A. Instructions

All comments must be in writing and submitted through the method specified in the ADDRESSES section above. All submissions must include the title of the action and RIN for this rulemaking. Please include your name, title, organization, postal address, telephone number, and email address in the text of the message.

All comments will be made available at http://www.regulations.gov for public review without change, including any personal information provided. We recommend that you do not submit information that you consider Confidential Business Information (CBI) or any information that is otherwise protected from disclosure by statute.

USAID will only address substantive comments on the rule. USAID may not consider comments that are insubstantial or outside the scope of the proposed rule.

In 1995, USAID established its own program-specific assistance regulation prohibiting the use of the “addition method” by any recipient that is a for-profit entity. The interim final rule, Administration of Assistance Awards to US Non-Governmental Organizations, 60 FR 3744, January 19, 1995, was codified at 22 CFR part 226. Prior to 2013, Government-wide guidance on assistance awards was contained in several Office of Management and Budget (OMB) circulars. Agencies promulgated their own assistance award guidance in policy statements and regulations. In 2014, OMB consolidated and updated its guidance in the interim final rule, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (commonly referred to as the “Uniform Guidance”), at 79 FR 75867, December 26, 2014, and codified at 2 CFR part 200. Program income is defined in 2 CFR 200.1, with 2 CFR 200.307(e) describing the three methods for recipients to account for program income under an award: deduction, addition, and cost share/matching. In 2015, USAID published its final rule at 80 FR 55721, October 19, 2015, adopting the Uniform Guidance and re-codifying its own regulations in 2 CFR part 700. At that time, OMB's instructions were that a change to agency-specific policy must be done separately from the adoption of 2 CFR part 200. Thus, the current USAID regulation, 2 CFR 700.13(a)(2) (Additional Provisions for For-Profit Entities) extended the USAID-specific restriction without any revisions.

The purpose of USAID's action to delete the prohibition on for-profit recipients adding earned program income to Federal awards is to expand and extend the activities that USAID supports, when these activities are implemented by a for-profit entity. When program income is generated, the addition method means that recipients may add such income back into the award to continue supporting the activity. Section 2 CFR 200.307(e)(2) requires that the added “program income must be used for the purposes and under the conditions of the Federal award.” Thus, all recipients must comply with the terms of the award regardless of its entity type.

The Federal agencies that have adopted OMB's Uniform Guidance have not generally imposed a prohibition on the use of the addition method by for-profit entities, and no Federal agency appears to have imposed a complete prohibition on the addition method by for-profit entities. The Department of State, under 2 CFR parts 600 through 699, adopts the application of the Uniform Guidance to its assistance awards, including to for-profit entities, but does not impose any additional program income restrictions on them. As such, for-profit entities of assistance awards from the Department of State may apply the addition method for program income. Similarly, the Department of Energy, through its supplemental regulations under 2 CFR parts 910 through 999, adopts the application of the Uniform Guidance and expressly applies them to for-profit entities, but it does not create any additional program income regulations. Only one Federal agency is known to maintain a restriction: the Department of Health and Human Services, under 45 CFR 75.216 through 75.218, does not allow for-profit entities to use the addition method, except for grants for research in its Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer Research programs.

Removing this restriction from 2 CFR 700.13 will support USAID's Private Sector Engagement (PSE) policy by leveling the playing field for all recipients. In short, the result of this change would be that any USAID recipient—whether non-profit or for-profit—would be able to use the addition method for program income, subject to all the same regulations. Section 2 CFR 700.13 would continue to state that for-profit entities cannot use the addition method for using program income as profit.

USAID is seeking public comments on the proposed change to 2 CFR 700.13. This proposed change will allow program income earned by a for-profit entity to be added to Federal awards as an option under 2 CFR 200.307(e), when such program income is used for the purposes and under the conditions of the Federal award.

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This proposed rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

The proposed rule will not have an impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. Therefore, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has not been performed.

The proposed rule does not establish a new collection of information that requires the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, USAID proposes to amend 2 CFR part 700 as set forth below:

This action, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, proposes to amend regulations issued to carry out a marketing order as defined in 7 CFR 900.2(j). This proposed rule is issued under Marketing Order No. 920, as amended (7 CFR part 920), regulating the handling of kiwifruit grown in California. Part 920, (referred to as the “Order”) is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.” The Committee locally administers the Order and comprises kiwifruit growers operating within the production area, and a public member.

This proposed rule is also issued under section 8e of the Act (7 U.S.C. 608e-1), which provides that whenever certain specified commodities, including kiwifruit, are regulated under a Federal marketing order, imports of these commodities into the United States are prohibited unless they meet the same or comparable grade, size, quality, or maturity requirements as those in effect for domestically produced commodities.

The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is issuing this proposed rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. This action falls within a category of regulatory actions that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) exempted from Executive Order 12866 review.

This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 13175—Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, which requires agencies to consider whether their rulemaking actions would have tribal implications. AMS has determined this proposed rule is unlikely to have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This proposed rule is not intended to have retroactive effect.

The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed no later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.

There are no administrative procedures that must be exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of import regulations issued under section 8e of the Act.

Under the provisions of the Order, fresh market shipments of kiwifruit produced in California are required to be inspected and are subject to grade, size, quality, maturity, pack, and container requirements. This proposed rule would revise the minimum size and uniformity requirements for certain varieties of kiwifruit handled under the Order. As required by section 8e of the Act, the proposed revision to the minimum size requirement would also be applied to the import regulations for kiwifruit.

Section 920.51 of the Order provides authority for the Committee to recommend regulations to the Secretary. Section 920.52 of the Order provides authority for the establishment of handling regulations. Further, § 920.53 provides the authority to recommend the modification, suspension, or termination of such regulations when the Committee finds that industry conditions so dictate. Section 920.302 establishes the minimum grade, size, quality, maturity, pack, and container requirements for kiwifruit handled subject to the Order. Under the authority of § 920.53, the Committee has determined that the production and marketing conditions for some varieties of kiwifruit have changed and that the handling requirements should be modified accordingly.

Currently, the handling regulations require that all varieties of kiwifruit be a minimum Size 45, defined as a maximum of 55 pieces of fruit in an 8-pound sample. In addition, kiwifruit packed in containers are required to be fairly uniform in size.

At its meeting on September 29, 2021, the Committee unanimously recommended modifying the regulations to accommodate varieties of Actinidia chinensis species kiwifruit that are characteristically smaller in size and less uniform than the more common varieties grown in California that are Actinidia deliciosa species. No other species of kiwifruit are known to be grown in California.

This proposed rule would relax the minimum size requirement for all varieties of Actinidia chinensis species kiwifruit to Size 49, defined in the requirements as a maximum of 64 pieces of fruit in an 8-pound sample. In addition, the proposed rule would exempt all varieties of Actinidia chinensis species kiwifruit from the current requirement that fruit packed in a container be fairly uniform in size.

At the time that the Order's handling regulations were established in 1985, practically all the kiwifruit grown in California were varieties of the Actinidia deliciosa species. As such, the requirements were implemented to accommodate the characteristics of those varieties. Recently, production of varieties of Actinidia chinensis species kiwifruit has been increasing in California. This sector of the industry now accounts for approximately eight percent of the acreage and five percent of the production in the state. Given the natural characteristics of Actinidia chinensis species kiwifruit, the current minimum size and uniformity requirements preclude some high-quality kiwifruit from entering the fresh market. Relaxing the minimum requirements for those varieties would allow growers to market more of their fruit in the fresh market, increasing their total revenue. The proposed change is expected to benefit domestic kiwifruit growers, handlers, and consumers.

Section 8e of the Act provides that when certain domestically produced commodities, including kiwifruit, are regulated under a Federal marketing order, imports of that commodity must meet the same or comparable grade, size, quality, and maturity requirements. Since this proposed action would modify the minimum size requirement for varieties of Actinidia chinensis species kiwifruit under the domestic handling regulations, a corresponding change would need to be made to the import regulations.

Minimum grade, size, quality, and maturity requirements for kiwifruit imported into the United States are currently in effect under § 944.550 (7 CFR 944.550). Paragraph (a) of that section specifies the minimum size requirement. This proposed rule would lower the minimum size requirement for varieties of Actinidia chinensis species kiwifruit to Size 49, defined as a maximum of 64 pieces of kiwifruit in an 8-pound sample. In accordance with the Act, under the kiwifruit import regulations, imported kiwifruit are not subject to container and pack requirements. Accordingly, the proposed change in the Order's uniformity requirement would not affect the kiwifruit import requirements.

The relaxation in the size requirements for imports of Actinidia chinensis varieties would allow a greater quantity of kiwifruit to be imported. The proposed change is expected to benefit kiwifruit importers and consumers of imported kiwifruit.

Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), AMS has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf. Import regulations issued under the Act are based on those established under Federal marketing orders.

There are approximately 133 kiwifruit growers in the production area and 20 handlers subject to regulation under the Order. In addition, there are approximately 80 importers of kiwifruit. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts less than $1,000,000. Small agricultural service firms, which include kiwifruit handlers and importers, are defined by the SBA as those having annual receipts of less than $30,000,000.

The USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) reported that total production of California kiwifruit for the 2020-2021 season was 39,760 tons. NASS further reported that the average producer price was $1,920 per ton over that period. Multiplying $1,920 per ton by the production quantity of 39,760 tons yields an annual crop revenue estimate of $76,339,200. The average annual fresh kiwifruit revenue for each of the 133 growers for the 2020-2021 season is therefore calculated to be $573,979 ($76,339,200 divided by 133), which is less than the SBA threshold of $1,000,000 for small producers. Therefore, on average and given a normal distribution, the majority of growers may be classified as small businesses.

In addition, based on information reported by USDA's Market News Service (Market News), the average Free On Board (F.O.B.) shipping point price for California kiwifruit over the 2020-2021 season was $23.28 per 9 kilogram container (19.8 pounds equivalent). Multiplying $23.28 by the shipment quantity of 4,016,162 containers (39,760 tons times 2,000 pounds per ton divided by 19.8 pounds) yields an annual crop revenue estimate of $93,496,251. The average annual fresh kiwifruit revenue for each of the 20 handlers is therefore calculated to be $4,674,813 ($93,496,251 divided by 20), which is below the SBA threshold of $30,000,000 for agricultural service firms. Therefore, on average and assuming a normal distribution, the majority of the handlers may be classified as small businesses.

Further, USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service reported 80,279 metric tons of kiwifruit were imported during the 2020-2021 season with a reported value of $184,488,000. Using that data, the average revenue for each of the approximately 80 kiwifruit importers would have been $2,306,100 ($184,488,000 divided by 80), which is below the $30,000,000 SBA threshold for small agricultural service firms. As such, the majority of kiwifruit importers may be classified as small businesses.

This proposed rule would relax the minimum size and uniformity requirements currently prescribed in the Order's handling regulations. The proposed rule would lower the minimum size requirement for all varieties of Actinidia chinensis species kiwifruit from Size 45 to 49, defined in the requirements as a maximum of 64 pieces of fruit in an 8-pound sample. In addition, the proposed rule would exempt all varieties of Actinidia chinensis species kiwifruit from the current container requirement that fruit be fairly uniform in size.

This proposed action would not impose any additional costs to the industry. It is expected to increase revenue to handlers and growers of Actinidia chinensis species varieties of kiwifruit, as smaller size fruit, and fruit that lacks uniformity, would be allowed to enter the market. The quality of fruit to consumers is not expected to be significantly affected, as relaxing the size and uniformity requirements would not impact the Order's minimum quality requirements. All kiwifruit marketed under the Order would continue to be packed to the minimum grade of KAC No.1.

The Committee considered alternatives to the recommended changes, including taking no action and continuing to regulate according to the requirements as currently established. In addition, the Committee considered lowering the size requirements for all varieties of kiwifruit. However, the Committee determined that the current minimum size requirement is effective for Actinidia deliciosa varieties and that it should not be changed. The Committee also considered establishing other minimum sizes for Actinidia chinensis varieties higher and lower than the minimum size recommended, but believed that Size 49 would allow more fruit to be marketed and still maintain the high standards of California kiwifruit. Ultimately, the Committee determined that relaxation of the handling regulation, as recommended, was in the best interests of the growers, handlers, and consumers of California kiwifruit and rejected all other alternatives.

Committee meetings were widely publicized throughout the California kiwifruit industry. All interested persons were invited to attend meetings and participate in Committee deliberations. Like all Committee meetings, the September 27, 2021, meeting was a public meeting, and all entities, both large and small, were able to express their views on this issue. Also, the embassies of countries that export kiwifruit to the United States, and known kiwifruit importers, will be notified of this proposed rule upon its publication. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit comments on this proposed rule, including the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0189, Fruit Crops. No changes in those requirements are necessary as a result of this action. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

This proposed rule would not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large kiwifruit handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this proposed rule.

AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/moa/small-businesses. Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Richard Lower at the previously mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the information and recommendations submitted by the Committee and other available information, USDA has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with and will effectuate the purposes of the Act.

In accordance with section 8e of the Act, the United States Trade Representative has concurred with the issuance of this proposed rule.

A 60-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to respond to this proposal. All written comments timely received will be considered before a final determination is made on this matter.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Agricultural Marketing Service proposes to amend 7 CFR parts 920 and 944 as follows:

The revisions and additions read 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 the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2022-0599; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-00456-A” 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 NPRM 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 AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Mike Kiesov, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section, International Validation Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, MO 64106. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2021-0104, dated April 15, 2021 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to address the unsafe condition on certain serial-numbered Piaggio Model P.180 airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-0599.

The FAA reviewed Piaggio SB No. 80-0405, Revision 0, dated March 15, 2021. This service information specifies procedures for inspecting the fuselage skin panels and inspecting the full inner fuselage skin. It also specifies repairing or replacing any parts where corrosion is found.

The FAA also reviewed Piaggio SB No. 80-0405, Revision 0, Errata Corrige No. 1, dated March 24, 2021, which addresses discrepancies identified in Piaggio SB No. 80-0405, Revision 0, dated March 15, 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 the ADDRESSES section.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information already described.

The MCAI allows credit for the fuselage inner skin inspection if previously done using Piaggio Aerospace Temporary Revision No. 332 to Chapter 53-00-00 of Piaggio P.180 Avanti II Maintenance Manual, and this proposed AD would not. The FAA will consider requests for an alternative method of compliance for this under paragraph (h) of this AD.

The MCAI specifies compliance times of 8 months and 12 months depending on when the P-180 airplane maintenance manual 3,600 flight hour or 5-year inspection was accomplished. This proposed AD has a 12-month compliance time for all airplanes because the 3,600 flight hour and 5-year maintenance manual inspections are not required for U.S. operators by FAA regulation.

The service information specifies contacting Piaggio for certain repair instructions, while this proposed AD would require repair using a method approved by the FAA or EASA.

The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 14 airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary actions that may be required based on the results of the proposed inspections. The FAA has no way of estimating the number of airplanes that might need these actions:

A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to: Information Collection Clearance Officer, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-1524.

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 be 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-2022-0686; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-00088-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 Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3225; email dan.rodina@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.

EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2022-0013, dated January 25, 2022 (EASA AD 2022-0013) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A350-941 airplanes.

This proposed AD was prompted by a report indicating that following the introduction of the IFAR system on single lane slide-rafts, the IFAR demonstrated inconsistent release behavior due to interference or entanglement of the upper part of the IFAR with the slide-raft cover or door structure in aft wind conditions. These affected slide-rafts are installed at passenger door 3, left-hand and right-hand sides. The FAA is proposing this AD to address inconsistent release of single lane slide-rafts having the IFAR system, which if not corrected, could result in a slide-raft being unusable during an emergency and impair the safe evacuation of occupants. See the MCAI for additional background information.

EASA AD 2022-0013 specifies procedures for replacing escape slide-rafts having certain part numbers (affected parts) with serviceable parts (which includes parts that have been modified and re-identified). EASA AD 2022-0013 also prohibits the installation of affected parts on any airplane.

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

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2022-0013 described previously, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. This proposed AD would also prohibit the installation of affected parts.

In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the FAA proposes to incorporate EASA AD 2022-0013 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2022-0013 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in EASA AD 2022-0013 does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in EASA AD 2022-0013. Service information required by EASA AD 2022-0013 for compliance will be available at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-0686 after the FAA final rule is published.

The FAA estimates that this proposed AD would affect 30 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this proposed AD maybe covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators. The FAA does not control warranty coverage for affected operators. As a result, the FAA has included all known costs in the cost estimate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend the Class D airspace, Class E surface airspace, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface and remove the Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D and Class E surface airspace at La Crosse Regional Airport, La Crosse, WI, to support instrument flight rule operations at this airport.

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2022-0774/Airspace Docket No. 22-AGL-26.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

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

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

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 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 proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 by:

Amending the Class D airspace at La Crosse Regional Airport, La Crosse, WI, by adding an extension 1 mile each side of the 359° bearing from the La Crosse Regional: RWY 18-LOC extending from the 4.4-mile radius of the airport to 5.3 miles north of the airport; adding an extension 1 mile each side of the 359° bearing from the airport extending from the 4.4-mile radius to 5.3 miles north of the airport; adding an extension 1 mile each side of the 036° bearing from the airport extending from the 4.4-mile radius of the airport to 6.2 miles northeast of the airport; adding an extension 1 mile each side of the 119° bearing from the airport extending from the 4.4-mile radius of the airport to 5.7 miles southeast of the airport; adding an extension 1 mile each side of the 216° bearing from the airport extending from the 4.4-mile radius of the airport to 5.6 miles southwest of the airport; and replacing the outdated term “Notice to Airmen” with “Notice to Air Missions”;

Amending the Class E surface airspace at La Crosse Regional Airport by adding an extension 1 mile each side of the 359° bearing from the La Crosse Regional: RWY 18-LOC extending from the 4.4-mile radius of the airport to 5.3 miles north of the airport; adding an extension 1 mile each side of the 359° bearing from the airport extending from the 4.4-mile radius to 5.3 miles north of the airport; adding an extension 1 mile each side of the 036° bearing from the airport extending from the 4.4-mile radius of the airport to 6.2 miles northeast of the airport; adding an extension 1 mile each side of the 119° bearing from the airport extending from the 4.4-mile radius of the airport to 5.7 miles southeast of the airport; adding an extension 1 mile each side of the 216° bearing from the airport extending from the 4.4-mile radius of the airport to 5.6 miles southwest of the airport; removing the 3,200 feet MSL restriction as it is not required; and replacing the outdated term “Notice to Airmen” with “Notice to Air Missions”;

Removing the Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D and Class E surface areas at La Crosse Regional Airport as these extensions have been incorporated into the Class D airspace and Class E surface airspace and this airspace is no longer required;

And amending the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at La Crosse Regional Airport by adding an extension 1 mile each side of the 359° bearing from the La Crosse Regional: RWY 18-LOC extending from the 6.9-mile radius of the airport to 7.2 miles north of the airport.

This action is due to an airspace review conducted as part of the decommissioning of the La Crosse VOR, which provided navigation information for the instrument procedures at these airports, as part of the VOR MON Program.

Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 5000, 6002, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Communications should identify both docket numbers (Docket No. FAA-2021-0788 and Airspace Docket No. 22-ASO-14) and be submitted in triplicate to DOT Docket Operations (see ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov.

Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2021-0788; Airspace Docket No. 22-ASO-14.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

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

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

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

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

The FAA proposes an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Harnett Regional Jetport, Erwin, NC, by updating the airport's name (formerly Harnett County Airport), and remove the city name from the description header. This action would also eliminate the Harnett NDB from the airspace description, as an airspace evaluation found it unnecessary. Also, this action would widen the northeast extension, and update the airport's geographic coordinates to coincide with the FAA's database. In addition, this action would remove reference of the Fayetteville, NC, class E airspace area, as the airspace is shared.

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend the Class E airspace extending upward form 700 feet above the surface at Hutchinson County Airport, Borger, TX; Perry Lefors Field, Pampa, TX; and Major Samuel B. Cornelius Field, Spearman, TX, to support instrument flight rule operations at these airports.

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2022-0775/Airspace Docket No. 22-ASW-15.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

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

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

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 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 proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 by:

Amending the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Hutchinson County Airport, Borger, TX, by removing the Borger VORTAC and associated extensions from the airspace legal description; removing the city associated with the airport to comply with changes to FAA Order JO 7400.2N, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters; and updating the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database;

Amending the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.7-mile (increased from a 6.4-mile) radius of the Perry Lefors Field, Pampa, TX; and removing the city associated with the airport to comply with changes to FAA Order JO 7400.2N;

And amending the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Major Samuel B. Cornelius Field, Spearman, TX, by updating the name (previously Spearman Municipal Airport) and geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

These actions are due to airspace reviews conducted as part of the decommissioning of the Borger VOR, which provided navigation information for the instrument procedures at these airports, as part of the VOR MON Program.

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

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

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

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

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

In the Federal Register of Friday, May 20, 2022 (87 FR 31066), in FR. Doc. 2022-10530, the following corrections are made:

On page 31078, in the third column, under “VI. References,” asterisks are removed from reference numbers 5, 8, and 9 because these references are subject to copyright restrictions.

There are currently two inspection models used across the majority of HUD housing programs: Housing Quality Standards (HQS), developed in the 1970s and applicable to housing assisted under the Housing Choice Voucher and Project Based Voucher program, which are currently found at 24 CFR 982.401, and the Uniform Physical Condition Standards (UPCS) developed in the 1990s and applicable to the programs listed at 24 CFR 5.701, which are currently found at 24 CFR 5.703 with the dictionary of individual UPCS deficiencies contained in a Federal Register notice. 1 The unified NSPIRE standards would be used to evaluate compliance with HUD's expectations of housing quality across the distinct programs governed by the regulatory alignment offered in the proposed rule.

On January 13, 2021, HUD published a proposed rule “Economic Growth Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act: Implementation of National Standards for the Physical Inspection of Real Estate” (86 FR 2582) to implement one of NSPIRE's core objectives—the formal alignment of expectations of housing quality and consolidation of inspection standards across HUD programs.

As outlined within the proposed rule, HUD intends to publish updates to these standards through future Federal Register notices at least once every three years with an opportunity for public comment. This would provide further opportunity for the public to examine proposed changes, provide pertinent comments, and suggest the inclusion of industry best practices. The three-year standards development cycle aligns with the cycle used by standards development organizations in the model building codes and life safety industries. A three-year review cycle would also allow HUD to be more responsive to the ever-changing public and assisted housing portfolio and evolving needs in the field.

Throughout the development of NSPIRE, HUD has provided multiple avenues for industry and public input on the standards. In September 2019, HUD began publishing draft NSPIRE standards on HUD's website. The original and subsequent versions of the standards represent input from industry stakeholders and the public via workshops, webinars, and feedback received through HUD's NSPIRE website.

HUD's approach to standards development follows a defined set of core principles: people-centered design, a focus on efficiency, science-based rationales, continuous collaborative improvement, and streamlined operations. HUD's principles of standards development are designed to ensure that standards:

• Are developed according to an evidence-based methodology that ensures reliability and defensibility;

• Prioritize resident health, safety, and functionality of property features, ensuring that residents are living in habitable homes;

• Promote iterative collaboration and feedback; and

• Focus on streamlining inspections processes, ensuring that standards can be executed consistently across programs.

For each inspection standard, the definition, location, deficiency, deficiency criteria, health and safety determination, and correction timeframe have been listed. Further, HUD believes that housing standards must focus on habitability and the health and safety of residents. Each proposed standard contains “rationales,” or the reason the requirement is necessary. Rationales describe the potential harm that may result from a given deficiency if left uncorrected. Generally, rationales include the health, safety, and/or major functional or habitability issue, and illustrate why detection and remediation of the deficiency is critical to housing quality.

HUD will review the comments received on this request for comments, ongoing feedback received through the NSPIRE demonstration, and ongoing input from HUD partners, industry stakeholders, and the public for current and future development of the NSPIRE standards. HUD anticipates that future revisions to the standards may include such changes as:

• Revisions to deficiency health and safety determinations or the associated time of repair;

• Updated health and safety determinations, including pass/fail determinations for the Housing Choice and Project-based Voucher programs; or

• Removal or addition of deficiencies based on public input.

Under the Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act of 2016 (HOTMA), as described in the preamble of the NSPIRE proposed rule, life-threatening deficiencies must be addressed within 24 hours and all other deficiencies within 30 days. 2 Under HOTMA, Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) can allow families participating in the HCV and PBV programs to move into their unit prior to the unit passing the HQS, but only if there are no life-threatening conditions identified in the initial inspection.

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

The Cleveland Dragon Boat Festival has occurred annually for over a decade. Past years events were held on the Cuyahoga River in conjunction with the Head of the Cuyahoga regatta, for which the Captain of the Port Buffalo initiated a rulemaking in 2015 (80 FR 51943) to protect spectators, participants, and vessels from the hazards associated with the rowing event. Due to increased participation in the Dragon Boat Festival, the dragon boat event has been relocated to the Black River Landing in Lorain, OH, to preserve the safety of spectators and vessels.

On January 31, 2022, the Cleveland Dragon Boat Association notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting a dragon boat festival from 8 a.m. through 5 p.m. on September 18, 2022. Typically, the event occurs on or around the first through third Saturday of September between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. The dragon boat festival is to occur south of the East Erie Avenue Bridge in front of the Black River Landing in Lorain, OH. Hazards from the event include, but are not limited to, sponsor operated vessels needing to transit the area during the festival. These vessels are expected to accompany the vessels competing in the row boat style races. The Captain of the Port Buffalo (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the festival would be a safety concern for anyone within this portion of the Black River.

The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels and the navigable waters within this portion of the Black River before, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard is proposing this rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231).

The COTP is proposing to establish a safety zone from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on or around the first through third Saturday of September, according to when the actual event is scheduled. In 2022, the Dragon Boat Festival will occur on September 18. The safety zone would cover all navigable waters south of the East Erie Avenue Bridge in front of the Black River Landing in Lorain, OH. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled dragon boat festival. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

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 NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

This regulatory action determination is based on size, location, and duration of the proposed rule. This Safety Zone would restrict navigation on and through this small designated portion of the Black River for nine hours on one day.

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 transit the safety zone 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.

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 a safety zone lasting nine hours that would prohibit entry within the area south of the East Erie Avenue Bridge in front of the Black River Landing. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A 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 eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. To do so, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2022-0273 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 165 as follows:

Caller Service is a premium service available for a fee to any customer meeting certain mailing standards. Currently, Caller Service customers are not allowed to omit their Post Office Box number from the address of the mailpiece.

The Postal Service is proposing to allow approved Caller Service customers with a unique 5-digit ZIP Code to add Customized Address by paying for the right to omit the P.O. Box number and replacing it with a different approved address line. For example, a Caller Service customer with a unique ZIP Code could replace “P.O. Box 1287” with “One Postal Way.” Only the P.O. Box portion of the address would be replaced; the unique ZIP Code would remain as part of the city/state line.

A current approved Caller Service customer with a unique 5-digit ZIP Code may request Customized Address by using forms available at their approved postal facility and paying a one-time onboarding fee of $2,000. After the first year, a fee of $1,000 would be charged for each authorized delivery address line per annual (12-month) period. In addition to being limited to those customers with a unique 5-digit ZIP Code, Customized Address would also be restricted to use with letters and flats. Any parcels that are delivered to the address that do not bear evidence of postage payment would be delivered postage due at the appropriate Parcel Select rate.

Although exempt from the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b), (c)) regarding proposed rulemaking by 39 U.S.C. 410(a), the Postal Service invites public comment on the following proposed revisions to Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM), incorporated by reference in the Code of Federal Regulations. See 39 CFR 111.1.

We will publish an appropriate amendment to 39 CFR part 111 to reflect these changes if adopted.

Accordingly, the Postal Service proposes the following changes to Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM), incorporated by reference in the Code of Federal Regulations (see 39 CFR 111.1):

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

Table 1 lists the rules proposed for disapproval with the dates that they were adopted by the local agencies and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

On June 14, 2012, the submittals for AVAQMD Rule 315 and MDAQMD Rule 315 were 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.

There are no previous versions of AVAQMD Rule 315 in the SIP, although the AVAQMD adopted an earlier version of this rule on February 15, 2011, and CARB submitted it to us on April 22, 2011. We consider this earlier submittal to have been superseded by the December 14, 2011 submittal. While we can act on only the most recently submitted version, we have also reviewed materials provided with previous submittals.

There are no previous versions of MDAQMD Rule 315 in the SIP, although the MDAQMD adopted an earlier version of this rule on February 28, 2011, and CARB submitted it to us on April 22, 2011. We consider this earlier submittal to have been superseded by the December 14, 2011 submittal. While we can act on only the most recently submitted version, we have also reviewed materials provided with previous submittals.

Under sections 182(d)(3), (e), (f) and 185 of the Act, states with ozone nonattainment areas classified as Severe or Extreme are required to submit a SIP revision that requires major stationary sources of volatile organic compounds (VOC) or oxides of nitrogen (NO X ) emissions in the area to pay a fee if the area fails to attain the standard by the attainment date. The required SIP revision must provide for annual payment of the fees, computed in accordance with CAA section 185(b).

The purpose of AVAQMD Rule 315 and MDAQMD Rule 315 is to satisfy the requirements of sections 182 and 185 of the Act by utilizing an equivalency approach consistent with the principles of section 172(e) of the Act. Under these rules, AVAQMD and MDAQMD will track, calculate, analyze, and report on expenditures designed to result in VOC or NO X reductions within the Districts, to implement an alternative program that is not less stringent than a statutory CAA section 185 fee program. The rules include calculation of the CAA section 185 fee obligation, establishment of a CAA section 185 equivalency “Tracking Account,” an annual demonstration of equivalency, reporting to CARB and the EPA, and a provision requiring major sources to pay fees directly in the event the area fails to establish equivalency. The “Tracking Account” would include funds from qualified programs that are surplus to the 1-hour ozone SIP and designed to result in direct reductions or facilitate future reductions of VOC or NO X emissions, as approved by the EPA.

SIP rules 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). The EPA is also evaluating these rules for consistency with the statutory requirements of CAA section 185. Equivalent alternative programs designed to meet the CAA section 185 obligation for the 1-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) must be consistent with the principles of CAA section 172(e) and must be “not less stringent” than the statutory section 185 program.

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

AVAQMD Rule 315 and MDAQMD Rule 315 implement a fee equivalency approach consistent with the principles of CAA section 172(e). 1 The rules are largely consistent with general CAA requirements regarding SIP submissions. However, the EPA proposes to disapprove the rules because they contain provisions that do not meet our evaluation criteria and affect rule enforceability and stringency. These deficiencies are summarized below and discussed further in the technical support document (TSD) for these rules.

These provisions do not satisfy the requirements of section 110 and part D of title I of the Act and prevent full approval of the SIP submittal. We propose to disapprove the SIP revision based on the following deficiencies:

The TSD for AVAQMD Rule 315 and MDAQMD Rule 315 contains further discussion and analysis of these deficiencies.

The TSD describes additional rule revisions that we recommend for the next time the Districts modify these rules.

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, we are proposing full disapproval of submitted AVAQMD Rule 315 and MDAQMD Rule 315. If we finalize this disapproval, the final disapproval action would trigger sanctions under CAA section 179(a)(2) and 40 CFR 52.31 unless the EPA approves subsequent SIP revisions that correct the rule deficiencies within 18 months of the effective date of the final action. In addition to the sanctions, CAA section 110(c)(1) provides that the EPA must promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP) addressing any disapproved elements of the plan within two years after the effective date of the disapproval unless the State submits, and the EPA approves, the required SIP submittal. As a result of the EPA's January 5, 2010 determination that California had failed to submit the required CAA section 185 fee programs for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS for certain nonattainment areas (75 FR 232), the EPA is already subject to a statutory deadline to promulgate a FIP for this purpose.

We will accept comments from the public on the proposed disapproval for the next 30 days.

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 proposed SIP disapproval, if finalized, will not in-and-of itself create any new information collection burdens, but will simply disapprove certain state requirements for inclusion in the SIP.

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. This proposed SIP disapproval, if finalized, will not in-and-of itself create any new requirements but will simply disapprove certain state requirements for inclusion in the SIP.

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 proposes to disapprove pre-existing requirements under state or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to state, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, 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 revision that the EPA is proposing to disapprove would not apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, 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 this proposed SIP disapproval, if finalized, will not in-and-of itself create any new regulations, but will simply disapprove certain state requirements for inclusion in the SIP.

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.

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

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2022-0483, 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 the Iowa SIP and the Operating Permits Program received on October 20, 2021. The revisions incorporate recent changes to Iowa Administrative Code. The following chapters are impacted:

• Chapter 20, “Scope of Title—Definitions;”

• Chapter 22, “Controlling Pollution;”

• Chapter 23, “Emission Standards for Contaminants;” and

• Chapter 25, “Measurement of Emissions.”

The proposed revisions update incorporations by reference to EPA methods for measuring air pollutant emissions, performance testing (stack testing) and continuous monitoring. EPA proposes to find that these revisions meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act, do not impact the stringency of the SIP, and do not adversely impact 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.

Sections 111 and 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) allow EPA to delegate authority to states for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs). EPA has delegated authority to Iowa for approved portions of these sections of the CAA. Changes made to Iowa's Chapter 23 pertaining to new and revised NSPS and NESHAPs are not directly approved into the SIP, but rather, are adopted by reference. Thus, EPA is not proposing to approve the changes to Chapter 23 of the Iowa Administrative Code into the state's SIP.

The EPA is proposing the following revisions to the Iowa SIP:

Chapter 20, Subrule 20.2, Scope of Title—Definitions: The state revised the definition of “EPA reference method” to adopt the most current performance test (stack test) method as specified in 40 CFR part 51, appendix M (as amended or corrected through October 7, 2020); 40 CFR part 60, appendix A (as amended or corrected through October 7, 2020); 40 CFR part 61, appendix B (as amended or corrected through October 7, 2020); and 40 CFR part 63, appendix A (as amended or corrected through December 2, 2020). This subrule was also revised to adopt the most current minimum performance specifications and quality assurance procedures for performance evaluations of continuous monitoring systems as specified in 40 CFR part 60, appendix B (as amended or corrected through October 7, 2020); 40 CFR part 60, appendix F (as amended or corrected through October 7, 2020); 40 CFR part 75, appendix A (as amended or corrected through August 30, 2016); 40 CFR part 75, appendix B (as amended or corrected through August 30, 2016); and 40 CFR part 75, appendix F (as amended or corrected through August 30, 2016). The proposed update will ensure that state reference methods are equivalent to Federal reference methods; thus, EPA proposes to approve this change.

Chapter 25, Subrule 25.1(9) Measurement of Emissions: As discussed above, the State similarly revised subrule 25.1(9),”Methods and Procedures,” to adopt the performance test (stack test) and continuous monitoring systems as specified in 40 CFR part 51, appendix M (as amended or corrected through October 7, 2020); 40 CFR part 60, appendix A (as amended or corrected through October 7, 2020); 40 CFR part 61, appendix B (as amended or corrected through October 7, 2020); 40 CFR part 63, appendix A (as amended or corrected through December 2, 2020); 40 CFR part 60, appendix B (as amended or corrected through October 7, 2020); 40 CFR part 60, appendix F (as amended or corrected through October 7, 2020); 40 CFR part 75, appendix A (as amended or corrected through August 30, 2016); 40 CFR part 75, appendix B (as amended or corrected through August 30, 2016); and 40 CFR part 75, appendix F (as amended or corrected through August 30, 2016). The proposed update will ensure that state reference methods are equivalent to Federal reference methods; thus, EPA proposes to approve this change.

The EPA is proposing to approve the following revision to the Operating Permit Program:

Chapter 22, subrule 22.100(455B): Also as discussed above, the definition of “EPA reference method” has similarly been revised in definitions for the operating permits program to adopt performance test (stack test) and continuous monitoring systems specified by EPA in 40 CFR part 51, appendix M (as amended or corrected through October 7, 2020); 40 CFR part 60, appendix A (as amended or corrected through October 7, 2020); 40 CFR part 61, appendix B (as amended or corrected through October 7, 2020); 40 CFR part 63, appendix A (as amended or corrected through December 2, 2020), 40 CFR part 60, appendix B (as amended or corrected through October 7, 2020); 40 CFR part 60, appendix F (as amended or corrected through October 7, 2020); 40 CFR part 75, appendix A (as amended or corrected through August 30, 2016); 40 CFR part 75, appendix B (as amended or corrected through August 30, 2016); and 40 CFR part 75, appendix F (as amended or corrected through August 30, 2016). Referencing the updated method will ensure that state methods are equivalent to federal reference methods; thus, EPA proposes to approve this change.

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 16, 2021, to July 19, 2021, and held a public hearing on July 19, 2021. No public comments were received. In addition, as explained above, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.

The EPA is proposing to amend the Iowa SIP and the Operating Permits Program by approving the State's request to update the definitions of “EPA Reference Method” in Iowa Administrative Code Chapter 20, “Scope of Title—Definitions;” Chapter 22, “Controlling Pollution;” and Chapter 25, “Measurement of Emissions.” 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 Iowa rules 567-20.2, 567-22.100 and 567-25.1 as described in Sections II-IV of this preamble and set forth below in the proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 52. 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 parts 52 and 70 as set forth below:

I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group, including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, EPA seeks information on any groups or segments of the population who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticide discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

EPA is announcing receipt of a pesticide petition filed under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, requesting the establishment or modification of regulations in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of a pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities. EPA is taking public comment on the request before responding to the petitioner. EPA is not proposing any particular action at this time. EPA has determined that the pesticide petition described in this document contains data or information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the pesticide petition. After considering the public comments, EPA intends to evaluate whether and what action may be warranted. Additional data may be needed before EPA can make a final determination on this pesticide petition.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of the petition that is the subject of this document, prepared by the petitioner, is included in a docket EPA has created for this rulemaking. The docket for this petition is available at https://www.regulations.gov.

As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), EPA is publishing notice of the petition so that the public has an opportunity to comment on this request for the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of a pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities. Further information on the petition may be obtained through the petition summary referenced in this unit.

PP 1F8901. Plant Health Care Inc., 242 South Main St., Suite 216, Holly Springs, NC 27540, requests to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the fungicide PDHP 25279 in or on growing crops or seeds. The petitioner believes no analytical method is needed because, considering the lack of toxicity observed in toxicology studies, it is expected that, when used as proposed, PDHP 25279 would not result in residues that are of toxicological concern.

This is a summary of the Commission's Public Notice in WC Docket Nos. 21-450, 20-445, DA 22-574, released May 23, 2022. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Commission's headquarters will be closed to the general public until further notice. The full text of this document is available at the following internet address: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-22-574A1.pdf.

1. The Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) seeks comment on a petition filed by the National Lifeline Association (NaLA). NaLA seeks clarification of the Bureau and Enforcement Bureau Chiefs' authority to suspend a participating provider's Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) enrollments and hold a participating provider's funding based on the “adequate evidence” standard, or in the alternative, reconsideration of the removal rule (47 CFR 54.1801(e)(2)). NaLA also seeks reconsideration or clarification of the requirement that an ACP participating provider offering connected devices provide price information for at least one of the analogous devices from a major retailer.

Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing.

• Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

• Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.

• Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-Delivery Policy, Public Notice, DA 20-304 (March 19, 2020). https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy.

People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis: This document proposes new or modified information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens and pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on these information collection requirements. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

1. In this NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on the operation of analog FM radio services by channel 6 digital low power television stations (FM6 operations). The Commission has been considering this issue since 2014, when, in the LPTV DTV Third NPRM in this proceeding, it sought comment on whether to allow analog channel 6 low power television (LPTV) stations to provide FM6 operations after they converted to digital operations on July 13, 2021—the LPTV digital transition deadline. The Commission asked if LPTV stations operating on digital channel 6 could be allowed to continue their FM6 radio operations on an ancillary or supplementary basis.

2. The LPTV digital transition is now complete, with analog television operations terminated and channel 6 LPTV stations operating in digital. However, the Commission has granted STAs to 13 channel 6 LPTV stations to continue providing analog FM6 service. In these circumstances, the Commission seeks comment on whether allowing continued FM6 analog radio operations by existing digital channel 6 LPTV stations serves the public interest. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on whether to eliminate or revise the television channel 6 (TV6) distance separation rules for low power FM (LPFM), noncommercial educational (NCE) FM, Class D (10 watt) FM, and FM translator stations operating on reserved band FM Channels 201-220.

3. With the LPTV digital transition complete, the Commission seeks comment on whether it is in the public interest to allow continued FM6 operations in the digital LPTV world, and whether it should be authorized to continue in any capacity. Throughout this proceeding, FM6 supporters have trumpeted the merits of FM6 operations by maintaining that they provide diverse, niche, and local programming that is not otherwise available in the stations' communities. The FM6 stations state that “[t]he multi-dimensional use of analog channel 6 has given a voice to diverse constituencies and ethnic groups unable to find a home anywhere else on the FM dial.” Importantly, FM6 commenters state that their LPTV television stations provide vital video content including weather, traffic, community event calendars, news and sports tickers and more.

4. Prior to the LPTV digital transition, the Commission estimates that there were close to 30 FM6 stations, based on representations made in the record in this proceeding. Today, it is believed that only 13 FM6 stations remain, in light of the impact on digital transition on channel 6 operations. The Commission seeks comment on whether this belief is correct and whether the reduction in the number of FM6 stations is the result of stations having to convert to digital last year. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on the extent to which in the post-LPTV digital transition world, consumers rely on FM6 programming. It is noted that the Commission has historically been reluctant to regulate based upon programming decisions made by broadcasters. With that policy in mind, the Commission reminds commenters that FM6 station programming can be changed—FM6 stations, like other broadcast stations, are not required to air any particular type of programming. Thus, even to the extent that some of these stations do provide useful programming to local and niche audiences, that could change at any time. The Commission also notes that many FM6 stations have longstanding programming with entrenched audiences. The Commission seeks comment on whether these programming concerns should enter into our public interest analysis of FM6 services.

5. The Commission asks commenters to weigh the current radio programming benefits of FM6 stations against the lost opportunities from expanded adjacent NCE FM service or digital LPTV service on channel 6. For example, the Channel 6 Commenters maintain that LPTV licensees should be allowed to make “the most efficient use of spectrum” by providing FM6 services on an ancillary or supplementary basis. PCPC argues that allowing digital television stations to offer additional services on existing channels is efficient spectrum use. On the other hand, FM6 opponents contend that FM6 operations are not an efficient use of spectrum—using a full 6 MHz television channel to provide a 200 KHz aural service is not, according to these commenters, maximizing the potential of this scarce resource. In addition, opponents argue that because there are no programming rules for LPTV stations, FM6 stations could, in the absence of such requirements, provide only minimal visual programming. While the Commission notes that providing visual programming has been a condition of the current FM6 STAs, it recognizes that some FM6 stations have a history of such minimal video service. These opponents also argue that FM6 is at odds with the underlying statutory purpose of permitting ancillary or supplementary services: to enhance the use of existing spectrum, consistent with the Commission's basic statutory responsibility to manage the radio-frequency spectrum in the public interest. The Commission seeks comment on these assertions and whether continued FM6 operation is an efficient use of Commission spectrum. Does allowing continued analog FM6 operations comport with recent Commission efforts to adopt more efficient and innovative use of digital television spectrum?

6. To the extent that FM6 programming is fulfilling a programming need, the Commission seeks comment on whether it could be provided through other means of delivery. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on whether FM6 programming could be delivered as a digital audio-only stream on one of the LPTV station's multicast channels, via a lease of digital subchannels on local FM or LPFM stations, through the internet, or by entities obtaining an FM or LPFM radio license. Would these alternatives be more spectrally efficient? What is unique about FM6 operations that merits continued service through its existing means of delivery?

7. The Commission has twice sought comment on whether FM6 operations comply with the ancillary or supplementary provisions in the Act and the Commission's rules, whether the operation of analog FM radio services in conjunction with a digital television service would cause impermissible interference to other licensees, and, if permitted to continue, how best to authorize FM6 operations. The Commission once again seeks comment on these issues and whether and how recent developments in the LPTV service should affect its analysis.

8. If the Commission permits FM6 operations as an ancillary or supplementary service, it seeks comment on whether to adopt a rule to formally authorize such operations and whether such a rule should include provisions requiring FM6 operations be subject to any or all of the conditions that were included in the FM6 engineering STAs. Throughout this proceeding, the Commission has asked whether a digital LPTV station can provide an analog FM radio-type service as an ancillary or supplementary service consistent with the Act and our rules. The Commission specifically focused on the rule requirement that digital LPTV stations, when operating, must transmit an over-the-air video program signal at no direct charge to viewers. In addition, the Commission has pointed to section 336(b)(1) of the Act that mandates that the Commission permit ancillary or supplementary services only “if the use of a designated frequency for such services is consistent with the technology or method designated by the Commission for the provision of advanced television services.” The Commission questioned whether a digital LPTV station offering FM6 services on an ancillary or supplementary basis would be able to satisfy these requirements.

9. Would adopting a rule for FM6 operations that would codify conditions like those found in the FM6 engineering STAs help satisfy compliance with these rule and statutory provisions? As noted above, the engineering STAs that FM6 stations are currently operating under contain conditions including: (1) a requirement that FM6 operations be conducted in ATSC 3.0 digital format; (2) FM6 operations may only be conducted on 87.75 MHz; (3) no interference is permitted to any other licensed user, including but not limited to broadcast television or radio users; (4) the station's audio and video coverage must reach similar populations; (5) the station must submit written reports, 90 days from the date of grant of the STA and again 180 days later detailing any reports of interference and a demonstration that the station's audio and video coverage reach similar populations; (6) the station must provide at least one stream of synchronized video and audio programming on the ATSC 3.0 portion of the spectrum on a full time (24x7) basis; (7) the station's technical facilities may not be modified; and (8) the station may not be assigned or transferred. The Commission seeks comment on whether to require that FM6 stations operate subject to a similar set of rules, with some modifications and omissions and in the proposed rule, as a means to resolve the outstanding issues surrounding FM6 operations as an digital LPTV station's ancillary or supplementary service.

10. ATSC 3.0, 87.75 MHz and No Interference Requirements. The Commission proposes that FM6 stations be operating in ATSC 3.0 digital format; that FM6 operations may only be conducted on 87.75 MHz; and that no interference be permitted to any other licensed user, including but not limited to broadcast television or radio users. By adopting a rule that authorizes service pursuant to these requirements, the Commission seeks to prevent the types of interference that were a concern for FM6 stations operating in ATSC 1.0. As discussed more fully below, unlike ATSC 1.0, the ATSC 3.0 digital format appears to be more configurable and allows for the digital TV signal to be made narrower purportedly helping to overcome the harmful interference to FM radio stations that FM6 opponents suggest could emanate from FM6 operations. The Commission seeks comment on these rule provisions.

11. Separately, the Commission seeks comment on whether requiring FM6 services to be conducted only in conjunction with an ATSC 3.0 digital operation also has the benefit of satisfying the requirement of section 336(b)(1) of the Act that the “use of a designated frequency for [ancillary or supplementary] services is consistent with the technology or method designated by the Commission for the provision of advanced television services.” Specifically, commenters were asked to address whether and how analog use of a digital channel is “consistent with” the digital technology mandated by the Commission for the provision of advanced television services. FM6 opponents have maintained throughout this proceeding that a digital LPTV station providing FM6 services was not consistent with existing the ATSC digital standard, which at the time they commented was ATSC 1.0. They contended that a revision to the digital standard would have to be adopted in order for FM6 to be permitted. FM6 stations disagreed, saying digital LPTV stations providing an analog FM radio service would be in compliance with the Commission's digital broadcast television transmission standard as set forth in section 74.795(b) of the rules that provides that digital transmitters be designed to produce digital television signals that can be “satisfactorily viewed” on consumer receiving equipment based on the digital broadcast television transmission standard in section 73.682(d) the rules. FM6 stations argued that they would provide a ATSC 3.0 digital television signal that would meet the requirements of section 74.795(b) in addition to the separate analog FM radio signal.

12. Has the fact that FM6 services are now being offered via ATSC 3.0 digital stations changed these arguments? The Commission notes that the ATSC 3.0 standard also does not have a provision specific to FM6. And, as NPR notes, in the Commission's ATSC 3.0 R&O released in December 2020, the Commission amended the definition of the minimum standard definition digital television signal for full-power stations, removed all references to the analog standard, and confirmed that it “continue[d] to `expect that the fundamental use of the 6 MHz DTV license will be for the provision of free over-the-air television service.' ” Given the fact that analog television is now truly a legacy service, does operation of an analog FM radio service on an ATSC 3.0 digital channel meet the requirements of section 336(b)(1) of the Act? Furthermore, should the fact that the number of U.S. households that possess an ATSC 3.0 capable television receiver remains limited affect our determination?

13. Similar Coverage and One Free Synchronized Stream Requirements. The Commission proposes that FM6 stations comply with the following operational requirements: the FM6 coverage area must be contained within and may not exceed the coverage area of the LPTV station's synchronized video/audio programming stream; and the LPTV station must provide at least one stream of synchronized video and audio programming on the ATSC 3.0 portion of the spectrum, at any time the station is operating. By requiring that the station's FM6 coverage not exceed its video coverage, and that stations provide at least one stream of synchronized video and audio programming on the digital portion of the spectrum at any time the station is operating, the Commission seeks to ensure that the spectrum is being used efficiently and in the public interest.

14. Conditions similar to these provisions were included in the FM6 engineering STAs. The requirement that the LPTV station's FM6 and video coverage reach similar populations was imposed to address the concerns of FM6 opponents that FM6 stations would configure their LPTV station's technical facilities in such a manner that would favor their FM6 operation over their digital TV operation. The Commission proposes a similar provision here that would limit the FM6 coverage area to not greater than the LPTV station's coverage area for similar reasons and it believes this limit will help to allay these concerns and ensure that digital LPTV stations providing FM6 operations continue to focus their attention on the operation of their digital LPTV station—the primary purpose of their station license. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.

15. As for its proposed rule provision requiring that FM6 stations provide at least one stream of synchronized video and audio programming on the ATSC 3.0 portion of the spectrum, at any time the station is operating, a similar condition was included in the FM6 engineering STAs. The Commission proposes to adopt a slightly different version in our FM6 rules. The STA condition required that the one stream of synchronized video and audio programming be provided on “a full time (24x7) basis.” Because the Commission's rules provide that LPTV stations are “not required to adhere to any regular schedule of operation,” the Commission finds it more appropriate to propose a revised version of this condition that requires that FM6 stations provide at least one stream of synchronized video and audio programming on the ATSC 3.0 portion of the spectrum “at any time the station is operating.” The reason the synchronized video and audio programming condition was originally imposed on the FM6 engineering STAs was to ensure that digital LPTV stations providing FM6 operations continued to provide adequate television service to viewers. Prior to the LPTV digital television transition in July 2021, when FM6 operations were being conducted as part of the LPTV station's analog channel 6 operation, most FM6 stations were not offering any type of meaningful television service. Because the audio signal for their analog TV station was dedicated to providing the FM6 service, these stations would often times offer minimal television service on their stations such as community bulletin boards. FM6 stations appeared to be focusing their resources on their radio FM6 operation over their television operation. The Commission seeks comment on whether requiring the FM6 stations be subject to the separate synchronized video and audio programming requirement will address the concerns of FM6 opponents and ensure that FM6 stations continue to provide adequate television service to viewers.

16. Limits on Technical Modifications. The Commission proposes to adopt a rule, similar to the condition contained in FM6 engineering STAs, that would limit LPTV stations providing FM6 operations from modifying their facilities during the time that FM6 operations are being conducted. This condition was placed on FM6 engineering STAs in an effort to “lock” the FM6 station facilities in place while they were being operated pursuant to STA to prevent the station from making changes to their facilities that could impact the potential for interference from FM6 operations to other users. The Commission seeks comment on whether codification of such a modification limit could be a useful way to prevent FM6 stations from causing interference. By locking FM6 stations into their existing facilities, that have already been shown to not cause interference, the Commission would seek to preserve the status quo and prevent technical changes that could upset the current interference-free environment. The Commission proposes to define “existing facilities” as the FM6 station's licensed technical facilities on the release date of this NPRM. While the Commission is required to consider requests for waivers of its rules, it also seeks comment on whether to provide for an exception to this rule that would allow for technical modifications if certain criteria are met. The Commission seeks comment on such criteria, such as a showing of no potential interference to affected licensees and/or a demonstration that all affected licensees have consented to the modification. The Commission seeks comment on these issues.

17. Transfers. In the STAs, the Commission limited FM6 stations from being transferred while FM6 operations are being conducted. The Commission seeks comment as to whether inclusion of such a limit in its FM6 rules would serve the public interest. The Media Bureau imposed this condition in an effort to prevent parties from seeking to operate an FM6 station without any intention of continuing FM6 operations and for the sole purpose of immediately selling the station to another party. Given the fact that the Commission is proposing to limit FM6 to only those stations that are providing FM6 operations on the release date of this NPRM, and thereby preventing parties from “speculating” in FM6 stations, it seeks comment as to whether inclusion of a limitation on transfer of FM6 stations in its rules would serve the public interest.

18. Periodic Reporting. As a condition to their FM6 STAs, FM6 stations were required to submit reports, 90 and 180 days after the grant of their STAs, detailing any reports of interference and a demonstration that the station's FM6 and video coverage reach similar populations. The Media Bureau included this reporting requirement in the FM6 engineering STAs so that it could monitor the ongoing STA operations of FM6 stations for reports of interference and to see if FM6 stations were complying with the condition that their digital television and analog FM radio operations were serving similar populations. The Commission is now proposing to adopt rule provisions that would mandate that FM6 operations be conducted without interference to other users and that an FM6 station's FM6 and video coverage reach similar populations. Accordingly, the Commission tentatively concludes that such a reporting requirement is not necessary given the force and effect of our proposed FM6 rule. It seeks comment on this tentative conclusion.

19. Throughout this proceeding, concern about the potential for analog FM6 operations to interfere with or disrupt the LPTV station's digital TV service has been paramount. Section 336(b)(2) of the Act provides that the Commission shall “limit the broadcasting of ancillary or supplementary services on designated frequencies so as to avoid derogation of any advanced television services, including high definition television broadcasts, that the Commission may require using such frequencies.” The Commission has also sought comment on whether the analog FM6 radio transmitter could cause interference to FM radio licensees. FM6 opponents previously expressed concern about the potential for interference, citing studies conducted in 2014 by Linley Gumm and Charles Rhodes to support their claims. FM6 stations responded that there had not been a single report of interference from the numerous FM6 stations operating their LPTV stations in analog mode. FM6 opponents counter that lack of current interference is not probative given the existence of Commission rules preventing interference.

20. The Commission recognizes that previous questions and analysis about the potential for FM6 interference were based on the assumption that the digital LPTV station would be operating in ATSC 1.0. However, all existing FM6 stations are instead operating in ATSC 3.0 digital mode and there have been no reports of interference from these stations. The results of a more recent 2019 “Perry Priestly” study submitted by PCPC seem to show that, unlike ATSC 1.0, the ATSC 3.0 digital format is more configurable and allows for the TV signal to be made narrower to reduce that interference and/or have its settings modified to have increased error correction, helping it overcome such interference. Thus, PCPC concludes “stations that transition directly to the ATSC 3.0 standard can provide both the most robust video signals available today and a strong analog audio signal.”

21. In light of this more recent study, the Commission seeks comment on whether the fact that FM6 stations are operating in ATSC 3.0 digital mode changes the potential for their analog FM6 operations to interfere with or disrupt the LPTV station's ATSC 3.0 digital TV service. The Commission seeks to determine if an ATSC 3.0 digital LPTV station will be able to operate an analog FM radio transmitter without interfering or derogating its co-channel digital operation. The Commission observes that the Perry Priestly study indicates that an ATSC 3.0 station would typically reduce the width of its digital TV signal and/or increase the level of error correction to make this operation possible, both of which would seem to reduce the amount of available throughput of the ATSC 3.0 signal. The Commission seeks comment on whether these changes in configuration constitute a “derogation” of its digital operation. Should the Commission decide to allow FM6 operations, should it be limited to those stations operating in ATSC 3.0? As before, the Commission encourages commenters to study the question of FM6 interference and to provide the results of these studies in their comments.

22. If the Commission decides to permit digital channel 6 LPTV stations to provide analog FM6 services on an ancillary or supplementary basis, it must still resolve the outstanding question of whether such operations should be subject to the Part 73 rules applicable to FM radio stations. Section 336(b)(3) of the Communications Act mandates that the Commission “apply to any other ancillary or supplementary service such of the Commission's regulations as are applicable to the offering of analogous services by any other person . . . .” Commenters previously maintained that the Commission, as part of its decision in this proceeding, would need to amend its Part 73 and 74 rules to accommodate the FM6 service.

23. The Commission once again seeks comment on whether FM6 operations are “analogous to other services subject to regulation by the Commission” within the meaning of section 336(b)(3) of the Act and the Commission's implementing rules and, if so, which of the Part 73 rules should apply to FM6 operations. The Commission previously asked whether it should apply to FM6 operations the Part 73 rules requiring that an FM radio station file an application for a construction permit and license to operate, that stations be located on channels 88.1 MHz through 107.9 MHz, that primary FM channels be allotted through rulemaking, that such stations maintain a public inspection file, and that the use of such frequencies in border areas be coordinated with Canada and Mexico. The Commission seeks comment on whether these questions are still relevant, whether other Part 73 rules, including technical rules, should apply, and whether its analysis should be affected by the fact that it may limit channel 6 LPTV stations providing FM6 services to operating only in ATSC 3.0 digital mode and from modifying their technical facilities while providing FM6 operations.

24. To the extent it permits digital channel 6 LPTV stations to provide FM6 services on an ancillary or supplementary basis, the Commission must resolve the question of whether FM6 services should be subject to a five percent fee. The ancillary or supplementary rule provides that digital television stations “must annually remit a fee of five percent of the gross revenues derived from all ancillary and supplementary services . . . which are feeable . . . .” “Feeable” services are defined as “[a]ll ancillary or supplementary services for which payment of a subscription fee or charge is required in order to receive the service.” “Feeable” services are also defined as “[a]ny ancillary or supplementary service for which no payment is required from consumers in order to receive the service . . . if the DTV licensee directly or indirectly receives compensation from a third party in return for the transmission of material provided by that third party (other than commercial advertisements used to support broadcasting for which a subscription fee is not required).” As previously observed, FM6 operations, thus far, appear to have been available to the general public without subscription. Comments were previously split on this question. Because FM6 services are provided free of charge, some commenters believed that no fee should apply. Other commenters argued that, because the FM6 operation is not available on a DTV receiver, and can be only be received on a separate FM radio receiver, we should view FM6 operations as “point-to-point or point-to-multi point” operation that section 73.624(c) of the rules describes as an “ancillary or supplementary” service. Channel 6 Commenters agreed that “a supplementary 87.7 MHz audio signal qualifies as an ancillary service, which entitles the government to 5% of its revenue.”

25. The Commission seeks comment on whether, and under what circumstances, an LPTV station's ancillary or supplementary FM6 service provided without a subscription fee should be deemed “feeable” and subject to the five percent fee. To the extent an LPTV station leases its spectrum to a third party to provide the programming transmitted using FM6 and receives compensation from that third party, such FM6 operation would be feeable under section 336(e)(1)(B) of the Act because the station “receives compensation from a third party in return for transmitting material furnished by such third party.” In a scenario, however, where the FM6 station does not lease its spectrum and instead itself provides a free, over-the-air radio service without a subscription fee, is there any basis to deem such a service “feeable” and thus subject to the five percent fee? The Commission seeks comment on this issue.

26. If the Commission decides to allow FM6 operations to continue in the future, it proposes to limit the scope of FM6 operations to only those LPTV channel 6 stations with “active” FM6 engineering STAs on the release date of this NPRM. The Commission proposes to define “active” as an initial engineering STA that is granted and unexpired or a request for extension of an engineering STA that is granted or pending at the time of the release date of this NPRM. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. The Commission assumes that stations holding an active FM6 STA or with a pending FM6 STA extension request are actually providing FM6 service to the public. It seeks comment on this assumption and whether there are other measures it should take to ensure its rules cover only those stations actually providing FM6 service to the public on the release date of this NPRM.

27. The record is filled with examples of local, niche programming being provided by FM6 stations and we seek to minimize disruption to listeners that have come to rely on these services. Limiting the number of FM6 stations to those currently in operation (and that have demonstrated that they do not cause interference to other users) and limiting the technical modifications permitted by these stations could also help to serve our goal of preventing harmful interference to other services. Would such a limitation allay the concerns of some commenters that have opposed FM6 operations?

28. Would this limitation also ensure continued service to consumers who have relied upon this service? With regard to any parity concerns of limiting FM6 authorization to existing FM6 stations, the Commission notes that all channel 6 LPTV stations had the opportunity to provide an FM analog service and chose not to do so. Moreover, the Commission's examination of whether to permit the continuation of such services has extended over decade, so it believes that all channel 6 LPTV stations have been placed on adequate notice of a potential change in Commission rules. Further, if a channel 6 LPTV station has not requested that the Commission permit it to continue to provide FM6 operations by now (since terminating analog operations in July 2021), it seems unlikely that there is consumer reliance on the programming. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal, other cut-off dates, or alternate ways to limit eligibility to ensure continued service to the established listeners of FM6 operations.

29. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should also permit FM6 operations by LPTV stations that, as of the release date of this NPRM, have pending applications for construction permits and that have a significant history of providing FM6 to the public to also be grandfathered. We recognize that there may be a limited number of stations that stopped providing FM6 service in July 2021, at the time of the LPTV digital transition, but intend to resume such service once new facilities are approved and constructed. Would permitting such stations to resume providing FM6 services, subject to the conditions discussed above, be consistent with the rationale discussed above to ensure continued service to consumers who have relied upon this service? Are the conditions discussed above adequate to address any technical concerns? Because such stations are not yet operational, does the Commission need to consider additional technical conditions to address unforeseen potential interference? The Commission seeks comment on the implications of expanding the scope of continued FM6 service in this manner.

30. The Commission also takes this opportunity to seek comment on National Public Radio's (NPR) proposal to repurpose television channel 6 (TV channel 6) spectrum (82-88 MHz) for FM services in locations where the channels are not being used to provide “actual television programming.” As previously described, NPR believes that the continued use of a digital TV channel 6 to provide an analog FM radio service (aka FM6) is contrary to the statute and poor public policy. Instead, NPR contends, “TV channel 6 spectrum is a valuable resource the Commission should use to expand opportunities for existing and prospective radio broadcasters whose demand for spectrum cannot be satisfied in the crowded FM radio band.” Specifically, NPR maintains that the spectrum occupied by a single TV channel 6 station could potentially accommodate up to 30 new FM stations, exponentially increasing the variety of programming available for a diverse audience. Repurposing this spectrum to allow new FM radio stations to be authorized, NPR maintains, would increase the diversity of voices and programming available to the public and be a “far better use of a scarce resource” than the analog audio operations (FM6) that exist in some locations today. NPR also argues that it would increase the opportunities for diverse providers to provide local public interest programming for unserved and underserved audiences, especially in the rural parts of the country. The Commission seeks comment on these issues.

31. If it decides to allow new FM stations to operate on 82-88 MHz, the Commission seeks comment on whether such stations should be limited to noncommercial educational (NCE) FM stations or whether commercial FM stations should be allowed to operate on these new frequencies as well, consistent with TV6 stations currently occupying this spectrum. The Commission notes that the adjacent FM channels 201-220 (87.9 MHz to 91.9 MHz) are reserved for NCE FM station use. The Commission seeks to determine whether to adopt a similar restriction were it to allow additional FM stations to operate on 82-88 MHz.

32. The Commission invites commenters to study the current use of TV channel 6 by television broadcasters and the extent to which TV channel 6 could accommodate additional FM radio stations without causing interference to existing TV channel 6 licensees. The Commission also seeks comment on the technical feasibility of NPR's proposal. First, it notes that, although there are in theory 30 available 200 kHz FM radio channels in the band that comprises TV channel 6, in practice, it would not be possible to use all 30 channels in one place given interference considerations. Practically speaking, the number of channels for use by new FM radio stations in any one area would be significantly less. The Commission seeks comment on whether this technical reality should affect its consideration of NPR's proposal. Furthermore, the Commission seeks comment on whether NPR's argument, that FM6 is not an efficient use of spectrum, would be allayed by its proposal to limit FM6 operations to only the limited number of TV channel 6 LPTV stations that are currently providing such services and to further require that such stations provide a separate video offering at all times they are providing FM6 operations.

33. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on whether radio listeners will be able to receive new FM radio stations on the frequencies that NPR suggests should be allowed for new FM radio station operations—82-88 MHz. The Commission notes that FM radio receivers currently only receive the top-most portion of the 82-88 MHz band (87.7 or 87.9 MHz) of the 6 MHz channel that comprises TV channel 6. Today's FM radio receivers cannot tune down to the rest of the spectrum—82.1- 87.5 MHz. The Commission invites comment on how this technical roadblock should influence our consideration of this issue. The Commission also seeks comment on whether changes would need to be made to the Domestic Table of Frequency Allocations (Table) to reflect this change. The Commission notes that the 76-88 MHz band is generally allocated as “Broadcasting” but seek comment on whether the Table contemplates radio uses at 82-88 MHz. In addition, should it adopt NPR's proposal, the Commission seeks comment on whether there are other technical issues to consider such as the establishment of separation distances for co-channel operations.

34. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on the benefits of expanding FM radio service to all of TV channel 6 to create new FM radio stations versus the costs of precluding existing TV stations from using the currently unused locations where TV channel 6 is viable and foreclosing new TV stations on channel 6. The Commission also seeks comment on how allowing additional FM radio stations on the 82-88 MHz band would affect other entities that use these frequencies including wireless microphones and white space device users. Finally, the Commission notes that one of its concerns about authorizing the continued provision of FM6 services is the interference potential they may pose. The Commission addresses this concern through its proposal of limiting any technical modifications by these FM6 stations. The Commission seeks comment on the potential for interference if it permitted new FM radio services as contemplated by NPR. Would such services pose the threat of interference with existing services in this band? If so, how should these concerns be mitigated to extent the Commission pursues such an expansion?

35. The Commission seeks comment on an issue that the Commission previously raised and that is related to its consideration of whether to permit continued FM6 operations. That is the question of whether to completely eliminate the television channel 6 (TV6) distance separation (interference protection) rules for Low Power FM radio (LPFM), NCE FM radio, Class D FM radio (10 watt), and FM translator stations operating on reserved band FM channels 201-220, or to alternatively revise and update them for a post-digital transition world. The Commission last considered this issue in the context of its efforts to improve the LPFM technical rules based on suggestions made by REC Networks in a 2018 petition for rulemaking. The Commission seeks comment on this issue now that the LPTV digital transition is complete and all TV6 stations are no longer operating in analog, and in light of our proposals related to FM6 in this proceeding.

36. To provide LPFM stations relief from TV6 protection rules, the Commission, in its LPFM NPRM, proposed to eliminate TV6 protections entirely on July 13, 2021—the date of the LPTV digital transition. The Commission noted that it had been requiring FM stations on channels 201 to 220 to protect television stations operating on TV6 since 1985. The Commission cited to REC Networks arguments that the LPFM TV6 protection rules “significantly overprotect TV6 stations and could be reduced with little impact.” REC Networks pointed out that this was because the rules were designed when television was operating with analog technology. The Commission also noted studies performed by NPR in conjunction with the 2009 digital television transition that showed that newer digital television technologies have better filters and synchronous detection to reject unwanted FM signals. The Commission tentatively accepted NPR's conclusion that digital television receivers are substantially less vulnerable to FM-induced TV6 interference than analog sets. The Commission sought comment on whether this conclusion was still valid “after so many additional years of experience with digital broadcasts.” The Commission sought comment on its expectation that the proposed elimination of LPFM/TV6 spacing requirements will not result in any interference to TV6 stations and it tentatively concluded, upon July 13, 2021, to eliminate the distance separate requirement between LPFM stations and all television stations operating on TV6.

37. A limited number of commenters weighed in on the Commission's proposal and were evenly split for and against elimination of the TV6 protections. For instance, in response to support from petitioners, Disney posited that that the record did “not provide actual evidence demonstrating that the full-power Channel 6 Protections are unnecessary,” and that the TV6 protection rules “have functioned quite well to protect full-power television stations from interference, and have done so without imposing significant burdens on FM reserved band stations.” The Commission in its 2020 Report and Order deferred consideration of this issue to a future proceeding finding that it “will be in a better position to reach an informed decision by addressing TV6 issues in a separate proceeding with a more developed record on this issue.”

38. Since that decision, events have occurred that could affect our previous analysis as to the continued need for TV6 protection rules. The post-Incentive Auction transition was completed in July 2020 and repacked stations have settled into their new post-auction channel assignments. And, given the digital transition, analog television is now truly a legacy service. With the completion of the Incentive Auction and the LPTV digital transition, the Commission now has experience with respect to TV6 and whether interference has been occurring with respect to digital TV6 stations and FM radio stations.

39. Therefore, the Commission seeks comment on the continued need for TV6 interference protection rules. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on whether the interference protection provisions, adopted while television stations were operating in analog mode, continue to be necessary in light of the fact that all TV6 stations have now converted to digital. The Commission invites commenters to analyze the number of current TV6 stations, their current locations and the potential for TV6-FM radio cross-service interference. The Commission notes that it has not received reports of interference to either TV or radio services from stations in their counterpart services. Does the lack of reports indicate the protections are no longer necessary, or that they are fulfilling their purpose? Alternatively, the Commission seeks comment on whether to preserve the existing protections but revise and update them for digital TV6 operations, and if so, how to update them. In that circumstance, the Commission seeks comment on whether those protections should apply to currently authorized channel 6 stations or to future channel 6 stations or to both.

40. The Commission notes that retention or revision of the TV6 interference protection rules could potentially be impacted by its decision whether to permit continued FM6 operations. Given this, the Commission seeks comment on whether the elimination of TV6 protection by LPFM and other FM radio stations would be compatible with FM6 operations if it determines to permit such operations to continue. That is, if FM6 and LPFM and NCE FM stations are allowed to come into closer proximity if the TV6 protection rules are eliminated, would that increase concerns about interference from FM6 to LPFM/NCE FM stations—an important factor in our FM6 considerations? The Commission notes that one of the conditions it is seeking to impose on continued FM6 operations is that the LPTV station not be permitted to modify its facilities while providing FM6 operations, thus locking into place the technical facilities by which the LPTV station provides its FM6 operations. If it limits station modifications in this manner, would this impact the Commission's analysis of whether elimination of TV6 protection by LPFM and other FM radio stations would be compatible with FM6 operations?

41. The Commission's goal in this proceeding, as with any proceeding involving interference protection, is to ensure that licensees can operate in an environment in which the potential for interference is minimized. The Commission stresses that interference protections are essential to spectrum usage rights to prevent licensees from unduly affecting other licensees in terms of system operation or cost. Nonetheless, the Commission attempts to establish rules that are no more restrictive than necessary to achieve our goals in order to provide maximum flexibility to our licensees. Therefore, commenters suggesting that the existing interference provisions be retained, revised or updated should demonstrate that their proposed restrictions are necessary to achieve these goals.

42. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on the benefits and costs associated with adopting the proposals set forth in this NPRM. In addition to any benefits to the public at large, are there also benefits to industry through adoption of any of its proposals? The Commission also seeks comment on any potential costs that would be imposed on licensees and regulatees if it adopts the proposals contained in this NPRM. Comments should be accompanied by specific data and analysis supporting claimed costs and benefits.

43. As part of its continuing effort to advance digital equity for all, including people of color, persons with disabilities, persons who live in rural or Tribal areas, and others who are or have been historically underserved, marginalized, or adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality, the Commission invites comment on how the proposals set forth in the NPRM can advance equity in the provision of broadcast services for all people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, or disability. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on how its proposals may promote or inhibit advances in diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility, as well the scope of the Commission's relevant legal authority.

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), The Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this proceeding included an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 603, exploring the potential impact on small entities of the Commission's proposals. Because this Fifth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) contains new proposals, the Commission requests written public comments on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments specified in the NPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register .

The NPRM seeks comment on whether to permit digital low power television (LPTV) stations on channel 6 to continue to operate analog FM radio-type services and, if so, how to authorize these services. Prior to the July 13, 2021 LPTV digital transition deadline, a number of analog LPTV stations licensed on channel 6 operated with very limited visual programming and an audio signal that is programmed like a radio station (FM6). FM radio listeners were able to receive the audio portion of these LPTV stations at 87.75 MHz, which is adjacent to noncommercial educational (NCE) FM channel 201 (88.1 MHz). When these LPTV stations converted to digital, however, they would be unable to continue providing such radio service because the digital audio portion of their signal could no longer be received by standard FM receivers. Currently, some digital channel 6 LPTV stations have converted to ATSC 3.0 digital format and are operating pursuant to engineering special temporary authority (STA) with a separate analog FM radio transmitter.

In an effort to bring a final resolution to the FM6 question, the Commission seeks comment on whether FM6 operations are serve the public interest and should be authorized to continue in any capacity. The NPRM also seeks comment on whether FM6 should be authorized as “ancillary or supplementary” services as suggested previously in this proceeding. The NPRM seeks comment on whether the Commission can and should limit future FM6 operations to only those LPTV channel 6 stations with active FM6 engineering STAs on the release date of the NPRM.

The NPRM alternatively seeks comment on whether to license additional FM radio stations on 82-88 MHz in areas where channel 6 LPTV and full-power stations are currently not operating.

Finally, regardless of whether it decides to permit continued FM6 operations or license additional FM radio stations on 82-88 MHz, the NPRM seeks comment on whether to eliminate or revise the TV6 distance separation rules for LPFM, NCE, Class D (10 watt), and FM translator stations operating on reserved band FM Channels 201-220.

The proposed action is authorized under Sections 151, 154(i), 154(j), 303, 307, 316, 336, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 303, 307, 316, 336, and 403.

The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rule revisions, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act (SBA). A small business concern is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. Below, we provide a description of such small entities, as well as an estimate of the number of such small entities, where feasible.

Television Broadcasting. This industry is comprised of “establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting images together with sound.” These establishments operate television broadcast studios and facilities for the programming and transmission of programs to the public. These establishments also produce or transmit visual programming to affiliated broadcast television stations, which in turn broadcast the programs to the public on a predetermined schedule. Programming may originate in their own studio, from an affiliated network, or from external sources. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies businesses having $41.5 million or less in annual receipts as small. 2017 U.S. Census Bureau data indicate that 744 firms in this industry operated for the entire year. Of that number, 657 firms had revenue of less than $25,000,000. Based on this data we estimate that the majority of television broadcasters are small entities under the SBA small business size standard.

The Commission estimates that as of March 2022, there were 1,373 licensed commercial television stations. Of this total, 1,280 stations (or 93.2%) had revenues of $41.5 million or less in 2021, according to Commission staff review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro Television Database (BIA) on June 1, 2022, and therefore these licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. In addition, the Commission estimates as of March 2022, there were 384 licensed noncommercial educational (NCE) television stations, 383 Class A TV stations, 1,840 LPTV stations and 3,231 TV translator stations. The Commission however does not compile, and otherwise does not have access to financial information for these television broadcast stations that would permit it to determine how many of these stations qualify as small entities under the SBA small business size standard. Nevertheless, given the SBA's large annual receipts threshold for this industry and the nature of these television station licensees, we presume that all of these entities qualify as small entities under the above SBA small business size standard.

Radio Stations. This industry is comprised of “establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by radio to the public.” Programming may originate in their own studio, from an affiliated network, or from external sources. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies firms having $41.5 million or less in annual receipts as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 2,963 firms operated in this industry during that year. Of this number, 1,879 firms operated with revenue of less than $25 million per year. Based on this data and the SBA's small business size standard, we estimate a majority of such entities are small entities.

The Commission estimates that as of September 2021, there were 4,519 licensed commercial AM radio stations, 6,682 licensed commercial FM radio stations and 4,211 licensed noncommercial (NCE) FM radio stations. The Commission however does not compile, and otherwise does not have access to financial information for these radio stations that would permit it to determine how many of these stations qualify as small entities under the SBA small business size standard. Nevertheless, given the SBA's large annual receipts threshold for this industry and the nature of radio station licensees, we presume that all of these entities qualify as small entities under the above SBA small business size standard.

The Commission notes, however, that in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as “small” under the above definition, business (control) affiliations must be included. Its estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by our action, because the revenue figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. In addition, another element of the definition of “small business” requires that an entity not be dominant in its field of operation. The Commission is unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific radio or television broadcast station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to which the rules may apply does not exclude any radio or television station from the definition of a small business on this basis and is therefore possibly over-inclusive. An additional element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity must be independently owned and operated. Because it is difficult to assess these criteria in the context of media entities, the estimate of small businesses to which the rules may apply does not exclude any radio or television station from the definition of a small business on this basis and similarly may be over-inclusive.

As a condition to be allowed to continue their FM6 operations on an ancillary or supplementary basis, the Commission seeks comment on whether FM6 stations should be required to submit written reports, every 90 days, detailing any reports of interference and a demonstration that the station's FM6 and video coverage reach similar populations. The NPRM tentatively concludes that such a reporting requirement is not necessary. Should the Commission ultimately decide to adopt this requirement, this proposed reporting requirement would result in a new paperwork obligation. If adopted, the Commission will seek approval and the corresponding burdens to account for this reporting requirement.

The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.

The NPRM seeks to determine if continued provision of FM6 services by digital LPTV channel 6 stations serve the public interest and should FM6 be authorized to continue in any capacity. All of the licensees of FM6 stations are licensees of LPTV stations and most if not all are considered small entities by SBA definitions. Therefore, by allowing FM6 operations to continue, the Commission is seeking to help small entities and to preserve their current programming offerings. The alternative would be to force these entities to discontinue FM6 operations that have proved to be a source of additional income for these small entities that have struggled to operate LPTV stations and that have operated with a disadvantage to their full power television brethren. Unlike full power television stations, LPTV stations operate without mandatory cable carriage rights and with secondary interference rights that can result in their operating channel being displaced and their having to find a new frequency.

The NPRM seeks comment on whether to permit FM6 operations as “ancillary or supplementary” services. This approach is an attempt to authorize existing FM6 operations in the easiest and least costly manner to reduce the administrative and financial burden on FM6 stations, all of which are LPTV and most if not all are small entities. Using existing rules and procedures will enable FM6 stations to easily become authorized through familiar and low cost measures.

The Commission must balance the positive financial benefits for small entities of allowing all channel 6 LPTV stations to provide FM6 operations against the possible negative effects of impermissible interference that could result between FM6 operations and other FM radio operators. Although it recognizes the positive benefits for small entities that may accrue from FM6 operations, the Commission proposes that it must limit FM6 operations to only those stations providing such services on the release date of the NPRM in order to limit the universe of FM6 stations that could potentially interfere with other users. The Commission notes that all channel 6 LPTV stations had the opportunity to provide an FM analog service and their failure to do so by now demonstrates that it was not in their interest to do so.

Similarly, the Commission must balance whether to allow channel 6 LPTV stations to continue providing FM6 operations versus entities interested in providing new FM radio service to operate on TV channel 6 in areas where television service is currently not being offered. There are small entities in both the LPTV and FM radio services especially NCE FM stations whose operation is limited to only noncommercial educational entities most if not all of which are small entities. The Commission will have to consider the benefits and costs of allowing additional FM radio operations and whether it will negatively affect future TV operations on low VHF channels such as channel 6 that have technical limitations and that are not favored by television operators.

The Commission also proposes to eliminate or modify a current protection for television stations operating on Channel 6 which are also small entities, a proposal which seeks to assist low power FM (LPFM), noncommercial educational (NCE), and FM translator stations. The Commission believes that any potential negative impact on such television stations is minimal because full power TV6 stations transitioned to digital operations in 2009; LPTV stations in 2021; and there has been a lack of interference complaints from these stations since their transitions. Further, digital television receivers are more selective than the analog the equipment that existed when the Commission adopted the TV6 protection requirement. The Commission is open to consideration of alternatives to the proposals under consideration including but not limited to alternatives that will minimize the burden on FM broadcasters, many of whom are small businesses, as well as TV6 broadcasters that are small entities. There may be unique circumstances these entities may face, and the Commission will consider appropriate action for small broadcasters when preparing a Report and Order in this matter.

None.

The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM including the IRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the NPRM including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register .

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 74 to read as follows: