On June 3, 2022, OPM published proposed regulations (87 FR 33653), which proposed amendments to 5 CFR part 875 to support FLTCIP stability and flexibility by amending when abbreviated underwriting will be offered to prospective enrollees and proposing rules for the suspension of applications for coverage and the requirements around any such suspension periods. OPM also proposed technical corrections for the sake of clarity and to remove redundancies. Finally, with the publication of the proposed rule, OPM provided notice of an anticipated suspension period.

The comment period for the proposed rule closed on July 5, 2022. OPM received three comments from individuals on the proposed rule, and a Federal appeals board contacted us regarding OPM's delegation of authority to resolve contract disputes in 5 CFR 875.109. A summary of the comments OPM received follows, along with our responses to the comments and a technical change OPM is making to the final rule in response to the comments.

One commenter questioned OPM's authority to authorize a suspension period and to change the 60-day abbreviated underwriting period allowed to newly eligible active workforce members and spouses. The commenter asserted that OPM lacked authority to suspend applications based on the statutory language in 5 U.S.C. 9002(a) which states that OPM shall establish and administer the FLTCIP for which eligible individuals may obtain long term care insurance coverage. The commenter stated that the statutory construct should be interpreted to mean that OPM must offer eligible individuals an opportunity to enroll in the FLTCIP. Another commenter questioned OPM's authority to suspend applications for a period, as this would reduce premiums received from enrollees prevented from enrolling and therefore increase premiums for those already enrolled.

OPM disagrees with these comments and concludes that it has the authority to institute these changes to FLTCIP. OPM's authority to establish and administer the Program brings with it the obligation to oversee the Program's functioning and to protect both current and prospective enrollees, as well as the health of the Program as a whole. OPM has authority under 5 U.S.C. 9008 to prescribe regulations to effectuate this authority, including to create through regulation the ability to suspend applications for coverage, with notice and for a reasonable period of time, when necessary for the proper administration of the Program. It is also within OPM's authority to alter through regulation the circumstances under which abbreviated underwriting may be offered. As OPM explained in the preamble of the proposed rule, the purpose of creating through regulation the ability to suspend applications is to protect eligible individuals from applying to enroll when OPM has determined that underwriting processes may need revisions or when the current premium rates offered to new applicants may not reasonably and equitably reflect the cost of the benefits as required under 5 U.S.C. 9003(b)(2). Finally, OPM acknowledges that if FLTCIP is suspended for a period this would prevent currently eligible and newly eligible individuals from applying for coverage during the suspension, and individuals may have to wait to apply after the suspension period or seek alternative coverage. As explained in the preamble of the proposed rule, the number of potential new enrollees would be small. OPM will only suspend applications when it is in the best interest of the Program, as required by this final rule.

One commenter stated that the proposed rule is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act because OPM stated in the preamble that it considered the Notice of Proposed rulemaking to serve as the notice required under the proposed 5 CFR 875.110(b), which is being finalized in this final rule. OPM is clarifying that the proposed rule served as notice to the public that OPM intends to suspend FLTCIP applications and establishes the process for suspension, amends abbreviated underwriting rules, and modifies the regulations. OPM is clarifying that these actions, including the process for suspension as proposed in 5 CFR 875.110, will be effectuated after publication of the final rule, not after the proposed rule as the commenter stated.

One commenter questioned whether OPM consulted with the Secretaries of the uniformed services before promulgating the rule as required by 5 U.S.C. 9008(c). OPM fulfilled the requirement of consultation through the inter-agency review process before it published the proposed rule.

All three of the commenters expressed general concerns about the manner in which OPM administers FLTCIP. They suggested that OPM should act in a fashion similar to state insurance regulators, such as by adopting standards set by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) for long term care insurance rate increases, conducting public rate hearings, and taking expert and enrollee testimony. They also suggested that OPM should be more transparent in its operation of the Program, such as by making public its communications with the FLTCIP Carrier. Finally, one commenter suggested that OPM should require the FLTCIP Carrier and administrator to be more transparent regarding their operations, such as by publishing quarterly reports with information about pay-outs, expenses, reserves, and investment mix.

OPM acknowledges the importance of transparency and consumer protections for FLTCIP enrollees. OPM complies with consumer protections in the FLTCIP statute and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, including by providing a contingent benefit upon lapse, inflation protection options, portability, and guaranteed renewability (except when enrollees fail to pay their premiums). As part of contracting, OPM and the FLTCIP Carrier agree to specific requirements for the insurer to follow, including certain NAIC model standards. While OPM will consider these comments in its future administration of the Program, the comments are outside the scope of this rule and require no further response.

The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) also contacted OPM seeking clarification regarding the appropriate board of contract appeals to resolve contract disputes between OPM and the FLTCIP Carrier. The ASBCA correctly noted that although OPM's regulations currently identified the ASBCA as the board of contract appeals with jurisdiction, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 created the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA) and specified the jurisdiction of the ASBCA and CBCA. As an executive agency, OPM contract disputes are within the jurisdiction of the CBCA pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 7105(b). OPM is making a technical correction that updates our regulations to reflect that the CBCA, not the ASBCA, will resolve contract disputes related to FLTCIP.

OPM will issue a separate Federal Register document announcing the beginning date and anticipated length of any suspension period at least 30 days before the suspension period starts.

OPM has made a change to the final rule to clarify 5 CFR 875.110. The proposed rule included the process for suspending applications for FLTCIP coverage after publication of a document in the Federal Register . The proposed rule also included a process for extending such a suspension. The final rule clarifies that each extension to the suspension period is limited to 24 months. Each extension will be based on current information supporting OPM's conclusion that continuing the suspension is in the best interest of the Program, and each extension will require publication in the Federal Register .

OPM has made one technical correction to this final rule. This final rule clarifies in 5 CFR 875.109 that the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals has jurisdiction to resolve contract disputes related to FLTCIP. Except for the change above and this technical correction, OPM is issuing this final rule with no other changes.

The changes in this final rule, including underwriting changes and any future suspensions of applications for FLTCIP coverage, will not affect current FLTCIP enrollees. Individuals already enrolled in FLTCIP will retain their coverage as long as they continue to pay premiums. The changes impact new enrollment and are expected to impose no more than de minimus administrative costs to Federal agencies since FLTCIP is an enrollee-pay-all program, and there is no Government contribution toward enrollee premiums.

OPM expects that the rule will not result in a significant impact on the eligible or newly eligible population. Approximately 6,000 eligible individuals enroll in FLTCIP annually, which is less than 0.1% of 11 million eligible federal and military actives and annuitants (not including spouses and other qualified relatives who are also eligible). This low percentage mirrors the low uptake for purchasing long term care insurance (LTCI) in the broader LTC market. According to a Treasury Report of the Federal Interagency Task Force on Long-Term Care Insurance, sales of new LTCI policies have declined since the early 2000s, as numerous insurers decided to exit the market due to the poor financial performance of the product line; and low take-up rates for LTCI appear to stem in part from low demand for these products. 1 The report identifies factors influencing demand including: substitutes for private LTCI such as Medicaid; unpaid care or the ability to receive informal care from family; a desire to leave assets to heirs can suppress demand because people may be motivated to postpone consumption and save money; lack of information and awareness about LTC costs and the ways to finance those costs; lack of trust in insurers; and premiums, costs, and loads. 2

Since less than 0.1% of the eligible population annually enroll in FLTCIP, based on this trend and market trends, it is unlikely that newly eligible individuals would have a high demand for LTCI during a suspension of applications. Further, there are other options for eligible individuals to plan for LTC needs. Some other options to plan for LTC needs during a suspension period include the following: saving for future needs by setting aside funds to invest in a 401(k), an IRA, or a non-retirement investment account; investing in a long-term care annuity; purchasing a “combination” or “hybrid” product that combines a life insurance policy with a LTC rider; or purchasing a short-term care insurance policy.

OPM does not believe this regulation will have a large impact on the broader LTCI market. Approximately 6,000 eligible individuals enroll in FLTCIP annually, which is less than 0.1% of the eligible population. At an average premium of $125 per month or $1,500 per year, the forgone annual premium for new enrollees would total less than $10 million per year during any FLTCIP enrollment suspension. As discussed above, affected individuals would likely pursue substitute savings and insurance products during a suspension period. OPM estimates that the magnitude of the forgone $10 million on other parties, such as LTC insurers in the LTCI market, would be quite small compared to the larger LTCI market.

This final rule establishes provisions for OPM to suspend applications to FLTCIP when it is in the best interest of the program; for example, in order to allow for adjustment to underwriting processes or to reprice premium rates after a review of actuarial assumptions. The rule aims to protect eligible individuals from applying to enroll when it has been determined that underwriting processes may need revisions or when the current premium rates may not reflect the cost of the benefits provided due to market volatility and changes to projections about future costs. This allows OPM and the FLTCIP carrier to agree on underwriting changes or new premium rates that reasonably and equitably reflect the cost of the benefits provided as required by the FLTCIP statute.

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

This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (codified at 5 U.S.C. 801-808), also known as the Congressional Review Act or CRA, 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. A major rule under the CRA cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register .

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) (PRA) unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number.

I certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

We have examined this rule in accordance with Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and have determined that this rule will not have any negative impact on the rights, roles, and responsibilities of State, local, or tribal governments.

Accordingly, OPM amends 5 CFR part 875 as follows:

I. Background

The Secretary of Homeland Security has authority under 5 U.S.C. 301, 552, and 552a, and 6 U.S.C. 112(e) to issue Privacy Act regulations. That authority has been delegated to the Chief Privacy Officer of the Department pursuant to 6 U.S.C. 142 and DHS Del. No. 13001, Rev. 01 (June 2, 2020).

On January 27, 2003, DHS published an interim rule in the Federal Register (68 FR 4056) that established DHS procedures implementing the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a. DHS has since issued minor procedural amendments to the interim rule, see 85 FR 11829 (Feb. 28, 2020), but DHS has not issued a more comprehensive update since 2003.

On November 22, 2016, DHS issued a final rule amending the Department's regulations under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 6 CFR part 5, subpart A, in order to update and streamline the language of several procedural provisions, to incorporate changes brought by the amendments to the FOIA under the Open Government Act of 2007 and FOIA Improvement Act of 2016, and to reflect developments in the case law. See 81 FR 83625.

On October 6, 2021, DHS published a proposed rule to amend existing regulations under the Privacy Act at 6 CFR part 5, subpart B, and make minor, technical edits to 6 CFR part 5, subpart A, for the limited purpose of replacing references to appendix I to subpart A with references to appendix A to part 5. See 86 FR 55528. 1 DHS accepted comments on the proposed rule through December 6, 2021. DHS is now finalizing the rule with minor clarifying changes, the more prominent of which are discussed below.

In total, DHS received 6 public submissions to its proposed rule, of which only one provided a specific recommendation. The commenter stated that DHS should add language to the proposed regulation to address the ability of the public to seek corrections to records maintained about them or organizations they are associated with. The comment stated that when federal agencies maintain records that are inaccurate it can expose individuals to risk, and such individuals should have redress to correct such errors. DHS interprets the comment to refer to content that is already included in proposed 6 CFR 5.26, Requests for Amendment or Correction of Records. After review and consideration, DHS has decided to not make additional changes to this section. This section clearly explains how an individual can ask DHS to amend or correct agency records about them.

Upon further review of the proposed rule, DHS has made a number of clarifying and procedural changes as compared to the proposed rule, as follows:

• DHS is removing Appendix I to subpart A, consistent with the proposed rule. 2

• DHS is eliminating gendered language.

• DHS is removing existing § 5.20(e), a provision relating to interim retention of authorities, because the Department is now issuing a Privacy Act final rule and has updated its existing systems of records notices since the Department first issued this provision. The paragraph stated that the interim provision would remain operative “until this regulation is promulgated as a final rule, or the Department revises all systems of records notices.” Because both of these conditions have been satisfied, and the provision is no longer operative in any event, DHS is removing this provision.

• DHS is modifying § 5.22(d)(1) to remove the last sentence of that paragraph, which was redundant to § 5.22(d)(2).

• DHS is modifying § 5.22(d)(2) to make clear that the component FOIA Office, rather than the component medical practitioner or other qualified designee, is responsible for making any disclosure to the individual's representative or the individual. In addition, in light of the purpose of the procedures contained in this provision, DHS has opted to retain authority to withhold medical records if the individual does not designate a representative. 3 Such a decision would be appealable pursuant to the general appeal procedures in 6 CFR 5.25. However, consistent with the proposed rule, 4 if an individual does designate a representative, § 5.22(d)(2) makes clear that the representative does not have discretion to withhold the records from the individual.

• Consistent with the preamble to the proposed rule, 5 DHS is adding a § 5.22(d)(3) to clarify that Coast Guard medical records held by another agency (such as military medical records held by the Department of Defense) are not subject to § 5.22(d)(2).

• DHS is modifying § 5.25(a) by removing the reference to filing appeals directly with the Office of the General Counsel and making other procedural and nonsubstantive changes. These changes will make this paragraph consistent with the parallel provision in 6 CFR 5.8(a), which addresses administrative appeals under the FOIA. DHS is not modifying § 5.25(b), under which the Office of the General Counsel, or its designee ( e.g., Component Appeals Officer) is the authorized appeals authority for DHS.

• DHS is modifying § 5.27(a) by removing the words “to the extent covered by the [Judicial Redress Act (JRA)]” and adding “or for records covered by the JRA” at the end of § 5.27(b)(1). The purpose of this change is to clarify that accounting of disclosures is not required by the JRA and not provided for by the Department.

• DHS is modifying appendix A to part 5 to specify where persons should send their FOIA and Privacy Act requests for each Headquarters Office and Component of the Department. Although individuals may request records as they deem fit, the Department strongly encourages persons to submit their requests electronically through a designated DHS FOIA electronic portal, if applicable and available.

Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 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 (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

DHS has considered the costs and benefits of this rule. This rule will not introduce new regulatory mandates. In the proposed rule we stated this rule would not result in additional costs on the public or the government. Further, we stated this rule does not collect any additional fee revenues compared to current practices or otherwise introduce new regulatory mandates. The rule's benefits include additional clarity for the public and DHS personnel with respect to DHS's implementation of the Privacy Act and JRA. No public comments were submitted on the analysis presented in the proposed rule.

This rule will not result in the expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no written statement was deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, and section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 601 note, agencies must consider the impact of their rulemakings on “small entities” (small businesses, small organizations, and local governments). 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. DHS has reviewed this regulation and by approving it certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As stated in the proposed rule, DHS does not believe this rule imposes any additional direct costs on small entities. No public comments were submitted on the analysis presented in the proposed rule.

This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 251 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (as amended), 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Office of Management and Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not found that this rule is likely to result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets.

DHS reviews proposed actions to determine whether the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) applies to them and, if so, what degree of analysis is required. DHS Directive 023-01 Rev. 01 (Directive) and Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01 Rev. 01 (Instruction Manual) establish the procedures that DHS and its components use to comply with NEPA and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA, 40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508.

The CEQ regulations allow federal agencies to establish, with CEQ review and concurrence, categories of actions (“categorical exclusions”) which experience has shown do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and, therefore, do not require an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 40 CFR 1507.3(b)(2)(ii), 1508.4. For an action to be categorically excluded, it must satisfy each of the following three conditions: (1) the entire action clearly fits within one or more of the categorical exclusions; (2) the action is not a piece of a larger action; and (3) no extraordinary circumstances exist that create the potential for a significant environmental effect. Instruction Manual section V.B(2)(a)-(c).

This rule fits within categorical exclusion A3(a) “Promulgation of rules . . . of a strictly administrative or procedural nature.” Instruction Manual, Appendix A, Table 1. Furthermore, the rule is not part of a larger action and presents no extraordinary circumstances creating the potential for significant environmental impacts. Therefore, the rule is categorically excluded from further NEPA review.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, DHS amends 6 CFR part 5 as follows:

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Gulfstream Aerospace LP Model Gulfstream G150 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 21, 2022 (87 FR 43459). The NPRM was prompted by AD ISR I-57-2021-12-3, dated January 1, 2022, issued by CAAI, which is the aviation authority for Israel (referred to after this as the MCAI). There were reports that wing flap fairing debonding and corrosion were discovered at the lower skin of rib 3 and rib 11 on both wings. The MCAI states that the reason for the AD is to prevent the possibility of flap fairing debonding, moisture intrusion and wing lower skin corrosion at rib 3 and rib 11.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require an inspection for corrosion in certain areas of the wing skin fairings, additional inspections if corrosion is found and a measurement of the thickness of the remaining wing skin if necessary, resealing the fairings with new fillet seal, and applicable corrective actions. The FAA is issuing this AD to address flap fairing debonding and moisture intrusion that might lead to lower wing skin corrosion and cracking on both wings, and reduced structural integrity of the wings.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2022-0887.

The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on this product. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

CAAI AD ISR I-57-2021-12-3, dated January 1, 2022, specifies procedures for an inspection for corrosion in the area of the wing skin (or doubler if installed) under the rib 3 and rib 11 fairings, a penetration or eddy current inspection for cracks if corrosion was found, a measurement of the thickness of remaining wing skin (or doubler) if no cracks were found, resealing of rib 3 and rib 11 fairings with new fillet seal, and applicable corrective actions. Corrective actions include cleaning and removing corrosion, crack repair, and repair of fairing installation locations with a certain thickness reduction.

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

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 87 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-condition action that would be required based on the results of any required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:

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

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

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all MHI RJ Aviation ULC Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701 & 702); CL-600-2C11 (Regional Jet Series 550); CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705); CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900); and CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 21, 2022 (87 FR 43450). The NPRM was prompted by AD CF-2021-49, dated December 20, 2021, issued by Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada (referred to after this as the MCAI). The MCAI states that the landing gear age of certain airplanes was higher than expected for gear overhaul. The MCAI notes that undetected corrosion could lead to MLG and/or NLG collapse, and consequent damage to the airplane and injury to the occupants.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require verifying the calendar age of the NLG and MLG by way of component maintenance documents, and performing corrective actions if necessary. The NPRM also proposed to prohibit installing certain components. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2022-0885.

The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on this product. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

MHI RJ has issued Service Bulletin 670BA-32-062, dated December 2, 2021. This service information describes procedures for, among other actions, verifying the calendar age of the NLG and MLG by way of component maintenance documents and for removing affected landing gear components and replacing them with serviceable components. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 624 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-condition actions that would be required based on the results of any required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus SAS Model A350-941 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 15, 2022 (87 FR 50009). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2022-0088, dated May 17, 2022 (EASA AD 2022-0088), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union (referred to after this as the MCAI). The MCAI states that the path for the grounding wire of the engine FSOV is routed through the wing trailing edge, which is not the shortest path available. This condition could increase the possibility of an engine FSOV unavailability in the event of an uncontained engine rotor failure, which could result in an uncontrolled engine fire.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require modifying the wiring between the inboard fixed leading edge in the wing and in the forward cargo compartment on the left- and right-hand sides, as specified in EASA AD 2022-0088. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2022-1052.

The FAA received comments from the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) who supported the NPRM without change.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on this product. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

EASA AD 2022-0088 specifies procedures for modifying the wiring between the inboard fixed leading edge in the wing and in the forward cargo compartment on the left- and right-hand sides. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

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

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

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

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

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2017-10-17, Amendment 39-18891 (82 FR 24017, May 25, 2017) (AD 2017-10-17). AD 2017-10-17 applied to certain Airbus SAS Model A330-223F and -243F airplanes; Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, and -243 airplanes; Model A330-301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes. AD 2017-10-17 required revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to include new fuel airworthiness limitations. The FAA issued AD 2017-10-17 to address the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 10, 2022 (87 FR 35465). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2021-0252, dated November 17, 2021, issued by EASA (referred to after this as the MCAI). The MCAI states that new or more restrictive fuel airworthiness limitations and tasks are necessary.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2022-0673.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to continue to require the actions in AD 2017-10-17. The NPRM also proposed to require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate additional new or more restrictive fuel airworthiness limitations and tasks, as specified in EASA AD 2021-0252. In addition, the NPRM proposed to expand the applicability to include additional models. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

The FAA received comments from the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) who supported the NPRM without change.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on this product. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

EASA AD 2021-0252 describes new or more restrictive fuel airworthiness limitations and tasks.

This AD also requires Airbus A330 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 5—Fuel Airworthiness Limitations (FAL), Revision 01, dated October 28, 2015, which the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by reference as of June 29, 2017 (82 FR 24017, May 25, 2017).

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

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 138 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the retained actions from AD 2017-10-17 to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator to operator. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate.

The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the new actions to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

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

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

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

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

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

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

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

EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued a series of ADs, with the most recent being EASA AD 2021-0101R1, dated February 25, 2022 (EASA AD 2021-0101R1), to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus Helicopters (AH), formerly Eurocopter, Eurocopter France, Aerospatiale, Sud Aviation, Model SA 365 N, SA 365 N1, AS 365 N2, AS 365 N3, EC 155 B, and EC 155 B1 helicopters.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Helicopters Model SA-365N, SA-365N1, AS-365N2, AS 365 N3, EC 155B, and EC155B1 helicopters. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 12, 2022 (87 FR 49773). The NPRM was prompted by reports of failure of the cockpit doors to open after ditching with inflated floats on certain helicopters equipped with an EFS. EASA advises emergency evacuation was only possible by jettisoning the hinged doors from the inside or by accessing the emergency exits in the cabin. EASA further advises that the passage from the cockpit to the cabin may be impaired on helicopters with certain interior layouts. The NPRM proposed to require revising the existing RFM for your helicopter, installing placards, and depending on your model helicopter, modification of the jettisoning system, as specified in EASA AD 2021-0101R1.

The FAA is issuing this AD to inform external rescuers that the cockpit door jettison function needs to be utilized to successfully egress incapacitated flight crew from the cockpit during an emergency when the EFS is activated. See EASA AD 2021-0101R1 for additional background information.

The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the costs.

These helicopters have been approved by EASA and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the European Union, EASA has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the EASA AD referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these helicopters. This AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM.

EASA AD 2021-0101R1 requires amending the RFM; installing placards on the left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) side of the helicopter; and for certain helicopters, modifying the jettison system by installing an external handle on the jettison system of the pilot and co-pilot doors.

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

The FAA reviewed Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. AS365-52.00.27, Revision 1, dated June 4, 2021 (AS365-52.00.27, Rev 1), which specifies procedures for installing labels (placards) on the pilot and co-pilot doors. AS365-52.00.27, Rev 1, also specifies procedures for installing an external handle on the jettison system.

The FAA also reviewed Airbus Helicopters ASB No. AS365-52.00.29, Revision 1, dated February 9, 2022, ASB No. AS365-52.00.29, Revision 0, dated February 10, 2021, and ASB No. EC155-52A033, Revision 0, dated September 30, 2020. This service information specifies procedures for installing labels (placards) on the pilot and co-pilot doors.

The FAA also reviewed Airbus Helicopters Flight Manual (FM) SA 365 N Supplement, SUP.10.4, Normal Revision (NR) 7, date code 20-40; Airbus Helicopters FM SA 365 N1 Supplement, SUP.10.4, NR 9, date code 20-40; Airbus Helicopters FM AS 365 N2 Supplement, SUP.14, NR 6, date code 20-40; Airbus Helicopters FM AS 365 N3 Supplement, SUP.14, NR 12, date code 20-28; Airbus Helicopters FM EC 155 B Supplement, SUP.14, NR 7, date code 20-11; and Airbus Helicopters FM EC 155 B1 Supplement, SUP.14, NR 8, date code 20-11. This service information provides updated procedures for ditching and emergency evacuation.

EASA AD 2021-0101R1 allows using Airbus Helicopters ASB No. AS365-52.00.27, original issue, dated November 17, 2020 (including Erratum to ASB AS365-52.00.27, original issue, dated January 21, 2021); whereas this AD does not. This AD requires using AS365-52.00.27, Rev 1 instead. Where paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2021-0101R1 specifies to “modify the helicopter in accordance with the instructions of Section 3 of the applicable ASB,” this AD requires using the instructions of Section 3.B. of the applicable ASB.

EASA AD 2021-0101R1 requires operators to “inform all flight crews” of revisions to the RFM, and thereafter to “operate the helicopter accordingly.” However, this AD does not specifically require those actions. FAA regulations mandate compliance with only the operating limitations section of the flight manual. The flight manual changes required by this AD would apply to the emergency procedures and normal procedures sections of the existing RFM for your helicopter. Furthermore, compliance with such requirements in an AD is impracticable to demonstrate or track on an ongoing basis; therefore, a requirement to operate the aircraft in such a manner is unenforceable. Nonetheless, the FAA recommends that flight crews of the helicopters listed in the applicability operate in accordance with the revised emergency procedures and normal procedures specified by this AD.

This AD allows the owner/operator (pilot) holding at least a private pilot certificate to revise the existing RFM for your helicopter and do the logbook entry, whereas EASA AD 2021-0101R1 does not specify this. This AD requires these actions to be entered into the aircraft records showing compliance with this AD in accordance with 14 CFR 43.9(a) and 14 CFR 91.417(a)(2)(v). The record must be maintained as required by 14 CFR 91.417, 121.380, or 135.439.

For certain helicopters, this AD requires revising section 4.1, Normal Procedures, of the existing RFM for your helicopter to add a check to the RH and LH Cockpit Door Jettison Handles, whereas EASA AD 2021-0101R1 does not require that action.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 40 helicopters of U.S. Registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on these numbers, the FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD.

Revising the existing RFM for your helicopter takes about 0.25 work-hour for an estimated cost of $21 per helicopter and $840 for the U.S. fleet.

Installing placards on the pilot and co-pilot doors takes about 1 work-hour and parts cost up to about $138 for an estimated cost of up to $223 per helicopter.

For helicopters with the Airbus Helicopters Forward Looking InfraRed (AH FLIR) system installed, installing placards on the pilot and co-pilot doors takes about 0.5 work-hour and parts cost about $52 for an estimated cost of $95 per helicopter.

If required, installing an external handle on the jettison system takes about 7 work-hours and parts cost about $1,328 for an estimated cost of $1,923 per helicopter and $51,921 for the U.S. fleet (27 helicopters).

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

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

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

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

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

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

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

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

The FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2022-1299; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-00248-T” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the final rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this final rule because of those comments.

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

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this AD contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this AD, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Manuel Hernandez, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, FAA, International Validation Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone 562-627-5256; email manuel.f.hernandez@faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2022-0027, dated February 18, 2022 (EASA AD 2022-0027) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for all Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0070 and Mark 0100 airplanes.

EASA AD 2022-0027 requires a task (limitation) related to the tasks already in Part 2 of the Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness, referred to in Section 06, Appendix 1, of the Fokker 70/100 Maintenance Review Board document required by EASA AD 2020-0024 (which corresponds to FAA AD 2020-09-11, Amendment 39-19907 (85 FR 30592, May 20, 2020) (AD 2020-09-11)).

This AD was prompted by a determination that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

See the MCAI for additional background information.

This AD does not supersede FAA AD 2020-09-11. Rather, the FAA has determined that a stand-alone AD is more appropriate to address the changes in the MCAI. This AD requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations.

EASA AD 2022-0027 specifies new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations for airplane structures and safe life limits. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

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

This AD requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations, which are specified in EASA AD 2022-0027 described previously, as incorporated by reference.

This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new actions ( e.g., inspections) and Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs). Compliance with these actions and CDCCLs is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by this AD, the operator may not be able to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) according to paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.

In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, EASA AD 2022-0027 is incorporated by reference in this AD. This AD requires compliance with EASA AD 2022-0027 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in EASA AD 2022-0027 does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in EASA AD 2022-0027. Service information required by EASA AD 2022-0027 for compliance will be available at regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-1299 after this AD is published.

The FAA's process of incorporating by reference MCAI ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with corresponding FAA ADs has been limited to certain MCAI ADs (primarily those with service bulletins as the primary source of information for accomplishing the actions required by the FAA AD). However, the FAA is now expanding the process to include MCAI ADs that require a change to airworthiness limitation documents, such as airworthiness limitation sections.

For these ADs that incorporate by reference an MCAI AD that changes airworthiness limitations, the FAA requirements are unchanged. Operators must revise the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the information specified in the new airworthiness limitation document. The airworthiness limitations must be followed according to 14 CFR 91.403(c) and 91.409(e).

The previous format of the airworthiness limitation ADs included a paragraph that specified that no alternative actions ( e.g., inspections), intervals, or CDCCLs/or intervals may be used unless the actions, intervals, and CDCCLs/actions and intervals are approved as an AMOC in accordance with the procedures specified in the AMOC paragraph under “Additional FAA Provisions.” This new format includes a “New Provisions for Alternative Actions, Intervals, and CDCCLs/Actions and Intervals” paragraph that does not specifically refer to AMOCs, but operators may still request an AMOC to use an alternative action, interval, or CDCCL/action or interval.

Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. ) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment procedures for rules when the agency, for “good cause,” finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under this section, an agency, upon finding good cause, may issue a final rule without providing notice and seeking comment prior to issuance. Further, section 553(d) of the APA authorizes agencies to make rules effective in less than thirty days, upon a finding of good cause.

There are currently no domestic operators of these products. Accordingly, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3). In addition, for the foregoing reason, the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

The requirements of the RFA do not apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt a rule without prior notice and comment. Because the FAA has determined that it has good cause to adopt this rule without notice and comment, RFA analysis is not required.

Currently, there are no affected U.S.-registered airplanes. If an affected airplane is imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future, the FAA provides the following cost estimates to comply with this AD:

The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator to operator. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate. Therefore, the agency estimates the average total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

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

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

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

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

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

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

On October 4, 2022, the FAA issued Emergency AD 2022-21-51 (the emergency AD), which requires repetitive detailed visual inspections of the entire left-hand elevator auxiliary spar for cracks, corrosion, and previous repairs, and depending on the findings, replacement of the left-hand elevator auxiliary spar, and sending the inspection results to the FAA. The FAA sent the emergency AD to all known U.S. owners and operators of these airplanes. This action was prompted by multiple recent reports of cracks in the left-hand elevator auxiliary spar. The FAA's analysis of these reports indicates that immediate AD action is warranted. The FAA is issuing this AD to detect and address cracks, corrosion, and previous repairs to the left-hand elevator auxiliary spar. This condition, if not addressed, could result in elevator flutter leading to elevator failure, with consequent loss of control of the airplane. The FAA has coordinated this issue with Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada. Transport Canada issued AD CF-2018-04, dated January 19, 2018 (Transport Canada AD CF-2018-04), which includes a requirement for inspecting elevator assemblies for corrosion.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that published in the Federal Register on February 8, 2022 (87 FR 7059) in response to Transport Canada AD CF-2018-04, and is currently addressing comments. As an interim action, the FAA issued the emergency AD, as a result of the recent reports, to mandate an inspection of the left-hand elevator auxiliary spar and replacement if necessary.

The FAA is issuing this AD because the agency has determined that an unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

This AD requires repetitive detailed visual inspections of the entire left-hand elevator auxiliary spar for cracks, corrosion, and previous repairs, and depending on the findings, replacement of the left-hand elevator auxiliary spar. This AD also requires sending the inspection results to the FAA.

The FAA considers this AD to be an interim action. If final action is later identified, the FAA might consider further rulemaking.

Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. ) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment procedures for rules when the agency, for “good cause,” finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under this section, an agency, upon finding good cause, may issue a final rule without providing notice and seeking comment prior to issuance. Further, section 553(d) of the APA authorizes agencies to make rules effective in less than thirty days, upon a finding of good cause.

An unsafe condition exists that required the immediate adoption of Emergency AD 2022-21-51, issued on October 4, 2022, to all known U.S. owners and operators of these airplanes. The FAA found that the risk to the flying public justified waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because cracks in the left-hand elevator auxiliary spar, if not addressed, could result in elevator flutter leading to elevator failure, with consequent loss of control of the airplane. Accordingly, the FAA determined that a detailed visual inspection of the entire left-hand elevator auxiliary spar must be performed immediately. These conditions still exist, therefore, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).

In addition, the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days, for the same reasons the FAA found good cause to forego notice and comment.

The FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2022-1420; Project Identifier AD-2022-01303-A” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the final rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this final rule because of those comments.

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

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this AD contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this AD, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to James Delisio, Continued Operational Safety Program Manager, COS Program Management Section, Operational Safety Branch, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Westbury, NY 11590. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

The requirements of the RFA do not apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt a rule without prior notice and comment. Because the FAA has determined that it has good cause to adopt this rule without prior notice and comment, RFA analysis is not required.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 68 airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary replacement that would be required based on the results of the inspection to the left-hand elevator auxiliary spar. The agency has no way of determining the number of airplanes that might need this replacement:

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

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

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

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

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

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

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

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

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register for FAA-2022-0764 (87 FR 45725; July 29, 2022) to modify the Class D and E surface areas, the Class E airspace area designated as an extension to a Class D or E surface area, and the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface. It also proposed administrative changes to the airport's legal descriptions. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. Two comments were received, although neither were germane to the proposal.

Subsequent to publication of the NPRM in the Federal Register , the FAA identified a discrepancy with the proposed Class E2 legal description. It was inadvertently referred to as “Class D” in the body of the description. This action corrects this error to read “Class E” Additionally, the proposed Class E6 legal description required multiple modifications. The airport name is removed from the description, as it is provided in the second line of the header and duplication is not necessary. Lastly, the Class E6 legal description contained exclusionary verbiage, which is removed as it is not necessary.

This document amends FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022. FAA Order JO 7400.11G is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11G lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The FAA is amending 14 CFR part 71 by modifying the Class D and E surface areas, the Class E airspace area designated as an extension to a Class D or E surface area, and the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface.

Class D airspace is intended to contain IFR arrival operations while between the surface and 1,000 feet above the surface, and IFR departure operations while between the surface and the base of adjacent controlled airspace. The current Class D airspace radius is 5.4 miles, which is excessive. This radius is reduced to 4.9 miles, as additional airspace is not necessary. The Class D airspace is expanded to the southeast of the airport due to rising terrain, as it's needed to contain departures until reaching 700 feet above the surface.

The Class E surface airspace is amended to be coincident with the airport's Class D airspace legal description.

The Class E airspace area designated as an extension to a Class D or E surface area is removed southwest of the airport, as it is no longer needed. The Class E airspace area designated as an extension to a Class D or E surface area northwest of the airport is modified to more appropriately contain arrivals on the ILS/LOC RWY 12 approach.

The Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface around Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport is reduced from a 13.5-mile radius to a 6.9-mile radius around the airport, as additional airspace is not necessary to contain IFR departures flying toward or over rising terrain. The Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface northwest of the airport is reduced, as the existing airspace is excessive and not necessary. Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface is extended southeast of the airport to contain IFR departures until reaching 1,200 feet above the surface, and IFR arrivals descending below 1,500 feet above the surface.

Finally, this action makes several administrative modifications to the airport's legal descriptions. The airport's geographic coordinates in the Class D and E legal descriptions are updated to match the FAA's database. The Class D and E2 legal descriptions are updated to replace the outdated use of the phrases “Notice to Airmen,” and “Airport/Facility Directory.” These phrases are amended to read “Notice to Air Missions” and “Chart Supplement,” respectively, to align with the FAA's current nomenclature. The airport name was removed from the Class E6 legal description due to redundancy. Lastly, the phrase “excluding existing lateral limits of controlled airspace 12,000 feet MSL and above,” was removed as it is unnecessary.

Class D, E2, E4, E5, and E6 airspace designations are published in paragraphs 5000, 6002, 6004, 6005, and 6006, respectively, of FAA Order JO 7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.

FAA Order JO 7400.11 is published annually and becomes effective on September 15.

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

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

In consideration of the foregoing, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

This rule amends 14 CFR part 97 by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP contained on FAA form documents is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections, and specifies the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure and the amendment number.

The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for Part 97 of this final rule.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.

The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than 30 days.

Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, CFR part 97, (is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

This rule amends 14 CFR part 97 by establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, 8260-15B, when required by an entry on 8260-15A, and 8260-15C.

The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers or aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA form documents is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and specifies the typed of SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for Part 97 of this final rule.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flights safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.

Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

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

The background for this action is discussed in detail in our August 19, 2022, proposal (87 FR 51041). In that document we proposed to approve revisions to the New Mexico SIP adopted on July 21, 2021, that update the New Mexico NNSR permitting requirements to maintain consistency with the Federal NNSR program requirements. We also proposed to find that the New Mexico SIP includes the necessary provisions addressing CAA NNSR requirements for ozone nonattainment areas classified as Marginal.

We received two anonymous comments supporting our proposed approval. Both anonymous comments referenced the reduced overall emissions and favorable impact of the proposed rule for environmental justice purposes. The EPA appreciates the support of the commenters. We are making no changes to our proposed rule because of these comments.

Pursuant to section 110 and part D of the Act, we are approving the submitted revisions to the New Mexico SIP that update the NNSR permitting requirements to maintain consistency with the Federal NNSR program requirements and address the 2015 ozone NAAQS requirements for nonattainment permitting. Specifically, we are approving the following revisions to the New Mexico SIP adopted on July 21, 2021, effective August 21, 2021:

• Revisions to 20.2.79.5 NMAC—Effective Date,

• Revisions to 20.2.79.7 NMAC—Definitions,

• Revisions to 20.2.79.9 NMAC—Documents,

• Revisions to 20.2.79.109 NMAC—Applicability,

• Revisions to 20.2.79.115 NMAC—Emission Offsets,

• Revisions to 20.2.79.119 NMAC—Tables, and

• Revisions to 20.2.79.120 NMAC—Actuals Plantwide Applicability Limits (PALs).

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 the revisions to the New Mexico regulations as described in Section II of this preamble, Final Action. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov a (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 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 the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 17, 2023. 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, the Environmental Protection Agency amends 40 CFR part 52 as follows:

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

The EPA is taking final action to approve source-specific revisions to the Missouri SIP. On September 1, 2022, the EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) which proposed to approve the SIP revisions as submitted by Missouri on April 21, 2022 (87 FR 53703). The revisions include a specific SO 2 emissions limit and associated operating restrictions, MRR, and testing compliance requirements for the Ameren Sioux Facility as contained in Consent Agreement number APCP-2021-018. A copy of the Consent Agreement is included in the docket for this rulemaking. More detail on the EPA's analysis of the revisions can be found in the NPRM included in this docket.

The State's submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The State provided public notice on this SIP revision from December 27, 2021, to February 3, 2022, and received one comment. In addition, as explained above, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the Clean Air Act, including section 110 and implementing regulations.

On September 1, 2022, the EPA published a NPRM proposing to approve Missouri's April 21, 2022, SIP revision submittal (87 FR 53703). The EPA sought public comment on the NPRM and received no comments. Therefore, the EPA is taking final action to amend the Missouri SIP to include source-specific revisions pertaining to the Ameren Sioux Facility as contained in Consent Agreement number APCP-2021-018. Approval of these revisions will ensure consistency between State and federally approved rules. As described in the NPRM, the EPA has determined that these changes meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act and will not adversely impact air quality or the stringency of the SIP.

When the EPA establishes a new or revised NAAQS, the CAA requires the EPA to designate all areas of the U.S. as either nonattainment, attainment, or unclassifiable. Area designations address environmental justice concerns by ensuring that the public is properly informed about the air quality in an area. In this action, the EPA is approving an additional emissions limit for a source into the Missouri SIP.

The EPA utilized the EJSCREEN tool to evaluate environmental and demographic indicators within the area. The tool outputs report is contained in the docket for this action. While the EPA's EJSCREEN tool demonstrates that demographic indicators are consistent or lower than national averages, there are vulnerable populations in the area including low-income populations and persons over 64 years of age.

Based on the information presented in this document, this proposed action does not result in disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples.

In this document, 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 the Missouri Consent Agreement discussed in Section I of this preamble and as set forth below in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 7 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA for inclusion in the State Implementation Plan, have been incorporated by reference by the 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 the EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation. 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Is not subject to requirements of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTA) because this rulemaking does not involve technical standards; and

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

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

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

• Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 17, 2023. 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, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:

FMCSA requests public comment on its regulatory guidance and the factors the Agency will use in its interpretation of the definitions of “broker” and “bona fide agents.”

Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments, go to www.regulations.gov at any time or visit Room W12-140 on the ground level of the West Building, DOT, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you want acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting comments online.

Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its guidance process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.

If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA-2022-0134), indicate the specific section of this document to which your comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.

To submit your comment online, go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2022-0134/document, click on this notice, click “Comment,” and type your comment into the text box on the following screen.

If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments to this notice contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to the notice, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission that constitutes CBI as “PROPIN” to indicate it contains proprietary information. FMCSA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the Freedom of Information Act, and they will not be placed in the public docket for this notice. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Mr. Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Evaluation Division, Office of Policy, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Any comments FMCSA receives not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this proceeding.

To view any documents mentioned as being available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2022-0134/document and choose the document to review. To view comments, click this notice, then click “Browse Comments.” If you do not have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting Dockets Operations in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 366-9317 or (202) 366-9826 before visiting Dockets Operations.

In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its decision-making process DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov. As described in the system of records notice DOT/ALL 14—FDMS, which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy, the comments are searchable by the name of the submitter.

Broker is defined in 49 U.S.C. 13102(2) as a “person, other than a motor carrier or an employee or agent of a motor carrier, that as a principal or agent sells, offers for sale, negotiates for, or holds itself out by solicitation, advertisement, or otherwise as selling, providing, or arranging for, transportation by motor carrier for compensation.” It is also defined in 49 CFR 371.2(a) as a “person who, for compensation, arranges, or offers to arrange, the transportation of property by an authorized motor carrier. Motor carriers, or persons who are employees or bona fide agents of carriers, are not brokers within the meaning of this section when they arrange or offer to arrange the transportation of shipments which they are authorized to transport and which they have accepted and legally bound themselves to transport.” In that same section, bona fide agents are defined as “persons who are part of the normal organization of a motor carrier and perform duties under the carrier's directions pursuant to a preexisting agreement which provides for a continuing relationship, precluding the exercise of discretion on the part of the agent in allocating traffic between the carrier and others.” 49 CFR 371.2(b).

On November 15, 2021, the President signed the IIJA into law (Pub. L. 117-58, 135 Stat. 429). Section 23021 of the IIJA  1 directed the Secretary (FMCSA) to issue guidance, within one year of the date of enactment of the IIJA, clarifying the definitions of the terms “broker” and “bona fide agents” in 49 CFR 371.2. The guidance must take into consideration the extent to which technology has changed the nature of freight brokerage, the role of bona fide agents, and other aspects of the freight transportation industry. Additionally, when issuing the guidance, FMCSA must, at a minimum: (1) examine the role of a dispatch service in the transportation industry; (2) examine the extent to which dispatch services could be considered brokers or bona fide agents; and (3) clarify the level of financial penalties for unauthorized brokerage activities under 49 U.S.C. 14916, applicable to a dispatch service. 2

In an effort to obtain and consider stakeholder input in the development of its guidance, FMCSA issued a Federal Register notice on June 10, 2022, seeking comment in 13 specific areas. 87 FR 35593.

FMCSA appreciates the robust response to our request for comment. Over 80 stakeholders filed comments in the public docket, including individuals, trade associations, brokers, and dispatch services. 3 While the Agency does not specifically reference all comments in this guidance, the Agency would like to assure stakeholders it has reviewed and considered all comments filed.

As an initial matter, commenters were nearly unanimous that while technology has changed freight brokerage, such changes have not affected the fundamental nature of freight brokerage, nor are they relevant for the issuance of this guidance. 4 One commenter did note that the technological changes have exacerbated fraud problems. 5 Accordingly, while the Agency recognizes that brokerage has changed immeasurably due to technology, including moving from a phone based system to one based on the internet, such changes do not impact the fundamental nature of brokerage, which involves arranging transportation for compensation, and hence do not have a significant impact on this guidance.

Stakeholders provided FMCSA with useful information on the role of bona fide agents. Commenters have described bona fide agents as advocates or a sales force for a single motor carrier, 6 an outside sales force that acquires freight for an employer, 7 a dispatch service used in lieu of motor carrier employees, 8 people who look for freight for a motor carrier, 9 a service that allows motor carriers to outsource operations instead of having employees handle them, 10 a sales force from acquired motor carriers that big motor carriers use, 11 and an operation where people work for one motor carrier and have no discretion to allocate traffic. 12 Based upon stakeholder comments, it appears that bona fide agents are generally considered individuals/entities that solicit business for a motor carrier.

Finally, stakeholders provided input, albeit more limited, on other aspects of the freight transportation industry. A broker indicated that other aspects of the transportation industry do not need to be considered. 13 A managing general agency and program administrator for insurance companies focused on transportation indicated that FMCSA should issue guidance that is consistent with the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 and the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). 14 A truck safety advocacy group indicated that FMCSA must issue a clear definition of broker that enables enforcement. 15 And, a coalition of stakeholders noted the significant ramifications of being considered a broker or not. 16

While stakeholders did not provide FMCSA with specific information related to the requirement that the Agency must consider “other aspects of the freight transportation industry” in issuing the guidance, FMCSA recognizes that its guidance is operating in a broader context and has impacts beyond the immediate focus of this guidance. In today's notice, FMCSA has worked to avoid creating unintended consequences, in issuing guidance on its interpretation of its regulations and related matters. While guidance may be relevant to stakeholder compliance with FMCSA's regulations, any changes to FMCSA's regulations and hence compliance responsibilities would need to be enacted in a separate rulemaking proceeding. 17

With the aforementioned consideration of factors as background, FMCSA now turns to the core IIJA mandate: the issuance of guidance pertaining to the definition of broker and bona fide agents, the examination of the role of dispatch services in the transportation industry, the extent to which dispatch services could be considered brokers or bona fide agents, and the level of financial penalties for unauthorized brokerage activities under 49 U.S.C. 14916 applicable to a dispatch service. This document does not have the force and effect of law and is not meant to bind the public in any way, and the document is intended only to provide information to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies

While FMCSA is unable to change the definition of “broker” absent a rulemaking, it is able to provide clarification here. As an initial matter, there was a split amongst stakeholders on whether the current definition of broker was adequate. A majority of stakeholders believed that the current definition of broker was adequate, 18 while others proposed some changes. A safety advocacy group recommended amendment of the definition of “broker.”  19 A stakeholder representing the household goods (HHG) motor carrier industry asked FMCSA to clarify that merely selling leads does not require an entity to obtain broker authority. 20 One broker believed that FMCSA should amend the definition of “broker” to comport with changes in MAP-21 that required motor carriers and hence their agents to obtain broker operating authority. 21 Additionally, internet based load matching services have requested that FMCSA consider electronic load boards to not be considered brokers. 22

Given the prevailing view among commenters that the current definition of “broker” is adequate, the Agency feels the need to clarify it in only one area: the relevance of an entity's handling of funds in a transaction between shippers and motor carrier. FMCSA appreciates the robust input it received on this issue. Some commenters believed that whether one handles funds is irrelevant to whether one is a broker. 23 A coalition of stakeholders believed the handling of money is not determinative in the broker determination. 24 Other stakeholders felt that the handling of money had at least some relevance as to whether one is brokering. 25

After consideration of the stakeholder comments and the important role of financial responsibility in broker regulation, 26 FMCSA wishes to clarify that handling money exchanged between shippers and motor carriers is a factor that strongly suggests the need for broker authority, but it is not an absolute requirement for one to be considered a broker.

Next, FMCSA is mandated to clarify the definition of “bona fide agents” in 49 CFR 371.2. Stakeholders provided feedback on this point. A HHG motor carrier trade association thought the current definition was “clear as to what entities fall within that term.”  27 A broker indicated that the definition should be eliminated due to MAP-21 requiring motor carriers, and hence their agents, to have broker authority. 28 And multiple entities believe that in order to be deemed a “bona fide agent” one can represent only one motor carrier. 29

After careful consideration, FMCSA has determined that representing more than one motor carrier does not necessarily mean one is a broker rather than a bona fide agent. Any determination will be highly fact specific and will entail determining whether the person or company is engaged in the allocation of traffic between motor carriers.

Next, the IIJA required the agency to examine the role of dispatch services in the transportation industry and the extent to which such services could be considered brokers or bona fide agents.

Stakeholder comments make clear that there is no universally accepted definition of “dispatch service,” nor did Congress define the term in the IIJA provision mandating this guidance. 30 One broker trade association characterized it is as a vague term, 31 while a coalition of stakeholders said it is an invented term. 32 According to a self-identified dispatch service, dispatchers represent motor carriers, they don't connect shippers and motor carriers, they don't handle money, but they do provide carrier support services. 33 Additional commenters stated that dispatchers perform back office operations for motor carriers;  34 they book freight and perform other tasks;  35 they perform many administrative duties and basic accounting for small carriers;  36 and they are paid a percentage of the freight charges from a motor carrier. 37 Other stakeholders indicate that dispatch services find loads for motor carriers, handle administrative tasks and assist with compliance, 38 source shipments, and allocate shipments between motor carriers. 39 According to a shipper trade association, dispatch services would be expected to be like an in-house truck dispatcher, but in reality many are operating more like brokers. 40 A broker commenter indicated that dispatch services have multiple motor carriers in their client base, they seek freight and obtain freight for motor carriers, and they are paid by motor carriers. 41

After consideration of the public comments, while it is clear that there is no commonly accepted definition of a dispatch service, such services appear to have certain common features. First, they work exclusively for motor carriers, not for shippers. Second, they source loads for motor carriers. And third, they perform additional services for motor carriers that are unrelated to sourcing shipments.

Further, the IIJA mandated that FMCSA examine when a dispatch service could be considered a broker and when it could be considered a bona fide agent. Stakeholders provided significant input on these points.

A trade association indicated that when a dispatch service represents one motor carrier it is a bona fide agent, but when it represents more than one it is a broker. 42 A broker thought that when a dispatch service only performed back office operations, it was not a broker, but if it arranges loads it is. 43 A dispatch service indicated that dispatch services are bona fide agents, as they are merely agents to locate freight and are paid a flat fee or a percentage. 44 Another dispatch service also believes that a dispatch service is a bona fide agent and not a broker because dispatch services do not connect shippers with carriers that can transport their loads, and therefore do not meet the broker business model. 45 A consulting firm believes that dispatch services are bona fide agents if they are employees per IRS regulations, but not if they represent more than one motor carrier. 46 Several trade organizations believe that if a dispatch service represents more than one motor carrier it is a broker, and that the handling of funds warrants a finding of brokerage. 47 A coalition of 13 stakeholders believes that representing more than one motor carrier renders a dispatch service a broker, and a broker believes that representing more than one motor carrier takes one outside of the definition of “bona fide agent.”  48 Finally, a dispatch service indicated that broker authority should be required only when arranging transportation on behalf of shippers. 49

After careful consideration, FMCSA clarifies that when a dispatch service does not participate in the arrangement of freight, or when it represents only one motor carrier, it is not a broker. If a dispatch service arranges transportation on behalf of multiple motor carriers and engages in the allocation of traffic, however, then pursuant to 49 CFR 371.2, it is not a bona fide agent and must obtain broker operating authority registration. Ultimately, the analysis of whether a person or entity requires broker authority is often highly fact specific and must be made on a case-by-case basis.

Regarding whether a dispatch service is a bona fide agent, one must analyze whether the service falls within the definition of bona fide agent in 49 CFR 371.2(b). However, if the dispatch service allocates traffic between two motor carriers, it cannot be a bona fide agent by definition.

Generally, the factors relevant to whether a dispatch service is not required to obtain broker authority are stated below:

(1) The dispatch service has a written legal contractual relationship with a motor carrier that clearly reflects the motor carrier is appointing the dispatch service as a licensed agent for the motor carrier. This is often a long-term contractual relationship;

(2) The written legal contract specifies the insurance and liability responsibilities of the dispatch service and motor carrier. The dispatch service must also meet all state licensing requirements;

(3) The dispatch service goes through a broker to arrange for the transportation of shipments for the motor carrier. The dispatch service may not seek or solicit shippers for freight;

(4) The dispatch service does not provide billing nor accept compensation from the broker, 3PL (third-party logistics company), or factoring company, but instead receives compensation from the motor carrier(s) based on the pre-determined written legal contractual agreement;

(5) The dispatch service is not an intermediary or involved in the financial transaction between a broker and motor carrier;

(6) The dispatch service is an IRS 1099 recipient from the motor carrier, or a W2 employee of the motor carrier as specified in the legal written contract agreement;

(7) The dispatch service discloses that they are a dispatch service operating under the authority of a specific motor carrier, and the shipment is arranged for that motor carrier only;

(8) The dispatch service does not subsequently assign or arrange for the load to be carried/moved by another motor carrier; or

(9) A dispatch service does not provide their “services” for a motor carrier unless that motor carrier specifically appointed the dispatch service as their agent in accordance with the aforementioned requirements.

The following factors would indicate the dispatch service should obtain broker authority:

(1) The dispatch service interacts or negotiates a shipment of freight directly with the shipper, or a representative of the shipper;

(2) The dispatch service accepts or takes compensation for a load from the broker, or factoring company, or is involved in any part of the monetary transaction between any of those entities;

(3) The dispatch service arranges for a shipment of freight for a motor carrier, with which there is no written legal contract with the motor carrier that meets the aforementioned criteria;

(4) The dispatch service accepts a shipment without a truck/carrier, then attempts to find a truck/carrier to move the shipment;

(5) The dispatch service is a named party on the shipping contract; or

(6) The dispatch service is soliciting to the open market of carriers for the purposes of transporting a freight shipment.

It is clear based on feedback from industry that there is a need and desire for dispatch services, among large and small motor carriers. A beneficial role that a dispatch service may provide is the outsourcing of resources for small motor carriers who cannot afford a full-time employee to perform these functions. The dispatch service can help to ensure the motor carrier has a steady stream of shipments while allowing the motor carrier to focus on its core business of safely transporting freight. FMCSA does not believe it is the intent of Congress to eliminate the services that dispatch services provide.

While no single factor is paramount in assessing the business relationship between a dispatch service and a motor carrier, the extent of a motor carrier's control over the individual(s) performing the dispatch services is highly significant, i.e., the dispatch service works on behalf of the motor carrier and makes decisions based on the motor carrier's guidance and direction. As noted, FMCSA determines whether a dispatcher is conducting broker operations on a case-by-case basis, utilizing factors including those above.

Finally, FMCSA must clarify the level of penalties for unauthorized brokerage applicable to dispatch services. Such an assessment is straightforward. If the dispatch service is deemed to be providing unauthorized brokerage services pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 14916, the service will be subject to applicable penalties. 50 If no finding of unauthorized brokerage is made, it will not be subject to such penalties.

FMCSA requests public comment on its regulatory guidance and the factors the Agency will use in its interpretation of the definitions of “broker” and “bona fide agent.” The Agency welcomes comments from stakeholders that are relevant to identifying a dispatch service that engages in actions that would require broker authority compared with actions that don't require broker authority. Additionally, FMCSA welcomes comments concerning the potential impact of this guidance on dispatch services upon which the broker rules would be considered applicable.

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Groundfish of the BSAI prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

The 2022 TAC of Atka mackerel, in the CAI, allocated to vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access sector fishery was established as a directed fishing allowance of 1,500 metric tons by the final 2022 and 2023 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (87 FR 11626, March 2, 2022).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Atka mackerel in the CAI by vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access sector fishery. While this closure is effective, the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.

NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR part 679, which was issued pursuant to section 304(b), and is exempt 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 impracticable and contrary to the public interest, as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion, and would delay the closure of the Atka mackerel directed fishing in the CAI for vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access sector fishery. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of November 9, 2022.

The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

The 2022 TAC of Pacific ocean perch, in the CAI, allocated to vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access sector fishery was established as a directed fishing allowance of 525 metric tons by the final 2022 and 2023 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (87 FR 11626, March 2, 2022).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific ocean perch in the CAI by vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access sector fishery. While this closure is effective, the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.

NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR part 679, which was issued pursuant to section 304(b), and is exempt 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 impracticable and contrary to the public interest, as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion, and would delay the directed fishing closure of Pacific ocean perch in the CAI for vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access sector fishery. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of November 9, 2022.

The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.