Background

As authorized by section 1501 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113-79, 7 U.S.C. 9081(d)), ELAP provides emergency relief to eligible producers of livestock, honeybees, and farm-raised fish to aid in the reduction of losses due to disease (including cattle tick fever), adverse weather, or other conditions, such as blizzards and wildfires, as determined by the Secretary of Agriculture, that are not covered by the Livestock Forage Disaster Program (LFP)  1 or the Livestock Indemnity Program (LIP). 2 FSA, which administers ELAP on behalf of CCC, identified discretionary changes to the ELAP regulations; this rule is making those changes in 7 CFR part 1416, subpart B, as described below.

Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) H5N1 clade 2.3.4.4b (referred to as H5N1 hereafter) infection in dairy cattle results in milk losses for dairy producers due to removal of symptomatic dairy cattle from commercial milk production and reduced production after the dairy cattle recover from H5N1 infection. 3 The Secretary has determined that ELAP is authorized to provide financial assistance to eligible dairy producers to cover a portion of the financial loss incurred because of milk production loss due to H5N1 infection in dairy cattle. Milk losses due to H5N1 that were incurred prior to the publication of this rule are eligible for payment if they meet all eligibility requirements described in this rule.

To be eligible for milk losses due to H5N1, a producer must prove that at least one adult dairy cow in their herd has an H5N1 infection by submitting a positive test, as defined in the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) H5N1 case definition, 4 on individual animal or bulk tank samples confirmed at National Veterinary Services Laboratories (NVSL). The date of the eligible loss condition is the positive H5N1 test collection date, meaning the date the sample was taken from the cow, because that is the date on which H5N1 infection was confirmed to be present in the producer's herd. Throughout this rule, “herd” refers to one or more dairy cows that are under common ownership or supervision and are grouped on a single premises (lot, farm, or ranch) or multiple premises that are geographically separated, but physically located in the same county, as shared personnel and equipment in addition to the movement of livestock are recognized risks for disease transmission.

In addition, a producer must have owned, cash-leased, purchased, or been a contract grower of eligible adult dairy cows for not less than 60 days before the positive H5N1 test collection date. Regardless of ownership type, the producer must have had financial risk in the production of milk from the eligible adult dairy cow at the time of the positive H5N1 test collection date. For example, if an owner of eligible adult dairy cows has cash leased those animals to another producer who is entitled to the milk production under the terms of the lease, the owner of the cows is not considered to have financial risk in the milk production and is not eligible, and only the producer entitled to the milk production may participate. In addition, all general ELAP eligibility rules apply to producers applying for payment for milk losses due to H5N1. 5

To be considered an eligible adult dairy cow for milk losses due to H5N1 under ELAP, it must be all of the following:

• Currently in one of the lactation phases (early, mid, or late) of their lactation cycle and producing milk in which the producer had financial risk at the time of the positive H5N1 test collection date;

• Owned, cash-leased, purchased, or been raised by a contract grower or eligible livestock owner, for not less than 60 days before the positive H5N1 test collection date;

• Maintained for commercial milk production as part of the producer's farming operation on the positive H5N1 test collection date;

• Part of a herd that has a minimum of one confirmed positive H5N1 test from NVSL; and

• Initially removed from commercial milk production due to confirmed or suspected H5N1 infection at some point during the time period beginning 14 days before the positive H5N1 test collection date through 120 days after the positive H5N1 test collection date.

The time period beginning 14 days before the positive H5N1 test collection date is used for dairy cow eligibility because of responses recorded by APHIS via epidemiologic surveys as of the publication of this rule: (a) 14 days before a positive H5N1 test collection date is a reasonable time for a producer to recognize symptom onset in cattle with H5N1 infections and collect samples, and (b) the maximum 120 days after a positive H5N1 collection date reflects the time after an initial positive test where H5N1 virus could be detected in the herd based on current APHIS understanding as of the time of publication of this rule, and is consistent with the time period for other APHIS support programs.

An adult dairy cow that meets all of the above requirements is considered eligible to be reported only for the month in which it is initially removed from commercial milk production due to confirmed or suspected H5N1 infection. For example, an eligible adult dairy cow that was removed from commercial milk production on April 22, 2024, and continued to remain removed from milk production through May 12, 2024, should be reported on the application as an eligible adult dairy cow only for the month of April. In order to prevent duplicate benefits for the same loss, an adult dairy cow cannot be reported as an eligible animal for any subsequent month unless the animal has returned to milk production and is later removed from milk production due to a new H5N1 infection in its herd. During the 120 day time period after the initial positive H5N1 test collection date, an animal in that herd is only eligible for payment one time, based on the positive H5N1 test for that herd.

To be eligible for a payment for milk losses, a dairy producer must submit all of the following to FSA:

• Proof of herd infection through a confirmed positive H5N1 test, based on the APHIS H5N1 case definition, 6 on individual animal or bulk tank samples confirmed at NVSL (preferred individual animal sample types can be found in the APHIS H5N1 Testing Guidance document  7 );

• A notice of loss (CCC-939) indicating the date of the eligible loss condition, which is the positive H5N1 test collection date; and

• An application for payment (CCC-939-H5N1) certifying the number of eligible adult dairy cows, the month the cows were removed from milk production, and the producer's share of the milk production.

Producers must also submit the following forms, if not already on file with FSA: AD-1026, Highly Erodible Land Conservation (HELC) and Wetland Conservation (WC) Certification; AD-2047, Customer Data Worksheet; CCC-901, Member Information for Legal Entities (if applicable); CCC-902, Farm Operating Plan for Payment Eligibility; and CCC-941, Average Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) Certification and Consent to Disclosure of Tax Information.

FSA may confirm the validity of the positive H5N1 test result with APHIS records. FSA may also request documentation to substantiate the information certified on an application, including current and prior year milk production and herd inventory records, which FSA will use to verify the number of animals in the herd that were removed from production. FSA may request other records, including but not limited to veterinary records and feed records or receipts, if required to support a producer's certifications.

FSA will calculate payments for milk loss due to H5N1 by multiplying a per head payment rate by the number of eligible adult dairy cows, multiplied by the producer's share of such dairy cows' milk production, multiplied by an ELAP payment rate of 90 percent as required by 7 U.S.C. 9081(d)(4). The per head payment rate is calculated based on national milk production per head, per month, and a typical number of days that an infected dairy cow is expected to have reduced or no production, which has been established in consultation with APHIS based on available data on the reported effects of H5N1 infection in dairy herds at the time of publication of this rule. In order to streamline delivery of assistance and minimize the reporting burden for dairy producers, FSA has determined that the estimated milk loss per cow due to H5N1 will be based on an expected 21-day period of no milk production when the cow is removed from the milking herd, followed by a period of 7 days when it has returned to milking but produces approximately 50 percent of the normal amount of production. This approach minimizes the information that a producer would need to track and report to FSA, and it aligns with the estimated loss of milk production based on data reported to APHIS as of the time of publication of this rule. To determine the expected milk production per day, FSA will use the monthly national average production in pounds per head, per month, reported by the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). 8 FSA determined that national production data will be used because monthly data, which would allow FSA to account for more seasonal variation in milk production, is unavailable at the regional level and for some states. Collecting monthly data at the state or regional level where it is not currently available is not feasible and would delay payments. FSA will divide the NASS monthly average production per cow by 28 days to calculate an estimated average loss of milk in pounds per cow, per day. FSA will then multiply that estimated average loss per day by 21 days to account for the time period when no production is expected. FSA will also multiply the estimated average loss per day by 7 days, multiplied by 50 percent to account for the time period when the dairy cow has returned to milk production but the amount of production is reduced. FSA will add those 2 amounts (for 21 days and 7 days) to calculate the estimated average loss of milk production per cow, which will be multiplied by the all-milk price  9 to determine the per head payment rate. FSA will use the national all-milk price, which is also used in the Dairy Margin Coverage Program, because price data is not available for all states, and collecting data in states where it is currently unavailable is not feasible and would delay payments.

For example, a dairy producer with a 100 percent share in milk production certifies that 50 eligible adult dairy cows were removed from production in April 2024 due to H5N1 and provides the required documentation of a positive test confirming H5N1 herd infection. The per head payment rate for April is determined by multiplying the expected daily production per cow of 73.18 pounds (based on the NASS monthly national production data) by 100 percent of the milk production loss, multiplied by 21 days (for the first 21 days, which equals 1,536.78), then adding 73.18 pounds multiplied by 50 percent of the milk production loss, multiplied by 7 days (for the last 7 days, which equals 256.13), resulting in a total of 1,792.91 pounds as the estimated lost production. That amount is then multiplied by $0.205 per pound, which is the all-milk price for April, resulting in a per head payment rate of $367.55 for April. The producer's ELAP payment will be equal to $367.55 multiplied by 50 cows, multiplied by a 100 percent share of the producer's milk production, multiplied by the ELAP payment rate of 90 percent, which is equal to $16,539.75. The producer will update their application to report any animals that are removed from production in a later month within the 120 days of the positive H5N1 test. Each subsequent update must include the beginning date for the month that the cows are removed from milk production.

ELAP payments are not subject to payment limitation. General requirements for ELAP payment eligibility, including AGI limitation, apply to ELAP payments for milk loss.

This rule also makes minor technical corrections to fix typographical errors in paragraph references in § 1416.105(c) and (d).

The Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) provides that the notice and comment and 30-day delay in the effective date provisions do not apply when the rule involves a matter relating to agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts. This rule involves a program for payments to certain agricultural commodity producers and thus falls within the exemption for rules related to benefits. Further, as specified in 7 U.S.C. 9091(c)(2), the regulations to implement ELAP are:

• Exempt from the notice and comment provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553; and

• Exempt from the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

In addition, 7 U.S.C. 9091(c)(3) directs the Secretary to use the authority provided in 5 U.S.C. 808 (part of the Congressional Review Act), which provides that when an agency finds there is good cause that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, the rule may take effect at such time as the agency determines. The beneficiaries of this rule have been impacted by H5N1, which has resulted in economic losses, and the availability of these ELAP payments will encourage testing. FSA finds that a delay in the effective date of the rule is contrary to the public interest and therefore this rule is effective upon publication in the Federal Register .

This rule is exempt from the regulatory analysis requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.

Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (also known as the Congressional Review Act) requires a delay in the effective date for 60 days from the date of publication to allow for Congressional review of rules that meet the criteria specified in 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule meets the criteria in 5 U.S.C. 804(2). As discussed above, FSA finds that a delay in the effective date of the rule is contrary to the public interest and therefore this rule is effective upon publication in the Federal Register .

Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” was amended by Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” and Executive Order 14094, “Modernizing Regulatory Review.” Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. The assessment should include potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity. Executive Order 13563 emphasized the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. The requirements in Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 for the analysis of costs and benefits apply to rules that are determined to be significant.

Executive Order 14094 requires Federal agencies to increase and improve public participation in the regulatory process. The Executive Order's objective is to improve public trust in the regulatory process by reducing the risk or appearance of unequal or unfair influence in regulatory development.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) designated this rule as not significant under Executive Order 12866, and therefore, OMB has not reviewed this rule and an analysis of costs and benefits to loans is not required under either Executive Order 12866 or 13563.

The environmental impacts of this final rule have been considered in a manner consistent with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347), the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and because USDA will be making the payments to producers, the USDA regulation for compliance with NEPA (7 CFR part 1b).

This rule makes discretionary changes to ELAP. The discretionary aspects are to improve administration of ELAP and clarify existing program requirements. FSA is providing the disaster assistance under ELAP to eligible producers. The discretionary provisions would not alter any environmental impacts resulting from implementing the mandatory changes to ELAP. Accordingly, these discretionary aspects are covered by the following Categorical Exclusion in 7 CFR 799.31(b)(6)(vi) safety net programs administrated by FSA.

Through this review, FSA determined that the proposed discretionary changes in this rule fit within the categorical exclusions listed above. Categorical exclusions apply when no extraordinary circumstances (§ 799.33) exist. This rule presents only discretionary amendments that will not have an impact on the human environments, individually or cumulatively. Therefore, FSA will not prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement for this rule. This rule serves as documentation of the environmental compliance decision for this federal action.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform.” This rule will not preempt State or local laws, regulations, or policies unless they represent an irreconcilable conflict with this rule. Payments for milk losses due to H5N1 will be made retroactively for eligible losses incurred prior to the publication of this rule, as discussed above. Before any judicial actions may be brought regarding the provisions of this rule, the administrative appeal provisions of 7 CFR parts 11 and 780 are to be exhausted.

This rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with Tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have Tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments, or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.

FSA has assessed the impact of this rule on Indian Tribes and determined that this rule does not, to our knowledge, have significant Tribal implications that require ongoing adherence to Executive Order 13175 at this time. If a Tribe requests consultation, the USDA Office of Tribal Relations will ensure meaningful consultation is provided where changes, additions, and modifications are not expressly mandated by law.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA, Pub. L. 104-4) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments or the private sector. Agencies generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with Federal mandates that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more in any 1 year for State, local, or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector. UMRA generally requires agencies to consider alternatives and adopt the more cost effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. This rule contains no Federal mandates, as defined in Title II of UMRA, for State, local, and Tribal governments, or the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.

The title and number of the Federal Domestic Assistance Program found in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance to which this rule applies is 10.091—Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honeybees, and Farm-raised Fish Program.

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family or parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Individuals who require alternative means of communication for program information (for example, braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and text telephone (TTY)) dial 711 for Telecommunications Relay Service (both voice and text telephone users can initiate this call from any telephone). Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at https://www.usda.gov/oascr/how-to-file-a-program-discrimination-complaint and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail to: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov .

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

For the reasons discussed above, this final rule amends 7 CFR part 1416 as follows:

Table of Contents I. Summary of the Final Rule II. Authority and Background A. The Statute B. Interim Final Rule III. Public Comments on the IFR IV. Section by Section Analysis of the Final Rule A. Purpose, Applicability, and Definitions B. Recapture C. Notice and Reconsideration of Recapture Determination D. Petition to the Department's Office of Hearings and Appeals V. Regulatory Review A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094 B. Executive Order 13132 C. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 D. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 E. Regulatory Flexibility Act F. Executive Order 12988 G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 H. Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 I. Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 J. Executive Order 12630 K. Executive Order 13211 L. Congressional Notification VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary I. Summary of the Final Rule

Section 40323 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) (Pub. L. 117-58), codified at 42 U.S.C. 18753, also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, directs the Department to establish the Civil Nuclear Credit Program to prevent premature closures of nuclear power plants by providing financial support for existing nuclear reactors projected to cease operations due to economic factors.

The IIJA also directs the Department to promulgate a regulation to provide for the recapture of credits awarded to a nuclear reactor if either (a) the nuclear reactor terminates operations during the 4-year award period or (b) the nuclear reactor does not operate at an annual loss in the absence of an allocation of credits. The purpose of this final rule is to establish the procedure for the recapture of credits under the CNC Program. The rule provides a mechanism for the Department to enforce the obligation of the nuclear reactor to continue operation during the 4-year award period and to relinquish its rights to credits if the nuclear reactor is not operating at a loss in the absence of the credits. To minimize the likelihood for the need to recapture credits under the rule, the Department has included in the CNC Program an audit and annual payment adjustment mechanism at the end of each award year during the 4-year award period to evaluate the financial results of operation for that year and to adjust payment of credits based on that evaluation. The recapture regulation ensures that a reactor cannot retain the value of credits if, despite the annual adjustment, the nuclear reactor would not have operated at an annual loss in the absence of an allocation of credits over the 4-year award period or if the nuclear reactor terminates operations despite its contractual obligation to operate for the entire 4-year award period.

Section 40323 of the IIJA directs the Department to establish the CNC Program to provide financial support for existing nuclear reactors projected to cease operations due to economic factors in the form of credits to be awarded for a 4-year award period. Section 40323(g)(2) of the IIJA requires that the Secretary, “by regulation, provide for the recapture of the allocation of any credit to a certified nuclear reactor that during [the 4-year award period]—(A) terminates operations; or (B) does not operate at an annual loss in the absence of an allocation of credits to the certified nuclear reactor.” IIJA section 40323(g)(2). This final rule establishes the procedure for the recapture of credits in accordance with that requirement. This final rule relates only to the recapture provision. No other provision of the CNC Program is subject to implementation by regulation.

On January 8, 2024, DOE published an IFR and request for comments. 89 FR 864 (Jan. 8, 2024). The IFR established an interim final rule for the recapture of credits awarded under the CNC Program. DOE accepted public comments through February 7, 2024. DOE received three comments, none of which commented on the text of the regulation itself.

DOE received three comments from individuals in response to the IFR. These comments are available in the public docket for this rulemaking. One commenter expressed “strong support” for both the CNC Program and IFR. The commenter described the CNC Program as a “vital and timely policy” that supports grid reliability and resilience, promotes high paying jobs, enhances national security, and fosters innovation. The commenter stated that the recapture provision ensures “accountability and transparency of the program” and is “sound and consistent” with the IIJA. The commenter also offered feedback outside the scope of the IFR, recommending that DOE revise the CNC Program Guidance to define a “competitive market” and what constitutes a material amount of revenue from competitive sources, neither of which is necessary for the recapture rule.

Another commenter stated that the CNC Program is “beneficial to the nation's movement towards cleaner energy” and expressed the importance of keeping existing nuclear power plants running for the people who rely on their power. The commenter also observed that these plants “won't be able to function forever” and urged that “this should be treated as a transitory period for these plants while we move towards a less harmful energy source” like wind and solar.

The third commenter submitted a comment outside the scope of the IFR relating to energy costs.

Section 612.1 of the final rule identifies the purpose of the regulations to set forth the procedure by which the Department may recapture credits awarded pursuant to the CNC Program. Section 612.2 provides that the regulations will apply to an owner or operator of a nuclear reactor that is awarded credits under the CNC Program. Section 612.3 contains defined terms used in the rule.

Section 612.4(a) of the regulation identifies the two circumstances in which credits will be recaptured: (1) if the nuclear reactor terminates operation during the award period or (2) at the conclusion of the award period if the nuclear reactor would not have operated at an annual loss in the absence of the credits.

Section 612.4(b) addresses the first circumstance in which recapture will be pursued, namely termination by the nuclear reactor of operations during the award period. In that instance, the Secretary will rescind the award of any unpaid credits, including the credits for the award year in which the termination occurred and for any remaining award years in the award period. In addition, the Department will require the owner or operator to repay the value of credits paid with respect to a prior award year if the Department determines that the nuclear reactor terminated operations as a result of the owner or operator's failure to adhere to prudent industry practice in the operation of the nuclear reactor during the award period.

Section 612.4(c) addresses recapture in the circumstance in which the Secretary determines that the nuclear reactor, during the award period, would not have operated at an annual loss in the absence of the credits. To make this determination, the Department will calculate the recapture amount in the same manner as the annual adjustment of credits is calculated. Although this scenario is unlikely because the recapture analysis will use the same evaluation methodology as the annual adjustment calculation, it could occur if, for example, subsequent information became available that differs from the data relied on in the annual adjustment calculation.

Section 612.5 of the regulation identifies (1) the manner in which the Secretary will notify an owner or operator of its determination to recapture credits and payments for previously paid credits, if any, (2) how an owner or operator may request reconsideration of the recapture determination, and (3) the effective date of a recapture determination. This section also specifies that notices issued with respect to recapture will be public, except that data and supporting documentation constituting confidential business information will not be disclosed.

Section 612.6 provides that an owner or operator of a nuclear reactor that is aggrieved by the Secretary's decision to affirm, withdraw, or modify the notice of recapture as provided in paragraph (c) of § 612.5 may file a petition with the Department's Office of Hearings and Appeals in accordance with 10 CFR 1003.11, not later than thirty days after notification of the Secretary's decision.

Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), as supplemented and reaffirmed by Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011) and amended by Executive Order 14094, “Modernizing Regulatory Review,” 88 FR 21879 (April 11, 2023), requires agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to (1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public. DOE emphasizes as well that Executive Order 13563 requires agencies to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has emphasized that such techniques may include identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes. For the reasons stated in this preamble, this regulatory action is consistent with these principles.

Section 6(a) of Executive Order 12866 requires agencies to submit “significant regulatory actions” to OIRA for review. OIRA has determined that this final rule does not constitute a “significant regulatory action” within the scope of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this action was not subject to review under that Executive Order by OIRA.

Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999), imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism implications. Executive Order 13132 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. DOE has examined this final rule and has 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. Moreover, the recapture regulation is required by statute. No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.

In this final rule, DOE establishes the procedure for the recapture of credits awarded under the CNC Program. DOE has determined that this rule falls into a class of actions that are categorically excluded 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 promulgating procedures for the recapture of credits through administrative and audit procedures is consistent with activities identified in 10 CFR part 1021, appendix A to subpart D, A6. Therefore, DOE has determined that promulgation of the recapture 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 or an environmental impact statement.

This final rule imposes no information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

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 in the IFR, DOE has determined that prior notice and opportunity for public comment is unnecessary under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). 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 final rule. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2), 603(a).

Regarding 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; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. Regarding the review required by section 3(a), section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that each executive agency make every reasonable effort to ensure that when it issues a regulation, 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 sections 3(a) and 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 has determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this 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), (b). 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 to plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. This policy is also available at www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel under “Guidance & Opinions” (Rulemaking). DOE examined this final rule according to UMRA and its statement of policy and has determined that the rule contains neither an intergovernmental mandate, nor a mandate that may result in the expenditure by state, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any year. Accordingly, no further assessment or analysis is required under UMRA.

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 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.

Section 515 of 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 the Office of Management and Budget (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). Pursuant to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, Improving Implementation of the Information Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE published updated guidelines, which are available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has reviewed this final rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with the applicable policies in those guidelines.

Pursuant to Executive Order 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,” 53 FR 8859 (Mar. 15, 1988), DOE has determined that this final rule would not result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

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 OIRA a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgates 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 final rule establishes a procedure to recapture credits awarded under the CNC Program and, therefore, does not meet any of the three criteria listed above. It is not a significant energy action because it would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. 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 before its effective date. The report will state that this rule does not meet the criteria set forth in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

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

This document of the Department of Energy was signed on June 21, 2024, by Maria D. Robinson, Director, Grid Deployment Office, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature 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 .

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

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

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by amending VOR Federal Airway V-4 in the vicinity of Burley, ID. The FAA is taking this action to update one of the radials used in the airway description. During a review of VOR Federal Airway V-4, the FAA discovered that V-4 was established without the accuracy of the Terminal Area Route Generation and Traffic Simulation software tool used today. Because of this, there is a one-degree discrepancy in the airway description. The current airway description for V-4 includes the intersection of the Boise, ID, Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) 130° and the Burley, ID, Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) 292° radials (ALKAL, Fix). The ALKAL Fix has been reviewed and is located at the intersection of the Boise VORTAC 130° and the Burley VOR/DME 293° radials. This action corrects the Burley VOR/DME radial used for defining the ALKAL Fix. The amendment is described below.

V-4: V-4 currently extends between the Tatoosh, WA, VORTAC and the Armel, VA, VOR/DME and includes the intersection of the INT Boise 130° and Burley, ID, 292° radials (ALKAL, Fix). This rule changes the component radials that makeup the ALKAL Fix to the intersection of the Boise VORTAC 130° and Burley VOR/DME 293° radials.

The radials in the V-4 airway description are listed in degrees True north.

This action is an administrative change and does not affect the operating requirements, therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) is unnecessary.

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

The FAA has determined that this action of amending Federal Airway V-4 in the vicinity of Burley, ID qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050,1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6-5a, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points); and paragraph 5-6.5.k., which categorically excludes from further environmental review the publication of existing air traffic control procedures that do not essentially change existing tracks, create new tracks, change altitude, or change concentration of aircraft on these tracks. As such, this action is not expected to result in in any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1f, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis. Accordingly, the FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant prepared of an environmental impact statement.

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

This rule amends 14 CFR part 97 by establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The applicable FAA Forms are 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, 8260-15B, when required by an entry on 8260-15A, and 8260-15C.

The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, pilots do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers or aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA form documents is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and specifies the types of SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Air Missions (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flights safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.

Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

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

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, 14 CFR part 97 is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

This rule amends 14 CFR part 97 by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Air Missions (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, pilots do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP contained on FAA form documents is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections, and specifies the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure and the amendment number.

The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.

The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than 30 days.

Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

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

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, 14 CFR part 97 is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

The Department welcomes public comments from any interested person on any aspect of the changes made by this interim final rule. Please refer to the ADDRESSES section above. The Department will consider all public comments in the drafting of the final rule.

Please note that all comments received are considered part of the public record and made available for public inspection online at https://www.regulations.gov. Information made available for public inspection includes personal identifying information (such as your name, address, etc.) that you voluntarily submit as part of your comment.

If you wish to submit personal identifying information (such as your name, address, etc.) as part of your comment, but do not wish it to be posted online, you must include the phrase “PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also locate all the personal identifying information that you do not want posted online in the first paragraph of your comment and identify what information you want the agency to redact. Personal identifying information identified and located as set forth above will be placed in the agency's public docket file but not posted online.

If you wish to submit confidential business information as part of your comment but do not wish it to be posted online, you must include the phrase “CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also prominently identify confidential business information to be redacted within the comment. If a comment has so much confidential business information that it cannot be effectively redacted, the agency may choose not to post that comment (or to post that comment only partially) on https://www.regulations.gov. Confidential business information identified and located as set forth above will not be placed in the public docket file, nor will it be posted online.

Stolen firearms create risks to public safety. These weapons are often placed into illegal markets, where they can be purchased, sold, and traded without any restrictions. As a result, individuals who are legally prohibited from possessing firearms can obtain and use these weapons to commit violent crimes. Stolen firearms may also be offered for sale or pawn to a licensee. A licensee could then unknowingly promote illicit weapons trafficking by accepting a stolen firearm into their inventory and selling it to a purchaser.

The FBI manages many systems for the exchange of criminal justice information. This interim final rule implements changes to the regulations related to records maintained in the NCIC Gun File, which is one of 22 files in the NCIC. Seven of these files (including the Gun File) contain information related to property, and the remaining 15 files (including the Wanted Persons File) contain information related to persons. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 534, the Attorney General shall exchange identification, criminal identification, crime, and other records for the official use of “authorized officials of the Federal Government, . . . the States, . . . Indian tribes, cities, and penal and other institutions.” This statute also provides that such exchanges are subject to cancellation if dissemination is made outside the receiving departments or related agencies, except for dissemination authorized under 28 U.S.C. 534(a)(5). See 28 U.S.C. 534(b).

The BSCA, Public Law 117-159, 136 Stat. 1313, 1331 (2022), requires the Attorney General to provide licensees with information necessary to verify whether firearms offered for sale to such licensees have been stolen. Public Law 117-159, sec. 12004(h)(2) (codified at 28 U.S.C. 534(a)(5)). The Act further requires that the Attorney General “promulgate regulations allowing a person licensed as an importer, manufacturer, or dealer of firearms under chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to receive access to records of stolen firearms maintained by the [NCIC] operated by the [FBI], solely for the purpose of voluntarily verifying whether firearms offered for sale to such licensees have been stolen.” Public Law 117-159, sec. 12004(h)(3). The law provides that such regulations shall be promulgated “without regard to chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code.” Id.

Accordingly, the FBI is amending title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations to authorize access to FBI-maintained criminal justice information systems to implement parts of the BSCA related to stolen firearms. This interim final rule will help reduce the number of stolen firearms that licensees inadvertently place into their inventories by allowing licensees to obtain information from the NCIC Gun File to determine if a firearm offered for sale to the licensee has been reported as stolen. In addition, when a licensee learns from the NCIC Gun File information indicating a weapon has been stolen, the licensee might report that information to a criminal justice agency. For these reasons, this interim final rule will assist criminal justice agencies in investigating reports of stolen firearms by providing potential investigative leads and will help to deter or halt the sale of stolen firearms through seemingly legitimate business transactions.

To help advance the purpose of section 12004(h) of the BSCA, the FBI is establishing three methods for licensees to access NCIC Gun File information. The first method involves partnering with a criminal justice agency. Among other things, NCIC policy authorizes criminal justice agencies to query the NCIC Gun File and provide a determination to the licensee regarding a firearm's status ( e.g., reported stolen). Prior to the BSCA's enactment in June 2022, dissemination of actual NCIC information was not authorized; an inquiring licensee could receive information that confirmed only the existence of an NCIC Gun File record (a “hit” or “no hit”). This “hit” or “no hit” information did not definitively indicate whether a gun was stolen. Under the Act and this rule, criminal justice agencies may now provide more information from the NCIC Gun File directly to licensees. In particular, they may provide the information that is “necessary to verify whether firearms offered for sale to such licensees have been stolen.” Public Law 117-159, sec. 12004(h)(2); 28 U.S.C. 534(a)(5). Such information may include, among other information, the type and numeric identifiers of the firearm offered for sale. This partnering between the licensee and the criminal justice agency will allow the licensee to obtain the information needed to determine whether a firearm has been stolen.

Next, in connection with this rulemaking, the FBI is establishing a second method for accessing Gun File information. Specifically, the FBI is creating an extract of the NCIC Gun File and will make this data available to Criminal Justice Information Services (“CJIS”) Systems Agencies for download into State systems that licensees can access. To ensure licensees receive only the information necessary to implement 28 U.S.C. 534(a), the extract's contents will be limited to NCIC Gun File information that, as previously indicated, relates only to whether the firearm may have been stolen. However, the specific method that a licensee uses to access the extract will depend upon the manner in which the State provides the information. When this rule becomes effective, the FBI will furnish a notice to all CJIS Systems Officers to ensure licensees are notified of the new information that is available.

In developing this rule, the FBI sought advice and endorsement from its CJIS Advisory Policy Board (“APB”), which operates under the Federal Advisory Committee Act; doing so led to the identification of a third method for disseminating information from the NCIC Gun File concerning stolen gun records to licensees. In particular, in March 2023, the FBI submitted to the CJIS Working Groups, 1 which provide proposals to the CJIS APB and its Subcommittees, a proposal to authorize licensees to use the E-Check Portal of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (“NICS”) to access the NCIC Gun File.

All five Working Groups recommended pursuing all three methods described above: partnering with a criminal justice agency, the creation of the NCIC Gun File extract, and the NICS E-Check Portal method. In April 2023, the FBI submitted this same proposal to the NICS, Security and Access, and NCIC Subcommittees. 2 All three Subcommittees similarly recommended pursuing all three methods. In June 2023, this proposal was presented to the CJIS APB, which recommended to the FBI Director that all three methods be pursued. On December 5, 2023, the FBI Director approved the APB recommendations. FBI Director approval authorizes the FBI CJIS Division to create the necessary policies for implementing the APB recommendations.

In addition to information specific to a stolen firearm itself (such as type and numeric identifiers), licensees using any of the three methods will be provided information relating to the criminal justice agency that entered the record into the NCIC for purposes of law enforcement follow-up. Provision of this information is intended to ensure that all licensees can perform a direct search of stolen gun information using technologies existing between the NICS and NCIC. Doing so will enable a licensee, for example, to ensure the gun offered for sale to the licensee is the exact same gun for which information exists in the Gun File and to confirm with the relevant criminal justice agency that the Gun File information is still accurate. Through these methods, licensees will be able to receive a previously unavailable subset of NCIC Gun File information to ascertain the firearm's status while ensuring the appropriate privacy and information dissemination restrictions are observed.

Pursuant to section 12004(h)(3) of the BSCA, the Department is not required to comply with chapter 5 of title 5 of the United States Code. However, the Department is, in its discretion, seeking post-promulgation public comment on this rulemaking.

This interim final rule amends the Department's regulations, under 28 U.S.C. 534, to incorporate certain changes made by the BSCA. The FBI will be developing electronic solutions to disseminate NCIC records to the licensees. The FBI will provide these solutions to licensees at no cost, and the FBI will not charge a fee for this service. Because the Department is not required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this interim final rule, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required. See 5 U.S.C. 603(a).

This interim final rule has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” section 1(b), Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” section 1(b), and Executive Order 14094, “Modernizing Regulatory Review,” section 2(a).

The Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) has determined that this interim final rule is a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), as amended by Executive Order 14094. Accordingly, this interim final rule has been reviewed by OMB. Both Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.

As explained above, the five Working Groups, as well as the NICS, Security and Access, and NCIC Subcommittees, considered these regulations and the manner in which they will be implemented and concluded they represent an effective way for licensees to obtain the information encompassed by 28 U.S.C. 534(a)(5). In addition, the Department anticipates that providing this information will result in safety benefits that cannot be quantified but that are nonetheless significant. In light of these considerations, and after further assessment of the costs and benefits of this regulation, the Department believes that the regulatory approach it has selected maximizes net benefits.

This interim final rule 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. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” the Department has determined that this interim final rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.

This interim final rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b) (2) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform.”

This interim final rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted for inflation) in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions are necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Public Law 104-4, 109 Stat. 48; see also 2 U.S.C. 1532(a), 1533.

This interim final rule is not a major rule as defined by section 804 of the legislation commonly known as the Congressional Review Act, Public Law 104-121, sec. 251, 110 Stat. 847, 868 (1996) (codified in relevant part at 5 U.S.C. 804). This action pertains to agency management or personnel, and agency organization, procedure, or practice, in that it specifies the circumstances in which the Department's own personnel, in managing the NCIC, will make available certain information from the NCIC Gun File. Further, because licensees have discretion to choose whether to request such information, this rule does not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. Accordingly, it is not a “rule” as that term is used by the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(B), (C), and the reporting requirement of 5 U.S.C. 801 does not apply.

This interim final rule does not impose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, 109 Stat. 163, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 20 of title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PBGC's regulation on Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4044) prescribes actuarial assumptions—including an interest assumption—for valuing benefits under terminating single-employer plans covered by title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The interest assumption is also posted on PBGC's website ( www.pbgc.gov ).

PBGC uses the interest assumption in § 4044.54 to determine the present value of annuities in an involuntary or distress termination of a single-employer plan under the asset allocation regulation. The assumptions in part 4044 of PBGC's regulations are also used in other situations where it is appropriate for liabilities to align with private sector group annuity prices. For example, PBGC's regulations on Notice, Collection, and Redetermination of Withdrawal Liability (29 CFR part 4219) and Duties of Plan Sponsor Following Mass Withdrawal (29 CFR part 4281) provide that these assumptions are used to value liabilities for purposes of determining withdrawn employers' reallocation liability in the event of a mass withdrawal from a multiemployer plan. Multiemployer plans that receive special financial assistance under the regulation on Special Financial Assistance by PBGC (29 CFR part 4262) must, as a condition of receiving special financial assistance, use the interest assumption to determine withdrawal liability for a prescribed period. Additionally, plan sponsors are required to use some, or all of these assumptions for specified purposes ( e.g., reporting benefit liabilities in filings required under PBGC's regulation on Annual Financial and Actuarial Information Reporting (29 CFR part 4010) or determining certain amounts to transfer to PBGC's Missing Participants Program on behalf of a missing participant of a terminating defined benefit plan under PBGC's regulation on Missing Participants (29 CFR part 4050)) and may use them for other purposes ( e.g., to ensure that plan spinoffs comply with section 414(l) of the Internal Revenue Code (the Code)).

On June 6, 2024, PBGC issued a final rule at 89 FR 48291 that changes the structure of the interest assumption for valuation dates on or after July 31, 2024, from the select and ultimate approach to a yield curve approach. As described in the June 6 final rule, this “4044 yield curve,” is based on a blend of two publicly available bond yield curves that is adjusted to the extent necessary so that the resulting liabilities align with group annuity prices. The adjustments are referred to as “spreads.” PBGC determines and publishes spreads quarterly based on survey data on pricing of private-sector group annuities. As noted in the preamble to the June 6 rule, PBGC will post the 4044 yield curve on its website at www.pbgc.gov each month shortly after its underlying data become available. In addition, practitioners are able to determine the 4044 yield curve as of the end of any month using the publicly available bond yield curves and the spreads specified in the regulation.

This rule amends the regulation to specify the spreads used to determine the 4044 yield curve as of the last days of July, August, and September of 2024, ( i.e., the “third quarter 2024 spreads”).

PBGC has determined that notice of, and public comment on, this rule are impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest. PBGC routinely updates the spreads component of the interest assumption in the asset allocation regulation so that the 4044 yield curve may be determined as soon as the underlying bond yield curves become available. These amendments are merely technical; they ensure that use of PBGC's interest assumption continues to yield liabilities in line with group annuity prices. Accordingly, PBGC finds that the public interest is best served by issuing this rule expeditiously, without an opportunity for notice and comment, and that good cause exists for making the assumptions set forth in this amendment effective less than 30 days after publication.

PBGC has determined that this action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the criteria set forth in Executive Order 12866.

Because no general notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this amendment, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 does not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2).

In consideration of the foregoing, PBGC amends 29 CFR part 4044 as follows:

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. The Coast Guard did not receive final details for this event with sufficient time to issue a proposed rule. It is impracticable to go through the full notice and comment rule making process because the Coast Guard must establish this safety zone by July 4, 2024, and lacks sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and to consider those comments before issuing the rule.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date of this rule would be contrary to public interest because action is necessary to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from the potential safety hazards associated with the fireworks display on Redwood Creek in Redwood City, CA on July 4, 2024.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port San Francisco has determined that potential hazards associated with the Redwood City Fourth of July Fireworks on July 4, 2024, will be a safety concern for anyone within a 100-foot radius of the fireworks vessel during loading and staging, and anyone within a 850-foot radius of the fireworks vessel starting 30 minutes before the fireworks display is scheduled to commence and ending 30 minutes after the conclusion of the fireworks display. For this reason, this temporary safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters around the fireworks vessel and during the fireworks display.

This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from 9 a.m. on July 4, 2024, until 10:20 p.m. on July 4, 2024, during the loading, staging, and transit of the fireworks vessel in San Francisco Bay from Pier 68 to Redwood Creek, Redwood City, CA, and until 30 minutes after completion of the fireworks display. During the loading, staging, and transit of the fireworks vessel, scheduled to take place between 9 a.m. on July 4, 2024, until 9 p.m. on July 4, 2024, until 30 minutes prior to the start of the fireworks display, the safety zone will encompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks vessel, from surface to bottom, within a circle formed by connection of all points 100 feet out from the fireworks vessel. The fireworks display is scheduled to start from 9:30 p.m. and end at approximately 9:50 p.m. on July 4, 2024, on Redwood Creek in Redwood City, CA.

The fireworks vessel will remain at Pier 68 until the start of its transit to the display location. Movement of the vessel from Pier 68 to the display location is scheduled to take place from 6:30 p.m. to 8 p.m. on July 4, 2024, where it will remain until the conclusion of the fireworks display.

At 9 p.m. on July 4, 2024, 30 minutes prior to the commencement of the 20-minute fireworks display, the safety zone will increase in size and encompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks vessel, from surface to bottom, within a circle formed by all connecting points 850 feet from the circle center at approximate position 37°30′28.48″ N-122°12′51.53″ W (NAD 83). The safety zone will terminate at 10:20 p.m. on July 4, 2024.

This regulation is necessary to keep persons and vessels away from the immediate vicinity of the fireworks loading, staging, transit, and display site. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the restricted area. A “designated representative” means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel, or a Federal, State, or local officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port San Francisco (COTP) in the enforcement of the safety zone. This regulation is necessary to ensure the safety of participants, spectators, and transiting vessels.

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

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the limited duration and narrowly tailored geographic area of the safety zone. Although this rule restricts access to the waters encompassed by the safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be significant because the local waterways users will be notified to ensure the safety zone will result in minimum impact. The vessels desiring to transit through or around the temporary safety zone may do so upon express permission from the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a temporary safety zone in the navigable waters around the loading, staging, transit, and display of fireworks near Pier 50 in San Francisco Bay and on Redwood Creek in Redwood City. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

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

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

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the Providence Fireworks regulated area in 33 CFR 165.173 from 8:30 p.m. to 10 p.m. on July 2, 2024, or those same hours on July 3, 2024, in the case of inclement weather on July 2, 2024. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this 1-day event. Our regulation for marine events within the First Coast Guard District, § 165.173, which specifies the location of the regulated area for the Providence Fireworks which encompasses portions of the Providence River. During the enforcement periods, as reflected in § 165.173, if you are the operator of a vessel in the regulated area you must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol displaying a Coast Guard ensign.

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

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of the Port DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

The Coast Guard receives numerous event applications for firework displays on the Mobile River, to be held in the vicinity of the Arthur R. Outlaw Convention Center in Mobile, AL. These displays are sponsored by multiple organizations and held sporadically throughout the year. Based on previous years, approximately five to ten displays are expected to be held on any given year. The purpose of this rule is to ensure the safety of vessels, participants, and waterways users within a 100-yard radius of the fireworks barge immediately before, during, and after scheduled events. In response, on March 14, 2024, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Safety Zone; Reoccurring Firework Displays Near Convention Center on the Mobile River, Mobile, AL” (89 FR 18583). There we stated why we issued the NPRM and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to these fireworks displays. During the comment period that ended April 15, 2024, we received one comment which favored the establishment of the safety zone. The final rule is unchanged from that which we proposed in the NPRM.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port Sector Mobile Region (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks to be used in these reoccurring firework displays will be a safety concern for anyone within a 100-yard radius of the barge. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of vessels and the navigable waters in the safety zone before, during, and after the scheduled event.

As noted above, we received one comment on our NPRM published March 14, 2024, that was in favor of the rulemaking. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.

This rule establishes a reoccurring safety zone covering all navigable waters within a 100-yard radius of barge-based firework displays on the Mobile River. The safety zone will be subject to enforcement for approximately one hour when a barge-based fireworks display is scheduled to occur. No person will be allowed within 100 yards of the fireworks barges immediately before, during, and immediately after firework displays. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the fireworks display. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP, or a COTP designated representative.

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

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time of day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic may be able to safely transit around this safety zone which w impact a small, designated area of the Mobile River for less than 1 hour during the evening for the duration of the firework display.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone immediately before, during, and immediately after the firework displays which will prohibit entry within 100 yards of a barge in which the fireworks are being fired from on the Mobile River, located in the vicinity of the Arthur R. Outlaw Convention Center in Mobile, AL. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

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

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

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zones established in 33 CFR 165.1191, Table 1 to § 165.1191, Item numbers 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 19, and 31 during the dates, times, and locations indicated in the table below. The dates, times, and locations will also be published in the Local Notice to Mariners at least 10 days prior to the date of each event.

Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1191, unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from anchoring, blocking, loitering, or impeding the through transit of participants or official patrol vessels in the safety zone during all applicable effective dates and times, unless authorized to do so by the PATCOM or other Official Patrol, defined as a Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency on scene to assist the Coast Guard in enforcing the safety zone. During the enforcement periods, if you are the operator of a vessel in one of the safety zones, you must comply directions from the Patrol Commander or other Official Patrol. The PATCOM or Official Patrol may, upon request, allow the transit of commercial vessels through regulated areas when it is safe to do so.

In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners.

If the Captain of the Port determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, a Broadcast Notice to Mariners may be used to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the annual LaPointe Fireworks in 33 CFR 165.943(a) from 9:30 p.m. through 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2024, on all waters of Lake Superior bounded by the arc of a circle with a 1,120-foot radius from the fireworks launch site with its center in position 46°46′40″ N, 090°47′22″ W.

Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Duluth or their designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port's designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.943 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this publication in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of the enforcement of this safety zone via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the Fall River Fireworks Display regulated area in 33 CFR 165.173 from 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. on July 4, 2024. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this 1-day event. Our regulation for marine events within the First Coast Guard District, § 165.173, specifies the location of the regulated area for the Fall River Fireworks Display, which is in the vicinity of Battleship Cove, Fall River, MA. During the enforcement periods, as reflected in § 165.173, if you are the operator of a vessel in the regulated area you must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol displaying a Coast Guard ensign.

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

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. We must establish this safety zone as soon as possible to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by the fireworks displays occurring daily now.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date of this rule would be contrary to the public interest because immediate action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with fireworks launched from a barge in the waters of the Laguna Madre.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port Sector Corpus Christi (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with a fireworks display will be a safety concern for anyone within a 700-yard radius from a stationary barge from which the fireworks will be launched. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of vessels and persons on these navigable waters in the safety zone while the display of the fireworks takes place in the Laguna Madre.

This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from June 25, 2024, until August 30, 2024. The safety zone will be subject to enforcement from the hours of 9:30 p.m. through 11:59 p.m. each day it is in effect. It is anticipated that fireworks will only take place each of the following nights: June 25, 28; July 2, 5, 9, 12, 16, 19, 23, 26, 30; and August 2, 6, 9, 16, 23, 30, but that schedule is subject to change. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public of the enforcement times and date for this safety zone through Broadcast Notices to Mariners, Local Notices to Mariners, and/or Safety Marine Information Broadcasts, as appropriate. The safety zone will encompass certain navigable waters of the Laguna Madre and is defined by a 700-yard radius around the launching platform. The regulated area encompasses a 700-yard radius from the following point; 26°6′02.1″ N, 97°10′17.7″ W. No vessel or person is permitted to enter the temporary safety zone during the effective period without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative, who may be contacted on Channel 16 VHF-FM (156.8 MHz) or by telephone at 361-939-0450.

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

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the safety zone. It is anticipated that the temporary safety zone will only be subject to enforcement for a short period (2.5 hours) on each of the following nights: on June 25, 28; July 2, 5, 9, 12, 16, 19, 23, 26, 30; and August 2, 6, 9, 16, 23, 30. The zone is limited to a 700-yard radius of the launching position in the navigable waters of the Laguna Madre. The rule does not completely restrict the traffic within a waterway and allows mariners to request permission to enter the zone.

Because the Coast Guard has determined that this temporary final rule is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking requirements, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, do not apply to this action.

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. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, 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 establishment of a temporary safety zone for navigable waters of the Laguna Madre in a zone defined by a 700-yard radius from the following coordinate: 26°6′02.1″ N, 97°10′17.7″ W. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by fireworks display in the waters of the Laguna Madre. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

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

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

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

The background and legal basis for this action are discussed in detail in our November 6, 2020 proposal (85 FR 71023). 1 We proposed to approve the Governor of Utah's submittal of May 21, 2020, including revisions to UAC R307-110-32 (which incorporates by reference Utah SIP section X.B., the vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program for Davis County) and R307-110-35 (which incorporates by reference Utah SIP section X.E., the vehicle I/M program for Weber County).

Additionally, we proposed to approve SIP revisions and new rules submitted by the Utah Division of Air Quality (UDAQ) on April 19, 2018, May 21, 2020, and July 21, 2020, specifically UAC R307-208, R307-230, R307-304, R307-335, R307-343, R307-344, R307-345, R307-346, R307-347, R307-348, R307-349, R307-350, R307-351, R307-352, R307-353, R307-354 and R307-355.

Our proposed rulemaking provided notice of a 30-day public comment period. On November 10, 2020, Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment submitted a request to extend the comment period by thirty days and for EPA to grant a formal, online hearing. EPA reviewed this request but denied it, maintaining the original December 7, 2020, comment deadline and declining to hold the requested hearing. 2 EPA received no comments specific to these four submittals.

We are approving the submittal of May 21, 2020, with revisions to R307-110-32, R307-110-35 (including the incorporated-by-reference revisions to Utah SIP Sections X.B. and X.E., which are the I/M programs for Davis and Weber Counties), but we are not acting on appendix D (Diesel Inspection Procedures) or appendix F (Diesel Fueled Vehicle Test Procedure) of Utah SIP sections X.B. and X.E., respectively. 3 The diesel inspection and testing procedures in these two appendices are not required submissions under CAA section 110(c) or required plan items under CAA section 179, and EPA has not promulgated criteria for evaluating them in 40 CFR part 51, subpart S. Further, there is a lack of correlation between opacity and particulate matter (PM) mass emissions in diesel vehicles, and relevant literature and studies suggest that adjusting diesel vehicles to reduce the opacity of emissions may result in an increase in emissions of NO X , which is a precursor to the formation of PM 2.5 . 4

EPA is also approving Utah UAC sections R307-200 and R307-300 revisions and new rules submitted by UDAQ on April 19, 2018, May 21, 2020, and July 21, 2020, which strengthen the SIP. These rules are R307-208, R307-230, R307-304, R307-335, R307-343, R307-344, R307-345, R307-346, R307-347, R307-348, R307-349, R307-350, R307-351, R307-352, R307-353, R307-354 and R307-355.

The revisions being approved in this final action clarify several area source rules, including reorganizing provisions related to work practices and recordkeeping, and make other general administrative updates. In this final rule we are not determining that any rule satisfies BACM requirements for the Serious PM 2.5 nonattainment areas (NAAs), nor are we reconsidering the substantive approvability under the CAA of provisions that have been previously approved into the SIP.

EPA reviewed demographic data, which provides an assessment of individual demographic groups of the populations living within the Salt Lake City and Provo PM 2.5 NAAs. 5 EPA then compared the data to the national average for each of the demographic groups. The results of this analysis are being provided for informational and transparency purposes. The results of the demographic analysis indicate that, for populations within the Salt Lake City PM 2.5 NAA, the percentage of the population consisting of people of color is less than the national average (25% vs. 40%). For populations within the Provo PM 2.5 NAA, the results of the demographic analysis indicate that the percentage of the population consisting of people of color is less than the national average (18% vs. 40%). The percentage of people living below the poverty level in the Salt Lake City PM 2.5 NAA is lower than the national average (23% vs. 30%). For the Provo PM 2.5 NAA, the percentage of people living below the poverty level is lower than the national average (27% vs. 30%).

This final action approves state rules and rule revisions into the SIP and will establish federally enforceable requirements that will reduce emissions of PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursors. We expect that this action and the resulting emissions reductions will be neutral or will contribute to reduced environmental and health impacts on all populations in the NAAs, including people of color and low-income populations in the Salt Lake City and Provo PM 2.5 NAAs. Further, there is no information in the record indicating that this action is expected to have disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental effects on a particular group of people.

In this document, EPA is taking final action to approve regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is taking final action to approve the incorporation by reference of: R307-110-32; R307-110-35; R307-208; R307-230; R307-304; R307-335; R307-343; R307-344; R307-345; R307-346; R307-347; R307-348; R307-349; R307-350; R307-351; R307-352; R307-353; R307-354; R307-355; Utah SIP section X.B., excluding appendix D; and Utah SIP section X.E., excluding appendix F, as discussed in section III. of this preamble. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 8 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. 6

Under the CAA, 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 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 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, 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 CAA.

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. Accordingly, 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).

Finally, 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.” The air agency 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. Consistent with EPA's discretion under the CAA, EPA has evaluated the environmental justice considerations of this action, as is described above in the section titled, “Environmental Justice Considerations.” 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. In addition, 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 August 30, 2024. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

The EPA is approving revisions to the Iowa SIP received on October 17, 2022. The state withdrew certain provisions of the request on February 7, 2024. The revisions are to Linn County Code of Ordinances Chapter 10, Article III “Air Quality”. The CAA allows authorized states to delegate portions of the Act's implementation and enforcement to local governments such as Linn County. The revisions to the Iowa SIP incorporate updated definitions and references to federal rules, revised methods and procedures for performance test/stack test and continuous monitoring systems, and minor clarifications and grammatical changes.

EPA finds that these revisions meet the requirements of the CAA, do not impact the stringency of the SIP, and do not adversely impact air quality. The full text of the rule revisions as well as EPA's analysis of the revisions can be found in the technical support document (TSD) included in this docket.

The State's submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. Linn County provided public notice on this SIP revision from April 1, 2022, to May 2, 2022, and received no comments. The EPA's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and supporting information contained in the docket were made available for public comment from April 18, 2024, to May 20, 2024. The EPA received no comments. In addition, as explained above and in more detail in the technical support document which is part of this docket, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.

The EPA is taking final action to amend the Iowa SIP by approving the State's request to revise Linn County Code of Ordinances, Chapter 10.

In this document, 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 Linn County Air Quality Ordinance, Chapter 10, with an effective date of May 14, 2022, which regulates air quality in Linn County. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 7 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 the 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 the EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation. 1

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA 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 CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Iowa Department of Natural Resources 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. EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Due to the nature of the action being taken here, this action is expected to have a neutral to positive impact on the air quality of the affected area. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and there is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.

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

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:

I. Background II. Discussion of the Administrative Final Rule III. Procedural Matters I. Background

The Mining Law of 1872 allows individuals and corporations to stake (or “locate”) mining claims on certain Federal land. Originally, annual assessment work and related filings were required by statute in order to maintain an unpatented mining claim or site. 30 U.S.C. 28-28e; 43 U.S.C. 1744(a) and (c).

Beginning in fiscal year 1993, mining claimants have been required to pay an annual fee in lieu of performing annual assessment work and making annual filings. Mining claimants locating new claims or sites must pay an initial “maintenance” fee for the assessment year in which the mining claim was located and also pay a one-time location fee. See 30 U.S.C. 28f-28l.

This rule implements 30 U.S.C. 28j(c), which requires adjustments to the location and maintenance fees “to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) of the Department of Labor every 5 years after August 10, 1993, or more frequently if the Secretary determines an adjustment to be reasonable.” Section 28j(c) also requires that mining claimants be provided “notice of any adjustment made under this subsection not later than July 1 of any year in which the adjustment is made” and that any fee adjustment “shall begin to apply the first assessment year which begins after adjustment is made.”

As enacted in 1993, the one-time location fee was $25, and the annual maintenance fee was $100 per mining claim or site. In 2004, the BLM increased the amount of the location and maintenance fees to $30 and $125 respectively, based on the change in the CPI from September 1, 1993, to December 31, 2003 (69 FR 40294 (July 1, 2004)). In 2009, the BLM increased the amount of the location and maintenance fees to $34 and $140, respectively, based on the change in the CPI from December 31, 2003, to December 31, 2008 (74 FR 30959). On July 27, 2012, the BLM issued a rule (77 FR 44155) that also amended 43 CFR 3830.21, based on a law that changed the way the maintenance fee is calculated for unpatented placer mining claims. Then in 2014, the BLM increased the amount of the location fee to $37 and increased the maintenance fee to $155 for lode mining claims or sites and $155 for each 20 acres or portion thereof for placer mining claims, based on the change in the CPI from December 31, 2008, to December 31, 2013 (79 FR 36662). In 2019, the BLM increased the amount of the location fee to $40 and increased the maintenance fee to $165 for lode mining claims or sites and $165 for each 20 acres or portion thereof for placer mining claims, based on the change in the CPI from December 31, 2014, to December 31, 2019 (84 FR 31219).

The adjustments made in this rule are based upon the change in the CPI from December 31, 2018, to December 31, 2023, as reported by the BLS in the “CPI Databases” ( https://www.bls.gov/cpi/data.htm ). The particular series used for this update is the “All Urban Consumers (Current Series) (Consumer Price Index—CPI-U).”

The calculated change is 22.1 percent from December 31, 2018, through December 31, 2023. A calculated value for the fees was obtained by inflating the location and maintenance fees established in the 2019 rulemaking by 22.1 percent. The new location fee is $49, and the new maintenance fee is $200 per lode mining claim or site and $200 for each 20 acres or portion thereof for placer mining claims. The new location fee is based on rounding the calculated value to the nearest $1. The maintenance fee is based on rounding the calculated value to the nearest $5.

Mining claimants must pay the new location fee and maintenance fee for any mining claim or site located on or after September 1, 2024. Mining claimants must pay the new maintenance fee to maintain existing mining claims and sites beginning with the 2025 maintenance year. The maintenance fee is due on or before September 1, 2024. Under 43 CFR 3834.23(d), mining claimants who have already submitted maintenance fees for the 2025 assessment year, and those who timely pay the 2025 assessment year maintenance fee based on the fee in effect immediately before the adjustment was made, will be given an opportunity to pay the additional amount without penalty upon notice from the BLM. The BLM will also give claimants the opportunity to cure deficient maintenance and location fee payments for new claims or sites located on or after September 1, 2024, and timely received on or before December 31, 2024.

The BLM is adopting this final rule solely to adjust the location and maintenance fee amounts in § 3830.21. The BLM for good cause finds under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) that notice and an opportunity for public comment for this rule are unnecessary and that this rule may properly take effect upon publication. The reason is that this rule implements a statutory requirement to adjust the location and annual maintenance fees at least every 5 years, and the last adjustment was made in 2019. The statute specifies the method of calculating the fee adjustments and prescribes the form and manner of notice of the fee adjustment, and the BLM has no discretion in implementing the statute. The BLM also determines under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) that there is good cause to place the rule into effect on the date of publication, because the adjustments made in the rule are explicitly authorized by statute.

This final rule contains only the specific amendments necessary to conform to the requirements of the statute. The amendments appear as modifications of the fee transaction table at 43 CFR 3830.21 to change the amount of the location and annual maintenance fees required to be paid for each lode mining claim, mill site, or tunnel site and for each 20 acres or portion thereof for a placer mining claim.

Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094, provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. This rule is not significant and OIRA will not formally review it because it does not meet one or more of the criteria for significance as follows:

(a) This rule will not have an effect of $200 million or more on the economy. It 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. The rule increases the maintenance and location fees as provided for by statute. We estimate that the rule will likely result in a small increase in transfer payments from mining claimants to the Federal Government. The fee adjustment does not change the substance of current mining claim administration within the BLM. The total amount of fees to be collected, including the effects of the adjustment, is estimated to be $124 million annually, of which approximately $22.2 million will be attributable to the adjustments made in this rule.

(b) This rule will not create an inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency. The rule affects only the BLM's administration of its minerals program and does not change the relationships of the BLM to other agencies and their actions.

(c) This rule does not change the budgetary effects of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights or obligations of their recipients.

(d) This rule does not raise novel legal or policy issues. It merely updates the maintenance and location fees that BLM assesses.

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

The rule would affect business entities across many industries. The BLM reviewed the potentially affected entities and determined the industries to which they identify. The BLM also evaluated the extent to which the rule would affect entities that are small businesses, as defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA). See the Economic and Threshold Analysis for this rule for a discussion of SBA size standards.

The entities potentially affected by the rule locate mining claims or sites and may be actively involved in the exploration and development of locatable minerals on Federal lands. These entities are defined by the SBA as an individual, limited partnership, or small company considered being at “arm's length” from the control of any parent companies. The BLM does not have the authority to collect information concerning the number of employees, whether for companies locating mining claims or sites, or for companies actively involved in the exploration and development of locatable minerals on Federal lands. However, by reviewing U.S. Census Bureau data on entities involved in the development of locatable type minerals, we can make a reasonable conclusion about the extent to which the rule will affect small business as defined by the SBA.

Based on statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau's 2017 Economic Census, all of the potentially affected industries are overwhelmingly comprised of small businesses, as defined by the SBA. Based on this information, the rule could impact a substantial number of small entities.

In addition to determining if a substantial number of small entities are likely to be impacted by this final rule, the BLM must also determine whether the final rule is anticipated to have a significant economic impact on those small entities. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) does not define “significant.” Significance must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Significance should not be viewed in absolute terms but should be seen as relative to the size of the business, the size of the competitor's business, and the impact the regulation has on larger competitors.

An analysis that looks at the individual financial circumstances, i.e., profit margin, for each firm within an industry would help in answering the significance question. However, such financial information on individual claimants is not available. Even assessing an individual entity's ability to pay is problematic as there is limited information on most claimants. Most entities holding mining claims or sites are either individuals or privately held companies.

At the end of FY 2023, there were approximately 24,200 claimants holding approximately 515,000 mining claims and sites. This works out to be an average of 21 claims or sites per claimant. Assuming the number of claims and sites, and claimants who do not file a fee waiver does not significantly change as a result of the rule, we estimate a total maintenance fee increase of about $22 million per year. This represents an average maintenance fee increase of about $892 per claimant. The actual impact on an individual claimant will depend on a number of factors, including the number of claims or sites that are actually held. However, the average number of claims and sites actually held by individuals and companies that would be considered small entities by SBA would likely be significantly less than the 15 claims or sites per claimant figure. This average claims-per-claimant figure is skewed by the large number of claims and sites held by a few large mining companies. For example, the three companies holding the most mining claims or sites at the end of FY 2018 each held over 10,000 claims or sites. All three of those companies were large multi-national corporations.

For the location fee increase, we estimate a total annual fee increase of about $605,000. Assuming 69,000 new filings per year and using the figure of approximately 24,200 total claimants, we estimate there are approximately 3 new claims per claimant per year. The average location fee increase will be approximately $27 per claimant.

Most importantly, however, the fees remain unchanged in real terms, and adjusting fees for inflation does not represent a real cost increase for claimants. For example, the maintenance fee of $165 in 2019 dollars is the same as the fee of $200 in 2024 dollars. For this reason, and the reasons described above, the BLM has determined that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule does not meet the criteria under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Congressional Review Act. This rule:

(a) Will not have an annual effect on the economy of $200 million or more. The revised regulation will not materially alter current BLM policy. The fee adjustments are authorized by statute. The total amount of fees collected, including the effects of the adjustment, is estimated to be $124 million annually, of which $22 million is attributable to the adjustments made in this rule.

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

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

In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. ):

This rule will not “significantly or uniquely” affect small governments. A Small Government Agency Plan is unnecessary.

This rule will not produce a Federal mandate of $200 million or greater in any year. It is not a “significant regulatory action” under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The changes implemented in this rule do not require anything of any non-Federal governmental entity.

In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the BLM finds that the rule does not have takings implications. A takings implication assessment is not required. This rule does not substantially change BLM policy. Nothing in this rule constitutes a taking. The Federal courts have heard a number of suits challenging the imposition of the rental and maintenance fees as a taking of a right, or, alternatively, as an unconstitutional tax. The courts have upheld the fee legislation and the BLM regulations as a proper exercise of Congressional and Executive authorities.

The final rule 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. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, the BLM has determined that the final rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

In accordance with Executive Order 13175, the BLM finds that the final rule does not include policies that have Tribal implications. Because this rule does not make significant substantive changes in the regulations and does not specifically involve Indian reservation lands (which are closed to the operation of the Mining Law), the BLM finds that the rule will have no implications for Indians, Indian Tribes, and Tribal governments.

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

In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the BLM finds that the final rule does not unduly burden the judicial system, and therefore meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. The BLM consulted with the Department of the Interior's Office of the Solicitor during the drafting process.

The BLM has determined this final rule does not contain any information collection requirements that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) must approve under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

This final rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under NEPA is not required because this rule is part of the routine administration of the fee legislation and is covered by a categorical exclusion. This rule will result in no new surface disturbing activities and therefore will have no effect on ecological or cultural resources. In promulgating this rule, the government is conducting routine and continuing government business of an administrative nature having limited context and intensity. Therefore, it is categorically excluded from environmental review under section 102(2)(C) of NEPA, pursuant to 43 CFR 46.205. The rule does not meet any of the extraordinary circumstances criteria for categorical exclusions listed at 43 CFR 46.215. Under Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1508.4) and the environmental policies and procedures of the Department, the term “categorical exclusion” means a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and which have been found to have no such effect on procedures adopted by a Federal agency and for which, therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

This rule is not a significant energy action. It will not have an adverse effect on energy supplies. To the extent that the rule affects the mining of energy minerals ( i.e., uranium and other fissionable metals), the rule applies only a statutory adjustment of the mining claim location and maintenance fees that the BLM has been collecting for many years. It will not significantly change financial obligations of the mining industry.

The principal author of this final rule is John Grasso in the Solid Minerals Group assisted by the Division of Regulatory Affairs, Washington Office, BLM.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the BLM amends 43 CFR part 3830 as follows: