section of this Federal Register .

In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the following item that the Connecticut DEEP submitted to EPA for incorporation into the Connecticut SIP by letter dated December 21, 2020: Consent Order No. 8377 containing NO X RACT requirements for facilities operated by NRG Connecticut. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, this document generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 1 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed 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 Clean Air Act; 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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

Throughout this document, wherever “we”, “us” or “our” are used, we mean the EPA. In the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register , we are correcting the inadvertent omission in our August 28, 2009 direct final rule of regulatory text removing four rules from the Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District (AQMD) portion of the California SIP. We are also correcting the EPA approval dates and Federal Register citations for certain rules adopted by the California Department of Pesticide Regulations that we approved in a September 20, 2016 final rule. We are taking these actions in a direct final action without prior proposal because we believe this error correction action is not controversial. If we receive adverse comments, however, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule and address the comments in a subsequent action based on this proposed rule.

We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further information, please see the direct final action.

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

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2022-0236, at https://www.regulations.gov. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov . The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission ( i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

The EPA is proposing to approve revisions to 10 Code of State Regulation (CSR) 10-5.550, Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions From Reactor Processes and Distillation Operations Processes in the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry in the Missouri SIP. The revisions amend the rule applicability section for sources subject to this rule, remove unnecessary words, update incorporations by reference, amend definitions specific to the rule, update test and reference methods, and make other minor edits. The EPA's analysis of the revisions can be found in the technical support document (TSD) included in this docket.

Missouri received six comments from EPA and three comments from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources' Air Pollution Control Program staff during the comment period. Missouri responded to all comments as noted in the State submission included in the docket for this action. As described in the TSD for this action, Missouri amended the rule in response to some of EPA's comments. In response to an EPA comment concerning the applicability date in the draft rule, Missouri changed the applicability date to affect process units existing as of February 29, 2000. Missouri explained that the applicability date change was added to clarify that the rule was originally promulgated to meet ozone reasonably available control technology requirements, which were intended to apply to existing sources at the time of the rule's promulgation. EPA finds that Missouri has adequately addressed the comments.

Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the revisions to this rule because it will not have a negative impact on air quality or affect the stringency of the SIP.

The State submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The State provided public notice on this SIP revision from May 1, 2019, to August 1, 2019 and received nine comments. The State revised the rule based on the comments received. In addition, as explained above and in more detail in the TSD which is part of this docket, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA), including section 110 and implementing regulations.

The EPA is proposing to approve Missouri's request to revise 10 CSR 10-5.550. Because this rule was previously approved into Missouri's SIP, we are soliciting comments solely on the proposed revisions to the rule and not on the existing text that is approved into Missouri's SIP. We are processing this as a proposed action because we are soliciting comments on this proposed action. Final rulemaking will occur after consideration of any comments.

In this document, the EPA is proposing to include regulatory text in an EPA final rule that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the Missouri Regulations described in Section II of this preamble as set forth in the proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 52 below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 7 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

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

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

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

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

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, 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 the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTA) because this rulemaking does not involve technical standards; 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).

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

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:

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

Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the date that it was amended by the local air agency and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

On August 16, 2018, the submittal for SCAQMD Rule 1118 was deemed by operation of law to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

We approved an earlier version of Rule 1118 into the SIP on August 28, 2007 (72 FR 49196). The SCAQMD adopted revisions to the SIP-approved version on July 7, 2017, and CARB submitted them to us on February 16, 2018. If we take final action to approve the July 7, 2017 version of Rule 1118, this version will replace the previously approved version of this rule in the SIP.

Emissions of NO X and VOCs contribute to the production of ground-level ozone, smog and particulate matter (PM), which harm human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that control NO X and VOC emissions. Rule 1118 Control of Emissions from Refinery Flares is designed to monitor and record data on refinery and related flaring operations, and to control and minimize flaring and flare related emissions. The EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more information about this rule.

Rules in the SIP must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions reductions (see CAA section 193).

Generally, SIP rules must require reasonably available control technology (RACT) for each category of sources covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document as well as each major source of NO X and VOCs in ozone nonattainment areas classified as Moderate or above (see CAA section 182(b)(2)). The SCAQMD regulates an ozone nonattainment area classified as Extreme for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS (40 CFR 81.305). Therefore, this rule must implement RACT.

Guidance and policy documents that we used to evaluate enforceability, revision/relaxation, and rule stringency requirements for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following:

1. “State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).

2. “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,” EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised January 11, 1990).

3. “Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,” EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).

Rule 1118 improves the SIP by establishing more stringent emission limits and by clarifying monitoring, recording, and recordkeeping provisions. The rule is largely consistent with CAA requirements and relevant guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP revisions. Rule provisions which do not meet the evaluation criteria are summarized below and discussed further in the TSD.

The director's discretion in Rule 1118 Section (j) does not satisfy the requirements of section 110 of the Act and prevents full approval of the SIP revision. Documents submitted for inclusion into the SIP should not include unbounded director's discretion that allows the State to approve alternatives to the applicable SIP without following the SIP revision process described in CAA section 110. Rule 1118 Section (j) provides the Executive Officer the authority to approve American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) methods other than those currently included in the rule. Without further specificity regarding how this authority will be exercised, it could functionally allow for a revision of the SIP without complying with the process for SIP revisions required by the CAA. As a result, this undermines the enforceability of the submission, constitutes a SIP deficiency, and conflicts with CAA Section 110.

There are no further recommendations.

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of the submitted rule. The limited disapproval for Rule 1118 is based on the enforceability issue identified in section II.C. of this document. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until April 25, 2022. If finalized, this action would incorporate the submitted rule into the SIP, including those provisions identified as deficient. If we finalize this disapproval, CAA section 110(c) would require the EPA to promulgate a Federal implementation plan within 24 months unless we approve subsequent SIP revisions that correct the deficiencies identified in the final approval.

In addition, final disapproval would trigger the offset sanction in CAA section 179(b)(2) 18 months after the effective date of a final disapproval, and the highway funding sanction in CAA section 179(b)(1) six months after the offset sanction is imposed. A sanction will not be imposed if the EPA determines that a subsequent SIP submission corrects the deficiencies identified in our final action before the applicable deadline. The EPA intends to work with the SCAQMD to correct the deficiency in a timely manner.

Note that the submitted rule has been adopted by the SCAQMD, and the EPA's final limited disapproval would not prevent the local agency from enforcing it. The limited disapproval also would not prevent any portion of the rule from being incorporated by reference into the federally enforceable SIP as discussed in a July 9, 1992 EPA memo found at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/procsip.pdf.

In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the SCAQMD rule described in Table 1 of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

Additional information about these statutes and Executive orders can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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