The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is establishing a Cattle Contracts Library pilot program (Pilot) to increase market transparency for cattle producers pursuant to sec. 779 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (Pub. L. 117-103, March 15, 2022) (the Act). The Act directs AMS to establish a Cattle Contracts Library pilot that is similar to, as determined by the Secretary, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Swine Contract Library maintained pursuant to sec. 222 of the Packers and Stockyards Act (7 U.S.C. 198a).

Under the Pilot, packers are required to provide AMS with contract information for the purchase of cattle and the number of actual and estimated cattle purchased under active contracts within particular timeframes. To protect confidential business information, AMS will only collect contract terms without any personally identifiable information, not entire contracts. The contract clauses required to be submitted include contract method, contract start and end dates, base price source and adjustment, selling basis, premiums and discounts, specifications relating to cattle attributes, delivery and transportation terms and payments, financing, risk-sharing, profit-sharing or other financial arrangements, and volume provisions. Monthly, packers are required to submit the number of actual cattle purchased under active contracts in the prior month and the estimated maximum number of cattle to be purchased under active contracts for slaughter in the current calendar month.

On January 6, 2023, packers must submit the required contractual clauses for each active contract, whether the contract is oral or written. After the initial submission of information, packers will be required to submit the same information for each new active contract made available to a producer or producers as well as any changes to the terms of a previously submitted active contract and associated schedules or appendices within one business day of the contract being available. Because the packers prepare these contracts in advance of their offering those contracts to producers, AMS determined these submission timeframes to be reasonable.

Not all packers are required to submit this information. Generally, only packers that slaughtered an average of not less than 5 percent of the number of fed cattle slaughtered nationally during the immediately preceding five calendar years are subject to this Pilot. To determine the definition of packer for purposes of the Pilot, and thus the packers subject to the required reporting under the Pilot, AMS considered two approaches: (1) the Livestock Mandatory Reporting Act (LMR), also administered by AMS, covers packing plants that slaughtered an average of 125,000 head of cattle per year during the immediately preceding 5 calendar years, and (2) the proposed Congressional legislation, S. 4030—Cattle Price Discovery and Transparency Act of 2022, covers packing companies that have slaughtered during the immediately preceding five calendar years an average of not less than 5 percent of the number of fed cattle slaughtered nationally during the immediately preceding five calendar years. 1 AMS estimates that, under the LMR approach, approximately 40 packing plants operated by 16 packing companies would be subject to the Pilot. AMS estimates that under the S.4030 approach, approximately 18 packing plants operated by four packing companies would be subject to the Pilot.

AMS estimates that the LMR approach would cover approximately 90 percent of all fed cattle slaughter. AMS estimates the S. 4030 approach would cover 85 percent of total fed cattle slaughter. 2 When estimating the costs to all reporting entities, AMS estimated the total annual cost under the LMR approach to be $294,947, and the total annual cost under the S.4030 approach to be $122,752. Therefore, AMS estimates that requiring only packers slaughtering not less than 5 percent of the number of fed cattle slaughtered nationally annually to submit information results in a 42 percent reduction in cost burden to the industry while providing a library of contractual information covering 85 percent of the annual total fed cattle slaughter. For the purposes of this Pilot, AMS believes this is a sufficiently similar market capture to the Swine Contract Library, which covers roughly 95 percent of the market, and would capture all types of applicable contracts.

AMS worked with packers to voluntarily obtain contractual information used for the purchase of cattle and associated volume information to develop the Pilot. While this voluntarily submitted information was sufficient to design the Pilot, it did not provide AMS with comprehensive information on all the types of contracts used to purchase cattle or the volume of cattle purchased. Based on feedback from industry stakeholders, including those who voluntarily submitted contract information, AMS determined the Pilot needed to be mandatory; otherwise, the Cattle Contract Library would be incomplete, and the information would be potentially misleading if packers self-select the contract terms they provide.

Consistent with the statutory authority for the Pilot, submission of the specified contractual information and volume information for those contracts is mandatory, as it is with the Swine Contract Library.

While by statute this Pilot is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking and the Paperwork Reduction Act, AMS has considered public input. AMS announced an in-person listening session on April 11, 2022, in a notice to trade on their website, and AMS provided an opportunity for written comments to be submitted via email. On April 21, 2022, AMS hosted a cattle industry listening session on the Pilot in Kansas City, MO. The session was attended in-person and virtually by over 150 industry stakeholders and provided an open forum for the public to share their feedback. AMS specifically sought feedback on what information the Pilot should include to be most helpful to cattle marketers, what concerns stakeholders have over the public release of the Pilot, and what format should be used to present the information. AMS also provided an opportunity for interested parties to submit written feedback in the week following the listening session and posted all written feedback on its website. All public input related to the Pilot can be found here: https://www.ams.usda.gov/market-news/livestock-poultry-grain/cattle-contracts-library.

The most frequent input AMS received was that the Pilot should provide factual, reliable information in a user-friendly format that protects all confidential or sensitive business information. AMS also received input that the packers' submission costs should be minimized and should provide educational outreach to stakeholders.

AMS considered these comments in the preparation of this rule. To maintain confidentiality, the Pilot requires submission of contract clauses, not entire contracts. Further, while this rule does not address the way in which AMS will report the information collected through the Pilot, AMS intends to publish the Cattle Contract Library in a manner that does not disclose the source's identity to further protect the buyers' and the sellers' confidential business information.

This Pilot will allow AMS to make a range of valuable market information on the structure and volume of cattle contracts publicly available, while maintaining the confidentiality of individual contracts and sensitive information included therein. The law establishing the Swine Contract Library adopted sec. 251 of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to protect personal identifying information and proprietary business information from public disclosure. The Pilot likewise adopts those provisions in this rule to prohibit disclosure beyond contract and volume information.

With respect to input on cost, AMS determined that the selected approach would impose the lower cost burden on the industry, yet still provide a library of contractual information that covers most contracts for fed-cattle. AMS believes this Pilot covers a similarly sized percentage of sales in the market as the Swine Contract Library covers in the market for swine.

In response to input requesting that AMS provide outreach, during development of the Pilot, AMS conducted nearly 40 outreach and educational events with industry stakeholders during which the Pilot was demonstrated and additional feedback for possible refinements was gathered. AMS designed the Pilot in a user-friendly and intuitive manner, accessible to users with minimal guidance. During the outreach sessions, many stakeholders expressed their appreciation for the ease with which they could access and understand the information in the Pilot.

In addition to the feedback received through the listening sessions and outreach, packers voluntarily provided AMS with over 300 inactive contracts and 100 active contracts for review, which informed AMS's determination as to the contract clauses required to be reported. AMS also reviewed other contracts available under its marketing and regulatory programs. Using these contracts, AMS identified common elements in each that affect the final pricing. This included the base price mechanism, base price adjustments, premiums and discounts, and other miscellaneous provisions ( e.g., transportation, shrink, selling basis, dressing percent conversion, etc.). AMS also examined important differences in the contracts, including the influence of any short- or long-term buyer/seller relationships on financial terms of the contract that may affect the competitive environment of the packers and producers in the cattle market. AMS used this feedback and contract information to develop a draft library that was shared with interested stakeholders including packers, industry groups, Congressional staff, and academics. AMS further refined the library as described in this Pilot based upon input received from those interested stakeholders on the draft library.

In accordance with the statutory mandate, the Pilot is modeled on the Swine Contract Library. The Swine Contract Library features a report to the public on the contract terms available to sellers of swine. To achieve this, the statute and regulations require swine packers to report contract and production information for publication. Not all swine packers are required to report; swine packers must either slaughter 100,000 head per year or have the capacity to slaughter 100,000 head per year to be subject to reporting under the Swine Contract Library provisions. See 9 CFR 206.1. The regulations require swine packers to prepare a monthly report to submit to AMS. See 9 CFR 206.3. The public reports released on these contracts are anonymized to protect confidentiality under the standards of sec. 251 of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946. See 7 CFR 206.2(f); 7 U.S.C. 1636.

The Swine Contract Library publishes information on, among other things: the existing contract types for each geographic region; the contract types currently being made available; packers' reported estimates of the total number of committed swine; the types of conditions or circumstances as reported that could result in expansion in the numbers of swine to be delivered; and the packers' reported estimates of the maximum total number of swine that potentially could be delivered.

The Swine Contract Library has two public reports: A contract summary report, and a monthly report. Contract summary reports provide information on the various terms and provisions from the marketing contracts. This information includes: the determination of base price and how base price is set; the premium and discount adjustments to the base price as determined by both carcass and non-carcass traits; application of ledger where terms define the use of ledger or accrual accounts; and all other remaining terms and provisions from the contracts. Monthly reports provide packers' estimated swine purchases under marketing contracts for the next 6 and 12 months. To achieve a similar level of reporting in this Pilot, AMS must collect contract terms and volume information from cattle-slaughtering packers.

Accordingly, consistent with the Swine Contract Library (7 U.S.C. 198-198b; 7 U.S.C. 222; 9 CFR 206.1-206.3), AMS will require covered packers to report specific contractual information for the purchase of cattle. After the information is collected and reviewed, AMS will determine the most appropriate format for publication. Throughout, AMS will treat the reported information consistent with the confidentiality requirements of the Swine Contract Library's regulatory scheme and 7 U.S.C. 1636.

Through this Pilot, AMS ultimately intends to publish a variety of reports on a national level rather than a regional basis. The published library of information will likely focus on the base price for livestock, before application of any adjustments ( i.e., premiums or discounts) in contracts; the contract terms that provide positive or negative adjustment to the base price before any premiums or discounts are applied; the contracts' schedule of discounts from the base price; the contracts' schedule of premiums to the base price; and the actual and expected volumes of trade under these contracts. AMS also intends to publish information on delivery and transportation terms and the contract terms related to financing, risk-sharing, and profit-sharing.

Consistent with the statutory mandate, this Pilot supports AMS's commitment to market transparency. AMS believes the Pilot will support competition by providing producers with the market information they need to make informed production, marketing, and business decisions. The Congressional reference to section 221 of the Packers and Stockyards Act (7 U.S.C. 198), together with the waiver of the notice-and-comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act and the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, provide AMS the direction and authority to promulgate this rule.

Sec. 779 of the Act provides that the promulgation of the regulations and administration of the Cattle Contracts Library pilot program shall be made without regard to the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553 et seq. ). Accordingly, AMS is publishing this final rule without having previously published a proposed rule on this action. While AMS did not provide for a formal comment period, it did conduct extensive outreach to cattle industry stakeholders, including hosting a listening session where AMS received comments and input. AMS also provided an opportunity for interested parties to submit written comments following the listening session, posted all input received on its website, and conducted additional outreach to stakeholders throughout the development of the Pilots. All public comments are available here: https://www.ams.usda.gov/market-news/livestock-poultry-grain/cattle-contracts-library. Written feedback AMS received is available here: https://www.ams.usda.gov/market-news/livestock-poultry-grain/cattle-contracts-library/feedback. AMS considered these comments and all feedback provided in the preparation of this rule, also taking into account the urgency of the expedited time frame provided by Congress to establish and operate the Pilot. Should such mandate sunset, AMS will suspend reporting under this rule or otherwise take actions consistent with relevant statutory mandates.

USDA is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 and 13563, which direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health, and safety effects; distributive impacts; and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.

AMS designed the Pilot to maximize the net benefits of the rule and determined that this action, effectuating the authority and direction from Congress, will create benefits exceeding its costs, based on an assessment of the regulation's market impact as outlined in the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.

Based on figures from the USDA World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates, 3 U.S. beef packers slaughtered 33.97 million cattle in 2021. Of that figure, 78.4 percent were steers and heifers, 19.9 percent were cows, and 1.7 percent were bulls and stags. Based on the National Monthly Slaughter Cattle—Committed and Delivered Cattle  4 data between September 2021 and August 2022, 70.8 percent of cattle in the categories “steers and heifers” and “other fed cattle” were marketed under contract, either under the “formula” or “forward” categories. Of the cattle reported under contract on that report, 0.6 percent were in the other category. Based on these figures, approximately 22.58 million steers and heifers and an additional 135 thousand other fed cattle are marketed under contract annually.

The AMS National Weekly Cattle and Beef Summary  5 reports an annual liveweight price for steers of $139 per hundredweight for the year running between October 2021 and September 2022. Based on an actual average liveweight for cattle under slaughter of 1,370 pounds, the average price for steers and heifers sold under contract is approximately $1,904 per head. The value of all steers and heifers sold under contract is then $43.0 billion. Assuming that other fed cattle under contract are valued at 75 percent of the steer and heifer price per head, their value is $193 million, and the value of all cattle under contract is $43.2 billion.

The 2020 Annual Report of the AMS Packers and Stockyards Division  6 states that 156 plants slaughtered cattle or calves in 2019. The same report notes that the four largest packers accounted for over 85 percent of the total steer and heifer slaughter in 2019, a figure that reflects the presence of very large firms, which can own several plants with much higher daily capacities than those of smaller operations. Because packers slaughtering less than 5 percent of the number of fed cattle slaughtered nationally annually are excluded from reporting under the rule, AMS estimates that four packers will be required to report under the rule.

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

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA-2022-0826, in the Federal Register (87 FR 42395; July 15, 2022). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. No comments were received.

United States RNAV T-routes are published in paragraph 6011, and Canadian T-routes are published in paragraph 6013, 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 RNAV routes listed in this document will be subsequently published in FAA Order JO 7400.11.

The United States RNAV routes T-287 and T-318 are removed from this docket for additional planning and coordination. These routes will be placed in subsequent dockets at a later date.

The NPRM proposed to extend T-358 from the AVALO, NJ, Fix to the Augusta, ME (AUG), VHF Omnidirectional Range/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME). The proposed route extension after the AVALO Fix (from MANTA, NJ to Augusta, ME) was based on replacing various VORs scheduled for decommissioning under the VOR MON plan. Fixes or Waypoints (WPs) were to be added to T-358 in place of the VORs, however, the decommissioning of the associated VORs is not scheduled until later dates. Since the VORs are still available for navigation, it is premature to amend the routing at this time. As amended, T-358 extends from the Martinsburg, WV (MRB), VHF Omnidirectional Range and Tactical Air Navigational System (VORTAC) to the AVALO, NJ, Fix.

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.

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by amending two low altitude RNAV T-routes, designated T-358, and T-608, and establishing one T-route, designated T-320, in the northeast United States. This action supports the VOR MON Program, and the transition of the NAS from ground-based navigation aids to satellite-based navigation.

T-320: T-320 is a new route that extends between the GILFF, VA, WP and the Gardner, MA (GDM), VOR/DME. T-320 overlays portions of airway V-308 from the BILIT, MD, Fix, to the CHOPS, MD, Fix, and from the WNSTN, NJ, WP to the YANCT, CT, WP.

T-358: T-358 extends between the Martinsburg, WV (MRB), VORTAC, and the AVALO, NJ, Fix. The HOGZZ, MD, WP name is changed to the TWIRK, MD, WP per request from air traffic control (ATC). The latitude/longitude coordinates of the WP remain unchanged. The GOLDA, MD, Fix; the BROSS, MD, Fix; and the LEEAH, NJ, Fix are removed from the route description because they don't denote turn points on the route. However, the fixes will remain on aeronautical charts for ATC purposes.

T-608: T-608 is an existing Canadian T route that extends into U.S. airspace between the HOCKE, MI, WP, and the YANTC, CT, WP. This action modifies the eastern end of the route by removing the segments between the Gardner, MA (GDM), VOR/DME, and the YANCT, CT, WP. Instead, the route is realigned to proceed eastward from the Gardner VOR/DME through the BRONC, MA; LOBBY, MA; and SOSYO, MA, Fixes; to terminate at the REVER, MA, Fix (located 5 nautical miles north of the Boston, MA (BOS), VOR/DME). The new route T-320 (described above) incorporates the segments between the YANCT WP and the Gardner VOR/DME that are being removed from T-608.

In addition, the following points are removed from the T-608 legal description because they do not denote a turn point on the route: MONCK, NY, WP; LORTH, NY, Fix; MAGEN, NY, WP; KONDO, NY, WP; WIFFY, NY, WP; STODA, NY, WP; VASTS, NY, Fix; NORSE, NY, WP; MARIA, NY, WP; WARUV, NY, WP; GRISY, MA, WP; WARIC, MA, WP; HURLY, MA, Fix; GRAYM, MA, WP; BLATT, CT, WP; MOGUL, CT, WP; and YANCT, CT, WP.

Full route descriptions of the above T routes are listed in the amendments to part 71 set forth below.

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

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

The FAA has determined that this action of amending two, and establishing one low altitude Area Navigation (RNAV) T routes, as described above, in support of efforts transitioning the NAS from ground-based to satellite-based navigation, qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points); and paragraph 5-6.5b, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review “Actions regarding establishment of jet routes and Federal airways (see 14 CFR 71.15, Designation of jet routes and VOR Federal airways ) . . .”. As such, this action is not expected to result in any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis. Accordingly, the FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact study.

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

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

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA-2022-0482, in the Federal Register (87 FR 29239; May 13, 2022), amending five RNAV T-routes, and establishing two T-routes in support of the VOR MON Program. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. No comments were received.

United States RNAV T-routes are published in paragraph 6011 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 RNAV routes listed in this document will be subsequently published in FAA Order JO 7400.11.

United States RNAV routes T-212, T-221, T-299, and T-443 are removed from this docket because the associated VORs are not being decommissioned until a much later date. Since the VORs remain in service, there is no need to amend the routes at this time.

Route T-291 differs from the NPRM as follows. The COLIN, VA point was misidentified as a waypoint (WP) instead of a Fix. The LEDIE, NY, WP was included in the route description. Since this point marks a turn of less than one degree, it is not required for the T-291 description and is removed. The NPRM proposed replacement of the Milton, PA (MIP), VHF Omnidirectional Range and Tactical Air Navigational System (VORTAC) with the HYATT, PA, WP; and replacement of the Delancey, NY (DNY), VHF Omnidirectional Range/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) with the DANZI, NY, WP. Since the VORTAC and VOR/DME remain in service, the two WPs are removed and the Milton and Delancey navigation aids are restored in the route description. Additionally, the FAA proposed to extend T-291 from Albany, NY to Nantucket, MA, replacing several navigation aids with WPs. However, this would involve prematurely replacing the navigation aids that are still in service. Consequently, the amended T-291 will extend from Harcum, VA, to Albany, NY. The following points after Albany are removed from the route: Barnes, MA (BAF), VORTAC; PUTNM, CT, WP; PROVI, RI, WP; AVONN, RI, Fix; BUZRD, MA, WP; Marthas Vineyard, MA (MVY), VOR/DME; and Nantucket, MA (ACK),VOR/DME.

In route T-295, the following points were misidentified as WPs instead of Fixes: TAPPA, VA; COLIN, VA; LOUIE, MD; GRACO, MD; LAAYK, PA; SAGES, NY; SASHA, MA; and BRNNS, ME. The HEXSN, PA, WP is removed from the route and replaced by the Lancaster, PA (LRP), VOR/DME. The WLKES, PA, WP is removed from the route description and replaced by the Wilkes-Barre, PA (LVZ), VORTAC. In addition, the points where T-295 overlays V-93 is changed to read “from the LOUIE, MD, Fix to the GRACO, MD, Fix.”

The amendment of route T-356 is added to this rule. A proposed amendment of several RNAV routes, including T-356, was published in a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA-2022-0857 in the Federal Register (87 FR 45721; July 29, 2022). No comments were received in response to the NPRM. Implementation of those routes, except for T-356, was delayed to a later date. Therefore, T-356 is added to this rule and is being amended as proposed in the July 29, 2022 NPRM.

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 7400.11F lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by amending low altitude RNAV T-routes, designated T-291, T-295, and T-356, and establishing T-445 in the northeast United States to support the VOR MON Program.

T-291: T-291 extends between the LOUIE, MD, Fix, and the Albany, NY (ALB), VORTAC. This action moves the start point south of the LOUIE Fix to the Harcum, VA (HCM), VORTAC. The COLIN, VA, Fix, and the SHLBK, VA, WP, are added between the Harcum VORTAC and the LOUIE Fix. The BAABS, MD, WP is moved 3 nautical miles (NM) northwest of its current position to ensure clearance from restricted area R-4001. The new GRACO, MD, Fix is added between the LOUIE Fix and the BAABS WP per request from air traffic control. The VINNY, PA, Fix is added between the BAABS WP, and the Harrisburg, PA (HAR), VORTAC. The LEDIE, NY, WP is added between the LAAK, PA, Fix, and the Delancey, NY (DNY), VOR/DME As amended, T-291 extends between the Harcum, VA (HCM), VORTAC and the Albany, NY (ALB), VORTAC.

T-291 overlays VOR Federal airway V-33 from the Harcum, VA (HCM), VORTAC, to the COLIN, VA, Fix. It runs adjacent to airway V-213 from the COLIN, VA, Fix to the SHLBK, MD, WP. It then overlays airway V-93 to the GRACO, MD, Fix.

T-295: T-295 extends between the LOUIE, MD, Fix, and the Presque Isle, ME (PQI), VOR/DME. This action amends the route to begin south of the LOUIE, MD, Fix at the POORK, VA, WP. The following WPs are added between POORK, VA, and LOUIE, MD: HOUKY, VA (replaces the Hopewell, VA (HPW), VORTAC); SHLBK, MD. In addition, the COLIN, VA, Fix and the TAPPA, VA, Fix are added. The following modifications are made to T-295 between the LOUIE Fix and the Wilkes-Barre, PA (LVZ), VORTAC. The GRACO, MD, Fix is added between the LOUIE Fix, and the BAABS, MD, WP. The BAABS WP is moved 3 NM northwest of its current position. The Chester, MA (CTR), VOR/DME is added to the route between the SASHA, MA, Fix, and the KEYNN, NH, WP.

As amended, T-295 extends between POORK, VA, and Presque Isle, ME. The amended route overlays a portion of airway V-213 from Hopewell, VA to COLIN, VA. It overlays a portion of V-93 from the LOUIE, MD, Fix to the GRACO, MD, Fix.

T-356: T-356 extends from the WOOLY, MD, Fix to the ELUDE, MD, Fix. The FAA is extending T-356 at both ends. The start point of the route is moved from the WOOLY Fix to the HOGZZ, MD, WP. The HOGZZ WP is being renamed TWIRK, MD, WP. From the TWIRK WP, the route proceeds to the BRILA, MD, WP, then to the WOOLY, MD, Fix where T-356 joins the route as currently published to the SWANN, MD, Fix. The GATBY, MD, Fix and the KERNO, MD, Fix are removed from the route description. From the SWANN Fix, the route goes to the ODESA, MD, Fix. The ELUDE, MD, Fix is removed from the description. After the ODESA Fix, T-356 is extended northward to the WIGGZ, PA, WP (which will replace the Slate Run, PA (SLT), VORTAC). The following points are added after the ODESA Fix: APEER, MD, WP; REESY, PA, WP; FOLEZ, PA, WP; PIKKE, PA, WP; BOYER, PA, Fix; Ravine, PA (RAV), VORTAC; Selinsgrove, PA (SEG), VOR/DME; and the WIGGZ, PA, WP. T-356 overlays airway V-170 from the PIKKE, PA, WP to the WIGGZ, PA, WP. As amended, T-356 extends from the TWIRK, MD, WP, to the WIGGZ, PA, WP.

T-445: T-445 is a new route that extends between the Westminster, MD (EMI), VORTAC, and the AIRCO, NY, Fix. T-445 overlays a portion of airway V-265 between the Westminster VORTAC and the Harrisburg, PA (HAR), VORTAC. It also overlays a portion of airway V-31 from the Harrisburg VORTAC to the AIRCO, NY, Fix. In this route description, the LYKOM, PA, WP replaces the Williamsport, PA (FQM), VOR/DME, and the STUBN, NY, WP replaces the Elmira, NY (ULM), VOR/DME.

The full descriptions of the above routes are listed in the amendments to part 71 set forth below.

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

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

The FAA has determined that this action of amending three low altitude RNAV T-routes, designated T-291, T-295, and T-356, and establishing T-445 in support of the VOR MON Program qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points); and paragraph 5-6.5b, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review “Actions regarding establishment of jet routes and Federal airways (see 14 CFR 71.15, Designation of jet routes and VOR Federal airways ) . . .”. As such, this action is not expected to result in any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis. Accordingly, the FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact study.

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA-2022-0932, in the Federal Register (87 FR 50011; August 15, 2022). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. No comments were received.

United States RNAV T-routes are published in paragraph 6011, and RNAV Q-routes are published in paragraph 2006, 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 RNAV routes listed in this document will be published subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.

The NPRM proposed, in part, to establish RNAV route T-303, and amend T-314. The FAA determined that these routes require additional coordination so they are removed from this docket and will be placed in a subsequent docket for publication at a later date.

The description of T-224 in the NPRM included the AXEJA, AL, Fix. The AXEJA Fix is a Computer Navigation Fix (CNF). As described in the Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM), a CNF is a point described by a latitude/longitude coordinate that is required to support area navigation (RNAV) system operations. The GPS receiver uses CNFs in conjunction with waypoints to navigate from point to point. However, CNFs are not used for air traffic control purposes or communications, and are not used by pilots for filing flight plans or navigating along a route. Therefore, CNFs are not to be included in route descriptions published under 14 CFR part 71. This rule removes the AXEJA Fix from the T-224 description.

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.

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by amending three low altitude RNAV T-routes, designated T-224, T-315, and T-325; establishing one T-route designated T-360; and amending one high altitude RNAV route designated Q-68. This action supports the VOR MON Program, and the transition of the NAS from ground-based navigation aids to satellite-based navigation. The route changes are as follows.

T-224: This rule extends T-224 from the COLIN, VA, Fix to the Boston, MA (BOS), VHF Omnidirectional Range/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME). The points from the Palacios VHF Omnidirectional Range and Tactical Air Navigational System (VORTAC) to the COLIN Fix remain unchanged. After the COLIN Fix, the following points are added to the route: SHLBK, MD, waypoint (WP); PRNCZ, MD, WP; Smyrna, DE (ENO), VORTAC; JIIMS, NJ, WP; Coyle, NJ (CYN), VORTAC; DIXIE, NJ, Fix; Kennedy, NY (JFK), VOR/DME; KEEPM, NY, Fix; Calverton, NY (CCC), VOR/DME; YANCT, CT, WP; and Boston, MA (BOS), VOR/DME. In this description, the JIIMS WP is being used in place of the Cedar Lake, NJ (VCN), VOR/DME, and the YANCT, CT, WP is being used in place of the Norwich, CT (ORW), VOR/DME. T-224 overlies portions of VOR Federal airway V-16 from the COLIN Fix to the Boston VOR/DME. The AXEJA, AL Computer Navigation Fix is removed from the route description for the reason discussed above.

T-315: T-315 extends from the Hartford, CT (HFD), VOR/DME to the Burlington, VT (BVT), VOR/DME. This action extends T-315 south and west from Hartford, CT to the vicinity of Charleston, WV. The JARLO, WV, WP is used in place of the Charleston, WV (HVQ), VOR/DME. T-315 overlies airway V-260 from JARLO to Flat Rock, VA; V-16 from Flat Rock to the DIXIE, NJ, Fix; and V-229 from the DIXIE Fix to Hartford, CT. The SHANE, WV, WP is used in place of the Rainelle, WV (RNL), VOR. The DBRAH, VA, WP replaces the Roanoke, VA (ROA), VOR/DME. The EEGOR, CT, WP replaces the Bridgeport, CT (BDR), VOR/DME. The following WPs are removed from the description because they don't mark a turn point: DARTH, CT; WITNY, MA; SPENO, MA; JAMMA, VT; and MUDDI, VT. However, the points will remain part of the route structure and will continue to be depicted on the IFR En Route chart. As amended, T-315 extends from the JARLO, WV, WP to the Burlington, VT (BTV), VOR/DME.

T-325: T-325 extends from the Bowling Green, KY (BWG), DME to the Oshkosh, WI (OSH), VORTAC. Due to the scheduled decommissioning of the Bowling Green, KY (BWG), DME this action amends the route by replacing the Bowling Green DME with the RAMRD, KY, WP. In addition, the following points are removed from the route description because they don't mark a turn point: LOONE, KY, WP; BUNKA, IN, Fix; and CAPPY, IL, WP. However, the points will remain part of the route structure and will continue to be depicted on the IFR En Route chart. As amended, T-325 extends from the RAMRD, KY, WP to the Oshkosh, WI (OSH), VORTAC.

T-360: T-360 is a new route that extends from the SHANE, WV, WP to the WAVES, VA, WP. T-360 overlies airway V-290 from the Rainelle, WV (RNL), VOR to the ARVON, VA, Fix (located 22 nautical miles southwest of the Gordonsville, VA (GVE), VORTAC). The SHANE WP replaces the Rainelle VOR.

Q-68: Q-68 is a high-altitude RNAV route that extends from the LITTR, AR, WP to the OTTTO, VA, WP. The FAA is amending Q-68 by removing the Bowling Green, KY (BWG), DME from the route and replacing it with the RAMRD, KY, WP. The following points are removed from the description because they don't mark a turn point: SOPIE, TN, Fix; YOCKY, KY, Fix; SPAYD, WV, Fix; and HHOLZ, WV, Fix. However, the points will remain part of the route structure and will continue to be depicted on the IFR En Route chart.

Full route descriptions of the above routes are listed in the amendments to part 71 set forth below.

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

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

The FAA has determined that this action of amending three low altitude United States Area Navigation (RNAV) T routes, amending one RNAV Q route, and establishing one T route, as described above, in support of efforts transitioning the NAS from ground-based to satellite-based navigation, qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points); and paragraph 5-6.5b, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review “Actions regarding establishment of jet routes and Federal airways (see 14 CFR 71.15, Designation of jet routes and VOR Federal airways ) . . .”. As such, this action is not expected to result in any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis. Accordingly, the FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact study.

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

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

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA-2022-0858 in the Federal Register (87 FR 45719; July 29, 2022), to establish Area Navigation (RNAV) route Q-141 and amend RNAV route Q-437 in support of the Northeast Corridor Atlantic Coast Route Project. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. No comments were received.

United States Area Navigation routes are published in paragraph 2006 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 RNAV routes listed in this document will be published subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.

This document amends FAA Order JO 7400.G, 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.

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by establishing RNAV route Q-141, and amending RNAV route Q-437 in the eastern United States in support of the Northeast Corridor Atlantic Coast Route project.

Q-141: Q-141 is a new route that extends from the HOUKY, VA, waypoint (WP) (located in the vicinity of the Hopewell, VA (HPW), VHF Omnidirectional Range and Tactical Air Navigational System (VORTAC)) to the NALES, DE, WP. Q-141 expands the availability of RNAV routing in the area.

Q-437: Q-437 extends from the VILLS, NJ, Fix, (located northwest of the Sea Isle, NJ (SIE), VORTAC to the SLANG, VT, WP (located northeast of the Cambridge, NY (CAM), VHF Omnidirectional Range/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME)). The FAA is terminating the route at the LLUND, NY, Fix (located north of the Kennedy, NY (JFK), VOR/DME). All points north of the LLUND Fix ( i.e., BINGS, WARUV, and SLANG) are removed from the route. This is based on low demand for those segments and is a better fit traffic flows in the area. Additionally, the LUIGI, NJ, Fix is removed from the route description because it does not mark a turn point.

The full descriptions of Q-141 and Q-437 are listed in the amendments to part 71 set forth below.

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

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

The FAA has determined that this action of establishing RNAV route Q-141 and amending Q-437 qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points); and paragraph 5-6.5b, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review “Actions regarding establishment of jet routes and Federal airways (see 14 CFR 71.15, Designation of jet routes and VOR Federal airways ). . .”. As such, this action is not expected to result in any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis. Accordingly, the FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact study.

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

On October 13, 2022, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published the interim final rule Implementation of Additional Export Controls: Certain Advanced Computing and Semiconductor Manufacturing Items; Supercomputer and Semiconductor End Use; Entity List Modifications (87 FR 62186), hereinafter the October 7 advanced computing and semiconductor manufacturing equipment rule.

In the rule, BIS amended the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to implement necessary controls on advanced computing integrated circuits (ICs), computer commodities that contain such ICs, and certain semiconductor manufacturing items. In addition, BIS expanded controls on transactions involving items for supercomputer and semiconductor manufacturing end uses. For example, the rule expanded the scope of foreign-produced items subject to license requirements for twenty-eight existing entities on the Entity List that are located in China. BIS also informed the public that specific activities of “U.S. persons” that `support' the “development” or “production” of certain ICs in the PRC require a license. Lastly, to minimize the short-term impact on the semiconductor supply chain from the rule, BIS established a Temporary General License to permit specific, limited manufacturing activities in China related to items destined for use outside China and identified a model certificate that may be used in compliance programs to assist, along with other measures, in conducting due diligence. The October 7 advanced computing and semiconductor manufacturing equipment rule also solicits public comments on the changes included in that rule.

The October 7 advanced computing and semiconductor manufacturing equipment rule included a comment period deadline of December 12, 2022. The Department of Commerce has determined at this time that it is warranted to extend the comment period through January 31, 2023 to allow for commenters to have additional time to review the interim final rule and to benefit from the significant amount of public outreach that BIS is conducting on the rule in preparing their comments. This document specifies that comments may be submitted at any time but must be received by January 31, 2023, to be considered.

On July 1, 2014, the Department published a final rule revising Category XI of the USML (79 FR 37536). That final rule added USML Category XI(c)(5) to describe high-energy storage capacitors with a repetition rate of 6 discharges or more per minute and full energy life greater than or equal to 10,000 discharges, at greater than 0.2 Amps per Joule peak current, that have any of the following:

• Volumetric energy density greater than or equal to 1.5 J/cc or

• Mass energy density greater than or equal to 1.3 kJ/kg.

The Department, in consultation with the Departments of Defense and Commerce, and other U.S. Government agencies, assessed in the rulemaking that the discharge rate and energy life criteria were sufficient to differentiate those capacitors warranting ITAR control from those that were in normal commercial use at the time of the rulemaking.

It has come to the Department's attention that certain low-voltage capacitors with foreign availability that are described in USML Category XI(c)(5) are now extensively integrated into commercial applications, such as Wi-Fi routers and civil aviation aircraft transponders. Pursuant to ITAR § 120.11(c), defense articles described on the USML are controlled and remain subject to the ITAR following integration into any item not described on the USML, unless specifically provided otherwise. Thus, a license or other approval is required prior to any export, reexport, retransfer, or temporary import of an item containing such capacitors.

Section 126.2 of the ITAR provides that the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Defense Trade Controls may order the temporary suspension or modification of any or all provisions of the ITAR when in the interest of the security and foreign policy of the United States.

The Department assessed that it is in the security and foreign policy interests of the United States to facilitate commercial uses of certain capacitors when integrated into any item not described on the USML (for example, certain items used in energy exploration or in commercial aircraft used for global travel and commerce). Accordingly, on November 21, 2022, pursuant to ITAR § 126.2, and the Department's administration of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) as a foreign affairs function as stated in ITAR § 120.20, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Defense Trade Controls ordered the temporary suspension of ITAR § 120.11(c) with respect to capacitors described in USML Category XI(c)(5) that have a voltage rating of one hundred twenty-five volts (125 V) or less and have been integrated into, and included as an integral part of, an item not described on the USML. Such articles are licensed by the Department of Commerce when integrated into, and included as an integral part of, items subject to the EAR. This temporary suspension of ITAR § 120.11(c), as described above, is valid for a period of six months until May 21, 2023, or when terminated by notice, whichever occurs first.

Capacitors described in USML Category XI(c)(5) remain subject to the controls of the ITAR in all other circumstances, including as stand-alone articles. The export, reexport, retransfer, or temporary import of technical data and defense services directly related to all defense articles described in USML Category XI(c)(5) remain subject to the ITAR.

Any violation of the ITAR, including any violation of the terms and conditions of any export license issued by the Department of State prior to the temporary suspension announced herein, remains a violation of the AECA. The public is reminded that the Department of State strongly encourages industry to disclose, pursuant to ITAR § 127.12, unauthorized exports, reexports, retransfers, or temporary imports of defense articles, including the subject capacitors, that occurred prior to the temporary suspension announced herein.

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) administers the pension plan termination insurance program under title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). PBGC's regulation on Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4044) sets forth (in subpart B) the methods for valuing plan benefits of terminating single-employer plans covered under title IV. Guaranteed benefits and benefit liabilities under a plan that is undergoing a distress termination must be valued in accordance with subpart B of part 4044. In addition, when PBGC terminates an underfunded plan involuntarily pursuant to ERISA section 4042(a), it uses the subpart B valuation rules to determine the amount of the plan's underfunding.

Under § 4044.51(b) of the asset allocation regulation, early retirement benefits are valued based on the annuity starting date, if a retirement date has been selected, or the expected retirement age, if the annuity starting date is not known on the valuation date. Sections 4044.55 through 4044.57 set forth rules for determining the expected retirement ages for plan participants entitled to early retirement benefits. Appendix D of part 4044 contains tables to be used in determining the expected early retirement ages.

Table I in appendix D (Selection of Retirement Rate Category) is used to determine whether a participant has a low, medium, or high probability of retiring early. The determination is based on the year a participant would reach “unreduced retirement age” ( i.e., the earlier of the normal retirement age or the age at which an unreduced benefit is first payable) and the participant's monthly benefit at the unreduced retirement age. The table applies only to plans with valuation dates in the current year and is updated annually by PBGC to reflect changes in the cost of living, etc.

Tables II-A, II-B, and II-C (Expected Retirement Ages for Individuals in the Low, Medium, and High Categories respectively) are used to determine the expected retirement age after the probability of early retirement has been determined using Table I. These tables establish, by probability category, the expected retirement age based on both the earliest age a participant could retire under the plan and the unreduced retirement age. This expected retirement age is used to compute the value of the early retirement benefit and, thus, the total value of benefits under the plan.

This document amends appendix D to replace Table I-22 with Table I-23 to provide an updated correlation, appropriate for calendar year 2023, between the amount of a participant's benefit and the probability that the participant will elect early retirement. Table I-23 will be used to value benefits in plans with valuation dates during calendar year 2023.

PBGC has determined that notice of, and public comment on, this rule are impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest. PBGC's update of appendix D for calendar year 2023 is routine. If a plan has a valuation date in 2023, the plan administrator needs the updated table being promulgated in this rule to value benefits. Accordingly, PBGC finds that the public interest is best served by issuing this table expeditiously, without an opportunity for notice and comment, and that good cause exists for making the table set forth in this amendment effective less than 30 days after publication to allow the use of the proper table to estimate the value of plan benefits for plans with valuation dates in early 2023.

PBGC has determined that this action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the criteria set forth in Executive Order 12866.

Because no general notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this regulation, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 does not apply (5 U.S.C. 601(2)).

In consideration of the foregoing, 29 CFR part 4044 is amended as follows:

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. We must establish this safety zone immediately to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by pipeline removal operations and lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then to consider those comments before issuing the rule.

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port Sector Corpus Christi (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with pipeline removal operations occurring from 8 p.m. on December 5, 2022 through 3 p.m. on December 11, 2022 will be a safety concern for anyone within the Corpus Christi Shipping Channel in a zone defined by the following coordinates; 27°50′31.28″ N, 97°04′17.23″ W; 27°50′31.73″ N, 97°04′15.44″ W; 27°50′29.06″ N, 97°04′16.61″ W; 27°50′29.32″ N, 97°04′14.82″ W. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of vessels and persons on these navigable waters in the safety zone while pipelines are removed from the floor of the Corpus Christi Shipping Channel.

This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from 8 p.m. on December 5, 2022 through 3 p.m. on December 11, 2022 and will be subject to enforcement from 8 p.m. to 3 p.m. of the next day, each day. The safety zone will encompass all navigable waters of the Corpus Christi Shipping Channel in a zone defined by the following coordinates; 27°50′31.28″ N, 97°04′17.23″ W; 27°50′31.73″ N, 97°04′15.44″ W; 27°50′29.06″ N, 97°04′16.61″ W; 27°50′29.32″ N, 97°04′14.82″ W. The pipeline will be removed along the floor of the Corpus Christi Shipping Channel. No vessel or person is permitted to enter the temporary safety zone during the effective period without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative, who may be contacted on Channel 16 VHF-FM (156.8 MHz) or by telephone at 361-939-0450. The Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notices to Mariners, Local Notices to Mariners, and/or Safety Marine Information Broadcasts as appropriate.

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

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the safety zone. The temporary safety zone will be enforced for a short period of only 19 hours each day. The rule does not completely restrict the traffic within a waterway and allows mariners to request permission to enter the zone.

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

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

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, and Environmental Planning, COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves establishment of a temporary safety zone for navigable waters of the Corpus Christi Shipping Channel in a zone defined by the following coordinates; 27°50′31.28″ N, 97°04′17.23″ W; 27°50′31.73″ N, 97°04′15.44″ W; 27°50′29.06″ N, 97°04′16.61″ W; 27°50′29.32″ N, 97°04′14.82″ W. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by pipeline that will be removed from the floor of the Corpus Christi Shipping Channel. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(d) Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

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

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

States that have received final authorization from EPA under RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the Federal program. As the Federal program is revised to become more stringent or broader in scope, States must revise their programs and apply to EPA to authorize the revisions. Authorization of revisions to State programs may be necessary when Federal or State statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when certain other revisions occur. Most commonly, States must revise their programs because of revisions to EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 260 through 266, 268, 270, 273 and 279.

On December 16, 2021, Delaware submitted a final program revision application seeking authorization of revisions to its hazardous waste program that correspond to certain Federal rules promulgated through May 30, 2018. EPA concludes that Delaware's application to revise its authorized program meets all of the statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA, as set forth in RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), and 40 CFR part 271. Therefore, EPA grants Delaware final authorization to operate its hazardous waste program with the revisions described in its authorization application, and as outlined below in Section G of this preamble.

Delaware has responsibility for permitting treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) within its borders and for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its application, subject to the limitations of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). New Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal regulations that EPA promulgates under the authority of HSWA take effect in authorized States before they are authorized for the requirements. Thus, EPA will implement those HSWA requirements and prohibitions for which Delaware has not been authorized, including issuing HSWA permits, until the State is granted authorization to do so.

This action serves to authorize revisions to Delaware's authorized hazardous waste program. This action does not impose additional requirements on the regulated community because the regulations for which Delaware is being authorized by this action are already effective and are not changed by this action. Delaware has enforcement responsibilities under its state hazardous waste program for violations of its program, but EPA retains its authority under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, which include, among others, authority to:

• Perform inspections, and require monitoring, tests, analyses or reports;

• Enforce RCRA requirements and suspend or revoke permits; and

• Take enforcement actions regardless of whether Delaware has taken its own actions.

Along with this direct final rule, EPA is publishing a separate document in the “Proposed Rules” section of this issue of the Federal Register that serves as the proposal to authorize these State program revisions. EPA did not publish a proposal before this issue of the Federal Register because EPA views this action as a routine program change and does not expect comments that oppose its approval. EPA is providing an opportunity for public comment now, as described in Section E of this preamble.

If EPA receives adverse comments pertaining to this State revision, EPA will withdraw this direct final rule by publishing a document in the Federal Register before the rule becomes effective. EPA will base any further decision on the authorization of Delaware's program revisions on the proposal mentioned in the previous section, after considering all comments received during the comment period. EPA will then address all relevant comments in a later final rule. You may not have another opportunity to comment. If you want to comment on this authorization, you must do so at this time.

Delaware initially received final authorization of its hazardous waste program effective June 22, 1984 (June 8, 1984; 49 FR 23837). EPA granted authorization for revisions to Delaware's regulatory program on August 8, 1996, effective October 7, 1996 (61 FR 41345); August 18, 1998, effective October 19, 1998 (63 FR 44152); July 12, 2000, effective September 11, 2000 (65 FR 42871); August 8, 2002, effective August 8, 2002 (67 FR 51478); March 4, 2004, effective May 3, 2004 (69 FR 10171); October 7, 2004, effective December 6, 2004 (69 FR 60091); and August 10, 2017, effective October 10, 2017 (82 FR 37319).

On December 16, 2021, Delaware submitted a final program revision application seeking authorization of additional revisions to its program in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. Delaware's revision application includes various regulations that are equivalent to, and no less stringent than, selected Federal final hazardous waste rules, as published in the Federal Register through May 30, 2018.

EPA now makes a direct final rule, subject to receipt of written comments that oppose this action, that Delaware's hazardous waste program revision application satisfies all of the requirements necessary to qualify for final authorization. Therefore, EPA grants Delaware final authorization for the following program revisions:

Delaware seeks authority to administer the Federal requirements that are listed in Table 1 below. This table lists the Delaware analogs that have been revised; these revisions are being recognized as no less stringent than the analogous Federal requirements.

Delaware's regulatory references are to Delaware's Regulations Governing Hazardous Waste (DRGHW), amended and effective August 21, 2006, December 21, 2007, December 21, 2008, May 21, 2009, April 21, 2016, and January 21, 2021. The statutory references are to 7 Delaware Code annotated (1991).

Delaware's hazardous waste program contains several provisions that are more stringent than the RCRA program. The more stringent provisions are part of the Federally authorized program and are, therefore, federally enforceable. The specific more stringent provisions are also noted with an asterisk in Table 1 of this preamble and in Delaware's authorization application. They include, but are not limited to, the following:

(a) The Federal regulations, at 40 CFR 260.21(d), state that any person may petition for a regulatory amendment to add a testing or analytical method. Delaware's regulations do not allow such petitions and, as a result, are more stringent than the federal requirement.

(b) The Federal regulations, at 40 CFR 260.33, detail the procedures the Administrator will use in evaluating applications for variances from classification as a solid waste, for variances to be classified as a boiler, or for non-waste determinations. The Delaware regulations, at DRGHW 260.33, detail the procedures the Secretary of DNREC will use in evaluating applications for variances from classification as solid waste or variances to be classified as a boiler. The Delaware regulations do not allow applications for non-waste determinations and, as such, are more stringent than the Federal requirements.

(c) The Federal regulations, at 40 CFR 260.42(a), state that facilities managing hazardous secondary materials under an approved variance must send a notification to EPA every two years. The Delaware regulations, at DRGHW 260.42(a), require notifications to DNREC every year. Because Delaware requires annual notifications while EPA requires notifications every two years, this Delaware requirements is more stringent than the Federal requirement.

(d) The Federal regulations, at 40 CFR 261.39, include a list of conditions that used, broken CRTs must meet in order to be excluded from consideration as solid wastes. The Delaware regulations, at DRGHW 261.39 and 261.41(a), specify that CRTs are considered solid waste but used, intact or broken CRTs are not hazardous waste if they meet the listed conditions. Because the Delaware regulations do not exclude CRTs from consideration as solid wastes, the state requirements are more stringent than the Federal requirements. Additionally, the Federal regulations, at 40 CFR 261.39(a)(5)(i)(F), (a)(5)(x), and (a)(5)(xi), require exporters of used, broken CRTs to notify EPA of an intended export before the CRTs are scheduled to leave the United States, to file with EPA an annual report summarizing the quantities, frequency of shipment, and ultimate destination(s) of all used CRTs exported during the previous calendar year. The Delaware regulations, at DRGHW 261.39(a)(5)(i)(F), (a)(5)(x), and (a)(5)(xi), require that exporters of used, intact or broken CRTs notify both EPA and the DNREC Secretary of an intended export before the CRTs are scheduled to leave the United States, and that the annual report be filed with EPA, with a copy sent to the DNREC Secretary. Because Delaware's requirements apply to exporters of intact CRTs in addition to exporters of used, broken CRTs, and because the Delaware regulations require exporters to notify DNREC in addition to EPA, the Delaware regulations are more stringent than the Federal requirements.

(e) In several places, the Federal regulations require that notices and reports be submitted to the Agency. Delaware's regulations also require the submittal of those notices and reports, but additionally require that the notices and reports be submitted to the Secretary of DNREC. These additional requirements are found at DRGHW 261.41(b) and (c), 264.56(j), and 264.343(a)(2). Additionally, Delaware regulations require that notifications and documents be provided to the Secretary in a number of instances where the Federal regulations do not require such notifications or submittals. These additional requirements are found at DRGHW 264.1061(b)(1), 264.1062(a)(2), 265.56(i), 265.90(e)(1) and (e)(3), 265.93(d)(2) and (d)(5), 265.196(f), 265.224(a), 265.259(a), 265.303(a), 265.1061(b)(1), 265.1061(d), and 265.1062(a)(2). As a result, the above Delaware regulations are more stringent than the Federal requirements.

(f) The Federal regulations, at 40 CFR 262.14(a)(5)(iv) and (v), allows very small quantity generators (VSQGs) to either treat or dispose of their hazardous waste in an on-site facility or ensure delivery to an off-site treatment, storage, or disposal facility as long as the facility is in the United States and is permitted, licensed, or registered by a state to manage municipal solid waste or non-municipal non-hazardous waste. Delaware has reserved the analogous subsections at DRGHW 262.14(a)(6)(iv) and (v), and does not allow VSQG waste to be sent to non-hazardous waste landfills. As a result, the Delaware regulations are more stringent than the Federal requirements.

(g) The Federal regulations, at 40 CFR 264.73(b), introductory language, 264.73(b)(6) and (b)(18), 264.347(d), 265.73(b), introductory language, 265.73(b)(6), and 266.102(e)(10) require that facilities record and maintain certain records for three or five years, as specified. The Delaware regulations, at DRGHW 264.73(b), introductory language, 264.73(b)(6), 264.347(d), 265.73(b), introductory language, 265.73(b)(6), and 266.102(e)(10) require facilities to maintain those records until closure of the facility. Additionally, at 40 CFR 266.103(d) and (k), the Federal regulations require owners or operators to recertify compliance within five years from submitting the previous certification and to maintain required records for five years, while the Delaware regulations, at DRGHW 266.103(d) and (k), require recertification within three years and maintenance of the records until closure of the unit. As a result, the above Delaware regulations are more stringent than the Federal requirements.

(h) The Federal regulations, at 40 CFR 264.98(d) and 264.99(f), state that the Regional Administrator will specify the frequencies for collecting samples and conducting statistical tests to determine whether there is statistically significant evidence of contamination. The Delaware regulations, at DRGHW 264.98(d) and 264.99(f), specify that a sequence of at least four samples from each well must be collected at least semi-annually. Because of this additional requirement, the above Delaware regulations are more stringent than the Federal requirements.

(i) The Federal regulations, at 40 CFR 264.100(g), require owners or operators to submit written reports on the effectiveness of the corrective action program on an annual basis. The Delaware regulations, at DRGHW 264.100(g), require that these reports be submitted semi-annually. As a result, the Delaware regulations are more stringent than the Federal requirements.

(j) The Federal regulations, at 40 CFR 264.113(d) and (e), authorize the Regional Administrator to allow closed facilities to accept non-hazardous waste if they meet certain requirements. Delaware did not adopt these two subparagraphs. Therefore, in this respect, the Delaware requirements are more stringent than the Federal program.

(k) The Federal regulations, at 40 CFR 265.113(e), allow owners or operators of a hazardous waste surface impoundment that is not in compliance with the liner and leachate collection system to operate as long as they meet certain listed requirements. Delaware's regulations do not allow these activities at all. As a result, the Delaware regulations are more stringent than the Federal requirements.

(l) Delaware's regulations, at DRGHW 265.195(a), state that owners or operators of facilities that use tank systems for storing or treating hazardous waste must inspect specified areas at least once each operating day. The Federal regulations, at 40 CFR 265.195(b), include the same requirement. Additionally, at 40 CFR 265.195(c), the Federal regulations allow certain facilities to inspect those areas weekly. The Delaware regulations do not allow for this alternate inspection schedule and, as a result, are more stringent than the Federal requirements in this respect.

(m) The Federal regulations, at 40 CFR 265.195(f) and (g), require an owner or operator of a facility with tank systems to inspect cathodic protection systems and keep records of the inspections. The Delaware regulations, at DRGHW 265.195(b) and (c), include the same requirements. Additionally, DRGHW 265.195(c) provides that generators must submit a written record of inspections and maintain the record onsite for a minimum of three years. This additional requirement for generators is more stringent than the Federal requirements.

After this authorization revision, Delaware will continue to issue permits covering all the provisions for which it is authorized and will administer all such permits. EPA will continue to administer any RCRA hazardous waste permits or portions of permits that it issued prior to the effective date of this authorization until the timing and process for effective transfer to the State are mutually agreed upon. Until such time as EPA formally transfers responsibility for a permit to Delaware and EPA terminates its permit, EPA and Delaware agree to coordinate the administration of such permit in order to maintain consistency. EPA will not issue any more new permits or new portions of permits for the provisions listed in Section G of this preamble after the effective date of this authorization. EPA will continue to implement and issue permits for HSWA requirements for which Delaware is not yet authorized.

Delaware is not seeking authority to operate the program on Indian lands, since there are no Federally-recognized Indian Lands in Delaware.

Codification is the process of placing a state's statutes and regulations that comprise the state's authorized hazardous waste program into the Code of Federal Regulations. We do this action by referencing the authorized state rules in 40 CFR part 272. On January 31, 1986, EPA codified the initial EPA-approved Delaware State program in 40 CFR part 272 subpart I (51 FR 3954). The current codification is out of date because the authorized Delaware State program has been amended since 1986. EPA is now removing and reserving the language in 40 CFR part 272 subpart I, §§ 272.400 and 272.401. EPA's initial January 1986 authorized program approval and all subsequent updates have been accomplished through notice-and-comment rulemaking, and EPA believes the scope and content of the authorized Delaware State Program is sufficiently clear without codification in 40 CFR part 272.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this action from the requirements of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). Therefore, this action is not subject to review by OMB. This action authorizes State requirements pursuant to RCRA section 3006 and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). Because this action authorizes pre-existing requirements under State law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by State law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). For the same reason, this action also does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Tribal governments, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). In any case, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule since there are no Federally recognized tribes in Delaware.

This action will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) because it merely authorizes State requirements as part of the State RCRA hazardous waste program without altering the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established by RCRA. This action also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant, and it does not concern environmental health or safety risks that may disproportionately affect children. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

Under RCRA section 3006(b), EPA grants a State's application for authorization as long as the State meets the criteria required by RCRA. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a State authorization application, to require the use of any particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard that satisfies the requirements of RCRA. Thus, the requirements of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note, section 12(d)(3)) do not apply.

As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 18, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings issued under the executive order.

This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. Because this rule authorizes pre-existing State rules which are at least equivalent to, and no less stringent than, existing Federal requirements, and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law, and there are no anticipated significant adverse human health or environmental effects, the rule is not subject to Executive Order 12898.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this document and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). However, this action will not be effective until February 6, 2023 because it is a direct final rule.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 272 is amended as follows:

The FY21 NDAA, with minor adjustments in the FY22 NDAA, required that the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, establish a fleet of active, commercially viable, militarily useful, privately-owned product tank vessels to meet national defense and other security requirements. The TSP will provide a stipend to tanker operators of U.S.-flagged vessels that meet certain qualifications.

Congress appropriated $60,000,000 for the TSP in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2022, Public Law 117-269. Authorized payments to participating operators are limited to $6 million per ship, per fiscal year and are subject to annual appropriations. Participating operators will be required to make their commercial transportation resources available upon request by the Secretary of Defense for military purposes during times of war or national emergency.

A fuel tanker study required by the Fiscal Year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (FY20 NDAA) examined the sufficiency of the U.S.-flagged tanker fleet to meet National Defense Strategy (NDS) requirements. A summary of the report is provided on the DOT/MARAD docket for this rulemaking. The report's summary found there to be a substantial risk to the nation's defense associated with a heavy reliance on foreign-flagged tankers, particularly within a contested environment. The location, timing, and specific missions associated with some tanker requirements dictate the need for U.S.-flagged assets, for which there currently are insufficient numbers available. The report's gap analysis found a clear and critical need for a tanker security program to increase U.S.-flagged tanker capacity, to reduce the risk of reliance on foreign-flagged tankers for the most important fuel missions, and to ensure the Department of Defense (DoD) has sufficient tanker capabilities to meet NDS objectives.

In response to the FY20 NDAA Fuel Tanker Study, Congress directed in the FY21 NDAA, with minor adjustments in the FY22 NDAA, that the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, establish a fleet of active, commercially viable, militarily useful, privately owned product tanker vessels to meet national defense and other security requirements and maintain a United States presence in international commercial shipping. 1 The Maritime Administration worked with the DoD's United States Transportation Command to identify and shape TSP requirements and timelines.

Pursuant to the statute, the rule establishes requirements that support typical DOT and MARAD commercial economic objectives such as the tanker vessel eligibility requirements of Section 294.9 to be commercially viable, not more than 10 years in age, and to operate in U.S. foreign commerce. (See 46 U.S.C. 53402(b)(2)-(4),(6)-(7)). In addition, Section 294.9 requires tanker vessels to be suitable for use by the United States for national defense or military purposes in time of war or national emergency, as determined by the Secretary of Defense. (See 46 U.S.C. 53402(b)(5).)). The statute also requires vessel owners, charterers, and operators to meet certain requirements under Section 294.11 intended to identify their corporate citizenship as a matter of ensuring security through proper operational control. (See 46 U.S.C. 54302(b)(1) and (c)). And, under Section 294.25 a TSP participant must agree to the installation onboard its vessel of militarily useful features for national defense purposes as approved by U.S. Coast Guard and the vessel's classification society. (See 46 U.S.C. 53402(a), (b)(5); 46 U.S.C. 53407). Finally, in the event of a national defense emergency, all TSP participants are subject to the terms of an agreement  2 that obligates the TSP participant to make commercial transportation resources (including services) available for military use, upon request by the Secretary of Defense during a time of war or national emergency, or whenever the Secretary of Defense determines that it is necessary for national security or contingency operation. (See 46 U.S.C. 53403-53405, 53407). Section 294.31 also provides for annual payments to program participants and specifies payment conditions as specified in the statute. (See 46 U.S.C. 53406.) Taken together, the TSP supports both the nation's economy and its national security by strengthening and ensuring the continued availability of U.S.-flag sealift capacity.

MARAD is issuing this interim final rule without prior notice and the opportunity for public comment and the delayed effective date ordinarily prescribed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). MARAD concludes that this rule involves a military function of the United States under 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1) and is therefore exempt from the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553 ( see 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). Nonetheless, MARAD has also analyzed this rule under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and determined that it has good cause to waive prior opportunity for notice and comment. For similar reasons, MARAD has determined that it has good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effective date under 5 U.S.C. 553. MARAD seeks comment on this interim final rule and will consider comments received in issuing any final rule.

Pursuant to section 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1), the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553, including general notice and the opportunity for public comment on a proposed rule and a 30-day delay in the effective date of a final rule, are not required with respect to a rulemaking “to the extent that there is involved . . . a military or foreign affairs function of the United States.” MARAD finds that this interim final rule involves a military function of the United States and therefore can be made effective prior to receiving public comment. 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1). Under the requirements for establishment of the TSP set forth in the FY21 NDAA, as amended by the FY22 NDAA, and this rulemaking, vessels in the TSP must be militarily useful, participants must be under the supervisory control of the DoD when requested during times of war or national emergency, and participants will perform a direct military function by providing emergency supply capacity. The tanker security program established by the rule therefore directly involves a military function, and the tanker vessels involved in the program perform significantly more than ordinary civilian support services.

Consistent with the statutory authority for the program at 46 U.S.C. 53402, the fleet must be established in consultation with the Secretary of Defense and is intended to meet national defense and other security requirements in addition to maintaining a U.S. presence in international commercial shipping. As required by section 53402, the regulation specifies that a vessel is eligible for inclusion in the fleet only if it “is determined by the Secretary of Defense to be suitable for use by the United States for national defense or military purposes in time of war or national emergency. . .” In addition, consistent with 46 U.S.C. 53407, the regulation requires that operating agreements between the owner/operator of a vessel in the TSP must be approved by the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of Defense. The regulation also requires that a participant in the TSP agree to the installation on its vessel of militarily useful features for national defense purposes as approved by the U.S. Coast Guard and the vessel's classification society. The statutory provision at 46 U.S.C. 53407, titled “National security requirements,” states specifically that operating agreements “shall provide that upon request by the Secretary of Defense during time of war or national emergency, or whenever determined by the Secretary of Defense to be necessary for national security or contingency operation . . ., the program participant shall make available commercial transportation resources (including services) described in subsection (d) to the Secretary of Defense . . . .” 46 U.S.C. 53407(b)(1). For these reasons, MARAD concludes that the rule involves a military function of the United States and is thus exempt from the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553.

While MARAD concludes that the rule is exempt from the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553 as a rule involving a military function, MARAD also finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to issue this interim final rule to create the Tanker Security Program and establish, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, a Tanker Security Fleet. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), general notice and the opportunity for public comment are not required with respect to a rulemaking when an “agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefor in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Similarly, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d), a 30-day delay in effective date is not required if the agency finds good cause to waive the delay and publishes its finding in the rule.

MARAD has determined that it would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest to seek notice and comment on this final rule because of the urgent need to ensure the nation's security in the face of shifting real-time military priorities and requirements. To meet the urgent national security demand explained in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 Department of Defense Report on United States-Flagged Fuel Tanker Vessel Capacity gap analysis (Tanker Study), MARAD must issue this final rule to ensure its ability to notice, accept, and process applications followed by the review and execution of supporting agreements with qualified vessel operators. This urgency is heightened by an increased DOD priority for tankers since issuance of the Tanker Study. MARAD has consulted with DOD and is issuing this IFR to address the heightened demand for tankers to meet national security objectives. In addition, MARAD emphasizes that national security needs can change quickly, and there is a need to establish the TSP through this IFR to ensure that DOD can meet new or changed circumstances that may arise at any time. There is good cause to make this rule effective immediately to provide for the most efficient means of shoring up sealift capacity not readily available to support DoD's national security mission demands.

As discussed earlier in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document, the intent of this action is to provide improved tanker sealift capacity for the nation's security demands. The FY20 NDAA Fuel Tanker Study found that while U.S.-Flag commercial tankers provide DoD the greatest reliability for waterborne fuel transportation, the size of the current U.S.-Flag tanker fleet is insufficient to meet specific U.S. national security requirements, leaving significant gaps in DoD's fuel transportation capabilities. DoD mobility studies have demonstrated a growing concern that DoD's access to foreign-flag tanker capacity to meet defense objectives will be negatively impacted by the increasing influence and relative control of the global shipping market by the United States' near-peer competitors. The increased volatility in fuel commodity markets since the publication of the FY20 Fuel Tanker Study has only increased these risks, particularly concerning fuel distribution capabilities. The FY20 Fuel Tanker Study's analysis found, and subsequent mobility studies and market volatility have underscored, a clear and critical need for a Tanker Security Program to reduce DoD's risk of reliance on foreign-flag tankers and stated that TSP should be considered for rapid implementation given the military value it represents.

For these reasons, MARAD also finds good cause to waive prior opportunity for notice and comment on the rule and to waive the 30-day delay in effective date as impracticable and contrary to the public interest. MARAD issues this rule so that it may begin the administrative process necessary to seek applicants and to evaluate and engage qualified tanker vessels and vessel operators, thereby establishing the TSP as early as possible. The Tanker Study's gap analysis demonstrated pressing DoD fuel tanker supply needs. A delay in this rulemaking could result in serious national security concerns if a situation arises where TSP supply resources are necessary.

Though this interim final rule is effective immediately, MARAD seeks comment in response to this interim final rule in determining how to proceed with any final rule. Any final rule may differ from today's rule in response to comments received. Comments are solicited from interested members of the public on all aspects of the interim final rule. MARAD is interested in information concerning whether the rule will be comprehensive and effective in meeting both commercial product fuel needs and DoD fuel transportation requirements and whether any other steps could be taken to ensure that all qualified vessel operators may overcome potential obstacles to admission.

Comments must be submitted on or before the date indicated in the DATES section at the beginning of this document. MARAD believes that the 60-day comment period will allow commenters sufficient time to address any issues raised by the interim final rule and still meet the national security demands contemplated. See “Public Participation” section below.

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, E.O. 13563, and the Department of Transportation's administrative rulemaking procedures, provide for determining whether a regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review. This rule has been determined to be significant pursuant to section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

Congress authorized the establishment of a Tanker Security Fleet in Sec. 3511 of the FY21 NDAA, which was enacted on January 1, 2021. Section 3511(a) of the Act outlines the establishment of a fleet of product tank vessels, pursuant to agreement, engaged in U.S. foreign commerce and available for military use by the DoD during times of war or national emergency. The statutory language defines, among other elements: the maximum size of the fleet at ten vessels; the general vessel selection criteria; the obligations and rights of program participants; the maximum annual payments per vessel under each agreement and the conditions of such payments; and each participant's national security obligations under the program.

The major benefits of TSP are that it will: (1) provide DoD with assured access of up to 10 U.S.-flagged product tank vessels that may be used to supply the armed forces of the United States with fuel during times of war or national emergency, and (2) help to ensure that a core fleet of U.S.-based product tankers can operate competitively in international trade and enhance U.S. supply chain resiliency for liquid fuel products. The report on U.S.-flagged fuel tanker vessels completed by DoD in accordance with section 3519 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (Pub. L. 116-92) identified an insufficient U.S.-flagged tanker capacity to meet National Defense Strategy requirements. In addition, TSP will provide necessary support to help maintain a U.S.-flag presence in international commerce. The TSP vessels will be a critical component of the U.S.-flag capability that contributes to the U.S. mariner base for utilization on both the commercial and DoD fleets.

Congress set strict statutory limits, not subject to the Secretary of Transportation's discretion, on the maximum number of participant vessels and the annual payment per vessel. Section 3511(a) of the Act authorized the participation of 10 vessels in TSP through the end of FY 2035. The operators of each of these 10 vessels may be paid up to $6 million per vessel per year, subject to specific operating requirements, with a maximum programmatic payment authorization of $60 million per year for FYs 2022-2035, subject to appropriations. Application costs for vessels that may apply for the TSP are discussed in paragraph (e) of this section, describing MARAD's compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act for this rule.

Section 3511 of the FY21 NDAA provides for the TSP with new funding authorization and establishes a dedicated product tanker fleet program distinct from the existing MSP. Congress also prescribed the minimum requirements of the TSP, including ship ownership, vessel eligibility, vessel documentation, program duration, the number of participating vessels, the amount of funding, and national security obligations. The Act provides detailed requirements for starting and operating the TSP, and MARAD does not have discretion to deviate from those requirements in the regulations that establish the TSP's operation.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., rules that are exempt from notice and comment under the APA are also exempt from the RFA analytical requirements, including conducting a regulatory flexibility analysis. See 5 U.S.C. 603(a). Because, as discussed above, this rule is exempt from the APA notice and comment requirements, MARAD is not required to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis.

MARAD has examined the interim final rule pursuant to E.O. 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional consultation with States, local governments, or their representatives is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The Agency has concluded that the rulemaking would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The interim final rule will not have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually. This action will not result in additional expenditures by State, local, or tribal governments or by any members of the private sector. Therefore, the Agency has not prepared an assessment pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), a person is not required to respond to a collection of information by a federal agency unless the collection displays a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. This interim final rule includes a new emergency OMB approved collection of information under OMB Control Number 2133-0554. The collection is necessary to accept applications, undertake the review of applicant qualifications to ensure applications are complete, and administer and maintain all aspects of the TSP program. MARAD expects an estimated 10 respondents, with a response frequency of once annually. The annual burden estimate is $2,438.50. We seek comment from the public on our burden estimates.

Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit https://www.transportation.gov/privacy.

MARAD is providing a 60-day comment period.

To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the Docket Number shown at the beginning of this document in your comments.

If you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF (Adobe) File, MARAD asks that the documents be submitted using the Optical Character Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing MARAD to search and copy certain portions of your submissions. Comments may be submitted to the Docket electronically by logging onto the Docket Management System website at http://www.regulations.gov. Search using the MARAD Docket Number and follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

You may also submit two copies of your comments, including the attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under ADDRESSES .

Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, for substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html. DOT's guidelines may be accessed at http://www.bts.gov/programs/statistical_policy_and_research/data_quality_guidelines.

If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by mail.

Confidential business information (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 to the interim final rule 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 interim final rule, 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. MARAD will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this interim final rule. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to the email address provided in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. In addition, you should submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed CBI, to Docket Management at the address given above under ADDRESSES . Any comments MARAD receives which are not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES . To the extent possible, we will also consider comments that Docket Management receives after that date.

You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the address given above under ADDRESSES . The hours of the Docket Management office are indicated above in the same location. You may also see the comments on the internet. To read the comments on the internet, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets.

Please note that, even after the comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.

This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order, MB Docket No. 22-239, FCC 22-89, adopted on November 17, 2022, and released on November 18, 2022. The full text of this document is available for download at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-22-89A1.pdf. To request materials in accessible formats (braille, large print, computer diskettes, or audio recordings), please send an email to FCC504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer and Government Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (VOICE), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

On July 14, 2022, the Commission adopted a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), seeking comment on referencing Nielsen's Local TV Station Information Report (Local TV Report) for use in determining a television station's designated market area (DMA) for satellite and cable carriage under the Commission's regulations. Pursuant to the Act, and the implementing rules adopted by the Commission, commercial television broadcast stations are entitled to assert mandatory carriage rights on cable systems located within their market. Similarly, section 338 of the Act requires satellite carriers to carry on request all local television broadcast stations' signals in local markets in which the satellite carrier carries at least one local television broadcast signal pursuant to the statutory copyright license. A station's market for cable and satellite carriage is its DMA, as defined by The Nielsen Company's Annual Station Index and Household Estimates “or any successor publications.” The implementing regulations also specify which edition of the Annual Station Index is to be used for each election cycle (specifically, the one published the year prior to the election).

The Nielsen Company has notified the Commission that its Nielsen Media Research division will no longer publish the annual Nielsen Station Index Directory (Annual Station Index), which has been used in combination with the Nielsen Station Index and United States Television Household Estimates (Household Estimates), to determine a station's DMA for local television stations seeking carriage. Nielsen has stated that the information contained in the Annual Station Index is now in the Local TV Report, which is published monthly. Thus, the Local TV Report is now the only publication necessary to determine a station's DMA. The Household Estimates publication is no longer in use.

Commenters unanimously supported amending our rules to eliminate the references to the Annual Station Index and Household Estimates and specify the Local TV Report as the successor publication to be used to determine a station's DMA. Thus, the references to the Annual Station Index and Household Estimates will be deleted and replaced with the Local TV Report in pertinent parts.

Commenters also unanimously requested that the Commission amend the rule to specifically reference the October Local TV Report published two years prior to each triennial carriage election, which is consistent with the Annual Station Index, which relied upon information gathered in the October two years prior to each triennial carriage election. Based upon the record support for this change, we amend the rule to specify that DMA determinations will be based on the October Local TV Report published two years prior to the triennial election.

This document does not contain information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). The Commission has determined, and the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, concurs that this rule is “non-major” under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission will also send a copy of the Report and Order to Congress and the Government Accountability office, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 76 as follows:

Gulf king mackerel is managed under the CMP FMP prepared by the Gulf and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils (Councils) and implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).

On October 7, 2022, NMFS published a proposed rule for Framework Amendment 11 and requested public comment (87 FR 60975, October 7, 2022). The proposed rule and Framework Amendment 11 outline the rationale for the actions contained in this final rule. A summary of the management measures described in Framework 11 and implemented by this final rule is provided below.

All weights in this proposed rule are in round and eviscerated weight combined, unless otherwise specified.

Under the CMP FMP, the Gulf Council manages fishing for Gulf king mackerel in Federal waters from Texas to the boundary between Monroe and Miami-Dade Counties in Florida. The Gulf king mackerel stock annual catch limit (ACL) is allocated between the commercial and recreational sectors.

The current overfishing limit (OFL) and acceptable biological catch (ABC) are 8,950,000 lb (4,059,652 kg) and 8,550,000 lb (3,878,215 kg), respectively. The current stock ACL is equal to the ABC. The OFL, ABC, and stock ACL were established in 2017 in Amendment 26 to the CMP FMP (82 FR 17387; April 11, 2017). These catch limits are based on projections from the Southeast Data Assessment and Review (SEDAR) 38 stock assessment and recommendations by the Gulf Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC). The recreational landings estimates used in SEDAR 38 included data from the Marine Recreational Information Program's (MRIP) Coastal Household Telephone Survey (CHTS). MRIP now generates recreational landings estimates using the Fishing Effort Survey (FES), and the historical time series of king mackerel recreational landings has been calibrated to be consistent with the MRIP-FES estimates. The estimates generated using MRIP-FES are generally higher than those produced using CHTS because the new survey is designed to more accurately measure fishing activity.

In 2020, NMFS completed an update to SEDAR 38 (SEDAR 38 Update) that included calibrated MRIP-FES recreational landings. The update indicated that Gulf group king mackerel was not overfished or undergoing overfishing, but recruitment had been low in recent years. In September 2020, the Gulf Council's SSC reviewed the SEDAR 38 Update and recommended new OFLs and ABCs for Gulf group king mackerel that would address reduced recruitment and allow harvest to increase over time. The SSC's recommendation for the revised OFL is 11,050,000 lb (5,012,196 kg) for 2022, and 11,180,000 lb (5,071,163 kg) for 2023 and subsequent years. The SSC's recommendation for ABC is 9,720,000 lb (4,408,918 kg) for 2022, and 9,990,000 lb (4,531,388 kg) for 2023 and subsequent years. These OFL and ABC recommendations represent a reduction in the allowable harvest when compared to the current OFL and ABC. Had MRIP-FES data been available when SEDAR 38 was completed in 2014, the current OFL would have been 11,960,000 lb (5,424,965 kg) and the current ABC would have been 11,540,000 (5,234,456 kg). The Gulf Council and NMFS developed Framework Amendment 11 to update catch levels based on the results of the SEDAR 38 Update and Gulf Council's SSC recommendations.

The Gulf Council manages Gulf king mackerel with sector allocations and zone allocations for the commercial sector. In Amendment 1 to the FMP, the Councils allocated the total Gulf king mackerel ACL to 32 percent to the commercial sector and 68 percent to the recreational sector based on the average of available commercial and recreational landings data from 1975-1979 (50 FR 34840; August 25, 1985). In Amendment 26 to the FMP, the Councils revised the allocation of the Gulf king mackerel total commercial ACL between the commercial Gulf zones: western zone (40 percent), northern (18 percent), southern zone hook-and-line (21 percent) and southern zone gillnet (21 percent) (82 FR 17387; April 11, 2017).

The fishing year for commercial harvest varies by zone: July through June for the southern and western zones, and October through September for the northern zone. For the purpose of comparing landings to the total ACL, recreational landings are monitored based on the commercial fishing year of July through June. Therefore, the sector ACLs and commercial quotas reflect that these fishing years occur in two calendar years, as noted below.

For Gulf king mackerel, this final rule revises sector ACLs and the commercial zone quotas.

The current total ACL for Gulf king mackerel is equal to the ABC of 8,550,000 lb (3,878,215 kg). This rule modifies the total ACL for Gulf king mackerel to 9,720,000 lb (4,408,918 kg) for 2022 and 9,990,000 lb (4,531,388 kg) for 2023 and subsequent years, which is also equal to the ABCs recommended by the Gulf Council's SSC. The 2022 total ACL is used to set the sector and zone catch limits for the 2022-2023 fishing year and the 2023 total ACL will be used to set the sector and zone catch limits for 2023-2024 and subsequent fishing years. As noted previously, the revised ACLs actually represent a decrease in the allowable harvest of Gulf king mackerel because had the current total ACL been derived from an assessment using MRIP-FES data, the current total ACL would have been 11,540,000 lb (5,234,456 kg).

The current commercial ACL for the 2022-2023 fishing year is 2,740,000 lb (1,242,843 kg). Applying the current commercial allocation of 32 percent to the new total ACLs results in revised commercial ACLs of 3,110,400 lb (1,410,854 kg) for the 2022-2023 fishing year, and 3,196,800 lb (1,450,044 kg) for the 2023-2024 and subsequent years. The current recreational ACL for the 2022-2023 fishing year is 5,810,000 lb (2,635,372 kg). Applying the current recreational allocation of 68 percent to the new stock ACLs results in revised recreational ACLs of 6,609,600 lb (2,998,064 kg) for the 2022-2023 fishing year, and 6,793,200 lb (3,081,344 kg) for the 2023-2024 and subsequent years. Because the revised recreational ACL will now be monitored using landings estimates generated by MRIP-FES, this represents a decrease in the allowable recreational harvest. However, recreational landings, as estimated using MRIP-FES, have been well below the revised ACLs since the 2016-2017 fishing year, and NMFS does not expect the reduction in the recreational ACL to reduce recreational opportunities.

The current commercial zone quotas for the 2022-2023 fishing year are 1,096,000 lb (497,137 kg) for the western zone, 493,200 lb (223,712 kg) for the northern zone, 575,400 lb (260,997 kg) for the southern zone hook-and-line component, and 575,400 lb (260,997 kg) for the southern zone gillnet component. The current total commercial hook-and-line ACL for the entire Gulf for the 2022-2023 fishing year is 2,164,600 lb (981,846 kg). Using the current commercial zone allocations, this final rule revises the western zone quota to 1,244,160 lb (564,341 kg) for the 2022-2023 fishing year, and 1,278,720 lb (580,017 kg) for 2023-2024 fishing year and subsequent fishing years. The northern zone quota will be 559,872 lb (253,954 kg) for the 2022-2023 fishing year and 575,424 lb (261,008 kg) for the 2023-2024 fishing year and subsequent fishing years. The southern zone hook-and-line component quota will be 653,184 lb (296,279 kg) for the 2022-2023 fishing year, and 671,328 lb (304,509 kg) for the 2023-2024 fishing year and subsequent years. The southern zone gillnet component quota will be 653,184 lb (296,279 kg) for the 2022-2023 fishing year, and 671,328 lb (304,509 kg) for the 2023-2024 fishing year and subsequent fishing years. The total commercial hook-and-line ACL (entire Gulf) will be 2,457,216 lb (1,114,574 kg) for the 2022-2023 fishing year, and 2,525,472 lb (1,145,535 kg) for the 2023-2024 fishing year and subsequent fishing years.

As previously discussed, the current OFL and ABC for Gulf king mackerel of 8,950,000 lb (4,059,652 kg) and 8,550,000 lb (3,878,214 kg), respectively, are based on the Gulf Council's SSC's recommendations from SEDAR 38, which used recreational landings estimates from MRIP-CHTS. In Framework Amendment 11, the Gulf Council will adopt new OFLs and ABCs based on the SSC's recommendations from the results of the SEDAR 38 Update, which used MRIP-FES recreational landings estimates. The new OFLs will be 11,050,000 lb (5,012,196 kg) for 2022, and 11,180,000 lb (5,071,163 kg) for 2023 and subsequent years. The new ABCs will be 9,720,000 lb (4,408,918 kg) for 2022, and 9,990,000 lb (4,531,388 kg) for 2023 and subsequent years.

NMFS received one comment on the proposed rule for Framework Amendment 11. That comment was in support of the actions in Framework Amendment 11 and the proposed rule. There have been no changes to the proposed rule based on public comment.

Pursuant to section 304(b)(3) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is consistent with Framework Amendment 11, the CMP FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws.

This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the legal basis for this final rule. No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. In addition, no new reporting, record-keeping, or other compliance requirements are introduced by this final rule. This final rule contains no information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. A description of this final rule, why it is being considered, and the purposes of this final rule are contained in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of this final rule.

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding this certification. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis was not required and none was prepared.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is amended as follows:

Regulations governing the Atlantic bluefish fishery are found in 50 CFR 648.160 through 648.167. These regulations require annual specification of a commercial quota that is apportioned among the coastal states from Maine through Florida. The process to set the annual commercial quota and the percent allocated to each state is described in § 648.162, and the final 2022 allocations were published on February 2, 2022 (87 FR 5739).

The final rule implementing Amendment 1 to the Bluefish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) published in the Federal Register on July 26, 2000 (65 FR 45844), and provided a mechanism for transferring bluefish quota from one state to another. Two or more states, under mutual agreement and with the concurrence of the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Administrator, can request approval to transfer or combine bluefish commercial quota under § 648.162(e)(1)(i) through (iii). The Regional Administrator must approve any such transfer based on the criteria in § 648.162(e). In evaluating requests to transfer a quota or combine quotas, the Regional Administrator shall consider whether: the transfer or combinations would preclude the overall annual quota from being fully harvested; the transfer addresses an unforeseen variation or contingency in the fishery; and the transfer is consistent with the objectives of the FMP and the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

New Jersey is transferring 42,500 lb (19,278 kg) to New York and 42,500 lb (19,278 kg) to Rhode Island through mutual agreement of the states. These transfers were requested to ensure that New York and Rhode Island would not exceed their 2022 state quotas. The revised bluefish quotas for 2022 are: New Jersey, 434,158 lb (196,931 kg); New York, 497,193 lb (225,523 kg); and Rhode Island, 382,456 lb (173,479 kg).

NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR 648.162(e)(1)(i) through (iii), which was issued pursuant to section 304(b), and is exempted from review under Executive Order 12866.

In a final rule published on December 29, 2021, NMFS specified a 2022 limit of 2,000 t of longline-caught bigeye tuna for each of the U.S. Pacific Island territories of American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (86 FR 73990). NMFS allows each territory to allocate up to 1,500 t of the 2,000 t limit to U.S. longline fishing vessels identified in a valid specified fishing agreement, but the overall allocation limit among all territories may not exceed 3,000 t.

On March 29, 2022, NMFS determined that the U.S. longline fishery exceeded by 196 t the 3,554 t 2021 U.S. bigeye tuna catch limit in the area of application of the Convention on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) as established in regulations at 50 CFR 300.224. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) Conservation and Management Measure (CMM) 2021-01, Paragraph 37, states that where the limit has been exceeded, any overage of the limit shall be deducted from the catch limit for the following year. In accordance with U.S. obligations as a WCPFC member, NMFS must reduce the 2022 U.S. bigeye tuna limit by the amount of the overage of 196 t. NMFS has prepared a separate regulatory package that would revise the 2022 U.S. bigeye tuna limit to 3,358 t (87 FR 55768, September 12, 2022). Although the revised limit is not yet effective, NMFS is basing its decisions for attributing bigeye catch under valid specified fishing agreements with U.S. participating territories pursuant to 50 CFR 665.819(c)(9)(i) on this 3,358 t limit to ensure compliance with CMM 2021-01.

On June 24, 2022, the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), through its Executive Director, sent NMFS a specified fishing agreement between American Samoa and Hawaii Longline Association (HLA), dated May 12, 2021. Later that same day, the Council sent NMFS a specified fishing agreement between the CNMI and HLA, dated May 7, 2021. These agreements each include an allocation of 1,500 t of bigeye tuna catch to U.S. vessels identified in the agreements for both 2021 and 2022. The 2022 agreement between American Samoa and HLA includes an amendment that provides an initial allocation of 1,300 t followed by a subsequent allocation, upon notification by HLA to American Samoa at a later date, of any unallocated portion of American Samoa's 1,500 t allocation limit. On July 20, 2022 and July 21, 2022, respectively, NMFS reviewed the American Samoa-HLA agreement and the CNMI-HLA agreement and determined that they are consistent with 50 CFR 665.819(c), the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, implementing regulations, and other applicable laws.

Pursuant to regulations at 50 CFR 665.819(c)(9)(i), NMFS began attributing bigeye tuna catches to American Samoa and the American Samoa-HLA agreement on August 25, 2022, 7 days before we projected the annual U.S. WCPO limit would be reached (87 FR 52704, August 29, 2022). We attributed catch first to the American Samoa limit and agreement because that agreement was received first from the Council for the year 2022.

Based on logbook data, we now forecast that the fishery will reach the American Samoa 1,300 t initial limit by November 28, 2022. In accordance with regulations at 50 CFR 665.819(c)(9)(ii), NMFS will begin attributing 2022 bigeye tuna catch to the CNMI and the CNMI-HLA agreement on November 21, 2022, 7 days prior to November 28, 2022.

If NMFS determines the fishery will reach the 1,500 t allocation limit for the CNMI-HLA agreement, we would restrict retention of bigeye tuna caught by vessels identified in the CNMI agreement. If at that time, HLA and American Samoa seek to resume attribution to American Samoa for up to the total of 1,500 t under their agreement, NMFS will determine if American Samoa's overall 2022 2,000 t limit can still accommodate any or all of that amount.

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 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 Pacific cod TAC specified for catcher vessels using trawl gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA is 6,099 metric tons (mt), as established by the final 2022 and 2023 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA (87 FR 11599, March 2, 2022).

The 2022 Pacific cod TAC specified for catcher/processors using trawl gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA is 616 mt, as established by the final 2022 and 2023 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA (87 FR 11599, March 2, 2022).

The 2022 Pacific cod TAC specified for vessels using jig gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA is 148 mt, as established by the final 2022 and 2023 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA (87 FR 11599, March 2, 2022).

The 2022 Pacific cod TAC specified for catcher vessels greater than or equal to 50 feet (15.2 m) length overall using hook-and-line gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA is 984 mt, as established by the final 2022 and 2023 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA (87 FR 11599, March 2, 2022).

The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, (Regional Administrator) has determined that catcher vessels using trawl gear will not be able to harvest 400 mt of the 2022 Pacific cod TAC allocated to those vessels under § 679.20(a)(12)(i)(B)( 4 ), and vessels using jig gear will not be able to harvest 35 mt of the 2022 Pacific cod TAC allocated to those vessels under § 679.20(a)(12)(i)(B).

Therefore, in accordance with § 679.20(a)(12)(ii)(B), NMFS apportions 400 mt of Pacific cod from catcher vessels using trawl gear to the annual amount specified for catcher/processors using trawl gear and 35 mt of Pacific cod from vessels using jig gear to the annual amounts specified for catcher vessels greater than or equal to 50 feet (15.2 m) length overall using hook-and-line gear.

The harvest specifications for 2022 Pacific cod included in the final 2022 and 2023 harvest specifications for groundfish in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA (87 FR 11599, March 2, 2022) is revised as follows: 5,699 mt to catcher vessels using trawl gear, 1,016 mt to catcher/processors using trawl gear, 113 mt to vessels using jig gear, and 1,019 mt to catcher vessels greater than or equal to 50 feet (15.2 m) length overall using hook-and-line gear.

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. This requirement is 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 allow for harvests that exceed the originally specified apportionment of the Pacific cod TAC. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of December 1, 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.