Authority for This Rulemaking

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

The FAA published a NPRM for Docket No. FAA 2023-1835 in the Federal Register (88 FR 68516; October 4, 2023), proposing to establish seven RNAV routes and amend one RNAV route in the eastern United States. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

The NPRM published for Docket No. FAA-2023-1835 in the Federal Register (88 FR 68516; October 4, 2023) contained a typographical error in the summary section. The summary section stated that the NPRM was proposing to establish three RNAV Q-routes, five RNAV T-routes, and amend one RNAV T-route. This should have stated that it was proposing to establish three RNAV Q-routes, four RNAV T-routes, and amend one RNAV T-route. Additionally, since publishing the NPRM, the FAA decided to postpone the establishment of RNAV Routes Q-221 and Q-227.

Further, in the NPRM's description of RNAV Routes Q-232, T-335, and T-432, the FAA incorrectly listed the NEION, NJ; HAWLY, PA; and CORTA, PA route points as waypoints (WP). These three route points are identified as a Fix in the National Airspace System Resource (NASR) database and charted as a Fix accordingly. This final rule corrects these errors.

United States Area Navigation routes (Q-routes) are published in paragraph 2006 and United States Area Navigation (T-routes) are published in paragraph 6011 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 amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023. FAA Order JO 7400.11H is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11.

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

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by establishing one RNAV Q-route, four RNAV T-routes, and amending one RNAV T-route in the eastern United States. This action supports FAA NextGen efforts to provide a modern RNAV route structure to improve the safety and efficiency of the NAS. The amendments are described below.

Q-232: Q-232 is a new RNAV route that extends between the STUBN, NY, WP and the NEION, NJ, Fix. RNAV route Q-232 overlays a portion of Jet Route J-132 between the Elmira, NY (ULW), Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) and the CORDS, PA, Fix, and Jet Route J-223 between the CORDS Fix and the NEION Fix.

T-303: T-303 is a new RNAV route that extends between the Kinston, NC (ISO), VOR/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) and the Boston, MA (BOS), VOR/DME. RNAV route T-303 overlays a portion of VOR Federal Airway V-1 between the Kinston VORTAC and the Boston VOR/DME.

T-307: T-307 is a new RNAV route that extends between the PEARS, NC, Fix and the Syracuse, NY (SYR), VORTAC. RNAV route T-307 overlays a portion of VOR Federal Airway V-139 between the PEARS Fix and the Sea Isle, NJ (SIE), VORTAC; VOR Federal Airway V-166 between the Sea Isle VORTAC and the BRIEF, NJ, Fix; VOR Federal Airway V-184 between the PADRE, PA, Fix and the Philipsburg, PA (PSB), VORTAC; and VOR Federal Airway V-35 between the Philipsburg VORTAC and the Syracuse VORTAC.

T-335: T-335 is a new RNAV route that extends between the ZJAAY, MD, WP and the Syracuse, NY (SYR), VORTAC. RNAV route T-335 overlays VOR Federal Airway V-29 between the ZJAAY WP, which is co-located with the Snow Hill, MD (SWL), VORTAC, and the Syracuse VORTAC.

T-432: T-432 is a new RNAV route that extends between the STUBN, NY, WP and the NEION, NJ, Fix. RNAV route T-432 overlays VOR Federal Airway V-36 between the STUBN WP, which is co-located with the Elmira, NY (ULW), VOR/DME, and the NEION Fix.

T-705: Prior to this final rule, T-705 extended between the DANZI, NY, WP and the MUTNA, NY, WP. The airway segment between the DANZI WP and the CODDI, NY, FIX is removed. Additionally, T-705 is extended to the southeast between the CODDI Fix and the Nantucket, MA (ACK), VOR/DME. As amended, T-705 is changed to now extend between the Nantucket VOR/DME and the MUTNA WP. The amended route segment of T-705 overlays portions of VOR Federal Airway V-46 between the Nantucket VOR/DME and the Calverton, NY (CCC), VOR/DME, and VOR Federal Airway V-44 between the BELTT, NY, Fix and the Pawling, NY (PWL), VOR/DME. The full T-705 route description is listed in the amendments to part 71 as set forth below.

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

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

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

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of 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 the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Vermilion Regional Airport, Danville, IL, to support IFR operations at this airport.

The FAA published an NPRM for Docket No. FAA-2023-2340 in the Federal Register (88 FR 87731; December 19, 2023) proposing to amend the Class E airspace at Danville, IL. 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 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023. FAA Order JO 7400.11H is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11.

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

This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 modifies the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.6-mile (increased from a 6.5-mile) radius of Vermilion Regional Airport, Danville, IL; updates the name (previously Vermilion County Airport) and geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; and removes the city associated with the airport from the header to comply with changes to FAA Order JO 7400.2P, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters.

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

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

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

The FAA published a NPRM for Docket No. FAA 2023-1829 in the Federal Register (88 FR 68512; October 4, 2023), proposing to amend V-9 in Arkansas. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010 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 amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023. FAA Order JO 7400.11H is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11.

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

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by amending VOR Federal Airway V-9 in Arkansas by adding a segment between the Marvel, AR (UJM), VOR/DME and the Farmington, MO, FAM), VORTAC creating a longer contiguous airway in support of the DoD's request to simplify flight planning along this route segment. The amendment is described below.

V-9: Prior to this final rule, V-9 extended between the Leeville, LA (LEV), VORTAC and the Marvell, AR (UJM), VOR/DME; between the Farmington, MO (FAM), VORTAC and the Pontiac, IL (PNT), VOR/DME; and between the Janesville, WI (JVL), VOR/DME and the Houghton, MI (CMX), VOR/DME. The FAA establishes V-9 between the Marvell VOR/DME and the Farmington VORTAC which creates a longer contiguous airway. As amended, the route is changed to now extend between the Leeville VORTAC and the Pontiac VOR/DME, and between the Janesville VOR/DME and the Houghton VOR/DME.

All radials listed in the VOR Federal airway description in the Amendment section below are stated in degrees True north.

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

The FAA has determined that this action of amending VOR Federal Airway V-9 in the eastern United States, qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points); and paragraph 5-6.5b, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review “Actions regarding establishment of jet routes and Federal airways (see 14 CFR 71.15, Designation of jet routes and VOR Federal airways ). . .”. As such, this airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis. Accordingly, the FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact study.

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it updates the using agency listed for restricted areas R-2510A and R-2510B in the vicinity of El Centro, CA.

The U.S. Department of the Navy requested that the Federal Aviation Administration amend the descriptions of restricted areas R-2510A and R-2510B by changing the using agency listed for each from “Commanding Officer, U.S. Navy Fleet Area Control and Surveillance Facility, San Diego, CA” to “U.S. Marine Corps, Commanding Officer, Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Yuma, AZ”. The request is the result of a realignment of air traffic control responsibilities for the area.

This action amends 14 CFR part 73 by amending the using agency listed for restricted areas R-2510A and R-2510B from “Commanding Officer, U.S. Navy Fleet Area Control and Surveillance Facility, San Diego, CA” to “U.S. Marine Corps, Commanding Officer, Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Yuma, AZ”. This action is necessary in order to reflect the current organization tasked with using agency responsibilities for the restricted areas.

This is an administrative change that does not affect the boundaries, designated altitudes, times of designation, or activities conducted within restricted areas R-2510A and R-2510B; therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.

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

The FAA has determined that this action of amending the using agency information for restricted areas R-2510A and R-2510B, qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points), and paragraph 5-6.5d, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review the modification of the technical description of special use airspace (SUA) that does not alter the dimensions, altitudes, or times of designation of the airspace (such as changes in designation of the controlling or using agency, or correction of typographical errors). This airspace action is an administrative change to the description of restricted areas R-2510A and R-2510B to update the using agency name. It does not alter the restricted area dimensions, designated altitudes, times of designation, or use of the airspace. Therefore, this airspace action is not expected to result in any significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, this action has been reviewed for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis. Accordingly, the FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact study.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 73 as follows:

On December 23, 2021, the Federal Trade Commission (“Commission” or “FTC”) published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (“ANPR”) to address certain deceptive or unfair acts or practices of impersonation. 1 As part of the ANPR, the Commission requested comment on any issues or concerns relevant or appropriate to this rulemaking to combat impersonation of governments, businesses, or their agents, and whether and how to proceed with a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPRM”). 2 The Commission took comments for 60 days, and received 164 comments from representatives from a broad spectrum of businesses, trade associations, government or law-enforcement organizations, and individual consumers, which are publicly available on this rulemaking's docket at https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FTC-2021-0077/comments. Commenters generally expressed support for the Commission's proceeding with the rulemaking. They also voiced deep concerns about the prevalence and harmfulness of both government and business impersonation. No commenter expressed the view that the Commission should not commence the rulemaking. Commenters also offered suggestions for the Commission's consideration in drafting the proposed rule and other recommendations in furtherance of the proposed rulemaking.

Based on an extensive review of the comments received in response to the ANPR, the Commission's own history of enforcement, and other considerations that occurred after the ANPR's publication, 3 the Commission published the NPRM on October 17, 2022. 4 In the NPRM, the Commission stated it has reason to believe impersonation of government, businesses, and their officials or agents is prevalent. 5 The Commission identified no disputed issues of material fact based on the comment record; explained its considerations in developing the proposed rule; solicited additional public comment thereon, including posing specific questions designed to assist the public in submitting comment; and provided interested parties the opportunity to request to present their position orally at an informal hearing. 6 Finally, the NPRM set out the Commission's proposed rule.

In response to the NPRM, the Commission received 78 comments from entities and individuals interested in the proposed rule, discussed in Section III. 7 Although some raised concerns and recommended specific modifications or additions to the Commission's proposal, the majority generally supported the rule proposed in the NPRM. Two commenters timely submitted requests for interested parties to make an oral statement at an informal hearing. 8

On March 30, 2023, the Commission published an Initial Notice of Informal Hearing (“Notice of Hearing”). 9 The Notice designated the Commission's Chief Administrative Law Judge, D. Michael Chappell, to serve as the presiding officer of the informal hearing and stated that any member of the public wishing to speak at the informal hearing or make a documentary submission to be placed on the public rulemaking record (or both) should submit a comment on or before April 14, 2023. 10

On May 4, 2023, Chief Judge Chappell presided over the informal hearing using video conferencing, which enabled the public to watch live from the Commission's website, https://www.ftc.gov. Because there were no disputed issues of material fact to resolve, the informal hearing included no cross examination or rebuttal submissions, and the presiding officer made no recommended decision. The informal hearing included oral statements from 14 interested parties. 11 The majority of commenters who presented oral statements at the informal hearing or filed documentary submissions generally expressed strong support for the Commission's proposed rule. 12 Several commenters, however, also expressed concern that the proposed rule language does not explain the circumstances under which the Commission would apply proposed § 461.4, which would prohibit providing the means and instrumentalities to commit violations of government and business impersonation. Some suggested alternative language imposing a scienter requirement to narrow the scope of this provision, discussed in Section III.D.

In crafting the final rule, the Commission has carefully considered the comments received in response to the NPRM and on the rulemaking record, which includes the oral statements and documentary submissions in response to the Notice of Hearing. The final rule contains some changes from the proposed rule. These modifications, discussed in detail in Section III, are based upon input from commenters and careful consideration of relevant law. Section III also discusses commenters' recommendations that the Commission declined to adopt, along with the Commission's reasons for rejecting them. Accordingly, the Commission adopts the proposed rule with limited modifications as discussed below. The rule will take effect April 1, 2024.

The Commission is promulgating 16 CFR part 461 pursuant to section 18 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a, the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), and Part 1, subpart B of the Commission's Rules of Practice. 13 This authority permits the Commission to promulgate, modify, and repeal trade regulation rules that define with specificity acts or practices that are unfair or deceptive in or affecting commerce within the meaning of section 5(a)(1) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(a)(1).

The Commission's Rules of Practice further provide that if the Commission determines to promulgate a rule, it will adopt a SBP, which must address three factors: (1) The prevalence of the acts or practices addressed by the rule; (2) the manner and context in which the acts or practices are unfair or deceptive; and (3) the economic effect of the rule, taking into account the effect on small businesses and consumers. 14 In this section of the preamble, the Commission summarizes its findings regarding each of these factors.

In its ANPR, the Commission cited public data from the Consumer Sentinel Network database and described its enforcement record, demonstrating government and business impersonation scams are not only highly prevalent but increasingly harmful. 15 In the NPRM, the Commission also took notice of additional indications of prevalence that came after the ANPR's publication. 16 Specifically, the NPRM cited data from a broad spectrum of commenters (businesses, trade associations, and government or law-enforcement organizations) regarding the prevalence of government and business impersonation scams, which echoed the Commission's findings that these schemes are among the most common deceptive or unfair practices affecting U.S. consumers and businesses and continue to be a significant source of consumer injury. 17

A representation, omission, or practice is deceptive if it is material and likely to mislead a consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances. 18 The most frequent allegations in the Commission's enforcement actions involving government and business impersonation pertain to defendants tricking consumers to pay money or disclose personal information by making, expressly or by implication, statements that misrepresent the defendants' identity. 19 Nearly as frequent are allegations of misrepresentations concerning defendants' affiliation with, endorsement or approval by, or other association with a government or business. The Commission has further found false threats of severe consequences and promises of benefits are additional deceptive tactics deployed by government and business impersonators. In the Commission's experience, such claims regarding identity, affiliation, or endorsement are material to consumers making their decision to trust impersonators. The numerous government and business impersonation complaints consumers submit to the Commission each year, as well as comments submitted in connection with this rulemaking proceeding, consistently reference these same concerns. Accordingly, the specific practices described in the preamble to the proposed rule reflect the type of conduct most commonly associated with deceptive and unfair practices pertaining to government and business impersonation. 20

As part of the rulemaking proceeding, the Commission solicited comment and data (both qualitative and quantitative) on the economic impact of the proposed rule and its costs and benefits. 21 In issuing the final rule, the Commission has carefully considered the comments received and the costs and benefits of each provision, as discussed in more detail below in Section VI. The record demonstrates the most significant anticipated benefit of the final rule is the Commission's ability to obtain monetary relief. This is particularly critical because that ability was curtailed by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in AMG Cap. Mgmt., LLC v. FTC, which holds that equitable monetary relief, including consumer redress, is not available under section 13(b) of the FTC Act. 22 Further, obtaining monetary relief based on violations of the final rule under section 19(b) of the FTC Act will be significantly faster than obtaining such relief under section 19(a)(2) without a rule violation. 23 By enabling the Commission to obtain monetary relief more efficiently, the final rule would also reduce the expenditure of Commission resources. 24 As an additional benefit, the rule enables the Commission to obtain civil penalties against violators. 25 The final rule also provides a benefit to businesses through increased deterrence of business impersonators, which reduces businesses' expenditure of resources associated with monitoring for and addressing impersonation. 26 Moreover, as the record and the Commission's law enforcement experience demonstrate, the final rule is unlikely to impose costs on any honest business, and may increase deterrence of impersonation scams, which would benefit consumers through a reduction in their total financial losses from these schemes. 27

The Commission received 78 comments in response to the NPRM from a diverse group of individuals, industry groups and trade associations, consumer organizations, and government agencies. 28 The Commission received 28 comments in response to the Notice of Hearing, including oral presentations from 14 commenters. 29 Commenters generally supported the proposed rule, recognizing the Commission's authority to protect consumers from the increasing number of government and business impersonation frauds targeting consumers.

In the NPRM, the Commission invited comment on any issues or concerns the public believes are relevant or appropriate to the Commission's consideration of the proposed rule. 30 The NPRM also posed eight specific questions for the public. 31 Some of these questions relate to the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”) and Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”), and are addressed in Sections V and VI, respectively. 32 The other questions, along with common issues or concerns relevant to the Commission's consideration of the proposed rule outside of the specific questions, are addressed in this section of the preamble.

In Question 1 of the NPRM, the Commission asked whether it should finalize the proposed rule as a final rule, and how, if at all, it should change the proposed rule in promulgating the final rule. 33 The majority of commenters did not express a clear view regarding whether the Commission should adopt the proposed rule as final. Many of these commenters, however, did share their experience regarding the prevalence and harmfulness of various kinds of government and business impersonation frauds. 34 Some of these commenters complained more generally about various non-impersonation scams. 35 The majority of commenters that addressed Question 1 of the NPRM were substantially supportive of the proposed rule, but stopped short of urging the Commission to finalize the text of the proposed rule without modification. These commenters typically recommended either broadening or narrowing the scope or text of the rule in response to other specific questions asked in the NPRM or relevant to the Commission's consideration of the proposed rule. 36

Six commenters explicitly addressed the Commission's question regarding finalizing the proposed rule as a final rule, and without recommending additional modifications to the text of the proposed rule, urged the Commission to do so. 37 Some of these commenters stated the proposed rule is in the public interest because it would allow for civil penalties against government and business impersonators, provide redress for victims of impersonation scams, and deter future bad acts. 38

Several government agencies and trade associations explained how the proposed rule would benefit them, their members, or the people they serve. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) described its experience of agency impersonation, and stated that reliance on the FTC's enforcement capabilities through such a rule would allow the USPTO to conserve and allocate its resources to different enforcement efforts that impact the USPTO and its stakeholders. 39 Similarly, the Marine Retailers Association of the Americas (“MRAA”), a trade association representing marine retailers, argued the benefits associated with finalizing the proposed rule would reduce the financial burden on businesses and improve trust among consumers. 40 The United States Copyright Office (“USCO”) expressed support for finalizing the proposed rule, arguing that doing so would allow the Commission to move more quickly to put a stop to impersonation scams. 41 The USPTO and the USCO explained they do not have law enforcement authority to remedy the harms resulting from bad actors impersonating the agencies, and USCO argued the proposed rule would foster public trust in the copyright system. 42 The Cellular Telecommunications and internet Association (“CTIA”), a trade association for wireless service providers, argued in favor of finalizing the proposed rule because its scope is “targeted and judicious,” and appropriately focused on the bad actors that harm consumers. 43

Somos, Inc., which manages registry databases for the telecommunications industry, stated it “strongly supports the Commission's proposed rules,” but suggested the Commission explicitly clarify that spoofing a telephone number of a business or government entity to aid in that impersonation violates the rule. 44 The Commission is not persuaded that explicitly stating telephone spoofing, or any specific type of government or business impersonation, constitutes a violation of the rule is necessary. 45 Moreover, the Telemarketing Sales Rule (“TSR”) already bars telemarketers from “failing to transmit. . .the telephone number and. . .the name of the telemarketer to any caller identification service in use by a recipient of a telemarketing call.”  46 By definition, a spoofed telephone number is not the number of the telemarketer, and the Commission can rely on this prohibition to bring an enforcement action for violation of the TSR against a telemarketer that uses a spoofed number.

The Commission also received several comments that identified the lack of access to accurate information concerning domain name registrants (commonly known as “WHOIS” data) as a significant impediment to combatting the use of domain names to impersonate government and businesses. 47 These commenters expressed support for expanding the text or scope of the final rule to address this issue. 48 In particular, a few commenters urged the Commission to issue a final rule that requires domain name registrars to collect, verify, maintain, and disclose accurate WHOIS data to the FTC and third-party victims on request for such information based on credible evidence of impersonation fraud. 49 The Coalition for Online Accountability (“COA”), a group advocating for online transparency and accountability, argued “[t]here is no justification for the redaction of data of legal person registrants or the overwhelming denial of reasonable access to personal WHOIS data for legitimate third-party interests. . ..”  50 Both the Messaging Malware Mobile Anti-Abuse Working Group (“M3AAWG”) and the Anti-Phishing Working Group (“APWG”) also suggested the Commission encourage Domain Name System (“DNS”) registries and registrars to engage in DNS mitigation and frequently impersonated entities to participate as “trusted notifiers” to address fraudulently registered domain names. 51

The Commission declines to adopt commenters' suggestion that the final rule expressly reference in accompanying examples the use of domain names in impersonation schemes. Rather, the Commission here repeats what it previously stated in the NPRM and earlier in this SBP, that the following list of examples of conduct covered by the prohibition on the impersonation of government and businesses was intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive: (1) calling, messaging, or otherwise contacting an individual or entity while posing as a government or an officer or agent or affiliate or endorsee thereof, including by identifying a government or officer by name or by implication; (2) sending physical mail through any carrier using addresses, government seals or lookalikes, or other identifying insignia of a government or officer thereof; (3) creating a website or other electronic service impersonating the name, government seal, or identifying insignia of a government or officer thereof or using “.gov” or any lookalike, such as “govusa.com”; (4) creating or spoofing an email address using “.gov” or any lookalike; (5) placing advertisements that pose as a government or officer thereof against search queries for government services; (6) using a government seal on a building, letterhead, website, email, vehicle, or other physical or digital place; (7) calling, messaging, or otherwise contacting an individual or entity while posing as a business or an officer or agent or affiliate or endorsee thereof, including by naming a business by name or by implication, such as “card member services” or “the car dealership”; (8) sending physical mail through any carrier using addresses, seals, logos, or other identifying insignia of a business or officer thereof; (9) creating a website or other electronic service impersonating the name, logo, insignia, or mark of a business or a close facsimile or keystroke error, such as “ntyimes.com,” “rnicrosoft.com,” “microsoft.biz,” or “ carnegiehall.tixsales.com ”; (10) creating or spoofing an email address that impersonates a business; (11) placing advertisements that pose as a business or officer thereof against search queries for business services; and (12) using, without authorization, a business's mark on a building, letterhead, website, email, vehicle, or other physical or digital place. 52 Accordingly, the Commission finds the final rule is drafted with sufficient clarity and flexibility to address the unauthorized use of internet identifiers, including but not limited to domain names.

Only one commenter suggested in response to Question 1 of the NPRM that the proposed rule should not be finalized. 53 The Americans for Prosperity Foundation (“AFPF”), a 501(c)(3) nonpartisan education organization, argued the Commission should “abandon its Section 18 rulemaking ambitions, instead refocusing its efforts on case-by-case enforcement actions in federal court in cases involving concrete harm to consumers.”  54

The Commission disagrees with the AFPF's suggestion that the section 18 rulemaking process is too difficult or unwieldy to address many of the unfair or deceptive acts or practices prevalent in commerce. In 1975, Congress passed the Magnuson-Moss Warranty—Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act laying out specific procedures for the promulgation of “Trade Regulation Rules” to protect consumers in a dynamic and changing economic landscape. 55 The Commission's regulations at 16 CFR part 1, subpart B, respect the underlying statutory requirements of section 18, which provide ample transparency and opportunity for public participation in the promulgation of Trade Regulation Rules. The Commission intends therefore to fulfill its mission to protect against unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce and to provide consumers and businesses with due process, clarity, and transparency while crafting the rules to do so. Accordingly, the Commission rightfully responds to Congress's grant of authority by initiating this rulemaking.

The AFPF also expressed various criticisms specific to the language of the proposed rule and recommended several suggested revisions discussed in greater detail in Sections III.C and III.D below.

Following review of all comments and careful consideration of the relevant law, the final rule issued by the Commission contains some minor changes from the proposed rule, as discussed in Section III.

In the ANPR, the Commission asked specific questions about the prevalence of impersonation fraud, and requested the data source commenters relied upon for formulating their answer(s). 56 The ANPR also asked specific questions regarding how to craft a proposed rule to maximize the benefits to consumers and minimize the costs to businesses, and what alternatives to regulations the Commission should consider in addressing impersonation frauds. 57 In Question 2 of the NPRM, the Commission posed these same or nearly identical specific questions regarding each different provision of the proposed rule. 58 Six commenters specifically addressed these questions. 59 Each of these commenters described various types of government and business impersonation scams common to their own experience or industry in support of their view that such frauds are highly prevalent. 60 For example, the Toy Association noted various business impersonation scams experienced by its members, including counterfeit or non-compliant toys, falsified documents regarding endorsement and affiliation related to counterfeit toys, false solicitation and phishing schemes collecting customer information, and domain impersonation. 61 Similarly, the USPTO and USCO described several examples of government impersonation scams involving the trademark and copyright registration processes, respectively, and included illustrative examples as attachments with their public comment. 62

Other commenters particularly concerned with online business impersonation cited data from studies or reports regarding trends in these kinds of impersonation frauds, and recent examples of phishing attacks against consumers through the impersonation of recognized online companies in support of their arguments regarding prevalence. 63 A small number of commenters addressed the impact (including any benefits and costs) on consumers, governments, and businesses, discussed in more detail in Section VI.

Only one commenter suggested an alternative proposal for the Commission's consideration. 64 Specifically, the M3AAWG recommended as an alternative to the means and instrumentalities provision in proposed § 461.4 that the Commission “identify best practices or safe harbors to incentivize prompt mitigation efforts and sound verification techniques” to address the use of domain names in business impersonation schemes. 65 M3AAWG argued this alternative to regulation would avoid the risk of inadvertently imposing “secondary or intermediary liability against legitimate businesses, technologies or services” exploited by impersonators. 66

Upon review of the comments received in response to Question 2 of the NPRM, the Commission concludes such comments support its own findings that government and business impersonation schemes are both prevalent and harmful. The Commission declines at this time to adopt M3AAWG's alternative proposal for § 461.4. As discussed in Section III.D, the Commission is continuing to review comments and records relevant to the means and instrumentalities provision in proposed § 461.4 to determine whether additional action or protections are warranted and is requesting additional public comment through a SNPRM, published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register .

In Question 5 of the NPRM, the Commission solicited comment regarding whether the proposed rule's one-sentence prohibitions against impersonation of government in § 461.2 and against impersonation of businesses in § 461.3 are clear and unambiguous, and how, if at all, they should be improved. 67 The Commission received several comments that addressed this question directly  68 or indirectly. 69 Two commenters considered the one-sentence prohibitions to be clear and unambiguous and/or deferred to the Commission's construction, but suggested certain additions or modifications. 70 For example, the USCO suggested the Commission consider whether the definition of “officer,” which covers representatives of both governments and businesses, should be bifurcated into two separate and more specific terms to define representatives of governments and businesses, respectively. 71 No other commenter suggested a revision to the definitions in proposed § 461.1. The USPTO suggested the Commission broaden the exemplary “list of matter” used to impersonate a government to specifically reference “logos.”  72 In support of this recommendation, the USPTO noted “the use of logos” was explicitly identified in the NPRM's examples of unlawful conduct that would be covered by the prohibition against business impersonation in proposed § 461.3, but not in the NPRM's examples of unlawful conduct that would be covered by the prohibition of government impersonation in proposed § 461.2. The USPTO further asserted government agencies also “use logos in addition to official seals and insignia,” and provided an illustrative example of impersonators misusing the USPTO's logo. 73

Three commenters indicated the language of proposed §§ 461.2 and 461.3 was vague or provided inadequate guidance, and warranted modification. 74 Some commenters raised constitutional concerns based on the purported overbreadth of the one-sentence prohibitions. 75 These commenters' constitutional arguments addressed two primary considerations: (1) whether the proposed rule provides due process notice;  76 and (2) whether it encroaches upon free speech protected under the First Amendment. 77 The AFPF stated the proposed rule is an “open-ended regulation,” arguing it “fails to provide constitutionally adequate notice of required or prohibited conduct” and otherwise falls short of section 18's specificity requirements. 78 Other commenters wary of inadvertent intrusions on protected speech asserted any final prohibition should exempt innocent behavior such as parody  79 and non-commercial or otherwise legitimate speech. 80

In his documentary submission in response to the Notice of Informal Hearing, William MacLeod echoed concerns he previously expressed in response to the NPRM that the language in proposed §§ 461.2 and 461.3 “depart[s] from the standards of deception that the Commission applies under Section 5.”  81 MacLeod noted that: “[i]ts terms do not include `deception' or `fraud' or critical elements of the FTC's deception policy statement.”  82 He raised additional concerns about “impersonations and affiliations [that] can be false, but also unbelievable.”  83 MacLeod argued that the prohibitions, as written, are too broad and would proscribe non-deceptive acts or practices, such as “fictional depictions” in television advertisements. 84

Raising First Amendment concerns, the AFPF similarly asserted that the proposed rule's “falsely pose as” language, “read literally,” would impose civil penalties on “utterly innocuous conduct” and “would appear to make it unlawful for anyone to dress up as an FTC Commissioner, politicians, or . . . a Microsoft executive and attend a Halloween party.”  85 It also expressed concern that the proposed prohibitions did not require “materiality,” “consumer harm,” or “connection to interstate commerce.”  86 Several commenters suggested alternative language to cure what they perceived to be the overbreadth of the prohibition provisions. For example, M3AAWG recommended that the final rule adopt a definition of “impersonation” that mirrors the definition of “criminal impersonation” in 18 U.S.C. Chapter 43. 87 M3AAWG asserted that such a definition would narrow the scope of the rule to cover only those bad actors with “clear intent and specific knowledge” of prohibited acts.

MacLeod proposed narrowing the focus of the final rule by adopting language that specifies particular prohibited practices or the mens rea of its intended targets. 88 The AFPF agreed with MacLeod and suggested that the Commission revise the proposed rule to “explicitly incorporate Section 5's statutory prohibition . . . [and] requirements set forth in the Commission's Deception Statement.”  89

After analyzing and considering the comments, the Commission is persuaded that the language of the final rule should adhere more closely to the language of section 5 of the FTC Act to avoid any potential confusion about the scope of the rule. The Commission believes that these revisions sufficiently address some commenters' concerns that the language of the proposed rule put it in conflict with Due Process requirements and the First Amendment.

The Commission emphasizes that it does not intend for the final rule to regulate non-commercial speech. To adhere more closely to the language of section 5 of the FTC Act and case law, the Commission has revised the final regulatory text to incorporate relevant language from section 5. Specifically, the Commission has replaced “unlawful” with “unfair or deceptive act or practice,” and added “materially” and “in or affecting commerce” in §§ 461.2 and 461.3. These changes make it abundantly clear that the scope of the final regulatory text is coterminous with the scope of the FTC's authority under the FTC Act, and they clearly specify the misconduct prohibited by the final rule. Accordingly, false impersonations or misrepresentations that are not material to a commercial transaction, such as impersonation in purely artistic or recreational costumery or impersonation in connection with political or other non-commercial speech, are not covered by the final rule.

The Commission concludes that it is unnecessary to divide the definition of “officer” into two separate terms as suggested by the USCO. Section 461.1 defines “officer” to “include[ ] executives, officials, employees, and agents,” which the Commission believes appropriately describes and covers both government and business representatives.

As previously stated, the NPRM's list of examples of prohibited conduct covered by the rule is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive, and therefore, the Commission declines to adopt the USPTO's suggestion that it enlarge that exemplary “list of matter.” Rather, the Commission maintains that not including specific prohibitions in the regulatory text provides it with sufficient flexibility to address the many types of “matter” (including objects, items, logos, insignia, etc.) used to impersonate governments and businesses alike, which are too numerous to list.

The Commission declines to adopt a definition of “impersonation” that reflects a criminal regulatory scheme as proposed by M3AAWG. The FTC Act does not include a mens rea requirement, and there is no evidence in the record that the imposition of such a requirement is warranted. Furthermore, while intent is not required under the rule or the FTC Act, in any action seeking civil penalties for violation of the rule, the Commission will need to establish “actual knowledge or knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances that such act is unfair or deceptive and is prohibited by such rule.”  90

The Commission rejects the recommendation by both MacLeod and AFPF to incorporate the FTC Deception Policy Statement into the final rule. Nevertheless, as discussed earlier in this Section III.C, informed by MacLeod's and AFPF's comments, the Commission has revised the regulatory text of §§ 461.2 and 461.3 to mirror the language of section 5 of the FTC Act more closely. In particular, the reference to “unfair or deceptive act or practice,” and the inclusion of materiality and interstate commerce requirements should address commenters' concerns that this rule might be read to cover impersonation in connection with artistic costumery, parody, or other non-commercial speech. 91 The Commission further notes that, by the terms of these sections, a court must find that the alleged defendant made an express or implied misrepresentation regarding material information for §§ 461.2 and 461.3 to be violated. For an express or implied misrepresentation regarding material information to be made in violation of the FTC Act and this rule, there must be a representation that misleads consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances regarding material information. Thus, while the Commission rejects the recommendation by both MacLeod and AFPF to incorporate the FTC Deception Policy Statement into the final rule, by incorporating the changes above, the Commission has ensured that the final rule is consistent with the Deception Policy Statement, is consistent with other relevant Commission rules, and provides further specificity regarding the prohibited acts and practices under section 5 of the FTC Act.

In Question 6 of the NPRM, the Commission asked whether the final rule should contain the prohibition in proposed § 461.4 against providing the means and instrumentalities for violations against government or business impersonation. The Commission received more than 20 comments that expressly addressed this question. 92 Many of the sentiments reflected in these comments were also echoed by several commenters that presented oral statements in response to the Notice of Informal Hearing. 93 A few commenters arguing for the importance of holding intermediaries accountable for enabling or promoting impersonation schemes encouraged the Commission to finalize the text of the proposed provision without modification. 94 These commenters specifically argued that finalizing the proposed § 461.4 could help to combat impersonation schemes perpetrated by foreign-based scammers—beyond U.S. court jurisdiction—that obtain services from U.S.-based instrumentalities, such as payment processors and internet service providers. 95

Addressing means and instrumentality liability, both the AFPF and MacLeod reiterated their concerns referenced in Section III.C, regarding section 18's specificity requirements, due process notice, free speech, and conformity to the FTC's Deception Policy Statement. 96 Most commenters who addressed Question 6 expressed support for means and instrumentalities liability, but with some concern or suggested modifications. Some supportive commenters cautioned that the proposed means and instrumentalities provision could be read too broadly. 97 Others expressed the concern that without a specific scienter or knowledge requirement, the proposed rule provision runs the risk of imposing strict liability against innocent and unwitting third-party providers of services or products. 98 Accordingly, several commenters urged the Commission to clarify the scope of means and instrumentalities liability or explicitly include a specific knowledge requirement in the final rule provision. 99

For example, the Consumer Technology Association (“CTA”), a trade association representing the U.S. consumer technology industry, stated that the Commission's explanation and examples of the “means and instrumentalities” provision in the NPRM seem to limit its applicability, but such limitation “is not squarely reflected in the text of the proposed rule.”  100 The CTA therefore urged the FTC to clarify that “means and instrumentalities” liability applies only “to entities that have knowledge or consciously avoid knowing that they are making representations being used to commit impersonation fraud.” USTelecom, a trade association representing the broadband technology industry, argued that a discrepancy exists between the case law, the NPRM's discussion of means and instrumentality liability, and the proposed rule provision. It urged the Commission to “adjust the proposed language in § 461.4 to codify the requirement that the person has knowledge or reason to expect it is providing the means and instrumentalities . . .” (emphasis in original). 101 Similarly, the American Bar Association Section of Intellectual Property Law suggested that the Commission “explicitly include [in § 461.4] the language referenced in the [NPRM] from Shell Oil Co., 128 F.T.C. 749 (1999)—acting with `knowledge or reason to expect that consumers may possibly be deceived as a result.' ”  102

Other commenters argued that inclusion of a scienter requirement is a necessary but not sufficient modification of the proposed language to impose means and instrumentalities liability. For example, the internet & Television Association (“NCTA”), a trade association for the United States cable television industry, argued that such “liability requires both providing deceptive means and instrumentalities, e.g., providing false or misleading claims or counterfeit items, and actual knowledge that the deceptive representations or goods will be used to commit impersonation violations” (emphasis in original). 103 Likewise, M3AAWG advocated that, in addition to a “knowledge or reason-to-know test,” primary liability under a revised § 461.4 should also require that the provision of such means and instrumentalities be done willfully or in bad faith, and with clear intent and specific knowledge. 104

A few commenters urged the Commission to adopt a final rule that explicitly recognizes specific or defined “means and instrumentality” violations perpetrated in connection with impersonation frauds, such as the use of legal process documents  105 or manipulated media technologies ( i.e., deepfakes)  106 or failure to disclose WHOIS data. 107

Based upon the comments received on the proposed provision regarding means and instrumentalities, the Commission has decided that this specific provision warrants further analysis and consideration; thus, the Commission has decided not to finalize proposed § 461.4. The Commission is not aware of any other rule, whether issued pursuant to section 18 or APA rulemaking authority, that identifies a means and instrumentalities violation. The Commission notes that it has used means and instrumentalities allegations as a type of deception to establish primary liability in the absence of privity between the defendant and the deceived persons, albeit rarely, in connection with matters that involve impersonation. 108 Pending further analysis and consideration, the Commission declines to adopt proposed § 461.4 at this time. The Commission is still considering the provision regarding means and instrumentalities, as well as issues related to the impersonation of individuals or entities other than governments and business in interstate commerce and is requesting public comment through a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“SNPRM”), published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register .

In response to the ANPR, the Commission received a number of comments that urged the Commission to include “nonprofit” entities in the proposed rule's definition of businesses that can be impersonated. 109 The Commission agreed with these comments, and consequently, defined a “business” that may be impersonated to include nonprofits in § 461.1 of the proposed rule, notwithstanding the fact that the Commission is authorized to sue a corporation only when the corporation is “organized to carry on business for its own profit or that of its members.”  110 As the Commission explained in the NPRM, the reason for doing so is because for profit businesses may impersonate nonprofit business. 111 In Question 7 of the NPRM, the Commission solicited comment regarding whether any final rule should keep the prohibition against impersonating nonprofit organizations. 112 The Commission received more than a dozen comments that specifically addressed this question, and each of them expressed support for a final rule keeping the prohibition against impersonating nonprofits. 113 None of the comments responding to the NPRM or Notice of Hearing opposed doing so. The vast majority of commenters who addressed this question were themselves nonprofit organizations operating as trade associations, and referenced their own experience with impersonation frauds in support of a final rule keeping the prohibition against impersonating nonprofits. 114 Several commenters expressed the view that nonprofits are often the subject of impersonation scams in the same way as for profit businesses and government agencies. 115 Other commenters asserted that impersonation of nonprofits could be uniquely harmful because bad actors “prey[ ] on the goodwill of individuals attempting to make donations, and misappropriate[ ] those donations to corrupt private actions.”  116 Some commenters noted that nonprofits are particularly susceptible to being impersonated in scams involving affiliation or endorsement claims because nonprofits often offer awards or seals of approval. 117

Finally, two commenters cited trademark law in support of keeping nonprofits in the definition of business and a final rule that includes the prohibition against impersonating nonprofits. Specifically, both INTA and the Toy Association stated that trademark law has “long recognized that the misuse of names of non-profit organizations can lead to harmful consumer confusion.”  118 In INTA's and the Toy Association's view, the same applies with respect to impersonation schemes; thus, the final rule should also make no distinction between for profit and nonprofit businesses.

Based upon the record, including public comments in response to Question 7 of the NPRM, the Commission has determined that the final rule will retain the definition of “business” in § 461.1 that includes nonprofits and the prohibition against impersonating nonprofit organizations in § 461.3.

In the NPRM, the Commission asked whether the proposed rule should be expanded to address the impersonation of individuals or entities other than governments and business in interstate commerce. 119 The NPRM identified romance and grandparent impersonation scams as illustrative, but non-exhaustive, examples of other types of impersonation fraud, and solicited further comment regarding their prevalence and impact, and alternative proposals to regulation. Six commenters specifically addressed these questions, and each of them stated that the Commission should expand the reach of the proposed rule to extend beyond government and business impersonators. 120 Some commenters asserted that fraudsters often impersonate individuals in similar ways they impersonate government and businesses. 121 In support of expanding the rule, several commenters argued that romance and grandparent impersonation scams were harmful and prevalent, citing to data from the FTC and other sources showing a steady increase in the number of consumer reports and median individual losses for such scams. 122 A comment submitted by a group of students at Rutgers Law School asserted that older consumers are susceptible to “interpersonal confidence fraud and romance scams” and provided relevant data demonstrating that older consumers may be more likely to fall victim to these kinds of impersonation than to government impersonation. 123 Several commenters also stated that while the number of reports of these two types of impersonation scams are not as high as government and business impersonation, they are likely underreported, and that median individual losses are often higher. 124 The AARP stated that, “[o]f all fraud activity, romance scams and scams impersonating a family member in trouble are the most insidious, given the emotional devastation that combines with often significant financial losses.”  125 A joint comment submitted by several consumer and privacy advocacy organizations argued that such evidence “should be sufficient justification” for the Commission to “add a subsection to proposed Section 461 to cover `Impersonation of Individuals.' ”  126

A few commenters discussed the prevalence and harmfulness of other kinds of impersonation scams as support for expanding the rule beyond government and businesses to include individuals. For example, the NCTA stated that its member companies had observed an increase in sophisticated residential IP address scams that impersonate online subscribers for illegal purposes such as piracy and fraud. 127 NCTA encouraged the Commission to consider a new rule to prohibit impersonation of individuals through “unauthorized use of an individual's online credentials, accounts, IP addresses, and digital networks.”  128 The Recording Industry Association of America (“RIAA”) described impersonation scams involving offers of NFTs and mobile apps suggesting affiliation with sound recording artists and phishing scams where third parties claimed to be a music artist's manager or producer. 129 RIAA recommended that the Commission expand the rule to include the following: “[I]t [is] unlawful to falsely pose as or to misrepresent, directly or by implication, affiliation with, including endorsement or sponsorship by, an individual, for financial gain.”  130

The Rutgers Law Students noted the prevalence of social media, and profiles of celebrities and influencers in current modes of online communication, arguing that it would be a “grave oversight” to omit persons with such notable identities from a rule prohibiting impersonation. 131 The students also argued that individuals are more likely than government agencies or businesses to suffer direct harm to their identities from impersonation scams and less likely to be able to repair the reputational injuries. 132 Accordingly, they proposed that the Commission add another section to the rule with language prohibiting the impersonation of “any person” that parallels the language in §§ 461.2 and 461.3 prohibiting the impersonation of government and businesses, respectively. 133 The students further stated that this additional provision “closes a loophole” that proposed §§ 461.2 and 461.3 leave open regarding the impersonation of former government and business officials. 134 Finally, the students concluded that adding such a narrowly drafted provision would not burden honest businesses or individuals, and would benefit consumers because the median individual losses for other kinds of impersonation frauds are often greater than for government and business impersonation. 135 Both the students and the NCTA agreed that expanding the proposed rule to prohibit impersonation of individuals would not impact recreational or comedic impersonations of individuals in television or film. 136

Upon consideration of the comments received in response to Question 8 of the NPRM and all relevant records and data, the Commission is seeking additional public comment about potentially expanding part 461 to cover impersonation of individuals or entities other than governments and businesses in interstate commerce in a SNPRM published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register . 137

The Commission received several comments that identified the lack of access to accurate information concerning domain name registrants (commonly known as “WHOIS” data) as a significant impediment to combatting the use of domain names to impersonate government and businesses. 138 These commenters expressed support for expanding the text or scope of the final rule to protect consumers from this increasingly prevalent impersonation scheme. 139 In particular, a few commenters urged the Commission to issue a final rule that requires domain name registrars to collect, verify, maintain, and disclose accurate WHOIS data to the FTC and third-party victims on request for such information based on credible evidence of impersonation fraud. 140 As previously noted, the COA argued that the redaction or denial of reasonable access to WHOIS data is unjustified. 141 Both M3AAWG and APWG also suggested that the Commission encourage DNS registries or registrars to engage in DNS mitigation and frequently impersonated entities to participate as “trusted notifiers” to address fraudulently registered domain names. 142

Because the deceptive use of internet domain names is already covered under the rule, the Commission declines to adopt commenters' suggestion that the final rule expressly reference in the text or accompanying examples the use of domain names in impersonation schemes. As previously noted in Section III.A, the NPRM's preamble contained a list of examples of conduct covered by the prohibition on the impersonation of government and businesses that was intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive. 143 Such a comprehensive list would be both impossible and would not provide the trade regulation rule with the flexibility to accommodate changes in the marketplace and scammers' behavior. The Commission finds therefore that the final rule is drafted with sufficient clarity and flexibility to address the unauthorized use of internet identifiers, including but not limited to, domain names. Furthermore, the Commission declines to issue a final rule that imposes affirmative requirements upon domain name registrars which is beyond the purview of this rulemaking and doing so arguably would place an impracticable burden upon consumers to know about and verify the trustworthiness of such WHOIS data.

A small number of commenters urged the Commission to clarify that any final rule regarding impersonation would not limit any rights and remedies already available to businesses and consumers that have been the subject of impersonation. 144 For example, notwithstanding its support of the Commission's rulemaking to address impersonation, the American Bar Association Section of Intellectual Property Law asserted that many government impersonation scams should be referred to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution, and therefore, cautioned that any regulatory approach “not dilute the impetus for a criminal law solution.”  145 Other commenters suggested that the Commission clarify that any final rule is not intended to limit any existing private right of action or civil remedies. 146 Specifically, the Toy Association and INTA both advocated that any final rule on impersonation not be interpreted as limiting the rights and remedies available to trademark owners under the Lanham Act and the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. INTA further proposed that the Commission issue a clarification that any final rule is intended only to complement—not expand or contract—the legal protections available to private parties under the entire body of federal or state trademark and unfair competition law. 147

By issuing the final rule regarding government and business impersonation, the Commission does not preempt or intend to preempt action in the same area, which is not inconsistent with this final rule, by any federal, state, municipal, or other local government. This final rule does not annul or diminish any rights or remedies provided to consumers or businesses by any federal, state law, municipal ordinance, or other local regulation, insofar as those rights or remedies are equal to or greater than those provided by this final rule.

For the reasons described above, the Commission has determined to adopt the provisions of proposed § 461.1 as initially proposed, and the provisions of §§ 461.2 and 461.3 with clarifying modifications. The Commission declines to finalize proposed § 461.4 at this time.

Specifically, the Commission concludes that the proposed definition of “officer” is sufficient to cover both government and business representatives, and therefore, need not be divided into two separate terms. Further, the final rule includes a definition of “materially”—which has been used in other section 18 rules—to avoid potential confusion or potential perceived conflict with non-commercial speech. For these same reasons, the final rule replaces “unlawful” with “unfair or deceptive act or practice” and adds “materially” and “in or affecting commerce” in §§ 461.2 and 461.3. Such revised language further clarifies that the rule conforms to the well-established standards for deception and unfairness under the FTC Act. Finally, the Commission declines to finalize the proposed § 461.4 provision regarding means and instrumentalities at this time because further analysis and consideration is warranted based on the record, including comments. The Commission is requesting additional public comment on this provision, and on issues related to the impersonation of individuals or entities other than governments and business in interstate commerce, through a SNPRM, published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register .

The Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., requires federal agencies to seek and obtain Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) approval before undertaking a collection of information directed to ten or more persons. In Question 3 of the NPRM, the Commission asked commenters whether the proposed rule contained a collection of information. 148 No comments responding to the NPRM or Notice of Hearing addressed this question. While the Commission has revised the rule based on the comments it received, it has not added any new requirements that would collect information from the public. Accordingly, the Commission has determined that there are no new requirements for information collection associated with this final rule.

Under section 22 of the FTC Act, the Commission, when it promulgates a final rule, must issue a “final regulatory analysis.”  149 The required contents of this final regulatory analysis are: (1) “a concise statement of the need for, and the objectives of, the final rule”; (2) “a description of any alternatives to the final rule which were considered by the Commission”; (3) “an analysis of the projected benefits and any adverse economic effects and any other effects of the final rule”; (4) “an explanation of the reasons for the determination of the Commission that the final rule will attain its objectives in a manner consistent with applicable law and the reasons the particular alternative was chosen”; and (5) “a summary of any significant issues raised by the comments submitted during the public comment period in response to the preliminary regulatory analysis, and a summary of the assessment by the Commission of such issues.”  150 Additionally, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires an agency to provide a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (“FRFA”) with the final rule, if any, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 151

The NPRM included an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (“IRFA”) even though the Commission did not expect that the proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 152 The Commission invited public comment on the proposed rule's effect on small entities to ensure that no significant impact would be overlooked. 153

The FTC does not expect that the final rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and this SBP serves as notice to the Small Business Administration of the agency's certification of no significant impact. The final rule imposes no disclosure or recordkeeping requirements. As such, both the burdens imposed on small entities and the economic impact of the final rule are likely to be minimal, if any. Furthermore, as noted in the IRFA, the rule does not change the law regarding the legality of government and business impersonation, which are already prohibited by section 5 of the FTC Act. 154 Although the Commission certifies the final rule would not, if promulgated, have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, the Commission has determined, nonetheless, it is appropriate to conduct the following FRFA, 155 which incorporates the Commission's initial findings, as set forth in the NPRM, 156 addresses the required contents of the final regulatory analysis, and describes the steps the Commission has taken in the final rule to minimize its impact on small entities.

Based upon the record, including public comments, the Commission is implementing the rule to expand the remedies available to it to combat government and business impersonation deception. Throughout this rulemaking proceeding, the Commission has described how the U.S. Supreme Court decision in AMG Cap. Mgmt., LLC v. FTC, 141 S. Ct. 1341, 1352 (2021) overturned how section 13(b) of the FTC Act had historically been understood for 40 years to provide equitable monetary relief, and made it significantly more difficult for the Commission to obtain money for injured consumers. 157 The objective of this final rule is to make available a shorter, faster and more efficient path for recovery of money for injured consumers directly through federal court action in Commission enforcement actions involving impersonation of government or business. 158 Further, the rule would deter illegal impersonation and allow for the imposition of civil penalties, where appropriate. 159

Through the NPRM, the Commission requested public comment on what impact (including costs) will be incurred by existing and future businesses to comply with the proposed rule, and whether the Commission should consider alternative proposals to the proposed rule. 160 This information was requested by the Commission to minimize the final rule's burden on all businesses, including small entities. As explained throughout this SBP, the Commission has considered the comments and alternatives proposed by commenters and finds the final rule will not create a significant economic impact on small entities. 161 Indeed, the type of deception that will be unlawful under the final rule is already unlawful under the FTC Act, but the final rule would allow the Commission to obtain monetary relief more efficiently than it could solely under section 19(a)(2) of the FTC Act ( i.e., without a rule violation). Accordingly, the Commission does not propose any specific small entity exemption or other significant alternatives.

None of the comments received during the public comment period raised any significant issues in response to the preliminary regulatory analysis required pursuant to section 22 of the FTC Act. 162 In the IRFA, however, the Commission sought comment regarding the impact of the proposed rule and any alternatives the Commission should consider, with a specific focus on the effect of the rule on small entities. In the NPRM, the Commission reiterated this request for comment in Question 4, asking whether the proposed rule, if promulgated, would have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Two commenters that specifically addressed the impact of the proposed rule on small entities stated it would have a beneficial economic impact by reducing the time and financial burden small entities expend on fighting impersonation frauds. 163 One commenter urged the Commission not to implement a final rule that would require third-party providers of government filing services to include extensive disclosures in their marketing materials, arguing such disclosure requirements could lead to small businesses declining the offered services and falling out of compliance with government filing obligations. 164 This commenter, however, did not identify any proposed disclosure requirements that were the subject of his concern, nor does the Commission impose any such disclosure requirements in connection with the final rule. None of the comments responding to the NPRM or Notice of Hearing disputed the analysis in the IRFA. Finally, the Small Business Administration did not submit comments.

After reviewing the public comments on the proposed rule, as discussed throughout this SBP, the Commission concludes the final rule will not unduly burden small entities. The Commission's explanation in the IRFA regarding the proposed rule is true of the final rule—it only constitutes a significant economic impact for small entities violating existing law, which are not entitled to procedural protections when agencies consider rulemaking. 165

In the NPRM, the Commission invited public comment and data on any benefits and costs of proceeding with the rulemaking to inform a final regulatory analysis. 166 In issuing the final rule, the Commission has carefully considered the comments received and the costs and benefits of each provision. As discussed throughout this SBP, the Commission believes, and the record demonstrates, the final rule would provide several benefits to consumers, businesses, and competition, and help preserve agency resources, without imposing any significant adverse effects.

The Commission's explanation in the IRFA regarding the proposed rule is true of the final rule—it is difficult to quantify with precision what all its benefits may be, but it is helpful to begin with the scope of the problem the final rule would address, and then describe the benefits qualitatively. As discussed in the NPRM, reported consumer losses due to government impersonation topped $445 million in 2021;  167 and as anticipated, remained large, and even increased substantially, with total consumer losses of $513 million reported in 2022 and more than $483 million for the first ten months of 2023. 168 Similarly, the annual consumer loss reported due to business impersonation has increased from $453 million in 2021 to $670 million in 2022. 169 Accordingly, the most significant anticipated benefit of the final rule is that it will allow the Commission to provide monetary relief to victims of rule violations and seek civil penalties against violators. 170 Furthermore, the final rule should reduce economic harm resulting from impersonation because its potential deterrent effects make it less likely impersonators get to keep their ill-gotten gains and more likely they must pay civil penalties.

The final rule also would provide the benefit of a shorter path to obtaining consumer redress because the Commission could directly pursue in federal court section 19 remedies in government and business impersonation enforcement actions that do not implicate an existing rule. The availability of more immediate consumer redress in federal court under section 19 would allow the Commission to reduce the expense of litigating and minimize the litigation fora and scope. The Commission could then apply the savings of these enforcement resources to investigating and, where the facts warrant, bringing enforcement actions in additional impersonation matters.

The final rule also would benefit businesses whose brands are harmed by impersonators. 171 As several commenters have mentioned, a final rule that would allow the Commission to bring enforcement actions more efficiently against impersonators would save businesses the time and other resources dedicated to monitoring and combatting these kinds of deception.

The record is devoid of any evidence suggesting the final rule would cause harm or adversely impact economic conditions.

Small entities engaging in the impersonation of government and business potentially may be found across a variety of industries and economic sectors, but industry and sector data do not identify entities by such conduct. Accordingly, it is not possible to estimate the number of small entities to which the final rule will apply. However, because the Commission finds the final rule will not impose any recordkeeping or other compliance costs on covered entities, the Commission concludes the final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, notwithstanding the lack of data on how many small entities will be covered by the final rule.

The final rule does not have any reporting or recordkeeping requirements. 172 As explained previously, the final rule would apply to no small entities other than small entities violating existing law, and therefore, no classes of small entities will be subject to the requirements of the final rule. Finally, no professional skills are necessary for compliance with the final rule other than honesty and integrity.

The Commission's primary objective in commencing this rulemaking was to expand the remedies available to it in combatting two prevalent categories of impersonation scams most frequently reported by consumers—government impersonators and business impersonators. As explained throughout this SBP, based upon the record, including public comments, the Commission finds the final rule will attain this objective in a manner consistent with applicable law.

The final rule is straightforward and defines with specificity acts or practices that are unfair or deceptive in or affecting commerce within the meaning of section 5(a)(1) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(a)(1). It also avoids novelty by borrowing from existing rules and statutory definitions. 173 At the same time, the final rule is drafted with sufficient flexibility to address the various types of conduct covered by the prohibition on the impersonation of government and businesses. Furthermore, this rulemaking has provided ample transparency and opportunity for public participation in accordance with the underlying statutory requirements of section 18 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a, the Administrative Procedure Act, and Part 1, subpart B of the Commission's Rules of Practice. 174

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has designated this rule as not a “major rule,” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Today the Federal Trade Commission finalizes its rule prohibiting government and business impersonation schemes and issues a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking to extend this prohibition to impersonation of individuals. This final rule marks the first time since 1980 that the Commission has finalized a brand-new trade regulation rule prohibiting an unfair or deceptive practice.

Impersonation schemes cheat Americans out of billions of dollars every year. Fraudsters pretending to represent government agencies—like the Social Security Administration or the IRS—tell targets that if they do not hand over money or their sensitive personal information, then they could lose a government benefit, face a tax liability, or even be arrested. Scammers also commonly claim false affiliations with household brand names to bilk consumers for bogus services. This category of fraud skyrocketed during the coronavirus pandemic—with imposters scamming Americans out of reported $2 billion between October 2020 and September 2021, an 85 percent increase year-over-year. 1 Losses remain high: FTC data show that in 2023 consumers reported losing $2.7 billion to reported imposter scams. 2 Impersonation fraud has remained one of the largest sources of total reported consumer financial losses for several years. 3

Public comments submitted to the Commission provide a snapshot of how impersonation frauds can devastate:

• One commenter reported on how a friend was scammed by someone claiming that they were with Publisher's Clearing House and that she had won a sweepstakes. Her friend was scammed out of a total of $367,000: “She used all of her savings . . . to help her grandchildren go to college and wiped out her IRA and now is left to pay the penalties for depleting it. This woman is now, at age 70, in a position of living only on her social security and has to try to find work. . . .”  4

• Another commenter received a call from someone claiming to be with the U.S. Treasury Department, who asserted that her social security number had been compromised. This person lost all her money: “That money is from my mother's life insurance policy who passed in 2019. My father needs that money to survive. I am devastated.”  5

• A third commenter spoke of her mother being scammed by someone pretending to be with a government agency: “Before we, her family, realized the extent to which the imposters preyed upon her, she had divulged identity and banking information.”  6

The rise of generative AI technologies risks making these problems worse by turbocharging scammers' ability to defraud the public in new, more personalized ways. For example, the proliferation of AI chatbots gives scammers the ability to generate spear-phishing emails using individuals' social media posts and to instruct bots to use words and phrases targeted at specific groups and communities. 7 AI-enabled voice cloning fraud is also on the rise, where scammers use voice-cloning tools to impersonate the voice of a loved one seeking money in distress or a celebrity peddling fake goods. 8 Scammers can use these technologies to disseminate fraud more cheaply, more precisely, and on a much wider scale than ever before.

In its supplemental NPRM, the Commission proposes to expand the rule's prohibitions to also cover impersonation of individuals. If adopted, this additional protection will equip enforcers to seek civil penalties and redress when fraudsters impersonate individual people, not just government or business entities. Given the proliferation of AI-enabled fraud, this additional protection seems especially critical. Notably, the supplemental proposal also recommends extending liability to any actor that provides the “means and instrumentalities” to commit an impersonation scam. Under this approach, liability would apply, for example, to a developer who knew or should have known that their AI software tool designed to generate deepfakes of IRS officials would be used by scammers to deceive people about whether they paid their taxes. Ensuring that the upstream actors best positioned to halt unlawful use of their tools are not shielded from liability will help align responsibility with capability and control.

By unlocking civil penalties and redress, the final rule, along with the proposed supplemental provisions, will promote both more efficient enforcement and greater deterrence. In 2020, the Supreme Court held that the Commission cannot rely on Section 13(b) of the FTC Act to get money back to defrauded consumers, 9 so rulemakings—while not a substitute for a legislative fix—can help ensure that lawbreakers do not profit from their lawbreaking and that wronged consumers can be made whole.

This rule marks the agency's first brand-new Section 18 rulemaking since 1980. Although the authority to issue rules is clearly laid out in the FTC Act, bureaucratic red tape presented an obstacle to the agency's exercise of this important statutory authority. Thanks to efforts initiated under Commissioner Slaughter's leadership to align the procedural requirements for Section 18 rulemaking with the FTC Act's statutory text, Section 18 rulemakings can now proceed more efficiently. 10 This effort took two years from proposal to final rule, finally putting lie to the old idea that this must be an impossibly long process.

Many thanks to the FTC team for their swift work and dedication. This rule banning government and business impersonation will allow us to more vigorously and effectively protect Americans from fraudsters. And we are eager for public input on the supplemental NPRM that would extend this rule to cover impersonation of individuals. With the rapid rise of voice cloning fraud and other AI-based scams, additional protection for consumers seems especially critical. As these technologies enable more sophisticated and innovative forms of fraud, we will continue to ensure the Commission is activating all the tools Congress has given us and faithfully executing on our statutory mandate.

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

On December 19, 2023 (88 FR 87850), the EPA proposed to approve all of the “2020 Plan for Attaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone in San Diego County,” submitted on January 12, 2021, with two exceptions, and the San Diego County area vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) SIP revision for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS, i.e., the San Diego County area portion of the “California Smog Check Performance Standard Modeling and Program Certification for the 70 Parts Per Billion (ppb) 8-Hour Ozone Standard” (also referred to as the “Smog Check Certification”), submitted on April 26, 2023. The portions of the 2020 Plan on which we did not propose action are the portion addressing the emissions statement requirement, which we already approved in a separate rulemaking, and the portion addressing the contingency measures requirement, for which we are deferring action.

Our December 19, 2023 proposed rule contains more information on the plans, our evaluation, and our rationale for proposing approval.

The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. During this period, we received no comments.

This document takes final action to approve certain SIP elements included in the 2020 Plan and the San Diego County area portion of the Smog Check Certification. Information on ozone and its relationship to negative health impacts can be found on the EPA's website. We expect that this action will generally be neutral or contribute to reduced environmental and health impacts on all populations in the San Diego County area, including people of color and low-income populations in the area. At a minimum, the action would not worsen any existing air quality and is expected to ensure the area is meeting requirements to attain air quality standards. Further, there is no information in the record indicating that this action is expected to have disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental effects on a particular group of people. Lastly, although the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (“District”) did not perform an environmental justice review specifically for the 2020 Plan, the District does implement the State's “Community Air Protection Program” in San Diego County. This environmental justice program identifies specific communities based on environmental, health, and socioeconomic information in order to reduce their pollution exposure.

No comments were submitted. Therefore, pursuant to section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, and for the reasons provided in our December 19, 2023 proposed rule, the EPA is taking final action to approve into the California SIP all of the “2020 Plan for Attaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone in San Diego County,” submitted to the EPA on January 12, 2021, with two exceptions, and the San Diego County area I/M SIP revision for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS, i.e., the San Diego County area portion of the “Smog Check Certification,” submitted on April 26, 2023. More specifically, we are taking final action to approve the following portions of the 2020 Plan, as supplemented by the Smog Check Certification, as meeting the following requirements:

• Base year emissions inventory element as meeting the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1) for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS, 40 CFR 51.1115 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and 40 CFR 51.1315 for the 2015 ozone NAAQS;

• Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) demonstration element as meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(1) for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS, 40 CFR 51.1112(c) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and 40 CFR 51.1312(c) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS;

• Attainment demonstration element for the 2008 ozone NAAQS as meeting the requirements of CAA section 182(c)(2)(A) and 40 CFR 51.1108;

• Attainment demonstration element for the 2015 ozone NAAQS as meeting the requirements of CAA section 182(c)(2)(A) and 40 CFR 51.1308, and the related commitments by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) (through CARB Resolution 20-29) to achieve an aggregate emissions reduction of 4 tpd of NO X by 2032 in the San Diego County area and by the District (through District Resolution 20-166) to achieve emissions reductions of 1.7 tpd of NO X by 2032;

• Rate of Progress (ROP) demonstration element as meeting the requirements of CAA section 182(b)(1) for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS, 40 CFR 51.1110(a)(2) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and 40 CFR 51.1310(a)(2) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS;

• Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) demonstration element as meeting the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(2), 182(b)(1), and 182(c)(2)(B) for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS, 40 CFR 51.1110(a)(2)(i) and (ii) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and 40 CFR 51.1310(a)(2)(ii) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS;

• Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) emissions offset demonstration element as meeting the requirements of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS, 40 CFR 51.1102 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and 40 CFR 51.1302 for the 2015 ozone NAAQS;

• Motor vehicle emissions budgets for the 2020 and 2023 RFP milestone years and the 2026 attainment year (see Table 1) because they are consistent with the RFP and attainment demonstrations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS approved herein and meet the other criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4);

• Motor vehicle emissions budgets for the 2023, 2026, and 2029 RFP milestone years and the 2032 attainment year (see Table 2) because they are consistent with the RFP and attainment demonstrations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS approved herein and meet the other criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4);

• General conformity budgets (or growth increments, in this case) for the Department of the Navy (DoN) and United States Marine Corps (USMC), and for the San Diego International Airport (SDIA), see Table 3, as meeting the requirements of CAA section 176(c) and 40 CFR 93.161;

• Enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance program element in the 2020 Plan, as supplemented by the San Diego County area portion of the Smog Check Certification, as meeting the requirements of CAA section 182(c)(3) for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS, 40 CFR 51.1102 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and 40 CFR 51.1302 for the 2015 ozone NAAQS;

• Clean fuels fleet program element as meeting the requirements of CAA sections 182(c)(4)(A) and 246 for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS, 40 CFR 51.1102 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and 40 CFR 51.1302 for the 2015 ozone NAAQS;

• New Source Review program element as meeting the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(5), 173, and 182(a)(2)(C) for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS, 40 CFR 51.1114 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and 40 CFR 51.1314 for the 2015 ozone NAAQS; and

• Enhanced monitoring element as meeting the requirements of CAA section 182(c)(1) for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS, 40 CFR 51.1102 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and 40 CFR 51.1302 for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

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

• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023);

• 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 subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a State program;

• 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 the EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, this action 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).

Furthermore, 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. The 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.” The 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. However, as described in section III (Environmental Justice Considerations) of this document, the District does participate in the State's environmental justice program. The EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Due to the nature of this action, this action is expected to have a neutral to positive impact on the air quality of San Diego County. 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 Executive Order 12898, to achieve environmental justice for people of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 30, 2024. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. ( See section 307(b)(2)).

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

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

The background for this action is discussed in detail in our October 23, 2023 proposal (88 FR 72723). In that document we proposed to approve the Arkansas State plan revision for existing kraft pulp mills, accept the negative declaration for existing sulfuric acid plants and withdraw approval of the Arkansas State plan for existing sulfuric acid plants, and amend the agency regulations at 40 CFR part 62, subpart E, in accordance with the requirements of the CAA. EPA proposed to find that Arkansas' submittal, submitted by Arkansas Department of Energy and Environment, Division of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) on June 20, 2022, and supplemented on August 24, 2022, and August 31, 2022, meets the CAA section 111(d) requirements for plan revisions, negative declarations, and plan approval withdrawals in accordance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart B, 40 CFR part 62, subpart A, and the applicable EG requirements.

We did not receive any comments regarding our proposal.

In this final action, the EPA is amending 40 CFR part 62, subpart E, to reflect EPA's approval of the Arkansas plan revision for existing kraft pulp mills, acceptance of the Arkansas negative declaration for existing sulfuric acid plants, and the withdrawal of EPA's approval of the Arkansas State plan for existing sulfuric acid plants. EPA takes this action in accordance with the requirements under section 111(d) of the CAA.

Information on Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) and how EPA defines environmental justice can be found in the section titled “Statutory and Executive Order Reviews” in this final rule. EPA provided additional analysis of environmental justice associated with this action in our October 23, 2023 proposal (88 FR 72723) for the purpose of providing additional context and information about this rulemaking to the public, not as a basis of the action.

This final action is approving Arkansas's June 20, 2022, CAA section 111(d) plan revision for kraft pulp mills and accepting Arkansas's negative declaration for existing sulfuric acid plants; changes from the previously approved Arkansas plan for kraft pulp mills are discussed under the section titled “The EPA's Evaluation” in the proposed rule for this action (88 FR 72723, October 23, 2023). Total reduced sulfur (TRS) is considered a welfare-related pollutant. Information on TRS and its relationship to negative health impacts can be found at the Federal Register document titled “Kraft Pulp Mills, Notice of Availability of Final Guideline Document” (44 FR 29828, May 22, 1979). We expect that this action will generally have neutral environmental and health impacts on all populations, including people of color and low-income populations, in Arkansas that are located near an existing kraft pulp mill. At a minimum, this action would not worsen any existing air quality and is expected to ensure the area is meeting requirements to attain air quality standards. Further, there is no information in the record indicating that this action is expected to have disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental effects on a particular group of people.

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission (APC & EC) Rule 19, Chapter 8, approved January 28, 2022, which is part of the CAA section 111(d) Plan applicable to existing kraft pulp mills subject to the Kraft Pulp Mills Emission Guidelines within ADEQ's jurisdiction in the State of Arkansas. The regulatory provisions of APC & EC Rule 19, Chapter 8, incorporate the Kraft Pulp Mills Emission Guidelines promulgated by the EPA and provide emission standards for the control of existing kraft pulp mills, as defined in 40 CFR 60.281(a) and under the Kraft Pulp Mills Emission Guidelines, that commenced construction, modification, or reconstruction on or before September 24, 1976. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). This incorporation by reference has been approved by the Office of the Federal Register and the plan is federally enforceable under the CAA as of the effective date of this final rulemaking.

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a CAA section 111(d) submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7411(d); 42 U.S.C. 7429; 40 CFR part 60, subparts B and Cf; and 40 CFR part 62, subpart A. Thus, in reviewing CAA section 111(d) State plan submissions and negative declarations, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Act and implementing regulations. 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 as defined in Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), as amended by Executive Order 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023), and was therefore not subject to a requirement for Executive Order 12866 review.

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) because it does not contain any information collection activities.

This action is certified to not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). This action will approve plan revisions and accept negative declarations pursuant to CAA section 111(d) and will therefore have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.

This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector.

This action does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

This action will not 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).

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definitions of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive order. Therefore, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it approves a State program.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. This action 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.

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.”

The air agency did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as part of its submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. The EPA performed an environmental justice analysis, as described in the section titled “Environmental Justice Considerations” in the proposed rule associated with this action (88 FR 72723, October 23, 2023). The analysis was done for the purpose of providing additional context and information about this rulemaking to the public, not as a basis of the action. Due to the nature of the action being taken here, this action is expected to have a neutral impact on the air quality of the affected area. In addition, there is no information in the record upon which this action is based inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 30, 2024. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency amends 40 CFR part 62 as follows:

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Office of the Federal Register's e-CFR site at https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40 .

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0595 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before April 30, 2024. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0595, by one of the following methods:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov . Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001.

• Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/where-send-comments-epa-dockets#express .

Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets .

In the Federal Register of August 30, 2022 (87 FR 52868, FRL-9410-04), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a, announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP IN-11698) by Spring Regulatory Sciences, 6620 Cypresswood Dr., Suite 250, Spring, TX 77379 on behalf of Heubach Colorants USA LLC, 4000 Monroe Road, Charlotte, NC 28205. The petition requested that 40 CFR be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of 1,4-bis[[3-[2-(2-hydroxyethoxy)ethoxy]propyl]amino]-9,10-anthracenedione (CAS Reg. No. 123944-63-8) when used as an inert ingredient (colorant/dye) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops or raw agricultural commodities pre- and post-harvest under 40 CFR 180.910, in/on animals under 40 CFR 180.930, and in food contact sanitizing solutions under 40 CFR 180.940(a). That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Spring Regulatory Sciences on behalf of Heubach Colorants USA LLC, the petitioner, which is available in the docket, https://www.regulations.gov . There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

Based upon review of the data supporting the petition and in accordance with its authority under FFDCA section 408(d)(4)(A)(i), EPA is modifying the petitioner's request to limit the maximum concentration to no more than 0.5% of 1,4-bis[[3-[2-(2-hydroxyethoxy)ethoxy]propyl]amino]-9,10-anthracenedione under 40 CFR 180.910, and 40 CFR 180.930, and not to exceed 300 ppm in the end-use concentration under 40 CFR 180.940(a). This limitation is based on the Agency's risk assessment which can be found at https://www.regulations.gov in document IN-11698; 1,4-Bis[[3-[2-(2-hydroxyethoxy)ethoxy]propyl]amino]-9,10-anthracenedione. Human Health Risk Assessment and Ecological Effects Assessment to Support Inert Ingredient Approval for use in Pesticide Formulations in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0595.

Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents; and emulsifiers. The term “inert” is not intended to imply nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active. Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert ingredients.

Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings but does not include occupational exposure. When making a safety determination for an exemption for the requirement of a tolerance FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B) directs EPA to consider the considerations in section 408(b)(2)(C) and (D). Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .” Section 408(b)(2)(D) lists other factors for EPA consideration making safety determinations, e.g., the validity, completeness, and reliability of available data, nature of toxic effects, available information concerning the cumulative effects of the pesticide chemical and other substances with a common mechanism of toxicity, and available information concerning aggregate exposure levels to the pesticide chemical and other related substances, among others.

EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable circumstances will pose no harm to human health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance may be established.

Consistent with FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for 1,4-bis[[3-[2-(2-hydroxyethoxy)ethoxy]propyl]amino]-9,10-anthracenedione including exposure resulting from the exemption established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with 1,4-bis[[3-[2-(2-hydroxyethoxy)ethoxy]propyl]amino]-9,10-anthracenedione follows.

EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by 1,4-bis[[3-[2-(2-hydroxyethoxy)ethoxy]propyl]amino]-9,10-anthracenedione as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in this unit.

1,4-Bis[[3-[2-(2-hydroxyethoxy)ethoxy]propyl]amino]-9,10-anthracenedione exhibits low levels of acute toxicity via the oral and dermal routes of exposure. In the rat, the oral and dermal LD 50 s are greater than 2,000 milligrams/kilogram (mg/kg). Acute inhalation toxicity is not expected due to the very low vapor pressure. It is not irritating to the rabbit eye. It is not expected to be irritating to the skin based on the absence of skin irritation in the acute dermal toxicity study and low exposure. It is not a dermal sensitizer.

The most sensitive effects were observed in a 28-day oral toxicity study with 1,4-bis[[3-[2-(2-hydroxyethoxy)ethoxy]propyl]amino]-9,10-anthracenedione. Increased levels of methemoglobin, total bilirubin and bile acids and decreased blood urea nitrogen were observed in female rats at the lowest observed adverse level (LOAEL) of 330 mg/kg/day. The no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) is 110 mg/kg/day. Fetal susceptibility was not observed in the reproduction/developmental toxicity screening study in rats. Maternal (decreased thyroid hormone levels) and offspring (decreased bodyweights) toxicity was observed at the same dose, the LOAEL of 1,000 mg/kg/day. The NOAEL is 300 mg/kg/day. No reproduction toxicity effects are seen in the available studies. The concern for carcinogenicity is low, based on QSAR metabolism data showing the absence of metabolites associated with carcinogenicity and negative results in in vitro mutagenicity studies.

Neurotoxicity and immunotoxicity toxicity studies are not available for review. However, no evidence of neurotoxicity or immunotoxicity was observed in the submitted studies.

Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/overview-risk-assessment-pesticide-program .

An acute dietary endpoint was not selected because no effect attributable to a single dose was identified in the database. The 28-day oral toxicity study in rats is selected for the chronic dietary exposure scenario as well as short- and intermediate-term incidental oral, dermal and inhalation exposure scenarios. The NOAEL is 110 mg/kg/day, and the LOAEL is 330 mg/kg/day based on increased levels of methemoglobin, total bilirubin and bile acids and decreased blood urea nitrogen in females. This study is appropriate for the duration of exposure, it is protective of the general population, and it is protective of the most sensitive lifestage (children). The standard inter- and intra-species uncertainty factors of 10× are applied. An additional 10× uncertainty factor was applied to account for the use of a short-term study for chronic dietary exposure. The default factor of 100% is applied for the dermal absorption rate and the inhalation absorption rate.

1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to 1,4-bis[[3-[2-(2-hydroxyethoxy)ethoxy]propyl]amino]-9,10-anthracenedione, EPA considered exposure under the proposed exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. EPA assessed dietary exposures from 1,4-bis[[3-[2-(2-hydroxyethoxy)ethoxy]propyl]amino]-9,10-anthracenedione in food as follows:

In conducting the dietary exposure assessment using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model DEEM-FCIDTM, Version 4.02, EPA used food consumption information from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) 2005-2010 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, no residue data were submitted for 1,4-bis[[3-[2-(2-hydroxyethoxy)ethoxy]propyl]amino]-9,10-anthracenedione. In the absence of specific residue data, EPA has developed an approach which uses surrogate information to derive upper bound exposure estimates for the subject inert ingredient. Upper bound exposure estimates are based on the highest tolerance for a given commodity from a list of high use insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides. A complete description of the general approach taken to assess inert ingredient risks in the absence of residue data is contained in the memorandum entitled “Update to D361707: Dietary Exposure and Risk Assessments for the Inerts.” (12/21/2021) and can be found at https://www.regulations.gov in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0090. In the dietary exposure assessments, the Agency assumed that the residue level of the inert ingredient would be no higher than the highest tolerance for a given commodity. Implicit in this assumption is that there would be similar rates of degradation (if any) between the active and inert ingredient and that the concentration of inert ingredient in the scenarios leading to these highest levels of tolerances would be no higher than the concentration of the active ingredient.

The Agency believes the assumptions used to estimate dietary exposures lead to an extremely conservative assessment of dietary risk due to a series of compounded conservatisms. First, assuming that the level of residue for an inert ingredient is equal to the level of residue for the active ingredient will overstate exposure. The concentrations of active ingredient in agricultural products are generally at least 50 percent of the product and often can be much higher. Further, pesticide products rarely have a single inert ingredient; rather there is generally a combination of different inert ingredients used which additionally reduces the concentration of any single inert ingredient in the pesticide product in relation to that of the active ingredient. In the case of 1,4-bis[[3-[2-(2-hydroxyethoxy)ethoxy]propyl]amino]-9,10-anthracenedione, EPA made a specific adjustment to the dietary exposure assessment to account for the use limitations of the amount of 1,4-bis[[3-[2-(2-hydroxyethoxy)ethoxy]propyl]amino]-9,10-anthracenedione that may be in pesticide formulations (limited to no more than 0.5%) present at the maximum limitation rather than at equal quantities with the active ingredient.

For the purpose of the screening level dietary risk assessment to support this request for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for 1,4-bis[[3-[2-(2-hydroxyethoxy)ethoxy]propyl]amino]-9,10-anthracenedione, a conservative drinking water concentration value of 100 parts per billion (ppb) based on screening level modeling was used to assess the contribution to drinking water for chronic dietary risk assessments for 1,4-bis[[3-[2-(2-hydroxyethoxy)ethoxy]propyl]amino]-9,10-anthracenedione.

To assess dietary exposure due to its use in antimicrobial products, the EPA calculated the Estimated Daily Intake (EDI) and Daily Dietary Dose (DDD) as described in the Food Drug Administration (FDA) model, based on a maximum concentration of 300 ppm in the pesticide formulation. The assessment considered: application rates, residual solution or quantity of solution remaining on the treated surface without rinsing with potable water, surface area of the treated surface which comes into contact with food, pesticide migration fraction, and body weight. These assumptions are based on FDA guidelines (2003).

2. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure ( e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).

Although there are non-pesticidal uses for 1,4-bis[[3-[2-(2-hydroxyethoxy)ethoxy]propyl]amino]-9,10-anthracenedione, no reliable exposure information is available to EPA on those uses. 1,4-bis[[3-[2-(2-hydroxyethoxy)ethoxy]propyl]amino]-9,10-anthracenedione may be used as an inert ingredient in pesticide products that are registered for specific uses that may result in residential exposure, such as pesticides used in and around the home. Therefore, screening level residential handler and post-application risk assessments have been performed for common residential exposure scenarios, using assumptions detailed in the 2012 Residential SOPs (available at https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/standard-operating-procedures-residential-pesticide ).

3. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

EPA has not found 1,4-bis[[3-[2-(2-hydroxyethoxy)ethoxy]propyl]amino]-9,10-anthracenedione to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and 1,4-bis[[3-[2-(2-hydroxyethoxy)ethoxy]propyl]amino]-9,10-anthracenedione does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance exemption, therefore, EPA has assumed that 1,4-bis[[3-[2-(2- hydroxyethoxy)ethoxy]propyl]amino]-9,10-anthracenedione does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides .

Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (10×) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) Safety Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10×, or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.

Based on the evaluation of available toxicity studies, there is low concern for pre- and postnatal susceptibility from exposure to chemical name. The FQPA safety factor has been reduced to 1× because: (1) the toxicity database is adequate to characterize potential pre- and postnatal risk; (2) the established PoD (110 mg/kg/day) will be protective of the body weight decreases in offspring seen at 1,000 mg/kg/day in the combined reproduction/developmental toxicity screening study in rats; (3) no evidence of neurotoxicity was observed in the database; and (4) the assumptions for the exposure assessment are conservative and unlikely to underestimate risk.

EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.

1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore, 1,4-bis[[3-[2-(2-hydroxyethoxy)ethoxy]propyl]amino]-9,10-anthracenedione is not expected to pose an acute risk.

2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to 1,4-bis[[3-[2-(2-hydroxyethoxy)ethoxy]propyl]amino]-9,10-anthracenedione from food and water will utilize ~20.4% and 53.3% of the cPAD for the U.S. population and children 1 to 2 years old and non-nursing infants (the most highly exposed populations).

3. Short- and intermediate term risks. Short- and intermediate term aggregate exposures takes into account short- and intermediate-term residential exposures plus chronic exposures to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level).

1,4-Bis[[3-[2-(2-hydroxyethoxy)ethoxy]propyl]amino]-9,10-anthracenedione is currently used as an inert ingredient in non-pesticidal products and pesticidal products that are registered for uses that could result in short- and intermediate-term residential exposures, and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposures through food and water with short- and intermediate-term residential exposures to 1,4-bis[[3-[2-(2-hydroxyethoxy)ethoxy]propyl]amino]-9,10-anthracenedione. Although, there are non-pesticide exposures ( i.e. colorant for fabric and home care products including laundry) to 1,4-bis[[3-[2-(2-hydroxyethoxy)ethoxy]propyl]amino]-9,10-anthracenedione, aggregate exposures consider exposure due to pesticide uses only since no reliable exposure information is available for non-pesticidal uses.

Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short- and intermediate-term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short- and intermediate-term food, water, and residential exposures result in an aggregate risk index (ARI) of 4.3 for adults. Adult residential exposure combines high end dermal and inhalation handler exposure from aerosol spray/trigger pump with a high-end post application dermal exposure from contact with treated lawns. The combined short- and intermediate-term aggregated food, water, and residential pesticide exposures result in an aggregate ARI of 1.69 for children. Children's residential exposure includes total exposures associated with contact with treated lawns (dermal and hand-to-mouth exposures). Because EPA's level of concern for 1,4-bis[[3-[2-(2-hydroxyethoxy)ethoxy]propyl]amino]-9,10-anthracenedione is an ARI of 1 or below, these ARIs are not of concern.

An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is not establishing a numerical tolerance for residues of 1,4-bis[[3-[2-(2-hydroxyethoxy)ethoxy]propyl]amino]-9,10-anthracenedione in or on any food commodities. EPA is establishing a limitation on the amount of 1,4-bis[[3-[2-(2-hydroxyethoxy)ethoxy]propyl]amino]-9,10-anthracenedione that may be used in pesticide formulations applied pre- and post-harvest, in/on animals; and in food contact sanitizing solutions. This limitation will be enforced through the pesticide registration process under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”), 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. EPA will not register any pesticide formulation for food use that exceeds 0.5% 1,4-bis[[3-[2-(2-hydroxyethoxy)ethoxy]propyl]amino]-9,10-anthracenedione in the final pesticide formulations to be applied pre- and post-harvest, in/on animals; and not to exceed 300 ppm in the end-use concentration when ready for use antimicrobial formulations (food-contact surface sanitizing solutions).

FFDCA section 408(d)(4)(A)(i) permits the Agency to finalize a tolerance that varies from that sought by the petition. EPA is establishing a tolerance exemption for residues of 1,4-bis[[3-[2-(2-hydroxyethoxy)ethoxy]propyl]amino]-9,10-anthracenedione (CAS Reg. No. 123944-63-8) with concentration limits not sought by the petition based on the Agency's risk assessment.

Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for residues of 1,4-bis[[3-[2-(2-hydroxyethoxy)ethoxy]propyl]amino]-9,10-anthracenedione (CAS Reg. No. 123944-63-8) when used as an inert ingredient (colorant/dye) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops and raw agricultural commodities after harvest under 40 CFR 180.910 and in/ on animals under 40 CFR 180.930, limited to a maximum concentration of 0.5% in a pesticide formulation and in antimicrobial formulations applied to food-contact surfaces in public eating places, dairy-processing equipment, and food-processing equipment and utensils under 40 CFR 180.940(a) not to exceed 300 ppm in the end-use concentration.

This action establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ), nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the exemptions in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), do not apply.

This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or Tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or Tribal governments, on the relationship between the National Government and the States or Tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. ).

This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), EPA will submit a report containing this rule 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 . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending 40 CFR chapter I as follows:

I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Office of the Federal Register's e-CFR site at https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40.

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0295 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before April 30, 2024. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0295, by one of the following methods:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001.

• Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/where-send-comments-epa-dockets#express.

Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

In the Federal Register of June 24, 2020 (85 FR 37806, FRL-10010-82), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a, announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP IN-11373) by Innovative Reform Group, on behalf of The Clorox Company, 4900 Johnson Dr., Pleasanton, CA 94588. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.940(a) be amended by establishing exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of: (Z)-β-1-(2,6,6-Trimethyl-1-cyclohexen-1-yl)-2-buten-1-one; (2E)-1-(2,6,6-Trimethyl-1-cyclohexen-1-yl)-2-buten-1-one (CAS Reg. No. 35044-68-9; 23726-92-3; 23726-91-2); 1,3,5-Undecatriene (CAS Reg. No. 16356-11-9); 1-Cyclohexylethanol (CAS Reg. No. 1193-81-3); 1-Octen-3-yl acetate (CAS Reg. No. 2442-10-6); 2-(p-Tolyl)propionaldehyde (CAS Reg. No. 99-72-9); 2,3,6-Trimethylphenol (CAS Reg. No. 2416-94-6); 2,5-Xylenol (CAS Reg. No. 95-87-4); 2,6-Dimethoxyphenol (CAS Reg. No. 91-10-1); 2,6-Dimethyl-4-heptanol (CAS Reg. No. 108-82-7); 2,6-Xylenol (CAS Reg. No.576-26-1); 2-Cyclohexen-1-one, 2-hydroxy-3-methyl-6-(1-methylethyl)- (CAS Reg. No. 490-03-9); 2-Heptanol (CAS Reg. No.543-49-7); 2-Isopropylphenol (CAS Reg. No. 88-69-7); 2-Methoxy-4-methylphenol (CAS Reg. No. 93-51-6); 2-Methoxy-4-vinylphenol (CAS Reg. No. 7786-61-0); 2-Methyl-4-phenyl-2-butyl acetate (CAS Reg. No. 103-07-1); 2-phenylethyl 2-methylbutyrate (CAS Reg. No. 24817-51-4); 2-Propanol (CAS Reg. No. 67-63-0); 3,3,5-Trimethylcyclohexanol (CAS Reg. No. 116-02-9); 3,4-Xylenol (CAS Reg. No. 95-65-8); 3,7-Dimethyl-1,3,6-octatriene (CAS Reg. No. 13877-91-3); 3-Buten-2-one, 4-(2,6,6-trimethyl-1-cyclohexen-1-yl)- (CAS Reg. No. 14901-07-6; 79-77-6); 3-Methyl-2-butenyl benzoate (CAS Reg. No. 5205-11-8); 3-Methylindole (CAS Reg. No. 83-34-1); 3-Phenylpropionaldehyde (CAS Reg. No. 104-53-0); 3-Phenylpropionic acid (CAS Reg. No. 501-52-0); 3-Phenylpropyl acetate (CAS Reg. No. 122-72-5); 3-Phenylpropyl cinnamate (CAS Reg. No. 122-68-9); 4-(p-Methoxyphenyl)-2-butanone (CAS Reg. No. 104-20-1); 4,7,7-Trimethyl-6-thiabicyclo[3.2.1]octane (CAS Reg. No. 68398-18-5); 4-Ethylbenzaldehyde (CAS Reg. No. 4748-78-1); 4-Ethylguaiacol (CAS Reg. No. 2785-89-9); 4-Mercapto-4-methyl-2-pentanone (CAS Reg. No. 19872-52-7); 4-Methoxy-2-methyl-2-butanethiol (CAS Reg. No. 94087-83-9); 5-(cis-3-Hexenyl)dihydro-5-methyl-2(3H)furanone (CAS Reg. No. 70851-61-5); Acetanisole (CAS Reg. No. 100-06-1); Allspice oil (Pimenta officinalis Lindl.) (CAS Reg. No. 8006-77-7); Anisyl formate (CAS Reg. No. 122-91-8); Anisyl propionate (CAS Reg. No. 7549-33-9); Balsam oil, Peru (Myroxylon pereirae Klotzsch) (CAS Reg. No. 8007-00-9); Benzaldehyde, 4-hydroxy-3-methoxy- (CAS Reg. No. 121-33-5); Benzaldehyde, methyl- (CAS Reg. No. 1334-78-7) Benzene, 1,2-dimethoxy- (CAS Reg. No. 91-16-7); Benzene, 2-methoxy-4-methyl-1-(1-methylethyl)- (CAS Reg. No. 1076-56-8); Benzeneacetaldehyde (CAS Reg. No. 122-78-1); Benzoic acid (CAS Reg. No. 65-85-0); Benzoin gum, Sumatra (CAS Reg. No. 9000-05-9); Benzyl acetate (CAS Reg. No. 140-11-4); Benzyl benzoate (CAS Reg. No. 120-51-4); Benzyl cinnamate (CAS Reg. No. 103-41-3); Benzyl formate (CAS Reg. No. 104-57-4); Benzyl isovalerate (CAS Reg. No. 103-38-8); Benzyl phenylacetate (CAS Reg. No. 102-16-9); Benzyl salicylate (CAS Reg. No. 118-58-1); Benzyl trans-2-methyl-2-butenoate (CAS Reg. No. 37526-88-8); Bicyclo[3.1.1]heptane, 6,6-dimethyl-2-methylene- (CAS Reg. No. 127-91-3); Bisabolene (CAS Reg. No. 495-62-5); Borneol (CAS Reg. No. 507-70-0); Butyl sulfide (CAS Reg. No. 544-40-1); Cadinene (CAS Reg. No. 29350-73-0; 523-47-7); Camphene (CAS Reg. No. 79-92-5); Cananga oil (CAS Reg. No. 68606-83-7); Carvyl acetate (CAS Reg. No. 97-42-7); Cassia bark oil (CAS Reg. No. 8007-80-5); Cinnamic acid; trans-Cinnamic acid (CAS Reg. No. 621-82-9; 140-10-3); Cinnamic aldehyde (CAS Reg. No. 104-55-2; 14371-10-9); Cinnamon leaf oil (CAS Reg. No. 84649-98-9); Cinnamyl acetate (CAS Reg. No. 103-54-8); Cinnamyl benzoate (CAS Reg. No. 5320-75-2); Cinnamyl cinnamate (CAS Reg. No. 122-69-0); Cinnamyl formate (CAS Reg. No. 104-65-4); Cinnamyl isobutyrate (CAS Reg. No. 103-59-3); Cinnamyl propionate (CAS Reg. No. 103-56-0); cis-3-Hexenyl benzoate (CAS Reg. No. 25152-85-6); Citrus, ext. (CAS Reg. No. 94266-47-4); Cloves (Eugenia spp.) (CAS Reg. No. 84961-50-2); Cornmint oil (CAS Reg. No. 68917-18-0); Currant buds black absolute (Ribes nigrum L.) (CAS Reg. No. 68606-81-5); Cyclohexadiene, methyl- (CAS Reg. No. 30640-46-1; 1888-90-0); delta-3-Carene (CAS Reg. No. 13466-78-9); d-Limonene (CAS Reg. No. 5989-27-5); endo-Bornyl acetate (CAS Reg. No. 76-49-3); Ethyl 3-phenylpropionate (CAS Reg. No. 2021-28-5); Ethyl anthranilate (CAS Reg. No. 87-25-2); Ethyl benzoylacetate (CAS Reg. No. 94-02-0); Ethyl cinnamate (CAS Reg. No. 103-36-6); Ethyl phenylacetate (CAS Reg. No. 101-97-3); Eugenyl acetate (CAS Reg. No. 93-28-7); gamma-Ionone (CAS Reg. No. 79-76-5); Geranyl benzoate (CAS Reg. No. 94-48-4); Geranyl phenylacetate (CAS Reg. No. 102-22-7); Guaiacol (CAS Reg. No. 90-05-1); Guaiene (CAS Reg. No. 88-84-6); Hexyl benzoate (CAS Reg. No. 6789-88-4); Isoamyl benzoate (CAS Reg. No. 94-46-2); Isoamyl cinnamate (CAS Reg. No. 7779-65-9); Isoamyl phenylacetate (CAS Reg. No. 102-19-2); Isoamyl salicylate (CAS Reg. No. 87-20-7); Isobornyl acetate (CAS Reg. No. 125-12-2); Isobutyl benzoate (CAS Reg. No. 120-50-3); Isobutyl cinnamate (CAS Reg. No. 122-67-8); Isobutyl phenylacetate (CAS Reg. No. 102-13-6); Isobutyl salicylate (CAS Reg. No. 87-19-4); Isoeugenol (CAS Reg. No. 97-54-1); Isoeugenyl acetate (CAS Reg. No. 93-29-8); iso-Methyl-beta-ionone (CAS Reg. No. 79-89-0); Isopropyl acetate (CAS Reg. No. 108-21-4); Isopulegol (CAS Reg. No. 89-79-2); Jasmine oil (Jasminum grandiflorum L.) (CAS Reg. No. 8022-96-6); Juniper oil (Juniperus communis L.) (CAS Reg. No. 8002-68-4); Linalyl benzoate (CAS Reg. No. 126-64-7); Linalyl cinnamate (CAS Reg. No. 78-37-5); m-Dimethoxybenzene (CAS Reg. No. 151-10-0); Menthol (CAS Reg. No. 15356-70-4; 89-78-1; 1490-04-6); Methyl 3-methylthiopropionate (CAS Reg. No. 13532-18-8); Methyl anisate (CAS Reg. No. 121-98-2); Methyl N-acetylanthranilate (CAS Reg. No. 2719-08-6); Methyl n-propyl ketone (CAS Reg. No. 107-87-9); Methyl o-methoxybenzoate (CAS Reg. No. 606-45-1); Methyl phenylacetate (CAS Reg. No. 101-41-7); Methyl salicylate (CAS Reg. No. 119-36-8); Methyl sulfide (CAS Reg. No. 75-18-3); Methyl-alpha-ionone (CAS Reg. No. 127-42-4); Methylbenzyl acetate (mixed o,m,p) (CAS Reg. No. 360676-70-1; 2216-45-7; 17373-93-2); Methyl-beta-ionone (CAS Reg. No. 127-43-5); Neroli bigarde oil (Citrus aurantium L.) (CAS Reg. No. 8016-38-4); Oil of Bergamot (CAS Reg. No. 8007-75-8); Oil of camphor (CAS Reg. No. 8008-51-3); Oil of orange (CAS Reg. No. 8008-57-9); Oils, Fir (CAS Reg. No. 8021-29-2); Oils, mimosa (CAS Reg. No. 8031-03-6); Oils, peppermint (CAS Reg. No. 8006-90-4); Oils, spruce (CAS Reg. No. 8008-80-8); Oils, thyme (CAS Reg. No. 8007-46-3); o-Propylphenol (CAS Reg. No. 644-35-9); Orris absolute (Iris pallida) (CAS Reg. No. 8002-73-1); p,alpha-Dimethylstyrene (CAS Reg. No. 1195-32-0); p-Anisyl acetate (CAS Reg. No. 104-21-2); p-Cresol (CAS Reg. No. 106-44-5); p-Dimethoxybenzene (CAS Reg. No. 150-78-7); Pepper, black, oil (Piper nigrum L.) (CAS Reg. No. 8006-82-4); peppermint (Mentha piperita) ext. (CAS Reg. No. 84082-70-2); p-Ethylphenol (CAS Reg. No. 123-07-9); Phenethyl butyrate (CAS Reg. No. 103-52-6); Phenethyl cinnamate (CAS Reg. No.103-53-7); Phenethyl formate (CAS Reg. No. 104-62-1); Phenethyl hexanoate (CAS Reg. No. 6290-37-5); Phenethyl propionate (CAS Reg. No. 122-70-3); Phenethyl salicylate (CAS Reg. No. 87-22-9); Phenethyl tiglate (CAS Reg. No. 55719-85-2); Phenol, 2,4,6-trimethyl- (CAS Reg. No. 527-60-6); Phenol, 2-methoxy-4-(2-propenyl)- (CAS Reg. No. 97-53-0); Phenyl ethyl alcohol (CAS Reg. No. 60-12-8); Phenylacetaldehyde glyceryl acetal (CAS Reg. No. 29895-73-6); Phenylacetic acid (CAS Reg. No. 103-82-2); pine needle oil (CAS Reg. No. 8000-26-8); Pine scotch oil (Pinus sylvestris L.) (CAS Reg. No. 8023-99-2); p-Isopropyl phenylacetaldehyde (CAS Reg. No. 4395-92-0); p-Isopropylacetophenone (CAS Reg. No. 645-13-6); p-Isopropylbenzyl alcohol (CAS Reg. No. 536-60-7); p-Propylphenol (CAS Reg. No. 645-56-7); Propenylguaethol (CAS Reg. No. 94-86-0); Propyl phenethyl acetal (CAS Reg. No. 7493-57-4); p-Tolyl 3-methylbutyrate (CAS Reg. No. 55066-56-3); p-Tolyl acetate (CAS Reg. No. 140-39-6); p-Tolyl isobutyrate (CAS Reg. No. 103-93-5); p-Tolyl octanoate (CAS Reg. No. 59558-23-5); p-Tolyl phenylacetate (CAS Reg. No. 101-94-0); p-Tolylacetaldehyde (CAS Reg. No. 104-09-6); Rose absolute (Rosa spp.) (CAS Reg. No. 8007-01-0); Salicylaldehyde (CAS Reg. No. 90-02-8); Schinus molle oil (Schinus molle L.) (CAS Reg. No. 68917-52-2); Storax (Liquidambar spp.) (CAS Reg. No. 8046-19-3); Tagetes oil (Tagetes erecta L.) (CAS Reg. No. 8016-84-0); Tetradecanoic acid, 1-methylethyl ester (CAS Reg. No. 110-27-0); Thyme (Thymus Vulgaris) Oil (CAS Reg. No. 84929-51-1); Thymol (8CA) (CAS Reg. No. 89-83-8); Tolu, balsam, gum (Myroxylon spp.) (CAS Reg. No. 9000-64-0); Turpentine, oil (CAS Reg. No. 8006-64-2); Valencene (CAS Reg. No. 4630-07-3); Vanilla (Vanilla spp.) (CAS Reg. No. 8024-06-4); Vanilla extract (Vanilla spp.) (CAS Reg. No. 84650-63-5); Vanilla tahitensis, ext. (CAS Reg. No. 94167-14-3); Wintergreen oil (CAS Reg. No. 68917-75-9); Zingerone (CAS Reg. No. 122-48-5); α-1-(2,6,6-Trimethyl-2-cyclohexen-1-yl)-2-buten-1-one (CAS Reg. No. 43052-87-5); α-Farnesene (CAS Reg. No. 125037-13-0; 502-61-4); α-Ionone (CAS Reg. No. 127-41-3); α-Irone (CAS Reg. No. 79-69-6); α-Methylbenzyl propionate (CAS Reg. No. 120-45-6); α-Phellandrene (CAS Reg. No. 99-83-2); α-Pinene (CAS Reg. No. 80-56-8); α-Propylphenethyl alcohol (CAS Reg. No. 705-73-7); α-Terpinene (CAS Reg. No. 99-86-5); β-Caryophyllene (CAS Reg. No. 87-44-5); β-Methylphenethyl alcohol (CAS Reg. No. 1123-85-9); β-Naphthyl anthranilate (CAS Reg. No. 63449-68-3); when used as inert ingredients (fragrance components) in pesticide formulations applied to food contact surfaces in public eating places, dairy-processing equipment, and food-processing equipment with end-use concentrations not to exceed 100 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Innovative Reform Group on behalf of The Clorox Company, which is available in the docket, https://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents; and emulsifiers. The term “inert” is not intended to imply nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active. Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert ingredients.

Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings but does not include occupational exposure. When making a safety determination for an exemption for the requirement of a tolerance FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B) directs EPA to consider the considerations in section 408(b)(2)(C) and (D). Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .” Section 408(b)(2)(D) lists other factors for EPA consideration making safety determinations, e.g., the validity, completeness, and reliability of available data, nature of toxic effects, available information concerning the cumulative effects of the pesticide chemical and other substances with a common mechanism of toxicity, and available information concerning aggregate exposure levels to the pesticide chemical and other related substances, among others.

EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable circumstances will pose no harm to human health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance may be established.

Consistent with FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for the various fragrance components identified in Unit II of this document, including exposure resulting from the exemptions established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with these various fragrance components follows.

EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by various fragrance components identified in Unit II, as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in this unit.

The Agency assessed these fragrance components via the Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) approach as outlined by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in their 2019 guidance document on the use of TTC in food safety assessment. Information regarding the database of studies and chemicals used to derive TTCs are reviewed therein. The TTC approach has been used by the Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives of the United Nations' (U.N.) Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization (JECFA), the former Scientific Committee on Food of the European Commission, the European Medicines Agency, and EFSA.

Information from JECFA reports as well as predictive toxicology using the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationships (QSAR) Toolbox was used to confirm that the fragrances listed in Unit II have low carcinogenic potential and are thus good candidates for the application of the TTC method. Although 24 chemicals had in silico carcinogenicity alerts, JECFA concluded and EPA concurs that all fragrances listed in Unit II have low carcinogenic potential, based on in vitro and/or in vivo genotoxicity studies available on the chemical or structurally related chemicals. Therefore, the TTC method can be applied to these fragrances.

TTCs are derived from a conservative and rigorous approach to establish generic threshold values for human exposure at which a very low probability of adverse effects is likely. By comparing a range of compounds by Cramer Class (classes I, II, and III which correspond to the probability of low, moderate and high toxicity) and NOEL (no-observed-effect-level), fifth percentile NOELs were established for each Cramer Class as “Human Exposure Thresholds”. These values were 3, 0.91 and 0.15 mg/kg/day for classes I, II, and III, respectively.

Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/overview-risk-assessment-pesticide-program.

The human exposure threshold value for threshold ( i.e., non-cancer) risks is based upon Cramer structural class. All of the fragrance components listed in Unit II are in Cramer Class I, which is defined as chemicals of simple structure and efficient modes of metabolism, suggesting low oral toxicity. Therefore, the NOEL of 3 mg/kg/day is selected as the point of departure for all exposure scenarios assessed (chronic dietary, incidental oral, dermal and inhalation exposures).

1. Dietary exposure. In evaluating dietary exposure to each of the fragrance components listed in Unit II ( e.g., ingesting foods that come in contact with surfaces treated with pesticide formulations containing these fragrance components, and drinking water exposures), EPA considered exposure under the proposed exemptions at a concentration not to exceed 100 ppm for each of the listed fragrance components as well as any other sources of dietary exposure. EPA assessed dietary exposures from the fragrance components listed in Unit II in food as follows:

The dietary assessment for food contact sanitizer solutions calculated the Daily Dietary Dose (DDD) and the Estimated Daily Intake (EDI). The assessment considered application rates, residual solution or quantity of solution remaining on the treated surface without rinsing with potable water, surface area of the treated surface which comes into contact with food, pesticide migration fraction, and body weight. These assumptions are based on U.S. Food and Drug Administration guidelines.

2. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure ( e.g., textiles (clothing and diapers), carpets, swimming pools, and hard surface disinfection on walls, floors, tables).

The fragrance components listed in Unit II may be used as inert ingredients in products that are registered for specific uses that may result in residential exposure, such as pesticides used in and around the home. The Agency conducted a conservative assessment of potential residential exposure by assessing various fragrance components in disinfectant-type uses (indoor scenarios). The Agency's assessment of adult residential exposure combines high-end dermal and inhalation handler exposure from indoor hard surface, wiping, and aerosol spray uses. The Agency's assessment of children's residential exposure includes total post-application exposures associated with contact with treated indoor surfaces (dermal and hand-to-mouth exposures).

3. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

EPA has not found the fragrance components listed in Unit II to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, nor do they appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of the tolerance exemptions established in this rule, therefore, EPA has assumed that the fragrance components listed in Unit II do not have common mechanisms of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) Safety Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.

The FQPA SF has been reduced to 1X in this risk assessment because clear NOELs and LOELs were established in the studies used to derive the endpoints (which included developmental and reproductive toxicity studies), maternal and developmental-specific 5th percentile NOELs indicate low potential for offspring susceptibility, and the conservative assumptions made in the exposure assessment are unlikely to underestimate risk.

EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.

1. Acute aggregate risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and drinking water. No adverse effects resulting from a single oral exposure were identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected for any of the fragrance components listed in Unit II. Therefore, these fragrance components are not expected to pose an acute risk.

2. Short-term aggregate risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). For residential handler short-term exposure scenarios, MOEs ranged from 140 to 2,500, while for residential post-application exposure scenarios, MOEs ranged from 380 to 7,400. These MOEs are greater than the level of concern (LOC) of 100 and therefore are not of concern. The short-term aggregate MOE is 109 for adults and 135 for children, which are greater than the LOC of 100 and therefore are not of concern.

3. Intermediate-term aggregate risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account intermediate-term residential (dermal and inhalation) exposure plus chronic dietary exposure (food and drinking water). As the same endpoints were selected for short-term and intermediate-term exposures, intermediate-term aggregate risk is equal to the short-term aggregate risk, and it is not of concern.

4. Chronic aggregate risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to the fragrance components listed in Unit II from food and water will utilize 19% of the cPAD for the U.S. population and 48% of the cPAD for children 1 to 2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. Chronic residential exposure to residues of these fragrance components is not expected. Therefore, the chronic aggregate risk is equal to the chronic dietary exposure for children 1 to 2 years old (48% of the cPAD).

5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. There is low concern for genotoxicity/carcinogenicity in humans for the fragrance components listed in Unit II of this document. Therefore, the assessment under the TTC value for non-cancer risks is protective for all risks, including carcinogenicity.

6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of the fragrance components listed in Unit II.

An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is not establishing a numerical tolerance for residues of the fragrance components listed in Unit II of this document in or on any food commodities. EPA is, however, establishing limitations on the amount of these fragrance components that may be used in antimicrobial pesticide formulations. These limitations will be enforced through the pesticide registration process under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”), 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. EPA will not register any pesticide formulation for food use that contains these fragrance components in excess of 100 ppm in the final pesticide formulation.

The Agency is not establishing tolerance exemptions for the following fragrance ingredients because they were withdrawn by the petitioner: 2-Cyclohexen-1-one, 2-hydroxy-3-methyl-6-(1-methylethyl)- (CAS Reg. No. 490-03-9); β-Naphthyl anthranilate (CAS Reg. No. 63449-68-3); p-Cresol (CAS Reg. No. 106-44-5); Α-1-(2,6,6-Trimethyl-2-cyclohexen-1-yl)-2-buten-1-one (CAS Reg. No. 43052-87-5).

EPA is also not finalizing exemptions for the following ingredients because they were already approved for use under 40 CFR 180.940(a): 2-Propanol (CAS Reg. No. 67-63-0); Benzaldehyde, 4-hydroxy-3-methoxy- (CAS Reg. No. 121-33-5); Bicyclo[3.1.1]heptane, 6,6-dimethyl-2-methylene- (CAS Reg. No. 127-91-3); Cinnamic aldehyde (CAS Reg. No. 104-55-2 & 14371-10-9); d-Limonene (CAS Reg. No. 5989-27-5); Isobornyl acetate (CAS Reg. No. 125-12-2); Methyl salicylate (CAS Reg. No. 119-36-8); Phenol, 2-methoxy-4-(2-propenyl)- (CAS Reg. No. 97-53-0); Phenyl ethyl alcohol (CAS Reg. No. 60-12-8); Thymol (8CA) (CAS Reg. No. 89-83-8); α-Pinene (CAS Reg. No. 80-56-8); β-Caryophyllene (CAS Reg. No. 87-44-5).

Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for residues of various fragrance components listed in Unit II of this document when used as an inert ingredient (fragrance component) in pesticide formulations applied to food-contact surfaces in public eating places, dairy-processing equipment, and food-processing equipment and utensils with an end-use concentration not to exceed 100 ppm under 40 CFR 180.940(a).

This action establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ), nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the exemptions in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), do not apply.

This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or Tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or Tribal governments, on the relationship between the National Government and the States or Tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. ).

This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), EPA will submit a report containing this rule 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 . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending 40 CFR chapter I as follows:

This document announces that OMB approved the information collection requirement in 47 CFR 64.1200(p) on February 12, 2024. The rule was adopted in the Text Blocking Report and Order, FCC 23-21, 88 FR 21497, April 11, 2023. The Commission publishes this document as an announcement of the compliance date of the rules.

If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed below, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Cathy Williams, Federal Communications Commission, Room 3-317, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554, regarding OMB Control Number 3060-1322. Please include the applicable OMB Control Number in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via email at PRA@fcc.gov.

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.

In addition, this document removes 47 CFR 64.1200(q), which advised that compliance with the new rules would not be required until 64.1200(q) is removed or the Commission announces a compliance date.

As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received final OMB approval on February 12, 2024, for the information collection requirement contained in 47 CFR 64.1200(p). Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.

No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for the information collection requirement in 47 CFR 64.1200(p) is 3060-1322.

The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.

The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:

OMB Control Number: 3060-1322.

OMB Approval Date: February 12, 2024.

OMB Expiration Date: February 28, 2027.

Title: Targeting and Eliminating Unlawful Text Messages, Implementation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991.

Form Number: N/A.

Respondents: Business or other for profit entities, and state, local or tribal governments.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 2,893 respondents; 34,716 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information is contained in sections 4(i), 4(j), 154(i), 154(j), 227, 301, 303, 307, and 316.

Total Annual Burden: 34,716 hours.

Total Annual Cost: No cost.

Needs and Uses: Text message-based scams can include links to well-designed phishing websites that appear identical to the website of a legitimate company and can fool a victim into providing personal or financial information. Texted links can also load unwanted software onto a device, including malware that steals passwords, credentials, or other personal information. The FCC is therefore requiring all mobile wireless providers to block certain text messages that are highly likely to be illegal.

In the Text Blocking Report and Order, 88 FR 21497, April 11, 2023, the FCC is requiring mobile wireless providers to block certain text messages that are highly likely to be illegal. The Commission is requiring mobile wireless providers to block—at the network level—texts purporting to be from NANP numbers on a reasonable DNO list, which include numbers that purport to be from invalid, unallocated, or unused numbers, and NANP numbers for which the subscriber to the number has requested that texts purporting to originate from that number be blocked. These are texts that no reasonable consumer would wish to receive because they are highly likely to be illegal.

The FCC is also ensuring that any erroneous blocking can be quickly remedied by requiring mobile wireless providers and other entities to maintain a point of contact for texters to report erroneously blocked texts.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 64 as follows:

NMFS and the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) manage the Hawaii deep-set longline fishery under the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific (FEP). The implementing Federal regulations for this fishery include a suite of conservation and management requirements. This fishery occasionally catches seabirds; therefore, NMFS implemented a suite of seabird mitigation requirements in 2001 that resulted in the reduction of seabird interactions by 70-90 percent. However, seabird interactions in the Hawaii longline fisheries gradually increased in the subsequent years, with significant increases in black-footed albatross interactions in the deep-set fishery since 2015.

Cooperative research by the Council, the Hawaii Longline Association, NMFS Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, and NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office (PIRO) in 2019-2021 demonstrated that when tori lines are employed in lieu of blue-dyed bait and strategic offal discharge on deep-set longline vessels that set from the stern, albatross making attempts to eat the bait off hooks are 1.5 times less likely, contacts with the bait are 4 times less likely, and captures are 14 times less likely. Furthermore, there is inconclusive evidence that the existing strategic offal discharge requirements reduce seabird interaction risk, and the requirement is associated with heavy administrative burdens to the Pacific Islands Region Observer Program and NOAA Office of Law Enforcement. Similarly, use of blue-dyed bait is burdensome due to the amount of time required to thaw and dye the bait, thawed bait loss from hooks, vessel maintenance costs related to using vats of blue dye, and the administrative burden to monitor and enforce consistent application of blue dye.

To reduce seabird bycatch and improve operational and administrative efficiency, NMFS will require deep-set longline vessels that stern-set to employ a tori line system instead of using thawed, blue-dyed bait and strategic offal discharge when fishing north of lat. 23° N. These measures will modify the requirements implemented at 50 CFR 665.815. NMFS also will require that vessels deploy a tori line system that meets required material, length, and position specifications prior to the first hook being set. We note that this action will only modify seabird mitigation requirements for the Hawaii deep-set fishery; however, research on mitigation measures is currently underway in the Hawaii shallow-set fishery.

All Hawaii longline vessels will continue to be required to follow other existing seabird handling and release requirements at 50 CFR 665.815(b) and (c) to maximize the chances of post-release survival of seabirds that are caught alive, and to be certified for the completion of an annual protected species workshop conducted by NMFS (50 CFR 665.814). All other measures applicable to longline fisheries under the FEP will remain unchanged. This rule and related tori line design guidelines are consistent with seabird mitigation requirements set forth by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission and the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (see https://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles/Resolutions/IATTC/_English/C-11-02-Active_Seabirds.pdf and www.wcpfc.int/doc/wcpfc15-2018-dp16/seabird-interaction-mitigation-amendment-cmm-2017-06 ).

The rule will also revise 50 CFR 665.802 to clarify prohibitions for vessels with Hawaii longline limited access permits. Specifically, the rule will improve descriptions of which vessels are subject to the prohibitions. The rule will also correct the omission of a prohibition for side-setting ( i.e., setting the mainline from the port or starboard side of the vessel at least one meter from the stern) without a bird curtain and weighted branch lines.

You may find additional background information on this action in the preamble to the proposed rule published on October 17, 2023 (88 FR 71523).

On October 17, 2023, NMFS published a proposed rule, an Environmental Assessment (EA), and Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) for public comment (88 FR 71523). The comment period ended on November 16, 2023. NMFS received a comment letter from one nonprofit organization, the American Bird Conservancy (ABC). In general, ABC supported the proposed rule. There were no comments directed at analyses presented in the EA or the RIR. We summarize and respond to ABC's comments here.

Comment 1: ABC expressed support for the proposed rule, specifically the use of tori lines in place of the currently required thawed, blue-dyed bait and strategic offal discharge when fishing above lat. 23° N, and the housekeeping correction to reinstate the prohibition for side setting without a bird curtain.

Response: NMFS agrees and will continue to sustainably manage and regulate Federal fisheries to minimize bycatch, bycatch mortality, and interactions with protected species, including seabirds, consistent with applicable law.

Comment 2: ABC expressed support of a requirement to prohibit offal discharge during setting operations and therefore a preference for Alternative 3 in the EA which includes a modification of, rather that the removal of, the offal discharge requirement to an offal management requirement.

Response: The main difference between Alternatives 2 and 3 is whether the updated offal management measure would be implemented through a non-regulatory best practices annual training (Alternative 2) or a regulatory requirement (Alternative 3). As described in detail in EA section 4.2.2, the Council recommended Alternative 2 because it determined that fishing operations in the deep-set longline fishery are already in line with best practices for offal management because offal is not generated during the set. Offal would typically be generated and discharged in the deep-set longline fishery during the haul, and would not be saved for discharge during the set in the absence of the existing strategic offal discharge requirement. Under Alternative 2, fishery participants are not likely to retain offal and spent bait from hauling operations, so there would be no offal or spent bait available during setting operations to discharge. Even without a requirement, offal discharge during setting operations would be an atypical occurrence, and it is not expected to appreciably increase seabird interactions.

Furthermore, regulating best practices under Alternative 3 is associated with an increased administrative burden to monitor and enforce the regulation. Under Alternative 2, best practices will be taught in the protected species workshop, which is required annually for all deep-set longline vessel owners and captains. NMFS will be able to update and adapt the best practices training in accordance with the best scientific information available, in a manner that is more efficient and responsive to evolving science than changing a regulatory requirement. In this way, NMFS will be able to disseminate best practices to the fisheries' participants with less administrative burden and in a timelier manner than through the regulatory process.

This rule as described in EA Alternative 2, achieves the objective by reducing seabird interactions with the fishery while minimizing unnecessary regulation.

Comment 3: ABC recommended encouraging the use of tori lines in the deep-set longline fishery south of lat. 23° N for the sake of providing international leadership.

Response: Less than 14 percent of observed seabird interactions have occurred in the deep-set longline fishery south of lat. 23° N and NMFS has determined the risk to seabirds south of lat. 23° N to be low. However, the rule does not prohibit fishers from also using tori lines when they are fishing south of lat. 23° N. NMFS can encourage fishers to use tori lines whenever seabirds are present, regardless of latitude, as a best practice in the protected species workshop training required annually for fishers.

Comment 4: ABC encouraged NMFS to request more appropriations for the fisheries observer program to increase coverage to beyond 20 percent in order to better monitor compliance of seabird mitigation requirements.

Response: On October 1, 2023, NMFS changed observer coverage in the Hawaii deep-set longline fishery from 20 to 15 percent due to increased program costs and is evaluating options to manage observer efforts moving forward, including assessing alternative long-term options—like electronic technologies—to supplement monitoring and collecting fishery data.

Comment 5: ABC provided two more recommendations, which are related to seabirds and the rulemaking process but are not directly related to the subject rule. These recommendations include hastening the rulemaking process to implement new seabird mitigation methods more expeditiously in the shallow set longline fishery and advocating for NMFS's continued support for the Agreement for the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels (ACAP).

Response: NMFS strives for expeditious rulemaking, and adheres to statutory deadlines specified in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and other applicable law. Tori line research is currently being conducted in the shallow set longline fishery under an experimental fishing permit issued by NMFS. The results of this research will be presented to the Council and NMFS after the conclusion of the project. NMFS believes that time spent on the research and development of new measures will improve the overall quality and outcome of such measures. We continue to support ACAP.

The final rule contains no changes from the proposed rule.

Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is consistent with the FEP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws.

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

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

This final rule does not contain a collection-of-information requirement and thus requires no review under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR part 665 as follows: