Executive Orders 12866, 14094 and 13563

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 14094 reaffirms, supplements, and updates Executive Order 12866 and further directs agencies to solicit and consider input from a wide range of affected and interested parties through a variety of means. This rule is not a significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this action has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under section 6 of the Executive Order.

This rule has been reviewed under E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform and it is not intended to have retroactive effect.

Section 11 of the Act (7 U.S.C. 2910) provides that nothing in the Act may be construed to preempt or supersede any other program relating to beef promotion organized and operated under the laws of the U.S. or any State. There are no administrative proceedings that must be exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, which requires agencies to consider whether their rulemaking actions would have Tribal implications. AMS has determined this proposed rule is unlikely to have substantial direct effects 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.

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

In accordance with OMB regulations (5 CFR part 1320) that implement the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 35), the information collection and recordkeeping requirements contained in the Order and accompanying Rules and Regulations have previously been approved by OMB and were assigned OMB control number 0581-0093.

The Board was initially appointed on August 4, 1986, pursuant to the provisions of the Act (7 U.S.C. 2901-2911), and the Order issued thereunder. Domestic representation on the Board is based on cattle inventory numbers, while importer representation is based on the conversion of the volume of imported cattle, beef, and beef products into live animal equivalencies.

Section 1260.141(b) of the Order provides that the Board shall be composed of cattle producers and importers appointed by the Secretary from nominations submitted by certified producer and importer organizations. A producer may only be nominated to represent the State or unit in which that producer is a resident.

Section 1260.141(c) of the Order provides that at least every 3 years, but not more than every 2 years, the Board shall review the geographic distribution of cattle inventories throughout the United States and the volume of imported cattle, beef, and beef products and, if warranted, shall reapportion units and/or modify the number of Board members from units in order to reflect the geographic distribution of cattle production volume in the United States and the volume of cattle, beef, or beef products imported into the United States. Further, § 1260.141(d) allows the board to recommend to the Secretary a modification in the number of cattle per unit necessary for representation of Board seats.

Section 1260.141(e)(1) provides that each geographic unit or State that includes a total cattle inventory equal to or greater than 500,000 head of cattle shall be entitled to one representative on the Board. Section 1260.141(e)(2) provides that States that do not have total cattle inventories equal to or greater than 500,000 head shall be grouped, to the extent practicable, into geographically contiguous units, each of which have a combined total inventory of not less than 500,000 head. Such grouped units are entitled to at least one representative on the Board. Each unit is entitled to an additional Board member for each additional 1 million head of cattle within the unit, as provided in § 1260.141(e)(4). Further, as provided in § 1260.141(e)(3), importers are represented by a single unit, with their number of Board members based on a conversion of the total volume of imported cattle, beef, or beef products into live animal equivalencies.

Section 1260.141(f) of the Order states in determining the volume of cattle within the units, the Board and the Secretary shall utilize the information received by the Board pursuant to §§ 1260.201 and 1260.202 industry data and data published by USDA. The producer representation is based on an average of the inventory of cattle in the various States on January 1 in 2020, 2021, and 2022 as reported by USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). The importer representation is based on a combined total average of the 2019, 2020, and 2021 live cattle imports as published by USDA's Economic Research Service (ERS) and the average of the 2019, 2020, and 2021 live animal equivalents for imported beef and beef products.

In considering reapportionment, the Board reviewed cattle inventories as of January 1 in 2020, 2021, and 2022, as well as cattle, beef, and beef product import data for the period of January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2021. The Board determined that an average of the inventory of cattle on January 1 in 2020, 2021, and 2022 best reflect the number of cattle in each State or unit since publication of the last reapportionment rule in 2020 (85 FR 39461). The Board reviewed data published by ERS to determine proper importer representation. The Board recommended the use of the average of a combined total of the 2019, 2020, and 2021 cattle import data and the average of the 2019, 2020, and 2021 live animal equivalents for imported beef products. The method used to calculate the total number of live animal equivalents was the same as that used in the previous reapportionment of the Board. The live animal equivalent weight was changed in 2006 from 509 pounds to 592 pounds (71 FR 47074).

As discussed in the proposed rule, the Board's recommended reapportionment plan would decrease the number of representatives on the Board from 101 to 100. Based on the Board's recommendation, Idaho would gain one seat, Montana would lose one seat, Pennsylvania would lose one seat, and Wisconsin would maintain their four seats. This final rule, however, results in Wisconsin losing one seat. The States and units affected by the reapportionment plan and the current and revised representation per unit are as follows:

The Board reapportionment takes effect in the 2023 nomination process and the number of board members the Secretary appointments to fill positions early in the year 2024 will reduce from 101 to 99.

The final rule updates the list of QSBCs in the Order by removing the Maryland Beef Industry Council which unanimously voted to dissolve their State beef council during the September 14, 2022, board meeting.

AMS published the proposed rule for public comment on May 1, 2023 (88 FR 27415). The comment period ended on June 1, 2023. AMS received 12 timely comments. AMS conducted a review of the comments and determined that three of the twelve comments were outside the scope of the rulemaking. Of the remaining nine comments, AMS analyzed the comments and grouped them into the below categories.

Several of the comments mentioned the COVID-19 pandemic and the drought's impact on the beef industry.

The majority of the comments received were a form letter opposing Wisconsin losing a seat and arguing several factors including that the pandemic caused record low milk prices. During the early part of the pandemic, dairy producers in Wisconsin faced a surplus of milk because of the rapid decrease in price. In addition, three producers and seven cattle, dairy, and farm associations in Wisconsin, stated that the average milk prices paid to Wisconsin farmers in 2020 were $18.90, in 2021 it was $17.10, and by May of 2022 the price of milk was up to $25.21. Further the commenters stated that due to increases in milk price, dairy cow numbers are expected to continue to grow; potentially, by January 31—putting Wisconsin herd size back over 3.5 million.

In response, USDA acknowledges that a pandemic was in place from approximately from March 2020 to May 2023, which caused unforeseen industry-wide supply chain issues. The pandemic not only impacted the state of Wisconsin but has had a significant impact on a large portion of the U.S. and the U.S. farming and cattle industry. Thus, to only consider the impact of the pandemic on one state and not the entire cattle industry nationwide would create an inequity. Accordingly, USDA takes the position that as an industry the impact is widespread and thus the numbers as presented for cattle inventories as of January 1 in 2020, 2021, and 2022, are the fairest and most accurate representation of the current industry numbers.

Another commenter argued that the drought negatively impacted herd numbers in the state because it changed Wisconsin's place in the cattle production cycle.

USDA acknowledges that for the reapportionment that took place on August 12, 2014 (79 FR 46961) for appointments that were seated in 2015, at that time the drought that had taken place in Texas was taken into consideration. Texas was slated to lose two board seats due to cattle inventory decease related to a three-year loss of cattle inventory due to severe drought. Due to the turnaround in environmental and economic conditions along with reports indicating that cattle were moving back into Texas from other states and the total herd inventory would be back up prior to reapportionment taking place, the USDA issued only a loss of one seat rather than two as was outlined in the proposed rule.

However, it is important to note that in the 2015 reapportionment the environmental factors, in that case the drought, significantly impacted one state in particular, Texas and lasted several years spanning from 2011 to 2013, with 2011 being one of the worst droughts in the State's history. In contrast, under the current circumstances, a large portion of the United States was impacted by drought over the past 3 years which affected the entire cattle inventory. According to the USDA, Economic Research Service (ERS), the Western States experienced extreme or exceptional drought and, in some cases, severe drought conditions the past few years, with the most severe conditions being reported in Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, and Oregon. Based on this data, it is clear that the current drought conditions have not only impacted the state of Wisconsin but has had a significant impact on a large portion of the U.S. and the U.S. farming and cattle industry. Thus, to only consider the impact of the drought on one state and not the entire cattle industry nationwide would create an inequity. Accordingly, USDA takes the position that as an industry the impact is widespread and thus the numbers as presented for cattle inventories as of January 1 in 2020, 2021, and 2022, are the fairest and most accurate representation of the current industry numbers.

One comment opposed Montana losing a seat similarly arguing that the drought impacted the number of herds in the state. They claimed, prior to the drought, herd numbers had been consistent since the 1980's. The drought caused a dip in 2021 and 2022; however, 2023 spring moisture has been promising for pastures. Further, according to the commentor, there is indication that Montana producers are starting to rebuild their herd and it is possible that Montana will be above 2.5 million again before the final rule goes into effect.

Again, USDA acknowledges that a large portion of the United States was impacted by drought over the past 3 years which impacted cattle inventory and again points out that in the previous reapportionment the environmental factors, in that case the drought, significantly impacted one state in particular, Texas and lasted several years spanning from 2011 to 2013, with 2011 being one of the worst droughts in the State's history. Once more, based on data provided by the USDA ERS, it is clear that the current drought conditions have not only impacted the state of Montana but has had a significant impact on a large portion of the U.S. and the U.S. farming and cattle industry and thus, to only consider the impact of the drought on one state and not the entire cattle industry nationwide would create an inequity. Accordingly, USDA takes the position that as an industry the impact is widespread and thus the numbers as presented for cattle inventories as of January 1 in 2020, 2021, and 2022, are the fairest and most accurate representation of the current industry numbers.

Lastly, although it is important to acknowledge these events play a role in the cattle inventory numbers, it is also important to note that the Order is silent on how Board seats would be impacted by natural events. The Order does specify the formula for determining the number of Board seats and USDA uses a 3-year average to attain a representative number within a State. Any change would need to be applied to the entirety of the assessment-paying population as the Act and Order govern all cattle producers and importers and all geographical units.

Eight of the nine comments stated opposition to Wisconsin losing a seat due to the margin of error associated with the statistical methodology used for determining cattle inventory numbers per state for the 3-year period reviewed. As mentioned in one of the comments, Wisconsin was 33,000 head short of maintaining their fourth seat on the Board. The average coefficient of variation for Wisconsin's total cattle inventory in 2020, 2021, and 2022 cattle inventory reports is 3.4 percent (+34,000 head). Since the coefficient of variation is greater than the amount by which the inventory is under the 3.5 million threshold, then Wisconsin should be allowed to retain their fourth seat. According to the January 1, 2023, cattle inventory numbers published, the State of Wisconsin was at 3.4 million. However, it was reported by the Wisconsin Ag Statistician that only 60 percent of surveys were returned, which questions whether the 3.4 million head is an accurate reflection of current cattle inventory.

In response, the Order is silent on whether other factors such as cattle inventory margin of error and survey response rate should be taken into consideration when determining the total cattle inventory. Section 1260.141(e)(1) of the Order states that each geographic unit or State that includes a total cattle inventory equal to or greater than 500,000 head of cattle shall be entitled to one representative on the Board. Section 1260.141(e)(4) specifically states that each unit is entitled to an additional Board member for each additional 1 million head of cattle within the unit.

USDA acknowledges the Board's recommendation as provided by § 1260.141(d) which states that the Board may recommend to the Secretary a modification in the number of cattle per unit necessary for representation on the Board. However, § 1260.141(d) applies only to a recommended change based on cattle inventory  1 and not the other factors used in the Board's current recommendation for this rule.

Further, the point estimates published by NASS are the official USDA estimates of inventory. In preparing these estimates, NASS takes into account all available and relevant data and makes the necessary adjustments based on factors such as response rate. NASS publishes the measures of uncertainty to provide transparency and context around the estimates, however making further adjustments for these purposes would introduce inconsistencies to the process and departure from the official USDA inventory estimates.

Thus, to consider other factors such as the margin of error and the survey response rate to the reapportionment of the Board, regulatory changes which require notice-and-comment rulemaking, would be necessary to make those clarifications to the Order. Any change contemplated by additional rulemaking would need to be applied to the entirety of the assessment-paying population as the Act and Order govern all cattle producers and importers and all geographical units.

One commenter mentioned that Wisconsin is a State that includes beef and dairy producers, and allowing Wisconsin to maintain their fourth seat will ensure the Board has a strong and diverse representation from all sectors. One additional commentor opposed to Montana losing a seat because the State is home to 12 tribal nations that are already underrepresented on the Board.

It is USDA's policy concerning nominations to the Board that the Board's membership should be open to all individuals without regard based on race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, disability, marital or familial status, political beliefs, parental status, receipt of public assistance, or protected genetic information. Board membership should also reflect the diversity of the industries in experience of members, methods of production and distribution, marketing strategies, and other distinguishing factors that will bring different perspectives and ideas to the tables. Emphasis should also be placed on the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the Board to serve and represent the diverse interests of assessment paying producers.

Thus, the number of members on the Board should not dictate the level of diversity on the Board.

Pursuant to the requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), AMS has considered the economic effect of this action on small entities and has determined that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The purpose of RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly burdened.

In 2022, the Small Business Administration (SBA) (13 CFR part 121.201) published a final rule (84 FR 64013) that updated its size standards based on income or employee numbers for various small business falling under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). Within that rule, the SBA threshold for “Beef Cattle Ranching and Farming” (NAICS code 112111) operations to qualify small businesses was raised from annual sales of $1 million or less to annual sales of $2.5 million or less.

According to the NASS 2017 Census of Agriculture, the number of U.S. operations with beef cattle totaled 729,046 and with cattle of any type totaled 882,692. 2 The same Census of Agriculture data shows that roughly 4 percent of operations with cattle, or 31,476 operations, have annual sales receipts of $1,000,000 or more, the small business standard prior to the 2022 revision. 3 No further breakout in the Census of Agriculture data is made to account for the new, higher SBA standard. However, the vast majority of cattle producers, 96 percent, would be considered small businesses under the new SBA standards. It should be noted that producers are only indirectly impacted by the rule.

Cattle, beef, and veal importers are also impacted by the rule. Based on data available on membership in the Meat Import Council of America, AMS estimates that approximately 190 firms import beef or beef products. AMS is not aware of any data that reports the number of beef-importing entities that meet the SBA definition of small businesses.

In addition to cattle producers, affected entities under this rule change include meat and meat-product merchant wholesalers (wholesalers), classified under NAICS code 424470, and meat processors from carcass (processors), classified under NAICS code 311612. The SBA thresholds for both these businesses to qualify as small are that they have fewer than 1,000 employees. The most current data from the Census of Manufacturing states that all 2,376 wholesalers were small businesses (in 2017)  4 and that all 1,423 processors were small business (in 2020). 5

Recent import trade data was also considered for understanding the overall dynamics of this industry segment. The Foreign Agricultural Service reports monthly trade data for traded agricultural products by product type. Based on analysis of that trade data and consumption data collected in the USDA's World Agricultural Demand and Supply Estimates, over the 2017 to 2022 period, cattle imports ranged between 1.8 percent and 2.3 percent of the total cattle inventory and that beef imports ranged from 9.8 percent to 10.7 percent of total supply. Veal imports during that time were negligible as a share of domestic production.

The rule imposes no new burden on the industry, as it only adjusts representation on the Board to reflect changes in domestic cattle inventory, as well as in cattle and beef imports. Additionally, the Order § 1260.141 does not take into consideration the margin of error when analysis is conducted. Therefore, the Secretary is applying the Order guidance without using the NASS margin of error to adjust Board membership from 101 to 99.

AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act of 2002 to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to government information and services, and for other purposes.

USDA has not identified any relevant federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Agricultural Marketing Service amends 7 CFR part 1260 as follows:

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2013-26-10, Amendment 39-17719 (79 FR 1315, January 8, 2014), (AD 2013-26-10). AD 2013-26-10 applied to certain RRD Model RB211-524G2-19, RB211-524G3-19, RB211-524H-36, and RB211-524H2-19 engines. AD 2013-26-10 required a one-time reduction in the cyclic life of certain HPC rotor stage 1 and stage 2 disks, and removal of disks that exceed the reduced cycle life. The FAA issued AD 2013-26-10 to prevent the failure of certain life-limited parts, which could result in uncontained engine damage and damage to the airplane.

The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 11, 2023 (88 FR 44075). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2022-0232, dated November 28, 2022 (EASA AD 2022-0232) (referred to after this as the MCAI), issued by EASA which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. The MCAI states that the ALS for RB211-524G/H engines, which is approved by EASA, is defined and published in TLM T-211(524)-7RR, and that these airworthiness limitations have been identified as mandatory for continued airworthiness. The MCAI also states that since the original issue of TLM T-211(524)-7RR, updated thresholds and intervals were introduced for newly designed parts. EASA AD 2013-0246 was issued to require implementation of the reduced cyclic life limit and replacement of HPC stage 1 and 2 disks before exceeding their life limit. The MCAI also states that the manufacturer published a revised engine TLM since EASA AD 2013-0246 was issued, introducing new and more restrictive instructions. The ALS defined in the revised engine TLM also adds RRD Model RB211-524G2-T-19, RB211-524G3-T-19, RB211-524H-T-36, and RB211-524H2-T-19 engines to the list of affected engines.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1410.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require revising the existing approved engine maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new and more restrictive airworthiness limitations, which are specified in EASA AD 2022-0232 described previously, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD and as discussed under “Differences Between this AD and the MCAI.”

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

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

The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2022-0232, which specifies instructions for accomplishing the actions specified in the applicable TLM, including performing maintenance tasks, replacing life-limited parts, and revising the existing approved maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating the limitations, tasks, and associated thresholds and intervals described in the TLM.

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

Where paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2022-0232 specifies revising the approved Aircraft Maintenance Programme within 12 months after the effective date of EASA AD 2022-0232, this AD requires revising the ALS of the existing approved engine maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, within 90 days after the effective date of this AD.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 22 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Austro Engine GmbH Model E4 and E4P engines. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 14, 2023 (88 FR 45118). The NPRM was prompted by European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2022-0240R1, dated December 15, 2022 (referred to after this as the MCAI), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. The MCAI states that a manufacturer investigation into reports of piston failures determined that certain batches of pistons were manufactured with a dimensional deviation in the piston pin bore and in the piston diameter, which could cause piston failure, with consequent loss of oil, loss of engine power, and reduced control of the airplane. To address the unsafe condition, EASA issued EASA AD 2022-0240, dated December 6, 2022 (EASA AD 2022-0240), to specify repetitive oil analyses and replacement of the pistons, piston rings, con-rods assembly, and crankcase, or as an alternative, replacement of the engine core. EASA AD 2022-0240 also prohibited release to service of an airplane until receipt of the results for each oil analysis.

Since EASA AD 2022-0240 was issued, the manufacturer determined that aluminum levels outside of the acceptable limits would be found during the first oil analysis, and are unlikely to be found during subsequent oil analyses. As a result, EASA revised EASA AD 2022-0240 and issued the MCAI to allow release to service of airplanes for a limited number of flight hours immediately after the second and subsequent oil samples are taken for analyses.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require initial and repetitive engine oil analysis for aluminum content outside the acceptable limits and, if necessary, replacement of the pistons, piston rings, con-rods assembly, and crankcase, or as an alternative, replacement of the engine core. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1412.

The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the costs.

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

The FAA reviewed Austro Engine GmbH Mandatory Service Bulletin No. MSB-E4-039/1, Revision 1, dated April 24, 2023, which specifies procedures for oil analysis and replacement of the pistons, piston rings, con-rods assembly, crankcase, and engine core.

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

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 357 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2022-18-14, Amendment 39-22165 (87 FR 56566, September 15, 2022) (AD 2022-18-14). AD 2022-18-14 applied to certain Airbus SAS Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, and -243 airplanes; Model A330-223F and -243F airplanes; Model A330-301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes; Model A330-841 airplanes; and Model A330-941 airplanes. AD 2022-18-14 required revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate additional new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations. The FAA issued AD 2022-18-14 to address fatigue cracking, accidental damage, and corrosion in principal structural elements; such fatigue cracking, accidental damage, and corrosion could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 28, 2023 (88 FR 48760). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2022-0187, dated September 13, 2022, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union (EASA AD 2022-0187). EASA AD 2022-0187 states that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations have been developed.

The NPRM was also prompted by EASA AD 2023-0015, dated January 19, 2023 (EASA AD 2023-0015). EASA AD 2023-0015 states that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations have been developed. EASA AD 2023-0015 also states that it requires certain tasks also required by EASA AD 2022-0187, and invalidates (terminates) the tasks that are also required by EASA AD 2022-0187. Therefore, for this AD, where EASA AD 2023-0015 affects the same airworthiness limitations as those in EASA AD 2022-0187, the airworthiness limitations referenced in EASA AD 2023-0015 prevail.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to continue to require the actions in AD 2022-18-14, and to require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate additional new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations, as specified in EASA ADs 2022-0187 and 2023-0015. The FAA is issuing this AD to address fatigue cracking, accidental damage, and corrosion in principal structural elements; such fatigue cracking, accidental damage, and corrosion could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1642.

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

The FAA revised paragraph (l) of this AD to specify that no alternative actions ( e.g., inspections) and intervals are allowed unless they are approved as specified in the provisions of the “Ref. Publications” section of EASA AD 2022-0187 or of EASA AD 2023-0015. In the NPRM, the FAA inadvertently specified that the alternatives actions and intervals had to be approved as specified in the “Ref. Publications” section of EASA AD 2022-0187 and of EASA AD 2023-0015.

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

EASA AD 2022-0187 and EASA AD 2023-0015 specify new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations for airplane structures. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane configurations.

This AD also requires EASA AD 2021-0261, dated November 22, 2021, which the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by reference as of October 20, 2022 (87 FR 56566, September 15, 2022).

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

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 120 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the retained actions from AD 2022-18-14 to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2020-01-13, Amendment 39-19819 (85 FR 5313, January 30, 2020) (AD 2020-01-13). AD 2020-01-13 applied to all Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 200 airplanes. AD 2020-01-13 required revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations. The FAA issued AD 2020-01-13 to address fatigue cracking, damage, and corrosion in principal structural elements; such fatigue cracking, damage, and corrosion could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 19, 2023 (88 FR 46112). The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD 2023-0045, dated March 2, 2023; corrected March 3, 2023, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union (EASA AD 2023-0045) (also referred to as the MCAI). The MCAI states that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations have been developed.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to continue to require the actions in AD 2020-01-13 and require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1494.

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

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

The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2023-0045. This service information specifies new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations for airplane structures and safe life limits.

This AD also requires Chapter 5-40-00, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 18, dated January 15, 2019, of the Dassault Falcon 200 Maintenance Manual, which the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by reference as of March 5, 2020 (85 FR 5313, January 30, 2020).

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

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 9 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the retained actions from AD 2020-01-13 to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain serial-numbered Embraer Model EMB-505 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 24, 2023 (88 FR 57907). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2023-05-03, effective June 2, 2023, issued by ANAC, which is the aviation authority for Brazil (ANAC AD 2023-04-01) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for certain serial-numbered Embraer Model EMB-505 airplanes. The MCAI states that analysis identified certain monuments (the right-hand refreshment center and left-hand forward cabinet) that might not withstand the loads expected for specific emergency landing conditions, which may cause the detachment of mass items and result in injuries to the airplane occupants. To address this unsafe condition, the MCAI specifies installing structural reinforcements on certain monuments and replacing applicable floor support rivets.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require installing structural reinforcements on certain monuments and replacing certain floor support rivets, as specified in ANAC AD 2023-04-01. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1717.

The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the costs.

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

ANAC AD 2023-05-03 specifies procedures for installing structural reinforcements on certain monuments and replacing applicable fasteners on the floor support.

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

The service information specified in ANAC AD 2023-05-03 allows the use of alternative or similar parts in place of the ones specified in the kits, provided these alternative or similar parts are approved by Embraer, but this AD requires approval from either the Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA; ANAC; or ANAC's authorized Designee.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 208 airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

The FAA estimates the following costs for operators that did the actions in the original version of Embraer Service Bulletin SB505-25-0046, dated March 31, 2021. The agency has no way of determining the number of airplanes that might need these actions:

The FAA issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2018-03-13, Amendment 39-19186 (83 FR 6125, February 13, 2018) (AD 2018-03-13). AD 2018-03-13 applied to certain GE Model CT7-5A2, CT7-5A3, CT7-7A, CT7-7A1, CT7-9B, CT7-9B1, CT7-9B2, CT7-9C and CT7-9C3 engines. The SNPRM published in the Federal Register on July 11, 2023 (88 FR 44068). The SNPRM was prompted by a comment from GE Aerospace on the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). GE Aerospace stated that certain engine models were included in incorrect Figures within the Required Actions paragraph of the NPRM, which would attribute inaccurate inspection thresholds to those engine models. Therefore, the FAA issued the SNPRM with a revision to Figures 1 and 2 to include the correct engine models. The FAA also updated the affected engine models listed in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of the SNPRM to correspond with the corrected engine models referenced in Figures 1 and 2.

In the SNPRM, the FAA proposed to require initial and repetitive visual inspections, FPIs, and USIs of the main propeller shaft. Depending on the results of these inspections, the SNPRM proposed to require replacing the main propeller shaft. As an optional terminating action to these inspections, the SNPRM proposed to require revising the ALS of the existing MM and the operator's existing approved maintenance program or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the tasks and reduced inspection thresholds for the main propeller shaft. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

The FAA received comments from one commenter, GE Aerospace. The following presents the comment received on the SNPRM and the FAA's response to that comment.

GE noted that there is a typological [typographical] error in the “Proposed AD Requirements in This SNPRM” paragraph of the SNPRM in which the words “at least” are repeated in succession.

The FAA agrees, however, the “Proposed AD Requirements in This SNPRM” paragraph is not included in this Final Rule. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

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

The FAA reviewed GE Service Bulletin (SB) CT7-TP 72-0541 R01, dated November 18, 2021 (GE SB CT7-TP 72-0541). This service information specifies procedures for performing initial and repetitive visual inspections, FPIs, and USIs of the main propeller shaft.

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

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 176 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

The FAA estimates the following costs to perform the optional terminating action or to do any necessary replacement that would be required based on the results of the inspections. The agency has no way of determining the number of operators that will perform the optional terminating action or engines that might need this replacement:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA'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 would modify the route structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System (NAS).

The FAA published an NPRM for Docket No. FAA 2023-0916 in the Federal Register (88 FR 23597; April 18, 2023), proposing to revoke Alaskan VOR Federal Airway V-318. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. No comments were received.

Alaskan VOR Federal Airways are published in paragraph 6010 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023. These updates will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. That order is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

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 revoking Alaskan VOR Federal Airway V-318 in its entirety.

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

The FAA has determined that this action of revoking Federal Airway V-318 and replacing it with existing route T-269 in the vicinity of Level Island, AK qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050,1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6-5a, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points); and paragraph 5-6.5.k., which categorically excludes from further environmental review the publication of existing air traffic control procedures that do not essentially change existing tracks, create new tracks, change altitude, or change concentration of aircraft on these tracks. As such, this action is not expected to result in 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 prepared of the environmental impact statement.

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

This amendment to part 95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) amends, suspends, or revokes IFR altitudes governing the operation of all aircraft in flight over a specified route or any portion of that route, as well as the changeover points (COPs) for Federal airways, jet routes, or direct routes as prescribed in part 95.

The specified IFR altitudes, when used in conjunction with the prescribed changeover points for those routes, ensure navigation aid coverage that is adequate for safe flight operations and free of frequency interference. The reasons and circumstances that create the need for this amendment involve matters of flight safety and operational efficiency in the National Airspace System, are related to published aeronautical charts that are essential to the user, and provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace. In addition, those various reasons or circumstances require making this amendment effective before the next scheduled charting and publication date of the flight information to assure its timely availability to the user. The effective date of this amendment reflects those considerations. In view of the close and immediate relationship between these regulatory changes and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and that good cause exists for making the amendment effective in less than 30 days.

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

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, part 95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) is amended as follows effective at 0901 UTC, November 30, 2023.

The Entity List (supplement no. 4 to part 744 of the EAR (15 CFR parts 730-774)) identifies entities for which there is reasonable cause to believe, based on specific and articulable facts, that the entities have been involved, are involved, or pose a significant risk of being or becoming involved in activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States, pursuant to § 744.11(b). The EAR impose additional license requirements on, and limit the availability of, most license exceptions for exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) when a listed entity is a party to the transaction. The license review policy for each listed entity is identified in the “License Review Policy” column on the Entity List, and the impact on the availability of license exceptions is described in the relevant Federal Register document that added the entity to the Entity List. The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) places entities on the Entity List pursuant to parts 744 (Control Policy: End-User and End-Use Based) and 746 (Embargoes and Other Special Controls) of the EAR.

The End-User Review Committee (ERC), composed of representatives of the Departments of Commerce (Chair), State, Defense, Energy and, where appropriate, the Treasury, makes all decisions regarding additions to, removals from, or other modifications to the Entity List. The ERC makes all decisions to add an entry to the Entity List by majority vote and makes all decisions to remove or modify an entry by unanimous vote.

The ERC determined to add Aeroscan Limited Liability Company; Alfakomponent; BIC-Inform LLC; Hartis DV LLC; ID Solution LLC; OOO OMP; Orelmetallpolimer LLC; Spel LLC; Spetstehnotreyd LLC; STC Orion LLC; Technical Center Windeq LLC; and ZALA Aero Group, all under the destination of Russia; and Mvizion LLC, under the destination of Uzbekistan, to the Entity List. These entities are added for supporting Russia's military through the procurement, development, and proliferation of Russian unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). This activity is contrary to the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States under § 744.11(b) and these entities qualify as military end users under §§ 744.21(e), 744.21(g), and 746.8(b) of the EAR. These entities are receiving a footnote 3 designation because the ERC has determined that they are Russian or Belarusian `military end users' pursuant to § 744.21. A footnote 3 designation subjects these entities to the Russia/Belarus-Military End User Foreign Direct Product (FDP) rule, detailed in § 734.9(g). The entities are added with a license requirement for all items subject to the EAR and a license review policy of denial for all items subject to the EAR apart from food and medicine designated as EAR99, which will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

For the reasons described above, this final rule adds the following 13 entities, including aliases where appropriate, to the Entity List:

• Aeroscan Limited Liability Company;

• Alfakomponent;

• BIC-Inform LLC;

• Hartis DV LLC;

• ID Solution LLC;

• OOO OMP;

• Orelmetallpolimer LLC;

• Spel LLC;

• Spetstehnotreyd LLC;

• STC Orion LLC;

• Technical Center Windeq LLC; and

• ZALA Aero Group.

• Mvizion LLC.

For the changes being made in this final rule, shipments of items removed from eligibility for a License Exception or export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) without a license (NLR) as a result of this regulatory action that were en route aboard a carrier to a port of export, reexport, or transfer (in-country), on November 2, 2023, pursuant to actual orders for export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) to or within a foreign destination, may proceed to that destination under the previous eligibility for a License Exception or export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) without a license (NLR) before December 4, 2023. Any such items not actually exported, reexported or transferred (in-country) before midnight, on November 2, 2023, require a license in accordance with this final rule.

On August 13, 2018, the President signed into law the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, which included the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA) (50 U.S.C. 4801-4852). ECRA provides the legal basis for BIS's principal authorities and serves as the authority under which BIS issues this rule.

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

2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to or be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. This regulation involves an information collection approved by OMB under control number 0694-0088, Simplified Network Application Processing System. BIS does not anticipate a change to the burden hours associated with this collection as a result of this rule. Information regarding the collection, including all supporting materials, can be accessed at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

3. This rule does not contain policies with federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.

4. Pursuant to section 1762 of the Export Control Reform Act of 2018, this action is exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requirements for notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation, and delay in effective date.

5. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., are not applicable. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required, and none has been prepared.

Accordingly, part 744 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774) is amended as follows:

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This safety zone must be established by November 3, 2023, to provide for the safety of life on the navigable waters during a helicopter operation, and we lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing this rule. Vessels inside of the safety zone have the potential of getting hit by debris from the helicopter.

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 action is needed by November 3, 2023, to ensure the safety of the of life on the navigable waters during a helicopter operation.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port Pittsburgh (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with a helicopter operation on November 3 through November 6, November 11 through November 12, December 2 through December 3, 2023, and January 8 through January 22, 2024, will be a safety concern for anyone on the Ohio River from mile markers 2.5 to mile marker 3 from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of the participant, vessels, and the navigable waters in the safety zone before, during, and after the scheduled event.

This rule establishes a temporary safety zone that will be enforced each day from 8 a.m. until 6 p.m. on November 3 through November 6, November 11 through November 12, December 2 through December 3, 2023, and January 8 through January 22, 2024. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters on the Ohio River from mile markers 2.5 to mile marker 3. The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters during an installation of aerial transverse wirelines using a helicopter.

No vessel or person is permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative of the COTP. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) assigned to units under the operational control of the COTP. To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or a designated representative via VHF-FM channel 16, or through Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh at 412-221-0807. Persons and vessels permitted to enter the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions issued by the COTP or designated representative. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public of the effective period for the safety zone as well as any changes in the dates and times of enforcement through Local Notice to Mariners (LNMs), Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs), as appropriate.

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 size, location, and duration of the temporary safety zone. This safety zone only impacts a 0.5-mile stretch on the Ohio River for 10 hours each day from November 3 through November 6, November 11 through November 12, December 2 through December 3, 2023, and January 8 through January 22, 2024. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone and the rule allows vessels to seek permission from the COTP to transit 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 temporary safety zone lasting 10 hours each day from November 3 through November 6, November 11 through November 12, December 2 through December 3, 2023, and January 8 through January 22, 2024, on the Ohio River. 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 Florida Keys has the potential to be affected by hurricanes, tropical storms, and other disasters on a yearly basis, especially between the months of June and November. The Key West COTP is establishing a safety zone to provide for the safety of life during such storms and events. In response, on May 2, 2023, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). 1 There, we stated why we issued the NPRM and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to safety zone. During the comment period that ended June 1, 2023, we received two comments.

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 public interest because immediate action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with the rapid formation of a tropical storm or hurricane that would pose an imminent threat to vessels, persons, structures, and shore areas.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The purpose of this rule is to protect the general maritime public, to include vessel owners, vessel operators, and those in management and control positions related to facilities and waterways regulated by the Coast Guard, along with those in management and control positions related to any land or shore area immediately adjacent to those waterways in the COTP Key West zone, in the event of a hurricane, tropical storm, and other natural disasters.

As noted above, we received two comments on our NPRM published May 2, 2023. The first commenter positively endorsed the Coast Guard's establishment of this safety zone. They further recommended that small entities and individuals who choose to reside in Florida assume all the liability, risk and responsibilities associated with hurricanes. They also recommended that tax-payer-funds not be expended to combat the effects of climate change. The Coast Guard acknowledges these comments and determined no recommended changes are needed in response to these suggestions. Additionally, this commenter recommended the fossil fuel industry, and their shareholders bear the cost associated with climate change. With regards to this suggestion, the suggestion is outside the scope of this rulemaking, which pertains to the establishment of a safety zone to be subject to enforcement in the event of a hurricane, tropical storm, and other disaster in the Florida Keys, FL.

The second commenter raised several issues regarding the lack of clarity in the proposed regulatory text and questioned whether the rule is necessary. The rule is necessary to protect the general maritime public in the COTP Key West zone, in the event of extreme weather or other natural disasters. While the regulations in 33 CFR part 160, subpart B, “Control of Vessel and Facility Operations” grants the COTP the broad authority to direct the operations of vessels on the navigable waters, and waterfront facilities, land structures or shore areas immediately adjacent to the navigable waters, this rule is intended to specifically streamline the COTP's actions and processes for specific scenarios that may occur in the event of extreme weather or other natural disasters.

This rule is intended to inform the general maritime public, to include vessel owners and operators, regulated facilities, and waterfront facilities of the Coast Guard's expectations in the event of a hurricane, tropical storm, or other disaster, thereby expediting the enforcement of the safety zone, and providing more advanced notice of the Coast Guard's expectations in the event of a hurricane, tropical storm, or other natural disaster. The rule is also intended to provide vessel owners and operators, along with the owners and operators of regulated facilities and waterfront facilities with a deeper understanding of how the Coast Guard intends to handle extreme weather-related events so they can plan accordingly.

To address the commenter's concerns regarding the regarding the lack of clarity in the proposed regulatory text, the Coast Guard is making the following changes in the final rule regulatory text in § 165.707.

The Coast Guard is adding three definitions for “regulated facilities,” “waterfront facilities,” and “authorized law enforcement agencies” in paragraph (a). The Coast Guard has the authority to regulate facilities and land structure or shore area immediately adjacent to navigable waters under certain, specific statutory and regulatory frameworks. We are adding a definition for “regulated facilities” to clarify the regulated facilities covered by this rule are those regulated under the Ports and Waterways Safety Act, 2 Maritime Transportation and Security Act, 3 Clean Water Act, 4 and the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. 5 These statutes give the Coast Guard the authority and jurisdiction to take certain actions on certain regulated facilities that have a maritime nexus. We are adding a definition for “waterfront facilities” to the regulatory text which will include any land structure or shore area immediately adjacent to the navigable waters of the Key West COTP zone. We also added a definition for “authorized law enforcement agencies” to clarify that Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies that have received specific authorization from or are operating in concert with the Coast Guard are authorized to conduct operations related to the safety, security, and stability of the Key West COTP zone.

Additionally, the commenter raised concerns related to enforceability and notice requirements. The Coast Guard understands that its regulations are not enforceable on the public without proper notice. While the publication of this final rule document in the Federal Register constitutes constructive notice of the requirements within the regulations. However, there will be circumstances where individuals are notified by the Coast Guard of an impending extreme weather situation causing the need for the safety zone to be made subject to enforcement. In those types of circumstances, the Coast Guard will provide affected individuals with actual notice of the safety zone prior to its enforcement or assessment of any fines or penalties. In addition to changes made to the regulatory text in this final rule in response to comment, we are making the following changes to the regulatory text.

In paragraph (a), we are adding “regulated facilities, and “waterfront facilities” to clarify that regulated facilities and waterfront facilities as defined in paragraphs (b)(6) and (b)(7) respectively are covered by this safety zone when port conditions are met in accordance with the requirements in paragraph (c)(1) Port Condition WHISKEY and (c)(2) Port Condition X-RAY. Additionally, in paragraph (a), we are deleting “during specified conditions” because the location of the safety zone is intended to be constant. When the safety zone is subject to enforcement it will be determinate of conditions set forth in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(5) of the regulatory text. In paragraph (c)(1), we are deleting “port facilities” and adding in its place, “regulated facilities and waterfront facilities” for consistency as definitions for these terms have been added in paragraphs (a)(6) and (a)(7). In the event Port Condition WHISKEY is set, all vessels, regulated facilities, and waterfront facilities within the Key West COTP zone would have to comply with the applicable regulations in (c)(1). Additionally, in paragraph (c)(1), we removed the sentence, “Vessels wishing to remain in port are required to submit an application to the COTP prior to setting Port Condition X-Ray.” In its place, we are adding the sentence, “Oceangoing vessels greater than 300 gross tons (GT) intending to remain in the port during Port Condition Whiskey must contact the Key West COTP prior to the setting of port condition X-Ray.” We are taking this action to prevent vessel owners and operators from having to generate additional documentation.

In paragraph (c)(2), we are deleting “port facilities” and adding in its place, “regulated facilities and waterfront facilities” for consistency as definitions for these terms have been added in paragraphs (a)(6) and (a)(7). In the event Port Condition X-RAY is set, all vessels, regulated facilities, and waterfront facilities within the Key West COTP zone would have to comply with the applicable regulations in paragraph (c)(2). Additionally, in paragraph (c)(2), we are deleting the sentence, “The COTP may require additional precautions to ensure the safety of the ports and waterways” because it is overly vague and may cause undue confusion for owners and operators of vessels and regulated facilities.

In paragraph (c)(3), we clarified we are only limiting cargo operations at “regulated facilities.” We also removed some the language that went into specifics of cargo operations. Removing the language made the regulatory text more succinct, as the initial language contained unnecessary redundancies. We also clarified that only facilities regulated under the MTSA will be required to operate in accordance with their security plan.

In paragraph (c)(4), we are removing the words “are suspended” and replacing it with, “must cease all cargo operations” because the phrase “are suspended” may be confusing in this context. By using the phrase “must cease all cargo operations” we are making it clear to the regulated parties that cargo operations must stop when Port ZULU is set.

In paragraph (c)(6), we are revising the text to clarify that the Coast Guard Sector Key West will notify the maritime community, “to the furthest extent practicable” of the periods which the safety zone in paragraph (a) will be subject to enforcement via Broadcast Notice to Mariners or by on-scene designated representatives.

We are deleting paragraph (c)(7) because it is duplicative of what is contained in paragraph (c)(6). The information previously described in (c)(8) was thereby moved to (c)(7).

Lastly, we are making non-substantive editorial changes and revising terminology for consistency throughout the final rule regulatory text.

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 necessity to protect life and port infrastructure during a hurricanes, tropical storms, and other disasters. The absence of a safe harbor in the Florida Keys precludes large vessels from accessing adequate facilities to weather a substantial storm or natural disaster within the Key West COTP zone. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the safety zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to remain in port.

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 received 00 comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. 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 that would prohibit entry in certain waters of the Key West COTP for the duration needed to ensure safe transit of vessels and industry post-hurricane, post-storm, and post-emergency. 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:

EPA is approving certain changes to the Florida SIP that were submitted by FDEP on April 1, 2022. Specifically, EPA is approving changes to Rules 62-296.414, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), Concrete Batching Plants; 62-296.415, F.A.C., Soil Thermal Treatment Facilities; 62-296.418, F.A.C., Bulk Gasoline Plants; 62-296.500, F.A.C., Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)—Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and Nitrogen Oxides (NO X ) Emitting Facilities; 62-296.501, F.A.C., Can Coating; 62-296.502, F.A.C., Coil Coating; 62-296.503, F.A.C., Paper Coating; 62-296.504, F.A.C., Fabric and Vinyl Coating; 62-296.505, F.A.C., Metal Furniture Coating; 62-296.506, F.A.C., Surface Coating of Large Appliances; 62-296.507, F.A.C., Magnet Wire Coating; 62-296.508, F.A.C ., Petroleum Liquid Storage; 62-296.510, F.A.C., Bulk Gasoline Terminals; 62-296.511, F.A.C., Solvent Metal Cleaning; 62-296.512, F.A.C., Cutback Asphalt; 62-296.513, F.A.C., Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products; 62-296.514, F.A.C., Surface Coating of Flat Wood Paneling; 62-296.515, F.A.C., Graphic Arts Systems; and 62-296.516, F.A.C., Petroleum Liquid Storage Tanks with External Floating Roofs. 1 These changes are for multiple stationary source emission standards rules in Florida's SIP with substantive and minor changes throughout.

Through a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), published on September 11, 2023, (88 FR 62303), EPA proposed to approve the April 1, 2022, submission. The details of Florida's submission, which amend various stationary source emission standards, as well as EPA's rationale for approving the changes, are described in the September 11, 2023, NPRM. Comments on the September 11, 2023, NPRM were due on or before October 11, 2023. EPA did not receive any adverse comments on the September 11, 2023, NPRM.

In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, and as discussed in Section I of this preamble, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Rules 62-296.414, F.A.C., Concrete Batching Plants; 62-296.415, F.A.C., Soil Thermal Treatment Facilities; 62-296.511, F.A.C., Solvent Metal Cleaning, each state effective November 5, 2020; 62-296.418, F.A.C., Bulk Gasoline Plants; 62-296.500, F.A.C., Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)—Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and Nitrogen Oxides (NO X ) Emitting Facilities; 62-296.512, F.A.C., Cutback Asphalt, each state effective August 14, 2019; and 62-296.501, F.A.C., Can Coating; 62-296.502, F.A.C., Coil Coating; 62-296.503, F.A.C., Paper Coating; 62-296.504, F.A.C., Fabric and Vinyl Coating; 62-296.505, F.A.C., Metal Furniture Coating; 62-296.506, F.A.C., Surface Coating of Large Appliances; 62-296.507, F.A.C., Magnet Wire Coating; 62-296.508, F.A.C., Petroleum Liquid Storage; 62-296.510, F.A.C., Bulk Gasoline Terminals; 62-296.513, F.A.C., Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products; 62-296.514, F.A.C., Surface Coating of Flat Wood Paneling; 62-296.515, F.A.C., Graphic Arts Systems; and 62-296.516, F.A.C., Petroleum Liquid Storage Tanks with External Floating Roofs, all state effective on July 10, 2014. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 4 Office (please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation. 2

EPA is finalizing the approval of the April 1, 2022, Florida SIP revision to incorporate various changes to Rules 62-296.414, F.A.C., Concrete Batching Plants; 62-296.415, F.A.C., Soil Thermal Treatment Facilities; 62-296.418, F.A.C., Bulk Gasoline Plants; 62-296.500, F.A.C., Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)—Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and Nitrogen Oxides (NO X ) Emitting Facilities; 62-296.501, F.A.C., Can Coating; 62-296.502, F.A.C., Coil Coating; 62-296.503, F.A.C., Paper Coating; 62-296.504, F.A.C., Fabric and Vinyl Coating; 62-296.505, F.A.C., Metal Furniture Coating; 62-296.506, F.A.C., Surface Coating of Large Appliances; 62-296.507, F.A.C., Magnet Wire Coating; 62-296.508, F.A.C ., Petroleum Liquid Storage; 62-296.510, F.A.C., Bulk Gasoline Terminals; 62-296.511, F.A.C., Solvent Metal Cleaning; 62-296.512, F.A.C., Cutback Asphalt; 62-296.513, F.A.C., Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products; 62-296.514, F.A.C., Surface Coating of Flat Wood Paneling; 62-296.515, F.A.C., Graphic Arts Systems; and 62-296.516, F.A.C., Petroleum Liquid Storage Tanks with External Floating Roofs, from the Florida SIP. EPA is approving these changes because they will not interfere with the attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS or any other applicable requirement of the CAA.

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

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

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. );

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. );

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and

• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal Governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects” of their actions on minority populations and low-income populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that “no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and policies.”

FDEP did not evaluate EJ considerations as part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Due to the nature of the action being taken here, this action is expected to have a neutral to positive impact on the air quality of the affected area. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and there is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving EJ for people of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 5, 2024. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as follows:

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

Table of Contents

On December 20, 2022, the EPA proposed to approve a revision to the California SIP concerning VMT emissions offset demonstrations required for the Coachella Valley and West Mojave Desert Severe ozone NAAs and for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Extreme ozone NAAs. 1 Section 182(d)(1)(A) of the Act and 40 CFR 51.1302 require a state to submit, for each ozone nonattainment area classified as Severe or above, a SIP revision that “identifies or adopts specific enforceable transportation control strategies and transportation control measures to offset any growth in emissions from growth in vehicle miles traveled or number of vehicle trips in such area.” Herein, we refer to this SIP requirement as the “VMT emissions offset requirement.” In addition, we refer to the SIP revision intended to demonstrate compliance with the VMT emissions offset requirement as the “VMT emissions offset demonstration.” In Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA, the Ninth Circuit ruled that additional transportation control measures are required whenever vehicle emissions are projected to be higher than they would have been had VMT not increased, even when aggregate vehicle emissions are decreasing. 2 In August 2012, the EPA issued a memorandum titled “Implementing Clean Air Act Section 182(d)(1)(A): Transportation Control Measures and Transportation Control Strategies to Offset Growth in Emissions Due to Growth in Vehicle Miles Travelled” (“August 2012 Guidance”). 3 The August 2012 Guidance discusses the meaning of “transportation control strategies” and “transportation control measures” and recommends that both be included in the calculations made for the purpose of determining the degree to which any hypothetical growth in emissions due to growth in VMT should be offset. The proposed rulemaking for this action outlines the August 2012 Guidance in further detail and how states may demonstrate that their VMT emissions offset demonstrations can satisfactorily conform with Court's ruling in Association of Irritated Residents.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) provided two separate submittals as VMT emissions offset demonstrations for California's Severe and Extreme ozone NAAs. On July 27, 2020, CARB submitted a staff report to the EPA titled “70 ppb Ozone SIP Submittal” (“July 2020 submittal”). 4 In part, the July 2020 submittal contains the VMT offset demonstrations for the South Coast, Coachella Valley, and San Joaquin Valley ozone NAAs. 5 Additionally, on December 28, 2020, CARB submitted to the EPA a staff report titled “West Mojave Desert VMT Offset Demonstration” (“December 2020 submittal”) for the West Mojave Desert ozone NAA. 6

In our proposal, we evaluated the portions of the July 2020 submittal that address the South Coast, Coachella Valley, and San Joaquin Valley VMT offset demonstrations and the December 2020 submittal of the West Mojave Desert VMT offset demonstration against the statutory and regulatory requirements of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) and 40 CFR 51.1302, and detailed our consideration of relevant Agency guidance and court rulings. The full evaluation and discussion of our review of the State's submittals can be found in our proposal. Therein we proposed approval of the submittals as revisions to the California SIP on the basis that they met the VMT emissions offset requirements of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) and 40 CFR 51.1302 for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

The 30-day public comment period for the notice of proposed rulemaking closed on January 19, 2023. We did not receive any public comments.

For the reasons discussed in our proposed rule and summarized in this document, we are finalizing our approval of the following as revisions to the California SIP:

VMT emissions offset demonstration element in the July 27, 2020 CARB submittal for the Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin (South Coast), Riverside County (Coachella Valley), and San Joaquin Valley ozone nonattainment areas as meeting the requirements of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) and 40 CFR 51.1302 for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

VMT emissions offset demonstration element in the December 28, 2020 CARB submittal for the Los Angeles-San Bernadino Counties (West Mojave Desert) ozone nonattainment area as meeting the requirements of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) and 40 CFR 51.1302 for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

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

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

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. );

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. );

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and

• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, this rulemaking does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects” of their actions on minority populations and low-income populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. The EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” The EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that “no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and policies.”

The State did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. The EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. This final action is expected to have a neutral to positive impact on the air quality of the affected area. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and there is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of Executive Order 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR parts 600 and 679.

The 2023 Pacific cod TAC specified for catcher vessels using trawl gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA is 1,956 metric tons (mt), as established by the final 2023 and 2024 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA (88 FR 13238, March 2, 2023).

The 2023 Pacific cod TAC specified for vessels using pot gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA is 1,936 mt, as established by the final 2023 and 2024 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA (88 FR 13238, March 2, 2023).

The 2023 Pacific cod TAC specified for catcher vessels using hook-and-line gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA is 71 mt, as established by the final 2023 and 2024 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA (88 FR 13238, March 2, 2023).

The 2023 Pacific cod TAC specified for catcher/processors using hook-and-line gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA is 1,009 mt, as established by the final 2023 and 2024 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA (88 FR 13238, March 2, 2023).

The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, (Regional Administrator) has determined that catcher vessels using trawl gear will not be able to harvest 430 mt of the 2023 Pacific cod TAC allocated to those vessels under § 679.20(a)(12)(i)(A)( 3 ), and vessels using pot gear will not be able to harvest 220 mt of the 2023 Pacific cod TAC allocated to those vessels under § 679.20(a)(12)(i)(A)( 5 ).

Therefore, in accordance with § 679.20(a)(12)(ii)(B), NMFS apportions 430 mt of Pacific cod from catcher vessels using trawl gear to the annual amount specified for catcher/processors using hook-and-line gear, and 220 mt of Pacific cod from vessels using pot gear to the annual amount specified for catcher vessels using hook-and-line gear.

The harvest specifications for 2023 Pacific cod included in the final 2023 and 2024 harvest specifications for groundfish in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA (88 FR 13238, March 2, 2023) is revised as follows: 1,526 mt to catcher vessels using trawl gear, 1,716 mt to vessels using pot gear, 291 mt to catcher vessels using hook-and-line gear, and 1,439 mt to catcher/processors using hook-and-line gear.

NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR part 679, which was issued pursuant to section 304(b), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would allow for harvests that exceed the originally specified apportionment of the Pacific cod TAC. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of October 31, 2023.

The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.