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

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA-2021-0819 in the Federal Register (86 FR 58608; October 22, 2021), establishing RNAV route T-368 in the vicinity of King Salmon, AK, in support of a large and comprehensive T-route modernization project for the state of Alaska. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting comments on the proposal. No comments were received.

United States Area Navigation Routes are published in paragraph 6011 of FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The RNAV route listed in this document will be published subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.

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

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by establishing RNAV route T-368 in the vicinity of King Salmon, AK, in support of a large and comprehensive T-route modernization project for the state of Alaska. The route is described below.

T-368: T-368 is established between the King Salmon, AK (AKN), VHF Omnidirectional Range/Tactical Air Navigational System (VORTAC) and the Kodiak, AK (ODK), VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) navigational aids as an alternative to VOR Federal airway V-506 and Colored Federal airway B-27.

The full route description of the new route is in the amendment to part 71 as set forth below.

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. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this airspace action of establishing RNAV route T-368 in the vicinity of King Salmon, AK, qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points), and paragraph 5-6.5i, which categorically excludes from further environmental review the establishment of new or revised air traffic control procedures conducted at 3,000 feet or more above ground level (AGL); procedures conducted below 3,000 feet AGL that do not cause traffic to be routinely routed over noise sensitive areas; modifications to currently approved procedures conducted below 3,000 feet AGL that do not significantly increase noise over noise sensitive areas; and increases in minimum altitudes and landing minima. As such, this action is not expected to result in any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2, regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis. Accordingly, the FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact study.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 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 amends airspace for Hudson Valley Regional Airport, Poughkeepsie, NY, to support IFR operations in the area.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register (87 FR 31192, May 23, 2022) for Docket No. FAA-2022-0524 to amend Class D airspace and Class E surface airspace for Hudson Valley Regional Airport, Poughkeepsie, NY, by updating the airport's name, amending the radii of the existing airspace, and removing Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D airspace. In addition, the FAA proposed to remove Kingston VORTAC from the Class E surface airspace description, as well as replace the term Airport/Facility Directory with Chart Supplement in the descriptions. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

This document amends FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and became 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 routes, and reporting points.

The FAA is amending 14 CFR part 71 by amending Class D airspace and Class E surface airspace, by increasing the radius to 4.4 miles (previously 4.0 miles), and amending the surface extensions. Also, this action removes Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D surface area for Hudson Valley Regional Airport, Poughkeepsie, NY, as the extensions are included in the Class D description. This action updates the airport's name to Hudson Valley Regional Airport (formerly Dutchess County Airport), and removes Kingston VORTAC from the Class E surface airspace description, as well as replaces the term Airport/Facility Directory with Chart Supplement in the descriptions. In addition, the city name is removed from the airport header, as per FAA Order 7400.2. This action enhances the safety and management of controlled airspace within the national airspace system.

Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraphs 5000, 6002, and 6004, 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. 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 minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

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

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 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 amends Class E airspace for Raleigh-Durham International Airport, Raleigh, NC, to support IFR operations in the area.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register (87 FR 29238, May 13, 2022) for Docket No. FAA-2022-0525 to amend Class E airspace for Raleigh-Durham International Airport, Raleigh, NC.

Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. One comment was received advising the FAA that a group is researching the possible reopening of the now closed Horace Williams Airport. The FAA will remove the Class E airspace surrounding this airport, and establish modified airspace when/if the airport does reopen.

Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraphs 6003 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 E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.

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

The FAA is amending 14 CFR part 71 by amending Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Raleigh-Durham International Airport, Raleigh, NC, due to the decommissioning of the Leevy NDB and cancellation of associated approaches. This action eliminates the northeast extension. Also, Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class C surface area is amended by updating the airport's geographic coordinates and updating the name of the Raleigh/Durham VORTAC, (formerly Raleigh VORTAC). This action also removes the airspace surrounding Horace Williams Airport, as the airport has closed.

Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraphs 6003 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 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. 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 minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a.

This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 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 amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Door County Cherryland Airport, Sturgeon Bay, WI, by updating geographic coordinates of the airport in the airspace legal description to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. This update is administrative change and does not change the airspace boundaries or operating requirements.

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

This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Door County Cherryland Airport, Sturgeon Bay, WI, by updating the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; and removes the city associated with the airport in the header of the airspace legal description to comply with changes to FAA Order JO 7400.2N, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters.

This action is an administrative change and does not affect the airspace boundaries or operating requirements; therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) is unnecessary.

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 only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

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

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

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

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA-2021-0811 in the Federal Register (86 FR 56234; October 8, 2021), amending RNAV route T-227 in the vicinity of Fairbanks, AK, in support of a large and comprehensive T-route modernization project for the state of Alaska. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting comments on the proposal. One comment, supporting the proposed action, was received. The commenter fully supported the FAA's Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) efforts to modernize air traffic routes in Alaska using satellite based navigation.

United States Area Navigation Routes are published in paragraph 6011 of FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The RNAV route listed in this document will be published subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.

In the NPRM, the MORDI, AK; GENFU, AK; BINAL, AK; and GLOWS, AK, route points were each incorrectly referenced and listed as waypoints (WPs). Each of the listed route points are actually Fixes. This action corrects that error by listing each of them as a Fix. These corrections are editorial only and do not change the alignment of T-227.

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

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by amending RNAV route T-227 in the vicinity of Fairbanks, AK, in support of a large and comprehensive T-route modernization project for the state of Alaska. The route amendment is described below.

T-227: T-227 currently extends between the Shemya, AK (SYA), VHF Omnidirectional Range/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) and the Deadhorse, AK (SCC), VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) navigational aids. This action replaces the Port Heiden, AK (PDN), Non-Directional Beacon (NDB) route point with the WIXER, AK, WP; adds three WP route points (CULTI, AK; FEDGI, AK; and WEZZL, AK) between the WIXER WP and the AMOTT, AK, Fix; and removes the BATTY, AK, Fix from the route description. Additionally, this action adds the GLOWS, AK, Fix and PERZO, AK, WP between the Big Lake, AK, VORTAC and the Fairbanks, AK, VORTAC.

The full route description of the amended T-227 route is in the amendment to part 71 set forth below.

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. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this airspace action of amending RNAV route T-227 in the vicinity of Fairbanks, AK qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points), and paragraph 5-6.5i, which categorically excludes from further environmental review the establishment of new or revised air traffic control procedures conducted at 3,000 feet or more above ground level (AGL); procedures conducted below 3,000 feet AGL that do not cause traffic to be routinely routed over noise sensitive areas; modifications to currently approved procedures conducted below 3,000 feet AGL that do not significantly increase noise over noise sensitive areas; and increases in minimum altitudes and landing minima. As such, this action is not expected to result in any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis. Accordingly, the FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact study.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 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 amends the Class D airspace, the Class E surface airspace, and the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface and establishes Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D and Class E surface airspace at Columbia Regional Airport, Columbia, MO, to support instrument flight rule operations at this airport.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register (87 FR 33660; June 3, 2022) for Docket No. FAA-2022-0694 to amend the Class D and Class E airspace and establish Class E airspace at Columbia, MO. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

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.

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

Subsequent to the publication, the FAA discovered a typographical error in the geographic coordinates of the Columbia VOR/DME. “lat. 38°48′29″ N” should be “lat. 38°48′39″ N.” That error has been corrected in this action.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 71:

Amends the Class D airspace at Columbia Regional Airport, Columbia, MO, by updating the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; and replaces the outdated terms “Notice to Airmen” with “Notice to Air Missions” and “Airport/Facility Directory” with “Chart Supplement”;

Amends the Class E surface airspace at Columbia Regional Airport by updating the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; and adds missing part-time language to the airspace legal description;

Establishes Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D and Class E surface airspace at Columbia Regional Airport within 2.4 miles each side of the Columbia VOR/DME 019° radial extending from the 4.3-mile radius of the Columbia Regional Airport to 7 mile north of the Columbia VOR/DME; and within 2 miles each side of the 315° bearing from the airport extending from the 4.3-mile radius of the airport to 9.7 miles northwest of the airport;

And amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet at Columbia Regional Airport by removing the Columbia Regional Airport ILS Localizer and the associated extensions from the airspace legal description as they are no longer needed; adds an extension 2.4 miles each side of the Columbia VOR/DME 019° radial extending from the 6.8-mile radius of the airport to 7 miles north of the Columbia VOR/DME; adds an extension 2 miles each side of the 315° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.8-mile radius of the airport to 10.7 miles northwest of the airport; adds an extension 2 miles each side of the Columbia VOR/DME 333° radial extending from the 6.8-mile radius of the airport to 11.1 miles northwest of the airport; and updates the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

This action is necessary due to a biennial airspace review.

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 only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

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

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 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 amends Class E airspace for Greenwood County Airport, Greenwood, SC, to support IFR operations in the area.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register (87 FR 31193, May 23, 2022) for Docket No. FAA-2022-0432 to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Greenwood County Airport, Greenwood, SC.

Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

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.

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

The FAA is amending 14 CFR part 71 by amending Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Greenwood County Airport, Greenwood, SC, due to the decommissioning of the Coronaca NDB and cancellation of associated approaches. This action eliminates the east extension and creates an extension to the west. This action also updates the airport's geographic coordinates to coincide with the FAA's database.

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. 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 minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures an air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a.

This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

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

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

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for Docket No. FAA-2021-0812 in the Federal Register (86 FR 55752; October 7, 2021), amending RNAV route T-267 in the vicinity of Nome, AK, in support of a large and comprehensive T-route modernization project for the state of Alaska. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting comments on the proposal. There was one comment received supporting this action. The commenter fully supported and endorsed the proposed action.

United States Area Navigation Routes are published in paragraph 6011 of FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The RNAV route listed in this document will be published subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.

In the NPRM, the BALIN, AK, route point was incorrectly listed as a waypoint (WP). This action corrects that error and lists the BALIN, AK, route point as a Fix. This correction is editorial only and does not change the alignment of T-267.

Additionally, subsequent to the NPRM, the FAA determined it was necessary to relocate the JODGU, AK, and ZISDU, AK, WPs to address instrument flight procedure concerns related to two points ( i.e., Fix, navigational aid, waypoint) being located too close to one another. As a result, the latitude/longitude geographic coordinates for the JODGU WP are changed from “Lat. 69°44′11.33″ N, long. 162°59′46.66″ W” to “Lat. 69°44′11.47″ N, long. 163°00′04.08″ W”, and for the ZISDU WP are changed from “Lat. 70°28′08.64″ N, long. 157°25′38.98″ W” to “Lat. 70°28′08.35″ N, long. 157°25′20.99″ W” These changes are minor adjustments to the route structure and move each WP by approximately 600 feet from their proposed locations.

Lastly, the FAA has determined it is necessary to change the NWIAF, AK, and BTURN, AK, WP names to comply with FAA administrative guidance for FIX name reservations. As such, the “NWIAF, AK,” WP is renamed “HIBLA, AK,” and the “BTURN, AK,” WP is renamed “UBASY, AK.” The WP name changes are editorial only and do not change the alignment of T-267.

This action incorporates all of the changes noted above.

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

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by amending RNAV route T-267 in the vicinity of Nome, AK, in support of a large and comprehensive T-route modernization project for the state of Alaska. The route change is described below.

T-267: T-267 extends between the Nome, AK (OME), VHF Omnidirectional Range/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) and the Kotzebue, AK (OTZ), VOR/DME. This action extends the route north from the Kotzebue VOR/DME to the ZISDU, AK, WP to provide alternate navigation for Colored Federal airways B-3 and G-18. The resulting RNAV route extends between the Nome, AK (OME), VOR/DME and the ZISDU, AK, WP.

The full route description of the new RNAV route is the amendment to part 71 as set forth below.

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. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this airspace action of amending RNAV route T-267 in the vicinity of Nome, AK, qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points), and paragraph 5-6.5i, which categorically excludes from further environmental review the establishment of new or revised air traffic control procedures conducted at 3,000 feet or more above ground level (AGL); procedures conducted below 3,000 feet AGL that do not cause traffic to be routinely routed over noise sensitive areas; modifications to currently approved procedures conducted below 3,000 feet AGL that do not significantly increase noise over noise sensitive areas; and increases in minimum altitudes and landing minima. As such, this action is not expected to result in any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis. Accordingly, the FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact study.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 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 amends the Class E surface airspace and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Fort Dodge Regional Airport, Fort Dodge, IA, by updating geographic coordinates of the airport in the airspace legal description to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. This update is administrative change and does not change the airspace boundaries or operating requirements.

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

This amendment to 14 CFR part 71:

Amends the Class E surface airspace at Fort Dodge Regional Airport, Fort Dodge, IA, by updating the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; and updates the outdated terms “Notice to Airmen” with “Notice to Air Missions” and “Airport/Facility Directory” with “Chart Supplement”;

And amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Fort Dodge Regional Airport by updating the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

This action is an administrative change and does not affect the airspace boundaries or operating requirements; therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) is unnecessary.

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 only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

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

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

On April 26, 2022, the Department issued a final rule titled “Definition of `Frame or Receiver' and Identification of Firearms,” amending ATF's regulations in 27 CFR parts 447, 478, and 479 (87 FR 24652), with an effective date of August 24, 2022.

Due to the complexity of this rulemaking process and the resulting significant number of comments and revisions in response, the final rule inadvertently contained some technical errors in the regulatory text that this document corrects. As reflected below, this document corrects the following technical errors in the regulatory text as adopted in the final rule:

• Incorrectly labeling subparagraphs in § 479.102(a)(3) and (b)(3) with letters instead of Roman numerals.

• Omitting part of the Federal Register date instruction in § 478.12(f)(2), with the result that the rule as published contained the instruction parenthetical instead of the actual date.

• Causing confusion by including the word “and” between two terms describing handgun grips in § 478.12(a)(3), instead of indicating that the second term was an example of the first term.

• Leaving out a reference to the manufacturer role of people identified as “you” in § 479.102(a)(6), and leaving out the words “or remade” in the phrase “remanufactured or remade” in the definition of “Privately made firearm (PMF)” in § 478.11. In both instances, these omissions could create confusion about the actors in those provisions.

• Failing to replace the term “firearm” with “frame or receiver” in the last sentence of the definition of “Importer's or manufacturer's serial number” in § 478.11, as intended, thus unintentionally broadening the requirement to preserve the licensee name, city, or state wherever it may appear on a fully assembled weapon. Instead, the purpose of this provision is to require preservation of the licensee name, city, or state only on the frame or receiver of any such weapon.

• Failing to include a cross-reference to the definition of “privately made firearm” in § 479.11, potentially creating inconsistencies between the regulations.

• Failing to replace a broad reference in § 478.125(i) to requirements “in this part” with the specific section reference to the timeframe required by § 478.125(e) for firearms that better identifies and clarifies those requirements for users.

• And, in four paragraphs, §§ 478.12(a)(1), (a)(4)(iv), and (d) and 478.92(a)(1)(iii), inadvertently indicating that a sear (or equivalent) component was the primary energized component of a handgun as a result of the placement of the terms in relation to each other, also creating confusion for readers.

This document corrects those technical errors before the final rule's effective date.

The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulation in 33 CFR 100.501 for the Hampton Cup Regatta from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on September 17th and 18th, 2022. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. Coast Guard regulations for marine events within the Fifth Coast Guard District, § 100.501, specifies the location of the regulated area for the Hampton Cup Regatta which encompasses portions of Mill Creek. During the enforcement periods, entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port.

In addition to this notification of enforcement in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulation in 33 CFR 100.703, Table 1 to § 100.703, Item No. 5, for the St. Petersburg P-1 Powerboat Grand Prix, from 6:30 a.m. until 7:00 p.m., on September 3, 2022 through September 4, 2022. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation for recurring marine events, in § 100.703, Table 1 to § 100.703, Item No. 5, specifies the location of the regulated area for the St. Petersburg P-1 Powerboat Grand Prix which encompasses portions of Tampa Bay near the St. Petersburg Pier. During the enforcement period, as reflected in § 100.703(c), all persons and vessels, except those persons and vessels participating in the high speed boat races, are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area without obtaining permission from the COTP St. Petersburg or a designated representative. If you are the operator of a vessel in the regulated area you must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or any designated representative. Spectators are only allowed inside the regulated area if they remain within a designated spectator area. Spectators may contact the COTP St. Petersburg or designated representative to request permission to enter, transit through, remain within, or anchor in the regulated area. If permission is granted, spectators must abide by the directions of the COTP St. Petersburg or a designated representative.

In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners and/or marine information broadcasts.

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg did not receive sufficient notice of this visit. Therefore, the Coast Guard lacks sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule. Any delay in the effective date of this rule would be contrary to the public interest as immediate action is needed to protect the official party, the public, and the surrounding waterway from sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, or other causes of a similar nature.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date of this rule would be contrary to the public interest because immediate action is needed to provide adequate security to protect the official party, the public, and the surrounding waterway.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port Sector St Petersburg (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with this Government ceremony starting August 30, 2022, has security concern for the official party within a 100-yard radius of the Tampa Convention center in the waters of the Seddon Channel and the Hillsborough River. This rule is needed to protect the official party, the public, and the surrounding waterway from potential terrorist threats.

This rule establishes a security zone from 5 a.m. through 4 p.m., on August 30, 2022. The security zone will cover all navigable waters of Seddon Channel and the Hillborough River within 100 yards of the Tampa Convention Center, Tampa, FL. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the security of the VIP during the scheduled event. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter, transit through, anchor in or remain within the security zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the security zone is granted by the COTP or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the COTP or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the security zone by Broadcast Notice to Mariners, or by on-scene designated representatives.

Persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the security zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative. Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the security zone may contact the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg by telephone at (727) 824-7506, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the security zone is granted by the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the security zone by Broadcast Notice to Mariners and on-scene designated representatives.

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

This regulatory action determination is based on: (1) the security zone will be enforced for approximately 11 hours; (2) although persons and vessels will not be able to enter or remain in the security zone without authorization from the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative, they may operate in the surrounding area during the enforcement period; and (3) persons and vessels may still enter or remain in this security zone if authorized by the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative.

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 rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the security zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

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 rule. If the 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.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

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

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

We have analyzed this 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 determined 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 rule involves a security zone lasting only 11 hours that will prohibit entry within 100 yards of the Tampa Convention Center in the waters of the Seddon Channel and Hillsborough River. It is 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 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.

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.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

On January 1, 2021, the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (Pub. L. 116-283) (Authorization Act) was enacted. Section 8343 (134 Stat. 4710) calls for the Coast Guard to conduct a two-year pilot program to establish and implement a process to establish safety zones to address special activities in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). 1 These special activities include space activities  2 carried out by United States (U.S.) citizens. Terms used to describe space activities, including launch, reentry site, and reentry vehicle, are defined in 51 U.S.C. 50902, and in this document.

The Coast Guard has long monitored space activities impacting the maritime domain and taken actions to ensure the safety of vessels and the public as needed during space launch  3 operations. In conducting this activity, the Coast Guard engages with other government agencies, including the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and private space operators, including Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX). This engagement is necessary to ensure statutory and regulatory obligations are met to ensure the safety of launch operations and waterway users.

During this engagement, the Coast Guard was informed of space reentry vehicles and recovery operations in the U.S. EEZ. In accordance with 51 U.S.C. Section 50902, “reentry vehicle” is defined as a vehicle designed to return from Earth orbit or outer space to Earth, or a reusable launch vehicle designed to return from Earth orbit or outer space to Earth, substantially intact. SpaceX, a U.S. company, has identified three reentry sites  4 within the U.S. EEZ of the Captain of the Port Sector Mobile area of responsibility (AOR) expected to be used for the splashdown  5 and recovery of reentry vehicles. All of these sites are located in the Gulf of Mexico off the Coast of Florida (FL).

On May 4, 2022, we published a temporary final rule in the Federal Register (87 FR 26276) for two anticipated reentry vehicle recovery missions within the Captain of the Port Sector Mobile AOR offshore of Panama City, Pensacola, and Tallahassee, FL, from April 17, 2022, through May 15, 2022. Based on the date the Coast Guard was informed of the reentry, and the immediate need to establish the safety zone, the Coast Guard did not have sufficient time to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for that rule.

The purpose of this rule is to ensure the protection of vessels and waterway users in the U.S. EEZ from the potential hazards created by reentry vehicle splashdowns and recovery operations, and the safe recovery of reentry vehicles and personnel involved in reentry services. 6 The Coast Guard is proposing this rule under authority of section 8343 of the Authorization Act.

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM with respect to this rule because it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Crew-3 capsule recovery mission was approved and scheduled less than 30 days before the need for the three safety zones to be in place starting on August 16, 2022. Publishing an NPRM would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest since the missions would begin before completion of the rulemaking process, thereby inhibiting the Coast Guard's ability to protect against the hazards associated with the recovery missions.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date of this rule would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest because the temporary safety zones must be established by August 16, 2022, to mitigate safety concerns during the capsule recovery missions.

The Coast Guard is establishing three temporary safety zones in the U.S. EEZ for the safe reentry vehicle splashdown and recovery of reentry vehicles launched by SpaceX in support of NASA missions between August 16, 2022 and September 30, 2022, with one vehicle recovery taking place in the month of August and one vehicle recovery taking place in the month of September.

The temporary safety zones are located within the Captain of the Port Sector Mobile AOR offshore of Panama City, Pensacola, and Tallahassee, FL in the Gulf of Mexico. The temporary final rule prohibits U.S.-flagged vessels from entering any of the safety zones unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Mobile or a designated representative. Because the safety zones are within the U.S. EEZ, only U.S.-flagged vessels would be subject to enforcement. However, all foreign-flagged vessels are encouraged to remain outside the safety zones.

The three temporary safety zones are located off the coast of FL in the Gulf of Mexico in the following areas:

(1) Pensacola site: All waters from surface to bottom encompassed within the following coordinates connecting a line from Point 1, thence to Point 2, thence to Point 3, and thence to point 4, connecting back to Point 1:

(2) Panama City site: All waters from surface to bottom encompassed within the following coordinates connecting a line from Point 1, thence to Point 2, thence to Point 3, and thence to point 4, connecting back to Point 1:

(3) Tallahassee site: All waters from surface to bottom encompassed within the following coordinates connecting a line from Point 1, thence to Point 2, thence to Point 3, and thence to point 4, connecting back to Point 1:

The coordinates for the safety zones are based on the furthest north, east, south, and west points of the reentry vehicles splashdown and are determined from data and modeling by SpaceX and NASA. The coordinates take into account the trajectories of the reentry vehicles coming out of orbit, the potential risk to the public, and the proximity to medical facilities that meet NASA requirements. The specific coordinates for the three temporary safety zones are presented in the regulatory text at the end of this document.

To the extent feasible, the Captain of the Port Sector Mobile or a designated representative will inform the public of the activation of the three temporary safety zones by Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM) on VHF-FM channel 16 and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletin (MSIB) (as appropriate) at least two days before the reentry vehicle splashdown. These broadcasts will identify the approximate date(s) during which a reentry vehicle splashdown and recovery operations would occur.

To the extent possible, twenty-four hours before a reentry vehicle splashdown and recovery operations, the Captain of the Port Sector Mobile or designated representative will inform the public that only one of the three safety zones would remain activated (subject to enforcement) until announced by BNM on VHF-FM channel 16, and/or MSIB (as appropriate) that the safety zone is no longer subject to enforcement. The specific temporary safety zone to be enforced will be based on varying mission and environmental factors, including atmospheric conditions, sea state, weather, and orbital calculations.

The MSIB will include the geographic coordinates of the activated safety zone, a map identifying the location of the activated safety zone, and information related to potential hazards associated with a reentry vehicle splashdown and recovery operations associated with space activities, including marine environmental and public health hazards, such the release of hydrazine and other potential oil or hazardous substances.

When the safety zone is activated, the Captain of the Port Sector Mobile or a designated representative will be able to restrict U.S.-flagged vessel movement including but not limited to transiting, anchoring, or mooring within the safety zone to protect vessels from hazards associated with space activities. The activated safety zone will ensure the protection of vessels and waterway users from the potential hazards created by reentry vehicle splashdowns and recovery operations. This includes protection during the recovery of a reentry vehicle, and the protection of personnel involved in reentry services and space support vessels. 7

After a reentry vehicle splashdown, the Captain of the Port Sector Mobile or a designated representative will grant general permission to come no closer than three nautical miles within the activated safety zone from any reentry vehicle or space support vessel engaged in the recovery operations. The recovery operations are expected to last approximately one hour. That should allow for sufficient time to let any potential toxic materials clear the reentry vehicle, recovery of the reentry vehicle by the space support vessel, and address any potential medical evacuations for any personnel involved in reentry services that were onboard the reentry vehicle.

Once a reentry vehicle and any personnel involved in reentry services are removed from the water and secured onboard a space support vessel, the Captain of the Port Sector Mobile or designated representative would issue a BNM on VHF-FM channel 16 announcing the activated safety zone is no longer subject to enforcement. A photograph of a reentry vehicle and space support vessel expected to use the reentry sites are available in the docket.

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and scope of the safety zones. The safety zones are limited in size and location to only those areas where capsule re-entry is reasonably occurs. The safety zones are limited in scope, as vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around the safety zones which will impact a small part of the United States exclusive economic zone (EEZ) within the Gulf of Mexico.

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 rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The safety zone activation and thus restriction to the public is expected to be approximately two hours per capsule recovery, and we anticipate one splash down during the effective period of this rule. Vessels would be able to transit around the activated safety zone location during this recovery. We do not anticipate any significant economic impact resulting from activation of the safety zones.

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 rule. If the 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.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

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

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

We have analyzed this 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 determined 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 rule involves the establishing of three temporary safety zones, one of which may be activated on one occasion for approximately two hours between August 16, 2022 and September 30, 2022 for a SpaceX and NASA mission. It is 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 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.

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.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to publish an NPRM because we must take immediate action to establish this safety zone by September 9, 2022, to respond to potential safety hazards associated with the event. Potential safety hazards include low-hanging ropes and cables, and helicopter rotor downwash and noise. Event planners did not notify the Coast Guard with details of the event until August 11, 2022.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date of this rule would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest because immediate action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with the helicopter safety demonstrations.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port, Maryland-National Capital Region (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the helicopter safety demonstrations on September 9, 2022, September 10, 2022, and September 11, 2022, will be a safety concern for anyone near the demonstration site. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone before, during, and after the scheduled events.

This rule establishes a safety zone from 1 p.m. on September 9, 2022, through 4 p.m. on September 11, 2022. This safety zone will be enforced from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. on September 9, 2022, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. on September 10, 2022, and from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. on September 11, 2022. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of the Inner Harbor, encompassed by a line connecting the following points: beginning at Inner Harbor Pier 6 at position latitude 39°16′59″ N, longitude 076°36′12″ W, thence south to the Harborview Towers pier at latitude 39°16′41″ N, longitude 076°36′12″ W, thence northerly and easterly along the shoreline to and terminating at the point of origin located in Baltimore, MD. The area of the safety zone is approximately 2,000 yards in length and 500 yards in width. The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters before, during, and after the demonstrations. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the location and duration of the safety zone. This safety zone will impact the Inner Harbor for 9 total enforcement hours. We anticipate that there will be no vessels that are unable to conduct business. Commercial fishing vessels and towing vessels are not impacted by this rulemaking. Excursion vessels and water taxis do operate in this area, however, the impact to these waterway users is minimized because of the extensive outreach that has been conducted for the Maryland Fleet Week and Flyover Baltimore 2022 and the involvement of the water taxis in the event planning process. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone.

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 rule will 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 V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

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 rule. If the 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.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

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

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

We have analyzed this 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 determined 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 rule involves a safety zone lasting only 9 total enforcement hours that will prohibit entry within the Inner Harbor. It is 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 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.

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.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

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

On February 22, 2013, the EPA issued a Federal Register notice of proposed rulemaking outlining EPA's policy at the time with respect to SIP provisions related to periods of SSM. EPA analyzed specific SSM SIP provisions and explained how each one either did or did not comply with the CAA with regard to excess emission events. 1 For each SIP provision that EPA determined to be inconsistent with the CAA, EPA proposed to find that the existing SIP provision was substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements and thus proposed to issue a SIP call under CAA section 110(k)(5). On September 17, 2014, EPA issued a document supplementing and revising what the Agency had previously proposed on February 22, 2013, in light of a D.C. Circuit decision that determined the CAA precludes authority of the EPA to create affirmative defense provisions applicable to private civil suits. EPA outlined its updated policy that affirmative defense SIP provisions are not consistent with CAA requirements. EPA proposed in the supplemental proposal document to apply its revised interpretation of the CAA to specific affirmative defense SIP provisions and proposed SIP calls for those provisions where appropriate (79 FR 55920, September 17, 2014).

On June 12, 2015, pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(5), EPA finalized “State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking; Restatement and Update of EPA's SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction,” hereafter referred to as the “2015 SSM SIP Action.”  2 The 2015 SSM SIP Action clarified, restated, and updated EPA's interpretation that SSM exemptions and affirmative defense SIP provisions are inconsistent with CAA requirements. The 2015 SSM SIP Action found that certain SIP provisions in 36 states were substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements and issued a SIP call to those states to submit SIP revisions to address the inadequacies. The EPA established an 18-month deadline by which the affected states had to submit such SIP revisions. States were required to submit corrective revisions to their SIPs in response to the SIP calls by November 22, 2016.

The EPA issued a Memorandum in October 2020 (2020 Memorandum), which stated that certain provisions governing SSM periods in SIPs could be viewed as consistent with CAA requirements. 3 Importantly, the 2020 Memorandum stated that it “did not alter in any way the determinations made in the 2015 SSM SIP Action that identified specific state SIP provisions that were substantially inadequate to meet the requirements of the Act.” Accordingly, the 2020 Memorandum had no direct impact on the SIP call issued to EKAPCD and ICAPCD in 2015. It also did not alter the EPA's prior proposal from 2017 to approve the EKAPCD and ICAPCD SIP revisions at issue in this action. The 2020 Memorandum did, however, indicate the EPA's intent at the time to review SIP calls that were issued in the 2015 SSM SIP Action to determine whether the EPA should maintain, modify, or withdraw particular SIP calls through future agency actions.

On September 30, 2021, EPA's Deputy Administrator withdrew the 2020 Memorandum and announced the EPA's return to the policy articulated in the 2015 SSM SIP Action (2021 Memorandum). 4 As articulated in the 2021 Memorandum, SIP provisions that contain exemptions or affirmative defense provisions are not consistent with CAA requirements and, therefore, generally are not approvable if contained in a SIP submission. This policy approach is intended to ensure that all communities and populations, including overburdened communities, receive the full health and environmental protections provided by the CAA. 5 The 2021 Memorandum also retracted the prior statement from the 2020 Memorandum of EPA's plans to review and potentially modify or withdraw particular SIP calls. That statement no longer reflects EPA's intent. EPA intends to implement the principles laid out in the 2015 SSM SIP Action as the Agency takes action on SIP submissions, including EKAPCD's and ICAPCD's SIP submittal, provided in response to the 2015 SIP call.

With regards to EKAPCD and ICAPCD, the SIP call identified Rules 111 because the rules contained improper affirmative defenses for excess emissions during startup, shutdown, and malfunction events. On May 1, 2017 (82 FR 20295), the EPA proposed to approve removal of Rules 111 from the California SIP.

As discussed in the proposal, EPA proposed to approve the removal of Rules 111 from the EKAPCD and ICAPCD portions of the California SIP because such removal is consistent with CAA requirements and would correct the deficiency identified by the Agency in the 2015 SSM SIP Action. EKAPCD and ICAPCD are retaining the affirmative defenses solely for state law purposes, outside of the EPA approved SIP. Removal of the affirmative defenses from the SIP is also consistent with the EPA policy for exclusion of “state law only” provisions from SIPs and will serve to minimize any potential confusion about the inapplicability of the affirmative defense provisions in Federal court enforcement actions.

The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. EPA acknowledges that over four years have elapsed since the comment period closed. No additional comment period is needed because nothing in the intervening time period—including the issuance and subsequent withdrawal of the 2020 Memorandum—changed the basis for EPA's proposed action or the public's opportunity to view and comment on that basis. Accordingly, the May 1, 2017 proposal provided the public with a full opportunity to comment on the issues raised by the proposed action. During this period, we received one comment. A summary of the comment from the SSM Coalition (“commenter”) and EPA's response is provided below.

Comment: The commenter states that the approach EPA took in the SSM SIP action is based on an improper view of EPA's SIP call authority, an inappropriate view of the flexibility Congress gave states to develop SIPs, an incorrect reading of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (D.C. Circuit) decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, an incorrect reading of the definition of “emission limitation and emission standard” in CAA section 302(k), and “unreasonable or insufficiently supported assumptions” about SSM events and emissions during SSM periods. The commenter notes that these objections to EPA's approach were stated in detail in comments on the proposed SSM SIP action and in briefs filed in the D.C. Circuit in consolidated challenges to the SSM SIP action, which the commenter incorporates by reference into its comment letter.

Pointing to the various objections that the SSM Coalition and others raised about the SSM SIP action, the commenter concludes that it is inappropriate for the EPA to finalize its proposed approval of EKAPCD's and ICAPCD's response to the SSM SIP call until litigation before the D.C. Circuit is resolved. In support of this claim, the commenter points to statements made in 2017 by the Trump Administration about reviewing the underlying basis of the SSM SIP action and suggests that EPA withdraw the proposed action on EKAPCD's and ICAPCD's Rules 111 because there may be a different rationale for EPA's position on the California SIP revisions after review of the underlying legal and policy issues by the D.C. Circuit and/or EPA.

Response: The EPA respectfully disagrees with this comment. To the extent that the commenter is incorporating by reference comments made during the public comment period on the proposed SSM SIP action, we point to our responses in the 2015 final rulemaking and note that the comments were carefully considered before finalizing that action. The comments on the proposed SSM SIP action do not alter the basis for our proposed or final actions on the EKAPCD and ICAPCD submittals, which are based on the 2015 SSM SIP final rulemaking.

The Agency also acknowledges the commenter's concern that there exist pending challenges to the 2015 SSM SIP action in the D.C. Circuit. However, there is no requirement or expectation that EPA must postpone action while awaiting a court decision. EKAPCD and ICAPCD have submitted SIP revisions to the Agency that are fully approvable for the reasons outlined in the 2017 proposal notice. As a result, EPA has determined that it is appropriate to take action to approve the EKAPCD and ICAPCD SIP revisions in accordance with applicable CAA requirements. Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). The commenter has pointed to no new alleged deficiency or other aspect that would lead the Agency to determine that the SIP revisions should be disapproved or that full approval of the SIP revisions is not otherwise appropriate.

As we recently reaffirmed in the 2021 Memorandum, EPA is implementing policy consistent with that outlined in the 2015 SSM SIP Action. That policy aligns with previous court decisions, including the D.C. Circuit's ruling in 2008, which found that inclusion of SSM exemptions in section 112 standards is not allowed under the CAA due to the generally applicable definition of emission limitations. 6 Additionally, in 2014 the D.C. Circuit vacated a provision in EPA regulations that allowed an affirmative defense if it met specific criteria. The court stated that EPA lacked authority to create such a defense because it would impermissibly encroach upon the authority of Federal courts to find liability or impose remedies. 7 It was in light of the 2008 and 2014 court cases, as well as concerns about the public health impacts of SSM, that led EPA in its 2015 action to clarify and update its SSM policy to explain that automatic exemptions, discretionary exemptions, overly broad enforcement discretion provisions, and affirmative defense provisions like the ones at issue in this action, will generally be viewed as inconsistent with CAA requirements.

No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the rules as described in our proposed action. Therefore, as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act and for the reasons identified in the 2017 proposal, the EPA is fully approving the removal of these rules from the EKAPCD and ICAPCD portions of the California SIP. The Agency's final approval of this submission fully corrects the inadequacies in the EKAPCD and ICAPCD portions of the California SIP that were identified in the EPA's 2015 SSM SIP Action.

In this document, the EPA is amending regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. As described in section I of the preamble and as set forth below in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52, EPA is removing provisions from the Kern County and Imperial County portions of the California State Implementation Plan, which is incorporated by reference in accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR part 51. The EPA has made and will continue to make the State Implementation Plan generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 9 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 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 Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and

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

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. 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).

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 21, 2022. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

Throughout this document whenever “we,” or “our” is used, it refers to the EPA.

On January 13, 2022, Oregon submitted a request for the EPA to redesignate the Oakridge nonattainment area to attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. On May 5, 2022, the EPA proposed to determine that the Oakridge, Oregon nonattainment area met the statutory requirements for redesignation under the CAA and proposed to approve, as a revision to the Oregon SIP, the State's plan for maintaining the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS through the year 2035 (87 FR 26710). The EPA's proposed approval was based upon the EPA's determination that the area continues to attain the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS  1 and that all other redesignation criteria have been met for the area. In addition, in accordance with 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2), the EPA proposed to find adequate and approve the Oakridge 2015, 2025, 2030 and 2035 PM 2.5 motor vehicle emission budgets for use in transportation conformity determinations.

An explanation of the CAA requirements, a detailed analysis of the submittal, and the EPA's reasons for approval were provided in the notice of proposed rulemaking and will not be restated here. The public comment period closed on June 6, 2022. We received no public comments, therefore, we are finalizing the action as proposed.

The EPA is redesignating the Oakridge, Oregon PM 2.5 area to attainment and we are approving the associated maintenance plan as a revision to the Oregon SIP. The designation status of the Oakridge, Oregon PM 2.5 area under 40 CFR part 81 will be revised to attainment upon the effective date of this final action. We are also finding adequate and approving the PM 2.5 motor vehicle emission budgets included in the Oakridge maintenance plan.

In addition, the EPA is approving and incorporating by reference into the Oregon SIP, the submitted revisions to LRAPA Title 29 to reflect the Oakridge area's revised air quality designations, updated area names, and shift from the list of nonattainment areas to the list of maintenance areas; specifically, sections 29-0010, 29-0020, 29-0030, 29-0040, 29-0050, 29-0060, 29-0070, 29-0080, 29-0090, 29-0300, 29-0310 and 29-0320 (regulations governing the designation of air quality areas in Lane County, Oregon and their legal descriptions), State effective November 18, 2021.

Finally, the EPA is approving and incorporating into the SIP the Lane County Code Chapter 9—Restriction on Use of Solid Fuel Space Heating Devices, Sections 9.120-9.140 (regulating the use of solid fuel heating devices to reduce particulate emissions and improve air quality), and the City of Oakridge Ordinance No. 920—An Ordinance Amending Section 7 of Ordinance 914 and Adopting New Standards for the Oakridge Air Pollution Control Program; Section Two (3)—Solid Fuel Burning Devices—Prohibitions (prohibiting emissions from solid-fuel heating devices with an opacity greater than 20%). Upon the effective date of this action the SIP will contain the Oakridge Ordinance No. 920, city approved October 20, 2016 (except section 6) and the Lane County Code Chapter 9, county approved February 9, 2017 (except 9.145 and 9.150). Incorporation of these measures will strengthen the Oregon SIP and ensure PM 2.5 emission reductions in the Oakridge area.

We note, the EPA is taking separate and final action on the Oakridge PM 10 redesignation request, and maintenance plan, which were also included in the January 13, 2022 submission.

In this document, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are finalizing the incorporation by reference of the LRAPA regulatory provisions described in section II of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 10 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by the EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the Clean Air Act as of the effective date of the EPA's approval of the final rule, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation. 2

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air 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 Clean Air Act. 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 Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and

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

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. 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).

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 21, 2022. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:

Throughout this document whenever “we,” or “our” is used, it refers to the EPA.

On January 13, 2022, Oregon submitted a request for the EPA to redesignate the Oakridge nonattainment area to attainment for the 1987 24-hour PM 10 NAAQS under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. On May 9, 2022, the EPA proposed to determine that the Oakridge, Oregon nonattainment area met the statutory requirements for redesignation under the CAA and proposed to approve, as a revision to the Oregon SIP, the State's plan for maintaining the 1987 24-hour PM 10 NAAQS through the year 2035 (87 FR 27540). The EPA's proposed approval was based upon the EPA's determination that the area continues to attain the 1987 24-hour PM 10 NAAQS  1 and that all other redesignation criteria have been met for the area. In addition, in accordance with 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2), the EPA proposed to find adequate and approve the Oakridge 2015, 2025, 2030 and 2035 PM 10 motor vehicle emission budgets.

An explanation of the CAA requirements, a detailed analysis of the submittal, and the EPA's reasons for approval were provided in the notice of proposed rulemaking and will not be restated here. The public comment period closed on June 8, 2022. We received no public comments, therefore, we are finalizing the action as proposed.

The EPA is redesignating the Oakridge, Oregon PM 10 area to attainment and we are approving the associated maintenance plan as a revision to the Oregon SIP. The designation status of the Oakridge, Oregon PM 10 area under 40 CFR part 81 will be revised to attainment upon the effective date of this final action. We are also finding adequate and approving the PM 10 motor vehicle emission budgets included in the Oakridge maintenance plan.

Finally, the EPA is removing from the SIP and from incorporation by reference the outdated City of Oakridge Ordinance 815, city approved August 15, 1996, which restricts use of solid fuel space heating devices during air pollution episodes, because it has been superseded by the City of Oakridge Ordinance No. 920, approved by the EPA on February 08, 2018 (83 FR 5537).

We note, the EPA is taking a separate and final action on the Oakridge PM 2.5 redesignation request and maintenance plan, the Lane County Codes, the City of Oakridge Ordinance No. 920 and the LRAPA Title 29 rule revisions, which were also included in the January 13, 2022 submission.

In this document, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. As described in section II of this preamble, the EPA is removing City of Oakridge Ordinance 815, which is outdated. This material has been approved by the EPA for exclusion from the SIP as of the effective date of EPA's approval of the final rule. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, incorporation by reference materials generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 10 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air 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 Clean Air Act. 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 Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and

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

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. 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).

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 21, 2022. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

This document announces that, on July 25, 2022, OMB approved, for a period of three years, the information collection requirements relating to §§ 64.2500 and 76.2000 of the Commission's rules, as contained in the Commission's 2022 MTE Order, FCC 22-12, published at 87 FR 17181 on March 28, 2022. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1305.

The Commission publishes this document as an announcement of the compliance date of the rules. If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed below, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Nicole Ongele, Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20002. Please include the OMB Control Number, 3060-1305, in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via email at PRA@fcc.gov.

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 and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received OMB approval on July 25, 2022 for the information collection requirements contained in the Commission's modifications to the Commission's rules in 47 CFR parts 64 and 76. Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1305.

The foregoing notification is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507. The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:

OMB Control Number: 3060-1305.

OMB Approval Date: July 25, 2022.

Expiration Date: July 31, 2025.

Title: Required Disclosure of Exclusive Marketing Arrangements in MTEs, Rule Sections 64.2500(e) and 76.2000(d).

Form Number: N/A.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 515 respondents; 24,000,000 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 3 hours.

Frequency of Response: Third-party disclosure requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 1,545 hours.

Total Annual Cost: No cost.

Obligation to Respond: Mandatory. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 201(b) and 628(b).

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: No questions of a confidential nature are asked.

Needs and Uses: In Improving Competitive Broadband Access to Multiple Tenant Environments, GN Docket No. 17-142, Report and Order and Declaratory Ruling, FCC 22-12 (Feb. 11, 2022), the Commission, among other things, adopted new rules requiring providers (common carriers and multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) subject to 47 U.S.C. 628(b)) to disclose the existence of exclusive marketing arrangements that they have with owners of multi-tenant premises (MTEs). An exclusive marketing arrangement is an arrangement, either written or in practice, between an MTE owner and a provider that gives the provider, usually in exchange for some consideration, the exclusive right to certain means of marketing its service to tenants of the MTE. The required disclosure must be included on all written marketing material from the provider directed at tenants or prospective tenants of an MTE subject to the arrangement. The disclosure must explain in clear, conspicuous, legible, and visible language that the provider has the right to exclusively market its communications services to tenants in the MTE, that such a right does not suggest that the provider is the only entity that can provide communications services to tenants in the MTE, and that service from an alternative provider may be available. The purposes of the compelled disclosure are to remedy tenant confusion regarding the impact of exclusive marketing arrangements, prevent the evasion of our exclusive access rules, and, in turn, promote competition for communications services in MTEs.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends parts 64 and 76 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows: