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

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA-2023-1021 in the Federal Register (88 FR 54503; August 11, 2023) proposing to establish Class C airspace area surrounding MDT. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. Four comments were received.

The FAA received anonymous comments supporting the establishment of the Harrisburg Class C airspace. Discussion of the other comments follows.

One commenter supported the establishment of the Harrisburg Class C airspace. This comment also thanked the FAA for its efforts to ensure that the Class C rulemaking did not affect Capital City Airport (CXY), PA operations, notably the Runway 12/30 traffic pattern and CXY Instrument Landing System (ILS) runway 8 approach, for aircraft that do not meet Class C equipment requirements. This commenter also suggested revising the CXY Class E airspace descriptions in FAA Order JO 7400.11 due to an apparent error.

In response to the comment associated with operations at CXY, the FAA received neither comments nor proposals that would further restrict operations at CXY. Additionally, the FAA did not consider any amendment to the Class C airspace design as proposed in the NPRM. Further, the remainder of the comment is beyond the scope of this rulemaking, noting that the FAA proposed changes to the CXY Class D and Class E airspace via a separate action. 1

The last comment was received from Boeing, which identified a possible typographical error in the geographic point “lat. 40°14′12″ N, long. 077°56′05″ W” listed in Area E of the Harrisburg Class C airspace description. The commenter indicated that this point would not create Area E as depicted in the graphic and believed that the geographic point should have been “lat. 40°14′12″ N, long. 076°56′05″ W”. The FAA reviewed the geographic coordinates in the proposed description of Area E and found that the geographic point published as “lat. 40°14′12″ N, long. 077°56′05″ W” was in error and the correct geographic coordinates are “lat. 40°14′12″ N, long. 076°56′05″ W”. The graphic in the NPRM used the correct geographic coordinates for Area E and correctly depicted the intended layout of the Harrisburg Class C airspace.

Subsequent to publication of the NPRM, a commenter pointed out a typographical error in a geographic coordinate in Area E of the Harrisburg Class C airspace description. In Area E, the geographic point published as “lat. 40°14′12″ N, long. 077°56′05″ W” was in error and the correct geographic coordinates are “lat. 40°14′12″ N, long. 076°56′05″ W”. The geographic point in Area E is changed from “lat. 40°14′12″ N, long. 077°56′05″ W” to “lat. 40°14′12″ N, long. 076°56′05″ W”.

Additionally, the FAA identified three boundary points that must be added to Area D of the Harrisburg Class C airspace description. These three additional boundary points are necessary to ensure that the boundary of Area D aligns with the boundaries of adjacent Area C and Area E. Adding these boundary points does not modify the external boundary of the Class C airspace but rather ensures that the internal boundaries of the airspace are coincident. The three boundary points that are added to Area D are lat. 40°12′37″ N, long. 076°49′12″ W; lat. 40°14′13″ N, long. 076°53′23″ W; lat. 40°14′12″ N, long. 076°56′05″ W. This final rule corrects these errors.

Class C airspace designations are published in paragraph 4000 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023. FAA Order JO 7400.11H is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. This amendment will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11.

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

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by establishing Class C airspace and removing the existing Class D airspace area at the Harrisburg International Airport (MDT), PA. The latitude/longitude coordinates for the MDT and CXY airport reference points (ARP) are updated to reflect the current Airport Master Records data. Also, the existing MDT TRSA is removed and replaced by the Class C airspace area. The FAA is taking this action to enhance the safe and efficient use of airspace and reduce the risk of midair collision in the MDT terminal area (see the attached chart).

The MDT Class C airspace area consists of six sub-areas identified by the letters A through F, described as follows:

Area A: Area A extends from the surface up to 4,400 feet mean sea level (MSL) within a 5 nautical mile (NM) radius of MDT, except for that portion described as Area E, below, and excluding that area within a 1.5 NM radius of CXY, northeast of the airport. Area A replaces the existing Class D airspace at MDT.

Area B: Area B extends from 1,600 feet MSL up to 4,400 feet MSL. It consists of that airspace within 3.5 miles either side of the 117° bearing from MDT, between the 5-mile and 10-mile radii from MDT.

Area C: Area C extends from 1,600 feet MSL up to 4,400 feet MSL. It is located northwest of MDT between the 5-mile and 10-mile radii of MDT and bounded on the south side by Area E. Area C overlies a portion of the CXY Class D airspace area.

Area D: Area D extends from 2,100 feet MSL up to 4,400 feet MSL. Area D is bounded as follows: on the northwest end by the 15-mile radius of MDT northwest of MDT; on the northeast side by a line extending from the intersection of the 15-mile radius of MDT and the MDT's 325° bearing, direct to the intersection of MDT's 089° bearing and the 15-mile radius of MDT southeast of MDT; and on the southwest side, by a line extending from lat. 40°01′45″ N, long. 076°40′43″ W, to lat. 40°05′32″ N, long. 076°50′21″ W, excluding the airspace contained in Areas A, B, C, E, and F. Area D's 2,100-foot floor creates a shelf in the vicinity of Donegal Springs Airpark (N71), allowing for operations beneath the Class C airspace.

Area E: Area E extends from 2,600 feet MSL up to 4,400 feet MSL south and west of CXY. Area E overlays part of the CXY Class D airspace area to the south and west of CXY. Area E allows aircraft to operate to and from CXY without the need for pilots to enter Class C airspace.

Area F: Area F extends from 2,600 feet MSL up to 4,400 feet MSL. The Area F floor creates a shelf below which pilots could fly instrument approaches to Lancaster Airport (LNS) runway 08, without having to enter Class C airspace.

Full descriptions of the MDT Class C subareas are listed in the amendments to part 71 below.

The FAA considers the impacts of regulatory actions under a variety of executive orders and other requirements. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify the costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $183 million using the most current (2023) Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. This portion of the preamble presents the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this rule.

In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this rule: will have a minimal cost impact; is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 as amended by Executive Order 14094; will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; will not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States; and will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector.

This final rule amends 14 CFR part 71 by establishing Class C airspace and removing the existing Class D airspace area at the MDT, PA. In addition, the non-regulatory TRSA is removed. The rule will affect pilots desiring to fly at their current altitudes in and above the Class C airspace. The existing § 91.225 requires all planes to operate in Class C airspace to be equipped with Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) Out equipment. Given that there is no Class C airspace at MDT, all planes that fly in and out of MDT must be equipped with ADS-B Out equipment in this airspace once the final rule goes into effect. However, the nearby Capital City Airport is about four miles from MDT and is not part of Class C airspace. The Capital City Airport could accommodate planes without ADS-B Out equipment.

This rule affects pilots because two-way radio communications must be established prior to entering Class C airspace. Pilots who wish to fly without communicating with air traffic control will need to modify their altitude and/or route of flight by either flying above the ceiling, below the shelves, or circumnavigating the Class C airspace. The impact of the final rule will only involve a minimal amount of time to communicate with the air traffic control (ATC). Therefore, the final rule does not have a significant impact on the industry. The FAA is taking this action to reduce the risk of midair collisions and enhance the efficient management of air traffic operations in the Harrisburg terminal area.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) establishes “as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given serious consideration.” The RFA covers a wide range of small entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency determines it will, it must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA. However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so certify, and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.

This final rule amends 14 CFR part 71 by establishing Class C airspace and removing the existing Class D airspace area at MDT. In addition, the non-regulatory TRSA is removed. The FAA is taking this action to reduce the risk of midair collisions and enhance the efficient management of air traffic operations at the MDT. The change affects general aviation operators using Class C airspace. The impact of the final rule will only involve a minimal amount of time for pilots to communicate with the ATC in Class C airspace. The objectives of these changes are to enhance safety and enable more efficient operations at the MDT without being burdensome to the industry. Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of the FAA certifies that this rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for United States standards. The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this final rule and determined that it should improve safety and is consistent with the Trade Agreements Act. The FAA has assessed the potential impact of this final rule and determined that it will improve safety and is consistent with the Trade Agreements Act.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) governs the issuance of Federal regulations that require unfunded mandates. An unfunded mandate is a regulation that requires a state, local, or tribal government or the private sector to incur direct costs without the Federal government having first provided the funds to pay those costs. The FAA determined that the final rule will not result in the expenditure of $183 million or more by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector, in any year. This final rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore, the Act does not apply.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that this final rule has no new information collection requirement.

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

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

The relief provided enables carriers to return operations at SFO during the construction periods of the Winter 2023/2024 and Summer 2024 scheduling seasons without unduly impacting schedules in subsequent seasons. 1 Reducing operations will help prevent delays, optimize the efficient use of the airport's available resources, and deliver passengers to their destinations more reliably and on time.

SFO is rehabilitating one of its four runways, Runway 10R/28L, to maintain runway operability; to construct a new taxiway to improve operational efficiency; and to realign an existing taxiway to rectify deficiencies with current SFO geometry. Runway 10R/28L is one of two parallel runways oriented in the east-west direction and is used as a primary arrival runway and a secondary departure runway. The construction will cause the continuous closure of Runway 10R/28L from January 15, 2024, through June 30, 2024.

On October 26, 2023, the FAA held an initial meeting with all the carriers that have scheduled operations at SFO. The FAA gave a presentation on the expected impact of the construction project on operations at SFO and recommended a reduction in operations to alleviate potential delays and cancellations. SFO initially planned for the project to occur in two phases: Phase 1 planned for January 16, 2024, through May 28, 2024; and Phase 2 planned for September 3, 2024, through October 25, 2024.

On December 14, 2023, the FAA and SFO held a joint meeting with all the carriers that have scheduled operations at SFO. SFO announced that Phase 2 had been rescheduled to begin on May 29, 2024, and end on June 30, 2024. This change allows the construction to be condensed into one continuous block of time from January 15, 2024, through June 30, 2024.

At both meetings, the FAA requested that carriers voluntarily return operations. Carriers were asked to make initial returns by November 2, 2023, for the affected portion of the winter scheduling season; and by January 11, 2024, for the affected portion of the summer 2024 scheduling season. The FAA subsequently determined that relief granted for the construction period should extend beyond the construction period by an additional 15 days to accommodate carriers resuming normal scheduled operations.

The FAA has designated SFO, EWR, ORD, and LAX as Level 2 airports under the Worldwide Slot Guidelines (WSG). 2 The FAA does not allocate slots, apply historic precedence, or impose minimum usage requirements at SFO. Level 2 schedule facilitation depends upon close and continuous discussions and voluntary agreement between airlines and the FAA to reduce congestion. At Level 2 airports, the FAA generally provides priority consideration for flights approved by the FAA and operated by the carrier in those approved times in the prior scheduling season when the FAA reviews proposed flights for facilitation in the next corresponding scheduling season. Only those flights that were actually operated as approved in the prior scheduling season would generally receive priority for the next corresponding scheduling season. However, the FAA notes that the usual Level 2 processes include flexibility for the facilitator to prioritize planned flights, which are canceled in advance or on the day of the scheduled operation due to operational impacts that are beyond the control of the carrier.

At JFK, each slot must be used a minimum of 80 percent of the time. 3 Slot usage at JFK is calculated seasonally. Slots not meeting the minimum usage requirement will not receive historic status for the following equivalent scheduling season. 4 The FAA may waive the 80 percent minimum usage requirement if a highly unusual and unpredictable condition beyond the control of the slot-holding air carrier affects carrier operations for a period of five consecutive days or more at JFK. 5

Due to the daily volume of flights arriving and departing SFO, the closure of Runway 10R/28L is expected to significantly affect carriers' ability to operate reliably and on time. Absent increased scheduling flexibility during the construction period, the FAA anticipates a high likelihood of congestion, delays, and cancellations at SFO, with related impact at EWR, ORD, LAX, and JFK. The runway closure is expected to impact carrier operations at SFO especially in the the peak demand hours of 0900, 1200, 1500, 1700, 1800, 2000, and 2100 hours.

The FAA modeled two scenarios of the expected delays at SFO for Phase 1 and Phase 2 respectively: one scenario without any mitigation measures, and one scenario with arrival limit mitigation measures in place. The mitigation measures incorporate Air Traffic Control (ATC) data used to assess capacity at SFO throughout the construction period. These mitigation measures align with the number of operations that ATC finds to be sustainable during the runway closure, while accounting for the differing arrival demand profiles in Phase 1 and Phase 2.

Phase 1 of the construction requires a total closure of Runway 10R/28L, with Taxiways D and T partially affected. As such, for the scenario without any mitigation measures, the FAA estimates approximately 78% of total arrivals would be delayed by an average of 49 minutes per arrival. These arrival delays would be unrecoverable throughout the day.

The FAA then modeled a scenario that limited the arrivals to no more than 30 per hour throughout the day, except for the 0900, 1200, 1500, 1700, 1800, 2000, and 2100 hours where the arrival limit is increased to no more than 35 per hour. This is because Phase 1 arrival demand varies by hour, with peak arrival demand exceeding 35 per hour, and off-peak arrival demand decreasing in some hours to under 25 arrivals per hour. Given that the capacity of the airport is limited to 30 arrivals per hour on average, the target arrival limits are set by hour to accommodate variable hourly arrival demand, with an ability to recover in adjacent hours. With this mitigation measure in place, the FAA estimates that approximately 52% of total arrivals will experience an average delay of about 21 minutes per arrival.

Phase 2 of the construction requires the total closure of Runway 10R/28L and Taxiways D and T. As such, for the scenario without any mitigation measures, the FAA estimates approximately 90% of total arrivals would be delayed by an average of 87.6 minutes per arrival. The consequences of arrival delays of over two hours would result in 89 arrival cancellations per day. 6 These arrival delays are expected to be unrecoverable throughout the day.

The FAA also modeled a scenario that limited the arrivals to no more than 27 per hour throughout the day. This is because for Phase 2 the hourly arrival demand exceeds the airport's arrival capacity in every hour; therefore, the target scheduling limit is set to the airport's arrival capacity for every hour throughout the day. With this mitigation measure in place, the FAA estimates that approximately 24% of total arrivals will experience an average delay of approximately 10.4 minutes per arrival.

After assessing these scenarios, the FAA determined that the mitigation measures for both Phase 1 and Phase 2 will balance efficient and timely operations at SFO during the construction period and limit the impact on carrier's scheduled operations for the convenience of the flying public. Although the potential for significant delays may still occur on late evenings during high-traffic days, the majority of operating hours will be manageable throughout the day during the construction period.

The FAA has determined that the construction and resulting runway closure at SFO warrants limited, conditional schedule relief because the impacts to operations are beyond the carriers' control and will persist for several months during 2024.

For Phase 1, the FAA requests that carriers reduce operations in the 0900, 1200, 1500, 1700, 1800, 2000, and 2100 hours to no more than 35 arrivals in each of these hours, without moving operations into the adjacent hours. The adjacent hours are heavily subscribed with departures, limiting the ability to move arrivals from peak hours into the adjacent hours. Because the current scheduled arrival demand at SFO for each of those hours is well above 35 arrivals, 7 doing so would result in a reduction of about 55 to 60 operations on peak days during the construction period, depending on the day/week/month.

For Phase 2, the FAA requests that carriers reduce operations to no more than 27 arrivals per hour, without moving operations into the adjacent hours. Because the current scheduled arrival demand at SFO for each of those hours is well above 27 arrivals, doing so would result in a reduction of about 140 operations on peak days during the construction period, depending on the day or week or month.

The FAA is not limiting the relief to specific hours in order to provide some degree of flexibility to carriers to allow them to balance schedules and slot pairs. The FAA will continue to work with carriers on retiming and schedule adjustment options throughout the construction period as needed.

This relief is effective from January 15, 2024, through July 15, 2024. This provides some time before and after the currently planned runway closure dates to accommodate potential changes to the construction schedule, and provide carriers that may need some relief on either side of the current anticipated construction dates to phase in or phase out current operations.

In addition, the FAA is extending a limited, conditional waiver from minimum usage requirements at JFK for departure slots for nonstop service to SFO, and providing similar relief at EWR, LAX, and ORD under the Level 2 process for approved schedules associated with a SFO departures for nonstop service to these U.S. airports. Carriers may also choose to use those slots at JFK and or the approved runway times at EWR, LAX, and ORD for operations to airports other than SFO.

For the duration of the construction period, the FAA will recognize priority of approved schedules or the historical precedence of related slots, subject to the following conditions.

1. Slots or approved schedules for initial use in the Winter 2023/2024 scheduling season are not eligible for relief. Slots or schedules approved for initial use in the Summer 2024 scheduling season are not eligible for relief.

2. Slots granted historic precedence for subsequent seasons based on this relief are not eligible for transfer if the slot holder ceases all operations at the airport.

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

On October 22, 2012, OFAC issued a final rule that amended the former Iranian Transactions Regulations, 31 CFR part 560 (ITR), and reissued them in their entirety as the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations (ITSR or “the Regulations”) (77 FR 64664, October 22, 2012). Since then, OFAC has amended the Regulations on several occasions. As set forth in more detail below, OFAC is now amending the Regulations to incorporate, with certain amendments, a general license that previously was published on OFAC's website and to make additional conforming changes.

Services, Software, and Hardware Incident to Personal Communications. On March 10, 2010, in order to foster and support the free flow of information to individual Iranian citizens, OFAC issued a final rule amending the ITR to add a general license in § 560.540 authorizing the exportation of certain services and software incident to the exchange of personal communications over the internet, provided that, among other things, such services and software were publicly available at no cost to the user (75 FR 10997, March 10, 2010). The authorization under § 560.540 was preserved in the ITSR, as reissued in October 2012 (77 FR 64664).

On May 30, 2013, OFAC, in consultation with the Departments of State and Commerce, issued General License (GL) D under the Regulations. GL D was made available on OFAC's website and the Federal Register (78 FR 43278, July 19, 2013). GL D authorized the exportation or reexportation, directly or indirectly, from the United States or by U.S. persons, wherever located, to persons in Iran of additional services, software, and hardware incident to personal communications, including fee-based versions of the software and services authorized in § 560.540, subject to certain conditions. GL D also contained an Annex that listed items authorized for export or reexport to Iran that had been determined to be incident to personal communications.

On February 7, 2014, OFAC issued GL D-1, which replaced and superseded GL D in its entirety. GL D-1 was made available on OFAC's website and the Federal Register (79 FR 13736, March 11, 2014). GL D-1 clarified certain aspects of GL D and added new authorizations relating to the provision to Iran and importation from Iran of certain hardware, software, and services incident to personal communications. GL D-1 also updated the Annex from GL D with minor technical amendments. On September 23, 2022, OFAC issued GL D-2, which replaced and superseded GL D-1 in its entirety. GL D-2 was made available on OFAC's website and in the Federal Register (87 FR 62003, October 13, 2022). GL D-2 updated and clarified GL D-1 by, among other things: removing the “personal” qualifier from the authorization for software and services incident to “personal communication”; providing additional examples of modern types of software and services that are incident to the exchange of communications, including social media platforms, collaboration platforms, video conferencing, e-gaming, e-learning platforms, automated translation, web maps, and user authentication services; explicitly authorizing cloud-based services and software in support of the foregoing software or services or of any other transaction that is authorized pursuant to the Regulations; clarifying the restrictions on the exportation of web-hosting services or domain name registration services; and expanding the specific licensing policy set forth in GL D-1. GL D-2 maintained the Annex as updated by GL D-1.

OFAC, in consultation with the Departments of State and Commerce, is now amending the Regulations to incorporate the provisions of GL D-2 and certain additional amendments into the existing authorization at § 560.540. First, OFAC is amending § 560.540(a) to incorporate paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of GL D-2, which authorize the exportation or reexportation to Iran of certain no-cost or fee-based services and software that are incident to, and software that enables services incident to, the exchange of communications over the internet, as well as cloud-based services in support of the foregoing services or of any other transactions authorized or exempt under the Regulations, subject to certain conditions. New § 560.540(a)(3) incorporates paragraph (a)(3) of GL D-2, which authorizes the exportation, reexportation, or provision of certain software, hardware, and related services not authorized by § 560.540(a)(1) or (2). OFAC is also publishing in the Federal Register a list of the services, software, and hardware authorized by new § 560.540(a)(3) (the “List of Services, Software, and Hardware Incident to Communications under 31 CFR 560.540”), which includes the items previously listed in the Annex to GL D-2. However, concurrent with this rule, OFAC is publishing an update, effective 30 days after publication of this rule, that would amend the “List of Services, Software, and Hardware Incident to Communications under 31 CFR 560.540” to limit the computing power of laptops, tablets, and personal computing devices that are authorized for exportation or reexportation to Iran under category (5) of “List of Services, Software, and Hardware Incident to Communications under 31 CFR 560.540”, in order to address concerns about the use of multiple, connected computing devices with increased computing powers to create high-powered computers. The updated “List of Services, Software, and Hardware Incident to Communications under 31 CFR 560.540” is being published separately in the Federal Register . New § 560.540(a)(4) through (6) incorporate paragraphs (a)(4) through (6) of GL D-2, which authorize: the exportation or reexportation of certain internet connectivity services and the provision, sale, or lease of telecommunications facilities incident to communications; the importation into the United States or a third country of hardware and software previously exported to Iran; and the exportation and reexportation of certain publicly available, no-cost services and software to the Government of Iran, respectively.

OFAC is also expanding § 560.540 in two ways to address repair and replacement issues with respect to items exported pursuant to the ITSR. First, OFAC is revising the authorization at paragraph (a)(5) of GL D-2 and incorporating the revised text into § 560.540(a)(5), to authorize transactions for the importation of hardware or software into third countries, in addition to the United States, provided that the items were previously exported to Iran pursuant to an authorization issued pursuant to the ITSR. Second, OFAC is adding a new § 560.540(a)(7) to authorize the exportation or reexportation, of certain services conducted outside Iran to install, repair, or replace hardware or software authorized for exportation, reexportation, or provision to Iran by paragraph (a)(2) or (3) of that section. The new § 560.540(a)(7) authorizes such services only when the service provider is located outside Iran and does not authorize the service providers to engage in such services while in Iran.

This final rule also revises § 560.540(b) to incorporate paragraph (b) of GL D-2, which includes restrictions on transactions authorized by § 560.540(a), with slight revisions. Section 560.540(b)(3) refines and clarifies the restrictions of paragraph (b)(4) of GL D-2 related to the provision of web-hosting services or of domain name registration services in Iran. Specifically, newly revised § 560.540(b)(3) excludes from authorization the exportation or reexportation of web-hosting services for websites of commercial entities located in Iran or of domain name registration services for or on behalf of the Government of Iran or another person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 560.211.

OFAC is revising § 560.540(c) to incorporate paragraph (c) of GL D-2 into § 560.540(c)(1), which provides that U.S. depository institutions and U.S. registered brokers or dealers in securities may process transfers of funds in furtherance of an underlying transaction authorized by § 560.540(a), provided the transfer does not involve debiting or crediting an Iranian account. U.S. depository institutions and U.S. registered brokers or dealers in securities may also continue to process transfers of funds that are ordinarily incident and necessary to authorized transactions pursuant to § 560.516.

OFAC is also adding a new § 560.540(d) to incorporate the specific licensing policy set forth in paragraph (d) of GL D-2, which expands upon the specific licensing policy previously set forth in § 560.540(c). The new § 560.540(d) sets forth a case-by-case licensing policy for additional activities that support internet freedom in Iran. OFAC is not incorporating certain notes and a provision in GL D-2 that are duplicative of prohibitions that continue to apply independently from the Regulations and therefore are unnecessary to include. Finally, OFAC is adding an explanatory note referring to this general license in §§ 560.418, 560.508, and 560.519. Upon publication of this final rule, OFAC will archive GL D-2 on its website. GLs D, D-1, and D-2 will continue to be available in the Federal Register : GL D was published in the Federal Register on July 19, 2013 (78 FR 43278, July 19, 2013); GL D-1 was published in the Federal Register on March 11, 2014 (79 FR 13736, March 11, 2014); and GL D-2 was published in the Federal Register on October 13, 2022 (87 FR 62003, October 13, 2022).

Because the Regulations involve a foreign affairs function, the provisions of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 of September 30, 1993, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), as amended, 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 collections of information related to the Regulations are contained in 31 CFR part 501 (the “Reporting, Procedures and Penalties Regulations”). Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), those collections of information have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1505-0164. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid control number.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, OFAC amends 31 CFR part 560 as follows:

The sponsor of the “Yorktown Workboat Races,” a high-speed boat race to be held at the Yorktown waterfront, has applied for a permit to conduct that event on June 2, 2024, as required by 33 CFR 100.15. After the approval of such a permit, the Captain of the Port, Sector Virginia (COTP) is authorized to promulgate such “special local regulations” as he or she deems necessary to ensure the safety of life on the navigable waters immediately prior to, during, and immediately after the event. See 33 CFR 100.35(a). This temporary rule embodies the special local regulations the COTP deems necessary for this event.

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 it is impracticable to publish an NPRM, provide a comment period, consider any comments submitted, and publish a final regulation by June 2, 2024, when the rule must be in effect to ensure the safety of life on the navigable waters during the Workboat Race scheduled to take place then.

In addition, the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date would be contrary to the public interest, as it is in the public interest to have the rule in effect on June 2nd to ensure the safety of event spectators, and those in support craft and other vessels transiting the navigable waters adjacent to the event. As noted below, advance notifications will be made to affected users of the waterway via Broadcast Notice to Mariners and Local Notice to Mariners.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The COTP has determined that potential hazards associated with a high-speed boat race on June 2, 2024, will be a safety concern for anyone within the race area. This rule is needed to protect personnel and vessels in the navigable waters within the special local regulation during the event.

This rule establishes a special local regulation from 11 a.m. until 3 p.m. on June 2, 2024. The special local regulation will cover all navigable waters within the following latitude and longitude positions: 37°14′21.6″ N, 76°30′27.2″ W; 37°14′23.5″ N, 76°30′25.6″ W; 37°14′10.4″ N, 76°30′11.2″ W; 37°14′13.3″ N, 76°30′08.0″ W. The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel and vessels in these navigable waters during a high-speed boat race. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the area subject to this special local regulation without obtaining permission from the COTP 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 special local regulation. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this special local regulation which would impact a small, designated area of the York River for four hours on a Sunday 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.

In the spirit of 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 special local regulation lasting only 4 hours that will prohibit entry within the following latitude and longitude positions: 37°14′21.6″ N, 76°30′27.2″ W; 37°14′23.5″ N, 76°30′25.6″ W; 37°14′10.4″ N, 76°30′11.2″ W; 37°14′13.3″ N, 76°30′08.0″ W. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L61 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.

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under 5 U.S.C. 553(b). This provision, originally enacted as section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 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 it is impracticable to publish an NPRM for a safety zone which must be established by June 29, 2024, to prevent harm from potential navigation and safety hazards created by this event. There is not sufficient time to allow for a notice and comment period prior to the event.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port, Sector Virginia (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with fireworks events present a safety concern for anyone within the safety zone. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of vessels and people in the navigable waters who might otherwise be in the safety zone before, during, and after the scheduled event.

This rule establishes a safety zone from 9:15 p.m. until 10:00 p.m. on June 29, 2024. The safety zone will include all navigable waters within 250 yards of the fireworks barge located at latitude 37°18′52″ N, longitude 077°17′12.5″ W, located near City Point in Hopewell, VA. The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters during the fireworks display. Hazards associated with this event include potential falling debris and possible fire, explosion, projectile, and burn hazards. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. Advance notifications will be made to affected users of the waterway via Broadcast Notice to Mariners and Local Notice to Mariners.

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 on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. 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 less than 1 hour that will prohibit entry within 250 yards of a fireworks barge. 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 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 it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. It is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to publish an NPRM because we must establish this safety zone by May 25, 2024 and lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and consider those comments before issuing the rule. We must establish the safety zone by May 25, 2024 to guard against potential safety hazards associated with this series of fireworks displays. Potential safety hazards include the accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris.

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 . Delaying the effective date of this rule would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest because immediate action is needed to protect against potential hazards from this series of fireworks displays beginning May 25, 2024.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi River (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with Celebrations Cruise fireworks, on May 25, June 15, July 5, July 6, July 13, July 20, July 27, August 3, August 10, August 17, August 24, August 31, and December 31, 2024, will be a safety concern for anyone within the fallout zone. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone during the fireworks displays.

This rule establishes a safety zone from May 25 through December 31, 2024. The zone will be enforced from 9:30 p.m. until 10:00 p.m. on each of the following days in 2024: May 25, June 15, July 5, July 6, July 13, July 20, July 27, August 3, August 10, August 17, August 24, August 31, and December 31. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within the outlined fallout zone, on the Lake of the Ozarks, between Mile Markers 0.1 to 0.3. The duration of enforcement of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters during the fireworks display. No vessel or person will be permitted to transit the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP 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 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 a series of fireworks displays that impact a one-half mile stretch of the Lake of the Ozarks mile marker 0.1 to mile marker 0.3 on May 25, June 15, July 5, July 6, July 13, July 20, July 27, August 3, August 10, August 17, August 24, August 31, and December 31, 2024 from 9:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the safety zone, mariners may 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.

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 that will be enforced from 9:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. on May 25, June 15, July 5, July 6, July 13, July 20, July 27, August 3, August 10, August 17, August 24, August 31, and December 31, 2024, that will prohibit entry on the Lake of the Ozarks between MM 0.1 to MM 0.3. 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.

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 First Infantry Division Monument is located in President's Park, south of State Place Northwest, between 17th Street Northwest and West Executive Avenue Northwest in Washington, DC, United States. The Society of the First Infantry Division conceived this Monument to honor the valiant efforts of First Division soldiers killed in action in World War I. The Monument was dedicated in 1924 by President Calvin Coolidge with 5,516 names inscribed. The primary feature of the Monument is a Milford granite column from Massachusetts, one of the largest pieces ever taken from a quarry in the United States. Standing atop the pillar is a 15-foot-tall, gilded bronze figure of Victory. Later additions to the Monument commemorate the lives of First Infantry Division soldiers killed in action in subsequent wars. The World War II addition is located on the terrace west of the column was dedicated in 1957. This memorial commemorates the 4,325 First Infantry Division soldiers who died in that conflict, as well as the sacrifices of other units attached to the First Infantry Division during the war. The Vietnam War addition is located on the terrace east of the column and was dedicated in 1977. This memorial commemorates the 3,079 First Infantry Division soldiers who died in that conflict, as well as the service and sacrifices of other units as well. The Desert Storm plaque on the eastern edge of the rectangular flower bed, directly opposite the Vietnam War memorial, was dedicated in 1995. This memorial commemorates the lives of 27 soldiers who died while serving in the Desert Storm operation in Saudi Arabia and Iraq, including the names of members of the Third Brigade of the Second Armored Division, which was attached to the First Infantry Division during the war.

While designing the Desert Storm plaque, the Society of the First Infantry Division developed a long-term plan for future additions to the Monument. Their concept distinguishes between memorials for “limited actions,” comparable to Desert Storm, and major conflicts with greater fatalities, such as the then-existing memorials for the three wars. The Society suggested smaller blocks of granite placed around the edge of the flower beds on the east and west sides of the terrace for limited actions. For larger conflicts, the Society suggested memorials along the outside edge of the footprint, replacing the hedge, comparable in size and form to the World War II and Vietnam War memorials.

On January 1, 2021, Congress authorized modifications to the Monument, including the construction of and placement of plaques, to honor the dead of the First Infantry Division in Operation Desert Storm, Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation New Dawn, and Operation Enduring Freedom. Public Law 116-283—section 1083(a). The statute required the Department of the Army, in collaboration with the Secretary of Defense, to provide to the Society with a list of names to be added to the Monument. Department of the Army policy requires an official campaign to end before the names of soldiers killed in that campaign may be added to the monument. The Iraqi Freedom, New Dawn, and Enduring Freedom campaigns have ended. The Commanding General, First Infantry Division has authorized the Society to add to the Monument the names of 631 soldiers who died during these campaigns, consistent with the Society's long-term plan to allow the Monument to evolve with the history of the First Infantry Division. There will be 439 soldiers named for Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation New Dawn in Iraq. There will be 192 soldiers named for Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. The additions to the Monument will include bronze plaques situated on stone plinths that include a dedication, operation, units, and name and rank of each soldier. In addition to adding new plaques for Operations Iraqi Freedom, New Dawn, and Enduring Freedom, the existing plaque for Operation Desert storm, which looks temporary, will be replaced with a new plaque co-located with the others.

The Society intends to hold an official dedication ceremony at the Monument that will last no longer than three days, including setup and takedown of equipment, between May 22 and May 29, 2024. The ceremony will include the official dedication of the plaques and a celebration of the 100th Anniversary of the Monument.

The Monument is located within an area that is part of the White House and President's Park, which serves as a private residence and office of the President, a military installation, a museum, a public park, and a national shrine. Given these multiple roles and functions, numerous Federal agencies, including the National Park Service (NPS), Executive Office of the President, U.S. Secret Service, and General Services Administration, work in collaboration to administer and manage this area. Congress established the White House and President's Park as a unit of the National Park System in 1961, and for this reason NPS regulations apply to activities within the park, including activities that occur at the First Division Monument.

NPS regulations at 36 CFR 7.96(g)(3)(i) prohibit demonstrations and special events at the Monument site. The NPS promulgated these regulations in 1970 at the request of the U.S. Secret Service for security reasons explained in a letter from the Secret Service Director to the Department of the Interior dated June 25, 1970. See 35 FR 11485, 11491 (July 17, 1970). The long-standing prohibition on events and demonstrations helps to ensure the security of the adjacent White House complex, and the safety of its occupants and the public.

Remaining cognizant of these security and safety concerns, the NPS intends to allow the Society to conduct the ceremony described above, as a special event at the Monument site, in recognition of the service and ultimate sacrifice paid by the soldiers to be named. The Society expects approximately 100 participants, including members of Gold Star Families and active servicemembers, and related equipment and facilities such as chairs, sound amplification, and portable restrooms. The NPS referred the request to hold the event to the U.S. Secret Service for its security-based judgment, and has received their concurrence that this singular event may take place at during the time frame indicated above. The NPS will manage the event through the issuance of a special use permit under 36 CFR 2.50, with appropriate terms and conditions.

In order to allow for the event, this rule will temporarily revise NPS regulations at 36 CFR 7.96(g)(3)(i) to allow for this event to occur at the Monument site as an exception to the general prohibition on demonstrations and special events. The rule will be effective on May 22, 2024, and expire on May 29, 2024, to create a period of time that the three-day event may occur, including time for setup and takedown of equipment related to the event. The date of the event has not yet been determined, but it will occur sometime within the stated period of time. After the temporary rule expires on May 29, 2024, NPS regulations at 36 CFR 7.96(g)(3)(i) will revert to their former wording.

Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094, provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that the rule is not significant.

Executive Order 14094 amends Executive Order 12866 and reaffirms the principles of Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 and states that regulatory analysis should facilitate agency efforts to develop regulations that serve the public interest, advance statutory objectives, and be consistent with Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and the Presidential Memorandum of January 20, 2021 (Modernizing Regulatory Review). Regulatory analysis, as practicable and appropriate, shall recognize distributive impacts and equity, to the extent permitted by law.

Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of Executive Order 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. Executive Order 13563 directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. The NPS has developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

Because setup for the dedication ceremony has been approved to begin as soon as May 22, 2024, at the request of the Society, and as approved by the Department of the Army and the U.S. Secret Service, there is limited time to authorize this event. For this reason, the NPS is publishing this temporary rule as a final rule. In accordance with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B)), the NPS has determined that publishing a proposed rule would be impractical because of the short time period available. The NPS also believes that publishing this temporary rule 30 days before it becomes effective would be impractical because of the limited time remaining before May 22, 2024. A 30-day delay in this instance would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Therefore, under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)), the NPS has determined that this temporary rule will be effective on the date published in the Federal Register .

This rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ).

This rulemaking is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule:

(a) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.

(b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions.

(c) Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector. It addresses public use of national park lands, and imposes no requirements on other agencies or governments. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act is not required.

This rule does not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have takings implications under E.O. 12630. A takings implication assessment is not required.

Under the criteria in section 1 of E.O. 13132, the rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. This rule only affects use of federally administered lands and waters. It has no outside effects on other areas. A federalism summary impact statement is not required.

This rule complies with the requirements of E.O. 12988. This rule:

(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and

(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.

The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian Tribes through a commitment to consultation with Indian Tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and Tribal sovereignty. The NPS has evaluated this rule under the criteria in E.O. 13175 and under the Department's Tribal consultation policy and has determined that Tribal consultation is not required because the rule will not have a substantial direct effect on federally recognized Indian Tribes.

This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and a submission to the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act is not required. The NPS may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the NEPA is not required because the rule is covered by a categorical exclusion. NPS Handbook 2015 section 3.3.A.8. We have also determined that the rule does not involve any of the extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215 that would require further analysis under the NEPA.

This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in Executive Order 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects in not required.

In consideration of the foregoing, the National Park Service amends 36 CFR part 7 as set forth below:

States that have received final approval from the EPA under section 9004(b) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991c(b), must maintain an underground storage tank program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the Federal UST program. Either EPA or the approved State may initiate program revision. When EPA makes revisions to the regulations that govern the UST program, States must revise their programs to comply with the updated regulations and submit these revisions to the EPA for approval. Program revision may be necessary when the controlling Federal or State statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when responsibility for the State program is shifted to a new agency or agencies.

On August 11, 2023, in accordance with 40 CFR 281.51(a), Missouri submitted a complete program revision application seeking the EPA approval for its UST program revisions (State Application). Missouri's revisions correspond to the EPA final rule published on July 15, 2015 (80 FR 41566), which revised the 1988 UST regulations and the 1988 State program approval (SPA) regulations (2015 Federal Revisions). As required by 40 CFR 281.20, the State Application contains the following: a transmittal letter requesting approval, a description of the program and operating procedures, a demonstration of the State's procedures to ensure adequate enforcement, a Memorandum of Agreement outlining the roles and responsibilities of the EPA and the implementing agency, a statement of certification from the Attorney General, and copies of all relevant State statutes and regulations. We have reviewed the State Application and determined that the revisions to Missouri's UST program are equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the corresponding Federal requirements in subpart C of 40 CFR part 281, and that the Missouri program provides for adequate enforcement of compliance (40 CFR 281.11(b)). Therefore, the EPA grants Missouri final approval to operate its UST program with the changes described in the program revision application and as outlined below in section I.G. of this document.

This action does not impose additional requirements on the regulated community because the regulations being approved by this rule are already effective in Missouri and they are not changed by this action. This action merely approves the existing State regulations as meeting the Federal requirements and renders them federally enforceable.

EPA is publishing this direct final rule concurrent with a proposed rule because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. EPA is providing an opportunity for public comment now.

Along with this direct final rule, the EPA is publishing a separate document in the “Proposed Rules” section of this issue of the Federal Register that serves as the proposal to approve the State's UST program revisions, providing opportunity for public comment. If EPA receives comments that oppose this approval, EPA will withdraw the direct final rule by publishing a document in the Federal Register before the rule becomes effective. The EPA will base any further decision on the approval of the State program changes after considering all comments received during the comment period. EPA will then address all public comments in a later final rule. You may not have another opportunity to comment. If you want to comment on this approval, you must do so at this time.

On May 5, 2004, the EPA finalized a rule approving the UST program, effective June 5, 2004, to operate in lieu of the Federal program. The State's program has not previously been codified.

On August 11, 2023, in accordance with 40 CFR 281.51(a), Missouri submitted a complete application for final approval of its UST program revisions adopted on May 17, 2017. The EPA now makes an immediate final decision, subject to receipt of written comments that oppose this action, that Missouri's UST program revisions satisfy all of the requirements necessary to qualify for final approval. Therefore, EPA grants Missouri final approval for the following program changes:

The State also demonstrates that its program provides adequate enforcement of compliance as described in 40 CFR 281.11(b) and part 281, subpart D. The MDNR has broad statutory authority with respect to USTs to regulate installation, operation, maintenance, closure, and UST releases, and to the issuance of orders. These statutory authorities are found in: Missouri Revised Statutes, Chapters 260, 319, 507, 644, and Missouri Supreme Court Rules—Rule 52 and Missouri Rules (regulations) of Department of Natural Resources, Divisions 26 and 100.

The following statutory and regulatory provisions are considered broader in scope than the Federal program, and are therefore not enforceable as a matter of Federal law pursuant to 40 CFR 281.12(a)(3)(ii):

The following regulatory requirements are considered more stringent than the Federal program, and on approval, they become part of the federally approved program and are federally enforceable pursuant to 40 CFR 281.12(a)(3)(i):

Missouri has removed some federally allowed exceptions to corrosion protection making them more stringent: 10 CSR 26-2.020, 1, (A) & (B).

Missouri makes a number of stipulations requiring corrosion protection for all metal coming in contact with any “electrolyte” making them more stringent: 10 CSR 26-2.020 (B) and 10 CSR-2.021, (4).

Missouri has set a compliance date for new underground storage tank system performance standards of July 1, 2017 which would be earlier than Federal regulatory requirement making them more stringent: 10 CSR 26-2.020 (A), (A).5, (B), (B).3, (B).5 & (C).1.B,(III).(c).

Missouri is more prescriptive and offers fewer options than Federal regulations for certification of installation making them more stringent: 10 CSR 26-2.022.

Missouri has more restrictive thresholds (volumetric and timing) for overfill devices and alarms than Federal regulations making them more stringent: 10 CSR 26-2.020 (C).B.(II).

Missouri is more prescriptive than Federal regulations as to when ball float valves can and cannot be utilized for overfill prevention making them more stringent: 10 CSR 26-2.020 (C).B.(III).

Missouri is more prescriptive than Federal regulations regarding compatibility and approval of overfill devices utilized for pressurized delivery systems making them more stringent: 10 CSR 26-2.020 (C).B.(IV).

Missouri offers fewer acceptable standards and practices for spill and overfill prevention than Federal regulations making them more stringent: 10 CSR 26-2.030 (9).

Missouri has added operation and maintenance of corrosion protection reporting (performance logs, testing reports) and action (what to do if tests fail, cathodic protection found off or not working) criteria that is more specific than Federal regulations making them more stringent: 10 CSR 26-2.031 (B), (C) and (D).

Missouri regulations indicate that documents demonstrating compatibility of all UST systems, including tanks, piping, release detection equipment and all other ancillary equipment with the regulated substance being stored are required. This is more expansive and stringent than Federal regulations: 10 CSR 26-2.034 (1).(B).3.

Missouri has a more restricted list of allowable standards and practices for repairs allowed than Federal regulations making them more stringent: 10 CSR 26-2.033, (2).(A).1.

Missouri specifies that when repairing cathodically protected metal piping that released a regulated substance, the entire length of electrically continuous pipe must be replaced. This is more expansive and stringent than Federal regulations: 10 CSR 26-2.033, (2).(C).

Missouri specifies repairs must be done by a person registered with the Missouri Department of Agriculture and who has a financial responsibility mechanism. This is more expansive and stringent than Federal regulations: 10 CSR 26-2.033, (2).(D).

Missouri is more prescriptive in details and criteria regarding testing of containment sumps. In addition, Missouri requires testing of all containment sumps. This is more expansive and stringent than Federal regulations: 10 CSR 26-2.035, (1) and (2).

Missouri requires walkthrough inspections immediately for new underground storage tank installs. There is not a lessening in frequency if deliveries are received less than every thirty days. This is more stringent than Federal regulations: 10 CSR 26-2.036, (1), (C), 1.

Missouri does not allow groundwater or vapor monitoring for release detection after July 1, 2020; except where vapor monitoring is accompanied by a tracer chemical. This is more stringent than Federal regulations: 10 CSR 26-2.041, (1), (A), 4 and 5.

Missouri stipulates that interstitial monitoring can only be performed with a double-walled tank: not with systems with secondary barriers or internal linings. This is more stringent than Federal regulations: 10 CSR 26-2.043, (1), (H).

Missouri allows for only 24 hours for completion of initial release response action. There is no flexibility on the timing. This is more stringent than Federal regulations: 10 CSR 26-2.071, (1).

Missouri allows for only 20 days for completion of initial abatement actions. There is no flexibility on the timing. This is more stringent than Federal regulations: 10 CSR 26-2.072, (2).

Missouri allows for only 45 days for completion of site characterization actions. There is no flexibility on the timing. This is more stringent than Federal regulations: 10 CSR 26-2.074, (2).

Missouri does not to allow temporary underground storage tank closures with product in the tank. This is more stringent than Federal regulations: 10 CSR 26-2.012, (1), O, 4.

Missouri requires permanent closure after 5 years of out of service or out of use status. This is more stringent than Federal regulations: 10 CSR 26-2.060, (4).

Missouri has prescriptive requirements for bringing an out of service or out of use underground storage tank back into service or use. This is more stringent than Federal regulations: 10 CSR 26-2.060, (5), (6) and (7).

Missouri has a notification requirement for out of service or out of use underground storage tank status changes. This is more stringent than Federal regulations: 10 CSR 26-2.060, (9).

Missouri does not allow leak detection equipment/methods to be used to meet the assessing the site at closure or change in service requirement. A written procedure for sampling and testing must be followed. This is more stringent than Federal regulations: 10 CSR 26-2.062.

Missouri regulations have a definition of “corrosion expert” that is limited to those with a National Association of Corrosion Engineers International certification. This is more stringent than Federal regulations: 10 CSR 26-2.012, (1), (C), 7.

Missouri regulations have a definition of “replaced” as it pertains to piping that includes the language “or single compartment” that addresses specific situations involving compartmentalized underground storage tanks. This is more stringent than Federal regulations: 10 CSR 26-2.012, (1), (R), 5, B.

Missouri regulations have a definition of “septic tank” that includes the language “and constructed”. This is more stringent than Federal regulations: 10 CSR 26-2.012, (1), (S), 3.

Codification is the process of placing a State's statutes and regulations that comprise the State's approved UST program into the CFR. Section 9004(b) of RCRA, as amended, allows the EPA to approve State UST programs to operate in lieu of the Federal program. The EPA codifies its authorization of State programs in 40 CFR part 282 and incorporates by reference State statutes and regulations that the EPA will enforce under sections 9005 and 9006 of RCRA and any other applicable State provisions. The incorporation by reference of State authorized programs in the CFR should substantially enhance the public's ability to discern the current status of the approved State program and State requirements that can be federally enforced. This effort provides clear notice to the public of the scope of the approved program in each State.

The EPA has not previously incorporated by reference and codified State's approved UST program. Through this action, the EPA is incorporating by reference and codifying State's State program in 40 CFR 282.75 to include the program and the approved revisions.

Incorporation by reference: In this rule, we are finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are finalizing the incorporation by reference of the federally approved Missouri UST program described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 282 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, this document generally available through https://www.regulations.gov or by contacting the EPA Region 7 contact listed in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

The purpose of this Federal Register document is to codify Missouri's approved UST program. The codification reflects the State program that would be in effect at the time EPA's approved revisions to the Missouri UST program addressed in this direct final rule become final. The document incorporates by reference Missouri's UST statutes and regulations and clarifies which of these provisions are included in the approved and federally enforceable program. By codifying the approved Missouri program and by amending the CFR, the public will more easily be able to discern the status of the federally-approved requirements of the Missouri program.

EPA is incorporating by reference the Missouri approved UST program in 40 CFR 282.75. Section 282.75(d)(1)(i) incorporates by reference for enforcement purposes the State's statutes and regulations.

Section 282.75 also references the Attorney General's Statement, Demonstration of Adequate Enforcement Procedures, the Program Description, and the Memorandum of Agreement, which are approved as part of the UST program under Subtitle I of RCRA. These documents are not incorporated by reference.

The EPA retains the authority under sections 9005 and 9006 of Subtitle I of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991d and 6991e, and other applicable statutory and regulatory provisions to undertake inspections and enforcement actions and to issue orders in approved States. With respect to these actions, EPA will rely on Federal sanctions, Federal inspection authorities, and Federal procedures rather than the State authorized analogues to these provisions. Therefore, the EPA is not incorporating by reference such particular, approved Missouri procedural and enforcement authorities. Section 282.75(d)(1)(ii) of 40 CFR lists those approved Missouri authorities that would fall into this category.

The public also needs to be aware that some provisions of the State's UST program are not part of the federally approved State program. Such provisions are not part of the RCRA Subtitle I program because they are “broader in scope” than Subtitle I of RCRA. Section 281.12(a)(3)(ii) of 40 CFR states that where an approved State program has provisions that are broader in scope than the Federal program, those provisions are not a part of the federally approved program. As a result, State provisions which are broader in scope than the Federal program are not incorporated by reference for purposes of Federal enforcement in part 282. Section 282.75(d)(1)(iii) lists for reference and clarity the Missouri statutory and regulatory provisions which are broader in scope than the Federal program and which are not, therefore, part of the approved program being codified in this document. Provisions that are broader in scope cannot be enforced by EPA; the State, however, will continue to implement and enforce such provisions under State law.

This action only applies to Missouri's UST Program requirements pursuant to RCRA section 9004 and imposes no requirements other than those imposed by State law. It complies with applicable Executive Orders (EOs) and statutory provisions as follows. 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 Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), as amended by Executive Order 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023), because this action approves and codifies State requirements for the purpose of RCRA section 9004 and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Therefore, this action was not subject to a requirement for Executive Order 12866 review.

This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., because this action authorizes State requirements pursuant to RCRA section 9004 and imposes no requirements beyond those imposed by State law.

This action does not contain any unfunded mandates as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq., and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments because this action approves and codifies pre-existing requirements under State law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by State law.

This action does not have Tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67429, November 9, 2000) because currently there are no federally recognized Tribes in Pennsylvania. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

This action 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely approves and codifies State requirements as part of the State RCRA underground storage tank program without altering the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established by RCRA.

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

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

Under RCRA section 9004(b), EPA grants a State's application for approval as long as the State meets the criteria required by RCRA. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a State approval application, to require the use of any particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard that otherwise satisfies the requirements of RCRA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTAA, 15 U.S.C. 272 note, do not apply to this action.

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations (people of color and/or Indigenous peoples) and low-income populations. Because this action approves pre-existing State rules that are no less stringent than existing Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law, and there are no anticipated significant adverse human health or environmental effects, this rule is not subject to Executive Order 12898.

This action is subject to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., and EPA will submit a rule report containing this document and other required information to each House of the Congress and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). However, this action will be effective July 16, 2024 because it is a direct final rule.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA is amending 40 CFR part 282 as follows:

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

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0546 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before July 16, 2024. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0546, by one of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

In the Federal Register of December 23, 2020 (85 FR 83880) (FRL-10017-71), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance petition (PP 0F8839) by Bayer Crop Science LP, 800 N Lindbergh Blvd., St. Louis, Missouri 63167. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 174 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of Cry1B.868 and Cry1Da_7 proteins derived from Bacillus thuringienisis when used as a PIP in or on the following food and feed commodities: corn, field; corn, sweet; and corn, pop. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner Bayer U.S.—Crop Science, which is available in the docket at https://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the exemption is “safe.” Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings but does not include occupational exposure. Pursuant to FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), in establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C), which require EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . . ” Additionally, FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D) requires that the Agency consider “available information concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues” and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

EPA evaluated the available toxicity and exposure data on Cry1B.868 and Cry1Da_7 proteins and considered their validity, completeness, and reliability, as well as the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. A summary of the data upon which EPA relied and its risk assessment based on those data can be found within the document entitled “Review of the Application for a FIFRA Section 3 Seed Increase Registration of MON 95379 Corn Expressing Transgenic Insecticidal Plant-Incorporated Protectants Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1B.868 and Cry1Da_7 Proteins and associated FFDCA Petition to Establish a Permanent Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance for Residues of Cry1B.868 and Cry1Da_7 Proteins when used as Plant-Incorporated Protectants in Food and Feed Commodities of Corn” (hereafter Human Health Risk Assessment). This document, as well as other relevant information, is available in the docket for this action EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0546.

Cry1Da_7 and Cry1B.868 are modified proteins derived from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis ( Bt ) and are active against lepidopteran pests of corn. Available data demonstrated that, with regard to humans, Cry1B.868 and Cry1Da_7 proteins are not toxic or allergenic via any route of exposure. The most likely route of exposure is dietary, via products produced from corn expressing the Cry1B.868 and Cry1Da_7 proteins. Oral exposure from ingestion of drinking water is unlikely because the Cry1Da_7 and Cry1B.868 proteins are present at very low levels within the plant cells and the amounts likely to enter the water column from leaves, pollen or plant detritus are low. Further, if Cry1Da_7 and Cry1B.868 proteins do enter the water column, they are expected to degrade rapidly through natural processes. Although there may be dietary exposure to residues of Cry1B.868 and Cry1Da_7 proteins, such exposure presents no concern for adverse effects. Submitted data show that the Cry1B.868 and Cry1Da_7 proteins are not toxic via the oral route of exposure. Likewise, the potential for allergenicity is low because: (1) bioinformatic analysis indicates little similarity between Cry1B.868 and Cry1Da_7 proteins and known allergens; (2) Cry1B.868 and Cry1Da_7 proteins degrade rapidly when digested or exposed to heat; and (3) Cry1B.868 and Cry1Da_7 proteins are not glycosylated, which further reduces their allergenicity potential. Glycosylation is an enzymatic post-translational process in which carbohydrates (glycans) link to proteins, creating structures which could lead to an immune response in humans. In addition, pesticidal applications of Bt and its insecticidal proteins, including PIPs, have been safely used as commercial biological pesticides for over 50 years. The domain structure and the mode-of-action for Cry1B.868 and Cry1Da_7 proteins are similar to other Bt Cry insecticidal proteins that have been safely used in agriculture.

Non-dietary occupational or residential exposure via inhalation is not likely since Cry1B.868 and Cry1Da_7 proteins are contained within plant cells, and corn pollen is not respirable nor is it present in commercial corn products. Exposure via the skin may be possible via contact with corn products which might have been processed in a way that disrupts cellular structure. However, naturally occurring proteases are likely to degrade proteins in contact with the skin and, as described above, the Cry1B.868 and Cry1Da_7 proteins have little or no potential toxicity or allergenicity. These findings are discussed in more detail in the Human Health Risk Assessment.

Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.” No risk of cumulative toxicity or effects from Cry1B.868 and Cry1Da_7 proteins have been identified as no toxicity or allergenicity has been shown for these proteins in the submitted studies. Therefore, EPA has concluded that Cry1B.868 and Cry1Da_7 proteins do not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances.

Although FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) provides for an additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects, EPA has determined that there are no such effects due to the lack of toxicity of Cry1B.868 and Cry1Da_7 proteins. As a result, an additional margin of safety for the protection of infants and children is unnecessary.

Based upon its evaluation described above and in the Human Health Risk Assessment, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of Cry1B.868 and Cry1Da_7 proteins. Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for residues of Cry1B.868 and Cry1Da_7 proteins in or on the food and feed commodities of corn: corn, field; corn, sweet; and corn, pop when used as a plant-incorporated protectant in corn.

EPA has determined that an analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation. Nonetheless, Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assays (ELISA) were submitted for the detection of Cry1B.868 and Cry1Da_7 proteins. These assays have been demonstrated to reliably detect the levels of the Cry1B.868 and Cry1Da_7 proteins in the tissues of corn.

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

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

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

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

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

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

You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture, process, or otherwise use any of the PFAS listed in this rule, including but not limited to entities identified with the following North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes.

• Facilities included in the following NAICS manufacturing codes (corresponding to Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes 20 through 39): 311*, 312*, 313*, 314*, 315*, 316, 321, 322, 323*, 324, 325*, 326*, 327*, 331, 332, 333, 334*, 335*, 336, 337*, 339*, 111998*, 113310, 211130*, 212323*, 212390*, 488390*, 512230*, 512250*, 5131*, 516210*, 519290*, 541713*, 541715* or 811490*. *Exceptions and/or limitations exist for these NAICS codes.

• Facilities included in the following NAICS codes (corresponding to SIC codes other than SIC codes 20 through 39): 211130* (corresponds to SIC code 1321, Natural Gas Liquids, and SIC 2819, Industrial Inorganic Chemicals, Not Elsewhere Classified); or 212114, 212115, 212220, 212230, 212290*; or 2211*, 221210*, 221330 (limited to facilities that combust coal and/or oil for the purpose of generating power for distribution in commerce) (corresponds to SIC codes 4911, 4931, and 4939, Electric Utilities); or 424690, 424710 (corresponds to SIC code 5171, Petroleum Bulk Terminals and Plants); 425120 (limited to facilities previously classified in SIC code 5169, Chemicals and Allied Products, Not Elsewhere Classified); or 562112 (limited to facilities primarily engaged in solvent recovery services on a contract or fee basis (previously classified under SIC code 7389, Business Services, NEC)); or 562211*, 562212*, 562213*, 562219*, 562920 (limited to facilities regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, subtitle C, 42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq. ) (corresponds to SIC code 4953, Refuse Systems). *Exceptions and/or limitations exist for these NAICS codes.

• Federal facilities.

A more detailed description of the types of facilities subject to reporting under EPCRA section 313 can be found at: https://www.epa.gov/toxics-release-inventory-tri-program/tri-covered-industry-sectors. To determine whether your facility would be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR part 372, subpart B. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

EPA is codifying the addition of the seven PFAS that were added to the EPCRA section 313 list of reportable chemicals (more commonly known as the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)) since the last conforming rule pursuant to the FY2020 NDAA (87 FR 42651, July 18, 2022 (FRL-9427-01-OCSPP)).

This action is issued under EPCRA section 313 (42 U.S.C. 11001 et seq. ), section 6607 of the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) (42 U.S.C. 13106), and section 7321 of FY2020 NDAA (Pub. L. 116-92).

On December 20, 2019, the FY2020 NDAA was signed into law. Among other provisions, section 7321(c) identifies certain regulatory activities that automatically add PFAS or classes of PFAS to the EPCRA section 313 list of reportable chemicals. PFAS or classes of PFAS shall be added to the EPCRA section 313 list of reportable chemicals beginning January 1 of the calendar year after any one of the following dates:

• Final Toxicity Value . The date on which the Administrator finalizes a toxicity value for the PFAS or class of PFAS;

• Significant New Use Rule . The date on which the Administrator makes a covered determination for the PFAS or class of PFAS;

• Addition to Existing Significant New Use Rule . The date on which the PFAS or class of PFAS is added to a list of substances covered by a covered determination;

• Addition as an Active Chemical Substance . The date on which the PFAS or class of PFAS to which a covered determination applies is:

(1) Added to the list published under section 8(b)(1) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq. ) and designated as an active chemical substance under TSCA section 8(b)(5)(A); or

(2) Designated as an active chemical substance under TSCA section 8(b)(5)(B) on the list published under TSCA section 8(b)(1).

The FY2020 NDAA defines “covered determination” as a determination made by rule under TSCA section 5(a)(2) that a use of a PFAS or class of PFAS is a significant new use (except such a determination made in connection with a determination described in TSCA sections 5(a)(3)(B) or 5(a)(3)(C)).

Under FY2020 NDAA section 7321(e), EPA must review confidential business information (CBI) claims before PFAS are added to the list pursuant to FY2020 NDAA section 7321, subsections (b)(1), (c)(1), or (d)(3), whose identities are subject to a claim of protection from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4). Under the FY2020 NDAA EPA must:

• Review a claim of protection from disclosure; and

• Require that person to reassert and substantiate or re-substantiate that claim in accordance with TSCA section 14(f) (15 U.S.C. 2613(f)).

In addition, if EPA determines that the chemical identity of a PFAS or class of PFAS qualifies for protection from disclosure, EPA must include the PFAS or class of PFAS on the TRI in a manner that does not disclose the protected information.

EPA has reviewed the above-listed criteria and found seven chemicals that meet the requirements of this part of the FY2020 NDAA and whose identity is not claimed as CBI.

Under FY2020 NDAA section 7321(e), EPA must review CBI claims before PFAS whose identities are subject to a claim of protection from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) (pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)) are added to the list. The substance with the CASRN 2816091-53-7 met the criteria under FY2020 NDAA section 7321(c)(1)(A)(iii) but was subject to a claim of protection from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4) at that time ( i.e., when the FY2020 NDAA was enacted). This substance's identity has since published on the non-confidential portion of the TSCA Inventory in 2023; therefore, pursuant to FY2020 NDAA section 7321(e) the chemical was added to the TRI list and is being codified in the regulatory list by this rulemaking.

As established by the FY2020 NDAA, the addition of these PFAS to the EPCRA section 313 list of reportable chemicals is effective January 1 of the calendar year following any of the dates identified in FY2020 NDAA section 7321(c)(1)(A). Accordingly, these seven PFAS are reportable beginning with the 2024 reporting year ( i.e., reports due July 1, 2025), and EPA is issuing this final rule to amend the EPCRA section 313 list of reportable chemicals in 40 CFR 372.65 to include the seven non-CBI PFAS added pursuant to the FY2020 NDAA.

Note that pursuant to EPA's final rule, entitled “Changes to Reporting Requirements for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances and to Supplier Notifications for Chemicals of Special Concern; Community Right-to-Know Toxic Chemical Release Reporting; Final Rule” (88 FR 74360, October 31, 2023 (FRL-8741-04-OCSPP)), all PFAS added to TRI pursuant to FY2020 NDAA sections 7321(b) and (c), are designated as chemicals of special concern (40 CFR 372.28), which also applies to the seven PFAS identified in this rulemaking. Chemicals of special concern are excluded from the de minimis exemption, may not be reported on a Form A (Alternate Threshold Certification Statement), and have limits related to reporting requirements. For more information on the addition of PFAS to the list of chemicals of special concern, see 40 CFR 372.280.

Section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that public notice and comment procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. EPA has determined that there is good cause for making this rule final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment because such notice and opportunity for comment is unnecessary. This action is being taken to comply with a mandate in an Act of Congress, where Congress identified actions that automatically add these chemicals to the TRI. Thus, EPA has no discretion as to the outcome of this rule, which merely aligns the regulations with the self-effectuating changes provided by the FY2020 NDAA.

The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and other information considered by EPA, including documents that are referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even if the referenced document is not itself physically located in the docket. For assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

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 Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), as amended by Executive Order 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023), and was therefore not subject to review under Executive Order 12866.

This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b). The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations and assigned OMB control numbers 2070-0212 and 2050-0078.

Currently, the facilities subject to the reporting requirements under EPCRA section 313 and PPA section 6607 must use EPA Toxic Chemicals Release Inventory Form R (EPA Form 9350-1). The seven newly added PFAS are subject to the same reporting requirements as other chemicals of special concern and are excluded from certain burden-reduction reporting options ( i.e., the de minimis exemption and the option to use Form A, range reporting). The Form R must be completed if a facility manufactures, processes, or otherwise uses any listed chemical above threshold quantities and meets certain other criteria.

Respondents may designate the specific chemical identity of a substance as a trade secret pursuant to EPCRA section 322 (42 U.S.C. 11042) and 40 CFR part 350. OMB has approved the reporting and recordkeeping requirements related to Form R, supplier notification, and petitions under OMB Control No. 2070-0212 (EPA Information Collection Request (ICR) No. 2613.04) and those related to trade secret designations under OMB Control No. 2050-0078 (EPA ICR No. 1428.12).

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers relevant to EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and displayed on the information collection instruments ( e.g., forms, instructions).

This action is not subject to the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. The RFA applies only to rules subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other statute. As discussed in Unit III., this rule is not subject to notice and comment requirements because the Agency has invoked the APA “good cause” exception under 5 U.S.C. 553(b).

This action does not contain any unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector.

This action does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it will not have substantial direct effects on 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 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). because it will not have substantial direct effects on Tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. It does not have substantial direct effects on Tribal governments because EPA does not anticipate that reporting of the PFAS added to the TRI list in this action will be conducted by Tribes, so this rulemaking is not expected to impose substantial direct compliance costs on Tribal governments.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it does not concern an environmental health or safety risk. Since this action does not concern human health, EPA's 2021 Policy on Children's Health also does not apply.

Although this action does not concern an environmental health or safety risk, this reporting rule will aid in collecting information regarding PFAS. This rule will be of use in identifying releases of PFAS to which children may be exposed. EPA believes that the information obtained as a result of this action could also be used by the public, government agencies and others to identify potential problems, set priorities, and take appropriate steps to reduce any potential human health or environmental risks related to PFAS, including those that may disproportionately affect children.

This action is not a significant energy action as defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not likely to have any adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy.

This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. As such, NTTAA section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272, does not apply to this action.

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice a part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations (people of color) and low-income populations.

EPA believes that this type of action does not concern human health or environmental conditions and therefore cannot be evaluated with respect to potentially disproportionate and adverse effects on communities with environmental justice concerns. This action involves additions to reporting requirements that will not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment.

Although this action does not concern human health or environmental conditions, EPA may identify and address environmental justice concerns through information collected under TRI. The information obtained as a result of this rulemaking will lead to a better understanding of PFAS releases, which can help inform and tailor future EPA actions regarding PFAS. For example, EPA may identify and address environmental justice concerns as a result of the new PFAS information collected under this rule. The action will also better inform communities living near facilities that report to TRI, by providing them with information about PFAS releases and waste management practices occurring in their communities. Overall, EPA believes that the information obtained as a result of this action could be used by the public (including people of color, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples) to inform their behavior as it relates to potential exposure to PFAS and by government agencies and others to identify potential problems, set priorities, and take appropriate steps to reduce any potential human health or environmental risks from PFAS.

This action is subject to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., and 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).

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