The NRC is issuing a revision in the NRC's “Regulatory Guide” series. This series was developed to describe methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the agency's regulations, to explain techniques that the staff uses in evaluating specific issues or postulated events, and to describe information that the staff needs in its review of applications for permits and licenses.

The proposed Revision 1 to RG 1.164 was issued with a temporary identification of Draft Regulatory Guide, (DG)-1415 (ADAMS Accession No. ML23187A531). This revision of the guide (Revision 1) updates the guidance to provide additional clarification on the NRC's definition of counterfeit, fraudulent, and suspect items. This revision also provides additional clarity on requirements applicable to the dedication of commercial-grade items. In addition, the staff made several editorial changes to conform to the current format and content of RGs.

The NRC published notice of the availability of DG-1415 in the Federal Register on November 17, 2023 (88 FR 80195), for a 30-day public comment period. The public comment period closed on December 18, 2023. Public comments on DG-1415 and the staff responses to the public comments are available under ADAMS Accession No. ML24059A003.

As noted in the Federal Register on December 9, 2022 (87 FR75671), this document is being published in the “Rules” section of the Federal Register to comply with publication requirements under chapter I of title 1 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

This RG is a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808). However, the Office of Management and Budget has not found it to be a major rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.

Issuance of RG 1.164, Revision 1, does not constitute backfitting as defined in 10 CFR 50.109, “Backfitting,” and as described in NRC Management Directive (MD) 8.4, “Management of Backfitting, Forward Fitting, Issue Finality, and Information Requests”; does not affect issue finality of any approval issued under 10 CFR part 52, “Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants”; and does not constitute forward fitting as that term is defined and described in MD 8.4, because, as explained in RG 1.164, Revision 1, licensees would not be required to comply with the positions set forth in the RG.

A member of the public may, at any time, submit suggestions to the NRC for improvement of existing RGs or for the development of new RGs. Suggestions can be submitted on the NRC's public website at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/reg-guides/contactus.html. Suggestions will be considered in future updates and enhancements to the “Regulatory Guide” series.

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2024-0034 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2024-0034. Address questions about NRC dockets to Helen Chang, telephone: 301-415- 3228, email: Helen.Chang@nrc.gov. For technical questions contact the individuals listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to PDR.resource@nrc.gov. For the convenience of the reader, instructions about obtaining materials referenced in this document are provided in the “Availability of Documents” section.

• NRC's PDR: The PDR, where you may examine and order copies of publicly available documents, is open by appointment. To make an appointment to visit the PDR, please send an email to PDR.Resource@nrc.gov or call 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. eastern time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website ( https://www.regulations.gov ). Please include Docket ID NRC-2024-0034 in your comment submission.

The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at https://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

This direct final rule is limited to the changes contained in the initial certificate and Amendment Nos. 1 through 9 to Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 1015 and does not include other aspects of NAC International, Inc., NAC-UMS Universal Storage System design. The NRC is using the “direct final rule procedure” to issue this renewal because this action represents a limited and routine change to an existing CoC that is expected to be non-controversial and, accordingly, is unlikely to result in significant adverse comments. Adequate protection of public health and safety continues to be reasonably assured. The amendment to the rule will become effective on July 15, 2024. However, if the NRC receives any significant adverse comment on this direct final rule by May 29, 2024, then the NRC will publish a document that withdraws this action and will subsequently address the comments received in a final rule as a response to the companion proposed rule published in the Proposed Rules section of this issue of the Federal Register or as otherwise appropriate. In general, absent significant modifications to the proposed revisions requiring republication, the NRC will not initiate a second comment period on this action.

A significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment is adverse and significant if:

(1) The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For example, a substantive response is required when:

(a) The comment causes the NRC to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position or conduct additional analysis;

(b) The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or

(c) The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously addressed or considered by the NRC.

(2) The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without incorporation of the change or addition.

(3) The comment causes the NRC to make a change (other than editorial) to the rule, CoC, or technical specifications.

Section 218(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, requires that “[t]he Secretary [of the Department of Energy] shall establish a demonstration program, in cooperation with the private sector, for the dry storage of spent nuclear fuel at civilian nuclear power reactor sites, with the objective of establishing one or more technologies that the [Nuclear Regulatory] Commission may, by rule, approve for use at the sites of civilian nuclear power reactors without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site-specific approvals by the Commission.” Section 133 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act states, in part, that “[t]he Commission shall, by rule, establish procedures for the licensing of any technology approved by the Commission under Section 219(a) [sic: 218(a)] for use at the site of any civilian nuclear power reactor.”

To implement this mandate, the Commission approved dry storage of spent nuclear fuel in NRC-approved casks under a general license by publishing a final rule that added a new subpart K in part 72 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) entitled “General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites” (55 FR 29181; July 18, 1990). This rule also established a new subpart L in 10 CFR part 72 entitled “Approval of Spent Fuel Storage Casks,” which contains procedures and criteria for obtaining NRC approval of spent fuel storage cask designs. The NRC subsequently issued a final rule on October 19, 2000 (65 FR 62581), that approved the NAC-UMS Universal Storage System design and added it to the list of NRC-approved cask designs in § 72.214 as CoC No. 1015.

On August 28, 2007 (72 FR 49352), the NRC amended the scope of the general licenses issued under § 72.210 to include the storage of spent fuel in an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) at power reactor sites to persons authorized to possess or operate nuclear power reactors under 10 CFR part 52. On February 16, 2011 (76 FR 8872), the NRC amended subparts K and L in 10 CFR part 72, to extend and clarify the term limits for certificates of compliance and to revise the conditions for spent fuel storage casks renewals, including adding requirements for the safety analysis report to include time-limited aging analyses and a description of aging management programs. The NRC also clarified the terminology used in the regulations to use “renewal” rather than “reapproval” to better reflect that extending the term of a currently approved cask design is based on the cask design standards in effect at the time the CoC was approved rather than current standards.

The term certified by the initial CoC No. 1015 was 20 years. The period of extended operation for each cask begins 20 years after the cask is first used by the general licensee to store spent fuel. On October 13, 2020, NAC International, Inc. submitted a request to the NRC to renew CoC No. 1015 for a period of 40 years beyond the initial certificate period and Amendment Nos. 1 through 7 to Certificate of Compliance No. 1015 for the NAC-UMS® Universal Storage System. NAC International, Inc. supplemented its request on March 3, 2022; March 18, 2022 (adding Amendment Nos. 8 and 9 to the request); July 28, 2022; and December 21, 2022.

The NAC-UMS Universal Storage System (the system) is certified as described in the Safety Analysis Report (SAR) and in NRC's Safety Evaluation Report (SER) accompanying the CoC. The system consists of the following components: (1) transportable storage canister (TSC), which contains the spent fuel; (2) vertical concrete cask (VCC), which contains the TSC during storage; and (3) a transfer cask, which contains the TSC during loading, unloading, and transfer operations.

The original CoC for the NAC-UMS Universal Storage System included designs for the storage of five classes of TSCs, including three lengths for pressurized-water reactor (PWR) fuel types and two lengths for boiling-water reactor (BWR) fuel types. The system included a TSC provided with integral fuel baskets for the storage of up to 24 PWR and 56 BWR spent nuclear fuel assemblies. Subsequently, the NRC issued nine amendments to the NAC-UMS Universal Storage System CoC.

The Nuclear Energy Institute's (NEI) document NEI 14-03, Revision 2, “Format, Content and Implementation Guidance for Dry Cask Storage Operations-Based Aging Management,” (December 2016) provides an operations-based, learning approach to aging management for the storage of spent fuel, which builds on the lessons learned from industry's experience with aging management for reactors. The NRC endorsed NEI 14-03, Revision 2, with clarifications, in Regulatory Guide 3.76, Revision 0, “Implementation of Aging Management Requirements for Spent Fuel Storage Renewals,” issued July 2021. Specifically, NEI 14-03 provides a framework for sharing operating experience through an industry-developed database called the ISFSI Aging Management Institute of Nuclear Power Operations Database. NEI 14-03 also includes a framework for learning aging management programs using aging management “tollgates,” which offer a structured approach for periodically assessing operating experience and data from applicable research and industry initiatives at specific times during the period of extended operation and performing a safety assessment that confirms the safe storage of the spent nuclear fuel by ensuring the aging management programs continue to effectively manage the identified aging effects. The ISFSI Aging Management Institute of Nuclear Power Operations Database provides operating experience information and a basis to support licensees' future changes to the aging management programs. The ISFSI Aging Management Institute of Nuclear Power Operations Database and the aging management tollgates are considered key elements in ensuring the effectiveness of aging management activities and the continued safe storage of spent fuel during the period of extended operation.

NAC International Inc., incorporated periodic tollgate assessments as requirements in the renewed certificate of compliance, as recommended in NEI 14-03, Revision 2. The implementation of tollgate assessments provides reasonable assurance that the aging management programs for the canister, the transfer cask, and the overpack will continue to effectively manage aging effects during the period of extended operation.

The renewal of the initial certificate and Amendment Nos. 1 through 9 was conducted in accordance with the renewal provisions in § 72.240. The NRC's regulations require the safety analysis report for the renewal to include time-limited aging analyses that demonstrate that structures, systems, and components important to safety will continue to perform their intended function for the requested period of extended operation and a description of the aging management programs for the management of issues associated with aging that could adversely affect structures, systems, and components important to safety. The NRC spent fuel storage regulations in 10 CFR 72.240 authorize the NRC to revise the CoC to include any additional terms, conditions, and specifications it deems necessary to ensure the safe operation of the cask during the CoC's renewal term. Here, the NRC is adding three new conditions to the renewal of the CoC to address aging management activities related to the structures, systems, and components important to the safety of the dry storage system to ensure that these will maintain their intended functions during the period of extended storage operations. This would ensure the safe operation of the cask during the CoC's renewal term and would allow the use of the NAC-UMS Universal Storage System during the approved period of extended operation. Additionally, the NRC is amending the condition that describes the authorization for use of the NAC-UMS Universal Storage System design under the general license.

The three new conditions added to the renewal of the initial CoC and Amendment Nos. 1 through 9 are the following:

• A condition requiring the CoC holder to submit an updated final safety analysis report within 90 days after the effective date of the renewal. The updated final safety analysis report must reflect the changes resulting from the review and approval of the renewal of the CoC, including the NAC-UMS Universal Storage System final safety analysis report. This condition ensures that final safety analysis report changes are made in a timely fashion to enable general licensees using the storage system during the period of extended operation to develop and implement necessary procedures related to renewal and aging management activities. The CoC holder is required to continue to update the final safety analysis report pursuant to the requirements of §  72.248.

• A condition requiring each general licensee using the NAC-UMS Universal Storage System design to include, in the evaluations required by § 72.212(b)(5), evaluations related to the terms, conditions, and specifications of this CoC amendment as modified ( i.e., changed or added) as a result of the renewal of the CoC and include, in the document review required by § 72.212(b)(6), a review of the final safety analysis report changes resulting from the renewal of the CoC and the NRC Safety Evaluation Report (SER) for the renewal of the CoC. The general licensee would also be required to ensure that the evaluations required by § 72.212(b)(7) in response to these changes are conducted and the determination required by § 72.212(b)(8) is made. This condition also makes it clear that to meet the requirements in § 72.212(b)(11), general licensees that currently use a NAC-UMS Universal Storage System will need to update their § 72.212 reports, even if they do not put additional NAC-UMS Universal Storage Systems into service after the renewal's effective date. These evaluations, reviews, and determinations are to be completed before the dry storage system enters the period of extended operation (which begins 20 years after the first use of the NAC-UMS Universal Storage System) or no later than 365 days after the effective date of this rule, whichever is later. This will provide general licensees a minimum of 365 days to comply with the new terms, conditions, specifications, and other changes to the CoC and to make the necessary determinations required by § 72.212(b)(8) as to whether activities related to the storage of spent nuclear fuel using the renewed CoC involve a change in the facility Technical Specifications or requires a license amendment for the facility.

• A condition requiring all future amendments and revisions to the CoC ( i.e., the initial certificate 1015 and Amendment Nos. 1 through 9) include evaluations of the impacts to aging management activities ( i.e., time-limited aging analyses and aging management programs) to ensure that they remain adequate for any changes to structures, systems, and components important to safety within the scope of renewal. This condition ensures that future amendments to the CoC address the renewed design bases for the CoC, including aging management impacts that may arise from any changes to the system in proposed future amendments.

Additionally, the condition for the initial certificate and Amendment Nos. 1 through 9 would be amended to reflect changes to the scope of the general license granted by §  72.210 that were made after the approval of the initial certificate. The authorization is amended to allow persons authorized to possess or operate a nuclear power reactor under 10 CFR part 52 to use the NAC-UMS Universal Storage System under the general license issued under §  72.210.

The NRC made one corresponding change from the technical specifications for the initial CoC and Amendment Nos. 1 through 9 by adding a section addressing the aging management program. General licensees using the NAC-UMS Universal Storage System design during the period of extended operation will need to establish, implement, and maintain written procedures for each applicable aging management program in the final safety analysis report to use the NAC-UMS Universal Storage System design during the approved period of extended operation. The procedures will need to include provisions for changing aging management program elements, as necessary, and within the limitations of the approved design bases to address new information on aging effects based on inspection findings and/or industry operating experience provided to the general licensee during the renewal period. The program document must contain a reference to the specific aspect of the aging management program element implemented by that procedure, and that reference must be maintained even if the procedure is modified.

General licensees will need to establish and implement these written procedures prior to entering the period of extended operation (which begins 20 years after the first use of the cask system) or no later than 365 days after the effective date of this direct final rule, whichever is later. The general licensee is required to maintain these written procedures for as long as the general licensee continues to operate NAC-UMS Universal Storage System in service for longer than 20 years.

Under § 72.240(d), the design of a spent fuel storage cask will be renewed if (1) the quality assurance requirements in 10 CFR part 72, subpart G, “Quality Assurance,” are met; (2) the requirements of 10 CFR 72.236(a) through (i) are met; and (3) the application includes a demonstration that the storage of spent fuel has not, in a significant manner, adversely affected the structures, systems, and components important to safety. Additionally, § 72.240(c) requires that the safety analysis report accompanying the application contain time-limited aging analyses that demonstrate that the structures, systems, and components important to safety will continue to perform their intended function for the requested period of extended operation and a description of the aging management program for management of aging issues that could adversely affect structures, systems, and components important to safety.

As documented in the preliminary safety evaluation report, the NRC reviewed the application for the renewal of the CoC and the conditions in the CoC and determined that the conditions in subpart G, § 72.236(a) through (i), have been met and that the application includes a demonstration that the storage of spent nuclear fuel has not, in a significant manner, adversely affected structures, systems, and components important to safety. The NRC's safety review determined that the NAC-UMS Universal Storage System, with the added terms, conditions, and specifications in the CoC and the technical specifications, will continue to meet the requirements of 10 CFR part 72 for an additional 40 years beyond the initial certificate term. Consistent with §  72.240, the NRC is renewing the NAC-UMS Universal Storage System initial certificate 1015 and Amendment Nos. 1 through 9.

Extending the expiration date of the approval for the initial certificate and Amendment Nos. 1 through 9 for 40 years and requiring the implementation of aging management activities during the period of extended operation does not impose any modification or addition to the design of a cask system's structures, systems, and components important to safety, or to the procedures or organization required to operate the system during the initial 20-year storage term certified by the cask's initial CoC. General licensees who have loaded these casks, or who load these casks in the future under the specifications of the applicable renewed CoC, may store spent fuel in these cask system designs for 20 years without implementing the aging management program. For any casks that have been in use for more than 20 years, the general licensee will have 365 days to complete the analyses required to use the cask system design pursuant to the terms and conditions in the renewed CoC. As explained in the 2011 final rule that amended 10 CFR part 72 (76 FR 8872), the general licensee's authority to use a particular storage cask design under an approved CoC will be for at least the term certified by the cask's CoC. For casks placed into service before the expiration date of the initial certificate, the general licensee's authority to use the cask would be extended for an additional 40 years from the date the initial certificate expired. For casks placed into service after the expiration date of the initial certificate and before the effective date of this rule, the general licensee's authority to use the cask would last the length of the term certified by the cask's CoC ( i.e., 40 years after the cask is placed into service). For casks placed into service after this rule becomes effective, the general licensee's authority to use the cask would expire 40 years after the cask is first placed into service.

This direct final rule revises the NAC International, Inc., NAC-UMS Universal Storage System design listing in § 72.214 by renewing, for 40 more years, the initial certificate and Amendment Nos. 1 through 9 of CoC No. 1015. The renewed CoC includes the changes to the CoC and technical specifications previously described. The renewed CoC includes terms, conditions, and specifications that will ensure the safe operation of the cask during the renewal term and the added conditions that will require the implementation of an aging management program. The preliminary safety evaluation report describes the new and revised conditions in the CoC, the changes to the technical specifications, and the NRC staff evaluation.

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113) requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In this direct final rule, the NRC revises the NAC International, Inc., NAC-UMS Universal Storage System design listed in § 72.214, “List of approved spent fuel storage casks.” This action does not constitute the establishment of a standard that contains generally applicable requirements.

Under the “Agreement State Program Policy Statement” approved by the Commission on October 2, 2017, and published in the Federal Register on October 18, 2017 (82 FR 48535), this rule is classified as Compatibility Category NRC—Areas of Exclusive NRC Regulatory Authority. The NRC program elements in this category are those that relate directly to areas of regulation reserved to the NRC by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the provisions of 10 CFR chapter I. Therefore, compatibility is not required for program elements in this category.

The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31885).

Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the NRC's regulations in 10 CFR part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions,” the NRC has determined that this direct final rule, if adopted, would not be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and, therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required. The NRC has made a finding of no significant impact based on this environmental assessment.

The action is to amend § 72.214 to change the NAC International, Inc., NAC-UMS Universal Storage System listing within the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” to renew, for an additional 40 years, the initial certificate and Amendment Nos. 1 through 9 of CoC No. 1015.

This direct final rule renews the initial certificate and Amendment Nos. 1 through 9 of CoC No. 1015 for the NAC International, Inc., NAC-UMS Universal Storage System design within the list of approved spent fuel storage casks to allow power reactor licensees to store spent fuel at reactor sites in casks with the approved modifications under a general license. Specifically, this direct final rule extends the expiration date for the NAC-UMS Universal Storage System certificate for an additional 40 years, allowing a power reactor licensee to continue using the cask design during a period of extended operation for a term certified by the cask's renewed CoC.

The new conditions added to the renewal of the initial CoC and Amendment Nos. 1 through 9 are:

• A condition for submitting an updated final safety analysis report to the NRC, in accordance with § 72.4, within 90 days after the effective date of the CoC renewal.

• A condition for renewed CoC use during the period of extended operation to ensure that a general licensee's report prepared under § 72.212 evaluates the appropriate considerations for the period of extended operation. All future amendments and revisions to this CoC must include evaluations of the impacts to aging management activities.

• The NRC is revising the initial certificate and Amendment Nos. 1 through 9 to address the language change in § 72.210 “General license issue” and other updates to the regulations.

• A condition requiring all future amendments and revisions to the CoC ( i.e., the initial certificate 1015 and Amendment Nos. 1 through 9) include evaluations of the impacts to aging management activities ( i.e., time-limited aging analyses and aging management programs) to ensure that they remain adequate for any changes to structures, systems, and components important to safety within the scope of renewal.

The NRC will also make various corrections and editorial changes to the CoC and TSs.

On July 18,1990 (55 FR 29181), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 to provide for the storage of spent fuel under a general license in cask designs approved by the NRC. The potential environmental impacts of using NRC-approved storage casks were analyzed in the environmental assessment for the 1990 final rule and are described in “Environmental Assessment for Proposed Rule Entitled, `Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRC-Approved Storage Casks at Nuclear Power Reactor Sites.'” The potential environmental impacts for the longer-term use of dry cask designs and the renewal of certificates of compliance were analyzed in the environmental assessment for the 2011 final rule establishing the regulatory requirements for renewing certificates of compliance and are described in “Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for the Final Rule Amending 10 CFR part 72 License and Certificate of Compliance Terms.” The environmental impacts from continued storage were also considered in NUREG-2157, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel.” The environmental assessment for the renewal of the initial certificate and Amendment Nos. 1 through 9 of CoC No. 1015 tiers off of the environmental assessment for the February 16, 2011, final rule and NUREG-2157. Tiering on past environmental assessments is a standard process under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended.

The NAC-UMS Universal Storage System is designed to mitigate the effects of design basis accidents that could occur during storage. Design basis accidents account for human-induced events and the most severe natural phenomena reported for the site and surrounding area. Postulated accidents analyzed for an independent spent fuel storage installation, the type of facility at which a holder of a power reactor operating license would store spent fuel in casks in accordance with 10 CFR part 72, can include tornado winds and tornado-generated missiles, a design basis earthquake, a design basis flood, an accidental cask drop, lightning effects, fire, explosions, and other incidents.

A renewal reaffirms the original design basis and allows the cask to be used during a period of extended operation that corresponds to the term certified by the cask's CoC in the renewal. As a condition of the renewal, the NRC requires an aging management program that will ensure that structures, systems, and components important to safety will perform as designers intended during the renewal period. The renewal does not reflect a change in design or fabrication of the cask system. This renewal does not reflect a significant change in design or fabrication of the cask. Because there are no significant design or process changes, any resulting occupational exposure or offsite dose rates from the renewal of the initial certificate and Amendment Nos. 1 through 9 would remain well within the 10 CFR part 20 limits. The NRC has also determined that the design of the cask would continue to maintain confinement, shielding, and criticality control in the event of an accident. Therefore, these changes would not result in any radiological or non-radiological environmental impacts that significantly differ from the environmental impacts evaluated in the environmental assessment supporting the February 16, 2011, final rule. There will be no significant change in the types or significant revisions in the amounts of any effluent released, no significant increase in the individual or cumulative radiation exposures, and no significant increase in the potential for, or consequences from, radiological accidents. The NRC determined that the structures, systems, and components important to safety will continue to perform their intended functions during the requested period of extended operation. The NRC determined that the renewed NAC-UMS Universal Storage System, when used under the conditions specified in the renewed CoC, the technical specifications, and the NRC's regulations, will meet the requirements of 10 CFR part 72; therefore, adequate protection of public health and safety will continue to be reasonably assured. The NRC documented its safety findings in the preliminary SER.

Based on the previously stated assessments and its preliminary SER for the requested renewal of the NAC-UMS Universal Storage System CoC, the NRC has determined that the expiration date of this system in 10 CFR 72.214 can be safely extended for an additional 40 years, and that commercial nuclear power reactor licensees can continue using the system during this period under a general license without significant impacts on the human environment.

The alternative to this action is to deny the renewal of the initial certificate and Amendment Nos. 1 through 9 and not issue the direct final rule. Consequently, any 10 CFR part 72 general licensee that seeks to load spent nuclear fuel into the NAC-UMS Universal Storage System after the expiration date of the CoC or that seeks to continue storing spent nuclear fuel in the NAC-UMS Universal Storage System for longer than the term certified by the cask's CoC for the initial certificate ( i.e., more than 20 years) would have to request an exemption from the requirements of §§ 72.212 and 72.214 or would have to load the spent nuclear fuel into a different approved cask design. Under this alternative, those licensees interested in continuing to use the NAC-UMS Universal Storage System would have to prepare, and the NRC would have to review, a separate exemption request, thereby increasing the administrative burden upon the NRC and the costs to each licensee. If the general licensee is granted an exemption, the environmental impacts would be the same as the proposed action. If the general licensee is not granted an exemption, the general licensee would need to unload the NAC-UMS Universal Storage System and load the fuel into another cask system design, which would result in environmental impacts that are greater than for the proposed action because activities associated with cask loading and decontamination may result in some small liquid and gaseous effluent.

Renewal of the initial certificate and Amendment Nos. 1 through 9 to CoC No. 1015 would result in no irreversible commitment of resources.

No agencies or persons outside the NRC were contacted in connection with the preparation of this environmental assessment.

This direct final rule is to amend § 72.214 to revise the NAC International, Inc., NAC-UMS Universal Storage System listing within the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” to renew, for an additional 40 years, the initial certificate and Amendment Nos. 1 through 9 of CoC No. 1015. The environmental impacts of the action have been reviewed under the requirements in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the NRC's regulations in subpart A of 10 CFR part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” The renewal does not reflect a change in design or fabrication of the cask system as approved for the initial certificate or Amendment Nos. 1 through 9. The NRC determined that the renewed NAC-UMS Universal Storage System design, when used under the conditions specified in the renewed CoC, the technical specifications, and the NRC's regulations, will meet the requirements of 10 CFR part 72; therefore, adequate protection of public health and safety will continue to be reasonably assured.

Based on the foregoing environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that this direct final rule, “List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: NAC International, Inc., NAC-UMS Universal Storage System, Certificate of Compliance No. 1015, Renewal of Initial Certificate and Amendment Nos. 1 through 9,” will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Therefore, the NRC has determined that an environmental impact statement is not necessary for this direct final rule.

This direct final rule does not contain any new or amended collections of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). Existing collections of information were approved by the Office of Management and Budget, approval number 3150-0132.

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a request for information or an information collection requirement unless the requesting document displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget control number.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the NRC certifies that this direct final rule will not, if issued, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This direct final rule affects only nuclear power plant licensees and NAC International, Inc. These entities do not fall within the scope of the definition of small entities set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the size standards established by the NRC (§ 2.810).

On July 18, 1990 (55 FR 29181), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 to provide for the storage of spent nuclear fuel under a general license in cask designs approved by the NRC. Any nuclear power reactor licensee can use NRC-approved cask designs to store spent nuclear fuel if (1) it notifies the NRC in advance; (2) the spent fuel is stored under the conditions specified in the cask's CoC; and (3) the conditions of the general license are met. A list of NRC-approved cask designs is contained in § 72.214. On October 19, 2000 (65 FR 62581), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 that approved the NAC-UMS Universal Storage System design by adding it to the list of NRC-approved cask designs in § 72.214.

On October 13, 2020, NAC International, Inc. submitted a request to the NRC to renew, for an additional 40 years, the initial certificate and Amendment Nos. 1 through 7 of CoC No. 1015 for the NAC-UMS Universal Storage System. NAC International, Inc. supplemented its request on March 3, 2022; March 18, 2022 (adding Amendment Nos. 8 and 9 to the request); July 28, 2022; and December 21, 2022. Because NAC International, Inc. filed its renewal application at least 30 days before the certificate expiration date of November 20, 2020, pursuant to the timely renewal provisions in § 72.240(b), the initial issuance of the certificate and Amendment Nos. 1 through 9 of CoC No. 1015 did not expire.

The alternative to this action is to withhold approval of the renewal of the initial certificate and Amendment Nos. 1 through 9 and to require any 10 CFR part 72 general licensee seeking to continue the storage of spent nuclear fuel in NAC-UMS Universal Storage System using the initial certificate or Amendment Nos. 1 through 9 beyond the initial 20-year storage term certified by the cask's initial CoC to request an exemption from the requirements of §§ 72.212 and 72.214. The term for general licenses would not be extended from 20 years to 40 years. Under this alternative, each interested 10 CFR part 72 licensee would have to prepare, and the NRC would have to review, a separate exemption request, thereby increasing the administrative burden upon the NRC and the costs to each licensee.

Approval of this direct final rule is consistent with previous NRC actions. Further, as documented in the preliminary SER and environmental assessment, this direct final rule will have no adverse effect on public health and safety or the environment. This direct final rule has no significant identifiable impact or benefit on other government agencies. Based on this regulatory analysis, the NRC concludes that the requirements of this direct final rule are commensurate with the NRC's responsibilities for public health and safety and the common defense and security. No other available alternative is believed to be as satisfactory; therefore, this action is recommended.

The NRC has determined that the actions in this direct final rule do not constitute backfitting because they do not meet the definition of backfitting under §  72.62. That definition states that backfitting means the addition, elimination, or modification, after the license has been issued, of the structures, systems, or components of an ISFSI or the procedures or organization required to operate an ISFSI. Certificate of compliance holders like NAC International, Inc. are not within the scope of the backfit rule in § 72.62.

Certificate of Compliance No. 1015 for the NAC International, Inc., NAC-UMS Universal Storage System design, as currently listed in § 72.214, “List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks,” was initially approved for a 20-year term. This direct final rule would renew the initial certificate and Amendment Nos. 1 through 9, extending their approval period by 40 years. With this renewal, the term certified by the cask's CoC would change from 20 years to 40 years, with the period of extended operation beginning 20 years after the cask is placed into service. Because the term for the renewal would be longer than the initial term certified by the cask's CoC, the general licensee's authority to use the cask also would be extended to 40 years. Further, the revision to the CoC through the renewal would require implementation of aging management programs during the period of extended operation.

Renewing these certificates does not fall within the definition of backfitting under §  72.62 during the COC's initial 20-year term. General licensees who have loaded these casks, or who load these casks in the future under the specifications of the applicable certificate, may continue to store spent fuel in these systems for the initial 20-year storage period authorized by the original certificate. Extending the certificates' expiration dates for 40 more years and requiring the implementation of aging management programs does not impose any modification or addition to the design of the structures, systems, and components important to safety of a cask system, or to the procedures or organization required to operate the system during this initial 20-year term certified by the cask's CoC. The aging management programs required to be implemented by this renewal are only required to be implemented after the storage cask system's initial 20-year service period ends.

General licensees using the existing systems subject to these renewals are not required to continue using these systems following the end of the initial 20-year storage period. If general licensees choose to continue to store spent fuel in the NAC-UMS Universal Storage System after the initial 20-year period, these general licensees will be required to implement aging management activities for any cask systems subject to a renewed CoC. Such continued use is voluntary, so renewing the CoC with aging management program conditions does not constitute backfitting under § 72.62 for these general licensees.

This direct final rule is not a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.

The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons, as indicated.

The NRC may post materials related to this document, including public comments, on the Federal Rulemaking website at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2024-0034. In addition, the Federal rulemaking website allows members of the public to receive alerts when changes or additions occur in a docket folder. To subscribe: (1) navigate to the docket folder (NRC-2024-0034); (2) click the “Subscribe” link; and (3) enter an email address and click on the “Subscribe” link.

For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553; the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR part 72:

The U.S. Department of Energy's State Energy Program provides financial assistance in the form of formula grants to states, U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia (hereinafter referred to as states)  1 for a wide variety of energy efficiency and renewable energy initiatives authorized under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) (Pub. L. 94-163), as amended. 42 U.S.C. 6321 et seq. Section 40109(a)(3) of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA 2021) (Pub. L. 117-58) amended Section 362(c) of EPCA, which pertains to the mandatory features of state energy conservation plans. 42 U.S.C. 6322(c). The submission of such plans is required for a state's participation in SEP and receipt of a formula grant. This interim final rule amends SEP regulations in part 420 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations to incorporate the IIJA 2021 amendments.

Section 40109 of IIJA 2021 amended section 362(c) of EPCA to include a new paragraph (7) that mandates the inclusion of transmission and distribution planning support activities into states' energy conservation plans. 2 42 U.S.C. 6322(c). With the issuance of this interim final rule, DOE amends 10 CFR 420.15 to include a new paragraph (g) to adopt this new statutory requirement. Once in effect, DOE's regulatory requirement for state energy conservation plans will reflect the corresponding statutory requirement.

DOE is also revising the reference to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act included in the 10 CFR part 420 authority line from Part D to Part B.

DOE is issuing this action as an interim final rule, without prior notice and opportunity for public comment, for two reasons. First, in general, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires an agency to first provide public notice of a proposed rulemaking that is published in the Federal Register and provide the public an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking before finalizing the regulatory action. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)-(c). The APA's requirements of notice and public comment do not apply “to the extent that there is involved . . . a matter related to agency . . . grants, benefits, or contracts.” 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2), emphasis added. SEP is a program that provides formula and competitive grants as well as technical assistance to states to enhance energy security, advance state-led energy initiatives, and increase energy affordability.

The interim final rule amends SEP's regulations to include the new mandatory features for state energy conservation plans established by section 40109(a)(3) of the IIJA 2021. States applying for SEP grants must submit plans that consider these new features in addition to those already set out SEP's regulations. 10 CFR 420.15. Because this rulemaking pertains to DOE's grant program and adopts new mandatory plan features that states must satisfy in order to receive SEP grant funds, the APA's requirements for notice and comment do not apply.

Second, this rulemaking regards a nondiscretionary action because DOE is incorporating the section 40109(a)(3) of IIJA 2021 amendments to SEP's regulations without substantive change. The language adopted in regulation mirrors the language of the statute verbatim and DOE is not amending any other provision of SEP's existing regulations as part of this rulemaking. DOE is simply adopting a mandatory requirement for state energy conservation plans as prescribed in statute into SEP's regulation.

Therefore, because this action concerns a grant program subject to an APA exception and is nondiscretionary, DOE has determined notice and comment is not necessary and is pursuing this activity through an interim final rule.

This final rule has been determined not to be a “significant regulatory action” under E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993) as supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”, 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011) and amended by E.O. 14094, “Modernizing Regulatory Review”, 88 FR 21879 (April 11, 2023). Accordingly, this rule is not subject to review under the E.O. by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

As discussed previously, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq., generally requires public notice and an opportunity for comment before a rule becomes effective. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)-(c). However, the APA provides that the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553 do not apply “to the extent that there is involved . . . a matter relating to agency . . . grants, benefits, or contracts.” The interim final rule amends SEP's regulations to include the new mandatory state energy conservation plan features established by section 40109(a) of the IIJA 2021, which amended SEP's state energy conservation plan requirements. States applying for SEP grants are required to submit plans that consider these and the other mandatory features established in statute and codified in SEP's regulations. Because this rulemaking amends SEP's regulations at 10 CFR 420.15 to include features states must satisfy in order to receive a grant from SEP, the APA's general notice and comment requirements do not apply.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment. As discussed previously, DOE has determined that prior notice and opportunity for public comment is not required under the APA for this rulemaking because it concerns a grant program. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking is not required for this action pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, no regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared for this interim final rule. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2), 603(a).

This interim final rule imposes no new information or recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, Office of Management and Budget clearance is not required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. )

DOE has determined that this interim final rule falls into a class of actions that are categorically exclude from review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and DOE`s implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. Specifically, DOE has determined that this rulemaking is consistent with activities identified in 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, appendix A6, because it is strictly procedural and meets the requirements for application of a categorical exclusion. Therefore, DOE has determined that promulgation of this rule is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the meaning of NEPA and does not require an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement.

Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999), imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism implications. The Executive order requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive order also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the development of such regulations (65 FR 13735). DOE examined this interim final rule and determined that it does not preempt State law and does 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. Accordingly, no further action is required by Executive Order 13132.

With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; and (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard and promote simplification and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this interim final rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a) and (b).) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed “significant intergovernmental mandate,” and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA (62 FR 12820) (also available at www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel ). This interim final rule does not contain an intergovernmental mandate or a mandate that may result in the expenditure of $100 million or more in any year, so these requirements under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act do not apply.

Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. This interim final rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

Pursuant to E.O. 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,” 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), DOE has determined that this interim final rule would not result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for Federal agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed this interim final rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.

Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget, a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.

This interim final rule would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy and, therefore, is not a significant energy action. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the promulgation of this rule prior to its effective date. The report will state that it has been determined that the rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this interim final rule.

This document of the Department of Energy was signed on April 22, 2024, by David Crane, Under Secretary for Infrastructure, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register .

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of Energy amends part 420 of chapter II, subchapter D of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:

Section 136 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, as amended (42 U.S.C. 17013) (“ATVM statute”) authorizes the Secretary of Energy (“Secretary”) to issue grants and direct loans to applicants for the costs of reequipping, expanding, or establishing manufacturing facilities in the United States to produce qualified advanced technology vehicles or qualifying components. The ATVM statute also authorizes the Secretary to issue grants and direct loans for the costs of engineering integration performed in the United States of qualifying advanced technology vehicles and qualifying components. The Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program (“ATVM Program”) represents the Secretary's implementation of the direct loan authority under the ATVM statute. The ATVM Program is administered by the U.S. Department of Energy's (“DOE”) Loan Programs Office (“LPO”). The purpose of the ATVM Program is to originate, underwrite, and service loans to eligible automotive manufacturers and component manufacturers to finance the cost of: (i) reequipping, expanding, or establishing manufacturing facilities in the United States to produce Advanced Technology Vehicles (“ATVs”) and qualifying components; and (ii) engineering integration performed in the United States of ATVs and qualifying components.

Consistent with section 17013(e) of title 42 of the United States Code (“U.S.C.”), DOE promulgated regulations for the ATVM Program in 2009, which are set forth at 10 Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) part 611. 1 Part 611 provides eligibility criteria for automobile manufacturers, project eligibility requirements, and application requirements and general terms for the ATVM Program. Part 611 has since been amended twice to: (1) standardize the submission and handling within DOE's assistance programs, of trade secrets and commercial or financial information that is privileged or confidential  2 and (2) clarify the eligibility of critical minerals projects. 3

Section 312 of the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2010  4 amended the ATVM statute to include the ultra efficient vehicle category within the statutory definition of ATVs. In this final rule, DOE is adding this category of vehicles to part 611 to reflect the ATVM statute.

Section 40401(b) of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (“IIJA”)  5 amended the definitions provision of the ATVM statute to add the following categories of vehicles within the statutory definition of ATVs: a medium-duty vehicle or a heavy-duty vehicle that exceeds 125 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions and fuel efficiency standards established by the final rule of the Environmental Protection Agency entitled “Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles-Phase 2” (81 FR 73478 (October 25, 2016)); a train or locomotive; a maritime vessel; an aircraft; and hyperloop technology. 6

Section 5(a)(1) of the Mercury Export Ban Act (MEBA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6939f(a)(1), provides that the Secretary of Energy shall designate a facility or facilities of DOE for the purpose of long-term management and storage of elemental mercury generated within the United States. MEBA section 5(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. 6939f(b)(1), further provides that DOE shall assess and collect a fee at the time of delivery for providing such management and storage, based on the pro rata cost of long-term management and storage of elemental mercury delivered to the facility.

On December 6, 2019, DOE published its Record of Decision (ROD) identifying a portion of two buildings at a Texas facility leased by DOE and owned by Waste Control Specialists, LLC (WCS facility) as its designated facility under MEBA section 5(a). (84 FR 66890). In accordance with MEBA section 5(b), on December 23, 2019, DOE issued a final rule that established the fee for the management and storage of elemental mercury at the designated facility. (84 FR 70402). The rule, which became effective on January 22, 2020, added 10 CFR part 955 titled “Fee for Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Under the Mercury Export Ban Act of 2008, as Amended.”

On January 17, 2020, Nevada Gold Mines, LLC (NGM) filed suit against DOE in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking to vacate both the final rule and the ROD. Nevada Gold Mines, LLC v. Dan Brouillette, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00141-RJL (D.D.C. 2020). On August 21, 2020, NGM and DOE executed a settlement agreement in which DOE agreed to move the district court to vacate and remand the fee rule. On September 5, 2020, the district court granted DOE's motion to vacate the fee rule and ordered the rule vacated and remanded to DOE for reconsideration. Consistent with the agreement, DOE subsequently issued an amended ROD withdrawing the designation of the WCS facility. In this final rule, DOE removes 10 CFR part 955 to reflect the district court's order.

This final rule is not subject to the requirement to provide prior notice and an opportunity for public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and (c) because it falls under the good cause exception at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). The good cause exception is satisfied when notice and comment is “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Id. This final rule is an administrative step that implements the district court's order vacating the December 2019 rule. Notice and comment are unnecessary for implementation of the court's vacatur and would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest in light of DOE's need to implement the now-effective final judgment. Additionally, because this final rule implements a court order already in effect, DOE has good cause to waive the 30-day effective date. See 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final rule.

This document of the Department of Energy was signed on April 23, 2024, by David M. Turk, Deputy Secretary of Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register .

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain IAE Model PW1124G1-JM, PW1127G-JM, PW1127GA-JM, PW1129G-JM, PW1130G-JM, PW1133G-JM, and PW1133GA-JM engines. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on October 5, 2023 (88 FR 69099). The NPRM was prompted by a report of a batch of HPC 2nd stage rotors and HPC 4th stage rotors that could have degraded knife-edge seals and abrasive coating on the rear wing 4th stage rotor due to having been cleaned in alkaline solution without masking the knife-edge seal coating. Operating in this condition could result in material degradation and fracture of the HPC 2nd stage rotor and HPC 4th stage rotor. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require replacement of the affected HPC 2nd stage rotor and HPC 4th stage rotor with parts eligible for installation. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

Since the NPRM was issued, PW also revised PW Service Bulletin PW1000G-C-72-00-0208-00A-930A-D, Issue 001, dated September 13, 2022, to PW Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) PW1000G-C-72-00-0208-00A-930A-D, Issue 002, dated January 18, 2024, to incorporate editorial changes. This service bulletin revision does not affect compliance or add any additional burden upon owners/operators of aircraft with the affected engines installed. Full credit will be given for PW Service Bulletin PW1000G-C-72-00-0208-00A-930A-D, Issue 001, dated September 13, 2022.

The FAA received comments from two commenters. The commenters were the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), and Delta Air Lines, Inc (DAL). ALPA supported the NPRM without change. The following presents the comment received from DAL on the NPRM and the FAA's response.

DAL requested that the FAA revise paragraph (h)(1)(ii) of the proposed AD to specify which version of the service bulletin is acceptable for compliance. DAL noted that the definition of a part eligible for installation in paragraph (h)(1)(ii) of the proposed AD does not currently specify which version of the service bulletin is acceptable for compliance, and it may be unclear to operators if the use of a future revision of the service bulletin is acceptable.

The FAA agrees with the request to revise paragraph (h)(1)(ii) of this AD in order to specify which version of the service bulletin is acceptable for compliance. The FAA revised paragraph (h)(2)(ii) of this AD to reference PW ASB PW1000G-C-72-00-0208-00A-930A-D, Issue 002, dated January 18, 2024, which was issued by PW after the NPRM was published. The FAA also added paragraph (i) to this AD, and redesignated subsequent paragraphs of this AD accordingly, to provide credit for actions performed before the effective date of this AD using PW SB PW1000G-C-72-00-0208-00A-930A-D, Issue 001, dated September 13, 2022.

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

The FAA reviewed Pratt & Whitney ASB PW1000G-C-72-00-0208-00A-930A-D, Issue 002, dated January 18, 2024. This service information identifies the affected HPC 2nd stage rotors and HPC 4th stage rotors and specifies procedures for inspection and repair of the HPC 2nd stage rotors and HPC 4th stage rotors. 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 6 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

Operators may choose to use new parts instead of repaired parts to comply with this AD. For replacement with new parts, the FAA estimates the following costs:

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 2023-12-17, Amendment 39-22475 (88 FR 42604, July 3, 2023) (AD 2023-12-17). AD 2023-12-17 applied to Pilatus Model PC-12, PC-12/45, PC-12/47, and PC-12/47E airplanes. AD 2023-12-17 required incorporating new revisions to the ALS of the existing AMM or ICA for your airplane to establish new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations that include repetitive inspections for cracks in the lower main spar connection of the horizontal stabilizer. The FAA issued AD 2023-12-17 to address cracks in the lower main spar connection of the horizontal stabilizer and failure of certain parts, which could result in loss of airplane control.

The NPRM published in the Federal Register on February 2, 2024 (89 FR 7297). The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD 2023-0184, dated October 19, 2023 (EASA AD 2023-0184) (also referred to as the MCAI), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. The MCAI states that new or more restrictive tasks and limitations have been developed. These new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations include repetitive eddy current inspections for cracks in the main landing gear yoke fitting.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2024-0045.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require revising the ALS of your existing AMM or ICA and your existing approved maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, as specified in EASA AD 2023-0184. The FAA is issuing this AD to address failure of certain parts, which could result in asymmetric main landing gear failure that could lead to loss of airplane control during take-off, landing, and taxiing operations. Additionally, the actions required to address the unsafe condition in AD 2023-12-17 are included in “the applicable ALS,” as defined in EASA AD 2023-0184.

The FAA received comments from two anonymous commenters, an individual, and the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA). All commenters 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 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. This AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM.

EASA AD 2023-0184 requires certain actions and associated thresholds and intervals, including life limits and maintenance tasks. EASA AD 2023-0184 also requires doing corrective actions if any discrepancy (as defined in “the applicable ALS” as defined in EASA AD 2023-0184) is found during accomplishment of any task required by paragraph (1) of EASA AD 2023-0184 and revising the aircraft maintenance program (AMP) by incorporating the limitations, tasks, and associated thresholds and intervals described in “the applicable ALS” as defined in EASA AD 2023-0184. 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 .

Paragraph (1) of EASA AD 2023-0184 requires replacing each component before exceeding the applicable life limit and within the identified thresholds and intervals accomplishing all applicable maintenance tasks as specified in the applicable ALS for that airplane. Paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2023-0184 requires corrective actions in accordance with the applicable Pilatus maintenance documentation or contacting Pilatus for approved instructions and accomplishing those instructions accordingly. Paragraph (4) of EASA AD 2023-0184 provides credit for performing actions in accordance with previous revisions of the Pilatus AMM. Paragraph (5) of EASA AD 2023-0184 explains that after revision of the AMP, it is not necessary to record accomplishment of individual actions for demonstration of AD compliance. This AD does not require compliance with paragraphs (1), (2), (4), and (5) of EASA AD 2023-0184.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 1,030 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:

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation (Hamilton Sundstrand) Model 14SF-7, 14SF-15, and 14SF-23 propellers. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on September 7, 2023 (88 FR 61480). The NPRM was prompted by a report of an auxiliary motor and pump installed on a non-Hamilton Sundstrand propeller failing to feather the propeller in flight through either the primary or the backup means. The failure was caused by motor magnets in the auxiliary motor and pump that were de-bonded due to corrosion at the magnet and housing interface. The de-bonded motor magnets prevented motor rotation. Hamilton Sundstrand Model 14SF-7, 14SF-15, and 14SF-23 propellers use the same auxiliary motor and pump. These propellers are installed on, but not limited to, De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited (Type Certificate previously held by Bombardier Inc.) Model DHC-8-100 series, DHC-8-200 series, and DHC-8-300 series airplanes. This condition, if not addressed, could result in reduced controllability of the aircraft and consequent loss of control of the aircraft.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require the removal from service of an auxiliary motor and pump having part number (P/N) 782655-3 (Aerocontrolex P/N 4122-006009) and replacement with an auxiliary motor and pump having P/N 782655-4 (Aerocontrolex P/N 4122-056000). In the NPRM, the FAA also proposed to prohibit the installation of an auxiliary motor and pump having P/N 782655-3 (Aerocontrolex P/N 4122-006009) on any propeller. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

The FAA received comments from three commenters. The commenters were Collins Aerospace, Sierra Nevada Corporation, and an individual. Sierra Nevada Corporation noted that the AD does not apply to its fleet and had no objection to the NPRM. Two commenters, Collins Aerospace and an individual, recommended certain changes. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response.

Two commenters, Collins Aerospace and an individual, observed that the use of the phrase “any propeller” in the NPRM causes confusion. The commenters noted that the phrase “any propeller” appears three times in the subject NPRM. Collins Aerospace stated that this use of “any propeller” language has caused some confusion related to AD 2023-16-06 [Amendment 39-22525 (88 FR 63513, September 15, 2023)]. An individual also observed that the use of the word “also” in the sentence, “This AD also prohibits installation of a certain auxiliary motor and pump on any propeller,” in the Summary section of the proposed rule indicates or implies the prohibition is for other propellers in addition to what is identified in the applicability. The commenters requested that the FAA remove the phrase “any propeller” from all preamble and regulatory text regarding an installation prohibition in the AD. The commenters also requested that the FAA write the prohibition to show that it only pertains to the propeller models listed in this AD.

The FAA agrees to clarify regarding the use of the phrase “any propeller” and whether the prohibition only applies to the propeller models list in the AD. For clarification, all of the requirements of an AD can apply only to the propellers listed in the applicability. To eliminate any confusion, however, the FAA revised paragraph (h) of this final rule, Installation Prohibition, to specify that the installation prohibition applies to any propeller identified in paragraph (c) of this AD.

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

The FAA reviewed Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin (SB) 14SF-61-168, Revision 1, dated December 21, 2016. This service information specifies instructions for replacing the auxiliary motor and pump. Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation is a UTC Aerospace Systems Company. This service information is identified as both Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation and UTC Aerospace Systems. 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 180 propellers 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain CFM Model LEAP-1A23, LEAP-1A24, LEAP-1A24E1, LEAP-1A26, LEAP-1A26CJ, LEAP-1A26E1, LEAP-1A29, LEAP-1A29CJ, LEAP-1A30, LEAP-1A32, LEAP-1A33, LEAP-1A33B2, and LEAP-1A35A engines. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on October 11, 2023 (88 FR 70409). The NPRM was prompted by a manufacturer's report of three aborted takeoffs and two ATBs caused by HPC stall. Additional manufacturer investigation revealed that wear on the No. 3 bearing spring finger housing can lead to high levels of NSV, which could induce HPC stall. As a result of its investigation, the manufacturer published service information that specifies procedures for addressing this situation. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require repetitive calculations of the levels of NSV and, depending on the results of the calculations, replacement of the No. 3 bearing spring finger housing. The FAA also proposed to require, following the removal and replacement of the No. 3 bearing spring finger housing, inspection of the stage 2 HPT nozzle assembly honeycomb and HPT stator stationary seal honeycomb for rubs and, depending on findings, replacement of the stage 2 HPT nozzle assembly honeycomb and HPT stator stationary seal. This FAA also proposed to require replacement of the No. 3 bearing spring finger housing regardless of calculated level of NSV at a certain time. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

The FAA received comments from four commenters. Commenters included the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), American Airlines (AA), Avianca Airlines (AVA), and CFM International (CFM). ALPA supported the NPRM without change. The following presents the comments received from AA, AVA, and CFM on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

AA requested that the FAA allow for the use of automated condition monitoring solutions as an alternative to the accomplishment of the manual review every 125 cycles required by paragraph (g)(1) of the proposed AD. AA noted that automated monitoring solutions have already been accepted to replace previously FAA required MRB tasks, and allowing automated condition monitoring will provide a safer, more robust solution that exceeds the minimum requirements outlined in CFM Service Bulletin (SB) LEAP-1A-72-00-0504-01A-930A-D, Issue 001, dated June 14, 2023, and the NPRM.

The FAA disagrees with the commenter's request to add automated monitoring solutions as an alternative in the final rule. However, if any operator prefers to address the unsafe condition by means other than those specified in the referenced service information, they may request approval for an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with paragraph (j) of this AD and, if approved, may use it instead of the procedures specified in the service information and the final rule. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

Avianca requested that the CNR for exceedance of NSV thresholds be included in the NPRM as an additional method of compliance for all operators who have active CFM Diagnostics Monitoring. Avianca noted that under the CFM Diagnostics Program, the parameter NSV TCF Max Vibe Fleeting Event is actively monitored and if any exceedance is detected, a CNR is triggered for NSV exceedance.

The FAA disagrees with the commenter's request to add CNR for NSV thresholds exceedance as an additional method of compliance in the final rule. However, if any operator prefers to address the unsafe condition by means other than those specified in the referenced service information, they may request approval for an AMOC in accordance with paragraph (j) of this AD and, if approved, may use it instead of the procedures specified in the service information and the final rule. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

CFM requested that the FAA update the Summary section of the proposed AD to read: “This proposed AD would also require replacement of the No. 3 bearing spring finger housing having P/N 2629M62G01 and a serial number identified in Table 1 of CFM SB LEAP-1A-72-00-0504-01A-93 0A-D.” CFM noted that the focus of the proposed AD should be on NSV monitoring and the actions required when NSV is present. CFM also noted that service bulletins LEAP-1A-72-00-0505-01A-93 0A-D, Issue 001, dated June 05, 2023, and LEAP-1A-72-00-0498-01A-93 0A-D, Issue 001, dated June 05, 2023, include the shop visit workscope recommendations for engines with potential No. 3 bearing spring finger housing wear, regardless of the signs of NSV vibrations.

The FAA partially agrees with the request. The FAA agrees to edit the Summary section of this AD to clarify that only certain No. 3 bearing spring finger housings require replacement. The FAA disagrees with the request to specify the part number and serial number of the affected parts in the Summary section of this AD because that level of specificity is not appropriate for the Summary section. The FAA acknowledges the presence of service bulletins LEAP-1A-72-00-0505-01A-93 0A-D, Issue 001, dated June 05, 2023, and LEAP-1A-72-00-0498-01A-93 0A-D, Issue 001, dated June 05, 2023, and notes that neither of those SBs are incorporated by reference in this AD.

CFM requested that the FAA update the Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM section to read: “This proposed AD would also require replacement of the No. 3 bearing spring finger housing having P/N 2629M62G01 and a serial number identified in Table 1 of CFM SB LEAP-1A-72-00-0504-01A-930A-D, regardless of calculated level of NSV, at a certain time.”

The FAA agrees with the requested language. However, this section is not included in the final rule. Therefore, the FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

CFM requested that the FAA update the Background and Unsafe Condition sections of the proposed AD to include that CFM experience to date has shown that NSV has led to self-recovering HPC stalls. CFM also requested to remove the following portion from paragraph (e): “The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent HPC stall.” CFM acknowledged that the manufacturer investigation revealed that wear on the No. 3 bearing spring finger housing can lead to high levels of NSV, which could induce HPC stall.

The FAA disagrees with the request to include information regarding self-recovering HPC stalls in this AD. The FAA also disagrees with the requested change to paragraph (e) of this AD. The FAA notes that the field experience to date does not provide conclusive evidence that NSV-induced HPC stalls will always be self-recovering. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

CFM requested that the FAA update the Interim Action section of the proposed AD to reflect that this AD is the closing action of paragraph (e) Unsafe Condition of the proposed AD and although there are additional hardware modifications that are being developed by the design approval holder, those modifications are not necessary to address the unsafe condition.

The FAA disagrees with this request. Although at this time the required actions of this AD address the unsafe condition, additional hardware modifications, when developed and FAA-approved, could also address the unsafe condition for the long-term. Therefore, the FAA considers that the monitoring and corresponding actions required by this AD would be an interim action to address the unsafe condition, and the FAA may consider additional rulemaking on this subject. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

CFM requested that the FAA change the SB referenced in the NPRM from “LEAP-1A-72-00-0504-01A-930A-D, Issue 001, dated June 14, 2023” to “LEAP-1A-72-00-0504-01A-930A-D, Issue 002, dated October 17, 2023.” CFM noted that SB LEAP-1A-72-00-0504-01A-930A-D, Issue 002, dated October 17, 2023, contains the following revisions that are pertinent to the NPRM;

(1) A note that NSV monitoring can be performed on-wing.

(2) Correction to data labels used in the alternative procedure for NSV Monitoring with ACMS Takeoff Reports.

(3) Correction to vibration units used in the alternative procedure for NSV Monitoring with ACMS Takeoff Reports.

The FAA agrees and has updated the service information incorporated by reference from “LEAP-1A-72-00-0504-01A-930A-D, Issue 001, dated June 14, 2023” to “LEAP-1A-72-00-0504-01A-930A-D, Issue 002, dated October 17, 2023.” Requiring this updated service bulletin does not increase the scope of the AD or increase the burden on any operator over that already proposed in the NPRM.

CFM requested that the FAA remove the reference to “At the next piece-part exposure” in paragraph (g)(5) of the proposed AD. CFM stated that NSV monitoring and actions required when NSV is present are the focus of the proposed AD. CFM noted that the statement related to “At the next piece-part exposure” was taken from SB LEAP-1A-72-00-0498-01A-930A-D, Issue 001, dated June 05, 2023, for shop visit work scope recommendations for engines with potential No. 3 bearing spring finger housing wear. CFM also noted that this is already referenced in Chapter 05 of the LEAP-1A Engine Shop Manual LEAP-1A-05-11-03-01A-0B1B-C.

The FAA disagrees with the request because the commenter did not provide an adequate justification for changing the compliance time. The FAA notes that decision to include a mandatory action to remove all affected parts at the next piece-part exposure was not taken from SB LEAP-1A-72-00-0498-01A-930A-D, Issue 001, dated June 05, 2023. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

CFM requested that the FAA add the following language to the NPRM to allow customers to take credit for NSV monitoring that was performed prior to the effective date of the proposed AD, in accordance with section 5.A of SB LEAP-1A-72-00-0504-01A-930A-D, Issue 001, dated June 14, 2023; “Evaluation of the NSV of an engine, accomplished before the effective date of this AD in accordance with the instructions of section 5.A of SB LEAP-1A-72-00-0504-01A-930A-D original issue (Issue 001) and, as applicable, accomplishment of corrective actions in accordance with the instructions of SB LEAP-1A-72-00-0504-01A-930A-D original issue (Issue 001) are acceptable to comply with the requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2), as applicable, of this AD for that engine (see Note 1 of this AD). Note 1: Evaluation of the NSV of an engine, accomplished in accordance with the instructions of section 5.B (`Alternative Procedure—NSV Monitoring with ACMS Takeoff Reports') of SB LEAP-1A-72-00-0504-01A-930A-D original issue (Issue 001) is not acceptable to comply with the requirements of paragraphs (1) of this AD.”

The FAA disagrees with the request because the FAA does not believe it is necessary to provide such credit because NSV monitoring is required initially at 125 flight cycles after the effective date of the AD and repetitively at intervals of 125 flight cycles. Therefore, there would be no advantage of taking credit for NSV monitoring done before the effective date of this AD. Once the NSV data calculation exceeds the specified limits, then the affected No. 3 bearing spring finger housing must be removed from the engine and replaced with a part eligible for installation, and the AD applicability no longer applies to that engine. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

CFM requested that the FAA change compliance time language in paragraph (g)(2) of the proposed AD from, “within 150 FCs of performing the calculation” to “within 150 FCs of the flight when this threshold is exceeded.” CFM noted that there is a discrepancy in the removal compliance time language between the NPRM and CFM SB LEAP-1A-72-00-0504-01A-930A-D if NSV data exceeds the limits listed in CFM SB LEAP-1A-72-00-0504-01A-930A-D.

The FAA agrees to update the language in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD from, “within 150 FCs of performing the calculation” to “within 150 FCs of the flight when these limits are exceeded.”

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

The FAA reviewed CFM SB LEAP-1A-72-00-0504-01A-930A-D, Issue 002, dated October 17, 2023. This service information identifies affected No. 3 bearing spring finger housings and specifies procedures for monitoring NSV during engine operation. This service information also specifies procedures for replacing the No. 3 bearing spring finger housings, inspecting the stage 2 HPT nozzle assembly honeycomb and HPT stator stationary seal honeycomb, and replacing the stage 2 HPT nozzle assembly honeycomb and HPT stator stationary seal. 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 considers this AD to be an interim action. This unsafe condition is still under investigation by the manufacturer and, depending on the results of that investigation, the FAA may consider further rulemaking action.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 48 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates that 33 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry require replacement of the No. 3 bearing spring finger housing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “FAA-2024-0771 Project Identifier AD-2023-01251-E” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the final rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this final rule because of those comments.

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

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this AD contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this AD, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Alexander Thickstun, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

On October 19, 2019, a The Boeing Company Model 777 airplane, powered by GE Model GE90-115B engines, experienced an engine failure, which resulted in an aborted takeoff. A manufacturer investigation determined that the engine failure was caused by rim liberation of the interstage HPT rotor seal. Additional root cause analysis determined that rim liberation was the result of high cycle fatigue cracks initiating at the interstage seal web holes occurring from atypical intermittent operating conditions with short durations. As a result, the FAA issued Emergency AD 2019-21-51, Amendment 39-19798 (84 FR 64195, November 21, 2019) for certain GE GE90-115B model turbofan engines; Emergency AD 2020-01-55, Amendment 39-19838 (85 FR 8386, February 14, 2020) for certain GE GE90-115B model turbofan engines; and AD 2020-10-04, Amendment 39-21122 (85 FR 27909, May 12, 2020) for all GE GE90-110B1 and GE90-115B model turbofan engines with a certain interstage HPT rotor seal installed to remove affected parts from engines that had accumulated high flight cycles (FCs). Since the FAA issued those three ADs, the affected engines have continued to accumulate FCs, and the manufacturer has identified additional parts for inspection and removal. This condition, if not addressed, could result in uncontained HPT failure, release of high-energy debris, damage to the engine, damage to the airplane, and possible loss of the airplane. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

The FAA is issuing this AD because the agency has determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

The FAA reviewed GE GE90-100 Service Bulletin (SB) 72-0908 R00, dated July 7, 2023. The SB specifies procedures for performing a USI of the interstage HPT rotor seal. 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 .

This AD requires repetitive USIs of the interstage HPT rotor seal for cracks and removal from service if necessary. As a mandatory terminating action to the repetitive USIs of the interstage HPT rotor seal, this AD requires replacement of the interstage HPT rotor seal.

The FAA considers this AD to be an interim action. The unsafe condition is still under investigation by the manufacturer and, depending on the results of that investigation, the FAA may consider further rulemaking action.

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

The FAA justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because no domestic operators use this product. It is unlikely that the FAA will receive any adverse comments or useful information about this AD from any U.S. operator. Accordingly, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). In addition, for the foregoing reason(s), the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

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

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 0 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.

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

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

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

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Britten-Norman Aircraft, Ltd. Model BN-2, BN-2A, BN-2A-2, BN-2A-3, BN-2A-6, BN-2A-8, BN-2A-9, BN-2A-20, BN-2A-21, BN-2A-26, BN-2A-27, BN-2B-20, BN-2B-21, BN-2B-26, BN-2B-27, BN-2T, BN2T-4R, and BN2T-4S airplanes; and Model BN2A MK. III, BN2A MK. III-2, and BN2A MK. III-3 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on February 1, 2024 (89 FR 6452). The NPRM was prompted by AD G-2022-0017, dated September 20, 2022 (also referred to as the MCAI), issued by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which is the aviation authority for the United Kingdom (UK). The MCAI states that there have been occurrences of flight control restriction in pitch during the pilot's full and free flight control checks prior to take-off. Investigations into these occurrences revealed interference between the routing of the Koiled Kord, flight control cables, and control column, which could restrict the full and free movement of the flight controls. An incorrectly routed Koiled Kord could snag the rudder pedal adjustment cable, draw it towards the control column tube where it could snag the aileron control stop, and restrict movement of the control column tube. This increased load on the rudder pedal adjustment cable could unlock the adjustment mechanism, permitting the rudder pedals to freely move forward and aft. One of the investigations also revealed that a correctly routed Koiled Kord was entangled with an incorrectly routed rudder pedal adjustment cable, which resulted in snagging the aileron control stop. In order to address this condition, the MCAI requires an inspection using Britten-Norman Service Bulletin SB 398, Issue 2, dated May 30, 2022 (Britten-Norman SB 398, Issue 2), to ensure the Koiled Kord is correctly routed behind the instrument panel and that the rudder pedal adjustment cable and Koiled Kord are not interfering with each other.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require inspecting for interference between the control column, rudder pedal adjuster cable, and any wiring (including the Koiled Kord) concurrently with performing a flight control full and free movement inspection, and taking corrective actions if necessary. Interference between the Koiled Kord, flight control cables, and the control column, if not addressed, could result in loss of control of the airplane during flight.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2024-0044.

The FAA received a comment from an individual. The commenter 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. This AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM.

The FAA reviewed Britten-Norman SB 398, Issue 2, which specifies procedures for inspecting the cable routing behind the instrument panel to determine if the cables and wiring to the instrument panel, wiring in the surrounding area, the rudder pedal adjuster cable, and the Koiled Kord are routed securely and there is clearance to allow full and free movement of the flight controls, and if interference is found, securely tying the cables so they are clear of the control column for its full range of motion. 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 MCAI specifies that if any interference is found during the inspection for interference between the control column, rudder pedal adjuster cable, and any wiring (including the Koiled Kord) while performing a flight control full and free movement check, complete the operator feedback form in Appendix A of Britten-Norman SB 398, Issue 2, and return it to Britten-Norman Aircraft, Ltd. That action is not required by this AD.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 72 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 actions that would be required based on the results of the inspection. The agency has no way of determining the number of airplanes that might need these actions:

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.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2010-18-06, Amendment 39-16419 (75 FR 52253, August 25, 2010) (AD 2010-18-06). AD 2010-18-06 applied to all GA8 Airvan (Pty) Ltd Model GA8 and GA8-TC320 airplanes. AD 2010-18-06 was prompted by MCAI originated by CASA, which is the aviation authority for Australia. CASA Australia issued CASA Australia AD AD/GA8/3 Amdt 2, dated August 11, 2010 (CASA Australia AD/GA8/3 Amdt 2) to correct an unsafe condition identified as excessive wear in the forward cargo door slide, which could result in an in-flight separation of the cargo door, with possible loss of control of the airplane. CASA Australia AD AD/GA8/3 Amdt 2 was issued to require the actions in service information updated by the manufacturer to remove any ambiguities in the previous revision and provide an improved inspection method and a minor design change to the forward slide of the cargo door (inclusion of a slide backing plate, castellated nut, and split pin).

AD 2010-18-06 required doing all of Action 1 (measuring the groove width of the forward cargo door slide and if it exceeds 0.145 inch at any point along the slide, or is cracked, installing a new slider assembly) and Action 2 (inspecting wear of the forward slide of the cargo door and doing applicable corrective action steps specified in Action 1) of GippsAero Pty. Ltd. Mandatory Service Bulletin SB-GA8-2005-23, Issue 3, dated August 5, 2010. The FAA issued AD 2010-18-06 to address excessive wear in the forward cargo door slide.

The NPRM published in the Federal Register on January 23, 2024 (89 FR 4211). The NPRM was prompted by CASA Australia AD AD/GA8/3 amdt 3, dated August 18, 2023 (also referred to as the MCAI). The MCAI states that inspections revealed cases of excessive wear in the forward slide of the cargo door. Excessive wear in the forward slide of the cargo door may result in the cargo door separating from the airplane in flight with potentially catastrophic results. The MCAI requires accomplishing the actions specified in GippsAero Service Bulletin SB-GA8-2005-23, Issue 7, dated May 30, 2023 (GippsAero Service Bulletin SB-GA8-2005-23, Issue 7). This service bulletin includes procedures for revised inspections of the door mechanism, installing a stop on the forward slide of the cargo door and reworking the door slide to suit (accommodate) the track stop installation. Depending on the findings of the inspections, additional actions might be necessary including reworking the door mechanism pivot, upgrading the door operating rod, or fitting a door handle with an integral stop.

The FAA is issuing this AD to address excessive wear in the forward slide of the cargo door. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in the cargo door separating from the airplane during flight, with potential loss of control of the airplane.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2024-0035.

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.

The FAA reviewed GippsAero Service Bulletin SB-GA8-2005-23, Issue 8, dated October 11, 2023 (GippsAero SB-GA8-2005-23, Issue 8). This service information specifies procedures for installing a backing plate on the forward slide of the cargo door; inspecting the forward slide of the cargo door for excessive wear; inspecting the cargo door latching mechanism for contact between the operating rod and door handle pivot post, inspecting the threaded studs and rod ends at both ends of the operating rod for bending, and checking the cargo door handle engagement with the catch; reworking the cargo door handle pivot post; reworking the door operating rod; inspecting the door handle to determine if an integrated stop is installed and checking for excessive play; and inspecting the center rail of the cargo door to determine if an aft stop is installed, installing an aft stop, and reworking the center rail of the cargo door to accommodate the track stop.

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 MCAI applicability is Gippsland Aeronautics Model GA8 Series airplanes, all serial numbers. The applicability in this AD is GA8 Airvan (Pty) Ltd Model GA8 and GA8-TC320 airplanes because the FAA type certificate specifies GA8 Airvan (Pty) Ltd instead of Gippsland Aeronautics and specifies Model GA8 and GA8-TC320 airplanes instead of Model GA8 Series airplanes.

The MCAI requires doing the actions in Gippsland Aeronautics mandatory service bulletin SB-GA8-2005-23 Issue 7, dated May 30, 2023. This AD requires doing the actions in GippsAero SB-GA8-2005-23, Issue 8. After the MCAI was published, the manufacturer issued GippsAero SB-GA8-2005-23, Issue 8, which was revised to provide clarification regarding the actions and compliance schedule. The title page of GippsAero SB-GA8-2005-23, Issue 8, specifies GippsAero instead of Gippsland Aeronautics.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 61 airplanes of U.S. registry.

The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD. The corresponding letter and number in parenthesis refer to the specific paragraph in GippsAero SB-GA8-2005-23, Issue 8.

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary actions that would be required based on the results of the inspections. The agency has no way of determining the number of airplanes that might need these actions. The corresponding letter and number in parenthesis refer to the specific paragraph in GippsAero SB-GA8-2005-23, Issue 8.

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.

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:

On October 17, 2023, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) published the direct final rule, Inclusion of Additional Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) Out Technical Standard Orders; Incorporation by Reference, in the Federal Register . 1 In that direct final rule the FAA incorporated by reference two new Technical Standard Orders (TSOs), and three RTCA documents—TSO-C166c, TSO-C154d, section 2 of RTCA DO-260C, RTCA DO-260C Change 1, and section 2 of RTCA DO-282C into 14 CFR 91.225 and 91.227. The FAA responded to comments and confirmed the direct final rule on November 28, 2023. 2

In the direct final rule, the FAA amended § 91.225 by redesignating paragraphs (h) and (i) as set out in the following redesignation table:

While the FAA discussed the redesignation of paragraphs (h) and (i), it failed to revise cross-references to those paragraphs appearing elsewhere in § 91.225. This document corrects those errors.

Accordingly, 14 CFR part 91 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:

In response to Russia's February 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine, BIS imposed extensive sanctions on Russia under the EAR as part of the final rule, “Implementation of Sanctions Against Russia Under the Export Administration Regulations (EAR)” (the Russia Sanctions Rule) (87 FR 12226, March 3, 2022). To address Belarus's complicity in the invasion, BIS imposed similar sanctions on Belarus under the EAR in a final rule, “Implementation of Sanctions Against Belarus” (“Belarus Sanctions Rule”) (87 FR 13048, March 6, 2022). During the last two years, BIS has published a number of additional final rules strengthening the export controls on Russia and Belarus, including measures undertaken in coordination with U.S. allies and partners. Most recently, in March 2024, BIS amended the EAR to strengthen export controls against Russia and other destinations by expanding controls on persons identified on the List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN List) (March 21, 2024, 89 FR 20107). As corrected by this rule, as described below under section II.C.1, § 744.8 of the EAR imposes licensing restrictions on exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) made in connection with persons designated as SDNs by the Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Asset Controls pursuant to several Russia-related Executive Orders.

In this final rule, BIS makes changes to the Russia and Belarus sanctions under the EAR to add a new license exception for “medical devices” under § 740.23 (Medical Devices (MED)). License Exception MED will authorize the export, reexport, or transfer (in country) of “medical devices” designated as EAR99 to or within Russia, Belarus, the temporarily occupied Crimea region of Ukraine, or the covered regions of Ukraine. Items subject to the EAR that are not on the Commerce Control List (CCL) in supplement no. 1 to part 774 of the EAR are designated as EAR99. License Exception MED will also authorize “parts,” “components,” “accessories,” and “attachments” designated as EAR99 that are exclusively for use in or with “medical devices” designated as EAR99.

The purpose of this final rule is to create a new license exception that will authorize (subject to certain terms and conditions) certain exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) that BIS generally has been approving under the licensing application review policies set forth in §§ 746.5, 746.6, and 746.10 of the EAR. New License Exception MED includes terms and conditions to ensure that only those exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) that are in U.S. national security and foreign policy interests will be authorized.

This final rule also makes conforming changes to the EAR to reflect the addition of this new license exception.

Lastly, this final rule makes two corrections to the EAR, consisting of: one correction to an end-user control under the EAR that was impacted by the final rule, “Export Administration Regulations End-User Controls: Imposition of Restrictions on Certain Persons Identified on the List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN List),” published March 21, 2024 (89 FR 20107); and a cross-reference correction to the final rule, “Implementation of Additional Sanctions Against Russia and Belarus Under the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and Refinements to Existing Controls,” published January 25, 2024 (89 FR 4804).

The three sets of changes this final rule makes are described in section II as follows:

A. Addition of License Exception Medical Devices (MED);

B. Conforming changes to the EAR made in connection with the addition of License Exception MED; and

C. Correction to the March 21, 2024, final rule addressing EAR controls for certain Specially Designated Nationals (SDNs) and correction to the January 25, 2024, Russia sanctions final rule.

In part 740 (License Exceptions), this final rule adds a new license exception to the EAR under § 740.23 (Medical Devices (MED)).

This final rule adds paragraph (a) ( Scope) to specify that License Exception MED authorizes the export, reexport, or transfer (in country) of “medical devices” designated as EAR99 to Russia, Belarus, the temporarily occupied Crimea region of Ukraine, or the covered regions of Ukraine. See the Supplement No. 3 to Part 774—Statements of Understanding under paragraph (a) (Statement of Understanding—medical equipment) for guidance on classifying medical equipment and the definition of “medical device” in § 772.1 of the EAR. Exporters, reexporters, or transferors that need assistance in classifying their items to determine whether they are designated as EAR99 may submit classification requests to BIS using the Simplified Network Application Process (SNAR-R) available on the BIS website at https://www.bis.doc.gov.

The second sentence of paragraph (a) specifies that License Exception MED is also available to authorize “parts,” “components,” “accessories,” and “attachments” designated as EAR99 that are exclusively for use in or with “medical devices” designated as EAR99. Due to the importance of “parts,” “components,” “accessories,” and “attachments” for the use of “medical devices,” these commodities are also included as part of this authorization. The criterion “exclusively for use in or with “medical devices” designated as EAR99” is intended to limit the types of “parts,” “components,” “accessories,” and “attachments” that may be exported, reexported, or transferred (in-country) under License Exception MED, to those which are necessary for replacement or maintenance in or with medical devices, which will also reduce the likelihood of diversion to industrial or military end uses. The last sentence of paragraph (a) specifies that License Exception MED authorizes transactions involving EAR99 designated items that would otherwise require a license pursuant to §§ 746.5, 746.6 or 746.10 of the EAR, provided the terms and conditions described in § 740.23 are met.

License Exception MED does not overcome any license requirements imposed under § 746.8 or any other EAR license requirement ( e.g., those specified under part 744) other than those specified under §§ 746.5, 746.6, or 746.10. Additionally, as with any EAR license exception, exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) under License Exception MED may be restricted under § 740.2 (Restrictions on All License Exceptions).

This final rule adds paragraph (b) (Restrictions) to specify that License Exception MED does not authorize the export, reexport, or transfer (in country) of any item that meets the restrictions under paragraph (b)(1), (2), or (3) of § 740.23. Paragraph (b)(1) specifies that License Exception MED is not available when a “proscribed person,” as defined in § 772.1, is a party to the transaction as described in § 748.5(c) through (f) of the EAR. This final rule also includes an illustrative list in a parenthetical phrase that provides some examples of “proscribed persons” (including but not limited to `military end users' see §§ 744.17(e) and 744.21(g)) or in situations in which an entity on the Entity List in supplement no. 4 to part 744 or on the Military End-User (MEU) List) that are excluded from being parties to the transaction. License Exception MED may not be utilized to help support the Russian industrial base (in particular, the Russian medical device industry) or enable “proscribed persons” or entities to receive eligible items. Paragraph (b)(2) restricts any export, reexport, or transfers (in-country) destined to a “production” “facility,” as those terms are defined in § 772.1. For the same reason, this final rule under paragraph (b)(3) restricts any export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) destined to Russia, Belarus, the temporarily occupied Crimea region of Ukraine, or the covered regions of Ukraine when the exporter, reexporter, or transferor has “knowledge” that the items are intended to develop or produce items. This final rule also adds a Note 1 to paragraphs (b)(2) and (3), to specify that the assembly in a hospital or other health care “facility” of a finished “medical device” completely “produced” outside of Russia, Belarus, the temporarily occupied Crimea region of Ukraine, or the covered regions of Ukraine for the sole purpose of using that “medical device” at that facility is not considered a “production” activity for purposes of these two paragraphs.

This final rule adds paragraph (c) ( Verification) to impose a requirement on exporters, reexporters, and transferors to maintain a system of distribution that ensures that “medical devices” are not delivered to “proscribed persons” or entities engaged in the “production” of any product. Exporters, reexporters, and transferors are responsible for ensuring that the items being exported, reexported, or transferred (in-country) are not diverted contrary to the terms and conditions of License Exception MED. The paragraph (c) text specifies that the verification of the effectiveness of the distribution system may entail obtaining certain information from a consignee ( e.g., obtaining affirmations or other documentation from a consignee as part of an exporter, reexporter, or transferor's compliance program) for ensuring that the use and disposition of “medical devices” received under License Exception MED meet the required terms and conditions.

This final rule under paragraph (c) also provides another illustrative example for how the verification of the effectiveness of the distribution system may be confirmed by the exporter, reexporter, or transferor by conducting periodic on-site spot checks. This final rule includes criteria in a parenthetical phrase that follows the phrase `or performing periodic on-site spot-checks' to provide illustrative examples of the verification methods that may be adopted to ensure the effectiveness of the distribution system when an exporter, reexporter, or transferor decides to use conducting periodic on-site spot checks. Specifically, this final rule specifies in that parenthetical phrase that a verification system may include periodic on-site spot-checks in Russia, Belarus, the temporarily occupied Crimea region of Ukraine, or the covered regions of Ukraine, by the exporter, reexporter, or transferor; an internationally accredited auditing firm; or by an internationally recognized non-governmental humanitarian organization.

This final rule under paragraph (d) ( Recordkeeping and review of records), specifies that in addition to complying with the recordkeeping requirements in part 762 of the EAR, that exporters, reexporters, and transferors must maintain records of verification, as specified in paragraph (d), for 5 five years, and, upon request, these records must be provided to BIS, or any other official of the United States designated by BIS, for review.

BIS estimates the new License Exception MED under § 740.23 will result in a reduction of 3,900 license applications being submitted to BIS annually.

In § 746.5 (Russian and Belarusian industry sector sanctions), this final rule revises paragraph (c)'s (License exceptions) introductory text, to add a reference to new paragraph (c)(8) (License Exception MED), an additional license exception that may overcome the license requirements set forth in this section. This final rule also adds paragraph (c)(8) (License Exception MED), including adding a cross reference to new § 740.23 of the EAR.

In § 746.6 (Temporarily occupied Crimea region of Ukraine and covered regions of Ukraine), this final rule adds a new paragraph (c)(7) (License Exception MED), including adding a cross reference to new § 740.23 of the EAR.

In § 746.10 (`Luxury goods' sanctions against Russia and Belarus and Russian and Belarusian oligarchs and malign actors), this final rule revises paragraph (c) (License Exceptions) introductory text to add a reference to new paragraph (c)(8) (License Exception MED) as an additional license exception that may overcome the license requirements in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. This final rule also adds paragraph (c)(8) (License Exception MED), including adding a cross reference to new § 740.23 of the EAR.

In § 762.2 (Records to be retained), this final rule revises paragraph (b) (Records retention references) to add a new paragraph (b)(55) (§ 740.23, License Exception MED) and makes two conforming changes by revising paragraph (b)(53) to remove the word “and” and revising paragraph (b)(54) to replace the period with a semi-colon to reflect the addition of new paragraph (b)(55).

This final rule makes a conforming change correction to § 744.11 to reflect the revisions made to § 744.8 in the March 24, 2024, final rule, “Export Administration Regulations End-User Controls: Imposition of Restrictions on Certain Persons Identified on the List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN List),” (89 FR 20107). Specifically, this final rule removes the fourth sentence of paragraph (b) introductory text that specified that § 744.11 “may not be used to place on the Entity List any party to which exports or reexports require a license pursuant to § 744.8, § 744.12, § 744.13, § 744.14, or § 744.18” because it is no longer needed or accurate. Sections 744.12 through 744.14 and 744.18 were reserved as of March 24, 2024. Note 2 to paragraph (a) of the revised § 744.8 provides guidance that the Entity List in supplement no. 4 to part 744 includes certain persons that have also been designated with certain identifiers on the SDN List. Note 2 includes a cross reference that directs persons to § 744.11 and supplement no. 4 to part 744 for requirements, including license review policies, for these entities, which take precedence over the requirements in § 744.8.

This final rule makes a cross-reference correction to § 746.10 to add a reference to paragraph (c)(7) to reflect that License Exception CCD is intended to be available to overcome the license requirements under § 746.10(a)(1) as described in the Background section of the January 25, 2024, final rule, “Implementation of Additional Sanctions Against Russia and Belarus Under the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and Refinements to Existing Controls,” published January 25, 2024 (89 FR 4804), but the regulatory cross-reference was not updated to reflect paragraph (c)(3) was redesignated as paragraph (c)(7) in the January 25, 2024 final rule. This final rule corrects § 746.10(c) introductory text to make a needed cross-reference correction to specify that License Exception CCD is available.

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) (codified, as amended, at 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. To the extent it applies to certain activities that are the subject of this rule, the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (TSRA) (codified, as amended, at 22 U.S.C. 7201-7211) also serves as authority for this rule.

1. BIS has examined the impact of this rule as required by Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094, which 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 ( e.g., potential economic, environmental, public, health, and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Pursuant to E.O. 12866, as amended, this final rule has not been determined to be a “significant regulatory action.”

2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person 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 rule involves the following OMB-approved collections of information subject to the PRA:

• OMB Control Number 0694-0088, “Multi-Purpose Application,” which carries a burden hour estimate of 29.4 minutes for a manual or electronic submission;

• OMB Control Number 0694-0096 “Five Year Records Retention Period,” which carries a burden hour estimate of less than one minute; and

• OMB Control Number 0607-0152 “Automated Export System (AES) Program,” which carries a burden hour estimate of three minutes per electronic submission.

This rule changes the respondent burden for control number 0694-0088 by reducing the estimated number of submissions by 3,900, which is expected to reduce the current approved estimates, which will result in a reduction of 1,911 burden hours saved and cost savings to the public of $72,618 under this collection. The respondent burden under controls numbers 0694-0096 and 0607-0152 are not anticipated to change as a result of this final rule.

Current information regarding all three collections of information—including all background materials—can be found at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain by using the search function to enter either the title of the collection or the OMB Control Number.

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

4. Pursuant to section 1762 of ECRA (50 U.S.C. 4821), this action is exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553) requirements for notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation, and delay in effective date. While section 1762 of ECRA provides sufficient authority for such an exemption, this action is also independently exempt from these APA requirements because it involves a military or foreign affairs function of the United States (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)).

5. Because neither the Administrative Procedure Act nor any other law requires that notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this rule, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) are not applicable. Accordingly, no Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is required and none has been prepared.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, parts 740, 744, 746, and 762 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730 through 774) are amended as follows:

We are announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Revocation of Uses of Partially Hydrogenated Oils in Foods: Guidance for Industry; Small Entity Compliance Guide.” We are issuing this SECG consistent with our good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The SECG represents the current thinking of FDA on this topic. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

In the Federal Register of August 9, 2023 (88 FR 53764), we published a direct final rule entitled “Revocation of Uses of Partially Hydrogenated Oils in Foods” (“the final rule”). The final rule amends our regulations that provide for the use of partially hydrogenated oils (PHOs) in food in light of our determination that PHOs are no longer generally recognized as safe (GRAS).

The final rule:

• Removes PHOs as an optional ingredient in the standards of identity for canned tuna and for peanut butter at §§ 161.190 (21 CFR 161.190) and 164.150 (21 CFR 164.150), respectively;

• Revises our regulations affirming food substances as GRAS pertaining to menhaden oil (21 CFR 184.1472) and to low erucic acid rapeseed oil (LEAR oil) (21 CFR 184.1555) to no longer include partially hydrogenated forms of these oils;

• Deletes the regulation affirming partially hydrogenated fish oil as GRAS as an indirect food substance (21 CFR 186.1551); and

• Revokes prior sanctions for the use of PHOs in margarine, shortening, and bread, rolls, and buns. (A “prior sanction” exempts a specific use of a substance in food from the definition of food additive and from all related food additive provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act if the use was sanctioned or approved before September 6, 1958. In accordance with our general regulations regarding prior sanctions, we may revoke a prior sanctioned use of a food ingredient where scientific data or information demonstrate that prior-sanctioned use of the food ingredient may be injurious to health (see 21 CFR 181.1).)

The final rule became effective on December 22, 2023 (88 FR 86580, December 14, 2023).

Because we revised, removed, or revoked the regulations mentioned above, the SECG informs small entities that they should no longer use:

• PHOs as an optional ingredient in canned tuna under the standard of identity for canned tuna at § 161.190;

• PHOs as an optional ingredient in peanut butter under the standard of identity for peanut butter at § 164.150;

• Partially hydrogenated versions of menhaden oil or LEAR oil as a direct food substance;

• Partially hydrogenated fish oil as an indirect food substance used as a constituent of cotton and cotton fabrics used for dry food packaging; and

• PHOs as an ingredient in margarine, shortening, bread, rolls, and buns.

FDA tentatively concludes that this guidance contains no collection of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is not required.

Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at https://www.fda.gov/FoodGuidances, https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents, or https://www.regulations.gov. Use the FDA website listed in the previous sentence to find the most current version of the guidance.

FDA is amending the food additive regulation at 21 CFR 573.500 Condensed, extracted glutamic acid fermentation product for use in animal feed to update the production organism Corynebacterium lilium that has been scientifically reclassified to Corynebacterium glutamicum. This action is being taken to improve the accuracy and clarity of the regulations.

Publication of this document constitutes final action under the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 553). FDA has determined that notice and public comment are unnecessary because this amendment to the regulations provides only technical changes to update scientific nomenclature and is nonsubstantive.

Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and the Public Health Service Act, and under the authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 573 is amended as follows:

In response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the Coast Guard instituted several temporary security zones in the Trans-Alaska Pipeline (TAPS) Terminal and Port Valdez areas. Between 2002 and 2004, Coast Guard published several proposed and supplemental proposed rulemakings to establish security zones in the area. This culminated with a final rule (71 FR 2152) published on January 13, 2006, which established the current permanent security zones in 33 CFR 165.1710.

The current TAPS Terminal security zone encompasses a waterside portion and 2000 yards inland, which includes the shoreside portion of the terminal and adjacent land. The Coast Guard has never exercised any legal authority, nor has it enforced regulations within the inland portion of the security zone. The Captain of the Port Prince William Sound (COTP) determined that the current practice of non-enforcement within the inland portion of the security zone could create confusion for future stakeholders and the public. It would be an arbitrary and unreasonable burden upon the facility and industry employees who have freely entered the inland portion without COTP permission for decades if a COTP were to begin enforcing their authority over the inland portion of the security zone in the future.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70051 and 70124.

On February 20, 2024, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Security Zone; Port Valdez and Valdez narrows, Valdez, AK (89 FR 13015). There we stated why we issued the NPRM and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this security zone. During the comment period that ended March 22, 2024, we received no comments.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70051 and 70124. The COTP determined that the current practice of non-enforcement within the inland portion of the security zone could create confusion for future stakeholders and the public. It would be an arbitrary and unreasonable burden upon the facility and industry employees who have freely entered the inland portion without COTP permission for decades if a COTP were to begin enforcing their authority over the inland portion of the security zone in the future. The purpose of this rule is to prevent future confusion.

As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published February 20, 2024. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.

The COTP is amending the current security zone found in 33 CFR 165.1710(a)(1) to excise the 2000-yard inland portion of the zone. This will result in the security zone encompassing only the water up to the shoreline. The regulatory text we are amending appears at the end of this document.

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.

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the size and location of the current waterside portion security zone remaining the same. Moreover, the landside portion of the facility has had other security regulations in place for roughly two decades.

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 no 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.

This regulatory change would not affect any small entities, as the COTP does not enforce the requirements for the landside portion of the security zone, and the waterside security zone coordinates will remain unchanged.

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 excising the 2000-yard inland portion TAPS Terminal security zone. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(b) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1.

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

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.

On January 31, 2024 (89 FR 6082), EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for the State of New Hampshire. The NPRM proposed approval of New Hampshire's amended regulation for the state's Enhanced Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) program. The formal SIP revision was submitted by New Hampshire on September 22, 2022. The rationale for EPA's proposed action is explained in the NPRM and will not be restated here. No public comments were received on the NPRM.

EPA is approving New Hampshire's amended I/M regulation as a revision to the New Hampshire SIP.

EPA is incorporating New Hampshire's I/M program regulation, Saf-C 3200 “Official Motor Vehicle Inspection Requirements,” by reference into the New Hampshire SIP. New Hampshire's I/M program regulation contains enforcement provisions that detail state enforcement procedures, including administrative, civil, and criminal penalties, and administrative and judicial procedures. Such enforcement-related provisions are required elements of an I/M SIP under 40 CFR 61.364, and EPA is finalizing the approval of the provisions as meeting those requirements. However, EPA is not finalizing the incorporation of those provisions by reference into the EPA-approved federal regulations at 40 CFR part 52. In any federal action to enforce violations of the substantive requirements of the New Hampshire I/M program, the relevant provisions of Section 113 or 304 of the CAA, rather than state enforcement provisions would govern. Similarly, the applicable procedures in any federal action would be the applicable federal court rules or EPA's rules for administrative proceedings at 40 CFR part 22, rather than state administrative procedures. Since the state enforcement provisions would not be applicable in a federal action, incorporating these state-only enforcement provisions into the federal regulations would have no effect. To avoid confusion to the public and regulated parties, EPA is not incorporating these provisions by reference into the EPA-approved federal regulations in the New Hampshire plan identification in 40 CFR part 52. Specifically, EPA is not incorporating New Hampshire's regulations Saf-C 3222.04(d) and Saf-C 3248 into the federal regulations at 40 CFR 52.1520(c).

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the New Hampshire Department of Safety Regulation Saf-C 3200 “Official Motor Vehicle Inspection Requirements,” which updates and clarifies the implementation of the New Hampshire I/M program, with exceptions as described in section II of this final rule. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 1 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 State implementation plan, 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. 1

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, 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 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

• 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 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, 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. 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.”

New Hampshire 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. 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. EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. 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 environmental justice for people of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

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 June 28, 2024. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

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

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

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2023-0280, in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before June 28, 2024. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2023-0280, by one of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

In the Federal Register of July 5, 2023 (88 FR 42935) (FRL-10579-05-OCSPP), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 3F9050) by ISK Biosciences Corporation, 7470 Auburn Road, Suite A, Concord, OH 44077-9703. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of flonicamid in or on the raw agricultural commodities berry, low-growing, subgroup 13-07G, except strawberry, at 1.5 ppm and strawberry at 2.0 ppm. The petition also requested removal of the existing tolerance for residues of flonicamid in or on berry, low-growing, subgroup 13-07G at 1.5 ppm.

That document referenced a summary of the petition, which is available in the docket at https://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received on the notice of filing.

Based upon review of the data supporting the petition and in accordance with its authority under FFDCA section 408(d)(4)(A)(i), EPA is amending the existing tolerance for residues of flonicamid in or on berry, low-growing, subgroup 13-07G by increasing the tolerance from 1.5 ppm to 2 ppm, rather than establishing different tolerances for berry, low-growing, subgroup 13-07G, except strawberry, and strawberry as originally requested. A revised petition was submitted by ISK Biosciences Corporation to support this change to the petitioned-for tolerance. For details, see Unit IV.C.

Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . . . .”

Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified therein, EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for flonicamid including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with flonicamid follows.

In an effort to streamline its publications in the Federal Register , EPA is not reprinting sections that repeat what has been previously published for tolerance rulemakings for the same pesticide chemical. Where scientific information concerning a particular chemical remains unchanged, the content of those sections would not vary between tolerance rulemakings, and EPA considers referral back to those sections as sufficient to provide an explanation of the information EPA considered in making its safety determination for the new rulemaking.

EPA has previously published tolerance rulemakings for flonicamid in which EPA concluded, based on the available information, that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm would result from aggregate exposure to flonicamid and established tolerances for residues of the chemical. EPA is incorporating previously published sections from these rulemakings as described further in this rulemaking, as they remain unchanged.

Toxicological profile. For a discussion of the toxicological profile of flonicamid, see Unit III. of the flonicamid tolerance rulemaking published in the Federal Register of September 20, 2023 (88 FR 64819) (FRL-11393-01).

Toxicological points of departure/levels of concern. For a summary of the toxicological points of departure/levels of concern for flonicamid used for human health risk assessment, see Table 4.0.1. of the “Flonicamid. Human Health Risk Assessment for the Petition for Amendment of Tolerances in/on Low Growing Berry Subgroup 13-07G” (hereafter the Flonicamid Human Health Risk Assessment) in docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2023-0280 at https://www.regulations.gov.

Exposure assessment. EPA's dietary exposure assessments have been updated to include the additional exposure from the increased tolerance for residues of flonicamid in or on berry, low-growing, subgroup 13-07G. The dietary exposure assessments were conducted with Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software using the Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID) Version 4.02, which uses the 2005-2010 food consumption data from the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA). An unrefined chronic dietary exposure assessment was conducted for all proposed and registered uses of flonicamid. The analysis assumed 100 percent crop treated (100% CT) and tolerance level residues for all commodities. Separate tolerances have been established for potato granules/flakes, tomato paste, and tomato puree based on processing studies. The processing factors were set to 1.0 for these commodities. The Agency's default processing factors were used for the other processed commodities for which default processing factors are available.

Drinking water and non-occupational exposures. The estimated drinking water concentrations have not changed as a result of the increased tolerance for residues of flonicamid in or on berry, low-growing, subgroup 13-07G. For a detailed summary of the drinking water analysis for flonicamid used for the human health risk assessment, see Unit III.C.2. of the flonicamid tolerance rulemaking published in the Federal Register of July 23, 2018 (83 FR 34775) (FRL-9977-82).

There are no proposed residential uses at this time; however, there are existing registered residential handler uses that were previously assessed and which resulted in no risks of concern. Registered residential use patterns are expected to result in only short-term exposures to flonicamid and, as a dermal endpoint was not selected, residential risk estimates were calculated for the inhalation route only.

Cumulative exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.” Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to flonicamid and any other substances, and flonicamid does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that flonicamid has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances.

Safety factor for infants and children. EPA continues to conclude that there are reliable data to support the reduction of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) safety factor from 10X to 1X. See Unit III. of the September 20, 2023, rulemaking for a discussion of the Agency's rationale for that determination.

Aggregate risks and determination of safety. EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing dietary (food and drinking water) exposure estimates to the acute population-adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic population-adjusted dose (cPAD). Short- and intermediate-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated total food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate points of departure to ensure that an adequate margin of exposure (MOE) exists.

No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore, flonicamid is not expected to pose an acute risk. Chronic dietary risks are below the Agency's level of concern of 100% of the cPAD; they are 91% of the cPAD for children 1 to 2 years old, the group with the highest exposure.

For short-term aggregate risk, adult residential handler exposure estimates are aggregated with adult dietary exposure estimates, which are considered background. The estimated aggregate MOE for adult handlers is 1,100 and is not of concern because it is higher than the level of concern of 100. Short-term aggregate risk estimates for children are expected to be equivalent to chronic dietary risks.

A cancer dietary assessment was not conducted as flonicamid has been determined to be “suggestive evidence of carcinogenicity, but not sufficient to assess human carcinogenicity potential.” The Agency has determined that quantification of risk using a non-linear approach ( i.e., using a chronic reference dose) adequately accounts for all chronic toxicity, including carcinogenicity that could result from exposure to flonicamid. As stated above, the chronic risks are not of concern.

Therefore, based on the risk assessments and information described above, EPA concludes there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children, from aggregate exposure to flonicamid residues. More detailed information on this action can be found in the Flonicamid Human Health Risk Assessment in docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2023-0280 at https://www.regulations.gov.

For a discussion of the available analytical enforcement method, see Unit IV.A. of the July 23, 2018, rulemaking.

In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4).

The tolerance expression for plant and livestock commodities are harmonized between the U.S. and Canada, but not Codex and Japan. Codex and Japanese residues of concern are expressed as flonicamid only, whereas U.S. residues of concern are flonicamid and its metabolites TFNA, TFNA-AM, and TFNG. Codex has an MRL for residues of flonicamid in or on low growing berries at 1.5 ppm, and Canada has MRLs for residues of flonicamid in or on bearberry; bilberry; blueberry, lowbush; cloudberry; cranberry; and lingonberry at 1.5 ppm. The existing U.S. tolerance for residues of flonicamid in or on berry, low-growing, subgroup 13-07G at 1.5 ppm is harmonized with Codex and Canadian MRLs. However, the petition requested that EPA increase the existing U.S. tolerance from 1.5 ppm to 2 ppm in order to harmonize with the Japanese MRL for residues of flonicamid in or on strawberry, cranberry, and other berries at 2 ppm and minimize barriers to imports of strawberries from Japan. Although this action is establishing a higher tolerance for residues of flonicamid in or on low growing berry, subgroup 13-07G that is no longer harmonized with Codex or Canadian MRLs, this is not expected to create a trade barrier to imports of these commodities from Codex countries and Canada since commodities that comply with the lower Codex and Canadian MRLs could be imported into the U.S. For these reasons, EPA has determined it is appropriate to amend the tolerance for residues of flonicamid in or on low growing berry, subgroup 13-07G from 1.5 ppm to 2 ppm, as petitioned.

EPA is amending the existing tolerance for residues of flonicamid in or on berry, low-growing, subgroup 13-07G by increasing the tolerance from 1.5 ppm to 2 ppm, rather than establishing different tolerances for berry, low-growing, subgroup 13-07G, except strawberry, and strawberry as originally requested. Because strawberry is the representative commodity for berry, low-growing, subgroup 13-07G, it may not be excepted from the crop subgroup under 40 CFR 180.40(h). A revised petition was submitted by ISK Biosciences Corporation to support this change to the petitioned-for tolerance.

Therefore, the established tolerance for residues of flonicamid in or on berry, low-growing, subgroup 13-07G is amended from 1.5 ppm to 2 ppm.

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

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

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

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

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

Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending 40 CFR chapter 1 as follows:

The BLM completed the C-CD Resource Management Plan (RMP) amendment on June 23, 2021, to establish land use decisions that protect the objects and values of the C-CD unit of the CCNM and to support responsible recreation opportunities. Public participation during planning for the use and enjoyment of the C-CD unit indicates that it will be a popular area for recreating, and a supplementary rule is needed to allow for law enforcement to enforce land-use decisions for managing recreation and to protect cultural and natural resources.

This final supplementary rule will apply to all the BLM-managed lands in the C-CD unit. Persons performing essential operations central to the BLM's mission will be exempt. Such persons include, for example, members of any organized law enforcement, rescue, or fire-fighting force.

The final supplementary rule is needed to provide consistency and uniformity for visitors to BLM-managed lands, prevent resource damage and user conflicts, and provide greater safety to the visiting public.

Resource Damage: Presidential Proclamation 9563 added the C-CD unit to the CCNM and identified objects to be protected. To ensure protection of the objects identified in Proclamation 9563, particularly biological and cultural objects, the final rule prohibits use and occupancy of the C-CD from 1/2 hour after sunset to 1/2 hour before sunrise. The final supplementary rule requires visitors to stay on roads and trails designated open for non-motorized and mechanized use. The supplementary rule requires pets to be on a leash at all times, and visitors are prohibited from leaving a pet unattended or allowing pet feces to remain on C-CD, other than within trash receptacles provided for such purposes.

Public Safety: As visitation increases among all types of recreational users, so do the conflicts between user groups. In crowded areas, conflicts among users increase risk to visitor safety. Other recreationists and nearby landowners also have concerns for their personal safety, as well as damage to property. To ensure public safety and reduce the risk of wildfire, the final supplementary rule prohibits recreational target shooting, camping, and fires of any kind. To minimize other visitor-use conflicts, the final supplementary rule prohibits leaving property unattended for more than 24 hours, building any structure, placing signs of any kind, and the possession or use of metal detecting devices. The supplementary rule prohibits taking off or landing of aircraft, including unmanned aircraft systems, paragliding, hang-gliding, and similar recreational uses within the C-CD unit of the CCNM.

At present, no supplementary rules are in effect for BLM-managed public lands in the C-CD unit. Therefore, this supplementary rule is needed to address management issues and concerns with respect to public use of this area.

The authority for this supplementary rule is set forth at sections 303 and 310 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, 43 U.S.C. 1733 and 1740. The BLM is issuing this supplementary rule under the authority of 43 CFR 8365.1-6, which allows BLM State Directors to establish supplementary rules for the protection of persons, property, and public lands and resources.

On November 29, 2022, the BLM published a proposed supplementary rule (87 FR 73276), initiating a 60-day public comment period that ended on January 29, 2023. The BLM received 16 unique comments signed by 54 individuals and organizations on the proposed supplementary rule.

Eleven of the unique comments did not specifically address the proposed supplementary rule. The BLM made no changes to the final supplementary rule based on these unrelated comments.

The remainder of the comments provided suggestions for how the BLM could make the final rule clearer and provide additional protection of resources.

Public comments expressed support for the supplementary rule and the importance of adhering to the BLM's policy and guidance for lands within the National Landscape Conservation System.

Public comments suggested the BLM clarify Rules 3, 7, 19, and 21. The BLM did not make changes to Rules 3, 7, 19, or 21 in response to these comments. The BLM disagrees with the commenters that the language needs clarifying. The proposed and final rules are written in plain language and need no further explanation.

Public comments also recommended that the BLM change Rule 17 to prohibit “unlawfully taking or possessing wildlife, plants, or plant communities, or portions thereof, listed as Objects of the Monument.” However, BLM law enforcement already has authority to issue citations for removal and destruction of plants, except as permitted, under 43 CFR 8365.1-5(a)(2). No changes were made to Rule 17 because the purpose of this rule is to allow the BLM to enforce hunting restrictions that are consistent with California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) regulations. As noted by the comments on Rule 17, the BLM plans to seek approval from CDFW to allow archery hunting at C-CD.

Public comments suggested that the BLM should also revise Rule 18 so that it mirrors the language of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), which would prohibit “disturbing, harming, or harassing wildlife, plants, or plant communities, or portions thereof, listed as objects of the Monument.” Another comment asked that proposed Rule 18 be revised to prohibit disturbing wildlife in any manner and by any means. Final Rule 18, however, is intended to address impacts from sustained loud noises because that is the particular issue that BLM believes needs to be addressed at this time. The agency does not currently believe that it is necessary to promulgate a rule that penalizes the disturbance of wildlife in any manner, and no changes were made to Rule 18. The BLM could promulgate additional wildlife-related supplementary rules in the future if the need arises.

Public comments also requested additional rules that would address problems related to fireworks; unauthorized release of translocated animals, plants, or organisms; and public interference with authorized livestock and grazing operations. The BLM did not incorporate any of these suggested additional rules into the final rule because other portions of the final rule and existing regulations already address these concerns. For example, Rule 12 will allow the BLM to enforce restrictions on fires of any kind, including fireworks. Under 43 CFR 9212.1, the BLM can also prohibit sources of ignition through its fire management and prevention rules at C-CD. Knowingly introducing weeds or pathogens is prohibited by 43 CFR 8365.1-4(a)(2) (creating a hazard or nuisance) and 43 CFR 9264.1(h). California state law CPC 597s prohibits the willful abandonment of an animal. Under 43 CFR 9264.1(e) the BLM can issue citations for molesting livestock; and 43 CFR 8365.1-5(a)(1), 43 CFR 8365.1-5(a)(2), and 43 CFR 8365.1-5(a)(3) provide additional protections for structures, natural objects, and minerals.

Ultimately, there were only two substantive changes, to proposed Rules 6 and 14, based on public comments. Proposed Rule 6 said, “established parking areas are for the use of visitors to Cotoni-Coast Dairies unit of the California Coastal National Monument only.” A commenter stated that those using parking lots are, by definition, visitors to the C-CD property by virtue of using a parking lot. To avoid having visitors use the lots to access beaches that are not in the C-CD, the commenter suggested Rule 6 be revised to say “visitors leaving vehicles in parking areas shall not depart from the Cotoni-Coast Dairies unit of the California Coastal Monument while their vehicles remain in those parking areas.” The BLM agrees with the commenter that the potential for pedestrians crossing State and County roads near the C-CD to use nearby beaches at un-marked locations is a risk to public safety. Rather than adopt the language recommended by the commenter, final Rule 6 has been reworded to clarify that “members of the public are prohibited from leaving the C-CD unit of the CCNM while their vehicle is parked in BLM-managed parking areas” Rule 6 will be prominently incorporated into the BLM's outreach and education for C-CD to inform the public that the BLM-managed parking areas are not designed to support coastal access for beach-going visitors; and the BLM's law enforcement officers will have the authority to issue citations to persons violating the rule. This change will improve public safety by reducing the frequency of visitors crossing roads at un-marked locations while attempting to use BLM-managed parking areas to access coastal beaches or adjacent lands. Similarly, another commenter suggested the BLM add a rule that would prohibit unpermitted trail improvements. Rather than include a new rule, the BLM made a minor change to final Rule 14, to explain that “construction or building of any structure, including trails, is prohibited.” This change will improve public awareness that unauthorized improvements to recreation facilities, including trails, would be a violation of the supplementary rule for C-CD unit of the CCNM.

The BLM determined that the remaining comments from individuals related to management of C-CD do not warrant changes to the final supplementary rule. For example, one commenter requested the addition of subheadings to the regulations, which is unnecessary because the final rule is already relatively short and is arranged in a logical order.

In another example, one commenter asked that the BLM include a definition for “electric mobility products,” which is used in Rule 3. The definition provided for Rule 3, which can be found in 43 CFR 8340.0-5(j), will allow the BLM to restrict the use of electric bikes. The BLM determined a definition for “electric mobility products” is not needed because it is written in plain language and encompasses a wide range of motor-powered personal mobility devices used for transporting an individual at speeds that do not normally exceed 20 miles per hour. Nothing in the final rule will diminish the BLM's responsibility to provide reasonable modifications for access in accordance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and ensure that persons with disabilities receive the benefits and services of BLM programs and activities.

Restrictions on feeding wild animals can be enforced under 43 CFR 8365 (creating a hazard or nuisance).

Commenters suggested that instead of Rule 7 prohibiting the use of public lands within the C-CD starting 1/2 hour after sunset and ending 1/2 hour before sunrise, Rule 7 should prohibit use before “sunrise” and after “sunset,” or add a definition for these two terms. Neither of these changes would make Rule 7 more effective because sunrise and sunset fluctuate daily, depending on the time of the year and the latitude and longitude of a specific location. The BLM also anticipates many visitors who enjoy watching the sunrise (or sunset) will arrive (or depart) during the 1/2 hour grace period. The plain language of Rule 7 is simple and easy to understand, and it is common for land management agencies to restrict occupancy and use of outdoor recreation areas starting 30 minutes after sunset and ending 30 minutes before sunrise.

Similarly, one comment requested that we add a definition for “service animal” to Rule 8. A definition of “service animal” that is similar to the definition in the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, has been added.

One commenter asked for an additional rule that would prohibit unauthorized commercial activities. The BLM did not include this change in the final rule because unauthorized commercial activities are already prohibited under 43 CFR 2932.57.

Commenters asked the BLM to clarify the types of persons that would be exempt from this final rule and how the public would be informed of such exemptions. The BLM did not make changes in response to this request because the language of the final supplementary rule plainly states that exempt persons include any Federal, State, or local officer or employee in the scope of their duties; members of any organized law enforcement, rescue, or fire-fighting force in performance of an official duty; and any person whose activities are authorized in writing by the BLM. Based on the standard exemption language, the BLM's authorized officer can provide written approval to persons that support operations necessary to pursue the BLM's goals and objectives for C-CD. Examples include, but are not limited to, livestock operators, scientists and other researchers, Tribal members, contractors, volunteers, and existing rights holders.

Comments related to development of BLM management plans and resource inventories are outside the scope of this final supplementary rule. Accordingly, the BLM made no changes in response to those comments. As stated earlier, this final supplementary rule is based on management actions listed in the Decision Record for the C-CD RMP amendment, approved on June 23, 2021, and the original CCNM RMP completed in 2005, both of which involved extensive public involvement.

The final supplementary rule will allow the BLM to enforce portions of the C-CD RMP amendment and other existing policies that guide management and protection of monument objects and values identified in Presidential Proclamation 9563, signed January 12, 2017. The public will be informed of these restrictions with signs posted along roads, in parking areas, and other important locations. Additional public notice of the BLM final supplementary rule will be provided through local news releases, social media, and information published on maps, brochures, educational materials, and websites. As a result, the final supplementary rule is expected to promote stewardship of the public lands and increase appreciation and understanding of the resource objects and values of the C-CD unit of the CCNM.

The BLM's final supplementary rule decision may be appealed to the Interior Board of Land Appeals, Office of the Secretary, in accordance with the regulations contained in 43 CFR part 4.

This final supplementary rule is not a significant regulatory action and is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866, as amended by E.O. 14094. The final supplementary rule will not have an annual effect of $200 million or more on the economy. It is not intended to affect commercial activity, but rather impose rules of conduct on recreational visitors for public safety and resource protection reasons in a limited area of public lands. This final supplementary rule will not adversely affect, in a material way, the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or Tribal governments or communities. This final supplementary rule will not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency. This final supplementary rule will not materially alter the budgetary effects of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the right or obligations of their recipients, nor does it raise novel legal or policy issues. It merely strives to protect public safety and the environment.

Congress enacted the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, to ensure that government regulations do not unnecessarily or disproportionately burden small entities. The RFA requires a regulatory flexibility analysis if a rule would have a significant economic impact, either detrimental or beneficial, on a substantial number of small entities. The final supplementary rule does not pertain specifically to commercial or governmental entities of any size, but to public recreational use of specific public lands. Therefore, the BLM has determined that under the RFA the final supplementary rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This final supplementary rule does not meet the criteria of 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This final supplementary rule merely contains rules of conduct for recreational use of public lands. This final supplementary rule will not affect business, commercial, or industrial use of the public lands.

This final supplementary rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments in the aggregate, or the private sector, of more than $100 million per year; nor will it have a significant or unique effect on small governments. This final supplementary rule does not require anything of State, local, or Tribal governments. Therefore, the BLM is not required to prepare a statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.

This final supplementary rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 12630. This final supplementary rule will not address property rights in any form and will not impair any property rights. Therefore, the BLM has determined that this final supplementary rule will not cause a taking of private property or require further discussion of takings implications under this E.O.

This final supplementary rule will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the Federal government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. This final supplementary rule will apply to a limited area of land in only one State: California. This supplementary rule contains rules of conduct for recreational use of BLM-managed public lands to protect public safety and the environment. Therefore, the BLM has determined that this final supplementary rule will not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant preparation of a federalism assessment.

Under E.O. 12988, the BLM has determined that this final supplementary rule will not unduly burden the judicial system and that the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order are met. More specifically, this final rule meets the criteria of section 3(a), which requires agencies to review all regulations to eliminate errors and ambiguity and to write all regulations to minimize litigation. This final rule also meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2), which requires agencies to write all regulations in clear language with clear legal standards.

The Department strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian Tribes through a commitment to consultation with Indian Tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and Tribal sovereignty. The BLM evaluated this final rule under the Department's consultation policy and under the criteria in E.O. 13175 to identify possible effects of the rule on federally recognized Indian Tribes. The BLM has found that this final supplementary rule will have no substantial direct effects on federally recognized Indian Tribes and that consultation under the Department's Tribal consultation policy is not required. This final supplementary rule will not affect lands held in trust for the benefit of Native American Tribes, individual Indians, Aleuts, or others.

This final supplementary rule does not contain information collection requirements that the Office of Management and Budget must approve under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

The final supplementary rule will facilitate implementation of management direction established in CCNM RMP, as amended, and the C-CD RMP amendment. The environmental impacts of the final supplementary rule were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Statement supporting the CCNM RMP and the environmental assessment (EA), dated September 25, 2020, supporting the C-CD RMP amendment. Therefore, additional NEPA analysis is not necessary.

This final supplementary rule will not comprise a significant energy action. This supplementary rule will not have an adverse effect on energy supplies, production, or consumption. It only addresses rules of conduct for recreational use of BLM-managed public lands to protect public safety and the environment and has no connection with energy policy.

The principal author of the final supplementary rule is Nicholas Lasher, BLM Law Enforcement Officer for the Central Coast Field Office, California.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, and under the authority for supplementary rules at 43 U.S.C. 1740 and 43 CFR 8365.1-6, the California State Director, Bureau of Land Management, establishes a final supplementary rule for all public lands included in the Cotoni-Coast Dairies (C-CD) unit of the California Coastal National Monument (CCNM) to read as follows:

Designated roads and trails means any road or trail that the BLM has posted as open for public use.

Pet means any domestic animal that is not classified as a “service animal.”

Public lands means any lands or interest in lands managed by the BLM.

Public road means any road, dirt or otherwise, on which public motorized vehicular traffic is permitted.

Recreational target shooting means shooting a weapon for recreational purposes when game is not being legally pursued. Weapon includes any firearm, cross bow, bow and arrow, paint gun, fireworks, or explosive device capable of propelling a projectile either by means of an explosion or by string or spring.

Service animal means a dog, or other animal, that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for people with disabilities.

Traffic control devices means markers, signs, and signal devices used to inform, guide, and control traffic, including pedestrians, motorists, cyclists, or electronic mobility products.

Unattended pet means any pet that is unaccompanied by an owner or handler, even if on a tether, within a crate, or within an unoccupied motor vehicle.

Unmanned aircraft system means any aircraft without a human pilot on board ( e.g., drones).

Restrictions on public lands in the C-CD unit of the CCNM:

1. All public use is restricted to designated roads and trails.

2. Bicycles and bicycle riding are prohibited except on designated roads and trails that are posted as open for bicycle and bicycle riding use.

3. Electric bicycles, as defined in 43 CFR 8340.0-5(j), are prohibited except on roads designated for such use in accordance with applicable law. All other electric mobility products are prohibited except within established parking areas and public roads, and in accordance with applicable law.

4. Horseback riding is prohibited except on designated roads and trails that are posted as open for horseback riding use.

5. Violating any posted sign, rule, or notification, including any traffic control device, is prohibited.

6. Members of the public are prohibited from leaving the C-CD unit of the CCNM while their vehicle is parked in BLM-managed parking areas.

7. Use and occupancy of all lands within the C-CD are prohibited from 1/2 hour after sunset to 1/2 hour before sunrise.

8. Pets are prohibited except on designated roads and trails that are posted as open for their use. Service animals are exempt from this rule.

9. All pets must be physically restrained, or on a leash or cord not to exceed 6 feet in length, at all times.

10. Visitors are prohibited from leaving a pet unattended.

11. It is unlawful for the owner or person having custody of any pet to allow pet feces to remain on C-CD, either willfully or through failure to exercise due care or control, other than within trash receptacles provided for such purposes.

12. Fires of any kind are prohibited, including open fire, wood, charcoal, and gas.

13. Abandoning property or leaving property unattended for more than 24 hours is prohibited. The BLM may remove and appropriately dispose of unattended property.

14. Construction or building of any structure, including trails, is prohibited.

15. Placing flagging, markings, or signs of any kind is prohibited.

16. Possession or use of a mineral or metal detector, magnetometer, side scan sonar, other metal detecting device, or sub-bottom profiler is prohibited.

17. The taking of wildlife, except for authorized hunting activities in accordance with California Department of Fish and Wildlife regulations, and possessing unlawfully taken wildlife or portions thereof, is prohibited.

18. Knowingly or willfully disturbing wildlife with audio devices, including speakers, air horns, and musical instruments, is prohibited.

19. Taking off or landing of aircraft, including unmanned aircraft systems, is prohibited.

20. Taking off or landings a paraglider, hang-glider, or similar recreational equipment is prohibited within the C-CD unit of the CCNM.

21. Recreational target shooting is prohibited.

The following persons are exempt from these final supplementary rules: Any Federal, State, or local officer or employee in the scope of their duties; members of any organized law enforcement, rescue, or fire-fighting force in performance of an official duty; and any person whose activities are authorized in writing by the BLM.

Any person who violates any part of the final supplementary rule may be tried before a United States Magistrate and fined in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 3571, imprisoned no more than 12 months under 43 U.S.C. 1733(a) and 43 CFR 8360.0-7, or both. In accordance with 43 CFR 8365.1-7, State or local officials may also impose penalties for violations of California and local law.

This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order in WT Docket No. 20-33, FCC 24-16; adopted on January 24, 2024 and released on January 26, 2024. The full text of this document (as corrected by Erratum released on April 10, 2024) is available at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-16A1.pdf.

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated into the Modernizing and Expanding Access to the 70/80/90 GHz Bands, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (70/80/90 GHz NPRM) released in June 2020 (85 FR 40168, July 6, 2020). The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the NPRM, including comments on the IRFA. No comments were filed addressing the IRFA. This present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.

The Commission will submit the Report and Order to the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, for concurrence as to whether this rule is “major” or “non-major” under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

1. In the United States, the 71-76 GHz, 81-86 GHz, 92-94 GHz, and 94.1-95 GHz bands (collectively, the 70/80/90 GHz bands) are allocated on a co-primary basis for Federal and non-Federal use, as follows.

In the 71-76 GHz (70 GHz) and 81-86 GHz (80 GHz) bands Fixed, Mobile, and Broadcasting services must not cause harmful interference to, nor claim protection from, Federal Fixed-Satellite Service operations located at 28 military installations. In addition, in the 80 GHz band, and in the 92-94 GHz and 94.1-95 GHz bands (collectively, the 90 GHz band), licensees proposing to register links located near 18 radio astronomy observatories must coordinate their proposed links with those observatories. The 94-94.1 GHz frequencies are allocated for Federal use for Earth Exploration Satellite (active), Radiolocation, and Space Research (active) and for non-Federal use for Radiolocation. Additionally, the adjacent 86-92 GHz band is allocated for Federal and non-Federal Earth Exploration-Satellite (passive), Space Research (passive), and Radio Astronomy services and is subject to footnote US246.

2. In 2003, the Commission established service rules for non-Federal use of the 70/80/90 GHz bands through a two-step, non-exclusive licensing regime. Users first obtain a nationwide, non-exclusive license for the entire 12.9 gigahertz of the 70/80/90 GHz bands and then register individual links in a database administered by third-party database managers. Since 2004, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) has designated four entities to be database managers; there are currently two: Comsearch and Micronet Communications, Inc. In order for a link to be registered, it must be coordinated successfully with Federal operations—typically through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration's (NTIA) online, automated mechanism. If a proposed link does not interfere with existing Federal operations then it is given a “green light;” if it may interfere with existing Federal operations, then it is given a “yellow light,” indicating that the licensee must file a registration application for the link with the FCC for coordination with NTIA. The “green light”/“yellow light” system protects the sensitive nature of the locations of military installations. Also, the licensee must provide an analysis to the third-party database manager demonstrating that the proposed link will neither cause harmful interference to, nor receive harmful interference from, any previously registered non-government link. Licensees are afforded first-in-time priority for successfully registered links relative to links that are successfully registered at a later point in time. Registered links must be constructed within 12 months of their registration. Under part 101, non-Federal licensees may use the 70/80/90 GHz bands for any point-to-point, non-broadcast service.

3. In June 2020, the Commission adopted the aforementioned 70/80/90 GHz NPRM in this proceeding, seeking comment on both adopting new rules and updating preexisting rules to further enable non-Federal uses of the 70/80/90 GHz bands. Among a range of issues and proposals—which the Commission said it would work with NTIA to evaluate—the 70/80/90 GHz NPRM sought comment on requests from Aeronet Global Communications, Inc. (Aeronet) to authorize point-to-point links to endpoints in motion in the 70 GHz and 80 GHz bands to facilitate broadband service to ships and aircraft in motion, as well as on whether to classify those links as “mobile” service (the Aeronet Petitions). Although the Aeronet Petitions proposed that endpoints in motion operations be permitted in the 70, 80 and 90 GHz bands, several parties that commented on the Aeronet Petitions expressed concerns about co-existence with other services in the 90 GHz band. The 70/80/90 GHz NPRM did not propose to authorize endpoints in motion in the 90 GHz band. Noting that the 70/80/90 GHz bands could provide a “unique spectrum resource” for “the provisioning of broadband services to airplanes, ships, and other antennas in motion,” the Commission sought comment on technical and operational rules to allow these new service offerings in the 70 GHz and 80 GHz bands and to mitigate interference to incumbents and other proposed users of these bands and adjacent bands.

4. The 70/80/90 GHz NPRM also proposed several changes to the antenna standards for the 70 GHz and 80 GHz bands to provide greater flexibility in deploying wireless backhaul, noting industry's assessment of its needs. The 70/80/90 GHz NPRM sought comment as well on whether adopting a channelization plan would promote more efficient use of the 70 GHz and 80 GHz bands. In addition, the 70/80/90 GHz NPRM asked about whether the Commission should make changes to the link registration rules for the 70, 80, and 90 GHz bands. Parties including aeronautical and satellite companies, radio astronomy interests, equipment manufacturers, fixed and mobile wireless entities, and organizations focused on meteorology filed in response to the 70/80/90 GHz NPRM. Commenters discussed Aeronet's proposals, the suitability of the bands for backhaul, and a range of ways to improve the bands' overall functionality (such as channelization and updates to the relevant antenna standards and link registration process).

5. Following the 70/80/90 GHz NPRM, in October 2021 WTB issued a Public Notice seeking to further develop the record on the use of High Altitude Platform Stations ( HAPS Public Notice ) or other stratospheric-based platform services in the 70/80/90 GHz bands. The Commission's rules define a “High Altitude Platform Station” as a “station located on an object at an altitude of 20 to 50 km and at a specified, nominal, fixed point relative to the earth.” Fifteen Comments and five Reply Comments were filed in response to the HAPS Public Notice, with participants ranging from past commenters on the original 70/80/90 GHz NPRM to additional governmental entities and public interest groups, among others.

6. In the 70/80/90 GHz NPRM, the Commission committed to coordinate with NTIA prior to adopting any rules in this proceeding that would affect Federal users, given that allocations for the 70 GHz and 80 GHz bands include both Federal and non-Federal use. In response to the 70/80/90 GHz NPRM, NTIA established a technical interchange group (TIG) with representatives from the affected Federal agencies, including National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Science Foundation, the Department of the Air Force, and NTIA itself (collectively, the Federal Agencies) (Federal Agencies Letter). Commission staff participated in regular information exchange meetings with the TIG. The Federal Agencies, through NTIA, submitted a summary of their analyses and a set of proposed interference mitigation measures to the record. On October 18, 2023, the Bureau issued a Public Notice seeking to refresh the overall record in this proceeding and seeking comment, in particular, on the Federal Agencies' proposals ( Refresh Public Notice ). Nine parties—eight of which had already participated in the record to date—filed comments in response to the Refresh Public Notice.

7. After reviewing the record, the Commission adopts rules to allow for point-to-point links to endpoints in motion—specifically, links on aircraft and on ships—in the 70 GHz and 80 GHz bands under its part 101 rules. The Commission also adopts changes to its rules to facilitate the use of the 70 and 80 GHz bands for backhaul, including through the use of smaller antennas, and to improve the accuracy of the link registration database for the 70/80/90 GHz bands. Specifically, the Commission adopts proposals to increase maximum antenna beamwidth from 1.2 degrees to 2.2 degrees; reduce minimum antenna gain from 43 dBi to 38 dBi while retaining the proportional EIRP reduction requirement; eliminate the co-polar and relax the cross-polar discrimination requirements at angles less than 5 degrees; revise the co-polar and cross-polar discrimination requirements at angles between 5 degrees and 180 degrees; and allow minor modifications to registrations in the 70/80/90 GHz bands without the loss of first-in-time rights. The Commission further adopts a channelization plan consistent with Recommendation ITU-R F.2006. Finally, the Commission adopts a requirement that licensees certify that each link is constructed and operating within 12 months of successful registration in the link registration system (LRS) administered by third-party database managers.

8. Pursuant to the Aeronet Petitions—one addressing aeronautical service, the other maritime service—the 70/80/90 GHz NPRM proposed to authorize point-to-point links to endpoints in motion on aircraft and on ships in the 70 GHz and 80 GHz bands. The 70/80/90 GHz NPRM sought comment on this proposal, with a focus on potential impacts on other services, including radio astronomy service (RAS), Earth Exploration-Satellite Service (passive) (EESS), FSS, and terrestrial fixed point-to-point links in the Fixed Service (FS).

9. As noted above, in the 70/80/90 GHz NPRM the Commission committed to coordinate with NTIA prior to adopting any rules in this proceeding that would affect Federal users; this coordination ultimately resulted in the work of NTIA's TIG and the submission of the Federal Agencies Letter, which was one of the topics specifically noted in the Commission's Refresh Public Notice. Both the Federal Agencies Letter and the responsive filings in the record have advanced the Commission's efforts to enable innovative new uses of this band in both the aeronautical and the maritime contexts, while ensuring adequate interference protection for incumbents and other authorized services in these and adjacent bands.

10. In order to facilitate increased provision of broadband service and enhanced competition in the aviation and maritime markets, the Commission adopts rules authorizing point-to-point links to endpoints in motion on aircraft and on ships, pursuant to specifications and restrictions described below. These rules will permit increased broadband access in this space while protecting important incumbent and Federal operations.

11. Classification of Services. The Aeronet Petitions requested that the Commission categorize Aeronet's proposed services as fixed services. In the 70/80/90 GHz NPRM, however, the Commission instead proposed to classify service to endpoints in motion as a mobile service, because its rules define “fixed service” as a “radiocommunication service between specified fixed points,” which endpoints in motion inherently are not. Several commenters supported the Commission's approach, including Boeing, the Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition (FWCC), and Loon, which also requested that the Commission makes sure any definition of “mobile” include mobile components of HAPS systems as well. The Wireless internet Service Providers Association (WISPA) alone opposed mobile classification, on the grounds that one endpoint of the transmission is fixed, and therefore the service does not reach “full mobility,” and also because the appropriate comparison is with the Fixed Satellite Service, which may provide service to Earth Stations in Motion (ESIMs) without being reclassified as “Mobile-Satellite Services.” WISPA also argued that if the Commission does classify services to endpoints in motion as mobile, the Commission should classify them as aeronautical mobile and maritime mobile specifically, as those terms are defined in the Commission's existing rules.

12. The Commission finds WISPA's arguments unpersuasive. Other mobile services, for example cellular service, ubiquitously involve transmissions from one fixed point (the base station) to a variety of mobile points (the cell phone), without risking reclassification as a fixed service. As between “mobile” and “aeronautical mobile,” the Commission notes that a classification as simply “mobile” encompasses aeronautical use. Similarly, as between “mobile” and “maritime mobile,” a classification as simply “mobile” encompasses maritime use. Given the otherwise favorable record, and the Commission's existing rules, the Commission concludes that the service the Commission authorize, involving transmissions to and from aeronautical endpoints in motion, is a mobile service.

13. As noted in the 70/80/90 GHz NPRM, the Commission's authorization of a mobile service in the 70 GHz and 80 GHz bands constitutes a revisiting of the Commission's previous actions in the Spectrum Frontiers proceeding. At that time, the Commission declined to authorize mobile use in the 70 GHz and 80 GHz bands, but reserved the right to revisit the issue of possible methods of promoting coexistence between fixed links and mobile operations as mobile deployments increased in other millimeter-wave bands, as technology developed, and as additional options or frameworks for coexistence of fixed and mobile services in the same band were brought forth. In the six years since the 2017 Spectrum Frontiers Order, there have been considerable advances in both technology and sharing paradigms—and Aeronet and other parties have continued to submit new analyses on possible coexistence. The Commission therefore conclude that revisiting the Commission's previous stance on this matter is warranted and appropriate. The Commission notes that the mobile services that the Commission permits pursuant to its decisions in this Report and Order are subject to significantly different rules and requirements than the part 30 rules the Commission contemplated in 2017.

14. Limitation to 70 GHz and 80 GHz Bands. In the 70/80/90 GHz NPRM, the Commission noted various concerns already in the record regarding potential harmful interference to Enhanced Flight Vision Systems (EFVS) and Foreign Object Detection (FOD) systems from Aeronet's proposed service in the 90 GHz band and, on that basis, proposed to allow endpoint-in-motion operations only in the 70 GHz and 80 GHz bands, while continuing to seek comment on the issue. Since then, additional concerns have been raised by numerous other entities regarding proposed aeronautical use of the 90 GHz band, due to both potential incompatibility with proposed use by EFVS and FOD systems, and potential harmful interference to radio astronomy and remote sensing receivers in the 86-92 GHz band and at 94.0-94.1 GHz. Given the many concerns raised in the record, and the relatively greater interest expressed in expanding use of the 70 GHz and 80 GHz bands, the Commission concludes that the risk of harmful interference to incumbent and adjacent services outweighs the benefit to consumers of allowing service to aeronautical endpoints-in-motion in the 90 GHz band. As proposed in the 70/80/90 GHz NPRM, the Commission therefore authorizes endpoint-in-motion service only in the 70 and 80 GHz bands. At this juncture, the new service covers: (1) in the aeronautical space, ground-to-air and air-to-ground transmissions between ground stations and aircraft, and air-to-air transmission between aircraft in flight; and (2) in the maritime space, ship-to-shore, shore-to-ship, shore-to-aerostat, aerostat-to-ship, aerostat-to-shore, and ship-to-ship transmissions. For purposes of both the Report and Order and Further Notice, the Commission considers the term “aerostat” to mean an airborne transmitter operating within a small specified area, below 1,000 feet of elevation, regardless of method of propulsion.

15. Coordination, Licensing, and Registration. In the 70/80/90 GHz NPRM, the Commission sought comment generally on what changes to the 70/80/90 GHz coordination, licensing, and registration framework might be necessary in order to facilitate the operation of endpoints in motion under part 101. The Commission also proposed to incorporate such operations, to the extent ultimately authorized, into the current framework of non-exclusive, nationwide licensing used for fixed point-to-point operations in these bands. The record is fairly thin on the specifics of the appropriate licensing framework; most commenters focused on whether the Commission should authorize this service as an initial matter. However, several commenters did voice support for including any new service in the existing third-party database management system.

16. In order to allow service to aeronautical and maritime endpoints in motion to deploy efficiently and without causing harmful interference to incumbent operations and other services in these bands, the applicable licensing mechanism must support adequate coordination with those other services without being unduly burdensome on both incumbent and new operators. To this end, the Commission will require prospective operators of service to aeronautical and maritime endpoints in motion to first apply for and receive a nationwide, non-exclusive license. This license will establish the prospective operator's qualification to be a licensee and will serve as a blanket license for: (1) on the aeronautical side, air-to-air operations, and as a prerequisite to register ground-to-air (GTA) stations and associated air-to-ground (ATG) transmission; and (2) on the maritime side, as a prerequisite to register ship-to-shore, shore-to-ship, shore-to-aerostat, aerostat-to-ship, and aerostat-to-shore transmissions. The Commission clarifies that as of the effective date of the rules, the Commission is adopting, all nationwide, non-exclusive licenses for the 70/80/90 GHz service will include the service areas set forth in section 101.1501, as revised.

17. In the matter of coordinating and registering individual aeronautical stations and links, the Commission proposed in the 70/80/90 GHz NPRM to require coordination and registration for not only GTA stations and ATG transmissions, but also air-to-air links between two aircraft in motion. The Commission also sought comment on how all types of links should be represented or described in their registrations, as the current system, designed for fixed point-to-point links on the ground, does not account for potential differences in altitude or the varying orientation of links to endpoints in motion. Several commenters noted the potential difficulty of coordinating air-to-air links, due not only to these different characteristics, but also their temporary and transient nature. Aeronet proposed coordinating three-dimensional polyhedrons for air-to-air links, which DSA supports, within a horizontal altitude band from 10,000 to 50,000 feet. However, concerns in the record about potential harmful interference from air-to-air transmissions stem mainly from such transmissions' specific angle, direction, or distance from specific sites (most of which would not be addressed by registration of polyhedrons) that can be addressed directly with specific limitations. Due to the difficulties of adequately representing the potential interference from these links in the existing database structure, and in light of the various interference mitigation measures the Commission also adopts (discussed below) to answer those concerns, the Commission will not require registration or coordination of individual air-to-air links.

18. In the matter of coordinating and registering individual maritime stations and links, the Commission proposed in the 70/80/90 GHz NPRM to require coordination and registration for not only ship-to-shore and shore-to-ship transmissions, but also ship-to-ship and ship-to-node ( i.e., as described in this item ship-to-aerostat). The Commission also sought comment on how all types of links should be represented or described in their registrations, as the current system—designed for two-dimensional fixed point-to-point links on the ground—does not account for potential differences in three-dimensional space-to-endpoints in motion. As explained immediately above, commenters focused on the potential difficulty of coordinating air-to-air links, and Aeronet proposed a system of three-dimensional polyhedrons for the same. Similar in-depth discussion around maritime-related links did not develop in the record.

19. After receiving the nationwide license, aeronautical operators will coordinate with Federal operators and register GTA stations and associated ATG transmissions and must not operate such facilities until registration has successfully been completed. Air-to-air operations will not be separately registered but may only operate under a nationwide license if the communication is associated with a registered GTA or ATG registration. All GTA and ATG operations, including operations transmitting to or from aeronautical endpoints in motion and associated ground stations, will be afforded protection from other operations on a first-in-time basis, and must afford those other operations the relevant first-in-time protections in turn. 2

This final rule incorporates by reference more than 20 new or updated voluntary, consensus industry technical standards (updated industry standards) within the PSRs (49 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) parts 190-199). These updated standards will maintain or improve public safety and environmental protection, prevent regulatory confusion, reduce compliance burdens on stakeholders, and satisfy a mandate in the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (15 United States Code (U.S.C.) 272 (note)) directing Federal agencies to, “when practical and consistent with applicable laws, use technical standards developed by voluntary consensus standard bodies instead of government-developed technical standards.”

PHMSA incorporates more than 80 industry standards by reference into the PSRs; however, many standards become outdated over time as new editions become available. By updating these standards, PHMSA ensures better alignment of the PSRs with the latest innovations in operational and management practices, materials, testing, and technological advancements; enhances compliance by avoiding conflict between different versions of the same industry standards; and facilitates safety-focused allocation of resources by pipeline operators. PHMSA consequently concludes that each of the updated standards in this final rule will either maintain or enhance the protection of public safety and the environment—including avoidance of greenhouse gas emissions in the form of methane releases from gas pipelines. PHMSA further concludes that each of the final rule's updated standards are technically feasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and practicable because of their respective anticipated commercial, public safety, and environmental benefits; and because the benefits better support PHMSA's safety and environmental priorities compared to alternatives, thereby justifying any associated compliance costs.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) sets the policy for Federal use and development of voluntary, consensus industry technical standards in OMB Circular A-119 (“Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities”). 1 Material that is incorporated by reference (IBR) is treated as if it were published in full in the Federal Register and the PSRs. Therefore, like any other rule issued in the Federal Register , a voluntary, consensus industry technical standard that has been incorporated by reference has the full force and effect of the law. As specified in 1 CFR 51.1(c), the Director of the Federal Register has the authority to determine whether material that is proposed for IBR serves the public interest. If a provision of an incorporated standard conflicts with a regulation, the regulation takes precedence unless the regulation expressly provides otherwise.

PHMSA has incorporated more than 80 industry standards by reference into the PSRs. The lists of publications that PHMSA has incorporated into parts 192 (which regulates the transportation of gas by pipeline) and 195 (which regulates the transportation of hazardous liquids and carbon dioxide by pipeline) are found in §§ 192.7 and 195.3, respectively. Previous rules that incorporated updated industry standards by reference were published on May 24, 1996 (61 FR 26121); February 17, 1998 (63 FR 7721); June 14, 2004 (69 FR 32886); June 9, 2006 (71 FR 33402); February 1, 2007 (72 FR 4655 (correction)); August 11, 2010 (75 FR 48593); January 5, 2015 (80 FR 168); and August 6, 2015 (80 FR 46847 (correction)). 2

The voluntary, consensus industry technical standards related to pipeline facilities that are incorporated within the PSRs are developed or adopted by domestic and international standard-development organizations (SDOs). Approximately every two to five years, these organizations use agreed-upon procedures to update and revise their published standards to reflect the latest developments in technology, testing, and operational practices. New or updated industry standards often incorporate new technologies, materials, management practices, and other innovations that can improve the physical integrity, and the safe and environmentally protective operation of pipeline facilities.

PHMSA employees participate in meetings held by 25 domestic SDOs that address the design, construction, maintenance, inspection, operation, and repair of pipeline facilities. PHMSA's subject-matter experts represent the Agency in all dealings with the SDOs; participate in discussions and technical debates; register opinions; and vote in accordance with the procedures of the SDOs at each stage of the standards-development process (unless prohibited from doing so by law). PHMSA participates in this process to ensure the Agency's safety and environmental priorities are considered, and to avoid the need to develop separate, government-unique standards.

PHMSA also regularly reviews updated editions of currently referenced industry standards and amends the PSRs to partially or fully incorporate updated standards that will enhance or maintain pipeline and environmental safety. This ensures that the PSRs incorporate and facilitate the use of the latest technologies, materials, management and operational practices, testing, and other innovations. The adoption of more recent editions of industry standards also prevents conflicts between the standards referenced in the PSRs and updated versions of the same standards with which operators and suppliers may voluntarily comply, thereby (1) avoiding the confusion and expense associated with ensuring compliance with competing versions of the same standard; and (2) improving compliance and allowing the allocation of more operator resources toward safety and environmental protection. PHMSA reviewed the updated standards discussed in this final rule and finds them appropriate for IBR within the PSRs.

Pursuant to section 24 of the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 (Pub. L. 112-90, 49 U.S.C. 60102(p), as amended), “the Secretary may not issue a regulation pursuant to this chapter that incorporates any documents or portions thereof unless the documents or portions thereof are made available to the public, free of charge.” On November 7, 2014, the Office of the Federal Register issued a final rule that revised 1 CFR 51.5 to require every Federal agency to “[d]iscuss, in the preamble of the proposed rule, the ways that the materials it proposes to incorporate by reference are reasonably available to interested parties or how it worked to make those materials reasonably available to interested parties[.]”  3

PHMSA consequently has negotiated agreements to make viewable copies of the standards available to the public at no cost with all but two of the SDOs whose updated standards PHMSA now incorporates by reference in the PSRs in this final rule. The organizations that agreed to the public access requirements of the statutory mandate discussed above are: the American Petroleum Institute (API), the American Gas Association (AGA), ASTM International (formerly the American Society for Testing and Materials), the Gas Technology Institute (GTI), the Manufacturers Standardization Society of the Valve and Fittings Industry, Inc. (MSS), the Association for Materials Protection and Performance (AMPP), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), and the Plastics Pipe Institute (PPI). 4 Each organization's mailing address and website is listed in 49 CFR parts 192 and 195. As of the date of publication of this final rule, PHMSA was not able to reach a general agreement with the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) to make the standards readily available online as ASME relies heavily on the revenue the standards generate. 5 Individuals and organizations may temporarily access the ASME standards incorporated by reference in this final rule, as well as any other standard in this final rule that is not otherwise available from the relevant SDO, by contacting PHMSA at the following email address: phmsaphpstandards@dot.gov. Such requests should include a phone number, physical address, and an email address.

The API standards incorporated in this final rule are available from the following website: https://publications.api.org/IBR-Documents-Under-Consideration.aspx.

The ASTM standards incorporated in this final rule are available from the following website: https://www.astm.org/products-services/reading-room.html.

The MSS standards incorporated in this final rule are available from the following website: https://ibr.ansi.org/standards/mss.aspx.

The AMPP: NACE standards incorporated in this final rule are available from the following website: https://ibr.ansi.org/Standards/nace.aspx.

Finally, the NFPA standards incorporated in this final rule are available from the following website: https://www.nfpa.org/Codes-and-Standards/All-Codes-and-Standards/List-of-Codes-and-Standards.

In addition, the ASME standards incorporated in this final rule are available by contacting PHMSA at the following email address: phmsaphpstandards@dot.gov.

Additional information regarding standards availability can be found at https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/standards-rulemaking/pipeline/standards-incorporated-reference.

On January 15, 2021, PHMSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking to incorporate by reference new or updated editions of voluntary, consensus industry technical standards into the PSRs. 6 PHMSA proposed to incorporate by reference all or parts of more than 20 updated industry standards and make editorial corrections to certain regulations. The NPRM described with respect to each proposed industry standard (1) the provisions within the PSR in which it is incorporated by reference; (2) how each such standard contributed to pipeline safety or environmental protection; and (3) if the standard was an update to a standard previously incorporated by reference in the PSR, any material changes between the previous version of that industry standard and the updated version proposed for incorporation in the PSR. PHMSA requested comment from the public, state pipeline safety regulators, and other stakeholders, and considered this input when drafting the final version of this rule.

On October 20 and 21, 2021, PHMSA discussed the NPRM with the Technical Pipeline Safety Standards Committee (also known as the Gas Pipeline Advisory Committee (GPAC)), and the Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards Committee (also known as the Liquid Pipeline Advisory Committee (LPAC)). These committees are statutorily mandated advisory committees that, respectively, advise PHMSA on proposed gas and hazardous liquid (including carbon dioxide) pipeline facility regulatory amendments and associated risk assessments. 7 These committees are comprised of equal representation from the government, industry, and the general public. The members of these committees review standards proposed in an NPRM for incorporation within the PSRs for cost-effectiveness, reasonableness, practicability, and technical feasibility, and provide recommendations that PHMSA considers in adopting this or any other final rule.

The Joint GPAC/LPAC Transcript from that meeting and all presentation materials are available both in the docket for the rulemaking and on the web page that PHMSA created for the meeting. 8 Additional information regarding the GPAC and LPAC recommendations on the NPRM may be found in section IV below.

On January 15, 2021, PHMSA published the NPRM proposing to incorporate by reference all or parts of more than 20 new or revised consensus standards and to make several miscellaneous editorial or technical amendments.

The comment period for the NPRM ended on March 16, 2021. PHMSA received 10 comments on the NPRM, including five late-filed comments. 9 Pursuant to 49 CFR 190.323, PHMSA considered late-filed comments along with timely-received comments, as PHMSA's consideration of those late-filed was practicable in that their review did not add additional expense or delay to PHMSA's issuance of this final rule. The commenters on the NPRM who filed before the joint GPAC/LPAC meeting are as follows: Aaron Adamczyk; the Alyeska Pipeline Service Company; an anonymous commenter; the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers; the American Petroleum Institute; ASME; the National Propane Gas Association; and a joint comment from a number of organizations, hereafter referred to as “the Associations” (the American Petroleum Institute, Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA), GPA Midstream Association, American Gas Association, and American Public Gas Association). The commenters on the NPRM who filed after the joint GPAC/LPAC meeting are as follows: a joint comment from the American Gas Association, American Petroleum Institute, American Public Gas Association, GPA Midstream Association, and Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (collectively “AAAGI”), and a joint comment from Association of Oil Pipelines, American Petroleum Institute, and GPA Midstream Association (collectively “AAG”).

PHMSA discusses below comments received from stakeholders (in written comments or during the GPAC/LPAC meeting) on a handful of specific industry standards and editorial and technical corrections proposed by the NPRM for incorporation in the PSRs. In connection with those and any other industry standards, technical corrections, and editorial corrections proposed in the NPRM, PHMSA incorporates by reference within this final rule its NPRM discussions of those proposed regulatory amendments—including but not limited to, its description in the NPRM of the content of any updated standards and corrections, and the safety and environmental benefits anticipated from those amendments. After evaluating its preliminary assessments of those proposed regulatory amendments against stakeholder comments discussed below, as well as pertinent discussion during and recommendations of the GPAC/LPAC, PHMSA concludes that adoption of its proposed regulatory amendments (as modified below) will better align the PSRs with the latest innovations in operational and management practices, materials, testing, and technological advancements; enhance compliance by avoiding conflict between different versions of the same industry standards; and facilitate safety-focused allocation of resources by pipeline operators. PHMSA therefore concludes that the each of the amendments to the PSR adopted in this final rule are technically feasible, cost-effective, reasonable, and practicable in light of their respective anticipated commercial, public safety, and environmental benefits that justify any associated compliance costs.

PHMSA received a number of comments generally supportive of its proposed IBR of updated industry standards and codification of technical and editorial corrections, with several comments calling on PHMSA to update the standards referenced in the PSRs more frequently than historical practice. A number of other comments PHMSA received on the NPRM or during the GPAC/LPAC meeting concerned retroactive application of the proposed updated industry standards; compliance timelines; minor editorial corrections to the PSR or the NPRM's proposed regulatory amendments; as well as some matters that were outside of the scope of this rulemaking.

PHMSA received one comment on the NPRM from the Alyeska Pipeline Service Company regarding the proposed IBR of an updated version of API Spec 6D. 10 API Spec 6D, whose 23rd edition is currently incorporated by reference in §§ 192.145 and 195.116, defines the design, manufacturing, assembly, testing, and documentation requirements for valves used in pipeline systems. The 24th edition of API Spec 6D includes several clarifications, safety improvements, and editorial revisions, including clarified bore tolerance specifications for full-opening valves; new procedures for installers when no minimum bore tolerances are listed in the specification; and updates specifying that calibration intervals should not exceed one year. Alyeska recommended that PHMSA should, when incorporating by reference the 24th edition of API Spec 6D, include allowances for legacy designs that incorporate flanged valves with intermediate design pressures since the 24th edition of API Spec 6D prohibits designing flanged valves with intermediate pressure ratings. Alyeska stated that that its own flange connections exceed ASME B16.47  11 —but not API Spec 6D—because they “us[e] special bolting dimensions as an extra safety measure not required.” Because of this, they stated that PHMSA's safety concerns regarding installing lower-pressure-rated valves motivating its proposed IBR of the updated version of API Spec 6D would not apply to its pipeline facilities. PHMSA notes, however, that the updated version of API Spec 6D will not apply retroactively; it will apply only to the design, installation, or construction of valves as they are new, replaced, relocated, or otherwise changed.

Additionally, the Associations' joint comment requested that PHMSA continue to allow operators to install pipe that is compliant with the 45th edition of API Spec 5L until January 1, 2022, since the 46th edition of API Spec 5L PHMSA proposed to IBR in the NPRM is relatively recent and thus the supply chain is not yet fully stocked with the compliant materials. 12 API Spec 5L is the primary manufacturing specification for seamless and welded steel pipe used in gas, hazardous liquid, and carbon dioxide pipeline transportation systems. This comment also requested that PHMSA continue to allow operators to install flanges that are compliant with the 2019 edition of MSS SP-44  13 until January 1, 2022. PHMSA notes that the date the Associations anticipate the supply chain will be stocked with compliant materials has passed; because this final rule is publishing nearly two years after the projected date, PHMSA understands that there is no need for a delayed compliance date unique to its adoption of an updated version of API Spec 5L.

PHMSA also received comments that were inapplicable for a variety of reasons. Some of those comments were inapplicable because they assumed potential application to existing pipeline facilities of updated voluntary industry standards that would be incorporated by reference within design, testing, or installation standards that are subject to the statutory retroactivity prohibition at 49 U.S.C. 60104(b). The retroactivity prohibition restricts the application of certain new standards to an existing pipeline facility unless that pipeline facility is new, replaced, relocated, or changed. Other comments were inapplicable because this final rule did not publish before alternative compliance dates proposed by the comments. Further, many of the comments that PHMSA received were outside of the scope of this rulemaking as defined by the proposals in the NPRM. For example, the Associations' joint comment requested that PHMSA incorporate by reference a number of updated voluntary, consensus industry technical standards not proposed in the NPRM, including the following: API Recommended Practice (RP) 1181 (to implement section 109 of the Protecting Our Infrastructure of Pipelines and Enhancing Safety Act of 2020 (Pub. L. 116-260)); the second edition of API RP 80 (to enhance operators' understanding and compliance with safety requirements); Addendum 2 to the 12th edition of API Standard (Std.) 620 Errata 1 to the 13th edition of API Std. 650; and a more recent edition of API Std. 653. 14 Although PHMSA is considering incorporating these standards for inclusion in the future in a separate rulemaking after evaluation, it declines to adopt those standards in this rulemaking without providing the public an opportunity to review and comment upon those standards. One exception is PHMSA's incorporation of Errata 1 (January 2021) to the 13th edition of API Std. 650 since the errata only contains editorial changes. PHMSA is also incorporating errata to each of API Spec 6D (Errata 10, July 2021) and the 5th edition of API 2350 (Errata 1, April 2021) since they also only contain technical edits. PHMSA further notes that, pursuant to § 190.331, any interested person (including the Associations) may petition PHMSA to establish, amend, or repeal a substantive regulation, to include the IBR of updated voluntary industry standards.

The Associations' joint comment also asked PHMSA to correct an allegedly erroneous reference to API RP 1130 in § 195.3(b)(7). 15 The joint comment specified that the PSRs currently reference the third edition of API RP 1130 while the most recent edition of API RP 1130 is the first edition. PHMSA has reviewed the history of API RP 1130 and its incorporation into the PSRs and determined that the reference in § 195.3(b)(7) is correct. On January 5, 2015, PHMSA replaced the second edition of API 1130 (which had been issued in 2002) with the third edition of API RP 1130 (which had been issued in 2007). However, PHMSA notes that API subsequently in 2017 reaffirmed the 2007 version of API RP 1130 and re-characterized it as the first edition of API RP 1130. PHMSA will therefore retain the current reference to the third edition of API RP 1130.

Both the GPAC and LPAC discussions and voting were broadly supportive of the proposed amendments in the NPRM. The GPAC voted unanimously to endorse as “technically feasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and practicable” almost all of PHMSA's proposed IBR of the updated industry standards and miscellaneous amendments within part 192. However, as discussed further in section IV.C. below, the GPAC qualified its endorsement of PHMSA's proposed IBR of the 2016 edition of ASME B31.8S by calling on PHMSA to IBR a more recent (2018) version of that standard and to make conforming revisions to the PSR provisions (including § 192.11(m)) referencing that newer version of the standard. The GPAC also called on PHMSA to work towards an agreement with ASME to make its standards available for free on the internet to the public.

The LPAC also voted unanimously to endorse as “technically feasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and practicable” almost all of PHMSA's proposed IBR of the updated industry standards and miscellaneous amendments within part 195. However, as discussed further in sections IV.B. and D below, the LPAC qualified its endorsement of PHMSA's proposed IBR of the 5th edition of API Std. 2350 and the 4th edition of API RP 651. And like the GPAC, the LPAC also called on PHMSA to work towards an agreement with ASME to make its standards available for free on the internet to the public.

API Std 2350 applies to overfill and damage-prevention practices for aboveground storage tanks associated with facilities that receive flammable and combustible petroleum liquids, such as refineries, marketing terminals, bulk plants, and pipeline terminals. The PSRs currently reference the third edition of this document in § 195.428(c) governing aboveground breakout tanks. 16 Material changes introduced between the 3rd and 5th editions of API Std 2350 are described at length in the NPRM and include the development of policies and procedures for overfill protection processes and risk assessments.

PHMSA received a comment from the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers regarding its proposed IBR of the 5th edition of API Std 2350. The American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers expressed concern that it is unclear which provision of API Std 2350 applies to existing tank overfill systems, and that the current wording of the regulatory text would require operators to significantly expand their physical programs and make numerous changes to their operational parameters if PHMSA incorporated the updated API Std 2350. They specifically noted that § 195.428(c) states that operators must only install overfill systems in accordance with API RP 2350, but that provision fails to specify which sections of API Std 2350 operators should reference for such installations—a potential source of confusion for regulated entities because API Std 2350 contains elements pertaining to installation as well as maintenance and operation. They consequently requested that PHMSA amend the text of § 195.428(c) to identify precisely which sections of API Std 2350 govern installing an overfill protection system.

At the GPAC/LPAC meeting, an LPAC committee member representing industry noted in discussion of the proposed standard that they supported moving forward with API Std 2350 as proposed but recommended that, because of the significant changes between the 3rd and 5th editions of this standard noted in the NPRM, PHMSA consider a longer timeline to aid in its implementation by operators. However, the LPAC voted unanimously to endorse the IBR of the updated version of API Std 2350 without any explicit condition on a longer compliance timeline. Because API Std 2350 was not referenced within part 192, the GPAC neither discussed nor voted on this standard. After the GPAC/LPAC meeting, the AAG submitted a joint comment on API Std 2350 echoing the comments of the industry stakeholders during the LPAC and calling on PHMSA to extend the compliance deadline for this updated industry standard beyond the 60-day effective and compliance period PHMSA had suggested for this rulemaking during the GPAC/LPAC meeting.

In response to the American Fuel and Petrochemical's comments regarding the applicability of API Std 2350, PHMSA notes that § 195.428(c) states that “[o]ther aboveground breakout tanks with 600 gallons (2271 liters) or more of storage capacity that are constructed or significantly altered after October 2, 2000, must have an overfill protection system installed according to API RP 2350.” The requirements in § 195.428(c) are specific to installation, not to the operation or maintenance of the relevant aboveground breakout tanks. However, PHMSA also notes that the PSRs elsewhere at § 195.402 require that operators have a procedural manual for operating and maintenance for their systems—including any related breakout tanks, which are defined broadly in § 195.2 to include overfill protection systems that contribute to the pressure relief function of those breakout tanks. Therefore, an operator of a breakout tank that has installed an overfill protection system per API Std 2350 should consider also having a procedural manual to maintain the system in a manner that is consistent with API RP Std 2350.

PHMSA understands that operators will have adequate time to implement the installation requirements in API Std 2350, as specified in § 195.428(c), and implement any conforming revisions to their operations and maintenance procedural manuals given the following: (1) the extended period of time between the GPAC/LPAC meeting and publication of the final rule; (2) API Std 2350 is an industry-created standard, which, presumably, is already implemented by responsible operators; and (3) the IBR API Std 2350 standard will only apply to new, replaced, relocated, or otherwise changed overfill prevention systems. PHMSA also notes that—notwithstanding that a longer compliance timeline was presented to it—the LPAC declined to condition its endorsement of IBR of the 5th edition of API Std 2350 on a longer compliance timeline. Therefore, PHMSA did not adopt the longer implementation timeframe requested.

ASME B31.8S provides guidance on various risk assessment approaches covering design, construction, operational prevention, mitigation, and assessment, ensuring the safe operation of gas pipelines. ASME B31.8S also describes the foundations for an effective integrity management (IM) program for gas transmission pipelines. Along with subpart O of part 192, ASME B31.8S provides the essential features of an IM program. The standard applies to onshore gas pipeline systems constructed with ferrous materials (such as iron and steel) that transport gas and is frequently referenced throughout subpart O. ASME B31.8S provides operators with the information necessary to develop and implement an effective IM program utilizing proven industry practices and processes. The PSRs currently IBR the 2004 version of AMSE B31.8S; the NPRM proposed to IBR the 2016 version of the standard, which incorporates a number of edits, additions, and clarifications that will improve the effectiveness of the gas transmission IM programs.

PHMSA did not originally propose regulatory text incorporating the 2018 edition of ASME B31.8S, as PHMSA explained in the NPRM that it had reviewed the 2018 edition and understood that the updated standard had removed nearly all communications plan requirements found in the portion of that standard (Section 10) explicitly mentioned in § 192.911(m). As a result, PHMSA proposed the 2016 edition for incorporation, as that version retained the Section 10 communications plan requirements. However, PHMSA explicitly requested comments regarding incorporation of the 2018 edition of ASME B31.8S.

PHMSA received two comments in response. Both the ASME and the Associations' joint comment recommended that PHMSA incorporate the 2018 edition of this standard. They noted that the communications plan requirements formerly located in Section 10 had not (as PHMSA believed) been removed, but instead been relocated from Section 10 to Chapter V, Paragraph 850.9, of the 2018 version of ASME B31.8, which is the companion standard to ASME B31.8S. Additionally, B31.8S includes a reference in Section 10 that points to the communications plan requirements in the 2018 version of ASME B31.8. The commenters therefore requested that PHMSA revise § 192.911(m) to directly reference the communications plan requirements in Paragraph 850.9 of the 2018 edition of ASME B31.8. The GPAC voted unanimously to endorse the 2018 edition of ASME B31.8S with a recommendation to revise § 192.911(m) to directly reference the communications plan requirements in Paragraph 850.9 of the 2018 edition of ASME B31.8. Because ASME B31.8S was not referenced within part 195, the LPAC neither discussed nor voted on this standard.

In response to the GPAC's recommendations and the public comments received, PHMSA, in this final rule, is incorporating the 2018 edition of ASME B31.8S within its part 192 regulations. Further, PHMSA has revised § 192.911(m) to directly reference the communications-plan requirements in Paragraph 850.9 of the 2018 edition of ASME B31.8.

PHMSA is also in this final rule making conforming revisions in the PSRs to match the relevant sections in the 2018 edition of ASME B31.8S. PHMSA updated the relevant sections as follows:

• § 192.714(c): Removed “section 7, Figure 4” and replaced it with “Section 7, Figure 7.2.1-1”;

• § 192.917(e)(1): Removed “Appendix A7” and replaced it with “Appendix A-8”;

• § 192.917(e)(4): Removed “ASME/ANSI B31.8S, Appendices A4.3 and A4.4, and any” and replaced it with “ASME B31.8S, Appendices A-5.3 and A-5.4, and any”;

• § 192.921(a)(2): Removed “specified in Table 3 of section 5” and replaced it with “specified in Table 5.6.1-1 of Section 5”;

• § 192.923(b)(1): Removed “section 6.4” and replaced it with “Section 6.4”;

• § 192.933(c): Removed “section 7, Figure 4” and replaced it with “Section 7, Figure 7.2.1-1”;

• § 192.937(c)(2): Removed “table 3 of section 5” and replaced it with “Table 5.6.1-1 of Section 5”;

• § 192.939(a)(1)(ii): Removed “section 5, Table 3” and replaced it with “Table 5.6.1-1 of Section 5”; and

• § 192.939(a)(3): Removed “section 5, Table 3” and replaced it with “Table 5.6.1-1 of Section 5.”

PHMSA also notes that in August 2022, it concluded a rulemaking (first proposed in 2016) that amended, or introduced, several provisions referencing the ASME B31.8S industry standard being updated in this final rule. 17 Pertinent provisions introduced or amended by the RIN2 Final Rule include the following: §§ 192.13(d); 192.714(c) and (d); 192.917(a) through (e); and 192.933(d)(1) and (d)(2)(iv)). PHMSA has compared the pertinent sections of each of those currently-referenced versions of ASME B31.8S against the updated version incorporated within the PSR by this final rule, and has concluded that application of that update to the regulatory provisions added or amended by the RIN2 Final Rule is technically feasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and practicable because it entails no additional compliance burdens for pipeline operators, while at the same time offering the same safety and environmental benefits (better alignment of the PSRs with the latest innovations in operational and management practices, materials, testing, and technological advancements; enhanced compliance by avoiding conflict between different versions of the same industry standards; and facilitation of safety-focused allocation of resources by pipeline operators) as other amendments adopted in this final rule. PHMSA notes that two of those provisions—specifically, §§ 192.714(d) and 192.933(d)(1) and (d)(2)(iv)—are the subject of a pending legal challenge brought by INGAA against the RIN2 Final Rule. PHMSA, therefore, has determined that in this final rule, it will not update references within §§ 192.714(d) and 192.933(d)(1) and (d)(2)(iv) to ASME B31.8S to reflect the 2018 version of that standard, but will in those two provisions continue to reference the 2004 version of ASME B31.8S. PHMSA may update those provisions to reference the 2018 version of ASME B31.8S in the future.

PHMSA proposed to IBR the 4th edition of API RP 651 (Cathodic Protection of Aboveground Petroleum Storage Tanks) referenced in §§ 195.565 and 195.573(d). The PSRs currently reference the 3rd edition of this document, which describes practices and procedures regarding the use of cathodic protection to effectively control corrosion on aboveground storage-tank bottoms. It also includes provisions for the application of cathodic protection to new and existing aboveground storage tanks, and information and guidance regarding cathodic protection for aboveground metallic storage tanks in hydrocarbon service.

Both the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers and the Associations submitted comments regarding the 4th edition of API RP 651. The American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers stated that it is concerned with the way the 4th edition of API RP 651 is being interpreted during field inspections, as it understood that some state regulatory authorities were interpreting API RP 651 as requiring all breakout tanks to have cathodic protection, even tanks not in direct contact with soil. The American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers and the Associations stated that PHMSA should not consider double-bottomed tanks with an interstitial fill of concrete (not soil) or tanks on continuous concrete pads to be “buried” such that they would require cathodic protection pursuant to § 195.563. They stated that such tanks do not allow any part of the pipe through which hazardous liquid moves to come into contact with the upper layer of the earth and would like PHMSA to state definitively that cathodic protection is not required, consistent with their understanding of recommendations in the 4th edition of API RP 651 against it. Additionally, the Associations' joint comment asked PHMSA to clarify requirements in § 195.563 for the cathodic protection of double-bottom breakout tanks by referencing the 4th edition of API RP 651 and to allow operators to protect these tanks without requiring cathodic protection.

At the joint GPAC/LPAC meeting, an industry committee member from API requested that PHMSA clarify that the design of double-bottom tanks precludes the use of cathodic protection and asked that PHMSA allow operators to use alternative methods to protect these tanks form corrosion. Although the LPAC unanimously voted to recommend IBR of the updated version of API RP 651, it recommended that PHMSA include in the final rule preamble the suggestion by the industry stakeholder during the meeting. Because API RP 651 is not referenced within part 192, the GPAC neither discussed nor voted on this standard. After the GPAC/LPAC meeting, the AAG submitted a joint comment that included a discussion on the 4th edition of API RP 651. AAG stated that they supported LPA's recommendation to clarify appropriate application of the 4th edition of API RP 651. The AAG in particular called on PHMSA to state explicitly that the 4th edition of API RP 651 would not apply to El Segundo double-bottom tanks  18 or tanks on concrete not using cathodic protection to prevent corrosion. The AAG stated that they do not believe these tanks are “buried”—which they characterize § 195.553 as defining to mean “covered or in contact with soil”—and that therefore those tanks would not be required to have cathodic protection pursuant to § 195.563 or the risk-based framework in the most recent (5th edition) of API RP 653. The AAG called on PHMSA to IBR that most recent version of API RP 653.

PHMSA has considered those comments and the discussion during the GPAC/LPAC meeting and understands the application of § 195.563 by some state regulatory authorities is beyond the scope of this standards update rulemaking. PHMSA in the NPRM proposed simply to incorporate the 4th edition of API RP 651 into §§ 195.565 and 195.573(d) and did not propose changes in the regulatory text or interpretations affecting existing cathodic protection requirements for breakout tanks pursuant to a different PSR provision (§ 195.563) that does not explicitly reference API RP 651. PHMSA similarly did not propose to update the version of API RP 653 referenced in part 195. PHMSA notes, however, that it recently responded to a request for interpretation of §§ 195.553 and 195.563 that provides additional information on this issue as applied to specific pipeline facilities operated by Chemoil. 19

This final rule incorporates the following updated industry standards and amendments into 49 CFR parts 192 and 195. Availability information for each standard is specified in Section I of this preamble, and a summary of each standard is detailed below and in Section II of the NPRM.

These updated industry standards are developed through agreed-upon procedures and adopted by domestic and international standard development organizations, ensuring the voluntary, consensus industry standards reflect modern technology and technology practices. PHMSA understands that reasonably prudent operators employ industry standards and best practices even when not required by PHMSA regulations. Thus, PHMSA finds that the new or updated editions of voluntary, consensus industry technical standards may already be observed and implemented voluntarily by reasonably prudent operators in order to protect the public, environment, and their commercially valuable product. PHMSA also notes that should an operator identify a compelling need for regulatory flexibility, the PSR provides for special permit procedures at § 190.341 to request a deviation from specific requirements.

Viewed against the considerations herein and the compliance costs estimated in the cost-benefit analysis in Section VI of this final rule, PHMSA finds the proposed amendments will be a cost-effective approach to achieving the commercial, public safety, and environmental benefits discussed in this final rule and its supporting documents. Lastly, PHMSA believes that operator compliance timelines—based on an effective date of the final requirement (60 days after the effective date of the final rule, which the timeline would necessarily be in addition to the time since issuance of the January 2021 NPRM) would provide operators ample time to implement requisite systems and manage any related compliance costs.

Thus, PHMSA finds that the discussion herein—in addition to the NPRM's discussion of the safety, environmental, and other benefits and detriments incorporated herein by reference—supports its conclusion that each of the regulatory amendments in this final rule are technically feasible, reasonable cost-effective, and practicable.

• NACE SP0204-2015, “Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC) Direct Assessment Methodology,” March 14, 2015.

This standard provides a process and a series of required steps for operators to use to assess the extent of stress-corrosion cracking on a section of buried pipeline. The methodology is designed as a screening tool to determine whether stress corrosion cracking is a substantial risk on a pipeline system.

[Replaces incorporated by reference (IBR): NACE SP0204-2008, “Standard Practice, Stress Corrosion Cracking (SSC) Direct Assessment Methodology,” September 18, 2008; Referenced in 49 CFR 195.588(c).]

• API RP 651, “Cathodic Protection of Aboveground Petroleum Storage Tanks,” 4th edition, September 2014.

Cathodic protection is a method of protecting metallic pipelines from corrosion. This recommended practice contains: (1) procedures and practices for effective corrosion control on aboveground storage tank bottoms using cathodic protection; (2) provisions for the application of cathodic protection to existing and new aboveground storage tanks; and (3) information and guidance for cathodic protection specific to aboveground metallic storage tanks in hydrocarbon service.

[Replaces ANSI/API RP 651, “Cathodic Protection of Aboveground Petroleum Storage Tanks,” 3rd edition, January 2007; Referenced in 49 CFR 195.565 and 195.573(d).]

• API RP 2026, “Safe Access/Egress Involving Floating Roofs of Storage Tanks in Petroleum Service,” 3rd edition, June 2017.

The 3rd edition of API RP 2026 (formerly API Publication 2026) addresses the hazards associated with access/egress onto external and internal floating roofs of in-service petroleum storage tanks. In a floating roof tank, the roof floats on top of product in the tank and rises and lowers with the level of product in the storage tank. Floating roofs minimize the creation of hazardous vapors above the product. A floating roof can be designed for use on a tank with no fixed roof (an external floating roof) or inside a tank with a fixed roof (internal floating roof).

[Replaces API Publication 2026, “Safe Access/Egress Involving Floating Roofs of Storage Tanks in Petroleum Service,” 2nd edition, issued April 1998, reaffirmed June 2006; Referenced in 49 CFR 195.405(b)].

• API Spec 5L, “Line Pipe,” 46th edition, April 2018; including Errata 1 (May 2018).

API Spec 5L is the primary manufacturing specification for seamless and welded steel pipe for use in gas, hazardous liquid, and carbon dioxide pipeline transportation systems. The specification does not cover cast pipe and non-steel pipe. The specification includes requirements for pipe material, manufacturing, quality control and testing, inspection, and pipe marking.

[Replaces API Spec 5L, “Specification for Line Pipe,” 45th edition, July 2013; Referenced in 49 CFR 192.55(e); 192.112(a), (b), (d), (e); 192.113; Section I of Appendix B in part 192; and 49 CFR 195.106(b), (e).]

• API Spec 6D, “Specification for Pipeline and Piping Valves,” 24th edition, August 2014, including Errata 1 (October 2014), Errata 2 (December 2014), Errata 3 (February 2015), Errata 4 (June 2015), Errata 5 (July 2015), Errata 6 (September 2015), Errata 7 (June 2016), Errata 8 (August 2016), Errata 9 (March 2017), Errata 10 (July 2021), Addendum 1 (March 2015), and Addendum 2 (June 2016).

API Spec 6D defines the design, manufacturing, assembly, testing, and documentation requirements for valves used in pipeline systems. PHMSA requires all valves on gas pipeline systems, other than those made of cast iron or plastic, to meet the requirements of API Spec 6D, or a national or international standard that provides an equivalent performance level of safety. Hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipeline valves must be shell-tested and seat-tested in accordance with API Spec 6D.

[Replaces ANSI/API Spec 6D, “Specification for Pipeline Valves,” 23rd edition, October 1, 2008, including Errata 1 (June 2008), Errata 2 (November 2008), Errata 3 (February 2009), Errata 4 (April 2010), Errata 5 (November 2010), Errata 6 (August 2011), Addendum 1 (October 2009), Addendum 2 (August 2011), and Addendum 3 (October 2012); Referenced in 49 CFR 192.145(a) and 195.116(d).]

• API Std 620, “Design and Construction of Large, Welded, Low-Pressure Storage Tanks,” 12th Edition, October 2013, including Addendum 1 (November 2014).

API Std 620 specifies design, construction, and testing requirements for large, field assembled, welded steel tanks used to store petroleum, petroleum products, or other liquids used in the petrochemical industry. Tanks designed, constructed, and tested in accordance with API Std 620 are rated to operate with a vapor pressure up to 15 psig and a metal temperature below 250 °F.

[Replaces API Std 620, “Design and Construction of Large, Welded, Low-Pressure Storage Tanks,” 11th Edition, February 2008; including Addendum 1 (March 2009), Addendum 2 (August 2010), and Addendum 3 (March 2012); Referenced in 49 CFR 195.132(b); 195.205(b); 195.264(b) and (e); 195.307(b); 195.565; and 195.579(d).]

• API Std 650, “Welded Tanks for Oil Storage,” 13th edition, March 1, 2020, including Errata 1 (January 2021).

This standard establishes minimum requirements for material, design, fabrication, erection, and inspection for vertical, cylindrical, aboveground, closed- and open-top, welded storage tanks in various sizes and capacities for internal pressures approximating atmospheric pressure. This standard applies only to tanks whose entire bottom is uniformly supported and to tanks in non-refrigerated service that have a maximum design temperature of 93°C (200 °F) or less. In part 195, breakout tanks associated with the transportation of hazardous liquids that are included in the scope of this standard must be designed, constructed, tested, and repaired in accordance with API Std 650.

[Replaces API Std 650, “Welded Steel Tanks for Oil Storage,” 11th edition, June 2007; including Addendum 1 (November 2008), Addendum 2 (November 2009), Addendum 3 (August 2011), and Errata (October 2011); Referenced in 49 CFR 195.132(b); 195.205(b); 195.264(b) and (e); 195.307(c) and (d); 195.565; and 195.579(d).]

• API Std 1104, “Welding of Pipelines and Related Facilities,” 21st edition, September 2013; including Errata 1 (2013), Errata 2 (2014), Errata 3 (2014), Errata 4 (2015), Errata 5 (2018), Addendum 1 (2014), and Addendum 2 (2016)—except for Note 2 in Section 5.4.2.2.

API Std 1104 is the primary standard for welding steel piping and for testing welds on steel pipelines. It covers the requirements for welding and nondestructive testing of pipeline welds. In the PSRs, this standard is used for qualifying welders, welding procedures, and welding operators, and interpreting the results of non-destructive tests.

[Replaces API Std 1104, “Welding of Pipelines and Related Facilities,” 20th edition, October 2005; including Errata/Addendum (July 2007) and Errata 2 (2008); Referenced in 49 CFR 192.225(a); 192.227(a); 192.229(b) and (c); 192.241(c); Section II of Appendix B in part 192; 195.214(a); 195.222(a) and (b); and 195.228(b).]

• API Std 2000, “Venting Atmospheric and Low-pressure Storage Tanks” 7th edition, March 2014.

This standard contains vapor-venting requirements for aboveground liquid petroleum product storage tanks, and aboveground and/or underground refrigerated storage tanks, all of which are designed for operation at pressures from full vacuum through 103.4 kPa (or 15 psig). Normal vapor venting refers to the inflow and outflow of vapor related to pressure changes inside the storage tanks. Emergency vapor venting relates to the inflow or outflow of vapor that may occur due to unforeseen circumstances. Vapor-venting requirements deal with the operation of vapor vents in response to temperature and pressure changes both inside and outside of a tank. Pressure normally accumulates inside most production or breakout storage tanks that contain various types of hazardous liquid. The new edition of this standard provides more information on equipment that stabilizes pressure within the tank by venting or depressurizing once the pressure within the tank reaches a certain level. The vapor-venting requirements in this standard elaborate on pipeline owners' obligations, including providing vapor-venting equipment guidelines.

[Replaces ANSI/API Std 2000, “Venting Atmospheric and Low-pressure Storage Tanks,” 6th edition, November 2009; Referenced in 49 CFR 195.264(e).]

• API Std 2350, “Overfill Prevention for Storage Tanks in Petroleum Facilities,” 5th Edition, September 1, 2020, including Errata 1 (April 2021).

This standard is intended for storage tanks associated with facilities that receive flammable and combustible petroleum liquids, such as refineries, marketing terminals, bulk plants, and pipeline terminals. It addresses minimum overfill and damage-prevention practices for aboveground storage tanks in petroleum facilities, including refineries, marketing terminals, bulk plants, and pipeline terminals that receive flammable and combustible liquids.

[Replaces API RP 2350, 3rd Edition (January 2005): Overfill Protection for Storage Tanks in Petroleum Facilities (API RP 2350); Referenced in 49 CFR 195.428(c).]

• ASME B31.8-2018, “Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping Systems,” November 20, 2018.

This standard covers safety requirements associated with the design, fabrication, installation, inspection, testing, and operation and maintenance of pipeline facilities used for the transportation of natural gas and liquefied petroleum gases when they are vaporized and used as gaseous fuels.

[Replaces ASME/ANSI B31.8-2007, “Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping Systems,” November 30, 2007; Referenced in 49 CFR 192.112(b); 192.619(a); 192.911(m); 195.5(a); and 195.406(a).]

• ASME B31.8S-2018, “Managing System Integrity of Gas Pipelines,” November 28, 2018.

ASME B31.8S describes the foundations for an effective integrity management (IM) program for gas transmission pipelines. Along with subpart O of part 192, ASME B31.8S provides the essential features of an integrity management program. Section 3.2 of B31.8S addresses the potential impact factor for gases other than standard quality natural gas that may be transported through a gas transmission pipeline. Other sections are as follows: Section 4—Gathering, Reviewing and Integrating Data; Section 5—Risk Assessment and Reassessment Intervals; Section 6.2—Selection of In-line Inspection Tools (ILI); Section 6.4—Direct Assessment Requirements for External Corrosion and Internal Corrosion; Section 7—Remediation Schedule and Immediate Repair Requirements; Section 9—Performance Plan and Program Effectiveness; Section 10—Communications Plan; Section 11—Management of Change Process; Section 12—Quality Assurance Process; Appendix A—Data Requirements of Each Threat; Appendix A3—Direct Assessment Requirements for the Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC) Threat; Appendix 4.3 and 4.4—Criteria and Risk Assessment and Integrity Assessment for the Manufacturing Threat; and Appendix A7—Criteria and Risk Assessment and Integrity Assessment, Response, and Mitigation and Performance Measures for the Third Party Damage Threat.

[Replaces ASME/ANSI B31.8S-2004 “Supplement to B31.8 on Managing System Integrity of Gas Pipelines,” January 14, 2005; Referenced in 49 CFR 192.13(d); 192.712(b); 192.714(c); 192.903; 192.907; 192.907(b); 192.911; 192.911(i), and (k) through (m); 192.913(a) through (c); 192.917(a) through (e); 192.921(a); 192.923(b); 192.925(b); 192.933(c); 192.935(b); 192.937(c); 192.939(a); and 192.945(a).]

As explained in section IV.C. above, PHMSA will retain existing references to the 2004 version of ASME B31.8S within §§ 192.714(d), and 192.933(d)(1) and (d)(2)(iv).

• ASME B36.10M-2018 “Welded and Seamless Wrought Steel Pipe,” October 12, 2018.

ASME B36.10M specifies standards for dimensions of welded and seamless wrought steel pipe for high or low temperatures and pressures. This standard replaces the current reference in §  192.279 to Table C1 of ASME/ANSI B16.5. The 2003 and subsequent editions of ASME/ANSI B16.5 remove Table C1; that information is now in ASME B36.10M-2018. Therefore, PHMSA is revising §  192.279 to replace the phrase “listed in Table C1 of ASME/ANSI B16.5” with “listed in ASME B36.10M.”

[Replaces Table C1 of ASME/ANSI B16.5; Referenced in 49 CFR 192.279.]

• ASTM A53/A53M-20, “Standard Specification for Pipe, Steel, Black, and Hot-Dipped, Zinc-Coated, Welded and Seamless,” July 1, 2020.

ASTM A53/A53M specifies the design for seamless and welded black and hot-dipped galvanized steel pipe in nominal pipe size (NPS) 1/8 to NPS 26. The standard also specifies requirements for tests of material properties, hydrostatic tests, and non-destructive tests.

[Replaces ASTM A53/A53M-10, “Standard Specification for Pipe, Steel, Black and Hot-Dipped, Zinc-Coated, Welded and Seamless,” October 1, 2010; Referenced in 49 CFR 192.113; Section II of Appendix B in part 192; and 195.106(e).]

• ASTM A106/A106M-19A, “Standard Specification for Seamless Carbon Steel Pipe for High-Temperature Service,” November 1, 2019.

ASTM A106/A106M specifies standards for seamless carbon steel pipe appropriate for high-temperature service. Pipe meeting this specification is suitable for bending, flanging, and welding. The updates added since the 2010 edition currently incorporated by reference include clarifying the supplementary requirements in the ordering information, as well as the definition of single or double random lengths of pipe with single random joints allowed from 17 to 24-foot lengths and double random joints being between 36 and 44 feet.

[Replaces ASTM A106/A106M-10, “Standard Specification for Seamless Carbon Steel Pipe for High-Temperature Service,” October 1, 2010; Referenced in 49 CFR 192.113; Section I of Appendix B in part 192; and 195.106(e).]

• ASTM A333/A333M-18, “Standard Specification for Seamless and Welded Steel Pipe for Low-Temperature Service and Other Applications with Required Notch Toughness,” November 1, 2018.

ASTM A333/A333M specifies standards for nominal (average) wall seamless and welded carbon and alloy steel pipe intended for use at low temperatures. The standard addresses chemical, tensile strength, mechanical testing, and other requirements.

[Replaces ASTM A333/A333M-11, “Standard Specification for Seamless and Welded Steel Pipe for Low-Temperature Service,” April 1, 2011; Referenced in 49 CFR 192.113; Section I of Appendix B in part 192; and 49 CFR 195.106(e).]

• ASTM A381/A381M-18, “Standard Specification for Metal-Arc-Welded Carbon or High-Strength Low-Alloy Steel Pipe for Use with High-Pressure Transmission Systems,” November 1, 2018.

ASTM A381/A381M specifies standards for straight seam, double-submerged arc-welded steel pipe (commonly referred to as DSAW pipe as opposed to spiral-welded or electric-resistance-welded pipe) that is intended for the fabrication of fittings and accessories for compressor or pump-station piping and is suitable for high-pressure service at outside diameters of 16 inches or greater.

[Replaces ASTM A381-96, “Standard Specification for Metal-Arc Welded Steel Pipe for Use with High-Pressure Transmission Systems,” reaffirmed October 1, 2005; Referenced in 49 CFR 192.113; Section I of Appendix B in part 192; and 195.106(e).]

• ASTM A671/A671M-20, “Standard Specification for Electric-Fusion-Welded Steel Pipe for Atmospheric and Lower Temperatures,” March 1, 2020.

ASTM A671/A671M specifies the design, fabrication, and testing requirements for electric-fusion-welded (as opposed to arc-welded) steel pipe with added filler metal. Specifically, the specification applies to pipe fabricated from pressure vessel quality steel plates suitable for use at high pressures at atmospheric and lower temperatures.

[Replaces ASTM A671/A671M-10, “Standard Specification for Electric-Fusion-Welded Steel Pipe for Atmospheric and Lower Temperatures,” April 1, 2010; Referenced in 49 CFR 192.113; Section I of Appendix B in part 192; and 195.106(e).]

• ASTM A691/A691M-19, “Standard Specification for Carbon and Alloy Steel Pipe, Electric-Fusion-Welded for High-Pressure Service at High Temperatures,” November 1, 2019.

ASTM A691/A691M specifies the design, composition, fabrication, and testing of carbon and alloy steel pipe.

[Replaces ASTM A691/A691M-09, “Standard Specification for Carbon and Alloy Steel Pipe, Electric-Fusion-Welded for High-Pressure Service at High Temperatures,” October 1, 2009; Referenced in 49 CFR 192.113; Section I of Appendix B in part 192; and 49 CFR 195.106(e).]

• ANSI/MSS SP-44-2019, “Steel Pipeline Flanges,” April 2020.

MSS SP-44 covers pressure-temperature ratings, materials, dimensions, tolerances, marking, and testing of steel pipeline flanges.

[Replaces MSS SP-44-2010, “Standard Practice, Steel Pipeline Flanges,” 2010 edition, including Errata (May 20, 2011); Referenced in 49 CFR 192.147(a).]

• MSS SP-75-2019, “High-Strength, Wrought, Butt-Welding Fittings,” December 2019.

MSS SP-75 specifies requirements for factory-made, seamless, and electric-welded carbon and low-alloy steel butt-welding fittings. MSS SP-75 is applicable to fittings used in high-pressure gas and oil transmission and distribution systems, including pipelines, compressor stations, metering and regulating stations, and mains.

[Replaces MSS SP-75-2008, “Specification for High Test, Wrought, Butt-Welding Fittings,” June 1, 2009; Referenced in 49 CFR 195.118(a).]

• NFPA 58, “Liquefied Petroleum Gas Code,” 2020 edition, August 25, 2019.

NFPA 58 specifies requirements for the “storage, handling, transportation, and use of liquefied petroleum gas.” The PSRs require any plant that supplies liquefied petroleum to a pipeline system and any pipeline system that transports only petroleum gas or petroleum gas mixtures to meet the requirements of NFPA 58 in addition to the requirements of part 192.

[Replaces NFPA 58, “Liquefied Petroleum Gas Code,” 2004 edition, April 1, 2004; Referenced in 49 CFR 192.7; and 192.11(a) through (c).]

• NFPA 59, “Utility LP-Gas Plant Code,” 2018 edition, September 6, 2017.

NFPA 59 specifies the design, construction, location, installation, operation, and maintenance of utility gas plants. Compared to NFPA 58, NFPA 59 generally covers larger facilities.

[Replaces NFPA 59, “Utility LP-Gas Plant Code,” 2004 edition, April 1, 2004; Referenced in 49 CFR 192.11(a) through (c).]

• NFPA 70, “National Electrical Code,” 2017 edition, August 24, 2016.

NFPA 70, also known as the National Electrical Code (NEC), covers the installation and removal of electrical equipment, conductors, and conduits in structures and outdoor areas. The NEC is a foundational standard for electrical safety in residential, commercial, and industrial implementations.

[Replaces NFPA 70, “National Electrical Code,” 2011 edition (September 24, 2010); Referenced in 49 CFR 192.163(e) and 192.189(c).]

PHMSA is also incorporating miscellaneous editorial amendments and corrections to the PSRs. Some of these revisions respond to a petition for rulemaking from the AGA. In addition to petitioning PHMSA to incorporate the most recent edition of NFPA 59 by reference, the AGA suggested edits to 49 CFR 192.11 that would clarify the scope of NFPA 58 and NFPA 59. The PSRs currently require operators of liquefied petroleum pipeline facilities to meet the requirements of both NFPA 58 and NFPA 59, but the change clarifies that operators must only satisfy the requirements for the NFPA standard that, based on the scope and applicability statements in NFPA 58 and NFPA 59, is applicable to the type of facility they operate. Generally, NFPA 58 applies to liquefied petroleum pipeline systems and NFPA 59 to utility-scale liquefied petroleum gas plants. PHMSA has considered this proposed clarification and is adopting the recommended editorial revision to 49 CFR 192.11 in this final rule.

Another revision recommended by AGA and which PHMSA adopts in this final rule corrects the minimum wall thickness tables in 49 CFR 192.121 for plastic pipe that is made of polyethylene (PE), polyamide (PA) PA11, and PA12 to include specifications for pipe with a copper tubing sizes (CTS) of 1 1/4 inches and to correct the minimum wall thickness for 1-inch CTS pipe. The minimum wall thickness—and, more specifically, the dimension ratio, which is the ratio of outside diameter to wall thickness—is consistent with values already specified for adjacent sizes. Plastic pipe, especially PE, is very common on gas distribution systems. On November 20, 2018, PHMSA published a final rule that allowed plastic pipe to operate with a design factor (a derating factor) of 0.4 rather than 0.32 as long as it met various requirements, including a minimum wall thickness that matched the definitions in the tables in 49 CFR 192.121. 20 As described in that 2018 final rule and its supporting RIA, as well as the AGA's petition for rulemaking, the revised design factor allows the use of approximately 17 percent less material or 11 percent higher capacity for a given outside specification.

The NPRM included listings for copper tubing sizes (CTS) of 1/2 and 3/4 inches for polyethylene (PE) pipe. In response to comments, PHMSA included CTS sizes for polyamide (PA) PA11 and PA12 pipe, as well as iron pipe sizes (IPS) below 1 inch for all materials. However, stakeholders subsequently requested that PHMSA also consider including 1 1/4 -inch CTS. This amendment allows the use of 1 1/4 -inch CTS pipe with a 0.4 design factor provided that the pipe wall is at least 0.121 inches thick. A wall thickness of 0.121 corresponds to a dimension ratio of approximately 11, which is the same standard dimension ratio (SDR) that is currently permitted for 1 1/4 -inch IPS, 1-inch CTS, and 1-inch IPS. This change reduces the cost to produce this size of plastic pipe by approximately 10 percent. The revised design factor is already permitted for similar, adjacent sizes such as 1 1/4 -inch IPS pipe, and it was not PHMSA's intent to exclude specifications such as 1 1/4 -inch CTS. The costs and benefits of this change were accounted for in the RIA for the 2018 final rule.

PHMSA also adopts in this final rule other technical and editorial revisions proposed in the NPRM, including the following:

• Updating reference to PHMSA's website ( https://portal.phmsa.dot.gov/ ) in § 195.58;

• Copying the definition for a master meter system that is used in part 191 to part 192. The term “master meter system” is referenced in both part 191 and part 192; however, it is only defined in § 191.3 of part 191. This rule adds the definition to § 192.3 of part 192;

• Clarifying reference to flange requirements in §  192.147(a) to specify that flanges must meet ASME B16.5, ANSI/MSS SP-44, or the equivalent;

• Correcting the placement of the word “in” in § 192.153(d);

• Removing a reference to an inactive phone number for the National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS) program in § 192.727(g) and 195.59(a);

• Removing references to § 195.242(c) and (d) in § 195.1(c) because this section no longer exists in the regulations;

• Correcting § 195.3(c)(3) to reflect that ASME B31.4 is no longer referenced in § 195.452(h); and

• Revising § 192.307(c) references to API 650 sections 7.3.5 and 7.3.6 because the testing requirements were moved to sections 7.3.6 and 7.3.7, respectively, in the updated edition of API 650.

This final rule is published under the authority of the Secretary of Transportation delegated to the PHMSA Administrator pursuant to 49 CFR 1.97. Among the statutory authorities delegated to PHMSA are those set forth in the Federal pipeline safety statutes (49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq. ). 49 U.S.C. 60102 grants authority, to the extent appropriate and practicable, to the Secretary to update incorporated, voluntary, consensus industry technical standards that were adopted as part of the PSRs to protect public safety and the environment.

This final rule incorporates by reference more than 20 updated industry standards. In addition, this final rule makes several other minor clarifying and editorial changes to the PSRs.

Executive Order 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”), as amended by Executive Order 14094 (“Modernizing Regulatory Review”), requires that agencies “should assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, including the alternative of not regulating.”  21 Agencies should consider both quantifiable measures and qualitative measures of costs and benefits that are difficult to quantify. Further, Executive Order 12866 requires that agencies “should select those [regulatory] approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages, as well as distributive impacts and equity), unless a statute requires another regulatory approach.” Similarly, DOT Order 2100.6A (“Rulemaking and Guidance Procedures”) requires PHMSA and other DOT operating administrations to consider an assessment of the potential benefits, costs, and other important impacts of the proposed action; they should also quantify (to the extent practicable) the benefits, costs, and any significant distributional impacts, including any environmental impacts.

Executive Order 12866 (as amended by Executive Order 14094) and DOT Order 2100.6A require that PHMSA submit “significant regulatory actions” to the OMB for review. However, this final rule is not considered a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, was not subject to review by the OMB. Further, the DOT considers this final rule to be non-significant pursuant to DOT Order 2100.6A.

In accordance with the NTTAA and OMB Circular A-119, PHMSA constantly reviews new editions and revisions to relevant voluntary, consensus industry technical standards, and publishes a proposed rule every two to three years to incorporate new or updated industry standards by reference. This practice is consistent with the intent of the NTTAA and OMB directives to avoid the need to develop government standards that could potentially result in regulatory conflicts with updated standards and an increased compliance burden for industry.

PHMSA expects that the changes to the PSRs described in this final rule will result in unquantified public safety and environmental benefits associated with the updated industry standards. Although, as discussed above, many of the changes within the updated industry standards for incorporation within the PSRs are editorial revisions or clarifications, others consist of substantive changes that reflect advancements in the state of knowledge (based on developments in technology, testing, materials, and practical experience memorialized within operational and management practices) compared to earlier versions of the same standards. PHMSA's technical review of those updated industry standards concluded that their incorporation would enhance the protection of public safety and the environment.

Further, PHMSA expects the administrative burden for stakeholders stemming from the incorporation of these updated industry standards will be negligible and the net economic benefits will be high. According to the annual reports that operators submit to PHMSA, there are more than 2,813 entities operating distribution systems and facilities for gas and hazardous liquid (as well as carbon dioxide) pipeline facilities subject to part 192 or 195 as of May 23, 2021. In fact, updates to industry standards are generally accepted and followed on a voluntary basis throughout most of the pipeline industry. PHMSA understands that the majority of pipeline operators already purchase and voluntarily apply industry standards—including the updated industry standards that are the subject of this rulemaking—within their ordinary business practices. Incorporation of the updated industry standards within the PSRs will help ensure the industry is not forced to incur the additional cost of complying with different versions of the same standards.

In addition to incorporating updated industry standards into the PSRs, PHMSA is adopting non-substantive editorial changes and clarifications of certain provisions of regulatory language. Since these editorial changes are minor, this final rule will not require pipeline operators to undertake significant new pipeline safety initiatives and would have negligible cost implications. The non-substantive changes will increase the clarity of the pipeline safety regulations, thereby improving compliance and helping to ensure the safety of the Nation's pipeline systems.

PHMSA analyzed this final rule in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (“Federalism”)  22 and the Presidential Memorandum titled “Preemption.”  23 Executive Order 13132 requires agencies to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials regarding the development of regulatory policies that may have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

The regulatory amendments in this final rule will not have a substantial direct effect on State or local governments; the relationship between the national government and the States; or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. In addition, this rule will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State or local governments. While the final rule's revisions may operate to preempt some State requirements, it will not impose any regulation that has substantial direct effects on the States; the relationship between the national government and the States; or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

Section 60104(c) of the Federal pipeline safety laws prohibits State safety regulation of interstate pipelines. Under the Federal pipeline safety laws, States that have submitted a current certification under 49 U.S.C. 60105(a) must adopt the minimum Federal pipeline safety requirements for intrastate pipelines and may adopt additional or more stringent requirements so long as they are compatible. A State may also regulate an intrastate pipeline facility that PHMSA does not regulate.

In this instance, the preemptive effect of the final rule is limited to the minimum level necessary to achieve the objectives of the Federal pipeline safety laws. Therefore, PHMSA has determined that the consultation and funding requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply to this final rule.

PHMSA analyzed this final rule according to the principles and criteria in Executive Order 13175 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”)  24 and DOT Order 5301.1A (“Department of Transportation Tribal Consultation Policy and Procedures”). Executive Order 13175 requires agencies to ensure meaningful and timely input from Tribal government representatives during the development of rules that significantly or uniquely affect Tribal communities by imposing “substantial direct compliance costs” or “substantial direct effects” on such communities, or the relationship or distribution of power between the Federal Government and Tribes.

PHMSA assessed the impact of the final rule's revisions and concluded that they will not significantly or uniquely affect Tribal communities or Tribal governments. The rule's regulatory amendments are facially neutral and will have broad, national scope; PHMSA, therefore, does not expect this rule would significantly or uniquely affect Tribal communities, much less that it will impose substantial compliance costs on Native American Tribal governments or mandate Tribal action. Insofar as PHMSA expects that the rule will improve safety and reduce environmental risks, PHMSA finds that it will not entail disproportionately high adverse risks for Tribal communities. Therefore, PHMSA concludes that the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 and DOT Order 5301.1A do not apply.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), generally requires Federal agencies to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis for a final rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act. 5 U.S.C. 603(a). 25 Executive Order 13272 (“Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking”)  26 obliges agencies to establish procedures promoting compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act; DOT's implementing guidance is available on its website. 27

This final rule was developed in accordance with Executive Order 13272 and DOT guidance to ensure compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act and provide appropriate consideration of the potential impacts of the rulemaking on small entities. PHMSA has concluded that the costs of incorporating these updated voluntary, consensus industry technical standards within the PSRs will be negligible. PHMSA understands that updates to industry standards are generally accepted and followed on a voluntary basis throughout most of the pipeline industry; the majority of pipeline operators already purchase and voluntarily apply industry standards—including the updated standards that are the subject of this rulemaking—within their ordinary business practices. Further, incorporating such standards by reference helps to ensure that the industry is not forced to comply with competing versions of the same industry standards. Similarly, PHMSA does not expect the miscellaneous editorial and clarifying revisions in this rulemaking will impose meaningful compliance costs on operators. Therefore, based on the available information regarding the anticipated impact of this final rule, PHMSA certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d), PHMSA is required to provide interested members of the public and affected agencies with an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping requests. In accordance with 5 CFR 1320.8(d), PHMSA analyzed this final rule in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ), which establishes policies and procedures for controlling paperwork burdens imposed by Federal agencies on the public and requires Federal agencies to minimize the burden of paperwork imposed on the U.S. public by ensuring maximum utility and quality of Federal information. This allowed for the use of information technology to improve the Federal Government's performance and accountability regarding the management of information-collection activities. This final rule does not impose any new information-collection requirements or modify any existing information-collection requirements.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. ) requires agencies to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments, and the private sector. For any NPRM or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, or Tribal governments, in an aggregate of $100 million or more (in 1996 dollars) in any given year, the agency must prepare, among other things, a written statement that qualitatively and quantitatively assesses the costs and benefits of the Federal mandate.

As explained in the above discussion of Executive Order 12866, PHMSA does not expect that the final rule will impose enforceable duties of $100 million or more (in 1996 dollars) in any one year on either State, local, or Tribal governments or on the private sector. Therefore, the requirement to prepare a statement pursuant to Unfunded Mandates Reform Act does not apply.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), the DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. The DOT posts these comments without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to https://www.regulations.gov/. This is described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.dot.gov/privacy.

A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Unified Agenda). The RIN contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the Unified Agenda.

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et. seq. ) requires Federal agencies to prepare a detailed statement on major Federal actions that significantly affect the quality of the human environment. The Council on Environmental Quality's implementing regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508) require Federal agencies to conduct an environmental review that considers (1) the need for the action; (2) alternatives to the action; (3) the probable environmental impacts of the action and alternatives; and (4) the agencies and individuals consulted during the consideration process. DOT Order 5610.1C (“Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts”) establishes departmental procedures for the evaluation of environmental impacts under NEPA and its implementing regulations. In this final rule, PHMSA incorporates more than 20 updated industry standards.

PHMSA has completed an Environmental Assessment and concluded that an environmental impact statement will not be required for this rulemaking because it will not have a significant impact on the human environment. To the extent that the final rule will impact the environment, those impacts will be primarily beneficial impacts enhancing the PSR's protection of public safety and the environment by incorporating updated industry standards.

Description of Action: The NTTAA directs Federal agencies to use industry standards and design specifications developed by voluntary consensus standard bodies instead of government-developed standards, when applicable. There are currently more than 80 standards incorporated in parts 192, 193, and 195 of the PSRs.

PHMSA engineers and subject matter experts participate on 25 standards development committees to keep current on committee actions. PHMSA only adopts standards into the Federal regulations that meet the Agency's directive(s) to ensure the best interests of public and environmental safety are served.

Purpose and Need: Many of the industry standards currently incorporated in the PSRs have been revised and updated to incorporate and promote new technologies and methodologies. This final rule allows operators to use new technologies by incorporating new editions of the standards into the PSRs.

PHMSA's technical and subject matter experts continually review the actions of pipeline standards-developing committees and study industry safety practices to ensure that PHMSA's endorsement of any new editions or revised industry standards incorporated into the PSRs will improve public safety and provide protection for the environment. If PHMSA does not amend the PSRs to keep up with industry practices, it could potentially have an adverse effect on the safe transportation of energy resources.

These amendments make the regulatory provisions more consistent with current technology and therefore promote the safe transportation of hazardous liquids, natural and other gases, and liquefied natural gas by pipeline.

Alternatives Considered: In developing this final rule, PHMSA considered two alternatives:

Alternative (1): Take no action and continue to incorporate only the existing standards currently referenced in the PSRs. Because PHMSA's goal is to facilitate pipeline safety and incorporate appropriate and up-to-date industry standards, PHMSA rejected the no-action alternative. This alternative potentially results in forgoing the safety and environmental improvements in the updated standards.

Selected Alternative (2): Adopt the above-described amendments and incorporate updated editions of industry standards as described in the NPRM and this final rule, including cited material. This is the selected alternative. PHMSA's goal is to incorporate updated editions of industry standards by reference into the PSRs when appropriate to facilitate pipeline operators to use current technology, new materials, and other management practices. Another goal is to update and clarify certain provisions in the regulations.

Environmental Consequences: The Nation's pipelines are located throughout the United States, both onshore and offshore, and traverse a variety of environments that range from highly populated urban sites to remote, unpopulated, rural areas and ecologically sensitive environments. The Federal pipeline regulatory system is a risk-management system that is prevention-oriented and focused on identifying safety hazards and reducing the likelihood and quantity of a gas or hazardous liquid (or carbon dioxide) release. Pipeline operators are required to develop and implement IM programs to enhance safety by identifying and reducing pipeline integrity risks.

Pipelines subject to this final rule transport hazardous liquids (as well as carbon dioxide) and gas, and therefore, a spill or leak of the product could affect the physical environment as well as the health and safety of the public. The release of hazardous liquids (as well as carbon dioxide) or gas can cause the loss of cultural and historical resources ( e.g., properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places); biological and ecological resources ( e.g., coastal zones, wetlands, plant and animal species and their habitats, forests, grasslands, or offshore marine ecosystems); special ecological resources ( e.g., threatened and endangered plant and animal species and their habitats, national and State parklands, biological reserves, or wild and scenic rivers); and the contamination of air, water resources ( e.g., oceans, streams, or lakes), and soil that exists directly adjacent to and within the vicinity of pipelines. Incidents involving pipelines can result in fires and explosions, causing damage to the local environment. Depending on the size of a spill, carbon dioxide release, or gas leak, and the nature of the failure zone, the potential impacts could vary from property or environmental damage, to injuries or, on rare occasions, fatalities.

Compliance with the PSRs substantially reduces the possibility of an accidental release of product. Incorporating new industry standards or updating those already incorporated into the PSRs can provide operators with the advantages and added safety that can accompany the use of newer technologies. These standards are based on the shared knowledge and experience of owners, operators, manufactures, risk-management experts, and others involved in the pipeline industry, as well as regulatory agencies like PHMSA and state DOTs. PHMSA staff actively participates in the standards development process to ensure that each incorporated standard will enhance pipeline safety and environmental protection. Newer editions are not automatically incorporated, but instead reviewed in detail before they may be incorporated into the PSRs.

PHMSA reviewed each of the standards described in this rule and determined that most of the updates involve minor changes, such as editorial changes, the inclusion of best practices, or similar changes. The majority of updates incorporated in this final rule increase pipeline safety standards to decrease risk. In a small number of instances, standards organizations relax standards to reduce industry burden when justified by low risk, overlapping protections, or technological innovation within the same standard. Provisions that allow for relaxation are the less-conservative-design sloshing wave-height calculations in the revised edition of API Std 650; the provisions in the 21st edition of API Std 1104 that allow welders who are qualified in a fixed position to also be qualified to weld in the roll position; and the elimination of the need to calculate evaporation rates in the 7th edition of API Std 2000. PHMSA has determined that each of these updates maintains and provides adequate protection against applicable risks, and that the safety improvements elsewhere in API Std 650, API Std 1104, and API Std 2000 offset these changes.

Environmental Justice: Executive Order 12898 (“Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations”), 28 directs Federal agencies to take appropriate and necessary steps to identify and address disproportionately high and adverse effects of Federal actions on the health or environment of minority and low-income populations “[t]o the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.” DOT Order 5610.2C (“U.S. Department of Transportation Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations”) establishes departmental procedures for effectuating Executive Order 12898 by promoting and fully considering the principles of environmental justice throughout the planning and decision-making process when developing programs, policies, and activities—including PHMSA rulemaking.

PHMSA evaluated this final rule according to DOT Order 5610.2C and Executive Order 12898 and has determined that it will not cause disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority populations and low-income populations. The final rule is national in scope; it is neither directed toward a particular population, region, or community, nor is it expected to adversely impact any particular population, region, or community. Indeed, because this rule will generally reduce safety and environmental risks, PHMSA understands the regulatory amendments will reduce any disproportionate human health and environmental risks for minority populations, low-income populations, or other underserved and disadvantaged communities in the vicinity of pipelines within the scope of the rule's amendments. Lastly, the regulatory amendments will yield reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, thereby reducing the risks posed by anthropogenic climate change to minority and low-income populations, and historically underserved and other traditionally disadvantaged populations and communities.

The above findings are also consistent with E.O. 14096 (“Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to Environmental Justice for All”)  29 by achieving several goals, including continuing to deepen the Biden-Harris Administration's whole of government approach to environmental justice and to better protect overburdened communities from pollution and environmental harms.

Public Involvement: On October 21, 2021, PHMSA held a virtual public meeting to discuss periodic standards updates and inform this rulemaking. During this meeting, members of the public, Tribal government and Tribal advocacy representatives, State pipeline safety program representatives, pipeline safety advocacy groups, first responders and emergency response organizations, and industry experts provided information and feedback on a variety of topics, including current regulations, public perspectives, and public comments from the NPRM. The meeting included many opportunities for questions and public input. PHMSA also opened a docket in coordination with the public meeting to receive additional input during and in response to the meeting, which can be found at: https://www.regulations.gov/docket/PHMSA-2021-0069. The full transcripts of the meeting can be found at: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/meetings/MtgHome.mtg?mtg=156.

Conclusion—Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI): Based on the analysis summarized in this Final Environmental Assessment, the analysis provided in the NPRM, this final rule, and accompanying documents in Docket No. PHMSA-2016-0002, PHMSA finds that the final rule does not result in a significant impact on the human or natural environment. Overall, the final rule is expected to have a positive environmental impact by incorporating industry standards that will allow the pipeline industry to use improved technologies, new materials, performance-based approaches, manufacturing processes, and other practices to enhance public health, safety, and welfare. PHMSA's goal is to ensure hazardous liquids, natural and other gases, and liquefied natural gas transported by pipeline will arrive safely to their destinations. In accordance with NEPA, PHMSA solicited comments on the environmental and safety impacts of the proposed rule. All comments received during this period were addressed in the final rule. None of the comments concerned the environmental assessment specified in the proposed rule. Therefore, PHMSA is issuing a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) thus concluding the NEPA process for this rulemaking.

Executive Order 13211 (“Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use”)  30 requires Federal agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for any “significant energy action.” Executive Order 13211 defines a “significant energy action” as any action by an agency (normally published in the Federal Register ) that promulgates or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule or regulation that (1)(i) is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 or any successor order, and (ii) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (2) is designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) as a significant energy action.

This final rule will not be a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211. It will not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Further, OIRA has not designated this final rule as a significant energy action.

Executive Order 13609 (“Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation”)  31 requires agencies to consider whether the impacts associated with significant variations between domestic and international regulatory approaches are unnecessary or may impair the ability of American businesses to export and compete internationally. In meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as protective as those that would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can also reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements.

Similarly, the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing any industry standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. For purposes of these requirements, Federal agencies may participate in the establishment of international standards so long as the standards have a legitimate domestic objective, such as helping to ensure safety, and do not operate to exclude imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they serve as the basis for U.S. standards.

PHMSA participates in the establishment of international standards to protect the safety of the American public. PHMSA assessed the effects of the final rule and understands that it will not cause unnecessary obstacles to foreign trade.

Executive Order 14028 (“Improving the Nation's Cybersecurity”)  32 directs the Federal Government to improve its efforts to identify, deter, and respond to “persistent and increasingly sophisticated malicious cyber campaigns.” In keeping with these policies and directives, PHMSA has assessed the effects of this final rule to determine what impact the regulatory amendments may have on cybersecurity risks for pipeline facilities and has determined that this final rule will not materially affect the cybersecurity risk profile for pertinent pipeline facilities.

This final rule adopts more than 20 new or updated voluntary, consensus industry technical standards that provide specification of materials, test methods, or performance requirements. Gas and hazardous liquid (and carbon dioxide) pipeline operator compliance strategies may be subject to current Transportation Security Agency (TSA) pipeline cybersecurity directives  33 and would be subject to ongoing TSA efforts to strengthen cybersecurity and resiliency in the pipeline sector, as discussed within an ANPRM published in November 2022. 34 Further, the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and the Pipeline Cybersecurity Initiative (PCI) of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security conduct ongoing activities to address cybersecurity risks to U.S. pipeline facilities, and may introduce other cybersecurity requirements and guidance for gas and hazardous liquid (and carbon dioxide) pipeline operators. 35 Lastly, because PHMSA concludes that each of the updated standards in this final rule will enhance the protection of public safety and the environment, this rulemaking could reduce the public safety and the environmental consequences in the event of a cybersecurity incident on pertinent pipeline facilities.

As discussed above, the NTTAA of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs Federal agencies to use voluntary, consensus technical industry standards in their regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or would be otherwise impractical. Voluntary, consensus technical industry standards are technical standards ( e.g., specification of materials, test methods, or performance requirements) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This final rule adopts more than 20 new or updated voluntary, consensus industry technical standards.

The purpose of this final rule is to operate holistically in addressing a panoply of issues necessary to ensure safe operation of regulated gas and hazardous liquid (as well as carbon dioxide) pipelines, with a focus on providing pipeline operators the ability to use current technologies, improved materials, and updated industry and management practices. However, PHMSA recognizes that this rule incorporates by reference various updated industry standards that focus on unique topics. Therefore, PHMSA concludes that the regulatory amendments adopted herein incorporating various updated industry standards into the PSRs are severable and able to function independently if severed from each other. In the event a court were to invalidate one or more of the unique provisions of the final rule issued in this proceeding, the remaining provisions should stand, thus allowing their continued effect.

In consideration of the foregoing, PHMSA is amending 49 CFR parts 192 and 195 as follows:

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the 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 part 600 and 50 CFR parts 679 and 680.

As described in the final 2024 and 2025 harvest specifications for groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska, allocations among vessels belonging to catcher vessel (CV) cooperatives or catcher/processor (CP) cooperatives are not included in the final harvest specifications (March 4, 2024, 89 FR 15484). Rockfish Program applications for CV cooperatives and CP cooperatives are not due to NMFS until March 1 of each calendar year; therefore, NMFS cannot calculate 2024 and 2025 allocations in conjunction with the final harvest specifications (§  679.81(f)). NMFS has received the 2024 Rockfish Program applications and has calculated the 2024 allocations for CV cooperatives and CP cooperatives, as set forth in §  679.81(b), (c), and (e). NMFS is listing the 2024 allocations in table 1.

NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Through previous actions, the FMP and regulations are designed to authorize NMFS to take this action. See 50 CFR part 679. This action is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as such requirement is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. This notification provides information on the 2024 Rockfish Program cooperative allocations, and does not change operating practices in the fisheries. This notification is consistent with the harvest specifications recommended by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council in December 2023 and implemented by NMFS in the final rule for the 2024 and 2025 harvest specifications (89 FR 15484, March 4, 2024). Those harvest specifications specify the final total allowable catch (TAC) limits from which NMFS calculates the Rockfish Program cooperative allocations based on existing regulations, which were implemented through prior notice and comment rulemaking (§  679.81(b), (c), and (e)). The public was provided with notice and opportunity to comment during the public comment period for the proposed harvest specifications (88 FR 85184, December 7, 2023) and has had notice of the final harvest specifications implementing the final TAC limits (89 FR 15484, March 4, 2024). Because the public already had a meaningful opportunity to comment on the TAC limits from which these allocations are derived, further opportunity for public comment is unnecessary and would not be meaningful.

This notification announces the Rockfish Program cooperative allocations based on applications received after the publication of the 2024 and 2025 harvest specifications. If this notification is delayed to allow for notice and comment it could also result in confusion for participants in the Rockfish Program given that the final rule implementing the 2024 and 2025 harvest specifications is effective and the Rockfish Program fishery opens May 1, 2024. Therefore, the Assistant Administrator finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment. For the reasons above, the Assistant Administrator also finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in effective date and make this rule effective immediately upon publication.