All comments received will be posted without change and will include any personal information provided, such as your name, address, email address, and telephone numbers, on the FHFA website at https://www.fhfa.gov. In addition, copies of all comments received will be available for examination by the public through the electronic docket for this Notice also located on the FHFA website.

FHFA was established by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, Public Law 110-289, to supervise and regulate the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) (together, the Enterprises), any affiliate of either Enterprise, the Federal Home Loan Banks (the Banks), and the Office of Finance of the Federal Home Loan Bank System (OF). In 2012, FHFA developed its Regulatory Review Plan (Review Plan) after considering principles set forth in Executive Order 13579, “Regulation and Independent Regulatory Agencies” (July 11, 2011). 1 Executive Order 13579 requested—but did not require—independent regulatory agencies, such as FHFA, to develop, release to the public, and implement a plan for the periodic review of their existing significant regulations to determine whether any regulation should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed to make the agency's regulatory program more effective or less burdensome in achieving its objectives.

Under its Review Plan, FHFA reviews its regulations at least every five years, except for those regulations that were adopted or substantially amended within the two years prior to issuance of a Notice of Regulatory Review and rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice. The Review Plan suggests factors that commenters should consider in order to assist FHFA with its regulatory review, including factors related to legal, regulatory, or market developments, regulatory overlap, less burdensome alternatives, and clarity of regulatory requirements.

FHFA's most recent regulatory review was initiated in April 2018, by a Notice of Regulatory Review and request for comments and considered 52 regulations. FHFA received 11 total comment letters from trade associations, a research center associated with a major university, an insured depository institution, a credit union, and the Federal Home Loan Banks. FHFA also conducted an internal review of its regulations that were subject to the five-year Review Plan, seeking staff input on the same questions on which the Review Notice sought public comment.

FHFA evaluated all comments received and determined that some amendments were warranted. In response to amendments to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376), and as requested by commenters, FHFA amended 12 CFR part 1238 to remove the stress testing requirements for the Banks. 2 Additionally, FHFA undertook a comprehensive amendment of its regulation on prior approval of Enterprise products, 12 CFR part 1253. In some cases, FHFA determined that a suggestion should be considered when the underlying regulation was otherwise being amended by FHFA. In other cases, FHFA determined that an amendment was not necessary because, for example, the comment requested a clarification that could effectively be provided through another means (such as an interpretation or guidance).

Consistent with its Review Plan, FHFA's next regulatory review must begin not later than five years after its prior review, or in April 2023. All current regulations—except, as noted, rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice, or regulations adopted or substantially amended since April 2021 (meaning, within the past two years)—are subject to review. If members of the public comment on recently adopted or amended regulations, FHFA may consider those comments, as it deems appropriate. FHFA does not anticipate responding to individual comments.

Regulations administered by FHFA are published in chapter XII of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations, except for two regulations of predecessor agencies which FHFA has not yet moved. 3 FHFA's regulations are also posted on the FHFA website at https://www.fhfa.gov.

FHFA hereby requests comment on its regulations for purposes of improving their effectiveness and reducing their burden. Factors that FHFA's Review Plan identifies as relevant to the review, and which FHFA suggests should guide commenters, are:

(1) Legal or regulatory developments—including new laws, executive orders, or judicial decisions that have been adopted since the promulgation of a regulation—that make a regulation inefficient, obsolete, contrary to controlling legal precedent, or unduly burdensome;

(2) Marketplace developments, technological evolution, and related changes that may have rendered a regulation, in whole or in part, inefficient, outmoded, or outdated;

(3) The extent to which provisions of the regulation are written in plain language or need clarification;

(4) Compelling evidence that a consolidation of two or more regulations, elimination of a duplicative regulation, or other revision to regulatory requirements would facilitate compliance by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, any affiliate of either Enterprise, the Banks, or OF with the regulation, or would improve supervision by FHFA of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, any affiliate of either Enterprise, the Banks, or OF; and

(5) Demonstration of a better alternative method to effect a regulatory purpose or requirement, supported by compelling evidence of significantly less intrusive means or of a substantially more efficient method of accomplishing the same supervisory purpose.

In accordance with FHFA's Review Plan, the 2023 regulatory review process will be conducted by the FHFA Office of General Counsel, which will review all comments received and consult with other FHFA offices and divisions. After that review, a report of findings and recommendations will be provided to the FHFA Director. The report of findings and recommendations will be privileged and confidential. After receiving the report of findings and recommendations, the Director will determine what steps may be necessary to relieve any unnecessary burden, including amendment to or repeal of existing regulations or issuance of less formal guidance.

The 2023 FHFA regulatory review is not a formal or informal rulemaking proceeding under the Administrative Procedure Act and creates no right of action against FHFA. FHFA's determination whether to conduct or not to conduct a review of a regulation and any determination, finding, or recommendation resulting from any review is not a final agency action and therefore is not subject to judicial review.

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2023-0929; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-01401-T” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposal because of those comments.

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

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, FAA, International Validation Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone 206-231-3228; email todd.thompson@faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which is the aviation authority for the United Kingdom (U.K.), has issued U.K. CAA AD G-2022-0019, dated October 31, 2022 (U.K. CAA AD G-2022-0019) (also referred to after this as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition on all BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model 4101 airplanes. The MCAI states that in-service cracking occurred on the Jetstream 41 passenger door edge member, seal carrier, and inner skin, adjacent to the roller guide bracket. BAE Systems (Operations) Limited reviewed the fatigue test data and existing inspection requirements, and concluded a new inspection is needed to address this potential unsafe condition.

The FAA is proposing this AD to address undetected cracking of the passenger door. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in a partial failure of the door, hindering passenger evacuation during an emergency or possibly causing cabin pressurization problems during flight, requiring passengers and crew to don oxygen masks.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-0929.

The FAA reviewed BAe JETSTREAM Series 4100 Service Bulletin, Revision 1, dated June 8, 2022. This service information specifies procedures for a one-time eddy current inspection of the external visible surface of the inner skin, door edge member, and seal carrier adjacent to the roller bracket attachment brackets for cracking; a one-time eddy current inspection of the inner skin, door edge member, and seal carrier at the roller bracket attachment bores for cracking; and repair.

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

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

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

The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 12 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments Invited

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2023-0927; Project Identifier MCAI-2023-00013-T” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposal because of those comments.

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

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Dat Le, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, FAA, International Validation Branch, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone 516-228-7317; email dat.v.le@faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2023-0004, dated January 6, 2023 (EASA AD 2023-0004) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and A350-1041 airplanes. Airplanes with an original airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of airworthiness issued after November 1, 2022 must comply with the airworthiness limitations specified as part of the approved type design and referenced on the type certificate data sheet; this AD therefore does not include those airplanes in the applicability. The MCAI states that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary.

EASA AD 2023-0004 specifies that it requires tasks (limitations) already in Airbus A350 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS), Part 2, Revision 08, dated May 2, 2022, that is required by EASA AD 2022-0125, dated June 28, 2022 (which corresponds to FAA AD 2023-04-05, Amendment 39-22352 (88 FR 13668, March 6, 2023) (AD 2023-04-05)), and that incorporation of EASA AD 2023-0004 invalidates (terminates) prior instructions for those tasks. This proposed AD would therefore terminate the limitations for the tasks identified in the service information referenced in EASA AD 2023-0004 only, as required by paragraph (j) of AD 2023-04-05.

The FAA is proposing this AD to address reduced structural integrity of the airplane. See the MCAI for additional background information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-0927.

EASA AD 2023-0004 describes new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations for airplane structures and safe life limits. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in ADDRESSES section.

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

This proposed AD would require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations, which are specified in EASA AD 2023-0004 described previously, as incorporated by reference. Any differences with EASA AD 2023-0004 are identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.

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

In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the FAA proposes to incorporate EASA AD 2023-0004 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2023-0004 through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in EASA AD 2023-0004 does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in EASA AD 2023-0004. Service information required by EASA AD 2023-0004 for compliance will be available at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-0927 after the FAA final rule is published.

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

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

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

The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 31 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments Invited

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2023-0928; Project Identifier MCAI-2023-00134-T” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposal because of those comments.

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

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone 206-231-3225; email dan.rodina@faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2023-0017, dated January 23, 2023 (EASA AD 2023-0017) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A300B4-601, A300B4-603, A300B4-620, A300B4-622, A300B4-605R, A300B4-622R, A300C4-605R Variant F, A300C4-620, A300F4-605R and A300F4-622R airplanes. Model A300C4-620 airplanes are not certificated by the FAA and are not included on the U.S. type certificate data sheet; this proposed AD therefore does not include those airplanes in the applicability. The MCAI states that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations have been developed.

EASA AD 2023-0017 specifies that it requires a task (limitation) already in Airbus A300-600 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 4, System Equipment Maintenance Requirements (SEMR), Revision 03 that is required by EASA AD 2017-0202, dated October 12, 2017 (which corresponds to FAA AD 2018-18-21, Amendment 39-19400 (83 FR 47054, September 18, 2018) (AD 2018-18-21)), and that incorporation of EASA AD 2023-0017 invalidates (terminates) prior instructions for that task. This proposed AD, therefore would, for the tasks identified in the service information referenced in EASA AD 2023-0017, terminate the limitations required by paragraph (g) of AD 2018-18-21, for Model A300B4-601, A300B4-603, A300B4-620, A300B4-622, A300B4-605R, A300B4-622R, A300C4-605R Variant F, A300F4-605R and A300F4-622R airplanes only.

The FAA is proposing this AD to address the risks associated with the effects of aging on airplane systems. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could change system characteristics, leading to an increased potential for failure of certain life-limited parts, and reduced structural integrity or controllability of the airplane. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-0928.

EASA AD 2023-0017 specifies new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations for airplane structures and safe life limits. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in ADDRESSES section.

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

This proposed AD would require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations, which are specified in EASA AD 2023-0017 described previously, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.

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

In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the FAA proposes to incorporate EASA AD 2023-0017 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2023-0017 through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in EASA AD 2023-0017 does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in EASA AD 2023-0017. Service information required by EASA AD 2023-0017 for compliance will be available at regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2023-0928 after the FAA final rule is published.

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

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

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

The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 120 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments Invited

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2023-0926; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-01583-A” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposal because of those comments.

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

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Doug Rudolph, Aviation Safety Engineer, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, MO 64106. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2022-0249, dated December 14, 2022 (EASA AD 2022-0249) (referred to after this as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition on certain serial-numbered Pilatus Model PC-24 airplanes. The MCAI states an occurrence was reported where an incorrect wiring arrangement was detected around the weather radar system on certain Pilatus Model PC-24 airplanes. In case of a lightning strike, the functionalities related to the Advanced Graphic Module (AGM) 1 and AGM2, the Dual Generic Input/Output (DGI0) 1 card in the Modular Avionics Unit (MAU) 1 module of the Honeywell Advanced Cockpit Environment (ACE) system, and the Attitude Heading Reference System (AHRS) 2 could be affected. The MCAI specifies modification of the weather radar redundant wiring.

The FAA is proposing this AD to address an incorrect wiring arrangement around the weather radar system which, if not corrected, could lead to the partial loss of flight and navigation data displayed to the pilot or pilots, possibly resulting in increased flight crew workload and a consequent reduction of safety margins.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-0926.

EASA AD 2022-0249 requires modification of the weather radar redundant wiring.

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

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

This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the MCAI.

In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the FAA proposes to incorporate EASA AD 2022-0249 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2022-0249 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Service information referenced in EASA AD 2022-0249 for compliance will be available at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-0926 after the FAA final rule is published.

The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 12 airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should submit only one time if comments are filed electronically, or commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments are filed in writing.

The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it received on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or dely. The FAA may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.

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

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

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address, phone number, and hours of operations). An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

Class E airspace is published in paragraphs 6002, 6003, 6004, and 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document proposes to amend the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022. These updates would be published subsequently in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. That order is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

FAA Order JO 7400.11G lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 by:

Modifying the Class E surface area at Dane County Regional Airport/Truax Field, Madison, WI, by removing all of the extensions contained within the airspace legal descriptions as they will be incorporated into new Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class E surface area to comply with FAA Order JO 7400.2N, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters; replacing the outdated terms “Notice to Airmen” with “Notice to Air Missions” and “Airport/Facility Directory” with “Chart Supplement”; modifying the header from “Madison Dane County Regional Airport-Truax Field, WI” to “Madison, WI” to comply with changes to FAA Order JO 7400.2N; and updating the name of Dane County Regional Airport/Truax Field (previously Dane County Regional Airport-Truax Field) and the geographic coordinates of Dane County Regional Airport/Truax Field and Waunakee Airport, Waunakee, WI, to coincide with the FAAs aeronautical database;

Modifying the Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class C surface area at Dane County Regional Airport/Truax Field by removing the extension north of the airport as it is no longer required; modifying the extension southeast of the airport to within 2.4 miles each side of the Madison VORTAC 130° radial (previously 134° bearing from the Dane County Regional Airport-Truax Field) extending from the 5-mile radius of Dane County Regional Airport/Truax Field to 7 miles southeast of the Madison VORTAC (previously Dane County Regional Airport-Truax Field); modifying the extension northwest of the airport to within 2.4 miles each side of the Madison VORTAC 319° radial (previously 358° bearing from the Dane County Regional Airport-Truax Field) extending from the 5-mile radius of Dane County Regional Airport/Truax Field to 7 miles northwest of the Madison VORTAC (previously Dane County Regional Airport-Truax Field); replacing the outdated terms “Notice to Airmen” with “Notice to Air Missions” and “Airport/Facility Directory” with “Chart Supplement”; modifying the header from “Madison Dane County Regional Airport-Truax Field, WI” to “Madison, WI” to comply with changes to FAA Order JO 7400.2N; and updating the name of Dane County Regional Airport/Truax Field (previously Dane County Regional Airport-Truax Field) and the geographic coordinates of Dane County Regional Airport/Truax Field and Waunakee Airport, Waunakee, WI, to coincide with the FAAs aeronautical database;

Establishing Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class E surface area at Dane County Regional Airport/Truax Field within 2.4 miles each side of the Madison VORTAC 130° radial extending from the 5-mile radius of Madison Dane County Regional Airport/Truax Field to 7 miles southeast of the Madison VORTAC; within a 2.4 miles each side of the Madison VORTAC 319° radial extending from the 5-mile radius of Madison Dane County Regional Airport/Truax Field to 7 miles northwest of the Madison VORTAC excluding that airspace within a 1.5-mile radius of Waunakee Airport;

And modifying the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 7.5-mile (decreased from an 8.8-mile) radius of Dane County Regional Airport/Truax Field; removing the extension south of the airport as it is no longer required; adding an extension within 2 miles each side of the 029° bearing from the airport extending from the 7.5-mile radius to 13.7 miles north of the airport; adding an extension within 1 mile each side of the 316° bearing from the airport extending from the 7.5-mile radius to 11 miles northwest of the airport; and updating the names and geographic coordinates of Dane County Regional Airport/Truax Field (previously Dane County Regional Airport-Truax Field) and Middleton Municipal Airport/Morey Field (previously Morey Airport), Middleton, WI, to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; and removing the cities associated with the airports in the header to comply with changes to FAA Order JO 7400.2N.

This action is the result of an airspace review requested by the FAA Airspace Rules and Regulations office.

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

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

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

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 airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Goliad NOLF, Berclair, TX, to support instrument flight rule operations at this airport.

The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should submit only one time if comments are filed electronically, or commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments are filed in writing.

The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it received on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or dely. The FAA may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.

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

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

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address, phone number, and hours of operations). An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

Class E airspace is published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document proposes to amend the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022. These updates would be published subsequently in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. That order is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

FAA Order JO 7400.11G lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius of Goliad NOLF, Berclair, TX.

This action is the result of request from the U.S. Navy to establish Class E airspace at Goliad NOLF, Berclair, TX, to support instrument procedures at this airport.

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

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

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

Two of the fundamental purposes of the CEA are the avoidance of systemic risk and the protection of market participants from misuses of customer assets. 1 The Commission has promulgated a number of regulations in furtherance of those objectives, including regulations designed to ensure that clearing FCMs appropriately margin customer accounts, and are not induced to cover one customer's margin shortfall with another customer's funds. In addition to protecting customer assets, these regulations serve the purpose of avoidance of systemic risk by mitigating the risk that a customer default in its obligations to a clearing FCM results in the clearing FCM in turn defaulting on its obligations to a DCO, which could adversely affect the stability of the broader financial system.

Section 4d(a)(2) of the CEA and Commission regulation § 1.20(a) require an FCM to separately account for and segregate all money, securities, and property which it has received to margin, guarantee, or secure the trades or contracts of its commodity customers. 2 Additionally, section 4d(a)(2) of the CEA and Commission regulation § 1.22(a) prohibit an FCM from using the money, securities, or property of one customer to margin or settle the trades or contracts of another customer. 3 This requirement is designed to prevent disparate treatment of customers by an FCM and mitigate the risk that there will be insufficient funds in segregation to pay all customer claims if the FCM becomes insolvent. 4 Section 4d(a)(2) of the CEA and Commission regulations §§ 1.20 and 1.22 effectively require an FCM to add its own funds into segregation in an amount equal to the sum of all customer deficits to prevent the FCM from being induced to use one customer's funds to margin or carry another customer's trades or contracts. 5

Section 5b of the CEA, 6 as amended by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, 7 sets forth eighteen core principles with which DCOs must comply to register and maintain registration as DCOs with the Commission. In 2011, the Commission adopted regulations for DCOs to implement Core Principle D, which concerns risk management. 8 These regulations include a number of provisions that require a DCO to in turn require that its clearing members take certain steps to support their own risk management in order to mitigate the risk that such clearing members pose to the DCO. Specifically, regulation § 39.13(g)(8)(iii) provides that a DCO shall require its clearing members to ensure that their customers do not withdraw funds from their accounts with such clearing members unless the net liquidating value plus the margin deposits remaining in the customer's account after the withdrawal would be sufficient to meet the customer initial margin requirements with respect to the products or portfolios in the customer's account, which are cleared by the DCO. 9 Regulation § 39.13(g)(8)(iii) was designed to mitigate the risk that a clearing member fails to hold, from a customer, funds sufficient to cover the required initial margin for the customer's cleared positions, and, in light of the use of omnibus margin accounts, mitigate the likelihood that the clearing member will effectively cover one customer's margin shortfall using another customer's funds.

In adopting regulation § 39.13(g)(8)(iii), the Commission stated  10 that the regulation was consistent with the definition of “Margin Funds Available for Disbursement” in the Margins Handbook  11 prepared by the Joint Audit Committee (JAC), a representative committee of U.S. futures exchanges and the National Futures Association (NFA). 12 The Commission noted that while designated self-regulatory organizations (DSROs) reviewed FCMs to determine whether they appropriately prohibited their customers from withdrawing funds from their futures accounts, it was unclear to what extent that requirement applied to cleared swap accounts when such swaps were executed on a designated contract market that participated in the JAC. 13 The Commission also noted that clearing members that cleared only swaps that were executed on a swap execution facility were not subject to the requirements of the JAC Margins Handbook or review by a DSRO. 14 Thus, regulation § 39.13(g)(8)(iii) was also designed to provide certainty as to the scope of these risk mitigation and customer protection standards as they relate to futures and swap positions carried in customer accounts by clearing members and cleared by a DCO.

On July 10, 2019, the Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight (DSIO) (now Market Participants Division (MPD)) and the Division of Clearing and Risk (DCR) published CFTC Letter No. 19-17, which, among other things, provides guidance with respect to the processing of margin withdrawals under regulation § 39.13(g)(8)(iii) and announced a conditional and time-limited no-action position for certain such withdrawals. 15 The advisory followed discussions with and written representations from the Asset Management Group of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA-AMG), the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME), the Futures Industry Association (FIA), the JAC, and several FCMs, regarding practices among FCMs and their customers related to the handling of separate accounts of the same customer. 16 CFTC Letter No. 19-17 used the term “beneficial owner” synonymously with the term “customer,” as “beneficial owner” was, in this context, commonly used to refer to the customer that is financially responsible for an account. Additionally, as discussed further below, in the customer relationship context, FCMs often deal directly with a commodity trading advisor acting as an agent of the customer rather than the customer itself. For the avoidance of confusion ( e.g., with regard to the terms “owner” or “ownership,” as those terms are used in Forms 40 and 102, or parts 17-20, or with regard to the term “beneficial owner,” as that term may be used by other agencies), this proposed rulemaking uses only the term “customer.”

The written representations preceding the issuance of CFTC Letter No. 19-17 included letters filed separately by SIFMA-AMG, CME, and FIA (collectively, the “Industry Letters”). 17 Citing regulation § 39.13(g)(8)(iii)'s requirements related to the withdrawal of customer initial margin, and JAC Regulatory Alert #19-02 reminding FCMs of those requirements, 18 SIFMA-AMG and FIA explained that provisions in certain FCM customer agreements provide that certain accounts carried by the FCM that have the same customer are treated as accounts for different legal entities ( i.e., “separate accounts”). 19

As FIA explained, there are a variety of reasons why a customer may want separate treatment for its accounts under such an agreement. 20 For instance, an institutional customer, such as an investment or pension fund, may allocate assets to investment managers under investment management agreements that require each investment manager to invest a specified portion of the customer's assets under management in accordance with an agreed trading strategy, independent of the trading that may be undertaken for the customer by the same or other investment managers acting on behalf of other accounts of the customer. 21 In such a situation, an investment manager may, in order to implement their trading strategy effectively, want assurance that the portion of funds they have been given to manage is entirely available to them, and will not be affected by the activities of other investment managers who manage other portions of the customer's assets. Additionally, a commercial enterprise may establish separate agreements to leverage specific broker expertise on products or to diversify risk management strategies. 22 In such cases, each separate account is subject to a separate customer agreement, which the FCM negotiates directly with, in many cases, the customer's agent, which often will be an investment manager. 23

SIFMA-AMG and FIA asserted that, subject to appropriate FCM internal controls and procedures, separate accounts should be treated as separate legal entities for purposes of regulation § 39.13(g)(8)(iii); i.e., separate accounts should not be combined when determining an account's margin funds available for disbursement. 24 SIFMA-AMG and FIA maintained that such separate account treatment should not be expected to expose an FCM to any greater regulatory or financial risk, and asserted that an FCM's internal controls and procedures could be designed to assure that the FCM does not undertake any additional risk as to the separate account. 25 The Industry Letters included a number of examples of such controls and procedures. 26

In its letter, SIFMA-AMG suggested that it would be possible to allow for separate account treatment without undermining the risk mitigation and customer protection goals of regulation § 39.13(g)(8)(iii). 27 SIFMA-AMG recognized that there may be some instances, such as a customer default, in which separate account treatment would no longer be appropriate. 28 SIFMA-AMG stated that an FCM could agree to first satisfy any amounts owed from agreed assets related to a separate account, and continue to release funds until the FCM provided the separate account with a notice of an event of default under the applicable clearing account agreement, and determined that it is no longer prudent to continue to separately margin the separate accounts, provided that such actions are consistent with the FCM's written internal controls and procedures. 29 SIFMA-AMG further stated that, in such instance, the FCM would retain the ability to ultimately look to funds in other accounts of the customer, including accounts under different control, and the right to call the customer for funds. 30 CME similarly asserted that disbursements on a separate account basis should not be permitted in certain circumstances, such as financial distress, that fall outside the “ordinary course of business.”  31 While CME asserted that the plain language of regulation § 39.13(g)(8)(iii) unambiguously forbids disbursements on a separate account basis, CME noted that it would be amenable to the Commission amending the regulation to permit such disbursements, subject to certain such risk-mitigating conditions. 32

SIFMA-AMG and FIA requested that DCR confirm that it would not recommend that the Commission initiate an enforcement action against a DCO that permits its clearing FCMs to treat certain separate accounts as accounts of separate entities for purposes of regulation § 39.13(g)(8)(iii), 33 and confirm that a clearing FCM may release excess funds from a separate customer account notwithstanding an outstanding margin call in another account of the same customer. 34

In CFTC Letter No. 19-17, DCR stated that, in the context of separate accounts, the risk management goals of regulation § 39.13(g)(8)(iii) may effectively be addressed if a clearing FCM carrying a customer with separate accounts meets certain conditions, which were derived from the Industry Letters and specified in CFTC Letter No. 19-17. 35 DCR stated that it would not recommend that the Commission take enforcement action against a DCO if the DCO permits its clearing FCMs to treat certain separate accounts as accounts of separate entities for purposes of regulation § 39.13(g)(8)(iii) subject to these conditions. 36 The no-action position extended until June 30, 2021, in order to provide DCR with time to recommend, and the Commission with time to determine whether to conduct and, if so, conduct, a rulemaking to implement a permanent solution. 37 CFTC Letter No. 20-28, published on September 15, 2020, extended the no-action position until December 31, 2021 due to challenges presented by the COVID-19 pandemic. 38 CFTC Letter No. 20-28 stated that if the process to consider codifying the no-action position provided for by CFTC Letter No. 19-17 was not completed by that date, DSIO and DCR would consider further extending the no-action position. 39 MPD and DCR published CFTC Letter No. 21-29, further extending the no-action position until September 30, 2022. 40 On September 15, 2022, MPD and DCR published CFTC Letter No. 22-11, which further extended the no-action position until the earlier of September 30, 2023 or the effective date of any final Commission action relating to regulation § 39.13(g). 41 As with CFTC Letter No. 21-29, this latest extension was issued in order to provide additional time for the Commission to consider a rulemaking.

The Commission preliminarily believes that proposed regulation § 39.13(j) relating to separate account treatment in connection with the withdrawal of customer initial margin is consistent with the customer protection and risk management goals of regulation § 39.13(g)(8)(iii). As further described below, the Commission preliminarily believes that preventing the under-margining of customer accounts and mitigating the risk of a clearing member default (and the potential for systemic risk), is effectively addressed by the standards set forth in the proposed regulation where the clearing FCM treats the separate accounts of a customer as accounts of separate entities consistent with the conditions outlined in proposed regulation § 39.13(j).

The Commission proposes to amend regulation § 39.13 to add new paragraph (j) allowing a DCO to permit a clearing FCM to treat the separate accounts of customers as accounts of separate entities for purposes of regulation § 39.13(g)(8)(iii), if such clearing member's written internal controls and procedures permit it to do so, and the DCO requires its clearing members to comply with conditions specified in proposed regulation § 39.13(j)(1) through (14), which are substantially similar to the conditions specified in CFTC Letter No. 19-17. 42 Those conditions are in turn designed to ensure that clearing FCMs (i) carry out such separate account treatment in a consistent and documented manner; (ii) monitor customer accounts on a separate and combined basis; (iii) identify and act upon instances of financial or operational distress that necessitate a cessation of separate account treatment; (iv) provide appropriate disclosures to customers regarding separate account treatment; and (v) apprise their DSROs when they apply separate account treatment or an event has occurred that would necessitate cessation of separate account treatment. The Commission believes that separate account treatment, subject to these conditions, is consistent with Core Principle D. In addition, the Commission notes that nothing in this proposed rulemaking, or in proposed regulation § 39.13(j), would preclude a DCO from establishing or enforcing requirements for clearing FCMs that are additional to or more stringent than those set forth in the proposed regulation. Rather, proposed regulation § 39.13(j) is intended to establish a minimum set of risk-mitigating conditions that DCOs that wish to permit separate account treatment must require of their clearing FCMs that choose to engage in such treatment.

Proposed regulation § 39.13(j) is intended to provide an alternative means of achieving the risk management goals served by regulation § 39.13(g)(8)(iii). As a result, proposed regulation § 39.13(j) would not prohibit the application of portfolio margining or cross-margining treatment within a particular separate account. The Commission notes that because a number of clearing FCMs already comply with the conditions set forth in CFTC Letter No. 19-17, such clearing FCMs already comply in significant part with the requirements of proposed regulation § 39.13(j), which, if adopted, DCOs choosing to permit separate account treatment would be required to apply to such clearing FCMs.

Regulation § 39.13(g)(8)(iii) applies to margin in a customer's account with respect to all products and swap portfolios held in such customer's account which are cleared by the derivatives clearing organization (emphasis added). Accordingly, the requirements of regulation § 39.13(g)(8)(iii) apply to a DCO  43 with respect to the clearing of (a) futures, (b) swaps, or (c) foreign futures or foreign options subject to Commission regulation § 30.7, to the extent the DCO clears those specific products in a customer's account. Additionally, because the requirements of proposed regulation § 39.13(j) are an alternative means to achieve the risk management goals of regulation § 39.13(g)(8)(iii), the requirements of proposed regulation § 39.13(j) would apply to a DCO with respect to the clearing of futures, swaps, or foreign futures or foreign options subject to regulation § 30.7, to the extent the DCO permits separate account treatment and clears those specific types of products in a customer account subject to separate account treatment.

For example, if a DCO that permits separate account treatment clears only futures contracts (or only futures and swaps), regulation § 39.13(g)(8)(iii) (and the alternative path in proposed regulation § 39.13(j)) would apply to the DCO only with respect to the clearing by its members of such futures contracts (or, respectively, such futures and swaps). Similarly, if a DCO clears foreign futures or foreign options subject to regulation § 30.7, regulation § 39.13(g)(8)(iii) (and the alternative path in proposed regulation § 39.13(j)) would apply to that DCO with respect to the clearing by its member of such 30.7 contracts.

As a practical matter, an FCM's futures account for a customer includes all futures products that the FCM clears for that customer, and the initial margin requirement for that account would be the sum of the initial margin the FCM charges the customer for each of those contracts (including, e.g., effects of portfolio margining), regardless of the DCO at which such contracts are cleared. The margin value available—“net liquidating value plus the margin deposits remaining”—is calculated across the account. Thus, by way of example, a customer whose account contains products cleared by an FCM as a clearing member at two DCOs could generally not be under-margined with respect to products cleared at only one of the two DCOs. Rather, since the margin value available collateralizes the products cleared at both DCOs, the customer would necessarily be under-margined with respect to products cleared at both DCOs, or at neither DCO. 44

The same applies, mutatis mutandis, to a customer's swap portfolios cleared through the FCM at multiple DCOs. It would also apply, mutatis mutandis, to a customer's foreign futures or foreign options subject to regulation § 30.7 cleared through the FCM at multiple clearinghouses, with a slight modification: If all of those foreign futures or foreign options are cleared at a clearinghouse that is not registered with the Commission as a DCO (or is so registered, but only subject to subpart D of part 39), then there would be no DCO subject to § 39.13(g)(8)(iii) that would be required to apply that regulation to the FCM. However, if any of those foreign futures or foreign options are cleared by the FCM as a clearing member of a DCO registered with the Commission (other than one registered subject to subpart D), then that DCO would be required to apply § 39.13(g)(8)(iii), or, if adopted, the alternative in proposed § 39.13(j), and (because margin requirements apply across the customer's account, here, a § 30.7 account) the margin requirement that would need to be met would take into account all such foreign futures and foreign options, regardless of the clearinghouse at which they ultimately are cleared.

Clearing FCMs are additionally bound by the rules of DCOs and/or self-regulatory organizations (SROs), and such entities have taken the position that such rules apply to a broader set of circumstances than § 39.13(g)(8)(iii). For example, the JAC Margins Handbook, the provisions of which SROs may apply directly to FCMs, contains provisions that regulation § 39.13(g)(8)(iii) was based on. 45 The JAC Margins Handbook provides that “[a]ll identically owned accounts must be combined for purposes of determining the amount of funds available for disbursement within the account classifications of customer segregated, customer secured, or nonsegregated.”  46 The JAC Margins Handbook further provides that an FCM may not make a disbursement to a customer if the value of such customer's combined accounts, less required margin on open positions in such accounts, is zero or negative. 47 Therefore the JAC Margins Handbook effectively calls for each FCM to ensure that its customers, including customers holding accounts subject to regulation § 30.7 (30.7 customers), do not withdraw funds from their accounts with such FCM unless the net liquidating value plus the margin deposits remaining in the applicable customer's account after the withdrawal is sufficient to meet the customer's margin requirements with respect to the products or portfolios in the customer's account.

The JAC issued Regulatory Alert 19-06 to effectively incorporate the no-action position provided by CFTC Letter 19-17 to the provisions of the JAC Margins Handbook as it relates to 30.7 customer accounts. 48 Specifically, Regulatory Alert 19-06 provides that, notwithstanding the restrictions contained in the JAC Margins Handbook, FCMs may apply CFTC Letter No. 19-17, including the appropriate conditions, to the separate accounts of 30.7 customers in determining margin funds available for disbursement. 49

Please note that all comments received in response to this docket are considered part of the public record. They will, unless reasonable cause is given, be made available by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for public inspection online at https://www.regulations.gov. Such information includes personal identifying information (such as your name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter. The Freedom of Information Act applies to all comments received. If you want to submit personal identifying information (such as your name, address, etc.) as part of your comment, but do not want it to be made publicly available, you must include the phrase “PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also place all of the personal identifying information you do not want made publicly available in the first paragraph of your comment and identify what information you want redacted.

If you want to submit confidential business information as part of your comment, but do not want it to be made publicly available, you must include the phrase “CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also prominently identify the confidential business information to be redacted within the comment.

Comments containing personal identifying information or confidential business information identified as directed above will be made publicly available in redacted form. If a comment has so much confidential business information that it cannot be effectively redacted, all or part of that comment may not be made publicly available. Comments posted to https://www.regulations.gov may include any personal identifying information (such as name, address, and phone number) included in the text of your electronic submission that is not identified as directed above as confidential.

An electronic copy of this proposed rule is available at https://www.regulations.gov for easy reference.

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) gives the Attorney General the authority to specify, by regulation, chemicals as list I chemicals. 1 A “list I chemical” is a chemical that is used in manufacturing a controlled substance in violation of the CSA and is important to the manufacture of the controlled substances. 2 The current list of all listed chemicals is published at 21 CFR 1310.02. Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b), the Attorney General has delegated his authority to designate list I chemicals to the Administrator of DEA (Administrator). DEA regulations set forth the process by which DEA may add a chemical as a listed chemical. As set forth in 21 CFR 1310.02(c), the agency may do so by publishing a final rule in the Federal Register following a published notice of proposed rulemaking with at least 30 days for public comments.

DEA previously found that 4-anilinopiperidine is used in the illicit manufacture of the controlled substance fentanyl (a schedule II substance under the CSA) and fentanyl analogues controlled in schedule I of the CSA, and is important to the manufacture of the controlled substance fentanyl and fentanyl analogues, because it cannot be replaced by other chemicals in its respective synthetic pathways that are used in the illicit manufacture of fentanyl and fentanyl analogues. 3 On this basis, DEA previously specified that 4-anilinopiperidine is a list I chemical. 4 DEA has now found that halides of 4-anilinopiperidine are also used in the illicit manufacture of schedule I controlled substances, such as para -fluorofentanyl, ortho -fluorofentanyl, and para -chlorofentanyl. Accordingly, if finalized, this action would add halides of 4-anilinopiperidine to the prior listing of 4-anilinopiperidine and thereby subject handlers of halides of 4-anilinopiperidine to the chemical regulatory provisions of the CSA and its implementing regulations.

This proposed rule would not affect current handlers of 4-anilinopiperidine, including its amides, its carbamates, and its salts, as they would already be registered to handle 4-anilinopiperidine. This rulemaking does not establish a threshold for domestic and international transactions of halides of 4-anilinopiperidine. As such, all transactions of chemical mixtures containing halides of 4-anilinopiperidine will be regulated at any concentration and will be subject to control under the CSA.

Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid and was first synthesized in Belgium in the late 1950s. Fentanyl was introduced into medical practice and is approved for medical practitioners in the United States to prescribe lawfully for anesthesia and analgesia. Yet, due to its pharmacological effects, fentanyl can be used as a substitute for heroin, oxycodone, and other opioids. Therefore, despite its accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, the DEA controls fentanyl as a schedule II controlled substance due to its high potential for abuse and dependence. 5

The unlawful trafficking and distribution of fentanyl and fentanyl analogues in the United States continues to pose an imminent hazard to public safety. Since 2012, fentanyl has shown a dramatic increase in the illicit drug supply as a single substance, in mixtures with other illicit drugs ( i.e., heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine), or in forms that mimic pharmaceutical preparations, including prescription opiates and benzodiazepines. 6

In recent years, the United States has experienced a significant increase in overdoses and overdose fatalities from fentanyl and fentanyl analogues. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), drug-induced overdose deaths involving synthetic opioids (excluding methadone) in the United States increased from 36,359 in 2019, to 56,516 in 2020, and to 70,589 in 2021 (provisional). 7 Further, CDC reports that opioids, mainly synthetic opioids (which includes fentanyl), are predominately responsible for drug overdose fatalities, as the drug overdose death data (109,247) predicted for the 12 month-ending March 2022, synthetic opioids were involved in about 67.3 percent of all drug-induced overdose deaths. 8

The increase in overdose fatalities involving synthetic opioids coincides with a dramatic increase in law enforcement encounters of fentanyl and fentanyl analogues. According to the National Forensic Laboratory Information System (NFLIS-Drug), 9 reports from forensic laboratories of drug items containing fentanyl and several schedule I fentanyl analogues increased dramatically since 2014, as shown in Table 1.

Fentanyl and its analogues are not naturally occurring substances. As such, the manufacture of these substances requires them to be produced through synthetic organic chemistry. Synthetic organic chemistry is the process in which a new organic molecule is created through a series of chemical reactions, which involve precursor chemicals. Through chemical reactions, the chemical structures of precursor chemicals are modified in a desired fashion. These chemical reaction sequences, also known as synthetic pathways, are designed to create a desired substance. Several synthetic pathways to fentanyl and fentanyl analogues have been identified in clandestine laboratory settings, including the original “Janssen method,” the “Siegfried method,” and the “Gupta method,” which are further explained below.

In response to the illicit manufacture of fentanyl using these methods, DEA controlled N -phenethyl-4-piperidone (NPP);  11 N -(1-benzylpiperidin-4-yl)- N -phenylpropionamide (benzylfentanyl), N -phenylpiperidin-4-amine (4-anilinopiperidine);  12 and proposed control of 4-piperidone  13 as list I chemicals. DEA also controlled 4-anilino- N -phenethylpiperidine (ANPP)  14 and N -phenyl- N -(piperidin-4-yl)propionamide (norfentanyl)  15 as schedule II immediate precursors to fentanyl under the CSA.

In 2017, the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) placed NPP and ANPP in Table I of the Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 1988 (1988 Convention) in response to the international reintroduction of fentanyl on the illicit drug market. 16 As such, member states of the United Nations were required to regulate these precursor chemicals at the national level. In addition, the People's Republic of China regulated NPP and ANPP on February 1, 2018. 17

Following the international control of NPP and ANPP under the 1988 Convention, illicit fentanyl manufacturers moved to unregulated precursor chemicals. These included 4-anilinopiperidine, 1-boc-4-AP, and norfentanyl. In response, the CND placed 4-anilinopiperidine, 1-boc-4-AP, and norfentanyl in Table I of the 1988 Convention. 18

On May 15, 2020, 4-anilinopiperidine became a list I chemical in the United States due to its role in the illicit manufacture of fentanyl. 19 Since that control action, DEA has observed an increase in identifications of certain fentanyl analogues by law enforcement and public health officials. Many of these fentanyl analogues contain a halogen atom on the aniline ring of its respective chemical structure. The presence of the halogen atom suggests that the fentanyl analogue was synthesized from a halogenated precursor chemical. Indeed, halogenated fentanyl precursors have been identified by law enforcement, such as tert -butyl 4-((4-fluorophenyl)amino)piperidine-1-carboxylate ( para -fluoro 1-boc 4-AP). The chemical structure of this precursor defines it as a halide and carbamate of 4-anilinopiperidine. As such, it falls outside of the current definitions of a list I chemical, simply due to the presence of the fluorine (a halogen) atom. Although it is not regulated as a list I chemical, it can be used in the synthesis of fentanyl analogues, such as the schedule I substances para -fluorofentanyl, para -fluoroisobutyryl fentanyl, para -fluorobutyryl fentanyl, and para -fluoro furanyl fentanyl.

In addition, fentanyl analogues with both meta - and ortho -fluoro substitutions have been identified, such as ortho -fluorofuranyl fentanyl and meta -fluorofuranyl fentanyl. The identification of these substances suggests illicit fentanyl analogue manufacturers attempt to utilize unregulated precursor chemicals to evade law enforcement detection and precursor chemical controls. This strategy allows for the synthesis of a variety of fentanyl analogues by simply moving the fluorine atom around the aniline ring while maintaining the same synthetic methodology used to synthesize fentanyl and fentanyl analogues.

Likewise, other halogenated fentanyl analogues, such as those containing a chlorine atom, have been reported by forensic laboratories. According to NFLIS-Drug, para -chlorofentanyl and ortho -chlorofentanyl were reported for the first time in 2020. The identification of these substances suggests that illicit fentanyl analogue manufacturers utilize precursor chemicals containing a chlorine atom as an alternative to a fluorine atom in effort to evade law enforcement detection.

The original published synthetic pathway to fentanyl, known as the Janssen method, involves the two important precursors, benzylfentanyl and norfentanyl. 4-Piperidone, 20 a chemical proposed for list I control under the CSA, serves as a precursor chemical to benzylfentanyl, a list I chemical under the CSA, 21 which is converted to norfentanyl, the schedule II immediate precursor in this synthetic pathway. Norfentanyl is then subjected to one simple chemical reaction to complete the synthesis of fentanyl. Norfentanyl is controlled in schedule II of the CSA. 22

Like the Janssen method, 4-piperidone serves as an early-stage precursor chemical in the Siegfried method. 4-Piperidone is a precursor to NPP, a known fentanyl precursor and list I chemical under the CSA, 23 in the Siegfried method. NPP is then converted to ANPP, the schedule II immediate precursor in this synthetic pathway. ANPP is then subjected to a simple one-step chemical reaction to complete the synthesis of fentanyl. ANPP is controlled as a schedule II immediate precursor under the CSA. 24

In addition to the Janssen and Siegfried methods, clandestine manufacturers are using other methods to synthesize fentanyl, one of which is known as the Gupta method. 4-Anilinopiperidine, a list I chemical under the CSA, 25 is the key precursor in the Gupta method. 4-Anilinopiperidine serves as an alternative precursor chemical to NPP in the synthesis of ANPP, albeit through a different synthetic process. The resulting ANPP is then used as the immediate precursor chemical in the illicit manufacture of fentanyl.

Recent encounters of precursor chemicals related to 4-anilinopiperidine in chemical structure have occurred. These precursor chemicals contain a halogen atom on the aniline ring of 4-anilinopiperidine. Modifications have included the addition of a fluorine atom, a chlorine atom, or a bromine atom at different positions on the aniline ring of the 4-anilinopiperidine structure. The use of these halogenated 4-anilinopiperidine precursor chemicals in place of 4-anilinopiperidine has resulted in the illicit manufacturing of schedule I fentanyl analogues.

Halogenated 4-anilinopiperidines  26 are commercially available from both domestic and foreign suppliers. DEA is aware of at least 25 domestic suppliers and 14 foreign suppliers. Substituted versions of 4-anilinopiperidine, such as para -fluoro 1-boc-4-AP, are attractive to illicit manufacturers because they are readily available from chemical suppliers and the lack of regulations on these substituted precursor chemicals.

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA or Act), Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq., was signed into law on October 17, 1988. The Act established the National Indian Gaming Commission (“NIGC” or “Commission”) and set out a comprehensive framework for the regulation of gaming on Indian lands. IGRA requires that tribal gaming ordinances provide a system for: background investigations of “primary management officials and key employees of the gaming enterprise;” tribal licenses for them; a suitability standard to assess whether they pose a threat to gaming and are not eligible for employment; and notices of background check results to the Commission before the issuance of licenses.

The Commission first defined “key employee” and “primary management official” in April of 1992, early in its existence. As mandated by IGRA, applicants for key employee and primary management official positions are subject to a background investigation as a condition of licensure. In 2009, the Commission expanded these definitions to permit tribes to designate other persons as key employees or primary management officials (74 FR 36926). The FBI, U.S. Department of Justice, took issue with this expansion, denying the processing of CHRI for the expanded positions' background investigations. The initial proposed rule and this revision rectify this issue in part 502. The revised proposed rule now limits tribal designations to “[a]ny other employee of the gaming enterprise as documented by the tribe as a key employee” and “[a]ny other employed management official of the gaming enterprise documented by the tribe as a primary management official.” Likewise constricted is the key employee definition in part 502 regarding unescorted access to secured gaming areas. Now, a key employee is “any gaming operation employee authorized by the gaming operation for unescorted access to secured gaming areas . . . .” Similarly constrained is the primary management official definition, because individuals who have authority “[t]o supervise key employees of the gaming operation” are no longer included. Lastly, the term independent now describes the Tribal Gaming Regulatory Authority (TGRA) definition, aligning with NIGC guidance about TGRAs.

Background investigation and licensing regulations for key employees and primary management officials were initially issued by the Commission in January 1993 (58 FR 5802-01) in parts 556 and 558, respectively. The Commission updated these regulations in 2013 to streamline the submission of documents; to ensure that two notifications are submitted to the Commission in compliance with IGRA; and to clarify the regulations regarding the issuance of temporary and permanent gaming licenses (78 FR 5276-01). As for parts 556 and 558, this revised proposed rule reflects the same changes as the initial proposed rule.

On, June 9, 2021, the National Indian Gaming Commission sent a Notice of Consultation announcing that the Agency intended to consult on a number of topics, including proposed changes to the key employee and primary management definitions and the backgrounding and licensing regulations. Prior to consultation, the Commission released proposed discussion drafts of the regulations for review. The proposed amendments to these regulations were intended to: address the FBI's concerns regarding the key employee and primary management official definitions; include gaming operation employees with unescorted access to secured areas as key employees; combine certain subsections of the key employee definition; add general managers and similar positions to the primary management official definition; and update licensing application retention requirements. The Commission held two virtual consultation sessions in July of 2021 to receive tribal input on the possible changes.

The Commission reviewed all comments received as part of the consultation process and addressed them in the initial proposed rule, issued on August 10, 2022. Once again, the Commission has thoroughly reviewed comments from the initial proposed rule and responds to them here. First, a commenter asserts that FBI's concerns about CHRI management have almost no connection to the intent of IGRA and should not be the bases for regulatory changes to the key employee and primary management official definitions. The Commission disagrees. The NIGC receives CHRI from the FBI for the purpose of tribes' backgrounding key employees and primary management officials. So, it is the FBI who determines when it is and is not appropriate to share CHRI for that purpose. Given the FBI's authority over CHRI, NIGC consulted with FBI on NIGC's regulatory proposals and considered its views.

Along the same lines, another commenter believes the proposed changes to the key employee and primary management official definitions may impair tribal compliance with the Criminal Justice Information Systems (CJIS) Security Policy, governing CHRI use, storage, and destruction. That will not be the case. The current NIGC-Tribal CHRI Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) explicitly accommodates and applies to new regulatory definitions for key employees and primary management officials. Consequently, when new key employee and primary management official regulatory definitions become effective, the current CHRI MOU applies to them and remains applicable to CJIS compliance, ensuring its continuity.

Beyond the FBI and CJIS Security policy comments, several commenters recommended changes to the initial proposed rule that the Commission accepted. Notably, when tribes designate gaming enterprise employees as key employees or employed gaming enterprise management officials as primary management officials, they no longer have to do so through their gaming ordinances. Instead, tribes must document the designations through different means, such as gaming commission regulations, which presumably are easier to revise and implement. In addition, the primary management official definition no longer includes individuals who have authority “to supervise a key employee of the gaming operation,” because, as commenters noted, such a definition could encompass team leaders and dual-rate employees who possess supervisory duties but not managerial duties.

Commenters also advocated for additions and changes to terminology in the proposed rule. The Commission added custodian of “gaming supplies” to the key employee definition, given the importance of these supplies to the integrity of gaming as well as mitigating the risk of tampering by licensing the employees who handle, access, or have custody of them. The Commission modified terms in the key employee definition as well. Specifically, “any person authorized by the gaming operation for unescorted access to restricted areas” now reads: “any gaming operation employee authorized by the gaming operation for unescorted access to secured gaming areas . . . .” The Commission removed the term person, as a broad interpretation of it could include vendors. Further, changing the term restricted to secured not only reflects comments received but also aligns with NIGC's minimum internal control standards, where secured is utilized in reference to the cage, count room, surveillance room and vault as well as in numerous MICS regulations referencing secure area, secure location and secure access. Lastly, the Commission added the term independent to the Tribal Gaming Regulatory Authority (TGRA) definition, as recommended by a commenter and in accord with NIGC guidance. Further, TGRAs come within the Gaming Enterprise definition—as entities through which tribes regulate gaming under IGRA on their Indian lands within their jurisdiction. And if a tribe so chooses, it may designate TGRA personnel as key employees or primary management officials by documenting its designation. There are several regulations in part 558 where commenters recommend that the term TGRA supplant the term Tribe. The term Tribe encompasses TGRA; so the Commission did not alter the wording.

In addition, several commenters view the substantive submission requirement associated with a key employee or primary management official's license revocation as onerous and unnecessary. Yet, the required submissions—a copy of the license revocation decision and a summary of the evidence supporting it—allow the NIGC to potentially object when previously revoked licensees apply for a new license. Tribal revocations are not contained in other background checks, including FBI CHRI. Ultimately, these submissions further protect and enhance the integrity of Indian gaming.

Lastly, commenters challenged the Commission's authority to define “Gaming Enterprise” and incorporate it into NIGC regulations. The IGRA mandates tribal gaming ordinances possesses “an adequate system which . . . ensures that background investigations are conducted on the primary management officials and key employees of the gaming enterprise. ” Given this plain statutory language, defining the term “gaming enterprise” is appropriate and within NIGC's authority.

The rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. Moreover, Indian tribes are not considered to be small entities for the purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. The rule does not have an effect on the economy of $100 million or more. The rule will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, local government agencies or geographic regions, nor will the proposed rule have a significant adverse effect on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of the enterprises, to compete with foreign based enterprises.

The Commission, as an independent regulatory agency, is exempt from compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502(1); 2 U.S.C. 658(1).

In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the Commission has determined that the rule does not have significant takings implications. A takings implication assessment is not required.

In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Commission has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order.

The Commission has determined that the rule does not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and that no detailed statement is required pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.

The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq., provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a “collection of information,” unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Collections of information include any request or requirement that persons obtain, maintain, retain, or report information to an agency, or disclose information to a third party or to the public (44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c)). This proposed rule contains new information collection requirements at 25 CFR 558.3(e) that are subject to review by OMB under the PRA and, accordingly, have been submitted to OMB for review under the PRA, Section 3507(d). OMB previously reviewed and approved information collection relating to 25 CFR 558.3 and assigned OMB control number 3141-0003 (expires 6/30/2023).

Described below are the proposed rule's information collection activities along with estimates of their annual burdens. These activities, along with annual burden estimates, do not include activities that are usual and customary industry practices. The burden estimates comprise the time necessary for Tribes to forward to the NIGC copies of their license revocation decisions and evidence summaries supporting such revocations, unless they already submit such to the NIGC in the usual course of their business. The burden also may include the time necessary for Tribes to summarize the evidence they relied upon for each revocation decision, if such summary does not already exist for tribal purposes and/or the Tribe does not send it to the NIGC as a customary business practice.

The Commission requests comment on all aspects of this information collection, including:

a. Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

b. The accuracy of the estimate of the burden for this collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

d. How the agency might minimize the burden of the collection of information on those required to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of response.

Title of Collection: Class II and Class III/Background Investigation Tribal Licenses.

OMB Control Number: 3141-0003.

Form Number: None.

Type of Review: New rule with added collection burden.

Respondents/Affected Public: Tribal gaming operations of Indian Tribes that conduct Class II and/or Class III gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.

Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

The new rule proposed under 25 CFR 558.3(e) will create the following estimated burdens:

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 100

Estimated Completion Time per Response: 1 hour.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 100 hours.

Total Estimated Annual Non-Hour Burden Cost: None.

Written comments and suggestions on the information collection requirements should be submitted by May 30, 2023. Submit comments directly to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: Policy Analyst/Desk Officer for the National Indian Gaming Commission. Comments also may be emailed to OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov, by including reference to “NIGC PRA Renewals” in the subject line.

To request additional information about this ICR, contact Tim Osumi, Privacy & Records Information Manager, NIGC Information Management Program by email at tim.osumi@nigc.gov or by telephone at (202) 264-0676.

The National Indian Gaming Commission is committed to fulfilling its tribal consultation obligations—whether directed by statute or administrative action such as Executive Order (E.O.) 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments)—by adhering to the consultation framework described in its Consultation Policy, published July 15, 2013. The NIGC's consultation policy specifies that it will consult with tribes on Commission Action with Tribal Implications, which is defined as: Any Commission regulation, rulemaking, policy, guidance, legislative proposal, or operational activity that may have a substantial direct effect on an Indian tribe on matters including, but not limited to the ability of an Indian tribe to regulate its Indian gaming; an Indian tribe's formal relationship with the Commission; or the consideration of the Commission's trust responsibilities to Indian tribes.

Pursuant to this policy, on June 9, 2021, the National Indian Gaming Commission sent a Notice of Consultation announcing that the Agency intended to consult on a number of topics, including proposed changes to the key employee and primary management official regulatory definitions as well as the background and licensing regulations. Consultations were held on July 27 and 28, 2021. A proposed rule was issued on August 10, 2022.

Therefore, for reasons stated in the preamble, 25 CFR parts 502, 556, and 558 are proposed to be amended as follows:

Under the authority provided in 14 U.S.C. 544, 43 U.S.C. 1333, and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3, 33 CFR part 147 permits the establishment of safety zones for facilities located on the OCS for the purpose of protecting life and property on the facilities. The protections included in a safety zone established under 33 CFR part 147 are promoting safety of life and property on the facilities as well as their appurtenances and attending vessels and also for the adjacent waters located in and around each facility. Therefore, a safety zone under 33 CFR part 147 may also include provisions to restrict, prevent, or control certain activities, including access by vessels or persons to maintain safety of life, property and the environment. Chevron Corporation requested that the Coast Guard establish a safety zone around its facility located in the deepwater area of the Gulf of Mexico on the OCS. Placing a safety zone around this facility will significantly reduce the threat of allisions, oil spills, and releases of natural gas, and thereby protect the safety of life, property, and the environment.

The safety zone proposed by this rulemaking is on the OCS in the deepwater area of the Gulf of Mexico in Green Canyon 763 at the center point of N 27°12′23.0394″, Longitude W 91°11′53.1594″ (NAD 83). The safety zone would be permanent. For the purpose of safety zones established under 33 CFR part 147, the deepwater area is considered to be waters of 304.8 meters (1,000 feet) or greater depth extending to the limits of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) contiguous to the territorial sea of the United States and extending to a distance up to 200 nautical miles from the baseline from which the breadth of the sea is measured. Navigation in the vicinity of the safety zone consists of large commercial shipping vessels, fishing vessels, cruise ships, tugs with tows and the occasional recreational vessel. The deepwater area also includes an extensive system of fairways.

Only vessels measuring less than 100 feet in length overall and not engaged in towing, attending vessels as defined in 33 CFR 147.20, or those vessels specifically authorized by the Eighth Coast Guard District Commander or a designated representative are permitted to enter or remain in the safety zone. Public transit into and through the safety zone area would be prohibited unless a vessel is specifically authorized by the District Commander or a designated representative. Requests for entry into the zone will be considered and reviewed on a case-by-case basis. These proposed regulations are consistent with the existing safety zones of other OCS platforms in the Gulf of Mexico.

Persons or vessels requiring authorization to enter the safety zone must request permission from the Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Commander or designated representative.

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

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

Aligning with 33 CFR 147.15, the safety zone established will extend to a maximum distance of 500 meters around the OCS facility measured from each point on its outer edge but may not interfere with the use of recognized sea lanes essential to navigation. Vessel traffic would be able to safely transit around the proposed safety zone, which would impact a small designated area in the Gulf of Mexico, without significant impediment to their voyage. This safety zone would reduce the risk of collision with the platform and help protect the environment from potential oil spills, in accordance with Coast Guard maritime safety missions.

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

This proposed rule may affect owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in Green Canyon 763, some of which might be small entities.

This safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. Vessel traffic could pass safely around the safety zone using an alternate route. Use of an alternate route may cause minimal delay in reaching a final destination, depending on other traffic in the area and vessel speed. Vessels would be able to request deviation from this proposed rule to transit through the safety zone. Such requests will be considered on a case-by-case basis and may be authorized by the Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District or a designated representative. Therefore, the Coast Guard expects any impact of this rulemaking establishing a safety zone around an OCS facility to be minimal, with no significant economic impact on small entities.

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this proposed rule would economically affect it.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves the establishment of a safety zone around an OCS facility to protect life, property, and the marine environment. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

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

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

Submitting comments. We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal Decision-Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. To do so, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2022-0982 in the search box and click “Search.” Next, look for this document in the Search Results column, and click on it. Then click on the Comment option. If you cannot submit your material by using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this proposed rule for alternate instructions.

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

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

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing to amend 33 CFR part 147 as follows:

Proposed prices will be available under Docket No. R2023-2 on the Postal Regulatory Commission's website at www.prc.gov .

The Postal Service's proposed rule includes changes to prices, mail classification updates, product simplification efforts, and minor revisions to the DMM.

Currently, the pricing structure for USPS Marketing Mail flat-shaped pieces uses a two-tier pricing approach. For pieces weighing 4 oz or less, only a per-piece price is charged. For pieces weighing over 4 oz but less than 16 oz, both a per-piece and per-pound rate is charged.

The Postal Service is proposing to change the way USPS Marketing Mail flats are priced. For each presort level, all pieces regardless of their weight will pay a piece price which will differ only by the entry level, i.e., Origin, DNDC, DSCF, and DDU. The pound price would be applicable only to the weight above 4 ounces. For example, if the piece weighs 6 ounces, the pound price will be charged only for the 2 ounces that are above 4 ounces.

Currently, the Postal Service offers discounts for USPS Marketing Mail flat-shaped pieces on SCF pallets. This discount would now be extended to letter-shaped USPS Marketing Mail pieces on SCF Pallets. This proposed discount will be applicable to Automation and Nonautomation (AADC, 3-Digit and 5-Digit Presort) Letters, Carrier Route Letters, High Density Letters, High Density Plus Letter and Saturation Letters on SCF Pallets regardless of the entry (None, DNDC, and DSCF).

The Postal Service is revising the fee structure for Registered Mail® service. Currently, the fee structure includes the combined cost of handling and insurance, which incrementally increases in accordance with an item's declared value, up to $50,000.00—the maximum available amount of insurance reimbursement. For items with declared value over $50,000, there are incrementally increasing handling fees, although the maximum amount of insurance reimbursement remains capped at $50,000. The Postal Service is revising the fee structure to eliminate the additional handling fees for items with declared value over $50,000, and instead have a flat fee that will cover the cost of insurance (which remains capped at a maximum of $50,000, regardless of the declared value) and handling on all items with declared values over $50,000.00.

Currently, the Postal Service does not include insurance coverage with USPS Ground Advantage—Retail and USPS Ground Advantage—Commercial (formerly First-Class Package Service—Retail and First-Class Package Service—Commercial) pieces against loss, damage, or missing contents. Additionally, the Postal Service does not include insurance with USPS Ground Advantage Return service (formerly First-Class Package Return Service) pieces.

The Postal Service is proposing to include insurance, limited to a maximum liability of $100.00, with USPS Ground Advantage—Retail and USPS Ground Advantage—Commercial pieces.

In addition, the Postal Service is proposing to include the $100.00 of insurance with USPS Ground Advantage Return service pieces. This proposal to include the $100.00 of insurance with USPS Ground Advantage Return service pieces, along with Priority Mail Return service which already has insurance included, will eliminate the senders' option to purchase insurance.

The Postal Service is proposing to eliminate certain, service type code (STC)/extra service code (ESC) combinations. The decision was based on those product and extra service code combinations with low use or low demand, and those that do not follow Postal Service compliance with Intelligent Mail package barcode rules. Mailers can speak with a USPS representative for details.

Marriage Mail is a form of marketing mail in which marketing service companies combine advertisements from multiple businesses into a single mailpiece to reduce the cost of the mailing for individual customers.

The Postal Service is proposing to provide marriage mailers an incentive price on Saturation USPS Marketing Mail letters and flats including EDDM (not EDDM Retail) that weigh 2 ounces or less, if they meet certain requirements.

Among the requirements to be eligible to claim the incentive price are that qualifying Marriage Mail pieces must include at least 4 advertisers and must be mailed at minimum 10 times every 12 months (starting with the month of first claiming the incentive price).

Information on the requirements to claim the Marriage Mail Incentive price will be posted on PostalPro at postalpro.usps.com.

The Postal Service has been incenting mailers to integrate mobile technology and use innovative print techniques in commercial mail since 2012. These promotions have become an integral way for industry to try new things and innovate their mail campaigns. A 2024 Promotions Calendar is planned with opportunities for mailers to receive a postage discount by applying treatments or integrating technology in their mail campaigns.

These proposed revisions will provide consistency within postal products and add value for customers.

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

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

Accordingly, 39 CFR part 111 is proposed to be amended as follows:

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

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2023-0193, at w ww. r egulations.gov. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov . The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission ( i.e. , on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit w ww. e pa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

The EPA is proposing to approve a SIP revision submitted by the State of Missouri on March 7, 2019. Missouri requests the EPA approve revisions to their SIP by replacing the existing rule, Title 10, Division 10 of the Code of State Regulations (CSR), (10 CSR 10-6.170) “Restriction of Particulate Matter to the Ambient Air Beyond the Premises of Origin”, with a revised and restructured version of the same rule. The state has revised the rule to add definitions specific to this rule, organize the rule into state standard rule organizational format, and remove unnecessary words. After review and analysis of the revisions, the EPA concludes that these changes do not have adverse effects on air quality. The full text of these changes can be found in the State's submission, which is included in the docket for this action. The EPA's analysis of the revisions can be found in the technical support document (TSD), also included in the docket.

The State submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The State provided public notice on this SIP revision from 8/01/2018 to 8/30/2018 and received a total of eight comments. The comments and responses are summarized herein. Comment 1: The EPA commented that they previously recommended that the department add provisions to the rule to make it clear what a “reasonable degree” is, which “techniques” the director might approve, and how the director might make that determination. Respons e: The state responded saying the necessary measures for determining the origin and nature of particulate matter emissions that travel beyond a property line are handled on a case-by-case basis. In many cases the nature and origin of fugitive particulate matter emissions is obvious and does not require any scientific measurements. After further review, the EPA agrees that this type of review is done on a case-by-case basis and since the rule applies to any operation, process, or activity, specific techniques or scientific methods would not always apply to determine the nature and origins of the particulate matter fugitive emissions. An example an application of this rule may be the evaluation of the handling or transporting of materials that cause dust to be seen in the air or dust residue left on surfaces after this type of activity. In this example, the state air program would investigate and decide on the nature and origin of the particulate matter emissions based on the evidence available. Applying a specific scientific methodology to investigate the origin and nature of the particulate matter is not pertinent in this situation. EPA believes these are the types of case-by-case scenarios that this rule was primarily intended to address. No changes were made to the rule text as a result of this comment. Comment 2: The EPA recommended that the department provide regulatory language on what record keeping and reporting requirements would exist for a facility to determine compliance with the rule. Response: The state responded that since the rule does not prescribe monitoring or control requirements the department cannot designate record keeping or reporting requirements. Since the rule is not necessarily subject to a facility but to an action or processes, the EPA agrees that recordkeeping and reporting are not required. No changes were made to the rule text as a result of this comment. Comment 3: The St. Louis County Department of Public Health commented on a semi colon placed after the word facility. No changes were made to the rule text as a result of this comment. Comment 4 and 5: The St. Louis County Department of Public Health, and Newman, Comley, and Ruth P.C., commented that the rule did not include an upper particle size limit. Response: As a result of those comments, the state added an upper size limit to the definition of particulate matter in subsection (2)(F) of this rule that particles greater than one hundred micrometers (100 μm) are not defined as particulate matter. Comment 6: Newman, Comley, and Ruth P.C. commented that facilities constructed before November 30, 1990, and located within the city limits of any municipality should be exempt from this rule. Response: Since the commenter did not provide justification for this exemption, and the state was not able to justify this exemption, no changes were made to the rule text as a result of the comment. Comment 7 and 8: Newman, Comley, and Ruth P.C., and the St. Louis County Department of Public Health commented that removing the word “shall” from a rule requirement could be interpreted that the requirement is no longer necessary. The commenter stated that regulations must be clear and concise as to the intent of the regulation. The department should review all instances of deleting the word “shall” and consider retaining it. Response: As a result of those comments, the state revised the language in paragraphs (3)(A)1. and (3)(A)2. to retain the word “shall” in order to clarify the obligation for facilities.

In addition, as explained above and in more detail in the technical support document, which is part of this docket, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.

The EPA is proposing to amend the Missouri SIP by approving the State's request to revise 10 CSR 10-6.170 “Restriction of Particulate Matter to the Ambient Air Beyond the Premises of Origin.” We are processing this as a proposed action because we are soliciting comments on this proposed action. Final rulemaking will occur after consideration of any comments.

In this document, the EPA is proposing to include regulatory text in an EPA final rule that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.170 discussed in section II of this preamble and as set forth below in the proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 52. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 7 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects” of their actions on minority populations and low-income populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that “no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and policies.”

Missouri did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and there is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:

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

Table 1 lists the measure addressed by this proposal with the dates that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). We will refer to this measure as the “Burn Cleaner Incentive Measure.”

On September 17, 2022, pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(1)(B) and 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, the submittal for the Burn Cleaner Incentive Measure was deemed complete by operation of law.

There are no previous versions of the Burn Cleaner Incentive Measure in the SIP.

Emissions of PM, including PM equal to or less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM 2.5 ) and PM equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter (PM 10 ), contribute to effects that are harmful to human health and the environment, including premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease, decreased lung function, visibility impairment, and damage to vegetation and ecosystems. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that control PM emissions.

The SJVUAPCD regulates a PM 2.5 nonattainment area classified as Serious for the 1997 (24-hour 65 µg/m 3 and annual 15 µg/m 3 limit), 2006 (24-hour 35 µg/m 3 limit), and 2012 (annual 12 µg/m 3 limit) PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The District adopted the 2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM 2.5 NAAQS (2018 PM 2.5 Plan) in November 2018 to help bring the District into attainment for these NAAQS. 1 The submitted measure, adopted by the District on November 18, 2021, is an enforceable commitment to achieve direct PM 2.5 emission reductions using the Burn Cleaner Fireplace and Woodstove Change-out Program, a fireplace and woodstove change-out incentive program that has been implemented within the District since 2006.

The enforceable commitment obligates SJVUAPCD to achieve specific amounts of PM 2.5 emission reductions through implementation of their fireplace and woodstove change-out program, to submit annual reports to the EPA detailing its implementation of the program and the projected emission reductions, and to adopt and submit substitute measures by specific dates if the EPA determines that this program will not achieve the necessary emission reductions. The EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more information about the measure.

Generally, SIP control measures must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emission reductions (see CAA section 193).

The CAA explicitly provides for the use of economic incentive programs (EIPs) as one tool for states to use to achieve attainment of the PM 2.5 NAAQS. 2 EIPs use market-based strategies to encourage the reduction of emissions from stationary, area, and mobile sources in an efficient manner. The EPA has promulgated regulations for statutory EIPs required under section 182(g) of the Act and has issued guidance for discretionary EIPs. 3

The EPA's guidance documents addressing EIPs and other nontraditional programs provide for some flexibility in meeting established SIP requirements for enforceability and quantification of emission reductions, provided the State takes clear responsibility for ensuring that the emission reductions necessary to meet applicable CAA requirements are achieved. Accordingly, the EPA has consistently stated that nontraditional emission reduction measures submitted to satisfy SIP requirements under the Act must be accompanied by appropriate “enforceable commitments” from the State to monitor emission reductions achieved and to rectify shortfalls in a timely manner. 4 The EPA has also consistently stated that, where a state intends to rely on a nontraditional program to satisfy CAA requirements, the state must demonstrate that the program achieves emission reductions that are quantifiable, surplus, enforceable, and permanent. 5

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

1. “Guidance on Incorporating Voluntary Mobile Source Emission Reduction Programs in State Implementation Plans (SIPs),” Richard D. Wilson, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 24, 1997.

2. “Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs,” EPA-452/R-01-001, OAQPS, January 2001.

3. “Incorporating Emerging and Voluntary Measure in a State Implementation Plan (SIP),” OAQPS, September 2004.

4. “Guidance on Incorporating Bundled Measures in a State Implementation Plan,” Stephen D. Page, OAQPS, and Margo Oge, OTAQ, August 16, 2005.

5. “Guidance for Quantifying and Using Emission Reductions from Voluntary Woodstove Changeout Programs in State Implementation Plans,” EPA-456/B-06-001, OAQPS, January 2006.

The Burn Cleaner Incentive Measure contains clear and mandatory obligations that are enforceable against the SJVUAPCD and ensures that information about the emission reductions achieved through the identified incentive programs will be readily available to the public through SJVUAPCD submission of annual demonstration reports to the EPA. Our approval of the Burn Cleaner Incentive Measure would make these obligations enforceable by the EPA and by citizens under the CAA. The Burn Cleaner Incentive Measure obligates the District to achieve quantifiable, surplus, permanent, and enforceable PM 2.5 emission reductions through the Burn Cleaner Fireplace and Woodstove Change-out Program, fund projects that achieve these emission reductions, and track the progress of these emission reductions. The Burn Cleaner Incentive Measure does not alter any existing SIP requirements. Our approval of the Burn Cleaner Incentive Measure into the SIP would strengthen the SIP and would not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements, consistent with the requirements of CAA section 110(l). Section 193 of the CAA does not apply to this action because this measure does not modify any SIP control requirement that was in effect before November 15, 1990.

We are proposing to find that the Burn Cleaner Incentive Measure meets CAA requirements for enforceability, SIP revisions, and nontraditional emission reduction programs as interpreted in EPA guidance documents. The TSD has more information on our evaluation.

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to fully approve the submitted measure because it fulfills all relevant requirements. We are proposing to codify this measure as additional material in the Code of Federal Regulations, rather than through incorporation by reference, because, under its terms, the measure contains commitments enforceable only against the District and because the measure is not a substantive rule of general applicability. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until May 15, 2023. If we take final action to approve the submitted measure, our final action will incorporate this measure into the federally enforceable SIP.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects” of their actions on minority populations and low-income populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that “no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and policies.”

The State did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. If finalized, due to the nature of the action being taken here, this action is expected to have a neutral to positive impact on the air quality of the affected area. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and there is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.

This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( NPRM ), FCC 23-23, adopted on March 29, 2023 and released on March 30, 2023. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The complete text may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. This document will also be available via ECFS at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat. Alternative formats are available for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format) by sending an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or calling the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

1. The Commission created the LPTV service in 1982 to bring television service, including local service, to viewers “otherwise unserved or underserved” by existing full power service providers. From its creation, the LPTV service has been a secondary service, meaning LPTV stations may not cause interference to, and must accept interference from, full power television stations as well as certain land mobile radio operations and other primary services. As a result of their secondary status, LPTV stations can also be displaced by full power stations that seek to expand their service area, or by new full power stations seeking to enter the same area as the LPTV station.

2. Currently, there are approximately 1,912 licensed LPTV stations. These stations operate in all states and territories, and serve both rural and urban audiences. LPTV stations were required to complete a transition from analog to digital operation in 2021 and all such stations must now operate in digital format. As the name suggests, LPTV stations have lower authorized power levels than full power TV stations. Because they operate at reduced power levels, LPTV stations serve a much smaller geographic region than full power stations and can be fit into areas where a higher power station cannot be accommodated in the Table of TV Allotments.

3. In 2000, the Commission established a Class A television service to implement the Community Broadcasters Protection Act of 1999 (CBPA), codified at 47 US.C 336(f). The CBPA allowed certain qualifying LPTV stations to become Class A stations, which provided those television stations primary status, and thereby a measure of interference protection from full service television stations.

4. Congress sought in the CBPA to provide certain LPTV stations a limited window of opportunity to apply for primary status. Among other matters, the CBPA set out certain certification and application procedures for LPTV licensees seeking Class A designation and prescribed the criteria for eligibility for a Class A license. Specifically, under the CBPA, an LPTV station could qualify for Class A status if, during the 90 days preceding the date of enactment of the statute, the station: (1) broadcast a minimum of 18 hours per day; (2) broadcast an average of at least 3 hours per week of programming produced within the market area served by the station, or the market area served by a group of commonly controlled low-power stations that carry common local programming produced within the market area served by such group; and (3) was in compliance with the Commission's requirements for LPTV stations. In addition, the CBPA required that, from and after the date of its application for a Class A license, the station must be in compliance with the Commission's operating rules for full power television stations. As directed by the CBPA, within 60 days of the date of enactment of the CBPA, stations seeking Class A status were required to submit to the Commission a certification of eligibility based on the applicable qualification requirements. In addition, the Commission required LPTV licensees seeking Class A designation to submit an application to the Commission within 6 months after the effective date of the rules adopted in the Class A proceeding.

5. In addition to these qualifying requirements, the CBPA gave the Commission discretion to determine that the public interest, convenience, and necessity would be served by treating a station as a qualifying LPTV station under the CBPA, or that a station should be considered to qualify for such status for other reasons, even if it did not meet the qualifying requirements in the statute discussed above. In implementing the CBPA, the Commission concluded, however, that it would not accept applications under the CBPA from LPTV stations that did not meet the statutory criteria and that did not file a certification of eligibility by the statutory deadline, absent compelling circumstances.

6. Like the CBPA, the Low Power Protection Act (LPPA), Public Law 117-344, 136 Stat. 6193 (2023), is intended “to provide low power TV stations with a limited window of opportunity” to apply for primary status as a Class A television licensee. The Act gives LPTV stations one year to apply for a Class A license, from the date that the Commission's rules become effective.

7. The LPPA sets forth eligibility criteria for stations seeking Class A designation that are similar to the eligibility criteria under the CBPA, as discussed above. Specifically, the statute provides that the Commission “may approve” an application submitted by an LPTV station if the station meets the following eligibility criteria:

• during the 90-day period preceding the date of enactment of the LPPA ( i.e., between October 7, 2022 and January 5, 2023), the station satisfied the same requirements applicable to stations that qualified for Class A status under the CBPA, “including the requirements . . . with respect to locally produced programming;”

• the station satisfies the requirements of 47 CFR 73.6001(b) through (d) or any successor regulation;

• the station demonstrates that it will not cause any interference as described in the CBPA;

• during that same 90-day period, the station complied with the Commission's requirements for LPTV stations; and

• as of January 5, 2023, the station operated in a Designated Market Area with not more than 95,000 television households;

8. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), we propose rules to provide LPTV stations with a limited opportunity to apply for primary spectrum use status as Class A television stations, consistent with Congress's directive in the LPPA.

9. The LPPA provides LPTV stations a period of one year to apply for Class A status. We tentatively conclude that the application window will be limited to the one year application window specified in the Act. We note that the LPPA provides that the Commission may approve an application for Class A status if the application satisfies § 336(f)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (which codifies the CBPA). This provision sets forth the eligibility criteria for stations qualifying for Class A status, and gives the Commission discretion to determine whether a station not satisfying such criteria should otherwise qualify. In the Class A Order, the Commission declined either to expand these eligibility criteria or to allow ongoing conversion to Class A status beyond the 6 month window contemplated in the CBPA. The Commission reasoned that the basic purpose of the CBPA was to afford existing LPTV stations a window of opportunity to convert to Class A stations. The Commission also determined that the intent of Congress in enacting the CBPA was to establish the rights of a specific, already-existing group of LPTV stations, and that the public interest would not be served by the ongoing conversion of LPTV stations to Class A status under the CBPA in the future. The Commission noted that LPTV stations were originally licensed on a secondary basis and allowed to convert to Class A status only under limited eligibility criteria established in the CBPA based upon their beneficial past service to the public, and that it was not appropriate to expand generally the group of LPTV stations eligible to convert to Class A beyond that established by Congress. The Commission did, however, state that, where potential applicants “face circumstances beyond their control that prevent them from filing” a Class A application within the 6-month time frame that applied to Class A conversions, the Commission “would examine those instances on a case-by-case basis to determine their eligibility for filing.”

10. Similar to the CBPA, we tentatively find that the purpose of the LPPA is to provide for a one-time conversion of a discrete pool of eligible LPTV stations that meet the specific criteria set forth in the LPPA. We tentatively find that the public interest would not be served by providing for conversion to Class A status beyond the one year period contemplated in the LPPA, nor do we find anything in the LPPA to suggest that Congress intended anything more than a limited window of opportunity. Although we tentatively conclude that the application window will be limited to the one year application window specified in the Act, we propose that if a potential applicant faces circumstances beyond its control that prevents them from filing by the application deadline, we will examine those instances on a case-by-case basis to determine the potential applicant's eligibility for filing. We invite comment on this approach.

11. We propose to apply the Commission's recently updated definition of an LPTV station for purposes of determining which stations are eligible for Class A status under the LPPA. The LPPA provides that the term “low power TV station” has the meaning given the term “digital low power TV station” in § 74.701 of our rules, or any successor regulation. Section 74.701 formerly contained a definition of the term “digital lower power TV station” but we recently revised that rule to remove references to digital and analog television service, as all LPTV stations have now ceased analog operations and there is no further need to differentiate between digital and analog in the rules. In place of the prior § 74.701 definition, § 74.701(k) of our current rules defines a low power TV station as: “[a] station . . . that may retransmit the programs and signals of a television broadcast station, may originate programming in any amount greater than 30 seconds per hour . . . and, subject to a minimum video program service requirement, may offer services of an ancillary or supplementary nature, including subscription-based services.” We propose to apply this recently updated definition of an LPTV station for purposes of determining which stations are eligible for Class A status under the LPPA. We invite comment on this approach.

12. Consistent with this definition, we tentatively conclude that eligibility for Class A status under the LPPA should be limited to LPTV stations, and that television translator stations should not be eligible. Translator stations “operate for the purpose of retransmitting the programs and signals of a television broadcast station, without significantly altering any characteristic of the original signal other than its frequency and amplitude,” and thus, are not permitted to “originate programming” as defined in the rules. Given this limitation, for the following reasons we tentatively conclude that “television broadcast translator stations” as defined under our rules would not be able to satisfy the locally produced programming eligibility requirement of the LPPA. While the LPPA does not expressly require that the locally produced content aired by a low power station be produced by that station itself, we tentatively conclude that translators would be unlikely to qualify under the locally produced programming provisions of the LPPA due to the manner in which translators operate. Translator stations are generally located outside their primary station's noise limited contour in order to bring service to remote areas. Thus, while a translator's primary station(s) may be airing programming produced in the primary station's noise limited contour, it is unlikely that programming was locally produced within the noise limited contour of the translator. For similar reasons, the Commission specifically found that translator stations were not eligible for Class A status under the CBPA, and there is no indication that Congress intended to be more inclusive in the LPPA. In addition, we tentatively conclude that the LPPA's inclusion of reference to “low power” stations and failure to specifically reference “translator” stations can be read as an intentional inclusion of the former and exclusion of the latter and is the best reading of the statute. We invite comment on this tentative conclusion that translator stations should not be eligible for Class A status under the LPPA.

13. We tentatively conclude that LPTV stations that have not completed their digital transition are not eligible to apply for Class A designation. A small number of analog LPTV stations have not yet completed construction of their digital facilities and have been granted additional time to do so. Since analog television operations are no longer permitted, these LPTV stations are silent and must remain silent until such time as they complete construction of their digital facilities. The LPPA requires that, to be eligible to convert to Class A status, an LPTV station must meet the statutory programming requirements for the 90-day period preceding the date of enactment of the LPPA. As any LPTV station that was silent during this period would not meet these requirements, we tentatively conclude that such stations would not be eligible to apply for Class A designation under the LPPA. We invite comment on this interpretation.

14. We propose to codify in our rules the eligibility criteria set forth in the LPPA. As noted above, the LPPA sets forth eligibility criteria for stations seeking Class A designation that are similar to the eligibility criteria under the CBPA. Specifically, the LPPA provides that the Commission “may approve” an application submitted by an LPTV station under the LPPA if the station, during the 90-day period preceding the date of enactment of the LPPA, meets the same requirements in 47 U.S.C. 336(f)(2) applicable to stations that qualified for Class A status under the CBPA, “including the requirements . . . with respect to locally produced programming.” Thus, to qualify for Class A status in the 90 days preceding the LPPA's January 5, 2023 effective date, an LPTV station must have met the following requirements between October 7, 2022 and January 5, 2023 (the 90 day eligibility period): (1) the station must have broadcast a minimum of 18 hours per day; (2) the station must have broadcast an average of at least 3 hours per week of programming that was produced within the market area served by such station, or the market area served by a group of commonly controlled LPTV stations that carry common local programming produced within the market area served by such group; and (3) the station must have been in compliance with the Commission's requirements applicable to LPTV stations. In addition, from and after the date of its application for a Class A license, the station must be in compliance with the Commission's operating rules for full power television stations.

15. Locally Produced Programming. In implementing the LPPA, we propose to define “locally produced programming” in the same manner as our rules that apply to stations that converted to Class A status pursuant to the CBPA. As noted above, the LPPA requires that, during the 90 day eligibility period, LPTV stations must have broadcast an average of at least 3 hours per week of programming produced within the market area served by the station. Section 73.6000 of our rules contains a definition of “locally produced programming” applicable to Class A stations. In the Part 73 Amendment NPRM, the Commission has proposed to update its definition of locally produced programming for Class A stations in § 73.6000 of the rules, as “programming produced within the predicted noise-limited contour . . . of a Class A station broadcasting the program or within the contiguous predicted noise-limited contours of any of the Class A stations in a commonly owned group.” We propose to apply the definition in § 73.6000 of the rules, including any future changes, to define “programming produced within the market area served by the station” for purposes of determining eligibility for Class A status under section 2(c)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the LPPA and invite comment on this approach.

16. Operating Requirements. We tentatively conclude that all applicants seeking to convert to Class A status under the LPPA be required to certify that they have complied with the Commission's requirements for LPTV stations, during the 90 day eligibility period. As noted above, to qualify for Class A status under the LPPA, an LPTV station must have been in compliance with the Commission's requirements for LPTV stations during the 90 day eligibility period. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.

17. The LPPA requires that a station “be in compliance with the Commission's operating rules for full-power stations” beginning on the date of its application for a Class A license and thereafter. In the Class A Order that implemented the CBPA, the Commission determined certain part 73 rules would apply to applicants for Class A status and to stations awarded Class A licenses. For example, existing Class A stations must comply with children's programming and online public inspection file regulations. We propose to take this same approach with respect to stations that seek to convert to Class A status pursuant to the LPPA. We propose that applicants for Class A designation pursuant to the LPPA, and Class A stations awarded licenses pursuant to that statute, will be required to comply with the same part 73 rules applied in implementing the CBPA. We invite comment on this approach.

18. We also propose that all stations that receive a Class A license under the LPPA must comply with all Class A regulations. LPPA section (2)(c)(3)(B) provides that a Class A license granted pursuant to the rules established under the LPPA shall “require the low power TV station to remain in compliance with [§ (2)(c)(2)(B) of the LPPA] during the term of the license.” This includes, among other things, the requirements to broadcast a minimum of 18 hours per day and to broadcast an average of at least three hours per week of locally produced programming each quarter. Beyond the requirements specified in § (2)(c)(2)(B) of the LPPA, we also tentatively conclude there is no reason to exempt LPTV stations converting to Class A status under the LPPA from other rules applicable to LPTV stations converting to Class A status under the CBPA, given that the service requirements in the LPPA closely track those in the CBPA and that the stations will be converting to Class A status and so it makes sense for Class A rules generally to apply. We seek comment on this approach.

19. We also seek comment on whether the requirement to comply with the Class A eligibility requirements set forth in LPPA section (2)(c)(2)(B) should run from when an LPTV station's application is submitted. To that end, we note that LPPA section 2(c)(2)(B)(i)(II) states that the “Commission may approve an application [for Class A status] if the low power TV station submitting the application—satisfies —paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of 73.6001,” which contains the requirements that Class A stations broadcast a minimum of 18 hours per day and broadcast an average of at least three hours per week of locally produced programming each quarter. We seek comment on how to interpret the statutory language providing that the station “submitting the application” must “satisfy” these requirements. We note that this requirement is distinct from the separate statutory obligation to meet the eligibility requirements during the 90 day eligibility period of October 7, 2022 to January 5, 2023. Should this language be interpreted to require the applicant for a Class A license to satisfy the requirements of 47 CFR 73.6001(b) through (d) from the time it submits its application? Indeed, because LPPA section (2)(c)(3)(B) applies these requirements after a Class A license is granted, would LPPA section 2(c)(2)(B)(i)(II) be rendered superfluous if we did not interpret it to apply these requirements from the time the Class A application is submitted?

20. License Application and Documentation. In order to assist with the orderly processing of all applications received under the LPPA, we propose that an applicant will be required to certify that its station meets the operating and programming requirements of the LPPA. Specifically, with respect to the statutory requirement that stations air 18 hours of programming each day during the 90 day eligibility period, we propose to require applicants to certify that the station was fully operational for at least 18 hours on each day during the 90 day eligibility period. In addition, with respect to the requirement that stations air three hours of locally produced programming, we propose to require an applicant to certify that it was providing such programming during each day during the 90 day eligibility period. We invite comment generally on this approach.

21. We tentatively conclude that an applicant be required to submit, as part of its application, documents to support its certification that it meets the operating and programming requirements of the LPPA. We seek comment on the kind of documentation that we should require stations to submit in support of their application in order to ensure orderly processing. Should we require specific documents or categories of documentation or should we provide examples of the kinds of documentation that stations could provide thereby giving stations more latitude with respect to the types of documentation they may use to support their application? To support its certification that the station was on the air at least 18 hours each day during the eligibility period, a station could, for example, submit electric power bills from a third party vendor that specify the station or station's broadcast facility location for the designated period, and/or copies of any program guides, EAS logs, or agreements to purchase and air programming on the specified station in an amount sufficient to satisfy this programming requirement. If the station was silent during any portion of this period of time, we will require the station to identify any silent periods and the reasons why the station was silent. To support its certification that a station aired three hours of locally produced programming, the station could, for example, submit copies of any agreements to purchase and air such programming and/or identify the producer of any programming it claims is locally produced, the location where the programming was produced, and records of advertisements aired during locally produced programming showing that the programming was in fact aired. We invite commenters to provide examples of other kinds of documentation a station could provide to support its certifications that it meets the eligibility requirements of the LPPA. In order to expedite processing, and ensure the Commission maximizes opportunities for applicants, Commission staff may request additional documentation if necessary during consideration of the application.

22. Alternative Eligibility Criteria. As discussed above, the LPPA provides that the Commission may approve an application for Class A status if the application satisfies § 336(f)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, codified as part of the CBPA. The CBPA provided the Commission with additional discretion in evaluating applicants for Class A status if “the Commission determines that the public, interest, convenience, and necessity would be served by treating the station as a qualifying low-power television station for purposes of this section, or for other reasons determined by the Commission.” In the Class A Order, the Commission determined that it would allow deviation from the strict statutory eligibility criteria in the CBPA “only where such deviations are insignificant or when we determine that there are compelling circumstances, and that in light of those compelling circumstances, equity mandates such a deviation.” The Commission gave as an example of such compelling circumstances “a natural disaster or interference conflict which forced the station off the air during the 90 day period before enactment of the CBPA.”

23. We tentatively conclude that we should apply this same approach in the context of the LPPA. Accordingly, we propose to allow deviation from the strict statutory eligibility criteria under the LPPA only where deviations are insignificant or where there are compelling circumstances such that equity mandates a deviation. We tentatively conclude that the LPPA provides precise and limited eligibility criteria and, except in very limited circumstances, we are not inclined to expand the specific qualifying criteria beyond that identified in the statute. We invite comment on this approach.

24. We tentatively conclude that LPTV stations proposing to convert to Class A status under the LPPA must demonstrate compliance with the interference protection standards set forth in § 336(f)(7) of the Communications Act of 1934, with the exception of those provisions that are now obsolete given the transition of all television stations from analog to digital operations. The LPPA provides that the Commission may approve an application by an LPTV station if it “demonstrates to the Commission that the Class A station for which the license is sought will not cause any interference described in § 336(f)(7) of the Communications Act of 1934 . . . .” Section 336(f)(7) describes the interference protection requirements for LPTV stations that sought Class A status under the CBPA vis-à-vis full power television, LPTV, TV translator, and land mobile stations. Because the CBPA was adopted in 1999, § 336(f)(7) refers to a number of interference protection standards that are now obsolete.

25. We tentatively conclude that LPTV stations proposing to convert to Class A status must satisfy the requirement in section 2(c)(2)(B)(ii) of the LPPA by demonstrating compliance with the same operating rules and policies, including interference requirements, applicable to existing digital Class A licensees, including requirements that were adopted subsequent to the enactment of § 336(f)(7). When LPTV stations converted to Class A status pursuant to the CBPA in 2000, they began their primary status operations as analog stations. In 2004, the Commission adopted rules and policies to allow LPTV and Class A stations to operate with digital facilities. In 2011, the Commission established a hard deadline of September 1, 2015 for all Class A stations to terminate analog operations. With very limited exceptions, all existing LPTV stations are now operating in digital format. Our rules applicable to Class A stations set forth the interference protection Class A stations now must provide to digital full power, Class A, LPTV, and TV translator stations, and supersede certain interference requirements referenced in the CBPA, as that statute was adopted prior to the digital transition. We recognize that the LPPA specifically referenced the interference requirements “described in § 336(f)(7).” Nonetheless, we tentatively find that this does not evince an intent on the part of Congress to compel applicants, in fulfilling the requirements under the LPPA, to demonstrate compliance with outdated and superseded interference rules referenced in § 336(f)(7). Rather, we tentatively find that by requiring applicants to demonstrate compliance with current interference requirements applicable to Class A stations, we will ensure that the purpose of the statutory provision— i.e., to ensure that a Class A station will not cause interference—will be served because the licensed or previously proposed facilities of full power, low power and TV translator, and land mobile stations will be afforded interference protection when LPTV stations convert to Class A status pursuant to the LPPA. Accordingly, we tentatively conclude that our rules applicable to existing Class A stations, including interference requirements, will apply to stations that convert to Class A status pursuant to the LPPA. We seek comment generally on this analysis and tentative conclusion.

26. Protection of Full Power Television Stations. We tentatively conclude that Class A-eligible LPTV stations need not comply with certain CBPA interference showings that are obsolete due to the completion of the digital transition. These obsolete provisions would include the following: (1) prohibition on causing interference to the predicted Grade B contour of an analog full power television station or a modification application filed on or before November 1, 1999; (2) protection of the original DTV Table of Allotments, which has now been superseded and deleted from the Commission's rules; and (3) two additional requirements that are both obsolete due to the passage of time. We seek comment on our tentative conclusion.

27. Further, we tentatively conclude that Class A-eligible stations seeking primary status under the LPPA must demonstrate that they do not cause interference to areas protected under our rules, including any future updates to those rules. Section 336(f)(7)(A)(ii)(II) of the CBPA required LPTV stations to demonstrate that they did not cause interference “to the areas protected in the Commission's digital television regulations (47 CFR 73.622(e) and (f)).” We recently proposed updates to these requirements. Accordingly, we tentatively conclude that these rule changes to §§ 73.622(e) and 73.622(f), if adopted, will also apply to Class A-eligible LPTV stations seeking primary status under the LPPA and seek comment on this tentative conclusion.

28. Protection of Low Power and Television Translator Stations. We tentatively conclude that an LPTV station that files an application to convert to Class A status under the LPPA will be required to protect LPTV and TV translator stations. The LPPA references the CBPA in requiring the protection of previously authorized LPTV/TV stations, as well as previously filed applications for these facilities. We note that when the CBPA was implemented, the Commission required Class A stations to protect “the LPTV and TV translator protected contours on the basis of the standards given in § 74.707, i.e., on the basis of compliance with certain desired-to-undesired signal strength ratios of the LPTV rules.” We recently deleted this provision. The digital-to-digital interference protection standards are now found in §§ 74.792 and 74.793. We tentatively conclude that LPTV stations that file applications to convert to Class A station under the LPPA will be required to make an absence of interference showing using these updated digital-to-digital rules, and seek comment on this tentative conclusion.

29. Protection of Land Mobile Stations. We tentatively conclude that an LPTV station that converts to a Class A station under the LPPA will continue to be required to protect land mobile stations. LPTV stations are currently required to protect land mobile stations. Section 336(f)(7)(C) of the CBPA provides that the Commission may not grant a Class A license or modification of license where the Class A station will cause interference within the protected contour of land mobile stations. This protects land mobile radio services which have been allocated the use of TV channels 14-20 in certain urban areas of the country, as well as channel 16 in the New York City metropolitan area. In implementing the CBPA, the Commission implemented these protections in the manner prescribed in § 74.709 of the LPTV rules. These rules have not changed. Thus, we tentatively conclude that LPTV stations that file applications to convert to Class A station under the LPPA will be required to make an absence of interference showing using these land mobile protection rules.

30. We seek comment on multiple issues involving the LPPA's requirements related to Designated Market Areas (DMAs). The LPPA requires that an LPTV station must demonstrate that as of January 5, 2023, the station “operates in a Designated Market Area with not more than 95,000 television households.” The LPPA further states that DMA means “(A) a [DMA] determined by Nielsen Media Research or any successor entity; or (B) a [DMA] under a system of dividing television broadcast station licensees into local markets using a system that the Commission determines is equivalent to the system established by Nielsen Media Research . . .” We seek comment on: (1) the meaning of the word “operates” in the LPPA, and (2) whether we should adopt the Nielsen Local TV Station Information Report (Local TV Report) for determining DMAs or an equivalent alternative local market system.

31. In limiting eligibility to LPTV stations operating in a DMA or an equivalent with not more than 95,000 television households (a “qualifying DMA”), Congress apparently intended to convey the benefits of primary Class A status under the LPPA to small market LPTV stations that reach a relatively small number of potential viewers. “Operate” in the LPPA could mean that an LPTV station's protected contour extends into the geographic area of a qualifying DMA. It could also mean that the station's transmission facilities, which includes the tower or building on which its antenna is mounted, are located within the qualifying DMA. We tentatively conclude that the LPTV station applying for Class A status under the LPPA must demonstrate that its transmission facilities are located within the qualifying DMA. We believe this interpretation is consistent with the apparent Congressional intent to limit Class A status to stations currently operating in small markets. We also propose that in order to make the necessary demonstration, applicants be required to provide the following information, as it existed as of the enactment date of the LPPA, January 5, 2023: (1) the coordinates of the station's transmission facilities ( i.e., the tower or building on which its antenna is mounted); (2) the city/town/village/or other municipality and county in which the transmission facilities are located; and (3) the qualifying DMA in which the station's transmission facilities are located. We seek comment on this proposal.

32. We propose to use the Nielsen Local TV Station Information Report (Local TV Report) in determining the DMA where the LPTV station's transmission facilities were located as of January 5, 2023 consistent with the Commission's recent Nielsen DMA Determination Update Order, and seek comment on this proposal. In November 2022, we adopted Nielsen's monthly Local TV Report as the successor publication to Nielsen's Annual Station Index and Household Estimates and determined that the Local TV Report should be used to define “local market” as stated in other statutory provisions and rules relating to carriage, including retransmission consent, distant signals, significantly viewed, and field strength contour. The record in that proceeding indicated that the Local TV Report is the sole source of information regarding DMA determinations and that there is no company currently accredited to determine the local market area of broadcast television stations.

33. As noted above, the LPPA also permits the Commission to adopt an equivalent alternative local market system to Nielsen's DMA. The LPTV Broadcasters' Association (LPTVBA) requests that the Commission use, for purposes of the LPPA, Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) and Rural Service Areas (RSAs) as defined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The general concept of an MSA is that of a core area containing a substantial population nucleus, together with adjacent communities having a high degree of economic and social integration with that core. The Census Bureau does not actually define “rural.” Rather, rural areas include all geographic areas that are not classified as urban. LPTVBA does not specify or explain which areas, which are based on Census Bureau data, it would have us use. We also note that these classifications, which are based on population, appear to have nothing to do with market assignment information or determining television broadcast station markets, unlike Nielsen DMAs. We seek comment on LPTVBA's position and on any alternative means of delineating DMAs using a system of dividing television broadcast station licensees into local markets that is equivalent to the system established by the Nielsen Media Research. Any commenter suggesting an alternative publication to the Nielsen Local TV Report should identify the publication as well as the similarities and differences in assigning stations to television markets, and explain why the alternative publication is preferable.

34. The LPPA provides that licenses issued to stations that convert to Class A status are subject to full power television station license terms and renewal standards, with certain exceptions, and that such licensees are required to remain in compliance with the LPPA's eligibility requirements for the term of their Class A license. We propose to implement these provisions as discussed below.

35. As discussed above, we propose to require that converting stations comply with the Commission's operating rules for full power stations. We invite comment on this proposal.

36. Next, we propose to require that these converting stations remain in compliance with eligibility requirements set forth above. As described in section III.B.2. above, such stations must continue, during the term of the Class A license, to: (1) broadcast a minimum of 18 hours of programming per day, and (2) broadcast an average of at least 3 hours per week of “locally produced programming,” as defined above. In addition, the station must continue to comply with the interference requirements adopted in this proceeding. We invite comment on this proposal.

37. Finally, we believe that in order to fulfill the continuing compliance mandate, stations that convert to Class A status must continue to operate in DMAs with not more than 95,000 television households in order to maintain their Class A status. We invite comment on this proposed interpretation. Also, under our proposal, a station that converted to Class A pursuant to the LPPA would no longer be eligible to retain Class A status if the population in its DMA later grows to more than 95,000 television households and propose to consider compliance with this element during the license renewal process. We seek comment on this proposal. What if Nielsen or another equivalent entity were to merge a qualifying DMA into another DMA such that the combined DMA has more than 95,000 television households? How likely is this to occur? Should a station affected by a decision of Nielsen to combine DMAs for purposes of the station's Class A eligibility under these proposed rules be allowed to file a complaint with the FCC and if so what procedure should be implemented to consider such challenges? What if the boundaries of a DMA are changed such that the number of TV households in the DMA increases to a number above the 95,000 TV household threshold under the LPPA? Should our interpretation of the LPPA DMA requirement depend on whether the station itself initiates a move to a non-qualifying DMA, or whether the change is beyond the station's control?

38. Applications for Class A Status. We propose to evaluate Class A status to eligible LPTV stations as a modification of the station's existing license. We propose that, for purposes of the LPPA, Class A applications be limited to the conversion of existing facilities as they exist at the time of application, without consideration of modifications to those facilities. We tentatively conclude that this approach is consistent with the limited opportunity intended by the LPPA. It will also allow expeditious consideration of all applications, and will eliminate delays that could arise from the possibility of mutual exclusivity between a Class A conversion application and other licensed full power or Class A facilities, were we to entertain license modifications during the application window. A licensed LPTV station holding a construction permit to modify its facilities will either need to license those permitted facilities before applying to convert to Class A status, or may apply for a modification after the Commission has processed the applications from the window. We invite comment on this approach.

39. When implementing the CBPA, the Commission required stations applying for Class A status to provide local public notice of applications for Class A statues “since the nature of the underlying service is changing from secondary to primary service.” We tentatively conclude for the same reason that local public notice of applications pursuant to the LPPA should also be required. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.

40. Application Form. We propose that an application for modification of the LPTV station's existing license to convert to Class A status be filed using FCC Form 2100, Schedule F. We propose to require that such applications be filed electronically. Effective March 2, 2023, the filing fee for an application to convert to Class A designation is $425. We invite comment on these matters.

41. The LPPA provides that it may not affect the Commission's work related to the Broadcast Incentive Auction. In 2012, Congress passed the Spectrum Act that authorized the Commission to reorganize the ultra-high frequency (UHF) band using a two-sided incentive auction that reallocated broadcast television spectrum for mobile broadband services. The post-incentive auction transition period ended on July 13, 2020, by which time full power and Class A television stations that were reassigned to new channels were required to vacate their pre-auction channels. Although LPTV stations were not eligible to participate in the incentive auction, some LPTV stations were displaced as a result of the reorganization of broadcast spectrum, and the Commission held a special displacement window to allow such LPTV stations to request construction permits for new channels in the smaller broadcast television band. The Spectrum Act also requires the Commission to reimburse full power and Class A broadcast television licensees for costs reasonably incurred in relocating to new channels assigned in the repacking process. In 2018, Congress adopted the Reimbursement Expansion Act (REA), directing the Commission also to reimburse costs reasonably incurred by a eligible LPTV stations consistent with authorizations awarded in the special displacement window. Reimbursement of eligible relocation expenses is ongoing.

42. Given that the transition and reimbursement programs have established rules and procedures and that substantial progress has been made toward completion of the reimbursement process, we tentatively conclude that nothing in the LPPA or in implementation of the LPPA with a change in a station's status from LPTV to Class A, or in the proposals herein, can or will affect the Commission's work related to the Broadcast Incentive Auction. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.

43. Finally, the Commission, as part of its continuing effort to advance digital equity for all, including people of color, persons with disabilities, persons who live in rural or Tribal areas, and others who are or have been historically underserved, marginalized, or adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality, invites comment on any equity-related considerations and benefits (if any) that may be associated with the proposals and issues discussed herein. Specifically, we seek comment on how our proposals may promote or inhibit advances in diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility, as well the scope of the Commission's relevant legal authority.

44. Ex Parte Rules—Permit-But-Disclose. The proceeding this NPRM initiates shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. 1 Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda, or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format ( e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

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

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

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

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

49. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.

50. U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.

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

52. During the time the Commission's building is closed to the general public and until further notice, if more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of a proceeding, paper filers need not submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number; an original and one copy are sufficient.

53. Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires that an agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice and comment rulemakings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” Accordingly, we have prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning the possible impact of potential rule and/or policy changes contained in this NPRM on small entities. The IRFA is set forth in Appendix B.

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

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

56. Additional Information. For additional information on this proceeding, contact Kim Matthews, Kim.Matthews@fcc.gov, of the Policy Division, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2154, or Joyce Bernstein, Joyce.Bernstein@fcc.gov, of the Video Division, Media Bureau, (202) 418-1647.

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning the possible significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( NPRM ). Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments provided on the first page of the NPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register .

The Commission initiates this rulemaking proceeding to implement the Low Power Protection Act (LPPA or Act), as enacted on January 5, 2023. The LPPA provides certain low power television (LPTV) stations with a “limited window of opportunity” to apply for primary spectrum use status as Class A television stations. The NPRM also seeks comment on how to implement the window consistent with Congressional direction.

We tentatively conclude that the application window will be limited to the one year application window contemplated by the Act, and that an application filed for Class A status must demonstrate that the LPTV station operated in a Designated Market Area (DMA) with not more than 95,000 television households on January 5, 2023. We also tentatively conclude that LPTV stations that convert to Class A status under the LPPA must comply with the interference protection standards set forth in § 336(f)(7) of the Communications Act of 1934, with the exception of those provisions that are now obsolete given the transition of all television stations from analog to digital operations. We propose to apply the Commission's recently updated definition of an LPTV station for purposes of determining which stations are eligible for Class A status under the LPPA and to codify in our rules the eligibility criteria set forth in the LPPA. We also propose to implement provisions of the LPPA which provide that licenses issued to stations that convert to Class A status are subject to full power television station license terms and renewal standards, with certain exceptions, and that such licensees are required to remain in compliance with the LPPA's eligibility requirements for the term of their Class A license. We propose to evaluate Class A status to eligible LPTV stations as a modification of the station's existing license. We seek comment on our tentative conclusion that nothing in the LPPA, or in the proposals in the NPRM, affects the Commission's work related to the Broadcast Incentive Auction. Lastly, we seek comment on how our proposals may promote or inhibit advances in diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility, as well the scope of the Commission's relevant legal authority.

The proposed action is authorized pursuant to §§ 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 303, 307, 309, 311, and 336(f) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 303, 307, 309, 311, 336(f) and the Low Power Protection Act, Pub. L. 117-344, 136 Stat. 6193 (2023).

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

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

As of December 31, 2022, there were 1,375 licensed commercial television stations. Of this total, 1,282 stations (or 93.2%) had revenues of $41.5 million or less in 2021, according to Commission staff review of the BIAKelsey Media Access Pro Online Television Database (MAPro) on January 13, 2023, and therefore these licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. In addition, the Commission estimates as of December 31, 2022, there were 383 licensed noncommercial educational (NCE) television stations, 383 Class A TV stations, 1,912 LPTV stations, and 3,122 TV translator stations. The Commission, however, does not compile and otherwise does not have access to financial information for these television broadcast stations that would permit it to determine how many of these stations qualify as small entities under the SBA small business size standard. Nevertheless, given the SBA's large annual receipts threshold for this industry and the nature of these television station licensees, we presume that all of these entities qualify as small entities under the above SBA small business size standard.

In this section, we identify the reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements proposed in the NPRM and consider whether small entities are affected disproportionately by any such requirements. In assessing the cost of compliance for small entities, at this time the Commission cannot quantify the cost of compliance with the proposed rules that may be adopted. Further, the Commission is not in a position to determine whether, if adopted, the proposals and matters upon which we seek comment in the NPRM will require small entities to hire professionals to comply. We expect the information we receive in comments, including cost information where requested, to help the Commission identify and evaluate relevant compliance matters for small entities, including compliance costs and other burdens that may result from potential changes discussed in the NPRM.

The LPPA requires that, to be eligible for Class A status, during the 90 days preceding the date of enactment of the LPPA an LPTV station must have broadcast a minimum of 18 hours/day and an average of at least 3 hours per week of programming produced within the “market area” served by the station and have been in compliance with the Commission's requirements for LPTV stations. We propose to require that small and other applicants seeking to convert to Class A status under the LPPA be required to certify in their application for Class A status that they have complied with these eligibility requirements during the 90 days preceding the January 5, 2023 enactment of the statute. We also propose to require applicants to provide documentation as part of their application supporting their certifications, and we propose that the Commission staff could also request additional documentation if necessary during consideration of the application.

Beginning on the date of its application for a Class A license and thereafter, a station “must be in compliance with the Commission's operating rules for full-power stations.” We propose to apply to small and other applicants for Class A status under the LPPA, and to stations that are awarded Class A licenses under that statute, all part 73 regulations except for those that cannot apply for technical or other reasons. For example, Class A stations must comply with the requirements for informational and educational children's programming, the political programming and political file rules, and the public inspection file rule. The NPRM invites comment on this proposed approach.

The LPPA requires that a station that converts to Class A status pursuant to the statute continue to meet the eligibility requirements of the LPPA during the term of the station's Class A license. To be eligible under the LPPA, in addition to other eligibility requirements, section 2(c)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act requires an LPTV station must “as of the date of enactment” of the LPPA operate in a DMA with not more than 95,000 television households. Section 2(c)(3)(B) of the Act, however, requires that stations that convert to Class A status under the LPPA “remain in compliance” with paragraph (2)(B) “during the term of the license.” We propose to interpret section 2(c)(3)(B) to require that stations that convert to Class A status, including small entities, remain in DMAs with not more than 95,000 television households in order to maintain their Class A status, and invite comment on this proposed interpretation. In addition, licensed Class A stations must also continue to meet the minimum operating requirements for Class A status. Licensees unable to continue to meet the minimum operating requirements for Class A television stations, or that elect to revert to low power television status, must promptly notify the Commission, in writing, and request a change in status. The NPRM also proposes that stations that convert to Class A status pursuant to the LPPA comply with all rules applicable to existing Class A stations, including interference requirements.

The NPRM proposes to require small and other stations seeking to convert to Class A designation pursuant to the LPPA to submit an application to the Commission within one year of the effective date of the rules adopted in this proceeding. The NPRM invites comment on whether the Commission should continue to accept applications to convert to Class A status under the LPPA beyond the one-year application period set forth in the statute and/or allow deviation from the strict statutory eligibility criteria under the statute.

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

The NPRM seeks comment generally on its proposals implementing the LPPA's statutory mandates. In one area that may have a significant impact on small entities, the LPPA gives the Commission discretion to determine that “the public interest, convenience, and necessity would be served” by treating a station as a qualifying LPTV station, or that a station should be considered to qualify for such status “for other reasons determined by the Commission.” In light of this discretion, the NPRM invites comment on whether the Commission should continue to accept applications to convert to Class A status under the LPPA beyond the one-year application period set forth in the statute and/or allow deviation from the strict statutory eligibility criteria set forth in the statute, particularly when potential applicants are not able to file in a timely manner based on circumstances beyond their control. The NPRM also considers whether the Commission should require small and other applicants to submit specific documents to support certification or whether we should give stations more latitude with respect to the types of documentation they submit with their application. Providing this flexibility may reduce the economic burden for small entities. Another action we take in the NPRM which could reduce the economic impact for small entities is to seek comment on whether the Commission should deviate from our strict statutory eligibility criteria for small and other applicants where deviations of insignificant or compelling circumstance such as equity require a deviation. In determining how an applicant will demonstrate whether they operate within a DMA required by the LPPA, we seek comment on whether we should use the Nielsen Local TV Station Information Report (Local TV Report) or consider requests to use other reputable alternative data sources to make this determination. In the NPRM, we also invite comment on the all the proposed approaches and on any alternatives, which will provide the Commission additional information on possible steps that can be taken to minimize any significant impact on small entities.

None.

57. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority found in §§ 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 303, 307, 309, 311, and 336(f) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 303, 307, 309, 311, 336(f), and the Low Power Protection Act, Pub. L. 117-344, 136 Stat. 6193 (2023), this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.

58. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and Government Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 to read as follows:

In the Federal Register of December 15, 2021, (86 FR 71216), the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) announced a proposed rule to implement USAID requirements for managing digital information data as a strategic asset to inform the planning, design, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of the Agency's foreign assistance programs (2021 Digital Information NPRM). Among other changes, the 2021 Digital Information NPRM proposed adding a new section to the USAID Acquisition Regulations (AIDAR) at 48 CFR part 752 (proposed AIDAR 752.227-7x, Planning, Collection, and Submission of Digital Information to USAID). Proposed paragraph (h) refers to “USAID Digital Information Technical Guidelines” (proposed AIDAR 752.227-7x(h)) which USAID proposed to publish at data.usaid.gov/guidelines. The comment period for the 2021 Digital Information NPRM closed on February 14, 2022. During the comment period, several commenters requested access to these guidelines. In a forthcoming Final Rule for RIN 0412-AA90, USAID will revise the proposed text of AIDAR 752.227-7x(h)to refer to “USAID Digital Information Technical Standards” and direct the public to the following website: “ data.usaid.gov/standards”. Therefore, USAID will use the term “standards” in this document. Through this document, USAID is making the full text of the “USAID Digital Information Technical Standards” available in the docket.

USAID is soliciting public comments on these standards, including the proposed text of AIDAR 752.227-7x(h) (86 FR at 71224) that refers to these standards. Comments received as a result of this document will be addressed as part of the forthcoming Final Rule package. The finalized standards will be published as prescribed in the Final Rule. USAID anticipates that future revisions to these standards will be published in the Federal Register . USAID expects contractors to comply with the version in effect on the date of the award. Historical versions of the standards will also be available on the website cited in the AIDAR.

As outlined above, USAID is announcing the availability of the following Digital Collection and Submission Standards:

USAID's Digital Collection and Submission Standards are a compendium of standards for USAID staff and contractors to use in support of USAID programs and operations. The standards in Section A are required. Section B contains recommended standards that represent industry best practices.

(a) File Format Standards

(b) Subject Area Standards

USAID recommends the following standards that have not been formally adopted as a requirement by the Agency but encouraged and recommended for use to improve the management, quality, and usefulness of the data. USAID recommends the use of the following standards when appropriate and practicable:

(a) Code, Algorithm, and Analytical Files

(b) GS1 Standards —USAID-funded programs beyond Global Health are strongly recommended to adopt GS1 Standards for the supply chain to facilitate product identification, location identification, and product master data of Agency-funded commodities. Additional guidance for implementation of GS1 Standards can be found here.

(c) Statistical Data and Metadata eXchange (SDMX) for statistical data

(d) CGIAR Ontologies for crop and agronomy ontology

(e) FHIR for healthcare data exchange

(f) ISO 8601 for Date, Time, and Time Zone

(g) Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) Standards for geospatial data. The Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) is an international consortium of more than 500 businesses, government agencies, research organizations, and universities driven to make geospatial (location) information and services FAIR—Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable.

(h) International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI)

(i) FAIR Data Principles —To the extent possible, USAID-funded data and metadata must align with data principles which are Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable.

(j) Metadata Creation Tools:

(1) USGS TKME —A Windows platform tool for creating FGDC-CSDGM which can be configured for Biological Data Profile and other extensions. The software program is closely aligned with the Metadata Parser, and can be configured for French and Spanish.

(2) mdEditor —Create ISO and FGDC-CSDGM metadata with this web-based tool.

(3) Data dictionary conversion service —Convert a data dictionary table to/from metadata format ( instructions ).

(4) USDA Metavist —A desktop metadata editor for creating FGDC-CSDGM for geospatial metadata. Includes the Biological Data Profile (version 1.6). Produced and maintained by the USDA Forest Service. Download the USGS Alaska Science Center (ASC) Metavist User Guide [PDF] to learn more about the tool and ASC best practices for authors.

(5) Microsoft XML Notepad —A simple intuitive user interface for browsing and editing XML files. Does not automatically produce FGDC-CSDGM records but allows easy editing and validation of existing metadata records. See Advanced Users to learn how to configure this tool.

On June 9, 2010, DHS proposed to amend the HSAR, 48 CFR parts 3015, 3016, and 3052, to propose regulations to implement Public Law 109-295, Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act (PKERMA), title VI, section 692, Limitations on Tiering of Subcontractors. Subsequently, title VIII, section 866 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 resulted in Government-wide changes to the Federal Acquisition Regulation to prevent excessive subcontracting, making section 692 unnecessary. Subsequently Congress repealed section 692 in Public Law 117-253 (December 20, 2022). Thus, DHS is withdrawing this proposed rule and will not take any further action on this proposal.

The Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (Halibut Act), 16 U.S.C. 773-773k, gives the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) general responsibility for implementing the provisions of the Convention between Canada and the United States for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the North Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea (Halibut Convention), signed at Ottawa, Ontario, on March 2, 1953, as amended by a Protocol Amending the Convention (signed at Washington, DC, on March 29, 1979). The Halibut Act requires that the Secretary shall adopt regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes and objectives of the Halibut Convention and Halibut Act. 16 U.S.C. 773c. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), on behalf of the IPHC, publishes annual management measures governing the Pacific halibut fishery that have been recommended by the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) and accepted by the Secretary of State, with concurrence from the Secretary of Commerce. These management measures include coastwide and area-specific mortality limits (also known as allocations and subarea allocations), coastwide season dates, gear restrictions, Pacific halibut size limits for retention, and logbook requirements, among others. The IPHC apportions allocations for the Pacific halibut fishery among regulatory areas: Area 2A (Washington, Oregon, and California), Area 2B (British Columbia), Area 2C (Southeast Alaska), Area 3A (Central Gulf of Alaska), Area 3B (Western Gulf of Alaska), and Area 4 (subdivided into 5 areas, 4A through 4E, in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands of Western Alaska).

Additionally, as provided in the Halibut Act, the Regional Fishery Management Councils having authority for the geographic area concerned may develop, and the Secretary of Commerce may implement, regulations governing harvesting privileges among U.S. fishermen in U.S. waters that are in addition to, and not in conflict with, approved IPHC regulations (16 U.S.C. 773c(c)). The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) has exercised this authority by developing a catch sharing plan guiding the allocation of halibut across the various sectors and management of fisheries for the IPHC's regulatory Area 2A. At its annual meeting held January 22-27, 2023, the IPHC adopted an Area 2A fishery constant exploitation yield (FCEY) of 1.52 million pounds (689.46 mt) of Pacific halibut. NMFS published this catch limit and fishery allocations in the Federal Register on March 7, 2023 (88 FR 14066) after acceptance by the Secretary of State, with concurrence from the Secretary of Commerce, in accordance with 50 CFR 300.62. The FCEY was derived from the total constant exploitation yield (TCEY) of 1.65 million pounds for Area 2A, which includes commercial discards and bycatch estimates calculated using a formula developed by the IPHC. Based on this FCEY for Area 2A and the allocation framework in the Council's catch sharing plan, the IPHC also adopted a non-tribal directed commercial fishing allocation of 257,819 pounds (116.94 mt).

In previous years, the IPHC also issued commercial fishing licenses and promulgated annual management measures that established fishing periods and fishing period catch limits for the non-tribal directed commercial fishery that operates in Area 2A south of Point Chehalis, WA (46°53.30′ N lat.). Fishing period limits were assigned by vessel size class based on the number of permits issued, the allocation, and prior year participation. Between 2017 and 2020, NMFS, the IPHC, and the Council discussed transitioning specific management activities of the Area 2A fishery from IPHC to NMFS as NMFS and the Council were seen as being able to better address the overlap of Pacific halibut management with domestic fisheries ( e.g., groundfish and salmon).

Effective January 4, 2023, NMFS published a final rule that transitioned the Area 2A directed commercial fishery permitting and management activities from the IPHC to NMFS (87 FR 74322; December 5, 2022). The rule established the regulatory framework by which NMFS is proposing the following 2023 management measures for the directed commercial fishery.

Fishing periods are the time during the annual halibut season when fishing for Pacific halibut is allowed, and may span multiple days. At its November 2022 meeting, the Council discussed the 2023 directed commercial season structure and recommended that NMFS establish fishing periods consistent with their recent years' recommendations to the IPHC; specifically, that the directed commercial fishing season operate as a series of 3-day openings, beginning at 8:00 a.m. on the fourth Tuesday in June, and ending at 6:00 p.m. on Thursday of that week. Based on this recommendation, NMFS is proposing to open the 2023 directed commercial fishery for 58 hours, beginning on June 27 at 8:00 a.m. and closing on June 29 at 6:00 p.m. The second fishery opening would occur 2 weeks later, beginning on July 11 at 8:00 a.m. and closing on July 13 at 6:00 p.m. Following these two fishing periods, if the fishery has not attained nor is projected to have attained the directed commercial allocation, NMFS may determine that subsequent fishing period(s) are necessary to attain the allocation. Any additional fishing period(s) and applicable fishing period limits will be announced in the Federal Register through inseason action.

A fishing period limit, or vessel limit, is the maximum amount of Pacific halibut that may be retained and landed by a vessel during one fishing period. Each vessel may retain no more than the current fishing period limit of Pacific halibut for its vessel class, which is determined by vessel length. NMFS is proposing directed commercial fishing period limits based on the allocation for the directed commercial fishery in Area 2A and the number of permits issued by vessel size class, which is similar to the criteria the IPHC used to set fishing periods and fishing period limits. Vessel limits are proposed by vessel size class based on the number and sizes of the vessels for which permits were issued, as well as historical participation, and are intended to ensure that the Area 2A directed commercial fishery does not exceed the directed commercial allocation, while also providing fair and equitable access across participants to an attainable amount of harvest. The 2023 Pacific halibut directed commercial fishery permit application deadline was February 14, 2023. NMFS received 154 applications across eight vessel size classes (A-H). If NMFS determines fishing period(s) in addition to those proposed in this rule is warranted, NMFS will set the fishing period limits equal across all vessel classes. If NMFS determines that the directed commercial fishery has attained its annual allocation or is projected to attain its allocation if additional fishing was to be allowed, the Regional Administrator will take action to close the fishery.

The Area 2A non-tribal directed commercial fishery south of Point Chehalis, WA (46°53.30′ N lat.) would open on June 27 at 8:00 a.m. and close on June 29 at 6:00 p.m. and would open July 11 at 8:00 a.m. and close on July 13 at 6:00 p.m. The fishery may be adjusted inseason consistent with 50 CFR 300.63.

Regulations governing the U.S. fisheries for Pacific halibut are developed by the IPHC, the Council, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, and the Secretary of Commerce. Section 5 of the Halibut Act (16 U.S.C. 773c(c)) allows the Regional Council, having authority for a particular geographical area, to develop regulations governing the allocation and catch of halibut in U.S. Convention waters as long as those regulations do not conflict with IPHC regulations.

This action is exempt from review under E.O. 12866.

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, for the following reasons.

For Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 114111) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $25 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. The entities that would be affected by the proposed action are those vessels that harvest Pacific halibut as part of the non-tribal directed commercial fishery and are all considered small businesses under the above size standards.

This proposed rule, if adopted, would establish the 2023 Area 2A non-tribal directed commercial fishery management measures; specifically, the fishing periods and fishing period limits.

There are no large entities involved in the halibut fisheries off the West Coast. In 2022, the IPHC issued 202 licenses to the commercial fishing fleet for the Area 2A non-tribal directed commercial fishery. Of those 202 vessels that obtained licenses, 39 percent (78 vessels) participated in the fishery. NMFS expects that a similar proportion of vessels will participate in the fishery this year and may be affected by these regulations. Cost data for the harvesting operations of non-tribal commercial halibut vessels is limited or unavailable. However, for 2022, the non-tribal directed allocation was 252,730 pounds (114.6 mt), of which approximately 250,674 pounds (113.7 mt) of halibut were harvested with an estimated ex-vessel value of approximately $1.68 million. Therefore, NMFS considers all vessels affected by this action to be small entities.

Since this action will only impact commercial fishing vessels, which in the Pacific halibut fishery are small entities, none of these changes will have a disproportionately negative effect on small entities versus large entities. Because each affected vessel is a small business, this proposed rule is considered to equally affect all of these small entities in the same manner. Therefore, this rule, if adopted, would not create disproportionate costs between small and large vessels/businesses.

The major effect of halibut management on small entities will be from the Area 2A allocation decided by the IPHC; a decision independent from this proposed action. This action proposes fishing periods and fishing period limits for the 2023 non-tribal directed commercial fishery consistent with recommendations from the Council to provide commercial harvest opportunities under the allocations that result from the Area 2A catch limit determined by the IPHC. NMFS is proposing specifications that were established by the IPHC in previous years; any differences between the IPHC's management measures and those NMFS is proposing are considered minor, with minimal economic effects. Profitability is largely based on the Area 2A allocation decided by the IPHC, with subarea allocations determined based on the allocation formulae in the Council's catch sharing plan. Therefore, the proposed rule, if adopted, is unlikely to affect the profitability of the commercial fishery.

The Area 2A non-tribal directed commercial fishery allocation for 2023 is 257,819 pounds (116.94 mt) for 2023, which is 2 percent higher than in 2022. This proposed rule, if adopted, is unlikely to affect overall participation in the directed commercial fishery since this action maintains an allocation similar to previous years. Since profitability is dependent on the amount of allocation available and market forces independent of this action, it is highly unlikely that this allocation would limit the fleet's potential profitability from catching halibut compared to last season or recent catch levels. Accordingly, vessel income from fishing is not expected to be altered as a result of this rule as it compares to recent catches in the fishery, including under the previous season's regulations.

Based on the disproportionality and profitability analysis above, the proposed action, if adopted, will not have adverse or disproportional economic impact on these small business entities. As a result, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required, and none has been prepared.

This action does not contain a collection-of-information requirement for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. There are no relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed action.