Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 71487 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian Tribes. 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or Tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or 

more in any one year. Though this rule 

will not result in such an expenditure, 

we do discuss the effects of this rule 

elsewhere in this preamble. 

F. Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Directive 023–01, Rev. 1, associated 

implementing instructions, and 

Environmental Planning COMDTINST 

5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have 

determined that this action is one of a 

category of actions that do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. This rule involves a safety 

zone lasting two hours that will prohibit 

entry within 100 yards of boom, vessels 

and equipment being used by personnel 

to conduct a boom deployment exercise. 

It is categorically excluded from further 

review under paragraph L60(a) of 

Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction 

Manual 023–01–001–01, Rev. 1. A 

Record of Environmental Consideration 

supporting this determination is 

available in the docket. For instructions 

on locating the docket, see the 

ADDRESSES section of this preamble. 

G. Protest Activities 

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. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing 

to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3. 

■ 2. Add § 165.T11–132 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T11–132 Safety Zone; Mission Bay, 

San Diego, CA. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

safety zone: All waters from surface to 

bottom encompassing a 100-yard radius 

surrounding the Sensitive Site Strategy 

Evaluation Program (SSSEP) boom 

deployment exercise, located at the 

entrance to Quivira Basin inlet in 

Mission Bay, CA. 

(b) Definitions. As used in this 

section, designated representative 

means a Coast Guard Patrol 

Commander, including a Coast Guard 

coxswain, petty officer, or other officer 

operating a Coast Guard vessel and a 

Federal, State, and local officer 

designated by or assisting the Captain of 

the Port Sector San Diego (COTP) in the 

enforcement of the safety zone. 

(c) Regulations. (1) Under the general 

safety zone regulations in subpart C of 

this part, you may not enter the safety 

zone described in paragraph (a) of this 

section unless authorized by the COTP 

or the COTP’s designated representative. 

(2) To seek permission to enter, 

contact the COTP or the COTP’s 

representative by VHF Channel 16. 

Those in the safety zone must comply 

with all lawful orders or directions 

given to them by the COTP or the 

COTP’s designated representative. 

(d) Information broadcasts. The COTP 

or a designated representative will 

inform the public through Broadcast 

Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local 

Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and/or 

Marine Safety Information Bulletins 

(MSIBs) as appropriate of the 

enforcement times and dates for the 

safety zone. 

(d) Enforcement period. This section 

will be enforced from 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 

a.m. on October 25, 2023. 

Dated: October 10, 2023. 

J.W. Spitler, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Sector San Diego. 

[FR Doc. 2023–22883 Filed 10–16–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2023–0089; FRL–10213– 

02–R3] 

Air Plan Approval; Virginia; 1997 8- 

Hour Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard Second Maintenance 

Plan for the Hampton Roads Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving a state 

implementation plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the Commonwealth of 

Virginia (Commonwealth or Virginia). 

This revision pertains to the 

Commonwealth’s plan, submitted by the 

Virginia Department of Environmental 

Quality (VADEQ), for maintaining the 

1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS) (referred to 

as the ‘‘1997 ozone NAAQS’’) in the 

Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News 

(Hampton Roads), VA Area (Hampton 

Roads Area). EPA is approving this 

revision to the Virginia SIP in 

accordance with the requirements of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

November 16, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2023–0089. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov website. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., confidential business information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available through www.regulations.gov, 

or please contact the person identified 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section for additional 

availability information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Om 

P. Devkota, Planning & Implementation 

Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region III, Four Penn Center, 

1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The 

telephone number is (215) 814–2172. 

Mr. Devkota can also be reached via 

electronic mail at devkota.om@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
71488 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

1 882 F.3d 1138 (D.C. Cir. 2018). 

2 ‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests to 

Redesignate Areas to Attainment,’’ Memorandum 

from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 

Management Division, September 4, 1992 (Calcagni 

Memo). 

3The ozone design value for a monitoring site is 

the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily 

maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations. 

The design value for an ozone nonattainment area 

is the highest design value of any monitoring site 

in the area. www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-qualitydesign-values. 

I. Background 

On August 22, 2023 (88 FR 57020), 

EPA published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) for the 

Commonwealth of Virginia. In the 

NPRM, EPA proposed approval of 

Virginia’s plan for maintaining the 1997 

ozone NAAQS in the Hampton Roads 

Area through December 31, 2032, in 

accordance with CAA section 175A. The 

formal SIP revision was submitted by 

Virginia on September 9, 2022. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA 

Analysis 

On June 1, 2007 (72 FR 30490), EPA 

approved a redesignation request (and 

maintenance plan) from VADEQ for the 

Hampton Roads Area for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS. In accordance with CAA 

section 175A(b), at the end of the eighth 

year after the effective date of the 

redesignation, the state must also 

submit a second maintenance plan to 

ensure ongoing maintenance of the 

standard for an additional 10 years, and 

in South Coast Air Quality Management 

District v. EPA,1 the District of 

Columbia (D.C.) Circuit held that this 

requirement cannot be waived for areas, 

like the Hampton Roads Area, that had 

been redesignated to attainment for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS prior to 

revocation and that were designated 

attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

CAA section 175A sets forth the criteria 

for adequate maintenance plans. In 

addition, EPA has published 

longstanding guidance that provides 

further insight on the content of an 

approvable maintenance plan, 

explaining that a maintenance plan 

should address five elements: (1) an 

attainment emissions inventory; (2) a 

maintenance demonstration; (3) a 

commitment for continued air quality 

monitoring; (4) a process for verification 

of continued attainment; and (5) a 

contingency plan.2 VADEQ’s September 

9, 2022 submittal fulfills Virginia’s 

obligation to submit a second 

maintenance plan and addresses each of 

the five necessary elements, as 

explained in the NPRM. 

As discussed in the August 22, 2023 

(88 FR 57020) NPRM, EPA allows the 

submittal of a limited maintenance plan 

(LMP) to meet the statutory requirement 

that the area will maintain for the 

statutory period. Qualifying areas may 

meet the maintenance demonstration by 

showing that the area’s design value 3 is 

well below the NAAQS and that the 

historical stability of the area’s air 

quality levels indicates that the area is 

unlikely to violate the NAAQS in the 

future. EPA evaluated VADEQ’s 

September 9, 2022 submittal for 

consistency with all applicable EPA 

guidance and CAA requirements. EPA 

found that the submittal met CAA 

section 175A and all CAA requirements, 

and proposed approval of the LMP for 

the Hampton Roads Area as a revision 

to the Virginia SIP. 

Other specific requirements of 

Virginia’s September 9, 2022 submittal 

and the rationale for EPA’s proposed 

action are explained in the NPRM and 

will not be restated here. EPA received 

two supportive comments for this 

action, which can be found at Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2023–0089. 

III. Final Action 

EPA is approving VADEQ’s second 

maintenance plan for the Hampton 

Roads Area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS 

as a revision to the Virginia SIP. 

IV. General Information Pertaining to 

SIP Submittals From the 

Commonwealth of Virginia 

In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation 

that provides, subject to certain 

conditions, for an environmental 

assessment (audit) ‘‘privilege’’ for 

voluntary compliance evaluations 

performed by a regulated entity. The 

legislation further addresses the relative 

burden of proof for parties either 

asserting the privilege or seeking 

disclosure of documents for which the 

privilege is claimed. Virginia’s 

legislation also provides, subject to 

certain conditions, for a penalty waiver 

for violations of environmental laws 

when a regulated entity discovers such 

violations pursuant to a voluntary 

compliance evaluation and voluntarily 

discloses such violations to the 

Commonwealth and takes prompt and 

appropriate measures to remedy the 

violations. Virginia’s Voluntary 

Environmental Assessment Privilege 

Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, provides 

a privilege that protects from disclosure 

documents and information about the 

content of those documents that are the 

product of a voluntary environmental 

assessment. The Privilege Law does not 

extend to documents or information 

that: (1) are generated or developed 

before the commencement of a 

voluntary environmental assessment; (2) 

are prepared independently of the 

assessment process; (3) demonstrate a 

clear, imminent and substantial danger 

to the public health or environment; or 

(4) are required by law. 

On January 12, 1998, the 

Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the 

Attorney General provided a legal 

opinion that states that the Privilege 

law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, precludes 

granting a privilege to documents and 

information ‘‘required by law,’’ 

including documents and information 

‘‘required by Federal law to maintain 

program delegation, authorization or 

approval,’’ since Virginia must ‘‘enforce 

Federally authorized environmental 

programs in a manner that is no less 

stringent than their Federal counterparts 

. . . .’’ The opinion concludes that 

‘‘[r]egarding § 10.1–1198, therefore, 

documents or other information needed 

for civil or criminal enforcement under 

one of these programs could not be 

privileged because such documents and 

information are essential to pursuing 

enforcement in a manner required by 

Federal law to maintain program 

delegation, authorization or approval.’’ 

Virginia’s Immunity law, Va. Code 

Sec. 10.1–1199, provides that ‘‘[t]o the 

extent consistent with requirements 

imposed by Federal law,’’ any person 

making a voluntary disclosure of 

information to a state agency regarding 

a violation of an environmental statute, 

regulation, permit, or administrative 

order is granted immunity from 

administrative or civil penalty. The 

Attorney General’s January 12, 1998 

opinion states that the quoted language 

renders this statute inapplicable to 

enforcement of any federally authorized 

programs, since ‘‘no immunity could be 

afforded from administrative, civil, or 

criminal penalties because granting 

such immunity would not be consistent 

with Federal law, which is one of the 

criteria for immunity.’’ 

Therefore, EPA has determined that 

Virginia’s Privilege and Immunity 

statutes will not preclude the 

Commonwealth from enforcing its 

program consistent with the Federal 

requirements. In any event, because 

EPA has also determined that a state 

audit privilege and immunity law can 

affect only state enforcement and cannot 

have any impact on Federal 

enforcement authorities, EPA may at 

any time invoke its authority under the 

CAA, including, for example, sections 

113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the 

requirements or prohibitions of the state 

plan, independently of any state 

enforcement effort. In addition, citizen 

enforcement under section 304 of the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 71489 

CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or 

any, state audit privilege or immunity 

law. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (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; 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land as defined 

in 18 U.S.C. 1151 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, 

February 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.’’ 

VADEQ 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. 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by December 18, 2023. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action, 

approving VADEQ’s second 

maintenance plan for the Hampton 

Roads Area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, 

may not be challenged later in 

proceedings to enforce its requirements. 

(See section 307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Adam Ortiz, 

Regional Administrator, Region III. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 

52 as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart VV—Virginia 

■ 2. In § 52.2420, the table in paragraph 

(e)(1) is amended by adding an entry for 

‘‘1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard Second 

Maintenance Plan for the Hampton 

Roads Area’’ at the end of the table to 

read as follows: 

§ 52.2420 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) * * * 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
71490 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

Name of non-regulatory 

SIP revision 

Applicable geographic 

area 

State 

submittal date EPA approval date Additional explanation 

*******

1997 8-Hour Ozone 

National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard 

Second Maintenance 

Plan for the Hampton 

Roads Area.

Hampton Roads Area 

(Norfolk-Virginia 

Beach-Newport 

News area).

09/09/2022 10/17/2023, [INSERT 

Federal Register 

CITATION].

The Hampton Roads Area consists of the 

counties of Gloucester, Isle of Wight, James 

City, and York, and the cities of Chesapeake, Hampton, Newport News, Norfolk, 

Poquoson, Portsmouth, Suffolk, Virginia 

Beach, and Williamsburg. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2023–22741 Filed 10–16–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[MB Docket No. 23–244; RM–11955; DA 23– 

937; FR ID 178083] 

Television Broadcasting Services 

Knoxville, Tennessee 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission’s Media 

Bureau, Video Division (Bureau) issued 

a issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking in response to a Petition for 

Rulemaking filed by Tennessee TV, LLC 

(Petitioner), the licensee of television 

station WKNX–TV (WKNX–TV or 

Station), channel 7, Knoxville, 

Tennessee (Knoxville). The Petitioner 

has requested the substitution of UHF 

channel 21 for VHF channel 7 in the 

Table of TV Allotments. For the reasons 

set forth in the Report and Order 

referenced below, the Bureau amends 

FCC regulations to substitute channel 21 

for channel 7 at Knoxville. 

DATES: Effective October 17, 2023. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joyce Bernstein, Media Bureau, at (202) 

418–1647 or Joyce.Bernstein@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

proposed rule was published at 88 FR 

48784 on July 28, 2023. The Petitioner 

filed comments in support of the 

petition reaffirming its commitment to 

apply for channel 21. No other 

comments were filed. 

The Bureau believes the public 

interest would be served by substituting 

channel 21 for channel 7 at Knoxville, 

Tennessee. The Commission has 

recognized that VHF channels pose 

challenges for their use in providing 

digital television service, including 

propagation characteristics that allow 

undesired signals and noise to be 

receivable at relatively far distances and 

large variability in the performance of 

indoor antennas available to viewers, 

with most antennas performing very 

poorly on high VHF channels. In its 

Supplement, the Petitioner provided a 

technical analysis showing that while 

50,322 persons located along the 

eastern, southern, and western fringes of 

the Station’s authorized channel 7 NLSC 

would not be within the proposed 

channel 21 noise-limited service 

contour, the entire loss area was within 

the NLSC of at least five other full 

power or Class A television stations, 

including four other full power 

television stations licensed to Knoxville 

or a community in the Knoxville 

Designated Market Area. Although the 

Petitioner’s proposal would result in a 

number of persons no longer being 

within WKNX–TV’s NLSC when the 

station moves to channel 21, all of those 

persons will continue to be well served 

by at least five other full power or Class 

A stations, and we find that the overall 

benefits of the proposed channel change 

by resolving reception issues outweigh 

any possible harm to the public interest. 

This is a synopsis of the Commission’s 

Report and Order, MB Docket No. 23– 

244; RM–11955; DA 23–937, adopted 

October 6, 2023, and released October 6, 

2023. The full text of this document is 

available for download at https://

www.fcc.gov/edocs. To request materials 

in accessible formats for people with 

disabilities (braille, large print, 

electronic files, audio format), send an 

email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the 

Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202– 

418–0432 (tty). 

This document does not contain 

information collection requirements 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995, Public Law 104–13. In addition, 

therefore, it does not contain any 

proposed information collection burden 

‘‘for small business concerns with fewer 

than 25 employees,’’ pursuant to the 

Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 

2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4). Provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601– 

612, do not apply to this proceeding. 

The Commission will send a copy of 

this Report and Order in a report to be 

sent to Congress and the Government 

Accountability Office pursuant to the 

Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 

801(a)(1)(A). 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 

Television. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Thomas Horan, 

Chief of Staff, Media Bureau. 

Final Rule 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission amends 47 CFR part 73 as 

follows: 

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST 

SERVICE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 73 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 301, 303, 

307, 309, 310, 334, 336, 339. 

■ 2. In § 73.622, in paragraph (j), amend 

the Table of TV Allotments, under 

Tennessee, by revising the entry for 

Knoxville to read as follows: 

§ 73.622 Table of TV allotments. 

* * * * * 

(j) * * * 

Community Channel No. 

*****

Tennessee 

*****

Knoxville ........... 10, 15, 21, 26, * 29, 34 

*****

[FR Doc. 2023–22857 Filed 10–16–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1