AD 2022-14-05, Amendment 39-22110 (87 FR 54609, September 7, 2022) (AD 2022-14-05), superseded AD 2015-12-03, Amendment 39-18176 (80 FR 34252, June 16, 2015) (AD 2015-12-03). AD 2022-14-05 retains the requirements for repetitive freeplay inspections and lubrication of the right and left elevators, rudder, and rudder tab, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. AD 2022-14-05 also requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, for certain other airplanes, to incorporate a revised or new elevator freeplay maintenance procedure, as applicable. AD 2022-14-05 applies to all The Boeing Company Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, and -300ER series airplanes, and certain Model 777F airplanes.

As published, paragraphs (j)(3) and (l) of AD 2022-14-05 are incorrect.

Paragraph (j)(3) of AD 2022-14-05 requires incorporating a revision of the elevator freeplay dial indicator limit to “0.34 in. (152 mm) or less.” The correct value is “0.34 in. (8.636 mm) or less.”

Additionally, paragraph (l) of AD 2022-14-05 inadvertently omitted credit for certain actions that was previously provided in AD 2015-12-03 for the following service information: Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-27-0062, dated July 18, 2006, and Revision 1, dated October 1, 2009. The FAA intended for that service information to be retained as credit for the corresponding retained actions in AD 2022-14-05.

The FAA reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-27-0062, Revision 4, dated July 15, 2021. This service information specifies procedures for changing the elevator freeplay instructions by adding changes to the input force, elevator freeplay limit, and power control unit (PCU) bypass test setup.

This AD also requires Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-27-0062, Revision 2, dated January 27, 2014, which the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by reference as of July 21, 2015 (80 FR 34252, June 16, 2015).

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

This document corrects two errors and correctly adds the AD as an amendment to 14 CFR 39.13. Although no other part of the preamble or regulatory information has been corrected, the FAA is publishing the entire rule in the Federal Register .

The effective date of this AD remains October 12, 2022.

Since this action only corrects a freeplay indicator value and adds credit service information, it has no adverse economic impact and imposes no additional burden on any person. Therefore, the FAA has determined that notice and public comment procedures are unnecessary.

Background and Legal Authority

Under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), as amended in 2015 by the Improving Regulatory Transparency for New Medical Therapies Act (section 2(b) of Pub. L. 114-89), when the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) receives notification from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that the Secretary has approved a certain new drug and HHS recommends control in the CSA schedule II-V, DEA is required to issue an interim final rule (IFR), with opportunity for public comment and to request a hearing, controlling the drug within a specified 90-day timeframe and to subsequently issue a final rule. 21 U.S.C. 811(j). When controlling a drug pursuant to subsection (j), DEA must apply the scheduling criteria of 21 U.S.C. 811 (b) through (d) and 812(b). 21 U.S.C. 811(j)(3).

On January 7, 2022, DEA received notification that the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved, on the same date, a new drug application (NDA) for QUVIVIQ (daridorexant) tablets for use as a treatment of adult patients with insomnia, characterized by difficulties with sleep onset and/or sleep maintenance. Daridorexant, chemically known as [(S)-2-(5-chloro-4-methyl-1 H -benzo[ d ]imidazol-2-yl)-2-methylpyrrolidin-1-yl](5-methoxy-2-(2 H -1,2,3-triazol-2-yl)phenyl)methanone, is a new molecular entity (NME) with central nervous system activity. Previously, on December 22, 2021, DEA received HHS's recommendation that DEA place daridorexant and “its salts” in schedule IV of the CSA, in the event that FDA approves the NDA for daridorexant. On April 7, 2022, DEA, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(j), published an IFR (87 FR 20313) to place daridorexant (including its salts, isomers, and salts of isomers) in schedule IV of the CSA; the regulatory text only listed the chemical name for daridorexant. In the preamble of the IFR, DEA incorrectly misspelled the proprietary name for daridorexant's approved drug product as “QUIVIVIQ.” The preamble of this final rule now correctly uses “QUVIVIQ.” It bears emphasis that the regulatory text used in this final rule remains unchanged from that used in the IFR.

The IFR provided an opportunity for interested persons to submit comments, as well as to file a request for hearing or waiver of hearing, on or before May 9, 2022. DEA did not receive any requests for hearing or waivers of hearing.

In response to the IFR, DEA received one comment. The submission was from an anonymous commenter. The commenter supported the placement of daridorexant in schedule IV of the CSA, and noted its safety, effectiveness, and approved indication for use as a treatment of patients with insomnia.

DEA Response: DEA appreciates the support for this rulemaking.

As indicated above, daridorexant has been a schedule IV controlled substance by virtue of an IFR issued by DEA on April 7, 2022. Thus, this final rule does not alter the regulatory requirements applicable to handlers of daridorexant that have been in place since that time. Nonetheless, for informational purposes, DEA restates here those requirements. Daridorexant is subject to the CSA's schedule IV regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions applicable to the manufacture, distribution, reverse distribution, dispensing, importing, exporting, research, and conduct of instructional activities and chemical analysis with, and possession involving schedule IV substances, including the following:

1. Registration. Any person who handles (manufactures, distributes, reverse distributes, dispenses, imports, exports, engages in research, or conducts instructional activities or chemical analysis with, or possesses) daridorexant, or who desires to handle daridorexant, must be registered with DEA to conduct such activities pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 822, 823, 957, and 958 and in accordance with 21 CFR parts 1301 and 1312. Any person who intends to handle daridorexant and is not registered with DEA must submit an application for registration and may not handle daridorexant unless DEA has approved that application, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 822, 823, 957, and 958, and in accordance with 21 CFR parts 1301 and 1312. These registration requirements, however, are not applicable to patients (end users) who possess daridorexant pursuant to a lawful prescription.

2. Disposal of stocks. Any person who obtains a schedule IV registration to handle daridorexant but who subsequently does not desire or is not able to maintain such registration must surrender all quantities of daridorexant, or may transfer all quantities of daridorexant to a person registered with DEA in accordance with 21 CFR part 1317, in addition to all other applicable Federal, State, local, and tribal laws.

3. Security. Daridorexant is subject to schedule III-V security requirements for DEA registrants and must be handled and stored in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.71-1301.77. Non-practitioners handling daridorexant must also comply with the employee screening requirements of 21 CFR 1301.90-1301.93. These requirements, however, are not applicable to patients (end users) who possess daridorexant pursuant to a lawful prescription.

4. Labeling and Packaging. All labels, labeling, and packaging for commercial containers of daridorexant must comply with 21 U.S.C. 825 and be in accordance with 21 CFR part 1302.

5. Inventory. Every DEA registrant who possesses any quantity of daridorexant was required to keep an inventory of daridorexant on hand, as of April 7, 2022, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and in accordance with 21 CFR 1304.03, 1304.04, and 1304.11. These requirements, however, are not applicable to patients (end users) who possess daridorexant pursuant to a lawful prescription.

6. Records and Reports. DEA registrants must maintain records and submit reports for daridorexant, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and 832(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.74(b) and (c) and 1301.76(b) and parts 1304, 1312, and 1317.

7. Prescriptions. All prescriptions for daridorexant, or products containing daridorexant, must comply with 21 U.S.C. 829, and be issued in accordance with 21 CFR parts 1306 and 1311, subpart C.

8. Manufacturing and Distributing. In addition to the general requirements of the CSA and DEA regulations that are applicable to manufacturers and distributors of schedule IV controlled substances, such registrants should be advised that (consistent with the foregoing considerations) any manufacturing or distribution of daridorexant may only be for the legitimate purposes consistent with the drug's labeling, or for research activities authorized by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), as applicable, and the CSA.

9. Importation and Exportation. All importation and exportation of daridorexant must comply with 21 U.S.C. 952, 953, 957, and 958, and be in accordance with 21 CFR part 1312.

10. Liability. Any activity involving daridorexant not authorized by, or in violation of, the CSA or its implementing regulations, is unlawful, and may subject the person to administrative, civil, and/or criminal sanctions.

This final rule adopts, without change, the amendment made by the IFR that is already in effect. Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553) generally requires notice and comment for rulemakings. However, 21 U.S.C. 811(j) provides that in cases where a certain new drug is (1) approved by HHS, under section 505(c) of the FDCA and (2) HHS recommends control in CSA schedule II-V, DEA shall issue an IFR scheduling the drug within 90 days. Additionally, subsection (j) specifies that the rulemaking shall become immediately effective as an IFR without requiring DEA to demonstrate good cause. DEA issued an IFR on April 7, 2022, and solicited public comments on that rule. Subsection (j) further states that after giving interested persons the opportunity to comment and to request a hearing, the Attorney General, as delegated to the Administrator of DEA, shall issue a final rule in accordance with the scheduling criteria of 21 U.S.C. 811(b) through (d) and 812(b). DEA is now responding to the comment submitted by the public and issuing the final rule, in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(j).

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

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

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

This final rule does not have tribal implications warranting the application of E.O. 13175. It does not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612) applies to rules that are subject to notice and comment under section 553(b) of the APA. As noted in the above discussion regarding the applicability of the APA, DEA was not required to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking. Consequently, the RFA does not apply.

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

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

This final rule is not a major rule as defined by the Congressional Review Act (CRA), 5 U.S.C. 804. However, pursuant to the CRA, DEA is submitting a copy of this final rule to the Government Accountability Office, the House, and the Senate under the CRA.

This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on September 26, 2022, by Administrator Anne Milgram. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DEA. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DEA Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of DEA. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register .

The West 79th Street Bridge crossing the AICW, mile 1084.6, at Miami, FL, is a double-leaf bascule bridge with a 21 foot vertical clearance (25 feet charted at the center span) at mean high water in the closed position. The normal operating schedule for the bridge is set forth in 33 CFR 117.261 (mm-1). The East 79th Street Bridge crossing the Miami Beach Channel, mile 2.20, at Miami Beach, FL, is a double-leaf bascule bridge with a 21 foot vertical clearance at mean high water in the closed position. The normal operating schedule for the bridge is set forth in 33 CFR 117.304. Navigation on the waterways consists of recreational and commercial mariners.

North Bay Village with the support of the bridge owner, Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), requested the Coast Guard consider allowing the drawbridges to remain closed to navigation during morning and evening rush hour with top of the hour openings provided at pre-determined times. North Bay Village is requesting this change to assist with alleviating vehicle traffic in the area.

On June 7, 2022, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking entitled, “Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AICW) and Miami Beach Channel, Miami, FL” in the Federal Register (87 FR 34601). We received one hundred twenty-six comments. Those comment will be addressed during the rulemaking.

Under this test deviation both drawbridges shall operate as follows, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, both drawbridges need only open on the hour between 7 a.m. and 10 a.m. Between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m., both drawbridges need only open on the hour and half hour. From 4 p.m. to 7 p.m., both drawbridges need only open on the hour. From 7 p.m. to 7 a.m., both drawbridges shall open on signal. Saturday, Sunday, and Federal holidays, both drawbridges shall open on signal. Vessels that can pass beneath the drawbridges without an opening may do so at any time.

The Coast Guard will also inform waterway users of the temporary change to the operating schedules via the Local and Broadcast Notice to Mariners so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridges must return to their regular operating schedules immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

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

We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal Decision Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. To do so, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2022-0371 in the search box and click “Search.” Next, look for this document in the Search Results column, and click on it. Then click on the Comment option. If your material cannot be submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

To view documents mentioned in this deviation as being available in the docket, find the docket as described in the previous paragraph, and then select “Supporting & Related Material” in the Document Type column. Public comments will also be placed in our online docket and can be viewed by following instructions on the https://www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked Questions web page. We review all comments received, but we will only post comments that address the topic of the deviation. We may choose not to post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we receive. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published of any posting or updates to the docket.

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

I. Table of Abbreviations BNM Broadcast Notice to Mariners CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of the Port DHS Department of Homeland Security EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone FAA Federal Aviation Administration FL Florida FR Federal Register MSIB Marine Safety Information Bulletin NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NM Nautical Mile NOE Notice of Enforcement NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking RNA Regulated Navigation Area § Section U.S. United States U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

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 2-year pilot program to establish and implement a process to establish safety zones to address special activities, 1 including space activities carried out by United States (U.S.) citizens in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). 2 Terms used to describe space activities, including launch, are defined in 51 U.S.C. 50902.

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 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). This engagement is necessary to ensure statutory and regulatory obligations are met to ensure the safety of launch operations and waterway users.

The Coast Guard has an existing permanent regulated navigation area (RNA) that prevents vessels from operating in the waters adjacent to the Cape Canaveral launch area; however, that area only extends to the limits of the territorial seas. 3 With this temporary interim rule, the Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in the Atlantic Ocean in the U.S. EEZ that will abut the existing RNA near Cape Canaveral, FL. The Coast Guard intends to activate the existing RNA in § 165.775 concurrently with the temporary safety zone established by this temporary interim rule for the launch of the Artemis I rocket.

The Artemis I is the first launch of the Artemis Program, and the only Artemis rocket launch anticipated until May of 2024. It is being launched to conduct a test flight for future missions to the moon, and the mission will include orbiting the moon. The Artemis rocket is much larger than most rockets that have been launched from the Eastern Range in Cape Canaveral, FL in recent years. While it is of a similar size to the Space Shuttle and Apollo rockets, an untested rocket of this size has not been launched from Cape Canaveral in decades. As the rocket is much larger, and has never been launched before, there is a higher risk profile than with a typical launch. Additionally, based on the historic nature of this launch it is expected that there will be additional recreational boating traffic; therefore, it has been determined that the best way to reduce risk is to establish this offshore safety zone abutting the established RNA.

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary interim 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 temporary interim rule because doing so would be impracticable. This safety zone must be established by September 27, 2022, in order to protect vessels and waterway users from the potential hazards associated with the next scheduled launch of the Artemis I rocket.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this temporary interim rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date of this temporary interim rule would be contrary to the rule's objectives of ensuring the protection of vessels and waterway users in the U.S. EEZ from the potential hazards created by the next scheduled launch operation.

We are soliciting comments on this rulemaking. If we determine that changes to this rulemaking action are necessary, the Coast Guard will consider comments received in a subsequent temporary interim rule or temporary final rule.

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary interim rule under section 8343 of the Authorization Act. The Seventh District Commander has determined that there are potential hazards in the U.S. EEZ created by the launch of the Artemis I rocket. The purpose of this temporary interim rule is to ensure safety of vessels and waterway users before, during, and after the scheduled launch.

This temporary interim rule establishes a temporary safety zone with an effective date starting with the next scheduled launch on September 27, 2022 through December 31, 2022. However, the temporary safety zone would only be subject to enforcement for 5 to 6 hours for the Artemis I rocket launch from Cape Canaveral, FL. The Coast Guard will inform the public of the activation of the temporary safety zone through a Notice of Enforcement (NOE) that will be issued once the Coast Guard receives notification of the launch date from NASA. The Coast Guard intends to enforce the temporary safety zone for the Artemis I rocket launch with assets on scene to ensure the temporary safety zone is cleared of persons and vessels.

The temporary safety zone will cover certain navigable waters in the path of the rocket being launched. The safety zone will cover approximately 720 square miles, and is rectangular in shape. It will directly abut the RNA established in § 165.775. U.S.-flagged vessels will be prohibited from entering the temporary safety zone unless authorized by the District Commander or the Captain of the Port (COTP) of the Seventh Coast Guard District or a designated representative. Foreign-flagged vessels are encouraged to remain outside the safety zone. The coordinates of the safety zone are provided in the regulatory text.

No U.S. flagged vessel will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the District Commander, the COTP, or a designated representative.

Once the Artemis I rocket has been launched, the safety zone will no longer be needed. At that time, the Coast Guard will notify the public of the cancellation of the safety zone through a Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM), and through social media.

We developed this temporary interim 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 temporary interim rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this temporary interim 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 temporary safety zone. The temporary safety zone is limited in size and location to only to the areas where Artemis I rocket launch may pose a danger to vessels outside the RNA. The temporary safety zone is limited in scope, as vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around the zone. The safety zone is expected to be enforced for approximately 5 to 6 hours for each launch window. After the launch has been completed, and there is no longer any danger to vessels from the Artemis I rocket, the Coast Guard will cancel the safety zone and notify waterway users and vessels of its cancellation. The safety zone will ensure the protection of vessels and waterway users from the potential hazards created by the launch of the Artemis I rocket.

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 temporary interim 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 temporary interim 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 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this temporary interim rule. If the temporary interim 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 temporary interim rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

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

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

We have analyzed this temporary interim 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 temporary interim rule involves enforcement of a safety zone for approximately 5 to 6 hours during the duration of the rocket launch of the Artemis I rocket. The zone will be activated as many times as it is needed until the rocket is launched, or 11:59 p.m. on December 31, 2022, whichever comes first. 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.

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

Submitting comments. We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal Decision Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. To do so, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2022-0799 in the search box and click “Search.” Next, look for this document in the Search Results column, and click on it. Then click on the Comment option. If you cannot submit your material by using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this proposed rule for alternate instructions.

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

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

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of the Port Puget Sound DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

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 Coast Guard was notified of the planned salvage operation on September 16, 2022 and immediate action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with the recovery of the downed aircraft. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we must establish this safety zone by the start of recovery operations on September 26, 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 because immediate action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with the salvage operations.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The COTP has determined that potential hazards associated with salvage operations starting September 26, 2022 will be a safety concern for anyone within a 1000-yard radius of the barge anchored in Mutiny Bay, Whidbey Island. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone during ongoing salvage operations.

This rule establishes a safety zone from 1 a.m. on September 26, 2022 until 10 p.m. October 5, 2022. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters from surface to the bottom within a 1000-yard radius of the barge anchored in position 47°59′25.994″ N 122°35′06.817″ W in Mutiny Bay, Whidbey Island, Washington. The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters during salvage operations of a downed aircraft. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The safety zone may be suspended early at the discretion of the COTP .

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.

This regulatory action determination is based on size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone which would impact a small designated area of Mutiny Bay, Whidbey Island for a total of 10 days and operations may be suspended early at the discretion of the COTP. 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 with a duration of 10 days or until salvage operations are completed. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(d) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination will be produced. 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:

I. Table of Abbreviations COTP Captain of the Port CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final 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 it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The primary justification for this action is that the Coast Guard did not receive final details from the event sponsor for this year's event within the reporting threshold requirements. The Coast Guard has an existing safety zone for this event in 33 CFR 165.786, Table to § 165.786, Item No. 4.1; however, the existing regulation only covers the event when it is scheduled on the last weekend of April. Therefore, the Coast Guard lacks sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule. It would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest to delay promulgating this rule, as it is necessary to protect the safety of participants, spectators, the public, and vessels transiting the waters adjacent to Key West, FL.

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 because the event is taking place on October 1, 2022, and immediate action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with this event.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port Key West (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with open water swim events will be a safety concern for persons and vessels in the regulated area. This rule is needed to ensure the safety of the event participants, the general public, vessels and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone during the 25th Annual Key West Paddle Classic paddle board event.

This rule establishes a moving safety zone on October 1, 2022, for a period of 8 hours, from 7 a.m. until 3 p.m. The moving safety zone will cover all waters within 50 yards in front of the lead safety vessel preceding the first event participants, 50 yards behind the safety vessel trailing the last event participants, and at all times extend 100 yards on either side of safety vessels. The event course begins at Higgs Beach in Key West, Florida, moves west to the area offshore of Fort Zachary Taylor Historic State Park, north through Key West Harbor, east through Fleming Key Cut, south through Cow Key Channel, and west returning back to Higgs Beach. The event is scheduled to take place from 7 a.m. until 3 p.m. Approximately 150 paddle boarders and five safety vessels are anticipated to participate in the event. The safety zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters during the event. Persons and non-participant vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP Key West or a designated representative. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone is granted by the COTP Key West or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the COTP Key West or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the safety zone by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, or by 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 the following reasons: (1) the temporary safety zone will only be enforced for a total of 8 hours; (2) although persons and vessels may not enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone without authorization from the COTP or a designated representative, they may operate in the surrounding area during the enforcement period; (3) persons and vessels may still enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the areas during the enforcement period if authorized by the COTP 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 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 contact 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. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such 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 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. The regulated area will impact small designated areas of the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico around Key West, Florida, for only 8 hours and thus is limited in time and scope. 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 contact 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:

I. Background

On February 4, 2022, the Office published a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPRM”) to amend its regulations governing remitter payments for its services and requirements for maintaining a deposit account. 1 Specifically, the Office proposed to consolidate all regulations related to the types of payment methods it will accept for services into a single set of provisions to ensure consistency as it moves to an integrated enterprise information technology (IT) system. 2 The proposed rule enumerated three methods accepted for remitting a payment: (1) Electronic payments through Pay.gov; (2) mailed payments by check or money order; and (3) in-person payments by check, money order, credit or debit card, or currency, by appointment at the Office's Public Information Office. 3

Next, the Office proposed simplifying requirements to maintain a deposit account, and set forth rules establishing the procedures for account closures. The proposed rule set forth five substantive amendments. First, the Office recommended eliminating the requirement that a deposit account holder engage in a minimum number of transactions per year. 4 Second, the Office proposed imposing a service charge of $25 for each month a deposit account balance fell below $450. 5 Third, the NPRM provided for the inactivation of deposit accounts if (1) there has been no activity in the account for 24 months; (2) the account holder overdraws the account; or (3) the account has insufficient funds at the end of the month to pay the service charge for an account balance below $450. 6 Fourth, the Office proposed codifying its procedures for closing noncompliant and inactivated deposit accounts, including the circumstances for closure and the process for returning any remaining funds to the account holder. 7 Finally, the Office recommended eliminating from the regulations references to automatic replenishment of deposit accounts, based on its understanding at the time the NPRM was prepared that Pay.gov lacked the ability to provide such an automatic replenishment feature. 8

The Office received four relevant comments in response to the NPRM. Author Services, Inc. endorsed the proposed amendments in full, and had no further suggestions. 9 The Motion Picture Association, Inc. (“MPA”), expressing no objection to the proposed rules regarding deposit accounts, noted that its members valued the automatic-replenishment feature available in other areas of the Office ( e.g., the eCo system for registrations), and “urge[d] the Office to ensure that the payment systems in any updated versions of the registration and recordation systems include an automatic replenishment feature as well.”  10 Finally, Copyright Alliance and Marilyn D. Cameron submitted comments that were generally supportive of the amendments in the proposed rule, but contained several concerns that are addressed in more detail below. 11

Most commenters supported the provisions of the proposed rule that consolidate the regulations governing the types of payment methods the Office will accept for services. 12 Accordingly, those provisions are adopted in the final rule without alteration.

In addition to “applaud[ing] the Office's efforts to modernize and consolidate regulations regarding payment options for Copyright Office services,” Copyright Alliance encouraged the Office to “accommodate the diversity of copyright owners engaging with the Office's systems” by permitting payment using “prepaid cards and other widely accepted online payment options, like PayPal, Zelle, Venmo, and CashApp.”  13 The Office appreciates Copyright Alliance's concern and shares its aim to broaden participation in the copyright system. While payment using prepaid cards is not currently supported by Pay.gov, the Office will enable the Pay.gov feature to accept Paypal and Amazon digital wallet options to better accommodate a broader range of stakeholders. The Office will continue to consider additional options to improve accessibility as Pay.gov expands its capabilities.

With respect to the proposed rule simplifying requirements for maintaining deposit accounts, commenters universally endorsed the Office's amendment to eliminate the minimum-transaction-per-year requirement. 14 Copyright Alliance expressed appreciation for the “Office's decision to continue allowing stakeholders to use deposit accounts, as well as the decision to eliminate the requirement for a minimum number of transactions per year.”  15

However, some commenters disagreed with the Office's proposal to assess a service charge of $25 for each month a deposit account balance fell below $450. One commenter opposed the fee outright, calling it “[t]oo much” as “many individuals find a minimum deposit amount a challenge, especially during the pandemic.”  16 Copyright Alliance argued that imposing a service charge “without first notifying the account holder that the account has fallen below the minimum balance” “will only exacerbate a problem . . . that might otherwise be easily resolved.”  17 Commenters encouraged the Office to “notify the account holder so that they can add the necessary funds” before assessing any service charge  18 and before any account inactivation. 19 Finally, Copyright Alliance probed whether the Office could permit automatic replenishment, advising, “rather than assessing a $25 service charge if an account falls below the minimum balance, the regulations should permit automatic replenishment of those deposit accounts.”  20

As an initial matter, it has been and will remain the Office's practice to send automatic notifications to account holders when their balances drop below the minimum balance. Similarly, notifications are and will be provided before the Office takes any action to inactivate or close an account. To ensure that these notifications are received, the Office encourages account holders to keep their contact information current.

Regarding the service charge, the Office proposed the fee to incentivize deposit account holders to maintain sufficient funds in deposit accounts and avoid any overdraft of the account, which is subject to a penalty (currently $285). Ultimately, the Office's goal is to help account holders maintain sufficient balances to prevent additional penalties and delays. Copyright Alliance's comment led the Office to consider again the availability of an automatic replenishment option. While our initial inquiry had suggested that this option was not available, 21 further investigation has determined that an automatic recurring payment option (via ACH transactions) can be used to automatically replenish deposit accounts through Pay.gov . Therefore, the Office will test the practical application of such a feature for deposit accounts. Once confirmed operable, the Office will announce details on how this feature can be used.

In addition, given commenters' concern regarding the potential financial burden for those account holders who find the minimum balance amount difficult to maintain, we will pause the implementation of any service charge to further assess whether there is a need for measures to incentivize balance maintenance. Accordingly, the final rule omits any reference to the proposed service charge, and instead provides that the Office will automatically notify account holders when their accounts fall below a minimum balance of $450, as the previous rule prescribed.

Finally, while commenters did not raise specific concerns regarding the NPRM's inactivation and closure procedures beyond objecting to inactivation or closure based on a failure to pay the proposed service charge, the Office acknowledges their general desire for more communication regarding account status issues. Thus, in addition to removing references to the previously proposed service charge, the final rule explains that the Office will automatically notify account holders when their accounts are made inactive due to prolonged inactivity or overdrawal of the account. Reflecting current procedures, the final rule further provides that an inactive deposit account will only be closed 30 days from the date of the inactivation notice if there continues to be no activity or if insufficient funds remain in the account.

Lastly, the final rule includes a few non-substantive technical revisions to clarify certain phrases and terms.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Copyright Office amends 37 CFR parts 201 and 202 as follows:

The revisions read as follows:

I. Background

In 1990, EPA approved a revision to the Kentucky SIP that added an emission reduction plan in the form of a “bubble rule” for the Alcan Foil Products  1 (now LL Flex) plant in Louisville, Kentucky. See 55 FR 20268 (May 16, 1990). That revision allowed the facility to average, or “bubble,” volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from nine rotogravure printing/coating machines in lieu of achieving compliance with Jefferson County's SIP-approved reasonably available control technology (RACT) regulation—Regulation 6.29, “Standard of Performance for Existing Graphic Arts Facilities Using Rotogravure and Flexography”—which limits VOC emissions from graphic arts facilities on a line-by-line  2 basis. The revision treated the nine machines as one affected facility and required the facility to achieve a VOC emissions reduction equivalent to at least 20 percent of the baseline emissions from the affected units. 3 Jefferson County included these provisions in various permits issued by the District to Alcan Foil Products (now LL Flex), and those permits were incorporated by reference into the Kentucky SIP. Specifically, the May 16, 1990, approval incorporated into the SIP the Air Pollution Control District of Jefferson County's (APCDJC's) Permits 103-74, 104-74, 105-74, 106-74, 110-74, and 111-74, as effective on February 28, 1990.

Subsequently, in 1998, EPA approved a revision to the Kentucky SIP that provided additional flexibilities to the plant operations of Reynolds Metals Company (now LL Flex) so that customer printing demands could be satisfied. See 63 FR 1927 (January 13, 1998). The revision lowered the daily maximum VOC emissions allowed from the facility's nine rotogravure printing/coating machines but retained the tons per year limit for the facility while increasing the number of operating days allowed. Additionally, the revision removed the maximum operating speeds for the nine machines. Jefferson County included these provisions in permits issued by the District to Reynolds Metals Company, and those permits were incorporated by reference into the Kentucky SIP. Specifically, the January 13, 1998, approval incorporated into the SIP updates to the previously approved APCDJC Permits 103-74, 104-74, 105-74, 106-74, 110-74, and 111-74, as effective on April 16, 1997.

On March 29, 2021, Jefferson County submitted a new SIP revision to remove the permits previously incorporated by reference and replace them with a Board Order, which was issued by the District to the facility on November 18, 2020, and which imposes control requirements that are at least as stringent as those in the old permits. 4 5 This way, the Board Order becomes the source-specific SIP-approved provision, and any future amendments made by the District to the facility's permits for matters that are unrelated to the Board Order conditions will not necessitate a SIP revision.

On August 1, 2022 (87 FR 46916) EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), which included additional background on the changes and EPA's analysis. Comments on the August 1, 2022, NPRM were due on or before August 31, 2022. No comments were received on the August 1, 2022, NPRM, and EPA is now finalizing the changes as proposed.

In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, and as discussed in Section I of this preamble, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Jefferson County's source-specific Board Order for LL Flex, LLC, effective on November 18, 2020. Also in this document, EPA is approving the removal of APCDJC Permits 103-74, 104-74, 105-74, 106-74, 110-74, and 111-74, effective on February 28, 1990, for Alcan Foil Products and effective on April 16, 1997, for the Reynolds Metals Company, from the Kentucky SIP, which were previously incorporated by reference in accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5. EPA has made, and will continue to make, the SIP generally available at the EPA Region 4 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, the revised materials as stated above, have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the State implementation plan, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation. 6

EPA is approving the March 29, 2021, SIP revision and replacing the existing source-specific permits for the LL Flex facility in the Kentucky SIP with the November 18, 2020, Board Order.

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. 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 CAA; and

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

The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

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. 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 CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 29, 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 stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as follows:

I. Background

In 1979, under section 109 of the CAA, EPA established primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone at 0.12 parts per million (ppm), averaged over a 1-hour period. See 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979). On July 18, 1997, EPA revised the primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone to set the acceptable level of ozone in the ambient air at 0.08 ppm, averaged over an 8-hour period. See 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 1997). 1 EPA set the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on scientific evidence demonstrating that ozone causes adverse health effects at lower concentrations and over longer periods of time than was understood when the pre-existing 1-hour ozone NAAQS was set. EPA determined that the 8-hour NAAQS would be more protective of human health, especially for children and adults who are active outdoors, and for individuals with a pre-existing respiratory disease, such as asthma.

Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required by the CAA to designate areas throughout the nation as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. On April 15, 2004, EPA designated the Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY Area, which consists of Boyd County in Kentucky and Cabell County and Wayne County in West Virginia, and the Clarksville-Hopkinsville, TN- KY Area, which consists of Christian County in Kentucky and Montgomery County in Tennessee, as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Those designations became effective on June 15, 2004. See 69 FR 23858 (April 30, 2004).

Similarly, on May 21, 2012, EPA designated areas as unclassifiable/attainment or nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA designated the Boyd County and Christian County Areas as unclassifiable/attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. These designations became effective on July 20, 2012. See 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2012). On November 16, 2017, areas were designated for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The Boyd County and Christian County Areas were again designated attainment/unclassifiable for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS, with an effective date of January 16, 2018, for both areas. See 82 FR 54232 (November 16, 2017).

Pursuant to the CAA, a state may submit a request that EPA redesignate a nonattainment area that is attaining a NAAQS to attainment, and, if the area has met the criteria described in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, EPA may approve the redesignation request. 2 One of the criteria for redesignation is for the area to have an approved maintenance plan under CAA section 175A. The maintenance plan must demonstrate that the area will continue to maintain the NAAQS for the period extending ten years after redesignation, and it must contain such additional measures as necessary to ensure maintenance and such contingency provisions as necessary to assure that violations of the NAAQS will be promptly corrected. Eight years after the effective date of redesignation, the state must also submit a second maintenance plan to ensure ongoing maintenance of the NAAQS for an additional ten years pursuant to CAA section 175A(b) ( i.e., ensuring maintenance for 20 years after redesignation).

EPA has published long-standing guidance for states on developing maintenance plans. The Calcagni memo  3 provides that states may generally demonstrate maintenance by either performing air quality modeling to show that the future mix of sources and emission rates will not cause a violation of the NAAQS or by showing that projected future emissions of a pollutant and its precursors will not exceed the level of emissions during a year when the area was attaining the NAAQS ( i.e., attainment year inventory). See Calcagni memo at page 9. EPA clarified in three subsequent guidance memos that certain areas can meet the CAA section 175A requirement to provide for maintenance by showing that they are unlikely to violate the NAAQS in the future, using information such as the area design values  4 when they are well below the standard and have been historically stable. 5 EPA refers to a maintenance plan containing this streamlined demonstration as an LMP.

EPA has interpreted CAA section 175A as permitting the LMP option because section 175A of the Act does not define how areas may demonstrate maintenance, and in EPA's experience implementing the various NAAQS, areas that qualify for an LMP and have approved LMPs have rarely, if ever, experienced subsequent violations of the NAAQS. As noted in the LMP guidance memoranda, states seeking a LMP must still submit the other maintenance plan elements outlined in the Calcagni memo, including an attainment emissions inventory, provisions for the continued operation of the ambient air quality monitoring network, verification of continued attainment, and a contingency plan in the event of a future violation of the NAAQS. Moreover, a state seeking a LMP must still submit its section 175A maintenance plan as a revision to its SIP, with all attendant notice and comment procedures. While the LMP guidance memoranda were originally written with respect to certain NAAQS, 6 EPA has extended the LMP interpretation of section 175A to other NAAQS and pollutants not specifically covered by the previous guidance memos. 7

In this case, EPA is approving Kentucky's LMPs because the Commonwealth has made a showing, consistent with EPA's prior LMP guidance, that ozone concentrations in the Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY and Clarksville-Hopkinsville, TN-KY Areas are well below the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and have been historically stable and that the Commonwealth has met the other maintenance plan requirements. The Cabinet submitted the LMPs for the Boyd County and Christian County Areas to fulfill the CAA's second maintenance plan requirement.

On May 20, 2005, and September 29, 2006, the Cabinet submitted requests to EPA to redesignate the Christian County and Boyd County Areas, respectively, to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Those submittals included plans, for inclusion in the Kentucky SIP, to provide for maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Clarksville-Hopkinsville, TN-KY Area through 2016 and in the Huntington-Ashland, WV-TN Area through 2018. EPA approved the Boyd County and the Christian County Areas' Maintenance Plans and the Commonwealth's requests to redesignate these Areas to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, effective September 4, 2007, and February 24, 2006, respectively. See 72 FR 43172 (August 3, 2007) and 71 FR 4047 (January 25, 2006), respectively. Kentucky's March 29, 2021, submittal contains the second 10-year maintenance plans for the 20-year maintenance period of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS to ensure continued maintenance for the Clarksville-Hopkinsville, TN-KY and Huntington-Ashland, WV-TN Areas.

Section 175A(b) of the CAA requires states to submit a revision to the first maintenance plan eight years after redesignation to provide for maintenance of the NAAQS for ten additional years following the end of the first 10-year period. However, EPA's final implementation rule for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS revoked the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and stated that one consequence of revocation was that areas that had been redesignated to attainment ( i.e., maintenance areas) for the 1997 NAAQS no longer needed to submit second 10-year maintenance plans under CAA section 175A(b). See 80 FR 12264, 12315 (March 6, 2015).

In South Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) vacated the EPA's interpretation that, because of the revocation of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, second maintenance plans were not required for “orphan maintenance areas,” i.e., areas that had been redesignated to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS maintenance areas and were designated attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. South Coast, 882 F.3d 1138 (D.C. Cir. 2018). Thus, states with these “orphan maintenance areas” under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS must submit maintenance plans for the second maintenance period. Accordingly, on March 29, 2021, Kentucky submitted second maintenance plans for the Boyd County and Christian County Areas that show that the Areas are expected to remain in attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2027 and 2026, respectively.

In recognition of the continuing record of air quality monitoring data showing ambient 8-hour ozone concentrations well below the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY and Clarksville-Hopkinsville, TN-KY Areas, the Cabinet chose the LMP option for the development of second 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS maintenance plans. On March 29, 2021, the Cabinet adopted the second 10-year 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plans and also submitted the Boyd County and the Christian County Areas' LMPs to EPA as revisions to the Kentucky SIP.

In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), published on August 24, 2022 (87 FR 51933), EPA proposed to approve Kentucky's LMP because the State made a showing, consistent with EPA's prior LMP guidance, that the Area's ozone concentrations are well below the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and have been historically stable and that it met the other maintenance plan requirements. The details of Kentucky's submission and the rationale for EPA's action are explained in the NPRM. Comments on the August 24, 2022, NPRM were due on or before September 14, 2022. EPA did not receive any comments on the August 24, 2022, NPRM.

EPA is approving the Boyd County and Christian County Areas' LMPs for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, submitted by the Cabinet on March 29, 2021, as revisions to the Kentucky SIP. EPA is approving the Boyd County and Christian County Areas' LMPs because they include an acceptable update of the various elements of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS Maintenance Plan approved by EPA for the first 10-year period (including emissions inventory, assurance of adequate monitoring and verification of continued attainment, and contingency provisions), and essentially carry forward all of the control measures and contingency provisions relied upon in the earlier plans.

EPA also finds that the Boyd County and Christian County Areas qualify for the LMP option and that the Boyd County and Christian County Areas' LMPs adequately demonstrate maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS through documentation of monitoring data showing maximum 1997 8-hour ozone levels well below the NAAQS and continuation of existing control measures. EPA believes that the Boyd County and Christian County Areas' 1997 8-Hour Ozone LMPs are sufficient to provide for maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY and Clarksville-Hopkinsville, TN-KY Areas, respectively, over the second 10-year maintenance period, through 2027 and 2026, respectively, and thereby satisfy the requirements for such a plan under CAA section 175A(b).

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. 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 CAA; and

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

The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

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. 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 CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 29, 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 stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as follows:

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

On May 12, 2022 (87 FR 29103), the EPA proposed a limited approval and limited disapproval of the following rule that was submitted for incorporation into the California SIP.

The submission also contained a staff report evaluating the Oil and Methane Rule against the Federal RACT standard, concluding that the Oil and Gas Methane Rule, in combination with applicable SIP-approved local air district rules, met the RACT requirement for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS for sources covered by the EPA's 2016 Control Techniques Guidelines for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry for SMAQMD, SJVAPCD, SCAQMD, VCAPCD, and YSAQMD.

We proposed a limited approval of the Oil and Gas Methane Rule because we determined that this rule strengthens the SIP and is largely consistent with the relevant CAA requirements. We simultaneously proposed a limited disapproval because some rule provisions do not comply with the requirements of section 110 and part D of the Act. In addition, we proposed a disapproval of the RACT demonstrations for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS for sources covered by the Oil and Gas CTG for SMAQMD, SJVAPCD, SCAQMD, VCAPCD, and YSAQMD.

The provisions identified in our proposed limited disapproval of the Oil and Gas Methane Rule include the following:

1. Subsections 95668(a)(2)(C), 95669(b)(1), and 95670(a)(1) include insufficiently specific exemptions for storage tanks or components “approved for use by a local air district” or “subject to a local air district requirement.”

2. Subsections 95668(a), 95668(b)(4), and 95671 do not contain a requirement for initial and continuous compliance demonstration and do not specify test methods or reporting requirements.

3. The Rule provides exemptions from the vapor control requirements of the Rule for low use compressors in subsections 95668(c)(2)(A) and 95668(d)(2)(A) that has not been demonstrated to implement RACT.

4. In subsections 95668(c)(4)(F) and 95668(d)(9) the Rule potentially allows a leak to go unrepaired for an additional year after being identified.

5. Subsections 95668(c)(4)(B), 95668(d)(4), and 95668(g)(1) do not specify test methods or a calculation methodology for determining flow rate.

6. Subsections of 95668: (c)(3)(D)(1)(a), (c)(4)(D)(1)(a), (d)(6)(A)(1) and Subsections of 95669: (h)(4)(A)(1) and (i)(5)(A)(1) provide for an open ended, and potentially indefinite period during which a leak could remain unrepaired.

7. According to the 2016 Oil and Natural Gas CTG, storage vessels with a potential to emit at or greater than 6 tons per year (tpy) VOC are required to implement RACT-level control. It is not clear whether the Rule captures all storage vessels at oil and gas facilities that meet or exceed the CTG Potential to Emit (PTE) threshold because the Oil and Gas Methane Rule only requires evaluation of the separator and first tank connected to the separator, to determine if they fall above or below the 10 tpy methane emissions applicability threshold.

8. Subsection (a)(2)(A) exempts separator and tank systems that receive an average of less than 50 barrels of crude oil or condensate per day from the Oil and Gas Methane Rule's flash testing and vapor control requirements for storage vessels. By using the word “or,” this exemption potentially exempts tanks that receive a minor amount of either crude oil or condensate, but a significant quantity of the other organic liquid.

9. Subsections (a)(3) and (a)(4) require existing and new tanks that are not equipped with vapor collection systems (VCS) to comply with specified requirements for flash testing. The Oil and Gas Methane Rule requires tanks with emissions greater than 10 tpy of methane to meet specified vapor control requirements. The Oil and Gas Methane Rule does not specify requirements for how tanks equipped with vapor control determine their emissions to assess whether they must meet RACT-level control requirements.

10. Subsection (b)(4) includes an exemption for when the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Executive Officer makes a determination that controlling emissions is not possible. This provides insufficiently bounded director's discretion, and is not an exemption included in the CTG.

11. Subsections (c)(3)(B) and (c)(4)(B)(3) contain the term “inspection period.” The term is not defined.

12. Subsection (b)(7) includes an exemption that is not included in the CTG for one-half inch and smaller stainless steel tube fittings used to supply natural gas to equipment or instrumentation.

13. Subsection (i)(1) requires leaks of 1,000-9,999 parts per million (ppm) be repaired in 14 days, but the CTG recommends that within 5 days of the detected leak an attempt at repair be made.

14. The CTG contains a requirement to maintain a list of identification numbers for all the equipment subject to leak regulation. Subsection 95669 does not contain a similar requirement.

15. The CTG contains a requirement to maintain a list of equipment that is designated as “unsafe to monitor.” Subsection 95669 does not contain a similar requirement.

16. Subsection (f) allows VCS to be taken out of service for up to 30 calendar days per year while maintenance is performed. The State has not justified that a smaller amount of time, or less frequent interval is not reasonably available. Moreover, this maintenance requirement is not bounded by requirements specifying the necessity of taking the system out of service and minimizing the outage time.

17. Subsection 95672 does not contain specification on what type of records need to be kept.

18. The flash emission test procedure established in Appendix C relies upon several test methods that have not been approved by the EPA. In addition, paragraph 13 of Appendix C indicates that alternative test procedures, sampling methods, or laboratory methods may be used if written permission is obtained from CARB. This constitutes unapprovable director's discretion.

In addition to the deficiencies identified in the CARB Oil and Gas Methane Rule, the following deficiencies, organized by California District Rule, serve as additional bases for disapproval of the RACT demonstrations that the CARB Oil and Gas Methane Rule along with the associated California District Rules meet RACT for sources covered by the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG in the associated districts.

A. The State has not demonstrated that Rule 446 will capture all storage vessels at oil and gas facilities that meet or exceed the CTG PTE threshold because the applicability of Rule 446 is based on vapor pressure of the liquid stored and the CTG applicability is based on a PTE threshold.

B. The definition of “gas tight” in section 202 of Rule 446 is much higher than the 500 ppm threshold used in the CTG and other California district rules and does not represent RACT.

C. Rule 446 does not contain initial or continuous testing requirements to demonstrate compliance with the vapor control efficiency requirements. While Rule 446 does require inspections, it does not require recordkeeping of these inspections.

D. The State has not demonstrated that Rules 463 and 1178 will capture all storage vessels at oil and gas facilities that meet or exceed the CTG PTE threshold because the applicability of Rules 463 and 1178 is based on a tank's volumetric capacity and the CTG applicability is based on a PTE threshold.

E. The State has not demonstrated that Rule 4623 will capture all storage vessels at oil and gas facilities that meet or exceed the CTG PTE threshold because the applicability of Rule 4623 is based on a tank's volumetric capacity and the CTG applicability is based on a PTE threshold.

F. Rule 4401 does not require controls that are reasonably available because the leak inspection requirements in Rule 4401 are less stringent than the CTG and other comparable California district rules.

G. The State has not demonstrated that Rules 71.1 and 71.2 will capture all storage vessels at oil and gas facilities that meet or exceed the CTG PTE threshold because the applicability of Rules 71.1 and 71.2 is based on the vapor pressure of the liquid stored and a tank's volumetric capacity, while the CTG applicability is based on a PTE threshold.

H. Rule 71.1 does not contain inspection or initial compliance determination requirements.

I. The State has not demonstrated that Rule 2.21 will capture all storage vessels at oil and gas facilities that meet or exceed the CTG PTE threshold because the applicability of Rule 2.21 is based on vapor pressure of the liquid stored and a tank's volumetric capacity, while the CTG applicability is based on a PTE threshold.

Our proposed action and technical support document (TSD) contain more information on the basis for this rulemaking and on our evaluation of the submittal.

The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. During the comment period we received one comment submitted by Earthjustice on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity, Central California Asthma Collaborative, Central Valley Air Quality Coalition, Clean Water Action, Earthjustice, Little Manila Rising, Mi Familia Vota, and Sierra Club (Kern-Kaweah Chapter) (collectively, the “Valley Coalition”). The comment and our response are summarized below.

Comment: The Valley Coalition comment addresses “what appears to be a systematic failure to control significant leaks of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from oil and gas wells in neighborhoods in Bakersfield, California.” The commenters state that the leaks may fall within loopholes in the Oil and Gas Methane Rule, and related local air district rules. They claim that such loopholes would preclude a finding that the State is implementing RACT.

The Valley Coalition writes that at least 30 idle wells in and nearby to Bakersfield neighborhoods are leaking methane, with many wells near homes, and leaking methane at volumes that would make the air near the escaping gas explosive. The comment describes the discovery of the leaks, and states that two wells were hissing audibly within a few hundred feet of homes, and that concentrations near other wells exceeded 50,000 parts per million.

The Valley Coalition asserts that the leaks are undoubtedly also sources of VOCs and that “EPA therefore must assume these leaks are significant sources of VOCs.” The commenters state that there are approximately 38,000 idle wells in California and cite a study that, according to the commenters, suggests that idle well leaks are widespread.

The commenters encourage the EPA to learn about where the leaks fall within the regulatory scheme, and then require state and local air districts to remedy any loopholes or inadequacies that may allow such leaks. Commenters assert that “[s]uch remediation plainly falls within the scope of the requirement in section 182(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act that the State implement RACT.”

The Valley Coalition also writes: “Specifically, it appears that if a well within the jurisdiction of the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District is used for oil with an American Petroleum Institute (API) gravity below 20 and is not steam-enhanced, that well is exempt from leak detection and repair (LDAR) requirements under the Oil and Gas Methane Rule and the San Joaquin Valley Air District's relevant local rules. The Oil and Gas Methane Rule itself, in Cal. Code Regs., title 17, section 95669(b)(2), exempts `components found on tanks, separators, wells, and pressure vessels [ ] used exclusively for crude oil with an API gravity less than 20 averaged on an annual basis.' San Joaquin Valley Rule 4401—which regulates VOC emissions from steam-enhanced crude oil production wells—applies only to components at wells that are steam-enhanced. And San Joaquin Valley Rule 4409—which regulates VOC emissions from leaking components at light crude oil production facilities, natural gas production facilities, and natural gas processing facilities—does not apply to facilities used for oil with an API gravity below 30 degrees.”

The commenters write that it appears that the Bakersfield wells, and potentially the majority of wells in California, fall within these exemptions. The Valley Coalition states that the Bakersfield wells at issue were not involved in steam injection, and that oil from two of the fields at issue had API gravities of 15.3 and 19.2. They note that in 2018, 68% of California's crude oil production was heavy (that is, with an API gravity between 10 and 22.3). Consequently, the commenters claim, exemptions for equipment with an API gravity below 20 “could allow a vast proportion of California's oil production to escape LDAR requirements.”

The Valley Coalition writes that other loopholes and exemptions may exist and encourages the EPA to identify and close any such loopholes and inadequacies.

Response: With respect to the commenters' concerns regarding leaking wells, the EPA agrees that if wells are leaking methane, they are likely to also leak VOCs. As a result, leaking wells might implicate the RACT requirement. We note, however, that this rulemaking evaluates California's Oil and Gas Methane Rule submittal with respect to a specific part of section 182(b)(2)'s RACT requirement. Section 182(b)(2) obligates states with nonattainment areas that are classified as Moderate or above to submit SIP revisions that require the implementation of RACT in these areas with respect to two distinct categories of VOC sources: sections 182(b)(2)(A) and (B) govern VOC sources covered by a CTG, whereas section 182(b)(2)(C) relates to major stationary sources of VOCs ( i.e., “non-CTG major sources”). As explained in our proposed action, California submitted the Oil and Gas Methane Rule for the purpose of satisfying the RACT requirements for the first category, i.e., VOC sources covered by a CTG (namely, the EPA's 2016 Oil and Gas CTG). Therefore, this rulemaking evaluates California's submissions with respect to CAA section 182(b)(2)(A) and the provisions of the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG and does not evaluate the submissions with respect to section 182(b)(2)(C) and non-CTG major sources in Moderate and above nonattainment areas.

The above point regarding the scope of this rulemaking is important because idle wells are not within the scope of the EPA's 2016 Oil and Gas CTG. Section 9.1 of the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG provides: “[f]or purposes of this CTG, the emissions and programs to control emissions discussed herein would apply to the collection of fugitive emissions components at well sites with an average production of greater than 15 barrel equivalents per well per day.” The CTG further explains that “[f]or the purposes of this CTG, fugitive emission reduction recommendations would not apply to well sites that only contain wellheads.”  1 We further note that no other CTGs apply to emissions from idle wells. As a result, the commenters' concerns regarding idle wells relate to emissions from sources not covered by the CTG ( i.e., well sites with average production less than or equal to 15 barrel equivalents per day) and are therefore beyond the scope of this rulemaking. 2

Although the Valley Coalition comment focuses on idle wells, the comment also identifies specific exemptions that the commenters suggest may constitute loopholes or inadequacies in the regulatory scheme that could allow a large number of wells in California to escape LDAR requirements. To the extent that these exemptions may represent an inadequacy in the regulation of non-idle wells that are covered by the CTG, the validity of these exemptions is within the scope of the present rulemaking.

The commenters raise the following exemptions as potential loopholes in the regulatory scheme:

(1) CARB Oil and Gas rule section 95669(b)(2), exemption for “components found on tanks, separators, wells, and pressure vessels [ ] used exclusively for crude oil with an API gravity less than 20 averaged on an annual basis.”

(2) San Joaquin Valley Rule 4401, which regulates VOC emissions from steam-enhanced crude oil production wells. applies only to components at wells that are steam-enhanced.

(3) San Joaquin Valley Rule 4409, which regulates VOC emissions from leaking components at light crude oil production facilities, natural gas production facilities, and natural gas processing facilities, does not apply to facilities used for oil with an API gravity below 30 degrees.

The commenters assert that this combination of regulations exempts from LDAR requirements wells in the San Joaquin Valley that are not steam-enhanced and that produce oil from fields with an API gravity below 20 degrees.

The exemption found in section 95669(b)(2) is not found in the CTG; the CTG does not provide for an exemption for wells based on API gravity or volatility of the oil in the produced field. Although a state may provide for an exemption for sources that are not exempted in the CTG, if it chooses to do so it must provide an analysis of why the exemption is consistent with the RACT requirement. The State has not done so here. 3 Although some of the active wells producing oil from fields with API gravity less than 20 degrees are regulated by SIP-approved local district rules, the submission does not analyze the impacts of this exemption or show how it is consistent with the section 182(b)(2) RACT requirement.

Based on the submission before us, the scope of the exemption from LDAR requirements is unclear in terms of number of wells and associated emissions. Similarly, the submission does not address the cost of potential monitoring and control options. As a result, the EPA agrees that CARB's submission does not sufficiently demonstrate that RACT is in place for wells that are subject to the section 95669(b)(2) exemption. We recognize that, given the low volatility of the oil in such fields, the State may have valid reasons for exempting such components. Analyses demonstrating that controls are not cost effective, or that emissions are minimal may, in some instances, satisfy the RACT requirement. However, no such analysis was included with the submission of the Oil and Gas Methane Rule.

Therefore, in addition to the grounds for disapproval that we identified in our notice of proposed rulemaking, we are also disapproving the CTG RACT demonstrations for the relevant districts based on the inclusion of an exemption for production from fields with API gravity below 20 degrees, that has not been justified as RACT.

No comments were submitted that change our proposed simultaneous limited approval and limited disapproval of the rule or our disapproval of the RACT demonstrations for the 2008 and 2015 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for sources covered by the EPA's 2016 Control Techniques Guidelines for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry (Oil and Gas CTG) for the SMAQMD, SJVAPCD, SCAQMD, VCAPCD, and the YSAQMD. As noted in Section II of this rule, in addition to the deficiencies listed in the TSD, and summarized in Section I above, subsection 95669(b)(2) includes an exemption for components used for crude oil with an API Gravity less than 20 that is not in the CTG, that the State has not justified as meeting the RACT requirement.

Because the rule strengthens the SIP and is largely consistent with the relevant CAA requirements, the EPA is finalizing a limited approval of the submitted rule, as authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act. This action incorporates the submitted rule into the California SIP, including those provisions identified as deficient. Due to the deficiencies enumerated above, the EPA is simultaneously finalizing a limited disapproval of the rule as authorized under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a).

As a result, the EPA must promulgate a Federal implementation plan (FIP) under section 110(c) unless we approve subsequent SIP revisions that correct the rule deficiencies within 24 months. In addition, the offset sanction in CAA section 179(b)(2) will be imposed 18 months after the effective date of this action, and the highway funding sanction in CAA section 179(b)(1) will be imposed six months after the offset sanction. A sanction will not be imposed if the EPA determines that a subsequent SIP submission corrects the identified deficiencies before the applicable deadline.

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

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of California Code of Regulations, Title 17, Division 3, Chapter 1, Subchapter 10 Climate Change, Article 4 Subarticle 13: Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards for Crude Oil and Natural Gas Facilities as described in Section I of this preamble and set forth in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 below. Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of this final rulemaking, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation. 4 The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The state did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as part of its SIP submittal. There is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goals of E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color, low-income populations, and indigenous peoples.

This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 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 November 29, 2022. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule 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:

I. Background

On October 1, 2015, EPA strengthened the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, lowering the level of the NAAQS from 0.075 parts per million (ppm) to 0.070 ppm. See 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015). 1 Effective August 3, 2018, EPA designated the seven-county Cincinnati, OH-KY Area as a Marginal ozone nonattainment for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 2 See 83 FR 25776 (June 4, 2018). In the same action, EPA also designated the five-county Louisville, KY-IN Area as a Marginal ozone nonattainment for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 3 The Cincinnati, OH-KY Area and the Louisville, KY-IN Area were designated nonattainment for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS using 2014-2016 ambient air quality data. On December 22, 2021, Kentucky submitted a SIP revision addressing the base year emissions inventory requirements related to the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Cincinnati, OH-KY Area and the Louisville, KY-IN Area. 4 CAA section 182(a)(1) requires the submission of a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all emissions sources in the nonattainment area, known as a “base year inventory.”

On July 26, 2022, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to approve the December 22, 2021, SIP revision regarding the base year emissions inventory submittal for the Cincinnati, OH-KY Area and the Louisville, KY-IN Area for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 87 FR 44310. More information regarding EPA's analysis of Kentucky's December 22, 2021, SIP revision and how Kentucky addresses the above-mentioned requirements is provided in EPA's July 26, 2022, NPRM. Comments on EPA's July 26, 2022, NPRM were due on August 25, 2022. No comments were received on EPA's July 26, 2022, NPRM.

EPA is approving the aforementioned SIP revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Kentucky addressing the base year emissions inventory requirements for the 2015 8-hour Ozone NAAQS for the Cincinnati, OH-KY Area and the Louisville, KY-IN Area. EPA has determined that the Cincinnati, OH-KY Area and the Louisville, KY-IN Area base year emissions inventory requirements SIP revision meets the requirements of sections 110 and 182 of the CAA with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. 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 CAA; and

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

The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

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. EPA will submit a report containing these actions 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 CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 29, 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(s) or action(s). This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as follows:

On October 5, 2016, EPA finalized changes to the public notice provisions for the NSR, title V, and Outer Continental Shelf permitting programs of the CAA. See 81 FR 71613 (October 18, 2016). These rule changes removed the mandatory requirement to provide public notice of permitting actions through publication in a newspaper and allow for internet e-notice as an option for permitting authorities implementing their own EPA-approved SIP rules and title V rules, such as Tennessee's EPA-approved permitting programs. Permitting authorities are not required to adopt e-notice, however, nothing in the revised rules prevents a permitting authority with an EPA-approved permitting program from continuing to use newspaper notification and/or from supplementing e-notice with newspaper notification and/or additional means of notification. For permits issued by permitting authorities with EPA-approved programs, the rule requires the permitting authority to use “a consistent noticing method” for all permit notices under the specific permitting program. When e-notice is provided, EPA's rule requires electronic access (e-access) to the draft permit for the duration of the public comment period.

Through a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), published on July 25, 2022, EPA proposed to approve changes to Tennessee's Rule 1200-03-09-.01, Construction Permits; and Rule 1200-03-09-.02, Operating Permits, of Chapter 1200-03-09, Construction and Operating Permits, as submitted by TDEC on March 23, 2021. See 87 FR 44076. These changes establish a revised method of publication of public notices for public hearings and public comment periods and change how documents related to permit proceedings will be available for public inspection. Additional details on Tennessee's March 23, 2021, SIP revision, as well as EPA's analysis of the changes, can be found in the July 25, 2022, NPRM. Comments on the July 25, 2022, NPRM were due on or before August 25, 2022. No adverse comments were received on the July 25, 2022, NPRM, so EPA is now finalizing the approval of the changes as proposed.

In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, and as discussed in Section I of this preamble, and the July 25, 2022, NPRM, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Rule 1200-03-09-.01, Construction Permits, state effective January 21, 2021, into the Tennessee SIP. 1 EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 4 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 EPA for inclusion in the State implementation plan, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation. 2

As described in the July 25, 2022, NPRM, EPA is approving the changes to Chapter 1200-03-09, Construction and Operating Permits; Rule 1200-03-09-.01, Construction Permits of the Tennessee SIP; and Rule 1200-03-09-.02, Operating Permits, of the Tennessee title V program, as submitted on March 23, 2021, and supplemented on July 1, 2022.

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. 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 CAA; and

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

The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

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. 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 CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 29, 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 stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR parts 52 and 70 as follows:

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

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

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Office of the Federal Register's e-CFR site at https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40.

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0520 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before November 29, 2022. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b), although the Office of Administrative Law Judges encourages parties to file electronically. See https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-05/documents/2020-04-10_-_order_urging_electronic_service_and_filing.pdf.

In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0520, by one of the following methods:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001.

• Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

In the Federal Register of December 21, 2021 (86 FR 72200) (FRL-8792-06-OCSPP), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 0E8891) by Bayer Crop Science LP, 800 N Lindbergh Blvd., St Louis, MO 263167. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.499 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the fungicide propamocarb, in or on onion, bulb, crop subgroup 3-07A at 2 parts per million (ppm); leek at 30 ppm; and kale at 20 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Bayer Crop Science LP, the registrant, which is available in the docket, https://www.regulations.gov. This supersedes the paragraph published in the Federal Register on September 22, 2021 (86 FR 52624) (FRL-8792-03-OCSPP). There were no comments received in response to either notice of filing.

Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”

Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for propamocarb including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with propamocarb follows.

In an effort to streamline its publications in the Federal Register , EPA is not reprinting sections of the rule that would repeat what has been previously published in tolerance rulemakings for the same pesticide chemical. Where scientific information concerning a particular pesticide chemical remains unchanged, the content of those sections would not vary between tolerance rulemakings and republishing the same sections is unnecessary and duplicative. EPA considers referral back to those sections as sufficient to provide an explanation of the information EPA considered in making its safety determination for the new rulemaking.

EPA has previously published a number of tolerance rulemakings for propamocarb, in which EPA concluded, based on the available information, that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm would result from aggregate exposure to propamocarb and established tolerances for residues of that chemical. EPA is incorporating previously published sections from those rulemakings as described further in this rulemaking, as they remain unchanged.

For a summary of the Toxicological Profile of propamocarb, see Unit III.A. of the December 5, 2019, rulemaking (84 FR 66616) (FRL-10000-33).

For a summary of the Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern used for the risk assessment, see Unit III.B. of the February 7, 2017, rulemaking (82 FR 9519) (FRL-9957-68).

Much of the exposure assessment remains the same, although the dietary exposure and risk assessments for propamocarb were updated. These updates are discussed in this section; for a description of the rest of EPA's approach to and assumptions for the exposure assessment, see Unit III.C. of the December 5, 2019, rulemaking.

EPA's dietary exposure assessments have been updated to include the additional exposures to residues of propamocarb on imported commodities of onion, bulb, crop subgroup 3-07A, leek and kale. The assessment used the same assumptions as the December 5, 2019, rule concerning tolerance-level residues, default, and empirical processing factors and 100% crop treated (PCT) for all commodities in both the acute and chronic dietary exposure assessments.

Drinking water, non-occupational, and cumulative exposures. Drinking water and non-occupational exposures are not impacted by the tolerances for imported commodities, and thus have not changed since the last assessment. For a summary of the dietary exposures from drinking water, see Unit III.C.2. of the December 5, 2019, rulemaking. Propamocarb is registered for use on golf course turf resulting in potential residential post-application dermal exposure. Because the Agency has not identified a dermal endpoint, a quantitative residential dermal exposure assessment was not necessary and was not conducted. EPA's conclusions concerning cumulative risk remain unchanged from Unit III.C.4. of the December 5, 2019, rulemaking.

Safety factor for infants and children. EPA continues to conclude that there is reliable data showing that the safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) Safety Factor (SF) were reduced from 10X to 1X for all exposure scenarios. The reasons for that decision are articulated in Unit III.D in the December 5, 2019, rulemaking.

Aggregate risks and Determination of safety. EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing dietary exposure estimates to the acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) and the chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD).Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate points of departure to ensure that an adequate margin of exposure (MOE) exists. For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure.

Acute dietary risks are below the Agency's level of concern of 100% of the aPAD; they are 42% of the aPAD for all infants, the most highly exposed subpopulation. Chronic dietary risks are below the Agency's level of concern of 100% of the cPAD; they are 54% of the cPAD for females 13 to 49 years old, the most highly exposed subpopulation.

Because no short-term or intermediate term adverse effect was identified, propamocarb is not expected to pose a short-term or intermediate-term risk.

Additionally, based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies, propamocarb is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore, based on the risk assessments and information described above, EPA concludes there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children, from aggregate exposure to propamocarb residues.

For a discussion of the available analytical enforcement method, see Unit IV.A. of the December 5, 2019, rulemaking.

In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.

The Codex has established MRLs for propamocarb in or on onion, bulb, crop subgroup 3-07A at 2 ppm; leek at 30 ppm; and kale at 20 ppm. The U.S. tolerances are harmonized with the relevant Codex MRLs.

Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of propamocarb in or on onion, bulb, crop subgroup 3-07A at 2 ppm; leek at 30 ppm; and kale at 20 ppm.

This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ), nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), do not apply.

This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or Tribal Governments, on the relationship between the National Government and the States or Tribal Governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. ). This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending 40 CFR chapter I as follows:

This is a summary of the Bureau's document in WC Docket No. 18-89; DA 22-967, released on September 16, 2022. The full text of this document is available at the following internet address: https://www.fcc.gov/document/supply-chain-reimbursement-program-status-update-deadline-reminder. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to FCC504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).

1. By this document, the Bureau reminds Recipients in the Reimbursement Program of their obligation to file status updates with the Commission every 90 days, beginning on the date on which the Bureau approved Recipients' applications, until the obligation to file expires. Because Recipients' applications were approved on July 15, 2022, all initial status updates are due on October 13, 2022. As required by the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019, as amended (Secure Networks Act), the status updates must inform the Commission about the work of the Recipient to permanently remove, replace, and dispose of the covered communications equipment or services, which for the purposes of the Reimbursement Program means all communications equipment or services produced or provided by Huawei Technologies Company or ZTE Corporation and obtained on or before June 30, 2020 (covered communications equipment or services.

2. Background. As directed in the Secure Networks Act, the Commission established the Reimbursement Program to reimburse providers of advanced communications services with ten million or fewer customers for reasonable costs incurred in the removal, replacement, and disposal of covered communications equipment or services from their networks that pose a national security risk. In the 2020 Supply Chain Order, 86 FR 2904 (January 13, 2021), the Commission established and adopted rules for the Reimbursement Program, revised these rules in the 2021 Supply Chain Order, 86 FR 46995, August 23, 2021, and subsequently provided additional guidance on the application, reimbursement, and disposal process. On July 15, 2022, the Bureau issued decisions approving and denying applications submitted for Reimbursement Program support. Recipients were announced in a Public Notice released by the Bureau on July 18, 2022.

3. The Secure Networks Act requires that “[n]ot less frequently than once every 90 days beginning on the date on which the Commission approves an application for a reimbursement under the [Reimbursement] Program, the recipient of the reimbursement shall submit to the Commission a status update on the work of the recipient to permanently remove, replace, and dispose of the covered communications equipment or services.” The Secure Networks Act also provides that “[n]ot earlier than 30 days after the date on which the Commission receives a status update,” the Commission “shall make such status update public on the website of the Commission.” In the 2020 Supply Chain Order, the Commission required Recipients to file the first status updates within 90 days of receiving their funding allocations.

4. Status Updates Obligation. In accordance with the Secure Networks Act and Commission rules, each Recipient must regularly submit status updates beginning on October 13, 2022, and then every 90 days thereafter until the Recipient has notified the Commission of the completion of the permanent removal, replacement, and disposal of the covered communications equipment or service pursuant to a final certification. The Commission has interpreted the Secure Networks Act as permitting the Commission to require the first status update filing 90 days after the approval of applications for reimbursement, and also that the updates be filed at least every 90 days. In the 2020 Supply Chain Order, the Commission noted that status updates “will help the Commission monitor the overall pace of the removal, replacement, and disposal [(RRD)] process and whether recipients are acting consistently with the timelines provided to the Commission or whether unexpected challenges are causing delay.” Furthermore, due to the importance of status updates in the Commission's role to monitor Recipients' implementation of their RRD timelines, we clarify that while Recipients may submit status updates more frequently than every 90 days, they must file status updates every 90 days to satisfy their obligation. As such, we make a procedural revision to § 1.50004(k) to clarify that Recipients must file a status update with the Commission 90 days after the date on which the Bureau approves the Recipient's application, and every 90 days thereafter until the expiration of the obligation to file. This revision is permissible without notice and comment because the timeframe in which a Recipient must file its periodic reports under § 1.50004(k) of the Commission's rules is a procedural rule. This rule modification will ensure that the status updates provide the Bureau with the information it needs to perform the assessments contemplated by the Secure Networks Act and the Commission's orders and rules. For instance, if a Recipient filed its first status update on October 13, 2022, and filed its second on October 27, 2022, the second report would provide little insight into how much progress the Recipient has made on the permanent removal, replacement, and disposal of the covered communications equipment and services in its network since the first 90-day reporting period.

5. Recipients are required to report on their “work to permanently remove, replace, and dispose of the covered communications equipment or services” in their communications networks, including the efforts undertaken and challenges encountered in performing that work. The status updates must also include whether the Recipient has: (1) fully complied with, or is in the process of complying with, all requirements of the Reimbursement Program; (2) fully complied with, or is in the process of complying with, the commitments made in the Recipient's application; (3) permanently removed from its communications network, replaced, and disposed of, or is in the process of permanently removing, replacing, and disposing of, all covered communications equipment or services that were in the Recipient's network as of the date of the submission of the Recipient's application; and (4) fully complied with, or is in the process of complying with, the timeline submitted by the Recipient in their application. We remind Recipients that timelines submitted to the Commission outlining the Recipient's RRD process must comport with the Recipient's deadline to complete the permanent removal, replacement, and disposal of covered communications equipment and services, which is one year from its initial distribution of a reimbursement. Recipients shall also report in detail on the availability of replacement equipment in the marketplace so the Commission can assess whether a general, six-month extension permitted by the statute is appropriate. Lastly, each status update must include a certification that affirms the information in the update is accurate.

6. The Bureau issued decisions approving and denying applications submitted for Reimbursement Program support on July 15, 2022. As such, Recipients must submit their first status updates on October 13, 2022, and thereafter every 90 days until the expiration of the obligation to file. The obligation to file status updates expires after the Recipient has notified the Commission of the completion of the permanent removal, replacement, and disposal of the covered communications equipment or service pursuant to a final certification. Recipients will submit status updates through the online portal, https://fccprod.servicenowservices.com/scrp (SCRP Online Portal) by completing FCC Form 5640 Part K: Status Updates.

7. Public Posting and Requests for Confidentiality. Consistent with the Secure Networks Act, the Bureau will make the Recipients' status updates public by publishing them on the Commission's website no earlier than 30 days after the 90-day filing deadline. A link to the public status updates will be provided on the Commission's Reimbursement Program web page, https://www.fcc.gov/supplychain. For administrative ease, we clarify that if a Recipient opts to file multiple status updates within a particular 90-day period ( e.g., a status update filed at the 30-day mark prior to filing the mandatory status update at the 90-day mark), we will post all status updates filed for a given 90-day period to the Commission's website no earlier than 30 days after the close of that period. We also correct a discrepancy between § 1.50004(k)(2) of the Commission's rules and section 4(d)(8)(B) of the Secure Networks Act regarding the timing by which the Commission must post the status updates to its website. To comply with the Secure Networks Act, we clarify that the Bureau will publicly post the status update filings on the Commission's website no earlier than 30 days after the close of the 90-day period covered by the status update. This revision is permissible without notice and comment because § 1.50004(k)(2) is a procedural rule. Further, we find that notice and comment is not necessary under the “good cause” exception of the Administrative Procedure Act because the revision modifies the rule to be consistent with the statutory requirement.

8. Consistent with this requirement, we remind Recipients that status updates submitted to the Commission are public. We believe that most Recipients will be able to comply with the content requirements for status updates without including details that the Commission has determined are presumptively confidential. For instance, we believe that Recipients may comply with the content requirements of status updates without disclosing vendor price quotes; invoices; detailed accounting information on the covered communications equipment and services removed, replaced, and disposed of, and the replacement equipment or services purchased, rented, leased, or otherwise obtained using Reimbursement Program funds; the address, latitude/longitude of equipment or service locations; sensitive information in removal or replacement plans; specific equipment or service types; or the specific details of removal, replacement, and disposal timeliness. Recipients that need to include confidential information to accurately and fully report on the status of their removal, replacement, and disposal work, any challenges encountered in performing that work, or other status report content requirements must request confidential treatment of those details pursuant to § 0.459 of the Commission's rules. In addition to the content requirements of § 0.459 of the Commission's rules, Recipients should include the SCRP application numbers applicable to the status update and the Recipient's FCC Registration number in their requests for confidential treatment. Requests for confidential treatment must be submitted by filing a written request electronically in WC Docket No. 18-89 in the Commission's Electronic Comments Filing System (ECFS), https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs. Recipients should file any such requests for confidential treatment concurrently with submission of the corresponding status update on the SCRP Online Portal. Recipients must attach to their filings a version of their status updates that redacts the specific information for which they are seeking confidential treatment. Recipients may download a PDF copy of their completed status updates from the SCRP Online Portal to redact and submit with requests for confidential treatment. We remind Recipients that requests for confidential treatment and associated redactions that are overbroad or otherwise inconsistent with the Commission's rules will be rejected. The Bureau will post the redacted version of a status update for which confidential treatment has been sought on the Commission's website.

9. The final regulations at the end of this document reflect the two procedural rule changes for the Reimbursement Program adopted herein. The updated rules will become effective upon publication in the Federal Register .

10. Additional Information and Resources. Recipients with questions may contact the Fund Administrator Help Desk by email at SCRPFundAdmin@fcc.gov or by calling (202) 418-7540 from 9:00 a.m. ET to 5:00 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except for Federal holidays. General information and Commission documents regarding the Reimbursement Program are available on the Reimbursement Program web page, https://www.fcc.gov/supplychain.

11. The Commission will not send a copy of this document to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (CRA), see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because it does not adopt any rule as defined in the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 804(3).

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 1 as follows:

This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order (RO), FCC 22-50, adopted June 27, 2022, and released July 6, 2022. The full text of this document is available by downloading the text from the Commission's website at: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-22-50A1.pdf. When the FCC Headquarters reopens to the public, the full text of this document will also be available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.

Congressional Review Act: The Commission has determined, and the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), concurs, that this rule is non-major under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

1. This document requires that all facilities-based mobile wireless providers, including each such signatory to the Framework, comply with the MDRI. As explained below, we find that the incremental costs imposed on facilities-based mobile wireless providers by these new requirements will be minimal in many cases and, even when significant, will be far outweighed by the nationwide benefits.

2. The Resilient Networks notice of proposed rulemaking ( Resilient Networks NPRM ) (86 FR 61103, November 5, 2021) sought comment on whether providers should be required to implement the Framework's provisions and, if so, which providers should be subject to the requirements. We require that all facilities-based mobile wireless providers comply with the MDRI, which, among other elements, codifies the Framework's existing provisions. We defer for later consideration whether some similar construct to the Mandatory Disaster Response Initiative (MDRI) should be extended to entities outside of facilities-based mobile wireless providers in the manner described in the Resilient Networks NPRM. Many commenters address the merits and drawbacks of mandating the Framework's provisions for entities beyond the wireless industry, but this item addresses requirements for facilities-based mobile wireless providers only. We also defer for later consideration the proposals in the Resilient Networks NPRM related to promoting situational awareness during disasters and addressing power outages.

3. We find it appropriate to apply this requirement to all facilities-based mobile wireless providers. We recognize the merits of the current Framework and agree with the commenters who argue that its provisions would be more effective if they were expanded to include entities beyond the Framework's current signatories. We observe that the existing Framework, which was developed specifically for use in facilities-based mobile wireless networks, would be more effective and valuable if extended to all providers operating those types of networks.

4. We make these requirements mandatory for all facilities-based mobile wireless providers. No commenter took issue with the Commission's authority to require facilities-based mobile wireless providers to implement the Framework. A number of commenters agree that the Framework's requirements should be mandatory for current signatories and other facilities-based mobile wireless providers. Our approach in this document is consistent with Verizon's view that the Framework “could apply to all wireless providers,” AT&T's observation that the Framework could be applied to non-Framework signatories who are capable of roaming, and Public Knowledge's view that the Framework should be extended to at least the entire wireless industry. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) opines that a mandatory approach would make reporting more effective and consistent, incentivize action from those providers that currently do not undertake Framework-like steps in the aftermath of disasters, create more accountability, and close a disparity in service for customers based on whether their provider follows Framework-like measures or not. Public Knowledge believes that by mandating some of the Framework's requirements, including those related to entering into roaming agreements with other providers, the Commission would lower transactional costs faced by small- and medium-size ( e.g., regional) providers, making their adoption of such requirements more viable. We agree with these comments and find that mandating the Framework's requirements for a broader segment of the wireless industry, as provided by the MDRI we adopt in this document, will enhance and improve disaster and recovery efforts on the ground in preparation for, during, and in the aftermath of disaster events, including by increasing predictability and streamlining coordination in recovery efforts among providers. We find this to be true even for providers that already implement Framework-like steps. The efforts of all facilities-based mobile wireless service providers will be standardized based on a common set of required actions, thus better informing further Commission actions, enhancing resiliency, and better serving the public—particularly in times of need.

5. We reject the views of commenters who opine that codifying the Framework's requirements ( i.e., in the MDRI) would meaningfully limit the variety of solutions providers may implement or investments they may otherwise make in their network restoration and recovery efforts, e.g., due to fears that the efforts would make them non-compliant with these rules. These rules provide baseline actions and assurances that facilities-based mobile wireless providers will undertake to ensure effective coordination and planning to maintain and restore network connectivity around disasters. Nothing in this rule prevents or disincentivizes a provider from implementing additional measures that exceed the requirements of the MDRI. The record does not identify specific scenarios where taking additional steps beyond those required by the MDRI would make a provider non-compliant with the rules adopted in this document. Nevertheless, in the case that a provider desires to implement practices that would improve network resiliency but that, in some way, run counter to the rules we adopt in this document, a provider may explain these considerations in detail pursuant to the Commission's usual rule waiver procedures under 47 CFR 1.3.

6. In making the MDRI mandatory for all facilities-based mobile wireless providers, regardless of their size, we reject the views of the Competitive Carriers Association (CCA) and NTCA—The Rural Broadband Association (NTCA) that smaller providers should be excepted from these rules because they need to prioritize work on their own networks or lack the resources required for compliance in the midst of emergencies. We find that, as a practical matter, such concerns can be mitigated. Each of the Framework's provisions involves significant preparation and coordination steps to be taken well in advance of, rather than in the midst of, an emergency. For example, establishing mutual aid agreements, entering into appropriate contractual agreements related to roaming, enhancing municipal preparedness, increasing consumer readiness and preparing and improving public awareness are steps that can be taken in advance of a disaster. Making these advance preparations would reduce the resources needed to comply with these requirements during an emergency. Moreover, as NTCA notes, small wireless providers already generally abide by the underlying principles of the Framework. Requiring small providers to take certain actions to ensure that their networks remain operational during emergencies will have the effect of streamlining and standardizing those efforts, thus making coordination with other entities, including other providers, more efficient than would be possible absent uniform rules. Indeed, signatories to the Framework now have a commendable eight-year track record demonstrating how the Framework operates and its benefits before, during, and after disaster events, which offers lessons that smaller providers can follow. Additionally, the provisions of the MDRI are framed in terms of reasonableness and technical feasibility, which further mitigates these concerns.

7. We note that these rules will require that providers negotiate roaming agreements, including related testing arrangements, and mutual aid provisions. We require that all such negotiations be conducted in good faith and note that any disputes will be addressed by the Commission on a case-by-case basis. We delegate authority to the Enforcement Bureau to investigate and resolve such disputes.

8. This rule requires that each facilities-based mobile wireless provider enter into bilateral roaming agreements with all other facilities-based mobile wireless providers from which it may foreseeably request roaming privileges, or that may foreseeably request roaming privileges from it, when the MDRI is active. We clarify that roaming is foreseeable, without limitation, when two providers' geographic coverage areas overlap. We agree with NTCA that roaming agreements should be bilateral to ensure that roaming is implemented across the nation on equitable terms and that no provider prevents its subscribers from roaming onto the networks of other providers when it would be technically feasible to do so during disasters and emergencies. We also require that each bilateral roaming agreement be executed and in place no later than the compliance date for the MDRI. This advance planning will allow, for example, time for the providers subject to the agreement to undertake initial testing and confirm that the roaming functionality works as intended and/or take remediation steps to address technical issues prior to the actual onset of a disaster or emergency event, as well as to swiftly implement roaming when the MDRI is triggered. Where a disaster can be reasonably anticipated, such as in the case of a hurricane, this will also permit advance coordination and planning among parties to the roaming under disaster arrangement (RuD). It is our expectation that these bilateral roaming requirements will increase consumer access to emergency communications services in the direst of circumstances, and to the maximum extent technically feasible, when life and property are at stake.

9. We find strong support in the record for mandating the roaming provision of the Framework in the MDRI. We agree with the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials (APCO) that mandatory roaming is critical to ensuring that the public has access to 9-1-1 and other avenues of emergency communications, such as web-based services, that the public may rely upon for important information during an emergency, and with T-Mobile's general view that roaming should be promptly and broadly available to other providers on request absent extenuating circumstances and that such provisions should be made in anticipation of a disaster rather than only after a disaster has struck. We decline to adopt at this time T-Mobile's view that roaming should be required without permitting the host provider to perform a capacity evaluation. Requiring that RuDs be executed prior to disaster provides some assurance that issues can be identified and resolved prior to onset of the actual disaster event, reducing the chance that consumers will lose a life-saving lifeline when it is most needed. We also agree with Public Knowledge that providers located in vulnerable areas with less infrastructure are the least likely to have adequate roaming agreements in place with their neighboring providers absent an appropriate requirement.

10. We find that the roaming provision of the Framework has been sufficiently refined through eight years of implementation to provide a basis for its adoption in this document. CTIA—The Wireless Association (CTIA) observes, for example, that “[w]ireless stakeholders have been developing new practices for enhancing the implementation and effectiveness of the Framework's RuD tool based on lessons learned during earlier disaster events.” Further, CTIA offers as lessons learned that parties to roaming agreements should use uniform terminology throughout the RuD request process, establish provider connectivity and roaming terms before disasters occur, and conduct “blue skies” exercises with potential roaming partners. We agree with Verizon that roaming is workable, provided there is sufficient flexibility in the rules to account for a provider's technical and capacity issues, appropriate testing of capabilities, and safeguards to prevent opportunistic “free riding” roaming from providers who leverage another provider's more reliable network rather than invest in improving the reliability of their own. Accordingly, we reject AT&T's view that requiring roaming would necessarily be counterproductive or impair access to emergency services.

11. The roaming requirement adopted in this document requires facilities-based mobile wireless providers to provide for reasonable roaming under disaster arrangements (RuDs) when technically feasible, where: (i) a requesting provider's network has become inoperable and the requesting provider has taken all appropriate steps to attempt to restore its own network, and (ii) the provider receiving the request (home provider) has determined that roaming is technically feasible and will not adversely affect service to the home provider's own subscribers, provided that existing roaming arrangements and call processing methods do not already achieve these objectives and that any new arrangements are limited in duration and contingent on the requesting provider taking all possible steps to restore service on its own network as quickly as possible. We note that this industry-developed standard is a flexible one that allows providers to adapt to the particular circumstances that each disaster or exigency presents on a case-by-case basis. For example, what constitutes “reasonable roaming,” “technically feasib[ility]” and “adverse[] affect” will typically depend on facts and realities that cannot be determined universally in advance of a situation that gives rise to a particular MDRI activation. We find it useful, however, to provide clarification and basic guidance that would help providers understand what activities do meet this standard, where appropriate.

12. We clarify that “reasonable roaming” is roaming that does not disturb, but includes compliance with, the Commission's existing requirements that voice roaming arrangements be just, reasonable, and non-discriminatory, and that data roaming arrangements be commercially reasonable. We further clarify that “technically feasible” roaming for purposes of the Commission's disaster roaming rules requires a host provider to permit a requesting provider's customers to roam on the host provider's network on all compatible generations of network technology that it offers to its own customers. We note that requiring that a host provider support roaming regardless of network generation will contribute meaningfully to the Commission's objective of increasing consumer access to emergency communications services in the direst of circumstances, when life and property are at stake. Moreover, we find this would provide some measure of technological neutrality, as well account for the often-rapid evolution of wireless technology.

13. We also clarify that “reasonable roaming” would include providing a means of denying a roaming request in writing to the requesting provider, preferably with the specific reasons why roaming is infeasible. We believe that this approach would allow the requesting provider to evaluate the substance of the reasons so that it can make a renewed request at an appropriate time later, if warranted, and will create accountability on the part of requesting providers to ensure that denials are only issued when the circumstances truly warrant. Moreover, this approach, while optional, could help to provide insight into modifications that would facilitate a future roaming agreement or create a record in the event a dispute arises.

14. By way of example, we further clarify that an RuD that specifies that a provider may make a network health assessment within four hours post-disaster and activate its roaming functionality within three hours of completing the health assessment would generally be considered reasonable. In this respect, we agree with AT&T on the practicality of these time frames as best practices and note that appropriate time frames may depend on a specific scenarios and circumstances involved.

15. We find that the Commission could effectively ensure accountability on the part of providers and their compliance with this roaming provision, and could do so at minimal cost to providers, if the Commission had the ability to request copies of a provider's bilateral roaming agreements. We thus require that a provider retain RuDs for a period of at least one year after their expiration and supply copies of such agreements to the Commission promptly upon Commission request. If appropriate, such agreements may be submitted with a request for confidential treatment under § 0.459 of the Commission's rules.

16. This rule requires that each facilities-based mobile wireless provider enter into mutual aid arrangements with all other facilities-based mobile wireless providers from which it may request, or receive a request for aid during emergencies. Providers must have mutual aid arrangements in place within 30 days of the compliance date of the MDRI. This rule also requires providers to commit to engaging in necessary consultation where feasible during and after disasters, provided that the provider supplying the aid has reasonably first managed its own network needs. We find that requiring providers to coordinate and collaborate ( e.g., to determine ways in which excess equipment from one provider can be shared or exchanged with the other) has been successful during past disasters and serves the public interest during times of emergency. We find that, without this provision in place, providers are less likely to fully engage in such actions, particularly among providers that do not regularly collaborate on other matters ( e.g., between a large nationwide provider and smaller, rural provider). In arriving at this rule, we note and commend some of the nation's largest providers who already engage in this coordination on some level among themselves, and we believe that the public interest would greatly benefit from such commitments being extended to all facilities-based mobile wireless providers.

17. The MDRI mutual aid requirement is a codification of the flexible standard already developed by industry in proposing its successful Framework. As such, AT&T's concern that this rule would require a provider to grant mutual aid regardless of its own circumstances and ATIS's concern that this provision would require a provider to work to restore a competitor's network before its own are unfounded. Rather, as indicated by the plain language of this rule, a provider's obligations apply only if it has “reasonably first managed its own network needs.” Similarly, because a provider supplying aid under this provision would only do so after it has managed its own needs, we find USTelecom's concerns that this provision would create disincentives for a requesting provider to invest in its own resiliency and restoration capabilities are countered by the language of the rule itself, and further mitigated by the flexibility that the rules afford providers in coming to a reasonable mutual agreement. We similarly clarify that nothing in this rule requires that providers share their limited fuel or other equipment when they do not have enough of these resources to reasonably service their own subscribers' needs first.

18. Several other provisions of the MDRI track corresponding elements of the existing Framework and require that each facilities-based mobile wireless provider take reasonable measures to: (1) work to enhance municipal preparedness and restoration, (2) increase consumer readiness and preparation, and (3) improve public awareness and stakeholder communications on service and restoration status. The Commission declines to address at this time a provision similar to the existing Framework's provision that a provider establish a provider/public safety answering point (PSAP) contact database. The Commission is currently examining these issues in its pending 911 Reliability proceeding. We find that each of these provisions would enhance public safety objectives by tracking the elements of the Framework. We find that these actions, taken individually and as a whole, would provide significant public safety benefits by reducing the costs borne by both wireless providers and public safety entities in responding to and recovering from a disaster and by creating information that can be used by public officials, including first responders, to enable more effective and efficient responses in an emergency. We find that the MDRI, as a codification of successful provisions already implemented by the nationwide and certain regional providers to date, allows the needed flexibility to respond to the individual needs of providers and the communities they serve.

19. We find it in the public interest to supply clarity and assurance that providers have complied with as many of the MDRI's provisions as practical if they implement, or continue their implementation of, corresponding elements of the Framework. Accordingly, a provider that files a letter in the dockets associated with this proceeding truthfully and accurately asserting, pursuant to § 1.16 of the Commission's rules, that it complies with the Framework's existing provisions, and has implemented internal procedures to ensure that its remains in compliance with these provisions, for (i) fostering mutual aid among wireless providers during emergencies, (ii) enhancing municipal preparedness and restoration by convening with local government public safety representatives to develop best practices, and establishing a provider/PSAP contact database, (iii) increasing consumer readiness and preparation through development and dissemination with consumer groups of a Consumer Readiness Checklist, and (iv) improving public awareness and stakeholder communications on service and restoration status, through Commission posting of data on cell site outages on an aggregated, county-by-county basis in the relevant area through its Disaster Information Reporting System (DIRS) will be presumed to have complied with the MDRI counterpart provisions at § 4.17(a)(3)(ii) through (iv). We clarify that providers that rely on this safe harbor provision are representing adherence to these elements of the Framework as it was laid out and endorsed by the Commission in October 2016.

20. Given the new requirements related to testing roaming, however, we do not extend this “safe harbor” mechanism to these rules requiring that providers implement bilateral roaming arrangements (§ 4.17(a)(3)(i)), test their roaming functionality (§ 4.17(b)), provide reports to the Commission (§ 4.17(c)) or retain copied of RuDs (§ 4.17(d)). Nor we do extend safe harbor to § 4.17(e), which summarizes an announcement of compliance dates for these rules. These four provisions cover important aspects of the Framework related to roaming (among other functionality), where there is some evidence that the existing Framework has not performed as strongly as possible or else new requirements that have no counterpart in the existing Framework.

21. In the Resilient Networks NPRM, we sought comment on whether each provider should be required to implement annual testing of their roaming capabilities and related coordination processes. We adopt the requirement that this testing must be performed bilaterally with other providers that may foreseeably roam, or request roaming from, a given provider including, without limitation, between providers whose geographic coverage areas overlap. The first round of such testing, i.e., with respect to all other foreseeable providers, must be performed no later than the compliance date for the roaming provision of the MDRI.

22. We agree with NTCA that providers should regularly test their roaming capabilities and believe that the public interest would be served if providers conducted bilateral roaming capabilities testing with other providers to ensure that roaming will work expeditiously in times of emergencies. We agree with Verizon that testing in advance of an actual disaster event is necessary for a provider to best understand its network capabilities and ensure that roaming is performed in a way that does not compromise its service to its own customers. We find that bilateral testing will ensure that providers spend time optimizing, debugging and diagnosing their networks well advance of emergencies, ensuring that these networks roam as effectively as possible when a disaster strikes, ultimately saving lives and property. We find that by requiring the testing to be bilateral, each provider will be incentivized to take affirmative steps to ensure their own network can handle demands indicative of emergency scenarios, diminishing the possibility that such a provider would act as a “free-rider” when disaster strikes.

23. In the Resilient Networks NPRM, we also sought comment on whether providers should submit reports to the Commission, in real time or in the aftermath of a disaster, detailing their implementation of the Framework's provisions and whether the reports should include information on the manner in which the provider adhered to the various provisions of the Framework. We adopt this requirement and require that providers submit a report detailing the timing, duration and effectiveness of their implementation of the MDRI's provisions within 60 days of when the Bureau, under delegated authority which we grant in this document, issues a Public Notice announcing such reports must be filed for providers operating in a given geographic area in the aftermath of a disaster.

24. We agree with Free Press that that it is in the public interest for providers to submit an “after-action” report detailing how their networks fared and whether their pre-disaster response plans adequately prepared for a disaster and with Next Century Cities that requiring providers to submit reports detailing implementation of the Framework's provisions would help the Commission gauge the effectiveness of these provisions and potential future improvements in furtherance of public safety.

25. We reject the views of Verizon and other commenters who suggest that such reports should be filed only annually. We find that such reports would be most accurate and useful if they were provided shortly after a disaster event has concluded ( i.e., by a date specified in a Bureau issued public notice). We find that such reports should be filed shortly after a disaster event concludes, and not in real time, to avoid consuming public safety resources during times of exigency.

26. In the Resilient Networks NPRM, the Commission recognized circumstances where mutual aid or other support obligations could have been implemented, but were not warranted or provided because the Framework's activation triggers were not met. The Commission applauded the Framework but sought to expand its reach by working with providers to revisit the conditions that trigger activation of the Framework. Commenters generally agreed that new triggers for Framework activation are appropriate. Verizon identified that “[a]uthorizing the Chief of the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau to activate the Framework based on [Emergency Support Function 2] ESF-2 or DIRS” could be the right approach.

27. We find that the public interest supports a rule that the MDRI is triggered when either ESF-2 or DIRS is activated, or when the Chief of the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau announces that the MDRI is activated in response to a request received from a state in conjunction with the state activating its Emergency Operations Center, activating mutual aid, or proclaiming a local state of emergency. As such, we delegate to the Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau the authority to issue a public notice effectuating the MDRI under these circumstances, and to prescribe any mechanisms for receiving such a request.

28. We agree with those commenters who argue that the Framework's current activation criterion, which only applies when both ESF-2 and DIRS are activated, is too narrow. CTIA and Verizon agree that Framework elements could be helpful during events not currently covered by the Framework and are open to considering other activation triggers to help ensure cooperative efforts during disasters impacting communications networks. (Knowledge and CTIA point out that the current stringent activation requirements prevent consumers from receiving the benefits of the Framework like mutual aid and roaming arrangements because there are many disasters and events would not reach the dual ESF-2/DIRS trigger, such as the recent California power shutoffs and wildfires for which ESF-2 was not activated. CTIA states that they are committed to working with the Commission to consider other objective activation triggers.) Certain events like wildfires are not expressly covered by the Framework and have the potential to occur more frequently than other covered events like hurricanes. Next Century Cities (NCC) explains that DIRS is typically activated before an anticipated major emergency or following an unpredicted disaster but ESF-2 is only activated under specific circumstances when the Department of Homeland Security or FEMA has identified that a significant impact to the nation's communications infrastructure has occurred or is likely to occur. These two programs differ in activation requirements, meaning that the Framework is not always activated even during critical disaster events and the Commission is not always able to collect vital communications outage data. We agree with NCC's and Public Knowledge's recommendation that the Framework would be more effective if it were activated when either DIRS or ESF-2 is activated and if it remained active until the emergency has ceased and network disruption has been resolved. Further, we agree with Verizon's suggestion that the Chief of the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau should be able to activate the Framework based on ESF-2 or DIRS, or when a state experiences events such as FEMA-recognized or declared disasters, events that could affect a significant geographic area, or events that could result in outages for a significant duration and have the potential to impact multiple providers. The activation criteria for the MDRI incorporates these views.

29. We disagree with those commenters, including the CCA and NTCA, who think a codified version of the Framework cannot incorporate remedies and procedures for a variety of differing disasters and emergencies. We agree that the current Framework offers flexibility to address various challenges brought on by differing disasters in differing locations, and we note that the MDRI will allow for the same flexibility and offer even more benefits and restorative efforts with a wider range of activation triggers. CTIA argues that the beneficial elements of the Framework outweigh the doubts and points out the Framework's success in advancing wireless resiliency over the past few years. Recognizing the merits of the Framework and building upon it in the MDRI will also better incorporate the uniqueness of individual disasters by offering additional circumstances in which the obligations would be triggered.

30. In the Resilient Networks NPRM, the Commission generally sought information on costs and benefits of requiring providers to implement provisions of the Framework, including mandating some or all of the Framework, and tentatively concluded that the benefits exceeded the costs for doing so. We affirm that tentative conclusion as to facilities-based mobile wireless providers.

31. No commenter provides a detailed quantitative analysis of costs or benefits, though some commenters provide qualitative views. For example, Public Knowledge opines that mandating the Framework, particularly the roaming provision of the Framework, would lower transaction costs for smaller providers while also providing benefits to the nation's network resiliency and emergency response. CPUC notes that the benefits of ensuring heightened network resiliency are likely to increase in the coming years as the number of weather and climate disaster events continues to increase. On the other hand, AT&T, CCA, and USTelecom, among others, argue that mandating the Framework would create harms, rather than benefits, because it would remove flexibility in providers' disaster recovery approaches and, as a result, would lead to worse public safety outcomes. CCA further argues that some providers, including small providers, may lack the resources necessary to adopt a mandatory regime. As discussed below, we find that the incremental costs to the nation's facilities-based mobile wireless providers for codifying the Framework in the MDRI rules will be minimal in many cases and, even when significant, will be far outweighed by nationwide benefits.

32. We find that Framework signatories are unlikely to incur significant one-time implementation costs to comply with the MDRI because they already implement actions aligned with the Framework's steps and, in some cases, take significant additional actions as part of their existing business practices. AT&T, for example, cites multiple examples evidencing that it and other signatories commonly invoke the Framework's provisions and notes it has extended roaming privileges to other wireless providers during numerous events in which the Framework's activation criteria were not triggered. AT&T notes that it has universally allowed roaming on its network when it has had capacity, including by non-Framework signatories, and believes the same to be true of other signatories. Verizon notes that it has already voluntarily entered into bilateral roaming agreements with AT&T, T-Mobile, and some mid-sized and smaller providers that pertain to disaster scenarios. Other wireless providers, or their industry groups, provide numerous examples of how providers are already investing significant time and resources into complying with the Framework provisions, even when they are not signatories or bound to the Framework's terms, to enhance their networks' resiliency. Given these efforts, we find it reasonable to conclude that the one-time implementation costs imposed on Framework signatories to implement uniform procedures to comply with the MDRI will be minimal. We note for clarity that any framework signatory that qualifies as a small entity under the definition is afforded additional time for compliance with these rules compared to non-small entities.

33. We find that regional and local entities will incur one-time implementation costs to transition from their existing processes to new processes to comply with the MDRI. As noted in the record, regional and local facilities-based mobile wireless providers already accrue costs to implement steps similar to those described in these rules. For example, ACA Connects notes that its members (which are small regional or local entities) have “developed plans outlining specific actions to be performed at specific preparatory stages ( e.g., at 72, 48 or 24 hours in advance of an impending storm),” including typically by “identify[ing] service restoration priorities[,] coordinat[ing] extensively within their companies to ensure all available resources are brought to bear effectively and that customers (both residential and enterprise) are kept informed of service impacts and progress in restoring outages[,] and coordinat[ing] with first responders, power companies, and fellow communications providers in their service area.” ACA Connects notes that its members currently “readily coordinate and share information with local, State and Federal authorities, as well as other communications providers and power companies.” ACA Connects further notes that this sort of information exchange “allows for a more efficient and coordinated restoration effort” and enables providers to “continually update their plans based on `lessons learned' from previous events.” Similarly, NTCA notes that small wireless providers “certainly abide” by the underlying principles of the Framework— i.e., even if they do not follow the Framework's specific requirements as mandated by these rules. Given these efforts, we believe that the total setup costs for regional and local providers to implement the MDRI will be limited.

34. Specifically, we estimate that the nation's regional and local facilities-based mobile wireless providers that are not current Framework signatories will incur total initial setup costs of approximately $945,000 based on our estimate of 63 such providers each spending 50 hours of time on legal services at $107/hour, 50 hours of time on software development at $87/hour, and 100 hours of time on public relations and outreach activities at $53/hour. These setup costs enable the regional and local providers to update or revise their existing administrative and technical processes to conform to processes required by these rules, including those related to roaming arrangements, fostering mutual aid, enhancing municipal preparedness, increasing consumer readiness, and improving public awareness and shareholder communications on service and restoration status.

35. Commenters have provided no evidence, as requested in the Resilient Networks NPRM, of any significant additional recurring costs. Nevertheless, the industry will incur an annual recurring cost, imposed by the new testing and reporting requirements. We find, however, that these costs are likely mitigated for a number of reasons. The incremental costs of testing are lessened to the extent that facilities-based providers already engage in regular assessments of their roaming capabilities with their roaming partners. Moreover, we find that these cost increases will be substantially offset, over the long term, by the lowering of transaction costs. Under our new rules, a provider's bilateral roaming agreements with other providers will contain similar elements in key provisions and these details will no longer need to be determined on a partner-by-partner basis, thus reducing transaction costs. The setup and recurring costs also will be substantially offset by the network's increase in economic efficiency as providers start sharing more of their unused capacity and idle equipment during disasters and other emergencies. Finally, because our requirement for providers to issue reports detailing the timing, duration and effectiveness of their implementation of the MDRI first entails a Public Notice specifying the providers and geographic area affected, the recurring costs for reporting purposes will be limited to instances where the Commission sees a legitimate need to require such reports.

36. We agree with Public Knowledge that there are significant benefits in requiring providers to coordinate preparation for disasters and with Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc. (TDI) that the benefits of adopting a mandatory approach, as in this rule, would be widespread, including by increasing access to critical information by individuals in the deaf, hard of hearing, and deafblind communities. Further, CTIA testified at the Commission's 2021 virtual Field Hearing on improving the resiliency and recovery of communications networks during disasters that the Framework is a “collaborat[ive] . . . jumpstart[ ] [to] response and recovery” and allows for continuous growth through lessons learned during “increasing severity and frequency of disasters” allowing for the development of “best practices [to] strengthen our networks, our response, and our performance for everyone who relies on wireless during emergencies.” Moreover, we find that the benefits attributable to improving facilities-based mobile wireless network resiliency in the context of emergency situations is substantial and will promote the health and safety of residents during times of natural disaster or other unanticipated events that impair telecommunications infrastructure.

37. While it would be impossible to quantify the precise financial value of these health and safety benefits, we note that the value of these benefits would have to exceed the implementation cost of less than $1 million, together with the annual recurring costs imposed by the new testing and reporting requirements, to outweigh the total cost of compliance. This reasoning is an example of a “breakeven analysis” recommended by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in cases where precise quantification and monetization of benefits is not possible. In light of the record reflecting large benefits to consumers and other communities, we find that the total incremental costs imposed on the nation's facilities-based mobile wireless providers by these new requirements will be minimal in many cases and, even when significant, will be far outweighed by the nationwide benefits.

38. We set a compliance date for these rules at the later of (i) 30 days after the Bureau issues a Public Notice announcing that OMB has completed review of any new information collection requirements associated with this document or (ii) nine months after the publication of this document for small facilities-based mobile wireless providers and six months after the publication of this document in the Federal Register for all other ( i.e., not small) facilities-based mobile wireless providers. We adopt the Small Business Administration's (SBA) standard, which classifies a provider in this industry as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. We require a provider have each bilateral roaming agreement, as described in § 4.17(a)(3)(i), executed and in place no later than its associated compliance date, have mutual aid arrangements, as described in § 4.17(a)(3)(ii), in place within 30 days of its associated compliance date, and perform a complete first round of testing, as described in § 4.17(b), no later than its associated compliance date. We note for clarity that the compliance date associated with a small facilities-based mobile wireless providers applies for the requirements of § 4.17(a)(3)(ii) when at least one party to the mutual aid arrangement is a small facilities-based mobile wireless provider. We further note that finalization of arrangements under § 4.17(a)(3)(ii) will be required 30 days after compliance with the other provisions of § 4.17. To the extent that a new facilities-based mobile wireless service provider subsequently commences service, it is required to comply with these provisions 30 days following commencement of service. As reflected at § 4.17(e), we direct the Bureau to issue a Public Notice that announces the compliance dates for all facilities-based mobile wireless providers upon obtaining OMB approval of the new information collection requirements associated with this document.

39. These rules require that facilities-based mobile wireless providers take steps to update their processes to implement our MDRI, which codifies many of the Framework's provisions. We find that providers will require only a modest amount of time to adjust their processes to comply with these rules because, as noted above, they already implement actions closely aligned with the Framework's steps and, in some cases, take significant additional actions as part of their existing practices. For instance, AT&T and a non-Framework signatory roamed on each other's networks for months after disaster Hurricane Maria. Signatories to the Wireless Network Resiliency Cooperative Framework implemented it immediately and, when hurricane season arrived six months later, the signatories demonstrated their implementation by voluntarily reporting in DIRS. In addition, we find that these changes must be made expeditiously given recent observations of network failures during disasters. As small and large providers, or their industry groups, have emphasized that they could implement the Framework immediately, or else take Framework-like measures already, we believe that this time range provides sufficient time for providers to implement any changes and make any necessary arrangements.

40. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the Resilient Networks; Amendments to part 4 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Disruptions to Communications; New part 4 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Disruptions to Communications notice of proposed rulemaking ( Resilient Networks NPRM ) released in October 2021. The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the Resilient Networks NPRM, including comment on the IRFA. No comments were filed addressing the IRFA. This present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.

41. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis. These rules may constitute new or modified information collection requirements. All such new or modified information collection requirements will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies will be invited to comment on any new or modified information collection requirements contained in this proceeding. In addition, we note that, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the Commission previously sought, but did not receive, specific comment on how the Commission might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The Commission does not believe that any new information collection requirements will be unduly burdensome on small businesses. Applying these new information collection requirements will promote public safety response efforts, to the benefit of all size governmental jurisdictions, businesses, equipment manufacturers, and business associations by providing better situational information related to the Nation's network outages and infrastructure status.

42. In this document, the Commission adopts rules that require all facilities-based mobile wireless providers to comply with the Mandatory Disaster Response Initiative (MDRI), which codifies the Wireless Network Resiliency Cooperative Framework (Framework), an agreement developed by the wireless industry in 2016 to provide mutual aid in the event of a disaster, and expands the events that trigger its activation. The document also implements new requirements for testing of roaming capabilities and MDRI performance reporting to the Commission. These actions will improve the reliability, resiliency, and continuity of communications networks during emergencies. This action uniformizes the Nation's response efforts among facilities-based mobile wireless providers who, prior to these rules, implemented the Framework on a voluntary basis. The Framework commits its signatories to compliance with the following five prongs: (1) providing for reasonable roaming arrangements during disasters when technically feasible; (2) fostering mutual aid during emergencies; (3) enhancing municipal preparedness and restoration; (4) increasing consumer readiness and preparation, and (5) improving public awareness and stakeholder communications on service and restoration status. Under these rules, the Mandatory Disaster Response Initiative incorporates these elements, the new testing and reporting requirements and will be activated when any entity authorized to declare Emergency Support Function 2 (ESF-2) activates ESF-2 for a given emergency or disaster, the Commission activates the Disaster Information Reporting System (DIRS), or the Commission's Chief of Public Safety and Homeland Security issues a Public Notice activating the MDRI in response to a state request to do so, where the state has also either activated its Emergency Operations Center, activated mutual aid or proclaimed a local state of emergency.

43. The rules in this document also address findings of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) concerning wireless network resiliency. In 2017, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), in conjunction with its review of federal efforts to improve the resiliency of wireless networks during natural disasters and other physical incidents, released a report recommending that the Commission should improve its monitoring of industry efforts to strengthen wireless network resiliency. The GAO found that the number of wireless outages attributed to a physical incident—a natural disaster, accident, or other manmade event, such as vandalism—increased from 189 in 2009 to 1,079 in 2016. The GAO concluded that more robust measures and a better plan to monitor the Framework would help the FCC collect information on the Framework and evaluate its effectiveness, and that such steps could help the FCC decide if further action is needed. In light of prolonged outages during several emergency events in 2017 and 2018, and in parallel with the GAO recommendations, the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (Bureau) conducted several inquiries and investigations to better understand and track the output and effectiveness of the Framework and other voluntary coordination efforts that promote wireless network resiliency and situational awareness during and after these hurricanes and other emergencies.

44. There were no comments filed that specifically address the proposed rules and policies in the IRFA.

45. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.

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

47. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental Jurisdictions. Our actions may, over time, affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe here, at the outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly affected herein. First, while there are industry specific size standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory flexibility analysis, according to data from the SBA's Office of Advocacy, in general a small business is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees. These types of small businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States which translates to 32.5 million businesses.

48. Next, the type of small entity described as a “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000 or less to delineate its annual electronic filing requirements for small exempt organizations. Nationwide, for tax year 2020, there were approximately 447,689 small exempt organizations in the U.S. reporting revenues of $50,000 or less according to the registration and tax data for exempt organizations available from the IRS.

49. Finally, the small entity described as a “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.” U.S. Census Bureau data from the 2017 Census of Governments indicate that there were 90,056 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United States. Of this number there were 36,931 General purpose governments (county, municipal and town or township) with populations of less than 50,000 and 12,040 special purpose governments—independent school districts with enrollment of less than 50,000. Accordingly, based on the 2017 U.S. Census of Governments data, we estimate that at least 48,971 entities fall into the category of “small governmental jurisdictions.”

50. The rules adopted in this document apply only to facilities-based mobile wireless providers, which include small entities as well as larger entities. The Commission has not developed a small business size standard directed specifically toward these entities. However, in our cost estimate discussion below in section E, we estimate costs based on Commission data that there are approximately 63 small facilities-based mobile wireless providers. As described below, these entities fit into larger industry categories that provide these facilities or services for which the SBA has developed small business size standards.

51. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services. The SBA size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of that number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, there were 797 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of wireless services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 715 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered small entities.

52. We note that while facilities-based mobile wireless providers fall into this industry description, in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as “small” under the above SBA size standard, business (control) affiliations must be included. Another element of the definition of “small business” requires that an entity not be dominant in its field of operation. An additional element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity must be independently owned and operated. The Commission notes that it is difficult at times to assess these criteria and its estimates of small businesses to which they apply may be over-inclusive to this extent. We are unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific facilities-based mobile wireless provider impacted by this document is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to which rules may apply for this industry description is therefore possibly over-inclusive and thus may overstate the number of small entities that might be affected by our action.

53. Wireless Communications Services. Wireless Communications Services (WCS) can be used for a variety of fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting satellite services. Wireless spectrum is made available and licensed for the provision of wireless communications services in several frequency bands subject to part 27 of the Commission's rules. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) is the closest industry with a SBA small business size standard applicable to these services. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Thus under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of licensees in this industry can be considered small.

54. The Commission's small business size standards with respect to WCS involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses for the various frequency bands included in WCS. When bidding credits are adopted for the auction of licenses in WCS frequency bands, such credits may be available to several types of small businesses based average gross revenues (small, very small, and entrepreneur) pursuant to the competitive bidding rules adopted in conjunction with the requirements for the auction and/or as identified in the designated entities section in part 27 of the Commission's rules for the specific WCS frequency bands.

55. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.

56. The requirements in this document will impose new or modified reporting, recordkeeping and/or other compliance obligations on small entities. The rules adopted in this document require all facilities-based mobile wireless providers to make adjustments to their restoration and recovery processes, including contractual arrangements and public outreach processes, to account for MDRI. The mutual aid, roaming, municipal preparedness and restoration, consumer readiness and preparation, and public awareness and stakeholder communications provisions adopted in the Order are a codification of the flexible standard already developed by the industry in proposing its voluntary Framework. The new provision that expands the events that trigger its activation and that require providers test and report on their roaming capabilities will ensure that the MDRI is implemental effectively and in accordance with the Commission's rules, and the new requirements related to testing and reporting will ensure that roaming is performed effectively with the aim of saving life and property.

57. The roaming requirement adopted by the Commission requires facilities-based mobile wireless providers to provide for reasonable roaming under disaster arrangements (RuDs) when technically feasible, where: (i) a requesting provider's network has become inoperable and the requesting provider has taken all appropriate steps to attempt to restore its own network, and (ii) the provider receiving the request (home provider) has determined that roaming is technically feasible and will not adversely affect service to the home provider's own subscribers, provided that existing roaming arrangements and call processing methods do not already achieve these objectives and that any new arrangements are limited in duration and contingent on the requesting provider taking all possible steps to restore service on its own network as quickly as possible. In this document, we also require facilities-based mobile wireless providers to: (1) enter into bilateral roaming agreements with all other facilities-based mobile wireless providers from which it may foreseeably request roaming privileges, or that may foreseeably request roaming privileges from it, when the MDRI is active, (2) have each bilateral roaming agreement executed and in place no later than the compliance date for the roaming provision of the MDRI, and (3) make copies their bilateral roaming agreements available to the Commission promptly upon Commission request.

58. Pursuant to the “safe harbor” provision we adopt in this document, a provider may file a letter in the dockets associated with this proceeding which truthfully and accurately asserts pursuant to § 1.16 of the Commission's rules, that the provider is in compliance with the Framework's existing provisions, and has implemented internal procedures to ensure that it remains in compliance with the provisions for: (i) fostering mutual aid among wireless providers during emergencies, (ii) enhancing municipal preparedness and restoration by convening with local government public safety representatives to develop best practices, and establishing a provider/PSAP contact database, (iii) increasing consumer readiness and preparation through development and dissemination with consumer groups of a Consumer Readiness Checklist, and (iv) improving public awareness and stakeholder communications on service and restoration status, through Commission posting of data on cell site outages on an aggregated, county-by-county basis in the relevant area through its DIRS will be presumed to have complied with the MDRI counterpart provisions at § 4.17(a)(3)(ii) through (iv). The “safe harbor” mechanism adopted in the rules does not apply to the requirements that providers implement bilateral roaming arrangements (§ 4.17(a)(3)(i)), test their roaming functionality (§ 4.17(b)) provide reports to the Commission (§ 4.17(c)), or retain RuDs (§ 4.17(d)). Providers that make a “safe harbor” filing are representing adherence to these elements of the Framework as laid out and endorsed by the Commission in October 2016.

59. Small and other regional and local facilities-based mobile wireless providers that are not current Framework signatories will incur one-time implementation costs to transition from their existing processes to new processes to comply with the MDRI. The Commission estimates that the Nation's regional and local facilities-based mobile wireless providers as a whole will incur one-time total initial setup costs of $945,000 to implement the requirements of this document and may require professionals in order to comply. We base our estimate on 63 such providers each spending 50 hours of time on legal services at $107/hour, 50 hours of time on software development at $87/hour, and 100 hours of time on public relations and outreach activities at $53/hour, to update or revise their existing administrative and technical processes to conform, to processes their record keeping and other compliance requirements to those required by this rule, including those related to roaming arrangements, fostering mutual aid, enhancing municipal preparedness, increasing consumer readiness and improving public awareness and shareholder communications on service and restoration status.

60. Facilities-based providers in the industry may also incur an annual recurring cost, imposed by the new testing and reporting requirements and determined that these costs are likely to be mitigated for a number of reasons. The incremental costs of testing are lessened to the extent that facilities-based providers already engage in regular assessments of their roaming capabilities with their roaming partners. Moreover, these cost increases will be substantially offset, over the long term, by the lowering of transaction costs. Under our new rules, a provider's bilateral roaming agreements with other providers will contain similar elements in key provisions and these details will no longer need to be determined on a partner-by-partner basis, thus reducing transaction costs. The setup and recurring costs also will be substantially offset by the network's increase in economic efficiency as providers start sharing more of their unused capacity and idle equipment during disasters and other emergencies.

61. Finally, because our requirement for providers to issue reports detailing the timing, duration and effectiveness of their implementation of the MDRI first entails a Public Notice specifying the providers and geographic area affected, we anticipate recurring costs to be limited to instances where the Commission sees a legitimate need to require such reports. We set compliances dates for these rules as the later of (1) 30 days after the Office of Management and Budget completes review of such requirements pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act or the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau determines that such review is not required, or (2) nine months after publication of this document in the Federal Register for facilities-based mobile wireless service providers with 1,500 or fewer employees and six months after publication of this document in the Federal Register for all other facilities-based mobile wireless service providers, except that compliance with paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of § 4.17 will not be required until 30 days after the compliance date for the other provisions of the section. The Commission has directed the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau to announce the compliance dates § 4.17 by subsequent Public Notice and to cause the section to be revised accordingly.

62. We conclude that the benefits of participation by small entities and other providers likely will exceed the costs for affected providers to comply with the rules adopted in this document. The benefits attributable to improving resiliency in the context of emergency situations is substantial and may have significant positive effects on the abilities of these entities to promote the health and safety of residents during times of natural disaster or other unanticipated events that impair telecommunications infrastructure.

63. The RFA requires an agency to provide “a description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities . . . including a statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the impact on small entities was rejected.”

64. The actions taken by the Commission in this document were considered to be the least costly and minimally burdensome for small and other entities impacted by the rules. The Commission took a number of actions in this document to minimize any significant economic impact on small entities and considered several alternatives. For example, this document's requirements are only applicable to facilities-based mobile wireless providers and thus other small entity providers that may be capable of roaming are not subject to the adopted provisions. In addition, several of the adopted requirements are based on or incorporate industry-developed standards, and utilize and are consistent with existing Commission requirements. In developing the requirement that facilities-based mobile wireless providers provide reasonable roaming under disaster arrangements (RuDs) when technically feasible, for instance, we define “reasonable roaming” as roaming that does not disturb, but includes compliance with, the Commission's existing requirements that voice roaming arrangements be just, reasonable, and non-discriminatory, and that data roaming arrangements be commercially reasonable. Consistency with existing industry standards and Commission requirements increase the likelihood that small entities already have processes and procedures in place to facilitate compliance with the rules we adopt in this document and may only incur increment costs which will minimize the impact for these entities.

65. Some commenters supported an alternative view that all small providers should be excepted from the rules adopted in this document because they need to prioritize work on their own networks or else generally lack the resources required for compliance in the midst of emergencies. Upon consideration of this position the Commission determined that these concerns can be mitigated because the Framework's provisions such as establishing mutual aid agreements, enhancing municipal preparedness, increasing consumer readiness and preparing and improving public awareness are preparation and coordination can and should be taken well in advance of, rather than in the midst of an emergency. Likewise, securing the appropriate contractual agreements related to roaming is an obligation that should be completed prior to an emergency event. Further and notably, some commenters indicated that small mobile wireless providers already generally abide by the underlying principles of the Framework. Given that such efforts are already in place or in progress, we believe that the total setup costs for small regional and local providers to implement the MDRI will be limited. Moreover, requiring small providers to take actions adopted in this document to ensure their networks remain operational during emergencies will have the effect of streamlining and standardizing those efforts, thereby making coordination with other entities, including other providers, more efficient than would be possible if small providers were not subject to uniform rules. Small providers are also affording an additional measure of time to comply with adopted rules, requiring compliance within nine months (rather than the six month afforded other providers).

66. Lastly, we considered whether providers should submit reports to the Commission, in real time or in the aftermath of a disaster detailing their implementation of the Framework's provisions and whether the reports should include information on the manner in which the provider adhered to the various provisions of the Framework. We declined to adopt a real-time submission reporting requirement, and instead required that providers submit a report detailing the timing, duration and effectiveness of their implementation of the MDRI's provisions within 60 days of when the Bureau, under delegated authority, issues a Public Notice announcing such reports must be filed for providers operating in a given geographic area in the aftermath of a disaster. In light of our decision to examine ways to standardize and streamline the reporting processes for providers in the further notice of proposed rulemaking (FNPRM), published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, we did not mandate a timeline for compliance with the reporting requirements, therefore small entities will not be immediately impacted by the requirements.

67. Accordingly it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 4(o), 201(b), 214(d), 218, 251(e)(3), 301, 303(b), 303(g), 303(j), 303(r), 307, 309(a), 309(j), 316, 332, 403, 615a-1, and 615c of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i)-(j) & (o), 201(b), 214(d), 218, 251(e)(3), 301, 303(b), 303(g), 303(j), 303(r), 307, 309(a), 309(j), 316, 332, 403, 615a-1, and 615c, the Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in PS Docket Nos. 21-346 and 15-80 and ET Docket No. 04-35 is hereby adopted.

68. It is further ordered that the amended Commission rules as set forth in § 4.17 Are Adopted, effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Compliance with the rules adopted in document will not be required until the later of (i) 30 days after the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau issues a Public Notice announcing completion of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review of any new information collection requirements associated with this document or (ii) nine months after the publication of this document in the Federal Register for facilities-based mobile wireless providers with 1500 or fewer employees and six months after the publication of this document in the Federal Register for all other facilities-based mobile wireless providers. For the purposes of the provisions of § 4.17(a)(3)(ii), compliance will be required 30 days after the compliance date for all other provisions, and the compliance date for a small facilities facilities-based mobile wireless provider will apply when at least one party to the mutual aid arrangement is a small facilities-based mobile wireless provider. The Commission directs the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau to announce the compliance dates by subsequent Public Notice and to cause 47 CFR 4.17 to be revised accordingly.

69. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of the Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

70. It is further ordered that the Office of Managing Director, Performance Evaluation and Records Management, shall send a copy of the Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 4 as follows:

NMFS published a final rule for Framework Adjustment 3 to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan in the Federal Register on November 3, 2003 (68 FR 62250), implementing a process to roll over unused Winter I commercial scup quota (January 1 through April 30) to be added to the Winter II period quota (October 1 through December 31) (50 CFR 648.122(d)). The framework also allows adjustment of the commercial possession limit for the Winter II period dependent on the amount of quota rolled over from the Winter I period.

For 2022, the initial Winter II quota is 3,248,849 lb (1,473,653 kg). The best available landings information through September 8, 2022, indicates that 4,219,494 lb (1,913,930 kg) remain of the 9,194,201 lb (4,170,419 kg) Winter I quota. Consistent with Framework 3, the full amount of unused 2022 Winter I quota is being transferred to Winter II, resulting in a revised 2022 Winter II quota of 7,468,343 lb (3,387,583 kg). Because the amount transferred is between 4.0 and 4.5 million lb (1,814,369 and 2,041,165 kg), the Federal per trip possession limit will increase from 12,000 lb (5,443 kg) to 24,000 lb (10,886 kg), as outlined in the final rule that established the possession limit and quota rollover procedures for this year, published on December 23, 2021 (86 FR 72859). The new possession limit would be effective October 1 through December 31, 2022. The possession limit will revert back to 12,000 lb (5,443 kg) at the start of the next fishing year that begins January 1, 2023.

NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR 648.122(d), which was issued pursuant to section 304(b), and is exempted from review under Executive Order 12866.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be contrary to the public interest. This action transfers unused quota from the Winter I Period to the Winter II Period to make it accessible to the commercial scup fishery and increase fishing opportunities. If implementation of this inseason action is delayed to solicit prior public comment, the objective of the fishery management plan to achieve the optimum yield from the fishery could be compromised. Deteriorating weather conditions during the latter part of the fishing year may reduce fishing effort, and could also prevent the annual quota from being fully harvested. If this action is delayed, it would reduce the amount of time vessels have to realize the benefits of this quota increase, which would result in negative economic impacts on vessels permitted to fish in this fishery. Moreover, the rollover process being applied here is routine and formulaic and was the subject of notice and comment rulemaking, and the range of potential trip limit changes were outlined in the final 2022 scup specifications that were published December 23, 2021, which were developed through public notice and comment. The benefit of soliciting additional public comment on this formulaic adjustment would not outweigh the benefits of making this additional quota available to the fishery as quickly as possible. Based on these considerations, there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delayed effectiveness period for the reasons stated above.