Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 11951 

1Although the focus of this bulletin is UDAAPs, 

the Bureau notes that certain provisions of the Fair 

Debt Collection Practices Act and its implementing 

Regulation F may also apply to the repossession of 

automobiles. Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 

803(6), 15 U.S.C. 1692a(6); 12 CFR 1006.2(i)(1) 

(effective November 30, 2021). 

2 Dodd-Frank Act sections 1031, 1036, 12 U.S.C. 

5531, 5536. 

3See CFPB Exam Manual at UDAAP 5. 

4 12 U.S.C. 5531(d). 

5For convenience, this document generally refers 

to historical findings by ‘‘the Bureau’’ in both 

Supervision and Enforcement, even though in 

Supervisory matters the findings are made by the 

Bureau’s examiners rather than by the Bureau itself. 

6 In the Matter of Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp., 

2020–BCFP–0017 (Oct. 13, 2020). 

course of action that the Commission 

intends to follow. This rule of agency 

procedure does not constitute an agency 

regulation requiring notice of proposed 

rulemaking, opportunities for public 

participation, prior publication, and 

delay in effective date under 5 U.S.C. 

553 of the Administrative Procedure Act 

(‘‘APA’’). The provisions of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 

605(b), which apply when notice and 

comment are required by the APA or 

another statute, are not applicable. 

Dated: February 18, 2022. 

On behalf of the Commission, 

Allen J. Dickerson, 

Chairman, Federal Election Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2022–04358 Filed 3–2–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6715–01–P 

BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL 

PROTECTION 

12 CFR Chapter X 

Bulletin 2022–04: Mitigating Harm 

From Repossession of Automobiles 

AGENCY: Bureau of Consumer Financial 

Protection. 

ACTION: Compliance bulletin and policy 

guidance. 

SUMMARY: The Consumer Financial 

Protection Bureau (Bureau or CFPB) is 

issuing this Compliance Bulletin 

regarding repossession of vehicles, and 

the potential for violations of sections 

1031 and 1036 of the Dodd-Frank Wall 

Street Reform and Consumer Protection 

Act’s (Dodd-Frank Act’s) prohibition on 

engaging in unfair, deceptive, or abusive 

acts or practices (collectively, UDAAPs) 

when repossessing vehicles. 

DATES: This bulletin is applicable on 

March 3, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pax 

Tirrell, Counsel, Office of Supervision 

Policy at 202–435–7097; Tara Flynn, 

Senior Counsel for Enforcement Policy 

and Strategy, Office of Enforcement at 

202–435–9734. If you require this 

document in an alternative electronic 

format, please contact CFPB_

Accessibility@cfpb.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

In recent months, there has been 

extremely strong demand for used 

automobiles. Since the start of the 

COVID–19 pandemic, the average list 

price for used automobiles has 

continued to climb. While there are 

many factors contributing to high prices, 

the Consumer Financial Protection 

Bureau is concerned that these market 

conditions might create incentives for 

risky auto repossession practices, since 

repossessed automobiles can command 

these higher prices when resold. To 

mitigate harms from these risks, the 

Bureau is issuing this bulletin to remind 

market participants about certain legal 

obligations under Federal consumer 

financial laws. 

To secure an auto loan, lenders 

require borrowers to give creditors a 

security interest in the vehicle. If a 

borrower defaults, a creditor may 

exercise its contractual rights to 

repossess the secured vehicle. Servicers 

collect and process auto loan or lease 

payments from borrowers and are either 

creditors or act on behalf of creditors. 

Generally, servicers do not immediately 

repossess a vehicle upon default and 

instead attempt to contact consumers 

before repossession, usually by phone or 

mail. Servicers may give consumers in 

default the opportunity to avoid 

repossession by making additional 

payments or promises to pay. Servicers 

generally use service providers to 

conduct repossessions. 

While some repossessions are 

unavoidable, the Bureau pays particular 

attention to servicers’ repossession of 

automobiles. Loan holders and servicers 

are responsible for ensuring that their 

repossession-related practices, and the 

practices of their service providers, do 

not violate the law. The Bureau intends 

to hold loan holders and servicers 

accountable for UDAAPs related to the 

repossession of consumers’ vehicles.1

II. Unfair and Deceptive Acts or 

Practices in Supervision and 

Enforcement Matters 

This Bulletin summarizes the current 

law and highlights relevant examples of 

conduct observed during supervisory 

examinations or enforcement 

investigations that may violate Federal 

consumer financial law. 

Under the Dodd-Frank Act, all 

covered persons or service providers are 

prohibited from committing unfair, 

deceptive, or abusive acts or practices in 

violation of the Act. An act or practice 

is unfair when (i) it causes or is likely 

to cause substantial injury to 

consumers; (ii) the injury is not 

reasonably avoidable by consumers; and 

(iii) the injury is not outweighed by 

countervailing benefits to consumers or 

to competition.2

Whether an act or practice is 

deceptive is informed by decades of 

precedent involving Section 5 of the 

Federal Trade Commission Act.3

The Dodd-Frank Act prohibits two 

types of abusive practices. First, 

materially interfering with the ability of 

a consumer to understand a term or 

condition of a product or service is 

abusive. Second, taking unreasonable 

advantage of statutorily specified market 

imbalances is abusive. Those market 

imbalances include (1) a consumer’s 

lack of understanding of the material 

risks, costs or conditions of a product or 

service, (2) a consumer’s inability to 

protect their interests in selecting or 

using a product or service, or (3) a 

consumer’s reasonable reliance on a 

covered person to act in their interests.4

a. Unfair or Deceptive Practices During 

the Repossession Process 

In its Supervisory and Enforcement 

work, the Bureau has found the 

following conduct related to 

repossession of automobiles to be 

UDAAPs.5

Wrongful Repossession of Consumers’ 

Vehicles 

Many auto servicers provide options 

to borrowers to avoid repossession once 

a loan is delinquent or in default. 

Failure to prevent repossession after 

borrowers complete one of these 

options, where reasonably practicable 

given the timing of the borrowers’ 

action, may constitute an unfair act or 

practice. 

For example, in a public enforcement 

action, the Bureau found that an entity 

engaged in an unfair act or practice 

when it wrongfully repossessed 

consumers’ vehicles.6 The servicer told 

consumers it would not repossess 

vehicles when they were less than 60 

days past due. Additionally, the servicer 

maintained a policy and told consumers 

that it would not repossess vehicles of 

consumers who had entered into an 

agreement to extend the loan, or who 

had made a promise to make a payment 

on a specific date and that date had not 

passed or who successfully kept a 

promise to pay. Nevertheless, the 

servicer wrongfully repossessed 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
11952 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

7Supervisory Highlights, Issue 16—Summer 2017; 

Supervisory Highlights, Issue 17—Summer 2018. 

8Supervisory Highlights, Issue 24—Summer 2021. 

9 In re Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2018–BCFP–0001 

(Apr. 20, 2018). 

10See also Supervisory Highlights, Issue 24— 

Summer 2021. 

vehicles from hundreds of consumers 

who had: 

• Made and kept promises to pay that 

brought the account current; 

• Made payments that decreased the 

delinquency to less than 60 days past 

due; 

• Made promises to pay where the 

date had not passed; or 

• Agreed to extension agreements. 

Each of these actions taken by 

consumers should have prevented 

repossessions of their vehicles. The 

Bureau found the servicer’s wrongful 

repossessions constituted an unfair act 

or practice. They caused substantial 

injury by depriving borrowers of the use 

of their vehicles, and many consumers 

also experienced consequences such as 

missed work, expenses for alternative 

transportation, repossession-related 

fees, detrimental credit reporting, and 

vehicle damage during the repossession 

process. Such injury was not reasonably 

avoidable, and the injury was not 

outweighed by countervailing benefits 

to the consumer or to competition. 

Supervision has identified similar 

unfair practices in numerous 

examinations.7 Supervision observed 

that these violations frequently 

occurred, after consumers acted to 

prevent repossession, because of one of 

the following errors: 

• Servicers incorrectly coded 

consumers as delinquent; 

• Servicer representatives failed to 

cancel repossession orders that had 

previously been communicated to 

repossession agents; or 

• Repossession agents failed to 

confirm that the repossession order was 

still active prior to repossessing a 

vehicle. 

Other Practices Causing Wrongful 

Repossession 

Supervision has also identified other 

practices related to repossession that 

resulted in unfair acts or practices. For 

example, the Bankruptcy Code imposes 

an automatic stay that bars collection 

activity, including repossession, from 

the moment a consumer has filed a 

bankruptcy petition. Supervision found 

that when servicers received notice that 

consumers had filed bankruptcy 

petitions and their accounts were 

subject to an automatic stay, the 

servicers committed an unfair act or 

practice by repossessing vehicles subject 

to such automatic bankruptcy stays. 

Additionally, Supervision has 

identified that servicers committed an 

unfair act or practice by wrongfully 

repossessing vehicles after 

communicating inaccurate information. 

For example, Supervision has found 

that some servicers sent consumers 

letters stating that loans would not be 

considered past due if the consumer 

paid the amount due by a specific date. 

Consumers reasonably expected the 

servicers not to repossess before the date 

listed in the letter. When the servicers 

repossessed the vehicles prior to that 

date, they committed an unfair act or 

practice. 

Representations of Amounts Owed 

Supervision has also identified that 

servicers committed deceptive acts or 

practices by failing to provide 

consumers with accurate information 

about the amount required to bring their 

accounts current. For example, when 

consumers called to determine what 

amount would bring their accounts 

current, servicing personnel erroneously 

represented to consumers an amount 

due that was less than what was 

actually owed. As a result of this 

misrepresentation consumers paid an 

amount insufficient to avoid 

delinquency and the consequences of 

delinquency. This later led to 

repossessions that would not have 

occurred had consumers received 

accurate information. This conduct was 

deceptive because the servicer told 

consumers that an amount would bring 

their accounts current when, in fact, 

that amount would not bring their 

account current. 

b. Unfair or Deceptive Practices That 

May Lead to Repossession 

The following are examples of 

practices that lead to repossession of 

consumers’ vehicles that the Bureau has 

considered to be UDAAPs. 

Applying Payments in a Different Order 

Than Disclosed to Consumers, Resulting 

in Repossession 

Payment application for auto loans is 

governed by the finance agreements 

between servicers and consumers. 

Supervision has found that entities 

engaged in a deceptive act or practice 

when they made representations to 

consumers that payments would be 

applied in a specific order, and then 

subsequently applied payments in a 

different order. For example, 

Supervision found that servicers 

represented on their websites that 

payments would be applied to interest, 

then principal, then past due payments, 

before being applied to other charges, 

such as late fees. Instead, the servicers 

applied partial payments to late fees 

first, in contravention of the 

methodology disclosed on the website. 

Because servicers applied payments to 

late fees first, some consumers were 

deemed more delinquent than they 

would have been under the disclosed 

payment allocation order, and these 

servicers repossessed some consumers’ 

vehicles. 

Under these circumstances, servicers’ 

websites provided inaccurate 

information about payment allocation 

order. In some instances, the underlying 

contract provided the servicer the right 

to apply payments in any order, which 

did not immunize the company from 

liability for the deceptive website 

content.8

Unlawful Fees That Push Consumers 

Into Default and Repossession 

Enforcement has brought claims 

under the CFPB’s unfairness authority 

where unlawful fees push consumers 

into default and repossession. 

For example, in a public enforcement 

action, the Bureau found that an entity 

engaged in an unfair act or practice by 

operating its force-placed insurance 

(FPI) program in an unfair manner, in 

some instances resulting in 

repossession.9 The entity purchased 

duplicative or unnecessary FPI policies 

and, in some instances, maintained the 

policies even after consumers had 

obtained adequate insurance and 

provided adequate proof of coverage. 

This conduct caused the entity to charge 

consumers for unnecessary FPI, 

resulting in additional fees, and in some 

instances delinquency or loan default. 

For some consumers the additional 

costs of unnecessary FPI contributed to 

a default that resulted in the 

repossession of a consumer’s vehicle. 

Charging unnecessary amounts to 

consumers and subjecting them to 

default and repossession caused or was 

likely to cause substantial injury. This 

injury was not reasonably avoidable and 

was not outweighed by countervailing 

benefits.10

c. Unfair Practices That May Result in 

Illegal Fees After Repossession 

The following are examples of 

practices that led to illegal fees after 

repossession of consumers’ vehicles that 

the Bureau has considered to be 

UDAAPs. 

Charging Illegal Personal Property Fees 

The Bureau has identified an unfair 

practice concerning illegal personal 

property fees. Borrowers often keep 

personal property in the repossessed 

vehicles. These items often are not 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 11953 

11 In the Matter of Nissan Motor Acceptance 

Corp., 2020–BCFP–0017 (Oct. 13, 2020). 

12Supervisory Highlights, Issue 13—Fall 2016. 

13Supervisory Highlights, Issue 24—Summer 

2021. 

14CFPB Compliance Bulletin and Policy 

Guidance; 2016–02, Service Providers (Oct. 31, 

2016), https://www.consumerfinance.gov/ 

documents/1385/102016_cfpb_OfficialGuidance

ServiceProviderBulletin.pdf. 

merely incidental but can be of 

substantial practical importance or 

emotional attachment to borrowers. 

State law typically requires auto loan 

servicers and repossession companies to 

secure and maintain borrowers’ 

property so that it may be returned to 

the borrower upon request. Some 

companies charge borrowers for the cost 

of retaining the property. 

In a public enforcement action, the 

Bureau found that an entity engaged in 

an unfair act or practice by withholding 

consumers’ personal property unless the 

consumers paid an upfront fee to 

recover the property.11 Many of the 

repossession agents employed by the 

entity imposed fees on consumers for 

holding personal property in the 

repossessed vehicles. The agents often 

refused to return consumers’ personal 

property unless and until the consumers 

paid the fees. The Bureau found that the 

servicer was responsible for its agents 

withholding consumers’ personal 

property unless the consumer paid an 

upfront fee to recover it and thus caused 

substantial injury that was not 

reasonably avoidable and not 

outweighed by countervailing benefits 

to consumers or competition. 

Supervision has also identified this 

unfair act or practice at other servicers 

where the servicers withheld 

consumers’ personal property unless 

they paid an upfront fee.12

Charging for Collateral Protection 

Insurance After Repossession 

Supervision found that servicers 

engaged in unfair acts or practices by 

collecting or attempting to collect forceplaced collateral protection insurance 

(FPI) premiums after repossession even 

though no actual insurance protection 

was provided for those periods. FPI 

automatically terminates on the date of 

repossession, and consumers should not 

be charged after this date. Despite this, 

servicers charged consumers for FPI 

after repossession in four different 

circumstances. First, servicers failed to 

communicate the date of repossession to 

the FPI service provider due to system 

errors. Second, servicers used an 

incorrect formula to calculate the FPI 

charges that needed to be removed due 

to the repossession. Third, servicers’ 

employees entered the wrong 

repossession date into their system of 

record, resulting in improper 

termination dates. Fourth, servicers 

charged consumers—who had a vehicle 

repossessed and subsequently reinstated 

the loan—post-repossession FPI 

premiums, including for the days the 

vehicle was in the servicer’s possession, 

despite the automatic termination of the 

policy on the date of repossession. 

These errors caused consumers 

substantial injury because they paid 

amounts they did not owe or were 

subject to collection attempts for 

amounts they did not owe. This injury 

was not reasonably avoidable because 

consumers did not control the servicers’ 

cancellation processes. The substantial 

injury to consumers was not outweighed 

by any countervailing benefits to 

consumers or competition.13

III. The Bureau’s Expectations 

As explained in greater detail above, 

the Bureau has held auto lenders, loan 

holders, and servicers accountable if 

they or their agents commit UDAAPs 

when repossessing automobiles, 

including when they: 

• Repossessed vehicles if consumers’ 

loan account is current, even if there 

was a prior delinquency. 

• Repossessed vehicles if consumers 

entered an agreement to extend the loan. 

• Repossessed vehicles if consumers 

followed any instructions the company 

said would result in avoiding 

repossession. 

• Repossessed vehicles from 

consumers who have filed for 

bankruptcy, and thus are protected by 

an automatic stay of collection activity. 

• Repossessed vehicles as a result of 

processing payments in a different order 

than had been communicated to 

consumers. 

• Repossessed vehicles after unlawful 

fees pushed the consumer’s account into 

default. 

• Withhold personal property found 

in repossessed vehicles until consumers 

pay an upfront fee to recover the 

property. 

• Charged for collateral protection 

insurance after a vehicle is repossessed. 

To prevent these unfair, deceptive, or 

abusive acts or practices, entities should 

consider doing the following: 

• Review policies and procedures, 

including call scripts, to ensure that 

they provide employees with accurate 

information about steps consumers can 

take to prevent repossession. 

• Review policies and procedures 

regarding cancellation of repossession 

orders to ensure that there is an 

appropriate process for cancelling 

repossessions if consumers take steps 

that should result in cancellation. 

• Ensure prompt communications 

between the servicer and repossession 

service provider when the servicer 

cancels a repossession. For example, 

servicers may call repossession service 

providers to confirm cancelation or use 

mobile phone applications that push 

cancellation updates to repossession 

service providers’ phones. 

• Monitor repossession service 

providers for compliance with 

repossession cancellations. 

• Incorporate monitoring of wrongful 

repossession in regular monitoring and 

audits of communications with 

consumers. 

• Ensure that the entity has a 

corrective action program to address any 

violations identified and to reimburse 

consumers for the direct and indirect 

costs incurred as a result of unlawful 

repossessions when appropriate. 

• Review payment allocation policies 

and procedures to validate that they are 

consistent with the payment allocation 

order disclosed in contracts and other 

consumer facing disclosures, such as 

websites. 

• Monitor for illegal fees charged after 

repossession. 

• Review consumer contracts to 

validate that any fees charged to 

consumers are authorized under the 

terms of applicable contracts. 

• Review consumer complaints 

regarding repossession and ensure there 

is an appropriate channel for receiving, 

investigating, and properly resolving 

consumer complaints relating to 

wrongful repossession and illegal fees 

after repossession. 

• Perform regular reviews of service 

providers, including repossession 

vendors, as to their pertinent 

practices.14

• Monitor any FPI program to ensure 

that consumers are not charged for 

unnecessary FPI. This may include 

review of FPI cancellation rates. 

IV. Conclusion 

The Bureau will continue to review 

closely the practices of entities 

repossessing automobiles for potential 

UDAAPs, including the practices 

described above. The Bureau will use all 

appropriate tools to hold entities 

accountable if they engage in UDAAPs 

in connection with these practices. 

V. Regulatory Requirements 

The Bulletin constitutes a general 

statement of policy exempt from the 

notice and comment rulemaking 

requirements of the Administrative 

Procedure Act (APA). It is intended to 

provide information regarding the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
11954 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

Bureau’s general plans to exercise its 

supervisory and enforcement discretion 

for institutions under its jurisdiction 

and does not impose any legal 

requirements on external parties, nor 

does it create or confer any substantive 

rights on external parties that could be 

enforceable in any administrative or 

civil proceeding. Because no notice of 

proposed rulemaking is required in 

issuing the Bulletin, the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act also does not require an 

initial or final regulatory flexibility 

analysis. The Bureau has also 

determined that the issuance of the 

Bulletin does not impose any new or 

revise any existing recordkeeping, 

reporting, or disclosure requirements on 

covered entities or members of the 

public that would be collections of 

information requiring approval by the 

Office of Management and Budget under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act. 

Rohit Chopra, 

Director, Consumer Financial Protection 

Bureau. 

[FR Doc. 2022–04508 Filed 3–2–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–AM–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 71 

[Docket No. FAA–2021–1049; Airspace 

Docket No. 21–ASO–36] 

RIN 2120–AA66 

Amendment of Class E Airspace; 

Hampton, GA 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action amends Class E 

airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface for Atlanta 

Speedway Airport (formerly Clayton 

County-Tara Field), Hampton, GA by 

updating the airport’s name and 

geographical coordinates to coincide 

with the FAA’s database. This action 

also increases the radius and removes 

excessive verbiage from the legal 

description of the airport. Controlled 

airspace is necessary for the safety and 

management of instrument flight rules 

(IFR) operations in the area. 

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, May 19, 

2022. The Director of the Federal 

Register approves this incorporation by 

reference action under 1 CFR part 51, 

subject to the annual revision of FAA 

Order JO 7400.11 and publication of 

conforming amendments. 

ADDRESSES: FAA Order JO 7400.11F, 

Airspace Designations and Reporting 

Points, and subsequent amendments, 

can be viewed online at https://

www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. 

For further information, you can contact 

the Airspace Policy Group, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20591; Telephone: (202) 267–8783. 

FAA Order JO 7400.11F is also available 

for inspection at the National Archives 

and Records Administration (NARA). 

For information on the availability of 

FAA Order JO 7400.11F at NARA, email 

fr.inspection@nara.gov or go to https:// 

www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ 

ibr-locations.html. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Goodson, Operations Support Group, 

Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 1701 Columbia Ave., 

College Park, GA 30337; Telephone 

(404) 305–5966. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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 amends Class E airspace 

extending upward from 700 feet above 

the surface to support IFR operations in 

Hampton, GA. 

History 

The FAA published a notice of 

proposed rulemaking in the Federal 

Register (86 FR, 69181, December 7, 

2021) for Docket No. FAA–2021–1049 to 

amend Class E airspace extending 

upward from 700 feet above the surface 

for Hampton, GA. 

Interested parties were invited to 

participate in this rulemaking effort by 

submitting written comments on the 

proposal to the FAA. No comments 

were received. 

Class E airspace designations are 

published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA 

Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 

2021, and effective September 15, 2021, 

which is incorporated by reference in 14 

CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace listed in 

this document will be published 

subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11. 

Availability and Summary of 

Documents for Incorporation by 

Reference 

This document amends FAA Order JO 

7400.11F, Airspace Designations and 

Reporting Points, dated August 10, 

2021, and effective September 15, 2021. 

FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly 

available as listed in the ADDRESSES

section of this document. FAA Order JO 

7400.11F lists Class A, B, C, D, and E 

airspace areas, air traffic routes, and 

reporting points. 

The Rule 

The FAA amends 14 CFR part 71 by 

amending Class E airspace extending 

upward from 700 feet above the surface 

at Atlanta Speedway Airport (formerly 

Clayton County-Tara Field), Hampton, 

GA, by updating the airport’s name and 

updating the geographical coordinates 

to coincide with the FAA’s database. In 

addition, this action amends the radius 

to 9.2 miles (formerly 6.8 miles) and 

eliminates excessive verbiage in the 

legal description. 

Class E airspace designations are 

published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA 

Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 

2021, and effective September 15, 2021, 

which is incorporated by reference in 14 

CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace 

designations listed in this document 

will be published subsequently in the 

Order. 

FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace 

Designations and Reporting Points, is 

published yearly and effective on 

September 15. 

Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

The FAA has determined that this 

regulation only involves an established 

body of technical regulations for which 

frequent and routine amendments are 

necessary to keep them operationally 

current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a 

‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 

FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) 

does not warrant preparation of a 

regulatory evaluation as the anticipated 

impact is minimal. Since this is a 

routine matter that only affects air traffic 

procedures and air navigation, it is 

certified that this rule, when 

promulgated, does not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

Environmental Review 

The FAA has determined that this 

action qualifies for categorical exclusion 

under the National Environmental 

Policy Act in accordance with FAA 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES