When do remittance transfer providers violate the prohibition on deceptive acts or practices in the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA) in their marketing about the speed and cost of sending a remittance transfer?

Remittance transfer providers may be liable under the CFPA for deceptive marketing about the speed or cost of sending a remittance transfer. Providers may be liable under the CFPA for deceptive marketing practices regardless of whether the provider is in compliance with the disclosure requirements of the Remittance Rule. For example, among other things, it may be deceptive to:

• Market remittance transfers as being delivered within a certain time frame, when transfers actually take longer to be made available to recipients;

• Market remittance transfers as “no fee” when in fact the provider charges fees;

• Market promotional fees or promotional exchange rates for remittance transfers without sufficiently clarifying when an offer is temporary or limited;

• Market remittance transfers as “free” if they are not in fact free.

Pursuant to the CFPB's Remittance Rule, 1 the term “remittance transfer” includes most electronic transfers of funds sent by consumers in the United States to recipients in other countries. Consumers in the United States send hundreds of billions of dollars in remittance transfers to recipients in foreign countries each year. 2 Remittance transfers are often consumer-to-consumer transfers of money by immigrants sending financial support to family and friends in other countries. They also include other types of transfers, such as transfers by consumers in the United States to Americans living temporarily abroad, such as students. Consumers may send remittance transfers regularly as an ongoing source of financial assistance or in other circumstances, such as an occasional or emergency form of support. Remittance transfers also include cross-border consumer-to-business payments for goods or services.

Consumers may choose among a range of bank, credit union, and non-bank money transmitters when sending a remittance transfer. Non-bank money transmitters have traditionally dominated the market for remittance transfers from the United States. In recent years, new money transmitters have emerged offering digital remittance transfer services. Many established money transmitters have also added digital services, in addition to in-person options for consumers to go to a store or agent to send remittance transfers. 3

When sending remittance transfers, consumers may consider a number of key factors when deciding among different providers, including the speed of the transfer and its cost as well as convenience, security, reliability, and trust. 4

The speed of a remittance transfer varies depending on the type of transfer and provider. The World Bank Remittance Prices Worldwide database illustrates that a range of transfer speeds can exist within a given remittance corridor, with some providers, for example, offering delivery in less than an hour, and others offering delivery in three to five days. 5

Costs can also vary significantly within a remittance corridor. Remittance transfer costs include fees charged by the remittance transfer provider including, if applicable, their agents and third parties. Costs also include any exchange rate costs applied by the provider to the currency conversion and governmental taxes. The exchange rate offered to consumers often reflects a spread—meaning, a percentage difference between the retail exchange rate offered to the consumer and some wholesale exchange rate. 6 Remittance transfer providers utilize different pricing strategies when determining the fees and exchange rate they charge to consumers for remittance transfers.

Prior to the passage of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Financial Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act), Federal consumer protection laws generally did not apply to remittances, and remittance transfer providers were not consistently required to disclose applicable fees, exchange rates, transfer speeds, and the amount to be received in a transaction. Consumers thus did not always know how much money would be received on the other end and were not able to easily comparison shop among providers.

With the Dodd-Frank Act's amendments to the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and the promulgation of the Remittance Rule, remittance transfer providers are now generally required to disclose certain information to consumers before the consumer pays for a transfer and also when payment is made. 7 Before the consumer pays for a transfer, the information a remittance transfer provider must disclose includes (but is not limited to): as applicable, the amount that will be transferred to the designated recipient in the currency in which the remittance transfer is funded; any fees imposed and any taxes collected on the remittance transfer; the total amount of the transaction, which is the sum of the amount that will be transferred and any fees imposed and any taxes collected, in the funding currency; the exchange rate used by the provider for the remittance transfer; any covered third-party fees; and the amount that will be received by the designated recipient in the currency in which the funds will be received. The receipt that consumers generally receive when payment is made must contain the same information. In addition, the receipt must disclose the date in the foreign country on which funds will be available to the designated recipient.

Compliance with the Remittance Rule disclosure requirements does not obviate the obligation to refrain from misleading marketing practices. In particular, remittance transfer providers must ensure their marketing practices do not violate the prohibition of unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices in the CFPA. 8

The CFPB has identified problems with transparency and accuracy in marketing practices about the speed of a remittance transfer in its supervision of remittance transfer providers and enforcement of the CFPA's prohibition against deceptive acts or practices. In the CFPB's Spring 2022 Supervisory Highlights, the CFPB discussed examiners' findings that remittance transfer providers made false and misleading representations about the speed of remittance transfers. 9 In October 2023, the CFPB issued a consent order against Chime Inc., d/b/a Sendwave, finding that the remittance transfer provider made misleading statements in advertisements about the speed and cost of its services, in violation of the CFPA's prohibition on deceptive acts or practices. 10 This provider claimed in social media marketing that remittance transfers would be delivered “instantly,” in “30 seconds” or “within seconds,” and would incur “no fees,” when in fact transfers often took much longer, and the provider charged a fee. 11

In addition, consumers have reported, and the CFPB has observed, problems with price transparency in the marketing practices of remittance transfer providers, resulting in consumers encountering unexpected costs. 12 The CFPB has received consumer complaints about promotional pricing by remittance transfer providers who do not sufficiently inform consumers that the advertised fee or exchange rate is only a limited scope or temporary offer. The CFPB has also observed marketing claims by remittance transfer providers that may mislead consumers about the scope or duration of a temporary low or “no fee” offer or promotional exchange rate.

The CFPB has also received consumer complaints about marketing that omits or obscures the cost of a remittance transfer. Marketing claims by remittance transfer providers may fail to communicate the full cost of a remittance transfer, such as advertising that transfers are “free” or advertising that prominently emphasizes zero fees while only including a vaguely worded statement that additional costs related to the exchange rate may apply. Some of these statements use technical jargon or feature confusing language.

The CFPB has also received consumer complaints about companies that market “free” remittance transfers through digital wallet and other prepaid products, but that fail to sufficiently disclose costs for currency conversion or for withdrawing funds from the product. Companies that offer remittance transfers through digital wallets and other prepaid products often market them as a faster and cheaper way to send remittance transfers. Certain companies' websites market “free account-to-account transfers” or that “receiving money from a friend” is free. Providers may disclose only in fine print, however, that these transfers are only free when there is no currency conversion, and that for the recipient to withdraw and use funds in their local currency, they must pay a currency conversion fee. In addition, some digital wallet providers may not make clear that recipients of a remittance transfer must pay a fee to withdraw funds from the digital wallet or other prepaid product. Examples of such fees include fees to transfer funds to an external bank account, credit card, or prepaid card. Consumers have complained to the CFPB that these fees are unexpected when they convert currencies and withdraw funds transmitted through digital wallets and other prepaid products. 13

Under the CFPA, it is unlawful for a provider of consumer financial products or services to engage in deceptive acts or practices. 14 A representation, omission, act, or practice is deceptive if it misleads or is likely to mislead the consumer; the consumer's interpretation is reasonable under the circumstances; and the misleading representation, omission, act, or practice is material. 15

It is deceptive to market remittance transfers as being delivered within a certain time frame, when transfers actually take longer to be made available to recipients.

Remittance transfer providers violate the CFPA's prohibition on deceptive acts or practices if they market remittance transfers as being delivered within a certain time frame, when transfers actually take longer to reach recipients. The CFPB “presumes that express claims are material.”  16 Furthermore, as noted above, the speed of a remittance transfer is often a crucial consideration for consumers sending remittance transfers. 17 Recipients may rely on remittance transfers for day-to-day expenses or for time-sensitive emergencies.

As illustrated in the CFPB's action against Chime Inc., d/b/a Sendwave, marketing claims about the speed of remittance transfers may violate the prohibition on deceptive acts or practices under the CFPA when the actual time for delivery is longer than advertised.

In the Sendwave case, the provider told consumers that transfers would be delivered “instantly,” “in 30 seconds,” or “within seconds.” These statements were false and misleading because, although a reasonable customer might expect delivery within the time frame advertised, in many instances, transfers were not actually delivered instantly or within seconds for many consumers. 18 In addition, as an express marketing statement regarding a central characteristic of the product—when funds would be available to a recipient—the misleading representation was material. 19

Providers must thus take care not to engage in deceptive acts or practices in their marketing claims about the speed of a remittance transfer.

It is deceptive to market transfers as “no fee” when in fact the remittance transfer provider charges consumers fees to send the remittance transfer.

Remittance transfer providers violate the CFPA's prohibition on deceptive acts or practices if they market remittance transfers as having “no fee,” when in fact the remittance transfer provider charges consumers fees to send the remittance transfer. The cost of sending a remittance transfer is a central consideration for consumers, 20 and, as discussed above, fees are an important component of the cost of a remittance transfer. 21 Expressly misleading price claims violate the prohibition on deceptive practices. 22

For example, as alleged in the CFPB's action against Chime Inc., d/b/a Sendwave, from at least 2021 to 2022, Sendwave's website advertised that consumers could transfer funds from the United States to Nigeria “with no fees.” In fact, consumers were charged fees on all transfers from the United States to Nigeria, despite Sendwave continuing to promote its product as having “no fees” on its website with no qualification or disclaimer. 23

The CFPB found that Sendwave's representations were likely to mislead the consumer and that the consumer's interpretation would be reasonable under the circumstances. Although Sendwave disclosed a 1 percent transfer fee in the FAQ section of its website, this did not correct the misleading statement or communication made at the top of its web page and on a graphic depicting its mobile app. 24 And as an express marketing statement regarding a central consideration for consumers when sending a remittance transfer—cost —, the misleading representation about transfer fees was material. 25

It may be deceptive to market promotional fees or promotional exchange rates for remittance transfers without sufficiently clarifying when the offer is only limited or temporary.

Remittance transfer providers may violate the CFPA's prohibition on deceptive acts or practices by advertising promotional pricing for remittance transfers without sufficiently clarifying that the offer is only limited or temporary in scope, even if the promotional nature of the offer is disclosed in fine print or later in the transaction. 26 In such cases, consumers may not understand the pricing is limited and promotional and they may not understand that the cost of sending a remittance transfer through the provider rises after the first or first few transactions.

As the CFPB has articulated, consumers may be reasonably misled when financial service providers fail to clearly and conspicuously disclose material terms in advertising, such as when and by how much charges will increase. 27 Written disclosures or fine print in marketing materials would often be insufficient to correct a misleading statement or representation in marketing communications. 28 When a consumer's first contact with a remittance transfer provider involves deception, “the law may be violated even if the truth is subsequently made known” to the consumer. 29

Representations in advertising about “no fee” remittance transfers or specific promotional exchange rates without sufficiently clarifying, when applicable, that the offer is only limited or temporary in scope are presumed to be material, as they relate to cost, a key consumer consideration.

In addition, such statements are likely to be material because of their likely impact on a consumer's initial and subsequent choice of remittance transfer provider. The impact could be particularly significant for promotions offered to first-time customers who seek to continue using the provider to send remittance transfers. Such consumers may face unexpected higher costs after the expiration of the promotion and may also face unexpected hurdles in searching for a different provider. Had they been aware of the limited promotional nature of the offer, a reasonable consumer may have chosen a different provider.

It is deceptive to market remittance transfers as “free” if they are not in fact free.

Remittance transfer providers would also violate the CFPA's prohibition on deceptive acts or practices by marketing remittance transfers as “free” if they are not actually free for the consumer. For example, it may be deceptive to market a remittance transfer as “free” if the remittance transfer provider is imposing costs on consumers through the exchange rate spread for the transfer or, with respect to digital wallets or other prepaid products, if the provider imposes costs to convert funds into a different currency or to withdraw funds from the product.

The FTC has articulated that, under the FTC Act, offers of “free” services “must be made with extreme care so as to avoid any possibility that consumers will be misled or deceived.”  30 “The word `free' is a lure. It is the bait. It is a powerful magnet that draws the best of us against our will `to get something for nothing.' ” Book-of-the-Month Club, Inc., 48 F.T.C. 1297, 1312 (1952), aff'd, 202 F.2d 486 (2d Cir. 1953).

A consumer should generally expect that a “free” product or service is indeed free, and that the seller “will not directly and immediately recover, in whole or in part, the cost of [] the service.”  31 The FTC has explained that terms, conditions, and obligations that apply to a “free” item should be set forth clearly, conspicuously, and in close conjunction with the offer of the “free” item, and they should further be made clear at the outset of the offer “so as to leave no reasonable probability that the terms of the offer might be misunderstood.”  32 The same analysis applies to the use of terms that are similar to “free,” such as “gift” or “given without charge.”  33

The FTC has recently reiterated that representations of “free” in marketing are deceptive when the offer is not in fact free or when limitations, restrictions, or hidden charges are inadequately disclosed, such that the claim is likely to mislead a reasonable consumer about information important to them when choosing a product. 34 As applied here, marketing representations of remittance transfers as free are deceptive under the CFPA if they are not actually free or when limitations, restrictions, or hidden charges are inadequately disclosed.

Marketing a remittance transfer as “free” is likely to cause a reasonable consumer to believe they are sending a remittance transfer without the provider imposing a cost to the consumer. Such interpretation would be incorrect—but reasonable—in instances where the remittance transfer provider is imposing costs through the exchange rate spread for the transfer. In this situation, a remittance transfer provider's claim that the transfer is “free” would be false and thus likely to be deceptive because there was a cost imposed on the transfer through the exchange rate spread. 35

Remittance transfer providers should also be aware of the risk of deception when marketing “free” remittance transfers for digital wallets or other prepaid products. A claim that remittance transfers are “free” may be misleading if the provider in fact imposes costs for recipients to convert funds into a different currency or to withdraw funds from the product. In these circumstances, marketing “free” transfers may constitute a misrepresentation of the terms for the remittance transfer provider's services that may mislead a reasonable consumer, even with subsequent disclosure of such fees.

Consumer Financial Protection Circulars are issued to all parties with authority to enforce Federal consumer financial law. The CFPB is the principal Federal regulator responsible for administering Federal consumer financial law, see 12 U.S.C. 5511, including the Consumer Financial Protection Act's prohibition on unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts or practices, 12 U.S.C. 5536(a)(1)(B), and 18 other “enumerated consumer laws,” 12 U.S.C. 5481(12). However, these laws are also enforced by State attorneys general and State regulators, 12 U.S.C. 5552, and prudential regulators including the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and the National Credit Union Administration. See, e.g., 12 U.S.C. 5516(d), 5581(c)(2) (exclusive enforcement authority for banks and credit unions with $10 billion or less in assets). Some Federal consumer financial laws are also enforceable by other Federal agencies, including the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission, the Farm Credit Administration, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of Agriculture. In addition, some of these laws provide for private enforcement.

Consumer Financial Protection Circulars are intended to promote consistency in approach across the various enforcement agencies and parties, pursuant to the CFPB's statutory objective to ensure Federal consumer financial law is enforced consistently. 12 U.S.C. 5511(b)(4).

Consumer Financial Protection Circulars are also intended to provide transparency to partner agencies regarding the CFPB's intended approach when cooperating in enforcement actions. See, e.g., 12 U.S.C. 5552(b) (consultation with CFPB by State attorneys general and regulators); 12 U.S.C. 5562(a) (joint investigatory work between CFPB and other agencies).

Consumer Financial Protection Circulars are general statements of policy under the Administrative Procedure Act. 5 U.S.C. 553(b). They provide background information about applicable law, articulate considerations relevant to the Bureau's exercise of its authorities, and, in the interest of maintaining consistency, advise other parties with authority to enforce Federal consumer financial law. They do not restrict the Bureau's exercise of its authorities, impose any legal requirements on external parties, or create or confer any rights on external parties that could be enforceable in any administrative or civil proceeding. The CFPB Director is instructing CFPB staff as described herein, and the CFPB will then make final decisions on individual matters based on an assessment of the factual record, applicable law, and factors relevant to prosecutorial discretion.

When using artificial intelligence or complex credit models, may creditors rely on the checklist of reasons provided in CFPB sample forms for adverse action notices even when those sample reasons do not accurately or specifically identify the reasons for the adverse action?

No, creditors may not rely on the checklist of reasons provided in the sample forms (currently codified in Regulation B) to satisfy their obligations under ECOA if those reasons do not specifically and accurately indicate the principal reason(s) for the adverse action. Nor, as a general matter, may creditors rely on overly broad or vague reasons to the extent that they obscure the specific and accurate reasons relied upon.

The Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), implemented by Regulation B, makes it unlawful for any creditor to discriminate against any applicant with respect to any aspect of a credit transaction on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), marital status, age (provided the applicant has the capacity to contract), because all or part of the applicant's income derives from any public assistance program, or because the applicant has in good faith exercised any right under the Consumer Credit Protection Act. 1 ECOA and Regulation B require that, when taking adverse action against an applicant, a creditor must provide the applicant with a statement of reasons for the action taken. 2 This statement of reasons must be “specific” and indicate the “principal reason(s) for the adverse action”;  3 moreover, the specific reasons disclosed must “relate to and accurately describe the factors actually considered or scored by a creditor.”  4 Adverse action notice requirements promote fairness and equal opportunity for consumers engaged in credit transactions, by serving as a tool to prevent and identify discrimination through the requirement that creditors must affirmatively explain their decisions. In addition, such notices provide consumers with a key educational tool allowing them to understand the reasons for a creditor's action and take steps to improve their credit status or rectify mistakes made by creditors. 5

The CFPB provides sample forms (currently codified in Regulation B) that creditors may use to satisfy their adverse action notification requirements, if appropriate. These forms include a checklist of sample reasons for adverse action which “creditors most commonly consider,”  6 as well as an open-ended field for creditors to provide other reasons not listed. The sample forms are used by creditors to satisfy certain adverse action notice requirements under ECOA and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), though the statutory obligations under each remain distinct. 7 While the sample forms provide examples of commonly considered reasons for taking adverse action, “[t]he sample forms are illustrative and may not be appropriate for all creditors.”  8 Reliance on the checklist of reasons provided in the sample forms will satisfy a creditor's adverse action notification requirements only if the reasons disclosed are specific and indicate the principal reason(s) for the adverse action taken.

Some creditors use complex algorithms involving “artificial intelligence” and other predictive decision-making technologies in their underwriting models. 9 These complex algorithms sometimes rely on data that are harvested from consumer surveillance or data not typically found in a consumer's credit file or credit application. The CFPB has underscored the harm that can result from consumer surveillance and the risk to consumers that these data may pose. Some of these data may not intuitively relate to the likelihood that a consumer will repay a loan. The CFPB and the prudential regulators have previously noted that these data may create additional consumer protection risk. 10 This circular addresses adverse action notice requirements under ECOA and Regulation B; financial institutions also must ensure their use of data and advanced technologies fully complies with other legal requirements, such as the prohibition against illegal discrimination. The CFPB, along with the Department of Justice and other enforcement agencies, have pledged to vigorously use the agencies' collective authorities to protect individuals' rights regardless of whether legal violations occur through traditional means or advanced technologies. 11

Under ECOA and Regulation B a creditor must provide an applicant with a statement of specific reason(s) for an adverse action; these reasons must “relate to and accurately describe the factors actually considered or scored by a creditor.”  12 A creditor therefore may not rely solely on the unmodified checklist of reasons in the sample forms provided by the CFPB if the reasons provided on the sample forms do not reflect the principal reason(s) for the adverse action. As explained in Regulation B, “[i]f the reasons listed on the forms are not the factors actually used, a creditor will not satisfy the notice requirement by simply checking the closest identifiable factor listed.”  13 Rather, the sample forms merely provide an illustrative and non-exclusive list. 14 Thus, if the principal reason(s) a creditor actually relies on is not accurately reflected in the checklist of reasons in the sample forms, it is the duty of the creditor—if it chooses to use the sample forms—to either modify the form or check “other” and include the appropriate explanation, so that the applicant against whom adverse action is taken receives a statement of reasons that is specific and indicates the principal reason(s) for the action taken. Creditors that simply select the closest, but nevertheless inaccurate, identifiable factors from the checklist of sample reasons are not in compliance with the law. Creditors may not evade this requirement, even if the factors actually considered or scored by the creditor may be surprising to consumers, as may be the case when a creditor relies on complex algorithms that, for instance, consider data that are not typically found in a consumer's credit file or credit application.

Because it is unlawful for a creditor to fail to provide a statement of specific reasons for the action taken, 15 a creditor will not be in compliance with the law by disclosing reasons that are overly broad, vague, or otherwise fail to inform the applicant of the specific and principal reason(s) for an adverse action. Just as an accurate description of the factors actually considered or scored by a creditor is critical to ensuring compliant adverse action notifications, sufficient specificity is also required. Such specificity is necessary to ensure consumer understanding is not hindered by explanations that obfuscate the principal reason(s) for the adverse action taken. For instance, Regulation B provides the example that a creditor should disclose “insufficient bank references” and not “insufficient credit references,” which is listed on the CFPB's sample form, if the creditor considers only references from banks and other depository institutions and not from other institutions. 16

Specificity is particularly important when creditors utilize complex algorithms. Consumers may not anticipate that certain data gathered outside of their application or credit file and fed into an algorithmic decision-making model may be a principal reason in a credit decision, particularly if the data are not intuitively related to their finances or financial capacity. As noted in the Official Commentary to Regulation B, a creditor must “disclose the actual reasons for denial . . . even if the relationship of that factor to predicting creditworthiness may not be clear to the applicant.”  17 For instance, if a complex algorithm results in a denial of a credit application due to an applicant's chosen profession, a statement that the applicant had “insufficient projected income” or “income insufficient for amount of credit requested” would likely fail to meet the creditor's legal obligations. Even if the creditor believed that the reason for the adverse action was broadly related to future income or earning potential, providing such a reason likely would not satisfy its duty to provide the specific reason(s) for adverse action. Concerns regarding specificity may also arise when creditors take adverse action against consumers with existing credit lines. For example, if a creditor decides to lower the limit on, or close altogether, a consumer's credit line based on behavioral data, such as the type of establishment at which a consumer shops or the type of goods purchased, it would likely be insufficient for the creditor to simply state “purchasing history” or “disfavored business patronage” as the principal reason for adverse action. 18 Instead, the creditor would likely need to disclose more specific details about the consumer's purchasing history or patronage that led to the reduction or closure, such as the type of establishment, the location of the business, the type of goods purchased, or other relevant considerations, as appropriate. 19

As discussed in an advisory opinion, these requirements under ECOA extend to adverse actions taken in connection with existing credit accounts ( i.e., an account termination or an unfavorable change in the terms of an account that does not affect all or substantially all of a class of the creditor's accounts  20 ), as well as new applications for credit. 21 The CFPB has also made clear that adverse action notice requirements apply equally to all credit decisions, regardless of whether the technology used to make them involves complex or “black-box” algorithmic models, or other technology that creditors may not understand sufficiently to meet their legal obligations. 22 As data use and credit models continue to evolve, creditors have an obligation to ensure that these models comply with existing consumer protection laws.

Consumer Financial Protection Circulars are issued to all parties with authority to enforce Federal consumer financial law. The CFPB is the principal Federal regulator responsible for administering Federal consumer financial law, see 12 U.S.C. 5511, including the Consumer Financial Protection Act's prohibition on unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts or practices, 12 U.S.C. 5536(a)(1)(B), and 18 other “enumerated consumer laws,” 12 U.S.C. 5481(12). However, these laws are also enforced by State attorneys general and State regulators, 12 U.S.C. 5552, and prudential regulators including the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and the National Credit Union Administration. See, e.g., 12 U.S.C. 5516(d), 5581(c)(2) (exclusive enforcement authority for banks and credit unions with $10 billion or less in assets). Some Federal consumer financial laws are also enforceable by other Federal agencies, including the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission, the Farm Credit Administration, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of Agriculture. In addition, some of these laws provide for private enforcement.

Consumer Financial Protection Circulars are intended to promote consistency in approach across the various enforcement agencies and parties, pursuant to the CFPB's statutory objective to ensure Federal consumer financial law is enforced consistently. 12 U.S.C. 5511(b)(4).

Consumer Financial Protection Circulars are also intended to provide transparency to partner agencies regarding the CFPB's intended approach when cooperating in enforcement actions. See, e.g., 12 U.S.C. 5552(b) (consultation with CFPB by State attorneys general and regulators); 12 U.S.C. 5562(a) (joint investigatory work between CFPB and other agencies).

Consumer Financial Protection Circulars are general statements of policy under the Administrative Procedure Act. 5 U.S.C. 553(b). They provide background information about applicable law, articulate considerations relevant to the Bureau's exercise of its authorities, and, in the interest of maintaining consistency, advise other parties with authority to enforce Federal consumer financial law. They do not restrict the Bureau's exercise of its authorities, impose any legal requirements on external parties, or create or confer any rights on external parties that could be enforceable in any administrative or civil proceeding. The CFPB Director is instructing CFPB staff as described herein, and the CFPB will then make final decisions on individual matters based on an assessment of the factual record, applicable law, and factors relevant to prosecutorial discretion.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all RRD Model Trent 1000-AE3, Trent 1000-CE3, Trent 1000-D3, Trent 1000-G3, Trent 1000-H3, Trent 1000-J3, Trent 1000-K3, Trent 1000-L3, Trent 1000-M3, Trent 1000-N3, Trent 1000-P3, Trent 1000-Q3, and Trent 1000-R3 engines. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on December 6, 2023 (88 FR 84759). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2023-0119, dated June 12, 2023 (EASA AD 2023-0119) (also referred to as the MCAI), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. The MCAI states that occurrences have been reported of finding wear in the CSV assembly of the HMU. This wear can reduce the fuel flow output when the engine is operated at high-power conditions. To address this unsafe condition, the manufacturer published service information that specifies procedures to remove certain HMUs from service and replace with a serviceable part or modify the HMU by replacing the CSV assembly. The MCAI also specifies an implementation schedule of engine flight-hour limits for replacement of each affected part with a serviceable part and prohibits installation or reinstallation of affected HMUs that have exceeded the allowable engine flight-hour limit unless the HMU is a serviceable part.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require removing certain HMUs from service and replacing with a serviceable part or modifying the HMU by replacing the CSV assembly, which is an optional terminating action; and prohibited installing certain HMUs unless the HMU is a serviceable part. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-2233.

The FAA received one comment from Boeing, which supported the NPRM without change.

These products have been approved by the aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety requires adopting the AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM.

The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2023-0119, which specifies procedures for removing certain part-numbered HMUs from service and replacing with a serviceable part or modifying the HMU by replacing the CSV assembly. The EASA AD also specifies prohibiting installation or reinstallation of an affected HMU on any engine unless the HMU is a serviceable part.

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

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 14 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.

The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD.

Operators may modify the HMU to comply with this AD. For modification of the HMU, the FAA estimates the following costs:

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on September 6, 2023 (88 FR 60901). The NPRM was prompted by AD CF-2023-23, dated April 5, 2023 (Transport Canada AD CF-2023-23) (also referred to as the MCAI), issued by Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada. The MCAI states that interference was found between the gimbal bushing and the airplane HSTA structural fitting, which prevented engagement of the secondary load path. On multiple other Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes, similar interference caused visible damage, but the secondary load path was successfully engaged. Inability to engage the HSTA secondary load path, following a failure of the primary load path, may result in a loss of pitch control of the airplane.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require replacing the upper gimbal bushing flanges, as specified in Transport Canada AD CF-2023-23. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1818.

The FAA received comments from Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), who supported the NPRM without change.

The FAA received additional comments from Delta Air Lines (DAL). The following presents the comment received on the NPRM and the FAA's response.

DAL requested that an exception be added in the proposed AD to address a part number discrepancy in the service information specified in Transport Canada AD CF-2023-23. The commenter stated that the part number of the pre-modified upper gimbal ring assembly given in the service information is incorrect and should be corrected from part number (P/N) 490740-103 to P/N 490740-101.

The FAA agrees with the requested change. The manufacturer has confirmed that the part number of the pre-modified upper gimbal ring assembly, as specified in the service information referenced in Transport Canada AD CF-2023-23, is incorrect and verified that the new part number specified by the commenter is correct. A new exception has been added to paragraph (h) of this AD to provide this correction.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on this product. Except for minor editorial changes, and any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

Transport Canada AD CF-2023-23 specifies procedures for replacing the upper gimbal bushing flanges. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 4 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

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

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

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

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

The FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2024-0764; Project Identifier MCAI-2023-01017-T” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the final rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this final rule because of those comments.

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

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

EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2023-0173, dated September 20, 2023 (EASA AD 2023-0173) (referred to after this as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition on all Airbus A310-203, A310-204, A310-221, A310-222, A310-203C, A310-304, A310-308, A310-322, A310-324, and A310-325 airplanes. Model A310-203C and A310-308 airplanes are not certificated by the FAA and are not included on the U.S. type certificate data sheet; this AD therefore does not include those airplanes in the applicability. The MCAI states that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations have been developed.

EASA AD 2023-0173 specifies that it requires a task (limitation) already in Airbus A310 ALS Part 1 SL-ALI Revision 02 that is required by EASA AD 2017-0204 (which corresponds to FAA AD 2018-18-19, Amendment 39-19398 (83 FR 47056, September 18, 2018) (AD 2018-18-19)) or EASA AD 2022-0172 (which corresponds to FAA AD 2023-04-09, Amendment 39-22356 (88 FR 20746, April 7, 2023) (AD 2023-04-09)), and that incorporation of EASA AD 2017-0204 or EASA AD 2022-0172 invalidates (terminates) prior instructions for that task. This AD therefore terminates the limitations required by paragraph (g) of AD 2018-18-19 and AD 2023-04-09, for the tasks identified in the service information referenced in EASA AD 2023-0173 only.

The FAA is issuing this AD to address fatigue damage in principal structural elements. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2024-0764.

The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2023-0173. This service information specifies new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations for airplane structures and safe life limits. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

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

This AD requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations, which are specified in EASA AD 2023-0173 described previously, as incorporated by reference. Any differences with EASA AD 2023-0173 are identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD.

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

In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, EASA AD 2023-0173 is incorporated by reference in this AD. This AD requires compliance with EASA AD 2023-0173 through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in EASA AD 2023-0173 does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in EASA AD 2023-0173. Service information required by EASA AD 2023-0173 for compliance will be available at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2024-0764 after this final rule is published.

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

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

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

Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. ) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment procedures for rules when the agency, for “good cause,” finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under this section, an agency, upon finding good cause, may issue a final rule without providing notice and seeking comment prior to issuance. Further, section 553(d) of the APA authorizes agencies to make rules effective in less than thirty days, upon a finding of good cause.

There are currently no domestic operators of these products. Accordingly, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). In addition, for the foregoing reason(s), the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

The requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) do not apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt a rule without prior notice and comment. Because the FAA has determined that it has good cause to adopt this rule without notice and comment, RFA analysis is not required.

Currently, there are no affected U.S.-registered airplanes. For any affected airplane that may be imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future, the FAA provides the following cost estimates to comply with this AD:

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

The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the new actions to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

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

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2020-05-16, Amendment 39-19866 (85 FR 15938, March 20, 2020) (AD 2020-05-16). AD 2020-05-16 applied to certain Airbus SAS Model A319-115 airplanes; Model A320-214, -216, -232, -251N, and -271N airplanes; and Model A321-211, -231, -251N, -251NX, -253N, -271N, -271NX, and -272N airplanes. AD 2020-05-16 required a one-time detailed inspection of certain attaching points on the left-hand and right-hand wings for the correct installation of certain hardware, and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective actions. The FAA issued AD 2020-05-16 to address incomplete installations of the over wing panel lug attachments in the production assembly line, which, if not detected and corrected, could reduce the structural integrity of the wing.

The NPRM published in the Federal Register on January 13, 2023 (88 FR 2273). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2022-0111, dated June 15, 2022 (EASA AD 2022-0111), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. EASA AD 2022-0111 states that since EASA AD 2019-0233 was issued, Airbus identified additional affected airplanes.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to continue to require the actions in AD 2020-05-16 and to add airplanes to the applicability, as specified in EASA AD 2022-0111. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

The FAA issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2020-05-16. The SNPRM published in the Federal Register on August 25, 2023 (88 FR 58116). The SNPRM was prompted by a determination that additional airplanes are subject to the unsafe condition, and by the issuance of EASA AD 2022-0111R1, dated July 26, 2023 (EASA AD 2022-0111R1). EASA AD added Model A321-213 airplanes to its applicability. In the SNPRM, the FAA proposed to continue to require the actions in AD 2020-05-16 and to add airplanes to the applicability, as specified in EASA AD 2022-0111R1. The FAA is issuing this AD to address incomplete installations of the over wing panel lug attachments in the production assembly line. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in reduced structural integrity of the wing.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-0009.

The FAA received no comments on the SNPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Since issuing the SNPRM, the FAA determined that, for Group 2 airplanes, the procedures in Airbus Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A57N012-19 are acceptable for compliance. EASA AD 2022-0111R1 specifies that Group 2 airplanes must use Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1234 and Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1235, as applicable. However, the FAA has coordinated with Airbus and determined that the actions identified in Airbus AOT A57N012-19 are equivalent to the applicable actions found in the specified service information. Therefore, the FAA added paragraph (j) of this AD to provide credit for Group 2 airplanes.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on this product. Except for minor editorial changes, and any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed in the SNPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

EASA AD 2022-0111R1 specifies procedures for a one-time detailed inspection of certain attaching points on the left-hand and right-hand wings for the correct installation of certain hardware (bolt, nut, washer, and cotter pin), and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective actions. Corrective actions include installing missing hardware, properly orienting hardware, and performing a damage assessment for cracks and deformed parts in the event of missing hardware, and repair. For certain airplanes, EASA AD 2022-0111R1 also specifies reporting the inspection results to Airbus. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 131 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA estimates that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the reporting requirement in this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Based on these figures, the FAA estimates the cost of reporting the inspection results on U.S. operators to be up to $11,135, or $85 per product.

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-condition actions that would be required based on the results of any required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:

A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to take approximately 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to: Information Collection Clearance Officer, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-1524.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 737-8 and 737-9 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 7, 2023 (88 FR 52055). The NPRM was prompted by a determination that the loss of a ground through the P6 panel results in the failure of the SPCU. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require installing two bonding jumpers from the P6 panel structure to primary structure. The FAA is issuing this AD to address loss of the SPCU function in combination with other lost P6 functions. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in the loss of significant flightcrew instruments and displays, and may lead to loss of continued safe flight and landing.

The FAA received comments from United Airlines, who supported the NPRM without change, Boeing, the Foundation for Aviation Safety, and three individuals.

Boeing requested that the FAA revise the description of the incident that prompted the NPRM. The Background section of the NPRM stated the following:

Boeing requested that this statement be clarified: (1) The single point of failure condition would result in the loss of SPCU function, and (2) the loss of SPCU function, in combination with other lost P6 functions, could result in a potentially confusing combination of flight deck effects and lost functionality. Boeing stated that the additional information would clarify and add detail to expand to other additional equipment in the P6.

The FAA agrees with the suggested revision. However, the Background section is not repeated in this final rule in its entirety. Therefore, the FAA has not changed this final rule.

The Foundation for Aviation Safety noted that the P6 panel provides circuit breakers for many of the airplane's most critical systems. The Foundation, and three individuals, requested that the FAA prohibit further operation of the 737 MAX.

The FAA has determined that the corrective action mandated by this AD will adequately address this unsafe condition. Therefore, the FAA has not changed this final rule in response to these comments.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, and any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-24A1248 RB, dated May 16, 2022. This service information specifies procedures for installing new bonding jumpers from the P6 panel structure to the primary structure to provide a redundant ground path for the SPCU.

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

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 79 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900 and -900ER airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 24, 2023 (88 FR 47399). The NPRM was prompted by reports of cracks in the forward galley door cutout forward upper corner bear strap. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require an inspection of the fuselage skin and the bear strap at the forward galley door cutout forward upper corner for existing repairs, and applicable related investigative and corrective actions. The FAA is issuing this AD to address cracks in the fuselage skin and bear strap, which could increase in length until the fuselage skin and bear strap severs. If not detected and corrected, a severed fuselage skin and bear strap may lead to the inability of the principal structural element (PSE) to sustain limit loads and may result in rapid decompression of the fuselage and loss of structural integrity.

The FAA received comments from seven commenters, including Boeing, Aviation Partners Boeing, Delta Air Lines (Delta), Southwest Airlines (Southwest), Sun Country Airlines (SCA), Sideral Linhas Aereas (Sideral), and United Airlines (United). The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment,

Aviation Partners Boeing stated that the installation of winglets per Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST00830SE does not affect the actions specified in the proposed AD.

The FAA concurs with the commenter. The FAA has redesignated paragraph (c) of the proposed AD as paragraph (c)(1) of this AD and added paragraph (c)(2) to this AD to state that installation of STC ST00830SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST00830SE is installed, a “change in product” alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

Boeing requested that the FAA revise the Related Service Information Under 1 CFR part 51 portion of the NPRM to specify that related investigative actions include external and internal eddy current inspections, as well as detailed inspections, as specified in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1407 RB, dated December 20, 2022.

The FAA agrees for the reasons provided and has revised the Related Service Information Under 1 CFR part 51 portion of this final rule accordingly.

Delta, Southwest, Sideral, and United requested that the proposed AD be revised to allow later-approved revisions of 737NG SRM 53-10-01 Repair 6. United noted that existing repairs are evaluated against 737NG SRM 53-10-01 Repair 6, dated March 10, 2020, to determine appropriate corrective actions. Delta claimed that, as written, only 737NG SRM 53-10-01 Repair 6, dated March 10, 2020, is an approved previous repair in the service information. Southwest, Sideral, and United all noted that the SRM may get updated and older copies of the SRM are not made available to technicians, which may lead to confusion and delays. United and Sideral added that repairs made using a future version of the SRM may not match the current version, which would require operators to obtain an AMOC.

The FAA agrees for the reasons provided. The FAA has added paragraph (h)(3) of this AD to include later-approved revisions of 737NG SRM 53-10-01 Repair 6, dated March 10, 2020.

Delta requested that the proposed AD be revised to allow applying 737NG SRM 53-10-01 Repair 6 and following the limitations of Table 3 of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1407 RB, dated December 20, 2022, in lieu of contacting Boeing or the FAA for repair instructions and doing that repair when an airplane is in Condition 2.1 or Condition 4.1, as specified in in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1407 RB, dated December 20, 2022. Delta stated that the service information allows retaining 737NG SRM 53-10-01 Repair 6 if it is already applied on an airplane and does not require removal of that repair. Delta added that if an airplane is in an overnight or short visit, the option of installing 737NG SRM 53-10-01 Repair 6 is faster and would only appear to require additional inspections within 24,000 flight cycles.

The FAA disagrees with the commenter's request. Each crack configuration found when accomplishing this AD will be unique and will require an analysis to determine the appropriate repair and post-repair inspection protocol. Boeing 737NG SRM 53-10-01 Repair 6 is designed for a certain crack configuration, and therefore will not be applicable to every crack that might be found when complying with this AD. However, an operator may request an AMOC following the procedures in paragraph (i) of this AD to use a different repair method.

SCA requested that a preventative modification be developed that could terminate the repetitive inspections specified in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1407 RB, dated December 20, 2022. SCA added that the proposed AD affects all Boeing 737NG airplanes, but the repair referenced in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1407 RB, dated December 20, 2022, is only effective for a small portion of the fleet.

The FAA disagrees with the commenter's request. After analyzing the relevant data, the FAA has determined that the repetitive inspections specified in the service information required by this AD are adequate to address the unsafe condition. Additionally, the FAA infers that the repair method the commenter referred to is 737NG SRM 53-10-01 Repair 6. The FAA notes that the service information has conditions related to whether or not a repair was accomplished using 737NG SRM 53-10-01 Repair 6, but requires operators to obtain and follow instructions for new crack findings, which is a method applicable to all airplanes.

SCA requested that the inspections in the proposed AD be combined with the inspections in AD 2021-02-13, Amendment 39-21396 (86 FR 10776, February 23, 2021) (AD 2021-02-13). The commenter stated that the proposed AD's inspection area is in immediate proximity of the inspection area required by AD 2021-02-13, and corrective actions for a finding in either inspection area will affect the inspection requirements for both the proposed AD and AD 2021-02-13. SCA claimed this would require obtaining two AMOCs for a single finding, adding undue complexity. The commenter also noted that, while both the proposed AD and AD 2021-02-13 require contacting the manufacturer, there is a strong potential for oversight regarding compliance with the proposed AD or AD 2021-02-13. SCA stated that, at a minimum, AD 2021-02-13 should be listed as an affected AD in paragraph (b) of the proposed AD, since an external reinforcing repair would affect the inspection of both the proposed AD and AD 2021-02-13.

The FAA disagrees with the commenter's request. Although the two ADs require actions in areas that are in close proximity (AD 2021-02-13 requires inspections for cracks of the fuselage skin and bear strap at the forward galley door between certain stations, and applicable on-condition actions), they require different actions to address different unsafe conditions. Therefore, combining the two ADs would not be practical. Additionally, only ADs that are superseded or terminated by another AD are considered “affected” ADs. Finally, if an operator needs to request a repair that affects both this AD and AD 2021-02-13, they may request a single AMOC.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, and any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1407 RB, dated December 20, 2022. This service information specifies procedures for an external general visual inspection of the fuselage skin at the forward galley door cutout forward upper corner for any repair, and applicable related investigative and corrective actions. Related investigative actions include detailed inspections for cracking of the fuselage skin and bear strap; and internal and external high frequency eddy current (HFEC) and low frequency eddy current (LFEC) inspections for cracking of the fuselage skin, bear strap, and repair parts. Corrective actions include obtaining and following instructions for crack repair. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in ADDRESSES .

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 1,938 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost estimates for the on-condition repairs or for the alternative inspections specified in this AD.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on October 27, 2023 (88 FR 73772). The NPRM was prompted by AD CF-2023-20, dated March 22, 2023, issued by Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada (Transport Canada AD CF-2023-20) (also referred to as the MCAI). The MCAI states that multiple occurrences of low clearance or fouling between certain wiring harnesses and a hydraulic bracket and structure in the wing trailing edge area were detected on the production line. These conditions were caused by an inappropriate distribution of slack in the wiring harnesses. Low clearance or fouling between the wiring harnesses and adjacent structure could result in wear of the harnesses leading to electrical arcing. Arcing in the presence of a leak from the hydraulic lines in the area could lead to a fire.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require inspecting certain wiring harnesses for any damage and clearance to adjacent structure and corrective actions, as specified in Transport Canada AD CF-2023-20. The NPRM also proposed to require an inspection report. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-2135.

The FAA received comments from Delta Air Lines (Delta). The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Delta requested that an exception be added to paragraph (h) of the proposed AD to correct mis-labeled figures and part numbers. Delta stated that figures have been labeled as being for the right-hand side when the figures actually shows the left-hand side. Delta also provided a table of the part numbers as identified in the service information and what the correct part number should be. Delta stated that it found these errors while accomplishing the proposed requirements, sent the information to Airbus Canada, and received confirmation from Airbus Canada of the errors and that the errors would be fixed in a later revision of service information. Delta proposed language to be inserted into the proposed AD and included the phrase “or later revision” to allow use of service information containing the correct location and part numbers.

The FAA agrees to add paragraph (h)(4) and table 1 to this AD to specify the errors and provide the correct location and part number information. The FAA also agrees to allow use of later approved service information, as explained under “Request to Allow Use of Later Revision of Service Information” of this final rule.

Delta requested that the proposed AD be revised to allow “or later revisions of the service information required by the MCAI.” Delta explained that it anticipates the release of a new revision that contains corrections discussed above.

The FAA agrees. The FAA has coordinated with Transport Canada and added a new exception in paragraph (h)(5) of this AD.

Delta requested adding an exception to paragraph (h) of the proposed AD that would more narrowly define the inspection area described by paragraph B. of Transport Canada AD CF-2023-20. Delta stated that paragraph B. of Transport Canada AD CF-2023-20 is vague and implies a wider inspection area than that defined by Airbus Canada Service Bulletin BD500-240012, Issue 003, dated March 17, 2023.

The FAA disagrees. Paragraph B. of Transport Canada AD CF-2023-20 refers to “inspected harnesses,” which narrows the affected area to the specified harnesses that were inspected using the specifications of Paragraph A of Transport Canada AD CF-2023-20. Paragraph A of Transport Canada AD CF-2023-20 specifies using the inspection procedures described in Airbus Canada Service Bulletin BD500-240012, Issue 003, dated March 17, 2023. The FAA has not revised this AD in this regard.

References to an inspection report, which were inadvertently included in the preamble of the NPRM, have been removed from this final rule.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on this product. Except for minor editorial changes, and any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

Transport Canada AD CF-2023-20 specifies procedures for inspecting certain wiring harnesses for damage and clearance to adjacent structure and corrective actions. Corrective actions include adjustment of wiring harnesses, replacing damaged braid sleeves, and contacting the manufacturer for repair instructions for worn or damaged harnesses. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 157 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2022-25-18, Amendment 39-22274 (87 FR 75915, December 12, 2022; corrected December 27, 2022 (87 FR 79236)) (AD 2022-25-18). AD 2022-25-18 applied to certain BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model BAe 146 and Model Avro 146-RJ series airplanes. AD 2022-25-18 required repetitive inspections for cracking of the MLG side stay outer link and replacement if necessary. The FAA issued AD 2022-25-18 to address cracking on the shoulders of an MLG side stay outer link. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could lead to failure of the MLG side stay outer link and MLG collapse, which could result in a runway departure and the engine or wing contacting the ground. The engine or wing contacting the ground could result in damage to the airplane, an increased risk of fire, the airplane flipping, and injury to occupants.

The NPRM published in the Federal Register on December 27, 2023 (88 FR 89339). The NPRM was prompted by AD G-2023-0004R1, dated November 16, 2023 (U.K. CAA AD G-2023-004R1) (also referred to as the MCAI), issued by U.K. CAA, which is the aviation authority for the United Kingdom. The MCAI states that further investigation resulted in a reduced repetitive detailed visual inspection interval and an option to do repetitive special detailed inspections; a new requirement for a one-time dimensional tolerance check; and a requirement to perform a repetitive lubrication of the MLG side stay outer link pivot.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require a reduction of the repetitive visual inspection interval, provide optional repetitive special detailed inspections, and require accomplishing a one-off dimensional tolerance check and performing a repetitive lubrication of the MLG side stay outer link pivot, as specified in U.K. CAA AD G-2023-0004R1. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-2400.

The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on this product. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

U.K. CAA AD G-2023-004R1 specifies procedures for doing repetitive detailed visual inspections or special detailed inspections for cracking of the MLG side stay outer link and replacement if necessary; a one-time dimensional tolerance check of the MLG side stay outer link and corrective actions including replacement if necessary: and repetitive lubrication of the MLG side stay outer link pivot.

The FAA reviewed BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Alert Service Bulletin ASB.32-A189, Revision 2, dated August 3, 2023. This service information describes procedures for doing, among other actions, detailed visual inspections and special detailed inspections (fluorescent dye penetrant) for cracking of the MLG side stay outer link, replacement of the side stay outer link; a one-time dimensional tolerance check of the MLG side stay outer link; removing the side stay outer link and contacting the manufacturer; re-applying protective treatment/paint; and lubrication of the MLG side stay outer link pivot.

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

The FAA considers that this AD is an interim action. If final action is later identified, the FAA might consider further rulemaking then.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 20 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

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

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

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

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

This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available on OFAC's website: www.treasury.gov/ofac.

On March 6, 2003, the President, invoking the authority of, inter alia, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706) (IEEPA), issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13288, “Blocking Property of Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Zimbabwe” (68 FR 11457, March 10, 2003). In E.O. 13288, the President determined that the actions and policies of certain members of the Government of Zimbabwe and other persons to undermine Zimbabwe's democratic processes or institutions, contributing to the deliberate breakdown in the rule of law in Zimbabwe, to politically motivated violence and intimidation in that country, and to political and economic instability in the southern African region, constituted an unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of the United States, and declared a national emergency to deal with that threat. In E.O. 13391, “Blocking Property of Additional Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Zimbabwe” (70 FR 71201, November 25, 2005), the President took additional steps with respect to the continued actions and policies of certain persons who undermine Zimbabwe's democratic processes and with respect to the national emergency described and declared in E.O. 13288. The President additionally expanded the scope of the national emergency with respect to Zimbabwe in E.O. 13469, “Blocking Property of Additional Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Zimbabwe” (73 FR 43841, July 29, 2008).

On July 29, 2004, OFAC issued the Zimbabwe Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 541 (69 FR 45246, July 29, 2004) (the “Regulations”), as an interim final rule to implement E.O. 13288. The Regulations were issued in abbreviated form for the purpose of providing immediate guidance to the public. On July 10, 2014, the Regulations were adopted as a final rule, with changes to implement the two later Executive orders and update the Regulations (79 FR 39312, July 10, 2014). Subsequently, the Regulations were amended multiple times, most recently on January 12, 2024 (89 FR 2142, January 12, 2024).

On March 4, 2024, the President issued E.O. 14118, “Termination of Emergency with Respect to the Situation in Zimbabwe” (89 FR 15945, March 5, 2024). In E.O. 14118, the President found that the national emergency declared in E.O. 13288, as relied upon for additional steps taken in E.O. 13391, and as expanded by E.O. 13469, should no longer be in effect. Accordingly, the President terminated the national emergency declared in E.O. 13288 and revoked that order, E.O. 13391, and E.O. 13469.

As a result, OFAC is removing the Regulations from the Code of Federal Regulations. Pursuant to section 202(a) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(a)) and section 1 of E.O. 14118, termination of the national emergency declared in E.O. 13288, as modified by E.O. 13391 and E.O. 13469, shall not affect any action taken or proceeding pending not finally concluded or determined as of March 4, 2024 (the date of E.O. 14118), any action or proceeding based on any act committed prior to the date of E.O. 14118, or any rights or duties that matured or penalties that were incurred prior to the date of E.O. 14118.

Because the Regulations involve a foreign affairs function, the provisions of E.O. 12866 of September 30, 1993, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), and the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation, and delay in effective date are inapplicable. Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this rule, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) does not apply.

The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because this rule does not impose information collection requirements that would require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

The Coast Guard will enforce multiple safety zones for annual events in the Captain of the Port Detroit Zone listed in 33 CFR 100.911, Table 1 to § 100.911:

(1) Hebda Cup Rowing Regatta Event (Wyandotte, MI) —enforced from 7 a.m. through 3 p.m. on April 27, 2024.

(2) Wy-Hi Rowing Regatta (Wyandotte, MI) —enforced from 7 a.m. through 3 p.m. on May 4, 2024.

(3) Swim Across America (formerly known as Motor City Mile, Detroit, MI) —from 6 a.m. through 12 p.m. on July 12, 2024.

(4) Bay City Grand Prix Powerboat races from 7 a.m. through 7 p.m. from July 12 through July 14, 2024.

(5) St. Clair River Classic Power Boat Race (St. Clair, MI) —from 10 a.m. through 7 p.m. on July 28, 2024.

(6) Detroit Hydrofest Power Boat Race, (Detroit, MI) —from 7 a.m. on August 23, 2024, through 7 p.m. on August 25, 2024.

(7) Michigan Championships Swimming Event (Detroit, MI)— from 7:30 a.m. through 11:30 a.m. on September 1, 2024.

In accordance with the requirements of 33 CFR 100.911, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within these regulated areas during the enforcement periods is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard patrol commander (PATCOM). Those seeking permission to enter the safety zone may request permission from the PATCOM. Vessels permitted to enter this regulated area must operate at a no-wake speed and in a manner that will not endanger race participants or any other craft.

The PATCOM may direct the anchoring, mooring, or movement of any vessel within this regulated area. A succession of sharp, short signals by whistle or horn from vessels patrolling the area under the direction of the PATCOM shall serve as a signal to stop. Vessels so signaled shall stop and shall comply with the orders of the PATCOM. Failure to do so may result in expulsion from the area, a Notice of Violation for failure to comply, or both. Additionally, vessels shall yield right-of-way for event participants and event safety craft and shall follow directions given by the Coast Guard's on-scene representative or by event representatives during the event.

If it is deemed necessary for the protection of life and property, the PATCOM may terminate the marine event or the operation of any vessel within the regulated area.

In accordance with the general regulations in § 100.40, the Coast Guard will patrol the regatta area under the direction of a designated Coast Guard Patrol Commander (PATCOM). The PATCOM, or his designated “on-scene representative”, may be contacted on Channel 16 (156.8 MHz) by the call sign “Coast Guard Patrol Commander.”

This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 100.35 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of this enforcement period via Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. If the Captain of the Port determines that any of these special local regulations need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this document, he may suspend such enforcement and notify the public of the suspension via a Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

The Coast Guard will enforce special local regulations in 33 CFR 100.501 for the Ocean City Offshore Grand Prix regulated area from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on June 7th, 8th, and 9th, 2024. Although § 100.501 provides enforcement periods for this event in May and September, paragraph (g) of that section states that an event may be conducted within 30 days before or after the date(s) listed, and that changes to the enforcement period(s) for that event will be noticed in the Federal Register and announced in the Local Notices to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners. The June enforcement periods provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this 3-day powerboat event. Table 2 to paragraph (i)(2) of § 100.501 specifies the exact location of the regulated area, which is in Ocean City, MD. As provided in paragraph (c) of § 100.501, the operators of vessels in the regulated area must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol displaying a Coast Guard ensign.

In addition to this notification of enforcement in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners, marine information broadcasts, local radio stations and area newspapers.

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule under authority in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). This statutory provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” The Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the event sponsor did not submit notice of the fireworks display to the Coast Guard with sufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest by inhibiting the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with this firework display.

Also, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . For the same reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph, waiting for a 30-day notice period to run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port Eastern Great Lakes (COTP) has determined that fireworks over the water presents significant risks to public safety and property. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the fireworks display is taking place.

This rule establishes a safety zone from 8:30 p.m. through 11:30 p.m. on April 24, 2024. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within a 583-foot radius of land launched fireworks over the Presque Isle Bay in Erie, PA at 42°08′19.87″ N 80°05′29.54″ W. The duration of the zone is intended to protect spectators, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters during the fireworks display. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP Eastern Great Lakes or a designated representative.

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

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review). Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location. Duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. The safety zone will encompass a 583-foot radius of land launched fireworks in the Presque Isle Bay in Erie, PA lasting approximately three hours during the evening when vessel traffic is normally low. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also, this rule does not have Tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting approximately three hours that will prohibit entry within a 583-foot radius in Presque Isle Bay in Erie, PA for a fireworks display. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of appendix A, table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

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

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the event sponsor notified the Coast Guard with insufficient time to publish an NPRM and immediate action is necessary to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment on the Detroit River. It is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to publish a NPRM because we must establish this safety zone by April 15, 2024.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . For the same reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph, delaying the effective date of this rule would be impracticable because immediate action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with a bridge construction zone.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Detroit (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with a bridge construction zone will be a safety concern for anyone between the hanging girders on the Gordie Howe Bridge marked by orange visibility markers and 100 feet upriver and 100 feet downriver during active construction. Falling debris into the water presents risks of collisions which could result in serious injuries or fatalities. This rule is necessary to protect personnel, recreational vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone during time bridge construction is taking place.

This rule establishes a moving safety zone from 8 a.m. on April 15, 2024, through 8 p.m. on July 31, 2024. All U.S. navigable waters of the Detroit River between the hanging girders on the Gordie Howe Bridge marked by orange visibility markers and 100 feet upriver and 100 feet downriver during active construction. Commercial vessels will not be affected. The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, recreational vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters during the construction of the Gordie Howe Bridge. Gordie Howe Bridge construction workers will stop all construction work for the passage of commercial vessels. Recreational vessel's entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated representative. The Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

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

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone which would impact a small, designated area of the Detroit River during times of work when vessel traffic is normally low. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM Marine Channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting only during active construction work will prohibit entry below an areea where the construction is being conducted. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L[60] of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

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

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

Submitting comments. We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal Decision-Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. To do so, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2021-0293 in the search box and click “Search.” Next, look for this document in the Search Results column, and click on it. Then click on the Comment option. If you cannot submit your material by using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this rule for alternate instructions. Viewing material in docket. To view documents mentioned in this rule as being available in the docket, find the docket as described in the previous paragraph, and then select “Supporting & Related Material” in the Document Type column. Public comments will also be placed in our online docket and can be viewed by following instructions on the https://www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked Questions web page. We review all comments received, but we will only post comments that address the topic of the rule. We may choose not to post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we receive.

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

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

These changes implement changes in the minimum dimensions for First-Class Package International Service® (FCPIS®), International Priority Airmail® (IPA®) service and International Surface Air Lift® (ISAL®) service letter-post rolls to bring them closer to compliance with standards established by the Universal Postal Union (UPU) Convention Regulations, which serves as applicable authority in this instance, as adopted at a meeting of the UPU Postal Operations Council in May 2023.

To be in compliance with the UPU regulations, the Postal Service must revise its minimum dimensions for international letter-post rolls, so that the minimum length will be 8.25 inches instead of 4 inches, and so that the minimum length plus twice the diameter will be 12 inches instead of 6.75 inches.

In addition, the Postal Service is eliminating a competitive international electronic money transfer service known as Sure Money® (DineroSeguro®).

Revisions to the size limitations for international rolls are posted under Docket No. MC2024-224, and the removal of prices for International Money Transfer Service ( Sure Money ) is posted under Docket Number CP2024-230 and on the Postal Regulatory Commission's website at http://www.prc.gov.

This final rule describes the classification changes for the following international competitive services:

For pricing, see the Postal Explorer website at https://pe.usps.com.

First-Class Package International Service (FCPIS) is an economical international service for small packages not exceeding 4 pounds in weight and $400 in value. The Postal Service is increasing the FCPIS minimum length requirement on rolls from 4 inches to 8.25 inches and increasing the minimum length plus twice the diameter combined from 6 3/4 inches to 12 inches to align with the standards established by the UPU. International Priority Airmail (IPA) service and International Surface Airlift (ISAL) service packets are also affected by this change since the dimensional requirements for IPA and ISAL are identical to those for FCPIS.

The Postal Service is eliminating the competitive international extra service for International Money Transfer Service known as Sure Money (DineroSeguro).

Revise the following sections of the Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, International Mail Manual (IMM) as follows:

Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here:

Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is organized as follows:

Categories and entities potentially affected by this action are shown in table 1 of this preamble.

Table 1 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this final action. To determine whether your entity is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria found in title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 60.2885, 60.2981, and 60.2991. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble, your delegated authority, or your EPA Regional representative listed in 40 CFR 60.4 (General Provisions).

In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this final action will also be available on the internet. Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this final action at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/other-solid-waste-incinerators-oswi-new-source-performance. Following publication in the Federal Register (FR), the EPA will post the FR version and key technical documents at this same website.

Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by June 17, 2024. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the requirements.

Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment (including any public hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule. Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.

Section 129 of the CAA, entitled “Solid Waste Combustion,” requires the EPA to develop and adopt new source performance standards (NSPS) and emission guidelines (EG) for solid waste incineration units pursuant to CAA section 111 and 129. Section 129(a) of the CAA requires EPA to establish NSPS for new sources, and CAA section 129(b) requires the EPA to establish guidelines, which include emission limits pursuant to section 111(d) of the CAA. Under CAA section 129, NSPS and EG must be developed for new and existing stationary sources that cause or contribute significantly to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.

In 2005, the EPA promulgated NSPS and EG for OSWI units (70 FR 74870; December 16, 2005). “Standards of Performance for Other Solid Waste Incineration Units” ( i.e., the OSWI rule), which requires owners and operators of ACIs burning only wood waste, clean lumber, yard waste or a mixture of these three types of waste to apply for and obtain a title V permit (70 FR 74884-85). The EPA explained that title V operating permits “would assure compliance with all applicable federal requirements for regulated incineration units.” (See 70 FR 74873.)

CAA section 129(a)(5) requires the EPA, every 5 years, to review and, in accordance with CAA sections 129 and 111, revise standards and other requirements for solid waste incineration units (such as the OSWI standards). On August 31, 2020, in accordance with EPA's general authority under CAA section 129(a), the EPA issued a proposal to amend the NSPS and EG for OSWI units (85 FR 54178). Among other amendments, the EPA proposed to eliminate the requirement that ACIs that burn only wood waste, clean lumber, and yard waste, and that are not located at major sources or subject to title V for other reasons, obtain title V operating permits. The EPA has received feedback from several States indicating that the title V permits are unnecessarily burdensome and expensive for States to maintain for these ACIs. Further, based on available data, ACIs that burn exclusively wood waste, clean lumber, and yard waste are commonly located at facilities that would not otherwise require title V operating permits. In this action, the EPA is finalizing only the portion of the proposed rule that eliminates the title V permit requirement for ACIs that burn only wood waste, clean lumber, and yard waste, for the reasons described below. Since the proposal, both State and industry stakeholders have commented that the title V requirements for these units are overly burdensome and costly, particularly in light of the dependence on ACI units to mitigate natural disaster debris, such as massive amounts of clean wood and vegetative waste for wildfire mitigation and forest management; burning of storm-generated wood and vegetative debris; and burning of land clearing debris. Several States have commented that these ACIs should not be required to obtain title V permits because they are low-emitting and because permitting these ACIs is unnecessarily burdensome and expensive. Further, ACIs that burn exclusively wood waste, clean lumber, and yard waste are typically used temporarily at the location of a natural disaster, not at facilities that are subject to title V (See 85 FR 54194; August 31, 2020).

The EPA has also received comments that the title V permit requirement for ACIs that only burn wood waste, clean lumber, and yard waste is inconsistent with the definition of “solid waste incineration unit” in CAA section 129(g)(1). CAA section 129(e) generally requires title V permits for “solid waste incineration units.” However, CAA section 129(g)(1) excludes ACIs that only burn wood waste, yard waste, and clean lumber and comply with the opacity limitations in 40 CFR 60.2971 and 60.3066. For these reasons, the EPA is removing the title V permitting requirements for ACI units burning only wood waste, clean lumber, and yard waste.

On August 31, 2020, as part of the Agency's 5-year review of the Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emissions Guidelines for Existing Sources: Other Solid Waste Incineration (OSWI) Units, the EPA proposed to remove the title V permitting requirements for ACI units burning only wood waste, clean lumber, and yard waste. The EPA received 20 comment letters from States and industry stakeholders supporting the removal of title V permitting requirement for ACIs that burn only wood waste, clean lumber, and yard waste. The EPA received no adverse comments on the proposal.

After considering public comments received on the August 2020 proposal, in this action the EPA is finalizing as proposed to remove title V permit requirements for ACI units that burn only wood waste, clean lumber, and yard waste. EPA is finalizing this provision to simplify the compliance obligations for owners and operators of these types of units.

The revisions to the title V permitting requirements for ACIs burning only wood waste, clean lumber, and yard waste being promulgated in this action are effective on April 17, 2024.

Comment: Commenters support the removal of title V permitting requirements for ACIs burning wood waste, yard waste, and clean lumber. Some States commented that these types of ACIs are excluded from the definition of “solid waste incineration units” under CAA section 129(g)(1) and are therefore not subject to the title V permit requirements in CAA section 129(e). Commenters further stated that ACIs burning only the allowed materials should not be considered subject to standards or regulations under CAA section 111, because only “solid waste incineration units” are required to be subject to New Source Performance Standards pursuant to CAA section 129(a) and Emission Guidelines for Existing Units pursuant to CAA section 129(b). Additionally, commenters stated that ACIs burning only the allowed materials should not be subject to title V permitting pursuant to CAA section 502(a), because ACIs are not subject to standards or regulations under CAA section 111. Commenters stated that ACIs burning only the allowed materials should only be subject to the opacity standards pursuant to CAA section 129(g)(1).

In addition, several commenters indicated that the title V permit requirement for these ACIs has been unduly burdensome and expensive for both ACI operators and permitting agencies. Commenters asserted that this has impacted especially small businesses, because of the high cost involved in some jurisdictions, the extensive paperwork, and time-consuming reporting requirements. Commenters further stated that these impediments render utilizing an ACI for the reduction of the allowed materials, in most instances, not commercially viable compared to open pile burning or grinding and disposing of the grindings by various means that are often environmentally unsound, such as landfilling. A commenter noted that the title V permit requirements often discourage ACI use and instead create conditions where open burning of wood waste occurs instead.

A commenter indicated that removal of the title V permit requirement would greatly simplify the permitting process while encouraging a cleaner, less polluting method of wood waste disposal when compared to open burning. Commenters stated that the immediate result of removing the title V permit requirement will be less open pile burning and grinding of wood waste, which will reduce Black Carbon emissions with a positive effect on global warming. Several commenters noted that increased use of ACIs that are not considered to be solid waste incinerators would produce biochar that can be used as a beneficial soil amendment rather than being treated as a hazardous waste that must be disposed of in a landfill. A commenter also asserted that ACIs are air quality control devices and a preferred method of managing wood wastes.

A commenter stated that ACIs that burn wood waste, clean lumber, and yard waste are not incinerators and characterized ACIs that burn this type of waste as air pollution control devices for an open burn pile. Commenters emphasized that the residuals from ACIs that burn this type of waste consist of wood ash and biochar, which are not hazardous waste, as are residual ashes from true MSW incinerators. A commenter added that this would pave the way in all jurisdictions for wood ash and biochar from ACIs burning only the allowed materials to be land-applied as a beneficial soil additive and ACI residuals from burning clean wood waste would no longer require a hazardous waste permit and subsequent disposal into a landfill, often at considerable cost.

A commenter encouraged the EPA to clarify that the waiver of title V permitting requirements also would apply when ACIs are used to burn other naturally occurring and organic materials in an effort to remove or reduce hazardous fuels loads that could lead to a wildland fire incident. Another commenter urged the EPA to expand this title V exemption to all ACIs that burn only wood waste, clean lumber, and yard waste ( e.g., ACIs subject to 40 CFR 60.2020 and 60.2010).

Response: As noted by the commenter, the EPA proposed to eliminate the title V permit requirement for ACIs that only burn wood wastes, yard wastes, and clean lumber and that comply with opacity limitations established by the EPA, unless they otherwise need title V permits (85 FR 54194). The definition of “solid waste incineration unit” in CAA section 129(g)(1) “does not include (C) air curtain incinerators [that] only burn wood wastes, yard wastes and clean lumber” and comply with opacity limits. Importantly, the regulations at 40 CFR 70.3 stipulate the types of sources that must obtain a permit for operation pursuant to CAA section 502(a). In particular, title V permitting applies to any major source, as defined in 40 CFR 70.2, without exceptions, including ACI that are not solid waste incineration units under CAA section 129(g)(1), but are themselves major sources. The preamble to the proposal explains that “EPA is proposing to eliminate this regulatory title V permitting requirement for such ACIs that are not located at a major source or subject to title V for other reasons.” (85 FR 54194) This final rule clarifies applicability of title V permitting requirement for ACIs that burn only wood waste, clean lumber, and yard waste or a combination of these materials and comply with the Section 129 opacity requirements. We disagree that this interpretation should extend to ACIs used to burn materials other than wood waste, clean lumber, and yard waste, as defined in 40 CFR 60.2992 and 60.3078.

The OSWI database developed for the August 31, 2020, proposal lists approximately 29 ACI units that burn only wood waste, clean lumber, and yard waste, at 29 facilities. It is possible that there are units not included in the OSWI database.

There are no air quality impacts associated with this action. The removal of title V permitting requirements for ACIs that only burn wood waste, clean lumber, and yard waste does not have an effect on the obligation for sources to comply with the existing standards, including the stringency of the standards in 40 CFR part 60, subpart EEEE or FFFF, or on the ability of Federal or State agencies to enforce standards.

The removal of title V permit requirements for ACI units that burn only wood waste, clean lumber, and yard waste results in a cost savings in permit costs for ACI units that burn only wood waste, clean lumber, and yard waste. There is no cost impact on other types of ACI units that do not burn only wood waste, clean lumber, and yard waste.

The removal of title V permit requirements for ACI units that burn only wood waste, clean lumber, and yard waste results in a cost reduction that cannot be quantified because the EPA is unable to accurately identify the number of these units to scale the cost reduction. There is no economic impact on other types of ACI units that do not burn only wood waste, clean lumber, and yard waste.

This final action will simplify compliance and reduce administrative cost burden for owners and operators of ACI units that burn only wood waste, clean lumber, and yard waste and permitting authorities. The rule will not change existing emission standards. Further, it will have no adverse impact on public health or the environment.

Additional information about these statutes and Executive orders can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

This action is not a significant regulatory action as defined in the Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094, and was therefore not subject to a requirement for Executive Order 12866 review.

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). There are no information collection request activities associated with this action.

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the EPA concludes that the impact of concern for this action is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities and that the agency is certifying that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the action relieves regulatory burden on the small entities subject to this action. This action removes title V permit requirements for affected small entities. We have therefore concluded that this action will relieve regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.

This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (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. 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 does not have Tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will neither impose direct compliance costs on federally recognized Tribal governments nor preempt Tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

Executive Order 13045 directs Federal agencies to include an evaluation of the health and safety effects of the planned regulation on children in Federal health and safety standards and explain why the regulation is preferable to potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not anticipate the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

The EPA believes that the human health and environmental conditions that exist prior to this action do not result in disproportionate and adverse effects on communities with environmental justice (EJ) concerns. The removal of title V requirements for ACIs that burn only wood waste, clean lumber, and yard waste do not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment.

The EPA believes that this action is not likely to result in new disproportionate and adverse effects on communities with environmental justice concerns. Air quality regulation on ACIs remains in place to control environmental exposure to the public despite the removal of title V permit requirements for ACIs that burn only wood waste, clean lumber, and yard waste. This action will not compromise standards and/or controls on ACIs that burn only wood waste, clean lumber, and yard waste.

This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act (CRA), 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).

For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: